act,prompt
"(a), Section 5 r/w 27 of the Arms Act. The gist of theprosecution case relevant for the purpose of this proceedingmay be stated thus: With the growth of industry, commerceand trade in and around the city of Mumbai which generatessubstantial quantity of wealth, there has been increase oforganised activities by gangs of anti-socials to extractmoney from affluent sections of society like developers,hoteliers and other businessmen by putting them in fear ofdeath and then to demand substantial sums of money commonlyknown as ""Khadani"" i.e. protection money.One such gangwas operating in the city under Amar Naik @ Bhai, who dieda couple of years before the decision in the case at anencounter with the police.The prosecution alleged that inpursuance of a criminal conspiracy between 15.1.1994 to16.5.1994 the accused persons and others of the gangembarked upon preparatory acts like procuring theinformation about the names of the builders of M/s KalpataruConstruction Company which was engaged in developing aproperty at Pali Hill, named Nakshatra Building.PW-7Sudhir Tambe was the Senior Vice-President of the companywith its head office at Nariman Point.He used to sit inthe head- office.PW 6 Pachapur, Civil Engineer, was anemployee of the company who used to remain at the site tosupervise the construction.As the prosecution story runs,on 15.4.1994 between 11.30 a.m. and 12.00 noon while PW 6was on duty at the construction site, accused no.3, NitinVasant Venugurlekar armed with revolver and accused No.4Rajindera @ Rajan Mahadeo Margaj armed with a chopper andaccused no.5 Jayendra @ Jai Anandrao Jadhav also armed witha chopper visited the site of Nakshatra Building; theythreatened the workers at the site, forcibly brought PW 6Pachapur in a room on the ground floor and man-handled him.Accused no.3, pointing a revolver at him demanded the name,address and telephone number of the builders.PW 6disclosed the name of PW 7 Tambe and gave his telephonenumber to them.The accused then asked him to go to theoffice of the builders at Nariman Point and make thearrangement for a telephonic talk with Tambe.PW 6 rushedto the office and told Tambe of what had happened at theconstruction site.This was followed by telephonic callsfrom the accused who wanted to speak to Tambe.Attemptswere made by PW 6 and PW 7 to avoid any discussion with thegangsters.Two or three days thereafter when the accusedgot Tambe on the telephone he (Tambe) gave them some othertelephone numbers and asked them to contact those personsincluding one D.N.Ghosh, the Security Contractor.Eight/tendays thereafter again a telephone call was made to theoffice of Tambe which was received by PW 6 who was informedby the person making the call that they could not get D. N.Ghosh on the telephone numbers furnished by Tambe.Thereafter PW 6 handed over the receiver to Tambe.Thisincident was followed by several threats given by thegangsters to workers and also repeated telephone calls madeto the Head Office of the company to contact Tambe.Thestaff of the site office absented from work resulting invirtual closure of construction activity.On 11.5.1994 thedeceased Sanjay Patil telephoned to Tambe and warned himthat he is wasting time and should meet him without furtherdelay.After some days there was one more similar call fromSanjay Patil and he asked Tambe that he should talk to Bhaiand saying so he handed over the receiver to another personwho gave his identity as Amar Naik (since deceased), whotold Tambe that he should pay Rs.10 lacs.The later pleadedhis inability to pay such a heavy sum and after somediscussion agreed to pay Rs.5 lacs.He was asked to come toNakshatra Building site on 16.5.1994 along with money.Inthe meantime Tambe informed all the happenings to the Addl.Commissioner of Police Mr.Sanjeev Dayal and the then Dy.Commissioner of Police of Zone VII Mr. Rajanish Shethwithin whose jurisdiction Khar Police Station fell.On 16.5.1994 at about 12.00 noon the deceased SanjayPatil telephoned Tambe and inquired from him as to what hewas going to do about the payment and then Tambe repliedthat he will be leaving office at about 2.00 p.m. for PaliHill.Sanjay Patil cautioned him that he should not makeany haste and he should wait for his call so that he willtake necessary instructions from his boss i.e. Amar Naik.At about 2.00 p.m. on that day there was a telephone callfrom Sanjay Patil telling that Tambe should not meet him atthe Nakshatra Building site but instead he should meet himnear the Ceaser Palace Hotel.This telephonic conversationwas tape-recorded.Tambe was instructed on telephone thathis man shall carry a white plastic bag containing theamount of Rs.5 lacs and shall wait near the entrance gate ofCeaser Palace Hotel and the person coming to collect thesaid bag will introduce himself as Me Rawanacha Manus Hai.Tambe informed to the DCP all these happenings and handedover the tape in which the telephonic conversation wasrecorded by him.The DCP had made the arrangements to keepa regular watch near the building site.PW 1 Sunil Deshmukhwas deployed to wait in cognito near the gate of the CeaserPalace Hotel and to carry the white plastic bag containingbundles of papers which would give an appearance like thebundles of currency notes.The other officers, who werealso in cognito, had taken their position at strategicpoints near the hotel.At about 4.05 p.m. Sunil Deshmukhnoticed that one red coloured Maruti van halted in front ofthe Ceaser Palace Hotel.He noticed three persons gettingdown from the said van.Those three persons were coming inhis direction, and the van went ahead 50 to 60 feets andhalted there.The deceased Sanjay Patil and the accusedno.7 Bapu Sidhram Gaikwad got down from the said van andaccused no.6 Mohamed Ismail was sitting on the driver seatin the van.Heenquired from PW1 about his identity and when PW 1 repliedthat he has been sent by Tambe Sahib.PW 1 Sunil Deshmukhthen asked that person who are you (Tum Kaun Hai) and thenthe accused no.2 Umesh Bhatt told him that Hum Rawan KeAadmi Hai.L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J J U D G M E N T D.P. MOHAPATRA,J This appeal, filed by accused no.1 Babu KuttanRamkrishna Pillai and accused no.2 Umesh @ Babu PurshottamBhatt of TADA ACT Spl.Thereafter accused no.1 Babu Kuttan extendedhis hand towards PW 1 who delivered the bag to him.At thisjuncture the police officers who were standing nearby incognito rushed to the place and surrounded the threepersons.When the police officers were trying to overpowerthem the deceased Sanjay Patil @ Avinash Amanna and theaccused no .7 Bapu Sidhram Gaikwad came forward withrevolvers in their hands and threatened the police party bysaying they should leave their men or else the policemenwill be killed.Saying so they fired in the direction ofthe police party.At this point PW 1 took out his revolverand pointed it in the direction of the accused and told themwe are all policemen and you should throw away yourrevolvers else we will fire.Even then the accused personsfired some rounds in the direction of the police party, thenPW 1 and one other officer tried to rush towards them butthey sat in the said Maruti van and sped away from theplace.After the situation calmed down, the police drew thepanchnamas Ex.22 in presence of some witnesses andconducted personal search of the three culprits.On suchsearch accused no.1 Babu Kuttan Pillai was found to possessthe plastic bag containing the paper bundles (Art.1),accused no.2 Umesh Bhatt was found to possess a big Rampuriknife which was hidden at the waist under the pant by leftside.After completion of investigation the police submittedthe charge-sheet.The three persons at the spot wereremanded to the police custody.Subsequently, the otheraccused persons were also arrested.They were put to testidentification parade.The learned Trial Judge onappreciation of the evidence on record convicted accusedno.1 Babu Kuttan Ramkrishna Pillai and the accused no.2Umesh @ Babu Purshottam Bhatt for the offence punishableunder section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencedeach of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 5 years andto pay a fine of Rs.500, in default of payment of fine toundergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.Theywere also convicted under Section 120 B of the IPC but noseparate sentence was passed.They were acquitted of theother offences with which they were charged.The remainingaccused persons i.e. accused nos. 3,4,5,6 and 7 wereacquitted of all the charges framed against them.1 and 2, have filed this appeal assailing the judgmentpassed by the Designated Court at Brihan Mumbai,convicting/sentencing them as above.On a reading of the judgment under challenge, we findthat the learned trial Judge has considered the entire caseled by the prosecution in great detail and after discussingthe charges framed against the appellants under sections3(2), 3(3) and 3(5) of TADA Act, rejected the prosecutioncase on that count.Thereafter the learned trial Judge inparagraph 17 onwards considered the question of what offencewas made out against the appellants.After a detaileddiscussion of the relevant evidence placed by theprosecution and after examining it in the light of thecontentions on behalf of the defence, the learned trialJudge believed the testimony of PW 1- Sunil Deshmukh, PW 7 -Tambe and PW 9 - L.J. Kamble and came to hold that theappellants are guilty of the offence of criminal conspiracypunishable under section 120-B and the offence of dacoitypunishable under section 395 IPC and convicted themthereunder and imposed the punishment as noted earlier.We have perused the evidence of these witnesses.","['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"05.09.13 Item No. 44 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 44And In the matter of: Arabinda Das & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Asraf Mandal For the Petitioners Ms. Ratna Ghosh For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Hogalberia Police Station Case No. 133 of 2013 dated 06.03.2013 under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.The Petitioners are the brothers-in-law and the parents-in-law of the complainant.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)","['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT R.K. Chowdhry, J.For offences under the last three countsthey were tried by jury and for that under the first with the aid of assessors.The appellants have been sentenced to 3 years' R. I. each under Section 120B, I. P. C. They have also been sentenced to 2 years' R. I. each under Section 161, I. P. C., plus a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in the case of Chari and of Rs. 5,000/- in the case of Vaish.By notification No. 223 of the Government of India in the Department of Supply, dated 25-2-1943, the Deputy Iron and Steel Controllers in various States were authorised to exercise the powers of the Controller.Each State was allotted a quota of the commodity., and the Deputy Iron and Steel Controller, referred to hereinafter as the D. I. S. C., distributed that quota to the stock holders of the State.The first D. I. S. C. in Uttar Pradesh at Kanpur was Sri B. D. Talwar P. W. 31, and the appellant Chari was Assistant Iron and Steel Controller under him.Chari took over as D. I. S. C. from Sri Talwar in the afternoon of 31-12-1945, and held that office until 20-9-1946, when he suddenly left Kanpur without waiting for his leave to be sanctioned by the Controller at Calcutta after handing over charge to Sri.There was an association of stock-holders of iron and steel at Kanpur known as the U. P. Registered Stock-holders Association.Chari was ex officio chairman of the Association.The railway administration was the main source of supply of scrap iron, and for U. P. it was the railway yard at Alambagh.The office of the D. I. S. C. at Kanpur consisted of various sections.The appellants have been convicted for having accepted illegal gratifications in return for favours shown in a number of instances by misuse of Chari's powers as D. I. S. C. of issuing written orders for purchase of iron and steel and for purchase of scrap iron and also his powers of issuing orders for release of material as Chairman of the Stock-holders' Association at Kanpur.Written orders are also said to have been forged to appear as if issued before the aforesaid dates of decontrol, and before the date on which directions were issued in the Conference at Calcutta and both the appellants are said to have been in criminal conspiracy to commit the aforesaid offences.Vaish is said to have accepted illegal gratification in two instances and to have abetted acceptance of illegal gratification by Chari.They made a number of seizures of articles and documents from the residence and office of Chari and from dealers in Kanpur and in various other districts, and L. S. Darbari submitted a charge sheet against the appellants on 2-3-1949 after necessary sanctions under Section 197 Cr. P. Code, and Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, had been obtained.Chari admitted having issued after return from the Calcutta conference licences ante dated as anterior to 23-3-1946 but pleaded that he did it so as not to appear to have disregarded the directions given by the Controlled at the said Conference.The other antedatings were denied.The statement of B. D. Soni P. W. 10, Superintendent Stock-holders' Association, to whom Chari addressed the said orders, that these priorities greatly disturbed releases appears therefore to be quite correct.Chari's defence relating to the pieces of furniture was that ""he had given permission to Sher Singh Arora to keep these articles in his office so, that they may serve as advertisement and people may sit on them, because he had told me that he manafactured them.He had written in bold letters, thereon that they have been manufactured in his firm.Arora therefore supplied the revolving chair from his own Kanpur office.That explains why the revolving chair bore the aforesaid inscription.If advertisement had been the object, the inscription would much rather have been on the pieces got specially manufactured at Delhi.Moreover, it would be a strange phenomenon for a D. I. S. C., to lend his office to serve as an advertisement base for the goods of a firm, to say nothing of its being against officers conduct rules.In default of payment of fine, the defaulter is to suffer, further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.One of these was the civil supplies section which prepared and issued written orders, or licences, for sale of iron or steel by the stock-holders Association at Kanpur in compliance with the orders of the D. I. S. C. on applications of persons for such licenses.Control on scrap Iron lasted till 31-12-1945, the date on which Talwar handed over charge to Chari.With effect from 1-1-1946, scrap iron was decontrolled, vide the General Authorisation Order, Ex. P301 dated 12-12-1945, issued by the Controller along with the letter Ex. 302 of even date to theRailway Board and all Regional D. I. and S. Controllers.With effect from 1-4-1946, iron and steel was decontrolled, vide the letter Ex. P308 from the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Industries and Supplies to the Provincial Governments and Chief Commissioners.Mr. E. G. Spooner P. W. 1, the Iron and Steel Controller, held a conference of the Deputy Regional Iron and Steel Controllers at Calcutta on the 25th and 26th of March, 1946, in which it was decided that although iron and steel was to be decontrolled from 1-4-1946, no further licences were to be issued in respect of that commodity, and oral instructions were given accordingly to all the D. I. S. Cs., Including Chari.Both the appellants denied the various charges levelled against them.Examination of the proceedings in the Sessions Court after commitment discloses that the record was received in the Court of the Sessions Judge on 12-5-1952 and on 30-6-1952 and he issued orders that prosecution witnesses be summoned from 25-8-1952 and the defence witnesses from 10-9-1952 onwards, that the accused's counsel be informed to produce them on 25-8-1952 and that 10 jurors be summoned.On 21-7-1952 Chari endorsed a note on the order sheet that he had received information fromhis counsel about his presenting himself in the Sessions Court on 25-8-1952, that he shall, present himself on that date and subsequently during the trial, and that no notice be issued to the sureties.On 24-7-1952 an application along with the list of defence witnesses was sent to the Committing Magistrate.On 14-8-1952 two applications were filed on behalf of Vaish, one for summoning certain defence witnesses and the other for requiring a prosecution witness, the Secretary, Iron and Steel Controller's office Calcutta, to produce a register.On the motion of the public prosecutor and by an order dated 16-8-1952 the Sessions Judge adjourned the sessions trial sine die, and on 29-8-1952 he transferred the case to the Court of Sri B. N. Chaudhari Additional Sessions Judge.On the same date the Additional Sessions Judge ordered summoning of prosecution witnesses from 3-11-1952 and defence witnesses from 18-11-1952 and also the summoning of jurors who had been selected already.Not only was the Sessions Court ready to commence the trial but the accused had appeared before it and witnesses for the prosecution and defence, the latter at the instance of the accused themselves, and jurors had been summoned.I propose to examine the ten instances on which the convictions are based in the order in which they have been dealt with by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.I am considering for the present the charges in respect of which there was jury trial, leaving consideration of the charge of criminal conspiracy to the end.At the same time the payment of bribe was also settled.In the next place, the deception was practised by Chari to derive benefit to himself for, as seen already, he did it to wrest the bribe of Rs. 8,000/- from Sheo Karan Das.The remaining charges against Chari need a more detailed examination.And the first in importance is the one of bribery.The charge under Section 165, I. P. C., in respect of acceptance of furniture by Chari seems to be wrong.The allegation being that the same was accepted as a motive or reward to grant licences and expedite supply of material, the proper section was 161, I. P. C. That presumably is why the offence under Section 165, I. P. C., is not one of those for which there has been any conviction.In regard to the payment of Rs. 10,000/- in two instalments, the cash book Ex. P. 290 containing entries about the sums and seized from the house of Sher Singh Arora by S. I. Anwar Husain P. W. 8 on 16-9-1946 does not appear to afford the requisite corro-boration.Arora's statement is that he got the furniture except the revolving chair from the firm at Delhi for Chari at Chari's request and supplied the revolving chair out of his own office furniture, and that when he demanded the price Chari said he would compensate him in other ways.Leaving the revolving chair, the rest of the furniture was worth Rs. 425/-.Chari compensated Arora by granting him licences Exhibits P. 281, 282, 284,.It had been marked on one piece.""This defence was based on the legend appearing on the back of only one piece, as admitted: ""Manufactured by the National Cycle Manufacturing Co., Kanpur"".This was the name given to the branch office in Kanpur of a company in Delhi, manufacturing conduit pipes and articles, like tubular furniture made therefrom styled the National Conduits, and of which Arora was the Managing Agent.The seized furniture was tubular furniture.It is proved from, the statement of Arora, supported as it is by the statements of Nanak Chand Tandon P. W. 50, his local manager, Jagmohan Bansal P. W. 15 manager of the Delhi firm and Baboo Lal Vaish P. W. 46Delivery Clerk in the Central Goods-shed Kanpur, and a number of documents proved by them, that the pieces of furniture other than the revolving chair were got manufactured by Arora in the Delhi firm and received from there, and that the revolving chair was supplied by Arora from his own office.Those pieces were however not seized from the office, but from the residence of Chari, as testified to by the aforesaid police officer and Sri Bal Govind Singh P. W. 16, the Additional City Magistrate who supervised the seizure.The seizure was made from a building known as the Ayodhya Bha-wan part of which served as Chari's office and part as his residence.Cross-examination of the Magistrate made it all the more clear, while the statement of the police officer was not challenged in cross-examination.The list Ex. P. 17 is also corroborative of the statements of these two witnesses about the furniture in question having been seized from the residential portion of the building since the articles seized were all house-hold effects.Emplacement of furniture in the residence could hardly make for advertisement.Certain statements appearing in the evidence of Sher Singh Arora and his local Manager Nanak Chand Tandon were drawn upon by the learned counsel for Chari.Arora's statement in the Sessions Court was that his manager knew how the said inscription was painted on the back of the chair, but his statement in the court of the Committing Magistrate was that he had got it painted.Nanak Chand Tandon also stated at the trial that Arora had asked him to have it done.That was more natural, and that was also the earlier version of Arora himself before the Magistrate.It appears to have been the merest slip on the part of Arora therefore to have said at the trial that his Manager knew how the inscription was painted.Reference was also made to the statement of Tandon that Arora had asked him to have 'Presented by National Cycle Manufacturing Co.' painted but the painter had inscribed 'Manufactured by Nation Cycle Manufacturing Co.' instead.This was evidently mere embellishment.Another statement appearing in Nanak Chand Tandon's cross-examination and referred to by Chari's learned counsel was that the revolving chair was given by Mr. Arora to Chari for his office.It does not appear that the said inscription was put at the back of the chair on Chari expressing his desire, after having been presented with the other furniture specially ordered for him from Delhi, that he also required a revolving chair.That wish of Chari was complied with by Arora having taken to him a chair, as it was, from his own office.There was nothing strange therefore that such a witness should have readily given in to the suggestion in cross-examination that the inscription was made for the sake of advertisement.And a reference to the quota register Ex. P. 62 shows that these licences, bearing numbers 3,61,717 and 3,61,721, also appear under a date that was tampered with.Both the appellants have of course denied receipt of the amounts.Prosecution evidence in support of this charge under Section 161, I. P. C., against the two appellants consists of the statements of Brahma Swarup Gupta P. W. 11 himself and his partner Sat Narain who was examined under Section 540, Criminal P. C.Being bribe-givers themselves, both these witnesses were accomplices and their testimony required independent corroboration.These stray entries could be made at any time.Accomplice evidence in this instance therefore lacks corroboration.The aforesaid charges of bribery cannot therefore be said to have been brought home to the appellants.(4) Banwari Lal Saraswat : The prosecution case relating to this instance is that in return for granting a number of licences for purchase of iron and steel Chari was given by Banwari Lal Saraswat P. W. 2 a secondhand refrigerator worth Rs. 1,200/- on or about29-3-1946 and D. C. Orient ceiling fans worth about Rs. 300/- in the last week of August 1940 as bribe, and that he antedated the licences Exhibits P. 110, P. 109 and P. 94 from 29-3-1946 to 23-3-1946 and thereby committed forgery.This charge of forgery is against Vaish also.The crucial question, both for the charge, under Section 161 and that under Section 467, I. P. C., is whether the refrigerator and the fans were accepted by Chari as illegal gratification.It is also the prosecution case, as admitted by Banwari Lal Saraswat P. W. 2 and testified to by two employees of the Electric Supply Co. at Kanpur, L. N. Shukla P. W. 20 and A. "" Maul P, W. 21, that early in May 1946 the refrigerator developed some defect, but the same could not be repaired in the U. P. Electric Supply Co.The prosecution case is that the refrigerator was thereafter given by Chari for repair to K. S. Reuben P. W. 29, a mechanic, at the suggestion of Banwari Lal Saraswat.That may be so, but the crucial question is whether it had been given to Chari by Banwari Lal as bribe or whether Chari had taken it on hire from him.Corrobaration for that evidence was sought to be found in the letter Exhibit P24 dated 6-5-1946 which Chari wrote to the Electric Supply Co. Kanpur for the repair of the refrigerator because in this letter he described the refrigerator as ""my personal one."" That is however a description which even a person who had taken the refrigerator on hire could have used in order to impress upon the Electric Supply Co. that the work required their special attention.It appears that the Electric Supply Co. had at the same time been requested telephonically by Banwari Lal Saraswat for the repair of the refrigerator, and Exhibit P. 25 dated 7-5-1946 is the reply which the company sent to Banwari Lal Saraswat.That did not however detract from the defence plea that the fans had been taken on hire.There is no doubt that a suspicion arises that the refrigerator ,and the ceiling fans may have been accepted by Chari as illegal gratification in view of the fact that he had granted licence for a large quantity of the commodity in favour of Banwari Lal Saraswat, but suspicion cannot take the place of proof.I am therefore of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge under Section 161, I. P. C., against Chari.That being so, the charge of forgery by antedating licences should also fail since the element of gain to Chari is wanting.The other appellant Vaish could not possibly be held to be guilty of the offence under Section 467 I. P. C. even if that charge stood established against Chari since there was no allegation, much less proof, that there was payment of any illegal gratification to Vaish.The charge relating to this instance therefore fails against both the appellants.Kali Charan was the Munim of those firms and Bulaqi Das Goel P. W. 13 and Ram Saran Das P. W. 47 were some of the proprietors of the firms.These applications, which are said to have been presented to Chari on 30-3-1946, are alleged to have been been typed at Agra on 29-3-1946 by one S. V. Shastri, an employee in the said firms.At the same time, the aforesaid sums of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 100/- are said to have been paid to Chari.According to Kali Charan payment of bribe was settled at Rs. 40/- per ton and Rs. 100/-represented part payment of bribe relating to the corrugated sheets, the rest having been promised to be paid later.Chari is said to have asked Kali Charan to change the date of the applications to 19-3-1946, but Kali Charan said that this could not be done as the proprietors were at Agra.The balance of Rs. 700/- payable to Chari in respect of the corrugated sheets was however not sent to him.Both the appellants denied the charges.Both Kali Charan and Bulaki Das admit that they maintained account books in which all the expenses of the firms were recorded; but none of those books of account was produced.One of them, a rokar 'bahi, is said to have been seized by L. S. Darbari.Kali Charan admitted that there was no entry in the books of account relating to the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2,100/- and both he and Bulaki Das professed ignorance as to whether the travelling expenses of Kali Charan and Shastri (the latter is also said to have come to Kanpur with Kali Charan) were entered in the books of account or not.It follows that as Chari derived no advantage, and as the antedating cannot be said to have necessarily caused loss, damage or injury to anybody else, the charge of forgery also fails.On this finding, failure of charge against Vaish follows as a necessary consequence.The application Exhibit P. 52 is said to have been presented to Chari for the licence on 3-4-1946, but it is said to have been antedated to 23-3-1946 at the instance of Chari.The charges against Vaish were of forging the licence and abatement of acceptance of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1000/- by Chari.Here again the accomplice evidence of Ram Sarup Nigam and Raj Bahadur suffers for want of independent corroboration.Raj Bahadur admits that account books were maintained, but the same were not produced and there was no explanation for their non-production.Rat Bahadur stated that Ram Swarup Nigam had told him that the amount was being paid out of the income of his Zamindari and it was therefore not entered in the books of account.Besides this statement being unworthy of reliance on the very face of it, it is inadmissible being hearsay.The prosecution produced two witnesses, Yamin Khan P. W. 33 and Mohammad Hanif P.W. 53, who stated that they had also paid bribes to Chari, and that they were able to do so by Ram Swarup Nigam acting as the go-between.The evi-dence of these two witnesses besides being unsupported by any documentary evidence, cannot be said to be corroborative of the payment of the alleged bribe by Ram Swarup Nigam himself since they speak of payment of certain bribes which had nothing to do with the alleged payment of bribe by or on behalf of Ram Swarup Nigam.The charge in res-pect of payment of Bribe therefore fails and, as a necessary consequence also the charge of forgery against both the appellants.The licence was granted in favour of the firm Shambhu Dayal Deep Chand of Baraut in the district of Meerut of which Kapur Chand Jain (P. W, 7 was a partner and Jagdish Prasad P. W. 9 this manager.The licence' was granted on the application Exhibit P. 296, Kapur Chand Jain profess-ed to have seen Chari on the 20th and 22nd of March 1946 when Chari is said to have asked him to apply with the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or some other gazetted officer.He then returned, to Baraut and got the application typed by Jagdish Prasad.He then saw Char with the application on 29-3-1946, and, according to the witness, payment of bribe to Chari at Rs. 50/- per ton was then settled and the witness was asked to see Chari at his house in the evening.The antedating of the order passed by Chari on 23-3-1946 and of the licence issued on foot of that order is no doubt clear in view of the dates of the aforesaid recommendations, but here again no advantage was derived by Chari since bribe is only said to have been settled but not paid.For reasons al-ready recorded, the charge of forgery against both the appellants therefore fails.He left the application with Chari and got intimation slips subsequently but no licence.In view of the date of the Magistrate's re-commendation there is no doubt that Chari antedated his order and the licence but here again as there was no allegation, much less proof, of payment of any bribe, the charge of forgery against both the appellants fails.(9) Gauri Shanker Goel: In this instance lalso the only charge is of forgery of the licence Exhibit P. 82 against both the appellants.Gauri Shanker Goel P. W. 63 professes to have taken his, application Exhibit P. 82A with the recommends tion of the Magistrate Sri G. S., Churamani P. W. 45-dated 27-3-1946, and a few days later he professes to have received the licence in a registered cover.Gauri Shanker Goel says that bribe was demanded from him but he paid none because he was a poor man.In this instance also therefore although Chad did antedate his order and therefore the licence the charge of foregery cannot be said to have been made out because there is no evidence of Chari having derived any benefit.The charge of forgery against Vaish also fails not only because of that charge filing against Chari but also because Vaish appears to have prepared the licence in compliance with the order of Chari.(10) Bhagwan Das : This was the only, instance of grant of licence for purchase of scrap iron which was decontrolled from and on 1-1-1946 The charge against Chari was that in return for a bribe of Rs. 400/- paid to him on 3-1-1946, by Bhagwan Das P. W. 60, proprietor of the Kanpur Iron Manufacturing and Supply Co. and Manager of his father's firm Baldeo Das Daya Ram, Chari antedated the licence Exhibit P. 278 as having; been ordered to be issued prior to the control.The charge against Vaish was that he had also received a bribe of Rs 100/- on the same date from Bhagwan Das and committed forgery by preparing the aforesaid licence.The prosecution proved the antedating from the evidence of A. K. Sinha P. W. 30, a clerk in the office of the D. I. S. C. at Kanpur according to whom the last written order passed by Chari's predecessor was Exhibit P. 272 dated 31-12-1945 That according to the testimony of A. K, Sinha and the other prosecution witnesses, was the date on which Talwar handed over charge to Chari late in the afternoon after which no work was done that day in the office.The charge in question therefore fails against both the appellants in this instance also.From what has gone before, therefore, it appears that the charges against Chari in respect of offence punishable under Sections 161 and 467, I.P.C., have been brought home to him only in the 1st and 2nd instance, and no charge has been brought home to Vaish in any of the 10 instances.As regards the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B, I. P. C. the conspiracy is said to have been formed by Chari with Vaish and others, meaning presumably the other employees in his office.None of the charges has however succeeded against Vaish.The other employees in the office would also appear to have done their part of preparing the licences under the orders of Chari who was their superior officer.","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"It is further alleged that present applicant, Jai Prakash Soni and Patwari Bhagchand Kourav send this case to the Board of Revenue, Gwalior.Complainant also alleges in the FIR that his sister's name recorded in Khasara No.236/1, but in this area, a land recorded is a temple land, he has neither donated for any temple nor constructed any temple.The applicant and other person Jai Prakash Soni and village Patwari Bhagchand Kourav hatched the conspiracy and recorded wrong name in the revenue record by playing fraud.Actual place of incident is village Chichali where the land is situated.(a) A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, inten- tionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay.A cheats.(b) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article.A cheats.(c) A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, inten- tionally deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the sample, and thereby, dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article.A cheats.(d) A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house with which A keeps no money, and by which A expects that the bill will be dishonored, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it.A cheats.(e) A, by pledging as diamonds article which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money.A cheats.(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money.A not intending to repay it.A cheats.(g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery.A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract.(h) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has 9 performed A's part of a contract made with Z, which he has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money.A cheats.(i) A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats.""(Delivered on 03.04.2019)2. Facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that Dhannalal Soni lodged a written report to the Superintendent of Police Narsinghpur on 25.04.2017 and also lodged FIR in Police Station Narsinghpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC against the applicant with two other persons namely; Bhagchand Kourav and Jai Prakash Soni alleging in both the complaint that the land situated in Khasara No.236 area 1.40 acares recorded in the name of of his mother Makkhan Bai and after the death of Makkhan Bai, the names of her five sons namely Dhannalal Soni 2 (complainant), Tekchand Soni, Vijay Soni, Subhash Soni and Poonam Soni and two daughters; Asha Soni and Vimla Soni were jointly recorded in the revenue record along with other co-owners Jai Prakash Soni and Omkar Singh Soni.Lateron Jai Prakash Soni and Omkar Singh Soni sold out their share to some person and only share of complainant-Dhannalal Soni, his brothers and sisters remained.Lateron, Dhannalal Soni came to know that Jai Prakash Soni, Village Patwari Bhagchand Soni and present applicant Hemraj Kourav under conspiracy got recorded the name of present applicant in place of complainant Dhannalal Soni and his brothers in the area 0.121 Hectare.He has not sold any land to present applicant.Dhannalal Soni filed the appeal against the order of mutation before the Court of SDO (Revenue) Gadarwara, case is pending there.Police Station Narsinghpur after registering the Crime No.0/17 send the FIR to Police Station Chichali District Narsinghpur where Crime No.102/2017 was registered against the applicant and other accused.During investigation revenue record Khasara No. 236/1 and 236/2 and other 3 revenue records were seized and sale deed, on that basis the name of present applicant were recorded in the revenue record was also seized.Being aggrieved by this criminal proceedings, the applicant filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.on the ground that he had purchased a part of the land which falls 1/6th [0.09 hectare] share of the total land with the consent of sons of Pannalal i.e. Vijay, Tekchand, Subhash and Bablu on 20.02.1995 and on that basis, applied for recording the name in the revenue record.Thereafter, mutation was done vide order dated 17.05.1995 and in the year 2000, the land was diverted for the commercial purpose and constructed a Hotel thereupon.After a lapse of 19 years complainant Dhannalal, out of greed challenged the mutation order dated 17.5.1995 (Annexure-D-4) before the SDO Gadarwara on 25.2.2014 which is still pending and on 27.04.2017 i.e. after a lapse of 23 years, lodged a complaint before the Police Station Narsinghpur and send a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Narsinghpur.Learned Senior counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case whereas, he has not committed any offence.The dispute between the applicant and complainant Dhannalal is purely of civil nature.Applicant purchased the land near about 23 years ago and complainant remained silent for a period of 23 years.Complainant- Dhannalal can file a civil Suit for declaration of their title and to declare the sale deed and mutation order as null and void before the trial Court but he 4 has filed criminal complaint for blackmailing the applicant.The ingredients of Sections 420 and 409 of IPC prima facie has not made out against the applicant.Most of the purchaser got mutated their name in the revenue record.The complainant lodged a forged and fictitious complaint and prayed to set aside the criminal case and criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant.Learned Govt. Adv.for the State vehemently opposes the aforesaid prayer and submitted that there is prima facie material collected during investigation against the applicant and on that basis, the learned trial Court has taken the cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and prayed to dismiss the petition.Heard counsel of both parties and perused the case diary of Crime No.102/2017 registered at Police Station Chichali District Narsinghpur.It is not disputed that the Makkhan Bai is the wife of Pannalal Soni, they have five sons namely Dhannalal Soni, Vijay, Tekchand, Subhash and Bablu and two daughters Asha Bai and Vimla Bai.After the death of Makkhan Bai and Pannalal, the names of the aforesaid legal heirs were jointly recorded in the revenue record.The name of Jai Prakash Soni and other persons were also recorded in the revenue record jointly.Complainant alleged that he and his brothers have not put their signature on the sale deed nor they have given their consent for mutation.It is also undisputed fact that complainant has not filed any Civil Suit for declaration of their title and declaration of sale deed and mutation order as null and void.Complainant Dhannalal further alleged in the FIR and in the statement recorded during investigation that the name of his sisters Asha and Vimla remained in the revenue records and his share is separated as Khasara No.236/1 and also mentioned in the FIR that person who purchased the piece of land constructed their house and some have not constructed the house.In the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., he also stated that his sisters Vimla and Asha in the year 2012 sold out the plot to one Rashid Khan by registered sale deed but did not obtain consent of the complainant and his brothers.In the same manner, Jai Prakash Soni, who recorded as co-owner also sold the land to Hari Om Choudhary and not obtain the consent of Complainant-Dhannalal and his brothers.The complainant further stated that the land comes in the share of Pannalal, father of complainant, is .70 decimal.After the death of Pannalal, five brothers and two sisters succeeded ten decimal land equally falls in the share of each successor.He further stated that his sister sold out the land but he has not raised any objection because she might have sold his own share.Complainant Dhannalal and his brothers denied for the signature.Thereafter, applicant got mutated his name in the revenue record.This is purely a civil dispute.The complainant lodged a complaint against the applicant after a lapse of 23 years.It is contended by the Senior counsel for the applicant that NTPC in the year 2012 had acquired some land for set up Super Thermal Power Project near Chichli as a result of rise in the price of land complainant out 7 of greed had challenged the mutation order after a lapse of 19 years in order to create pressure on the applicant.The allegations made in the FIR and the criminal case appears to be of civil nature.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Petitioner is a medical practitioner having a degree of MBBS and Master of Surgery (MS).According to him, he is specialized in Minimal Access Surgery and vide certificate dated 14.11.2014 the Association of Minimal Access Surgeons of India (FMAS) has certified that he has been qualified in the art and science of minimal access surgery.As per the allegation in the FIR, on 07.03.2018 complainant Shambhu Dayal Agrawal, R/o D/120, Awas Nagar, Dewas came to M.Y Hospital, Indore for treatment of his daughter viz. Ku.Divya Agrawal, aged 21 years as she was suffering from pain-2- MCRC No.38710/2019 in her abdomen.They met the present petitioner who is posted in the surgery department of the M.Y Hospital, Indore.After preliminary examination of Ku Divya, petitioner advised for a minor operation and told that the operation theater of MY Hospital is contaminated and supporting staff is no competent hence it would be better to take admission in Medi Care Hospital, Old Palasia Indore for which the expenses would be Rs.30,000/- for operation.The petitioner further assured that he is performing such type of operations regularly.On his advice, the complainant has admitted his daughter in Medi Care hospital and after pathological test on 30.05.2018 performed the operation.After two days of the operation, the health condition of Ku.Divya has started deteriorating.The complainant met the petitioner and requested him to examine his daughter further.He again called him in his clinic on 04.06.2018 and again he demanded Rs.70,000/- for another operation and when he objected Ku.Divya has been forcibly discharged from the hospital by the petitioner.On 06.06.2018 the complainant admitted his daughter in Choitram Hospital and came to know that the petitioner has committed negligence in the operation by putting two clips at a wrong place in her liver.Hence, another P.T.B.T operation was conducted in Choitram Hospital for which he spent further Rs.1,00,000/-.The complainant has further alleged that although the petitioner is a surgeon of breast cancer, however, to extract money from him he has negligently performed the surgery of gall bladder of his daughter and left her to die and still she could not recover.According to the petitioner, Ku.Divya informed him regarding her stomach ache because of which she was unable to eat properly for a long time.He examined her medically and also gone through the previous reports and after clinical diagnosis, he found that she is suffering from chronic cholecystitis with cholelithiasis commonly known as swelling infection in gall bladder because of stone.He explained them regarding the disease, about the treatment i.e. laparoscopy cholecystectomy operation and also advised for some tests to be conducted before such operation.The complainant has agreed for operation and signed the consent letter for operation.On 30.05.2018 she was admitted in Medi Care Hospital and on 31.05.2018 near about 7 hrs.she was shifted to operation theater and operation was started.During operation swelling in gall bladder was seen and small contracted thickened gall bladder was stuck with callous triangle in the stomach.It was also found by him that calloos triangle was completely frozen and artery of the liver was not normal.He performed cholecystectomy very cautiously and carefully and applied abdominal drain on sub haptic region.As there was no bleeding and Billary leakage, the port side was closed and at around 8.30 hrs.she was shifted to the recovery room in stable condition.On 01.06.2018 petitioner again visited the hospital and examined the patient and found her in stable condition and the abdominal drain output was minimal.She did not make any complaint of stomach ache or fever to him.However, on 02.06.2018 she started vomiting during the night and after receiving information he immediately rushed to the hospital without any delay and advised for some tests and sonography.(Passed on 21.01.2020 ) Petitioner has filed the present petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C seeking quashment of an FIR registered against him at Crime No.277/2019 in Police Station Palasia, Indore for the offence punishable under sections 336, 337, 338, 308 & 384 of the IPC.Facts of the case in short which led to the registration of FIR against the petitioner are as under:Based on the complaint made by the complainant, the Police investigated the matter and recorded the statement of Ku.Divya and other witnesses and after completing the investigation Challan has been filed on 19.06.2019 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under sections 336,After examining the report it was found that she had an injury on bile-duct.Looking to the serious condition of the patient he requested Dr.Vinit Gautam, G.I. Surgeon to visit the hospital for-4- MCRC No.38710/2019 an examination of the patient.Vinit Gautam visited the hospital and informed that there is a bile-duct injury which is the common and post-operative complication of laparoscopy cholecystectomy and is curable.He suggested for percutaneous transhepatic billary drainage (P.T.B.D) and since the facility of P.T.B.D was not available in Medi Care Hospital, therefore, the petitioner referred and she was shifted to Choitram hospital on the same day.Thereafter he is not aware of the condition of the patient and on 04.09.2018 the complainant filed a complaint against him before the Chief Medical Officer, who constituted a panel of doctors to enquire about the allegations.The said panel of doctors submitted a report (Annexure P/5) in which she was not found guilty.Later on 19.06.2019 in the police station, Palasia Indore complainant filed the FIR against him.Shri Z.A.Khan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is a qualified surgeon having a degree of MS from Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore in general surgery.He has also passed fellowship in the minimal access surgery examination held at Banaras Hindu University, Varansasi on 10th August, 2014 and has been awarded the certificate in the 9 th International Congress of AMASI held on 14.11.2014 in Dubai.Looking to the clinical diagnosis of the patient the petitioner has rightly operated with due care and precaution.As of today, he has performed more-5- MCRC No.38710/2019 than 300 surgeries of similar nature.There was no irresponsible or wrongful act on the part of the petitioner while treating the patient.The complainant himself decided to admit his daughter in Medi Care Hospital.He has not produced any material before the Police to show that he contacted the petitioner in MY Hospital for the operation.A panel of doctors has examined the patient and submitted the report in favour of the petitioner.The patient suffered the type-4 bile-duct injury after the operation which is very common in such operations.NCT of Delhi and others, 1998 (8) SCC 557 as below -4............................................offence punishable under Section 308 IPC postulates doing of an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.An attempt of that nature may actually result in hurt or may not.It is the attempt to commit culpable homicide which is punishable under Section 308 IPC whereas punishment for simple hurts can be meted out under Sections 323 and 324 and for grievous hurts under Sections 325 and 326 IPC.Because of the foregoing discussion, no case is made out for quashing of the entire FIR filed against the petitioner at this stage except charge under section 308 of IPC.Hence, FIR registered under","['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This petition under Section 482 read with Section 483 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') has been preferred by the petitioners seeking the following relief:Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, order sheet of trial Court dated 21-04-2014 has been perused which is as follows:^^jkT; }kjk ,-Mh-ih-vks-A vkjksih Jherh deys'k exjS;k LFkk;h gkftjh ls ekQA vkjksih fodkl vk;Z lfgr Jh lkSjHk feJk vf/koDrkA vfHk;kstu lk{; vuqifLFkrA vkns'kkuqlkj lk{kh dks rkehy tkjh ughaA vr% vkns'kkuqlkj dk;Zokgh vko';d :i ls dh tkosA izdj.k esa vfHk;kstu lk{kh dzekad 1 O;ogkj U;k;k/kh""k ds in ij inLFk gksus ds dkj.k mUgsa ekuuh; jftLVkj tujy egksn;] e0iz] mPp U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds ek/;e ls vkgwr fd;k tkosA cpkoi{k vf/koDrk }kjk fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd bl izdj.k ls lacaf/kr ,d vU; ifjokn fodkl vk;Z cuke Jherh lfjrk yafcr gS vkSj mlh ds lkFk gh bl izdj.k esa Hkh rkjh[k is'kh fu;r dh tkosA izdj.k vfHk;kstu lk{; gsrq mDr izdj.k ds lkFk fnukad 29-05-2014 dks is'k gksA^^ Further on perusal of order sheets dated 07-03-2014, 29-05-2014, 23-06-2014 and 16-07-2014 it seems that continuous adjournments have been given by writing the order-sheets in same fashion.Perusal of these order-sheets also shows that there is no progress in the trial.For the forgoing reasons, trial Court is directed to take steps for securing the presence of witnesses and after recording the evidence, matter be finally decided as soon as possible, preferably, 3 MCRC.No.7426/2014 within a period of 12 months.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance.(B.D. Rathi) Judge Anil","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vipin Kumar, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.The present application has been filed for quashing the proceedings of complaint case no. 391 of 2009 under Section 295-A IPC pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate V, Meerut.It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are the journalists and presently posted as Sr. Editor and ?Executive Editor of magazine ""India Today""; that the complainant/opposite party no.2 filed a complaint under Section 295-A IPC read with Section 153-A, 504 IPC on the allegation that in the issue dated 11.9.2002 of the India Today magazine (Hindi Edition), a photograph of Lord Ganesha was printed as advertisement of ICC Championship Trophy to be held in Sri Lanka in the year 2002, showing Lord Ganesha holding a cricket ball.It was alleged in the complaint that the cricket ball has been made out by cow hide and publication of said photograph has hurt the feeling of complainant and other sections of Society, as no Hindu takes leather shoes, wallets etc. near religious places; that in support of complaint the complainant recorded his statement as well as statement of one Puneet Sharma, Advocate, and thereafter, the Magistrate, vide order dated 24th December, 2002 took cognizance in the matter under Section 295-A IPC only and summoned the accused;It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that as soon as the applicant came to know about the summoning order he moved an application/objection on 15th February, 2003 but the matter was adjourned on various dates due to various reasons.Ultimately, said application/objection of the applicant was rejected on 1st October, 2005 and the accused was directed to appear.",['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
"As per prosecution case, on 27.4.2012 at about 15:30 pm complainant Sundar was going to Sanwar Market in goods carrier bearing registration no. MP28 L 0528 09 which was being driven by the applicant.The vehicle was crowded with the passengers more than the existing capacity.Heard on IA No.835/2019 which is an application for grant of bail.However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has completed sufficient period in custody, therefore, the revision may kindly be heard finally.With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this revision petition is finally heard.This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by judgment dated 21.12.2018 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge to 2 nd Additional Judge, Chhindwara in criminal appeal No.28/18 rejecting the appeal and confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned JMFC, Chhindwara in criminal case no. 2752/12 whereby the applicant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 337 (24 counts) and 338 (2 counts) of the I.P.C and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.200/- (24 counts) and undergo R.I for 6 months with fine of Rs.100/- (2 counts) respectively with default stipulations.The applicant being driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle rashly and negligently.Resultantly, the vehicle got turned turtle, because of which, the passengers sustained injuries including the complainant.The matter was reported to the Police Station Lavaghoghari, District Chhindwara where FIR was registered at Crime No. 75/12 for the offences under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the IPC.The matter was taken into investigation and after completing all due formalities, challan was filed before the court concerned.Learned trial court framed the charges for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC.However, learned trial court on appreciation of evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned earlier.Being aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred a criminal appeal bearing no. 28/18 before the appellate court which was also dismissed.Hence this revision.She has not narrated any other injury on her person.While Dr. Shikhar Surana (PW-9) has stated that on 30.4.2012 he took x-ray of right shoulder of Sanarwati and found fracture of clavicle bone and fractures on 2nd, 3rd, 4th,, 5th and 6th ribs.Similarly, another injured Ramdas (PW-6) has stated that in the incident bone of his hand was broken and Dr. Shikhar Surana (PW-9) has stated that on 27.7.2012 after x-ray examination he found fracture of radius bone of Ramdas (PW-6) but he has not disclosed duration of the aforesaid bone injury.However, he has stated that there was no callus present.It means the bony injury was fresh injury while x-ray was taken after four months.Hence, it cannot be said that the aforesaid bony injury was caused at the time of incident.Therefore, the finding of both the courts below being a pervert require interference of this court.In the aforesaid circumstances, the conviction and sentence of the applicant be modified.In view of this court, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant has substance.","['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Brief facts necessary for determination of this application are that:-In September, 1985 applicant was posted in Electricity Distribution Division-III, Ghaziabad as Junior Engineer.At that time Chief Engineer (Hydel) was his appointing authority.The case was investigated.The matter along-with necessary documents was placed before the Chief Engineer (Hydel) seeking sanction for prosecution of the applicant, who refused to grant sanction vide his order dated 29.09.1987 (Annexure-2).Meanwhile the Act of 1947 had been repealed and substituted by Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1988').The matter was again put up before Chief Engineer (Hydel) for sanction, who again refused to grant sanction vide his order dated 27.10.1989 (Annexure-3).On completion of investigation charge-sheet No. 6 dated 10.10.1994 has been filed.Heard Shri K. K. Arora, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.06.1995 (Annexure-6) whereby charges have been framed against the applicant with further prayer for quashing of all proceedings of Special Trial No. 353 of 1994 (State of U.P. Versus Indra Kumar Adhlakha) pending in the court of 14th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad.On 11.09.1985 one Shri Babu Khan son of Shri Latif Khan made a complaint to the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad about demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 1,500/- by the applicant and others.On that information, a trap was laid and allegedly the applicant was caught red handed while accepting illegal gratification from the aforesaid complainant.Consequently, a first information report was lodged as Case Crime No. 247/85 under Sections 161, 120-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1947).The case commenced before the District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad as Special Trial No. 353 of 1994 (State versus Inder Kumar Adhalkha & others) under Sections 161, 120-B of IPC and Section 5 (2) of the Act, 1947, which has ultimately been transferred to 14th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad.The applicant filed an application claiming his discharge and also submitted written arguments as per direction of the Court.Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking reliefs as stated above.The application is devoid of merits and liable to be quashed.I have considered the above referred rival submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.Consideration implies application of mind.The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it.On the basis of above referred cases it is settled legal position that when once on certain material the Sanctioning Authority decides not to grant sanction, certainly on the same material, the Sanctioning Authority cannot change its opinion.Perusal of the record reveals that on 12.1.2017 following order has been passed:The sanction order dated 20.1.1993 (Annexure-4) passed by the Governor of U.P. reads as under:M ikoj gkml lsDVj&9 uks,Mk] xkft;kckn esa dk;Zjr FksA fnukad 11&9&85 dks ckcw [kWk ¼f'kdk;rdrkZ½ iq= Jh yrhQk [kkW }kjk ftykf/kdkjh xkft;kckn dks fn;s x;s vius f'kdk;rh i= esa dgk x;k Fkk fd fnukad 10&9&85 dks fnu esa djhc ,d cts Jh bUnz dqekj v/ky[kk voy vfHk;Urk ,oa Jh vkj0ch0flag voj vfHk;Urk mudh QSDVjh lqijQwM ,.M vk;y izksMDVl eerk czkUM Mh&61 lsDVj 10 uks,Mk xkft;kckn ds ifjlj esa vk;s vkSj ekfyd Jh ckcw [kkW ls fctyh dk fcy ekWxk vkSj dgk fd QSDVªh esa yksM vf/kd gS Jh v/ky[kk us viuh dkih esa dqN fy[kk vkSj Jh ckcw [kkW dks crk;k fd blesa fctyh dk yksM vf/kd gksus ds ckjs esa fy[kk gS rFkk Jh ckcw [kkW ls gLrk{kj ds fy;s dgk] ysfdu muds euk djus ij Jh v/ky[kk us dgk fd QSDVªh dk ekfyd gksus ds ukrs mUgsa gLrk{kj djus iMs+xs rnksijkUr Jh ckcw [kkW us viuh fVIi.kh ,d ehVj 15 ,p0ih0 2 ehVj 15 ,p0ih0 3 ehVj 2 ,p0ih0 fy[kdj ogkW vius gLrk{kj cukdj rkjh[k Mky nh nksuks voj vfHk;Urk QSDVªh ls pys x;s vkSj pyrs le; Jh v/ky[kk us dgk fd og Jh vkj0ch0flag ls muds ?kj ij feys 'kke dks Jh ckcw [kkW Jh flag ls ugha feys vkSj blds ctk; og viuh QSDVªh igqWps rks muds lqijokbtj Jh eksrh flag us crk;k fd ykbueSu Jh jke fd'kksj lDlsuk vius nks gsYijks ftuesa ,d ljnkj flag isVªksy eSu Fkk ds lkFk vkdj QSDVªh dks ykbudkV x;s vkSj pyrs le; Jh ljnkj flag dg x;k gS fd Jh ckcw [kkW voj vfHk;Urk Jh v/ky[kk ls rFkk lk{kh Jh djrkj flag] fuoklh cjksrk] Fkkuk lkykjiqj uks,Mk xkft;kckn rFkk Jh eksrh flag fuoklh bVSyh Fkkuk [ktuh tuin xksj[kiqj tks QSDVªh esa lqijokbtj Hkh Fkk ds lkFk fnukad 12-9-85 dks lka;dky 6-30 cts Jh ckcw [kkW dks QSDVªh esa Vªsi vk;ksftr fd;k vkSj muds dk;kZy; ij Jh ckcw [kkW ls 1500@& dks ?kwl xzg.k djrs gq;s Jh bUnz dqekj v/ky[kk voj vfHk;Urk dks jaxs gkFkks fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;kA 2&% vkSj pwWfd mDr dk;kZsa ls ,slk vijk/k curk gS tks Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 161 ,oa Hkz""Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼vf/kfu;e la[;k&2 lu~ 1947½ dks /kkjk 5 dh mi /kkjk ¼2½ ds v/khu n.Muh; gSA 3&% vkSj pwWfd bl ekeys esa miyC/k lHkh vfHkys[k fooj.k ,oa lk{; ij lko/kkuh iwoZd fopkj djus ds mijkUr rFkk ekeys dks lHkh ifjfLFkfr;ks dks ns[krs gq;s jkT; ljdkj dk ;g fopkj gS fd Jh bUnz dqekj v/ky[kk o Jh vkj0ch0flag voj vfHk;Urk ,oa Jh ljnkj flag isVªksy eSu dks Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 161 rFkk /kkjk 161 ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 120&[k vkSj Hkz""Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 5 ¼2½ ds v/khu l{ke U;k;ky; esa vfHk;ksftr fd;k tk;A 4&% vkSj pwWfd 'kklu ds vkns'k la[;k&1631ch&2@93&23&306bZ@85 fnukad 17 vizSy 1993 }kjk v/;{k@lfpo ,oa eq[; vfHk;Urk ¼ty fo/kqr½ mRrj izns'k jkT; fo|qr ifj""kn y[kuÅ ls vis{kk dh x;h Fkh fd 20 ebZ 1993 rd mDr Jh bUnz dqekj v/ky[kk Jh vkj0ch0flag voj vfHk;Urk ,oa Jh ljnkj flag isVªksy eSu ds fo:) vfHk;kstu dh iwoZ eatwjh ns vkSj mDr izkf/kdkjh fofufnZf""V vof/k esa Hkhrj iwoZ eatwjh nsus esa foQy jgs gSA 5&% vkSj pwWfd Hkz""Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1947 fujLr gks pqdk gSA 6&% vr,o vc Jh jkT;iky ,rn~ }kjk Hkz""Vkpkj fuokj.k ¼mRrj izns'k la'kks/ku vf/kfu;e 1991½ mRrj izns'k vf/kfu;e la[;k&4 lu~ 1991 }kjk ;Fkk la'kksf/kr Hkz""Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1988 ¼vf/kfu;e la[;k&49 lu~ 1988 dh /kkjk 19 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼?k½ ds v/kkhu 'kfDr dk iz;ksx djrs gq;s mDr vijk/kks ds fy;s vkSj mi;qZDr dk;ksZ ds lEcU/k esa fof/k ds vU; micU/kks ds v/khu n.Muh; fdUgh vU; vijk/kksa ds fy;s mDr Jh ljnkj flag] isVªksy eSu dks vfHk;kstu djus vkSj mDr vijk/kksa dk fdlh vf/kdkfjrk ;qDr l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk laKku djus ds fy;s iwoZ eatwjh iznku djrs gSA jkT;iky dh vkKk ls] ¼ch0ds0prqosZnh½ izeq[k lfpoA""1&% ;g fd vfHk;kstu i{k lrdZrk vf/k""Bku ls vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) Hkk0na0la0 dh /kkjk 161 ,oa Hkz""Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/k0 1947 dh /kkjk&5 mi /kkjk&2 ds v/khu ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa vkjksi i= izsf""kr fd;k gSA 2&% ;g fd ?kVuk fnukad 12-9-85 ls lEcfU/kr gSA 3&% ;g fd vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) fnukad 29-9-87 dks eq[; vfHk;Urk ^ty fo|qr^ m0iz0jk0fo0 ifj""kn y[kuÅ ,oa fnukad 27&10&89 dks eq[; vfHk;Urk ^^ty fo|qr** m0iz0jk0fo0 ifj""kn us vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) /kkjk&6 Hkz""Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1947 esa vfHk;kstu ds fy;s iwoZ Lohd`r nsus ls bUdkj dj fn;kA ;s vfHkys[k i=koyh ij miyC/k gSA 4&% ;g fd Hkz""Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1988 dh /kkjk&19 dh mi/kkjk ^^1** ds [k.M ^^?k** v/;kof/kd la'kksf/kr ds v/khu egkefge jkT;iky ds vfHk;kstu ds fy;s viuh Lohd`r iznku dh gSA 5&% ;g fd jkT; ljdkj dh vfHk;kstu ds fy;s iwoZ Lohd`r fof/k fo:) ,oa izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)kUr ds fo:) gSA jkT; ljdkj us iwoZ Lohd`r vf/kfu;e la[;k&2 lu~ 1947 dh /kkjk 5 ¼2½ ds v/khu Lohd`r iznku dh gS blh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&6 ds iwoZ Lohd`fr ds fy;s 'kfDr dk iz;ksx ugha fd;k x;k gSA 6&% ;g fd jkT; ljdkj dh iwoZ Lohd`fr o""kZ 1988 ds vf/kfu;e la[;k&49 ds v/khu iznku dh x;h gS tc fd jkT; ljdkj dks vf/kfu;e 1988 dh /kkjk&19 ds vUrZxr /kkjk&2 ¼2½ o""kZ&1947 ds vUrZxr iwoZ Lohd`fr iznku djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gS lu~ 1988 ds vf/kfu;e esa jkT; ljdkj dsoy /kkjk&7]10]11]13 vkSj 15 ds vUnj gh vfHk;kstu ds fy;s Lohd`r nsus dk vf/kdkj izkIr gSA 7&% ;g fd bl izdkj egkefge jkT;iky us vfHk;kstu ds fy;s iwoZ Lohd`fr nsrs le; vius foosd dk iz;ksx ugha fd;k gS vkSj fof/kd n`f""V ls iwoZ Lohd`fr fof/k fo:) ,oa nks""kiw.kZ gSA ftlds vk/kkj ij orZeku esa vfHk;kstu dh dk;Zokgh dks lapkfyr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA vr% Jheku~ th ls izkFkZuk gS fd iwoZ Lohd`r nks""kiw.kZ gksus ,oa fof/kd izfdz;kvks dk ikyu u fd;s tkus ds dkj.k vfHk;qDrx.k dks mUeksfpr djus dh d`ik djsaA fnukad& 13&3&95 vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk&f'ko dqekj xqIrk ,MoksdsV xkft;kcknA""The impugned order dated 7.6.1995 (Annexure-6) passed by the trial court reads as under:Þeqdnek iqdkjk x;kA pktZ ij cgl lquhA miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij izFke n`""V;k vkjksi curk gSA eqyfteku bUnz dqekj v/ky[kk ljnkjflag o juohj flag U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr vk;sA vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) /kkjk 161] 120¼[k½ Hkk0na0la0 ,oa 5¼2½ Hkz""Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr vkjksi xfBr fd;k x;k ftlls vfHk;qDrx.k us bUdkj fd;k rFkk fopkj.k fd;s tkus dh ;kpuk dks i=koyh okLrs lk{; fnukad 10-7-95 dks is'k gksAßOrder Date :- 31.8.2018 Israr/Ravi Prakash","['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt 3 B) The F.I.R., complaint, registered with Narsi (Namdeo) Police Station vide C.R.No.12/2016 under Section 498 (a), 323, 494, 504, 34 of I.P.C. may kindly be quashed and set aside.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants that, applicant no.1 is the husband of respondent no.2 i.e. complainant, and applicant nos.2 and 3 are in-laws of respondent no.2; while the rest of the applicants are brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant.It is alleged in the FIR that, the complainant went to reside at village Atharwadi, though applicant no.1 is serving at Thane.It is alleged that, applicant no.1 did not take respondent no.2 at Thane and ask her to ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 ::: 5052.2016 Cri.Reserved on : 17.04.2017 Pronounced on : 20.04.2017 JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):1. Heard.2. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties.This Application is filed with the following prayer:::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::It is alleged by the complainant that, all the accused persons used to harass and ill-treat respondent no.2 for fulfillment of illegal demand of Rs.70,000/-.There are also allegation of instigation.It is submitted that, even if the allegations in the FIR are taken as it is, an ingredient to constitute an alleged offences under Sections 498A, 323, 494, 504 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted.Only with a view to harass applicant no.1 and his relatives, respondent no.2 has lodged the First Information Report.It is further submitted that, so far as applicant no.4 - Ramkishan Natha More, applicant no.5 Ashok Natha More and applicant no.6 Laxmibai Ramkishan More are concerned, there are no allegations against them in the proceedings instituted under the Domestic Violence Act. It is further submitted that, ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 ::: 5052.2016 Cri.The complainant started residing with her parents since 18th September, 2013, till date.The learned counsel appearing for the applicants invites our attention to the grounds taken in the application, and also annexures thereto and submits that, the application deserves to be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::5052.2016 Cri.On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for respondent - State, relying upon the investigation papers and the allegations in the FIR, submits that, there are serious allegations.It is submitted that, though the marriage of applicant no.1 with respondent no.2 is subsisting; still applicant no.1 has performed marriage with applicant no.8, and therefore, there are allegations in the FIR, which would attract ingredients to constitute offence under Section 494 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code.Therefore, he submits that, the application may be rejected.The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits that, applicant no.1 with the consent and connivance of the other applicant nos.2 to 7 got married with ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 ::: 5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt 7 applicant no.8, though the marital tie between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 is intact/in subsistence.Therefore, he submits that, the application may be rejected.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, learned APP appearing for the respondent - State, and the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 at length.We have carefully perused the allegations in the FIR, and we are of the opinion that, except applicant no.4 Ramkishan Natha More and applicant no.6 Laxmibai Ramkishan More, case of the other applicants deserves no consideration.So far as applicant no.4 Ramkishan Natha More and applicant no.6 Laxmibai Ramkishan More are concerned, there are no allegations either in the complaint instituted under the Domestic Violence Act by respondent no.2, and also in the complaint ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 ::: 5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt 8 filed on 21st November, 2013, before the District Women and Child Development Officer i.e. Women Grievance Redressal Cell.Upon careful perusal of the allegations in the FIR, there are omnibus and general allegations against the aforesaid two accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::So far as other accused i.e. applicant nos.1 to 3, 5, 7 and 8 are concerned, as rightly submitted by the learned APP appearing for respondent - State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 that, during subsistence of marital tie between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2, there is an allegation in the FIR that, applicant no.1 has performed second marriage with applicant no.8 - Prajawati.Unless the investigation is taken to the logical end, the truth will not surface on record.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::5052.2016 Cri.In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the application to the extent of applicant nos.1 to 3, 5, 7 andHence their application stands rejected.In the light of discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the FIR vide Crime No. 12/2016, registered with Narsi [Namdeo] Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 494, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to the extent of applicant no.4 Ramkishan Natha More and applicant no.6 Laxmibai Ramkishan More, stands quashed and set aside.This order will not preclude the applicants, ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 ::: 5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt 10 whose applications stands rejected from availing of an appropriate remedy in case the Investigating Officer, after completion of investigation, files report under Section 173 [2] of the Criminal Procedure Code.::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Originally, in this case, there were fiveaccused, including these appellants.(a)The accused and the prosecution party belong to PaanangulamVillage in Tirunelveli District.There is a temple in the said village, knownas ""Muppidari Amman Koil"".The villagers use to organize annual festival in thetemple, known as ""Kodai"" festival, during summer season.Thedeceased Kanthan, one Ramamoorthy Reddiar and P.W.14 were the leaders of thevillage, who organized the said festival.On 12.08.1997, these accused came tothe temple and wanted the deceased and others to play songs, through speakers,relating to their communal leader.The deceased and others declined.This occurrence isprojected to be the motive.(b)P.W.1 is the wife and P.Ws.2 and 3 are the daughters of thedeceased.P.W.20 is the mother of the deceased.On 20.08.1997, at about 10.30p.m., P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.20 and the deceased were in their house at PaanangulamVillage, Singikulam Main Road.At that time, suddenly, all the five accused,including the absconding accused Murugesan, came to the house and knocked at thedoor.P.W.20 opened the door.All the five accused trespassed into the houseof the deceased.At that time, the 1st accused/1st appellant - Pool Pandi andthe absconding accused Murugesan and the 4th accused Ramiah, were all armed witharuvals.The 2nd accused/2nd appellant - Murugan and the 3rd accused/3rdappellant - Raju did not possess any weapon.On entering into the house, the1st accused/1st appellant shouted as to where the deceased was.P.W.1 attemptedto intervene.Immediately, the 1st accused/1st appellant cut her with aruval,on her right hand and caused simple hurt.The deceased was sleeping in theroom.All the accused went near him.The 1st accused/1st appellant attacked himwith aruval on his hip, left forehand and on the head below the left ear,repeatedly.The absconding accused Murugesan cut him on his chest and rightshoulder.P.W.20 tried to intervene.But, the 2nd accused/2nd appellant pushedher down and stamped her on her chest, causing simple hurt.The 3d accused/3rdappellant attacked the daughters of the deceased with hand and caused simplehurt.The deceased died instantaneously.All the accused, thereafter, fled-away from the scene of occurrence.(c)P.W.6 is the brother of the deceased.At the time ofoccurrence, he was at his home.On hearing the alarm raised, he rushed to thehouse of the deceased and came to know about the occurrence.Then P.W.1narrated to him the entire occurrence.P-23 is the FIR.Then, P.W.17 forwarded Exs.P-1 and P-23 to the court,through P.W.18, a Constable attached to the said police Station.Then he handed overcopy of the FIR to P.W.21, the then Inspector of Police, attached to NanguneriPolice Station.(e)Taking-up the case for investigation, P.W.21 proceeded tothe place of occurrence at 4.30 a.m. on 21.08.1997 and prepared Ex.He also prepared Ex.P-29Rough sketch, showing the place of occurrence.Then, he conducted inquest onthe body of the deceased between 5.00 a.m. and 8.00 a.m. and prepared Ex.P-28Inquest Report.During inquest, P.W.21 examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and P.W.20 andrecorded their statements.Then, he recovered bloodstained brick piece (M.O.3)and sample brick piece (M.O.4), from the place of occurrence, under Ex.P-4Mahazar, in the presence of witnesses.Thereafter, he forwarded the body forpostmortem.P.W.15 opined that the deceased would appear to have died of injury to lungs,shock and haemorrhage.Ex.P-22 is the postmortem certificate.According tohim, these injuries could have been caused by weapon like aruval.(g)As soon as P.W.1 made the complaint under Ex.P-1, she wassent with a police memo to the Government Hospital at Nanguneri, for treatment.P.W.15 examined her at 6.30 a.m. on 21.08.1997 and found an incised wound 6 x 1x/12 cm, over medial aspect of right palm.(i)Continuing the investigation, P.W.21 forwarded the materialobjects, collected from the scene of occurrence, to Court.When they were brought to the police station, at 2.30 p.m., on04.09.1997, the 1st accused/1st appellant gave a voluntary confession, in whichhe disclosed the place where he had hidden an aruval and on the same date, at3.30 p.m., the absconding accused Murugesan gave a voluntary confession, inwhich he disclosed the place where he had hidden another aruval.Ex.P-27 is the Serological Report.As per the Chemical AnalystReport, bloodstains were found on two aruvals and no bloodstain was found on the3rd aruval.As per the Serological Report Ex.P-27, bloodstains are of humanorigin but, result of grouping test remained inconclusive.P.W.21 collectedmedical records, examined the doctor and finally laid charge sheet against allthe five accused, on 08.09.1997, under Sections 147, 148, 449, 352, 323, 324,109 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC.Fine amount, if any, paid by them shall be refunded tothem.The bail bonds executed by them shall stand discharged.(iii)The conviction of the 1st appellant/1st accused (Pool Pandi)under Sections 302, 324 and 449 IPC is hereby confirmed.However, thepunishments imposed thereunder shall stand modified, as under:(c)For the offence under Section 449 IPC, he shall undergorigorous imprisonment for one year and shall pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, indefault shall undergo two weeks rigorous imprisonment.The sentences areordered to run concurrently.(d)The fine amounts, if any, already paid by him as per thesentence imposed by the trial court shall be adjusted towards the fine amountsnow imposed.Excess fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to him.(iv)It is stated that the 1st appellant/1st accused (Pool Pandi) ison bail.The bail bonds executed by him shall stand cancelled.The trial courtis directed to take necessary steps to secure his presence and commit him tojail to undergo the sentences imposed on him.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU,J) The appellants are the accused in S.C.No.78/1999 on the fileof the learned Special District and Sessions Judge for Communal Clash Cases,Southern Districts at Madurai.Initially, the case was on the file of theII-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in S.C.No.364/98 andcharges were framed by the same court as against all the five accused, asunder:The 3rd accused was one Murugesan andthe 5th accused was one Ramiah.The 4th accusedwas one Mr.Ramiah.By judgment, dated 30.09.2004, the trial court acquitted the4th accused Ramiah from all the charges framed against him.However, the trialcourt convicted these appellants and sentenced them as detailed hereunder:The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently.On 12.08.1997, suchfestival was celebrated.The deceased, in this case, was one Mr.P.W.6 reduced the same into writing, as acomplaint.Then taking the complaint, P.W.1 and P.W.6 went to Nanguneri PoliceStation.(d)At 3.00 a.m., on 21.08.1997, when P.W.17, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to Nanguneri Police Station, was on duty, P.W.1presented the complaint to him.On the said complaint, P.W.17 registered a casein Crime No.359/1997 under Sections 324, 302 IPC.(f)P.W.15 Dr.Christopher Dass, was the Civil Surgeon, attachedto Nanguneri Government Hospital, at the relevant point of time.On 21.08.1997,at about 1.00 p.m., he conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased.Henoticed the following external injuries.""(1)Incised wound over upper part of chest obliquely placed, 4 cm belowthe upper end of sternum, measuring 27 x 12 x 31/2 cms.On the right side ofsternum, it measured 18 cm.Part of right lung has come out through the lowerpart of the wound.(2)Incised wound 18 x 10 x 6 cm on the right side of right upper armexposing muscles and fractured end of upper part of humerus.(3)Incised wound 4 cms distal to left wrist and muscle was hanging looselyfrom skin, from the lateral aspect.Cut ends of metacarpal bones and tendonsseen.(4)Incised wound 12 x 6 x 2 cm over posterior aspect of left fore armexposing muscles.(5)Incised wound 20 x 4 cm over left side of abdomen, maximum depth 3cm onthe upper part, wound present transversely.(6)Incised wound 3 x 11/2 x 1/2 cm over left side of fore head.""P.W.15 opined that the injury sustained by P.W.1 issimple in nature.(h)P.W.20 was also sent for treatment, with a police memo.At08.15 p.m., on 21.08.1997, P.W.20 appeared before P.W.15, for treatment.Onexamination, P.W.15 found a brownish contusion 6 x 3 cm over upper part ofchest.P.W.15 opined that the said injury is simple in nature.On 28.08.1997, theaccused 1, 2 and 4 and the absconding accused Murugesan surrendered before thelearned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin.At 4.15 p.m.,the 4th accused Ramiah gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed theplace where he had hidden another aruval.In pursuance of the confessions, therespective accused took the police and witnesses to the respective places andproduced the weapons (M.Os. 1, 2 and 5 Aruvals) and P.W.21 recovered the same inthe presence of P.Ws.12 and 13 and returned to the police station.(P.Ws.12 and13 have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, in anymanner).P.W.21 forwarded the accused to the court for judicial remand andhanded over the material objects to the Court.On such examination, the Chemical Analyst submitted a reportunder Ex.4.Based on the above materials, the learned II-AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, framed charges against all the fiveaccused, as detailed in the 1st paragraph of the judgment.All the accusedpleaded innocence.Therefore, they were put on trial.Before the examinationof witnesses commenced, as we have already pointed out, the accused Murugesan(the 3rd accused, as per the original array of parties) absconded.The trialCourt, therefore, split-up the case against him as S.C.No.8/2003 and maderearrangement of the parties and proceeded with the trial.During trial, toestablish the charges against the accused, on the side of prosecution 21witnesses were examined and 37 Exhibits were marked, besides 6 M.Os.5.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 20 are injured eye-witnesses.P.Ws.2 and 3 are eye-witnesses to the occurrence.These witnesseshave spoken to about the participation of all the five accused in the crime.P.W.4, has spoken to about the motive occurrence, which took place on12.08.1997. P.Ws.14 has also spoken to about the motive occurrence.P.W.5 isthe son-in-law of the deceased.He has stated that he saw the accused 1 and 2somewhere near the place of occurrence with weapons.P.W.6, the brother of thedeceased, has spoken to the fact that he drafted Ex.P-1, as dictated by P.W.1.P.W.15 has spoken to about the postmortem conducted by him on the body of thedeceased and his opinion regarding the cause of death.The other witnesses are officialwitnesses.6.When the above incriminating materials in evidence were putto the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, they denied thesame as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witnesses or markany documents.Considering the above materials, the trial court acquitted the4th accused Mr.Ramiah, holding that his presence in the occurrence place itselfhad not been proved.However, the trial court found the appellants/accusedNos.1 to 3 guilty on various offences and accordingly punished them as detailedin the 2nd paragraph of the judgment.7.We have heard the learned senior counsel for the appellantand the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we havealso perused the records, carefully.8.As we have pointed out, P.Ws.1 to 3 and 20 are the eye-witnesses and they are inmates of the house.The foremost contention of thelearned counsel for the appellants is that the occurrence would not havehappened in the house of the deceased at all.According to him, the deceased,besides being a drunkard, had a number of enemies in the village and while hewas fully drunk elsewhere, he was done to death by unidentifiable persons.Later on, according to the defence, the dead body was brought to the house ofthe deceased and then the prosecution story has been built-up.In ourconsidered opinion, this defence taken has not even been probabilized by theaccused.Except making a vague suggestion to the witnesses, nothing more havebeen brought on record to doubt the fact that the occurrence had taken placeinside the house of the deceased.Apart from that, P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.20 havecategorically stated about the occurrence.The bloodstained brick piecerecovered from the place of occurrence would also go to prove that theoccurrence had taken place only inside the house of the accused.Thus, in ourconsidered opinion, the prosecution has clearly proved that the occurrence wasonly inside the house of the deceased.In order to substantiate this contention, the learned counsel for the appellantssubmitted that P.W.1 has admitted, during cross-examination, that after theoccurrence, she was at the place of occurrence continuously, as she was full ofgrief and she has further stated that from a local telephone booth, message waspassed on to the police, immediately after the occurrence and thus police cameto the place of occurrence, in a short while.After the arrival of the police,according to the learned counsel, the FIR could have been concocted and,therefore, no importance could be attached to the same.But, the main contention of the learned counsel that police would havearrived at the scene of occurrence, immediately on receiving the telephonemessage, needs serious consideration.We have perused the evidence of P.W.1, onthis aspect.Of course, P.W.1 has stated so.Such a rustic village womancannot be expected to be meticulous to speak about the time of arrival of thepolice.From the evidence of P.W.15, it could be seen that P.W.1 went to thedoctor on 21.08.1997 at 8.30 a.m. Had it been true that the police arrived atthe scene of occurrence, immediately after the occurrence, as suggested by thedefence, in all probabilities, P.W.1 would have been sent to the hospitalforthwith.Prompt lodging of the FIR, in this case,guarantees, to some extent, the truth of the contents in the FIR.According to the learned counsel, P.W.1, during cross-examination, hasadmitted that police sniffer dog was brought to the place of occurrence.When aspecific question was made to P.W.21, on this aspect, P.W.1 has stated thatpolice sniffer dog was never brought to the place of occurrence.So faras the 1st accused is concerned, in our considered view, the prosecution hassucceeded in proving his participation in the crime.It has been establishedthat he trespassed into the house, caused murder of the deceased and caused,voluntarily, simple hurt on P.W.1, with dangerous weapon.Therefore, the 1staccused alone is liable to be punished under Sections 302, 324 and 449 IPC.Nowturning to the quantum of punishment, for the offence under Section 302 IPC, weare inclined to impose the punishment of imprisonment for life and a fine ofRs.1000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for one month.For the offence under324 IPC, we are inclined to impose the punishment of rigorous imprisonment forthree months and a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for twoweeks and for the offence under Section 449 IPC, we are inclined to impose apunishment of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.3,000/-, indefault two weeks rigorous imprisonment.21.We make it clear that any of the observations, in respectof the alleged involvement of the absconding accused Murugesan, made in thisjudgment, shall not be used against him or shall not be treated as a findingregarding his involvement, when Mr.(a)For the offence under Section 302 IPC, he is sentenced toundergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default toundergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.(b)For the offence under 324 IPC, he shall undergo rigorousimprisonment for three months and shall pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, in defaultshall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks.1.The District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for Communal Clash Cases for Souther District at Madurai.2.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli District.3.The II-Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.4.The Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri.5.The Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Police Station, Tirunelveli District.6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court at Calcutta in G.R. Case No. 2830 of 2015 under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows.The petitioners are the accused in this case.A warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioners.They appeared before the learned trial court on 18.03.2017, prayed for bail and were in fact released on bail.But, on the very same day, without supplying copies of prosecution papers, charges were framed against the petitioners under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.Framing of charge without supplying copies to the accused is absolutely bad in law and needs to be forthwith set aside.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State in his usual fairness, submits that framing of charge in a criminal trial cannot take place without supply of copies to the accused.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 / de facto complainant submits that the proceeding before the learned trial court is stalled because of the pendency of this application and as such, the revisional application ought to be disposed of at the earliest.I have heard the learned advocates for the parties and have perused the revision petition.It is not denied by the learned advocates for the State and the private opposite party that charges were framed in this case without supply of copies of prosecution papers to the accused.Framing of charge against an accused without supply copies of documents on which the prosecution relies, as contemplated under Section 207 or 208 of the Code, to the accused is not at all tenable in the eye of law.In view of the above, I have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order so far as the framing of charges and the fixing of dates for evidence are concerned.I remand the matter back to the learned trial court to commence the proceeding afresh from the stage of supply of copies to the accused.It is expected that copies of necessary documents shall be supplied to the accused at the earliest and the proceedings shall be commenced therefrom.With these observations, the revisional application and the connected applications are disposed of.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.(Jay Sengupta,J.) SB","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This is a petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.The petitioner is detained in District Jail, Pauri (Garhwal) under the order of the District Magistrate, Moradabad dated 2-7-1982 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).The petitioner made his representation against the order of detention on 9-7-1982 to the Home Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh through the Superintendent, District Jail, Pauri.The State Government reported the approval of the order of the District Magistrate and also sent the grounds of detention and other particulars to the Central Government on the same day (12-7-1982).Both the representations of the petitioner were received by the-State Govt. on 13-7-82 and were sent to the District Magistrate.Moradabad on 14-7-1982 for his comments.The Advisory Board considered the case of the petitioner on 2-8-1982 and 10-8-1982 and submitted its opinion to the State Government on 16-8-1982 that there was sufficient cause for detaining the petitioner.A third representation on behalf of the petitioner was submitted by Sri D.S. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on 12-7-1982, which does not appear to have been considered by the State Government till now.The order of detention of the petitioner is based on four grounds, which are as follows:(1).On 5-3-1982 at about 6 P.M. you and your companion Gulfam armed with knives surrounded Dr. B. N. Gupta resident of Mohalla Faizganj and Krishna Avtar Mehrotra in front of Ansar Inter College on Prince Road, P.S. Mughalpura in the city of Moradabad and you told, Dr. Gupta that even though he obtains the support of the Police or court of law, you would take possession of his land in Guinya Bagh at the point of knife.As he (Dr. Gupta) was the only Hindu resident of Faizganj he could not dare remain in possession of his land in Guinya Bagh with the support of Mehrotra : Your companion Gulfam told, Dr. Gupta that he should quietly leave Moradabad otherwise he would tear his stomach with Ms knife and give the incident a communal colour and the Holi of the current year would be played with blood.The aforesaid incident created a sensation and people of both the communities began to collect.(2) Case Crime No. 761/81 under Section 147/323 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali was pending against you in the Court of 9th Additional Munsif Magistrate, Moradabad.On 23-6-1982 you threatened Sri Laxmi Narain Sharma Assistant Public Prosecutor, who was conducting the prosecution, in the verandah of the court while he was preparing the case and said that if he took much interest in the case you would kill him and the consequences would be serious.You also told the people present at the tea shop that there was no need to be afraid of the Police dogs but to confront them if necessary.It was mentioned in the document containing the grounds of detention that the petitioner may make his representation to the Home Secretary through the Jail authorities and the petitioner made such a representation, which was considered and rejected by the State Government as mentioned above.Copy of report No. 31 dated 5-3-82 P.S. Mughalpura.Order sheet dated 23-6-1982 of the Court of 9th Additional Munsif Magistrate, Moradabad in Case Crime No. 761/81 under Section 147/323 I.P.C.. P.S. Kotwali, District Moradabad.Letter of the L. I. U. No. LIU/MD/ C-l/82 dated 30-6-1982,It is true that it is not mentioned in the aforesaid list that a copy of the report of Laxmi Narain Sharma Assistant Public Prosecutor made to the 9th Additional Munsif Magistrate, Moradabad on 23-6-1982 was also supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention, but in the counter-affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad it was stated that a copy of the said report was supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention, The record of the District Magistrate relating to the case of the petitioner, which was produced before us, also shows that a copy of the said report was supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention.Two other documents received by the petitioner were obviously a copy of the grounds of detention and a copy of the order sheet dated 23-6-1982 of the Court of 9th Additional Munsif Magistrate in case No. 761/81 under Section 147/323, I.P.C. The third document received by him must, therefore, have been the copy of the report of the Assistant Public Prosecutor dated 23-6-1982 made to the 9th Additional Munsif Magistrate, as stated by the District Magistrate in his counter-affidavit.In these circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that a copy of the said report of the Assistant Public Prosecutor was not supplied to him along with the grounds of detention cannot be accepted.which were before the District Magistrate when he passed the order of detention, were not supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention but were supplied to him on 13-8-1982, about a month after he had applied for them, but, in our opinion, the non-supply of these two documents did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner as his right to make an effective representation against the grounds of detention was not affected.It was stated in the report of Laxmi Narain Sharma Assistant Public Prosecutor dated 23-6-1982 made to the Court:","['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"They originally hail from Rajasthan State.The accused 1 and 2 are the husband and wife residing in Kanchipuram.They also hail from Rajasthan.A3 is their son.A1 to A3 came to Checkpettia in order to attend the very same function.When the talks were going in the presence of elders in Checkpettia, the accused persons demanded 8 kilos of silver, 3/4 kilo of gold and a cash of Rs.75,000/- as Sridhana.P.W.1 was prepared to give 1/2 kilo gold, 6 kilos silver and a cash of Rs.55,000/-.This was agreed upon by the parties.The betrothal was held.On that day, the jewels as well as one portion of cash were given.On 14.12.1985, the marriage was held in a Kalyana Mandapam at Hassan attended by the relatives of both the families.Apart from that, several other jewels and household articles were given at the time of marriage.After the marriage was over, P.W.1 gave Rs.1,500/- towards the rent charges for the hotels where the relatives of the accused stayed.The accused demanded another Rs.1,500/- to be paid to the other hotels where some more relatives stayed.But, P.W.1 did not accept to give the said amount.The accused family having aggrieved over the same, however went back to Kanchipuram along with the bride.(2) After a few days, i.e. on 20.12.1985, P.W.4 Sajanraj, son of P.W.1, P.W.17 Dineshkumar along with other relatives went to the house of the accused in order to take the deceased to their house at Hassan for celebrating other connected functions.At that juncture, the first accused wanted Rs.10,000/-. P.W.4 contacted P.W.1 through phone and informed this.As directed by him, P.W.4 obtained Rs.10,000/- as loan from P.W.21 Manikchand, brother of the first accused and handed over the same to the first accused.(3) The deceased was staying for 10 days in P.w.1's house attending other functions.Then, after finishing other functions, P.W.1 sent both of them to the house at Kanchipuram.Three months later, i.e. on 26.3.1986, the deceased Prabhat Kumari phoned to P.W.1 and told him that she was ill-treated by the accused in their house and she was compelled to do all the household works treating her as a Servant-maid and that A1 sold her Ottiyanam weighing about 150 grams.Within a few days, both A3 and deceased came to attend a function at Bangalore and then came to Hassan.She told P.W.1 that the accused complained that the bangles that she was wearing are the old pattern and so, they should be remodelled.Accordingly, the four bangles worn by the deceased were handed over to the Goldsmith P.W.3 and the same was remodelled and then they were handed over to the deceased.In the month of September, the deceased got conceived.Therefore, P.W.1 sent P.W.4 to bring the deceased to Hassan.The accused persons sarcastically remarked that how could P.W.1 incur the delivery expenses when he was not even able to pay the rental charges for the hotels at the time of marriage.On Deepavali day, the deceased gave birth to a female child.Therefore, P.W.4 and P.W.8 went to Kanchipuram to see the child.At that point of time, the accused demanded Rs.50,000/-, since they had spent money towards the hospital charges for delivery.P.W.8, in turn, told them that they would not give any money as they were not allowed to take the deceased for delivery to Hassan.Though the wife and child were not allowed to accompany P.W.8 to Hassan on 28.1.1987, some time later, the wife and child were sent.On 14.2.1987, A3 came to Hassan and asked P.W.1 to send his daughter and granddaughter with him.He also demanded Rs.50,000/- towards the expenses for delivery.He also intimidated that unless the amount is given, they would not treat the deceased properly.The deceased also told the witnesses about the ill-treatment suffered at the hands of the accused.However, A3 was pacified and the wife and child were sent along with him.15 days later, P.W.1 received the phone call from the deceased requesting him to send Rs.50,000/- as quickly as possible, since she was being cruelly treated by the accused persons.Then, P.W.1 said that he would try to mobilise the fund and send the same.(4) P.W.10 Santhi was working as a Servant-maid in the house of the accused at the relevant period.P.W.14 Jagadeesan is a Tailor who used to come to the house of the accused and stitch the clothes in the house itself.On 21.3.1987 at about 2.30 P.M., P.W.14 was stitching in the sewing machine, P.W.10 servant-maid came to the house.At that point of time, one Kutty (P.W.22), the daughter of A1 cried saying ""save, save"" (........................................................................) and rushing down from the upstairs.Then, P.W.10 and P.W.14 enquired P.W.22, who in turn said that her sister-in-law, viz., the deceased was found hanging in the upstairs.Then, all of them went to the upstairs and found the room locked from inside.They saw through the window that the deceased was found hanging from the fan.Then, A1 along with P.W.13 Baskaran, working in the Goldsmith shop in the opposite side came there and broke open the door and went inside and untied the rope and put the body on the cot.(5) On 21.3.1987 P.W.1 received a phone call from P.W.11 Ukkamchand that the deceased died due to heart attack.He contacted P.W.21 and confirmed the death of the deceased.Then, after instructing that the dead body should not be removed till they come, P.W.1, his wife P.W.8, his son P.W.4, P.W.2 and P.W.15 came to Kanchipuram.When A1 was questioned regarding the cause of death, he said that she died due to heart attack.In the meantime, P.W.23, the Sub Inspector of Police, Sivakanchi Police Station, Kanchipuram received an intimation from the Inspector of Police stating that there is a suspicion over the death of Prabhat Kumari and asking him to take further action.Accordingly, he went to the house immediately and enquired the relations gathered there and they informed that the death was due to heart attack.Then, P.w.1 and P.W.11 were taken to the local Police Station.When he was asked whether the body could be removed for cremation, P.W.1 did not object to the same, since he was deeply worried over the death of the deceased.P.W.8, who went inside the room, was able to find some injuries on the body.Even though she objected to the removal of the body, the people gathered there pushed her aside and removed the body for cremation.(6) On 23.3.1987, P.W.9 Dr. Subramaniam was approached by P.W.21, the brother of A1 for the issue of the medical certificate over the death of Prabhat Kumari stating that she died due to heart attack.P6 certificate, death was registered in Ex.P5 register and Ex.P7 death certificate was obtained from the Municipality.(7) Unable to find out the real truth of the death of the deceased, as Kanchipuram is the new place for P.W.1's family and they are not well versed in Tamil, they came to Hassan on 25.3.1987 and sent telegrams to the Chief Minister of the State and the Home Minister of the Centre.On 28.3.1987, he sent complaints to various officials through registered post.He sent Ex.P2 to the Director General of Police, Chennai.The cot M.O.5 also was recovered.M.O.1 fan through which she hanged herself was recovered.The trouble started in this case even on the date of marriage.The marriage was held on 14.12.1985 at Hassan.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.The bolt of the door of the said room which was locked from inside was broken by the accused persons and others by applying the physical force and untied the rope and put the dead body on the cot.The reason of the death of the deceased was informed as the deceased died due to heart attack.On the orders of the High Court on the petition filed on behalf of the parents of the deceased, the investigation was taken over by C.B., C.I.D. After finishing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against all the respondents(A1 to A3) for the offences referred to above.During the course of trial, P.W.1 to P.W.26 were examined, Exs.P1 to P17 were marked.On the side of the defence, Exs.D1 to D3 were marked.Challenging the same, the State has filed this appeal.Besides this, P.W.1 also has separately filed a revision before this Court.In the light of the above principles, we have to see the reasonings given by the trial Court for acquitting the accused in order to find out whether they are correct or not.Before dealing with the same, it would be worthwhile to refer to the various facts, which led to the acquittal.Let us refer to them at the outset:(1) P.W.1 Lakpath Raj staying along with his wife P.W.8 and children is doing business at Hassan in Karnataka State.He has got three sons and three daughters.Prabhat Kumari, the deceased is the eldest daughter aged about 20 years.Since P.W.9 earlier treated the deceased at the time of delivery, he gave Ex.P6 certificate to the effect that the death was due to heart attack without even examining the dead body.On the basis of Ex.On 12.7.1987, he recovered Exs.Then, further investigation was taken up by P.W.26, the CB CID D.S.P. and the case was altered into Section 304B I.P.C. Again, P.W.26 came to the house and recovered the wooden portions (M.Os.6 to 10) from where the bolt was broken under mahazars Exs.After finishing the investigation, P.W.26 filed the charge sheet for the offences referred to above.(8) According to the accused in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they were not responsible for the death of the deceased and the body was taken to grave yard only on the statement of P.W.1 saying 'no objection' and they have registered the death of the deceased with the Municipality on the basis of Ex.P6, the Doctor's certificate stating that the deceased died due to heart attack.But, P.W.8 would state that all the three demanded the amount.This is a vital contradiction.(5) The marriage was finalised and fixed by one Lal.That list was not produced.(7) According to P.W.8, she saw injuries on the neck.But, the same was not informed to P.W.1's husband.(8) P.Ws.10, 13 and 14 though would state that they went to upstairs and saw the dead body of the deceased found hanging from the fan, they did not give the statement to the police immediately and they gave the statement only after six months.(9) Ex.P6 certificate issued by P.W.9 Doctor would show that the deceased died only due to heart attack.There is no post-mortem certificate giving the reason for death.(10) The letter Ex.P1 and Exs.D1 and D2 written by the deceased did not contain the reference about the torture at the hands of the accused.On going through the reasonings, it is obvious that the trial Court has misread the evidence and given importance to the very insignificant aspects for concluding that the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt.On going through the records, it is noticed that the above reasonings are not only perverse but also the important materials available on record have been totally ignored.Let us now first go into each one of the reasonings given by the trial Court for acquittal.The first reasoning is the delay in launching the complaint.According to P.W.1, he did not give a complaint to local police, since he was unable to converse with the local Police Officers in Tamil.It is his specific assertion that when he wanted to say something to police, they did not understand the same and on the other hand, they said that they could not do anything.Thereafter, he sent a detailed report on 28.3.1987 addressing to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu State and also to the Governor, Chief Minister and other high officials of the State Governments of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka and the Central Government, New Delhi.Merely because the complaint was sent after three or four days through telegram and registered post, it cannot be stated that P.W.1 gave a false complaint against the accused.In fact, from 25.3.1987 onwards, P.W.1 and his relative P.W.15 have been consistently pursuing for the action to be taken against the accused by sending telegrams and registered complaints to the various officials including the Head of the Police of Tamil Nadu.The very fact that he sent registered complaints not only to Tamil Nadu and Karnataka Governments but also to the Central Government itself would show that his attempt to pursue the action through the local police on the very same day did not fructify as the local police were reluctant to take action against the accused.Under those circumstances, the delay cannot be said to be an unexplained delay.The second reasoning is that there is no reference about the dowry demand in Ex.P2 complaint.The reading of Ex.P2 in entirety would go to show that the deceased was tortured on several occasions by the accused and her husband used to beat her to get money from her house and that he used to threaten that he would do away her, if she does not bring Rs.50,000/-.It is also mentioned in the complaint that the parents of her husband never used to provide food and she used to starve for several days without sufficient food.These things would show that there was a demand of money and also there was a torture.The third reasoning is that there is no explanation as to why child was delivered at the husband's place.This reasoning is without any basis.There are materials to show that the accused persons declined to send the deceased to the house of her parents for delivery despite the request made by the parents of the deceased through P.W.4, the brother of the deceased to send her to Hassan for delivery.Even in the complaint Ex.P2 give by P.W.1, it is specifically mentioned that as per the customs prevailed in their community, viz., Jain Community, the first delivery would take place at the parents' house of the bride, but the accused persons refused to send her to parent's house and she was retained in Kanchipuram itself.P.W.4, the brother of the deceased would also state in his deposition that as instructed by P.Ws.1 and 8, parents of the deceased, he went to Kanchipuram and requested the accused persons to send her with him to Hassan for delivery and at that time, the accused persons abused his father P.W.1 stating that he did not even to pay the rental charges of the hotel rooms for the stay of their relatives at the time of marriage and how could he bear the expenses for delivery and so saying P.W.4 was sent back without allowing the deceased to go to Hassan for delivery.When this evidence is available, the trial Court is quite wrong to observe that there is no explanation and as such, this finding ignoring the relevant materials given by the trial Court is perverse.The next reasoning is relating to the contradiction with regard to the demand of Rs.50,000/- made by the accused.But, on going through Ex.P2 complaint and the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 8, there is no contradiction.As per Ex.P2, the deceased told P.W.1 that the accused demanded Rs.50,000/-.When P.W.4 and P.W.8 went to Kanchipuram to see the child, the accused persons demanded amount of Rs.50,000/-, since they had to incur expenses for delivery.Only in that context, P.W.8 would state that since the deceased was not allowed to go to Hassan for delivery, the delivery expenses need not be incurred by them.Furthermore, when A3 came to Hassan to take back the wife and child, he reiterated his demand of Rs.50,000/- towards the delivery expenses.Therefore, there is no contradiction with regard to the demand ofRs.50,000/-.One other reasoning is non-examination of one Lal, who has finalised the marriage.The fact of the marriage is not disputed.Moreover, the marriage was held at Hassan in the bride's place and both the families attended the same.So, the non-examination of one Lal, who has finalised the marriage proposal, would not be relevant in this case.The trial Court found fault with the prosecution that a list of Sridhana articles was not produced.This is yet another irrelevant reason.According to P.W.1, at the time of betrothal and marriage, though more Sridhana articles and cash were demanded, ultimately, the matter was settled among the parties to agree with the terms of the marriage proposal in regard to the Sridhana articles.Accordingly, jewels, cash and household articles were given to the bridegroom's family by the bride's family.The details of the household articles, jewels and cash which were handed over to A1 at the time of betrothal and marriage are spoken to by P.W.1, P.W.4, son of P.W.1, P.W.8, wife of P.W.1, P.W.11 Ukkamchand, resident of Kanchipuram, P.W.16 Annaraj Jain of Hassan.The evidence relating to this adduced by them have not been seriously disputed in the cross-examination of the accused.It is the specific case of P.W.1 that a list of Sridhana articles was prepared and the list is available.However, during the course of investigation, the list was not seized and therefore, the same was not produced.Under those circumstances, we cannot expect the prosecution to produce the list, which has not been seized.Moreover, the availability of the list is not disputed by the accused.The next reasoning is that P.W.8 did not tell P.W.1 about the injuries found on the body of the deceased.This reasoning also, in my view, would not be a valid one, since when the dead body was kept in the room, P.W.8 alone was allowed to go inside.In the meantime, the relatives of the accused family took P.w.1 to the Police Station.In the Police Station, P.W.1 could not do anything as he was not able to converse with the Police Officers in Tamil.At the time when the dead body was removed, P.W.8 cried and said that she could also be burnt along with the dead body and asked the crowd not to remove the dead body.However, she was pushed aside by the relatives of the accused and then, the body was removed.In such a situation, P.W.8 could not give any details about the injuries to P.W.1 since she was in the grief and shock.After cremation was over, when P.W.1, P.W.8 and others came back to Hassan, P.W.1 sent telegrams and complaints mentioning about all the details to the police.In Ex.P2, it is specifically mentioned that certain injuries were found on the body of the deceased and the body was burnt abruptly to destroy the evidence by the accused persons.So, in the light of this evidence, this reasoning also has to be held improper.Next reasoning is that P.W.10, P.W.13 and P.W.14, who stated that they saw the deceased found hanging from the ceiling fan, did not make immediate statement.It is the specific case of P.W.1 that on the date when they came to Kanchipuram on hearing the news of death of the deceased, he met the police, but the police said that they could not do anything.P.W.23 Sub Inspector of Police also did not give the details as to whether they examined these persons.When the investigation was taken up by the C.B.,C.I.D. Inspector, a thorough probe was made and these people, who are residents of Kanchipuram gave statements giving the above details.Admittedly, they did not have any interest in the people who are residing in Hassan nor had any animosity against the accused persons.It is not that these witnesses gave contra statements initially and further statements were made by them contradicting the earlier statements.When they were interrogated, they gave a clear version stating that they saw that the deceased was found hanging from the fan.Therefore, this reasoning also, in my view, cannot be accepted.The next reasoning is that Ex.He was only giving some treatment at the time of delivery of the child for chest pain and only on the request of A1, Ex.P6 certificate was issued thinking that death would have been due to heart attack.Therefore, the contents of Ex.P6 certificate has not been proved through P.W.9 and when P.W.9 himself would give out the circumstances under which Ex.P6 certificate was issued, it cannot be held that the deceased died only due to heart attack.It is true that the dead body was not available for post-mortem.But, in the light of the evidence of P.Ws.10, 13 and 14 and without allowing the police to conduct post-mortem and hurried cremation done on the same day, would show that the death was not due to hear attack.It is true that the prosecution has to prove the reason for the death.In this case, we have no medical evidence to show that death was due to hanging.But, the fact remains that the accused persons tried to get a false certificate Ex.P6 from P.W.9 Doctor in order to show that the deceased died only due to heart attack.This act of the accused in obtaining false certificate from P.W.9 hurriedly and the evidence of P.Ws.10, 13 and 14 to the effect that they saw the dead body of the deceased found hanging would clearly show that the death could not have been due to heart attack but only due to hanging.The trial Court would observe that there is no reference about the torture in Exs.It is true that Exs.D1 and D2 would not relate to the torture.Those letters would refer about mere enquiries.But, Ex.P1 letter would clearly indicate that she must have informed P.W.1 about the sale of Ottiyanam given to the deceased at the time of marriage and about the same P.W.1 should not write any letter.This shows that out of fear for A1 she must have written that letter.Let us now go into the other evidence available on record.After marriage was over, P.W.1 gave Rs.1,500/- towards the rent charges for the hotels where the relatives of the accused stayed.When the accused demanded another Rs.1,500/- for making payment to other hotels where some more relatives stayed, P.W.1 did not accept to give the same amount.This is the first grievance for the bridegroom's family.Relating to the refusal to make payment towards the rental charges number of witnesses would speak.P.W.1, P.W.2, his relative, P.W.4, son of P.W.1, P.W.8, wife of P.W.1, P.W.11 Ukkamchand of Kanchipuram, P.W.15 Giwerchand, brother of P.w.8 and P.W.17 Dinesh Kumar of Bangalore, all would speak about the said aspect of the evidence.Some days later after the marriage, P.w.4 along with P.W.17 Dinesh Kumar of Bangalore went to the house of the accused to bring the deceased to their house at Hassan for celebrating other necessary functions.At that time, A1 wanted Rs.10,000/-.A1 stated that unless the amount of Rs.10,000/- is paid, he would not allow the deceased to go along with them to Hassan.This is purely due to the non-payment of the rental charges for his relatives stayed in some of the other hotels.Ultimately, P.w.4 obtained loan of Rs.10,000/- from P.W.21 Manikchand, brother of the first accused and handed over the same to the first accused.This aspect of the evidence is being spoken to by P.W.4, son of P.W.1, P.W.15 Giwerchand, brother of P.W.8 and P.W.17 Dinesh Kumar of Bangalore.Though P.W.21 became hostile, the other witnesses, namely, P.W.4, P.W.15 and P.W.17 would state that they came to the house of the accused and the first accused demanded money of Rs.10,000/- and thereafter, the said money was obtained as loan from P.W.21 and the same was handed over to the accused.Apart from these witnesses, P.W.11 Ukkamchand of Kanchipuram would state that P.W.4 came to his shop and informed about the demand made by the accused and through the phone kept at the shop of P.W.11, P.w.4 contacted P.W.1 and obtained the instruction to get the loan from P.W.21 and gave it to the first accused.Both these incidents would show that the first accused wanted P.W.1 to pay more amount towards the rental charges and when the same was not accepted, A1 did not allow the deceased from the bridegroom's house to the bride's parents' house at Hassan till the amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid.After finishing functions, the deceased and A3 were sent back to Kanchipuram.On 26.3.1986, i.e. three months later, the deceased for the first time phoned to P.W.1 and told that she was ill-treated by the accused persons in their house and that A1 sold her Ottiyanam weighing about 150 grams.Later, she also wrote a letter Ex.P1 stating that P.W.1 should not write any letter regarding the Ottiyanam, which was sold.After some months, the deceased and her husband (A3) came to attend a marriage.On the way to Kanchipuram, they came and visited P.W.1's house.At that time, the deceased complained to P.W.1 that the accused persons did not like the pattern of the bangles and they should be re-modelled.Accordingly, the bangles were given to Goldsmith P.W.3 and after re-modelling, they were given back to the deceased.At that time itself, she told P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.8 that she was treated badly by the accused persons.In the month of September 1986, P.W.1 received information that the deceased got conceived.Therefore, P.W.4 was sent to Kanchipuram to bring the pregnant deceased to Hassan for delivery.At that juncture, the accused persons did not allow the deceased to go to her parents' house making a sarcastical remark that P.W.1 would not be able to bear the delivery expenses, since he was not able to pay the rental charges for the hotels at the time of marriage.After getting the news that child is born, P.W.4 and P.W.8 went to Kanchipuram to see the child.At that time, the accused demanded Rs.50,000/-, since they had paid hospital charges for delivery.P.W.8 replied that they would not bear any charges, since they were not allowed to take the deceased for delivery to Hassan.Though initially the daughter and the child were not sent, after two months, they were sent to Hassan.At that time also, she told P.Ws.1, 4 and 8 and others about the ill-treatment meted out to her by the accused persons in regard to the demand of Rs.50,000/-.On 14.2.1987, A3 came to take the wife and child back to Kanchipuram.At that time also, A3 reiterated the demand of Rs.50,000/-.According to the witnesses, A3 threatened P.W.1 and others that unless the amount is given, the deceased would be continued to be ill-treated.But however, A3 was pacified and the wife and child were sent along with him.15 days later, P.W.1 received the phone call from the deceased requesting him to send Rs.50,000/- as quickly as possible, since she was being cruelly treated by the accused persons.From these, it is revealed that the deceased was not allowed to go to Hassan for delivery and even after delivery, she was not allowed to P.W.8 and P.W.4 to Hassan.At that time, they demanded Rs.50,000/-, since they incurred hospital expenses.Even when A3 came to Hassan, he reiterated the said demand.At last, 15 days prior to her death, she insisted P.W.1 that he must send Rs.50,000/- immediately as she was being subjected to cruelty at the hands of the accused.The evidence of P.W.4, P.W.8 and P.W.1 would give two aspects of the matter: (1) The demand made by the accused persons that P.W.1 should pay Rs.50,000/- which was incurred by them towards medical expenses, or otherwise the deceased would be continued to be ill-treated.(2) The deceased told P.W.4 and P.W.8 when they came to see the child that she was ill-treated by the accused persons.Similarly, she told the other witness P.W.15 also regarding the ill-treatment.As noted above, just few days prior to her death, she phoned up to P.W.1 that she was being ill-treated and unless the amount is sent, the same would not be stopped.These things would make it obvious that she was continuously ill-treated by the accused persons from the beginning over the non-payment of the amount of Rs.50,000/-.The second aspect of the evidence is that P.W.10 Santhi, the Servant-maid working under the accused and P.W.13 Baskaran working in a Goldsmith shop in the opposite side and P.W.14 Jagadeesan working as a Tailor saw the deceased found hanging in the room in the upstairs of the house.According to them, on hearing the cry of P.W.20, sister of A3, they rushed to the upstairs and saw through window the deceased found hanging from the ceiling fan.Then, A1 with the help of P.W.13 broke open the door and went inside and untied the rope and put the body on the cot.Though the statements of these witnesses have been recorded only when the C.B., C.I.D. took up the investigation, even the first investigation conducted by P.W.25, the D.S.P. would show that P.W.25 went to the spot and prepared observation mahazar and recovered the bent bolt bracket attached to the broken door.Then, again P.W.26, the D.S.P., CB CID on taking further investigation recovered the broken door under Ex.These things would show that the deceased was found hanging inside the room and only after breaking open the door, which was locked inside, the accused and others went inside and took the body outside of the room.The fact that P.W.10 was working as a Servant-maid in the house of the accused during the relevant time was not challenged.Similarly, P.W.13 was working as a Goldsmith in the opposite side and P.W.14, a Tailor used to stitch clothes in the house of the accused.There is no reason as to why they speak falsehood with reference to the fact that the deceased was found hanging from the ceiling fan.According to prosecution, the death was informed by P.W.11 Ukkamchand of Kanchipuram.No intimation was sent by the accused to P.W.1's family.When P.W.1 received a phone call from P.W.11, he contacted P.W.21 for verification and P.W.21 confirmed that the deceased died.Thereafter, P.W.1 and others came to Kanchipuram.It is true that P.W.1 did not raise any objection when the body was removed for cremation.But in this context, we have to see the real situation.When such is the case, there is no reason as to why the Sub Inspector of Police did not choose to register the case for suspicious death.P.W.23 did not state that he has obtained any statement in writing either from P.W.1, P.W.8 and other relatives or from the neighbours to find out as to what really happened.The way in which the cremation was hurried would show that P.W.23 did not take interest in finding out the truth with regard to the cause of death.In such circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that he contacted the police at the Police Station for taking action, but they said that they could not do anything assumes importance.Under those circumstances, for the reasons best known to P.W.23, the body was not allowed to conduct post-mortem and the arrangements were made for early cremation in the presence of the Police Constables.In the light of the said situation, the efforts were taken by P.W.1's family by sending complaints after complaints to the Officers concerned and ultimately, they obtained orders from this Court for investigation by the C.B., C.I.D.Thus, from the evidence of the witnesses referred to above, both torture and the death of the deceased due to hanging have been clearly established.Even according to prosecution, A1 earlier demanded Rs.10,000/-, since the rent charges were not given for the stay of his relatives at Hassan at the time of marriage.Secondly, the deceased was not allowed to go to Hassan for delivery.Delivery of the child was arranged by the accused family at Kanchipuram.Towards the expenses of the delivery of the child, they demanded Rs.50,000/-.Since Rs.50,000/- was not paid, the accused ill-treated the deceased which resulted in the commission of suicide.But, on the other hand, there are materials to show that there is a cruelty, which resulted in the suicide, which would attract Sections 306 and 498A I.P.C.The other charges like Sections 203 and 417 I.P.C. against may not be made out for the following reasons.43. A1 was charged for the offence under Section 203 I.P.C. for having given wrong information with regard to the death of the deceased to the Sub Inspector of Police.There is no record to show that P.W.23, the Sub Inspector of Police did not say that A1 gave the false information.Similarly, P.W.9 Doctor stated that P.W.21, brother of A1 gave the information that the deceased died due to heart attack and obtained the certificate from him.Furthermore, the evidence of P.W.23, the Sub Inspector of Police, as discussed above, would clearly indicate that he did not choose to take immediate action, despite that he received information from the Inspector of Police that there is a suspicious death.In fact, P.W.23 admitted in his examination that he did not personally interrogate the relatives of the deceased.It is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that he contacted the police to take action, but the police said that they could not do anything at their stage.It is also the case of P.W.8 that despite her objection, the body was removed by the relatives of the accused by pushing her aside, that too when the Police Constables were standing there.These things would show that the accused persons tried to hush up the matter and hurriedly removed the body for cremation with the help of the local police to avoid the post-mortem in order to escape from the penal action.Expecting some action that might be taken by P.W.1's family, P.W.9 was approached and he was given false information and on that basis, certificate was obtained and on the strength of the said certificate, they were also be able to get Ex.All these things have been done so hurriedly.Sections 498A and 306 I.P.C. are independent and constitute different offences.Though, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, subjecting a woman to cruelty may amount to an offence under Section 498A and may also, if a course of conduct, amounting to cruelty is established leaving no other option for the woman expecting to commit suicide, amount to abetment to commit suicide.The child was born in November 1986 and the death of the deceased took place on 21.3.1987 when she was living with the other accused.This Court by the judgment dated 4.2.2002 allowed the appeal against acquittal filed by the State through Public Prosecutor, Madras convicted the respondents 1 and 3 (A1 and A3)for the offences under Sections 306 and 498A I.P.C. and sustained the acquittal in favour of the 2nd respondent (A2).The matter was directed to be posted on 18.2.2002 directing A1 and A3 to be present before this Court to hear them in regard to the question of sentence.Accordingly, on 18.2.2002, A1 and A3 were present.It was informed before this Court that Mr. A. Natarajan, the learned counsel who argued the matter earlier on behalf of the accused, gave a change of vakalat on the instruction of A1 and A3 for Mr.Karuppan, the learned counsel who has entered appearance on their behalf.Karuppan, who appeared before this Court on behalf of A1 and A3, the convicted accused, requested two days' time to file their statement with regard to the question of sentence.Accordingly, the matter was directed to be posted on 21.2.2002 and A1 and A3 were directed to be present on that day.He would further submit that the accused would also file an affidavit requesting to show leniency in the sentence without prejudice to his submissions in support of the plea for re-hearing the case.Accordingly, the accused were permitted to file affidavit giving the statement in regard to the question of sentence.On 22.2.2002, as permitted by this Court, an affidavit sworn to by A3 on behalf of both the accused was filed giving various circumstances for showing leniency while imposing sentence upon both the accused.Mr. Karuppan, the learned counsel appearing for the accused would request some more time to file another affidavit giving his grounds of arguments for re-hearing the case.Accordingly, on 27.2.2002, the affidavit was filed on behalf of the accused making various grounds and requesting this Court to dismiss the appeal filed by the State and acquit the accused or direct re-hearing preferably by another Bench.Karuppan after filing this affidavit wanted to argue the matter on merits before this Court.Accordingly, he was permitted to argue.The letters Exs.D1 and D2 written by the deceased were in Hindi.The copy of the Hindi version was not served to the accused.The matter was posted for final disposal before Bakthavatasalu, J. It was adjourned several times.In default, he has to undergo R.I. for two years.The trial Court is directed to allow P.W.1's legal representatives to withdraw the said amount.","['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"3 CRA No. 2452/2007In brief the prosecution case is that on 25.01.2006 at about 11:00 pm at Motilal Nagar, PS Nishatpura, Rijwan Khan (PW-9) heard the noise of a quarrel outside his house.He came out from his house and saw that the appellants and other co-accused were assaulting Akram Bhaijan with their knives and abusing him.The appellants were annoyed with Akram.They suspected that, Akram had informed the police (mukhbiri) about their profession.They inflicted blows of their knives on his head, chest, stomach, back and legs.They intended to kill Akram.Rijwan (PW-9) went there to rescue Akram, but the appellant Shaukat assaulted him with a knife on his left palm.Khalid, Mohd. Azam and Javed also came to rescue Akram.Akram fell down due to fatal injuries.Then appellants fled away.The persons who were present there brought him to Hamidia Hospital, where doctor declared him dead.Then, an FIR was lodged by Rijwan (PW-9) at police station, Nishatpura.To establish the crime against them, the prosecution is based on the testimony of eye-witness Rizwan (PW-9) who is an injured eye-witness.He deposed that at the time of incident on 25.01.2006 at about 10:30 pm to 11:00 pm, he was present at his house.He heard noise of a quarrel outside and came out.He saw that all the appellants had surrounded Akram (since deceased) and were abusing him.They were armed with knives and told Akram that he was the informant of the police against the appellants.The appellants inflicted blows on him using their knives.He sustained several injuries on his stomach, head, back, leg, chest, etc. He fell down on the ground.Rizwan (PW-9) reached there to rescue Akram.Appellant Shaukat assaulted Rizwan by knife.Rizwan sustained injuries on his left palm.On hearing the hue and cry, Azam, Khalid, Javed and other persons also came there and tried to save Akram and Rizwan from the appellants.Then, the appellants ran away from the spot.Akram and Rizwan were brought to the police station and on the advice of the police, they were brought to 7 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 Hamidia Hospital.(08/05/2018) Per : Smt. Anjuli Palo, J :-Criminal appeal No. 2452/2007 has been preferred by appellant Sahib @ Afzal challenging the conviction; Criminal Appeal No. 2004/2008 has been filed by Mohd. Sohel, Mohd. Shaukat, Soyeb, Sharafat and Shahjad Khan challenging the conviction; and Criminal Appeal No. 582/2010 has been filed by the State challenging the acquittal of appellants Sahib @ Afzal and Majid from the charges under Section 147, 148 and 302 r/w Section 49 of IPC.2 CRA No. 2452/2007Appellant Sahib @ Afzal and Majid have been convicted and sentenced as below :Appellants Mohd. Sohel, Mohd. Shaukat, Soyeb, Sharafat and Shahjad have been convicted as under :Appellant Mohd. Shaukat has been further convicted as under:The police registered crime under Section 302/149 and 324 of IPC against all the appellants and other accused persons.After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against them under the same provision before the concerned Court.After committal of the case learned trial Court conducted trial and held that except the accused Sahib @ 4 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 Afzal and Mazid @ Chhotu, all the appellants are liable for committing the murder of deceased (Akram) in furtherance of their common object to kill Akram.They are members of unlawful assembly to cause death of Akram.At the time of occurrence, they were armed with deadly weapons (like knife).Hence, they have committed offence of rioting and armed with deadly weapon and caused death of Akram which is punishable under Section 148 and 302/149 of IPC.At the same time, the appellants Mohd. Shaukat has voluntary caused simple injuries to witness Rijwan (PW-9) by his knife.Hence, he was convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for one year, respectively.The respondents Mohd. Sahib @ Afzal and Mazid were convicted only under Section 25 Arms Act and sentenced as mention above.4 CRA No. 2452/2007The appellants have challenged the aforesaid findings on the grounds that learned trial Court has committed an error while convicted them on weak type of evidence.There were many contradictions, omissions and improvements in the versions of the prosecution witnesses.The testimony of all the eye witnesses is entirely unbelievable.The trial Court has failed to see that there was a sudden quarrel which was not a result of pre-meditative act.5 CRA No. 2452/20075 CRA No. 2452/2007CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 The appellants were not the hardened criminals.The learned trial Court ought to have acquitted them.The prosecution has not proved the seizure of the knives.The medical evidence has also not established that the appellants had a common intention to commit murder of the deceased.The evidence of prosecution witnesses are not corroborated by any other independent witnesses.Hence, evidence of prosecution is tainted.Many illegalities and irregularities were committed by the Investigating Officer.It was also alleged that defence ought to have been accepted in favor of appellants.Hence, impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and appellants are liable to be acquitted.State has challenged the acquittal of the appellants Mohd. Sahib @ Afzal and Mazid from charges under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of IPC on the grounds that the trial Court has erred in not appreciating the entire evidence in proper prospective.The findings of trial Court are illegal and liable to be set aside and have prayed for conviction of the respondents Mohd. Sahib @ Afzal and Mazid for rioting with deadly weapons and murder of Akram under Section 148 and 302/149 of IPC.We have heard all the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.6 CRA No. 2452/20076 CRA No. 2452/2007CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010Whether the appellants are rightly convicted under the charges levelled against them.Doctors declared Akram dead.Police also came there.Dehati Nalishi Ex. P/26 has been lodged by Rizwan (PW-9).The testimony of Rizwan (PW-9) is also corroborated by the other eye-witness, Mohd. Azam (PW-10), Khalid (PW-11) and Javed (PW-13).All the eye-witnesses strongly proved their presence at the scene of occurrence.7 CRA No. 2452/2007S.R.Yadav (PW-20) Inspector deposed that on the same day, he received information about the incident.He reached Hamidia Hospital and lodged Dehati Nalishi Ex. P/26 as narrated by Rizwan (PW-9).Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/26) was received by Inspector R.S.Rai (PW-17).He deposed that FIR Ex. P/34 was registered by him on 26.01.2006 at 1:00 am under Section 302, 149 and 324 of Indian Penal Code against the appellants.Dehati Nalishi Ex. P/26 and FIR Ex. P/34 also corroborate the testimony of Rizwan and other eye-witnesses.Both the documents clearly establish the involvement of all the appellants.The promptness in lodging the FIR by names of the assailants and all the material facts mentioned in FIR itself indicate the truthfulness of the 8 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 incident.It prevents the possibility of false implication of the appellants in the concocted story.There is no material contradictions and omission in the testimonies of eye- witnesses.There is no inconsistency between their testimonies and with the FIR which inspires confidence and establish that the evidence of the eye-witnesses is trustworthy.Hence, it it not liable to be disbelieved.8 CRA No. 2452/2007It is also pertinent to mention here that the Rizwan (PW-9) is injured eye-witness.The testimony of injured eye-witness has great evidentiary value.""The injuries found on the person of who was injured in the same occurrence lends assurance to his testimony that he was present at the time of the occurrence along with the prosecutrix.The evidence of an injured witness is entitled to a greater weight and the testimony of such a witness is considered to be beyond reproach and reliable.Firm, cogent and convincing ground is required to discard the evidence of an injured witness"".Dr. Pravendra Malik (PW-14) examined Rizwan (PW-9) on the date of incident at about 11:00 pm.He found an incised wound of about 2.5 x 1 cms on his left palm and internal tissues were visible from the cut.Rizwan was not 9 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 able to move his ring finger and little finger.9 CRA No. 2452/2007As per Dr. Pravendra Malik, all the injuries were caused by hard and sharp object.In his cross-examination, he strongly denied that the injuries were caused by broken glass.The evidence of Dr. Pravendra Malik is corroborated by the testimony of other eye-witnesses particularly the testimony of Rizwan (PW-9).Dr. J.K.Chourasia (PW-12) also corroborated the testimony of Dr. Pravendra Malik.Hence, it is properly believed by the trial Court.Dr. J.K.Chourasia (PW-12) also examined the injuries of deceased Akram on the same date of incident at around 11:20 pm at Hamidia Hospital.Dr. Ashok Sharma (PW-19) conducted autopsy of the deceased Akram and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased :(i) Abrasion on left forehead obliquely of 6x0.5 cms.(ii) Incised wound on mid forehead of 3x0.1 cms.(iii) Long incised wound on the forehead of 5x0.3 cms extending towards left auxillary region of 1x0.5 cms.below and similar to injury No. (v) of 10 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 1.5 x 3 cms.Main artery was cut.10 CRA No. 2452/2007(vii) Stab wound below injury No. (vi) on the stomach of 1x0.2 cms and 10 cms depth.(viii) Stab wound radial to injury no. (iv) of 1x0.3 cms and depth of 7 cms.cutting the main artery.(ix) Stab wound of 8 cms lateral to injury no. (5) on the stomach of 1x0.3 cms and depth of 14 cms penetrating the intestine.(x) Stab wound on the stomach lateral to injury No. (viii) of 1x0.3 cms on the stomach and 7 cms in depth cutting intestine.(xi) Stab wound lateral to injury No. (x) on the stomach of 1.2x0.3 cms cutting the intestine and spleen.(xii) Multiple stab wound on left back : 7 in number.(xiii) Stab wound on the right side of back of 1.2x0.3x7 cms deep rupturing the lung.(xiv) Long lacerated wound on the right shoulder of 5x1 cm.(xv) Stab wound on the right chest of 1.3x0.2 cms penetrating the chest rupturing the lung.(xvi) Stab wound near injury no. (xv) of 1x0.2 cms and 7 cms.deep penetrating the chest.(xvii) Stab wound on right side of back of 15x0.3 cm and 8 cms deep penetrating the diaphragm and large intestine.(xviii) Stab wound on right side of chest 1.3 x 0.2 cms.and 7 cms deep penetrating the stomach.(xix) Stab wound 6 cms.below injury No. 16 of 13x0.3 cms penetrating the 11 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 stomach rupturing the large intestine.(xx) Stab wound 4 cms below injury No. 16 penetrating the stomach of 1.2x0.2 cms, 6 cms deep (xxi) Incised wound on the right knee 1x0.2 cms.11 CRA No. 2452/2007(xxii) Incised wound below 4 cms of above wound of 1x3 cm.(xxiii) Lacerated wound on the right ankle of 4x1 cms x bone deep.(xiv) Lacerated wound on right side of head 5x1 cms.(xvi) Incised wound on left parietal region of 3.5x0.5 cms.Dr. Ashok Sharma (PW-19) opined that deceased died due to excessive bleeding from several fatal wounds and coma.All the injuries were caused by hard, sharp and pointed objects and were sufficient to cause death of the deceased in ordinary course of nature within 24 hours from postmortem.He also found cut impression on the clothes of the deceased.Parallel to the injuries found on the body of the deceased.Inspector S.R. Yadav (PW-20) stated that on 27.01.2006, he recorded the memorandums of the appellants Mohd. Shaukat, Mohd. Sohel and Mohd. Soyeb as Ex.P/6, Ex.P/7 and Ex.According to their memorandums, he seized a knife from the house of the appellant Mohd. Shaukat.Similarly, he recovered another knife from the possession of appellant Mohd. Sohel and a knife was 12 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 recovered from the possession of appellant Mohd. Soyeb.Different knives were seized form the possession of Mohd. Shaukat, Mohd. Sohel and Mohd. Soyeb vide seizure memo Ex.P/13 and Ex.12 CRA No. 2452/2007Dr. Ashok Sharma (PW-19) examined all the six knives which were hard, sharp and pointed objects.He deposed that he took a picture of the aforesaid weapons.The injuries mentioned in his postmortem report (Ex.P/36) and cut marks found on the clothes of the deceased can be caused by the aforesaid weapons.His report Ex.P/38 has also supported the prosecution case properly.It is important to mention here that learned counsel for the appellants has not cross-examined Dr. Ashok Sharma (Pw-19) nor he has challenged the doctor's opinion.In our considered opinion the testimony of Dr. Ashok Sharma (PW-19) has duly corroborated the direct evidence.There is no reason to disbelieve the opinion of Dr. Ashok Sharma which has further corroborated by other evidence on record and doctor's opinion.All the weapons were sent for FSL examination by S.R.Yadav (PW-20).In the FSL report (Ex.P/40) blood stains 13 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 were found on the soil collected from the spot and clothes of the deceased and particularly all the six knives as Article-E, F, G, H, I & J all were blood stained, which were recovered from the appellants.In four knives as Article-E, F, H & J, the expert confirmed that human blood was present on it.Due to the technical reason that spots of blood were disintegrated and quantity of blood was not sufficient.Origin of blood was not confirmed in FSL report.13 CRA No. 2452/2007In case of State of Rajasthan Vs.Teja Ram & Ors.[(1999) 3 SCC 507], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :""Failure of the Serologist to detect the origin of the blood, due to disintegration of the serum in the meanwhile, does not mean that the blood stuck on the axe would not have been human blood at all.Sometimes it happens, either because the stain is too insufficient or due to hematological changes and piasmatic coagulation that a Serologist might fail to detect the origin of the blood.Will it then mean that the blood would be of some other origin? Such a guess work that blood on the other axe would have been animal blood is unrealistic and far fetched in the broad spectrum of this ease.The effort of the criminal court should not be to prowl for imaginative doubts.Unless the doubt is of a reasonable dimension which a judicially conscientious mind entertains with some objectivity no benefit can be claimed by the accused.It cannot be said that in all cases where there was failure of detecting the origin of the.blood the circumstance arising from recovery of the 14 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 weapon would stand relegated to disutility.""14 CRA No. 2452/2007As the recoveries of the bloodstained gunny bag, dumb-bell, tie, etc. were made on the basis of the disclosure statement of the 15 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 appellant himself, the chain of circumstances is therefore complete.""15 CRA No. 2452/200716 CRA No. 2452/2007All the eye witnesses have clearly identified them by their names.They have also established their active involvement with the crime along with the other appellants.Police has also seized knives from their possession, as per their memorandums.Blood stains were found on their knives.In our considered opinion, plea of alibi which was 17 CRA No. 2452/2007 CRA No. 2004/2008 CRA No. 582/2010 taken by them is purely an afterthought.All the eye witnesses have not accepted that at the time of the incident appellant Afzal and Majid were not present on the spot.It is also important to note that Rizwan (PW-9) is an injured eye witness.No suggestion has been given to him about ""not presence of the appellants Sahib @ Afzal and Majid"" on the spot or with regard to their plea of alibi.Similarly, no suggestion has been given to the other eye witnesses nor they accepted the absence of the aforesaid appellants from the spot.It is apparently clear that the story of defence witnesses is after thought.It is made during the stage of defence evidence.On the aforesaid reason we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid defence version in favour of the appellants Sahib @ Afzal and Majid.17 CRA No. 2452/2007This Court has consistently taken the view that in an appeal against acquittal the High Court has full power to review at large all the evidence and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed.This power of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal was formulated by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor [AIR 1934 PC 227] and Nur Mohammad v. Emperor [AIR 1945 PC 151].18 CRA No. 2452/2007In our opinion, learned trial Court has committed an error in acquitting Sahib @ Afzal and Majid form the charges under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.Accordingly, CRA No. 582/2010 filed by the State for convicting Sahib @ Afzal and Majid is hereby allowed.Their acquittal from the aforesaid charges is hereby set aside.They are also convicted under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and are awarded sentence as follows :19 CRA No. 2452/2007","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The facts as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, is that on 28.09.1998 at about 3:40 a.m., information was received by the Police Post, Turqman Gate, which was recorded vide DD No.3 to the effect that Sayara Bano (wife of Rizwanuddin), was admitted in the hospital by one Kayamuddin with burn injuries.Investigation of the case was marked to SI Subodh Kant who went to LNJP Hospital along with HC Anil Dutt and Constable Surya Kant and collected the MLC of the deceased.At the Police Post, SI Surya Kant met Smt. Rauf Nisha, mother of the deceased, and recorded her statement at about 8:30 a.m. In her statement, mother of the deceased informed that Sayara Bano (deceased) was her eldest daughter and was married about eighteen (18) months ago to Rizwanuddin.After her marriage, deceased used to come to her parents house almost every Sunday and would complain that her mother-in-law, Rehmat taunted her on small things and would say ""Tumne Dahej Me Diya Kya Hai, Kabare Ka Maal.Itwar Bazar Ka De Diya Hai, Jo Is Ghar Me Rakhane Layak Hi Nai Hai"".Mother of the deceased informed the police that Rizwanuddin used to come late after consuming liquor almost every day and would beat Sayara.Mother of the deceased also stated that she along with her Jethani-Smt.Salma (wife of Iqbal Ahmed), had gone to meet the mother-in-law and husband of her daughter with a view to advice them and talk to them about the grievance of Sayara, however, both of them misbehaved, abused and told them that in case she wanted her daughter to be happy, she should meet the requirements of her in-laws and pay Rs.25,000/-.Mother of the deceased also informed the police that Fifteen (15) days prior to her death, Sayara had come to her house weeping and told them that she was being harassed by her husband and mother-in-law as the payment of Rs.25,000/- was not made till then.Thereafter, mother of the deceased had gone to the house of the appellant along with Miraz, (son of her sister) and had met the appellants and assured them that Rs.25,000/- would be paid soon and left her daughter in her in-laws house.The mother of the deceased had learnt about the admission of her daughter in LNJP Hospital in a burnt condition at 3:00 a.m. from Papo, sister of Rehmat, and she reached the hospital at about 3:30 a.m. where she found her daughter lying in the hospital with burn injuries.Whenever, my daughter used to come to our house on Sunday, she used to complain that her husband came too late and used to consume liquor and that her mother in-law used to taunt her with regard to dowry.I had once gone to the house of appellants with my Jethani and on other occasion, I visited the house of appellants with my nephew Miraj.In your statement Ex.PW-4 deposed that it was incorrect that deceased, Sayara never told in front of him that her in-laws used to harass her and used to say that she does not know household work and that she had not been taught to do domestic work or that she was taunted as to what type of junk she had brought in dowry.It was incorrect that Sayara never complained to him that her husband used to consume liquor and come late in the night.PW-4 had not stated in his statement to the police that deceased, Sayara, used to complain that she was not at liberty to go anywhere as she liked.She had also not stated about the incident of Bakr Id as well as sending meat etc. PW-4 deposed that it was incorrect to suggest that any sum of Rs.25,000/- was given by his Khala to any of the in-laws of deceased, Sayara Bano.It was further incorrect that no demand was made at any time of Rs.25,000/- by Rizwanudddin.It was incorrect that deceased, Sayara, was never harassed or taunted in her in-laws house by any of her in-laws.It was also incorrect that mother-in-law and husband were not responsible for the death of deceased in any manner.13. PW-5, Salma Begum, deposed that for two-three months after her marriage, Sayara Bano, did not tell them anything but later she informed that her husband, Rizwanudin, used to come to his house after consuming liquor (daily) and beat her and that she was sick of her life.Deceased Sayara Bano also used to tell her that her mother-in-law harassed her and taunted her by saying that her father had given junk in the dowry.On one occasion, she had gone to the in-laws of Sayara Bano alongwith her Deverani and there the mother-in-law of Sayara Bano had misbehaved with them and had demanded Rs.25,000/- from them.14. PW-5, in her cross-examination deposed that in fact, deceased, Sayara Bano, had visited her house on the date when the incident took place.i.e. on 26.10.1998 and left her house at 9:00 p.m. They had tried to stop her but she stated that she was in a hurry and had to reach home at the earliest, because if she would reach her home late, a quarrel would take place at her home.As per PW-5, on that day deceased, Sayara Bano had come to her house as a function was being held in connection with the fixing of the date of the marriage of her son.PW-5 deposed that she used to accompany her devarani, sometimes, when they visited her daughters matrimonial home.Latest she had visited the matrimonial house of her daughter about 15 days/one month prior to the incident.At that time the mother of Rizwannuddin, namely Rehmat, met them.PW-5 further deposed in her cross-examintaion that Arif was residing next to the house of Rizwanuddin on the first floor.The stairs of Rizwannuddin and Arif were common upto first floor and thereafter the stairs were different for going to the second floor.When she last visited the matrimonial house of the deceased, appellant, Rehmat, had misbehaved with them and Sayara Bano and her Nanad quarreled with each other on account of cooking of the food.The appellant, however, never demanded any money from them when they visited the matrimonial house.On the last occasion, Sayara Bano told them that her mother-in-law was demanding Rs.25,000/-.PW-5 deposed that it was incorrect to suggest that she had never visited the house of the appellant 15 days/one month prior to the incident or that the appellant had never misbehaved with them.It was further incorrect to suggest that deceased, Sayara Bano never told them that her mother-in-law was demanding Rs.25,000/-.It was further incorrect to suggest that she was deposing falsely.It was also incorrect to suggest that no demand of Rs.25,000/- was made by Rizwanuddin or his mother.15. PW-8, (father of the deceased-Intzar Ahmed) deposed in his examination-in-chief that deceased, Sayara Bano, was his daughter and was married to Rizwanuddin.As per PW-8, Rizwanuddin and his mother, Rehmat, started harassing and beating his daughter, Sayara Bano, after months of the marriage.On every Sunday, when his daughter, Sayara Bano visited his house, she complained that her husband used to daily consume liquor and beat her under the influence of liquor.His daughter also told him that the accused persons used to taunt her that they have been given junk (kabarh) in dowry.PW-8 also deposed that his wife, Rauf Nisha and his bhabhi- Salma Begum, also went to the matrimonial house of the deceased.Both his wife and bhabhi tried to make the accused persons understand not to make such high demands and harass Sayara Bano, but they reiterated that their demands have to be fulfilled.Thereafter his wife and bhabhi were turned out from the house.This whole incident was narrated to him by his wife and bhabhi.Thereafter, he went to Bhavnagar, in connection with his work.He had not stated in his statement, Ex.PW-8/A, to the SDM that his wife, Rauf Nisha and his bhabhi, Salma Begum, went to the matrimonial house of the deceased.It was further incorrect to suggest that his daughter was never taunted or beaten regarding the dowry items brought.It was incorrect to suggest that Rizwanuddin never gave any beatings or harassed his daughter under the influence of liquor.It was incorrect to suggest that he was deposing falsely.19. PW-10, S.I. Champat Singh, deposed that on 28.9.98 he was posted in District Crime Team.He inspected the spot and got the place of occurrence photographed.At the spot, he found one stove containing kerosene oil, one plastic can of white colour which was without kerosene oil and smell of kerosene oil was coming.Besides this, burnt clothes and burnt match-sticks were found present there.The kerosene oil can was lying at a distance of one foot from the stove.The stove, kerosene oil can, burnt clothes and burnt match sticks were lying in open space.The plastic can was lying at a distance of about 1/1 ft. from the wall of open space.The piece of cloth having the width of 3""x1"" was found lying unburnt while its corner were found burnt and the said piece of cloth was having smell of kerosene.The cloth was of Mehroon colour (dark red colour).I also visited the room and kitchen situated on the 2nd floor.I cannot say which articles were lying in the kitchen.It is incorrect that I had never visited the spot.It is incorrect that the stove, cloth, plastic can and match sticks were not found at the spot.It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely.PW-4 has stated in his examination-in- chief that whenever Sayara Bano visited her parental house, she used to complain that her in-laws were harassing her and taunting her that she does not even know house hold work and what type of junk has been brought in dowry.PW-4 has stated that about 3/4 months prior to the death of Sayara Bano, he also came to know that Rizwanuddin had demanded Rs.25,000/- which amount had been duly paid in the house of the appellant, but he did not know as to whom the said amount was delivered.In the cross-examination by counsel for the appellant, PW-4 went back on his statement regarding the payment of Rs.25,000/- in terms of dowry.However, this statement of his does not water down the portion of his evidence wherein he has clearly stated that Sayara Bano used to remain upset on account of the continuous harassment received by her at the hands of the appellant.Appeal No.1/2001 was filed by the husband of the deceased.Appeal No.2/2001 has been filed by the mother-in-law of the deceased.By a common judgment dated 09.12.2000 and order on conviction dated 18.12.2000 both the husband and mother-in-law have been held guilty for the offence committed under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as, ""IPC"").Both the mother-in-law and husband have been sentenced to undergo seven (07) years of Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC.The husband and mother-in-law have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three (03) years under Section 498-A, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, each, and in default thereof they have been directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of six months.The present appeal has been filed by the mother-in-law and is directed against the aforesaid judgement and order of conviction.On the basis of the statement of the mother of the deceased, an FIR was registered.During trial, twenty one (21) witnesses were examined by the prosecution.Four (4) witnesses were examined by the defence.Statement of the appellants was also recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. It would be useful to discuss the evidence of some of the material witnesses in detail.4. PW-1, Mohd. Arif (neighbour of appellants) deposed in his examination- in-chief that it was a Sunday, but he did not remember the date.About 3/4 months back, at about 1:30 a.m., he was present at his house.He heard some voices and came to the portion of Rizwan.He saw Sayara in flames (who was the wife of Rizwan).PW-1 deposed that he put water on Sayara from a tub lying there.At that time, the family members of Rizwan, were sleeping in the house.He called the family members, who were sleeping on the lower floor of the house and took Sayara to the hospital.PW-1 deposed that he did not know anything else about this case.In the cross-examination by learned APP, PW-1 deposed that his statement was recorded by the police.PW-1 also deposed that it was incorrect that when Sayara was seen by him in flames, at that time, Rizwanuddin and his mother, Rehmat, were standing there.Further, it was incorrect that he saw a white can in the hand of Rizwanuddin.PW-1 deposed that he had not stated so in his statement to the police.PW-1 was confronted with portion C of his statement, Ex.In his cross-examination by counsel for appellant, PW-1 deposed that Rizwan and deceased, Sayara, were residing together on the second floor of the house and were having separate kitchen and the appellant, Rehmat (mother of Rizwan) and other family members were residing on the ground floor of the house.PW-1 further deposed that there was a very thin wall between his house and the house of Rizwanuddin and they could hear the talks of each other from their respective portions.He had never heard any dispute or quarrel between Sayara Bano and her in-laws including her husband.He also did not hear any quarrel on the day of the incident or immediately few days prior to the occurrence.There was no neighbour present at the place of occurrence.7. PW-3, Rauf Nisha, mother of the deceased (w/o Intzar Ahmed) deposed that the marriage of her daughter, Sayara Bano took place with Rizwanuddin, about 2 years back.PW-3 deposed:My daughter was kept well by Rizwanuddin for 2/3 months after the marriage.Whenever my daughter used to come to reside with us normally on Sunday, she used to complain to me that her mother-in-law, Rehmat was not happy with the dowry brought by her and she used to taunt every time by saying that junk has been given in the dowry.(Kabari Ka Saman Diya Hai).My daughter also used to complain that her husband, Rizwanuddin used to consume liquor every day and after consuming liquor he used to bear her daily with a view to pressurize her to bring money from her parents.About 4 months prior to the incident, I accompanied by my Jethani (sister-in-law), Salma had gone to the house of appellants.There, we were abused by appellants and were turned out of the house.They had also stated that in case we wanted to see our daughter alive, we should fulfill their demands and they also demanded Rs.25000/- from me which I paid to my daughter Sayaro Bano for handing over the same to her husband, namely Rizwanuddin.Again thereafter, my daughter complained to me that appellants are again harassing her for bringing more dowry from us.About 15 days prior to the incident, my daughter, Sayara Bano, again came to meet us on Sunday and she again complained that the appellants were demanding Rs.25000/- and a flat.I had gone to meet my daughter Sayara Bano at her in-laws house in between the period of 15 days alongwith my nephew Miraj.I again met Rizwanuddin and Rehmat but they did not even care to hear.At about 3:00 a.m. on 28th of the month I was informed by Papo, sister of Rehmat that my daughter Sayara Bano has been burnt and she has been taken to JPN Hospital.I then went to JPN Hospital and there I found that my daughter has sustained burn injuries.My statement was recorded by the police as well as by Magistrate.My statement is Ex.PW-3/A which bears my signature at point-A. The statement before the SDM by me is Ex.PW-3/B which bears my thumb impression and signature at point-A.8. PW-3, mother of the deceased in her cross-examination by counsel for the appellants deposed:It was correct that the kitchen of my daughter Sayara Bano and her husband was separate from Rehmat.It is also correct that my daughter and her husband, Rizwanuddin used to reside on the second floor of the house.Rehmat with her other 5 sons and 2 daughters have been residing on the first floor of the house.On the ground floor, one Swalin resides.Adjoining to the house of appellants Arif resides on the first floor.I had visited the house of Arif many times.I cannot see what is happening in the house of appellants while remaining present in the house of Arif (PW).I was not tutored by any police officer before coming to the Court before giving the evidence.My daughter was also sick of Rizwanuddin as he used to consume liquor daily and after consuming liquor, he used to beat her.This was the only reason why my daughter was not happy with Rizwanuddin.in addition to it, she was tired of dowry demand.PW3/A you had stated to the police that my daughter came 15 days prior to the occurrence and told me that she was beaten by accused persons as we had not fulfilled the demand of Rs.25000/- and today in the Court you have stated that Rs.25000/- was paid four months prior to her death? Which of is your statement is correct.My both statements are correct.First of all we paid Rs.25000/- about 4 months prior to the incident and again a sum of Rs.25000/- and a flat was demanded about 15 days prior to the incident by the appellants.I had stated in my statement to the police that the accused persons had told us that in case we wanted to see our daughter alive, the demand of Rs.25000/- should be fulfilled (Confronted with her statement Ex.PW3/A where there is no mention of if we wanted to see our daughter alive.) I had stated in my statement made to the Magistrate that about 15 days prior to the incident, my daughter Sayara Bano came to meet us on Sunday and she again complained that the appellants were demanding Rs.25,000/- and a flat.(Confronted with her statement Ex.PW3/B where there is no mention of any incident about 15 days prior to the incident.) I had no direct talk with Rehmat who is my cousin in connection with the demand of dowry.Rehmat used to demand dowry from my daughter.Rizwanuddin, never demanded any amount or dowry from me directly.It is incorrect to suggest that no demand was ever raised by the accused persons from my daughter.It is incorrect that no amount of Rs.25000/- and flat was ever demanded or paid/given at any time.It is incorrect that I had stated about the demand of Rs.25000/- before the Magistrate on being tutored by somebody in order to falsely implicate the appellants.9. PW-4, Sh.Mirajuddin @ Miraj, deposed that deceased, Sayara Bano was the daughter of his Khala (Mausi).The marriage of Sayara Bano took place with Rizwanuddin.As per PW-4, whenever Sayara Bano used to come to her parents house, she used to complain that her in-laws were harassing her that she does not know household work and that she had not been taught to do domestic work by her parents and that she was also being taunted as to what type of junk she had brought.She also used to complain that her husband used to consumer liquor, come late in the night and she was not at liberty to go to the place where she wanted to go.PW-4 further deposed that on the eve of Bakri-Id, in 1998, his Khala (the mother of deceased) had sent meat to the matrimonial house of the deceased as per the custom but the appellants had returned the same on the third day as a result of which, his Khala felt very much upset.About 3/4 months prior to the incident he had come to know that Rizwanuddin had demanded Rs.25,000/- and his khala had paid the said amount to her matrimonial house but he could not say to whom the said sum of Rs.25000/- was delivered by his Khala at the house of the appellant.PW-4 stated to not know anything else.In his cross-examination by learned APP, PW-4 deposed that his statement was recorded by the Police and he had not stated to the police that mother-in-law of deceased, Sayara Bano used to taunt the deceased as to what junk had been given by her parents in dowry.(Confronted with his statement, portion A to A of Ex.PW/4-A where it was so recorded).He further deposed that Rizwanuddin, used to come late in the night after consuming liquor and used to beat the deceased.He had not stated to the police that Rizwanuddin used to demand money from the deceased.(Confronted with his statement portion B to B where it was so recorded).He had no knowledge that the deceased Sayara Bano came to her parents home about 15 days prior to the incident and had told that she had been badly beaten by her husband and mother-in-law.(Confronted with his statement Ex.PW/4-A portion C to C where it was so recorded).In his presence, deceased, Sayara Bano, had never told her mother that since Rs.25,000/- had not been given to the accused persons, she was being beaten up by them.He had not made such statement to the police.(Confronted with his statement portion D to D where it was so recorded).PW-4 further deposed that it was incorrect that he alongwith deceased, Sayara Bano and his Khala had gone to the house of appellants.PW-4 deposed that it was incorrect that at that time appellants were assured that Rs.25,000/- would be given to them very soon.(Confronted with his statement portion E to E where it is so recorded).When he went to JPN Hospital, he found Sayara Bano in a burnt condition.PW-4 in his cross-examination by the learned APP further deposed that it was correct that deceased, Sayara Bano used to remain upset as she was harassed by the mother-in-law and the husband on account of bringing less dowry as well as for bringing the dowry, goods of very inferior quality (Junk goods).It was correct that deceased, Sayara Bano used to say everytime, when she used to come to her parents home, that she was being harassed and taunted by them for bringing less dowry and for bringing dowry goods of inferior quality.He used to hear the conversation between the deceased and her mother and on one occasion, the deceased had told this fact in his presence to her mother.As per PW-4, it was correct that after her marriage the deceased had become weak as she was constantly taunted but otherwise, the deceased was not suffering from any disease.In the cross examination by learned counsel for the appellant, PW-4 deposed that the deceased used to say that as a result of constant harassment at the hands of her mother-in-law and Nanad, she had become weak.It was further incorrect to suggest that Sayara Bano never told her that her husband Rizwanuddin used to daily come to his house after consuming liquor and beat her and she was sick of her life.It was incorrect to suggest that Sayara Bano never told her that the appellant used to harass her and taunt her by saying that her father had given junk in the dowry.It was incorrect to suggest that the accused persons (before the trial court) were not responsible for the death of Sayara Bano.That Rs.25,000/- were demanded from Sayara and she was asked to bring the said amount from the parental house.PW-8 further deposed that Sayara Bano had taken Rs.25,000/- from his wife after 4/5 months of her marriage and had handed over the same to the accused persons (before the trial court).After 1/2 months, his daughter, Sayara Bano further told him that the accused persons were demanding one flat and a sum of Rs. 25,000/-.His daughter, Sayara Bano, also told him that the accused persons were threatening that their demands have to be fulfilled at any cost.On the night of 27/28.9.1998, he received a telephone call that his daughter, Sayara Bano, was seriously ill and he should come back to Delhi.On 28.9.1998, when he reached Delhi Airport at about 9:45 a.m., his relatives told him that his daughter had sustained burn injuries and had expired.Again said that his relatives informed him that his daughter had been burnt to death.His statement, Ex.PW-8/A, bears his signature and thumb impression at the place marked A. PW-8 also identified the dead body of his daughter and the SDM had recorded his statement Ex.PW-8/B which bears his signature and thumb impression at point A.In the cross-examination by learned APP, PW-8 deposed that it was incorrect that he himself had handed over Rs.25,000/- to his daughter for handing over the same to the accused persons.Again said he had handed over Rs.25,000/- to his daughter for handing over the same to the accused persons and at that time his wife was also there.In the cross-examination by counsel for the appellant, PW-8 deposed that it was correct that his daughter, Sayara Bano, and Rizwanuddin used to reside on the top floor of the house in a small room.There was no kitchen on the top floor and kitchen was situated on the first floor.PW-8 deposed that after four months of the marriage he came to know from his daughter that she was being harassed by her husband Rizwanuddin, who used to beat her under the influence of liquor.PW-8 deposed that he had stated in his statement, Ex.PW-8/A, that his daughter used to come to his house on every Sunday.(Confronted with his statement Ex.As per PW-8, his daughter, Sayara Bano, met him about one month prior to the incident.At this stage, a Court question was also put:""Que.You have stated in your statement before SDM that I had left for Bhavnagar in connection with my business on 16- 9-98 whereas today you have stated in the Court that you had left for Bhavnagar about one and one fourth months prior to the incident and was way away to Bhavnagar during this period.Which of your statement is correct?My statement made before the Ld. SDM in this respect that I left for Bhavnagar on 16-9-98 is correct.PW-8 further deposed that in his statement made before the SDM, he had stated that the accused persons started harassing and beating his daughter after 3/4 months of the marriage.After 4/5 months of her marriage, his daughter, Sayara Bano, told him that there was a demand of Rs.25,000/-.However, they did not make any demand directly from him.PW-8 further deposed that he paid the amount of Rs.25,000/- after one week of the demand made by the appellants.When the money was given to his daughter, Sayara Bano, he was present in his house.He had told the SDM that the accused persons were demanding Rs.25,000/- from his daughter.(Confronted with his statement Ex.PW-8/A where the name of appellant, Rehmat for demand of Rs.25,000/- was not mentioned).But PW-8 could not tell as to whom the money was handed over by his daughter after she took Rs.25,000/- from them.His daughter was depressed as her husband, Rizwanuddin, used to come to home after consuming liquor daily and used to beat her.PW-8 deposed that he had stated in his statement to the SDM that after 1/2 months after the first amount was paid, his daughter told him that there was a demand for a flat and a sum of Rs.25,000/-.(Confronted with the statement, Ex.No chance prints were found present there.In the cross-examination by counsel for the appellant, PW-10 deposed that the plastic can which was found present at the spot was of 2/2 lt. of capacity.The stove was made of iron and its tank was of round shape, which was almost full.The stove was found outside the kitchen in open space within a radius of one meter.PW-10 further deposed:I did not find any blackening sign of smoke on the walls at the second floor at the place of incident.I did not observe any burn marks on the floor on the second floor as the water was found lying at the place of incident.PW 12, Sh.Raj Kumar, SDM deposed that on 28.09.1998, information was received from the police regarding admission of Sayara in LNJP hospital, in burnt condition.He went to LNJP Hospital for recording statement of Sayara, but the doctor declared her unfit for statement.On 29.09.1998, he went to the mortuary of the hospital, where he recorded the statement, Ex. PW8/B of Intzar Anhmed and statement of Naushad Ahmed which is Ex. PW12/A. Both the relatives of deceased identified the dead body of Sayara.On the same day, he recorded the statement of Rauf Nisha which was Ex. PW3/B and she put her RTI at point A and also signed the same in his presence.He also recorded the statement of Intzar Ahmed which was Ex. PW8/A and Intzar Ahmed put his LTI and signatures at point A in his presence.The dead body of deceased, Sayara was thereafter sent for post-mortem vide his application, Ex. PW12/C .PW-16, SI Subodh Kumar has deposed that on 28.09.1998 he was posted at P.S. Turqman Gate.He left alongwith HC Anit Dutt to the spot at 1796, Turqman Gate and found an iron stove containing kerosene oil, one piece of cloth of Mehroon colour (some hair were sticking to it) and smell of kerosene oil was coming from it.He also found one plastic can from which smell of kerosene oil was coming out; one match box of slims brand which was half burnt.PW-16 correctly identified the stove (Ex. P1), plastic can (Ex. P2), cloth piece (Ex. P3) and match box (Ex. P4).In the cross-examination by counsel for the appellants, PW-16 deposed that the tank of stove was still having some kerosene but the same was partly empty and that he could not tell as to how much kerosene was found in the same.As per PW-16 he also found a gas stove inside the kitchen which was other than the stove recovered by him.Further he did not notice any marks of smoke either on the walls or on the ceiling of the second floor.The place of occurrence was an open place.He did not notice marks of smoke either on the second floor including the stairs coming down to first floor.PW-16 voluntarily deposed that the floor of the second floor was probably washed with water.He further deposed that it was incorrect to suggest that he did not conduct the investigation properly and fairly.PW-17, Dr.Sunita Kaushik has deposed that on 28.09.1998, she was working in JPN Hospital as Sr.Resident in the Burns and Plastic Surgery Department.On that day, one Mr.Rizwan r/o.1796 Turqman Gate, Delhi, was brought with the alleged history of sustaining burns while saving his wife, whose clothes had caught fire by cooking on kerosene oil stove.The history was given by the patient i.e. Rizwan himself.On examination, patient was found to have second superficial burns on both hands and a small patch on the nasal tip and cheeks.PW-17 deposed that the MLC Ex.PW-17/A was under his hand and bears his signature at point A.25. PW-19, Dr.Reena Pal has deposed that on 28.09.1998 she was working as Junior Resident in JPN Hospital, New Delhi.On that date at about 2:45 a.m. w/o Rizwan r/o 1796 Turqman Gate, Delhi was brought by Kayam, the brother-in-law of Sayara with the alleged history of sustaining burn injuries as Dupatta had caught fire from stove.The alleged history was given by the person who brought the patient.PW- 19 deposed that on examination, she found vitals to be stable; chest, heart was also normal; patient was conscious and oriented.There were burn injuries over the face, chest, abdomen and arm of Sayara.PW-19 also deposed that she gave the necessary treatment to the patient and admitted her to the burns and plastic ward.She also deposed that the MLC, Ex.PW-16/A was prepared and the same bears her signature at point-A.On cross-examination by counsel for the appellant, PW-19 stated that when history was given by the person who had accompanied the patient, the patient was at some little distance.She further deposed that she did not remember as to whether the patient was within the hearing of the aforesaid information.A question was put to this witness by the Court, as to why she did not enquire the cause of injuries from the patient? The answer was given that, since the patient was suffering from 70% burns, it was not feasible to enquire from her.However, she was able to tell her name and her husbands name, but not the address.PW-19 deposed that it was incorrect that history as written in MLC, Ex.PW-16/A was given to her by the patient or that the history given ""by brought"" were added later at the instance of police.PW-21, Inspector J.P. Singh has deposed that he was the SHO at the time when case FIR No.279/98 was registered against Rizwanuddin.He has stated that the exhibits of this case were not sent to CFSL by SI Subodh Kumar.Counsel for appellant, Rehmat, has submitted that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to the material on record as well as the settled principles of law.As and when the aforesaid circumstances are established, a presumption of dowry death shall be drawn against the accused under section 113(B) of the EvidenceLearned counsel for the appellant contends that the trial Court committed a manifest error in convicting appellant, Rehmat and failed to appreciate the evidence as per the settled position of law.Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that neither any harassment was ever inflicted upon the deceased by appellant, Rehmat nor any demand for dowry was made by her.It is further submitted that even otherwise, there are material contradictions in the evidence of witnesses of the prosecution including PW-3 (mother of the deceased), who is the star witness of the prosecution.I have carefully examined the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses including the evidence of Rauf Nisha, mother of the deceased (PW-3).PW-3 has deposed in her examination-in-chief that whenever her daughter (Sayara Bano) used to visit the parental house (normally on Sundays), she used to complain that her mother-in-law (Rehmat) was not happy with the dowry brought by her and that her mother-in-law used to taunt her every time by saying that junk had been given in the dowry (Kabadi ka saman dia hai).As per PW-3, her daughter had also complained that her husband, Rizwanuddin used to consume liquor everyday and after which he would beat Sayara with a view to pressurize her to bring money from her parents.PW-3 has further stated that about four months prior to the incident (death of Sayara), PW-3 had also visited the matrimonial house of her daughter, Sayara along with Jethani, Salma (PW-5).At their house, both of them were abused by the appellant and threatened that in case they wanted Sayara to be alive, Rs.25,000/- should be immediately paid.Soon thereafter, Rs.25,000/- were handed over to Sayara for giving the same to her husband, Rizwanuddin.However, Sayara yet again complained that she was being harassed for bringing more dowry and about 15 days prior to the incident, Sayara had complained that another sum of Rs.25000/- and a flat was also demanded.PW-3 has further deposed that she had then visited the matrimonial house of her daughter, Sayara, along with her nephew, Miraj, however, both Rizwanuddin and Rehmat did not even care to hear them.As per PW-3, she had informed that her husband (PW-8) was out of station and as soon as he would come back they would consider the demands.I find that although PW-3 has stated in her examination-in-chief that about 15 days prior to the incident, her daughter, Sayara had complained that there was a demand of Rs.25000/- as well as a flat, however, during the cross-examination, PW-3 was confronted with her statement (Ex. PW3/B) made before the SDM on 29.09.1998 i.e. immediately on the next day of the death of Sayara Bano, where there was no mention of any incident about 15 days prior to the incident.PW- 3 was also confronted with her statement (Ex. PW3/B) wherein it was not mentioned that she had visited the matrimonial house of the deceased with her nephew Miraj.Further PW-3 admitted in her cross- examination that she did not have any direct talks with appellant, Rehmat in connection with the demand of dowry.On a careful analysis of the evidence of PW-3, I find that her major grievance of PW-3 is against Rizwanuddin (husband of the deceased) (who has since expired during the pendency of the appeal) and that her grievance against appellant, Rehmat pertains only to the fact that appellant, Rehmat used to taunt Sayara Bano that junk had been brought by her in dowry.I also find that PW-3 has admitted in her cross-examination that she never had any direct conversation with appellant, Rehmat with regard to demand of dowry.Further PW-3 has also deposed that when about four months prior to the incident (death of Sayara), PW-3 had visited the matrimonial house of Sayara, where after Rs.25,000/- were handed over to Sayara, the said amount was to be given to her husband, Rizwanuddin.None of the witnesses of the prosecution have deposed that any money in the form of dowry or otherwise was ever handed over to the appellant.Thus I find that it is not the case of PW-3 that Rs. 25,000/- were handed over to Sayara to be given to appellant, Rehmat or Rehmat benefited in any way from the amount received.In my considered opinion, on the basis of the evidence of PW-3, it cannot be said that cruelty or harassment was meted out to the deceased for or in connection with demand of dowry, by appellant, Rehmat, which had a live link between the demand and her death.Yet what is important is that there must exist a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned.In my considered opinion, from the deposition of PW-3, it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that soon before the death of Sayara Bano, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by appellant, Rehmat for and in connection with demand of dowry.In so far as PW-8 (father of the deceased) is concerned, I find that PW-8 was declared a hostile witness.His daughter also told him that both Rizwanuddin and Rehmat used to taunt her that they have been given junk (kabarh) in dowry and that they were demanding Rs.25,000/-.As per PW-8, after 4/5 months of the marriage, Sayara Bano also took Rs. 25,000/- from his wife (PW-3).However, during the cross-examination, PW-8 was confronted that in his statement (Ex. PW-8/A) before the SDM, the name of appellant, Rehmat was not mentioned for the demand of Rs. 25,000/-.Further as against his deposition in the examination-in-chief, PW-8 also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not know as to whom the amount of Rs. 25,000/- was handed over by Sayara Bano after she took the said amount from the parental house.Further while PW-3 (mother of the deceased) has deposed in her cross-examination that when she had given Rs. 25,000/- to her daughter, PW-8 was out of station, contrarily, PW-8 has deposed before the Court that when the money was given to his daughter, Sayara Bano, he was present at his house.The anomaly is very much evident.PW-8 also admitted that the appellant, Rehmat, never demanded any money directly from him.Even otherwise, as already held above, the payment of Rs. 25,000/- cannot be said to have a direct bearing on the death of Sayara Bano.PW-8 has further deposed that after the initial demand of Rs. 25,000/- having been fulfilled, after 1 months, his daughter had informed him that the appellants were demanding another sum of Rs. 25,000/- and also a flat.However, yet again during the cross-examination PW-8 was confronted with his statement (Ex. PW-8/A) wherein the demand of Rs. 25,000/- was not mentioned for the second time also.In so far as the allegation of PW-8 regarding the demand of flat is concerned, I find that it is not clearly borne out from the record that appellant Rehmat was behind the said demand.A careful reading of the evidence of PW-8 (father of the deceased) before the Court would also show that he has stated that his daughter Sayara Bano and Rizwanuddin (husband of the deceased) used to reside on the top floor of the house in a small room.PW-3 has also stated that it was correct that the kitchen of her daughter, Sayara Bano, and her husband was separate from the appellant, Rehmat.PW-3 also admitted in her cross-examination that her daughter, Sayara Bano, and her husband used to reside on the second floor of the house.On the second floor, there was one room and on kitchen.Appellant, Rehmat, with her other five sons and two daughters used to reside on the first floor of the house.As such, I find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that since Rehmat (mother-in-law of the deceased) was not residing on the same floor as where the deceased and her husband Rizwanuddin were residing, and that they had a separate kitchen, I find that appellant, Rehmat had no significant role to play in the married life of the couple and even otherwise, she would not have derived any benefit out of the demand of flat.In a case bearing similar facts and circumstances namely Prem Singh Vs.State of Haryana reported at (1998) 8 SCC 70, the Apex Court gave benefit of doubt to the accused and observed that, ""when A-2 was residing separately from her son and when there was no positive evidence on the record to show that either A-2 was instigating A-1 to demand additional amount of dowry/money or for that purpose telling him to cause ill-treatment or harassment to Sumitra, it would be unsafe to hold A-2 responsible for an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC.Moreover, such an additional payment of money was to benefit A-1 alone and not A-2 because there was no evidence on record to suggest that A-1 was helping A-2 either by giving some money and/or other benefits.If this be so, in our opinion, the High Court was not justified in convicting Shanti (A-2) for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.It is for this precise reason, we give benefit of doubt to A-2 and acquit her of the charge under Section 304-B IPC.""On a careful analysis of the evidence of all the three prime witnesses (PW-3, PW-5 and PW-8), I am of the considered view that the allegations for demand of dowry made against appellant, Rehmat (mother-in-law) are completely general in nature and only relate to the fact that appellant, Rehmat used to taunt the deceased that junk had been given in dowry.Both PW-3 (mother of the deceased) and PW-8 (father of the deceased) have stated that no amount was directly demanded by the mother-in-law or any amount was ever paid to her.However, relying upon their evidence, it is established that appellant, Rehmat (mother-in-law of the deceased), subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment and showed her dissatisfaction with the items of dowry and taunted the deceased.It is settled position of law that section 498-A, IPC creates a distinct and separate offence as against section 304-B, IPC.In section 498-A, IPC cruelty has been defined in the Explanation to the said section, through two limbs.The first limb of section 498-A defines cruelty in clause (a) of the Explanation as any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical).At the same time, I find that PW-5, Salma has also made a categorical statement that Sayara Bano had informed her that her mother-in-law, Rehmat used to harass her and taunt that junk had been given in dowry.Further as per PW-5, Sayara Bano had complained to her that Rizwanuddin used to daily consume liquor and beat Sayara Bano.PW-5 has also corroborated PW-3 (mother of the deceased) that on one occasion she had visited the matrimonial house of Sayara Bano along with PW-3 and that the mother-in-law of Sayara Bano had misbehaved and demanded Rs.25,000/- from them.In the cross-examination by counsel for the appellant, PW-5 has stated that when she visited the matrimonial house of Sayara Bano, the mother-in- law of Sayara Bano had misbehaved and the Nanad of Sayara Bano had quarrelled on account of cooking of food.Thus, on the basis of the evidence of PW-5, it can certainly be held that the acts of appellant Rehmat of harassment to Sayara Bano would certainly attract section 498-A, IPC but appellant Rehmat cannot be held guilty under section 304-B, IPC.Further I find that there is no evidence on record to suggest that appellant, Rehmat was present at the scene of the incident on the fateful night when Sayara Bano suffered burn injuries.Rizwanuddin (husband of the deceased) had examined himself as a defence witness.In his deposition, Rizwanuddin as DW-3 stated that he was a kabari by profession and on the fateful night intervening 12/13.09.1998, he had reached his house at around 12:15/12:30 a.m. As per Rizwanuddin he came late to the house as he had to load some vehicle in connection with his business.When he reached his house, his wife was sleeping.He woke her up and Sayara asked her to warm the food.She started preparing chapattis and since then there was no gas Sayara cooked the food outside the kitchen on a stove.She worked outside the kitchen because there was not much space in the kitchen which was of small size.While Sayara was doing all this, as per Rizwanuddin, he took a nap.Then he heard sound of cries and came out only to find that the maxi of Sayara was in flames.He got perplexed and tried to save Sayara from fire by using his hands and also made noise, ""Bachao Bachao"".At that time, his neighbour Arif and Arifs wife, Samsad came to his house.Arif then poured water on Sayara, which was lying in a tub.Thereafter Arif went downstairs to wake up Rehmat and other family members.I find that all the four defence witnesses have stated that appellant Rehmat, and other family members of the house were sleeping downstairs when the incident took place.It is settled position of law that defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment and equal respect as that of the prosecution and if after careful scrutiny of their evidence, the Court finds a portion thereof to be trustworthy and convincing, the same is to be relied upon.Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that Samsad, DW-1 (wife of Arif) has categorically deposed that Sayara Bano had herself informed that she had caught fire while she was preparing food for Rizwanuddin and the said portion of her evidence has not been appreciated by the learned trial Court.No doubt as per Rizwanuddin (DW-3) and Samsad (DW-1), when Sayara was being taken to the hospital, Sayara had informed Samsad that she had caught fire accidentally and further as per Rizwanuddin, (DW-3) Sayara had also given the history of her burns to the doctor in the hospital, however, I do not find merit in the deposition of Rizwanuddin and Samsad, inasmuch as, per the MLC, Ex. PW-16/A the history of sustaining burns injury, as the dupatta caught fire, was given by the person who brought the patient.PW-19, Dr.Reena Pal has also affirmed before the Court that the alleged history of accidentally receiving burns was given by the person who brought the patient.PW-19 has deposed that on 28.09.198 while she was working as Junior Resident in JPN Hospital, New Delhi, on that date at about 2:45 a.m. w/o Rizwan r/o 1796 Turqman Gate, Delhi was brought by Kayam, the brother-in-law of Sayara with the alleged history of sustaining burn injuries as her Dupatta had caught fire from stove.The alleged history was given by the person who brought the patient.PW-19 also deposed that on examination, she found that there were burn injuries over her face, chest, abdomen and arm of Sayara.She also deposed that she gave the necessary treatment to the patient and the patient was admitted to the burns ward.She also deposed that the MLC Ex.PW-16/A was prepared and the same bears her signature at point-A. PW-19 was categorically questioned by the Court as to why did she not enquire the cause of injuries from the patient? PW-19 answered that since the patient was having 70% burns it was not feasible to enquire from her.PW-19 stated that it was incorrect to suggest that the history written in the MLC, Ex. PW-16/A was given by the patient or that the history given ""by brought"" was added later, at the instance of the police.Nothing has been brought on record to show that Dr. Reena Pal was deposing falsely or that she was a false witness.Dr. Reena Pal, PW-19 is an independent witness and was firm in her deposition before the Court that the person who had brought Sayara to the hospital, had given the history of burns received by Sayara.The Post Mortem Report is Ex. PW14/A and bears his signatures at point A which I identify.As per section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, which pertains to the chapter relating to 'relevancy of facts', the opinion of any erson acquainted with the handwriting of the person who is alleged to have signed the document is relevant.Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under:""47. Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant.-- When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.Explanation.--A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him.""In the present case, PW-14 on being shown the post mortem report, deposed that the same was in the handwriting of Dr. Vinod Chauhan and bears his signatures.Since PW-14 has categorically identified the post mortem report, it cannot be said that the same has not been proved.Learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that the material seized by the prosecution was admittedly not sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the same certainly affects the credibility of the case set up by the prosecution.I find that PW-16, SI Subodh Kumar has deposed that on 28.09.1998 he was posted at P.S. Turqman Gate and at the spot he found an iron stove containing kerosene oil; one piece of cloth of Mehroon colour (some hair were sticking to it) and smell of kerosene oil was coming from it; one plastic can from which smell of kerosene oil was coming; and, one match box of slims brand which was half burnt.PW-3, mother of the deceased has given firm evidence against her with regard to this fact.The evidence of PW-5 and PW-8 also lends support in this regard.","['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"MP(MD)No.7580 of 2018 in Crl.542 of 2018, dated 25.09.2018 (Thangam (Mathalai Muthu Vs.The Executive First Class Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul); and (08).Order of this court passed in Crl.MP(MD)No.8387 of 2018 in Crl.585 of 2018, dated 28.02.2019 (Amalraj Vs.The Executive First Class Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul).07.02.2020 er To, The Superintendent of Prison,http://www.judis.nic.in 10 Central Prison, Trichyhttp://www.judis.nic.inThis criminal revision is directed against the order passed in MC No.385/2019, dated 23.09.2019 by the first respondent.2.It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent police foisted cases against him in Crime No.188 of 2018 for the offence under sections 147, 148, 302 IPC @ 148, 149, 302 IPC and in Crime No.282 of 2019 for the offence under section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(11)(A) of NDPS Act and History Register No.06 of 2018 of East Police Station, Virudhunagar.The 1st respondent issued summons to appear him on 27.08.2019 and on that day, he was not furnished with any document relating to the proceedings initiated against him under section 110(e) of the Criminal Procedure Code and further the respondents 1 and 2 did not permit the petitioner to represent his case before the 1st respondent through Advocate.Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this court.http://www.judis.nic.in 33.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.4.The main contention raised on the side of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent did not provide reasonable opportunity to defend the case before passing the impugned order.It is the further contention of the petitioner that when without giving reasonable opportunity to defend his case, any order passed by the Executive Magistrate can be set aside.For that, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the following judgments:-01.AIR (33) 1946 Allahabad 333 (Narain Sahai and others Vs.Emperor);OP(MD)No.6841 of 2015, dated 10.04.2015(Malathi Vs.State);(03).2016 CRI.L.J. 4603 (Bala Vs.Administrative Executive Magistrate, Trichy City);(04).Order of this court passed in Crl.O.P(MD)No.7591 of 2017, dated 21.04.2017 (Rajkumar Vs.State);(05).2017(1)TLNJ 516 (Criminal) (Sivashanmuga Sundaram Vs.The Executive Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner of Police L & O, Tirunelveli and two others);http://www.judis.nic.in 4 (06).Order of this Court made in Crl.R.C.No.505 of 2017, dated 05.07.2017 (Selvam @ Selvaraj Vs.The Executive Magistrate-cum- Deputy Commissioner of Police, (Law & Order, Crime and Traffic), Tiruppur City and another);(07).Order of this court passed in Crl.The 1st respondent passed the impugned order mechanically.The 3rd respondent is directed to set at liberty the revision petitioner, if his further detention is no longer required in connection with any other case or proceedings.Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.28.02.2020 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er Note:Issue order copy on 28.02.2020 To,1.The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate/ The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.2.The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar East Police Station, Virudhunagar District.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J er Order made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.971 of 2019 28.02.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 9 Crl.RC(MD)No.66 of 2020 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J ADVANCE ORDER In fine, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in MP No.1 of 2019 in M.C.No.21/2019/A4, dated 23.04.2019 is set aside.The 3rd respondent is directed to set at liberty the petitioner/detenu, if his further detention is no longer required in connection with any other case or proceedings.Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.","['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"After trial, the trial court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 304 (A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment; under Section 338 IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment, under Section 184 of the M.V.Act to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo two weeks simple Imprisonment and for the offence under Section 411 read with 177 of the M.V.Act, to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo one week simple imprisonment.Against which, the accused has filed Crl.Aggrieved by the order passed by the first appellate Court, the petitioner/accused has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.The case of the prosecution is that on 08.3.2005 at about 8.30 p.m., at Tharamani, C.P.T.Road, near V.H.S.Hospital, the accused drove the tempo traveler van bearing Registration No.TN01-K-4353 from South to north direction in a negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the motorcycle bearing registration Nos.TN07 AD 1649 and TN07 AB 8276, as a result, the driver of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN07 AD 1649 died on the spot due to the grievous head injuries and the driver of the another motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN07-AB 8276 also sustained grievous injuries on his right hand and left leg.In this context, the defacto complainant had given a complaint based on which the accused was proceeded with for the offences as mentioned above.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not argue on merits but confined his argument only on the question of sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accident had occurred only due to the negligent act of the deceased two wheeler, who driven the vehicle in a rash manner.Therefore, the learned Government Advocate prays for dismissal of the revision.I have heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent State and perused the materials on record.The trial court convicted the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Section 304 (A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment; under Section 338 IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment, under Section 184 of the M.V.Act to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo two weeks simple Imprisonment and for the offence under Section 411 read with 177 of the M.V.Act, to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo one week simple imprisonment, out of which the petitioner has already paid the fine amount.It is further directed that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards compensation to the credit of C.C.No.3354 of 2005 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.On such deposit being made, the trial Court shall hand over the said amount to the victim as well as to the family of the deceased, on proper identification.The Legal Representatives of the deceased will be paid Rs.20,000/- and the injured victim will be paid Rs.5,000/- as compensation from the above amount.It is also made clear that if the petitioner fails to pay the compensation amount within the time stipulated by this Court, he shall undergo the remaining period of sentence as ordered by the Courts below and this order will not enure to the benefit of the accused.The trial court is directed to take necessary steps as are necessary to secure the presence of the petitioner for undergoing the above said period of sentence.It is needless to say that the sentence already undergone by the petitioner can be given set off as contemplated under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.With the above modification in sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.09.09.2015gaIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / NoToThe Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC-I)The IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.B. RAJENDRAN, JgaCRL.RC.No. 48 of 201009.9.2015","['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Respondents No.2 and 3 are unserved.On payment of process fee by registered AD as well as by ordinary mode, notice be issued to the respondents No.2 and 3 for final hearing, be returnable within six weeks.After service of the respondents, appeal be listed for consideration of I.A.No.7301/2013 along with M.A.No.919/2013 arising out of the same award.Both the appeals be listed separately for analogous hearing.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, two weeks time is granted for argument on admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Manish Kumar Soni, Advocate for the appellant.For admission, record of the Workmen Compensation be called for within four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.For admission, record of the Claims Tribunal be called for within four weeks.List thereafter for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-List thereafter.List after two weeks.Shri Rajendra Pandey, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents.In compliance of the order dated 15.1.2014, reply of IAs no.10629/12, 10632/12 and 10633/12 has not been filed by the respondents.List after two weeks.None for the appellant.Record of the Claims Tribunal has already been received.List after four weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Record of the Claims Tribunal has not been received.Office is directed to take appropriate steps in this regard.List thereafter for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-List after a week.Shri Rakesh Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on admission.On perusal of the record it is evident that no document has been produced by the petitioner on record to show that when the order dated 20.8.2014 was submitted before the authority, owing to which, prima facie, no contempt is made out.At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks two weeks time to produce the document on record for the same.List after four weeks.Petitioner is directed to produce original receipt of Speed Post whereby the representation was sent to the concerned authority.List after three weeks.As prayed by counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks for admission.List after four weeks.Petitioner is directed to submit copy of the order dated 7.1.2014 passed in W.P.No.8610/2013 within 3 weeks.List after three weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sanjay Sarwate, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on admission.Record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.After service of the respondents and receipt of the record, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri R.B. Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent no. 2 / State.Heard on admission.Record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents no.1 and 3 only for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.After service of the respondents and receipt of the record, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-List immediately after winter vacation at the top of the list.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri A.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri R. B. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri R. Badkur, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri A. Gulatee, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri O.P. Dwivedi, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri Himanshu Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri Sanjay Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri P.K. Saxena, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri D.K. Patel, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri Prabhat Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on admission.Record of the learned Claims Tribunal be called for.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for final hearing, be made returnable within 8 weeks.After service of the respondents, this appeal be listed along with MA No. 2255/2014 arising out of the same award for final hearing in due course.Shri Pushpendra Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the compliance has been made by the respondents yet copy of the said compliance report has not been received to him.Hence, he seeks four weeks time for further consideration of this petition.The prayer is accepted.List after four weeks.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri A. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Smt. Sudha Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Smt. Sudha Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri Vinod Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner.IA No.16307/2014 filed by the petitioner for taking the documents on record is allowed.Heard on the question of admission.Shri A.K. Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner.On payment of process fee within 7 days by registered /AD mode, notice be issued to the respondents for submitting reply of the petition as well as compliance report within four weeks, be made returnable within six weeks.List after six weeks.None for the appellant.Record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.List thereafter.Service report be called for within four weeks.List thereafter.Heard on the question of admission.Appellant / accused is present in person along with his Advocate Shri Rajeev Kumar Shukla.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent/State.Shri Nitiraj Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.Parties are directed to remain present before the Registrar (J) day-after-tomorrow i.e. on 20/12/2014 for verification of the compromises application.Thereafter, list for consideration of the compromise application.List after four weeks for consideration on the said issue.Office is directed to take necessary steps in this regard within four weeks.After receipt of the same, list for admission.None for the appellant.Order dated 26.11.2014 has not been complied with so far.Again four weeks time is granted to comply with the said order, failing which, this appeal shall be dismissed on the next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri P. N. Verma, Advocate for the applicant.For leave of the appeal record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.Shri P. C. Paliwal, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondent no. 1 though served and on his behalf, Shri K. N. Sushil Agrawal, Advocate has filed his Wakalatnama.Shri Devendra Shukla, PL for the respondent no. 2 / State.On payment of process fee within 15 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondent no. 2 for final hearing, be made returnable within 8 weeks.After service of the respondent no.2, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri D.K. Dixit, Advocate for the appellant.Shri P. Sabu, Advocate for the respondents.Interim order of the aforesaid date is hereby confirmed till final disposal of the appeal.Appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Y.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on IA No.12767/2013 filed by the appellant for amendment in the appeal.Considering the facts stated in the application, the said IA is allowed.Shri M. Ali , Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ashok Lalwani, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ashok Tiwari, Advocate for the applicants.Heard on the question of admission.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for admission, be made returnable within six weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Prabhakar Singh, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.For admission, record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.List thereafter.None for the applicant.Since none is appearing on behalf of the applicant, list after four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri C. M. Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant.Shri A. N. Gupta, learned PL for the respondent / State.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, list after four weeks for admission.In the meanwhile, record of the trial court be called for.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri P. Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellant.Shri T.P. Chaturvedi, Advocate for the respondents no. 3 and 4A.IA No. 12217/2014 filed by the respondents no. 3 and 4A is not available on record.Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Jitendra Prasad, Advocate for the appellants.Shri Sandeep Kostha, Advocate for the respondents.Interim order dated 31.3.2004 is hereby confirmed till final disposal of the appeal.IA No. 1324/2004 is disposed of accordingly.As a result, IA No. 1779/2005 filed by the respondents is hereby dismissed.Appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Shri Maqbool Khan, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondent no. 1 though served and on its behalf, Shri S.P. Sethi and other Advocates have filed their Wakalatnama.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondents no. 2 to 6 / State.Notice issued to the respondent no. 7 has been returned unserved.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD with correct address, notice be issued to the respondent no.7 for final hearing, be made returnable within 8 weeks.After service of the said respondent, appeal be listed for final hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Deepak Pendharkar, Advocate for the applicant.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.As prayed by counsel for the applicant / accused, short adjournment is granted to file copy of the statement of the prosecutrix.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.It be produced on the next date of hearing.Meanwhile, a copy of the order dated 7.11.2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 16098/2014 be produced.Shri Sarthak Shrivastava, Advocate for the applicant.List after two weeks.Shri S. B. Shrivastava, Advocate for the applicant.It be produced on the next date of hearing.Meanwhile, a copy of the order dated 7.11.2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 16098/2014 be produced.Shri Amit Jain, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.Meanwhile, a copy of the order dated 16.10.2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 16640/2014 be produced.Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.Statement of only one seizure witness namely Kaluram has been got recorded by the prosecution before the trial court on 7.10.2014 and statements of another seizure witness and Investigating officer are to be recorded before the trial court.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, list after a week.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Pawan Gurjar, Advocate for the applicants.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List after a week.Appellant is directed to remain present before this Court on 4.2.2015 for consideration of the said IA.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the applicant / accused.Office is directed to take appropriate steps for calling the record of the courts below within four weeks.List thereafter for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the applicant / complainant.Shri A. N. Gupta, learned PL for the respondent No.1 / State.Since none is appearing on behalf of the applicant, case is adjourned with a direction that if on the next date of hearing none appears to pursue this revision, it shall be decided on merit.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Pawan Gurjar, Advocate for the applicant.Shri A. N. Gupta, learned PL for the respondent / State.This revision has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2006 framing the charge under Section 498-A of IPC against the applicant / accused.More than 8 years have elapsed.Shri Maqbool Khan, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondent no. 2 though served.Notices issued to the respondents no. 4 and 5 have been returned unserved.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD with correct address, notice be issued to the said respondents for final hearing as well as IA No.4745/2006, be made returnable within 8 weeks.After service of the said respondents, appeal be listed for consideration of the said IA.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Ankita Khare, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents though served.Appeal has already been admitted for final hearing.Hence, it be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ravindra Kumar Bisen, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after four weeks.Shri Vinit Mishra, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on admission.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Smt. Shobna Kostha, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on admission.Record of the Trial court be called for.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.This miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (R ) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 11.8.2014 dismissing an application filed by the appellant under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC for compromise of the suit.On perusal of the appeal memo it appears that this appeal does not come in the purview of Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC.At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant seeks two weeks time for argument on the maintainability of this appeal.List after two weeks.Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.Heard on admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.As prayed by counsel for the respondent no. 1, three weeks time is granted to file reply of the petition as well as compliance report.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shir S. P. Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Vidya Prasad, Advocate for the respondent.Hence, the respondent is directed to produce the inquiry report conducted by Shri Somwanshi within 3 weeks.List after three weeks.None for the appellant.IA No.12879/2007 filed by the respondents for early hearing is not available on record.Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Amit Ghurak, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondent no. 1 though served.Shri R. Choubey, PL for the respondent no.2 / State.Hence, it be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Notice issued to the respondent has been returned unserved with a report that the noticee does not reside at the mentioned address.Since none is appearing on behalf of the respondent, the case is adjourned with a direction that if on the next date of hearing none appears to pursue this appeal, it shall be dismissed for want of prosecution.List after four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Notice issued to the respondent has been returned unserved with a report that the noticee does not reside at the mentioned address.Since none is appearing on behalf of the respondent, the case is adjourned with a direction that if on the next date of hearing none appears to pursue this appeal, it shall be dismissed for want of prosecution.List after four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.None for the respondents no. 1, b, c, d and 5,6, 7 & 8, though served.Since none is appearing on behalf of the appellant, the case is adjourned with a direction that if on the next date of hearing none appears to pursue this appeal, it shall be dismissed for want of prosecution.List after four weeks for further orders.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Surendra Verma, Advocate for the applicant.Respondent no. 1 is reported to have died.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent no. 2 / State.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the LR's of the deceased respondent no.1 for IAs No.15074/2014, 15075/2014 and 9157/2005, be made returnable within 8 weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri R. K. Samaiya, Advocate for the appellants.None for the respondents.Counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw IA No.11912/2013 filed for restraining the respondents from making the construction over the disputed vacant land.Hence, the said IA is dismissed as withdrawn.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Vinod Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Priyank Khandelwal, Advocate for the respondents no. 1 to3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order dated 11.11.2014 has not been complied with by the appellant.Appellant is directed to comply with the said order today positively, failing which, the effect of the order dated 9.10.2014 shall stand vacated automatically.As per earlier order record be called for within 3 weeks positively.Shri R.L.Ariha, Advocate for the appellants.Notices issued to the respondents no. 1 to 3 have not been returned either served or unserved.Let service report be called for within four weeks.Heard on admission.Interim order dated 13.10.2014 is hereby confirmed till final disposal of the appeal.Record of both the courts below be called for.Shri N.K. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Shri Sobhitaditya, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Shri Devesh Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Shri Ashish Patel, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Shri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners.Heard on the question of admission.Shri Ajeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Smt. Kamlesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Shri R.C. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Shri K.N. Pethia, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri M. Aadil Usmani, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri D. Shukla, learned PL for the respondent no. 2 / State.List on 8.1.2015 for consideration of the said application.Shri Vijay Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner.None for the respondent no. 3 though served.As prayed by counsel for the respondents, two weeks time is granted to file reply as well as compliance report.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Anand Kumar Verma, Advocate for the appellant.Office is directed to trace out the record and place it on record on the next date of hearing.List in the week commencing 19.1.2015 for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Rajesh Sen, Advocate for the appellant.As per Mediator report dated 25.2.2013, proceeding for mediation has failed.List for admission after four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Office is directed to take appropriate steps in this regard promptly within three weeks.List thereafter.List after three weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Pramod Kumar Sahu, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on admission.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for final hearing, be made returnable within 8 weeks.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri H.D. Khan, Advocate for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in compliance of the order dated 26.8.2011 the amount has been deposited by the appellant.Heard on admission.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Shri T. C. Lakhera, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondent no.1 though served and on his behalf Shri Sachin Sisodiya, Advocate has filed his Wakalatnama.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, two weeks time is granted for argument on admission.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, two weeks time is granted to comply with the said order.If the said order is not complied with by the appellant, this appeal shall be dismissed on the next date of hearing.None for the respondents no. 1, 2 and 4 though served and on their behalf Shri Pankaj Dixit, Advocate has filed his Wakalatnama.For admission, record of the learned Claims Tribunal be called for within four weeks.List thereafter.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing at motion stage after 8 weeks.Record of the trial court has not been received.Office is directed to take appropriate steps in this regard.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing at motion stage after 8 weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sharad Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sharad Punj, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on admission.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents no. 1, 2 and 4 for final hearing, be made returnable within 8 weeks.Appellant is directed to supply copy of appeal memo to the respondents no. 3 and 5 within five days.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for IA No.7498/2009, be made returnable within 8 weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sudeep Patel, Advocate for the appellant.With the consent of counsel for both the parties, the matter is referred to the Lok Adalat.List on 13.12.2014 in the Lok Adalat.List after four weeks.Shri Sandeep Koshtha, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.Bail application of co-accused Vishnu was decided by this Court vide order dated 21.7.2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No.10436/2014, owing to which, this application of co-accused Lekhram has been listed before this court for hearing.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, this application be listed after two weeks before this Bench.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Abhijeet Awasthi, Advocate for the applicant.Heard on IA No.15914/2014 filed by the applicant for amendment in the cause title.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondent no.3 for admission, be made returnable within 8 weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Vikalp Soni, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents no.2 and 3 though served and on their behalf, Shri Avinash Zargar, Advocate has filed their Vakalatnama.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the State.Heard on the question of admission.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondent no.1 for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, IA No.3680/2005 filed by the appellant under Section 151 of CPC to direct the trial court to frame a formal decree is hereby dismissed as not pressed.Heard on IA No. 5193/2005 filed by the appellant for takign a document Certified copy of the decree.Shri Parag Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellants.None for the respondent though on his behalf Shri H. K. Yadav, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama.MCP No.396/2004 filed by the respondent under Section 151 of CPC for vacating the stay order dated 1.8.2003 is hereby rejected for want of prosecution.Appeal has already been admitted for final hearing.Hence, it be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Amit Verma, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Devendra Shukla, PL for the respondent / State.Hence, it be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.None for the remaining respondents.Order dated 10.9.2014 has not been complied with by the appellant.Since none is appearing on behalf of the appellant, one week time is granted to comply with the said order.If on the next date of hearing none appears to pursue this appeal, it shall be dismissed for want of prosecution.If it survives notice be issued to the respondents for their presence before this Court.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri T. Khadka, Advocate for the appellants.Shri Abhijeet A. Awasthi, Advocate for the respondent.Heard on IA No. 15171/2014 filed by the respondent for early hearing of the appeal which is pending since 2003 and the age of the respondent is near about more than 80 years.Appellants have no objection in allowing the application.With the consent of counsels for both the parties, the appeal be listed for final hearing on 7.1.2015 as short matter is involved in this appeal.With the consent of counsels for both the parties, this petition be listed in the next week.Appeal has been admitted vide order dated 2.11.2014 for final hearing.Hence, it be listed for final hearing in due course.Both appeals be listed separately.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.As per order dated 3.12.2014 this petition ought to have been listed before Hon'ble Justice Shri J. K. Maheshwari.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri B. R. Pandey, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Respondent / State is directed to submit the report regarding criminal antecedents of the applicant / accused within 7 days.List next week.Bail application of co-accused Kamal Nayan Pandey filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Hon.Shri J.K.Maheshwari,J) vide order dated 1.12.2014 passed in M.Cr.Bail application of co-accused Raghavendra filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Hon.Shri Sandeep Kostha, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.After investigation, charge sheet has already been filed.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, list after two weeks.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Heard on admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri U. K. Tripathi, Advocate for the appellants.Due to paucity of time, the matter could not be heard.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, case diary of cross case crime no.303/2014 Police Station Rehti, District Sehore be also produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Application shall be considered after filing the charge sheet.None for the appellant.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondents no. 2 and 3 / State.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondent no. 1 for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.After service of the respondent no. 1, appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.List thereafter.Appeal be listed alongwith MA No.1598/2007 in the week commencing 19.1.2015 for admission.Shri S. B. Shrivastava, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Learned counsel for the applicant / accused submits that this criminal revision has been wrongly listed for hearing today.On perusal of the order-sheet dated 13.10.2014, the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant appears to be correct.Therefore, this criminal revision be listed for final hearing in due course.Shri A. M. Lal, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents.Cross objection filed by the respondents on 21.2.2006 is taken on record as the delay in filing the same was condoned vide order dated 17.5.2006 and the court fees has already been paid by the respondents.None for the appellant.Shri Ranjeet Singh, Advocate for the respondents.Shri Pranay Verma, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Ajay Sen, Advocate for the respondent.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ishtiyaq Hussain, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Amit Nagpal, Advocate for the respondent.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-M. A.No.Shri Satyendra Jain, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondent no. 2 though served and on its behalf, Shri K. L. Raj, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama.None for the remaining respondents.Appeal be listed for for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the applicant / accused.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.List after four weeks.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.It be produced on the next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Warrant of arrest issued against the appellant for today i.e. on 5.12.2014 has not been returned either served or unserved.Let service report of warrant be called for within four weeks from the concerned Police Station.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Manoj Kumar Rajak, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, short adjournment is granted for argument.List next week.Shri Pradeep Sukhwani, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, two weeks time is granted for producing some documents.List after two weeks.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the son of the applicant Mohd. Hasan, Sultan also lodged a report on the same day bearing Crime No. 43/14 and the case has been registered against the complainant party.Hence, the case diary of cross case Crime No. 43/14 be also produced on the next date of hearing.Shri Devdatt Bhave, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents no. 1 to 3 though on their behalf Shri Dinesh Agrawal, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the State.Appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Shri Pramesh Jain, Advocate for the respondents.Appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.None for the appellant.Notice issued to the respondent has been returned unserved.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD with correct address, notice be issued to the respondent for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sushil Agarwal, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents no. 1 to 5 though served.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondent no. 6 for final hearing, be made returnable within 10 weeks.After service of the respondent no. 6, appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Brijesh Mishra, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondent no. 1 though served and on her behalf Shri Anil Dwivedi, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama.Respondents no. 2 to 5 are not served.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents no. 2 to 5 for MCP No.4973/2004, be made returnable within 8 weeks.Record of the trial court be called for.This appeal be listed alongwith FA No. 535/2004 arising out of the same judgment.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents no. 1 and 2 though served and on their behalf Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Advocate and his Associates have filed their Vakalatnama.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the State.Hence, it be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Manas Verma, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondents / State.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, adjournment is granted.List after four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents no. 1 and 2 though served and on their behalf Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Advocate and his Associates have filed their Vakalatnama.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the State.Hence, it be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ashok Kumar Barman along with his son Amit Barman are present in person.Shri A. Choubey, Advocate for the respondent.Shri K.K. Patel and Shri Nitin Gupta, Advocates for the Caveator.Heard arguments of both the parties.Reserved for judgment.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge PG/-Due to paucity of time, the matter could not be heard.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-C. V. Rao, Advocate for the appellant.Notices issued to the respondents no. 1 and 2 have not been returned either served or unserved.None for the respondent no. 3 though served.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, this appeal be sent for settlement in next Pre-sitting of the Lok Adalat on 10.12.2014 of the National Insurance Company.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Notices issued to the respondents have been returned unserved.Again on payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode with correct address, notice be issued to the respondents for IA No. 1411/2014, be made returnable within 10 weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Brijesh Mishra, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents no. 1 to 3 though on their behalf Shri Kunal Thakre and Shri Ankur Shrivastava, Advocates have filed their Vakalatnama.None for the respondents no. 5 and 6 though served.Notices issued to the respondents no. 7 and 8 have been returned unserved.On payment of fresh process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents no. 7 and 8 for final hearing, be made returnable within 8 weeks.Record of the Claims Tribunal be called for.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-List after four weeks.Shri Manoj Soni, Advocate for the appellant.Respondents no. 1 and 2 are not served.Though the respondent no. 3 has been served and none is appearing on his behalf yet it does not effect in this appeal because the respondent no. 3 National Insurance Company has already been exonerated by the learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned award.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents no.1 and 2 for final hearing, be made returnable within 8 weeks.After service of the respondents no.1 and 2, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.List after four weeks.None for the respondent no. 2 though served and on its behalf Shri T. S. Lamba, Advocate has filed his memo.However, respondent no. 2 Insurance Company has been exonerated by the learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned award.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondent no.1 for final hearing, be made returnable within 8 weeks.After service of the respondent no.1, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Considering the period of dispute, the prayer for early hearing is allowed.Two weeks' time is granted to move an application for condonation of applicant's absence for 1.10.2014 and the applicant no.2 / accused is directed to remain present before this Court on 14.1.2015 for consideration of the said application.Two weeks' time is granted to move an application for condonation of appellant's absence for 3.12.2014 and the appellant is directed to remain present before this Court on 9.1.2015 for consideration of the said application, failing which, warrant of arrest shall be issued against him.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Appellant / accused Jagdish is present along with his Advocate Shri O.P. Bagri.Shri Devendra Shukla, PL for the respondent / State.Two weeks' time is granted to move an application for condonation of appellant's absence for 20.12.2014 and the appellant is directed to remain present before this Court for consideration of the said application on 9.1.2015, failing which, warrant of arrest shall be issued against him.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Pawan Gurjar, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri B. P. Pandey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Applicant is directed to take appropriate steps within 2 weeks for impleading the complainant as respondent no. 2 in this petition.List after two weeks.Applicant is directed to take appropriate steps within 2 weeks for impleading the complainant as respondent no. 2 in this petition.List after two weeks.It be produced on the next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, short adjournment is granted to file some documents.The prayer is accepted.Counsel for the applicant submits that bail application of co- accused Kuldeep Tripathi filed under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. has been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Hon.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Parag Chaturvedi, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Umesh Pandey, Advocate for the respondent.Counsel for the respondent submits that the order has already been complied with and seeks one week's time to submit compliance report.The prayer is accepted.In the meanwhile, compliance report be filed.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Pawan Gurjar, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Shri Rahul Diwakar, Advocate for the objector.Case diary is available.In the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicant wants to file some documents and seeks short adjournment.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Hitendra Singh, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Counsel for the applicant undertakes to produce him on the next date of hearing.List on 9.1.2015 failing which warrant of arrest shall be issued against him.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Pushapraj Pandey, Advocate for the applicant.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.Shri Ranjeet Singh, Advocate for the applicant.Counsel for the respondents have opposed the prayer.As prayed, short adjournment is granted with a direction that if on the next date of hearing arguments are not advanced on behalf of the applicant, the effect of interim order shall be vacated.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Respondent no. 2 is not served.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant.In the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he wants to produce copy of the sale deed as well as cheques which were given to the sellers Nohari and Santrani and were deposited in their accounts.After service of the respondent no. 2, list for admission.Shri Rahul Tripathi, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Shri P. S. Chouhan, Advocate for the objector.Case diary is available.Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Rajneesh Kushwah, learned PL for the respondent / State.This appeal has already been admitted for final hearing.Hence, it be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-M. Cr.Shri Kasim Ali, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Rajneesh Kushwah, PL for the respondent / State.Respondent / State is directed to submit a report regarding criminal antecedents of the petitioner / accused within 7 days.List after 7 days.As per report dated 31.1.2014, OIC of the Record room, Jabalpur, it is evident that the original record of the trial court bearing criminal case no. 11976/2007 Judgment dated 31.1.2011 Sandeep Jain vs. Smt. Nandini Bais, Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, has already been eliminated, owing to which, original record cannot be transmitted to this Court.Now, the question that arises for consideration is that how the appeal can be entertained without original record.List after four weeks for consideration on the said issue.Shri Manish Jain, Advocate for the appellant.Shri B. P. Pandey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to produce the appellant / accused on 21.1.2015, failing which, warrant of arrest shall be issued against him.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ashutosh Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents no. 2 to 4 though served.On payment of process fee within 10 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondent no.1 for final hearing, be made returnable within six weeks.After service of the respondent no.1, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Two weeks' time is granted to remove the default.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Shamim Ahmed Khan, Advocate for the applicant.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, list the case day-after-tomorrow i.e. on 3/12/2014 at the top of the list.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-M. Cr.None for the petitioner.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Hence, the appellant is directed to file it in the office within 5 days.List after seven days.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.However, still investigation is incomplete.As per the order dated 14.11.2014 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hatta, District Damoh, it is evident that 29 criminal cases have been registered against the applicant / accused.Shri O.P. Tripathi, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Rajneesh Choubey, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, list after two weeks.Shri Pradeep Singh Chouhan, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.However, adjournment has been sought by counsel for the applicant / accused for argument.List after two weeks.None for the applicant.Shri Devendra Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.List after two weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Manish Jain, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Ramesh Kushwah, learned PL for the respondent / State.The said reply is not available on record.Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-List after four weeks.Shri Nitin Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Record of the Claims Tribunal be called for.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Shri Sudeep Patel, Advocate for the appellants.Heard on IA No. 12481/2008 filed by the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay which is of 9 days.No reply has been filed by the respondent no. 3 to oppose the application and counsel for the respondent no. 3 has no objection in allowing the same.Shri Amit vikram Pandey, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Shri Ranjeet Singh, Advocate for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.Thereafter, the instant contempt petition has been filed by the applicant.Now, the question that arises for consideration is that how this contempt petition is maintainable, whereas against the impugned order, a miscellaneous appeal should have been filed by the applicant.Shri Vivek Baderiya, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Shri Rajneesh Jain, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Anita Kaithwas, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Shri Sharad Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Shri Shakti Pandey, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Shri J.L. Mishra, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.List after four weeks.Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Smt. Sudha Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered/AD, notice be issued to the respondent no. 2 only for submitting reply of the petition, be made returnable within six weeks.List in the week commencing 2.2.2015 for further consideration.Shri G. S. Baghel, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Order dated 8.8.2014, Court of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Umaria, District Umaria and MJC No.17/10, Order dated 8.2.2012 be called for within four weeks.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered/AD, notice be issued to the respondents for admission as well as IA No. 15531/2014, be made returnable within eight weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-For admission, record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, on payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered/AD, notice be issued to the respondents for admission, be made returnable within eight weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri P.N. Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered/AD, notice be issued to the respondent no. 2 only for submitting reply of the petition, be made returnable within four weeks.List in the week commencing 12.1.2015 for further consideration.Shri Dipak Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.Counsel for the petitioner is directed to produce the documents whereby an intimation of the order dated 20.9.2013 was submitted to the Revisional authority.Two weeks' time is granted for the same.List after two weeks.Shri Pushpendra Dubey, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Shri Sharad Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed alongwith MA No. 4330/2008 for final hearing in due course.Shri Sharad Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed alongwith MA No. 4334/2008 for final hearing in due course.Shri Himanshu Chourasia, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Record of the Claims Tribunal be called for.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed along with MA No. 4737/2008 for final hearing in due course.Shri Abhishek Acharya, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondent no. 1 though served and on his behalf Shri Aseem Dixit, Advocate has filed his Wakalatnama.None for the respondent no.2 though served.None for the appellant.None for the respondent no. 1 though served.Since none is appearing on behalf of the appellant, case is adjourned with a direction that if on the next date of hearing none appears to pursue the matter, it shall be dismissed for want of prosecution.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Chhoti Kushram, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Smt. Alka Singh, Advocate for the appellant.A receipt depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has not been filed by the appellant on record.Counsel for the appellant seeks two days' time for the same.Record of the Claims Tribunal be called for within 6 weeks.List thereafter.None for the appellant.Record of the Claims Tribunal be called for within four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.The order dated 12.12.2008 has not been complied with by the appellant.Since none is appearing on behalf of the appellant, case is adjourned with a direction that if on the next date of hearing none appears to pursue the matter, it shall be dismissed for want of prosecution.List after four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Deepak Pendharkar, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondent no. 1 though served.Notice issued to the respondent no. 2 for 21.11.2014 has not been returned either served or unserved.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, again notice be issued to the respondent no.2 for final hearing, be made returnable within eight weeks.After service of the respondent no.2, appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Therefore, applicant is directed to submit certified copy of the said order within four weeks.List after four weeks.Therefore, applicant is directed to submit certified copy of the said order within four weeks.List after four weeks.Shri Mahesh Prasad Shukla, Advocate for the applicants.Heard on IA No.15603/2014 filed by the applicants for taking the application filed by them for bringing the LR's on record.Hence, the applicants are directed to cure the defect.List after a week.Let this application be listed alongwith SA.No.53/2004 dismissed vide order dated 24.2.2014, after two weeks.List on 16.12.2014 for further orders.Shri Pramod Thakre, Advocate for the appellant.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, a week's time is granted for argument.List on 15.12.2014 for admission along with MA No. 3097/2009 arising out of the same award.As per order dated 22.9.2009, record of the Claims Tribunal be called for immediately.List thereafter.Record of the Claims Tribunal be called for within four weeks.List for admission after record is received.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Shri A. D. Mishra, Advocate for the respondents.Counsel for the respondents submits that civil suit bearing no. 17A/97 has already been decided by the trial court and the counsel seeks for a week's time to file copy of the judgment.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Shakti Pandey, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Brijesh Mishra, Advocate for the respondents.As prayed by counsel for both the parties, let this case be sent to Lok Adalat.List after four weeks.Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, list for final hearing in due course.Shri Priyank Choubey, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.After service of the respondents, list for final hearing in due course.List the case at the top of the list on 27.11.2014 for admission.List after two weeks.Shri V.C.Rai, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Petitioner is directed to clarify the plots no. 341 and 2506, on which basis, the aforesaid plots have been made at the spot.List after two weeks.Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered/AD, notice be issued to the respondent for admission, be made returnable within four weeks.Record of the trial court be requisitioned.List in the week commencing 5.1.2015 for admission.One week's time is granted to file additional documents.List after a week.Shri Makbool Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.This petition be listed alongwith SA No.117/2006, Decided on 17.9.2014, after a week.None for the applicant.List after three weeks.None for the petitioner.List after three weeks.List after two weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Manoj Rajak, Advocate for the petitioner.None for the respondents though served.As prayed by counsel for the petitioner, list after four weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Rajneesh Chaurasia, Advocate for the appellant / accused.Shri R. P. Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.Learned counsel for the appellant / accused undertakes to produce him within four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant.Shri A. Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.In compliance of the order dated 5.11.2014, the report regarding nature of the injuries of the injured has not been received.Respondent / State is directed to produce the same in the next week.Shri Shailendra Singh, Advocate for the applicant.This application shall be considered after filing the charge sheet.Shri Abhinav Dubey, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned PL for the respondent / State.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.Shri Ashish Gulatee, Advocate for the applicant.Shri P.S. Chaturvedi, Advocate for the respondent.With the consent of counsel for both the parties, list on 17.11.2014 for final hearing at motion stage.IR shall remain continued till next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ashish Giri, Advocate for the applicants.As prayed by counsel for the respondents, short adjournment is granted.No further adjournment shall be granted on the next date of hearing.None for the respondent.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K. Rohan, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri A. D. Mishra, Advocate for the respondent.List on 10.12.2014 for consideration of the IA No.563/2014 alongwith M.Cr.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K. Rohan, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Chandrapal Singh, Advocate for the respondent.Two weeks' time is granted to submit reply of IA No. 562/2014 filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay.List on 10.12.2014 for consideration of the said IA.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Umesh Kumar Vaidya, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.In compliance of the order dated 11.9.2014, office is directed to call for the current status report of criminal case no. 2725/2008 pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsinghpur (Shri Pranaydeep Thakur), within four weeks.Respondent / State is also directed to submit the report.As prayed by counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 4, two weeks' time is granted.List on 12.12.2014 for admission.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant / accused passed away near about 3 to 4 months ago.He was murdered.Respondent / State is directed to call for the report regarding death of the applicant / accused within 3 weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Pawan Gurjar, Advocate for the applicant.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.None for the applicant.Since none is appearing on behalf of the applicant, list after four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri A. Shivhare, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent no.1 / State.As prayed by counsel for the petitioner, two weeks time is granted for argument.List thereafter for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri A. Shivhare, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.As prayed by counsel for the petitioner, two weeks time is granted for argument.List thereafter for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Amit Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.For admission, record of both the courts below be called for.List thereafter.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Aseem Dixit, Advocate for the petitioner.It be produced on the next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pawan Gurjar, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.It be produced on the next date of hearing.Petitioner may file copy of the charge sheet also.Meena Khera, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri A. Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.List this petition alongwith Cri.A. No.3268/2013 disposed of on 21.3.2014 after a week.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.The complainant Abhisheik Ahirwar has not been made party in this petition, whereas the petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. for quashing an FIR, Crime No. 656/13 as well as charge sheet.List next week.Shri Akhil Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri A. Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.The complainant Shahnaj Bano has not been made party in this petition, whereas the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. for quashing an FIR, Crime No. 32/14, Woman Police Station Satna (MP) as well as further proceedings of the trial pending before the trial court.One week's time is granted to move an appropriate application in this regard.List next week.Shri Vikas Mahavar, Advocate for the petitioners.Shri A. Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.As prayed by counsel for the petitioners, one week's time is granted.List after one week for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri S. C. Datt, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pawan Gurjar, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri A. Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Petitioner is directed to move an application for impleading the complainant Smt. Ritu Goel as respondent no. 2 who lodged an FIR, Crime No. 26/13, Police Station Cantt, District Jabalpur (MP).One week's time is granted for the same.List after one week.For admission, record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.List thereafter.List after two weeks.Shri S.K. Patel, Advocate for the petitioners.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.The complainant Jitendra Singh @ Hakke Munna has not been made party in this petition, whereas the petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. for quashing an FIR, Crime No. 72/13, Police Station Devendranagar, District Panna (MP).As prayed by counsel for the petitioners, one week's time is granted.List after one week.List after two weeks.Shri Ashish Kurmi, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, two days time is granted to produce the statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the trial court.List next week.Jailaxmi Ayer, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the State.None for both the parties.List after two weeks.List after four weeks.Shri Wakeel Khan, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, short adjournment is granted to produce a copy of the report submitted by the police before the court below.As stated by counsel for the applicant, bail application of the co-accused Dinesh Kumar Napit filed under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. was decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Hon.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.None for the petitioner/ accused.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.Record of both the courts below be called for.After receipt of the same, revision be listed for admission as well as consideration of IA No.20201/2014 filed by the petitioner for suspension of sentence.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ashok Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.For admission, record of the trial court be called for.After receipt of the record, the appeal be listed for admission as well as consideration of IA No.21263/2014 filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.For admission, record of the trial court be called for.After receipt of the record, the appeal be listed for admission as well as consideration of IA No.20923/2014 filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Om Prakash Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.For admission, record of the trial court be called for.After receipt of the record, the appeal be listed for admission as well as consideration of IA No.20970/2014 filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for both the parties.List after two weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Shailendra Verma, Advocate for the appellant.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents no. 5 and 6 / State.Notices issued to the respondents no. 3 and 4 for 11.11.2014 have not been returned either served or unserved.Service report be called for within four weeks.List after four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Manoj Kumar Rajak, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after two weeks.Shri Manish Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks for further consideration.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri V.D.S. Chouhan, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after two weeks.Shri Pramod Singh Tomar, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after six weeks.Shri Manish Mishra, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, this application be listed alongwith M.Cr.C.No.17467/2014 filed by the co-accused Kedar Sharma.Due to paucity of time, the matter could not be heard.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Due to paucity of time, the matter could not be heard.List next week.List next week.Shri Vivek Agrawal, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.Heard on IA No. 21047/2014 filed by the applicant for taking documents on record.Application is allowed.For admission as well as IA No. 20740/2014, record of the courts below be called for forthwith.Respondent / state is directed to submit reply of IA No. 18489/2014 by the next date of hearing.List after two weeks.None for the appellant.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.List alongwith Cri.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K.S. Sablya, Advocate for the appellant.Shri RP Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Nitin Karan, Advocate for the appellant.Shri RP Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, adjournment is granted.List after four weeks.Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the appellant.Shri RP Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.Heard on the question of admission.Appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.Record has already been received.List next month for consideration of IA No. 19744/2014 filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence.None for the appellant.Shri RP Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.List after a month.Shri Anoop Sonkar, Advocate for the appellant.Shri RP Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.For admission as well as IA No.20345/2014, record of the trial court be called for.After receipt of the same, appeal be listed for admission as well as consideration of IA No.20345/2014 filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri S.K. Singh, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, adjournment is granted.List after two weeks.None for the applicants.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.The said fact is corroborated with the death certificate issued by the competent authority.There is no reason to disbelieve the said report.Hence, the instant criminal revision is abated against the applicant no. 2 Vikku @ Vikram.His name be deleted from the array of cause title of the revision petition.Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.Copy of the order dated 14.3.2014 passed by the Collector is available to the applicant, however, it has not been produced on record.Hence, the applicant is directed to produce the same either today or tomorrow.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the applicant.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.Shri Pradeep Naveriya, Advocate for the applicant.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.Shri S.K. Singh, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List next week.Shri Rahul Tripathi, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.It is a case of motorcycle theft which was seized from the possession of the applicant / accused.Due to paucity of time, matter could not be heard.Respondent / State is directed to make available the case diary on the next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri M.S. Tahilramani, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.Record of the Claims Tribunal be called for.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for final hearing as well as IA No.14935/2014, be made returnable within eight weeks.Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.Application shall be considered after filing the charge sheet.Shri V.V. Jain, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.Application shall be considered after filing the charge sheet.Smt. Arpana Nakra, Advocate for the appellants.None for the respondents.Notice issued to the respondents for final hearing has not been returned either served or unserved.Service report be called for within three weeks.List after three weeks for further consideration.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Chhoti Kushram, Advocate for the applicant.Shri A. Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List after two weeks.Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.It be produced on the next date of hearing.List in the next week.Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.For admission, record of the trial court be called for.After receipt of the record, appeal be listed for admission as well as consideration of IA No.20724/2014 filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence, next month.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.For admission, record of the trial court as well as appellate court be called for.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the applicant.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is not available, be produced on the next date of hearing.List in the next week.Shri S.P. Mishra, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Shri Mohd. Amzad, Advocate for the CBI.As per record it is evident that bail application of co-accused Bhagirath Verma and Surendra Kumar Meena were decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.10.2014 passed in M.Cr.C.No.15059/2014 and M.Cr.Shri A.R. Lakhera, Advocate for the applicant.Shri RP Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, list after two weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri P.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate for the applicants.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent no.8/ State.In compliance of the order dated 5.9.2014, financial status report of the applicants has not been produced by the State.Respondent / State is directed to produce financial status report of the applicants on the next date.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents no. 1 to 4, be made returnable within eight weeks.List after eight weeks for consideration of exemption from court fees.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri S.P. Pandey, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.Record of the Claims Tribunal be called for.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for final hearing, be made returnable within eight weeks.After service of the respondents, appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri B. J. Chourasia, Advocate for the applicant.Respondent / State is directed to make available the case diary on the next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Vivek Baderia, Advocate for the appellant.For admission record of the trial court be called for within 3 weeks.After receipt of the same, list for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri S.D. Mishra, Advocate for the appellant.Appellant is directed to supply copy of the annexures filed alongwith appeal memo within 3 days.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Anoop Sonkar, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Govind Patel, Advocate for the respondent.Heard on the question of admission.Appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.Record of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal be called for.After receipt of the same, list for final hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri P.S. Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, two weeks' time is granted for argument.List after two weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Atulanand Awasthi, Advocate for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Amardeep Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.Appellant is directed to supply copy of the appeal memo to the respondents.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, short adjournment is granted for argument.If on the next date of hearing, further adjournment is sought on behalf of the appellant effect of stay order shall be vacated.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-C. V. Rao, Advocate for the applicant.Heard on IA No.13759/2014 filed by the applicant for ignoring the default pointed out by the office.On perusal of the record it is evident that the name of the applicant no. 2 was deleted as mentioned in the impugned order, owing to which, the default pointed out by the office is correct.Shri K.K. Gautam Advocate for the appellants.None for the respondents no. 1 and 4 though served.Heard on IA No.4018/2010 filed by the appellants for condonation of delay in filing the appeal which is time barred by 11 days.Respondents have not filed any reply to oppose the application.Considering the facts stated in the application, the said IA is allowed.Heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.On behalf of the respondents no. 2 and 3, present counsel have taken notice for final hearing.Counsel for the appellants is directed to supply copy of appeal memo as well as documents to the respondents.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents no. 1, 4 and 5 for final hearing, be made returnable within eight weeks.All the appeals be listed separately for analogous hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K.K. Gautam Advocate for the appellants.None for the respondents no. 1, 4 and 5 though served.Counsel for the appellants is directed to supply copy of appeal memo as well as documents to the respondents.All the appeals be listed separately for analogous hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K.K. Gautam Advocate for the appellants.None for the respondents no. 1 and 4 though served.Respondent no. 5 is not served.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondent no. 5 for final hearing, be made returnable within eight weeks.Counsel for the appellants is directed to supply copy of appeal memo as well as documents to the respondents.All the appeals be listed separately for analogous hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K.K. Gautam Advocate for the appellants.Respondents no. 1, 2, 5 and 6 are not served.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents no. 1, 2, 5 and 6 for final hearing, be made returnable within eight weeks.Counsel for the appellants is directed to supply copy of appeal memo as well as documents to the respondents.All the appeals be listed separately for analogous hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K.K. Gautam Advocate for the appellants.Respondents no. 1, 2, 5 and 6 are not served.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents no. 1, 2, 5 and 6 for final hearing, be made returnable within eight weeks.Counsel for the appellants is directed to supply copy of appeal memo as well as documents to the respondents.All the appeals be listed separately for analogous hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Mohd. Siddiqui, Advocate for the applicant.As per order dated 19.9.2014 process has not been paid.Applicant is directed to remove the default within a week.Record of the trial court be called for.List after two weeks.As per order dated 22.7.2014, process be paid within a week.Thereafter, show cause notice be issued to the respondents for admission.Record of the trial court be called for.List after service of respondents for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri A. Faujdar, Advocate for the applicant.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents for IA No. 11689/2009, be made returnable within six weeks.List after service of respondents for consideration of the said IA.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K.L. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents no. 1 and 3 though on earlier date they appeared before the Court.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, two weeks' time is granted for payment of process fee with correct address of the respondent no. 2 for issuance of bailable warrant against him.List after two weeks.Ms. Sonika Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners.Shri A. Shukla, learned PL for the respondent / State.Counsel for the petitioners submits that the default has been removed.For admission, the record of the trial court be called for.` (M.K.Mudgal) Judge PG/-List after four weeks.Shri Devendra Gangrade, Advocate for the appellant.For admission, record of MJC No.96/02, IV ADJ, Bhopal, order dated 31.7.2003, be called for immediately.After receipt of the same, list for admission.In the meanwhile, IR shall remain continued till next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Harpreet Ruprah, Advocate for the appellant.For admission, record of the trial court be called for immediately within four weeks.After receipt of the same, list for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Abhishek Singh, Advocate for the appellant.Respondents no. 1 and 2 are not served.Notice issued to the respondents no. 1 and 2 has not been returned either served or unserved.As per order dated 8.7.2014, service report be called for within four weeks.Record of the trial court be requisitioned.List after 8 weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the applicant.Since none is appearing on behalf of the applicant, case is adjourned with the direction that if on the next date of hearing none appears to pursue the matter, this application shall be dismissed for want of prosecution.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Shravan Rao, Advocate for the petitioner.None for the respondent.Record from the concerned authority be called for.SPC be issued to the respondent.List after four weeks.IR shall remain continued till next date of hearing.Appellant is directed to supply copy of IA No.6918/2012 to the respondents within five days positively and the respondents may submit reply of the said application.List in the week commencing 8.12.2014 for consideration of the said IA.Shri Y.P. Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.Shri RP Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, 10 days time is granted for producing some documents.List after 10 days.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri R.P. Singh, Advocate for the applicant.Shri RP Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.This is second bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. by the applicant / accused.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, one week's time is granted for producing the statement of the witnesses recorded before the trial court.List after a week.Shri Manhar Dixit, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Agnihotri, Advocate for the respondent.Learned counsel for the respondent submits that today he has filed Wakalatnama on behalf of the respondent.Applicant is directed to supply copy of the petition alongwith documents to the respondent within 5 days.IR shall remain continued till next date of hearing.Shri Lalji Kushwaha, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri Rajroop Patel, Advocate the respondents.As prayed by counsel for the applicant, two weeks' time is granted for argument.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned PL for the respondent / State.Respondent / State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.List after two weeks.List after three weeks.Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Pawan Gurjar, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned PL for the respondent / State.Respondent / State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Respondent / State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri C. M. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.As prayed by counsel for the petitioner, this petition be listed alongwith Conc.List after three weeks for consideration of the said IA.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Himanshu Chourasia, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri R.P. Tiwari, learned PP for the respondent / State.This is first bail application filed by the applicant / accused under Section 439 of Cr. P. C.On perusal of the order dated 1.9.2014 passed by the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur (MP), it is evident that six statements of the witnesses have been got recorded by the prosecution before the trial court.The deceased was the wife of the applicant / accused.List after 10 days.Shri Atulanand Awasthi, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is not available.The applicant has filed this application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.108/14, Police Station Baikunthpur, Distt.Hence, this application be listed before appropriate Bench.Shri Akhilesh Singh, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned PL for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, one week's time is granted to produce some documents.List after a week.As prayed by learned PL, as per order dated 1.10.2014 and 8.10.2014, one week's time is granted to produce DNA report.List after a week.Shri M.K. Mishra, Advocate for the applicant / accused.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PP for the respondent / State.Respondent / State is directed to make available the case diary on the next date of hearing.IA No. 16339/2014 filed by the applicant / accused for taking additional documents on record is allowed.List after a week.Shri Advocate for the respondent.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondent no.2 for final hearing, be made returnable within six weeks.Jitendra (M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Aditya Narayan, Advocate for the respondent.Heard on the question of admission.Shri Sachin Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.List after two weeks.On payment of process fee within 7 days show cause notice be issued to the respondents as to why contempt proceeding be not initiated against them for non-compliance of the order dated 25.6.2014, be made returnable within six weeks.List after service of the respondents.Record of the trial court be requisitioned.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri A. Arjaria, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned PL for the respondent / State.For admission, the record of the trial court is required.Therefore, office is directed to call for the record within four weeks.After receipt of the record, list for final hearing at motion stage.IR granted on earlier occasion shall remain continued till next date of hearing.` (M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sanjay Saini, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Perused the record.Appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD, notice be issued to the respondents no. 1 and 2 for final hearing, be made returnable within six weeks.Cross objection filed by the respondent no. 3 is taken on record.Copy of the cross objection be supplied to learned counsel for the appellant within 3 weeks.After service of the respondents no. 1 and 2, appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.None for the appellant.For admission, record of the trial court be called for.Since none is appearing on behalf of the appellant to pursue the appeal, case is adjourned.List after four weeks for admission.Shri Kamlesh Mishra, Advocate for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Interest has not been awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation.Appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.Cross objection filed by the respondent no. 1 is taken on record.After service of the respondent no. 2, appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.None for the appellant.Notice issued to the respondent no. 2 has been returned unserved with the report that the noticee was not found on the given address.Since none is appearing on behalf of the appellant, case is adjourned.List after three weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned PL for the State.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD notice be issued to the respondents, be made returnable within six weeks.As per order dated 28.8.2014, the report from the State regarding the financial status of the applicant has not been received.State is directed to submit the said report on the next date.List after six weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K.K. Verma, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PP for the respondent / State.Case diary is available.As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, list after two weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the applicant.Respondent / State is directed to make available the case diary on the next date of hearing.List next week.List after two weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents no. 1, 3 and 4, though served.On payment of process fee within 7 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD mode by the appellant, notice be issued to the respondent no.2 for final hearing as well as IA No.2847/2014, be returnable within six weeks.Both appeals be listed separately.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Shreyas Pandit, Advocate for the appellant.On payment of process fee within 3 days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD mode, notices be issued to the respondents for IA No.2901/2014 filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, be returnable within six weeks.The appeal is time barred.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is ready to deposit the entire amount of the impugned award within one month before the Claims Tribunal and the said amount be restrained to disburse to the respondents without permission of this court.It is ordered that the appellant shall deposit the entire amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal within one month before the Claims Tribunal.The said amount shall be kept in the fixed deposit.It is further ordered that the said amount shall not be disbursed to the respondents without permission of this court.CC as per rules.List thereafter immediately.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri S.R. Kushwaha, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PP for the respondent / State.Shri O.P. Tripathi, Advocate for the Objector.As per Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in the case of Atul vs. State of U.P., 2014 (2) MPWN 147, two weeks' time is granted to the respondent / State to submit reply of IA No. 15427/2014 filed by the appellant under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence.The objector may also submit reply of the said application.List after two weeks.Respondent / State is directed to make available the case diary on the next date of hearing.List next week.Shri Kuldeep Singh, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, learned PP for the respondent / State.After investigation, charge sheet has already been filed.Service report be called for.List thereafter for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge PG/-Shri M. Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.Shri R. Pandey, Advocate for the respondents.Record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.After receipt of the same list for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge PG/-None for the appellant.Record of the trial court be called for within three weeks.List thereafter for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge PG/-None for the appellant.Record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ranjeet Singh, Advocate for the appellant.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, list after two weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri M.A. Khan, Advocate for the appellant.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, three weeks' time is granted to inspect the record.List thereafter for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Lalji Kushwaha, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Akhilesh Shukla, G.A. for the respondents no. 1 to 3 / State.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, list after two weeks.Interim relief shall remain continued till next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ghanshyam Verma, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, list after two weeks for admission.None for the appellant.List after four weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-List after two weeks for admission.List after two weeks for admission.It be listed for admission alongwith SA No.262/2008 arising out of the same judgment.Both the appeals be listed separately after two weeks.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, two weeks' time is granted for argument.Office is directed to reflect the name of Shri R.P. Khare, Advocate for the appellant instead of Shri P.S. Gaharwar.List after two weeks.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, list after four weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sanjeev Tuli, Advocate for the appellant.Notice of the said IA be issued to the respondent on payment of PF within 7 working days by ordinary mode as well as by registered / AD mode, be returnable within six weeks.Record of the trial court be called for.List for consideration of the said IA after service on the respondent.Shri Dinesh Koshal, Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondents no. 1 to 7, though served and on their behalf Shri Anil Lala, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama.None for the respondents no. 8 and 9, though served.Record of the trial court be called for within six weeks.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Sanjay Saini, Advocate for the appellant.For admission, record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellants.Record of the trial court be called for within three weeks.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.List after three weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Vivek Baderia, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Sitaram Shukla, Advocate for the respondents.As prayed by counsel for the respondents, two weeks' time is granted for argument.List after two weeks for consideration of the said IA.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Vivek Baderia, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Sitaram Shukla, Advocate for the respondents.As prayed by counsel for the respondents, two weeks' time is granted for argument.List after two weeks for consideration of the said IA.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State.Record of both the courts below be called for within four weeks.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the petitioner.List after four weeks.None for the appellant.Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the State.List after four weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellants even in second round.The appellant is directed to take appropriate steps for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 1 on record within three weeks.Since none is appearing on behalf of the appellants, the case is adjourned.List after three weeks for further consideration.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Ramesh Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.Shri K.P. Kushwaha, Advocate for the respondent.Heard on IA No.10139/2012 filed by the appellant for staying the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.7.2012 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 61-A/2011 by Third Additional District Judge, Bhopal.The appeal was already admitted vide order dated 10.2.2014 and interim relief was also granted.The said interim order is hereby confirmed till final disposal of this appeal.The appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.As per order dated 29.11.2013, the appeal is barred by 360 days.List after two weeks for consideration of IA No.10597/2012, an application for condonation of delay.List after three weeks for further consideration.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri N. Kothecha, counsel for the appellant.None for the respondents.List after ten days for further consideration.List after three weeks for further consideration.List after two weeks for further consideration.The order dated 3.3.2014 has not been complied with by the appellant.List after two weeks for further consideration.List after three weeks for further consideration.Shri Ankit Pandey, Counsel for the appellant.Shri Rohani Prasad Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondent no. 3 / State.IA No.12689/2014 filed by Ms. Manju Verma for changing the counsel is not available on record.Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, two weeks' time is granted for argument.List in the week commencing 10.11.2014 for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K.K. Agnihotri, Counsel for the appellants.The respondent no. 5 is reported to have died.Shri Rohani Prasad Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondent no. 16 / State.Counsel for the appellants prays for and is granted two weeks' time for argument.List after two weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri S. Kochar, Counsel for the appellants.As prayed by counsel for the appellants, two weeks' time is granted to file Vakalatnama as well as for argument.List in the week commencing 3.11.2014 for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri K.P. Kushwaha, Counsel for the appellants.Counsel for the appellants prays for and is granted two weeks' time for argument.List after two weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri A. Usmani, Counsel for the appellant.Counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted two weeks' time for argument.List in the week commencing 3.11.2014 for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Harpreet Ruprah, Counsel for the appellant.For admission record of both the courts below be called for.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Pramod Sahu, Counsel for the appellant.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, two weeks' time is granted for argument.List after two weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Notices issued to the respondents no. 8 and 9 have been returned unserved, afresh notices be issued to the respondents no. 8 and 9 on payment of process fee within 7 days with correct address by ordinary mode, be returnable within 8 weeks.Interim relief granted on earlier occasion shall remain continued till next date of hearing.Interim relief granted on earlier occasion shall remain continued till next date of hearing.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Avinash Zargar, counsel for the appellant.None for the respondent.For admission, record of both the courts below be called for.Heard on I.A.No.12114/2014 filed by the appellant under Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC for staying the execution of impugned judgment and decree dated 25.7.2014, whereby appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed affirming the judgment and decree dated 24.1.2014 passed by the court of 2nd Additional Civil Judge Class-1 to the court of 1 st Civil Judge Class-1, Bhopal, decreeing the suit for eviction.Counsel for the appellant submits that warrant of possession has been issued by the trial court, hence execution of the impugned judgment and decree be stayed.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, execution of the impugned judgment and decree is hereby stayed till next date of hearing.List after receipt of the record for admission as well as for consideration of said application.Certified copy as per rules.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant in second round.Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondents / State.Since none is appearing on behalf of the appellant to pursue the matter, the case is adjourned.List after four weeks for admission.List this appeal alongwith S.A. No.693/2009 arising out of the same judgment.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, two weeks' time is granted for argument.List after two weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Record of the trial court be called for within four weeks.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellants.Record of both the courts below be called for.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-List after two weeks for admission.List after three weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellants.Notices issued to the remaining respondents no. 2 to 5 have not been returned either served or unserved.Service report be called for within four weeks.Record of the trial court be requisitioned.List after four weeks.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-None for the appellant.Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondents no. 1 and 2 / State.Record of the trial court be called for.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Pranay Verma, counsel for the appellant.During the course of argument, counsel for the appellant seeks some time for further argument.List after two weeks for admission.Shri J.L. Mishra, counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Two weeks' time is granted for the same.List after two weeks.Record of both the courts below be requisitioned within four weeks.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Anil Lala, counsel for the petitioner.Heard on IA No.12814/2010 filed by the petitioner for mentioning the declaration with regard to filing of the Caveat.Considering the reasons as stated in the application, the said IA is allowed.Necessary amendment be carried out within 3 days.Also heard on IA No.5872/2009 filed by the petitioner for staying the execution of the impugned award till final disposal of this revision.Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready to deposit the amount awarded by the learned trial court with a condition that the said amount shall not be disbursed till final disposal of this revision.Application being IA No.5872/2009 is disposed of with a direction that the entire amount shall be deposited by the petitioner within one month from today before the trial court.It is further directed that the said amount shall not be disbursed till final disposal of this revision.In the meanwhile, record of the trial court be called for.List for admission after receipt of the record.Shri Abhay Raj Singh Chouhan, counsel for the appellants.Heard on admission.During the course of argument, counsel for the appellants prays for one week's time to further argument.List after one week for admission.As prayed by counsel for the appellants, one week's time is granted for argument.List after one week for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Abhay Raj Singh Chouhan, counsel for the appellants.For admission, record of both the courts below be called for within four weeks.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-Shri Chandrahas Dubey, counsel for the appellant.For admission, record of both the courts below be called for within four weeks.List for admission after receipt of the record.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-List after two weeks for admission.List after two weeks for admission.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge Parouha/-As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants/accused, petition be listed alongwith M.Cr.As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list after Winter vacation.(M.K.Mudgal) V. Judge shukla/-It be produced on the next date of hearing.List after the winter vacation.None for the applicant/accused.Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State.Case diary is available.List after the winter winter vacation.(M.K.Mudgal) V.Judge shukla/-None for the applicant/accused.Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State.Case diary is available.Since none is appearing on behalf of the applicant/accused, list after vacation.(M.K.Mudgal) V.Judge shukla/-None for the applicant/accused.Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State.Case diary is available.Since none is appearing on behalf of the applicant/accused, list after vacation.(M.K.Mudgal) V.Judge shukla/-Shri Siddharth Datta, counsel for the applicant/accused.Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/State.Case diary is available.List alongwith M.Cr.C. No.18760/2014 after vacation.(M.K.Mudgal) V.Judge shukla/-Shri R.P. Khare, counsel for the appellant.As prayed by counsel for the appellant, this appeal be listed alongwith S.A. No. 501/2009 arising out of the same judgment.Both appeals be listed separately after two weeks.",['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
"The applicant is permanent resident of District-Ujjain.This bail application under section 439 of CrPC is in connection with crime number 760/2017 U/s 307, 294, 506, 451 & 427/34 of IPC registered at Police Station - Madhavnagar, District- Ujjain.As per information given by the accused/applicant, this is the first bail application in connection with the present crime number.No other bail application is either filed or pending before or decided by any coordinate bench of this court or by Hon'ble the Apex court in the same crime number.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case.There is no evidence against him.Conclude of trial is likely to take time.There is no possibility of his absconding.He is ready to furnish adequate security.The Prosecution has opposed the bail application.The objection of the prosecution is that the applicant has long criminal history.Apart from the present two cases, 7 other cases have been registered bearing Crime Nos.496, 456, 602, 101, 296, 767 and 319 at Police Station Madhav Nagar under MCRC 7715/18 (Jitendra vs. State of MP) 2 the offence relating to abusing, thrashing and threatening against the applicant.MCRC 7715/18 (Jitendra vs. State of MP) 2Facts of the prosecution case in brief are that on 18/12/2017, in the afternoon at about 12.30, a scuffle took place between the present applicant Jitendra, Sunny and Satish in one hand and Rajesh and Pappu on the other hand.Both the parties filed FIR and Crime No.752/2017 and 755/2017 are registered against both the parties.In the evening at about 8.30 p.m., they again fought with each other.At this time, Satish filed FIR on which Crime No.761/2017 was registered under Section 307/34 of IPC against Ganpat and his two sons Rajesh and Suresh.At the same time, Suresh also filed FIR which is registered at Crime No.760/17 under Section 307, 294, 506, 451 & 427/34 of IPC.They alleged that the applicant along with co-accused persons Satish and Sunny hurling abuses outside their house and when they objected for the same, Satish caught Suresh and Jitendra, and struck iron pipe on his head.When Rajesh tried to intervene, Satish inflicted Dharia on his right hand.He filed certain documents to support his contention.Considering the aforesaid facts, nature of incident, injury caused to the applicant and other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to release the accused on bail.(Virender Singh) Judge soumya Digitally signed by Soumya Ranjan Dalai Date: 2018.04.04 16:25:36 +05'30'","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Therefore, there cannot be conviction for offences under Sections 147 read with 149 and 148 read with Section 149 of IPC, but only for offences under Sections 147 and 148 of IPC in individual capacity, if the same are proved.Briefly stated, the prosecution case as per the complaint (Exh.68) lodged by PW-8 Keshav Darandale, on 17.5.1991 he was working as clerk in Block Office of Bhenda Cooperative Sugar Factory Limited, Bhenda (Bk.) (hereinafter referred to as ""the sugar factory"").At about 11.00 a.m. accused No.2 Pradeep Bhandari came to the office and requested PW-8 Keshav to take entry of sugarcane planted by him.PW -8 Keshav pointed out to accused No. 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 4 Pradip that there was an endorsement of injunction on the V.F.7 x 12 extract of his land and, therefore, he should take permission of the head of the block i.e. Oversear (PW-7 Lahanu Garje).However, accused No.2 Pradeep abused PW-8 Keshav, held his collar, tore his clothes and beat him.At that time PW-5 Balasaheb Wable, Narayan Dale, PW-7 Lahanu Garje and Sarpanch Kumar Deshmukh came and intervened and stopped the quarrel.Accused No.2 Pradip Bhandari went away.PW -8 Keshav pointed out to accused No. 2::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::It is further stated by PW-8 Keshav in the complaint (Exh.68) that thereafter he went to the head office of the sugar factory at Bhenda along with PW-7 Lahanu Garje and gave report.At that time, Satish Bhandari and Vjay Bhandari who were brothers of accused No.2 Pradip Bhandari came there and started abusing.However, Garad Guruji and Kakasaheb Shinde who were the Agricultural Officers persuaded Satish and his brother Vijay and so they went away.PW-8 Keshav gave report to his superiors who told PW-8 Keshav to lodge complaint with Kukana Police Out Post.Security Officer Shri Tanaji Datir (PW-10) was asked to accompany PW-8 Keshav.Accordingly, both went to Kukana Police Outpost.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::It is further stated in the complaint (Exh.68) that at the police outpost, Kukana, Head constable Yadav Satpute (PW-4) was present.PW-8 Keshav lodged report regarding incident.He signed the complaint.At that time, appellants and two more persons (original accused No.3 Sunil Deshmukh and accused No.4 Bandu Deshmukh) came there.It was about 1 to 1.30 p.m. Accused No.1 Rajendra (appellant No.1) was armed with sword and others were having sticks.Accused No.1 Rajendra asked PW-8 Keshav to come out, but he refused.Thereafter, accused No.1 gave blow with sword on the head of PW-8 Keshav who sustained bleeding injury.Thereafter, other accused persons started beating PW-8 Keshav.At that time, Kumar Deshmukh, Gorakh Rindhe came running and intervened.It is also stated that during the said incident, appellant No.3 Sunil Garje (accused No.5) and appellant No.2 Pradip Bhandari (accused No.2) beat PW-4 Head Constable Satpute with sticks and all the accused went away by abusing.Thereafter, the injured were taken to the government hospital in a jeep.It is also the prosecution case that the accused persons had also injured PW-10 Tanaji Datir, who was security officer accompanying PW-8 Keshav to the out-post.This is an appeal preferred by original accused Nos. 1,2,5 and 6 being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur District Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No.271 of 1991 decided on 10.12.1997, whereby the appellants are convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 332, 353 all read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, so also of offences punishable under Sections 147 and 148 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. For offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C., each accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.5000/= each.For each of offences punishable under Sections 332 read with Section 149 and 353 read with Section 149, each accused is sentenced for one year and fine of Rs.1000/=. For offence punishable under Section 147 read with section 149 of I.P.C. rigorous imprisonment of six months is awarded to each accused and for offence punishable under Section 148 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. each accused is sentenced rigorous imprisonment for six months.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::After the incident, PW-4 Head Constable Satpute informed the incident to the Police Station, Newasa and Investigating Officer API Shri Pansare (PW-14) along with staff came to the incident.The complaint of PW-8 Keshav was registered.Statement of PW-4 Satpute was also recorded; panchanama of spot was drawn; statements of various witnesses were also recorded.Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were absconding.They obtained anticipatory bail.They surrendered on 29.5.1991 and produced the sword and sticks which were attached under separate panchanamas.After usual investigation, charge-sheet was sent to the court.The prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses.The defence examined three eye witnesses to show that accused No.1 Rajendra Bhandari was present at village Patharwal and attended an election rally at about the time when the alleged incident took place.However, defence evidence was discarded by the learned Sessions Judge and relying upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, original accused Nos. 1,2,5 and 6 (present appellants) were convicted as afore stated.Benefit of doubt was given to accused Nos. 3 and 4 and they were acquitted.Accused Nos.1,2,5 and 6 being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence have ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 7 filed the present appeal.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Heard Shri R.N. Dhorde, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri B.V. Wagh, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.It is argued by Advocate Shri Dhorde before this court that at the time of alleged incident, parliamentary elections were being held and due to political rivalry false complaint is filed.Before we go to the eye witness account, we may consider circumstantial evidence.He stated that on 17.5.1991, he examined PW-8 Keshav at about 1.45 p.m. and following eight injuries were found on his person.(1) Incised wound 5-1/2 c.m.x 2 c.m. x muscle deep on the right pariatal region, on the head near the occipital region oblique in direction, bleeding present.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::(2) C.L.W. 4 c.m.x 1 c/m.x skin deep on the right parietal region mid point, transverse in direction.(3) C.L.W. 3 c.m.x 1 c.m. x skin deep, on the left occipital region on the head.(4) C.L.W. 3 c.m.x 1 c.m. x skin deep on the left parietal region posteriorly.deep on the left parietal region near No. 5(8) Contusion 4 c.m. x 1-1/4 c.m.on the right thigh lower part.According to Dr. Firodia, injury No. 1 was caused by sharp substance.He opined that the said injury was possible with article No.8 (sword).Initially, doctor was hesitant.He has stated that the lower part of article No.8 sword was not sharp enough, but then stated that it was possible to cause injury No. 1 with the same.He also stated that patient gave him history of injuries with sword.It is argued before me that it is not known who has made endorsement on complaint Exh.68, regarding PW-8 being conscious, but there is clear evidence of PW-2 Dr.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Dr. Firodia has further stated that he examined PW-10 Tanaji Datir and found following five injuries on his person.According to the doctor, all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance.Dr. Firodia also stated that patient Tanaji Datir gave history of injuries caused to him with sticks.The doctor has stated that on ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 10 17.5.1991 he also examined PW-4 Head Constable Satpute and found following injuries on his person.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::(1) Contusion 14 c.ms.x 1 c.m. x on the left side of back.According to the doctor, above injuries were caused within six hours and those were caused by hard and blunt substance.In the cross examination, the doctor has stated that in the exhibited documents, history was not stated.It may be noted that injury No.1 on the person of PW-8 Keshav was incised wound of 5-1/2 c.m.x 2 c.m. x muscle deep on the right parietal region on head near the occipital region oblique in direction and bleeding present.Almost seven injuries which were incised and C.L.Ws. were on the head and one injury was on thigh.So, from injuries intention to cause his death was clear.In paragraph 11 of cross examination of PW-2 Dr. Firodia it is brought on record that injury No. 1 caused to PW-8 Keshav was simple in nature but it was opinion formed on the basis of the result of the injury on the date ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 11 of deposition.The doctor also stated that the dangerousness of the head injury can be considered from the inner damage caused by the said injury than the external injury caused over the head.Law is well settled that for offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C., the intention is more important and here in the present case, besides incised wound was caused on the head, there were other six injuries on the head.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Therefore, intention could not be to cause only simple injury or grievous hurt.The same is proved by PW-1 Eknath Kachare.Panchanama clearly shows that inside the police outpost, there were blood stains on the door frame, on the calender which was lying in torn condition, on the bench, on the floor and even on the wall below window.It is stated that even hair of the complainant were cut and they were found on the spot.It is said that the complainant did not state about cutting of his hair.But, injury No. 1 was such that some hair might have been cut and fallen on the ground.Absolutely, there is no reason to disbelieve the spot panchanama indicating that the incident did take place inside the police outpost.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::PW-8 Keshav Darandale is examined at ExhibitHe mainly deposed in terms of his complaint which is reproduced earlier.It does not appear from the cross examination of PW-8 Keshav that there was any previous enmity between appellants and PW-8 Keshav nor there is anything on record to show that PW-8 Keshav was in any way involved in election canvassing or was belonging to any particular political group or party.It has come in the evidence that appellant No.1 Rajendra was a political worker and had supported candidate Shri Vikhe Patil.Merely because the Chairman of the sugar factory was one Mr. Tukaram Gadakh, it cannot be inferred that PW-8 Keshav was belonging to the party of Yashwantrao Gadakh who was contesting the election against Balasaheb Vikhe Patil.Some incident did take place prior to the main incident and that is also clear from earlier reports filed with the police.PW-13 Head Constable Shri Shinde who was Police Station Officer at Police Station, Newasa at the relevant time.Exhibit 66 is the complaint lodged accused No.2 Pradip Bhandari (appellant no.2) at about 11.30 a.m. on 17.5.1991, complaining that Kanta Darandale (which is also the name of PW-8 Keshav Darandale) had refused to take entry of sugarcane plantation and abused and beat him.So, Exh.66 which is a complaint lodged by appellant No. 2 clearly proves that at 11.00 a.m. there was some incident between him and PW-8 Keshav regarding taking entry of plantation of sugarcane.So, it cannot be said that the incident had not taken place and that the complaint by PW-8 Keshav is a concocted story.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Exhibit 67 is the occurrence report produced by PW-4 Police Head Constable Satpute on earlier complaint by PW-8 Keshav for abusing and beating him for not taking entry of sugarcane plantation as asked by accused No.2 Pradip.Exhibit 69 is the occurrence report about the main incident.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::In fact, PW-4 Head Constable Satpute is an independent witness.There is nothing to show that he had any enmity with any of the appellants or original accused persons.His evidence clearly shows that on 17.5.1991, initially accused No.2 Pradip Bhandari came and lodged complaint at about 11.00 a.m. against PW-8 Keshav alias Kanta who was then working as clerk in the office of the sugar factory.On the basis of that complaint, occurrence report (Exh.66) was prepared.PW-8 Kanta alias Keshav lodged complaint about incident that took place at 11.00 a.m, which PW-4 Satpute reduced to writing.The occurrence report (Exh.67) regarding said complaint lodged by PW-8 is just prior to the main incident.Thereafter appellants came and assaulted PW-8 Keshav.Police Head Constable Satpute (PW-4) stated that accused No.1 Rajendra Bhandari had sword and others were armed with sticks.They asked PW-8 Keshav to come out, but he refused.So, accused entered the outpost and gave blows to him with sword and sticks.Then he intervened, but he was also given stick blows.He stated that accused No. 2 Pradip and accused No.5 Sunil (appellant Nos. 2 and 3) gave him blows with sticks.Due to said blows, sword snatched by him ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 15 from the hands of accused No. 1 had fallen on the ground.P.W.10 Tanaji Datir and others intervened.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Thereafter accused No. 1 took the sword and went away in a jeep.It is argued that the registration number of the jeep could not be told by the witness.However, it is to be noted that when PW-8 Keshav and PW-4 Satpute themselves were beaten and injured inside the outpost, we cannot expect them to be in a state of mind to note down the registration number of the jeep in which the accused ran away.It is also argued that the owner of the jeep in which injured were taken to the hospital, was not examined.However non examination of driver of owner of the jeep is neither a material piece of evidence nor it is a link.What was important at that time was to take the injured to the hospital immediately.Therefore, the injured were taken to the hospital in the vehicle then immediately available without bothering as to who was the owner or driver of the same and what was its number.PW-10 Tanaji Datir has half heartedly supported the prosecution case.He deposed that he was injured by some unknown persons, when he had accompanied PW-8 Keshav to the Police Outpost at Kukana, Kukana and when PW-4 Head Constable Satpute ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 16 was reducing the complaint of PW-8 Keshav.When the complaint was being recorded and signature of PW-8 was obtained, one person came and asked PW-8 Keshav to come out.No body had accompanied the said person.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Thereafter, according to PW-10 Tanaji, PW-8 Keshav went out abusing that man and then he also went out.According to PW-10 Tanaji, two persons caught both the hands of PW-8 Keshav and third man was assaulting on forehead of Keshav with stick.As a result, Keshav fell down and thereafter this witness attempted to pull back that assailant, but he was also assaulted with stick.This witness says that he attempted to see as to who were those persons, but he saw about 25 persons around him.He was not conscious enough to see the assailants.So, he ran towards road side, but those people chased and beat him with sticks.Thereafter, he told the crowd that he had no enmity with the assailants and he was performing his duty.Thereafter, he went away on his motorcycle to the sugar factory and reported the incident to the chairman and at the directions of the chairman, took six watchmen with him and came back to the police outpost Kukana.There is nothing to suggest that PW-10 Tanaji was acquainted with any of the accused prior to incident.Due to sudden assault he appeared to be ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 17 flabbergasted.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::PW-10 Tanaji was declared hostile by prosecution and was confronted with his statement before police particularly the portions marked ""A"" to ""F"" from the same.Witness denied those portions.So, here is a person who has turned hostile.However, one thing is very clear that the incident had taken place in which this witness was also injured, although he was not ready to tell the whole truth.The evidence of Dr. Firodia clearly shows that one of the injuries on the head of PW-8 Keshav was incised wound which was not possible with stick.19. PW-5 Balasaheb Wable, PW-6 Narayan Dale, PW-7 Lahanu Garje and PW-9 Gorakshanath Rindhe were witnesses to the incident which preceded main incident at the police outpost at Kukana.PW-12 Suresh Nikam is a witness to the main incident.He deposed that he has bicycle repairing shop and hair cutting saloon at Kukana.At about 1.00 p.m., he was working in his bicycle repairing shop and on hearing shouts, he came out and saw that PW-8 Keshav was injured, his clothes were ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 18 torn, there was crowd of people.This witness has stated that appellant No.1 Raju Bhandari, Garje,Kharade and Deshmukh were present on the spot.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Raju Bhandari was armed with something, but witness could not see it specifically.Thereby, witness wants to say that it was not a stick.Thereafter,appellant Rajendra Bhandari and others ran away.So, this witness, who has his bicycle shop at a distance of about 200 ft.from his hair cutting shop, has stated that the incident did take place in which accused No. 1 and others had taken part and PW-8 Keshav was injured.Absolutely there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence.On the other hand, accused have examined DW-1 Ashok Khate at Exhibit 109, DW-2 Dattatraya Navthar at Exhibit 114 and DW-Balasaheb Rasne at Exhibit 115 in support of the defence.It is brought on record that all these witnesses are from the same political party to which accused No.1 Rajendra Bhandari belonged and that in the elections of 1991, they were supporting the candidature of Shri Balasaheb Vikhe Patil.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Absolutely, there is no independent evidence brought by accused in support of their defence and the evidence of these three defence witnesses is clearly of interested witnesses.Therefore, the learned trial judge did not believe their evidence regarding plea of alibi and believed the prosecution evidence as the same was so overwhelming and convincing as compared to evidence of said interested defence witnesses.Learned counsel for appellants and learned A.P.P. for Respondent-State cited some authorities.In that case, it was the defence of the accused that the original F.I.R.was suppressed by police and was substituted by another.There was failure on the part of police officer to produce the F.I.R. book in court notwithstanding the directions of the court.General diary at police station was also not produced.Inference drawn was that the original FIR was suppressed and so the prosecution case had become suspicious.The Supreme Court observed that the entire evidence was of partisan character and held in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 20 paragraph 3 as under:::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::""Where the entire evidence is of partisan character impartial investigation can lend assurance to the court to enable it to accept such partisan evidence.but where in a murder case, the investigation itself is found to be tainted, in the sense that the original FIR was suppressed by the police, it becomes difficult for the court to sift the evidence, and the evidence of partisan eye witnesses cannot be accepted. ""In the present case, there were immediate actions, such as occurrence reports, spot panchanama etc. The spot panchanama clearly indicates that blood stains were found on the doorsteps, wall, calender and floor in the police outpost.There was also immediate medical treatment which is apparent from evidence of Medical Officer Firodia.The small difference in the evidence regarding timing was pointing out, but in my opinion the same is insignificant and immaterial.The second case which learned Advocate Shri Dhorde relied upon is Meharaj Singh vs. State of U.P.1995 Cri.In the cited case, none of the alleged eye witnesses had actually seen the occurrence.They were introduced as eye witnesses after thoughtful deliberations and considerations.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Authenticity of FIR was lost being ante-timed and had not been recorded till inquest proceedings were over at spot.There was no evidence to show as to when the copy of FIR, special report was actually dispatched to the Magistrate.The alleged ocular testimony was contradicted by medical evidence and thus there was failure on the part of prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.For these reasons, the accused were given benefit of doubt.In the present case, it is argued that the copy of the FIR was not sent to the Magistrate and the only basis to this argument is that there was no entry in the station diary produced on record regarding sending of FIR to the Magistrate.I am not impressed by the said argument.It is true that the Head Constable Shri Shinde has proved the entry (Exh.90) which is regarding telephonic message received from the Head Constable Satpute (PW-4) about the incident and entry was taken at about 2.30 p.m. It shows that Sunil Garje (appellant No.3) and other 4-5 persons had beaten in front of Kukana police outpost and immediately police help was required to be sent.So, Police Inspector Shri Pansare and others proceeded to Kukana.Thus, it was a very short message and therefore, it was mentioned therein that the incident had taken place in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 22 front of Police outpost, Kukana.As per evidence on record incident took place both inside and outside the outpost.Immediate complaint, spot panchanama and evidence of eye witnesses are enough to show that part of incident had also taken place inside the police outpost, so far as beating to PW-4 Head Constable Satpute and PW-8 Keshav is concerned, though PW-10 Tanaji was beaten outside the police outpost.I am not satisfied that this is a case filed out of election rivalry and the incident itself had not taken place.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::In that case, eye witnesses were highly interested and partisan and were not coming with true version.26. 2008 AIR SCW 1276 (Babu Ram vs. State of Punjab) and more particularly paragraph 13 thereof is ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 23 relied upon by learned Advocate Shri Dhorde for the appellant in support of his argument that non examination of independent witness raises doubt about truthfulness of prosecution case.However, in that case, independent witness was not examined.Overall evidence probabilised defence version.There was injury on the person of accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::In that case, the Supreme Court held that merely because there was some difference in the version of PW-1 so far as his statement in the court vis-a-vis statement in the FIR is concerned, that does not in any way affect the credible and cogent evidence of PWs.2 andIn our case, merely because PW-10 Tanaji chose not ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 24 to tell the whole truth, that by itself would not affect the credibility of evidence of PW-4 Head Constable Satpute and PW-8 Keshav.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::So far as plea of alibi and private defence is concerned, in para.19 following observations are made:""19......................................... The plea of alibi postulates the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the scene of offence by reason of his presence at another place.The plea can therefore succeed only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where the crime was committed. ""It is pointed out that distance between Kukana and Patharwal is 12 km. as stated by DW-2 Dattatraya Navthar and so it was possible to reach Patharwal within 10-12 minutes in a jeep and attend a meeting.Moreover, timings given by defence witness of the meeting are approximate.They are interested witnesses.There is no independent corroboration to their evidence.In the present case, there is overwhelming evidence against appellants-accused which clearly ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 25 falsifies the interested version of defence witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::I am satisfied that this is not a case where accused-appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt.In this case, out of original six accused, two are acquitted and there is no appeal against their acquittal.It is not a case that there were more than six accused persons, but doubt arose regarding identification of original accused Nos. 3 and 4 and, therefore, they were acquitted.PW-8 Keshav in paragraph 10 of his cross examination admitted as follows;It is correct that the Mala of accused Nos. 3 and 4 is adjacent to the police out post, Kukana.It is correct that the house of accused Nos. 3 and 4 is adjacent to the Shevgaon Newasa road on northern side in front of the police station.It is not correct that the accused Nos. 3 and 4 came there after hearing the noise of quarrel from the police out-post Kukana.It is correct that 5 to 6 persons came to police out-post Kukana besides Kumar Deshmukh and Rindhe.I did not see that accused Nos. 3 and 4 were amongst those 5 to 6 persons.I did not see that the accused Nos. 3 and 4 came from the field and they had sugarcane in their hands for eating.It is correct that the three persons who beat me do not include the accused Nos. 3 and 4. ""I did not see that accused Nos. 3did not see that the accused Nos. 3 and 4::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::However, the learned Judges overlooked that since the accused who are convicted were only four in number and the prosecution has not proved the involvement of other persons and the Courts below have acquitted all the other accused of all the offences, Section 149 cannot be invoked for convicting the four appellants herein.The learned Judges were not correct in stating that A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-11 ""can be held to be the members of the unlawful assembly along with some other unidentified persons"" on the facts and circumstances of this case.When the 11 other accused were acquitted it means that their involvement in the offence had not been proved.It cannot be said that present four appellants can be held to be members of unlawful assembly along with some other unidentified persons.On the facts and circumstances ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 28 of the case, charge was not that the accused ""and others"" or ""other unidentified persons"" formed unlawful assembly, but it is ""you accused Nos. 1 to 6""::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::who formed unlawful assembly.However, they can be convicted for offences committed with the help of Section 34 of I.P.C. Hence, the appellants will have to be convicted for offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34, 332 read with section 34 and 353 read with section 34 of I.P.C.The second case cited is Musakhan and others vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1976 SC 2566 for proposition that mere innocent presence in an assembly of persons, as for example a bystander, does not make the accused a member of an unlawful assembly, unless ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 29 it is shown by direct or circumstantial evidence that the accused shared the common object of the assembly.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Here are the accused persons who had dared to enter into the police outpost and assault the person lodging complaint to the police against them ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 ::: 30 with sword and sticks and attempt to kill him.Not only that, the appellants-accused did not spare even the Head Constable (PW-4) Satpute doing his public duty or even PW-10 Tanaji Datir who had come to the police outpost just to accompany PW-8 Keshav on the directions of the chairman of the sugar factory.The incident took place in broad day-light in presence of several villagers.Only motive could be to create terror, that too during election period.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::So, in the facts and circumstances stated above, the appeal is partly allowed.The order of conviction and sentence for offences punishable under Sections 147 and 148 is hereby set aside.So far as other offences are concerned, the conviction of the appellants with the aid of Section 149 of IPC is set aside and in stead, they are convicted of offences under Sections 307 read with section 34, 332 read with section 34 and 353 read with section 34 of I.P.C.The order of sentence passed by the trial judge is hereby set aside and modified as follows:::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::Appellants are directed to forthwith surrender to their bail for undergoing remaining terms of sentences awarded.If the appellants have paid excess fine, the same may be refunded to them The appeal is accordingly disposed of.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:34:34 :::","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Jayapal (PW2), Swaminathan (PW3) and Kalaivanan (PW4) are the brothers of Kaliyamurthy and Ganesan.Chandra (PW1) is the wife of Kaliyamurthy.2.2 Kaliyamurthy and the family of his deceased brother Ganesan share a common boundary and naturally, they had boundary disputes.On 20.09.2014, around 11.30 a.m., when Kaliyamurthy was fencing his property, A1 to A4 objected to it.Kaliyamurthy insisted that he was fencing the property only within his boundary and proceededhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 with the fencing work.Infuriated at that, Senthil (A1) took a billhook (aruval) and aimed a blow on Kaliyamurthy.Seeing this, Kaliyamurthy's brother Kalaivanan (PW4) interjected to protect Kaliyamurthy and the blow fell on Kalaivanan's (PW4's) shoulder.Senthil (A1) gave another blow on Kalaivanan's (PW4's) leg and injured his toe.In this melee, when Kaliyamurthy went to the rescue of his brother Kalaivanan (PW4), Sivakumar (A2) took a casuarina log and gave a hard blow on Kaliyamurthy's head, resulting in Kaliyamurthy falling unconscious, following which, Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4) also started attacking Kaliyamurthy and Kalaivanan (PW4) with sticks and thereafter, they all fled.2.3 Kaliyamurthy and Kalaivanan (PW4) were rushed to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam by Chandra (PW1), Jayapal (PW2), and Swaminathan (PW3), where, Dr. Kamarul Jamal (PW15) examined the injured duo.2.4 Dr. Kamarul Jamal (PW15), in his evidence as well in the copy of the Accident Register (Ex.P.18), has stated that he examined Kaliyamurthy who was brought by his brother Jayapal (PW2) and found him unconscious; he was told that at 11.30 a.m., Kaliyamurthy washttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 attacked by two known persons with a log; he noted the following injury:“a lacerated would of about 10 x 2 x 1 cm.on the scalp over the left parietal region.” he referred Kaliyamurthy for further treatment to Thanjavur Medical College and Hospital since his condition was critical.2.5 Dr. Kamarul Jamal (PW15) has stated that he examined Kalaivanan (PW4) who was brought by Jayapal (PW2) and when enquired, Kalaivanan (PW4) stated that around 11.30 a.m., he was attacked by two known persons with a billhook (aruval) in the residence on his right shoulder and leg; he noted a cut injury on his right shoulder with contusion and a cut injury on his toe; he admitted Kalaivanan (PW4) as inpatient for further treatment and the accident register copy was marked as Ex.2.6 Chandra (PW1), wife of Kaliyamurthy, carried him to Sugam Multispeciality Hospital in Kumbakonam itself for treatment, where, Dr.Sundar Rajan (PW14) gave treatment to Kaliyamurthy.On getting intimation, Adhikesavan (PW18), Special Sub Inspector of Police came to Sugam Multispeciality Hospital, Kumbakonam, onhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 20.09.2014 at 5.30 p.m. and recorded the complaint statement given by Chandra (PW1), which was marked as Ex.P.1, based on which, he registered a case in Thiruvidaimaruthur P.S. Cr.No.189 of 2014 under Section 294(b), 324, 323 and 307 IPC against A1 to A4 and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P.22).2.7 Dr. Sundarrajan (PW14), in his evidence, has stated that Kaliyamurthy was unconscious, his blood pressure was low, he was finding it difficult to breathe and he was kept in ventilator; since his condition started deteriorating, he advised that he be taken to Cauvery Hospital in Trichy for better treatment; he issued accident register which was marked as Ex.Inasmuch as both the criminal appeals at hand arise from one judgment, viz., judgment dated 27.02.2017 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge in S.C. No.267 of 2015, they are considered and decided by this common judgment.2 The prosecution story could be succinctly stated as under: 2.1 The deceased in this case is one Kaliyamurthy.His eldest brother Ganesan died over a decade ago.Senthil (A1) is the son of Ganesan.Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4) are Ganesan's daughters.Sivakumar (A2) is the husband of Punitha (A3).2.8 However, Chandra (PW1) took Kaliyamurthy to KMC Hospital in Trichy, but, they refused to admit him and so, she brought him back to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam, where, he was declared as dead.Hence, the police filed an alteration report (Ex.P.24) altering the offence to Sections 294(b), 324, 323 and 302 IPC.On the complaint (Ex.P.1) given by Chandra (PW1), the FIR was registered, as stated above.http://www.judis.nic.in 7 3 Inquest was conducted by the police and the inquest report was marked as Ex.The body of Kaliyamurthy was sent to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam for postmortem, where, Dr.A.Ravichandaran (PW17) performed autopsy and in his evidence as well in the postmortem certificate (Ex.P.21), he has stated as follows:“One sutured wound measuring 8 cm x 8 cm x 1 cm on the left portion of the head.Eyes closed, ear nostrils Ho, Mouth Partially opened.Tongue inside the mouth.Ribs intact.Heart 250 gms.c/s chambers empty.Lungs 400,400 c/s congested, Liver: 1500 gms.c/s congested.Spleen 150 gms c/s.Stomach empty.Hms: (N) Intestine; empty, bladder empty.Kidneys each 150 gms.c/s.Scalp: A sustained wound over left side (parietal region) about 8 cm x 1 cm below the wound.Depressed fracture of skull bone elliptical shape fracture of parietal region left.Brain: Lacerated injury over left parietal lobe over skull, fracture side, cavity fillup with blood clots.Shown no alcohol/other poisons detected.So, the final opinion is grievous injury on head and brain leads to death” 4 While so, Senthil (A1) and Sivakumar (A2) surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Chidambaram in Cuddalore District and not before the jurisdictional Magistrate.On coming to know of it, the Investigating Officer took them into custody on 08.10.2014 and recorded their statement.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 5 Based on the disclosure statement of Senthil (A1), the Investigating Officer recovered a billhook (aruval) – MO1, under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.31).Based on the disclosure statement of Sivakumar (A2), he recovered a casuarina log (MO2) under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.32).6 Meanwhile, Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4) were arrested by the police on 21.09.2014 itself and certain recoveries were effected based on their confession statements, which may not be necessary to be alluded to.7 After recording the statement of witnesses and collecting various reports, the Investigating Officer filed the Final Report in P.R.C. No.27 of 2015 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kumbakonam, for the offences under Section 294(b), 323, 324 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC.8 On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C. No.267 of 2015 and was made over tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur for trial.The Trial Court framed the following charges:Charge No. Array of accused Provision of law under which charged 1 A1 & A2 S. 294(b) IPC 2 A1 S. 324 IPC 3 A2 S. 302 IPC 4 A3 & A4 S. 323 IPC 5 A1,A3 & A4 S. 302 r/w S.34 IPC When questioned, the accused pleaded “not guilty”.9 To prove their case, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses, marked 33 exhibits and 3 material objects.On behalf of the accused, neither any witness was examined nor any document marked.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same.10 After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the Trial Court, by judgment dated 27.02.2017, acquitted Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4), however, convicted Senthil (A1) and Sivakumar (A2) as follows:(A2) for the charge under Section 302 IPC and the complete acquittal of Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4), Chandra (P.W.1) has preferred Crl.12 Heard Mr. N. Anantha Padmanabhan, learned counsel representing Mr.A.Arun Prasad, learned counsel on record for the appellants in Crl.A. (MD) No.85 of 2017 and respondents 2 to 5 in Crl.A. (MD) No.167 of 2017, Mr.K.S. Duraipandian, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A. (MD) No.167 of 2017 and Mr. R. Anandharaj, Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.http://www.judis.nic.in 11 13 At the outset, it may be necessary to examine the evidence of the eyewitnesses, viz., Chandra (PW1), Jayapal (PW2), Swaminathan (PW3), and Kalaivanan (PW4).As stated above, Jayapal (PW2), Swaminathan (PW3) and Kalaivanan (PW4) are siblings and they are the paternal uncles of Senthil (A1), Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4) born to their eldest brother Ganesan.Kaliyamurthy, the deceased in this case, was the other brother.13.1 Chandra (PW1), widow of Kaliyamurthy, has stated in her evidence that there was boundary dispute between both families; her husband made arrangements for putting up a fence around their property and at that time, her brother-in-law (her husband's brother) was also there; when they were at it, A1 to A4 came to the boundary and asked her husband not to fence the property, for which, her husband, stated that he is putting up the fence only within his boundary after measuring, for which, Senthil (A1) and Sivakumar (A2) abused him and referred to him as “bastard” in vernacular; thereafter, Senthil (A1) took a billhook (aruval) and aimed a blow at her husband; on seeing this, her husband's brother Kalaivanan (PW4) intervened and the blow fell on his shoulder; once again, Senthil (A1) attacked Kalaivanan (PW4) and the blow fell on his leg; when her husbandhttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 intervened, he was beaten with a casuarina log on his head and he fell down.She identified M.O.1 as the billhook (aruval) that was used by Senthil (A1); M.O.2 as the casuarina log used by Sivakumar (A2) and M.O.3 series as sticks used by Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4).Chandra (PW1) has further stated that the injured were taken to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam, from where, her husband was taken to Sugam Multispeciality Hospital at Kumbakonam and from there, he was taken to K.M.C. Hospital, Trichy and from the said hospital, he was brought back to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam, where, he was declared brought dead.13.2 Kalaivanan (PW4) has stated that he retired as Bus Conductor; the accused are living next to the house of his brother Kaliyamurthy; his eldest brother Ganesan, who is the father of Senthil (A1), died ten years ago; there was property dispute between Kaliyamurthy and his eldest brother Ganesan's children; on 20.09.2014, around 11.30 a.m., Kaliyamurthy wanted to put up a fence around his property, which was objected to by Ganesan's children, for which, Kaliyamurthy stated that he is putting fence only on his side of the property; Senthil (A1) abused him in vulgar words and came to hack him; on seeing this, he (PW4) intervened; the blowhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 fell on his shoulder and so, he fell down and again, Senthil (A1) hacked him on his leg and caused injury to his toe; when Kaliyamurthy came to his (PW4's) rescue, Sivakumar (A2) took a casuarina log and gave a hard blow on Kaliyamurthy's head by saying ""All the problems are because of you only and it is better you die (free translation); his brother (Kaliyamurthy) fell down and the women also started hitting with sticks, after which, they all ran away; thereafter, both of them were taken to the hospital where he was admitted as inpatient; but, his brother was advised to be taken to Thanjavur Government Hospital; while he (PW4) was in the hospital, he learnt that his brother died at 4.30 a.m. the next day.He identified the billhook (aruval) that was used by Senthil (A1) as M.O.1, the casuarina log used by Sivakumar (A2) as M.O.2 and the sticks used by Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4) as M.O.3 series.13.3 The evidence of Jeyapal (PW2) and Swaminathan (PW3), who are the other two brothers of Kalaivanan (PW4) and the deceased Kaliyamurthy are also to the same effect.14 The Trial Court has believed the testimony of Kalaivanan (PW4), injured witness and has returned a finding that Kalaivananhttp://www.judis.nic.in 14 (PW4) was attacked with a billhook (aruval) by Senthil (A1) and Kaliyamurthy was attacked with a casuarina log.However, the Trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of the eyewitnesses that Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4) had also joined the attack, though their presence has not been disbelieved and has eventually acquitted Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4).15.1 The complaint (Ex.P.1) given by Chandra (PW1) cannot be true because Selvabharathy (PW9), Kaliyamurthy's daughter has, in the cross-examination, stated that after the attack, they all went to the police station first and only thereafter, to the hospital; hence, the evidence of Chandra (PW1) and Kalaivanan (PW4) that they went first to the hospital stands belied.Our reasoning: However, it is to be noted that Selvabharathy (PW9) has clearly deposed with regard to the attack that was mounted by Senthil (A1) and Sivakumar (A2) and has amply corroborated thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 15 evidence of Chandra (PW1), Jayapal (PW2), Swaminathan (PW3) and Kalaivanan (PW4).Selvabharathy (PW9) was aged about 17 years when she was examined in the Court on 24.01.2017 with regard to the incident that had taken place on 20.09.2014, when she would have been 14 years old.The Trial Judge has posed preliminary questions to find out whether she has the necessary understanding of the Court proceedings.The fact remains that after sustaining the injury, Kaliyamurthy had fallen unconscious and Kalaivanan (PW4) was bleeding with cut injury.When that being so, they would have been taken first to the hospital and not to the police station.As against this stray statement of Selvabharathy (PW9), we have the overwhelming evidence of Chandra (PW1), Jayapal (PW2), Swaminathan (PW3) and Kalaivanan (PW4) who have all, in unison, stated that after the attack, the injured were taken to the Government Hospital, Kumbakonam.Ergo, we cannot place much credence on the stray statement of Selvabharathy (PW9) that the injured were first carried to the police station and only thereafter, to the hospital.15.2 Jayapal (PW2) has stated that the Village Administrative Officer and Surveyor were present at the place of occurrence and that their non-examination is fatal to the prosecution case.http://www.judis.nic.in 16 Our reasoning: We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with this contention, because, apart from the stray statement of Jayapal (PW2) that the Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer were present at the place of occurrence, there is no other material to show that they were present there.Had the Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer been present for measuring the land, the incident would not have taken place, because, the accused would not have dared to prevent the Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer from measuring the land.Even assuming for a moment that the Surveyor and the Village Administrative Officer were present at the place of occurrence, their non-examination cannot be said to be fatal, because, we have the evidence of the injured witness Kalaivanan (PW4), whose evidence, the defence were not able to demolish even a wee bit.The injury sustained by Kaliyamurthy has been corroborated by the evidence of Dr.Kamarul Jamal (PW15) and the Accident Register copy (Ex.P.18).15.3 Swaminathan (PW3) has stated in the cross-examination that the incident had occurred for about 45 minutes and the altercation occurred for about 5 minutes; further, the witnesses have also statedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 17 that Senthil (A1) took a bilhook (aruval) that was lying on the ground and caused the injury, which shows that there was no premeditation on the part of the accused; thus, it is clear that Kaliyamurthy provoked the accused by picking up a quarrel and the attack was due to the grave and sudden provocation.Our reasoning: It is trite that if an accused wants to bring his case within any legal exception, the onus is on him under Section 105 of the Evidence Act. Of course, this onus can be discharged by preponderance of probability and also by pointing out the circumstances available in the evidence on record in support of the claimed exception.However, in the cross-examination of Kalaivanan (PW4), it has been suggested that no incident, as alleged by him, had taken place and that he got injured somewhere in his house, with which, a case has been foisted on the accused.Even in the Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination, the accused have not stated that Kaliyamurthy abused them and provoked them to attack.Assuming for a moment that the family of Kaliyamurthy being neighbours and also close relatives, had animosity towards the accused, no ill-motive has been attributed to Jayapal (PW2), Swaminathan (PW3) and the injured witness, viz., Kalaivanan (PW4) who all are the paternal uncles ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 18 Senthil (A1), Punitha (A3) and Jayanthi (A4).In fact, they have all stated that they were having good relationship with the family of their deceased brother Ganesan and they had no property dispute with the accused.Jayapal (PW2) and the injured witness Kalaivanan (PW4) have stated that Senthil (A1) used vulgar words at his uncle Kaliyamurthy when Kaliyamurthy insisted that he was going to put up the fence only within his boundary.15.4 Chandra (PW1) and Swaminathan (PW3) could not have been an eyewitness to the incident, because, Kalaivanan (PW4) has stated that before his going to the place of occurrence, Kaliyamurthy and Jayapal (PW2) were there and he did not see the Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer.In this context, the learned counsel for the accused harped upon the statement of Kalaivanan (PW4) “Besides us, no one was there”, and contended that Swaminathan (PW3) and Chandra (PW1) were also not there.http://www.judis.nic.in 19 Our reasoning: In our opinion, this is an utter misreading of the evidence.When a leading question was put to the witness as to whether Kaliyamurthy and Jeyapal (PW2) were there before his going, he has stated in the affirmative.Therefore, to the leading question put to him, he has stated that he did not see the Village Administrative Officer and Surveyor.After saying so, he has stated that besides them, none was there.He excludes the Village Administrative Officer and Surveyor, because, he did not see them.The incident had taken place in the compound of Kaliyamurthy and it was natural for his wife Chandra (PW1) to have been there when such a commotion was taking place.Chandra (PW1) was not a stranger and her presence at the place of occurrence, which is her house, is indubitably natural.Therefore, we are in complete agreement with the findings of the Trial Court that Senthil (A1) attempted to hack Kaliyamurthy, but, on the intervention of Kalaivanan (PW4), the blow fell on Kalaivanan's (PW4's) shoulder.After the second attack on Kalaivanan (PW4) by Senthil (A1), Kaliyamurthy came to the aid of his brother, seeing which, Sivakumar (A2) hit him on his head with a casuarina log and caused injury.We also hold that the prosecution have proved that Senthil (A1) and Sivakumar (A2) had abused their paternal uncle Kaliyamurthy in filthyhttp://www.judis.nic.in 20 language and Sivakumar (A2), while attacking Kaliyamurthy, has stated that he (Kaliyamurthy) is the root cause for all the troubles.16 Now, comes the strange findings of the Trial Court.“20 Against the 1st accused, the specific charge u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC.As per the evidence of above stated eye witnesses the 1st accused have not attacked the deceased Kaliamurthy and even he has not touched the body of the deceased Kaliyamurthy before or after death.So, mere participation of the 1st accused at the occurrence place along with the 2nd accused.21 In this case, the 1st accused attacked PW4 Kalaivanan.But, originally, the 1st accused started to attack deceased Kaliamurthy.But, unfortunately, PW4 Kalaivanan intervened and got the blow from the 1st accused on his shoulder and leg.From the above said attack, the deceased Kaliamurthy escaped.Then the 2nd accused took revenge and attacked Kaliamurthy with wooden log.Due to the attack of the 2nd accused, Sivakumar deceased kaliamurthy fell down and became unconscious.The attack made by Sivakumar caused grievous injury to the deceased Kaliamurthy.The injury caused by the 1st accused to PW4 Kalaivanan only simple.In the above said occurrence, the 1st accused has not made any attack on the deceased Kaliamurthy.Both the accused 1 and 2 have not made any preparation for committing murder.The attack caused by the 1st and 2nd accused are only without any intention to cause death, as per the evidence of PW4, PW2 who are the prime eye witness in the occurrence place.While the deceased Kaliamurthy was making arrangements to put uphttp://www.judis.nic.in 21 fence, the accused came and asked them not to put up fence and do the same after completing the measurement.So, they have not stated anything aggressively as against the interest of the deceased Kaliamurthy.The evidence of PW4 and PW2 clearly reveals that the accused 1 & 2 suddenly provocated on hearing the reply from the deceased Kaliamurthy, the 1st accused suddenly provocated and attempted to attack Kaliamurthy with aruval.It could arise and be formed suddenly, as for example when one man calls on bystanders to help him kill a given individual and they, either by their words or their acts, indicate their assent to him and join him in the assault.He gave a second blow to Kalaivanan (PW4) for having come to the rescue of Kaliyamurthy, which fell on Kalaivanan's (PW4's) leg cutting his toe.When Kaliyamurthy came to the rescue of Kalaivanan (PW4), Sivakumar (A2) took a casuarina log and gave one solid blow on Kaliyamurthy's head by saying that all these problems were because of him (Kaliyamurthy) only and that he should be no more.Though at the first blush, this argument did sound reasonable, but, the evidence on record militates against such ahttp://www.judis.nic.in 25 conclusion.Hence, instead of taking Kaliyamurthy that far, Chandra (PW1) took him to Sugam Multispeciality Hospital in Kumbakonam itself for better treatment.There, Dr. Sundarrajan (PW 14) treated Kaliyamurthy and put him on ventilator.His pulse rate was coming down and he was gasping for breath.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Around 13.00 hours, M.S.Pandian, son-in-law of V.K.Gurusamy, who was known to her, came there running and rushing inside the house where Jeyanthilal is residing in the ground floor.It is, at that time, 5 persons armed with deadly weapons chased the said M.S.Pandian and trespassed into the house and all of them attacked M.S.Pandian repeatedly with aruvals 5/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019 and swords.When Vasantha tried to prevent them, the five persons threatened to cut and kill her also.Therefore, she raised alarm.However, the said M.S.Pandian was indiscriminately attacked.Thereafter when she went inside the house, she found M.S.Pandian was lying in a pool of blood with cut injuries.An amputated finger of M.S.Pandian was found inside the house.At the entrance of the house, a bullet and a broken cell phone were also found.Thereafter, the said victim was shifted to nearby Velammal Hospital by an ambulance.However, he was pronounced dead by the doctors.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that thereafter, Vasantha came to B4 Keeraithurai Police Station and prepared a complaint statement requesting action, based on which a FIR in B4 Keeraithurai P.S.Cr.No.412/2016 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(ii) and 302 of IPC was registered.After thorough investigation, the detenu Manikandan @ Chinna Vavuthalai, S/o.Alagarsamy and Muthupandi, S/o.Further, the investigation reveals that there was a previous enmity prevailing between V.K.Gurusamy and Rajapandi of Keeraithurai area over political rivalry and family disputes for years together.Due to that, both the parties carried out their revenge murders.Recently, V.K.Gurusamy's son V.K.G.Mani and Son-in-law M.S.Pandian kidnapped Thoppilli Muniyasamy S/o.Rajapandi, murdered him and burnt his body into ashes.Therefore, in order to take revenge, the supporters of Rajapandi murdered one Muniyasamy on 12.06.2018 mistaking him as M.S.Pandian.In continuation, Kalimuthu @ Vellaikali, relative of Rajapandi insisted Boomi @ Boominathan on several occasions to murder M.S.Pandian.Under such circumstances, the accused Boomi @ Boominathan joining with other accused Rambabu, Selvam @ Pinam Thinni, Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari came in a car armed with deadly weapons driven by Padam @ Muniyasamy.The detenu Manikandan @ 7/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019 Chinna Vavuthalai followed them on a two wheeler with Muthupandi as a Pillion Rider.Muthukumar @ Pattakumar was driving another two wheeler with Vinothkumar @ Seda Vinoth as pillion rider and followed them and all of them rushed to Nagupillai Thope.After seeing M.S.Pandian going on walk, Boomi @ Boominathan, who was in the car shot M.S.Pandian with a pistol in his possession.On hearing the sound, M.S.Pandian, escaped from them and ran away.Immediately Boomi @ Boominathan, Selvam @ Pinam Thinni armed with big aruval, Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari armed with a big sword, Muthupandi and the detenu Chinna Vavuthalai armed with deadly weapons chased M.S.Pandian and attacked him indiscriminately.On seeing this, when Vasantha tried to prevent them, the assailants threatened her also and fled away from there by car and two wheelers.They have also robbed a Two Wheeler TN 59 BP 5477 creating panic and feeling of insecurity in the minds of the local people and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the public order.Even the shopkeepers there also closed their shops and the vehicle riders came on that way also returned.8/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019Moreover, Bhuvaneswaran @ Bhuvanesh @ Kocha S/o.Ganesa on his arrest has given a confession statement on 25.04.2019 and he was remanded to judicial custody.Besides, Muniyasamy @ Padam Muniyasamy, S/o.Muthu was arrested on 26.04.2019 and his confession statement was recorded.Thereafter, he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV , Madurai on 26.04.2019 and remanded to judicial custody.When the investigation team was searching the other accused, Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari S/o.Chellapandi, Vinothkumar @ Seda Vinoth, S/o.Chinnapandi and Rambabu, S/o.I, Trichy on 24.04.2019 and remanded to judicial custody at the Central Prison, Trichy.(Order of the Court was made by T.Raja, J.) Mrs.Angala Eswari, W/o.Alagarsamy has filed this Writ of Habeas Corpus, challenging the validity of the impugned order of detention dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Madurai, the 2nd respondent herein in Proceedings in No.41/BCDFGISSSV/2019, to quash the same and to set her son Manikandan @ Chinna Vavuthalai, S/o.Alagarsamy at liberty.Therefore, the 2nd respondent appears to have inferred that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the above case and if he comes out on bail, he would indulge in future activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The above reasoning given by the Detaining Authority shows that the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind properly for the reason that the 2 nd respondent failed to consider the fact that at the time of passing the detention order whether the said bail application was pending before the Sessions Court or not, but nowhere in the detention order the detaining authority mentioned about the date of filing bail application, 3/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019 date of hearing, date of pending disposal whereas the detention order has been passed on 15.07.2019 without verifying the pendency of the bail application.Hence, this non-application of mind would vitiate the impugned detention order, it is pleaded.The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the detention order says that the co-accused Muniyasamy @ Padam Muniyasamy was granted bail by the Madurai Bench of this Court, it has to be seen that the said Muniyasamy was granted bail on the ground that though he had two previous cases, but the same are not similar in nature.Insofar as the present detenu is concerned, the Sponsoring Authority did not place the entire materials before the Detaining Authority.For all these reasons, the impugned order is liable to go.A detailed Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Madurai city, Madurai.Though the detenu also has moved the bail application, the same was pending.As per the ground case, one Vasantha, w/o.Pandian is residing at Flat No.572, TNHB Colony, Anuppanadi, Madurai for rent and her ancestral house is located at Door No.50/216, Subbammal Compound, Sinthamani Main Road, Madurai.While so, one Jeyanthlal is residing at the ground floor for lease whereas one Seenivasan is residing at the first floor of the house for rent.On 18.04.2019 at about 12.00 hours, Vasantha came to the said house and was sitting on the stairs in the ground floor.Kumar were arrested on 24.04.2019 and their confession statements were also recorded.Thereafter, the duo were produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai on 24.04.2019 and remanded to judicial custody at the Central Prison, Madurai.On 26.04.2019, they were transferred to the Central Prison, Madurai.Thereafter, the trio were taken to police custody on 27.04.2019 and their confession statements were recorded.Moreover, the case properties, namely, a 9/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019 sword was seized from Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari, a Hero Honda Splender Two Wheeler was seized from Vinothkumar @ Seda Vinoth and one Two Wheeler was seized from Rambabu on 28.04.2019 under attachi.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the representation dated 02.08.2019 submitted by the petitioner addressed to the State Government marking a copy to the Detaining Authority was received by the Detaining Authority on 05.08.2019 from the petitioner and remarks for the same were called for from the Sponsoring Authority on 05.08.2019 and the remarks which were received from the Sponsoring Authority on 06.08.2019 were sent to the Government on the same day without any delay.Therefore, there is no infirmity in the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent.10/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 20199. Heard the learned Counsel on either side and I have also perused the typed set of papers including the detention order carefully.At the outset, it is an admitted case that after killing M.S.Pandian, when the investigation team was searching the offenders, the detenu Manikandan @ Chinna Vavuthalai and his associate Muthupandi were arrested on 24.04.2019 Thereafter, the duo were produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai on 24.04.2019 and remanded to judicial custody at the Central Prison, Madurai.Besides, the accused Boomi @ Boominathan was surrendered before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai on 25.04.2019 and was remanded to judicial custody till 03.05.2019 at the Puzhal Prison, Chennai.The accused Rambabu along with other accused surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy on 24.04.2019 and remanded to judicial custody at the Central Prison, Trichy.Moreover, a sword was seized from Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari.On the basis of the confession statements given by them, it appears that a Hero Honda 11/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019 Splender Two Wheeler was also seized from Vinothkumar @ Seda Vinoth and one another two wheeler was seized from Rambabu on 28.04.2019 under attachi.Thereafter, all these three accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai and their remand period has also been extended.While so, the representation dated 02.08.2019 submitted by the petitioner to the State Government marking a copy to the Detaining Authority was received by the Detaining Authority on 05.08.2019 and remarks for the same were called for from the Sponsoring Authority on the same day and remarks were received from the Sponsoring Authority on 06.08.2019 which were sent to the Government on the same day itself without any delay.Secondly, the detenu was in remand in the ground case in Crime No.412/2019 of B4 Keeraithurai Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(ii) and 302 of IPC altered into Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(ii), 392 and 302 of IPC and Section 25(1- A) of the Arms Act, 1959 altered into Section 120-B, 147, 148, 448, 506(ii), 392, 302 of IPC and 25(1-A) Arms Act, 1959 in Central Prison, Palayamkottai and on the date of passing of the detention order i.e. on 12/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019 15.07.2019, the bail application filed in Crl.M.P.No.2392/2019 was pending disposal.13/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019Since a Full Bench of this Court in Arumugam vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chenni-9 and another reported in 2011 (4) CTC 353 has held that even a single incident giving rise to a single case would be sufficient and if that single case is of the nature as defined in Section 3 of the Act, there can be a valid order of detention.In view of all the above, we find no infirmity in the order detaining the detenu Muthupandi, S/o.Kumar under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (T.N.Act 14 of 1982).14/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same stands dismissed.2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.15/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019 T.RAJA, J.and B.PUGALENDHI,J.tsi Pre-delivery order in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019 16/16http://www.judis.nic.in HCP.(MD) No.811 of 2019 04.06.2020","['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The petitioners in the above O.P.s are human rights activists, twoof them are advocates and others represent Social Action Groups,namely Thindivanam Nagara Matrum Ooraga Kalvi Membattu Kazhagam ( Thindivinam Town and Rural Education Development Society), a Committee for Educational Improvement of the People of Thindivanam Town, and Peoples Watch (Tamil Nadu).Alleging that the complaint lodged by one Leelavathy, in Crime No.679 of 2001 on the file of the Gingee Police Station, thdaughter, an innocent 19 years old girl, namely Ms.Rita Mary, was said tohave been illegally trafficked, subjected to sex tourism andcommercial sexual exploitation, victimised by sex traders and pimps, causingcruelty - physically and mentally, assaulted sexually and exploitedto gruesome gang rape on the night of 29.10.2001, while she was underjudicial custody in Gingee Sub-Jail, was not properly investigated by the Inspector of Police, Gingee Police Station, the petCrl.O.P.No.24090 of 2001, seek:(a)to direct the Secretary to Government, Home Department, toentrust the investigation of Crime No.679 of 2001, on the file of theGingee Police Station to the CBI under the direct supervision of the Joint Director, CBI, Chennai;(b)to direct the Secretary to Government, Home Department, to payjust and fair amount as compensation to Ms.Rita Mary, Lakshmanan, Anandan, Sadiq Basha and Mohan;(c)to direct the Secretary to Government, Home Department and theDirector General of Police, Chennai, to get the complaint registeredby the concerned Police station on the basis of the representationdated 12.11.2001 made by Mr.P.Lakshmanan and entrust it to the CBI forinvestigation and action as per law;and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.24248 of 2001, seek:a direction to the Secretary to Government, Home Department, totransfer the investigation of the offence in Crime No.679 of 2001 on thefile of the Gingee Police Station to Central Bureau of Investigationunder the direct supervision of Joint Director, Central Bureau ofInvestigation, Chennai and for payment of fair compensation to thevictims including Lakshmanan, Anandan, Sadiq Basha and Mohan.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and thenature of the crime said to have been committed on the victim girl, Ms.Rita Mary, this Court, while admitting the above O.Ps.on 23.11.2001,directed Ms.G.Thilakavathi, I.P.S., Inspector General of Police, HeadQuarters, Chennai, to hold an enquiry relating to the investigation in Crime No.679 of 2001 on the file of the Gingee Policecompensation payable to the victim girl.Pursuant to the said directions of this Court dated 23.11.2001, Ms.In her report dated 4.12.2001, Ms.G.Thilakavathi, I.P.S.,Inspector General of Police, had traversed the entire relevant factsrelating to the alleged crime and placed the same before this Court,unearthing certain material evidences and vital details relating to thealleged crime and also had disclosed the names of the Police Officialsand Medical Officers, who are said to have committed lapses indischarging their duties.It was reported that the victim, Ms.Rita Mary, herself wascharged for an alleged offence punishable under Section 8(b) ofPrevention of Immoral Traffic Act in STC No.2255 of 2001, and was sent tojudicial custody on 30.10.2001, without any injury.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thindivait was not safe to keep the victim, Ms.In the meanwhile, on 5.11.2001, the victim was released on bail.As per the said report dated 4.12.2001, it is evident that theonly humane moment in the whole enquiry was the care and concern shown by the Ms.R.P.Kalpana, learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,Thindivanam, whose understanding, compassionate and tenderly approach towards the victim was laudable.The humane and judicious approach of Ms.After narrating the details of the alleged barbaric crime saidto have been committed on the ill-fated victim girl, Ms.Rita Mary, Ms.G.Thilakavathi, I.P.S., Inspector General of Police, indated 4.12.2001, had reported that going by circumstances andevidences, Ms.The report dated 4.12.2001 suggests for payment of interimcompensation to not only to the victim, but also to M/s. Lakshmanan,Mohan, Sadiq Basha, and Anandan, as a token of appreciation for theirattempts to save the victim from the brothel runners and their henchmen.The report dated 4.12.2001 has also brought to the notice ofthis Court, the excessive media coverage which would definitely hamper the future of the victim girl to a large extent.Treating the said report dated 4.12.2001, as a part and parcelof the proceedings in the above O.P.s, this Court, by an order dated 4.12.2001, transferred the investigation relating to Crime No.679 of 2001 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Gingee Police Station,with regard to the alleged crime said to have been committed on thevictim, Ms.Rita Mary, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 read with Sections 511 and 576(c) of the Indian Penal Code, to the Crime Branch CID II, Chennai, headed by Mr.Sridhar, Supeof Police, Chennai, with a direction to investigate the said crime and to proceed in accordance with law, with the followingofficers, viz., Mr.G.Rajendran, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID,Chengalpet, Mr.G.Harikrishnan, Inspector of Police, CBCID, Villupuram,Mr.Rajan, Inspector of Police, CBCID, Salem and Mr.Subbaiah, Inspector of Police, CBCID, Cuddalore, under the direct supervisThilakavathi, I.P.S., Inspector General of Police, Head Quarters,Chennai, and to report the effective steps taken in that regard and theprogress in the investigation.This court by the said interim order dated 4.12.2001 alsodirected (i) the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, to takeappropriate decision to provide interim relief to the victim; (ii) theSecretary, Home Department and the Director General of Police, to takeappropriate action against the Police Officers concerned; and (iii) the Secretary, Health Department, to provide all necessarassistance to the victim girl, at the expense of the State, and also totake appropriate departmental action against the medical officers whoare said to have committed lapses in their duty, in the light of thereport dated 4.12.2001 of Ms.G.Thilakavathi, I.P.S., Inspector General of Police, as a part and parcproceedings in the above O.P.s, and to issue the above directions, I do not propose to give any opinion on the alleged crimeas it would, otherwise, be an interference with the investigationordered, causing unnecessary aspirations on the prosecution andprejudice the defence in the trial.The investigation relating to the Crime No.679 of 2001 on thefile of Gingee Police Station was, accordingly, transferred to CrimeBranch CID II, Chennai, and the Crime Branch CID II, Chennai, underthe direct supervision of Ms.G.Thilakavathi, I.P.S., Inspector General of Police, Headquarters, Chennai, had taken swift actimatter.In supersession of the orders issued in the G.O. third read above,the Government issue the following orders:The Government have examined the case and have decided to pay Rs.5 ,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) as compensation to the allegedvictim Selvi Rita Mary.They accordingly direct that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) be paid to Selvi Rita Mary.The above expenditure shall be debitable under the following head of account:(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) NARESH GUPTA SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.The said amount of Rs.5 Lakhs awarded to the victim Ms.RitaMary, by G.O.(2D) No.346, Home (Police.XII) Department, dated 12.12.2001, shall be invested with Tamil Nadu Power Finance Cor from the date ofinvestment, which shall be renewed thereafter, once in three years,periodically, and the monthly interest accrued thereon shall be paid to thevictim Ms.Rita Mary, for her livelihood, from the date of theinvestment.The victim Ms.Looking at the pains and sufferings of the victim, Ms.Rita Mary, as a prototype of the plight of many such trafficked viare forced and subjected to the commercial sexual exploitation, I amconstrained to issue the following guidelines, for due implementationby the Government:But, on 31.10.2001, Ms.R.P.Kalpana, learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thindivanam, observed that the victim was injuredleg and could not explain the cause for the same; and that she wasnot in fit mental condition.Hence, the victim was sent for medicaltreatment.On 1.11.2001, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thindivanam, recorded that the victim was mentally upset and thereforecommended for mental treatment at Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Chennai.G.Thilakavathi, I.P.S., Inspector General of Police.Except to treat the report dated 4.12.2001 of Ms.The sincere and dedicated service rendered by Ms.The G.O.(2D) No.346 Home (Police.XII) Department, dated 12.12.2001, reads as follows:GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ABSTRACT VICTIM COMPENSATION Compensation to Selvi Rita Mary, alleged victim of assault in Sub-Jail, Gingee Orders of High Court in Crl.O..No.24090 and 24248/2001, dated 4.12.2001 Implementation of.1.Orders of High Court dated 4.12.2001 in Crl.Claims under no fault liability Principal charges (D.P.C. 2055 00 109 AA 5113).The Director General of Police is requested to draw and disburse the said amount to Selvi Rita Mary under proper acknowleintimate the fact to Government.This order issues with the concurrence of Finance Departmentvide it U.O.No.29/ADS(SM)/2001-1, dated 6.12.2001 and the additionalsanction Ledger No.498 (Four hundred and ninety eight only).The benign decision of the Government to allot an ownershipdwelling unit of Tamil Nadu Housing Board to the star-crossed victim, Ms.Rita Mary, free of cost, is also recorded and the sagiven effect to expeditiously, in any event within a period of ninetydays from the date of receipt of this order; on condition that thevictim, Ms.This Court extensively appreciates the benevolent gesture ofthe Government towards the hapless victim girl, Ms.Rita Mary.Right to life means something more than survival or animalexistence.Right to life includes the right to live with humandignity.(a)to effectively prevent the Media from unmindfully and undulypublishing the photographs and other details relating to the sexuallyassaulted victim, invoking Section 228A of Indian Penal Code, as itwould take a long time to get rid of the social stigma caused on thevictim due to such unwarranted and prohibited media coverage andpublicity;(b)to establish separate sub-jails to house women prisoners, underthe exclusive administration of trained women personnel; and till such formation, to remand women prisoners only in the vigilseparate enclosures; and(c)to entrust an in-depth analysis of psycho-social factors relating to the victimisation of the trafficked individuals to anmeasures, on:i.prevention of trafficking, through education, public awareness and economic alternative;ii.protection for the victims of trafficking; andiii.prosecution of traffickers, as, many a time, traffickedindividuals, are alone treated as criminals, even though they themselves arevictims of fraud and violence, by sexual assaults and exploitation.These O.P.s are, therefore, disposed of with the above directionsand observations.No costs.Consequently, Crl.M.P.Nos.8256 and 8257 of 2001 are closed.21.12.2001Note to Office:Copy of this order may be marked to:1) Ms.R.P.Kalpana, Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thindivanam2) Ms.G.Thilakavathi, I.P.S., Inspector General of Police Headquarters, Chennai.",['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
"hy Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 ad of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Gudda Gond in crime no.379/2017 registered M by P.S.-Patan, District-Jabalpur under Sections 294, 323, of 315, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.As per the prosecution case, at about 11:00 a.m. on rt 01.10.2017, victim Herobai was returning from the field ou with her husband Betu and daughter Khusboo.At that C time, petitioner Gudda and co-accused persons Gullu, h Subhadrabai and Langdobai had beaten her with sticks.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no post- mortem examination of the child was conducted.In the MLC report victim Herobai was found to sustain only one injury in the thigh.Therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as sh pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner deserves to be e released on bail.ad Consequently, this first application for bail under Section Pr 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Gudda Gond, is allowed.a hy It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/-ad with one solvent surety in the same amount to the M satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for of complying with the conditions enumerated under Section rt 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.ou Certified copy as per rules.C h (C V SIRPURKAR) ig JUDGE H vai Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2017.11.28 20:14:13",['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Heard on the question of admission.This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 6-9-2016 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 84 of 2015 by which the order dated 7-2-2015 passed by Special Railway Magistrate, Gwalior in complaint Case No. UN/2014 has been affirmed.It was the case of the applicant that he is working in the Railway Department and on 19-9-2014 while he was going back home after his duty hours, he found that Rajesh Kumar Godia, Rakesh Kushwaha and Ashok Kumar were bringing one double bed and four chairs from Rail Spring Factory.Therefore, the Court directed the applicant to examine himself and his witnesses.The Counsel for the applicant fairly conceded that since, the offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 is not cognizable, therefore, no order could have been passed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., but submitted that the Magistrate could have treated the said application to be under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. and should have directed for investigation.He further stated that merely a wrong provision of law was quoted, therefore, the application filed by the applicant should not have been rejected treating the same under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.Per contra, the Counsel for the State submitted that the applicant himself had filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, no illegality was committed by the Magistrate in rejecting the application.Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant.The counsel for the applicant has not challenged that part of the order of the Railway Magistrate, by which it was held that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the 3 MCRC 12730/2016 complaint in respect of offences punishable under the Penal Code.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Prosecution story in short was that on 11.11.2018 social worker reported at Police Station, Kotwali, Alirajpur regarding trafficking of children being carried out by one Shailendra Singh Rathore.The Police thereafter deputed decoy in order to apprehend the concerned.The deputed punter approached Shailendra Singh Rathore and gave him pre-marked currency for purchasing child.Shailendra Singh Rathore was then caught giving child to the decoy witnesses in presence of four other co-accused persons viz. Devisingh, Dines, Baisingh and Rinku.P.C seeking bail in connection with crime No.389/18 registered at Police Station Alirajpur, district Alirajpur for the offence punishable under sections 363, 370, 34, 120(b), 420, 467 & 468 of the IPC and under section 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act.The case was registered and during investigation, it was found that one Dr.A.Raju, running Kesar Surgical and Maternity Hospital at Chhota Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair Date: 20/03/2019 15:50:49 2 Udaipur, Gurarat was involved along with his staff in selling children.After investigation charge sheet has been filed under sections 360, 370, 363/34, 120-B, 420, 467 & 468 of IPC along with section 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act.The allegation against the applicant Sayrabanu, who is Nurse in the hospital of Dr.A.Raju is that she had sold child to one Samdani Memon and had been given Rs.4000/- as commission.Learned counsel for the applicant Shri Dave submits that memorandum of Sayrabanu was recorded on 20.11.18 at 12.40 P.M, however, even prior to that memorandum of Dr.A.Raju was recorded concerning the same subject matter on 20.11.18 only at 7.15 A.M and recovery of child was made at 1.05 P.M on 20.11.2018, therefore, it cannot be stated that recovery of child was made on the basis of memo of Sayrabanu.Learned counsel submits that thus there is no discovery on the basis of memorandum of Sayrabanu.It is also stated that no recovery of any money was also made from the applicant.There are other connected matters along with this matter.It is also submitted that kids which were allegedly traded were such kids as were born out of illicit relationships and were given away by their mothers as they were unable and un-inclined to rear them up.Such children were being reared by person acquiring them as their own children and they were not subjected to any kind of abuse.Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that children were being sold of like commodities against the provisions of law and such illegal practice had thrown the door open to exploitation of children as there was no means of supervising as to whether children are being exploited or not and their interests are being served or not.Case diary was perused and arguments were considered.Prima facie, it appears that children were being traded like commodity but it does not appear that they were being sold for exploiting them.All those persons who have bought the children have been shown to be bringing them up in normal manner and some of the purchasers have even demanded custody of the children.There is substance in the submission that there is no evidence to suspect trafficking of children since there is no evidence regarding trading of children for exploitation.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for her regular appearance before the trial court during trial with a condition that she shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3)C.c as per rules.(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE hk/ Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair Date: 20/03/2019 15:50:49","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 213 of 2020, under Sections 498-A/304/326/342/323 IPC, Police Station Kaptanganj, District Kushinagar, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that F.I.R was registered under sections 498-A/304/326/342/323 IPC against three accused persons Smt. Kaushalya Devi Mother-in-law, Ajay Yadav husband and Rahul Yadav Dewar.Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIS UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored.The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 2.11.2020 Vikram","['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The name of the petitioner/prosecutrix has not been mentioned in order to avoid her identity.On the complaint of the petitioner FIR No.150/2010 under Section 376(2)(G) IPC was registered at PS Seema Puri.In her complaint the complainant stated that she was residing at Dilshad Colony for the last about 3 months and had met Amit Modi and Pushpash Aggarwal about 1 months ago when she requested them to give her an employment.Two of them employed her in their company.Thereafter Amit Modi started frequently visiting her house.On 21st May, 2010 at about 8.00 PM, on the pretext of discussing some official work, he visited her residence and after some time called Sunil Totlani, Jai Kishore and Pushpash Aggarwal to her house.According to the petitioner, by 8.15 PM, three of them also came to her house whereafter Amit Modi started molesting her and when she freed herself from his clutches Sunil Totalani wiped out a revolver threatening her Crl.M.C. 4/2016 Page 1 of 8 of dire consequences.Thereafter first Amit Modi and then Sunil Totlani raped her against her wishes.She made a PCR call at 11.09 PM.M.C. 4/2016 Page 1 of 8Learned ACMM also noted that as per the complainant herself the alleged incident took place between 8.15 PM and 11.09 PM on 21st May, 2010 and the locations of the four accused persons namely Amit Modi, Sunil Totlani, Jai Kishore Totlani and Pushpash Agarwal at the relevant time was far away from the residence of the petitioner.Amit Modi was present in the area of Preet Vihar, Swasthya Vihar, Jagriti Enclave, Sunil Totlani was present in the area of Crl.During the course of investigation, the complainant was medically examined, crime team inspected the spot, collected the bed sheet and broken pieces of bangles, videographed and photographed the spot and conducted enquiries.Call detail records of mobile phones of all the four accused were obtained.Statements of relevant witnesses were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and a cancellation report was filed.The petitioner filed a complaint and protest petition.Vide order dated 19 th February, 2011 the learned ACMM was of the opinion that the investigation was incomplete.The investigating officer was directed to impound hard disc of the computer of the Moti Mahal Restaurant and CCTV footage of Fun Cinema and send the same to the CFSL and after collecting the said material file the report within two weeks.Vide order dated 6th March, 2012 learned ACMM noted the statement of learned counsel of the complainant that the complainant has since married and was in the process of deciding whether to proceed with the complaint or not and sought some time.On 1st May, 2013 further investigation as directed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was completed and the supplementary charge sheet was filed.Vide order dated 7th October, 2014 it was also noted that the statement of the complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as report in respect of the CD of the place of offence have been filed.Finally after hearing arguments, learned ACMM vide the impugned order dated 17th October, 2015 accepted the cancellation report and dismissed the protest petition.M.C. 4/2016 Page 2 of 8The affidavits of Kavita Choudhary, Anuradha @ Anu, Sunil Sharma and Ashok Kumar have been appended with the protest petition.The affidavits of the said witnesses also do not support the version of the complainant regarding her rape.None of the said persons is a witness to the effect that the accused were present at H.No.562, B pocket, Dilshad Garden, Delhi or that the accused Amit Modi was not present in PVR, Karkardooma or that accused Sunil Totlani was not present in Moti Mahal Restaurant, Rani Bagh, Delhi at the time of incident.As already observed, even the affidavits of the said witnesses do not have any bearing on the assertions of the complainant.In the above circumstances, even posting the matter for evidence of the complainant would not serve any useful purpose.In passing, it has been observed that the IO has moved a complaint u/s 195 Cr.Pc for initiating action u/s 182 IPC against the complainant herein.Perusal of the final report shows that material has come on record to show that the complainant herein in conspiracy with other known and un-known persons had sought to falsely implicate the accused persons.The exact roles and identities of the said persons are yet to be ascertained.I deem the present case to be fit for exercise of jurisdiction u/s 155(2) of the Cr.Pc as further investigation is to be conducted for ascertaining the exact roles and identities of the said persons.SHO, P.S. Crl.M.C. 4/2016 Page 3 of 8 concerned is accordingly, directed to conduct further investigation in terms of section 155(2) Cr.It is clarified that IO will be at liberty to arrive at his own conclusions and it is further clarified that in case commission of any other offence comes to light, the IO will be at liberty to proceed as per law.M.C. 4/2016 Page 3 of 8There is no material before this court to take cognizance of offence u/s 376(2) G IPC.There are no grounds to proceed further.I am satisfied with the investigation of the case.The conclusion arrived at by the IO appears to be bonafide.The cancellation is accepted and protest petition is without any merit and is dismissed.Copy of this order be sent to P.S. concerned for information and necessary compliance.File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.""In the impugned order, learned ACMM noted that though the claim of the complainant was that she was employed by the accused persons and working in their office at Indra Puram however from the statement of witnesses and record it was established that she was never employed in the said company nor was there any evidence to show that the petitioner ever received salary from the company of the accused persons.M.C. 4/2016 Page 4 of 8 New Seelampur, Shastri Park and Kohat Enclave, Jai Kishore Totlani was present at Vasundhara Enclave, Kohat Enclave, Rani Bagh whereas Pushpash Agarwal was present in the area of Noida Sector 18, Block A, Noida 15A. The CCTV footage recording of Moti Mahal restaurant at M2K Mall, Rani Bagh showed presence of Sunil Totlani and Jai Kishore Totlani dining along with their families in the restaurant from 9.00 PM onwards.The CCTV footage of Fun Cinema, Cross River Mall, Anand Vihar revealed that from about 10.00 PM onwards Amit Modi was watching movie along with his family.During the course of investigation, a slip wherein names of all the four accused were noted was recovered from underneath the kitchen slab of the complainant.M.C. 4/2016 Page 4 of 8M.C. 4/2016 Page 5 of 8Before the learned ACMM, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the plea of alibi of the accused could not be considered at this stage and the electronic evidence was accepted without a certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act and that the statements of the witnesses who were the employees of the accused were partisan, taken under duress and could not have been considered.It was further argued that since an offence under Section 376 IPC was triable by the Court of Sessions, learned ACMM could not have accepted the cancellation report.The Court noted that none of these deponents were witnesses to the incident nor stated about the presence of the accused at the house of the petitioner at the relevant time.Thus, the affidavits filed by the complainant had no bearing on the facts of the case.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE NOVEMBER 09, 2016 'v mittal' Crl.M.C. 4/2016 Page 8 of 8M.C. 4/2016 Page 8 of 8","['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This petition is by the widow of Dilbagh Singh.He was one of theaccused in case FIR No. 89/85 of P.S. Delhi Cant.for offences under Sections 186, 353, 332/34 and 307/34, IPC along with three others, namely Baleshwar Solanki, Ram Lal and Padam Singh.JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.With respect to the same occurrence, another case was registered vide FIR No. 90/85 at P.S. Delhi Cant for offence under Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959 (Act No.54 of 1959) against Padam Singh, son of Subh Ram, the sole accused in that case.2. Dilbagh Singh, the petitioner's husband was the holder of arms licence No. 61/PS/Rai/SDM/S for 32 bore revolver No. H - 108289, Make-Smith & Wessions for which FIR No. 90/85 was registered against Padam Singh.Padam Singh was tried for offence under Section 27 of Arms Act in FIR No. 90/85 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.On 6.6.1986 proceedings against Padam Singh were dropped by the Metropolitan Magistrate by the following order:""Report received back from the Police Station Delhi Cant.regarding the death of accused Padam Singh.It is verified by the police.Proceedings against the accused Padam Singh be dropped and file be consigned to record room.Trial of the other case, which was subject matter of FIR No. 89/85 proceeded in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi against four accused persons.In the said case on 28.2.1985, an application was moved before the Metropolitan Magistrate by accused Dilbagh Singh, on the strength of his arms licence stating that as the revolver had been taken possession of by the police from his custody, the same be ordered to be returned to him.On 1.3.1985, an order was passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate for return of the revolver to Dilbagh Singh on superdari of Rs. 10.000/- with the direction that the same be produced in the Court as and when directed.However, the fire arm was not taken on superdari by Dilbagh Singh pursuant to the said order.As Padam Singh expired on 27.4.1986, proceedings against him in Sessions Case No.68/86, State Vs.Baleshwar & Ors.(FIR No. 89/85 of P.S. Delhi Cant.) also stood abated.Proceedings against him also stood abated.Baleshwar & Ors.), while acquitting the other co-accused.In this case also, no order was passed by the Court for disposal of the revolver.It appears that on 12.3.1987, an application was moved by S.H.O., P.S. Delhi Cant.for confiscation of the revolver stating that the accused Padam Singh in FIR No. 90/85, for offence under Section 27 of Arms Act, had expired on 27.4.1986 and the case stood decided on 6.6.1986, against which no appeal was preferred and the property involved in the case was no more required, therefore, necessary orders for its disposal be passed.On this application, the following order was passed by Mr. A.S. Yadav, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in March, 1987:After decision of Sessions Case No. 69/86 (State Vs.Baleshwar & Ors.), the petitioner (widow of Dilbagh Singh) moved an application for return of the revolver in question.Report was called on the said application.In view of this report, the application was dismissed on 16.4.1993 an infructuous.Padam Singh expired on 27.4.1986 and the criminal proceedings against him in FIR No. 90/85 stood abated.No order was passed by the Magistrate on 6.6.1986 regarding custody or disposal of the revolver when proceedings against Padam Singh were ordered to be dropped and file was ordered to be consigned to records.The petition stands disposed of.","['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicants shall be released in connection with Crime No.146/2016 registered at Police Station- Hudkeshwar, Nagpur under Section 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code on furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Police Officer.The order shall remain in force for one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.The applicants are at liberty to approach the competent Court to seek anticipatory bail beyond the period of one month.Certified copy as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA)","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"5.The brief facts of the case are that the first accused is the son of the second accused and the accused were residing adjacent to the deceased's house.PW.1 is the brother of the deceased.There was an enmity prevailed between the deceased and the accused that the first accused used to throw garbage in front of the decease house.On 28.12.2010 at about 3.45 pm as usual, the accused threw some garbage in front of the deceased Mahalingam house and the same was questioned by the deceased.The accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased and has stated that he will do like so and there was a wordy quarrel between the deceased and the accused and during the course, the accused No.1 said to have pushed the deceased and the deceased fell down on the cement road and sustained injuries on his back head.Immediately, the brother of the deceased took him to the Government Hospital at Virudhunagar, where PW9 Dr.The victim was also not conscious and considering the nature of the injury and his condition, he referred the victim to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and in the meantime he gave medical intimation to the Virudhunagar East Police Station.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 20146.The Special Sub Inspector of Police, Narasingaraj, [PW14] on receipt of medical intimation, went to the Government Hospital at Virudhunagar at about 4.45pm and since, the deceased was in an unconscious state, he recorded the statement from his brother, Muniyandi [PW1] and returned to the Police Station around 5.30 pm and registered a case in Crime No.848 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(II) IPC.Thereafter, he proceeded to the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai and conducted inquest in the presence of panchayatadars on 29.12.2010 from 11.00am tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/21 Crl.7.PW.10 is Dr.18.The deceased in this case was admitted by PW1 in the Government Hospital, Virudhunagar, on 28.12.2010 at 4.10pm.The Doctor [PW9], who admitted the deceased at Virudhunagar Government Hospital, recorded the accident register [ExP.6].The Doctor [PW9] has noted that the deceased was assaulted by two known persons with weapons and knife on 28.12.2010, around 3.45pm at his house.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 20142.The appellant is accused No.1 and he was tried along with his father Ramasamy [accused No.2] in S.C.No.248 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 302 IPC.In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found the appellant guilty under Section 304(II) IPC and acquitted him from the charge under Sections 294(b) and 302 IPC and the second accused was found guilty for the offence under Section 304(II) r/w 34 IPC and was acquitted from the charges under Section 294(b) and 302 IPC.3.The conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial Court are as follows:Accused Section of Law Sentence of imprisonment To undergo Rigorous A1 304(II) IPC Imprisonment for ten years A2 304(II) IPC r/w To undergo Rigorous 34 IPC Imprisonment for ten years4.The accused No.2 also filed an appeal in Crl.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014A(MD)No.79 of 2014 12.30pm.Purushothaman and he conducted autopsy on 29.12.2010 at 1.15pm and noted down the antemortem injuries, which are an abrasion 3 cms X 2 cms over the left thigh and on dissection of scalp, subcalpal contusion measuring 12 cms X 10 cms on the left temporal-parietal region and after the chemical examination report, he gave his final opinion that the deceased appears to have died of raino cerebral injuries.Thereafter, further investigation was taken over by the Inspector of Police [PW16] on 28.12.2010 and he obtained chemical analysis report and recorded the statements from the witnesses and also verified the statements examined by the previous Investigating Officerhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 and filed a final report after concluding his investigation on 25.08.2011, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar and the same was taken on file in PRC No.15 of 2011 and committed to the Court of Session and the same was taken on file in SC.No.248 of 2011 by the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Virudhunagar.9.During the course of trial 16 witnesses were examined and 17 documents were filed as exhibits before the trial Court on the side of the prosecution and 4 material objects were also produced.10.The available prosecution evidence are as follows:10.2.PW2 is the wife of the deceased and also she speaks about the occurrence as an eye witness.10.3.PW3 is the grand son of the deceased, who was also examined as an eye witness.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 10.4.PW4 son of the deceased, who was residing in the adjacent house and he was also examined as an eye witness and he also speaks about the occurrence.10.5.PW5 is a neighbour, who is residing in the same street and he was also examined as an eye witness.10.6.PW6 is another son of the deceased who was residing in another place and he was also examined as witness.10.7.PW7 is examined for the purpose of the observation mahazar and rough sketch prepared in the place of occurrence.10.8.PW8 is the Village Administrative Officer, who stood as witness for the arrest and recovery.10.9.PW9 is the Doctor at Government Hospital at Virudhunagar, who provided first aid to the deceased on 28.12.2010 at 4.10 pm and also prepared accident register [ExP.6]http://www.judis.nic.in 7/21 Crl.10.12.PW15 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted preliminary investigation and PW16 is the Inspector of Police, who conducted further investigation and filed final report in this case.11.The incriminating materials from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put to the accused, under Section 313 CrPC and the accused denied the same and he also stated that there are witnesses in support of his case, but, he did not examine any one.In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.12.Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has filed this present appeal.http://www.judis.nic.in 8/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 201414.The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceased and the prosecution witnesses are the close relatives to PW1 and all the witnesses are not real eye witnesses and they are created witnesses for the purpose of this case.The evidence of the prosecution witnesses as eye witnesses cannot be relied upon in this case.According to PW1, he specifically, stated in his evidence that he did not witness the occurrence and he reached the place after the commission of offence.PW2 is the wife of the deceased.Though she was examined as an eye witness, she did not support the case of the prosecution.She was also working as Washerwoman and used to go to wash cloths.PW3 is the grand son of the deceased who was also examined as an eye witness that he was present at the place of occurrence and he came to his grandfather's house for the purpose of preparing for examination.But he did not accompany the deceased to the hospital and therefore, he could not be present at the time of occurrence.PW4 is the son of the accused, he was residing at the adjacent street and he was sleeping in his house athttp://www.judis.nic.in 9/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 the time of occurrence and he was not directly aware of the occurrence.He also did not accompany the deceased to the hospital.It is also not the case of the prosecution that the daughter-in- law of the deceased Lakshmi alias Mahalakshmi was present at the place of occurrence and therefore, the evidence of the eye witness produced by the prosecution are not reliable witness and there are contradictions in their evidence and therefore, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of the eye witnesses.He also pointed out that in the Accident Register[ExP.6], the Doctor [PW9], who admitted the deceased has specifically mentioned that there was breath smell of alcohol noticed at the time of admitting the deceased in the hospital.The drinking habit of the deceased has also been stated by PW1, PW2 and PW4 and the postmortem Doctor [PW10] has also noticed the presence of 100 ml brownish liquid with pungent odour athttp://www.judis.nic.in 10/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 the time of postmortem and therefore, the deceased, who was under the influence of liquor fell down on the slab, sustained injury and died.Further the prosecution has projected the case as if, it is the appellant, who has pushed the deceased on the cement slab and due to which, the deceased succumbed to injury.Though the First Information Report was registered on 28.12.2010, it reached the Court only on 29.12.2010 at 11.00am and there is a delay in the FIR reaching the Court and this delay has not been properly explained by the prosecution.The postmortem certificate also discloses that the deceased died due to raino cerebral injuries and the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem has noted down the antemortem injuries that an abrasion 3 cms X 2 cms over the left thigh and on dissection of scalp, subcalpal contusion measuring 12 cms X 10 cms on the left temporal - parietal region.State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2004 SC 313, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the reliability of the witnesses cannot be discarded on the theory of relative of the deceased.Even if they are relatives, if the evidences are trustworthy and reliable, then the Court can consider their evidence and can sustain conviction.Consequent to that the victim died in this case and therefore, the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has considered all the evidence and held that there is a death as homicidal one, rightly convicted and imposed sentence on the accused.He also noted the breath smell of alcohol when he admitted the deceased in the hospital.The deceased was referred to Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai, for further treatment, but he died on the next day around 6.30am.The Doctor [PW10] at Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai conducted postmortem and noted down 100ml brown colour liquid with pungent odour in the stomach and 20ml of stained fluid with pungent odour in the small intestines.The defence has taken a theory that the deceased was a drunkard and on the date of occurrence under the influence of liquor, he fell down on the cement slab, sustained injury and died due to that injury.However, the prosecution has foisted this case, as if, the accused pushed him down on the date ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 occurrence and on account of which, the occurrence has taken place.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and the accused are neighbours and the accused used to put garbage near the house of the deceased and that was questioned by the deceased and on the date of occurrence also the accused put the garbage near the house of the accused and when that was objected to by the deceased, the accused picked up a quarrel and also pushed him down and the deceased fell down and sustained injuries.19.In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 as eye witnesses.PW1 is the brother of the deceased, who took the deceased to the hospital on 28.12.2010 and admitted him in the Government Hospital at Virudhunagar.He was residing two furlong away from the house of the deceased.He was examined as an eye witness and he also stated in his chief examination that he witnessed the occurrence, but during his cross examination, he admitted that he came to the place of occurrence only after hearing the incident and reached the place of occurrence 10 minutes after the occurrence and at that time his brother was sitting on the pier and he enquired his brother's wife PW2 and through PW2 he came to know about the occurrence and also admitted thathttp://www.judis.nic.in 14/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 he did not witness the occurrence.So far as PW2 is concerned, she is wife of the deceased and she was also examined as an eye witness.According to her, she is working as Washerwoman and she also used to go to wash clothes in the morning and her husband also used to go to iron the cloths near Kamarajar Statute adjacent to Municipality and on the date of occurrence, her husband was sleeping on the pier after taking meals, she is said to have accompanied PW1 to the hospital, however, according to her no bloodstain was found on her clothes.But, there was no undigested food particles on the stomach.PW3 the grandson of the deceased, was studying B.Tech at Srividhya College at a different place and he was also residing near the place and on the date of occurrence, he was present in the place of occurrence and for the purpose of studying, he came to his grand parents house and that he is said to have witnessed the occurrence, but, he did not accompany the deceased to the hospital.The conduct of PW3, being a B.Tech student and also the grandson of the deceased, though he was present at the place of occurrence, he said to have not accompanied the deceased to the hospital, raises doubt, as to whether he was present at the place of occurrence or not?http://www.judis.nic.in 15/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 201420.PW4 is the son of the deceased.Admittedly, he is residing several furlong away from his father's house and on the date of occurrence, he was sleeping in his house and on knowing about this incident, he came to the place of occurrence and he has also not witnessed the occurrence and at the time of occurrence he was sleeping in his house.21.PW5 is the neighbour and also a relative of the deceased and he was also examined as an eye witness in this case.During the course of examination, he stated that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased and at that time the daughter-in-law of the deceased namely, Lakshmi alias Mahalakshmi has pacified the deceased and the accused.But the said Lakshmi alias Mahalakshmi was not examined by the prosecution in this case and it is not the case of the other witnesses that the daughter-in-law of the deceased Lakshmi alias Mahalakshmi was present at the place of occurrence on the date of occurrence.The evidence of PW5 in this regard is contrary to the evidence of other witnesses and therefore, the evidence of PW5 cannot be relied.22.Now coming to the case of the prosecution that there was a quarrel between the deceased and accused onhttp://www.judis.nic.in 16/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 account of the accused throwing garbage in front of the house of the deceased.However, in the observation mahazar or in the rough sketch, there is no reference about the garbage thrown by the accused.Moreover, the sketch and the observation mahazar show a pit in the middle of the road, which was dug by the Municipality for laying underground drainage and the place of occurrence is shown in the middle of the road near the drainage.The place of occurrence is also shown away from the house of the deceased.23.PW1 the brother of the deceased, PW2 wife of the deceased, PW3 the grand son of the deceased, have uniformly stated that the deceased was in the habit of drinking liquor.Though PW1 to PW3 have stated that on the date of occurrence, the deceased has not consumed any liquor, the evidence of the Doctor [PW9], who admitted the deceased at the Government Hospital at Virudhunagar on 28.12.2010, shows that he noticed the breath smell of alcohol, while admitting the deceased in the hospital.It is also mentioned in the accident register [ExP6].The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy in this case has noted 100 ml of brown colour fluid with pungent odour in the stomach and 20 ml of stained fluid in the small intestines.During his evidence, he also admitted that this liquid found on thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 17/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 deceased was on account of alcohol.Therefore, the defence theory that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol is found in this case.The observation mahazar and the rough sketch and the evidence of witnesses would show that only in the opposite house of the deceased there was a pit dug for laying underground drainage and the occurrence was also shown near the drainage.Though the place of occurrence is surrounded by many houses in ExP.14, none of the residents residing near the place of occurrence has been examined by the prosecution.PW5 is the neighbour of the accused as well as the deceased and he is also a close relative of the deceased, in his evidence has stated that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the date of occurrence and this quarrel was pacified by the daughter-in-law of the deceased, Lakshmi alias Mahalakshmi, but there is no reference about the said Lakshmi alias Mahalakshmi in the evidence of other witnesses and she was not cited as witnesses in this case.PW2 wife of the deceased, who was examined in this case has not stated anything about the presence of her daughter-in-law at the place of occurrence on the date of occurrence.Since the evidence has not been corroborated by any other witness, it may not be safe to rely upon his evidence to convict the accused.The available evidence as well as the availablehttp://www.judis.nic.in 18/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 circumstances show that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol on the date of occurrence and there was a pit in the middle of the road, opposite to the house of the accused, which probalise the case of the defence and moreover, the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the benefit of doubt is extended to the accused.24.In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Virudhunagar in S.C.No.248 of 2011 on 14.03.2012 is set aside and the bail bonds executed by the appellant if any shall stand cancelled and the fine amount if any paid by the appellant shall be refunded.22.11.2019 Index : Yes / No dsk To1)The learned Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Virudhunagar2)The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar East Police Station, Virudhunagar District.http://www.judis.nic.in 19/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 20143)The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4)The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 20/21 Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 B.PUGALENDHI, J., dsk Crl.A(MD)No.79 of 2014 22.11.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 21/21","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Therefore, this Court should not entertain the quash petition at this stage.6.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the second respondent has been cheated by the petitioner by collecting the entire amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and has been supplied with a Solar Power Equipment with a lower capacity.Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the second respondent has been put to wrongful loss, and therefore, an offence of cheating under Section 420 has been prima facie made out.No allegation has been made that he had an intention to cheat the respondent from the very inception.Following allegations made in the First Information Report need to be specially noticed: “Along with him his son Samir Sahay Advocate who was already acquainted with the applicant also accompanied his father.Major PC Sahay gave the above said assurance, and the applicant and his wife Smt. Uma Devi deposited Rupees one Lakh with Major P.C.Sahay in this regard and he gave the receipt of the same to the applicant of which the applicant is enclosing the photocopy.The second respondent has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by cheque and Rs.50,000/- by cash as an advance.The petitioner installed a Solar Power with a capacity of 100 WT and promised the second respondent that he will install the balance 900 WT and thereafter receive the balance amount.The petitioner did not install 900 WT of Solar Power as promised by him.The second respondent attempted to get in touch with the petitioner, but the petitioner never responded.13.The material that is available on record does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC and at the best it can only said to be a failure to keep up a promise subsequently, by the petitioner.A subsequent conduct can never raise a presumption of the culpable intention right at the beginning.The prosecution has not established that there was fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception.15.In the result, the proceedings in C.C.No.9 of 2017, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry is hereby quashed.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.2.The Sub Inspector of Police, (Law and Order) Othiyan Salai Police Station, Puducherry.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Madras.N. ANAND VENKATESH,.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Shri Pushpendra Dubey, learned counsel for the objector.This is the first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for an offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 474 and 341 of IPC for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 64/2018 registered at Police Station Gautam Nagar District Bhopal.The applicant herein,aged 60 years is apprehending his arrest in the aforesaid case.A short resume of facts essential to appreciate the present case are as follows:-The Alp Vetan Karmachari Grihnirman Shahkari Samiti is a co-operative Society, which owns a particular plot of land.The applicant was the power of Attorney holder, who on the basis of the said power of attorney has sold a plot of land to one Anisha Bi.The matter went up before the SDM, in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C, in which vide order of the SDM, dated 14-12-2017 he arrived at the conclusion that the dispute between Anisha Bi and Nahid Jahan is of civil nature and the same ought to be decided by the civil court.In the year 2013 itself, Nahid Jahan files a criminal complaint inter alia against the applicants, Anihsa Bi and Mohd Aziz.The court of Judicial Magistrate First Class passed an order under Section 202 Cr.The applicant shall further abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.C.C as per rules.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"On due consideration, prayer for urgent hearing during winter vacation is allowed.Record of the trial court be called for.Heard on I.A. No.9733/2015 , which is an application for suspension of jail sentience of appellant Virendra , who has been convicted under Section 212 of the IPC and sentenced to five years R.I with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 6 months additional RI.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that section 212 is bailable and during the trial appellant was bailed out and at the time of conviction, an application for suspension of jail sentence was filed under section 389 (3) (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspending the sentence before the trial court and grant of bail because appellant is preferring an appeal against impugned conviction, but learned trial court without assigning any reason rejected the application.On due consideration of the aforesaid and also on the fact that section 212 is bailable, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I.A. No.9733/2015 , which is an application for suspension of jail sentence is allowed.The substantive jail sentence of the appellant - Virendra is suspended subject to his depositing the fine amount and furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees -2- Fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 03.03.2016 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.Certified copy as per rules.( P.K. JAISWAL ) VACATION JUDGE RP",['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
"cases in which his son is involved.The said representation has not been responded to and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court.Mr. Deb Roy, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents, upon instruction, submits that the following criminal cases are pending against the petitioner's son :(1) Purulia Town Police Station Case No.38 of 2018 dated 25.03.2018 under Sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 353/ 186/ 188/114/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 25/35 of the Arms Act, 83(2) JJKR and Protection of Children Act, 2015, 32 Police Act and 9 WBMPO Act;(2) Purulia Town Police Station Case No.62 of 2018 dated 22.05.2018 under Sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 353/ 186/ 307/ 427/ 187/ 506/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 3 P.D.P.P Act, 18 W.B Highway Act and 9 WBMPO Act;(3) Purulia Town Police Station Case No. 63 of 2018 dated 22.05.2018 under Sections 153/504 of the Indian Penal Code;(4) Purulia Town Police Station Case No.66 of 2018 dated 30.05.2018 under Sections 153A/295A/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code;(5) Mongolkote Police Station Case No.109/2018 dated 17.04.2018 under Sections 143/ 188/ 186/ 353/ 427/ 332/ 333/ 324/ 326/307/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 3/4 P.D.P.P Act, 32 Police Act;There shall, however, be no order as to costs.","['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 571 of 2018, under Sections 354D, 504, 506 IPC and under Section 7/8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offence (POCSO) Act, Police Station Shahabad, District Rampur, during pendency of trial.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.The order reads thus:""Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release.""Order Date :- 27.4.2020 SK Srivastava","['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 20.10.2020 Sumit S","['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The relevant part of the Paragraph No.4 in the grounds of detentionis re-produced hereunder:-""I am aware that Thiru.[Order of the Court was made byM.V.MURALIDARAN, J. and B.GOKULDAS,J.] The petitioner is the detenu, namely, Selvakumar.The detenu wasdetained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.01 of 2016 dated17.02.2016, holding him to be a ""Goonda"", as contemplated under Section 2(f)of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, taking note of the ground case in Crime No.26of 2016 on the file of Ammapettai Police Station registered for offencespunishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 386, 387, 307 I.P.C., and Section 3(1)of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act 1992 (Amended 1994).The Detaining Authority, expressing subjective satisfaction that thedetenu conformed to the definition of ""Goonda"" and that his presence at largewould be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and tranquillity andalso expressing subjective satisfaction that it was very likely that thedetenu would come out on bail in the ground case, passed the impugned detention order.The said order is challenged in the present Habeas CorpusPetition.Though the order of detention is assailed on several grounds, thelearned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of the Court to raise anadditional ground and we permit the same.The learned counsel for thepetitioner submits that the non-application of mind on the part of theDetaining Authority is apparent from Paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the grounds ofdetention, wherein the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authorityregarding the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the groundcase came to be expressed.The submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor inreply to the above said contentions raised by the learned counsel for thepetitioner are also heard.Selvakumar, aged 29/2016, Son of Murugaiyan was produced before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam inAmmapettai Police Station Cr.No.26/2016, u/s.294(b), 341, 386, 387, 307I.P.C., and 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss)Act 1992 (Amended 1994), on 21.01.2016 and was remanded to Judicial Custody and was lodged at Sub-Jail, Papanasam as a remand prisoner till 04.02.2016and further his remand period has been extended periodically upto 18.02.2016.I am aware that Thiru.Selvakumar, Male, aged 29/2016, Son of Murugaiyan has filed a bail application in Ammapettai Police Station Cr.No.26 of 2016before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam inCr.Further bail petition filed before thePrincipal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur was dismissed in Cr.In a similar case registered in Mannargudi Town PoliceStation Cr.No.491/2013, u/s.294(b), 324, 307, 506(ii) I.P.C., r/w 3(1) ofTamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act 1992 (Amended 1994) bail was granted to the accused Thiru.Babu@ Byepass Babu @ Shanmugam by the vacation Sessions Court, Tiruvarur in Cr.M.P.No.693/2013 on 15.05.2013.Hence, I am satisfied that there is a real and imminent possibility of his(Thiru.Selvakumar, Aged 29/2016, Son of Murugaiyan) coming out on bail byfiling a bail application for the above case before the Higher Court.?The highlighted portion will show that the Detaining Authority didnot apply his mind and he has made an observation which is meaningless.It isso nebulous, as it cannot be ascertained from the said part of the grounds ofdetention as to whether any bail application was pending or a bailapplication was going to be filed.The very absurd language used therein willshow total non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitseven though, the bail petitions filed by the petitioner were alreadydismissed twice, the Detaining Authority proceeded with an observation thatthere was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the groundcase on the basis of the order of bail granted in respect of another case.Hence, on the ground of non-application of mind, the expression of subjectivesatisfaction regarding the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bailin the ground case stands vitiated and the same can be termed as ipse dixit,not supported by cogent materials.On that ground alone, the order ofdetention is liable to be set aside.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..","['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']"
"On 18.06.2018, the driver of the aforesaid vehicle loaded the sand from sand mines of Son river Ghariyal, Village Ghunghuta, and taken the same in the aforesaid vehicle.It is directed that the vehicle bearing registration No. MP 53-HA-1789 be released to its registered owner-petitioner on Supurdginama till the decision of the case, subject to producing the original registration and sale- letter, on satisfying the following conditions:-(i) That, the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lacs only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court on an undertaking to produce the said vehicle before the trial Court as and when required.(ii) That, the petitioner shall not transfer/sell/alienate or create third party interest in respect of vehicle in question without the permission of the trial Court.(iii) The petitioner will not change the parts, colour or machinery, except for necessary repairs for smooth running of the vehicle.(iv) The petitioner will produce the vehicle at his own expenses as and when directed to be produced.(v) In the event of confiscation order by the Court competent, the petitioner shall keep the vehicle present positively for confiscation.(vi) The petitioner shall get the vehicle photographed showing the registration number as well as the chassis number of the vehicle in question.Such photograph shall be taken in the presence of the responsible officer who will be deputed by the trial Court and to be kept in the file of the case.(vii) The petitioner shall not allow the vehicle to be used in any antisocial activities or in similar offence, failing which this order shall become 3 MCRC-32158-2018 ineffectively immediately.A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court concerned, for necessary compliance.C.C. as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2018.12.24 11:07:35 +05'30'",['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Suti P.S.Case No.373 of 2014 dated 09.1.2014 under Sections 376(2)(i)/41d7 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, has approached this Court for anticipatory bail.At the very outset, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that already his client has married the de facto complainant, that the victim-housewife.This order is subject to the conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Ishan Chandra Das, J.)",['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code']
"The deceased because of the beating was disturbed and was feeling sad and, therefore, he committed suicide by hanging himself.The centripetal question for determination in the present case is that whether the allegations which have been made against the applicant amounts to abetment of suicide or not.The cause of quarrel is not clear from the record.This criminal revision under Section 397, 401 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 02.11.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, District Morena in S.T. No.347/2015 by which charges under Sections 306, 323 of IPC have been framed against the applicant.The necessary facts for the disposal of present application in short are that the deceased Anuj Singh committed suicide on 26.07.2015 by hanging himself.A FIR was lodged on 26.07.2015 itself at about 18:05 by Harjeevan Singh alleging that the applicant along with one Gullu Rathore had quarreled with his nephew Anuj Singh and sister-in- law Geeta Devi and the deceased Anuj Singh was beaten by the applicant and co-accused by fists and blows, as a result of which, the deceased was sentimentally hurt and was feeling bad and, therefore, he committed suicide by hanging himself.The police registered the crime and investigated the matter.After recording the statements of the witnesses, the police filed the charge-sheet under Sections 306, 323, 34 of IPC against the applicant.The applicant by filing the order-sheets of the Trial Court has stated that not a single witness has been examined so far inspite of bailable warrants issued against the witnesses.Thus, it is prayed that the charges framed against the applicant be quashed.R.No.1180/2015 (Pappu alias Ramsundar v. State of M.P.) 306, 323, 34 of IPC.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The allegations against the applicant is that he had beaten the deceased and his mother, as a result of which, the deceased was disturbed and accordingly he committed suicide.Geeta Devi, the mother of the deceased has stated that the deceased Anuj Singh was studying in Class 11th and was aged about 15 years.He was going to attend his tuition classes and when he reached in front of the house of the applicant, some quarrel took place.After hearing the shouts, she also went there.The statement of Rakhi i.e., the sister of the deceased is also to the same effect.Harjeevan Singh has also stated that some quarrel took place between the applicant and the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased was beaten by the applicant.The deceased and his mother were beaten by the applicant and co-accused person.Accordingly, the order dated 02.11.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, District Morena in S.T. No.347/2015 framing charge 9 Cr.","['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel for the complainant.The applicant is apprehending his arrest for offences punishable u/s. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C. & Section 13(1) (d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in connection with Crime No. 153/2015 registered with Police Station Jahangirabad, Bhopal.The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that some of the applicants have filed a writ petition in this Court for quashing the FIR.The Writ Court by a consent order disposed of the writ petition by laying down certain terms and conditions therein.The relevant terms and conditions for the said purposes is that the accused persons shall cooperate in the investigation in the query and they have been not arrested without giving them a clear seven days notice.It was further submitted that the main accused Shriniwas Tiwari, the then Speaker of the M.P. Vidhan Sabha has been granted benefit of anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court.Similarly, other accused persons namely Satyanarayan Sharma and Arun Tiwari have been granted bail by the Supreme Court.Copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court has been produced for perusal.It is submitted that notice for arrest was served on 21st June, 2015 and thereafter also he appeared before the Investigating Agency.He, therefore, prays that the application for anticipatory bail be allowed.The bail application has been vehemently opposed by Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate and shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel for the complainant.After hearing the rival submissions at length and considering the fact that applicant in this petition is beneficiary of order issued by the State Government and the main allegation is against Shriniwas Tiwari who has already been enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court, this application is allowed.Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of applicants arrest, in connection with Crime No.153/2015 registered at Police Station Jahagirabad, Bhopal, (M.P.), he be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned.The applicant would abide the conditions mentioned in Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. This order shall remain in force only for a period of three months from today or till filing of challan whichever is earlier.C. stands disposed of.C.C. on payment of usual charges.",['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Heard learned counsel for the revisionist on the point ofadmission as well as perused the judgment and order passedby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Unnao.This revision under Section 397 (1)/401 Cr.P.C. has beenfiled by the accused against the judgment and order dated28.5.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Court No. 5, Unnao in Criminal Appeal No. 72/2009(Criminal Case No. 1801/2009); Naseem Vs.State underSection 498-A IPC, P.S. Makhi, District Unnao by which thelearned Additional Sessions Judge has partly allowed theappeal preferred by the accused-appellant and set aside theconviction under Section 323 IPC.However, the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge has maintained the sentenceawarded by the Magistrate under Section 498-A IPC holdingthe accused guilty under Section498-A IPC and sentencedhim to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of oneyear and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.The revisionist involves arguable point of law.Heard learned counsel for the revisionist on the prayer of thebail.He is still on interim bail granted by the AppellateCourt.He, therefore, deserves to be released on bail duringthe pendency of the revision.Order Date :- 22.6.2010Santosh/-","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"in both cases.For Appellants : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Senior Counsel in Crl.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:The second accused is a private person and he was the proprietor of M/s.(b) The second accused submitted a proposal dated 18.01.1995 to the Indian Overseas Bank, Salem main branch, stating that he had opened a new proprietorship concern called 'Valley Exporters' in November, 1994, whereas he had opened the company in the year 1993 and he has taken over the potential black granite quarry situated at Pagadupattu village, Chinnakalrayan Hills, Attur Taluk, Salem, with an extent of 6 acres with 10 years mining lease from the Government of Tamil nadu, and he had an order from M/s.Toyo Trading Co., Ltd., Japan and M/s.Macmarvels Co., Ltd., Japan for 500 cubic meters.He gave an undertaking that the granites manufactured from the mine will be exported as rough blocks under 'letters of credit' only and that there will be no indigenous sales and requested the bank, Salem Main Branch, Indian Overseas Bank, for a Packing Credit facility to an extent of Rs.75 lacs for the purpose of excavating granite blocks form the quarry and Rs.50 lacs as secured OD for meeting hire charges of Mining machineries.The second accused also revised his request for the credit facilities vide letter dated 02.02.1995, seeking for a Packing Credit facility of Rs.70 lakhs, secured over draft of Rs.20 lakhs and Foreign Bill Negotiation facility for Rs.30 lakhs.At that time, the second accused submitted applications with false project report, inflated valuation certificates in respect of collateral securities, false and forged agreement dated 01.01.1995 as if entered into between the second accused as proprietor of Valley Export and Karunagaran (PW-31) owner of the Compressor and Cranes and another agreement entered into between the second accused and one Ramesh (PW-36) proprietor of Virgo Exporters for hiring Proclain and Tippers. The second accused also submitted along with the application a false and forged purchase order dated 28.01.1995 said to have been issued by one H.Fuji of M/s.Toya Trading Company Limited, Japan offering to purchase 500 cubic meters Black granite at the rate of 1100 US Dollar.The second accused furnished the title deeds of 75 acres of landed property situated at Sevvapet, Thandalam Village, Thiruvallur Taluk, Salem and false valuation certificates showing inflated rates by valuing one acre of land at Rs.1 lakh wherein the cost of the lands were only Rs.16,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per acre during the relevant period.During 1993, the second accused had obtained IE Code, but only during 1995, he obtained IE Code from the Controller of Imports and Exports, Ministry of Commerce, Coimbatore and from the Joint Controller, ECD, RBI, Chennai.In Ex.P.3, it is mentioned that M/s. Toyo Trading Co., Ltd., Japan and M/s. Macmarvels Co., Ltd., Japan have insisted and approved the materials and have placed orders.P.4 is a related purchase order from Toyo Trading Co., Ltd., but according to the prosecution, it is a forged document.As per Ex.P.4 one Mr.Fuji had inspected.It is the evidence of P.W.31, who was working as Typist under second accused, had deposed that Ex.P.4 was prepared in the office being typed by him as instructed by the second accused.Though P.W.31 admitted in the cross-examination that Mr.Fuji was available in the office at the time of preparing Ex.P.4, he had not stated that Mr.Fuji signed in Ex.18.07.2012Index : yes Internet : yesksr/jrl T. SUDANTHIRAM, J.ksr/jrlToA.No.1390 of 2003 For Respondent : Mr.N.Chandrasekaran Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases in both CasesCOMMON JUDGMENT The appellants herein are the accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.3 of 2000, on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge and Special Judge (CBI Cases), Coimbatore.The accused 1 and 2 were convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and each one of them sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.The first accused was further convicted for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.The second accused was further convicted for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 r/w 468 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment for each offence.It was ordered for the sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the first accused preferred Crl.A.No.1390 of 2003 and the second accused preferred Crl.(c) The first accused with the help of the second accused prepared a processing note, credit appraisal and assets and liabilities details in his own handwriting without verifying the genuineness of the purchase order and project report, need for the credit facilities, correctness of the valuation certificate.The first accused issued a letter dated 25.02.1995 giving sanction for Rs.1 crore limits, even though he was not competent to sanction such facilities up to Rs.1 Crore as stipulated under the Delegation of the sanction powers.He also sanctioned a fund based limit of Rs.30 lakhs as Packing Credit and Rs.5 lakhs as miscellaneous cash credit abusing his official position.Thereafter, the second accused prepared a false agreement with forged signature of Ramesh (PW-36) allegedly representing Virgo Exporters which was actually owned by the second accused himself.The second accused prepared another hire purchase agreement in the name of the R.Karunagaran (PW-31) who was actually employee of the second accused.These forged agreements were accepted by the first accused in order to favour and bestow undue official favours to the second accused.The second accused had not undertaken even a single export as per the purchase order though he used the packing credit facilities.No exports of black granites from the quarry was made as per the purchase order.The outstanding liability to the bank on 10.03.1997 was Rs.49,76,970/-.In order to establish the prosecution case, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 44, marked Exs.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C, they denied their complicity.Both the accused filed separate written statements.In the written statements, the first accused stated that there was no irregularity in the sanction of loan and other credit facilities and the credit sanctioned by the bank were adequately covered by securities in the shape of the immovable properties offered by the second accused.The bank also filed a recovery proceedings against the accused in the Debt Recovery Tribunal and fraud has not been alleged by the bank before the DRT.On the side of the accused, one Kannan was examined as a defense witness - DW-1 and Ex.D.1 to D.5 were marked.P.33 to 36, legal opinion Exs.P.18, sanction order also was signed by PW-1 Senior Manager.Learned counsel also pointed out that in the evidence of PW-1 that there is nothing wrong in the Manager filling forms and he had power to sanction loan to the second accused up to Rs.65 lakhs.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there is no material to substantiate that the first accused acted in connivance with the second accused and it was only he who took steps for recovering the dues from the second accused and Ex.D.1 shows that the application was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal only by the first accused.During the pendency of this criminal appeal, the second accused had paid the entire amount due to the Indian Overseas Bank, Salem Branch.The bank also filed full satisfaction memo in the proceedings in T.A.No.1157 of 2002, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal stating that the matter was settled out of court.The learned senior counsel further submitted that PW-34 and PW-35 stated that appellant was a granite businessman and PW-28 stated that appellant had spent huge amount for improving the quarry business and the appellant was having various companies for running his business.PW-31 had deposed that he was present when Ex.P.4, purchase order was prepared in the office of second accused and it was typed by PW-31 as per the request of Mr.Fuji- buyer who is from Japan.PW-31 also had deposed to the extent that he had leased out machineries to the second accused and it was not necessary for a person to own the equipments.P.46 agreement entered into between the second accused and PW-36, Ramesh is not a forged document and handwriting expert was not in a position to express any definite opinion regarding the signature found in Ex.Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI cases submitted that for packing credit facility, letter of credit is a must, but it was not provided by the second accused and packing credit facility was given by the first accused to the second accused on the basis of Ex.P.45 contract letter is also not a true one and there were no machineries.Ex.P.46 is also false and PW-36 did not sign in Ex.PW-33, employee of the second accused though turned hostile, he admits that as per the agreement in Ex.P.46, Ramesh had no machineries and Ramesh is not the owner of Virgo export Companies. PW-33 also admitted before the learned Magistrate while giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C that he only signed in the name of Ramesh.P.2 and P.3 applications were given with false particulars that the second accused had already got lease agreement from the government for quarrying.The learned Special Public Prosecutor also submitted that the properties which were shown as securities are only agricultural lands, but they were shown as housing plots in Ex.P.16 and the value was shown as Rs.75 lakhs by the first accused.This clearly shows that the first accused deliberately acted in favour of the second accused and the conspiracy among the first and second accused is established.This Court considered the submissions made by the parties and perused the materials available on record.Now it is to be seen from the available evidence whether the second accused availed credit facility from the bank in a fraudulent manner by producing forged documents and it is also to be seen whether the first accused/Chief Manager of the bank sanctioned loan facility abusing his official position knowing about the incorrectness of the documents submitted by the second accused.It is mentioned in Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 that the second accused's firm M/s. Valley Exporters, Chennai, had mining lease from the Tamil Nadu Government for 10 years, but as per Ex.P.76, the second accused claims that he was operating the quarry under power of Attorney from M/s. Happy Granite India Private Limited to whom lease was given by the Government.As per Ex.P.81 - Inspection Report of P.W.13, no quarrying operation was noticed and only one old worked pit was noticed.There is a suppression of fact and wrong information is given by the second accused.He had stated that second accused signed in Ex.P.2 and P.3 applications are dated 18.01.1995 and 02.02.1995, but Ex.Therefore, Ex.P.4 is only to the extent that it was prepared for the purpose of getting loan from the bank.The properties relating to documents Exs.P.37 to 40 are given as security for loan.The properties are purchased from 01.03.1995 to 10.03.1995 and the total value is Rs.80,450/-.These properties are agricultural lands, but in the documents Exs.P.37 to 40 the word (tptrhak;) 'Agricultural' is deleted by applying whitener.P.W.8, the bank approved panel valuer has given valuation reports under Exs.He had stated that he gave the reports to one Vasu.According to the prosecution, the value was boosted.P.W.8 while giving certificate he had not taken the land as agricultural land but stated as vacant land which could be converted as housing sites.Therefore, again it appears that Exs.P.33 to 36 were obtained by the second accused showing not the real value but with enhanced value for the purpose of getting loan.The second accused also approached on his own, the panel lawyer of the banks to get his opinion and obtained Exs.Further, for getting the amount the second accused had produced Exs.P.43 to 46, but according to the prosecution, they are bogus documents.P.45 and 46 were false agreements.P.45 is an agreement between P.W.31-Karunagaran and the second accused for hiring the machineries.As per Ex.P.45, P.W.31 was the owner of machineries, but as per his evidence, he was not the owner but he got on lease those machineries.P.W.31 was employed under the second accused as typist.P.45 was prepared falsely.Ex.P.46 is an agreement between one Ramesh and second accused.P.W.36 admitted in his evidence that his name is Ramesh but he did not sign in Ex.P.46 and there was no agreement.Therefore, Ex.P.46 also was prepared falsely.Hence, it is to be held from the oral and documentary evidence that the second accused had cheated the bank by producing bogus documents for getting loan.The contention of the learned Senior Counsel Mr.AR.L. Sundaresan that this is a case of civil nature and no criminal liability can be fastened is only to be rejected for the above said reasons.The repayment of the loan amount due to the bank after twelve years does not wipe out the criminal liability of the accused.M.P.No.1 of 2012 is filed seeking permission to take additional evidence to mark the documents relating to payment made to the Bank.All these subsequent happenings cannot form part of evidence.Hence, M.P.No.1 of 2012 is dismissed.Though the application is dismissed, it is taken note of by this Court that a sum of Rs.50 lakhs was paid in the year 2007 for the claim made by the bank in the year 1997 for a sum of Rs.51,09,090/-.It is to be noted that Indian Overseas Bank is a nationalised bank and the money involved is public money.Though Bank had entered into one time settlement with the accused for a sum of Rs.50 lakhs, after 12 years, the interest amount that accrued for the sum of Rs.50 lakhs for a period 12 years (i.e., minimum Rs.50 lakhs) is a loss to the bank and it is a wrongful gain for the accused.Therefore, this repayment of amount of Rs.50 lakhs by the second accused to the Bank cannot be taken as a mitigating circumstance even while sentencing the accused.Regarding the first accused as it was contended by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Ajmalkhan that the first accused had no mens rea and he had performed only his official duty and at the most there can be only negligence or dereliction of duty on his part; it must be looked into whether the evidence available on record show that deliberately and knowingly the first accused had helped the second accused to avail the loan facility in a improper manner.Of course in Exs.P.2 and P.3, the second accused suppressed the fact that he did not have any direct lease from the Tamil Nadu Government for quarrying and the first accused could have verified it.Though Ex.P.4 is bogus purchase order, it had been produced by the second accused and first accused had simply accepted it.The properties, which were given as security for loan were having only low value but second accused suppressed the fact that the lands were agricultural lands and in the documents produced before the bank the word 'agricultural' had been deleted.The first accused accepted the valuation certificate given by P.W.8, though inflated value was given by P.W.8 as requested by the second accused saying the vacant land may be converted as housing sites.P.17 sanction for credit facility is signed by P.W.1 and the first accused.The hire purchase agreement for machineries produced by the second accused were forged but they have been accepted by the first accused.Though there are several defects and faults on the part of the first accused, still it cannot be definitely said that the first accused had acted with the criminal dishonest intention by helping the second accused to avail loan facilities.Though conspiracy cannot be proved directly and it can be inferred from the materials available, in this particular case, it is not possible to hold beyond doubt that the first accused acted only in pursuance of conspiracy with the second accused.Of course there is suspicion against the first accused in this case but however the suspicion is strong that cannot take the place of proof.In the result, the criminal appeal No.1390 of 2003 is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the first accused/appellant in Crl.Since the first accused had been acquitted, the second accused cannot be convicted for the offence under conspiracy.Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed on the second accused/appellant in Crl.A.No.1385 of 2003, for the offence under Sections 120B r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act by the trial Court are set aside.The other convictions imposed on the second accused by the trial Court are confirmed.The sentence of imprisonment for each offence is altered and reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment.The fine amount imposed on the second accused is enhanced to a sum of Rs.5,000/- to each offence and in default of payment of fine, he is sentenced to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.The fine amount already paid shall be adjusted.The Criminal Appeal No.1385 of 2003 is partly allowed.The II Additional District Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Coimbatore.The Inspector of Police CBI/BSFC, Chennai RC.No.3(E)/97, Bangalore.The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, High Court, Madras.Pre-delivery Judgment in Crl.A.Nos.1385 and 1390 of 200318.07.2012",['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
"This petition has been filed to direct the respondent to alterthe provision as 264(b), 307, 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code instead of294(b), 352, 324, 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.26 of 2020 registered byKachirapalayam Police Station, Villupuram District.Accordingly, the respondent police isdirected to complete the investigation and file a final report within aperiod of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.4.With the above direction, this criminal original petition isdisposed of.10.03.2020Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking orderariToThe Inspector of Police,Kachirapalayam Police Station,Villupuram District.3/4 Crl.O.P.No.5543 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J ari Crl.5543 of 2020 10.03.20204/4","['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan,J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:S.No.Police Station and Crime No.The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered by the SubInspector of Police, D2 Sellur Police Station, Madurai City, in Crime No.316 of2013 for offences under Sections 392 read with 397 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Aggrievedby the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds toassail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed his arguments on thequestion of delay in consideration of the representation and the delay willprejudice his right to make effective redressal of his grievance in the manneras contemplated and he pointed out that there is a delay in disposal of therepresentation.We have heard Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, learned Additional PublicProsecutor on the question of delay in consideration of the representation andperused the materials available on record and the chart provided to this Court.The impugned order of detention has been called for in question by themother of the detenu as to the satisfaction arrived at by the detainingauthority stating the following:I am aware that Thiru.Selvakumar s/o Selvaraj is now in remand in theground case in D2 Sellur PS Cr.No.316/2013 for the offences under section 392r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC and lodged in the Central Prison, Madurai.I am alsoaware that he had been granted conditional bail in all the three adverse casesby the courts concerned.I am also aware that his bail application filed in thesaid ground case was dismissed by the J.M.No. II, Madurai on videCrl.On consideration of the conditional bailgranted by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court vide Crl.OP(MD)No.2235/2013 on11.02.2013 to the same Tr.","['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This is first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.T h e applicants are in custody since 18.2.2020, in connection with Crime No.334/2019 registered at Police Station Shahgarh, District Sagar (MP), for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 294, 506, 427, 325, 326 of IPC.As per prosecution story, on 16.11.2019, accused/ applicant and co- accused inflicted injury by means of Katarna, Axe, stick to Halkai, Devi Singh, Kusum, Paramlal and Ramdas.Ramdas has received grievous injury.Thereafter, FIR was lodged and case has been registered against the accused/applicant for the aforesaid offence.At the time of incident, he was not present.Accused/applicant is Secretary of Gram Panchayat and due to this reason he has been falsely implicated.A counter Cri.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE A.Praj.Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 03/03/2020 11:23:20","['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Let this matter appear two weeks after vacation.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(i) In the event of arrest of the applicants, in connection with C.R.No.53 of 2018, registered with Charkop Police Station, Mumbai, they may be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, each, with one or more sureties in the like amount;(ii) Applicants shall report Charkop Police Station, Mumbai, as and when called for by the investigating officer ;rpa 3/3 937-aba-1962-18.doc(iii) This interim protection is granted till the next date of hearing;(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)",['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Bullet was used by country made weapons like revolver.Death was confirmed by severe bullet injuries.All shots were closed contact shots.""He opined the death was due to bullet injuries which are ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.He opined injury in the brain was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of manner.He proved post-mortem report (Ext.14).P.W. 16, Nihar Kr.Modak held inquest over the dead body and proved the inquest report (Ext.12).P.W.s 19, 20 and 21 are the investigating officers of the case.P.W. 19, Chandidas Karmakar, deposed on 1.2.2005 he was posted as S.I, of Police at Golabari P.S. He received telephonic information that some anti-social throwing bombs at Pilkhana 3rd Lane.He noted such fact in the general diary and proceeded to the spot.At 11:50 hours he arrived at 3rd lane and came to know that some miscreants shot Md. Akram in the saloon of Ichua Thakur.As a result Md. Akram suffered gun shot injuries and was moved to Howrah District Hospital.He went to Howrah District Hospital and came to know Md. Akram had been brought in a dead condition with gun shot injury.He sent the dead body to the police morgue for post-mortem examination.He collected inquest report, death certificate from the investigating officer of the U.D. case.He proved the general diary (Ext.15), 9 the formal F.I.R. (Ext. 16).He prepared rough sketch map with index (Ext.17).He seized one used bullet head, one empty and used percussion cap, blood, hair cuttings from the place of occurrence under a seizure list.He examined all the witnesses.From the statement of the witnesses he came to know the identity of other accused persons, namely, Aftab, Chand, Sk.Noor, Md. Quader and Irfan.He collected post-mortem report.On receipt of order from superior he handed over the case diary to CID, West Bengal.He identified another sketch map (Ext.B).He claimed the subsequent sketch map was prepared by the next investigating officer.P.W. 20, Jitendra Nath Kairi, is the second investigating officer.He was attached to Detective Department, Howrah as Sub-Inspector of Police.After taking charge of investigation he visited the place of occurrence and prepared rough sketch map with index (Ext.B).He seized the taxi and the rickshaw van.He made requisition for FSL examination of blood samples.P.W. 21, Avash Nandi, is the last investigating officer of the case.He concluded the investigation and filed charge-sheet.From the evidence on record it appears that on 01.02.2005 around 11/11:15 a.m. when the victim had gone to the saloon of Ichua Thakur (P.W. 12) to shave his beard, 8/10 persons armed with fire arms and bombs shot at him resulting in his death.P.W. 7 brother of the deceased was proceeding to western side.When he arrived near the saloon of Ichua Thakur he found Ladua, Budhua, Gabbar, Aslam and 5/6 others were coming from western side and entered the saloon of Ichua Thakur.They were armed with revolvers and bombs.Inside the saloon they started firing.Thereafter, they fled away after throwing bombs.When he reached the saloon he found Md. Akram lying with his head at the gate of the saloon with bullet injuries.Md. Akram was shifted to hospital where he was declared dead.Immediately thereafter he went to Golabari Police Station and 10 lodged First Information Report at 12:55 hours naming Budhua, Ladua, Gabbar, Aslam and 5/6 unknown as the miscreants.It is contended that P.W. 7 is not an eye-witness as the correct place from where he had seen the incident is not noted in the sketch map (Ext.17 and Ext.B) prepared during investigation.P.W. 7 has been extensively cross-examined on behalf of the defendants.He has withstood such cross-examination and reading his evidence as a whole, I do not find any infirmity or inconsistency in his deposition to come to a conclusion that he is an untruthful witness.Soon after the incident he lodged the First Information Report and has graphically described the incident therein.All the witnesses have specified that they were near the saloon of Ichua Thakur when they saw the appellant enter the saloon with fire arms.They heard shots being fixed and body of the deceased was found lying at the gate of the saloon.In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I have no doubt in my mind that the said witnesses had ample opportunity to see the miscreants enter the saloon and fire at the deceased resulting in gun shot injuries.Deceased was found lying at the gate of the saloon.These circumstances leave no doubt in my mind that the evidence of P.W.s 2, 3, 4 and 7 establishes the prosecution case beyond doubt.These witnesses have been cross-examined with regard to their criminal antecedents.However, none of the criminal cases registered against the said witnesses were related to the appellants.Hence, it cannot be said that the said witnesses had falsely implicated the appellants due to prior grudge or animosity.It 11 has been contended that Manoj Thakur, employee of the saloon of Paresh Thakur @ Ichua who is the best witness has not been examined.His non-examination would draw an adverse inference against the prosecution case.The Bench in the said report, inter alia, held as follows:-Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.I agree.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"According to her, A3 after knowing that the illicit intimacy between A1 and P.W.2 abused her in filthy language and had warned not to continue her illicit relationship with A1 and that A1 offered Rs.50/- to take nutritious diet after the abortion.P.W.5 is the uncle of P.W.2 the victim girl.On 24.12.2003, he went to the house of P.W.2 at the request of her parent,after knowing that P.W.2 had developed intimacy with A1 and P.W.2 had also informed him that only under the pretext of marrying her A1 had sexual intercourse with her and in this regard , he along with his other brothers and father of P.W.2 went to the house of the accused for a mediation.But A2 and A3 have abused P.W.2 and at that time A1 and A4 were not available in the house.Ex P5 is the copy of the first information report.Ex P10 is the certificate issued by the doctor, after examination of A1 certifying that he is potent.Ex P11 is the letter of requisition issued by the Court to the Government Hospital requesting the doctor to subject P.W.2 for medical examination to ascertain her age.ExP12 is the age certificate issued by the doctors.Ex P13 is the requisition given by P.W.7 to the doctor.He has also examined the Doctors viz., Dr.Saravanan and Dr.Karthikeyan and recorded their statements.JUDGMENT A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.This appeal has been preferred by the accused in S.C.No.124 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Ariyalur, Perambalur District.According to the prosecution, on 10.7.2002 ,A1 under the pretext of marrying the victim girl had subjected her to the offence of rape and in the course of the transaction, the accused had given tablet to abort the featus and in the panchayat conducted in this connection on 17,.2.2003, A1 to A3 have abused the victim girl in filthy language and on the same day, A4 had criminally intimidated the victim girl and the accused under the pretext of marrying the victim girl had committed the offence of rape.So the accused have been charged under Sections 417, 313, 294(b), 506(ii) and 376 of IPC.The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, perambalur and on the appearance of the accused, had furnished the copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and since the case is triable by a Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate had committed the case to the Additional Sessions Judge,(Fast Track Court) Ariyalur under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. On appearance of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge had framed charges against A1 under Sections 417, 313 and 294(b) and 376 of IPC , against A2 and A3 charge under Section 294(b) IPC and against A4 charge under Section 506(ii) of IPC have been framed and when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.On the side of the Prosecution , P.Ws 1 to 8 were examined.Exs P1 to P15 were exhibited.P.W.1 is the Doctor who had examined the victim girl P.W.2 on 31.12.2003 at about 1.30p.m., on the basis of the letter of requisition Ex P1 from the Court for ascertaining the age of the victim girl.After hearing that A3 had abused her(P.W.2) , her mother enquired and that she had revealed the entire facts to her and that her uncle and another Ramalingam and Ganapathy took her to the accused's house for mediation.There also A1 had abused her in filthy language and A2 had also intimidated her along with A4 and thereafter she approached the police and preferred Ex P3 complaint.She would corroborate the evidence of P.W.2 to effect that A3 came to her house and abused P.W.2 in filthy language which made her to enquire P.W.2 who had admitted the illicit relationship, she had developed with A1 and that P.W.2 had made an attempt to commit suicide which was prevented by her.When her husband(P.W3's husband) and his brother made an attempt to mediate at the house of the accused, both A2 and A3 have abused and A4 has pushed them on the ground.Thereafter, P.W.2 had preferred the complaint with the police.P.W.4 Chinnaponnu has not supported the case of the prosecution hence she was treated as a hostile witness.Hence P.W.2 has preferred the complaint with the police.She has examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.Ex P6 is the rough sketch drawn by her.She had sent P.W.2 along with Ex P7 requisition to the Court to subject herself for medical examination by a Government Doctor.She had arrested A2 and A4 on 29.12.2003 and produced them before the Judicial Magistrate for judicial remand.A1 and A3 have obtained anticipatory bail.Under Ex P8, he had given another requisition to the Court on 18.2.2004 with a request to send A1 for medical examination regarding his potency.After completing the formalities, he has filed the final report against the accused.When incriminating circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were put to the accused, they would deny their complicity with the crime.After going through the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned trial Judge has come to a conclusion that an offence under Sections 376, 417, 294(b) of IPC have been made out against A1 and accordingly convicted and sentenced A1 under Section 376 of IPC to under go seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/0 with default sentence and has convicted and sentenced A1 under Section 417 of IPC to undergo six months Rigorous imprisonment and was also convicted and sentenced under Section 294(b) to pay a fine of Rs.500/- along with A2 and A3 each.A4 was convicted and sentenced under Section 506(II) to under go six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- with default sentence.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, the accused have preferred this appeal.Now the point for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence of the learned trial Judge against the accused under Sections 376, 417, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal?Heard Mr. S.Samuel Rajapandian(Amicus Curiae),the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.V.R. Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully considered their rival submissions.8 The Point:A2 and A3 have been convicted by the trial court under Section 294(b) of IPC and A4 has been convicted and sentenced under Section 506(ii) of IPC.On 24.12.2003, P.W.5 along with P.W2's father and other relations like Ramalingam and Chitra went to the house of the accused and at that time A2 and A3 have abused them and A1 and A4 were not present in the house.According to P.W.2, at the time, when P.W.5 and other relations went to the house of A2, A1 had abused her in filthy language and A2 had intimidated her and A4 also criminally intimidated her.In Ex P3 complaint, there is absolutely no allegation against the accused that they have abused P.W.2 at the time when the mediation took place at 7.00p.m., on 24.12.2003 in the house of the accused.Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the charge levelled against A2 and A3 under Section 294(b) of IPC and against A4 under Section 506(ii) of IPC have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.So the conviction and sentence by the trial Court against A2 and A3 under Section 294(b) of IPC and as against A4 under Section 506(ii) of IPC is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside.Now the remaining charge against A1 is under Sections 376, 417 and 294(b) of IPC.According to the case of the prosecution, the victim girl P.W.2 was a minor at the time of occurrence and it has been proved through the evidence of P.W.1, the doctor who had issued Ex P2 copy of the accident register which shows that the victim girl has been subjected to sexual assault.The doctor has opined in Ex P2 that the age of the victim girl P.W.2 must be below 18 years.Ex P1 is the letter of requisition given by the Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur to the Superintendent Government Headquarters Hospital, Perambalur wherein it has been specifically requested to furnish the age certificate and also virgin certificate for the victim girl.P.W.1 has not stated anything in her deposition about the examination conducted by the victim for ascertaining her age.According to P.W.7, the Investigation Officer, P.W.2 was subjected to radiology test by two doctors viz.Saravanan and Dr.Karthikeyan to ascertain her age.Ex P13 is the letter of requisition given by P.W.7 to the Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur.In the letter of requisition, the Investigation Officer P.W.7 has stated that as per the opinion of P.W.1 the doctor Premasakunthala, the age of the victim girl P.W.2 is below 18 years.But the complainant has stated her age in the complaint as 19 and according to her school certificate her date of birth is 15.4.1986 and on that score, he had requested the Court to subject P.W.2 for a radiology test to ascertain her correct age.But unfortunately in this case, even according to P.W.7, P.W.2 was examined by the Radiologist viz., Dr.Saravanan and Dr.Karthikeyan neither Dr.Saravanan nor Dr.Karthikeyan was examined before the trial Court and the X-rays were taken for the victim girl to show that ossification test was conducted on her and the Radiologist report showing her age are all not produced before the trial Court.So absolutely there is no medical evidence to fix the age of the victim girl at the time of occurrence.To prove ExP14, school record sheet, the author of Ex P14 namely the headmaster of the school which issued Ex P14 was not examined.According to P.W.5, P.W.2 had preferred a complaint with the police at 5.00p.m., on 24.12.2003 itself on the date of occurrence.According to P.W.1, she had informed about the occurrence ie., the offence of rape committed by A1 on her (P.W.2) to one Chinnaponnu.But she has not supported the case of the prosecution.Hence she was treated as a hostile witness by the Assistant Public Prosecutor.According to P.W.2, A1 had raped her for the first time on 10.7.2002 and according to her, A1 used to continue the same on several occasions and that she became pregnant and the accused had advised her to take tablets for aborting the featus.But the trial Court has not convicted the accused under Section 313 of IPC on the ground that the charge has not proved against him.But unfortunately in this case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove through convincing and acceptable medical evidence to show that at the time of occurrence, the victim girl was a minor.Even according to P.W.7, the Doctor, radiologists viz., Dr.Saravanan and Dr.Karthikeyan who have examined P.W.2 the victim girl were not examined on the side of the prosecution to prove the age of the victim girl.But still the fact remains that the victim girl P.W.2 has been deceived by A1 in having sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marrying her for nearly one year.It is in evidence that subsequent to the occurrence, P.W2 has been married to another person and she is now settled in life.The trial Court is directed to secure A1 to undergo unexpended portion of the sentence.The set off is ordered under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The fine amount paid by A1 for an offence under Section 376 of IPC and A2 , A3 and A4 are to be refunded to them.","['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on admission.This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ""the Code"") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 31/3/11 passed by Sessions Judge, Umaria, in Sessions Trial No.97/09, whereby respondent nos. 1 to 5 namely Amritlal, Sitaram Singh, Ramadhar Singh, Vijay Singh Gond and Pushpendra Singh Gond have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 302/149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (""IPC"" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on the occasion of Dusshera, after the idol of Goddess Durga was consigned to water, respondent nos. 4 and 5 along with co-accused Suresh Singh Gond, Omprakash Gond, Gangaram and many others, assembled near the tent installed for worshipping the Goddess, and started abusing the Villagers and also assaulted Ramvishal Singh and Viranjan Singh with Gurda.Ramvishal Singh escaped form the spot.Next day Viranjan Singh informed Ramvishal that his wife Chironjiabai had been forcibly taken by the miscreants and assaulted leading to her death and her deady body concealed in a sack, was hidden by them in the Jungle.Ramvishal lodged the report to that effect at Police Station Naurozabad on 6/10/06 and after investigation, charge- sheet was filed.Learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned judgment was delivered without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserves to be interfered with.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were perused.Evidence of material witnesses viz. Ramvishal (PW1), Meenabai (PW2), Chintamani (PW3), Viranjan Singh (PW7), Gulab Singh (PW8), Komal Singh (PW11), Madan Singh (PW15), being full of contradictions, omissions and exaggerations, was not believed by the trial Court.They also denied the prosecution story.Dead body of Chironjiabai was already seized on 6/10/06, therefore, recovery of the same at the instance of the respondents on 8/10/06, was not found credible by the trial Court.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.","['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The relationship between various persons who are concerned in this case is as described below.Nukati was married1 to Radu; Radu died.Later she was kept by Damdia as his wife.Deceased Joharu was her son from Radu.He accompanied her at Damdia's house.A day prior to the incident Nanbu had beaten his wife.He then left but returned next morning.While he was thus returning he found Joharu coming back home with some 'Ma-huwa fruits.The accused stopped him and abused him and ran after him.Joharu tried to escape but the accused struck him with an arrow.Nankya by that time had arrived there and he tried to save him but before this could be done the arrow had been shot.Nukati, mother of the deceased, too had come out and seen the incident.The arrow pierced through the thigh of the deceased through and through.JUDGMENT Nevaskar, J.1. Accused Nanbu was convicted by Sessions Judge, Ratlam (camp Alirajpur) for an offence under Section 302, I, p. Code and sentenced him to transportation for life.This appeal is preferred by the accused against his conviction.Damdia had a first wife named Nahali.Through Nahali, Damdia had two sons, accused Nanbu and P. W. Nankya.The case of the prosecution is that Joharu had illicit connection with the wife of accused Nanbu.The latter nursed a grievance against Joharu for this.The femoral artery in his thigh was cut and there was profuse bleeding.The deceased died within an hour.First Information Report was lodged by Damdia in which he mentioned Nanbu as the culprit.The dead body was sent for post mortem examination at the hospital at Alirajpur where it was examined by Dr. Joshi who gave his report indicating the nature of the wound and cause of death as described above.At the trial Damdia and Nankya took up the position that it was Nukati who had stated to them that Nanbu had killed Joharu.The only evidence was that of Nukati who supported the prosecution case about the incident.The accused pleaded 'alibi'.He stated that he had been to Thandla at the house of his wife's brother Kala, on Thursday.He stayed there that day.Later he went to Udegarh Hat and after returning therefrom again stayed at Kala's place.On Saturday Damdia and Balsingh called him.The incident is of Friday.The learned Sessions Judge relied upon the statement of Nukati and disbelieved the evidence of alibi.According to him Nukati had named the accused immediately after the incident as is clear from the First Information Report made by his own father Damdia.He therefore held that it was the accused who shot an arrow which pierced through the thigh of Joharu.He relied upon it and made a First Information Report against his own son.These circumstances and the natural reluctance which would be expected from Nankya and Damdia to involve the accused in a murder charge should in my opinion be sufficient to place reliance upon the statement of Nukati.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT Sen, J.It is admittedly within the Original jurisdiction of this Court.Ordinarily this case ought to have, therefore, been tried in a court of a Presidency Magistrate at Calcutta on a complaint being filed before the Chief Presidency Magistrate.It is stated by the petitioner that after the evidence was gone into in this case by the learned Magistrate it came to his (Petitioner's) notice that the learned Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case.",['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Heard on admission.Heard on I.A.No.17990/2017 under section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant Shoyaib Ali @ Chotewala.A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that appellant stands convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 354 (a)(1)(1) and 294 of the Indian Penal Code.He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and fine in the sum of Rs.1,500/- with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been released on bail under Section 389 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure till 24.09.2017; therefore, it has been prayed that the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, and the short duration of sentence imposed upon the appellant, in the opinion of this Court, the appellant deserves to be released on bail.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 07.05.2018 and all other subsequent dates fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall stand suspended and he shall be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE sp/-",['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The prosecution case as portrayed on the face of written complaint is that on 22.09.2007 at about 4 p.m. the cock and hens of the accused persons allegedly had damaged the thatches of kitchen of one Tahera Khatoon wife of late Samirul Haque, hereinafter called the de-facto complainant, situated at Khemcharan Ganch within Chopra Police Station and when she was driving those hens and cocks therefrom the accused Jarifa Khatoon abused the de-facto complainant using filthy languages which said Samirul Haque raised objection.At the very moment, the accused Amirul Haque assaulted said Samirul on his head and in the right hand with a bamboo stick 3 and the accused Jarifa Khatoon caught hold the testis (Andokosh) of Samirul with pressure.As a result, he fell down senseless on the ground.Thereafter, he was shifted to the Islampur hospital for treatment but the doctor referred him to North Bengal Medical College for better treatment but on the way he died near Ramganj Bus Stand.On the basis of the written complaint, the Police started the Chopra P.S. Case No. 136/07 dated 23.09.2007 against the accused persons as mentioned in the cause title punishable under Section 304/34 of IPC and the same was endorsed to one S.I. of Police namely, Sanat Kr.Ghosh for investigation who after completion of the investigation, submitted Charge-sheet No. 170/07 dated 22.11.2007 under Section 304/34 of IPC against both the accused persons, the appellants herein.The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Sections 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code to which the appellants abjured their guilt and claimed a trial.After completion of examination of as many as 07 witnesses by the prosecution, the appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of incriminating material emerging from the evidence to which they declined to adduce defence witness.Upon hearing the prosecution and defence the Trial Judge convicted appellant Amirul Haque was sentenced to suffer for a term of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) 4 in default to suffer further R.I. for one year, however, the appellant Jarifa Khatoon was sentenced to suffer RI for a term of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) in default to suffer further R.I. for one year for the charge under Section 304(II) of the Indian Penal Code This is the judgment impugned under appeal preferred by the appellants, inter alia, on the grounds that the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the discrepancies in the evidences laid by the prosecution as there are contradictory evidences between the witnesses which ought to have been considered by the learned trial Judge to hold that there was reasonable shadow of doubt.Mr. Ayan Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants pointed out that the learned trial Judge failed to consider that the deceased was sent to Islampur hospital but the doctor referred to the deceased for better treatment at North Bengal Medical College at Siliguri and on the way he died.Dr. Sanjay Dey, PW 7 was Medical Officer posted at Islampur SD hospital on 24.9.2007 who held post mortem on the dead body of the deceased and found on examination(i) blood stained discharged from mouth and nose; (ii) linear bruise of 2"" over right arm and another bruise of 1"" over left side 1.5"" of orbit of the eyes; (iii) swelling over right parietal region and left fronto temporal region of scalp;(iv) intra cerebral hemorrhage over the said areas; (v) mild scrotal swelling over right testis but no hematoma seen.5 In the opinion of doctor Sanjoy Dey, PW 7 as per P.M. Report, Exhibit- 4 the cause of death was due to subdural and intra cerebral hemorrhage over the area of scalp.Mr. Basu submits that during cross-examination the PW 7 has clearly stated on oath that there was no fracture injury sustained by the deceased anywhere else on the body and the injury of hematoma could be the cause of injury but the injury described in the PM Report might be due to various other caused.But evidence in cross- examination of PW 7 has not been appraised by the learned trial Judge.Mr. Basu has relied on a decision in the case of K.Rmakrishnan Unnithan vs. State of Kerala reported in 1999 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 410 to argue that the question then remains for consideration is whether on the materials on record can it be said that the appellants gave the blow on the deceased with the intention of causing murder of the deceased so as to be convicted for the charge under 304(II)/34 IPC.In the cited decision considering the eye witness account of the three eye witnesses and that of the doctor conducting Autopsy and in considering the nature of injury inflicted on the body of deceased with a part of the intestine protruding out due to stab on the abdomen of the deceased with the knife the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the accused did not commit the offence under Section 302 IPC but under part II of Section 304 IPC and 6 accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC was set aside and instead convicted him under Section 304(II) IPC and the appellant/ accused period of sentence under gone was treated as the sentenced imposed upon the appellant of the cited decision.In second fold argument Mr. Basu submitted that IO who conducted the investigation was not examined and the doctor of Islampur hospital who referred the patient party to North Bengal hospital for better treatment has also not been examined and no medical report of Islampur hospital was produced.It is also submitted that Safirul PW 2 who deposed on the basis of learning about the incident has learnt that on the relevant date of incident quarrel between Samirul and Amirul had taken place in which Amirul assaulted Samirul with the help of a bamboo stick which was on the issue of hen of Amirul which has damaged the roof of Tahera.It is submitted that the evidence of PW 2 is hearsay but I find that PW 2 has categorically stated that he had appeared between Samirul and Amirul and he separated them when they were fighting.In cross- examination PW 2 stated that when he was proceeding towards local market the dispute had cropped up between Jarifa and Samirul which took place at 4 P.M. as Samirul had caught hold hair of Jarifa who had become unconscious and referred to hospital and other members of the family of Jarifa when Amirul was not there.In cross- examination PW 2 stated that at the time of quarrel several villagers 7 were present and out of them some of villagers tried to rescue Jarifa from the clutch of Samirul and there was some sought of scuffling between villagers and Samirul.The dispute between Samirul and members of family of Jarifa and Amirul took place for couple of hours and he had learnt about the assault on Samirul inflicted by Amirul from one Akbar who happened to be the cousin brother of Amirul.This witness has testified the fact that Amirul accompanied said Samirul to admit him in the hospital, admittedly, Samirul was sick person suffering from various ailments.Mr. Basu submitted that this witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution.So his version has to be accepted as the independent witness.It is also submitted that Amirul Haque the appellant is the full brother of the deceased Samirul and brother-in-law of the appellant Jarifa Khatoon and fact remains that over petty dispute between them was over the issue of damage of the thatched roof of the deceased, the deceased Samirul was injured by the appellant Amirul by blow on his head with a bamboo stick.I am of the view that though the IO who held investigation and the doctor of Islampur hospital who referred the deceased to North Bengal Medical Collage hospital were not examined, nevertheless, prosecution case cannot be doubted and their non examination is not also prejudicial to the appellants.PW 3 is also an independent witness whose evidence is hearsay and was declared hostile.PW 4 a seizure list witness could not say how the deceased died but he is a witness to seizure of a bamboo stick which was used as a weapon to beat the deceased.PW 5 Mr. Soleman has proved the written complaint scribed by him on the basis of version of Tahera Khatoon which finds corroboration by its maker Tahera.PW 6 father of PW 1 is a witness to the inquest report in respect of the inquest held on the deceased Samirul who has deposed about the injured being shifted to the hospital and death during the treatment.According to him the dead body was brought back to the house from the hospital for burial but Tahera Khatton wife of the deceased did not allow the dead body to be buried.PW 8 is the Inspector of Police who had drawn up the formal FIR on the basis of the complaint and endorsed the investigation to SI Sanat Kr.Ghosh and the latter held investigation but SI Ghosh could not be availed of for his examination but PW 8 has substantially proved the FIR, sketch map with explanatory index of the place of occurrence Exhibit- 6 and the seizure of weapon under Seizure list Exhibit-1, inquest report Exhibit-2, dead-body Challan Exhibit-7 and Exhibit- 8 for the collection of the PM report from the hospital. 9Mr. Basu further refers to a decision in the case of Raja Ram vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 1050-- to argue that PW 2 did not support the prosecution case as he was not declared hostile as I have discussed above that PW 2 is an eye witness to the occurrence of assault on Samirul by Amirul with the help of a bamboo stick.There was no reason for declaring him hostile by the prosecution.In the cited decision it was held that if the dying declaration passes the test of scrutiny it can be relied on as the sole basis of conviction.Though, there appears exaggeration in the evidence of PW 2 during cross- examination when he deposed that the quarrel was due to holding of locks of hair of Jarifa by Samirul and for that Jarifa fell unconscious and was referred to hospital by her family members in a rickshaw van and that several villagers present at the scene tried to rescue Jarifa from the clutch of Samirul and there was some short of scuffling between the villagers and Samirul.PW 2 learnt about the assault by Amirul upon Samirul from one Akbar who happens to be their cousin brother but substantially his version supports the prosecution case.The facts scenario as reflected from the prosecution case is that in the mids of quarrel incident took place between the two full brothers and the appellants did not flee-away from the spot rather evidence on record in unequivocal term points 11 out that Amirul took his injured brother Samirul to hospital for treatment.This is undoubtedly a mitigating circumstance to hold that the assault on Samirul by Amirul was not with an object to kill his brother Samirul rather on being provoked on certain trifle issue, the appellant Amirul gave blow on the head of Samirul who ultimately succumbed to hematoma injury on his head as he was admittedly a sick person.In regard to appellant Jarifa as I have found injury on the scrotum in the right testis of the deceased which in my opinion was of simple in nature.","['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"by complainant Manishabai w/o Kalu Mankar at Police Station Chandan Nagar, District Indore (MP) about missing of her minor daughter from 17.03.2018 (05.00 PM).She wanted to marry with the applicant, which clearly indicates that she was the consenting party.Under these circumstances, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant.The investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed.Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.Certified copy, as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.06.18 11:03:13 +05'30'",['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
"At that time, at about 1 'O' Clock in M the afternoon various persons numbering more than 200 gathered of together along with Lathis/Dandas in their hand and violated the order passed under section 144 of Cr.P.C. by raising slogans and adopted rt recourse to violence.On the basis of aforesaid, the applicant has been ou implicated in the present case.C The applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.rt C.c.as per rules.ou C (G.S. AHLUWALIA) h V. JUDGE ig Arun* H Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2018.06.12 14:16:46 +05'30'C. No.21020/2018 arising out of the same crime number.sh Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for e ad grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Gohad, District Bhind in connection with Crime No. 81/2018 registered in Pr relation to the offences punishable u/S. 188, 147, 148, 149 of IPC.a As per prosecution, short facts of the case are that the District hy Magistrate, District Bhind vide order dated 02/04/2018 has imposed ad section 144 of Cr.P.C. in that area.On 03/04/2018, the SDM, Gohad along with his team were on duty.Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.of A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.",['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
"allowed debajyoti CRM No.8792 of 2018 In re : Sri Dilip Yadav & Ors...... Petitioners.Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, Mr. Tapodip Gupta, Ms. Somsuvra Mukherjee ..... For the Petitioners.Mr. Iqbal Kabir ..... For the State.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.Certified copies of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.( Suvra Ghosh, J. ) ( Sanjib Banerjee, J. )","['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The prosecution case is as follows:There are three deceased in this case and some injured witnesses.All of them belonged to Village Narasapuram in Anantapur District.The deceased Hanumanthappa became the Vice-President of Local Panchayat and he had been residing with his family in Kottam erected by him in his garden.One Rajasekharareddy was the successful bidder for sale of arrack.A3 and some other accused were desirous of obtaining the subcontract.Thathanna, Gopal and Gopalappa, (original accused Nos. 3, 4 and 7) are the appellants.They along with 27 others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302 read with 149 and 324, I.P.C. The Trial Court acquitted all of them.The State preferred an appeal and a Division Bench of the High Court after re-appreciating the evidence of the eye-witnesses and subjecting the same to a close scrutiny confirmed the acquittal of the other accused but convicted the present appellants only under Section 326, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo 7 years' Rigorous Imprisonment.There was bitter enmity between the two groups.There was a quarrel.In the course of the said quarrel A3 declared that if Hanumanthappa returned to the village he would be killed.On the following day, namely, 13-10-78 he came to know that there was illicit distillation detrimental to the contract held by Hanumanthappa.The deceased and PW 1, 3, 4, 8 and 9 gathered together and proceeded to Beluguppa hills where the illicit distillation was said to be going on.In the morning of 13-10-78 PW 1, 3, 4, 8 and 9 along with three deceased got up and were proceeding to the fields.PW 1 and 4 also joined them.While so, accused 1 to 8 came opposite to them raising cries.When the deceased, PW 1, 4, 7 and 8 reached the field they were chased and were attacked by the accused persons who were armed with deadly weapons like axes and sticks.In the course of the same occurrence the other two deceased persons, namely, Hanumantharayudu and Hanumanthudu were also done to death.PW 3, 8 and 9 also received injuries.PW 15 registered the crime and along with the Constables reached the scene of occurrence in the night.The Inspector of Police came into the scene later as he was away to Anantapur in connection with the 'Bandobast Duty' of the Village.The injured were taken to the Hospital and they were treated and the three dead bodies were also sent for post-mortem.The doctor found several incised injuries on all the three dead bodies.PWs3, 8 and 9 were medically treated and the doctor who examined them found several lacerated wounds and contusions which could have been caused by blunt weapons.The accused were arrested and after completion of the investigation the charge was framed.The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PWs 3, 8 and 9, the injured witnesses and also on the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 who witnessed the occurrence.For the purpose of the present appeal it may not be necessary to consider the evidence of other witnesses.The Trial Court acquitted all the accused holding that the eye-witnesses including the injured witnesses have given different versions and to a large extent they differed with the version given in the First Information Report and to some extent the medical evidence also does not support the testimony regarding the alleged crime.In the appeal against the order of acquittal the High Court considered the evidence of PWs 1, 4 and 8 in detail.In view of the discrepancies and the omissions, the High Court did not find it safe to convict any of the accused for inflicting injuries on PWs 3, 8 and 9 themselves.While considering the same aspect the High Court has taken into consideration the medical evidence and the nature of the weapons and the injuries.The High Court has given the benefit of doubt to the acquitted accused.It may be mentioned at this stage that the High Court, however, taking into consideration the broad circumstances, held that it was a free fight and in that view the High Court was not prepared to hold that there was an unlawful assembly but it proceeded to consider the case of individual accused on the basis of the part played by them.The High Court in the first instance has taken the evidence of PW 3, the injured witness into consideration.The High Court also held that PW 2 is an independent witness.Similarly the High Court considered the evidence of PWs 8, 9 and other two injured witnesses.After considering the evidence of PW 3 in the light of the earlier statement, the medical evidence and with reference to the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4, the High Court felt that the part played by A3 alone could be accepted in respect of the attack on the first deceased.Likewise the High Court considered the evidence of PWs 3, 8 and 9 who spoke about the attack on the 3rd deceased and there again after a close scrutiny held that the parts played by A4 and 7 could be accepted in view of the fact that the other eye-witnesses also corroborated their evidence.In that view of the matter the High Court gave the benefit of doubt to other accused but held that A4 and 7 should be held liable for their individual acts in respect of the attack on the 3rd deceased.The High Court, however, took the view that since the injuries inflicted by these three accused are only of grievous nature and that those injuries were not responsible for the death of the deceased persons they should be convicted under Section 326, I.P.C. only.The evidence of A3, 8 and 9 though is not accepted in respect of their own assailants but the fact that the occurrence has taken place is accepted and that in respect of these appellants the other witnesses have also consistently spoken regarding the parts played by the three appellants.The nature of the injuries inflicted by these three accused to that extent is corroborated by medical evidence and also spoken to by the other eye-witnesses consistently and the same has been accepted.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.",['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
"ORDER R. Balasubramanian, J.The revision petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No. 13397 of 1982 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras.He was tried in the said case for offences Under Sections 304(A), 337 I.P.C. on five counts and Section 116, 89(A) and (B) read with Section 118(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act.The case of the prosecution is that on 8.9.1982, he drove a lorry bearing registration No. AAW 2266 in a rash and negligent manner in a road called C.P. Road, Madras.Alliammal, Kothandan, Shanthi, Rajalakshmi and Vijaya sustained injuries.Those injured witnesses had been examined as P.Ws.Not content with causing the accident as stated above, the revision petitioner did not even bother to give any first-aid to the injured but curiously ran away from the place of occurrence.On the complaint lodged with the police, the Investigating Agency, after completing all the formalities regarding investigation, filed a charge sheet against the accused petitioner as stated above.P.Ws. 1 and 3 speak about the identity of the person who drove the vehicle.The Motor Vehicles Inspector who was examined as P.W.2, inspected the vehicle and gave a report that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle.Since the vehicle was abandoned in the place of occurrence itself, the Investigating Officer was able to trace P.W.5 who is running an office in the name of ""Andhra Transport"" which is a lorry booking office.On enquiry, the said P.W.5 caught hold of the accused and surrendered him to the police.It is his evidence before court that vehicles which enter the Tamil Nadu from Andhra Pradesh could be looked after at his transport office and the drivers hailing from Andhra Pradesh, after a long journey would be taking rest in the lorry shed.At that time, the accused used to drive those lorries for hire.Though the accursed contended before the trial court that he was not the person who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident, yet the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 coupled with the evidence of P.W.5 who surrendered the accused to the police, clinchingly establishes that it was the accused who drove the vehicle and there cannot be any doubt about it.The trial court, after going through the evidence of the injured witnesses as well as that of the Motor Vehicles Inspector came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offences alleged against him and thus convicted him for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year for offence Under Section 304(A) I.P.C. three months R.I. for offence Under Section 337 I.P.C. (on five counts) and a fine of Rs. 50 for each of the offences Under Sections 89(A) and (B) read with Section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act.The appellate Judge, after going through the evidence on record, confirmed the judgment of learned trial Judge.Mr.S. Baskaran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, apart from contending that the evidence on record do not implicate the accused with the guilt, also raised a legal plea that the appellate Judge had erred in hearing the appeal in the absence of the accused and his counsel and that he had no jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal in the manner in which he has done.","['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 1 of 13The factual matrix emerging from the record is that on 21.04.1997, on receipt of DD No.17A, SI Sanwar Mal along with Ct.Subash Chand reached at House No.Q-6/105, Mangol Puri where a dead body of deceased Mithlesh was found lying at a takhat.There were ligature marks on the front side and left hand side of the neck of the deceased.It was revealed that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging.One saree was produced by appellant Malti which was seized.On 22.04.1997, SDM got the post-mortem conducted on the dead body of the deceased.On 23.04.1997, statements of Jawahar Lal and Yogesh Kumar, father and brother of the deceased respectively were recorded.Thereafter, the SDM had ordered for registration of FIR.In the marriage, he gave dowry articles though no dowry was settled.After 2/4 months of marriage, his daughter fell ill and came to his house.She told that her in-laws used to tell her that she had brought insufficient dowry and used to demand scooter or motorcycle.She also told that accused Rajinder Kumar Kohli was having illicit relations with her Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 2 of 13 mother-in-law; he used to reside there; they used to take liquor; eat meat and appellant Sham Sunder also used to take liquor.After taking liquor, appellant Sham Sunder used to beat her and abuse her and say that motorcycle was not given in the dowry.He used to tell the deceased to bring scooter or cash in lieu thereof.Deceased came to the house of the complainant; started weeping and asked him to pay the cash or scooter else her husband, mother- in-law and Rajinder Kumar Kohli would beat her.The complainant paid Rs.15,000/- to his daughter.After two months, his daughter called him again and stated that her husband and mother-in-law used to harass her for dowry and demanded cash.In July 1996, his daughter was pregnant but she was beaten up for demand of dowry which led to a miscarriage.The deceased used to send letters to the complainant demanding money; complaining against her mother-in-law, husband, Malti and Kanhiya Lal that they used to give beatings to her.Thereafter, accused persons and others came to the house of the complainant and took the deceased.In the said panchayat, they promised not to demand dowry and not to beat the deceased.Thereafter also, the complainant received letters from the deceased that she was being harassed on account of dowry and the complainant had paid Rs.30,000/- in instalments.In February 1997, appellant Sham Sunder came to his house and demanded Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 3 of 13 Rs.40,000/- for running a factory and after mortgaging his agricultural land, the complainant gave Rs.20,000/- to him.On 21.04.1997, the complainant received a call that his daughter Mithlesh had expired.Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 2 of 13Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 3 of 13During investigation, the police seized the letters allegedly written by the deceased.Mahesh, PW11 Dr.K.K. Goel, PW12 HC Naresh Kumar, PW13 Ct.Subash and PW14 SI Sanwar Mal.The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Accused persons did not examine any witness in their defence.The grounds challenging the judgment of conviction is that Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 4 of 13 there is no iota of evidence against the appellants to substantiate the charge against them.During the matrimonial life, the deceased had been living with appellant Shyam Sunder and had been visiting her parental home but neither she nor any of her family member ever make any complaint regarding any demand of dowry or harassment by the appellants.No independent witness from the locality of the house of the appellants or from the house of the deceased had been produced by the prosecution.He was working in a factory at 395, Gali No.6, Tuglakabad Extn.as a tailor.He used to visit the deceased.Mithlesh told him that accused Satyawati had relations with one Rajinder as husband and wife; they both used to drink liquor together and Rajinder used to sleep with Satyawati; PW1 produced the letters and photographs handed over to him by Mithlesh and proved the same as Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW2 Yogesh Kumar, brother of the deceased had deposed that on 26.02.1995, his sister Mithlesh was married to accused Sham Sunder.Whenever his sister used to come to their house, she used to tell that her mother in law Satyawati was living with Rajinder Kohli and used to take liquor with him.Sham Sunder also used to take liquor with them.His sister was beaten by them.He further deposed that all the accused persons used to demand motor cycle and cash and used to harass his sister.His father agreed to pay money in instalments of Rs.2,000/- or Rs.3,000/-.Once, his father gave Rs.15,000/- to accused Sham Sunder to purchase motor cycle.His sister used to write letters to them.In Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 6 of 13 the year 1996, his sister became pregnant and she was beaten and the doctor informed that the child had died inside her womb.In the month of December 1996, 10-12 persons including the accused persons came from Mangol Puri and said that the sister of PW2 would be kept properly and would not be harassed.After one/two months, they received a letter from Mithlesh and also by telephone, she informed that she was being harassed and beaten and money was being demanded.In February/March 1997, accused Sham Sunder came to their house and demanded Rs.40,000/- for running a factory.His father after mortgaging agricultural land gave Rs.20,000/- to accused Sham Sunder.Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 6 of 1314. PW4 (PW9) Mohan Singh was the neighbour of the appellants.In his deposition, he had deposed that on 20.04.1997 when he was going to attend the call of nature and was passing from the house of the appellants, he heard Rajinder Singh and Satyawati saying to Mithlesh that she was asked to bring Rs.40,000/- and why she had brought Rs.20,000/-.She was asked to bring Rs.20,000/- more else she would be killed.He deposed that he gave Crl.P.S.TEJI, JAggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 30.05.2001 convicting the appellants, namely, Smt.Satywwati, Shyam Sunder, Kanhiya Lal, Subhash Chand and Smt.Malti finding them guilty under Sections 304B and 498A/34 IPC and order on sentence dated 31.05.2001 vide which the appellants were sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304B IPC and also to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498A IPC with fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine they were ordered to further undergo Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 1 of 13 simple imprisonment for one month, the present appeal has been preferred.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.5. Charge under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC was framed against all the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty.The prosecution had examined as many as fourteen witnesses, namely, PW1 Bhagwan Singh, PW2 Yogesh Kumar, PW3 Rajinder Kumar, PW4 Mohan Singh (also PW9), PW5 Jahwar Singh, PW6 Ramesh, PW7 HC Ram Chander, PW8 Vinay Bhushan, PW10 Ct.The letters produced on record by the prosecution allegedly written by the deceased do not suggest any demand of dowry.It is further submitted that there is no evidence on record to say that there was demand of dowry or that the deceased was ever harassed or beaten by any of the appellants for or in connection with demand of dowry.Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 4 of 13Per contra, arguments advanced by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State are that the appellants have been rightly held guilty under Sections 498A/304B IPC by the trial court.The father as well as other relatives of the deceased have duly supported the case of prosecution that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry by the appellants.There is sufficient evidence against the appellants to hold them guilty for the offences of harassment on Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 5 of 13 account of demand of dowry and of dowry death.Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 5 of 13Arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellants as well as learned APP for the State were heard.In his testimony, PW1 Bhagwan Singh had deposed that the deceased was his real brother's daughter.A. No.437/2001 Page 7 of 13 Rs.2,000/- to his daughter on three occasions and Rs.4,000/- on two occasions and Rs.15,000/- on one occasion.In February 1997, accused Sham Sunder came to his house and demanded Rs.40,000/-.This witness gave Rs.20,000/- to accused Sham Sunder after mortgaging his land.Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 7 of 13From the testimony of PW1 to PW5, it is amply clear that the deceased was being harassed by the appellants for or demand of dowry.In their testimony, these witnesses have deposed that after the marriage of the deceased with the appellant Sham Sunder, she was harassed and beaten up by the appellants for or in connection with demand of dowry.They have stated that the appellants used to demand motorcycle or cash in lieu thereof from the deceased and for the same, they used to harass her and also gave beatings to her.It is also stated by the witnesses that Jawahar Singh, father of the deceased gave Rs.2,000/- or Rs.3,000/- to the deceased on several occasions.It is also stated by the witnesses and specifically by PW5 Jawahar Singh that PW5 gave Rs.20,000/- to the appellant Sham Sunder after selling his agricultural land.Thus, from the testimony of above witnesses, there is enough evidence on record from which it has been established that the deceased was being harassed by the appellants for or in connection with demand of dowry.Therefore, the conviction of Crl.It was further observed that before an accused is found guilty for commission of an offence, the Court must arrive at a finding that the ingredients thereof have been established.It was held that statement of a witness for the said purpose must be read in its entirety.It is not necessary for a witness to make a statement in consonance with the wording of the section of a statute.What is needed is to find out whether the evidences brought on record satisfy the ingredients thereof.Necessary ingredients of dowry death as provided under Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 9 of 13 Section 304B of IPC are :Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 9 of 13(i)Deceased was the subject matter of cruelty on account of dowry and culminates into guilt of accused under Section 498A IPC;(ii)The death should have taken place due to bodily injuries other than normal circumstances; and(iii)Such death was the subject matter of cruelty soon before death.As far as death of the deceased Mithlesh is concerned, it is not in dispute that she died due to hanging which shows that the death of the deceased was not under normal circumstances and was due to the bodily injuries which fulfil the first ingredient for the commission of offence under Section 304B IPC.The second ingredient that death of the deceased had taken place within seven years of her marriage with the appellant is established from the evidence, as marriage had taken place on 26.02.1995 and her death took place on 21.04.1997 i.e. within three years of her marriage.The next and the most important ingredient required to be proved from the evidence is that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry by her husband or any relative of her husband and that was done soon before death.The prosecution has produced PW1 to PW5 to prove these ingredients.PW1 happened to be uncle of the deceased, Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 10 of 13 PW2 & PW3 happened to be brothers of the deceased, PW4 happened to be neighbour of the appellants and PW5 happened to be father of the deceased.The detailed discussion of their testimony has already been made.Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 10 of 13Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 12 of 13The appeal is disposed of accordingly.Pending application, if any, is also disposed of.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE MAY 09, 2017 dd Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 13 of 13Crl.A. No.437/2001 Page 13 of 13","['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.239 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police as against the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 13334 of 2019The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offences as alleged in the impugned FIR.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case as against the petitioner in Crime No. 239 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i), 505(ii) of I.P.C. and Section 65, 66(A), 67 Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Due to political enmity, the defacto complainant has lodged a false complaint as agaisnt the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature.If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.""Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of Three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate.25.09.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no ksa 5/7http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 13334 of 2019The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Srivilliputtur, Virudhunagar District.The Inspector of Police, Watrap Police Station, Virudhunagar District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 13334 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.ksa Order made in CRL.O.P (MD) No. 13334 of 2019 25.09.2019 7/7http://www.judis.nic.in","['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In terms of the said Memorandum of Understanding, the petitioner has agreed to pay to the second respondent/Ram Sewak, a sum of Rs. Rs.20,000/-.However, after due consideration, and further examination of the matter by this Court, the petitioner has agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.50,000/- instead, to the second respondent.Out of this amount, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- is stated to have been received by Shri Ram Sewak earlier.This petition has been moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of FIR No.50/2013 dated 23rd February, 2013 registered under Section 304 A IPC at Police Station Chhawla and all emanating proceedings therefrom filed at the instance of the complainant/Ram Sewak, who is arrayed as respondent No. 2 in this petition, against Ramanand, who is the owner of the plot, where the infant daughter aged about 5 years, of the second respondent/Ram Sewak, is stated to have drowned in a water tank located on the said property.Issue notice to the respondents.Counsel for the State enters appearance and accepts notice.Charge-sheet is stated to have been filed and the case is pending trial.CRL.M.C. 2959/2014 Page 1 of 6Parties are stated to have compromised the matter and executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21st April, 2014, which is also annexed to this petition.CRL.M.C. 2959/2014 Page 5 of 6FIR No.4/2005 registered against the petitioners under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC with Police station Samay Pur Badli is quashed and all consequent proceedings pursuant thereto are also ordered to be dropped.""I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings and the same deserve to be quashed.Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.50/2013 under Sections 304A IPC registered at Police Station Chhawla, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition stands disposed off.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"2- Prosecution case in short is that on 01/12/2005 around 4-5 am in the morning at Village Hinotiya Gird, in the house of Mullo Bai, her son Bal Kishan s/o Bhagwan Singh was sleeping in the cattle shed.At that time, appellants/ accused while sharing common object to murder Bhagwan Singh, caused murder of Bal Kishan.Undisputed facts of the case are that mother of the deceased Bal Kishan i.e. Mullo Bai (PW-8) was living in the house alongwith her family members which is situate at agriculture field at Village Hinotiya Gird.Pahalwan Singh (PW-2), Kamal Singh (PW-3), Nathan Singh (PW-4) and Diman Singh (PW-10) were acquainted with the accused persons.Husband of Mullo Bai -Bhagwan Singh and her son Bal Kishan went to Gwalior High Court to attend a date of a case and on the date of incident, her daughters-in-law-Kamla and Sarda, her grand son and daughter, namely Rameshwar and Gaytri, brother-in-law of Mullo Bai -Diman Singh and son-in-law -Prakash were in the house.Around 3-4 am in the morning, barking of dogs prompted Mullo Bai to wake up and in the light of torch, she saw that in the cattle shed, accused Bal Kishan wielding an axe and other accused appellants No.2 to 5 wielding sticks (Lathis) in their hands were standing and thereafter accused Bal Kishan entered into cattle shed and with intention to kill her son Bal Kishan gave a blow of axe and thereafter they ran away from the spot.3- After incident, Mullo Bai went to the cattle shed and found a deep wound over the neck of her son Bal Kishan oozing blood and immediately then and there only Bal Kishan died on the spot.On shouting of Mullo Bai, family members got up, to whom Mullo Bai narrated the incident.Village Chowkidar -Kamal Singh (PW-3) informed the Police Station Bajarang Garh about the incident around 8:40 am vide Ex.P- 42 and responding to the same, Investigating Officer -Mahesh Sharma (PW-12) went to the place of incident.Safina Form Ex.P-1 was issued.Around 9:45 am 3 Cr.Injuries mentioned in the postmortem report reads as under:-As per the testimony of Mullo Bai (PW-8) she categorically submitted that she was sleeping in the area adjacent to cattle shed and got up by the sound of barking of the dog (Shekhu) and in the torch light she saw appellant No.1- Bal Kishan wielding axe and other appellants with sticks in their hands and they killed her son Bal Kishan s/o Bhagwan Singh.In her deposition, she referred that the lamp was being lit in the cattle shed at the time of incident and therefore, she saw the assailants.(Pronounced on 19th day of April, 2018) Per Justice Anand Pathak, Appellants -accused have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 17/07/2006 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge (fast track), Guna in S.T.No.18/2006, whereby appellant No.1 -Balkishan has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof one year additional RI and further convicted under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to suffer 1 year RI with fine of Rs. 500/- and under Section 450 of IPC and sentenced of 2 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.Appellants No.2 to 5 have been convicted under Section 147 of IPC and sentenced to suffer one year RI each with fine of Rs.500/- each and further convicted under Section 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default thereof one year additional RI.2 Cr.A.No.574/2006 Mullo Bai gave information which was recorded as Dehati Nalshi vide Ex.P-37 on which marg report was registered vide Ex.P-36 and case was registered vide Crime No.180/2005 under Sections 147 and 302 of IPC at Police Station Bajarang Garh vide Ex.At the time of inspection, Senior Scientific Officer S.P. Sharma (PW-5) alongwith Mahesh Sharma (PW-3 Cr.12) visited the spot and prepared a report (Ex.P-20) and spot map Ex.P-21 was also prepared.4- From the spot, part of blood stained mattress and plain pieces of mattress were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P- 19 and appellants/ accused were arrested on 05/12/2005 (vide arrest memo Ex.P-4 to P-8) thereafter, on their information, axe and sticks were seized.Meanwhile, postmortem over the body of the deceased Bal Kishan was conducted and postmortem report vide Ex.P-35 was prepared by Dr. Milind Bhagat (PW-7).Statements of witnesses Mahendra, Kamla, Gaytri, Kamal Singh (PW-3), Diman Singh (PW-10) were recorded and after investigation, charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 302, 450 r/w Section 149 of IPC was filed.Accused abjured their guilt therefore, trial was conducted.5- Appellants/ accused took the defence of false implication.Their main defence was that due to enmity they have been falsely implicated.Evidence was led by the prosecution in which total 12 witnesses were examined wherein Mullo Bai (PW-8) was the sole eye witness and other witnesses were in support of the prosecution out of which Ratan Singh (PW-1), Pahalwan Singh (PW-2) did not support the story of prosecution therefore, they were declared as hostile by the prosecution.In support of defence, two witnesses were examined and they tried to bring home the theory of alibi in respect of accused/appellant No.1-Bal Kishan.6- After appreciating the evidence led by the parties and considering the documents, the trial Court convicted the 4 Cr.7- Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants raised the ground about the evidence led by the prosecution for implicating the appellants.Mullo Bai (PW-8) was the sole eye witness and she narrated the course of events.Only one injury of axe was found on the body of the deceased and no overt act of appellants No.2 to 5 was referred by the eye witnesses.In para 28 of her deposition, she submitted that she had seen the incident as well as accused persons through torch light which is not practically possible.There is material contradiction in her statements made before the police authorities under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as in the Court.She had not seen the incident because the place where she was sleeping was far off from the place of incident therefore, it was not possible that she could have seen the incident.He relied upon the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of Govindaraju alias Govinda Vs.State by Sriramapuram Police Station and Another, (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 533 as well as AIR 1957 SC 614, Chinniah Servai Vs.The State of Madras.4 Cr.8- Learned Senior Advocate further submits that the testimony of the sole eye witness is to be seen with doubt and cannot be relied upon to convict the appellants.It is further submitted that Kamal Singh (PW-3) village Chowkidar around 8:15 am informed the Police Station Bajarang Garh about the incident and vide entry No.946 in Rojnamcha Ex.P-42, the incident was jotted down.Therefore, it amounts to registration of FIR and subsequent documentation in the form of Dehati Nalshi and the marg intimation report were like statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and cannot be taken into account and the statements of the witnesses were not under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in fact the statements were under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. He submits that Mullo Bai (PW-8) signed the Dehati Nalshi and therefore, it was hit by the provisions of Section 162 5 Cr.A.No.574/2006 of Cr.P.C. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.While relying upon the testimony of Kamal Singh (PW-3), it is submitted that Kamal Singh did not intimate the police authorities about the assailants who murdered the deceased Bal Kishan.This material omission smacks doubt over the story of the prosecution.5 Cr.9- Similarly, non-examination of Mahendra Singh and Kashi proved fatal for the case of prosecution because Mahendra Singh was the person who informed Kamal Singh about the incident and Kashi visited the spot immediately after the incident therefore, they were material witnesses and their omission rendered the prosecution case a weak semblance of effective prosecution.While referring the application for autopsy/ postmortem of the corpse (Ex.P-35), no information has been detailed out regarding cause of death (and the names of probable accused) and it also prejudicially affects the case of the prosecution.While referring testimony of Dr. Milind Bhagat (PW-7) who had conducted postmortem over the body of the deceased, learned counsel submits that unless the Doctor refers that the injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, it could not have been presumed that the death was homicidal in nature.He relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Bhupendra Singh and Others Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh, 1991 SCC (Cri.) 571 as well as Parsuram Pandey and Others Vs.10- It is also submitted on behalf of the appellants that common object of the other co-accused has not been established by the prosecution.In absence of any cogent material to advance theory of common object viz. appellants No.2 to 5, liability under Sections 148 and 149 of IPC is not attracted.He referred AIR 2010 SC 3580, Sikandar Singh and Others Vs.State of Bihar and AIR 1989 SC 754, Lalji and Others Vs.6 Cr.12- Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the judgment and material available on record.""xnZu ij nkfguh rjQ ,d vkMk dVk gqvk ?kko Fkk] tks dku ds yksc ds uhps Fkk] rFkk esUMhcy ls ysdj LvwuksZesLVkbM Hkkx rd Fkk] vkdkj 9x4 lseh 6 lseh xgjkbZ rd FkkA nkfguh dku dk ykso dVk Fkk rFkk 'kjhj ds lkFk ugh ik;k x;k FkkA ""14- From perusal of the postmortem report and testimony of expert witness Dr. Milind Bhagat (PW-7), no iota 7 Cr.She also submits in categorical terms that her family and appellants' family were sharing animosity and therefore, she could easily recognize them and could recognize their voice.Appellants belong to one family and 2-3 days prior to the date of incident, Bal Kishan, Santosh and Parvat Singh were roaming around the house with an axe in their hands although Mullo Bai had not referred the factum of lamp and torch light in marg intimation report (Ex.P-36) and Dehati Nalshi (Ex.P-37) but in her statements which was taken by the Investigating Officer on the same day of incident i.e. 01/12/2005 vide Ex.D- 1, she referred the factum of torch light.She categorically stated in her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that she could recognize the appellants because of torch light and their voice.Being the residents of same vicinity and with shared animosity, it was much possible that she could have recognized the assailants/ appellants immediately.16- So far as the question of placement of Mullo Bai (PW-8) vis a vis the place of incident is concerned, the same is clarified by the Investigating Officer -Mahesh Sharma (PW-12).8 Cr.When a specific question was asked to him by the Court about the visibility of place of incident from the place where Mullo Bai was sleeping, Investigating Officer categorically replied that the spot of incident is clearly visible from the place where Mullo Bai was sleeping at the time of incident.This aspect is further corroborated by the spot map prepared by Senior Scientific Officer, S.P. Sharma vide Ex.Investigating Officer also prepared a spot map vide Ex.P-38 and the said spot map is a bit different than the spot map prepared by the Patwari Manish Shrivastava (PW-9) vide Ex.The trial Court rightly considered the said aspect while dealing with the question and rightly relied upon the spot map prepared by the Senior Scientific Officer vide Ex.Therefore, it was established that visibility was there for Mullo Bai to see the incident.17- One important aspect of the case in hand is that the eye witness Mullo Bai (PW-8) through Dehati Nalsi (Ex.37) and vide police statement Ex.D-1, referred the name of all the accused persons and through out her statement, she referred the name of all the accused persons therefore, the credibility of eye witness cannot be treated as shaken to the extent of disbelief.Appellants on the basis of some contradictions between her submissions and Dehati Nalshi report and her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., tried to contend that this witness does not deserve to be believed because of contradictory nature of statements but the contradiction is not to the extent of discarding the statement of this witness.It is the general human response that on reiteration of narration of facts, the fact which was earlier lost in the narration got included subsequently.Mullo Bai (PW-8) is a rustic villager aged about 55 years therefore, those contradictions are not such grave in nature rendering the evidence discarded out rightly.Even Ratan Singh (PW-1) who 9 Cr.A.No.574/2006 did not support the story of the prosecution and declared hostile, but in his examination-in-chief, he referred the fact about mentioning of names of appellants by Mullo Bai (PW-8) to him.This aspect is material piece of evidence, corroborates the narration of events by Mullo Bai.9 Cr.18- Another ground of defence was non-appearance of Mahendra Singh, Kashi in the witness box but since Mahendra Singh and Kashi both were not eye witnesses of the incident and reached at the spot, after the incident therefore, their non- examination does not have material bearing in the case.Village Chowkidar-Kamal Singh (PW-3) although referred the incident on the basis of information given by Mahendra Singh that somebody in the night killed Bal Kishan but Kamal Singh did not visit the spot and met Mullo Bai after the incident and before intimating the police about the incident.When Kamal Singh did not meet Mullo Bai before intimating the police about the incident then it cannot be inferred that Mullo Bai did not refer the name of accused to Kamal Singh.19- Another ground of defence in respect of plea of alibi taken in respect of accused Bal Kishan does not hold ground due to the fact that Neelam Singh (DW-1) has made statements supporting the case of appellant No.1-Bal Kishan that Bal Kishan was engaged by him to perform agriculture work over his field in commissioning of bore well at his agriculture field but any documentary receipt/ agreement etc., have not been produced in support of the story therefore, the plea of alibi is not established by the defence in support of appellant No.1-Bal Kishan.According to him, Police arrested Bal Kishan on 01/10/2005 whereas the Police caught hold of Bal Kishan on 05/12/2005 which is clear from deposition of Investigating Officer Mahesh Sharma (PW-12).Therefore, said witness was not trustworthy and cannot be relied upon.20- The judgments relied upon by the appellants move in different factual realm.The fact situation of the present case gives sufficient differentiation vis a vis those judgments.Here 10 Cr.In her initial Dehati Nalshi report, marg report, police statement and deposition she maintained the course of incident as it was and since beginning she referred the names of appellants as perpetrator of the incident who caused death of her son.Her location was proximate enough to infer about her credibility.10 Cr.21- The Sessions Judge has critically examined the evidence of the eye-witnesses in a comprehensive manner and rightly reached a conclusion that the evidence of eye witness is worth credence.","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"That one written complaint was lodged by the Block Development Officer, Patashpur-II Block on 24-12-2002 with the Officer-in-Charge of Patashpur Police Station, District - Purba Medinipur to the effect that the Headmaster of Baharda Jagannath Primary School, i.e., the appellant before this court had misappropriated the government money given to him for construction of the court building.On receipt of the F.I.R., Patashpur P.S. Case No. 1 of 2003 dated 04.01.2003 was registered under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.It was the prosecution case that Patashpur II Panchayet Samity sanctioned Rs.60,000/-for construction of school building of Baharda Primary School and sent a letter to the Headmaster and Pradhan of Khar Gram Panchayet for opening a joint account and the joint account bearing no.3032 was accordingly opened with the Mallabhum Gramin Bank, Kharaigar Branch by the said Headmaster (the appellant) and Ranjit Mondal, Pradhan of Khar Gram Panchayet who were the joint operators of the said account.It was further mentioned in the F.I.R. that at first Rs.30,000/- was sanctioned and the appellant vide cheque no.707109 dated 11-02-1997 deposited that cheque dated 11-02-1997 through voucher no. 203 in that account no. 3032 and in that account Rs.29,890/- was credited after deducting the collection charge.As per the statement of accounts of the bank marked as Ext. 4, out of that amount Rs.29,850/- was withdrawn on the same day, i.e. on 09-04-1997 on which date the same was credited to the bank after clearing.This appeal has been directed as against the judgement and order of conviction dated 24-04-2013 and 25-04-2013 as passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, within the district of Purba Medinipur, in Special Trial No. 31 of 2007 in which learned trial court was pleased to convict this accused appellant in respect of the charge punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.It is also the prosecution's case that the present appellant thereafter on 13-05- 2002 deposited Rs.16,000/- in that joint account maintained for that building purpose and subsequently on 28-05-2010 he again withdrew Rs.10,000/-.As per the complaint the appellant was asked to submit the adjustment bill for Rs.30,000/- through letter but the said letter returned back with intimation that he was out of station.The investigation was taken up by P.W.3, one S.I. Debidas Mukherjee, of Patashpur Police Station and during the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of the witnesses, held raid to apprehend the accused, sent the requisition to the Sub-Inspector of Schools of Protaplighi, South Circle, Patashpur and also to the B.D.O. - II for supplying the documents.The accused appellant could be apprehended only on 07-11- 2005 and he was produced at first before the S.D.E.M., Egra of the same District and he was directed to be produced before the Additional Sessions Judge, Paschim Medinipur in Special Case No. 10/03 of the Special Judge, Medinipur (undivided).The case was transferred to the 3rd Special Court of the said District.Summon was ordered to be issued.Accused was produced on 14-11-2005 in custody.After the new district was created the case record was transferred to the District Judge, Purba Medinipur as per notification no. 10157/R-Ins.Dated 20-12-2003 and ultimately it came to the present learned trial court.The trial started.The charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable 409 of the Code to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Before the trial court in all four witnesses were examined by the prosecution.Some documents were marked as exhibits.The defence did not adduce any oral and documentary evidence and the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.Thereafter before the learned Trial Court as many as four witnesses were examined out of eight charge-sheeted witness.It may be mentioned that Charge-sheeted witness 5 died during the course of trial.The witnesses examined by the prosecution are Ranjan Kr.Pal (PWI) who at that point of time was allegedly one clerk of the BDO office.On behalf of the prosecution several documents were marked as exhibits but I have failed to gather how Exhibit Nos. 3 & 5 were marked as exhibits.As per exhibit list exhibit 1/3 is the written complaint.It may be mentioned that the said Block Development Officer who lodged complaint was not examined.This witness identified the accused-appellant on block.He also admitted that Rs.10,000/- was also withdrawn from that account but at the same time claimed that it was his personal money.He was asked vide question no.13 as to whether Rs.29,890/- was deposited vide outstation cheque on 09.07.1987 and on that date the said amount was withdrawn.This witness answered to this question that ""By deductions the amount of commission cash money was withdrawn"".The Trial Court sentenced the convict to suffer RI for four years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer further SI for one month.",['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
"For the Appellant/State : Ms. Savita Choudhary, Panel Lawyer For the Respondent : Ms. Kiran Mehta, Advocate---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing : 10.05.2013 Date of judgment : 19.06.2013 (J U D G M E N T) Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16/06/1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore in Criminal Trial No. 844/1996, whereby, respondent - accused Mukesh was acquitted from the charges of Section 354, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, this appeal under Section 378 (iii)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by the appellant/State.2. Prosecution case which lead to the trial as essential as follows:On dated 05/6/1995 at about 5 PM prosecutrix (PW-1) was guarding lSoa;k to dry on Otla of the house of accused Mukesh with Preeti (PW-4) and Bulbul.Preeti left the place to drink water, at that time, accused Mukesh came over there and intended Bulbul to go away.Thereafter, accused used criminal force on prosecutrix intending to outrage her modesty by forcefully fingering in her private part.At about 06:00 p.m. when Prosecutrix (PW-1) came to house, was weeping, by the night she did not have the dinner.On next morning at about 09:00 a.m. on enquiring by mother Amri bai (PW-2), she narrated all the facts and complained pain in private part.She also narrated this fact that accused threatened him, if she will tell this incident to anybody, he will harm her.Amri bai (PW-2) after informing the matter to husband Ram Narayan, lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Kotwali, Sehore.The Investigating Officer Shri Sukhram Choudhary, (PW-5) ASI went to the spot, prepared the spot map, recorded statements of the witnesses and managed to send prosecutrix for medical checkup.At District Hospital, Sehore Dr. Neera Shrivastava (PW-3) examined her.After required investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused.Learned trial Court framed charges as mentioned in para 01 against accused, who abjured his guilt, therefore, he was put to trial.In order to establish guilt of accused, the prosecution examined five witnesses, the prosecutrix (PW-1), her mother Amribai (PW-2), Preeti (PW-4), Dr. Neera Shrivastava (PW-3) and Investigating Officer Shri Sukhram Choudhary (PW-5) and also exhibited documents.The statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in which, he denied all the charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence and falsely implication due to old enmity.Contentions of the learned counsel for the State is that learned trial Court committed an error while relying upon the facts that there was old enmity between families of complainant and respondent.It is further contended that the learned trial Court also committed an error that FIR was delayed, instead of that there was sufficient reasons to explain the delay as the prosecutrix was aged about 8 - 9 years old and she was under forceful stage.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.The case in hand, except the prosecutrix (PW-1), others witnesses are hearsay witnesses.As per the statement of Preeti (PW-4), the prosecutrix did not tell him about the incident directly, her source of information was a third person i.e. her sister Seema.It is pertinent to mention here that oath were not administered to the prosecutrix (PW-1) and Preeti (PW-4) looking to their age 4 and 10 years respectively.The prosecutrix (PW-1) stated all the facts as mentioned above, therefore, need not to repeat again.During cross- examination she admitted enmity between her father and respondent family, though, in answer to the question asked by learned trial Court, she corrected herself saying that this enmity is after this incident.But, Preeti (PW-4) also admitted enmity between two families.This admission of prosecutrix (PW-1) is also very much damaging for the prosecution that whatever her mother father has narrated her, she is stating in the Court.Prosecutrix (PW-1) categorically stated that due to incident blood was oozing out, so she went to her aunt (kaki), who applied oil on her private part.Amribai (PW-2) admitted that when weeping prosecutrix came to the home and explained the incident, then she also applied powder on her private part.Both the admissions proved that whole incident was in the knowledge of Amribai (PW-2) and kaki, other relative of prosecutrix, on the same day in the evening itself after the incident.Amribai (PW-2) during cross-examination admitted that prosecutrix narrated her all the facts regarding the incident by the evening of the same day.She further admitted that at about 07:00 p.m. on same day, she narrated all the facts to her father also.As per the statement of Preeti (PW-4) this fact is also established that after the incident, the prosecutrix visited her house and narrated whole incident to her sister Seema.She further stated that Seema narrated this fact to the prosecutrix's sister Archana and her mother i.e. aunt (kaki) of prosecutrix.In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that not only to Seema, sister of Preeti (PW-4) and her mother, kaki, the prosecutrix narrated all the facts on the date of incident at evening but also to her mother Amribai (PW-2) and father.It means, that when Amribai (PW-2) saying that in the next morning prosecutrix narrated about the incident is totally contradictory, hence doubtful.Inspite of above facts, as per the First Information Report Ex.P/1, the incident took place on 05.06.1996 in between 5 - 6 pm, the report was lodged on the next day on 06.06.1996 at 15.30 hours.The distance from the place of occurrence to police station Kotwali Sehore is only one kilometer.P/1 at police station which was situated only one k.m. away from the place of incident.This unexplained delay regarding lodging of First Information Report Ex.P/1 is the sole fact which is fatal for the prosecution.Dr. Neera Shrivastava (PW-3) during her cross-examination admitted that contusion which was found on private part of the prosecutrix (PW-1), can be inflicted by the prosecutrix herself.The learned trial Court in light of above discussed facts and circumstances rightly disbelieved the statement of prosecutrix (PW-1), her mother Amribai (PW-2) and Preeti (PW-4) due to unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report Ex.","['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This MCRC stands allowed.C.C. as per rules.(B. K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE akanksham Digitally signed by AKANKSHA MAURYA Date: 10/01/2020 10:35:58Arguments heard on application filed u/s 439 of Cr.on 07.09.2019 for grant of bail on behalf of applicant Chotelal @ Chotu Bhartiya.Case Diary of Crime No. 184/2019 registered at Police Station Bichiya District Mandla for the offences punishable u/s 363, 366, 376 (2) (N) of I.P.C. & Section 5L/6, 5Q/6, 5(J) (ii)/6 POCSO has also been perused.The prosecutrix was in love relationship with the accused since one year back.During the period of 08.12.2018 to 16.07.2019 they made sexual relationship for several times and the prosecutrix became pregnant.Thereafter, when the accused denied to marry with her then on 18.07.2019 an FIR was lodged.It is directed that applicant Chotelal @ Chotu Bhartiya be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond worth Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) and a personal bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.It is directed that applicant shall abide by the conditions as enumerated u/s 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.",['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The application is filed for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing C.R. No.38 of 2018 registered with Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur at the instance of respondent No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354, 323 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 23:25:21 :::It is alleged in the application that after marriage the differences arose between the applicant No.1 and respondent No.2- wife and she started residing separately.Thereafter the applicant No.1-husband approached the Superior Court at Washington, Country of Kind Seattle, Washington State, United States for dissolution of marriage and on 19.08.2016 decree for dissolution of marriage was passed.It is further alleged that the respondent No.2 after returning to her parental house in the month of May 2016 lodged FIR bearing Cr.No.643 dated 11.05.2016 in Gittikhadan Police Station, Nagpur for an offence punishable under Sections 498A, 354-D, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Pending investigation parties have settled their dispute amicably.Understanding arrived between the parties for quashing the N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 23:25:21 ::: p-503-apl-484-2018 subject FIR by consent.::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 23:25:21 :::In paragraph No.3 she has stated that the subject FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations.She has also stated that her dispute with applicants is now been settled.In paragraph No.4 she has stated that she do not want to proceed further with the subject FIR and therefore she has given no objection to quash and set aside the subject FIR.The respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court.On behalf of the applicant Nos.1 and 2 through power of attorney- parents-applicant Nos.3 and 4 present before the Court.In that view of the matter and in the interests of justice, the subject FIR is required to be quashed.The application is, accordingly, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and is disposed of as such.::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 23:25:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 23:25:21 :::","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In the matter of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 03.12.2014 in connection with Domjur P.S.Case No.915 of 2014 dated 24.08.2014 under Sections 498A/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re : Sanjib Rana. ... Petitioner.Ayan Bhattacharjee ... for the Petitioner Mr.Amanul Islam ... for the State.Heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the parties.The petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Domjur P.S.Case No.915 of 2014 dated 24.08.2014 under Sections 498A/307/34of the Indian Penal Code, has approached this Court for anticipatory bail.The petitioner is the husband.At the very outset, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that he is not admitting any of the allegations made against his client in the FIR and it is case of the petitioner that those are absolutely false, but as a matter of good gesture and having regards to the moral obligation of a good husband, the husband is now agreeable to pay monthly maintenance to the wife @ Rs.3,000/- per month.The learned advocate for the State, however, submits that there are materials to show the petitioner's involvement in the commission of offence, but when the husband voluntarily offered maintenance to his wife, he is not standing on the way.This order is subject to the conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. 3(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Ishan Chandra Das, J.)","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"P.C claiming that the Station House Officer Kotwali Guna for allegedly committed offence under Section 323, 294 of IPC.That crime was being investigated by Head Constable Satish Singh Raghuvanshi.5 M.Cr.By this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, 1973, the petitioner wants to seek the relief for setting aside the order dated 16.5.2013 passed by the learned 1st A.S.J, Guna in Cr.Revision No.74/2013, by which the learned A.S.J., has allowed the revision and directed the Trial Court that if the complainant (present petitioner) files an application under Section 197 Cr.P.C, direct the complainant (present petitioner) that he can prosecute the complainant only after obtaining a valid sanction for prosecution against the proposed accused person (Non-petitioner No.3 Sukhlal).2 M.Cr.C. No. 5114/2013The petitioner Sandeep Kushwah went to Police Station, who was manhandled by the non-petitioner No.3, Sukhlal, SHO of Police Station, Kotwali Guna.It is alleged that he abused him and on the basis of this complaint, the learned JMFC registered a case under Section 294, 323 of IPC against non-petitioner No.3 Sukhlal.Aggrieved by this the non-petitioner No.3 filed Cr.Revision No. 74/2013, which was decided by the impugned order dated 16.5.2013 by the learned 1st ASJ, Guna.On perusal of order dated 3 M.Cr.C. No. 5114/2013 16.5.2013, it is evident that criminal case was registered against the present petitioner (Sandeep Kushwah), that was being investigated by Head Constable Satish Singh Raghuvanshi.According to non-petitioner the complainant insisted to be released on bail from the police station in the non- bailable offence registered against him.He also tried to flee from the police station.At that time DSP was also present in the police station.3 M.Cr.C. No. 5114/2013The learned Revisional Court held that the Station House Officer was on official duty and the complaint was filed without any valid sanction.S.197 (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with th sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall 4 M.Cr.C. No. 5114/2013 take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-4 M.Cr.C. No. 5114/2013C. No. 5114/2013**(3-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no Court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued 6 M.Cr.C. No. 5114/2013 under Clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.6 M.Cr.C. No. 5114/20137 M.Cr.C. No. 5114/2013It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that proposed accused / non-applicant No.3 was not on official duty at the time of incident.The incident took place in the police station as per allegation.Non -applicant No.3 is the Station House Officer.The complainant contended that he was not on duty.But the petitioner had come up with the document to show that the non-applicant No.3 was not on duty at that time.P.C, the Magistrate has to apply his mind, which should be reflected in his order that a detail expression of his view neither required nor warranted.At the same time, if sanction is required under the provisions investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C cannot be ordered without previous sanction.8 M.Cr.C. No. 5114/2013The purpose of obtaining sanction is to see that the public servant be not unnecessarily harassed on a complaint, failing which it would not be possible for public servant to discharge his duty without fear and favour.P.C as has been held Anil Kumar and others (supra).In Baijnath VS.State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1966220),Hari Ram Singh Vs.Emperor (AIR 1939 FC 43) R.R. Chari Vs.The State of U.P. (AIR 9 M.Cr.9 M.Cr.C. No. 5114/2013","['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT V.K. Agarwal, J.This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred for quashing the order dated 3.12.1998 in Criminal Case No. 843/8 of J.M.F.C. Baloda Bazar and the order dated 21.7.1997 in Criminal Revision No. 413/88 by Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 182(2) of Criminal Procedure Code was dismissed.On account of maltreatment by petitioner No. 1 she was compelled to reside separately.The matter was reported by non- applicant to the police, thereafter a private complaint was filed by her, which after due enquiry has been registered by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baloda Bazar, Distt.Raipur and process under Section 204 of Criminal Procedure Code was issued for the petitioners/accused.The present petition has thereafter been filed praying that the order dated 3.12.1988 and that of Revisional Court dated 21.7.1997 be quashed.The learned Counsel for the petitioner in this petition has urged that applicants' petition challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court was wrongly dismissed.It has been urged in this connection that Section 182(2) of Criminal Procedure Code provides that the offence punishable under Section 494 or Section 495 of Indian Penal Code may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction, the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the marriage or the wife by the first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of the offence.It has been urged that since the non-applicant has alleged in his complaint that petitioner No. 1 solemnised his second marriage with petitioner No. 2 at Bhotia, Tehsil Sakti, Distt.Bilaspur; hence the alleged offence was committed at Village Bhotia, Tahsil Sakti, Distt.Bilaspur, i.e. within the jurisdiction of the Court at Sakti.","['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(02.06.2020) The present application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ""Cr.P.C."") seeking quashment of First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as the ""FIR"") in respect of Crime No.270/18 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Jabalpur, on the basis of complaint made by the respondent No.2, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ""IPC"").As per the case of the prosecution, as reflected from the FIR, a complaint was made by the respondent No.2 stating that he runs a shop under the name of 'Archana Garment' for manufacturing and selling of salwar and fancy salwar suits.In the year 2015-16, the applicant and Late Shri Gyanchand Bafna came to his shop and started doing business with him on cash basis; due to this, the respondent No.2 started trusting them.Thereafter, both of them 2 M.Cr.C. No. 9894/2019 started taking goods on credited and also made payment in respect of the same.But, payment was not made in cash and instead of same, eight cheques were issued against the bank account in the name of M/s Sunita Fashion, maintained with Bandhan Bank Erode Tamil Nadu.However, when the aforesaid eight cheques were presented in the bank for encashment, they were bounced due to insufficient funds in the said bank account.It was further stated by the respondent No.2 that the applicant and Late Shri GyanchandBafnahas not paid an amount of Rs. 13,86,188 to him and an amount of Rs. 60,98,806 to his fellow businessmen.Therefore, payment in respect of a total amount of Rs. 74,84,994 has not been made by them to him and his fellow businessmen.It was further stated that despite knowing that there is sufficient amount in the bank account, the applicant and Late Shri Gyanchand Bafna provided cheques to the respondent No.2 and his fellow businessmen with the objective of acquiring wrongful gain.On the basis of aforesaid complaint, preliminary inquiry was done by the concerned police officials and on finding prima facie case, FIR in respect of Crime No. 270/19 was registered against the Petitioner and Late Shri Gyanchand Bafnain respect of offences punishable under sections 420, 406 and 34 of the IPC.On behalf of the applicant, it has been contended that no criminal case of cheating is made out against the applicant.Further, 3 M.Cr.C. No. 9894/2019 even the demand notice (Annexure A/2) given by the respondent No.2 shows that the present case pertains to dishonor of cheque though no proceedings in respect of the same have been initiated.It has further been contended by the applicant that his father, Late Shri Gyanchand Bafna, has committed suicide by jumping in front of train at Mumbai due to pressure by one Amritlal Purohit.In respect of the same, an FIR has been registered against Amirtlal Purohit at Police Station Vashi, in respect of Crime No. 1970/18 in respect of offences punishable under sections 306 and 34 of the IPC.In support of his submissions, the applicant has placed reliance on decisions given in Vir Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal &Anr, (2007) 7 SCC 373, Binod Kumar &Ors.On behalf of the respondent No.2, a reply has been filed wherein it has been stated that the applicant and Late Shri Gyanchand Bafna dishonestly induced the respondent No.2 and other merchants for delivering garments worth Rs. 74,84,994/- and issued them 4 M.Cr.C. No. 9894/2019 cheques which were dishonoured.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 67 A.F.R.Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4191 of 2020 Applicant :- Sachin Dahiya And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi J.[1] Heard Shri Naveen Tiwari and Sri Prashant Manchanda, learned counsels for the applicants and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.[2] This is an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by learned Counsels for the applicants.After hearing the arguments at length, learned counsel has raised certain vital legal issues emanating from perusal of the impugned summoning order dated 02.05.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 12, Baghpat in Complaint Case No. 710/2018 U/s 406[3] Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out serious legal fallacy and flaws in the impugned summoning order dated 02.05.2019 as the same is in direct and stark defiance of the true spirit of Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., thus, the Court proposes to evaluate the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and decide the issue at the admission stage itself.[4] Before discussing the legal aspect of the issue, it is imperative to give a brief factual insight of the case so as to appreciate the controversy involved in its correct legal perspective;[5] The applicants have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C., by challenging summoning order dated 02.05.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 12, Baghpat in Complaint case filed by opposite party no.2 In re: Sureshwati Vs.Kadam Singh Dahiya and others in Complaint Case No. 710/2018 U/s 406 I.P.C., Police Station Binolli, District Baghpat and the entire proceeding of Complaint Case including the non-bailable-warrants dated 02.01.2020 against the accused/applicants procuring their attendance to face the prosecution under section 406 IPC.[6] Applicant no.1, Sachin Dahiya is the husband of Ms. Priya (hence deceased) and applicant nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased daughter-in-law.During their stay at Delhi, applicant no. 1 got married with daughter of opposite party no.2 on 28.11.2014 at Delhi itself.[7] Learned counsel for the applicants submits that after camouflaging her real address, opposite party no.2 initiated the present criminal case at Baghpat, projecting that she is permanent resident of District Baghpat and this manipulation was done by her, just to harass the applicants and torpedo the applicants with number of criminal cases against them at different places.It is asserted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the real and permanent address of opposite party no.2 is RZ-C 109, Vinodpuri, Vijay Enclave, Palam Davari Road, Delhi but she has obscured her true and permanent address and just to create the territorial jurisdiction at Baghpat, managed to get the complaint filed at Baghpat judgeship.On the same day a first information report No. 654/2015 was got registered under sections 498A, 304B and 34 I.P.C. at Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Delhi and police too after investigation, has submitted its report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. under the aforementioned sections of Penal Code.[9] Contentions raised by counsel for the applicants are that neither in the first information report nor during investigation there was any whisper regarding criminal breach of trust or misappropriation of valuable belongings of Ms. Priya, ergo, the police submitted its report under the aforementioned sections of Penal Code.[11] The learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of the court to the testimony of opposite party no.2 recorded as PW-18 before Sri Ramesh Kumar, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5 (North), Rohini Court, Delhi during the trial of FIR No. 654/2018, In re: State Vs.While giving her deposition as PW-18, she introduced herself as Smt. Sureshwati wife of late Shri Raj Kumar Rana resident of RZ-C, 109, Vinodpuri, Palam, Vijay Enclave, Delhi.Thus contended that in the present complaint case, she has mislead the court, by demonstrating wrong address at village Dhanora, Silvar Nagar Police Station Vinolli, Baghpat U.P. for that purpose and it is vigorously contended that the learned Magistrate has probably overlooked this legal fallacy and entertained the said complaint case filed by complainant Ms. Sureshwati, without verifying her correct proper address.Besides this, it is also canvassed that daughter of opposite party no.2 had initiated proceeding before Crime Against Women Cell, (CAW Cell), Delhi in year 2015 wherein a list of articles were furnished by opposite party no.2 and responding to that list, the applicants have already handed over those articles, lying in the sealed flat, during course of trial at Delhi.Contentions raised, that before every upcoming forum, she painted new picture and new list of the articles.[12] This Court while entertaining the instant 482 application ex-parte, is not in position to adjudicate anything on factual merits of the case, with regard to submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants with regard to alleged discrepancies in the list of articles but certainly the Court can arbitrate and gauge the territorial jurisdiction of the court and the process adopted by the learned Magistrate while passing the cognizance order dated 02.05.2019 for the offence under section 406 IPC while summoning the applicants.[13] Contention raised by the counsel for the applicants that the learned Magistrate lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint case on the ground that- contesting parties are permanent residents of Delhi; the marriage was solemnized at Delhi; unfortunate incident of demise of daughter of opposite party no.2 took place at Delhi and the applicants are facing prosecution under section 304B I.P.C. and allied sections pending before the competent Sessions Judge at Rohini Court, Delhi.","['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"No.7823/2017 and FIR and all subsequent proceedings have been quashed.Umesh was driving the motorcycle and Goldy was sitting pillion.As they reached near the car of the complainant, suddenly, Goldy took out a pistol and with intent to kill him fired a gun shot targeting the head of Anchal.The bullet hit on his temporal and he fell down on the road.The petitioner Pawan Agrawal, has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.The only difference is that as per statement of Manish Yadav, co-accused Hemant had revealed before him that after the incident he dropped the main accused persons Umesh and Goldy at the house of Pawan Agrawal and the present petitioner is same 2 MCRC No.21455/2019 Pawan Agrawal but nothing is recovered from his house or no other evidence is produced by the police with the charge sheet against him.Therefore, on the ground of parity, he is also entitled for the same relief granted to the co-accused Hemant.2 MCRC No.21455/2019Order dated 9.4.2019 passed in the petition preferred by co-accused Hemant in MCRC.No.7823/2017 reads thus:-"" This petition is filed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashing crime no.39/2017 registered at police station Lasudiya District- Indore under section 307/34, 109, 112, 120- B, 467, 468 of the IPC and 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto and proceedings of Sessions Trial No.337/2017 qua the petitioner Hemant.It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.01.2017, when after meeting his brother Jitendra Awasthi in jail, the complainant Anchal Awasthi was coming back by his Alto car, Umesh and Goldy chased him on motorcycle.After firing, they both (Umesh and Goldy) ran away from the spot.Driver of Anchal took him to Bombay Hospital, where he was admitted and provided treatment.After receiving information, the police reached at Bombay Hospital and recorded Dehati Nalishi.The police also recorded dying declaration of the complainant Anchal and investigated the case.During the investigation, the police recorded statement of one Manish Yadav under section 161 of the Cr.P.C., who revealed that in fact two and half month prior to the incident, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons prepared a plan to eliminate the complainant to grab his property.They gathered in the house of Umesh and discussed the plan.He was also part of the plan and was present in that meeting, but later withdrew himself.On the basis of this statement the police impleaded and charge-sheeted 3 MCRC No.21455/2019 the petitioner as one of the co-accused along with 12 other co- accused persons.3 MCRC No.21455/2019Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his name neither find place in Dehati Nalishi nor in the dying declaration of the complainant.During the investigation, the police arrested co-accused persons Kantilal and Anuj who first revealed about the conspiracy hatched by the co-accused persons but they also did not name the petitioner.The petitioner is impleaded on the false pretext.There is an old rivalry between two groups, who are indulged in attacks and counter attacks.Many other criminal cases have been registered against the persons connected to both the groups.He is also not named the petitioner as a conspirator, when actually the co-accused persons gathered to finalize the plan to eliminate the accused.He also dropped his name in his statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class u/S 164 Cr.P.C.5 MCRC No.21455/2019The prosecution against the petitioner pending before the Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.337/2017 is hereby set aside.","['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"It is noted that this application is preferred alongwith affidavits of some victims as well as copy of the entire chargesheet alongwith the Police report filed under Section 173, Cr.P.C. In such chargesheet case-diary statements of as many as 08 witnesses, namely, Vikas Sharma, Sudhir Sethia, Mahesh Katare, Kamal Singh Parihar, Vinod Kumar Joshi, Akhilesh Ojha, Vinod Kumar Shivhare and Sunil Shrivastava are annexed and available on record.In the course of arguments, in response to some query of the Court based on the evidence available in the chargesheet including the interrogatory statements of Akhilesh Ojha and Sunil Shrivastava instead to argue, the learned counsel for the applicant at this stage seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to revive the prayer at subsequent stage by mentioning some additional facts and circumstances.Considering the aforesaid, the petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn as well as not pressed with aforesaid liberty.Before parting with the matter we would like to mention here that during the course of the arguments, applicant's counsel has referred the photocopies of certified copy of the order dated 2 MCRC No.3429/2016 (Udai alias Kanhai Chauhan Vs.State of MP) 09.06.2016 passed by the CJM Bhind (Shri Dhanraj Dubela) and the depositions of the examined prosecution witnesses, namely, Vikas Sharma (PW1), Sudhir Sethia (PW2) and Mahesh Katare (PW3), the same are taken on record.On perusing such ordersheet dated 09.06.2016 passed by said subordinate Court in Criminal Case No.435/16, we have found that such Court has permitted to the victims Mahesh Katare and Sudhir Sethia to compound the offences of Sections 420 and 406 of IPC with the applicant herein and subsided such offences and pursuant to that, the charges of Sections 420 and 406 of IPC were not framed against the applicant.On mere perusal of the Police report, it is apparent that as per list of the documents, various case diary statements of witnesses have been annexed with the chargesheet.On record alongwith chargesheet as many as 08 case-diary statements of witnesses have been placed.Mere perusal of the interrogatory statements of Akhilesh Oza and Sunil Shrivastava, prima-facie it is apparent that they were also victims of the applicant with whom also the alleged offence was committed and such evidence was very well before the trial Court, but such police statements of the victims were ignored.According to which, the offences of Sections 406 and 420 of IPC were also committed by the applicant in connection of victims but Presiding Officer of the trial Court contrary to such record has permitted the parties to compound the offences only at the request of the victims Vikas Sharma (PW1), Sudhir Sethia (PW2) and pursuant to such compromise the applicant has been acquitted from the charge of Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.We are of the considered view that the Presiding Officer of 3 MCRC No.3429/2016 (Udai alias Kanhai Chauhan Vs.State of MP) the trial Court while dealing with the compromise applications specially in the cognizable matter was duty bound to examine the matter thoroughly including the aforesaid case-diary statements of the other victims, but in the impugned matter Presiding Officer has considered the compromise application filed by some of the victims in a very casual manner contrary to the papers of the chargesheet.It is apparent from the chargesheet, that as per the prosecution case in the alleged scheme as many as 1200 members were made and from them the applicant was collecting the money in monthly installments by giving them the offer in the shape of Chit Fund Yojna.Although in the investigation all such members were not interrogated by the Police but in any case the aforesaid named two witnesses were also interrogated as victims.But in any case to consider the compromise application, the Presiding Officer of the trial Court merely on the basis of the application of the two victims named above could not acquit to the applicant.In such premises the trial Court by ignoring the material evidence of the chargesheet has wrongly acquitted the applicant from the charge of Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.Apart aforesaid in the available circumstances, the Principal Registrar of this Bench is hereby directed to register suo motu 4 MCRC No.3429/2016 (Udai alias Kanhai Chauhan Vs.State of MP) Criminal Revision against the order dated 09.06.2016 passed by the CJM Bhind (Shri Dhanraj Dubela) in Criminal Case No.435/16 as early as possible within 07 days and place such revision before the appropriate Bench for admission and further consideration.as per rules.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The case of the prosecution as noticed by the Trial Court reads as under:It is case of prosecution that on 30.08.93 at about 10 pm, Raj Kiran was present in the compound of his house situated in Village Khera Kalan.At that time, his younger brothers Narender and Om Singh and their uncle Balwant were also present there.All of them heard someone calling Raj Kiran.Raj Kiran sent his younger brother Narender but at the same time, he himself also got up and went out of his house.Sushil Kumar (accused) was seen pulling Narender out of the house by his hand.Surender took Narender in his grip from his backside.Sushil Kumar accused stabbed Narender.Sushil Kumar accused exhorted Ashok to stab Raj Kiran whereupon Ashok stabbed Raj Kiran in the middle of his abdomen,right side of his waist and on his buttock.As a result of the stab wound, Raj Kiran fell down and became unconscious.The occurrence was witnessed by Om Singh and Balwant Singh.Om Singh raised alarm for being saved.Accused persons then ran away from the spot towards their house.Many persons from the public also gathered there.About 10/15 days prior to the aforesaid occurrence, at about 4/5 pm, Raj Kiran and his brother Om Singh were present near their house.Sushil accused came towards them driving a jeep at a high speed.Om Singh and Raj Kiran had a narrow escape.Complainant party went to house of Sushil accused to lodge protest with his father Randhir Singh.Sushil accused was scolded by his father.On the same day, Sushil accused threatened to deal with them one by one.On 30.08.93 at about 10/10.30 pm, Inspector Harshvardhan, SHO, PS S.P. Badli received information on wireless that an incident of stabbing had taken place in Village Khera Kalan.Thereupon, he accompanied by Ct.Ramesh Kumar reached the spot i.e. near the house of Baldeva.SI Darshan Lal and Ct.Satanand were also found present there.The SI and the Constable had reached there on receiving call of quarrel at the Crl.Inspector Harshvardhan left Constable Ramesh at the spot to guard it and himself accompanied by SI Darshan Lal and Ct.Satanand reached Hindu Rao Hospital and from there collected MLC of Narender.As per MLC, Narender had been declared brought dead.Raj Kiran, injured was allegedly declared by the doctor unfit to make statement.Balwant Singh met the Inspector at the hospital and made statement.The Inspector appended endorsement whereupon ruqqa was sent from the hospital through Ct. Sadanand and present case was registered.The Inspector prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence as pointed out by Balwant Singh.From the spot, the Inspector once again visited Hindu Rao Hospital and enquired about fitness of Raj Kiran to make statement.Still Raj Kiran was unfit to make statement.Balwant Singh PW produced before the Inspector one underwear of Raj Kiran.The underwear was found blood stained and having a cut.It was turned into a parcel, sealed with the seal bearing impression HV and then taken into possession vide a memo.It is also case of prosecution that on 30.08.93, Dr. R. Bhagi medico legally examined Narender and Raj Kiran at Hindu Rao Hospital and opined that sharp weapon was used in causing injuries on their person.In this respect, reports were given by the doctor.Lateron, Dr. V.K. Sehdev of Santom Hospital appended endorsement in MLC declaring Raj Kiran unfit to make statement.Dr. Ashok Jaiswal conducted autopsy on the dead body of Narender and prepared report.In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were antemortem in nature; injury No.1 and 2 were caused with a sharp edged weapon; injury No.3 and 5 were caused by fall and friction against hard surface; and injury No.2 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.In the opinion of the doctor, Narender died due to haemorhagic shock consequent to the injuries to the abdominal viscera.Mahender Singh delivered special reports to senior police officers and learned Metropolitan Magistrate.Constable Satanand produced two sealed parcels and sample seal of the seal of Dr. B. Singh, before the Inspector who seized the same vide a memo and in turn deposited the same in the malkhana.The dead body of Narender was delivered to the relatives of the deceased.It is further case of prosecution that in the evening of 31.08.93, the Inspector was present on G.T. Road, within the area of PS S.P. Badli.He received secret information to the effect that Sushil accused was present at the railway station, Khera Kalan and was about to flee away.Thereupon, the Inspector accompanied by SI Darshan Lal, Ct.Satanand and secret informer reached railway station, Khera Kalan, apprehended Sushil accused at the pointing out of secret informer.He was arrested and his personal search memo was prepared.He also made disclosure statement before the Inspector and in pursuance thereof he got recovered a knife from the grass under a bench at the railway station, Khera Kalan.The Inspector prepared rough sketch i.e of the knife, turned the knife into parcel and seized the same vide a memo.The Inspector visited Hindu Rao Hospital thrice/four times to record statement of Raj Kiran but every time he was found unfit to make statement.PW-9/A).The first site plan (Ex.The role assigned by him to the accused Surender was that he took his brother (deceased) in his grip from his back side and the accused Sushil stabbed his brother on the left side of his abdomen and on the face near his nose.The accused Sushil exhorted his brother Ashok that he should stab him.As a result of which the accused Ashok stabbed him in the middle of his abdomen, right side of his waist and buttock.Thereafter, PW5 fell down and became unconscious and when he re-gained consciousness, he found himself at Hindu Rao Hospital.With regard to motive, PW5 Raj Karan reiterated the incident which took place 10/15 days prior to the instant case.i) that on 30.08.1993, at 11.20 PM, he was brought by HC Vijender Singh (PCR R-87) to Hindu Rao Hospital;ii) that the injured was brought with alleged history of fight (stabbed) as told by the relations of the injured;iii) that the injured was unconscious, gasping and his blood pressure was not recordable;This led to Balwant Singh (PW-12) and Tara Chand complaining to the father of the respondent Sushil.Other persons also accompanied them.Father of accused Sushil begged forgiveness and reprimanded Sushil causing him to harbour a grudge against them.A. 731/2007 Page 25 of 42Om Singh (PW-4) deposed before the Trial Court that about 15-20 days prior to the incident, the respondent Sushil had drove the jeep at a very high speed near their house and at the time, he had a narrow escape.At this, the witness goes astray of the story of the prosecution.He further deposed that he himself had complained to the father of the respondent Sushil, who had scolded Sushil.He deposed that earlier also, the respondent Sushil had driven his vehicle at a high speed and it was only when the incident was repeated, the incident was reported to the father of the respondent Sushil.He also deposed that at the moment of narrow escape, he was standing with his brother Raj Karan and then they both had gone to lodge a complaint to the father of Sushil.After the complaint, the respondent Sushil had threatened to kill them.During cross-examination, PW-4 categorically denied the suggestion that his uncle Balwant and tau (uncle) Tara Chand had gone to complain to the father of the respondent Sushil.He affirmed the suggestion that prior to the incident, there was no enmity with the family of the respondent Sushil.Thus, it is difficult to believe that PW5 Raj Karan was not medically fit to make a statement on 30.08.1993 when he was brought to Hindu Rao Hospital or soon thereafter.In this regard, we concur with the findings of the learned Trial Court that the contents of rukka showing that the doctor declared Raj Karan unfit to make statement are not in consonance with the contents of the MLC Ex.PW6/B. In this regard, PW16 who was Investigating Officer deposed that he had visited Hindu Rao Hospital three to four times to record the statement of PW5 Raj Karan but he was found unfit every time and the statement of PW5 was recorded on 13.09.1993 by him upon his visit to Santom Hospital, Rohini.The statement of injured witness PW-5 Raj Karan was recorded after about 14 days from the incident, the delay in doing so remained unanswered and unexplained.It is the case of the prosecution that on 31.08.1993, the respondent Sushil made a disclosure statement and then got discovered a blood stained knife from the Railway Station of village Khera Kalan.The said recovery was made in the presence of PW2 Kartar Singh, SI Darshan Lal (since deceased), PW15 HC Satanand and PW16 Insp.PW2 Kartar Singh deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 31.08.1993, at about 7.00/7.30 AM while he was returning from his fields, he saw Police Officials standing near Railway Station of village Khera Kalan.Some public persons were also found standing there.The respondent Sushil who was correctly identified by PW2 in Court alongwith the Police officials and PW2 entered the platform.The respondent Sushil picked a knife which was blood stained from the platform which was subsequently sealed and turned into a parcel.PW15 HC Satanand deposed in his examination-in-chief that he was accompanied by PW16 Harshvardhan and SI Darshan Lal (since dead) to the village Khera Kalan where they were being informed by a secret informer that the respondent Sushil who gave stab injuries during the incident which took place last night was sitting at the Railway Station of village Khera Kalan.Thereupon, they reached the said Railway Station and found respondent Sushil sitting on a bench.Enquiry was made to him.One knife was found lying in the grass under the cement bench where he was sitting.The said knife was found blood stained.PW15 further deposed that PW2 Kartar Singh, a resident of the same Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 31 of 42 village had also come to the Railway Station who had attested the recovery memo.In his cross-examination, it was stated by PW15 HC Satanand that a secret informer met them on 31.08.1993, at about 5.00 PM.Disclosure statement of the respondent Sushil was recorded whereupon he disclosed about a knife.It was stated by PW15 that he did not remember as to whether respondent Sushil had disclosed that he had concealed a knife under the cemented bench, or that the said knife was used by him in causing injuries to the deceased and PW5 Raj Karan.It was also stated by PW15 that pursuant to the secret information received, firstly they had gone to the village Khera Kalan and then PW2 Kartar Singh was taken along from the village.A. 731/2007 Page 31 of 42PW16 Harshvardhan who was posted as SHO, Police Station S.P.Badli on the day of incident and was the Investigating Officer in the present case deposed in his examination-in-chief that in the evening of 31.08.1993, while he was present on G.T.Road within the area of Police Station S. P. Badli, he received an information through a secret informer that the respondent Sushil was present at Railway Station Khera Kalan and was about to flee from there.PW16 accompanied by SI Darshan Lal (since dead), PW15 HC Satanand alongwith the secret informer reached the Railway Station Khera Kalan.After pointing out by the secret informer, PW16 apprehended the respondent Sushil and then interrogated him after arresting him.His personal search memo was prepared by him.The respondent Sushil made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW16/D) stating that the knife used by him in the stabbing was concealed by him in the grass under the bench of the Railway Station.Thereafter, respondent Sushil pointed out the place where he had concealed the knife and at the same time took out the said Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 32 of 42 knife form the grass under the bench at the Railway Station.The evidence on record establishes that on 30.08.1993 at about 10:00 PM, Om Singh (PW4), Raj Karan (PW5) and deceased along with their uncle Balwant Singh (PW12) were sitting in their house.The accused Sushil called for Raj Karan, whereas Raj Karan sent the deceased Narender out of the house as to see who was calling him.The Crl.Present appeal has been filed under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') against the judgment dated 28.03.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge: Fast Track Courts, Rohini ('Trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 02/2006 arising out of FIR No.359/1993 PS Samaypur Badli under Section 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') whereby all the accused persons/respondents herein have been acquitted.Initially the State had filed a Petition seeking Leave to Appeal being Crl.L.P. 188/2007, which Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 1 of 42 was allowed vide order dated 16.11.2007 and the case was converted into a regular appeal.A. 731/2007 Page 1 of 42A. 731/2007 Page 2 of 42 house of Ram Kishan.On reaching the spot, they learnt that two persons had been removed to hospital by PCR staff.A. 731/2007 Page 2 of 42On return to the spot, the Inspector collected sample of blood from there, turned it into a parcel and sealed the same with seal bearing impression HV.The sample of blood was then seized vide a memo.On 31.08.93, the Inspector once again reached Hindu Rao Hospital, carried out inquest proceedings in respect of dead body of Narender, recorded statements of Ram Kishan and Radhey Shyam in respect of identification of dead body; prepared inquest Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 3 of 42 proceedings and submitted request for conducting autopsy on the dead body.A. 731/2007 Page 3 of 42It was on 13.09.93 that the Inspector recorded statement of Raj Kiran after visiting Santom Hospital.On 15.10.93, the Inspector got dispatched sealed parcels Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 4 of 42 lying deposited with MHC(M), to CFSL, Chandigarh through Ct.Jaswant Singh.On analysis, report was received.A. 731/2007 Page 4 of 42On 30.09.93, SI Manohar Lal visited the spot, where Om Singh was present, and he prepared scaled site plan of the place of occurrence....""The chargesheet was filed before the Trial Court and after hearing the parties, charge was framed on 16.09.1999 against the accused Sushil/respondent No.1 under Section 302 IPC and later on 09.11.2005, charge was framed against the other two accused persons/respondent No. 2 and 3 under Section 302/34 IPC.All the respondents pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to trial.When the matter was listed before the Trial Court for final arguments on 14.03.2007, an additional charge was ordered to be framed against the accused Ashok/respondent No.2 under Section 307 IPC and against the other two accused persons/respondent No. 1 and 3 under Section 307/34 IPC.To bring home the guilt of the accused persons/respondents, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses in all.Statements of the accused persons/respondents were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances against them and claimed false implication.The accused Surender/respondent no.3 raised the plea that he was not present in the village on the day of the offence.Two witnesses were examined by the respondents in their defence.After examining the evidence before it, the Trial Court found the testimonies of the eyewitnesses (PW-4, 5 and 12) to be unreliable as being contradictory and being improved on material aspects, the prosecution had failed to show the exact location of the incident, recovery was found to be unreliable, motive was not established and Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 5 of 42 there was delay in lodging of FIR opening scope of tutoring and ultimately, acquitted all the accused persons/respondents herein.Aggrieved, the State had filed a leave to appeal, which was allowed and converted into the present appeal.The State is assisted by the counsel for the complainant.A. 731/2007 Page 5 of 42Kolluru, learned APP for the State, submits that the judgment passed by the Trial Court is not in consonance with the law as well as facts which emerged during the trial.The Trial Court has failed to take into consideration that there were three eyewitnesses account, i.e. Om Singh (PW-4), Raj Karan (PW-5) and Balwant Singh (PW-12), whose testimony is cogent and reliable and the defence was unable to impeach their veracity even during the cross-examination.Kolluru submits that grave miscarriage of justice has occurred by recording acquittal of the accused persons/respondents herein by the Trial Court and thus, warranting interference by this Court.Learned counsel submitted that the three eyewitnesses have been consistent on all the material counts including that (i) the complainant party was sitting at home when the incident occurred; (ii) someone called out to Raj Karan (PW-5); (iii) the deceased was sent out and the respondent no.1/accused Sushil pulled him out and stabbed him while accused Surender held him; and (iv) The accused Ashok had stabbed Raj Karan (PW-5).It is next submitted that there are very minor inconsistencies between the ocular account and the medical record and cannot cast any doubt upon the Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 6 of 42 ocular account.As regards motive, Ms.Kolluru has submitted that 15-20 days prior to the incident, respondent Sushil had driven his jeep at very high speed and in a reckless manner barely avoiding Om Singh (PW-4).The family members then went to complain to respondent Sushil's father about this, which enraged the respondent Sushil and he threatened them.It is submitted that as regards the inconsistencies highlighted by the Trial Court to throw out motive, the same were very minor and did not go to the root of the matter.The second reason of the Trial Court that Raj Karan (PW-5) was neither the victim of the rash driving nor the complainant and there was no reason for the respondent Sushil to call him out is also fallacious.Learned counsel submitted that both PW-4 and PW-5 were witnesses to the rash driving incident and even if some other family member complained about the same, it was only at their instance and thus, it was natural for the respondent Sushil to nurse a grudge against them.Further, Raj Karan (PW-5) being the eldest brother, it was natural for the respondent Sushil to call him over anyone else.Kolluru next contended that there was no delay in the recording of the FIR which would have allowed deliberation to falsely implicate the respondents.The incident occurred at about 10.00 PM, the DD No. 18-A was recorded at 10:20 PM, the victims were brought to the Hospital at 11:20 PM while Narender succumbed to his injuries at Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 7 of 42 11:45 PM and the statement of PW-12 Balwant Singh was recorded at the Hospital and tehrir endorsed at 12:50 AM.The total time gap between the death of Narender and the registration of FIR is only 1 hour and the rukka statement clearly mentions the presence and role of all the three respondents.Accordingly, Ms.Kolluru submits that there was no delay in the recording of the FIR.A. 731/2007 Page 7 of 42It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that the reason why the statement of Raj Karan (PW-5) was recorded on 13.09.1993 is that even though he was conscious, he was not oriented.R.Bhagi (PW-6) had prepared the MLC and deposed before the Trial Court that he had referred both the deceased and PW-5 Raj Karan to emergency surgery and hence, the IO would not have got a chance to record his statement.The MLC (Ex.PW-6/B) contains two endorsements to the effect that PW-5 Raj Karan was declared unfit to make a statement, one dated 02.09.1993 and the other undated made by PW-8 Dr.V.K. Sehdev of Santhom Hospital (where PW-5 Raj Karan received treatment after leaving Hindu Rao Hospital).The IO (PW-16) has also deposed that he went to the Hindu Rao Hospital 3-4 times for recording of the statement of PW-5 Raj Karan, but found him unfit.Learned counsel concluded that the delay in recording the statement of PW-5 Raj Karan stood duly confirmed and even otherwise, the names of the respondents already figured in the rukka on the same day the offence was committed.Further, Balwant Singh (PW-12) is not a planted witness.The mere omission of the doctor to mention his name in the MLC is not a ground to disbelieve his presence on the spot.All the eyewitnesses have categorically deposed about the presence of PW-12 at the spot and both PW-4 and PW-12 have stated that PW-12 accompanied the injured in Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 8 of 42 the PCR vehicle.PW-4 stated that Tara Chand later went to the Hospital and it is possible that at the time of recording of the MLC, the doctor spoke to him and his name got recorded.It was never contended that the bodies of PW-5 and the deceased were moved single handedly by Balwant Singh (PW-12) and the finding to this effect is in the realm of sheer conjecture.At the spot, admittedly PW-4 was also present and he could have assisted PW-12 in the endeavour.A. 731/2007 Page 8 of 42Learned counsel for the State further submitted that the Trial Court has erred in not relying on the recovery of the blood stained knife at the instance of the respondent Sushil.The public witness (PW-2) and the police witnesses (PW-15 and PW-16) are consistent to all the material aspects of the recovery and the difference in the time of recovery is immaterial.Further, it is contended that the presence of the respondents namely Surender and Ashok also stands established from the testimonies of the eyewitnesses.Neither DW-1 nor DW-2 can serve as alibis with regard to the presence of respondent Ashok and even if they are believed, respondent Ashok could have accompanied his brothers/co-accused bidding DW-1 and DW-2 goodbye and entered his house.Even the failure of the prosecution to examine public witnesses is of no consequence in view of the clear and consistent testimonies of the eyewitnesses.Kolluru submitted that the failure to seize the clothes of Raj Karan (PW-5) would make no difference as the knife used by the respondent Ashok was never recovered and the analysis of correlation between the stab injuries and the marks on the clothes would not be possible.It is next submitted that the spot of the occurrence was also identifiable.The mere statement by PW-15 and DD No. 18-A of the spot at the Crl.Even the two site plans are consistent as the site of the occurrence being infront of the house of Baldeva.Further, the absence of the location of PW-12 in the site plan (Ex.PW-16/B) from where he witnessed the incident is of no consequence and amounts to creating issues out of non-issues.As regards the position of the respondent Surender not being mentioned in the site plan (Ex.PW-16/B) is concerned, the same is clearly identifiable as point 'A' as the respondent Surender had caught hold of the deceased Narender and the place he was attacked would also be the location of the respondent Surender.A. 731/2007 Page 9 of 42The final contention of Ms.Kolluru is that the non-examination of the PCR staff, though a lapse on the part of the IO, is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.Even the anomaly between the date of dispatch and receipt of the sealed parcels at Chandigarh cannot lead to the conclusion that there was a possibility of tampering as no suggestion has been made to any of the witnesses to this effect during cross-examination.The learned counsel for the State concluded by submitting that the eyewitness accounts of PW-4, 5 and 12 are clear, consistent with each other and assign specific roles to each of the respondents.Statements of PW-4 and PW-12 are recorded soon after the incident, at different locations, without any time for family discussion for the purposes of meeting of minds for false implication of the respondents herein or for planting of PW-12 as a fake eyewitness.The ocular accounts are corroborated by medical evidence and police investigation.The defence witnesses do not provide Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 10 of 42 alibis to the respondent Ashok during occurrence of incident.Similarly, no witnesses or evidence has been led to disprove the presence of the respondent Surender at the time and place of incident.Narender suffered a hasty death consequent to the stab injuries and Raj Karan (PW-5) was hospitalized for over 2 weeks and underwent multiple surgeries.A. 731/2007 Page 10 of 42Learned counsel for the complainant adopted the arguments of the State and further submitted that the non-examination of Tara Chand, even if he was present at the site, would not reduce the credibility of the eyewitnesses account.As regards motive, Mr.Choudhury relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh, reported at (2011) 9 SCC 115 (paragraph 12 and 14) to submit that even in the absence of specific evidence as to motive, the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved owing to eyewitness account.Reliance was also placed on Badru Ram v. State of Rajasthan, reported at (2015) 11 SCC 476 (paragraphs 5-7) to submit that eyewitnesses account corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of the weapons are sufficient to convict the accused even if there are minor discrepancies in the ocular account.Controverting the contentions of the State and the complainant, Mr.Hariharan, learned senior counsel for the respondents, submitted that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court warranting interference by this Court.The Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence before it and acquitted all the respondents.Learned senior counsel submitted that the prosecution was unable to ascribe any motive to the respondents to attack Raj Karan (PW-5).There are numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of PW-4, 5 and 12 Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 11 of 42 about the incident of rash driving.PW-4 and PW-5 have deposed differently about the group of persons who went to lodge a complaint to the father of the respondent Sushil.Both have in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. omitted to name each other when the incident of rash driving happened.Balwant Singh (PW-12) has given a completely different account and did not name PW-5 to be present when the respondent Sushil drove the jeep and also deposed that he alongwith his brother Tara Chand had gone to lodge a complaint as opposed to the testimony of PW-5 that he had gone with Balwant Singh (PW-12).Similar statement was made by PW-12 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Mr.Hariharan further submitted that even if it is believed that Balwant Singh (PW-12) and Tara Chand had gone to lodge a complaint, the same would not supply any motive to the respondent Sushil to call out Raj Karan (PW-5).A. 731/2007 Page 11 of 42Learned senior counsel next contended that the presence of Balwant Singh (PW-12) was rightly doubted by the Trial Court.Though, the prosecution had alleged that he was the only public person to accompany the injured to the Hospital but his name has not been recorded in the MLCs.Even the staff of the PCR Van, whose name figures in the MLCs, has not been examined to corroborate the presence of PW-12 at the spot and in the Hospital.In the MLC of PW-5 Raj Karan (Ex.PW-6/B), it is recorded: ""Alleged h/o fight (being stabbed by someone) as told by one Tara Chand, s/o Sis Ram, r/o village Khera Kalan"".Name of PW-12 is nowhere mentioned.Additionally, it is improbable that PW-12 would accompany the injured persons to the hospital and would not himself give the history of assault, especially when the accused persons were very well known to him.Tara Chand, Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 12 of 42 who could have deposed as to the presence of PW-12, was also not examined by the prosecution.Learned senior counsel contended that the account given by PW-12 is also unbelievable as it is not possible for him to shift two injured persons to the cots and in the process not get his clothes stained with blood.The testimony of PW-4 to the effect that Balwant Singh (PW-12) had accompanied the PCR Van to the hospital also cannot lend any credibility as the same was not mentioned in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and PW-4 was duly confronted with the same.The doctor would not give the underwear to Balwant Singh (PW-12) and not seal it in a pullanda especially when the police officers were admittedly present in the Hospital.Further, neither Raj Karan (PW-5) identified the said underwear before the police nor the same was put to him during his testimony in Court; nor he himself deposed anything about his underwear being taken by somebody while he was admitted in the Hospital.It was also submitted that PW-12 himself cannot identify the underwear as the one worn by Raj Karan (PW-5) as he never removed it nor saw him wearing it.He can only identify the underwear as the one handed to the police and he never disclosed the source of the underwear.The fate of the other clothes of PW-5 is also unknown.A. 731/2007 Page 13 of 42 evening waiting for the same to be seized by the police at his instance; second, different accounts have been stated by PW-2, 15 and 16 about the manner in which the police party proceeded, was joined by PW-2 and the time of recovery; and third, as the public witness (PW-2) only deposed that the knife was similar to the one seized and not the same one.As an alternative submission, learned senior counsel contended that even if the recovery is believed, there is nothing to link the same with the offence as the opinion of the doctors was not sought nor the origin of the blood determined by the FSL.Further, out of the two knives used, only one was ever recovered.None of the eyewitnesses ever deposed that the knife changed hands.A. 731/2007 Page 13 of 42The initial DD No.18-A (Mark PW-16/B) records the location as the house of Pradhan Ram Kishan in Khera Kalan.Thereafter, the police was bound to reach the spot and they eventually did reach there.PW-15 deposed to the effect that other police officials also reached there and Ct.Ramesh (PW-10) was left to guard the same and blood was lying there.There is no evidence from the prosecution as to not only the site of the incident changed from there, but also the position of the blood.Hariharan next drew our attention to the Site Plans (Ex.PW-16/B and Ex.PW-16/B) was allegedly made at the pointing of Balwant Singh (PW-12), however, PW-12 nowhere in his entire testimony deposed that the site plan was prepared on his pointing.Further, as per the case of the prosecution two stabbing incidents took place and hence, blood should be found on two spots, but the blood was found only at one spot.The site plan does not show the presence of respondent Surender.Even the Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 14 of 42 scaled site plan (Ex.PW-9/A) does not show the presence of Balwant Singh (PW-12) nor does it show the presence of the respondents Surender and Ashok.It was next contended that the prosecution is also guilty for non-examination of important witnesses as neither Tara Chand nor the PCR officials were ever examined.A. 731/2007 Page 14 of 42It was next contended on behalf of the respondents that there is no explanation for the recording of the statement of the injured witness Raj Karan (PW-5) belatedly after a gap of about 14 days.R.Bhagi (PW-6) had examined both the injured at first in point of time, however, he never made any endorsement on the MLC that the patient was unfit for statement nor deposed before the Trial Court.Even the MLC (Ex.PW- 6/B) records that the patient was fully conscious at the time of admission and his blood pressure is shown as 110/80, therefore, there was no reason for his statement not being recorded at the first instance.On the other hand, though Dr.V.K. Sehdev (PW-8) deposed that he had made an endorsement to the effect that the patient was unfit for statement, but no such endorsement is found on the MLC.The only endorsement made stating that the patient is unfit for statement was made by Dr.Shanti on 02.09.1993 and she was never examined as a witness.Hariharan also pointed out to the contradiction in the testimony of PW-5 wherein he stated to have learnt about the death of his brother Narender while he was unconscious in the Hospital for about 10-15 days.While Balwant Singh (PW-12) negated the version by deposing that PW-5 was unconscious for 2-3 days and thereafter, started talking.PW-12 also deposed that Raj Karan (PW-5) was discharged after about a week and at the time, he could speak and talk.Learned senior counsel submitted that the presence of Om Singh (PW-A. 731/2007 Page 15 of 424) has not been conclusively established by the prosecution.It was contended that his conduct was unnatural as he neither accompanied the deceased and injured (PW-5) to the Hospital nor came forward and approached the police while they reached the spot.Similarly, PW-15 and PW-16 never deposed that they met Om Singh (PW-4) upon reaching the spot.It was next contended that the veracity of the FSL Report was also questionable as there was a possibility of the parcels being tampered with.The parcels were dispatched on 05.10.1993, while they were deposited only on 07.10.1993 and the officer entrusted with the same, i.e. Ct.Jaswant Singh, was never examined.Further, even on their return, the parcels were sent to the SHO, PS Shalimar Bagh and not SHO, PS Samaypur Badli, who had sent them in the first place.Hariharan contended that as there is no explanation for the same, it would be highly unsafe to rely upon the report of the FSL.It was also contended that the ocular account given by PW-12 and PW-5 is not in consonance with the injuries found during medical examination of the deceased and injured (PW-5).Our attention was also drawn the testimonies of DW-1 and DW-2 to show that the prosecution was never able to establish the presence of respondent Ashok at the site.A. 731/2007 Page 16 of 42 Om Singh has been recorded as 26 years on the date of deposition and thus, would have been atleast 19 years old on the date of the incident and not 13 years as alleged by the State.A. 731/2007 Page 16 of 42In rejoinder, Ms.Kolluru submitted that Om Singh (PW-4) was 13 years of age on the date of the incident and therefore, he did not accompany the deceased and the injured (PW-5) to the Hospital.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, examined their rival submissions and perused the record.At the outset, it would be necessary to analyse the testimonies of the eyewitnesses account.PW4 Om Singh (brother of PW5 Raj Karan and the deceased) deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 30.08.1993 at about 10 PM, while he was sitting in the inner portion of his house and PW5 Raj Karan, deceased and their uncle Balwant were sitting in the compound of their house.The accused Sushil Kumar called his elder brother Raj Karan whereupon Raj Karan sent the deceased out of the house to see as to who was calling him out.As soon as the deceased went out of the house, the accused Sushil pulled him from his hand and took him out of the house.After watching this, they immediately rushed towards the deceased and saw that the accused Surender caught hold of the deceased from his back and had taken him into his grip whereas the accused Sushil stabbed the deceased with a knife causing injuries to the left portion of his body as well as on the left side of his abdomen.As regards injuries on the person of PW5 Raj Karan, PW4 Om Singh deposed that when PW5 Raj Karan stepped out of their house in order to save his younger brother, the accused Sushil exhorted his elder brother Ashok to stab PW5 Raj Karan and it was thereupon he inflicted knife blows to the hip and stomach of Raj Karan.PW4 cried for help Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 17 of 42 due to which the accused Sushil alongwith his other brothers ran away towards their house.People gathered at the spot.Somebody made a call to the Police.Subsequently, Police reached the spot and took his brother PW5 Raj Karan, the deceased and his uncle Balwant to the hospital and PW4 was left at the spot.A. 731/2007 Page 17 of 42With regard to motive, it was deposed by PW4 Om Singh that about 15-PW5 Raj Karan had lodged a complaint with the father of the accused Sushil who had scolded him.The accused Sushil had also driven his jeep near their house at a very high speed on earlier occasions but at that time they thought that the accused Sushil had done it innocently and had not complained about it.But, when the accused Sushil had done it again, while PW4 Om Singh was standing alongwith his elder brother PW5 Raj Karan, near their house, to which PW5 had a narrow escape, they complained about the said incident to the father of the accused Sushil due to which the accused Sushil threatened to take their lives.The accused Sushil and his elder brothers Surender and Ashok were known to him since childhood as they were residing next to their house.On 30.09.1993, some draftsman visited his house whereupon PW4 pointed out the place of incident to him and the said draftsman took the necessary drafting notes and measurements.In his cross-examination, PW4 Om Singh stated that when he raised alarm at the time of the incident, no person came forward and reached the spot on hearing the noise since it was night time and people in his neighbourhood were inside their houses and watching Television in closed doors.PW4 Om Singh admitted that his uncles Tara Chand and Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 18 of 42 Ram Kishan had reached the spot after the incident and he narrated the entire incident to them.PCR also reached the spot after about half an hour of the incident.PW4 Om Singh further stated that his uncle Tara Chand did not accompany the deceased and Raj Karan when they were removed to the Hospital or gave the alleged history of the incident to the concerned doctor.It was further stated by PW4 that his statement was recorded by the Police on the night of the incident at 1.30/2.00 AM at his house but he did not remember the exact time when local Police met him.A. 731/2007 Page 18 of 42It was further stated by PW4 Om Singh that he had informed the Investigating Officer that the accused Sushil had exhorted his elder brother Ashok to stab PW5 Raj Karan.However, the said fact does not find mention in the statement Ex.PW4/DA, dated 31.08.1993, recorded by the IO.PW4 further stated that he had stated to the Police in his statement that PCR had reached the spot and took his uncle Balwant Singh alongwith his brothers Raj Karan and the deceased.The said fact was also not found mention in his statement Ex.PW4/DA wherein it stands recorded that PCR vehicle had removed his brothers to the hospital and the name of Balwant Singh was not found mention in it.PW4 further stated that the Police officials did not record the factum of Balwant Singh going to the hospital in the company of his brothers because the concerned SHO was favouring the accused persons.PW4 denied that he had subsequently introduced the name of his uncle Balwant as the instant case was registered on the basis of the statement of Balwant Singh.PW4 also denied that his father's elder brother namely Tara Chand had accompanied his brothers to the hospital.It was voluntarily stated that Tara Chand had visited the hospital subsequently.A. 731/2007 Page 19 of 42The house of Tara Chand was situated on the left side of their house.PW4 also stated that house of his uncle Balwant Singh was adjacent to their house and their houses were separated by a wall.The next eyewitness to the incident is PW5 Raj Karan who deposed on the similar lines as deposed by PW4 with regard to the date, time and the manner in which the incident took place on the fateful day.He deposed that at about 4/5.00 PM, while he was standing alongwith his younger brother PW4 Om Singh, the accused Sushil had driven his jeep rashly to which they had a narrow escape.PW5 further submits that he alongwith his uncle PW12 Balwant Singh had gone to the house of the accused Sushil and complained to his father about the said incident who had inturn scolded the accused Sushil.As a result of the complaint, the accused Sushil threatened on the same day that he would kill them for complaining to his father.All the three accused persons were known to him for the last 15/20 years as they were residing in his neighbourhood.A. 731/2007 Page 20 of 42With regard to the motive, he had deposed in his examination-in-chief that 15/20 days prior to 30.08.1993, the accused Sushil had driven his jeep at a high speed in front of his house.The nephew of PW12 namely Om Singh (PW4) saved himself with great difficulty.In the evening, PW12 Balwant Singh alongwith his brother Tara Chand and two-three persons of his village went to the house of the accused Sushil and complained to his father.His father apologised and also warned his son (accused Sushil).The accused Sushil threatened them by saying that he would see them one by one.The testimony of PW12 Balwant Singh is identical to other eyewitnesses including the date, time, place and the manner in which the accused Sushil called his nephew namely PW5 Raj Karan.The role assigned by him to the accused Sushil is that he pulled the deceased outside whereas the other brother of the accused Sushil namely Surender caught hold of the deceased from back.The deceased cried for help as a result of which PW12 alongwith his nephew PW5 Raj Karan reached the spot.The accused Sushil gave knife blows to the deceased on his stomach and his face whereas the other accused Ashok Kumar gave knife injuries on the back, stomach and on the left buttock of PW5 Raj Karan.PCR reached to the spot.PW12 Balwant Singh took both his injured nephews in the PCR to Hindu Rao Hospital.After 20/25 minutes of reaching to the hospital, the deceased succumbed to the injuries.The entire incident was witnessed by him, together with his other two nephews and other persons from the village.PW12 Balwant Singh failed to disclose the names of other persons from his village who had witnessed the incident.The statement of PW12 Balwant Singh was Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 21 of 42 recorded by the Police in the hospital which was proved by him as Ex.PW12/A. On 30.08.1993, PW12 Balwant Singh produced one underwear having blood stains and also having a cut belonging to PW5 Raj Karan before the Police officials which was turned into a parcel and was sealed.The said underwear was subsequently identified by PW12 in the Court.A. 731/2007 Page 21 of 42In his cross-examination, PW12 Balwant Singh stated that none from his neighbourhood came to the place of occurrence and they were standing in front of their respective houses.While injured persons were removed to the cot and then to the PCR van, the clothes of PW12 were not blood stained.It was voluntarily deposed by PW12 Balwant Singh that his hands were stained with blood while removing the injured persons to the PCR.PW12 did not state this fact to the Police in his statement to the Police.PW12 was given the underwear of PW5 Raj Karan while he was operated by the doctors and also other Police officials were present there.PW12 further denied the suggestion that his statement was recorded by the Police on the next date of the incident i.e. 31.08.1993, at about 11.00 AM while he was present at the mortuary.It is noteworthy to mention that PW12 in the latter part of his cross-examination stated that it is correct that PW5 Raj Karan could speak and talk at the time of discharge from the Hindu Rao Hospital.In this backdrop, it would be relevant to discuss the medical evidence in detail.A. 731/2007 Page 22 of 42PW6 R.Bhagi deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 30.08.1993, he was posted as a Casualty Medical Officer and had examined injured persons namely Narender (deceased), aged about 18 years with the alleged history of fight (stabbed by someone as told by his relative) and also examined Raj Karan, aged about 28 years with the alleged history of fighting (stabbed by someone as told by one Tara Chand).His detailed report was proved by him as Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively.After examination, the injured persons were referred to EMO, Surgery for detailed examination.Reading of MLC of the injured Narender (Ex.PW6/A) would show as under:iv) that he was having incised wound on the left side of his abdomen with omentum protruding coming out of the wound,v) that the injured had expired on 30.08.1993, at 11.45 PM.Reading of MLC of the injured Raj Karan (Ex.PW6/B) would show as under:i) that on 30.08.1993, at 11.20 PM, he was brought by HC Vijender Singh (PCR R-87) to Hindu Rao Hospital;A. 731/2007 Page 23 of 42ii) that the injured was having alleged history of fight (being stabbed by someone) as told by one Sh.Tarachand s/o Sis Ram r/o Village Khera Kalan;midline, right side of the abdomen and also on the posterior side of left thigh (below hip joint);v) undated endorsement made by Dr. V. K. Sehdev (Santom Hospital) declaring him as medically unfit for the statement,vi) that on 02.09.1993, at about 11.45 AM, he was declared medically fit for the statement by Dr. R.Shanti.Testimony of PW8 Dr. V. K. Sehdev assumes importance in the background that he gave endorsement on the MLC of PW5 Raj Karan (Ex.PW6/B) and declared him medically unfit for the statement.He deposed in his examination-in-chief that in the year 1993, he was serving as a Consultant Surgeon in Santom Hospital, Prashant Vihar.On that day, injured Raj Karan was brought to their Hospital from Hindu Rao Hospital on reference.He further deposed that after examination of the injured Raj Karan, he gave endorsement on Ex.PW6/B and declared that the said injured was unfit to make the statement.PW7 Dr. Ashok Jaiswal conducted post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased Narender and deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 31.08.1993, he was working as a Senior Medical Officer at Sabzi Mandi Mortuary where he examined an 18 years old person namely Narender with alleged history of stab injuries.The following external injuries were found on the body of the deceased:A. 731/2007 Page 24 of 42omentum seen coming out of the wound (total depth of the wound from surface was found to be 10 cm);PW7 Dr. Ashok Jaiswal further deposed that injuries No. 1 and 2 were caused by sharp edged weapon and injuries No. 3, 4 and 5 were caused by fall/friction against hard surface.The cause of death was opined as haemorrhagic shock consequent to the injuries on the abdominal viscera.Time since death was stated about 14 hours.The detailed report was proved by him as Ex.PW7/A. In his cross-examination, it was admitted by him that weapon of offence was never shown to him and the opinion with regard to the use of such weapon in the alleged offence was never sought.Reading of the testimony of PW8 Dr.V.K. Sehdev shows that he had not deposed in his examination-in-chief the date and time on which injured PW5 Raj Karan was brought to Santom Hospital and was declared as medically unfit for the statement which is evident upon reading the sentence 'on that date' emerged in his evidence in Court.Since, various contentions have been raised by the parties; we deem it appropriate to deal with them under separate heads.The case of the prosecution is that about 15-20 days prior to the incident, while Om Singh (PW-4) was present in front of his house, the respondent Sushil drove his jeep at a fast speed leading to PW-4 having Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 25 of 42 a narrow escape.The injured witness (PW-5) deposed that about 10-15 days prior to the incident, at about 4-5 PM, when the witness was standing near his house with Om Singh (PW-4), the respondent Sushil came driving a jeep at high speeds and the witness and PW-4 had a narrow escape.Thereafter, PW-5 and his chacha Balwant had gone to the house of the respondent Sushil and complained against him to his father Randhir Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 26 of 42 Singh.The respondent Sushil had threatened the witness on the same day stating that he will kill them for complaining to his father.A. 731/2007 Page 26 of 42Balwant Singh (PW-12) deposed that about 15-20 days prior to 30.08.1993, the respondent Sushil had driven his jeep at a high speed in front of their house.His nephew Om Singh (PW-4) saved himself from the incoming jeep with great difficulty.In the evening, PW-12 with his brother Tara Chand alongwith 2-3 persons of their village went to the house of Randhir Singh and informed about the incident.Then Randhir Singh apologized and warned his son.However, respondent Sushil threatened that he will see them one by one.The witnesses remain consistent to the extent that about 15-20 days prior to 30.08.1993, an incident took place when respondent Sushil drove his jeep and drove past Om Singh at high speed.Thereafter, the party informed the father of respondent Sushil which led to him being reprimanded and in turn respondent Sushil extending threat to deal with them one by one.However, the witnesses have been inconsistent on numerous material aspects as neither the victims of the first incident can be clearly identified nor the members of the party who went to lodge the complaint with the father antagonizing the respondent Sushil.Further, even the testimony of PW-4 and PW-5 are at odds to the extent that they depose differently about whether PW-4 only narrowly escaped the jeep or both of them.Thereafter, there is no consistency regarding the party who went to the house of respondent Sushil to protest against his behaviour.As per Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 27 of 42 PW-4, he and Raj Karan (PW-5) had gone; as per PW-5, he and Balwant Singh (PW-12) had protested; while as per the account of PW- 12, he alongwith his brother Tara Chand had gone to lodge a complaint.Both PW-4 and PW-12 have been categoric to the extent that Raj Karan (PW-5) was not the person who had a narrow escape from the speeding jeep.As to who protested about the behaviour to the father of the respondent Sushil also remains unclear.Kolluru that the complaint being lodged by anyone would have been at the instance of PW-4 and PW-5 only, however, as the victim of the speeding jeep was Om Singh (PW-4) and not PW-5, whose presence at the incident is doubtful.The circumstance established ascribes no motive to the respondent Sushil against Raj Karan and thus, running contrary to the case of the prosecution that Raj Karan (PW-5) was first called out by respondent Sushil.Further, nothing has been produced by the prosecution to show any motive for attacking and killing Narender (since deceased).DELAY IN RECORDING OF STATEMENT OF PW-5 RAJ KARAN:A. 731/2007 Page 27 of 42The Trial Court has returned a finding that there was delay in recording of the statement of Raj Karan (PW-5) by the Investigating Officer and during his admission in Hindu Rao Hospital opened the scope of his tutoring and raised doubt over the statement (Ex.PW-12/A) of Balwant Singh (PW-12).Kolluru and Mr.Chaudhary have assailed the finding on the grounds that as the names of all the accused persons have been stated in the rukka (Ex.PW-12/A) prepared at 12:50 AM on the intervening night, merely 1 hour after the death of the deceased which was at around 11.45 PM; and the delay was occasioned as though PW-5 Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 28 of 42 Raj Karan was conscious, he was not oriented while being admitted in the Hospital and was unfit to make a statement.A. 731/2007 Page 28 of 42A cumulative reading of the MLC's of the deceased Narender and PW5 Raj Karan would show that in the column of name of relative or friend accompanying the injured, name of HC Vijender Singh of PCR stands recorded.It shows that both these injured were brought to Hindu Rao Hospital by HC Vijender Singh of PCR on 30.08.1993 at about 11.20 PM.It nullifies the statement made by PW-12 that he was the only public witness who had accompanied the injured persons to the Hospital.Had PW-12 accompanied the injured persons to the Hospital, he would have given the alleged history to the attending doctor and his name would have been mentioned in both the MLCs.Thus, we find merit in the contention raised by the counsel for the respondents that it is improbable that PW-12 had accompanied the injured persons to the hospital, but did not give alleged history of the incident to the attending doctor especially when the accused persons were well known to him.On the contrary, the name of one Tara Chand son of Sis Ram has been mentioned in the MLC of PW-5 Raj Karan who gave alleged history to the attending doctor as PW-5 having been stabbed by 'someone'.We have not found the name of PW-12 Balwant Singh in any MLC.Interestingly, both the witnesses namely HC Vijender Singh and Tara Chand were not examined by the prosecution who could have been a possible link to unfold the case of the prosecution.There is nothing on record to suggest if the Investigating Officer recorded statement of HC Vijender Singh of PCR.In his cross-examination, PW16-Inspector Harshvardhan stated that house of Tara Chand was situated adjacent to the house of the injured persons.PW-16 displayed ignorance about Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 29 of 42 relationship of Tara Chand with the injured, but stated to have interrogated Tara Chand.A. 731/2007 Page 29 of 42Moreover, a careful reading of the MLCs would further show that the deceased Narender was semi conscious and gasping at the time he was brought to the hospital and died at about 11.45 PM, on the fateful night.However, Raj Karan was fully conscious despite having three incised wounds on his person at the time of his admission in the hospital.PW6/B) would also show that he was not declared unfit to make statement at any point of time.It is noteworthy to mention that Ex.PW6/B is silent with regard to the date and time of the endorsement made by PW8 declaring PW5 as unfit for making a statement.The evidence of PW12 is further belied by this fact that though he had removed both the injured persons to the cots and then to the Hospital, despite this his clothes were not stained with blood which is absolutely Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 30 of 42 unbelievable considering deceased had suffered two stab wounds and PW5 Raj Karan suffered two stab wounds.A. 731/2007 Page 30 of 42RECOVERY OF BLOOD STAINED KNIFE:The total length of the knife was 11 inch and its blade was found blood stained.A. 731/2007 Page 32 of 42A careful reading of the evidence of PW2, PW15 and PW16 would show that the testimony of PW2 Kartar Singh is silent on various aspects including as to whether the said knife was recovered at the instance of the respondent Sushil from any hidden place or it was found lying in an open place.PW15 Const.Satanand also deposed that PW2 Kartar Singh, a resident of the same village had also come to the Railway Station who had attested the recovery memo, however, in his cross-examination, he has stated that pursuant to the secret information received, firstly they had gone to the village Khera Kalan and then PW2 Kartar Singh was taken along from the village.Thus, there is no consistency in the evidence of PW2, PW15 and PW16 and we find there are contradictions favouring the respondents.The linkage could also be established through lifting of finger prints from the handle of the knife or the blood found on the knife.It is evident from Ex.PW16/F that the blood found on the knife was insufficient for determination of origin.As soon as the deceased went out, the accused Sushil pulled him from his hand and Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 33 of 42 took him out of the house.After watching this, as per Om Singh (PW4), they immediately rushed towards the deceased and saw that the accused Surender caught hold of the deceased from his back and had taken him into his grip whereas the accused Sushil stabbed the deceased with a knife.As per the evidence of PW-4, accused Sushil exhorted his elder brother Ashok to stab PW-5 Raj Karan and it was thereafter he inflicted knife blows to the hip and stomach of Raj Karan.PW-4 has also deposed that the accused Sushil along with his brothers ran away.A. 731/2007 Page 33 of 42On a careful analysis of the testimony of PW-4 Om Singh who claims to be present at the spot would show that PW-4 Om Singh, his brother Raj Karan (PW-5), deceased Narender and their uncle Balwant (PW-12) were present at their house.Out of the three accused, one called out for Raj Karan (PW-5), however Raj Karan sent Narender to find out as to who was calling.This evidence would establish that there were three accused persons and four persons from the family.No doubt rukka named all the three accused persons and it is claimed to have been sent within one hour of the incident.On this aspect, the following questions remain unanswered.Firstly, as to who accompanied the injured persons to the Hospital.As per the evidence of Balwant Singh (PW-12), he took both the injured persons in the PCR to the Hindu Rao Hospital.However, PW-12 has claimed that there was no blood on his clothes.It is completely unbelievable that Balwant Singh removed the two injured persons with multiple stab wounds and one of the injured died within 15-20 minutes of the incident and there was no spot of blood on his clothes.This aspect gains importance for the reason that even in the MLC there is no Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 34 of 42 mention that the injured was brought to the Hospital by Balwant Singh.This aspect gains further importance with the fact that as per MLC, injured was brought to the Hospital by one Tara Chand.There is no explanation as to why Tara Chand was not examined as the evidence of Tara Chand would have been extremely important to establish presence of Balwant Singh at the Hospital or at the place of the incident.Accordingly, the evidence of Balwant Singh is unreliable.A. 731/2007 Page 34 of 42The other eye witness Om Singh (PW-4), brother of the deceased as well as brother of the injured, also claims to be an eye witness.There is no evidence to show that Om Singh made any attempt to save his brothers or whether he helped his uncle in removing the injured persons in the PCR van or whether he accompanied his injured brothers to the Hospital.There is also no evidence to show that Om Singh (PW-4) claimed that he became so scared that he hid himself.It has also come in cross-examination of PW-4 Om Singh that his Tau Tara Chand did not accompany his injured brothers Narender and Raj Karan to the Hospital on the night of the incident.He further stated that Police had reached the spot and took his brothers Raj Karan, Narender along with uncle Balwant to the Hospital, however, he remained at the spot.We find this in stark contradiction to the fact that as per the MLC, the history was given by one Tara Chand.In the absence of these questions not being answered, even the presence of Om Singh becomes suspicious.We are conscious of the fact that the evidence of injured witness is placed at a highest level.The presence of the injured witness would be established by the injuries sustained by him, however, there is absolutely no explanation as to why the statement of PW-5 Raj Karan Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 35 of 42 was recorded after 14 days and after he was removed from Hindu Rao Hospital to Santom Hospital.While MLC of Raj Karan (Ex.PW6/B) shows that the injured was brought to the Hospital on 30.08.1993 at 11:20 PM by HC Vijender Singh with alleged history of fight (being stabbed by someone) as told by one Sh.Tarachand s/o Sis Ram r/o Village Khera Kalan.He was fully conscious and his blood pressure was recordable.This MLC nowhere records that the injured was unfit for making a statement.Although, as per the testimony of PW16 Harsh Vardhan (Investigating Officer), who had testified that he visited the Hospital on 3-4 occasions, but Raj Karan was not found fit for the statement but this is not borne out from the record.The delay of 14 days in recording the statement of the injured witness PW-5 Raj Karan is also fatal to the case of the prosecution.From the MLC (Ex.PW6/B), it stands established that the injured persons were brought to the Hospital by Vijender Singh with alleged history of fight.There is nothing on record to suggest that Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of HC Vijender Singh of the PCR.There is also no evidence on record to show as to whether Tara Chand was anywhere related to the injured/deceased persons.We may also note that the MLC of Raj Karan (Ex.PW6/B) contains only two endorsements to the effect that PW-5 Raj Karan was declared unfit to make a statement on 02.09.1993 and another undated endorsement by PW-8 Dr. V.K. Sehdev of Santom Hospital where Raj Karan received the treatment after leaving the Hindu Rao Hospital.A. 731/2007 Page 35 of 42We find this also to be very strange in the light of the testimony of PW-16 (IO) who has deposed that he went to Hindu Rao Hospital 3-4 times for recording of statement of the injured but found him unfit.We Crl.A. 731/2007 Page 36 of 42 also find this to be highly unusual that a simple statement has been made by the IO that he visited the hospital 3-4 times for recording of the statement of PW5 but found him unfit while there are only two endorsements on the MLC, one of Hindu Rao Hospital and another undated by Dr. V.K. Sehdev of Santom Hospital.In this backdrop, it would be relevant to analyse the testimonies of all the three eyewitnesses.A. 731/2007 Page 39 of 42As far as the respondents Ashok and Surender are concerned, it would be necessary to analyse the evidence of Investigating Officer i.e. PW16 Harsh Vardhan who stated in his cross-examination that he had enquired from the persons living in houses near the spot after having come to know that the accused Sushil had inflicted injuries.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"17.12.2020 Court No.28 SL No.168 AP CRM 10467 of 2020 (Through Video Conference) In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Panchla P.S. Case No.190 of 2020 dated 24.08.2020 under Sections 341/323/325/ 354B/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is a dispute over sharing of common property.Earlier the petitioner had lodged complaint against the de facto complainant and his family members.In retaliation the petitioner have been falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.We have considered the materials on record.Allegation of assault including sexual abuse may be assessed at the appropriate stage of the proceedings in accordance with law.We note that there was prior enmity between the parties owing to property dispute.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees 2 Ten Thousand Only), with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the petitioner while on bail shall not enter the jurisdiction of Panchla Police Station until further orders except for the purposes of investigation and/or for attending the court proceedings and shall provide the address where the petitioner shall presently reside to the Investigating Agency as well as the Court below and shall report to the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station within whose jurisdiction the petitioner shall presently reside once in a week until further orders.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.The parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this court.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Form No. J (1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy C.R.R. No. 3586 of 2007 Sri Arup Banerjee versus Smt. Anindita Banerjee For Petitioner : Mr.Invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the complaint Case No. C/480 of 2007 under Sections 193/196/197/198/120B of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Sealdah as well as the order of issuance of summons.The allegations made in the impugned complaint are as follows;The said application being filed before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah, the Misc.Case No. 120 of 2003 was registered and subsequently the case was transferred to the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Sealdah for disposal.(b) The complainant in his aforesaid application categorically stated that the accused no. 1 was working in a software company at Bangalore and subsequently she came to know that he took an employment at M/s. IBM at Salt Lake.(c) In connection with the aforesaid maintenance proceeding the accused no. 1 was examined in Court on November 16, 2005 and November 18, 2005 and while disposing on oath in Court he stated that he is an employee of the accused no. 2 knowing fully well that his statement is false.(d) The accused no. 1 entered into a criminal conspiracy with the accused no. 2 for their wrongful gain.While the accused no. 1 stated in his deposition on oath that the accused no. 2 is his employer, the accused no. 2 stated in his deposition on oath that the accused no. 1 is his employee working at his office since July, 2005 which is absolutely false.(e) One Mr. Debasish Chakraborty, Manager of IBM India Ltd. deposed in the aforesaid case as P.W. 4 and in his deposition he stated that the accused no. 1 was the employee of his company since April 4, 2005 and submitted an authenticated document in respect of his employment and his salary, which were duly marked as exhibits.(f) Both the accused nos. 1 and 2 entered into a criminal conspiracy in between themselves and made false statement on oath before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Sealdah while deposing in connection with Misc.(g) The accused persons fabricated and manufactured false evidence in the aforesaid maintenance proceedings and thereby both of them committed offence punishable under Section 120B/192/193 of the Indian Penal Code.The complainant/opposite party in her initial deposition also alleged that the accused no. 1 while deposing in connection with the aforesaid maintenance proceeding as O.P.W. 1 on September 7, 2005 and September 15, 2005 falsely stated on oath, at that point of time he was working at Simmex Infotech under the accused no. 2 Mriganka Khan, similarly the accused no. 2, Mriganka Khan in his deposition in court falsely stated on oath that the accused no. 1 used to work in his concern and was getting a salary of Rs. 9,200/- per month.Accordingly, Mr. Mukherjee prays that the impugned order of issuance of summons be set aside and the impugned complaint be quashed.On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party except submitting that there was no illegality or impropriety in the impugned proceedings has not been able to make any submissions to meet or repudiate the submissions made by Mr. Mukherjee.Considered the rival submissions of the parties.","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Allegations were to the effect that ""Letter Heads"" ofKarnataka Bank Ltd., were removed surreptitiously and with fakeseals, fake bank guarantees were typed out on the ""Stamp Papers""purchased from ""Koratagere Stamp Vendor"" and were signed byaccused no. 2 posing to be the Manager of Karnataka Bank Ltd.,Koratagere Branch.These bank guarantees were submitted as ifthey were genuine in the office of Deputy Commissioner of Excise,Tumkur.Order of learned Single Judge by which proceedings initiatedagainst the respondents in CC.No.1613/1998 on the file of the CJM,Tumkur, were set aside is subject matter of challenge, in this appeal.Background facts in nutshell essentially are as follows: -The Inspector of Police, Fraud Squad, COD submitted acharge-sheet against the Respondents (hereinafter referred to as""accused"") in the aforesaid case alleging commission of offencespunishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section120-B of Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short 'IPC').The said charge-sheet was submitted after investigation, on receipt of complaintmade by one Police Inspector attached to the Fraud Squad, COD,Bangalore.Cognizance was taken by the CJM.Respondents -accused nos. 1&2 filed application before the Karnataka High Courtunder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in shortthe 'Code').They inter alia contended that the allegations madehave not been borne out by the materials/evidence collectedduring investigation and continuance of proceedings against themwould be against the ends of justice.Learned single Judge notedthat the substance of charge-sheet as stated in Form No. 7 was tothe effect that for the year 1992-1993 and 1993-1994, the ExciseContractors Ranganatha Group were awarded the contract to actas excise contractors for the Tumkur District.The said RanganathaGroup sub-leased by way of General Power of Attorney (in short'GPA') to accused no. 1 to act as Excise Contractor of Koratagereof Tumkur District.As a part of the arrangement, the said accusedno.Similarwas the position for the year 1993-1994 except that the originalcontractors were Yallappa and Ramachandrappa and the Bankguarantee required to be furnished was for an amount ofRs.64,29,500/-.On 17.7.93, accused no. 1 took Excise Sub-Inspector to ahouse at Asok Nagar, Tumkur where he introduced accused no. 2 tobe the Manager of the Bank and caused service of a notice whichwas addressed to the Manager of the Bank by the DeputyCommissioner of Excise.Under the above circumstances, it wasalleged that with fraudulent intention, fake bank guarantees,confirmation letters, extension letters were submitted and there wasimpersonation.Therefore, it was stated that offences werepunishable as noted above.Learned Single Judge analysed the background facts andcame to hold that the involvement of excise officials cannot beruled out and when they have been indicated to be witnesses,likelihood of prejudice cannot be ruled out.It was also noted thatthere was no ""definite evidence"" to show that accused nos. 1&2were directly involved.Finally, it was observed that there was nomaterial to hold that the accused persons had committed theft of""Letter Heads"" from Karnataka Bank Ltd., and/or they hadcommitted forgery for the purpose of cheating or have usedgenuine forged documents or had cheated the government.Aggrieved by the said Order directing quashing of theproceedings, this appeal has been filed.The appeal isallowed.","['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"According to the prosecution, on 17.8.1999, there was a wordy quarrel between P.W.1 to P.W.3 and the deceased ofM.S. Nagar and A1 to A7 of Mangalapuram, while playing carrom in 7th Street, Mangalapuram, Chetpet, with respect to which, a complaint was lodged by one Surendran in the Chetpet Police Station.Again, on 18.8.1999, there was a quarrel between both the parties at Ambedkar ground, Chetpet and a complaint was lodged by one Manimaran.In view of the above, there was an enmity between both the parties.Apprehending danger to their lives at the hands of A7, who is a big rowdy, P.Ws.1, 2 and the deceased stayed in the house of P.W.3 at T.P. Chathiram.On 29.8.1999, at about 10.15 pm, when P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased went to Indian Wines shop at Shenoy Nagar to purchase brandy, A1 to A4 along with two unknown persons, armed with patta knives, came in two autorickshaws.On seeing them, P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased tried to escape from the place.But, A1 to A4 and the two unknown persons, surrounded P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased.2.4. A1 cut P.W.1 on his left leg with patta knife.A2 cut P.W.2 on his right thumb and wrist.A1 cut P.W.2 with patta knife on his left wrist and left thumb.A3 cut P.W.3 on his head.A4 cut the deceased on his left ear and left hand.The two unknown persons stabbed the deceased on his stomach with the patta knives.A1 and A3 also cut P.W.3 on his right hand and head.The public, who gathered at the place of occurrence on hearing the hue and cry, were threatened by the accused by showing the patta knives.A3 cut two people who were in the wine shop.The gravamen of the prosecution case is that A1 to A6, who were the hooligans acting for and on behalf of A7, due to the prior enmity in playing carrom board, entered into a criminal conspiracy in the residence of A7 to murder the deceased Udhaya @ Udhayaprakash and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, on 29.8.1999 at 10.15 p.m., in front of Indian Wine Shop, No. 10B, Link Road, T.P. Chatram, at the instance of A7, attacked the deceased Udhaya @ Udhayaprakash and caused his death.It is also the case of the prosecution that A1 to A6 attacked P.Ws.1 to 5 and caused injuries to them.It is not in dispute that there were two groups of rowdy elements, one led by A7 and the other led by the deceased Udhaya @ Udhayaprakash and there was prior enmity between the two groups in playing carrom.JUDGMENT P.D. Dinakaran, J.The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.12.2003 made in Sessions Case No. 205 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Chennai, whereunder the appellants herein were tried along with three other accused namely A5 to A7 therein and convicted and sentenced as mentioned below.A1 to A6 were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 and 302 IPC and A7 was charged for the offence punishable under Section 120(B) IPC, in connection with the occurrence said to have taken place at about 10.15 p.m. on 29.8.1999 in front of Indian Wines shop at Link Road, within the jurisdiction of respondent Police Station, Chennai, for having said to have murdered one Udaya @ Udayaprakash.Based on the said statement, Ex.P1, a First Information Report, Ex.A1 hurled a bottle on the road.Thereafter, they ran away from the scene of occurrence.2.6. P.W.1 gave a statement, Ex.F.I.R. was registered on 29.8.1999 at about 11.45 pm on the file of K6, T.P. Chatiram Police Station, which was marked as Ex.The investigating officer, P.W.21, on the basis of the F.I.R., Ex.P23, undertook the investigation, visited the place of occurrence in the early hours of 30.8.1999, prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.P24 and a Rough Sketch, Ex.The blood stained dresses, MO7 to MO16, worn by P.Ws.1 to 4 and the deceased were seized under Mahazar Exs.Two petrol bombs, MO2 and six blood stained patta knives, MO1 and MO22 series were seized from the house of A7 under Mahazar, Ex.Two autorickshaws, MO5 and MO6, in which the accused came to the scene of occurence were seized under Mahazar, Ex.2.8. P.W.8 is the Doctor who examined P.Ws.1, 2 and the deceased and issued Accident Register Extracts, Exs.P6, P4 and P5 respectively.P.W.6 is the Doctor who examined P.W.3 and issued wound certificate, Ex.P2 stating that the injuries are grievous in nature.P.W.7 is the Doctor who examined P.W.4 and issued wound certificate, Ex.P3 stating that the injuries sustained by P.W.4 are simple.P.W.9 is the Doctor, who conducted post mortem at 12.45 pm on 30.8.1999 and found 10 external injuries, as certified in the Post Mortem Certificate, Ex.P9, opined that the deceased would have died due to multiple injuries.On 3.9.1999, the material objects were forwarded for chemical analysis through the Court and chemical analyst's report is Ex.Serologist's report is Ex.Since the accused denied the charges framed against them, they were tried in Sessions Case No. 205 of 2003 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Chennai.On behalf of the prosecution, 23 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 23 and marked Exs.P.Ws.1 to 5 are injured eye witnesses.3.2. P.W.1 speaks about the presence of all the accused and overt acts on himself, P.Ws.2, 3 and the deceased, attributed to A1, A2, A3; P.W.2 also speaks about the presence of all the accused and the overt acts of A1 and A2; P.W.3 though speaks about the incident, did not specify the names of the accused; P.W.4 speaks about the incident, but mentions the scene of occurrence at different place; even though P.W.5 speaks about the incident, his evidence was disbelieved by the trial Court.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same.The accused have neither examined any witness, nor marked any document on their behalf.The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Chennai, after appreciating the evidence on record and finding that only A1 to A4 were present in the scene of occurrence, acquitted A7 of the charge under Section 120B and A5 and A6 of the charges under Sections 120(B), 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 and 302 IPC and convicted (i) A1 for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 326 (2 counts) and 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 3 years and 7 years, with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (on each count), in default, to undergo three months imprisonment on each count and imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for six months respectively; (ii) A2 under Sections 326 and 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, imprisonment for three months and imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for six months respectively; (iii) A3 under Sections 326 and 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, imprisonment for three months and imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for six months respectively; and (iv) A4 under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for six months.Hence, the above appeal.Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused took us to the whole evidence and contended that the prosecution had not been able to establish that it was A1 to A4 who committed the murder of the deceased Udhaya @ Udhayaprakash.According to him, when the benefit of doubt is extended to A5 and A6, the same benefit should be extended to other accused also (appellants).He has submitted that the circumstances emerging out of the evidence were too insignificant to connect the accused with other offences under which A1 to A3 were convicted.The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 that there was a wordy quarrel between the accused party and the witness party in playing carrom remain unshaken.Now, coming to the conviction of the accused, the trial Court convicted A1 under Sections 324, 326 (2 counts) and 302 IPC, A2 and A3 under Sections 326 and 302 IPC, A4 under Section 302 IPC.The prosecution rested on the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5, injured witnesses.Though P.Ws.3 and 4 are alleged to have sustained injuries in the occurrence and medical evidence also corroborated the same, yet, they have not specified the overt acts attributed to each of the accused and hence, their evidence are not helpful.P.W.8 doctor treated the deceased Udhaya @ Udhayaprakash who was brought to the hospital for the injuries allegedly sustained by the attack made by six known persons.P.W.8 found the deceased unconscious.He also found cut injuries on his right knee, left forehead, left thigh and left wrist.He also found cut injuries on his head, right thigh and left knee.For the said injuries on the deceased, he issued Ex.P5, accident register extract.P.W.9, doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, found ten external injuries almost all over the body.Most of them are cut injuries.P.W.9 opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to the injuries sustained by him.It is therefore evident from the deposition of P.Ws.8 and 9 that the deceased Udhaya @ Udhayaprakash was indiscriminately attacked by more than one person and due to the injuries sustained by him, he died, in spite of the treatment given to him.Next, we have to examine whether A1 to A6 are the persons who attacked the deceased and they are responsible for the death of the deceased.In the complaint, Ex.P1 given by P.W.1, it is stated that A1 to A4, along with other two unknown persons armed with knives, came in two autorickshaws and attacked P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased, from which, it is evident that P.Ws.1 to 3 were present at the time of occurrence.Though P.W.5 claimed that he saw A1 to A6 armed with knives boarding autorickshaws and that he witnessed the occurrence, in the first information report, Ex.P1 there is no mention about the presence of P.W.5 in the scene of occurrence.Further, though P.W.5, in his chief examination, has stated that he heard the accused party saying that only after the death of Udhaya (deceased), the Chetpet area would be secured, in his cross-examination he has stated that he did not inform the same either to the police, or to the public or to the persons who were present at P.W.3's house when he immediately visited there.P.W.1, in his evidence, has stated that A2 cut the deceased on his right knee, whereas P.W.2 has deposed that A1 to A6 cut the deceased indiscriminately.Even though in Ex.P1 complaint, the names of A1 to A4 are found mentioned, P.W.1 has given evidence specifying the name of A2 stating that A2 cut the deceased.P.W.2 in his evidence has only stated that A1 to A6 cut the deceased indiscriminately and his evidence does not specifically attribute the overt acts to a particular accused.The trial Court based on Ex.P1 wherein the names of A1 to A4 were mentioned and the evidence of P.W.22 doctor who has stated that P.W.2 informed him that he was attacked by four known persons, convicted A1 to A4 under Section 302 IPC for the death of deceased Udhaya @ Udhayaprakash.But, the approach of trial Court is not appreciable, as, except P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no other witness to speak about the attack on the deceased.Among the two, P.W.1, in his chief examination, has specifically implicated A2 in the attack on the deceased, but in cross-examination he has stated that A1 to A6 indiscriminately cut the deceased.As already noticed, it is the evidence of P.W.2 that A1 to A6 indiscriminately attacked the deceased.Therefore, when there is no evidence roping in a particular accused in the attack on the deceased, it is not safe to convict A1 to A4 also under Section A href=""javascript:fnOpenGlobalPopUp('/ba/disp.asp','16125','1');"">302 IPC for the death of the deceased.It is pertinent to note that the trial Court discharged A5 and A6 from the charge of murder giving the benefit of doubt on the basis that their names were not mentioned in Ex.P1, complaint and that the prosecution witnesses have not stated that A5 and A6 attacked the deceased.We find substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the appellants that when the trial Court extended the benefit of doubt to A5 and A6, the same benefit should also be extended to other accused.It is a settled proposition in criminal jurisprudence that eye-witnesses having been disbelieved partly, resulting in acquittal of the co-accused, it would not be safe to believe them qua other accused and other accused are also entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal [vide: Lakkappa Ningappa Ittappannavar v. State of Karnataka 1993 Supp (2) SCC 755].In the instant case, there is no cogent and convincing evidence by any of the prosecution witnesses specifically attributing the overt acts to each of the accused.Under such circumstances, we hold that A1 to A4 are also entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in respect of the murder of the deceased and accordingly, they are discharged from the charge under Section A href=""javascript:fnOpenGlobalPopUp('/ba/disp.asp','16125','1');"">302 IPC.The trial Court recorded its finding on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, injured witnesses.P.W.1, in his evidence, has stated that A1 cut him on his left leg.P.W.8 doctor, who examined P.W.1, found an incised wound, 5 x 2 cm.in size on his left ankle.It is his evidence that bones were found protruding.P.W.10 doctor, who treated P.W.1, in his evidence, has stated that there was a fracture on his left leg and issued Ex.P11 wound certificate opining that it was a grievous injury.The above facts would reveal that A1 had inflicted a grievous injury on P.W.1 explicitly implicating him for the offence under Section 326 IPC.It is the prosecution case that P.W.3 sustained injuries on his hands and head.Though P.W.3 in his evidence has stated that he was attacked by a mob, the evidence of P.W.1 is clear that A1 cut P.W.3 on his left thumb.The above statement is corroborated with the evidence of the doctor P.W.6 who deposed that he did not find the left thumb of P.W.3, at the time of examination.According to the medical evidence the above injury is grievous in nature.Further, the severed thumb was seized under mahazar, Ex.So far as P.W.3 is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that A3 also inflicted injury on him.As already observed, P.W.3 has not stated anything as to who had inflicted injury on him, but from the evidence of P.W.3 it is deducible that he sustained injuries on his hands and head.The doctor P.W.6, who examined P.W.3, found injury on his right hand and opined that the said injury is grievous in nature.However, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that P.W.3 in his evidence has not stated as to who attacked him and though the other injured witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 have attributed specific overt acts in respect of injuries on P.Ws.1 to 3 to A1 to A3, in the absence of corroboration by P.W.3, it is not safe to convict A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 326 IPC.We are unable to accept the above contention, because, it would be practically impossible for any injured witness to exactly notice and memorise which accused was causing injuries on him and if any such statement is made, it may amount to an exaggeration because when a number of assailants are there, injuries are not inflicted in a manner which could be exactly noted by the witnesses [vide: State of Rajasthan v. Major Singh ].But, P.W.2 has only stated that A1 caused injury on his left leg.P6 and Ex.P11 are also silent as to the injury on the left wrist.As a result of the above discussion, we hold that the prosecution has only proved the guilt of A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 326 IPC as follows:(i) 1st accused ... under Section 326 IPC (2 counts)(ii) 2nd accused ... under Section 326 IPC(iii) 3rd accused ... under Section 326 IPC However, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of A1 to A4 under Section 302 IPC and the guilt of A1 under Section 324 IPC.In the result, the conviction and sentence in respect of A4 under Section 302 IPC, as recorded by the trial Court, are set aside; and the conviction and sentence of imprisonment alone in respect of A1 to A3 under Section 302 IPC and that of A1 under Section 324 IPC are also set aside.The conviction in respect of A1 to A3 under Section 326 IPC, as stated above, are confirmed, however, considering the circumstances placed before us, A1 to A3 are each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four (4) years, instead of seven years as awarded by the trial Court plus the fine amount as ordered by the trial Court.The fine amount imposed as against A1 to A3 under Section 302 IPC shall be treated as fine amount under Section 326 IPC, in addition to the fine already imposed.The sentence against A1 for two counts under Section 326 IPC shall run concurrently.The period already undergone by A1 to A3 is ordered to be set off.The bail bond, if any, executed by A4 shall stand cancelled.Out of the fine amount imposed on the A1 to A3 under Section 326 IPC, including the one originally imposed under Section 302 IPC and subsequently treated as fine under Section 326 IPC, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to P.W.1 as compensation.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.","['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"ORDER Sadasivam, J.Petitioner Raju alias Edly Rajoo has been convicted under Section 379 read with Section 75, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months.According to him, the petitioner would have a right of appeal if he had been convicted and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment in the mofussil.There are separate Civil and Criminal Courts in the City of Madras with separate jurisdiction and they differ widely from the Civil and Criminal Courts in the mofussil.The reasons for the difference could be understood only by a person having knowledge of legal history.Such difference may be justified as one of reasonable classification based on geographical division.It should be noted that the petitioner would have been tried by a Second Class Magistrate in the mofussil, but he was tried in the City by a Presidency Magistrate who should at least be of the cadre of Sub-Divisional Magistrate.In fact, in this case the petitioner was tried by the Third Presidency Magistrate who was a District Magistrate before he came as the Third Presidency Magistrate.On the facts of the case, there can be little doubt about the guilt of the petitioner.P.W. 1, Krishnamoorthy is a Junior Engineer.he travelled in a bus with five-ten rupee notes and one one-rupee note in his left shirt pocket.He suspected the movements of the petitioner who constantly came near him.When he got down from the bus, he found his money missing.He saw the petitioner running and gave him a chase but was unable to catch him.At 7-30 p.m. on 7th April, 1961 itself, the petitioner was caught by the Police when he was creating disturbance in a drunken mood.A sum of Rs. 48 in currency notes was recovered from him.P.W. 1 was sent for, and he went to the Police Station and identified the petitioner as the person whom he chased that evening.The learned Third Presidency Magistrate has disbelieved the evidence of the defence witnesses, and no argument was advanced in respect of the same.Thus, the evidence of P.W. 1, and the recovery of the note, M.O. 1 clearly prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond any reasonable doubt.",['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
"This application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No.154/2017 registered at Police Station Nai Garhi, District Rewa for offences punishable under Sections 327, 323, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The arrest of the applicant is required in the aforesaid case allegedly for assaulting and causing hurt to the complainant for not giving him Rs.200/- for purchasing liquor.Vide order dated 11.10.2017, this Court had requested the learned counsel for the State to call for the MLC as the same was not in the case diary.Today also the MLC is not there in the case diary.Except the offence under Section 327 of the I.P.C. all other offences are bailable in nature.The offence under Section 327 of the I.P.C. deals with voluntarily causing hurt for the purpose of extortion.Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2017.10.27 03:19:54","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"ALLOWED In the matter of An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 28th February, 2017 in connection with Udaynarayanpur Police Station Case No. 93 of 2015 dated 23.7.2015 under Sections 341/323/ 326/307/354B/ 379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Prashanta Bag & Others ... Petitioners MSk.Samim Akhter For the petitioners Mr. Madhusudan Sur Mr. Manoaranjan Mahato .. For the State Mr. Arijit Ganguly .. for the de-facto complainant.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed and the application is, thus, disposed of.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. )","['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The agreement requiredthe appellant to complete all the accounts and prohibitedfrom borrowing money in the name of the firm.It requiredhim ""to use his best efforts to realise all pending bills,security deposits, claims etc."" as well as to dispose of theplant, machinery etc. The agreement also provided thatpartners, other than the appellant, would procure, if theneed arose, further finance to the maximum limit of Rs.25,000/- but that if a sum in excess of this amount wasrequired, that excess was to be brought in by all thepartners including the appellant ""individually pro rata inproportion to their shares of profits and losses in thefirm"".Clause 8 of this agreement permitted the appellantto withdraw on his own account a sum of Rs. 10,000 ""nosooner he is able to realise any of the pending claims ofbills of the firm or security deposits"".We have dealt withthis agreement at some length because it will be relevant toconsider these matters in the context of the argument of Mr.Rana to the effect that the appellant as working partner wasentitled to utilise the realizations made by him forcarrying on the work of the firm.According to the complainant the appellant committed mis-appropriation to the tune of Rs. 8,905/- consisting of thefollow-ing six items Rs. 2,871/-Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order datedFebruary 1, 1963 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal AppealNo.O.P. Rana, for the appellant.P. K. Chatterjee and B. R. G. K. Achar, for therespondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byMudholkar J. In this appeal from the judgment of the BombayHigh Court the question which falls to be considered iswhether a partner can be convicted under s. 409, IndianPenal Code on the ground that his failure to account formonies belonging to the firm in which he was a partneramounts to criminal breach of trust.The admitted facts are briefly theseThe firm, Messrs. Bharat Silp Pramandal, which was formedfor carrying on the business of building construction,originally conisted of eight partners and the appellant wasits working partner.But on February 6, 1957 three of the partners retiredand the business was continued by the remaining fivepartners.The trial court acquitted the appellant with respect to thelast two items but convicted him in respect of the firstfour items.The appellant admits that he realised these four items buthe says that he did so in his capacity as partner and heutilised them for the business of the partnership.Surendra Mohan Das(1).in the result we allow the appeal and set aside theconviction and sentence passed against him.Appeal allowed.","['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(a) P.W.1 is a resident of Pudukottai Village.All the accused belonged to the same place.His brother Theoplus, the first deceased (D1) and one Jayaprakash, the second deceased (D2) also belonged to the same place.A-1 was carrying on the illicit arrack business in which all the other accused were employed under him.A few days prior to the occurrence, when D1 and D2 along with others went over there for the sale of illicit arrack, there was a quarrel between them, and at that time, they were warned by A-1 and others not to sell so.(b) On 26.5.2002 the date of occurrence, both the D1 and D2 along with one Albert went over there.At that time, when they were about to sell the illicit arrack, it was objected to by the accused party, and when the same was also questioned by both the deceased whether they could alone do.At that time, P.Ws.3 and 4 also came over there to get arrack from the deceased.This was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 3 and both the persons died at the spot instantaneously.The accused persons along with the aruvals ran away from the place of occurrence.(c) P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station where P.W.13 was the Sub Inspector of Police.At about 8.00 P.M., he gave Ex.P1 complaint, on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.299 of 2002 under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of IPC and the printed FIR Ex.P9 along with the report, Ex.P1, was despatched to the Court.(d) P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, on intimation from the Sub Inspector of Police, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P.W.10, the Photographer, was called to take photographs of the place of occurrence and also the dead body which were also photographed, and accordingly they were marked as M.O.6 series.Then he conducted inquest on the dead body of D1 in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.Thereafter on the dead body of D2, he conducted inquest and prepared an inquest report, Ex.Then both the dead bodies were sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of autopsy.(e) P.W.11, the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital conducted autopsy on the dead body of Theoplus and has given his opinion in the postmortem certificate, Ex.P7, that he died due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries sustained.(f) Equally, the dead body of Jayaprakash was subjected to postmortem by P.W.12, the Doctor.The Doctor has also given opinion in the postmortem certificate, Ex.P8, that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.(g) Pending the investigation, the Investigator came to know that A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-6 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, and an application was taken before the Court for police custody.He came forward to give a confessional statement.The same was recorded in the presence of witnesses.The admissible part is marked as Ex.P6 pursuant to which he produced six aruvals which were marked as M.O.1 series.Then A-1 was sent for judicial remand.(i) Pending investigation, A-3 also surrendered before the Court.Then he was taken to police custody.He gave a confessional statement.The same was recorded, and he was sent for judicial remand.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This appeal challenges a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Perambalur, made in S.C.No.67 of 2007 whereby the appellants ranked as A-1 to A-4 and A-6 respectively, along with another ranked as A-2, stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows:ACCUSEDCHARGESFINDINGPUNISHMENTA-1 to A-6147 IPCGuilty under Sec.148 IPC1 years Rigorous ImprisonmentA-1 to A-6341 IPCGuilty1 month Simple ImprisonmentA-1, A-3 & A-5302 IPCGuilty under Sec.302 r/w 149 IPCLife imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentenceA-2, A-4 & A-6302 r/w 149 IPCGuilty under Sec.302 r/w 149 IPCLife imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentenceA-2 & A-4302 IPCGuilty under Sec.302 r/w 149 IPCLife imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentenceA-1, A-3, A-5 & A-6302 r/w 149 IPCGuilty under Sec.302 r/w 149 IPCLife imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence2.Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:Accordingly, police custody was ordered.During the police custody, their statements were recorded, and they were sent for judicial remand.(h) On 15.6.2002, A-1 was arrested by the Investigator.(j) The further investigation, pursuant to the directions given by the Superintendent of Police, was taken up by P.W.15, the Inspector of Police.He enquired the other witnesses and recorded their statements.All the material objects were sent for analysis.The reports were received and placed before the Court.On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report.3.The case was committed to Court of Sessions, and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and also relied on 15 exhibits and 12 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which they flatly denied as false.One witness was examined on the side of the defence shown as D.W.1, and also one document was marked on their side.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence found them guilty and awarded the punishment as referred to above.Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellants.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of A-1, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.P1 is the first information given to the police; and that apart from that, in the instant case, though five witnesses were examined as eyewitnesses, they are all either related or intimated to each other.5.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that the charge framed against the accused is that A-1, A-3 and A-5 attacked D1 and A-2 and A-4 attacked D2; but, the evidence that was adduced before the Court has got all discrepancies possible; that as regards P.W.1, he has turned hostile and hence his evidence was not useful to the prosecution; that as far as P.W.2 was concerned, he has stated that D1 was attacked by A-1, A-3 and A-5, and D2 was attacked by A-2 and A-4; but, he does not implicate A-6 or does not mention any overt act in respect of A-6; that as far as P.W.3 is concerned, he has stated that A-1 has cut D1, and he has not spoken anything about any other accused or the overt acts which are attributed to any one of the accused; that as far as A-2 was concerned, P.W.4 has stated that A-1, A-3 and A-5 cut D1, and as far as D2 is concerned, he has stated only A-4, but not implicated A-2; that as far as P.W.5's evidence is concerned, he has stated that D1 was cut by A-5 and he has not implicated the other two accused; that as far as D2 is concerned, according to him, it was done by A-2, and he has not spoken anything about A-4; that all these would clearly indicate that though these witnesses have been examined in order to speak about the overt acts, and that too when an occurrence has taken place at 4.00 P.M. i.e., day time, naturally one would expect them to narrate the incident properly; but, those discrepancies what are found in the evidence are not only contra to the charges framed, but also the prosecution was unable to substantiate its case, and hence all would go to show that they could not have seen the occurrence at all.6.It is further urged by the learned Senior Counsel that Insofar as A-6, his name does not find place in the FIR; that according to the prosecution, when A-1 was arrested, he gave a confessional statement and produced six aruvals; that had it been true that A-6 was actually present at the place of occurrence, his name should have been mentioned in the FIR; that the non-mention of the name of A-6 in the FIR would clearly indicate that A-6 could not have been present in the place of occurrence; and that all would go to show that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case.7.Added further the learned Senior Counsel in the second line of argument that there was a rivalry between the accused on the one side and both the deceased on the other as to the sale of illicit arrack; that even on the date of occurrence, there was a quarrel when D1 and D2 were about to sell arrack to P.Ws.3 and 4, and in that process, the occurrence has taken place; that under the circumstances, it cannot be stated to be intentional or premeditated; and that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case insofar as the overt acts attributed to the accused, the Court has to consider this aspect also before rendering its judgment.Srinivasan, learned Counsel appearing for the other appellants adopted the above arguments.9.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.That apart, the appellants did not raise any controversy regarding the fact that both the deceased died out of homicidal violence.Under the circumstances, no impediment was felt by the trial Court and it has recorded the same accordingly, which has got to be affirmed by this Court.11.Insofar as the charges levelled against the appellants, the prosecution has marched five witnesses.Out of these five witnesses, P.W.1 though he was the author of Ex.P1, the report, has deposed that he did not know anything about the overt acts of the accused or incident.Under the circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 was not useful or available to the prosecution.But, to the extent that the criminal law was set in motion, his evidence could be accepted since according to P.W.13, the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.1 came to the police station and gave Ex.P1, the complaint, on the strength of which the case came to be registered under the above provisions of law.Apart from that, the signature of P.W.1 in Ex.P1, the report, no question of inferring his presence at the place of occurrence would arise.Hence, as far as A-6 is concerned, this Court is unable to notice any evidence in the case, and hence the presence of A-6 at the time of occurrence is ruled out, and he has got to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him.As far as the overt acts attributed to them, it is not in controversy that D1 Theoplus and D2 Jayaprakash were cut and death was caused instantaneously.At that time, number of persons who are the eyewitnesses before the Court and also the number of accused who were arrayed, were all present at the place of occurrence, and if to be so, at the time of occurrence, it is quite natural when two persons are being attacked by number of persons with deadly weapons like aruvals, one cannot expect them to meticulously note what are all the overt acts attributed to them.In the case on hand, the fact that the five persons namely A-1 to A-5, were armed with aruvals would clearly indicate that they have actually constituted an unlawful assembly with the common intention of killing those persons, and thus they have acted so.In view of their presence with deadly weapons and causing death of two persons, the provisions of Sec.149 of IPC would be attracted.The discrepancies brought to the notice of the Court in no way would affect the prosecution case and did not take away the truth of the case.Hence there is no impediment in recording a finding that A-1 to A-5 have constituted an unlawful assembly having deadly weapons and attacked D1 and D2 and caused their death instantaneously.14.Now, the contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that there was a delay in despatching the FIR to the Court cannot be a reason to disbelieve the prosecution case for the reasons that P.W.1 has admitted that he went to the police station and gave the report.P.W.13, the Sub Inspector of Police, has deposed that pursuant to Ex.P1, the report, he registered the case.P.W.14, the Investigator, has admitted that he has gone to the spot, and since it was night hours, he did not do investigation.Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that P.W.14 has stated that only on receipt of the FIR, he went to the spot for investigation.In the instant case, even as per the prosecution case, there was a rivalry as to the sale of illicit arrack between D1 and D2 on the one side and A-1 and his employees namely A-2 to A-5, on the other side.As regards the other charges, the judgment of the trial Court in respect of A-1 to A-5 is confirmed.All the sentences imposed on A-1 to A-5 are ordered to run concurrently.18.As regards A-6, the judgment of the trial Court is set aside, and he is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.The fine amount if any paid by him will be refunded to him.","['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 1 of 21CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 2 of 21The facts of the case as borne out from the record are that on 17.01.2013 vide DD No.26A, a PCR call was recorded regarding rape by father with his own daughter, aged 8 years, at H.No B-1970, Kashmiri Block,Jain Nagar, Delhi.SI Dinesh along with Ct. reached the house where they met the mother of the victim who reported the rape committed by her accused husband, on their two minor daughters, V aged 8 years and M aged 13 years.NGO was called and victims were taken to SGM hospital where they were medically examined.The complainant S, PW-13, gave her statement that she is a house wife and has four daughters and a son and her husband runs a factory.On 11.01.2013, her husband committed wrong act with daughter V after taking her to some other room of their residential dwelling, and also threatened her not to tell anything to anyone or else she will be killed.On 13.01.2013 when she was cleaning the house, she found one blood stained underwear of V under the bed.On inquiry from the prosecutrix PW-3, told by the latter that her father lifted her from the bed in the night and lay her on a sofa and gave her a tablet after which she began feeling sleepy, and then he inserted his 'shushu wali jagah' in her 'shushu wali jagah'; and when the prosecutrix felt pain, her father again brought her CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 3 of 21 back to the bed.PW-3 stated that she conferred about this incident with her family members and did not report the commission of the offence to the police at that stage, but when her elder daughter M, who was living with her maternal grandmother came and informed her that, her father committed wrong act with her as well, which the former did not disclose because of fear, the complainant came to Police Station and lodged the subject FIR.Allowed.) XXXXXXX by Ld.Addl.It is correct that me and my children are completely hand to mouth and there is no other earning member in my family, I want to get my husband released.It is also correct that my both daughters were produced before CWC and from there the custody of my daughters were handed over to me.It is wrong to suggest that I have left my daughter M at my mother's house due to acts of sexual assault upon her by my husband.In default of payment of fine, the Appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.P.C has been granted to the appellant.Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The gravamen of the charge, for which the appellant has been convicted, is for having committed rape upon his own daughter/the CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 2 of 21 prosecutrix, a girl aged about 8 years, at the time of commission of the offence.After medical examination of the victim, her exhibit (one underwear having darker stains) was seized and her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.IO collected the date of birth proof of the victim and sent samples to Forensic Science Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as 'FSL').The accused was arrested and was medically examined; and while awaiting FSL result, the present chargesheet was filed.CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 3 of 21By way of order dated 20.05.2013, charge was framed against the appellant for offence u/s 6 of POCSO Act read with u/s 376(2)(f) IPC and u/s 328 IPC for the offences committed against daughter V, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to prove the charges against the accused, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses, whereafter the statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he claimed himself to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the case by his wife PW-13 (the mother of CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 4 of 21 the child victim) due to a matrimonial dispute.The Appellant chose to examine three witness in his defence including himself.CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 4 of 21Broadly, the Trial Court has based the conviction of the Appellant on the testimony of victim V, PW-3 as hereunder :""24.08.2011 Q. Kya hua tha ?Me so rahi thi, papa aaye mujhe dawai khilayi.Meri kachhi uttari, apni kachhi uteri aur meri susu me apni susu laga rahe the.Q. Aap kaha so rahethe ?Hall me Q. Papa kahan so rahe the ?Lakdi wale kamre me.Hamare ghar me 3 kamre hain.2 me farsh (floor) par mate lagawaya tha aur ek me lakdi lagawayi thi.Q. Lakdi wale kamre me kaun kaun sota hai?Wahan par mummy papa sota hai Q. Kya aap pehle bhi court me ho ?Ha At this stage, the witness has been shown her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. i.e. Ex-PW- 2/D and identifies her signatures at point ""A"" thereupon.Q. Kya apne yeh baat kisi ko batayi thi ?Nahi Q. Mummy ko bataya tha ?Nahi, mummy ki tabiyat kharab thi sara din behosh padi rehti thi Q. Aur kisi ko bataya tha?Nahi, papa ne dhamka rakha tha ki kisi ko nahi batana hai CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 5 of 21 XXXX By Sh.Ravi Kant Singh, learned counsel for accused.CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 5 of 21Q.Aap kashmiri colony se pehle kaha rehte the ?Shashtri Nagar Q.Aapko mummy jyada pyar karti hai yah papa ?""I am a housewife and residing at the abovementioned address with my five children out of which four are daughters and one son.My husband, who is present in the court today as accused Jitender Sharma (witness has correctly identified the accused), was having his own work and running a factory of hydraulic machines.My eldest daughter M, who is aged about 15 years at present, is residing at the house of my mother.I do not want to say anything about the present case as to why and how this case has been registered against my husband.One day a quarrel took place between me and my husband and my husband gave beatings to me and my daughters, due to which I got annoyed and went to PS.I had told to the police officials that my husband was harassing me but the police officials did not record my said statement and I do not CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 6 of 21 know why the police official had recorded my statement in such manner.CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 6 of 21At this stage, witness is shown her complaint from the judicial file and she identifies her signatures at point ""A"" thereupon.The complaint is now exhibited as Ex-PW-13/A. My daughter V is aged about 10 years at present.My husband did not do anything wrong with my daughters M and V. Vol.He only gave 2/3 slaps to them.At present I want that my husband should be released as there is no earning member in my family and I generally remain ill.It was a simple quarrel between me and my husband which was given colour in the present form of complaint by the police.(At this stage, Ld. Addl.PP for the State seeks permission to cross examine the witness as she is resiling from her earlier statement.PP for the State.I have studied upto 9th class.I did not go through the contents of Ex.PW-13/A before signing the same.Police officials also did not read over the contents of Ex.PW-13/A to me.With great hardship, I am managing my household affairs and expenses.I get some stitching work from the tailors and do the same at home.All my children are school going and studying in different classes.Neither my in-laws nor my parental side are financially supporting me.The house where I am residing is belonging to my husband, which is constructed on a plot of 67 sq. yards.It is constructed upto first floor.I am residing on the first floor with my children and the ground floor is lying vacant.I am looking for tenant to let out the ground floor.It is correct that my both daughters M and V were got medically examined.It is in correct to suggest that I got my both the daughters internally examined vide my statement encircled at point ""Y"" on MLC already Ex.PW-9/B. It is wrong to suggest that I had the doctors regarding the sexual assault upon my daughters in the alleged history on the MLC.I have no knowledge if the statement of my daughters was recorded by the police wherein both the daughters had narrated the incident regarding the sexual assault upon them by the accused Jitender Sharma.It is correct that my both the daughters were brought to the Court earlier also where they were examined by the learned MM in chamber.CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 7 of 21At this stage, witness is shown site plan from the judicial file and she identifies her signatures at point ""A"" thereupon.The site plan is now exhibited as Ex.PW-13/B.It is wrong to suggest that my daughters had even disclosed about the conduct of my husband before NGO Anuradha in my presence.It is wrong to suggest that I found blood stained underwear of my daughter V from under the bed or that I got suspicious and I asked about the reason from my daughter V, who had told me that my husband had lifted her from the bed and committed wrong act with her, after giving her some pills to eat.Therefore, the CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 20 of 21 judgment and order on conviction dated 30.05.2018 and the order on sentence dated 05.06.2018 are both hereby upheld.CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 20 of 21A copy of this judgment be communicated to the appellant through the Superintendent, Tihar Jail and also be sent for updation of the records.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE) MANOJ KUMAR OHRI (JUDGE) APRIL 29, 2019 dn/di CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 21 of 21CRL.A.1241/2018 Page 21 of 21",['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
"I. Criminal application is hereby allowed.In the event of their arrest, in connection with crime No. 0128/2017 registered at Sengaon police station, District Hingoli,::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:26:44 ::: cran3360.17 -4- the applicants (1) Asaram Laxman Wakale and (2) Sitaram Laxman Wakele be released on bail, on furnishing personal bond of Rs.15,000/- each, with one surety of the like amount by each of them, on the following conditions:-::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:26:44 :::b) The applicants shall not enter in village Dongargaon till filing of charge sheet.Criminal application is disposed of.( V. K. JADHAV, J.) rlj/::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:26:44 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:26:44 :::","['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"And In re.: Upen Biswas. .......... Petitioner Mrs. Jeenia Rudra....... for the petitioner Mr. Manjit Singh, Ld. P.P.Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta..... for the State Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.The petitioner is in custody for 46 days.We have gone through the case diary, more particularly through the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 CrPC.Going through the same, we find both the petitioner and the victim had a love affair.Let the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Learned Judge, Special Court, (under POCSO Act), Jalpaiguri subject to the condition that that after release, the petitioner shall not enter within the jurisdiction of Falakata Police Station except for the purpose of attending the court's proceedings and before release, he must intimate the Officer- in-charge of that Police Station where he shall reside and also meet the Officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station thrice in every week, until further orders.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)","['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 22 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.The Indian Penal Code offences are triable by the court of Magistrate and the offences of Special enactments are not punishable for sentence of more than six years.The trial will take sufficient time for its conclusion and the applicant cannot be kept in custody for unlimited period.Under these circumstances, he prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the bail application.After hearing aforesaid arguments and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case in which bail may 2 M.Cr.C. No.5972/2016 (Virendra Prajapati Vs.State of M.P.) be granted to the applicant Virendra Prajapati.2 M.Cr.",['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
"P.W. 1 by name Kamatchi is the wife of deceased Gurusamy, Servai in the instant case.This incident was informed by P.W. 1 to her husband and her mother P.W. 2 Muthurakku.This was also respondent by her husband that the matter can be reported before the panchayat and for convening the panchayat of the village on the next day morning he paid the fees for the same, and the panchayat was about to convene on the next day.After informing P.W. 2 that she would meet P.W. 3 Gomathi and come back, P.W. 1 went to the house of P.W. 3 and at that time, the accused was loading his cart with mats for taking it to the other village.P.W. 1 asked the accused as to whether he would be going to the other village when the panchayat is going to be held against him, for which, it was stated that the accused asked what is meant by panchayat and by so saying, he beat P.W. 1 on her hand.Then she cried saying that he was beating.It was at this juncture, the accused took the kavai-kambu and by saying that he was the person who is concerning the panchayat and making him to stand in the panchayat and he will be done away with, beat him upon his head.Consequently, her husband fell down and head gave way, there was bleeding and the brain matter came out and she cleaned the oozing blood with M.O. 2 towel, M.O. 3 bits of nylon saree, M.O. 4 bits of petty coat and that thereafter the accused ran away from the said place with the kavai-kambu.Since there was hot sun in that place where her husband fell down, P.W. 1 put him in the pial of one Kumaraiah's house and she along with P.W. 8 name Lakshmanan brought a taxi from Thiruppullant and took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram, where she narrated the incident that happened to the Police, which was reduced into writing.It was read over to her and her thumb impression was obtained in Ex. P. 1 and in which, P.W. 8 Lakshmanan has attested and that thereafter on the evening of that day, her husband died and that she handed over the saree M.O. 1 which was blood stained at the time of occurrence to the Police.According to her, the above occurrence had happened at about 8 a.m. on the northern side of the house belonging to one Mayalagu.P.W. 2 Muthurakku is the mother of P.W. 1 and she has claimed that P.W. 1 was given in marriage to one Vedaiah, who was her brothers son and the marriage life between them was not cordial always and the marriage was dissolved in the village panchayat and that thereafter P.W. 1 was given in marriage to the deceased Gurusamy and that two years prior to the giving of her evidence before the trial Court, one evening when she was returning from her land, P.W. 1 came to her weeping and complained that she was beaten by the accused, Gunasekaran, Gandhi and Nanmaran and consequently, she went to them and took them to task, for which, they had come to beat her also but however she returned to her house and informed her son-in-law the deceased Gurusamy, who in turn, arranged for the convening of panchayat on the next day morning and that on the next day morning P.W. 1 had gone out to see P.W. 8 Gomathi and after a little while, she heard the noise of P.W. 1 and when she went there and saw by standing near the house of the Pushpam, P.W. 1 was found weeping and accused was found with a small stick in his hand and P.W. 1 complained that the accused had beaten, which was followed by this witness also go to the accused and ask as to why he had beaten her daughter.She would claim further that for her asking so, the accused threw away the small stick, took a kavaikambu kept near the shop and beat her upon her left hand, which caused the bleeding injuries and thereupon she fell down and that when her son-in-law came and questioned the accused as to why he had beat the ladies the other day and he was beating the old lady that day also, by saying that he was the person who has made him to stand before the panchayat and he will be done away with, the accused beat the deceased on the head with kavai-kambu.Consequently, her son-in-law fell down with the brain matter coming out from the head with profuse bleeding and that the accused ran away with the weapon of offence.As it was a hot sun at that place, P.W. 8 Lakshmanan, Kumaraiah, Arumugam, Sahadevan and P.W. 3 Gomathi all took her son-in-law and placed him in the pial of the house of Kumaraiah and that P.W. 1 and P.W. 8 then brought a taxi and took him to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Ramanathapuram and that at or about the evening of the same day, she heard that her son-in-law was dead and that when her son-in-law was beaten, P.W. 8 Lakshmanan, Arumugam, P.W. 3 Gomathi were present and that she was given treatment for her injuries.P.W. 3 by name Gomathi of Utharayai Village, has narrated the previous day incident, with reference to the sale of palmirah tree, claiming ownership of the same and asked her to do whatever possible by her and for which, P.W. 3 replied that they had sold away Palmirah tree belonging to her uncle and that by now claiming falsely and that immediately one Gandhi took a small stick and beat Padmini on her forehead and Gunasekaran beat her upon her left elbow and this accused fisted her on the left shoulder.2) A diffused contusion over right wrist of about 2 cm x 3 cm.Ex. P. 8 is the copy of the Accident Register.He would opine that the above injuries are simple in nature and the injured Gurusamy since died at 6-45 p.m. in the hospital, he sent the death intimation Ex. P. 9 to the Police.Dr. Kesavan, the Medical Officer attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Ramanathapuram, on the receipt of the requisition given by the Inspector of Police, to conduct the autopsy over the dead body of Gurusamy, at the time of post mortem, he found the following injuries :Contusion 10 cms.x 5 cms.extending from the right side of scalp upto right temporal area and upper part of Cheek.No bony injury over cheek.He found the stomach slightly dilated and contain about 100 ml. of black colour semi solid food with food particles digested rice.All other symptoms were normal.He would opine that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage into the extra dural space due to injury sustained to head and died about 16 to 17 hours prior to post mortem.P. 11 is the post mortem certificate given by him.According to the doctor, injury number one with its internal injury is fatal and is likely, to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.P.W. 8 Lakshmanan is doing cultivation in Utharavayal village, who in his testimony has claimed that he owns land on the western side of the village along with his brother Valampuriyan and that the maternal grandfather of the accused by name Gurusamy also had the adjacent land and that the said Gurusamy on receipt of Rs. 50/- from this witness permitted him to enjoy that land and he was tethering sheep there and that after the death of Gurusamy, his grandson the accused used to pick up quarrels with him to vacate the said land and during the said sojourn one day the accused beat P.W. 8's daughter-in-law by name Padmini and that case was however compromised and that the accused and his brother sold away the land belonging to their mother and in that land there were two palmirah trees, out of which one belonged to this witness and as the deceased Gurusamy had asked for one tree, he had asked him to cut and remove it and that in exchange Gurusamy had asked him to take the palmirah tree standing in his garden and that after the sale of the lands, one day the accused came near the palmirah tree with knife and stick with Chidambaram, Gandhi and all the tree cut the palmirah leaves from the tree while he was grazing the sheeps and when this witness questioned them, they retorted by saying that they were cutting the leaves of their grandfather's palmirah tree and thus he speaks about the several facts of the dispute with regard to the ownership of the pamirah trees and the leaves between him and the accused.This witness also corroborates the convening of panchayat by Gurusamy through one Vellaichamy and the panchayat was to be convened at about 9 a.m. on that day and that on the morning of the occurrence day, he heard the cry of the ladies and when he approached, he saw that the deceased Gurusamy was attempting to lift P.W. 2 and it was at that time the accused beat the deceased Gurusamy on his head with a kavai-kambu and Gurusamy fell down and there was bleeding and brain matter came out.P.W. 9 Sethuraman, Village Administrative Officer of Thiruppullani village claims that when the Inspector of Police visited the scene of occurrence, and prepared the observation mahazar Ex. P. 12 and recovered M.O. 8 blood stained earth, M.O. 9 sample earth, M.O. 2 towel, M.O. 3 nylon saree pieces 2, M.O. 4 petty coat pieces 2, M.O. 5 torn cloth, M.O. 6 torn saree piece 1 under the cover of mahazar Ex. P. 13 and prepared a search list by conducting search in the house of the accused and after visiting the cut palmirah tree an observation mahazar was prepared and in all these, he has attested along with the village menial by name petchimuthu.JUDGMENT N. Arumugham, J.The convicted accused for the offences under Sections 323, 325 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months, three years and life imprisonment respectively but however to run concurrently, by the learned Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai, in S.C. No. 185 of 1987 dated 10-12-1987, has preferred this appeal, challenging its correctness and validity.When she questioned all the three as to why they were (sic) she was enceinte by eight months, with the result, she fell down and one Chidambaram also fisted her and that P.W. 1 also came and questioned all of them for their unlawful activity and that the accused held the tuft of P.W. 1 and beat her and all ran away.By about 8-30 p.m. on that day, the village Thandal came and said that there was a village panchayat convened for the next day morning to go into the above said beatings.On the next day morning, P.W. 1 came to her house and went away.After a little while she heard the cry of P.W. 1 and when she approached, she saw the deceased Gurusamy bending down and attempting to lift P.W. 2 and at that time, the accused with the Kavai-kambu beat him and consequently Gurusamy fell down and the accused ran away and in other respects P.W. 3 repeated the same narration of P.Ws. 1 and 2 as exactly as they had claimed.P.W. 4 Dr. Ajmal Khan, Medical Officer attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Ramanathapuram, at about 11-45 a.m. on 21-10-1985 examined Gurusamy, who was found in an unconscious state and found the following injuries :1. Lacerated injury scalp right side 5 cm x 5 cm size underlying bone broken and brain matter exposed.Contusion 10 cm x 5 cm extending from the right side of scalp upto tight temporal area and upper part of cheek.Ex. P. 2 is the Accident Register copy.According to him since the condition of the patient was found precarious in view of the said injuries, he was admitted as an in patient and Ex. P. 3 is the intimation sent by him to the police.P.W. 4 Doctor examined P.W. 3 at about 12 noon on the same day and found the following injuries :1) Contusion over the upper lip 2 cm in diameter.2) Contusion 5 cm x 3 cm over the middle of back.3) Tenderness over the right buttock.He was of the opinion that the above injuries are simple in nature and could have been caused by beating with stick and assault by more than one person and Ex. P. 4 is the wound certificate given by him.This witness has claimed further that at about 12-15 noon on that day, he examined P.W. 2 Muthurakku for certain injuries said to have been caused on 21-10-1985 at about 6 a.m. and to be done to assault by seven known persons at 1-00 a.m. and found the following injuries :1. Lacerated injury on the left palm about 4 cm.in length in between thumb and index fingers surrounded by contusion of 3 cm size.Contusion 3 cm x 7 cm horizontal lengthy over the middle of back.Vertical contusion 2 cm x 5 cm over the right side of back.X-ray was taken and it was found on account of the injury number 1, the first meta carpel bone was found fractured and that therefore according to the doctor, injury number one is grievous and the rest are simple in nature and those injuries found by him could have been caused with stick and Ex. P. 5 is the wound certificate given by him.P.W. 4 would state further that at about 12-45 p.m. on that day, he examined a lady by name Padmini wife of Vedaiah, for report as to certain injuries said to he been caused on 20-10-1985 due to the assault made by three known persons with kambu at Uthiravai and found the following injuries :1) Pain over left elbow.2) Pain over left buttock.3) Contusion of 1 cm diameter over the right side of forehead.Ex. P. 6 is the wound certificate given by him.P.W. 5 Dr. Ramalingam, the Radiologist attached to the Ramanathapuram Head Quarters Government Hospital has stated that he took the skiogram for the injury found on the left hand of P.W. 2 on 21-10-1985 and found fracture in the finger of the left hand and Ex. P. 7 is the report and M.O. 7 is the skiogram taken by him.P.W. 6 Dr. Jesudass, attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Ramanathapuram, examined P.W. 1 Kamatchi at about 6-05 p.m. on 21-10-1985 and found the following injuries :1) An abrasion of about 1 cm x 1 cm over forearm dorsal aspect 1 1/2 inches above the wrist.An Unshaped sutured incision with base above right ear and a sutured vertical incision present in the middle of the above wound.On opening the wound, a bone deficit for about 5 cms.diameter is found with underlying durasutured obliquely for about 5 cms.length and on opening it, the underlying brain was found to be lacerated for about 5 cms.diameter, with an under running certical vein suture and an undervarying suture found in the middle Maingeal artery right forn stopping the bleeding poppin's stitches were found to be applied around the bone deficit.P.W. 10 the Constable attached to Kenikarai Police Station has claimed that he handed over the requisition Ex. P. 10 to the Medical Officer for the conduct of autopsy at about 10-30 a.m. on 22-10-1985 and escorted during the autopsy and afterwards, he recovered M.O. 10 Dhothi, M.O. 11 kaili from the dead body and handed over the same to the Police Station.P.W. 11 the Head Clerk attached to the Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ramanathapuram, has claimed that on the receipt of the material objects sent by the police with the requisition to subject the same for chemical examination, packed M.Os.The chemical examiner's report Ex. P. 17 and the serologist's report Ex. P. 18 were received on 28-2-1986 and 30-4-1986 respectively.P.W. 12 Nainar Mohamed, Sub Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station, has claimed that on the receipt of Ex. P. 3, he had been to the hospital by 12-15 noon on 21-10-1985 and found Gurusamy in an unconscious state and recorded the statement from P.W. 1 to her narration and read over to her and not thumb impression in Ex. P. 1 and returned to his police station and registered the same in crime number 275 of 1985 for the offence under S. 307, IPC and prepared the printed first information report Ex. P. 19 and sent it to the Court and higher officials.In the hospital he recovered M.O. 1 Saree from P.W. 1 and at about 7-45 p.m. on that day, he received Ex. P. 9 the death intimation regarding the death of Gurusamy and consequently altered the section of law into 302, IPC and sent the express report Ex. P. 21 to the Court and the Inspector of police under express tapal immediately.P.W. 13, the Inspector of Police would claim that at about 2-30 p.m. on 21-10-1985 on the receipt of express report in the instant case, he took up the investigation and had been to the scene of crime and prepared the observation mahazar Ex. P. 12 and the rough sketch Ex. P. 22 attested by witnesses.By about 4 p.m. on that day, he recovered M.O. 8, M.O. 9, M.O. 2, M.O. 6 under the cover of mahazar Ex. P. 13 attested by witnesses.Then he sent P.W. 1 for medical treatment.In the night at about 8-15 p.m. on that day, he received the express tapal regarding the alteration of the section into 302, IPC and went to the Government Head Quarters Hospital on 22-10-1985 and conducted inquest over the dead body between 6-30 a.m. and 10-30 a.m. and prepared Ex. P. 20 inquest report by examining the witnesses and the panchayatdars.The accused had denied every one of the claim made by the prosecution witnesses when he was examined under S. 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has stated that on the previous evening of the day of occurrence, all the fencing situated in his house and the backyard had been removed and a frivolous case has also been foisted against him.However, the accused did not choose to examine any witness in his behalf.After recording the oral evidence from P.Ws. 1 to 13 and the documentary evidence Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P. 22 with the marking of 11 material objects by and on behalf of the prosecution, with none of behalf of the accused, and after having an elaborate discussion on the entire adduced legal evidence, rival contentions and established circumstances in the instant case, the learned trial Judge has found that the prosecution had proved the complicity and guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly found him liable for the charges framed and tried against him and convicted and sentenced him as noted supra, and it is this judgment being challenged for its correctness and validity.We have heard the Bar for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and the contra by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, supporting and justifying the impugned judgment on the basis of the verdict recorded the learned trial Judge.In the context of the above rival position, we have to consider the only point as to whether the prosecution had established the guilt and complicity of the accused in the instant case beyond all reasonable doubts and whether the impugned judgment is correct or not ?The fact that P.W. 8 and the accused had misunderstanding and enmity over the enjoyment and right of the palmirah trees situated in the land on the south west of the village for several years is specifically claimed by the prosecution and that in connection with the same, One Padmini was beaten by the accused is seen by this Court very clearly from the evidence made available.P.W. 3 Gomathi is also seen to have been beaten by the accused previously to the occurrence.The further fact P.W. 3 informed the sustaining of the injury at the hands of the accused to P.W. 1 and P.W. 1 questioned the accused and consequently.When P.W. 1 is stated to have informed her husband, the deceased, about the incident and to her mother P.W. 2, the prosecution claims, it is seen that they were able to arrange for the convening of the panchayat on the next day.To this extent, P.W. 8 also renders every support and corroboration, who would claim that by paying the fee to the village menial, village panchayat was arranged to be convened on the morning of the occurrence day has been established.There was no specific denial of the above facts when the prosecution witnesses claim so and no controverting of the same is there during the cross-examination.Therefore, we have been left with no other alternative except to believe their version with regard to the background leading to the occurrence proper.It is the consistent case of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 on the one hand and P.W. 8 also that P.W. 1 was beaten by the accused with a small stick and when it was questioned by P.W. 2, her mother, she was also beaten by the accused with a kavaikambu and on seeing this when P.W. 2 fell down, the deceased, husband of P.W. 1, came to her reascue and attempted to lift her, the accused beat him upon his head with every force saying that he was the person who had convened the panchayat involving himself and that with that beating he should die.This beating, though dealt with at one time, seems to have been given with severe force.Therefore, the head of the deceased gave way and was broken, resulting in the brain matter and blood coming out.As the injured fell down with the bleeding, injury, the prosecution witnesses as a whole, claim that they took him and placed him in the nearby pial of one Kumaraiah.The observation mahazar prepared by the Inspector of Police Ex. P. 12 and the rough sketch showing the topography of the scene of crime Ex. P. 22 would clinchingly prove the place of occurrence and the consequent recovery of the blood stained earth, blood stained materials, and the Chemical Examiner's report and the Serelogist's report render ample corroboration and support to the claim that the occurrence place was, the one the prosecution claims situated near the house of one Mayalagu.On going through the evidence of P.W. 7 the doctor who did autopsy and the post mortem certificate Ex. P. 11, it is seen that injury number one found in the post-mortem certificate is fatal and likely to cause death in its ordinary course of nature, which would show that the head of the deceased Gurusamy was broken into two and through which, the brain matter has come but.We find no reason at all to eschew or suspect the evidence of the doctor who did the autopsy and reject the post-mortem certificate and the opinion of the doctor.P.Ws. 1 to 3 are not only the eye-witnesses but also the injured, who claim that the assailant is the accused and none-else.Their evidence seems to have full support and corroboration from the evidence of the medicos particularly, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 with the Accident Register copy and the wound certificate.The doctors who treated them were positive enough in claiming that all the injuries found on the person of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 could have been caused by beating with a stick at the time and manner as alleged.The two discrepancies, namely, caused by several persons' and 'the time is 6 a.m.' as found in the wound certificate have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, but, in our view, the said description of the time and the persons are purely by mistake given by he P.Ws. 1 to 3, because of not only their illiteracy but also because they are the persons injured and brought to the hospital in an injured condition and that therefore their mental faculty has been subjected to severe strains and it is under the said circumstances, no one can expect them to give the accurate narration of every incident happened with strict sequence.In the context of the argument advanced by Mr. K. Asokan, learned Senior Counsel, we have gone through the entire evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 8 along with the medical evidence.After having our strict scrutiny and marshalling, we are not able to find out a single aspect or laches in this case to suspect their version but on the other hand, their narration of the occurrence and witnessing the overt acts of the accused on P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and the deceased with every sequence, was very natural, cogent, convincing and as such trustworthy, bears all legal credibility.Hence, we accept the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, the injured occurrences witnesses with the corroboration of P.W. 3, who also sustained injury at the hands of the accused and if so, we have to take into account the core of the evidence of the medicos and their opinion which go to the total support and corroboration of the other evidence.If this is the position, after having gone through the entire gamut of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has succeeded in its mission of proving the guilt and complicity of the accused herein, not only in causing the injuries to P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the day of occurrence but also beating the deceased with 'kavai-kambu' violently and causing an injury, which proved fatal; and led to his death, which however, in accordance with the opinion of the doctor who did the autopsy, would attract thirdly of S. 300 of the Indian Penal Code.After having inflicted the injury to P.W. 1 and attacked P.W. 2, when the deceased came to the rescue of P.W. 2, who was falling down at that time, if the accused had no intention at all as claimed by the Bar, then, it is noted that he had no business to do away with the deceased but however, he dealt a fatal bit upon the deceased with 'kavai-kambu' which broke his head and the brain matter with bleeding came out.From the very nature of this injury, though a single one, inflicted by the accused, we are able to see the very intention of the accused, after deliberating that the deceased was the person who was responsible for convening the panchayat involving himself and he must die.From the totality of the above circumstances, clearly established by the prosecution, we are fully satisfied, to say, that the learned trial Judge, after having an elaborate discussion and deliberations of the entire adduced circumstances and legal evidence has validly justifiably and rightly come to the conclusion that the accused had landed himself under thirdly of S. 300 of the Indian Penal Code and that therefore, he was perfectly correct and justified in finding him guilty and accordingly convicting and sentencing on all the charges.The very effort and strain taken by Mr. Asokan, learned counsel in persuading us to modify the sentence by showing the very mirror inconsistencies in the description of the time and the number of persons, appears to us as too flimsy and bleak and for the said reasoning, we are not inclined to give any legal credance for the same.In the instant case, the legal evidence adduced by the prosecution against the accused regarding his complicity and guilt is abundant, more than adequate and overwhelming and when this is the position, one cannot be expected to run the risk of suspecting the same by catching a small thread at the one extreme and go into the root of the prosecution case, which is totally alien to the law.Thus, after having considered the whole gamut of the case, we do not find any merits in this appeal and the various findings and observations given by the learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment are perfectly valid and justifiable.Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.Appeal dismissed.","['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal canbe stated thus:-(a) The accused/appellants and the deceased one Ramalingam werenatives of Semangalam village.The deceased was cultivating six silk cottontrees for which there was a quarrel and dispute between the parties.P.W.1 isthe daughter of the deceased.Due to enmity that arose on the cultivation ofthose trees, on 27.3.1996 at about 9.30 a.m. A1 to A4 came to the house ofthe deceased.At that time, A1 pulled down a thatched shed in front of hishouse and took a bamboo stick M.O.1 , while A2 took kattamani stick and A3 and A4 also took bamboo sticks, and they attacked the deceased.In that course,P.W.1 interfered, and she was also attacked.P.W.1 took her father to AnnaiHospital, Thevur, through a bullock cart brought by P.W.3, Duraisamy, andthere, he was declared dead by the doctor.Then she went to P.W.2 the VillageAdministrative Officer, at about 3.30 p.m. The Village AdministrativeOfficer, who enquired P.W.1, did not write any statement, but prepared areport, which is marked as Ex.P1, and she was sent to Keevalur Police Stationalong with his menial with Ex.P1 report.The menial accompanied by P.W.1 went to Keevalur Police Station where P.W.7, Head Constable was available.Onreceipt of Ex.P1 receipt, he registered a case in Crime No.182/96 undersections 302 and 324 IPC.The printed First Information Report Ex.P6, wasdespatched to the Court.(b) Mr.Subbiah the Inspector of Police, took up investigation in thecase, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and prepared a rough sketch.It is reported that the appellants are on bail.The learnedSessions Judge shall take steps to commit the accused/A1 to prison to undergothe remaining period of sentence.The bail bonds executed by A-2 to A-4,shall stand cancelled.The Additional Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam2. --do-- through the Principal Sessions Judge,Nagapattinam.The District Collector, Nagapattinam.The DGP, ChennaiThe Public Prosecutor, Chennai.6.The Superintendent of Police,Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli.[The Judgment of the Court was delivered byM.CHOCKALINGAM,J] Aggrieved over the judgment of the Additional Sessions Court,Nagapattinam, made in SC.No.40/98 wherein the appellants stood charged, triedand found guilty for an offence under section 302 read with 34 IPC andsentenced to undergo life imprisonment, and the first appellant/A1 alone stoodfound guilty for an offence under section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo sixmonths rigorous imprisonment, the appellants have brought forth this appeal.The imprisonment for life and the rigorous imprisonment for six months imposedon the accused No.1 is ordered to be run concurrently.Due to his demise, P.W.13 the Inspector ofPolice, took up further investigation and went to the scene of occurrenceagain, and it was found correct.He examined the Inquest Report, Ex.P10prepared by the said Mr.Subbiah again.A requisition was sent to theGovernment Hospital along with dead body of the deceased Ramalingam forconduct of autopsy.(c) P.W.9 the Civil Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital,Thiruvarur, on receipt of the requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead bodyand found the following injuries:-""(1)Contusion over most of the upper part of scalp with fluctuations present.(2)Multiple small abrasions with contusion over right side neck.(3)Multiple small abrasion with contusion over middle of the right side back.""The Doctor has issued a postmortem certificate Ex.P8 and has opined that thedeceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage prior to 24 hoursdue to injuries sustained.(d) P.W.1 who was found with injuries, was sent to the hospital.Shewas given treatment by P.W.8 the Doctor, and the wound certificate is markedas Ex.During investigation, the accused were arrested, and they were alsosent for judicial custody.All the material objects were despatched to theCourt with a requisition to send them for chemical analysis.Accordingly,they were subjected to chemical analysis.On completion of investigation, thefinal report was filed by the Investigation Officer.The case was committed to Court of Sessions.Necessary chargeswere framed against the appellants/ accused.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused,the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and relied on 10 exhibits and 6 materialobjects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, theaccused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P. C. as to the incriminatingcircumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which theyflatly denied as false.On the side of defence, D.W.1 was examined and nodocument was marked on their side.After hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, and onscrutiny of the materials available on record, the trial Court found theaccused guilty as per the charge and awarded punishment as referred to above,which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants inter alia wouldmake the following submissions:(ii).So far P.W.1 was concerned, she was not a witness at the timeof inquest, and thus, her evidence cannot be given any credence.A perusal ofEx.P1 would clearly reveal that it did not contain necessary particulars tocall it as a complaint.Even after Ex.P1 report was placed in the hands ofthe police, no report of P.W.1 was obtained, and thus, a case came to beregistered on the strength of the report of the Village Administrative OfficerEx.P1, which is so bald in nature.(iii).According to the prosecution, the weapons of crime viz.,bamboo sticks were recovered from the place of occurrence.It is pertinent tonote that A1 is alleged to have attacked the deceased with a bamboo stick of7+ of length which is humanly impossible in that one could not attack theother with such a weighty stick.(iv).Though the occurrence has taken place at about 9.30 a.m., thecase came to be registered after a long delay, at about 6.45 p.m. whichremained unexplained, and there is no evidence to indicate that the appellantsshared the common intention.(v).In so far as A1 was concerned, even assuming that the case wasproved by the prosecution, there is ample evidence to indicate that there wasa quarrel between the parties from the morning.Apart from that, Ex.P1 willalso indicate that there was a quarrel preceding the occurrence, and under thecircumstances, the act of A1, even assuming to be proved, would not attractthe penal provisions of section 302 IPC, and hence, all these things have gotto be considered by this Court.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions.9.In the instant case, there has been a quarrel between A1 and thedeceased from morning in respect of cultivation of six silk cotton trees, andthat has culminated in the occurrence.There is no controversy that thefather of P.W.1, by name Ramalingam, was taken to the hospital from the sceneof occurrence and was declared dead.Following the inquest by theInvestigating Officer, the postmortem was also conducted by Dr.Sridharan, whowas examined as P.W.9, and the post mortem certificate was also marked asEx.P8, where from it would be quite evident that the deceased Ramalingam diedout of shock and haemorrhage.Apart from that, it is pertinent to point outthat the appellants either before the court below at the time of trial orbefore this Court, questioned the fact that Ramalingam died out of homicidalviolence.Thus, it could be safely concluded that Ramalingam died out ofhomicidal violence.10.In the instant case, P.W.1 was also injured at the time ofoccurrence.She was also treated by Dr.Vijayanthi, and the wound certificatewas also marked, wherein it is stated that she also sustained injuries at thetime of the occurrence.No circumstance or reason is brought to the notice ofthe Court why her evidence has got to be disbelieved.Itis true that she is the daughter of the deceased.Apart from that, herevidence remained uncorroborated.But a careful scrutiny of her evidencewould clearly reveal that it is trustworthy and has got to be accepted.Thus,the Court without any difficulty can accept her evidence to the extent that itwas A1 who attacked the deceased Ramalingam with bamboo stick on his head and caused the fatal injury.11.In so far as the second contention that Ex.P1 was only a report,given by Village Administrative Officer and it does not speak about thenarration of the incident, and no statement of P.W.1 was obtained by thepolice before the registration of the case, the court has to necessarilyreject the said contention since it does not stand in the way of scrutiny oflaw.It is true that P.W.1 went to P.W.2, the Village Administrative Officer,and reported the incident.P.W.2 had categorically stated that he did notrecord her statement, but only wrote her report which is marked as Ex.From the evidence of the HeadConstable, who registered the case, it could be seen that he did not get theindependent report from P.W.1 before registering the case.Thus it would bequite clear that an independent report was neither obtained by the VillageAdministrative Officer, P.W.2, or by the Head Constable, who registered thecase.But, her statement was recorded by the police officer under section 161Cr.P.C. A perusal of Ex.P1 report would clearly indicate that on thestatement made by P.W.1, P.W.2 has given the said report.Accordingly, it became the basis for registration of the case againstthe appellants.Thus, that contention has got to be rejected.But, there is suffice evidenceto hold that it was the act of A1 attacking the deceased with bamboo stickagain and caused the fatal injury, resulting in death also.There arematerials to indicate that it was the result of a quarrel between the parties.Even in Ex.P1 report by the Village Administrative Officer which came intoexistence at the instance of P.W.1, it is stated that there was a quarrelbetween the two families, as a result of which, Ramalingam was killed.At the same time, A1 committed the act with knowledge thatit would likely to cause death.Under such circumstances, the court is of theview that the offence committed by the first appellant, would fall within theprovisions of Sec.304 (Part II) IPC, and accordingly, awarding punishment offive years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.14.So far as the appellants 2 to 4 are concerned, as the chargelevelled against them is not proved, they are not found guilty.Hence, theappellants 2 to 4 are acquitted of the charge.The charge levelled againstthe first appellant is modified from one under Sec.302 read with 34 I.P.C. toone under section 304 (Part II) IPC as stated above and he is directed toundergo five years rigorous imprisonment.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on April 1, 2016 in connection with Dubrajpur Police Station Case no.40 of 2012 dated 27.02.2012 under Sections 498(A)/306/511 of the Indian Penal Code adding Sections 302/304B of the Indian Penal Code;And In the matter of : Chaina Khatun....petitioner....for the petitioner.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey, J.)","['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"And In the matter of: - Sonali Sinha & Anr.....petitioner.The application for bail is, thus, rejected.(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)","['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) (Sudip Ahluwalia, J.)","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(Order of the court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN.J.,) The matter was heard through ""Video Conferencing"".2.This Petition has been filed by A2 and A3 who have been convicted under Sections 120 (b), 302 read with Section 109 and Section 201 read with Section 302 of Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.71 of 2019 on 01.02.2020 to suspend the sentence imposed against them and to release the Petitioners on bail.M.Prabhavathy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit 3/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.M.P.No.1919 of 2020 that the third petitioner have conspired together with the other accused and murdered the victim.The conviction against the second petitioner is only based on the circumstantial evidence as there could not be any eye witness or direct evidence and therefore, the trial Court was right in convicting the third accused based on the Extra Judicial confession of A1 recorded by the Village Administrative Officer.Thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed for suspending the sentence and grant of bail.7.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.Even according to the prosecution, the second Petitioner did not participate either in the murder or in the disposal of the body of the deceased and he was not present in the scene of occurrence.Only based on the Extra Judicial confession recorded by the Village Administrative Officer, the trial Court has convicted the second petitioner.9.In the opinion of this Court, the Extra Judicial confession is a weak piece 4/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.M.P.No.1919 of 2020 of evidence and therefore, arguable points are involved in this appeal.Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri against the second petitioner alone is suspended on the following conditions:(i) The accused is directed to execute his own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai, Krishnagiri District.(ii) The accused must also appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai on the first Monday of every month until further orders.",['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
The postal authorities were directed to forbear from giving effect to the order of suspension dated the 5th of September 1950 or keeping the petitioner under suspension by virtue of that order.It is unnecessary for me to consider the other facts which had taken place in respect of the criminal action against the petitioners.There will be no order as to costs.,['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
"November C.R.M. 11187 of 2017 17, 2017 In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on November 9, 2017 in connection with Mohammad Bazar Police Station Case No. 241 of 2017 dated October 27, 2017 under Sections 341/354B/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act;And In the matter of : Mofisul Islam @ Ajab Islam ...petitioner.(Rupees five thousand) only with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, subject to the conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on further condition that he shall not enter the territorial jurisdiction of Mohammad Bazar Police Station except for meeting the investigating officer as and when necessary until further orders and shall provide the address where he shall presently reside to the investigating agency and the court below.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.dns ( Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J. ) ( Joymalya Bagchi, J. )","['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"A.No.636/2012 Page 1 of 7Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge- sheet was that on 23.06.2010 at about 10.30 A.M. at House No.G-57, Gali No.3, Shastri Park, the appellant sexually assaulted 'X' (assumed name) aged four years and also committed carnal intercourse.Police machinery swung into action when intimation about the incident was reported and Daily Diary (DD) No. 29B was recorded at Police Station Usmanpur.The investigation was assigned to SI Amit Malik, who with Const.Subodh went the spot.In her 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.PW-2/B), she named the appellant and attributed a specific role to him in the crime.In her Court statement as PW-1, she identified the accused to be the perpetrator of the crime.Learned Presiding Officer had put number of questions to the child witness to ascertain if she was able to understand the questions and give rationale answer.After satisfying that 'X' was a competent witness and understood the questions put to her, her statement was recorded.In her Crl.A.No.636/2012 Page 3 of 7 deposition before the Court, she gave detailed account as to how and under what circumstances, the appellant had taken her to his house after giving her one rupee.She also disclosed that in the house the appellant sexually assaulted her and also put his penis into her private part, he gave a cheek bite.In the cross-examination, nothing was suggested if the appellant had not taken 'X' to his house. 'X' was categorical to say that the act was done by the accused in the morning time and she was taken for medical examination to the doctor.The appellant did not deny his presence at the relevant time in his house.No ulterior motive was assigned to the child witness to make a false statement.A.No.636/2012 Page 3 of 74. PW-2 (Jainab), X's mother proved the version given to the police at first instance (EX.PW-2/A) without any variation.On 23.06.2010 at about 10 / 11.00 A.M. when she did not find 'X' aged four years, she went to the appellant's room which was bolted from inside.She banged the door and enquired if 'X' was inside the house.At first instance, the appellant denied her presence but when 'X' herself disclosed from inside that she was there, the door was opened.On enquiry, 'X' narrated her ordeal to her mother.The police was informed.PW-2 further disclosed that the appellant and her sister attempted to win her over and to Crl.A.No.636/2012 Page 4 of 7 accept money for not reporting the matter to the police.In the cross- examination, she denied if a sum of `10,000/- was borrowed from the accused and for its non-payment, he was falsely implicated.The testimony of this witness is crucial as she has found both 'X' and the appellant together in the room of the accused soon after the incident.The appellant did not explain as to what had prompted him to take the child to his room without the permission of her parents and what was the necessity to bolt the door from inside and to deny her availability in the house on the asking of her mother.PW-3 (Mohd. Jilani), X's father, has deposed on similar lines.A.No.636/2012 Page 4 of 7Aggrieved by a judgment dated 20.12.2011 in Sessions Case No.254/2010 emanating from FIR No.203/2010 PS New Usmanpur by which the appellant - Abdul Alim was held guilty for committing offence under Sections 354/377 IPC, the instant appeal has been preferred by him By an order dated 21.12.2011, the appellant was awarded RI for two years with fine ` 5,000/- under Section 354 IPC and RI for ten years with fine `10,000/- under Section 377 IPC.A.No.636/2012 Page 1 of 7After recording statements of the victim's mother (Ex.PW-2/A), he lodged First Information Report. 'X' was medically examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.The accused was arrested and medically examined.Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused for committing offences under Sections 376 read with Section 511 IPC and 377 IPC.The appellant was charged for committing offences under Sections 377 and 376 (2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC.However, subsequent to the recording of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the charge was amended and the appellant was charged under Sections 377 and 376 (2)(f) IPC.He abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication.The prosecution examined ten witnesses to establish the appellant's guilt.A.No.636/2012 Page 2 of 7 In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and alleged that he was falsely implicated due to non-payment of `10,000/- advanced to X's father.He examined DW-1 (Gulshan), his wife in defence.After appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 376 (2)(f) and 376 (2)(f)/511 IPC.The trial, however, resulted in his conviction under Section 377/354 IPC.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appeal has been preferred.It is relevant to note that State did not challenge appellant's acquittal under Section 376 IPC.A.No.636/2012 Page 2 of 7I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.Her testimony remained unchallenged on material facts.5. 'X' was medically examined vide MLC (Ex.PW-9/A) at around 11.00 P.M. The alleged history records that the 'X' was sexually assaulted by a tenant in the same building and she was found in his room.There was no occasion for the 'X's parents to concoct a false story of her presence inside the room of the accused.Appellant's involvement had surfaced immediately after the crime and there was no delay in reporting the incident to the police.Minor contradictions, improvements in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses are inconsequential as they do not affect the core of the prosecution case and absolve the appellant of the crime. 'X' and her Crl.A.No.636/2012 Page 5 of 7 parents had no prior animosity with the appellant to falsely rope him in this ghastly crime.They had no reasons to level serious allegations of unnatural offence for alleged non-payment of ` 10,000/-.They were not expected to bring her child / daughter in disrepute and play with her life.Unless an offence has really been committed, an unmarried little girl and her parents would be extremely reluctant to make such allegations which are likely to reflect on her chastity.No evidence has surfaced if any amount of ` 10,000/- was ever paid by the accused or his wife if so when and by what mode, and for its non-payment, the accused was implicated.The defence deserves outright rejection.There are no sound reasons to disbelieve 'X', an innocent child who was unaware of the consequences of the act of the accused.The accused who lived in the neighbourhood took advantage of the innocence of the child and allured her in his room on the pretext to give her some cash.A.No.636/2012 Page 5 of 7The impugned judgment based upon fair appraisal of the evidence deserves no interference.Considering the gravity of the offence whereby a child aged four years was ravished, Sentence Order needs no modification except that the default sentence for non-payment of fine `10,000/- shall be Simple Imprisonment for fifteen days in all.A.No.636/2012 Page 6 of 7A.No.636/2012 Page 6 of 7The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order.A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MARCH 09, 2015 / tr Crl.A.No.636/2012 Page 7 of 7A.No.636/2012 Page 7 of 7","['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"/307 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.After commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, the same was transferred to the Court of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 9th Fast Track Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) for trial, when on behalf of the petitioners an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved for discharge as 2 far as the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned.However, the Learned Judge rejected the said application.Now, the petitioners' invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure moved this criminal revision for quashing of the same.Now, having regards to the charge-sheet materials, I find it is the case of the prosecution, that on September 10, 2006 at about 21.50 hours in front of 49/5, Circular Garden Road, Kolkata - 23, a free fighting was ensued between two group of miscreants and having receipt of such information, when Sub-Inspector of Police S. K. Ghosh attached to the South Port Police Station, accompanied by his force arrived there and tried to disperse the mob, the petitioners attacked the police party and started throwing brickbats.At that time, the accused Manoj Gupta, the petitioner no. 1 instigated the mob by saying ""Yei hai Ghosh Babu isko Mar Dalo"", when someone from the mob hurled a brickbat towards the said Sub-Inspector of police, which hits on his shoulder causing grievous injury on his person.However, having gone through the materials contained in the Case Diary produced before this Court on May 3, 2010, i.e. on the first date of hearing, this Court found the witness Matalub Khan and Md. Sohrab Alam stated nothing as against the present petitioners.However, the Sub-Inspector Sanat Kumar Ghosh in his statement alleged that while he arrived at the spot with force and tried to disperse the mob, the mob led by Manoj attacked him and Manoj instigated the mob by saying ""Yei hai Ghosh Babu isko sala Mar Dalo'.Immediately, the witness was hit with a stone/brickbat on his collar bone and 3 suffered severe injuries and was removed to the Kolkata Police Hospital with fracture on his collar bone.But upon perusal of the injury report of the injured Police Officer, recorded at the Kolkata Police Hospital, on September 11, 2006, which is the part of the first Case Diary, this Court found that the attending doctor Asish Kumar Bhadra referred the injured to the S.S.K.M. Hospital for urgent X-ray for detecting if any fracture has been suffered by him or not.It further appeared from the said injury report that there was a specific note by the self-same doctor to the effect that at S.S.K.M. Hospital X-ray was done which showed fracture on left clavicle region and the patient was admitted at the Officers Ward of the Orthopedic Department of Kolkata Police Hospital.However, it appears from the contents of the said Case Diary the injured police officer on the very next day, i.e., on September 12, 2006 at 8.10 P.M. took admission at a private nursing home, Maple Nursing Home (P) Ltd. and was discharged from there on September 14, 2006 at 8 P.M. It further appears from the aforesaid injury report, the history of assault, according to the statement of the injured police officer, that while he was on duty for controlling a violent mob, at that time someone from a balcony of first floor building threw a brick, which hit on his shoulder.Thus, the statement of the injured police officer to the police and to the attending doctor at Kolkata Police Hospital, as to how he sustained injuries appears to be not same.Since in the said Case Diary there was no medical papers as regards to the treatment meted out to the injured Sub-Inspector Sanat Kumar Ghosh at S.S.K.M. Hospital, which was the purported foundation of injury report issued by 4 the Kolkata Police Hospital, this matter was again brought in the list although earlier the same was made C.A.V. and the learned advocate of the State was apprised of the same.When on his prayer the order of C.A.V. was recalled and the matter was listed for further hearing.The matter was again taken up for hearing on May 21, 2010, on that day the Investigating Officer was personally present in Court and produced a supplementary Case Diary but the same was not the part of the charge-sheeted materials.It may be noted on the day when the first Case Diary was produced the said Sub-Inspector was also personally present in Court.The supplementary Case Diary now produced before this Court, contained the medical papers issued by the S.S.K.M. Hospital as regards to the treatment given to the Sub-Inspector Sanat Kumar Ghosh on September 11, 2006 on being referred by Kolkata Police Hospital as well as the treatment sheets of the injured at Kolkata Police Hospital until 6 P.M. on September 12, 2006, when he was discharged on risk bond.It appears from the said medical papers that on September 11, 2006 at 1.30 A.M. the injured was attended at S.S.K.M. Hospital and he was advised for X-ray of left clavicle and left shoulder joint A.P. lateral.It further appears at about 1.50 A.M. after X-ray the injured was again examined by the same attending doctor at S.S.K.M. Hospital and the doctor noted in the injury report ""patient has bruises over left clavicular region.No fracture detected"" and the patient was released and advised to attend the out door patient department.In the subsequent Case Diary a few X-ray plates were found but without any endorsement of any hospital as regards to the identity of 5 injured or the place where such X-ray was done and without any seizure list as regards to the same.Both the doctors of S.S.K.M. Hospital and Kolkata Police Hospital were not examined by the Investigating Officer for the reasons best known to him.On the face of the aforesaid materials on record it is beyond comprehension, when according to the findings of the attending doctor of the S.S.K.M. Hospital, after X-ray, no fracture was detected except some bruises on the left clavicle region with an advice to attend Hospital out door as to how Dr. Asish Kumar Bhadra at Kolkata Police Hospital recorded that the X-ray done at S.S.K.M. Hospital showed fracture of left clavicle.Thus, it prima facie appears what have been recorded in the injury report of the patient Sanat Kumar Ghosh at Kolkata Police Hospital by his attending doctor Asish Kumar Bhadra that there was a fracture on left clavicle as per the X-ray done by the S.S.K.M. Hospital is incorrect and in all likely to fabricate false evidence.It may not be out of place to note the Investigating Officer of the case submitted charge-sheet under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code without seizure of injury report of the injured police officer at S.S.K.M. Hospital, although produced subsequently in a supplementary Case Diary and without examining both of the doctors at S.S.K.M. Hospital and at Kolkata Police Hospital.The withholding of the said medical papers which goes against the prosecution case that the injured police officer suffered fracture, although available and non- examination of the said doctors, as submitted by the Counsel of the party, raised serious doubts about the bona fide of the Investigating Officer of the case.Now, having regards to the totality of the evidentiary materials on record, more particularly the injury report of the injured police officer issued by the S.S.K.M. Hospital, there is no scope for submission of charge-sheet under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners nor the Learned Additional Sessions Judge was at all justified in rejecting the petitioners' prayer for discharge as regards to the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.The order impugned is set aside.This criminal revision stands allowed.Since, rest of the offences for which charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioners are all triable by any Magistrate, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 9th Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) is now directed to send down the records to the Court of the concerned Magistrate from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.Now, before parting with this Judgement, I feel that in this case an order must be made for an enquiry as to why the concerned doctor of the Kolkata Police Hospital made such incorrect note as aforesaid in the injury report of the concerned police officer and at whose behest and interest for which the petitioner was charge-sheeted and was going to be tried for a serious offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for which imprisonment for life has been prescribed, on the allegation of causing an injury in the nature of fracture of clavicle region.In this case the investigation was also done in a very perfunctory way, if not motivatedly.The injury report of S.S.K.M. Hospital as well as the bed 7 head ticket of the Kolkata Police Hospital were not seized by the police before filing of the charge-sheet and until this Court called for the same.At the same time the Investigating Officer seized and filed with the charge-sheet all the treatment documents of a private Nursing Home where the said police officer was purportedly treated after he left the Kolkata Police Hospital on a risk bond on the very next day of his admission.The Investigating Officer also has not examined both the doctors treated the injured police officer at Kolkata Police Hospital and at S.S.K.M. Hospital.In course of enquiry the opportunity of hearing must be given to the concerned persons in their defence.This order be communicated to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Kolkata through the Learned Registrar General, High Court, Kolkata.He is further directed to take the charge of the Case Diaries and to hand over the same to the concerned Additional Commissioner of Police directly in a sealed cover.Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy of this Judgement to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.( Ashim Kumar Roy, J. ) 8",['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The appellant has been filed this appeal under Section 14- A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 being aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by Special Judge, Harda in AST Case No.48/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 344, 506-B of the I.P.C. and Section 5L/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; whereby, the application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for enlarging the applicant on bail, was dismissed.The case of the prosecution against the appellant in short is that prosecutrix, who was more than 16 years and below the age of 17 years went along with applicant Rubab Khan.Co-accused Manish helped both of them.The father of the prosecutrix lodged the missing report of the prosecutrix.When prosecutrix was recovered then she lodged a report against the appellant alleging therein that appellant repeatedly committed sex with her.Counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.Both are having love affairs.The prosecutrix went along with the appellant on her own volition.During the inquiry of the missing report, co-accused Manish was held by the police and find out the address of the prosecutrix and she was recovered; therefore, it has been prayed to release the applicant on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.It is directed that the appellant Rubab Khan shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE b Digitally signed by BIJU Date: 2020.01.21 11:37:09 +05'30'","['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The background relevant for present case may first be noted.W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 1 of 16The Supreme Court, in writ petition No.13029/1985 (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India) vide order dated 16.12.1997 had directed that no fresh permit would be granted in respect of auto rickshaw (TSR), except by way of replacement of an existing working TSR with a new one.This was done with a view to reduce pollution levels in Delhi.Consequently, the Motor Licensing Officer (MLO), Burari issued a detailed order prescribing the procedure to be adopted for replacement of old TSRs with new ones.A dealer could sell one TSR against one LOI as issued by the transport authority.Holder of such LOI had the option of purchasing a TSR from any authorized dealer.There were three authorized dealers at that relevant time in Delhi.Dealers had no say in the issuance of W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 2 of 16 LOI.Whenever a customer brought with him LOI, all that the dealer was supposed to do was to receive the amount of TSR and sell the same by delivering the respective TSR, while retaining a photocopy of LOI for the sake of his own records.For registration of such TSR with the transport authority, the purchaser was required to produce the dealers sale invoice, Form No.20, Form No.21, insurance of the vehicle and the permit.After scrutinizing and verifying all these documents, officials of the transport authority [the MLO (AR)] would register the vehicle.W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 2 of 16On certain information received by officials of National Information Centre (for short NIC), investigation was carried out which revealed that 1157 auto rickshaws had multiple registration as on 17.06.1999 i.e. it was a case where two or more than two new TSRs were given permit against one old TSR permit.A vigilance team of the transport authority headed by their Deputy Director (Vig.) visited the Burari Transport Authority and were able to locate 150 such files just by physical search.It was also found that the files were grossly incomplete and were not containing the necessary documents.FIR No.34/99 dated 15.09.1999 was registered at the instance of ACB, Government of NCT of Delhi.A total of only approx.350 files could be located.The rest of the files which were supposed to be available at the office of MLO (AR) Burari, were incomplete and irregularities in registrations of several TSRs were clearly made out.It W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 3 of 16 was found that files/documents were fabricated to justify the existence of additional old auto rickshaws, so as to cover up the said crime.W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 3 of 16The investigation revealed 10 specific cases of multiple registration during the year 1998 & 1999 (details whereof are found in the charge sheet) where, inter alia, Shri Shyam Sunder Dandona, owner of Pal Auto Deals, Paharganj provided new TSR to the prospective buyers as sub-dealer and most of the time he only arranged the old TSR or its papers from the market and got the new TSR registered either themselves or through, mostly, Shri Ashok Khyrana, a tout working in the Transport Authority.Shri Shyam Sunder Dandona got finance approved for the prospective buyers through his nephew.Sanjeev Kumar Dandona, the petitioner herein, Director of M/s Dandona Finance Limited.Shri Sanjeev Dandona, the petitioner was found to have financed almost every TSR of the 10 specific cases investigated through M/s. Dandona Finance Ltd. The petitioner was found to have provided blank, incomplete Form-20 having his signature over the stamp of his firm Dandona Finance Ltd. which led to creation of false files.It was found that the petitioner had an arrangement with M/s PRJ Enterprises for issuance of fake sale certificate (Form-21), which showed his connivance with others for getting maximum benefit through financing the TSRs.The petitioner was found to have signed more than one Form-21 as W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 4 of 16 financier in respect of the same auto rickshow, i.e. DL1RC 7959, which had been found in different files with same registration number.W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 4 of 16Investigation revealed that Sh.Raj Kumar Jain owner of M/s. PRJ Enterprises, Dealer of Bajaj TSR in Delhi has given standing directions to his employees to issue Sale Certificate for new TSRs to the persons / employees sent by Sh.Shyam Sunder Dandona of M/s. Pal Auto Deals and Sh.Sanjeev Dandona of Dandona Finance Ltd. as per the details provided.Almost every file was having Sale Certificate with wrong details leading to formation of fake records.Invoices against purchase were not available for relevant TSR.More than one Form-21 (sale letter) in respect of same vehicle which have been located in different files bearing the same registration number (as part of cover-up operations).As the new permits were banned so in this way he helped himself to get more profits by selling more TSRs in connivance with his sub dealers / financiers.It was also found out that almost every recovered file had wrong/incomplete LOI (Letter of Intent) details, no pencil print of engine or chassis number.Even the copies of cancellation certificates, supposed to be issued to the concerned authorities, were still present in the TSR file.Various sale certificates in form 21 were having wrong details, TSR deposit slips were absent and so were the original TSR W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 5 of 16 permits etc. in most of the TSR files.Most of the cases were, inter alia, done by M/s. Pal Auto Deals, M/s Dandona Finance Ltd. (the proprietary firm of the petitioner herein) and M/s PRJ Enterprises.It was evident that the MLO/Head Clerk/MVI had not maintained any parameters for issuance of such permits.The specific allegations against the petitioner herein, as contained in the charge sheet read as under: W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 6 of 16W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 6 of 16Sanjeev Dandona, Proprietor M/s Dandona Finance Ltd.and that in pursuance of the above criminal conspiracy documents were got forged and then used as genuine in order to justify issuance of new permit and registration certificates, although under the W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 7 of 16 guidelines of Transport Deptt.no fresh permit/RC could be issued in place of one old auto rickshaw more than once and that too when auto rickshaw in question was road worthy and permit/RC holder was himself plying the same in the NCT of Delhi and all of you A-1 to A-8 thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.120-B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC r/w sec 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988 and within my cognizance.W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 7 of 16Secondly, All of you misrepresented facts and/or acted in fraudulent manner by your acts of commission or omission (as mentioned in Annexure A), as a result of which Transport Authority of NCT of Delhi was cheated in the matter of issuing of Registration certificate and Permit in the name of various Auto Rickshaw Holders and all of you thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 420 IPC and within the cognizance of this court.And I hereby direct that you all to be tried by this court for the above said charges"".PW25 Chander Bhan has stated that files, D-24, D-27, D-28, D-31, D- 34 and D-40 are totally fake files.Authority record shows that some new TSRs were replaced against the old TSRs.According to prosecution A-5 has put his signatures/stamp of company on form-20 showing hypothecation of TSR but with regard signatures of TSR owners.VIPIN SANGHI, J.The present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner to seek quashing of the order of charge dated 04.09.2008 and the charge-framing order dated 17.10.2008 passed by Sh.V.K. Maheshwari, Special Judge, Delhi W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 1 of 16 in C.C. No.54/2002 at RC7(A)/2000/DLI/CBI/ACB/ND.The petitioner is one of the co-accused and is allegedly involved in the issuance of more than one TSR permit against one old condemned TSR in violation of the prescribed rules.Trading in permits was also not allowed by the Supreme Court.As a result of the aforesaid direction, Secretary (STA) issued a detailed order dated 02.01.1998 to the concerned officials including Motor Licensing Officer (AR), Burari prescribing procedures for maintenance of accounts of cancellation/registration of TSRs, monthly statement of TSR registrations cancelled or renewed, and format for ""Certificate of Cancellation of Registration"".W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 5 of 16With the aforesaid allegations, charge sheet dated 15.03.2000 was filed by the CBI:ACB:New Delhi before the competent court.By the impugned order dated 04.09.2008, the learned Special Judge, Delhi held that prima facie case for framing of charge for offence punishable under section 12B read with sections 420/468/471 IPC and offence defined under sections 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out against all the accused.Vide order dated 17.10.2008, the Special Judge, Tis Hazari framed charges against, amongst other accused, the petitioner (accused no.5) herein.a) You affixed stamp of your firm alongwith your signatures on Form 20 which were not having any signature of TSR owners, with a notice to create fake TSR files showing vehicle hypothecation.b) You put your signature alongwith seal of your firm in Form 20 of the files D28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36 and 37 showing hypothecation of the TSRs in question when the signatures of Madan Lal, Ashok Kumar, Gauri Shanker and Bakshish Singh were not available on the concerned papers and hypothecation papers were certified on papers having forged signatures of Madan Lal, Ashok Kumar, Gauri Shanker and Bakshish Singh.(c) You arranged fake sale certificate for creation of false documents for supporting claim for new TSR in place of old.""The charges framed qua all the accused reads as follows:""Firstly, that during the year 1998-99 you A-1 Raghukant Bhardwaj, MLO Transport Depta., A-2 Chander Pal Singh, Head Clerk, Transport Dept., Govt. of NCT, A-3 Anoop Singh Dahiya, Motor Vehicle Inspector., Transport Dept. Govt. of NCT, while posted and working as public servants entered into a criminal conspiracy with A-4 Shyam Sunder Dandona, A-5 Sanjeev Kumar Dandona, A-6 Ashok Kumar Khurana, A-7 Raj Kumar Jain and A-8 Arun Kumar Maggo @ Kaloo with an object to cheat the Transport Deptt.Of GNCT of Delhi in the matter of issuing new permits and registration certificates under the Replacement Scheme of the Transport Deptt.in lieu of old Auto Rickshaws either by falsely showing deposit of old Auto Rickshaws (when in fact no such old auto rickshaw was deposited) or by repeatedly issuing, more than once, new permit and RC in lieu of one and the same old auto rickshaw, in violation of the guidelines issued by the Transport Deptt.His arrangement with M/S PRJ Enterprises for fake sale certificate (Form-21) shows his connivance with others.He had signed more than one form-20 as financer, in respect of same auto rickshaw.Auto rickshaw having regd No.DL-IRC-7939 had been found in two files with the same regd number.PW56 Kirpal Singh W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 12 of 16 and PW 57 Vijit Lal Mathur have stated that they had signed Form-20 (Sales Certificate of New TSR) brought and filed by A-4 and A-5 according to the standing instructions of their employer A-8.""W.P(Crl.) 586/2010 Page 12 of 16The petitioner has been charged with conspiracy with the other accused in the commission of the offence.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 1350 days infiling the Criminal Revision.Challenging the order of cognizance for the offence under Sections294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPC against the offenders.According to the revisionpetitioner,considering the gravity of injury sustained by him and intentionof causing such injury, the trial court ought to have taken cognizance underSection 307 of IPC and not under section 324 of IPC.Hence the presentrevision petition is filed with a delay of 1350 days.The reason stated for such delay is that recently the defactocomplainant has come to know about filing of final report for offence undersections 294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPC instead of 307 of IPC.A petition to alter charge is filed by the defacto complainant inthe month of April 2010 after lapse of two years and the trial court afterperusing the records has rejected the plea vide order dated 21.04.2002.Challenging that order the present revision is filed with a further delay of1350 days.5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.6.Therefore nothing survives in the revision Petition so as to condonethe delay of 1350 days.Hence this Miscellaneous petition is dismissed.","['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.05.1989 passed by the Ist L.C.C., Ghazipur in Criminal Case No. 536 of 1987, under sections 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, PS Dildarnagar, district Ghazipur convicting and sentencing the revisionists for a period of two months' simple imprisonment, under sections 323/34 IPC and order dated 09.10.1990 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1989 confirming the order and sentence passed by the trial court.Brief facts of the case are that on 09.06.1985 at about 12 O'clock one Ramji was sitting infront of the house of complainant Kamla Kamkar and the said land was sahan land of the complainant.The accused along with one Badri came over there and in furtherance of their common intention started beating Rajmi by lathi, who raised alarm, upon which the complainant Kamla, his father Ram Chandar and his mother came over there to intervene and protect Ramji, whereupon the accused persons also inflicted injuries on Kamla and, also his father Ram Chandar and others.All the accused persons, namely Radhika Kushwaha, Heera Kushwaha and Ram Bilas abused and threatened the complainant.The report was lodged.After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet.Charges were framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.After perusal of evidence of the witnesses, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid and passed the aforesaid sentence.Feeling aggrieved the accused persons filed a Criminal Case No. 536 of 1987, which was dismissed.Feeling aggrieved the present revision has been preferred.While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside.The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence.As I have said earlier the occurrence relates to year 1985 and this revision is pending since 1990, I find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the conviction and I feel that the conviction should be maintained but the sentence may be modified.","['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Kamla, Chandrika, Shyamabai and Shaligram have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code (""IPC"" for short) and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Marriage of Durgeshwari (since deceased) was solemnized with respondent no.1 Kamla within seven years of her death.Prosecution case, in brief, is that respondents were involved in subjecting Durgeshwari to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry and, ultimately, on 26/10/10, under suspicious circumstances, dead body of Durgeshwari was found hanging in her matrimonial home only.Morgue (Ex.P/15) was recorded at the instance of respondent no.1 and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Trial Court further found that Sukhlal Jharia, father of the deceased, admitted in para 13 of his evidence that he had neither informed the police personnel nor the Naib Tahsildar regarding cruelty for non fulfillment of dowry.Trial Court also held that in the said circumstances, presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act was not attracted to the facts of the case.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The prosecution case in a nutshell was that on 26.2.2009, informant Harbansh (P.W.1), the resident of village Suratpur Khushkari, District Kanshi Ram Nagar, moved a written report Ex.Ka.1 scribed by one Itwari Lal at the police station Amapur, District Kanshi Ram Nagar mentioning therein that informant's younger brother Hori Lal, his wife Nattho Devi and son Manoj Kumar were residing in a separate house.On 25.2.2009, there was a marriage ceremony of the daughter of Yograj in the village in which rangshala (musical and dance programme) was also organized.Informant had also gone there.When, at about 12:00 O'clock in the night, he was returning to his home, he heard the shrieks from the house of Hori Lal whereupon he entered in the house and saw that accused Buddhsen @ Raju son of Hori Lal, Amar Singh son of Mihi Lal residents of the same village, Kehari Singh son of Ramjeet, Rakesh son of Kehari resident of Hodalpur, P.S. Soron, Distt.Kashi Ram Nagar, Kanti resident of Virsua, P.S. Dholna, District Kashi Ram Nagar and Kamlesh resident of Madda Nagla, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Etah were assaulting his brother Hori Lal by throttling him on the cot.When the informant asked the accused persons, what are they doing, they hurled abuses and threatened the informant to keep mum otherwise they would not spare him, as they had not spared his brother's family.The informant and other persons reached near Hori Lal and saw that Hori Lal was done to death.Smt. Nattho Devi wife of Hori Lal was also done to death and her dead body was lying on the roof of the house.Manoj Kumar, son of deceased Hori Lal was missing also.The incident was witnessed by the informant and the village people in the light of petromax lantern.They thought that Manoj would have fled away due to fear to save himself, but next morning the village people told the informant that the accused-persons had taken away Manoj in the night itself towards the bambi.One Devkaran son of Bhojraj came there and told that the dead body of Manoj Kumar was lying in the orchard of Natthu Singh resident of Mihari.When the informant reached there, he saw the dead body of Manoj lying there.He was done to death by crushing his head.It was also mentioned in the report that accused Budhsen alias Raju had taken loan due to which the deceased Hori Lal had sold his two bighas agricultural land to repay the loan.Now accused Budhsen alias Raju wanted some more land so the panchayat was convened in this regard.Deceased Hori Lal when refused to give more land, accused Budhsen alias Raju threatened and uttered the following words ""Ke Ped he nahi rahega toh pakshi kahan baitheygay"".As a consequence, the accused Budhsen later on with the help of his relatives (father-in-law, mausa and friends) committed the murder of his father Hori Lal, mother Nattho Devi and brother Manoj Kumar.It was also mentioned in the written report that the dead bodies were lying on the spot and villagers were present there.Since there was no mode of transportation in the night and also he was so frightened and terrorized that he could not lodge the first information report at night.Investigation of the case was entrusted to P.W.4 S.I. Sri Ram Singh Pal, the then Incharge of the police station Amapur in whose presence the Chick FIR was lodged.He copied the chick F.I.R. and the G.D. entry in the case diary.Information regarding the incident was transmitted through the R.T. Set to the higher authorities and the neighbouring police stations.Investigating officer (P.W.4) visited the village Amapur, where the incident had taken place, along with the police force in the government jeep keeping with them the chick F.I.R, G.D. and other papers for preparation of the inquest report etc. The informant had also accompanied them.The corpse of the deceased Hori Lal was lying inside the house on a cot and the corpse of the deceased Smt. Nattho Devi was lying in the room of the first floor.Dead body of the deceased Manoj Kumar was found lying in the mango orchard of Natthu Singh one and a half kilometers away from the village.S.S.I. Ram Shankar Mishra was instructed by the C.O., Sahawar to conduct the inquest proceedings on the body of the deceased Manoj Kumar.Investigating officer Sri Ram Singh Pal (P.W.4) prepared the inquest report (Ex.Ka-7) of the deceased Hori Lal.Photo lash, challan lash, letter to R.I., letter to C.M.O., sample seal were also prepared keeping the dead body in a sealed cloth.He also prepared the inquest report (Ex.Ka.-8) of the deceased Smt. Nattho Devi and kept the dead body in a sealed cloth and also prepared the sample seal, photo lash, challan lash, letter to R.I., letter to C.M.O.Dead bodies were dispatched for postmortem and a letter to the C.M.O. (Ex. Ka.-15) was also sent by the investigating officer to perform the postmortem in the night itself.Inquest report (Ex.Ka.-26) of the dead body of the deceased Manoj Kumar was prepared by S.I. Jai Prakash Pathak (P.W.7).Other police papers were also prepared keeping the dead body in a sealed cloth and also preparing the sample seal.Dead body of the deceased Manoj Kumar was also dispatched for postmortem.Blood stained pieces of the concrete floor were also taken by the investigating officer preparing the memo and keeping the same in sealed containers.Pieces of the bangles found on the spot were also taken by the investigating officer and the same were kept in a separate sealed containers by preparing the sample seal.Memo Ex.Ka.-2 was also prepared in this regard.One petromax lantern found at the place of occurrence was taken into possession by the investigating officer and memo Ex.Ka.-3 was prepared giving it in the custody of the informant.Investigating officer also visited the place, where the dead body of the deceased Manoj Kumar was found lying, and prepared the site plan Ex.He also took a pair of slippers belonging to the deceased Manoj Kumar found near the dead body.Investigating officer had also taken into possession a blood stained brick from the spot.Blood stained earth and simple earth were also taken from the place of occurrence and memo was prepared keeping the articles (materials) in sealed containers.Sample seal was also prepared.The memos prepared by the investigating officer were Exs.Witnesses were also interrogated by the investigating officer at the place of occurrence.He also made attempts to arrest the accused persons at different places.The memos and other papers prepared during the investigation were copied in the case diary in the light of gas lantern.He also visited the district headquarters, Etah to ensure that permission for performing the postmortem be obtained in the night itself and thereafter he returned to the concerned police station.On 27.2.2009 also, he made efforts for arrest of the accused-persons and accused namely Budhsen alias Raju, Amar Singh and Rakesh were arrested from the tubewell of Amar Singh at 5:45 A.M. Arrest memo was also prepared at the place of occurrence and other formalities were fulfilled.Accused persons were kept in the HAWALAT of the police station concerned.After fulfilling the formalities, they were interrogated by the investigating officer.He also went to the village to maintain the law and order situation at the time of funeral of the dead bodies.He interrogated the scribe of the written report and the witnesses of inquest and also ensured the arrest of the rest of the accused-persons.Later on, the investigation was completed by S.I. Sukant Sharma (P.W.8), who interrogated the witnesses and ensured the arrest of the rest of the accused-persons and filed the charge-sheet (Ex.Ka.-13) on the basis of evidence collected during investigation against all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. He sent the material collected on the spot by the first investigating officer to the Forensic Science Laboratory.The Laboratory Report (Ex.Ka.-31) was also submitted.Post mortem on the dead body of the deceased Nattho Devi was performed on 27.2.2009 at 1:00 A.M. by Dr. Sayeed Mohammad (P.W.5) of District Hospital, Etah.Dead body was brought by C.P.19 Ram Naresh Sharma and C.P.220 Mohd. Aslam belonging to Police Station Amapur, who had also identified the dead body.Deceased was 50 years of age and was of average built.According to doctor, the death was caused due to coma and asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem injuries sustained by the deceased.Time of death has been shown as about one day (24 hours).Post mortem on the body of the deceased Hori Lal was conducted on 27.2.2009 at 1:30 A.M. by Dr. Sayeed Mohammad (P.W.5) himself.Dead body was brought by the same police personnel C.P.19 Ram Naresh Sharma and C.P.220 Mohd. Aslam, who had also identified the body.According to doctor, cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem throttling.Postmortem on the body of the deceased Manoj Kumar was performed on 27.2.2009 at 2:00 A.M. by the same Dr. Sayeed Mohammad (P.W.5).Dead body of the deceased was brought by C.P.57 Naushad Khan and H.G. 3877 Santosk Kumar of P.S. Kasganj.Deceased was 25 years of age and was average built.Rigor mortis was present in both the extremities.P.W.4 S.I. Ram Singh Pal is the first investigating officer.The inquest reports of the deceased Smt. Nattho Devi and Hori Lal and other papers relating to inquest were prepared by this witness.He also interrogated the witnesses and inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan.P.W.5 Dr. Sayeed Mohammad., who conducted the postmortems on the bodies of the deceased Hori Lal, Nattho Devi and Manoj Kumar.The ante mortem injuries and other details have already been shown in the earlier portion of the judgment.P.W.6 C.P. Dileep Kumar prepared the chick F.I.R. and G.D. (Ex.Ka.21 and Ex.Ka.-22 respectively).He also prepared the ravangi G.D. of the investigating officer S.I. Ram Singh Pal and the G.D. (Ex.Ka.-23) relating to deposit of the material collected from the place of occurrence by the investigating officer S.I. Ram Singh Pal.This witness also prepared G.D. relating to the entry of the accused in the HAWALAT (bars) as Ex.P.W.7 S.I. Jai Prakash Pathak, who prepared the inquest report of the deceased Manoj Kumar.He received the information on R.T. Set at the Kotwali Police Station, Kasganj and proceeded to the place of occurrence where the dead body of the deceased Manoj Kumar was lying.Offence is said to have been committed in the intervening night of 25/26.2.2009 at about 12:00 hours.Thus, the F.I.R. was lodged after a gap of 9½ hours.P.W.1 Harbansh, the real brother of the deceased Hori Lal, has mentioned in the written report the reason for delay in lodging the F.I.R. First reason was that there was no means of transport in the night and secondly, due to fear and terror of the appellants, he could not go to lodge the F.I.R. During the course of examination, the same facts were stated by P.W.1 Harbansh.It was also submitted that Rajendra Singh was residing at Noida at the time of occurrence.It appears improbable that he reached 26.2.2009 morning at the place of occurrence.To analyze this fact, we have minutely perused the chick F.I.R., G.D., and other police papers prepared along with the inquest report.The said categories are as follows :Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII, J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII, J)All the four aforesaid connected criminal (capital) appeals have been filed by the accused appellants Amar Singh, Kamlesh, Kehari Singh, Rakesh, Kanti and Budhsen alias Raju against the judgement and order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashi Ram Nagar in Sessions Trial No.138 of 2009 (State Vs.Budhsen alias Raju and others) pertaining to crime no. 46 of 2009 under Sections 147, 149, 302 IPC, Police Station Amapur, District Kashi Ram Nagar whereby all the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced to death punishment under Section 302 IPC and further to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 IPC.Concerned Court through the learned Sessions Judge, Kashi Ram Nagar had also sent a Reference No.1 of 2011 under section 366 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of the death sentence, which is also connected with the aforesaid criminal (capital) appeals.Since all the aforesaid four connected criminal (capital) appeals arise out of the same judgment and order passed in sessions trial no.138 of 2009 and have been heard together, therefore, they are being decided along with the reference by a common judgment.When the informant loudly raised an alarm, the local people of the mohalla arrived on the spot and chased them, as a result accused persons fled away.On the basis of the written report (Ex.Ka.-1), Chick F.I.R. (Ex.Ka.-21) was registered on 26.2.2009 at 9:30 A.M. as a case crime no. 46 of 2009 under Sections 147, 149, 302 IPC at Police Station Amapur, District Kashi Ram Nagar.Rigor mortis was present in both the extremities.Eyes were closed.Mouth was semi-opened.Bleeding from right side ear was found.Postmortem report Ex.Ka-18 was prepared.On external examination, following ante mortem injuries were found by the doctor on the person of the deceased :(i) Contused swelling 4 cm.x 3 cm.on left side frontal part of head and forehead.Clotted blood was present underneath scalp.(ii) Complete ligature mark 25 cm.x 2 to 3 cm.on upper and middle part of neck.Left comua of hyoid bone fractured.Rigor mortis was passing off from upper extremities and present in lower extremities.Deceased was 55 years of age and was thin.Postmortem report Ex.Ka-19 was prepared.On external examination, following ante mortem injuries were found by the doctor :(i) Abrasion 3 cm.x 3 cm.on right side neck and 2.5 cm.x 2 cm.on left side neck.On middle part of neck, on cut section underneath tissue congested.Both comua of hyoid bone fractured.Duration of death was about one day (24 hours).Bleeding found present in the right ear.Dried and clotted blood was present on the face.Stomach was found full of semi solid food contents.Postmortem report Ex.Ka-20 was prepared.On external examination, following ante mortem injuries were found by the doctor :(i) Lacerated wound 2 cm.X 1 cm.X bone deep on left side back of head, underlying bone was fractured.(ii) Lacerated wound 3 cm.X 1 cm.X bone deep on right side head, 7 cm.above pinna of ear.(iii) Lacerated wound 2 cm.X 1 cm.X bone deep on right side head, 8 cm.behind injury no.(ii).Underlying bone fractured.Time since death was about one day (24 hours).Cause of death was coma as a result of ante mortem head injuries.Cognizance was taken by the concerned Magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter and the case, being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, was committed for trial.Accused persons appeared before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kashi Ram Nagar where the case was transferred for trial.Charges under Sections 147 and 302 read with 149 IPC were framed against the accused-persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial.In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses.P.W.1 Harbansh, who is the informant of the case and the brother of the deceased, claimed himself to be the eyewitness of the murder of deceased Hori Lal.P.W.2 Suraj Pal Singh, who also claimed himself to be the eyewitness of the murder of the deceased Hori Lal.The inquest report (Ex.Ka.26) was prepared by this witness on the direction of concerned C.O. Other police papers relating to the inquest report Ex.Ka.27, 28, 29 & 30 were also prepared by this witness.P.W.8 S.I. Sukant Sharma, the subsequent investigating officer, who completed the investigation after interrogating the witnesses, submitted the charge-sheet Ex.Ka.-30 against all the accused persons.He also proved the examination report of Forensic Science Laboratory as Ex.P.W.9 C.P. 57 Naushad Khan, who carried the dead body of the deceased Manoj Kumar for postmortem along with police papers and P.W.10 C.P.19 Ram Naresh Sharma, who carried the dead bodies of the deceased Nattho Devi and Hori Lal along with the police papers in sealed condition.After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused appellants were recorded.Appellant Budhsen alias Raju had stated the prosecution story to be false.As per this appellant, first information report was lodged on the basis of false facts.He has specifically stated that P.W.1 Harbansh, P.W.2 Suraj Pal Singh and P.W.3 Rajveer have made false statements before the Court.P.W.4 Ram Singh Pal, the I.O. has made perfunctory investigation and has not proved the police papers in an acceptable manner.Other prosecution witnesses have also made false statements and the first information report was lodged belatedly.Statements of the prosecution witnesses are against the fact mentioned in the inquest report.Subsequently I.O. P.W.8 Sukant Sharma has submitted the charge-sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence and has made false statement before the Court.Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is also based on false facts.Witnesses have deposed before the Court due to enmity.He specifically stated that the informant was trying to usurp the land belonging to deceased Hori Lal, therefore, on the basis of false facts, implicated the appellant in this case.Accused appellant Amar Singh has also stated more or less the same facts as has been stated by Budhsen.He stated that prosecution witnesses are relatives.Specific pleading was taken by this appellant that he is handicapped.Informant wanted to grab the land of this appellant, therefore, falsely implicated him in this case.Accused appellant Kehari Singh has also made more or less the same statement and claimed himself to be innocent.Accused appellant Rakesh, who claimed himself to be innocent, has stated more or less the same facts as has been stated by accused-appellant Budhsen.He has specifically stated that he was arrested from his house.Accused appellant Kanti also stated the same facts.He has specifically stated the he was present the whole night on the date and time of the incident in the mandap ceremony of his cousin brother's son in his village.Photography of the ceremony was also done.P.W.2 Suraj Pal was not present at the time of occurrence and he was present at his service place.Accused appellant Kamlesh, stating the same facts as has been stated by other accused appellants, has specifically stated that the informant wanted to usurp the land, therefore with the aid of witnesses, he (informant) had committed the present offence and falsely implicated him in this matter.Accused appellants in their defence have examined D.W.1 Aneg Singh, who claimed himself to be the cousin of accused appellant Kanti.He is the witness of the alibi of the accused appellant Kanti.D.W.2 Radhey Shyam is the senior clerk posted in the irrigation department at Etah.He produced the attendance register showing the presence of P.W. 2 at his service place.D.W.3 Gajendra Singh claimed himself to be the family member of D.W.1 Aneg Singh, who performed photography in the said mandap ceremony.D.W.4 Vijay Pal Singh is also the witness of the plea of alibi of the accused appellant Kanti.D.W.5 Kanti, the accused appellant has also examined himself before the Court to prove the plea of alibi.After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment and order, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as above and sent the reference for confirmation of the death sentence.Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order, the accused appellants have also preferred the aforesaid criminal capital appeals.We have heard Sri Rahul Mishra, Sri Harish Chandra Tiwari (Amicus Curiae), Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh and Sri Jai Narain, learned counsel for the appellants in the leading case as well as in the connected cases and Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned Government Advocate and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State and have also gone through the entire record.Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the prosecution was not able to bring home the guilt of the appellants from the evidence, but the trial Court has illegally convicted and sentenced the appellants.Incident took place in the night.P.W.2 Harbansh is a chance witness and was residing at a distance of 500 meters from the place of occurrence, there was no occasion for him to remain present at the place of occurrence.He was aged about 75 years.It is an improbable story that he would have gone to see the musical and dance programme in the night.P.W.2 Suraj Pal is also a chance witness.He was not present on the spot.He served in the irrigation department at District Headquarters, Etah.Attendance register proved by the defence witnesses clearly indicates that he was present at his place of posting on the date and time of incident.Motive attributed to the accused appellants was also not established by the prosecution.P.W.3 Rajveer has not disclosed this fact immediately that he had seen the deceased Manoj Kumar along with the accused persons in the night itself.This fact was stated for the first time in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. only to connect the death of the deceased Manoj Kumar with the present crime.Conduct of P.W.1 and P.W.2 does not inspire confidence of the Court.They are not reliable witnesses.There are major contradictions on the material point in their statements.None had witnessed the incident regarding the death of the deceased Nattho Devi.The most material witnesses Dev Karan, Suresh and Shiv Shanker were not examined by the prosecution, therefore, presumption against the prosecution would be drawn that if they were examined, they would have not supported the prosecution case.Medical evidence also does not support the prosecution version.In the first information report, nothing was mentioned about causing the death of the deceased Hori Lal by pressing the sticks / danda over his neck.The Doctor, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased Hori Lal, has clearly opined that injuries found on the neck of the deceased Hori Lal could not be caused by sticks / danda.The last seen evidence is also not reliable as it is not supported by any other independent evidence.There is delayed interrogation of the witnesses and no plausible explanation has been offered.The first information report was also lodged belatedly and it is ante timed document.Rajendra Singh, who could explain the time of the incident, was also not examined by the prosecution.It appears improbable that Rajendra Singh reached in the morning of 26.2.2009 itself from Noida to the place of occurrence.All the witnesses are relatives and interested witnesses.The shrieks made from the house of the deceased could not be heard from the place where the musical and dance programme was going on.Shrieks made from the house of the deceased Hori Lal could also be heard from the house of Suresh, there were many people in the house of Suresh, but they could not hear the hue and cry raised from the house of the deceased.It was also submitted that the conduct of Suresh appears unnatural that the door of the house of the deceased was open, but he entered in the house of the deceased through the roof of his house.It was further submitted that appellant Kanti was not present on the spot as is clear from the defence evidence.He was present in his village and participated in the mandap ceremony.Specific role of the appellants were not assigned by the prosecution witnesses, despite the fact that they claimed themselves to be the eyewitness.There are major contradictions in the statements of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 on material point.Time mentioned in the inquest report of the deceased Manoj Kumar also indicates that the first information report was not in existence at the time mentioned in the chick F.I.R. Appellant Amar Singh is a handicapped person.He could not participate in the crime.Learned Government Advocate submitted that F.I.R. was lodged at the earliest possible time.Delay has been properly explained in the written report itself.Father, mother and one of the sons were murdered.No blood relative, except the informant P.W.1 Harbansh, the brother of the deceased, P.W.2 Suraj Pal Singh, who were residing at some distance from the place of occurrence, were present.Rajendra Singh, who was the younger son of the deceased Hori Lal was informed at night itself.He reached the village in the morning.One of the sons of the deceased Hori Lal was involved in the crime, therefore, delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be taken to be fatal to the prosecution case.Presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the place of occurrence is natural and probable.They reached the place of occurrence while accused appellants were committing the murder of the deceased Hori Lal.Facts and circumstances of the case clearly establish that accused appellants have committed the murder of Smt. Nattho Devi before committing the murder of Hori Lal.There is no major contradiction on material point in the statements of these two witnesses.Dead body of the deceased Manoj Kumar was found lying in the garden about one and a half kilometers away from his house.Although, name of P.W.3 Rajveer as witness of the last seen evidence was not mentioned in the F.I.R., but at the earliest point of time he disclosed these facts to the investigating officer and other witnesses.Motive attributed to the appellants was fully established from the prosecution evidence.Accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju had extended threat in the panchayat to eliminate the deceased for not agreeing to sell the land to discharge the debt owed by the appellant Budhsen alias Raju.This fact is fully established from the prosecution evidence.There was no occasion to falsely implicate the accused appellants in the present matter.Suggestions given by the accused appellants to the prosecution witnesses are mere suggestions.There is no supporting evidence to establish the plea taken by the accused appellants.The doors of the house of the deceased were open, this is not an improbable fact.One of the appellant is the son of the deceased Hori Lal and Nattho Devi.It might be possible that deceased would have opened the door at the request of the accused appellants.It also appears probable because the offence took place in the night at about 12:00 hours and the assailants were the relatives of the deceased.Medical evidence fully supported the prosecution version.It was the rarest of the rare case as the three persons were done to death by their blood relatives.Before proceeding to deal with the submission raised by the parties and issues involved in this matter, we would refer to the findings and observations recorded by the trial Court in the impugned judgment.(I)Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has observed that motive attributed to the accused appellants was established from the prosecution evidence.A panchayat had convened and accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju had extended threat to eliminate the deceased for not agreeing to sell the agricultural land to discharge the debt liability.(II)P.W.1 Harbansh and P.W.2 Suraj Pal Singh were present on the spot at the time of occurrence.They had seen the accused appellants committing the murder of the deceased Hori Lal.(III)Smt.Nattho Devi was done to death by the accused appellants prior to committing the murder of Hori Lal.(IV)Accused appellants had also taken away the deceased Manoj Kumar with them and committed his murder in the orchard where his dead body was found.(V)Medical evidence fully supported the prosecution case.Non-examination of Dev Karan, Suresh, Shiv Shanker and Rajendra is not fatal to the prosecution case.(VI)All the accused appellants had formed unlawful assembly to commit the present offence and they gathered at the place of occurrence and committed the present offence in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly.(VIII)Participation of all the accused appellants in committing the present offence was fully established from the prosecution evidence beyond reasonable doubt.(IX) Evidence adduced by the accused appellants in their defence was not believable.(X) P.W.2 Suraj Pal Singh was well present at the time of the occurrence and also remained present on 26.2.2009, as is clear from the inquest report etc. (XI)Shrieks raised from the house of the deceased could easily be heard from the place where P.W.1 and other witnesses were present.(XII)Prosecution evidence is clear and consistent on the point of availability of petromax at the place of occurrence.Witnesses had recognized the accused appellants in the light of petromax lantern.(i) B. Kumar alias Jayakumar alias Left KR.alias S.Kumar Vs.(ii)Purushottam Dashrath Borate and Another Vs.(iii) Shabnam Vs.(iv)Deepak Rai Vs.(v) Ram Naresh Vs.(vi) State of U.P. Vs.(vii) Machhi Singh Vs.(viii) Bachan Singh Vs.38. Discussion :In the instant matter, offence is said to have been committed in the intervening night of 25/26.2.2009 at about 12:00 hours at two different places.Firstly, at the residence of the deceased Hori Lal where Hori Lal and his wife Nattho Devi were murdered and secondly, in the orchard of one Natthu Singh situated at a distance of about 1½ kms.from the house of the deceased Hori Lal where his son Manoj Kumar was murdered.Deceased Hori Lal had three sons.One is the accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju, second was Manoj Kumar (deceased) and third one is Rajendra Singh, who was residing at Noida at the time of the incident.P.W.1 Harbansh is the brother of the deceased Hori Lal, who was admittedly residing at about 500 meters away from the place of incident.P.W.2 Suraj Pal was also residing at a distance of about 500 meters from the place of occurrence.Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 are neighbours.Thus, both of them come under the category of chance witnesses.P.W.3 Rajveer is the son of P.W.1 Harbansh.It is also an admitted case of the prosecution that when P.W.1 Harbansh reached the spot, he saw the accused appellants committing the murder of Hori Lal (deceased).It means, he is the only eyewitness of the murder of Hori Lal.It is also clear from the evidence that none had seen the accused appellants committing the murder of Smt. Nattho Devi.Similarly, there is only last seen evidence against the murder of the deceased Manoj Kumar.Prosecution had not examined Dev Karan, who gave the information about the dead body of Manoj Kumar lying in the orchard.Suresh and Shiv Shanker, who were accompanying P.W.2, were also not examined by the prosecution.P.W.2 Suraj Pal is the employee of Irrigation Department and was posted at Etah district at that time.Defence has also not disputed the musical and dance programme organized in the night of the incident on the occasion of the marriage ceremony of the daughter of one Yog Raj.Prosecution witnesses have also admitted that the accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju was residing separately at Kasganj from his father deceased Hori Lal at the time of occurrence.Accused appellant Kanti is the maternal uncle (Mausa) of the accused-appellant Budhsen alias Raju and is the husband of the sister of the deceased Smt. Nattho Devi.Some of the accused appellants are also relatives of the deceased, as has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses themselves.It is also an admitted case of prosecution that there were only 07 bighas of land in the name of deceased Hori Lal.Thus, in the light of above factual situation, the Court proceeds first of all to analyze the motive attributed against the accused appellants to commit the present offence.The first information report was lodged by P.W.1 on 26.2.2009 at 9:30 A.M. It was mentioned in it that accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju had taken loan earlier and to repay the same, deceased Hori Lal, the father of the accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju, had sold two bighas of land.Again accused appellant Budhsen wanted to sell more land to discharge his debts to which Hori Lal refused, whereupon a panchayat was held in which the accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju had threatened and uttered the following words ""Ke ped he nahi rahega toh pakshi kahan baitheygay"" and this was the reason why the accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju with the aid of his mausa (maternal uncle) and other acquaintances had committed the murder of Hori Lal, Nattho Devi and Manoj Kumar.P.W.1 Harbansh, who is the informant in this case, has supported this fact before the Court.Although, he has not specified the place of panchayat, where it was held, but has admitted taking part in the panchayat.He also stated before the Court that accused-appellant Budhsen alias Raju wanted to sell some more land, but deceased Hori Lal refused to oblige him, therefore, Bhemsen alias Raju had threatened in the panchayat uttering ""Ke ped he nahi rahega toh pakshi kahan baitheygay"".It was the submission of the learned counsel for the accused appellants that the real son Rajendra Singh was not examined by the prosecution, who could speak the truth about the panchayat and the motive attributed to the accused appellants.It was further argued that the prosecution witnesses themselves wanted to purchase the agricultural land belonging to the deceased Hori Lal.Therefore, they committed the murder of the deceased and falsely implicated the appellants in this case.If the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused appellants are analyzed with the evidence available on record, it is evident that accused appellants have not challenged this fact in the cross-examination.Although, in the statements under sections 313 Cr.P.C., they have denied this fact.Looking to this situation that taking of loan by the accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju and in lieu thereof selling of two bighas of land by the deceased Hori Lal to repay the loan has not been challenged and the defence has also not challenged the convening of the panchayat, then we are of the view that motive part attributed against the accused appellants was established from the prosecution evidence.Before proceeding to deal with other issues, we would discuss the existence of the first information report at the time mentioned in the chick.In the present matter, F.I.R. was lodged on 26.2.2009 at 9:30 A.M. Distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was about 10 kms.He stated before the Court that the written report was scribed by one Itwari Lal on his dictation and thereafter it was read to him before he signed it.In the cross-examination, he admitted that he reached the concerned police station at about 8:00 A.M. in the morning of 26.2.2009 and it took an hour to prepare the written report at the concerned police station.G.D. Entry prepared at the time of preparation of Chick (Ex.Ka.-21) indicates that P.W.2 Suraj Pal and Rajendra Singh also accompanied him.It is the submission of the learned counsel for the accused appellants that written report (Ex.Ka.-1) was prepared with the consultation of the police after preparing the inquest report.Rajendra Singh and P.W.2 Suraj Pal both were not present at that time.It is evident that the police officials, who prepared the inquest report of the deceased Manoj Kumar, have shown different time in the column of information received at police station of the inquest report, but it is also evident that inquest report of the deceased Manoj Kumar was prepared by the police of Kotwali, Kasganj.First information report was lodged at Police Station Amapur.Inquest report of the deceased Hori Lal and Nattho Devi were prepared by the police of P.S. Amapur.Information at the police station Kotwali, Kasganj was given through R.T. Set.Since the dead body of the deceased was lying within the jurisdiction of Kotwali, Kasganj, therefore, the police of Kotwali, Kasganj proceeded to prepare the inquest report on the direction of the higher authorities.It appears that due to this reason the time mentioned in the column was 11:00 A.M. Contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused appellants is not acceptable.Three persons of a family were done to death and one of the sons of the deceased was himself involved in the incident.Other surviving son was residing at Noida at the time of occurrence.Informant (P.W.1) is the brother of the deceased.Offence was committed at midnight.Therefore, the reasons assigned in the first information report and stated by P.W.1 Harbansh before the Court are plausible and believable.In the facts and circumstances of the case, if the informant proceeded to lodge the first information report in the morning of 26.2.2009, we are of the view that there was sufficient ground for the same and it was explained by the prosecution.The explanation / reason offered by the prosecution is proper and satisfactory.Non-examination of Rajendra Singh will not render the explanation offered by the prosecution unbelievable or unsatisfactory, specially when there is a clear evidence that Rajendra Singh reached the spot in the morning of 26.2.2009 and had also accompanied the informant to the police station concerned.If Rajendra Singh did not lodge the first information report himself, it is also not fatal to the prosecution as he was not an eyewitness of the incident.He was the witness of inquest.Inquest reports have been proved by the prosecution from other evidence in accordance with law.Presence of P.W.2 Suraj Pal is also proved at the concerned police station at the time of lodging of F.I.R. vide G.D. Entry.Thus, the plea taken by the learned counsel for the accused appellants regarding delay in lodging the F.I.R. is not acceptable.As far as consultation with the police in preparing the chick F.I.R. is concerned, P.W.1 Harbansh has clearly and consistently stated before the Court that he got prepared the written report from one Itwari Lal on his oral dictation.If the written report (Ex.Ka.-1) was prepared at the police station concerned, it will not be presumed that it was prepared after consultation with the police.The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused appellants is not based on any cogent and reliable evidence.In the present matter, prosecution case rests upon the testimony of P.W.1 Harbansh, P.W.2 Suraj Pal and P.W.3 Rajveer.Other witnesses examined by the prosecution are either formal witnesses or they are the witnesses of inquest, recovery or of postmortem.The conduct of the witnesses to go and watch the musical & dance programme in the village at night of the occasion of the marriage ceremony of the daughter of one Yog Raj is not unnatural or improbable.Generally, people in villages watch such type of programmes irrespective of their age, caste or creed.Admittedly, P.W.1 was aged about 75 years, but he was able to walk and to do his work.Thus on this basis, the fact that he had gone to watch the programme cannot be disbelieved.As per this witness, when he while returning from the programme, heard the shrieks from the house of Hori Lal as he came close to it.The path chosen by this witness lies in-front of the house of the deceased Hori Lal and also goes towards the house of this witness.The conduct of this witness cannot be termed as unnatural.Although, he is the chance witness, but presence of this witness at the time of occurrence is probable and believable as he is the resident of the same village.So far as the presence of P.W.2 Suraj Pal, P.W.3 Rajveer and other witnesses are concerned, P.W.1 Harbansh has admitted that when he raised an alarm, P.W.2 Suraj Pal , P.W.3 Rajveer, Suresh and Shiv Shankar reached there and they also saw the incident.Prosecution has not examined Suresh and Shiv Shankar.To disbelieve the presence of P.W.2 Suraj Pal, the accused appellants had examined the clerk of the concerned Department.It is the submission of the learned counsel that on the date and time of incident, P.W.2 Suraj Pal was present in his office discharging his official duty.At this stage, the statement of the concerned witnesses and the attendance register proved by the said witnesses were also referred to.It is true that defence witness had stated that in the attendance register, the presence of P.W.2 Suraj Pal was marked on 24, 25 & 26.2.2009, but at the same time he also stated that a leave application from the evening of 24.2.2009 for 25 & 26.2.2009 had been moved by P.W.2 Suraj Pal, which was accepted by the Head of the Institution.Learned counsel for the accused appellants referring to this situation has argued that the leave application was moved later on only to ensure the presence of P.W.2 at the place of occurrence.Document proved by the defence witness clearly indicates that P.W.2 Suraj Pal was not present on the date, time and place of the occurrence.We have closely analyzed the prosecution and defence evidence in light of the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.P.W.2 Suraj Pal was the witness in all the three inquests.Similarly, P.W.2 Suraj Pal had accompanied P.W.1 Harbansh to lodge the F.I.R. at the concerned police station.Presence of P.W.2 also finds support from the evidence of P.W.1 Harbansh.It is unbelievable fact that he was present at his office in the morning of 26.2.2009 and at the same time he participated in the inquest proceedings and had gone to lodge the F.I.R. accompanying P.W.1 in the morning of 26.2.2009 itself.Therefore, the presence of P.W.2 Suraj Pal in both the places at the same point of time cannot be accepted.Inquest report and other police papers clearly establish that P.W.2 Suraj Pal was present on the date and time of the occurrence in the village itself.He was the witness of panchayat also.He had also gone to watch the programme.It is possible that they were returning for their home at that relevant time.Since they were returning from the same path, which lies in front of the house of the deceased Hori Lal, therefore, alarm raised by P.W.1 Harbansh could easily be heard by them from the lane.Thus, the presence of P.W.1 Harbansh and P.W.2 Suraj Pal cannot be doubted on this score.There are some contradictions in the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 regarding the presence of P.W.1 Harbansh at the time when P.W.2 Suraj Pal reached in front of the house of the deceased Hori Lal and also on this point whether Rajveer had accompanied them at that time or not, but on this ground the fact that both these witnesses had reached on the spot at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted, specially when the defence has not denied the music & dance programme (rangshala) was organized at the marriage.To analyze the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding non-mentioning of use of lathi in commission of the offence in the F.I.R. and opinion expressed by P.W.5 regarding use of lathi, we have again minutely perused the statements of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W5 Dr. Sayeed Mohd. As per the prosecution case, when P.W.1 Harbansh reached the place of occurrence, he saw that the accused appellants were pressing the neck of the deceased Hori Lal.This incident was witnessed by him in the light of petromax.Six persons were said to have been pressing the neck of the deceased.Certainly, the prosecution witnesses were present at some distance at that time.It might be possible that exactly what sort of method was adopted by the accused appellants in committing the murder of the deceased Hori Lal, could not be clearly seen or perceived.54. P.W.5 Dr. Sayeed Mohd. has not clearly denied that death of the deceased Hori Lal was not the result of throttling.This fact that danda was used in committing the murder of the deceased Hori Lal, was stated for the first time before the Court, but only on this basis the presence of P.W.1 Harbansh and P.W.2 Suraj Pal on the spot at the time of occurrence cannot be disbelieved or their testimony cannot be discarded.The opinion expressed by doctor is a mere opinion.The doctor has not clearly opined that the deceased was not done to death by throttling.Sometime witnesses make exaggerated statements but that cannot be the basis to discard the testimony of those witnesses otherwise credit-worthy.In view of the above, it is clear that the deceased Hori Lal was done to death by throttling.When P.W.1 and P.W.2 reached the spot, they saw the accused appellants pressing the neck of the deceased Hori Lal.On their raising an alarm, the accused appellants ran away from the back door of the house of the deceased Hori Lal.When they reached near Hori Lal, they found him dead.They also searched for Nattho Devi wife of Hori Lal and found her lying in a dead condition in the room of the first floor of the house of Hori Lal.Attention of the Court was also drawn by the learned counsel for the accused appellants that Suresh, who was the neighbour of the deceased Hori Lal, also accompanied P.W.2 Suraj Pal.He is also said to have reached there along with P.W.2 Suraj Pal.The door of the house of the deceased Hori Lal was opened, but he did not enter in the house of the deceased Hori Lal from that door, instead of that he preferred to enter the house by jumping from the roof of the house of the deceased Hori Lal.Contention raised in this context by the learned counsel for the accused appellants was also scrutinized by us.Suresh was not examined by the prosecution.What was in his mind, only he can explain.It might be possible that he would have thought that the accused persons could escape through the roof of his house.Learned counsel have also raised contention that by non-examination of Suresh by the prosecution, an adverse inference against the prosecution should be drawn as he might not have supported the prosecution case.Here it is noteworthy that non-examination of Suresh does not create any doubt regarding the presence of P.W.1 Harbansh and P.W.2 Suraj Pal on the date, time and place of occurrence.Generally, people do not want to come forward to give evidence.The present case is a peculiar one in which one of the sons of the deceased Hori Lal was involved and against whom allegation is that he along with the other accused appellants had eliminated his father, mother and younger brother.In criminal jurisprudence, witnesses are divided in three categories, namely, wholly reliable, wholly unreliable and lastly neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.In the case of first two categories the Court do not feel any difficulty but in the case of third category of witness corroboration from some other evidence would be required.The statement of P.W.1 Harbansh regarding the presence of P.W.3 Rajveer Singh at the scene of occurrence is not supported by the evidence of P.W.3 itself.Similarly, statement of P.W.2 Suraj Pal on the above point is also not supported from the evidence of P.W.3 Rajveer.Some other points, like the use of danda in committing the present offence is also not supported from the medical evidence.Therefore, in our considered view, P.W.1 Harbansh and P.W.2 Suraj Pal cannot be placed in the category of wholly reliable witnesses.Since both these witnesses are the relatives of the deceased persons and they reside at a distance of 500 meters away from the place of occurrence and they claimed their presence on the spot due to the reason that they were returning home after watching the music and dance programme, therefore, we scrutinized their version / testimony along with the medical evidence.Since there is no direct evidence regarding the murder of Smt. Nattho Devi and Manoj Kumar, therefore, expecting from the prosecution to adduce the evidence regarding the manner of the incident in committing the murder of Smt. Nattho Devi and Manoj Kumar is not warranted in the present matter, but it is established that both the deceased were done to death at the time, as has been stated by the prosecution witnesses.As far as the opinion expressed by P.W.5 Dr. Sayeed Mohd. regarding the death of the deceased Hori Lal is concerned, the use of lathi in committing the murder of the deceased by pressing his neck has been denied, but medical evidence does not fully belie that the deceased Hori Lal was not done to death by throttling.On this aspect, we have discussed in the earlier portion of the judgment in detail, therefore, we do not find any necessity for detailed discussion at this stage on this point.In the instant case, analyzing the direct evidence regarding the murder of the deceased Hori Lal minutely, we are of the view that it cannot be held that medical evidence is in conflict with the oral evidence, rather medical evidence supported the ocular testimony.So far as the relations of P.W.1 Harbansh and P.W.2 Suraj Pal with the deceased persons are concerned, nothing has come out in the cross-examination to hold that these witnesses have made false statements to implicate the accused appellants in this case.P.W.2 is the real brother of the deceased Hori Lal, he will not falsely implicate an innocent person leaving the real culprit to go unpunished.Accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju is the real nephew of this witness.Thus, the point raised by the learned counsel in this respect is also not acceptable.Interestingly, in the instant case, P.W.3 Rajveer was not interrogated by the first investigating officer, but was interrogated by the subsequent investigating officer after a gap of 20 days.He claimed that he had told about the last seen evidence to the witnesses at the night of incident itself.Two self-contradictory facts cannot be taken as true simultaneously.Three types of presumptions (inferences) could be made in this case regarding the evidence of P.W.3 Rajveer.Firstly, either he was present along with P.W.2 Suraj Pal at the time of occurrence ; or secondly, he had gone to ease himself in the night at about 12:30 A.M. and had seen the accused appellants taking away the deceased Manoj Kumar with them; and or thirdly, neither he was present at the place of occurrence accompanying P.W.2 Suraj Pal nor he had seen the accused appellants taking away the deceased Manoj Kumar with them.If the entire statement made by this witness is scrutinized to ascertain the truthfulness, it emerges out that he is not a reliable witness.The observation also finds support with the fact that nothing was mentioned about P.W.3 Rajveer on the point of last seen evidence in the chick F.I.R. nor in any other police papers prepared at that time.Satisfactory or plausible explanation regarding delayed interrogation of this witness by the investigating officer was also not put forth by the prosecution to the conscience of the Court.Thus, the testimony of P.W.3 Rajveer is not safe to be relied upon.Prosecution was only able to establish that the deceased Manoj Kumar was done to death at the night of 25/26.2.2009 between 12:00 to 1:00 A.M. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence available on record to connect the accused appellants with the death of the deceased Manoj Kumar, except the motive part attributed against them.So far as the lapses committed by the investigating officer is concerned, the testimony of P.W.1 Harbansh and P.W.2 Suraj Pal regarding murder of Hori Lal, which is supported by the medical evidence, cannot be discarded.Lapses said to have been made on the part of the investigating officer do not go to the root of the case and does not carry much weight.So far as the suggestions put to the witnesses by the defence regarding false implication of the accused appellants are concerned, which are too trivial, and cannot form the basis of false implication of the accused appellants in this case.Apart to this, the suggestions put by the accused appellants were also not proved by any cogent or clinching evidence.Non-examination of any other independent witness to support the prosecution case do not demolish the prosecution version.Looking to the nature of the offence, manner in which the present offence was committed and the time and place of occurrence, if any independent witness has not come forward to support the prosecution case, no adverse inference would be drawn against the prosecution.Offence was committed at midnight in the house of the deceased Hori Lal.Prosecution evidence itself indicates that prior to arrival of P.W.1 Harbansh at the house of deceased Hori Lal, no one was present in the lane and in the house except the accused and the deceased persons.Whether family members of the witness Suresh, whose house was adjacent to the house of the deceased, were actually present in their house at the time of occurrence and whether they were sleeping at that time or were awake, was not the matter essentially to be proved by the prosecution.Keeping in view the time of the occurrence, there was every possibility that either they were sleeping at that time or they had gone to watch the programme.Specific plea has been taken on behalf of the accused appellant Kanti that he was not present at the place of occurrence at the time alleged in the F.I.R. He has not only examined himself, but also D.W.1 Aneg Singh, D.W.3 Gajendra and D.W.4 Vijay Pal Singh.From the close scrutiny of the statements of these defence witnesses, definitely it cannot be held that accused appellants Kanti was present on the date and time of the occurrence in village Virsua.On minutely analyzing the statements of these witnesses, it emerge that mandap ceremony had started at noon itself.Photography would also have been lasted maximum till 9:00 or 10:00 P.M. in the night.Photo camera was not a digital camera.Whether photographs, as stated by the defence witnesses, were actually clicked on the date and time stated by the defence witnesses or not, there is no cogent and creditable evidence produced by the defence.Therefore, trial Court has rightly disbelieved the plea of alibi taken by the accused appellant Kanti.So far as the relation of this accused appellant with the deceased persons is concerned, there is direct evidence of P.W.1 Harbansh that accused appellant Kanti took part in committing the present offence.He also participated in the panchayat held earlier to solve the dispute regarding agricultural land between the deceased Hori Lal and accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju.No cogent evidence or any other fact was elaborated by the accused appellant to establish that there was any motive for the witnesses to implicate accused appellant falsely.In the absence of any such type of evidence, the plea taken by the accused appellant regarding the alibi and false implication of the accused appellant Kanti is also not acceptable.Therefore, there is no need for fresh discussion.Since in the present matter, three persons were said to have been done to death and all the three deceased persons belong to the same family and they were father, mother and son, therefore, we have also gone through the evidence to re-appreciate the role specified to the accused appellants and the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. to ensure that whether all the incriminating facts come in the evidence against the accused appellants have been placed before them to explain or not.On close scrutiny of the statement of P.W.1 Harbansh and P.W.2 Suraj Pal, we come to the conclusion that prosecution did not specify the role of the accused appellants.The allegation is that when P.W.1 Harbansh and P.W.2 Suraj Pal reached the spot, they saw that all the accused persons were pressing the neck of the deceased Hori Lal.From a perusal of the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., it also reveals that all the incriminating facts and evidence in the matter were put / placed before the accused appellants to explain.Nothing was argued on behalf of the accused appellants in this regard.Trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment and order, was of the opinion that the deceased Hori Lal, Nattho Devi and Manoj Kumar were done to death by the accused appellants in the manner stated by the witnesses on the date, time and place as mentioned in their statements.On the basis of discussion made here-in-above, we are of the view that there is no direct evidence to connect the accused appellants with the death of Nattho Devi and Manoj Kumar, except the motive part.Convening of the panchayat and selling of two bighas of land by the deceased Hori Lal to repay the loan taken by accused appellant Budhsen alias Raju were not challenged by the defence / accused appellants.The time of death of the deceased Hori Lal, Nattho Devi and Manoj Kumar indicates that all the deceased persons were done to death in a preplanned manner.If for the sake of argument murder of the deceased Manoj Kumar be not connected with the accused appellants, then also there is a direct evidence against the accused appellants in committing the murder of the deceased Hori Lal.When the witnesses reached the house of the deceased Hori Lal and raised alarm, the accused appellants fled away from the back door of the house of the deceased Hori Lal.On search being made, witnesses found Nattho Devi lying dead in the room at the first floor of the house.No other person, except the accused and the witnesses were present at that time in the house.Therefore, it can be safely presumed that Nattho Devi was also murdered by the same accused appellants, who were responsible for the murder of the deceased Hori Lal.Thus, trial Court finding that accused appellants have committed the murder of Hori Lal and Nattho Devi is not against the law and evidence and no interference on this finding is required by this Court.As far as presence of petromax on the spot where the deceased Hori Lal was done to death is concerned, it is not unnatural or improbable.Using of the petromax as a source of light is a common practice.It appears that due to a typing mistake, section 302 read with section 149 IPC was not typed and on this score, the trial Court finding regarding guilt of the accused appellants cannot be interfered with.Accused appellants were six in numbers.It is established that they committed the murder of Hori Lal and Nattho Devi.Attending circumstances itself establish that they had formed an unlawful assembly.Common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit the present offence and in furtherance of this common object, being the member of unlawful assembly, all the accused appellants committed the present offence.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.Let record of the lower Court be requisitioned.Also heard on I.A. No.59/2016 which is an application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for suspension of jail sentence of the sole appellant- Karanlal S/o Shri Mangilal.The present appellant has suffered conviction and jail sentence, which are as under:Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application (IA No.59/2016) is allowed.It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rs.Thirty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on payment of fine, the appellant shall be released on bail for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 27.04.2016 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed, by the Registry of this Court, in this behalf.Certified copy, as per Rules.(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Arun/-",['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
"She was married to A-2, Anup Singh on July 6, 1992 inaccordance with the Hindu rites and rituals.After few days ofher marriage, when Renu Bala visited the house of herparents, she complained as to how accused persons weretreating her with cruelty by putting demands for refrigeratorand scooter as dowry.It was alleged that on January 5, 1993,Kamla Devi, mother of Renu Bala came to know from TilakRaj, her brother-in-law that Renu Bala was admitted in a 2 hospital at Gagret.The policewent to the spot, prepared inquest report and rough spot mapof the place where dead body of Renu Bala was found.TheInvestigating officer also took into possession vomit of RenuBala and the clothes worn by her at the time of vomiting priorto her death.Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.In this appeal challenge is to the judgment of a learnedSingle Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court holdingeach of the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the`IPC') while setting aside the conviction and the sentenceimposed in respect of Section 306 IPC.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The appellants-accused were tried for offencespunishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 IPC.AccusedNo.1 Balwant Singh was father-in-law, accused No.4-KantaDevi was mother-in-law, accused No.3-Ravinder Singh wasbrother-in-law and accused No.2-Anup Singh was husband ofRenu Bala (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased').Thedeceased was daughter of one Gurdayal Singh and KamlaDevi.She, therefore, along with Tilak Raj went tothe hospital, but Renu Bala was not there, and they came toknow that Renu Bala was taken to Patohar Kalan, the villagewhere the accused were staying.Both of them then went tothe residence of the accused and found Renu Bala lying deadin verandah of the house of the accused and none of theaccused was there.Kamla Devi suspected foul play that herdaughter Renu Bala was either killed or was compelled tocommit suicide by consuming poison on account of theirunlawful demand of dowry by the accused and by treating herwith cruelty.She, therefore, lodged a report with the policeEx.PW-3/A under Section 154 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (in short the `Code') at Police Station, Una,which was registered as formal F.I.R. vide Ex.Two letters, which were produced by Devinder 3 Singh, were also taken in possession.Postmortem wasconducted by Dr. Vijay Kumar Raizda, which revealed thatRenu Bala was having pregnancy of fourteen to sixteen weeks.He reserved his opinion regarding cause of death till receipt ofreport of Chemical Analyser.After receiving the report, Dr.Gurcharan Singh opined that cause of death was peripheralcirculatory failure due to aluminum phosphide which wassufficient cause of death in natural course of events.Furtherinvestigation was conducted by ASI, Jarnail Singh, whoobtained two letters produced by Gurdyal Singh, father ofdeceased Renu Bala.After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the Stateas well as learned defence counsel, a charge was framedagainst the accused for the offences punishable underSections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of the IPC and they wereasked as to whether they plead guilty.4 The accused did not plead guilty to the charge andclaimed to be tried.In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 16witnesses.After the prosecution evidence was closedstatements of the accused persons were recorded in terms ofthe Section 313 of the Code.Six witnesses were examined toestablish their innocence.From the suggestions put duringcross examination the accused persons tried to make out acase that deceased was suffering from epilepsy and frustratedby her life she committed suicide.The trial court as notedabove held the accused persons guilty of offences punishableunder Section 498A and 306 IPC while directing acquittal ofthe charge in terms of Section 304-B IPC.In appeal afterreferring to the evidence High Court came to hold that theoffence under Section 306 is not made out.The letters Exh.PW-5/A 5 and PW-5/C show that there was no demand of dowry butthere was improper treatment.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"30.07.13 Item No. 48 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 48And In the matter of: Sushama Mondal Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Bitasok Banerjee For the Petitioner Mr. Subrata Roy For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Rampurhat Police Station Case No. 76 of 2013 dated 31.03.2013 under sections 498A/302/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.The Petitioner is the mother-in-law of the victim.The husband and the father-in-law of the victim are both enlarged on bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"By this application for grant of leave to file appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C., Counsel for the applicant-State has prayed for grant of leave to appeal.She submitted that there was an ample evidence on record regarding the implication of the accused for offence under Section 306 of IPC.There were two children born out of the said wedlock.However, the couple used to often quarrel because the wife wanted to live in Ujjain near her parents.Whereas they were living in the village at Majhania, Distt.Shujalpur and Counsel submitted that in impugned para-10 there was statement by PW1 Monika Trivedi 2 that on the date of the incident on the earlier part of the day, she has seen the husband and wife were quarreling.Thereafter the husband/present accused respondent Durgesh had left for his work and Counsel submitted that this important piece of evidence has been ignored by the trial Court.In impugned para 15 Mahesh Kumar Ray has also corroborated this piece of evidence and Counsel submitted that the impugned order of acquittal be set aside and the matter be remanded for a fresh trial.Counsel for the respondent-husband, per contra, has candidly stated that the domestic quarrel used to generally take place between the husband and wife.The son has categorically stated that it was the wife who was acting in a manner which is not conducive to sympathy since she was asking the husband to sell off the agricultural land which was his only source of living and shift to the city of Ujjain near her parents which was not possible under the circumstances.There is no other incriminating evidence on record to implicate the accused/respondent.",['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
"PW-3 (son of deceased) in his examination in chief deposed as under:""On 04.04.2004, I was coming from Ajmeri gate and going towards Minto Road to supply ice.At about 04:00 PM, we reached Kamla Market, bus stand and a truck TATA 709 bearing registration number HR 38C 2513 came from the back side.The truck driver was driving in rash and negligent manner by driving at high speed and hit ourrickshaw.My father was pulling the rickshaw.He fell down on the road and the front rightside wheel of the truck crushed the legs of my father.Police came at spot as PS was nearby and took my father to LNJP hospital.He was arrived at that time.Police prepared site plan at my instance.Photographers were called who took photographs of the spot.""95/2018 Page 7 of 14During cross examination, PW-3 deposed as under:""It is correct that the rickshaw which was pulled by my father was not broken.Three ice bricks (sillies) were loaded in rickshaw at that time.I did not sustain injuries.I was sitting in rickshaw.The said rickshaw was not overturned.The offending truck was not stopped after hitting the rickshaw.It is correct that my statement is not recorded at the spot.The accused did not go to the hospital....""PW-13 Retired SI Lal Chand (Investigating Officer) during his examination in chief deposed as under:""On 04.04.2004, I was posted at PS Kamla Market as SI.On that day, alongwith Ct.Vinod reached at spot i.e. JLN Marg near Bus Stand Kamla Market, Delhi.One truck no. HP 38C 2513 and cycle thailey were found in accidental condition at the spot.I left Ct.Vinod at spot and I reached at JPN Hospital as it came to know that injured has already been taken to the hospital.I collected the MLC of injured Ram Varan, who was declared unfit of statement.One eyewitness of the accident CRL.LP.95/2018 Page 8 of 14 also met me at the hospital.I came at spot alongwith eyewitness Sunil Kumar and driver Ram Chand.I handed over the rukka to Ct.Vinod for registration of FIR.I inspected the site at the instane of complainant Sunil Kumar and prepared site plan Ex. PW13/B, bearing my signature at point A. I seized the truck and cycle thailey vide seizure memo already Ex. PW 2/B and C, bearing my signature at point C respectively.I got clicked the photographs of spot vide photographs already collectively Ex. P12...."".95/2018 Page 8 of 14During cross examination the witness deposed as under:""The accused Ram chand was the driver on the offending truck at the time of incident.I do not remember whether any damage was caused to cycle thailey by the offending truck due to accident or not.As per my investigation, the offending truck had hit the cycle thailey and injured from behind......""18. PW-2 (Ct. Vinod Kumar) during his examination in chief deposed as under-""On 04.04.2004, I was posted at PS Kamla Market as constable.SI Lal Chand received DD no. 17-A regarding an accident at JLN Marg bus stand, Kamla Market.I alongwith SI Lal Chand went to the spot, where crowd had gathered.Some person from the crowd told me that an accident has occurred and the injured has been taken to JPN hospital.IO left me at spot and went to the hospital.IO came back at the spot and prepared tehrir and handed over to me for registration of CRL.LP.95/2018 Page 9 of 14 case.I went to PS Kamla market and got the case registered.HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL""The case of prosecution against the accused Ran Chand is that on 04.04.2004 at about 4pm at JLN Marg, near Bus Stand, Kamla Market, Delhi, CRL.LP.95/2018 Page 1 of 14 within the jurisdiction of PS Kamla Market, he was found driving Ashok Lee Land Truck 709 bearing registration no HR-38C-2513 (hereinafter as 'offending vehicle') in a rash or negligent manner and while so driving dashed against a rickshaw thela being driven by deceased Ram Baran Yadav and caused his death.""95/2018 Page 1 of 14After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed.The accused was charged with offence under Sections 279/304A of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The accused chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for Statecontended that the impugned judgment dated 02.11.2017 was based on conjectures and surmises and the same deserves to be set aside.Learned counsel for the State further contended that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the statement of the eye witness PW-3/Sunil Kumar in correct perspective.95/2018 Page 2 of 14I have heard the learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.I handed over the original tehrir and copy of FIR to IO.IO called the photographer who took photographs of the spot....""95/2018 Page 9 of 14During cross examination, PW-2 (Ct. Vinod Kumar) deposed as under:""...it is correct that the rickshaw and truck were found in accidental condition when we reached at the spot.I do not remember the time when the photographer arrived at the spot.Public persons were present when we reached at the spot.Prior to proceed to the hospital, IO did not record the statement of any public persons at the spot.When the photographs were got clicked, complainant Sunil Kumar was not present at the spot.Rukka was prepared at the spot.At that time, Sunil Kumar was not present at the spot.IO had obtained the signatures of Sunil Kumar on the rukka/complaint in the hospital.IO handed over me the rukka at about 5:40 PM.It is correct that when IO handed over me the rukka complainant was not present.It is correct complainant did not come to the spot at my presence....""From the perusal of the above testimonies, the presence of PW-3 (Son of the victim and eyewitness) at the spot, at the time of commission of crime, appears to be doubtful.PW-3 (Son of the victim and eyewitness) deposed in his examination in chief that 'At about 04:00 PM, we reached Kamla Market, bus stand and a truck TATA 709 bearing registration number HR 38C 2513 came from CRL.LP.95/2018 Page 10 of 14 the back side.The truck driver was driving in rash and negligent manner by driving at high speed and hit our rickshaw' during cross examination, PW-3 deposed that 'Three ice bricks (sillies) were loaded in rickshaw at that time.I did not sustain injuries.I was sitting in rickshaw.The said rickshaw was not overturned.The offending truck was not stopped after hitting the rickshaw'.The case of the prosecution is that PW-3 was sitting on the thela with his deceased father and at the time of accident he saved himself by jumping from the rickshaw appears to be improbable, as it has emerged on record that there was no arrangement to seat for two persons in the Rickshaw coupled with the statement of other prosecution witnesses that no damage was caused to the thela pulled by the deceased.95/2018 Page 10 of 14Further, PW-3 (Son of the victim and eyewitness) deposed in his examination in chief that'Photographers were called who took photographs of the spot' to the contrary, in his cross examination, PW-3 deposed that 'I do not remember whether the photographs of the spot were got clicked in my presence or not.'Similarly, PW-2 (Ct. Vinod Kumar) with regard to photographs, in his cross examination deposed that, 'When the photographs were got clicked, complainant Sunil Kumar was not present.'Further, PW-3 (son of the deceased) in his cross examination deposed that'The accused did not went to the hospital.' to the contrary PW-13 (Investigating Officer) in his examination in chief deposed that'One eye-witness of the accident namely Sunil Kumar and driver of truck also met me at hospital.' CRL.LP.95/2018 Page 11 of 1495/2018 Page 11 of 14Further, PW-13 (Investigating Officer) in his cross examination mentioned that, 'I came at spot along with eyewitness Sunil Kumar and driver Ram Chand.I handed over rukka to Ct.Vinod for registration of FIR.'To the contrary, PW-2 (Ct. Vinod Kumar) in his cross examination had stated that, 'Rukka was prepared at spot.At that time, Sunil Kumar was not present.'All these witnesses have a different and inconsistent stand in their testimonies which creates a doubt about the presence of PW-3 (Son of the victim and eyewitness) at the spot.Mukta Rani.She deposed as under:""...on that day, I conducted the post-mortem on dead body of deceased Ram Baran Yadav, s/o Sh.All the injuries were ante-mortem, fresh and could be possible in a road traffic accident...""Thus, in the opinion of the doctor the injuries on the person of the deceased could not be possible in a road accident.The prosecution also failed to examine public persons who were present at the time of accident.The rukka and the arrest memo also cannot be relied CRL.LP.95/2018 Page 12 of 14In the present case, on a cumulative reading and appreciation of the entire evidence on record, I am of the considered view that the evidence on record have been held to be unworthy of acceptance because the same is found to be replete with infirmities.There are considerable inconsistencies and discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses, which consequently makes the version of the prosecution fabricated and unreliable.The prosecution has failed to disclose the true genesis of the crime and establish the charges against the accused punishable under Section279/304A IPC.It is settled law that while deciding a leave to appeal petition filed by the State, in case two views are possible, the High Court must not grant leave, if the trial court has taken one of the plausible views, in contrast there to in an appeal filed against acquittal.The learned trial court CRL.LP.95/2018 Page 13 of 14 has taken a holistic view in the matter and carefully analyzed the evidence of all the witnesses.95/2018 Page 13 of 14SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J APRIL 10, 2019//afa CRL.LP.","['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The female is at the age of more than 18 years and if it is counted by the Aadhar Card then more than 16 years.In fact she candidly admits that on the morning of October 1st, she herself telephoned to the appellant to meet her in his car at a certain place, went up to that place and finding him waiting in the car got into that car of her own accord.No doubt, she says that she did not tell the appellant where to go and that it was the appellant himself who drove the car to Guindy and then to Mylapore and other places.Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.By means of writ petition, a challenge has been made to the First Information Report No. 0539 of 2019, registered on 03.06.2019 with Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh for the offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC & Section 7/8 POCSO Act.The perusal of the first information report does not show any allegation that petitioner enticed minor below 18 years.In absence of such allegation, the case would not fall under Section 363 IPC.Reference of Section 366 IPC has also been given.In view of above, the first information report deserves to be quashed.The said date of birth is not correctly recorded in the high school examination certificate.[W.P. No. 3519 (MB) of 2015] decided vide order dated 23.07.2015 has been given.","['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"allowed debajyoti CRM No.8517 of 2018 In re : Captain Mallick ..... Petitioner.Mr. Mukunda Lal Sarkar, Mr. Apalok Basu ..... For the Petitioner.Mr. Avishek Sinha ..... For the State.The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Hanskhali Police Station Case No.332 of 2018 dated 18-09- 2018 under Sections 448/323/326/354B/506/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner submits that following a long-standing civil dispute between the petitioner and the complainant, the present complaint has been lodged on false grounds.The State produces the case diary and refers to the injury reports.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.( Suvra Ghosh, J. ) ( Sanjib Banerjee, J. )","['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"And In the matter of:- Jahangir Sk.448/325/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code has come to this court for anticipatory bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Md. Mumtaz Khan, J.)","['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The deceased in this case was one Mr.P.W.1 and accused are brothers.The deceased, P.W.1 and the second accused were born to the first wife of their father and the first accused was born to the second wife and their father.After their father had gone for second marriage, the deceased and P.W.1 were residing separately.The second accused was in the house of their relative.The first accused was with his father, i.e. with the second wife of the deceased.For a long time, P.W.1 and the deceased were cultivating 2 < acres of land which was owned by the joint family.The accused 1 and 2 were cultivating 1 3/4 acres of land which also belonged to the joint family.5. P.W.15 took up the case for investigation.He also prepared a Rough Sketch showing the place of occurrence.Then, he recovered the blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.She gave opinion that the death was due to the shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries.P.W.15 examined a few more witnesses and then handed over the case diary to his successor.On 06.10.2010 at 10.30 a.m., he arrested the second accused at Nenjamadai Village in the presence of P.W.11 and another witness.At that time, the second accused was wearing a lungi.P.W.16 recovered the same from the second accused.He made voluntary disclosure and stated that he had hidden the aruval in the bank of a tank.Accordingly, he took the police and the witness to the said place and produced the aruval.On returning to the police station, P.W.16 forwarded the second accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the Material Objects also to the Court.On 09.10.2010 at 3.30 p.m., he arrested the first accused in the presence of P.W.12 and another witness.On such arrest, the first accused disclosed the place where he had hidden the aruval.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witness to the said place and produced the aruval.P.W.16 recovered the same under the Mahazar.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.52 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Bomb Blast Cases, Coimbatore.They stood charged for offences under Sections 449, 302, 307 and 506(ii) IPC.By judgment dated 30.09.2011, the trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 302, 324 r/w 34 and 449 IPC and acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 506(ii) IPC.The trial Court sentenced both the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 449 IPC.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused/appellants are before this Court with this appeal.The accused were demanding for actual partition of the joint family properties.Since all of them were not married at that time, the deceased and P.W.1 told them that the joint family properties could be partitioned after marriage was celebrated for all.But, the accused were not satisfied with the said explanation.This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.On 03.10.2010, at about 8.30 p.m., P.W.1 and the deceased were in their house watching Television.At that time, these two accused came in a motor cycle and parked it in front of the house and trespassed into the house of the deceased.On so entering into the house, the first accused attacked the deceased with aruval near his right ear and back of his head.The second accused cut the deceased on the middle of his head.P.W.1 intervened.The second accused cut P.W.1 with aruval on his right hand.Then, both the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.P.W.1 immediately gave a phone call to 108 ambulance and then proceeded to the police station to make a complaint.P.W.14, who was the then Sub Inspector of Police of Udumalapet Police Station, reduced the oral complaint of P.W.1 into writing at 10.30 p.m. on 03.10.2010 at the police station.P.W.1 affixed his Left Thumb Impression on the same.On the said complaint, he registered a case in Cr.No.5175 of 2010 under Sections 302, 307 and 506(ii) IPC.He also recovered the motor cycle [M.O.1], which was parked in front of the house of the deceased.He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for post-mortem. P.W.6 - Dr.Jothi Mani conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 04.10.2010 at 12.10 p.m. She found the following injuries:External injuries:(1) Cut injury measuring 15 x 10 cm extending deep to the brain, over right occipital bone, behind right ear, exposing brain matter.(2) Cut injury measuring about 5 x 3 cm extending deep to the brain present just below the injury No.2 exposing the brain matter.(3) Small cut injury centre of parietal region 1 x 1cm.(4) Lacerated wound 3 x 2 cm right shoulder.(5) Lacerated wound 3 x 2 x 1 cm left thigh.""P7 is the Post-mortem Certificate.On returning to the police station, he forwarded the first accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the Material Objects also to the Court.On request, the Material Objects were sent for chemical analysis.It revealed that there were blood stains on the Material Objects, including the aruval recovered from the accused.On completing the investigation, P.W.16 laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the above charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 16 witnesses were examined and 24 documents were exhibited, besides 21 Material Objects.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.P.Ws.3 and 4 have spoken about the Observation Mahazar, the Rough Sketch and the recovery of Material Objects from the place of occurrence.P.W.5 has spoken about the photographs taken by him at the place of occurrence.P.W.6 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted by him and the final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.7 has stated that, on 04.10.2010 at 3.15 a.m. P.W.1 was brought to the police station for treatment.According to this witness, the injuries were simple in nature.P.W.8- Dr.Kavitha has stated that, on 06.10.2010 at 7.30 p.m., she examined the second accused on being produced by the police after arrest.She noticed a healed cut injury measuring 3.5 x 0.3 x 0.3 cm on the left thumb.P.W.9 has spoken about the chemical examination done on the Material Objects.P.W.10 has turned hostile.He has not supported the prosecution case in any manner.P.W.11 has spoken about the arrest of the second accused and consequential recovery of aruval on the disclosure statement made by him.P.W.12 has stated about the arrest of the first accused and the disclosure statement made by him as well as the consequential recovery of aruval at his instance.P.W.14 has spoken about the registration of the case.P.Ws.15 and 16 have spoken about the investigation done respectively and the Final Report submitted.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor they did mark any documents in their favour.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.In this case, P.Ws.1 and 2 have claimed that they witnessed the entire occurrence.P.W.1 is an injured eye witness.Therefore, his presence in the place of occurrence cannot be doubted.P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that, he and the deceased alone were there in their house at the time of occurrence.Where there is no mention about the presence of P.W.2 by P.W.1, it has to be examined whether P.W.2 would have been present at the time of occurrence.P.W.2 has stated that he was also inside the house of the deceased watching Television along with the deceased.As we have already pointed out, P.W.1 has stated that he alone was present along with the deceased and they were watching Television.The trial Court has concluded that, P.W.2 would not have seen the occurrence at all.In the said conclusion arrived at by the trial Court, we do not find any infirmity warranting interference.It is settled law that, if the evidence of a solitary witness inspires the confidence of Court, then even without expecting any corroboration from any other independent source, the Court can act upon the same.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of VADIVELU THEVAR vs STATE OF MADRAS (1957 AIR 614, 1957 SCR 981), has held that, if a solitary eye witness is partly believable and partly unbelievable, then his evidence cannot be the foundation for conviction, unless it draws corroboration from any other independent source.First of all, according to him, immediately after the occurrence at 8.30 p.m., he went to the police station and made a complaint at 8.45 p.m. But ,P.W.1 has stated that, the complaint was obtained only at 10.30 p.m. Ex.P1 is the complaint which came into being at 10.30 p.m. If that be so, there is no explanation as to what had happened to the complaint which was made at the earliest point of time at 8.45 p.m. P.W.1 is an illiterate person.He has only affixed his Left Thumb Impression.After all, the police station and the house of the learned Magistrate are in the very same town within a short distance.At that time, he had told the Doctor that he was attacked by a single known person, whereas, according to the prosecution case, two accused participated in the crime.Though his attention was drawn to the said statement made in the Accident Register, he did not give any explanation as to why he told the Doctor that only one person participated in the occurrence.This also creates doubt.The motor cycle [M.O.1] was seized from the place of occurrence, but, there was no investigation as to whom the motor cycle belonged to.The owner of the motor cycle was also not examined.Had he been examined, some light would have been thrown as to whether these two accused came in the motor cycle to the place of occurrence or not.Though the presence of P.W.1 cannot be doubted, his veracity is doubtful.Going by the very strong motive on account of the property dispute between the two families, the possibility of roping in of the entire family of the accused cannot be ruled out.On one side, the deceased and P.W.1 were residing as one family, whereas these two accused were residing separately.The dispute was in respect of the ancestral property.Therefore, the possibility of P.W.1 to rope in both the accused to wreak vengeance cannot be ruled out at any rate.In our considered view, it is too difficult to act solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of P.W.1 alone.Therefore, we find it difficult to sustain the conviction.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This petition has been filed to set aside the judgment dated 26.07.2013 in C.A.No.7 of 2013 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Tiruppur, confirming the judgment dated 22.01.2013 in S.T.C.No.5816 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.On 21.02.2010, around 7.45 p.m., a motor accident took place in Uralpatti, in connection with which, on the complaint lodged by Ramakrishnan, the respondent police have registered a case in Cr.No.124 of 2010 and after completing the investigation, filed final report before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet, which was taken on file as STC No.5816 of 2010 and process was issued to the accused.On the appearance of the accused, charges for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 (2 counts) IPC were framed against him.When questioned, he pleaded 'not guilty'.To prove the case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and marked 8 documents.The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and he denied the same.On the side of the accused, no witness was examined nor was any document marked.Amongst the witnesses examined by the prosecution, two were doctors, viz., Dr.Roy Wilson Amsraj [P.W.8] and Dr.Madhu Periyasami [P.W.9] who had given treatment to the two victims immediately after the incident.The police arrested the accused on 23.02.2010 and he was released on bail on the same day.After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment dated 22.01.2013, convicted the accused for the said offences and sentenced him to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 279-A IPC and three months Rigorous Imprisonment for each counthttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 for the offence under Section 338 IPC.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused filed Crl.A.No.7 of 2013, which was heard by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, who has dismissed the same on 26.07.2013, challenging which, the accused has filed the present revision petition.6. Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent - State.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the accused had driven the offending tractor in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the injuries to Madhuramakrishnan [P.W.1] and Kalimuthu [P.W.2].He further contended that Madhuramakrishnan [P.W.1] being a volunteer in the police force, he has sustained injuries somewhere and has filed a bogus motor complaint.He further contended that from the nature of the injuries suffered by Madhuramakrishnan [P.W.1], it cannot be stated that he was hit by the trailer driven by the accused.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) refuted the contentions.This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.[a] Madhuramakrishnan [P.W.1], in his evidence, has stated that he is a P.E.T.Master in Srinivasa School and that he also serves as Traffic Warden during peak hours to regulate traffic; on 21.02.2010, he, along with his friend Kalimuthu [P.W.2], had gone to attend the marriage of their friend in his bike TN-41-V-2637; he was driving the motor cycle and near Kommum Road, a tractor came on the other side of the road and when it swerved to the right, the rod in the tractor hit against his knees resulting in his leg getting split and both being thrown on the ground with their two wheeler; the tractor went about 15 feet away and stopped; on seeing this, the local people gathered and the driver of the tractor ran away; the locals called 108 ambulance and sent both of them to the Government Hospital, Udumalpet for first aid and from there, Madhuramakrishnan [P.W.1] was taken to Ganga Hospital in Coimbatore, where the doctors declared that his right leg cannot be rejoined; the next day, the police came to the hospital and recorded his statement; he has also given the number of the tractor, viz., TN-41-2905, both in his evidence as well in the complaint, which formed the basis for registration of the FIR.In the cross-http://www.judis.nic.in 5 examination, he was questioned about the route which he had taken to reach Udumalpet, for which, he has given necessary answers.When he was asked as to whether there was a trailer in the tractor, he stated in the affirmative, however, stated that he did not know what were the goods found inside the trailer.In fact, in the cross-examination, he has stated that since the tractor had come over the road, the hind portion hit them.He also admitted in the cross-examination that his vehicle was not covered by insurance.Ultimately, it was suggested to him that since he being a Traffic Warden, he has managed to lodge a false complaint against the accused and that the alleged vehicle was not involved in the offence.[b] Similar is the evidence of Kalimuthu [P.W.2] who was a pillion rider and he also sustained injuries and was taken to the Government Hospital by ambulance, where he underwent treatment.In his cross-examination, it has been suggested that Madhuramakrishnan [P.W.1] had driven the two wheeler very rashly and on account of that, the accident had taken place.Since the vehicle of Madhuramakrishnan [P.W.1] was not covered by insurance, a false complaint has been filed against the accused for compensation, which suggestion to Kalimuthu [P.W.2] was denied.The Motor Vehicle Inspector has clearly stated that the accident had not taken place on account of any mechanical failure in the two vehicles.From the evidence of the two doctors, it is apparent that Madhuramakrishnan [P.W.1] lost hishttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 leg and he had to be fitted with Jaipur foot and therefore, the injuries suffered by him are grievous in nature.This Court is unable to countenance the submission of the learned counsel of the accused that a false case has been foisted on the accused for the sake of compensation.The fact remains that after the accident, the tractor was found abandoned in the road and based on that, the identity of the accused has been fixed.This has not been denied by the accused.22.11.2018 gmshttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 To 1 The Inspector of Police Komaralingam Police Station Tiruppur District 2 The Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur 3 The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet.R.C.No.977 of 2013 22.11.2018http://www.judis.nic.in",['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Heard on the question of admission.The appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.This is an application under Section 389 of CrPC for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.2 Ratan Singh.The appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 326/149, 147 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of five years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 750/- with default imprisonment respectively.It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant No.2 that although his name is mentioned in the FIR but the injured Than Singh (P.W.1) has specifically stated that the appellant No.1 Havaldar Singh and appellant No.2 Ratan Singh had assaulted by means of lathis.The Trial Court by order dated 11.1.2017 had partially allowed the said application and the offence under Sections 323, 34, 506 Part II and 294 of IPC were permitted to be compounded and the appellant was acquitted for the said offences.Since, the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC was not compoundable, therefore, the said application was rejected.Thus, it is submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for a period of approximately 4 months.The application is opposed by the counsel for the State.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, subject to deposit of fine, it is directed that the remaining jail sentence of the appellant No.2 Ratan Singh shall remain suspended and he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) along with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.The appellant shall appear before the office of this Court on 30.08.2017 and on subsequent dates given by the Office for appearance till the disposal of the present appeal.Certified copy as per rules.","['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged at the instance of the complainant alleging defalcation of approximately Rs. 64 Lacs in the matter of handling certain shares that were entrusted to the petitioner No. 1, who is the Managing Director of Unicon Securities Pvt. Ltd., which is stated to be a company dealing with the trading of shares on behalf of various clients.In other words, the company had been entrusted with shares by the complainant and his wife as their broker/agent.It is stated that the approximate value of the shares of the complainants at the time of the alleged offence was about Rs. 64 Lacs.The said amount is stated to have been paid in full.In addition, counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, which he has received during the lunch break today on the telephone, states that his client is also willing to pay a further sum of Rs. 3 Lacs towards costs in the matter.Counsel for the complainant submits that the matter has been amicably settled and that his client has received the aforesaid amount of Rs.64 Lacs in full and final settlement of his claims and also the claims of his wife in the matter.He further states that the complainant has injured his backbone, and is therefore, totally bedridden and has been unable to come to the Court today.This petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 67/2012 registered at Police Station Connaught Place under Sections 409/420/120B IPC, and the proceedings emanating therefrom, allegedly on the ground that the matter has been settled.After investigation, the chargesheet is stated to have been filed on 30.05.2012, and the matter is at a pre-charge stage before the trial court.A CRL.M.C. 3550/2014 Page 1 of 7 copy of the deed of settlement setting down the terms upon which the matter has been resolved between the parties has also been annexed to this petition.Proof of deposit of costs be filed within one week thereafter with the Registry with another copy to the Investigating Officer.CRL.M.C. 3550/2014 Page 6 of 7Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 67/2012 registered at Police Station Connaught Place under Sections 409/420/120B IPC, and the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition, along with the accompanying application, stands disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"It is directed that the applicant Sitaram, shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The applicant shall abide by the conditions as enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in the event of breach of condition of bail, the trial Court will be competent to take coercive action against the applicant.C.C. as per rules.Case diary perused.This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant.The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.142/2019, registered at Police Station Moondi, District Khandwa, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354, 354-A of IPC and sections 7, 8 of POCSO Act.The allegation of prosecution is that on 17.5.2019 at about 8:00 pm, when prosecutrix, aged about 14 years was going from her old house to new house situated at Ward No.1 village Goundbedi, under the jurisdiction of Police Station Moondi, District Khandwa, applicant had intercepted her and taken her to the house of Ramya Nihal.It is alleged that the maternal Uncle of prosecutrix reached there and on seeing him, the applicant fled from the spot.The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her maternal Uncle Ram Gopal and mother Pramila.Thereafter the report of the incident was lodged.On that basis aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicant.The trial will take a long time to conclude.It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned counsel for State has opposed the application for bail.The High Court of Madhya Pradesh M.Cr.C.No.24636/2019 (Sitaram Vs.State of M.P. ) 2 Allegation of taking hold of the hands of prosecutrix is against the applicant.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and duration of his custody, I find this to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.Accordingly, this application is allowed.This M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.","['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The Petitioners/A-1 and A-2 have focussed the instant Criminal RevisionCase as against the order dated 27.10.2015 in Crl.R.C.No.4 of 2015 passed bythe Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur in reversing the order passed bythe learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur in Crl.M.P.No.8640 of 2014 inC.C.No.836 of 2007 dated 11.02.2015 in dismissing the petition.The Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, while passing theimpugned order on 27.10.2015 in Crl.R.C.No.4 of 2015 filed by therespondent/revision petitioner/complainant, at paragraph No.7, had observedthe following:?This is a case u/s 406 I.P.C. The specific case of the prosecution isthat the accused had misappropriated the Provident Fund and Medical Fund deducted from the salary of the de facto complainant and all these can beproved only through documentary evidence.""and consequently, allowed the Criminal Revision Petition, by setting asidethe order dated 11.02.2015, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,Karur in Crl.M.P.No.8640 of 2014 in C.C.No.836 of 2007 and allowed themiscellaneous petition.Earlier, the Learned Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Karur inCrl.M.P.No.8640 of 2014 in C.C.No.836 of 2007 on 11.02.2015, filed by therespondent/petitioner/complainant, seeking permission to permit the defactocomplainant, P.W.1 to be re-examined and to allow the documents filed alongwith the petition to be marked through him, had dismissed the petition byobserving that ' a reading of Section 311 Cr.P.C shows that it only permitsthe Court to recall the witnesses for the just decision of the case and notfor filing additional documents and opined that filing of documents underSection 311 Cr.P.C was not maintainable' and ultimately dismissed thepetition.Being aggrieved against the order dated 27.10.2015 in Crl.R.C.No.4of 2015 passed by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, the RevisionPetitioners/A-1 and A-2 have projected the present Revision case before thisCourt primarily contending that the ingredients of Section 311 of Cr.P.C doesnot contemplate the recall of witness for the purpose of marking newdocuments.P.C is not to drag on the proceedings endlessly and in fact, the saidsection does not confer a right to prosecution to harass the RevisionPetitioners/accused by filing petitions.According to the Learned counsel for the Petitioners, the LearnedPrincipal Sessions Judge, Karur, had failed to note that of marking of'Additional Documents' will amount to fresh trial and that the petition inCrl.Lastly, the Learned counsel for the Petitioners projects an argumentthat Crl.The revision petitioners had filed a counter to Crl.Be that as it may, in view of the fact that therespondent/petitioner/complainant had sought for permission of the trialCourt to permit the defacto complainant/P.W.1 to be re-examined and to markthe documents mentioned in the list namely serial Nos.1 to 19 (annexed alongwith the petition) and also this Court, on going through the impugned orderof the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, dated 27.10.2015 in Crl.R.C.No.4 of2015 in allowing the said Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the orderof the trial Court in Crl.Consequently, this Criminal Revision Case fails.Resultantly, the order dated 27.10.2015 in Crl.R.C.No.4 of 2015 passed by theLearned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, in reversing the order dated11.02.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.8640 of 2014, in C.C.No.836 of 2007, passed by theLearned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur is affirmed by this Court, for thereasons assigned in this Criminal Revision Case.It is made clear that thedismissal of the present Criminal Revision Case will not preclude thepetitioners/accused to take all factual and legal pleas before the trialcourt, at the time of marking of documents, of course, in the manner known tolaw and in accordance with law.Consequently, connected M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Karur.2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Karur.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..",['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Prayer in Crl.The accused is Ex.Another letter namely Ex.P3 dated 07.03.2001 purported to have been sent by the accused in the complaint is also stated to have contained similar defamatory remarks against the complainant school authorities.It is urged by the complainant that these letters contained words of defamatory in nature which would lower the reputation of the school in the eyes of the authorities and the public and that it is an actionable wrong.5 [B] As far as document Ex.Geoffery K.Francis .. Respondent in Crl.A.Nos.840 & 841 of 2004/ Petitioner in Crl.RC Nos.153 & 154 of 2007 Prayer in Crl.A.Nos.840 & 841 of 2004 : Appeal filed under section 378 Cr.P.C., against the order of acquittal dated 14.06.2004 passed in C.C.Nos.9370 of 2001 & 7469 of 2002 by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrates' Court, Egmore, Chennai.For Appellant : Mr.N.D.Bahety For Respondent : Mr.Adrian D. Rozario COMMON JUDGMENT The following are the allegations contained in the complaint laid by the complainant, namely School Association (in C.C.No.7469 of 2002) 1 [A] The complainant is an Association registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and governing body running, managing and administrating the schools and properties of the trust of Doveton Institution at Ritherdon Road, Vepery, Chennai  600 007 and that these schools and institutions are one of the premier, renown, reputed and respected schools and institutions of the City of Chennai and especially in the area of Vepe ry in Chennai, that the accused is the Ex.M.L.A. (nominated) of Tamil Nadu, the President of the Friends-In-Need Society in No.29, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai  600 003, the President-in-Chief of The Anglo-Indian Association of Southern India and alleged Member of the State Board of Anglo Indian Education, Member of the Senate of the Madras University and a Self-styled recognized educationist of 27 years standing, that the accused is in no way connected with the complainant and is also not a member of its Association.1[B] Right from 1997 onwards the accused has, besides others been deliberately defaming the complainant by lodging one complaint after another against the complainant, especially regarding the collection of massive donations, amassing of unaccounted money, misappropriation, corruption of its Board members, various irregularities, etc., that as against these false and fraudulent accusations, the complainant has already filed C.S.No.375 of 2001 in the High Court of Madras for declaration and injunction, and also C.C.No.9370 of 2011 for defamation, etc. on the file of the Learned II Metropolitan Magistrates' Court at Egmore, Chennai, both of which are still pending, that in spite of the pendency of these legal proceedings, the accused has once again defamed the complainant by his letter dt.22.11.2001 written to the Inspector of Anglo-Indian Schools with copies thereof marked to various other statutory authorities and others including the complainant, inter alia once again defamatorily falsely alleging and accusing that the complainant is unauthorisedly collecting funds, compelling students to donate, etc. which even to the knowledge of the accused are totally false, without ay basis or supported by any iota of proof or substance, that this has been resorted to by the accused without any official authority or authorisation whatsoever from any Board or Committee, and also without any locus standi whatsoever, that as a result of this, the accused has been put to gross harm, damage and humiliation thereby per se defamng the complainant and causing damage and disrepute to its fair name and reputation not only with the Government bodies and authorities but also in and with the parents and the public at large, with the MLA and others enquiring into the matter, though finding no basis and substance in the said complaint of the accused, that the accused has for the second time once again committed the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC per se defaming the complainant Section 503 of criminal intimidation and Section 505(2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes, etc. and hence, the complaint is filed.Following are the allegations contained in the complaint laid by the complainant, namely School Association (in C.C.No.9370 of 2002) -2[A] Apart from the allegations contained in the complainant laid by the complainant in C.C.No.7469 of 2002, it is also alleged that the complaints have been lodged with the Government of Tamil Nadu, the Director of School Education, the Inspector of Anglo-Indian Schools, the Income Tax Department, the Registrar of Societies to and with the press, public platforms, nominated Anglo-Indian Member of Parliament, nominated Anglo-Indian MLA of Tamil Nadu, etc., though after due inquiry, personal inspection and verification of the records of the complainant, by the orders of the Court, that all these allegations and accusations have been proved to be false, fraudulent, futile and naught.2[B] Considering the fact that the accused was a reputed and honoured representative of the Anglo-Indian community, the complainant had not taken any steps or measures against the accused earlier, other than issuing notices through its Advocate, that bolden by the earlier inaction of the complainant over the said false, frivolous and futile complainants earlier filed, the accused though without any locus standi whatsoever with gross impunity, continuing to defame the complainant falsely accusing it of collecting massive donations, amassing unaccounted money, misappropriation and misapplication of funds and resources, various irregularities, etc. thereby per se defaming the complainant and causing damage and disrepute to its fair name and reputation, that first on 07.11.2000 and then again on 16.11.2000, the Headmaster of the complainant's Boys School had written letters to the mother and natural guardian of Mr.Sheik Wasim a student studying in STD VIA calling upon her to pay the balance of the donation payable towards the admission of the said child, that inadvertent use of the word donation became the cause of a complaint dt.23.1.2001 filed by the Member of Parliament with the Inspector of Anglo-Indian Schools, Chennai who by its letter dt.25.1.2001 called for an explanation from the complainant and to which an explanation dt.29.1.2001 was also given, and where after a personal inspection was also made by the said inspector, who found that no donations had been actually and factually collected by the complainant, that the use of the said word by the Headmaster was only out of inadvertence whereas the balance amount payable was only towards the building fees and not towards donation, that in as much as the fees for Anglo-Indian children is being reimbursed by the Government and in order not to be caught as cheating the Government, the complainant by its letter dt.30.1.2001 called upon Mrs.Louisa Fayaz to submit her marriage certificate and the copy of which was also submitted by her, that the finding from the said marriage certificate that the said Mrs.Louisa Fayaz had actually converted to Islam and had also changed her name to Suraiya Fayaz and had ceased to even be a Christian much less an Anglo-Indian, the complainant by its letter dt.09.02.2001 called upon her to give her explanation thereto as to why her son should not be removed from the rolls of the school for having made a false representation for the sake of getting admission, that the said Louisa Fayaz by her letters dt.05.02.2001 and 06.02.2001 pleaded of her having been misguided by the accused and the Member of Parliament and called upon the Christian charity and benevolence of the complainant for the continuation of the studies of her son in the school, that surprisingly a reply dt.12.2.2001 was received by the complainant from the accused, besides others once again not only interfering with the internal management and affairs of the complainant further defaming the complainant of collecting massive donations, amassing unaccounted money, misappropriation and misapplication of funds and resources, various and numerous irregularities, etc. inspite of the fact that the accused had no locus standi, that to this a reply dt.17.2.2001 was given by the complainant, and to which a rejoinder dt.07.03.2001 was again given by the accused, once again not only per se defaming the complainant of collecting massive donations but also calling and accusing the complainant's advocate as being one who "".... hold the school to ransom through his devious and vicious techniques just to milk the school and to continue to drink the blood of the Anglo-Indian community by applying devious tactics..."" and being ""a third rate lawyer"", that the accused has committed the offence punishable under the IPC Section 500 of per se defaming the complainant, Section 503 of Criminal intimidation and Section 505 (2) statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes, etc. and hence, the complaint is filed.After the complainant's evidence was over, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as regards incriminating materials available against him in complainant's evidence.He denied the complicity to the offences.He did not examine any witness not had he marked any documents.After analysing the evidence on record, the learned II Metropolitan.Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai found the accused not guilty under Sections 505 (2) IPC.As far as the charges against the accused under Sections 503 and 505 (2) IPC are concerned, it is held that there are no materials to show that the accused committed the offences of intimidation and the mischief done by the accused has no value at all and he was acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. As far as the charge against the accused under Section 500 IPC, the accused was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in each of the cases.The accused preferred C.A.Nos.283 and 284 of 2004 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.The learned Appellate Judge, after considering the materials, confirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeals.Hence, the accused has preferred the revision in Crl.A.Nos.840 & 841 of 2004 before this court.Since all the matters are interconnected, this common judgment is rendered.The points for consideration which has arisen in this case are -[2] Whether the acquittal of the accused under Section 503 IPC is proper in both complaints ?Point 1 :-5[A] The complainant School is one among the premier, renowned, reputed and respected schools and institutions of the City of Chennai.MLA (nominated) of Tamil Nadu who is also holding the position as the President of The Friends-In-Need Society, Chennai, President-in-Chief of The Anglo-Indian Association of Southern India, Chennai and alleged Member of the State Board of Anglo-Indian Education, Member of the Senate of the Madras University as well.The letter emanated from the accused on 12.02.2001 marked as Ex.P2 in which the accused has questioned the attitude of the School Authority to collect donation / fees from the students which is reportedly not authorised.It is the contention of the complainant that this letter contains defamatory remarks against the school.Hence, it could be easily understood that Ex.P4 postal cover should have contained the original letter of Ex.The appellant also filed affidavit in support of his applications.The xerox copy of Ex.This point is answered as indicated.",['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
"P.W. 1, Bibhuti Mahato, is the defacto complainant in the instant case.He is the husband of P.W. 4, the victim.He stated that he was not present at the time of incident.Upon returning he heard the incident.He helped victims to be taken to the hospital in his bullock cart.He also accompanied them.They took the cart first to the police station at Simlapal and thereafter as directed by the police officer to Pubic Health Centre.They reported the incident to the Officer-in-Charge.He stated that S. I. of police went to the village on that day and seized bows and arrows from the house of the appellant no.1, Satish Mahato.He signed on the seizure list.In cross-examination, he stated that there was 'salish' in the village.He could not recollect whether that document was handed over to the Investigating Officer.P. W. 10, Dr. Bikash Chandra Roy, was the Medical Officer who treated the victims at Bankura Medical College.All the patients were admitted in the surgical ward of the hospital.It is about 10 cubits away from his house.P. W. 14, Ajit Kumar Ray, is the Ward Master of Bankura Medical College.He stated that on 4.6.1995, the Investigating Officer seized three arrows from the office of Bankura Medical College under the seizure list.He also stated that he examined the victim, Gitarani Mahato and found the following injuries:1) One arrow injury on the lower part of the left arm through and that the arrow was found to have perforated that portion of the arm of the patient completely.2) An arrow injury in the left buttock size of the injury not noted.The arrow was found penetrated surgical operation had to be found said two places to extricate the arrows.Arrow extracted from the victim was sent to the office of the Ward Master.He also found the following injuries on the victim, Mithila Mahato:According to him, injuries were simple in nature.He stated that the injury no.1 was caused by sharp cutting weapon and might have been caused by the blade of an arrow.P. W. 16, Tarun Ghatak, is the Investigating Officer of the case.He took up investigation of the instant case.He visited the place of occurrence.He did not, however, draw sketch map of the place of occurrence.He recorded the statements of witnesses.He seized incriminating articles including bows, arrows etc. from the house of the accused persons.He collected the injury reports from Simlapal P. H. C. as well as Bankura Medical Centre.He also collected extracted arrows from the office of Bankura Medical Centre Ward Master.Victims narrated that the incident happened for half an hour whereas P. Ws. 3 and 13 it was occurred for 5/7 minutes.It is common knowledge that understanding and appreciation of the time span of an incident varies from person to person.Injured witnesses were not wearing watches and could not be expected to have noticed exactly the time span of their attack.passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Bankura in Session Case No. 7 of October, 1985 (Session Trial No. 3 of January, 1986) convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 307/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively, all the sentences to run concurrently.Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellants is to the effect that on 01.02.1985 at about 8/9a.m.Snehalata Mahato, P.W. 4, her sister- in-law Gita Rani Mahato, P.W. 5, and mother-in-law Smt. Mithila Mahato, P.W. 6 were transplanting paddy seedlings on a portion of plot no. 100, Kastura Mouza which their family had acquired by purchase.The appellants being armed with bows, arrows, lathis and other weapons attacked them and inflicted serious injuries on each of the three women by shooting arrows and striking lathi blows on them.The incident was reported to the police station by Bibhuti Mahato, P.W. 1, husband of Snehalata Mahato, resulting in registration of first information report being Simlipal P.S. 1/6 dated 01.02.1985 under Section 147/307/149/323/324 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and one Mithila Mahato.Charge sheet was filed against the appellants and Mithila Mahato under the aforesaid sections.The case being a sessions triable one was committed to the Court of Sessions, Bankura and transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Bankura for trial and disposal.Charge under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 307/149 in respect of the assault upon P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 and under Section 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code respectively for the assault upon P.W. 6 was framed.The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In the course of trial the prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses and exhibited a number of documents.The defence of the appellants was one of false implication and innocence.It was the specific defence of the appellants that plot no. 100 was under the bargadarship of the appellant, Satish Mahato and the victims had no right to transplant paddy on the said land.In support of such defence, D.W. 1 was examined who exhibited the record of rights in respect of the said plot.In conclusion of trial the learned Trial Judge by judgement and order dated 11.05.1987 convicted the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 307/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively, all the sentences to run concurrently.By the self- same judgement the learned Trial Judge acquitted Mithila Mahato.She also submits that the victims had not narrated the names of the appellants before the doctors.She submits that the purported eye witnesses P.Ws 3 and13 could not have been seen to the incident in view of the fact that they were at a far-off distance from the place of occurrence.She further submits that there is confusion as to the time of registration of the first information report as P.W. 1, in his cross-examination, stated that the written complaint was handed over to the police when they had come to the village pursuant to this salish.He along with others had removed the victims to the Simlipal Public Hospital and thereafter Bankura Sammilani Medical College and Hospital.On the way to PHC, they alighted at the police station.Dhirendranath Rana, P.W. 9, scribed the first information report as per his instruction which was lodged at the police station.P.W. 2, Harasundar Satpati, was declared hostile.He however stated that he found that the victims viz. P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 were injured by arrows and were lying at the place of occurrence.He could not name the assailants.P.W. 3, Sudhir Kumar Rana, is an eye- witness to the incident.He stated that he saw the incident.While he was returning home, his brother's daughter told him that a number of persons were going towards the field being armed with bows and arrows.Thereafter, the miscreants left the place of occurrence.He also found that bleeding injury on the body of the Mithila but did not find any arrow in her body.He stated that the place was visible from his house.P.W. 4, Snehalata Mahato, is the victim and one of the most vital witnesses of the case.She stated that she was transplanting the paddy in the field.At that time the appellants assembled at the place and started shooting arrows at them.The arrow shot by the appellant no. 1, Satish, struck her in the flesh.P.Ws. 5 and 6 were also struck by arrows.In cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that the arrows came from the side of Bamon para.She stated that there is a village pathway on the West of their house about 40/50 cubits away.She stated Mahantapara was one bigha away from the land where they were working.P.W. 5, Gita Rani Mahato, was also working at the field with Snehalata, P. W. 4 and Mithila, P. W. 6 on the fateful day.They were transplanting paddy.She deposed that the appellants came to the place of occurrence and started shooting arrows at them which penetrated their flesh.Thereafter the appellants ran away.She stated that they were removed to Simlapal Public Health Centre and thereafter to Bankura Medical College.In cross-examination, she stated that between the place of occurrence and the village there are 15/20 big plots of land.There is a 'doba' after those plots near the dwelling house.After the 'doba' there is a village pathway.The house of Sudhir Rana, (P.W.2) and Dhiren Rana (P. W. 9) are situated by the side of their house.She stated that there was a 'salish' in the village over the incident.She was not present at the 'salish' P. W. 6, Mithila Mahato, is another injured victim.She stated that she was hit by arrow as well as by 'lathi' blow.She fell down on the land.She stated that the appellant no.3, Habu, dealt the lathi blow on her.She could only identify Habu.In cross-examination, she stated that land where they were transplanting paddy, Prahlad, Satish and her sons were co- sharers.P. W. 7, Tarapada Mahato, is the husband of Gita Rani Mahato, P. W.He is a post-occurrence witness.He along with P. W. 1 removed the victims to Simlapal P.H.C. in a cart.P. W. 8, Kishori Mahato was tendered for cross-examination.P. W. 9, Dhirendranath Rana, is the scribe of the First Information Report.He has stated that he went to the place of occurrence and found that the victims had been struck by arrows while they were transplanting paddy.He stated that he saw the appellants running away from the place of occurrence with bows and arrows.In cross-examination, he stated that history of assault was noted in the report as clash over a plot of land between two groups of people but he did not note the name of the person who stated it.P. W. 11, Dr. Sanatan Mondal, was the doctor who treated the victims at Simlapal P. H. C. He referred the victims to Bankura Medical College.P. W. 12, Chittaranjan Satpati, was tendered for cross-examination.In cross-examination, he stated that the appellants had disputes with P. W. 1 and P. W. 6 over landed property.P. W. 13, Kamalakanta Mahato, claims to be an eyewitness.He stated that on 1.2.1985 at about 8 to 9 A.M., he was seated by the side of a 'doba' along the village pathway.About four bighas away, victims were transplanting paddy in plot no. 100 of Mouza Kastora.At that time, the appellants being armed with bows, arrows, lathi etc. went to the place of occurrence and started shooting arrows at the victims.As a result, victims, Snehalata and Gita, were struck by arrows.He rushed to the place of occurrence and found the victims were lying there.He was standing by the side of the 'doba'.He proved his signature Ext. 5/1 in the seizure list.P. W. 15, Dr. Satya Ranjan Dey, is the Medical Officer attached to Bankura Medical College.The victims were admitted under him in the Female Surgical Ward of the hospital.He stated as follows :I examined the patient Snehalata Mahato and found that she had the following injury:-1) An arrow inserted in the abdomenal cavity from the left lateral side in the posterior axillary line at tenth inter coastorl space - direction of the arrow having been found to be inward downward and towards the back of the patient.He stated that he operated on Snehalata and extracted the arrow.He filed charge sheet against the accused persons.In cross- examination, he admitted that he did not interrogate the victims or record their statements.D. W. 1, Panchanan Mahato, exhibited the record of rights in respect of Plot no. 100 which was marked as Ext.The evidence of the injured witnesses have been criticised by Ms. Sinha on the score that they were not examined in the course of investigation and deposed for the first time in Court.It appears from the evidence on record particularly the trend of cross-examination, that the defence has not disputed the prosecution case that the victims, namely P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6, had suffered injuries on their persons by arrows as well as assault by hand blunt substance in plot no. 100 of Mouza Kustora on the date and time of occurrence.The defence, however, has strongly disputed the fact that the appellants were not the authors of such injuries.In that regard, Ms. Sinha criticised the evidence of P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6 as unreliable as they had deposed for the first time in court and it has come on record that there was enmity between the families of the victims and that of the appellants over land dispute.She has also argued that P. Ws. 3 and 13, who were in the village at that time, could not have seen the incident from a distance.P. W. 3 was returning to his house which is situated beside the house of P. W. 1 when he heard hue and cry.He saw the appellants going towards the place of occurrence being armed with bows, arrows and lathi etc. Thereafter he saw the appellants shot arrows at the victims and also assault them.It has been argued he could not have seen the incident because there 15/16 plots of agricultural land between the village Mahatopara and the place of occurrence.In cross-examination, P. W. 1 has stated that the place of occurrence was about one bigha away from his house.The house of P. W. 3 is situated besides that of the victims.PW 3 is a most natural witness to the occurrence who saw the incident after noticing that the appellants were proceeding to the paddy field being armed with bows, arrows, lathi, etc. There is nothing on record to establish that he could not have seen the incident from the place where he was standing.He stated that the P.O. was visible from his house.Similarly, P. W. 13 was sitting in the village pathway running opposite the 'Doba' which is situated between the place of occurrence and their village.He has stated that the place of occurrence was about 4/5 bighas from the 'doba' and he witnessed the incident from there.His evidence is unshaken in cross-examination.As the evidence of the injured witnesses have been corroborated by other eyewitnesses namely P. Ws. 3 and 13, I am of the opinion non-examination of the injured witnesses during investigation not to be treated as a fatal flaw in the prosecution case.Ms. Sinha also criticised the evidence of P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6 on the ground that they are clearly inconsistent with one another.She further submitted that P. W. 6 stated that arrows was coming from the side of village Bamonpara and therefore, it is likely that the victims were attacked by the inhabitants of Bamoonpara village.It is their unequivocal evidence that they were transplanting paddy in plot no. 100, Mouza Kustora when the appellants had come in a body armed with bows, arrows and lathi etc. and started shooting arrows at them.P. Ws. 4 and 5 stated that all the appellants were shooting arrows and arrow shot by appellant no. 1, Satish Mahato, hit P. W. 4, Snehalata.P. W. 5, Gitarani, was unable to say arrow shot by whom hit her.She, however, corroborated Snehalata with regard to the fact that all the appellants who were armed and were shooting arrows at them.P. W. 6 is the mother-in-law of P. Ws. 4 and 5 and was aged about 78 years at the time of incident.She narrated only the incident of assault by appellant no.3, Habu, with a lathi on her.In view of the fact that P. W. 6 was an old septuagenarian lady who was suddenly assaulted with a lathi, it is possible that she was unable to narrate the incident in toto.In fact, such lack of clarity in her evidence has a ring of truth about it.It shows that the injured witnesses were not tutorted and narrated the incident to the best of their respective faculties.One must appreciate that the comprehensive capacity of every witness varies particularly having regard to his/her age and the circumstances in which the incident occurred.P. W. 6 being an old lady aged about 77 years who was able to narrate only the incident of assault upon her.She was unable to corroborate P. Ws. 4 and 5 with regard to the assault upon them by the appellants.The variation in her evidence is most natural bearing in mind her ages and diminished comprehensive and recapitulative faculty of P. W. 6 owing to such advanced age.There is also some contradiction regarding the period for which the incident occurred.It is possible that being taken aback by the sudden and brutal attack upon them while they were transplanting paddy, the injured persons who are rural womenfolk felt that the attack persisted for an interminably long period although it may have concluded within a much briefer time span as narrated by the eyewitnesses.Such subjective opinion of the witnesses of the time span of the incident ought not to be taken as a parameter for rejecting the evidence of the injured witnesses, P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6, particularly when the kernel of the incident of assault by arrows and lathi blows upon them by the appellants stands established beyond doubt.Defence suggested that the arrows were shot by inhabitants of Bamonpara was stoutly denied by the appellants.On the other hand, PW 3 stated that the men from Bamonpara assisted them in lifting the injured victims in a cart for transfer to hospital.This squarely millitates against the defence version that the men from Bamonpara had attacked the victims.It is consistent versions of the aforesaid witnesses who had treated the victims that victims had suffered injuries due to shooting of arrows and in respect of Mithila , P. W. 6, due to assault by a hard substance like lathi.Arrows were also extracted from the persons by P. Ws. 4 and 5 and seized in the course of investigation.Accordingly, ocular version of the injured witnesses received corroboration from the medical evidence in the instant case.Coming to the issue of registration of First Information Report, it has been argued that the First Information Report was subsequently lodged when police had come to the place of occurrence after the 'salish'.P. W. 1 had stated that the First Information Report was written by P. W. 9 and was handed over to the Officer-in-Charge at the police station on the way of Simplipal PWC.P. Ws. 7 and 9 have corroborated such version.In course of cross-examination, P. W. 1 however stated that police had come to the village after 'salish' and PW 1 also stated that written complaint was handed over to the police at that time.It was around 9 AM when such complaint was handed over.P. W. 16 stated the complaint was received from P. W. 1 at the police station in the morning around 10-00 A. M. Hence, it is clear the written complaint was handed over to the police around 10 AM at the police station.Version of PW 1 that police received written complaint at village at 9 AM is not probable and must be read in the light of his entire deposition as corroborated by other witnesses.In the light of consistent evidence on record it is evident that the information of the incident was given to the police authorities at 10-00 A. M. while P. Ws. 1, 7 and 9 were carrying the victims in bullock cart towards Simlapal Public Health Centre.Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the First Information Report was lodged at the earliest point of time naming the appellants as assailants in the instant case.It was strenuously argued that the victims did not name their assailants before the doctors at Simlapal P. H. C. or Bankura Medical College.I find from the bed-head ticket of P. W. 4, Snehalata, maintained in ordinary course of business at Bankura Medical College and produced in the course of trial, that the appellant no. 1 Satish, has been named as the person who shot the arrow which struck her.That apart, in the instant case First Information Report was lodged at 10-00 A. M. prior to the victims have admitted at Simlapal P. H. C. In the First Information Report role of the appellants had been clearly delineated.In the light of such fact, the circumstance that the victims did not subsequently name the appellant at the medical centres does not militate against the truthfulness of the prosecution case.Coming to the conviction of the appellants under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the score of assault upon the victim Snehalata, I am of the opinion that the appellants did not attempt to kill her.It has come on evidence that the family members of the appellants as well as the victims are the co-sharers of the plot of land where incident occurred.It was claimed by the appellants that they were 'bargadars' of the land under Prahlad Mahato and record of rights was produced in support of such claim.In this backdrop, it appears that the appellants came to the place of occurrence being variously armed with the intention of assaulting the victims and thereby drive them away from the said plot of land.The appellants did not intend to kill the victims.Nonetheless the injury suffered by P. W. 4, Snehalata, is grievous in nature.It appears that the injury upon the victim, Gitarani Mahato, as has come out on evidence is simple in nature.Accordingly, conviction of the appellants on the score of assault on the victim, Gitarani, P. W. 5, is scaled down to offence punishable under sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Injuring on P. W. 6, Mithila, is also simple in nature and it was caused by lathi alone.On the issue of sentence, I find that the appellant no.1, Satish, has been specifically named by Snehalata as the assailant whose arrow stuck her.The appellant no. 3, Habu, has been identified by PW 6 as to have assaulted her with a lathi blow causing simple injury.With regard to other appellants, there is no clarity in evidence as to whose arrow had hit the victims.However, all the appellants had come in a body and were shooting arrows at the victims.The incident occurred more than two decades ago and the appellants do not have any criminal antecedent.They are also co- sharers of the land and agnates of the victims.Accordingly, I reduce the sentences imposed upon them and direct that appellant no.1 shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months more for the offence punishable under section 326 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count for the offences punishable under sections 324/34 and sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively, all sentence to run concurrently.With regard to the appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4 I reduce their sentences to rigorous imprisonment for one month to pay fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days more with regard to offence punishable under section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count for the offences punishable under section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively, all the sentences to run concurrently.Conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants are, accordingly, modified.The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.The bail bonds of the appellants are cancelled and they are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court to serve out the sentence and/or pay the fine as directed, failing which the learned Trial Court shall take appropriate steps for execution of sentence and/or realisation of fine, as aforesaid.I record my appreciation for able assistance rendered by Ms. Sinha, Amicus Curiae, for disposal of the appeal.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) A.R(Court)/PA to J. Bagchi, J.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Niyaz Mohammad is resident of village Miyagaon Karjan, Tq. & Dist.Baroda, Gujarat State.He was driver on Trax Jeep No. GJ-06-AA-4358, belonging to one Vallibhai Musabhai of village Karjan, Tq.On 31.05.2005, he had taken relatives of his master in the Jeep to village Karanja, Dist.It is further prosecution case that thereafter the Jeep was taken to a petrol pump.There a servant was asked to fill the tank and thereafter that person was assaulted.The persons at the petrol pump were compelled to surrender cash amount.They were locked in the cabin.Thereafter, the jeep was taken to another petrol pump and thus in that night said four boys robbed persons at five petrol pumps and robbed cash amounts in all totalling Rs. 1,20,000/-.It is further prosecution case that P.W.4-Ambersing and his son P.W.19-Arjunsing, who are agriculturists having their land at Pachpirwadi, Tal.Gangapur, heard sound of falling something in the well at about 3.00 a.m. on same night.So, both of them went to see what was the matter.In the light of torch, they found one person fallen in the well and begging for help.So, P.W.4-Ambersing and P.W.19-Arjunsing, who were father and son respectively, pulled out that person fallen in the well with the help of rope and stick.He was accused No.1-Pawankumar before the Court.He was injured and therefore he was taken by P.W.4-Ambersing and P.W.19-Arjunsingh to hospital of P.W.5-Dr.Sarla Patni.Accused No.1 told P.W.5-Dr.Sarla Patni that while he was running away on seeing police, he fell in a well and got injured.When P.W.4-Ambersing and P.W.19-Arjunsing had taken out accused No.1, they found few bullets, one mobile phone, and cash of Rs. 1500/- in the pocket of clothes of accused No.1-Pawankumar.When accused No.1 was being treated by P.W.Patni, police came and P.W.19-Arjunsing told about ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: (7) taking accused No.1 to hospital of Dr. Patni.Police arrested accused No.1 at the hospital of Dr. Patni.Police attached the mobile phone, bullets and cash amount, which were found with accused No.1 under panchanama.They arrested him.Niyaz in the identification parade has no much value as it is rightly stated that as admitted by P.W.18-Sk.Niyaz in his cross-examination, he was in jail for 2 to 2 ½ months.Niyaz, P.W.4-Ambersing, P.W.19-Arjunsing and P.W.5-Dr.Sarla Patni has connected accused No. 1 with the crime.However, there are also other eye-witnesses, who have identified all the three accused persons and who have spoken about the robberies committed at the various petrol pumps.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::( 12 )P.W.3-Murlidhar Kadam, examined at Exh.31, stated that he was working as a Manager at Pralhad Auto Petrol Pump, situated at Khultabad, on Aurangabad-Dhule highway.On 01.06.2005 at about 3.00 a.m. he was sleeping.He was accompanied by Ganesh Dalal, Bhagchand Atre and Santosh Wagh, who were his co-employees.On earlier day he had handed over cash collected till 9.00 p.m. to the owner of petrol-pump and thereafter in between 9.00 p.m. to 12.30 a.m., amount of Rs.27,364/- was received.The amount of Rs. 350/- was with Santosh Wagh.It was to be handed over to the owner on the next day.At 3.00 p.m. a white jeep arrived at the petrol pump.There were six persons.One of them alighted for getting diesel.He woke up Dnyaneshwar.Dnyaneshwar woke up P.W.3-Murlidhar.Others from jeep also got down.They assaulted the persons at the petrol pump with kicks and snatched Rs. 350/- from Santosh and threatened P.W.3-In this case there is other corroboration regarding complicity of accused No.1 in the crime.He was working at Sai Petrol Pump at Deogaon Rangari.He stated that on 01.06.2005, he was on duty at night.At Exh. 62, there is statement of P.W.9-Balasaheb Ghadge.He was working as servant at Jai Shriram Petrol Pump at village Verul.He stated that at about 2.30 a.m. one jeep of white colour bearing registration No. GJ-06-AA-4358 came on the petrol pump.Five persons got down from the jeep.This is an appeal preferred by three accused persons who are convicted, in Sessions Case No. 229 of 2006, decided on 10.02.2009, by the Assistant Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad, of offences punishable under Sections 394 read with 34, 397, 342 read with 34, 365 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ""I.P.C."") and under Section 3 (25) of the Arms Act. Each accused/appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for each of offences punishable under Section 394 read with 34 and 397 of the I.P.C. For offence punishable under Section 365 read with 34 of the I.P.C., each of the accused/appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.For ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:19 ::: (3) offence punishable under Section 342 read with 34 of the I.P.C., each of the accused/appellant is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:19 :::(3)500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.For offence punishable under Section 3 of the Arms Act, each of the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.All substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.Brief facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated as below :-He reached Karanja on the next day.Thereafter, after leaving the relatives at Karanja, he was to return back and came to Khamgaon at about ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:19 ::: (4) 5.30 p.m. When he was near Khamgaon bus stand, four unknown boys standing on the road, gave signal to stop.Those boys were of age group of 20 - 22 years.They said that they had missed bus and wanted to go to Nasik and requested for lift up to Nasik.So, P.W.18-Sk.Niyaz allowed them to board the Jeep and they travelled for a distance of about 10 kms.At that time one of the boys told him that he wanted to pass water and he should stop the vehicle.Accordingly, the vehicle was stopped.Thereafter, all those four boys alighted from the vehicle and came back after five minutes.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:19 :::Two of them sat on the back side.One sat on the cleaner seat and forth unknown person came near him and told him that he would drive the vehicle and put pistol on the head of P.W.Niyaz were tied with rope and he was kept at the back side of the vehicle.They gave him threats of killing, in-case, he attempted to shout.Then they proceeded in the jeep.It was about 11.30 p.m., when they stopped at a Dhaba.They took dinner in the vehicle itself.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:19 :::Due to continuous running of the vehicle, the engine of the Jeep became hot and the jeep stopped.At that time police jeep came and on seeing the police jeep, the four boys, out of whom three were identified later on as accused Nos. 1 to 3, ran away.Niyaz was in the jeep.Police arrested him.He disclosed the real incident to them.Police took search of the jeep and found one revolver, six cartridges, one mobile phone, one wrist watch, red chilli power, a bag and cash of Rs. 10,550/-.Police attached those articles, recorded statement of P.W.18-Sk.Initially, P.W.18-Niyaz was also arrested as one of the accused persons, but lateron, after being satisfied with his innocence, he was cited as a witness.On that night robberies were committed at five petrol pumps situated at Khultabad, Deogaon Rangari, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:19 ::: (6) Verul, Galle Borgaon and Hatnoor.All the petrol pumps are on Aurangabad - Kannad road.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:19 :::The information given by accused No.1 led to arrest of accused Nos. 2 and 3, who by that time were arrested by Thane Police in another crime.According to police accused Nos. 2 and 3, led police to bank and withdrew cash from bank account and the same was attached as cash from those accused.But, that would not be evidence of commission of crime.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::(7)Immediately after robberies at first and second petrol pumps, police were informed and police had come in search of the persons.On that night appellant No.1 was arrested.Police recorded statements of the persons who were present at the petrol pumps and who were also witnesses to the incident.After arrest of accused Nos. 2 and 3, identification parade was held.Main evidence in this case is of P.W.14-Sangita Sanap, who was then working as Tahsildar and who had held test identification parades.Police had also drawn spot panchanamas.Finally charge-sheet was sent ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: (8) to Court.Three accused were put on trial.In all 24 witnesses were examined.Ultimately, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as aforesaid and as against the same, this appeal is filed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::During evidence the factum of robberies and user of the jeep by the culprits is not seriously challenged.Even during arguments before this Court, it is the identification of the accused as persons involved in the crime that was mainly challenged.It is also argued that the offence punishable under Section 397 of the I.P.C. is individual offence and there is no evidence about the same.Heard Shri N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the appellants and Shri B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for respondent/State.Both have taken me through the entire record.Main evidence is of P.W.18-Sk.He has stated the story disclosed in paras 2 and 3 above.It is not case of the accused/appellants that in any way they were knowing P.W.18-Sk.Niyaz prior to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: (9) the incident or that P.W.18-Sk.Niayz has any reason to depose falsely against them.Niyaz is resident of Gujarat State; whereas appellant No. 1 is resident of Maharajgunj district, (U.P.) and appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are resident of Vasai, Dist.Statement of P.W.18-Sk.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::(9)Niyaz was recorded by Special Executive Magistrate, when he was under arrest and that statement is proved by him at Exh.accused with the appellants.He was arrested and was in police custody.Thereafter, he was in jail along with accused/appellants.So, identification by P.W.18-Sk.Police had arrested appellant No.1 - Pawankumar on the next day of the incident.Both were in the police custody.Police arrested accused Nos. 2 and 3 and they were also in custody with him.Niyaz was with all three appellants in jail for about 2 months and thereafter he was exonerated from the crime.So, the identification parade has no value, but this witness has stated that all the three ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 10 ) accused before the Court are same.He did identify accused No.3-Vijay as the person who had given him threat with pistol and who was driving the jeep.Absolutely, there is no reason to disbelieve evidence of P.W.18-Sk.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::He had opportunity to see all the three accused persons, that too for a considerable period in the jeep.Not only that, he was with them even after arrest.So, absolutely, there is nothing in the deposition of this witness, which raises any doubt regarding his evidence.So far as accused No.1 is concerned, there is also evidence of P.W.4-Ambersing and P.W.19-Arjunsingh at Exhs. 34 and 100 respectively.Both of them stated that they had taken accused No.1 out of well.Accused No. 1 was having bullets, mobile phone and cash amount with him.Accused No. 1 was injured.Evidence of P.W.5-Dr.Sarla Patni clearly shows that accused No.1 was also brought to her.He had sustained injury on head due to fall in the well and the patient had disclosed her that police were chasing him and while he was running, he fell into the well.While giving treatment police came to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 11 ) the clinic and took him away.Patni said that she cannot identify the patient to whom she gave treatment and refused to identify accused No.1, may be because she is a lady doctor and does not want to incur wrath of criminal, but P.W.5-Ambersing and P.W.19-Arjunsing have identified accused No.1 as the very person to whom they had taken to P.W.5-Dr.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::Sarla Patni and who was arrested by the police.Finding of bullets with accused No.1 clearly links him with the crime.It is not say of accused No.1, if not in present crime, he was involved in any other crime and so he was running away on seeing police at that night.It may be noted that he is the person who is from Uttar Pradesh and he is taking defence of total denial.It is for him to explain why he ran away on seeing police and what he was doing at Panchpirwadi near house of P.W.5-Ambersing.So, the above said evidence clearly establishes complicity of accused No.1 in the crime.Evidence of P.W.18-Sk.Murlidhar with revolvers in their hands.Three of them had revolvers and remaining had choppers.They compelled Santosh Wagh to open door of the cabin.They snatched keys of drawer from P.W.3-Murlidhar, and took cash therefrom.While going away, they cut off telephone connection and threatened them ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 13 ) that if they shout, they would fire.Then they closed door of the cabin and left confining them in the cabin.They watched the accused going away from the window.Thereafter, P.W.3-Murlidhar lodged complaint with police, which is proved at Exh.32 and it is treated as F.I.R. in this case.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::He was slim with greenish eyes.He was fair by complexion, having height of 5'5"", wearing sky blue half shirt and black jean pant.Person with knife was about 45 years, who was also slim.His left eye was bigger.He was wearing lining shirt and blue pant.He was speaking in Hindi.Other three were in white clothes between 25-30 years and fat and dark.Out of them two had revolvers.P.W.3-Murlidhar further stated that he was called in Harsool jail for identification parade on 01.09.2005 i.e. after three months.Accused No.1 was holding revolver at the time of incident and he had given threats to them.He ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 14 ) proved panchanama of identification at Exh.33 and his signature thereon.It is argued before this Court that test identification parade was held after three months and prior to that accused No.1 was shown to him in police stated as admitted in the cross-examination.Police had also brought accused No.1 to the petrol pump.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::His duty hours were from 6.00 p.m. till next day 6.00 a.m. The cash ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 15 ) collected till 12.00 mid night was kept by him in the locker and at about 12.00 mid night he and his colleagues went to sleep near the cabin.At about 2.00 a.m. when he was in the sleep, three persons came to the petrol pump and woke him up.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::There was white Trax Jeep.Said three persons were between 20 - 25 years of age.They told him to fill diesel in the tank.As he was about to become ready, those persons started demanding money and assaulted him.They carried him into the cabin.One of them was holding a small gun.Said persons forcibly took key of the locker from his possession and took the cash.They confined P.W.6-Dnyaneshwar and others in the cabin and latched it from outside and went away.Thereafter, one of them went out through window and opened the cabin.P.W.6-Dnyaneshwar identified accused No.1 as the person who demanded money and assaulted him.He could not identify other two.Absolutely, there is no cross-examination why this witness should be disbelieved.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::Two of them were holding revolver.They gave threats of killing.The owner of the petrol pump was present there, but he was under threat.Due to the threats, he ran on the back side of the pump.After departure of those unknown persons, P.W.9-Balasaheb came back.By that time the owner of the pump was confined in the store room by locking the door.So, he broke glass of the window and the owner came out.The owner disclosed him that said unknown persons by giving threat to him, had taken away cash of Rs. 30,000/- and confined him in the store room.Thereafter, the owner gave intimation to police on mobile phone.10 days after the incident, he was called in Harsool Jail for identification.He identified accused No.2-Radheshyam and accused No.3-Vijay.He also identified them before the Court.It appears that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 17 ) the witness has wrongly stated that identification parade was held after 10 days.He proved signature on the panchanama of identification.In cross-examination he stated that he had not given any description of these persons in his statement, nor he described any clothes on their persons.It was suggested to him that police had shown him to the accused out of the Court and therefore he could identify them, but he denied the same.The fact remains that this person has identified accused Nos. 2 and 3 before police during test identification parade.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::A witness is not expected to remember such minute details as to at what serial number person identified by him was standing.So, that is not reason to disbelieve evidence of the witness.It is also argued that no role of accused Nos. 2 and 3 was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 18 ) stated.It is true that this person has not given details, but he has stated that he had seen the persons with revolvers in their hands and they had given threats, but he had ran away to save himself and later on came back.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::He stated that he was working as a Salesman at Ram Automobile Petrol Pump at village Galle Borgaon.According to him, when he was on duty from 6.00 p.m. on 01.06.2006 to 6.00 a.m. on the next day.At about 2.00 a.m. one Trax Jeep came to the petrol pump.One person got down and came to him.Four other persons from jeep also got down and followed him.They showed him revolver and asked him to give cash.He was frightened and gave Rs. 4750/-.Thereafter, these unknown persons carried him and his colleague Shivaji in the cabin.They demanded key of the cabin to Balu, who gave it and thereafter they took cash amount from cabin and confined the persons working at petrol pump in the cabin, locked the door and went away.After they went away, P.W.12-Vishnu gave telephone message to police, so also to the owner.On 01.09.2005, he was called at Harsool Jail, where Executive Magistrate arranged identification parade.He identified ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 19 ) accused No.1-Pawankumar.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::In cross-examination P.W.12-Vishnu admitted that after revolver was pointed on his head, he was frightened and as he was frightened he had not properly observed faces of the culprits and their wearing clothes.At Exh.75 there is statement of one Balu Aher.He was working as a Salesman at the petrol pump at Galle Borgaon along with P.W.12-Vishnu.He also stated same story.He stated that he and other persons on the petrol pump were given threats at the point of pistol and cash amount was robbed from them.Amount of Rs. 4750/- was taken from Shivaji & Vishnu and remaining amount was taken from cabin.He signed on both panchanamas.He stated in his statement before police that he had not given description of thieves.He also stated that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 20 ) he learnt about police having arrested one thief.Police had shown photograph of the accused, may be to ascertain whether it was the same person.It is argued before him that it is not stated which of the appellant had possessed pistol and who assaulted him with iron bar.It may be noted that this witness had sustained injury on his leg due to assault with iron bar and the doctor has proved the injury on his leg.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::So, he was the man who had better opportunity to identify the person and merely because photograph of one of the accused was shown to him by police, that is no reason for disbelieving identification by him.Then there is evidence of P.W.15-Rajaram Bodkhe.He stated that he was running petrol pump by name Jay Shri Ram Petrol Pump at village Verul.P.W.9-Balasaheb Ghadge was working with him as servant.He stated that at about 2.30 a.m. he was sleeping.He heard shouts.He woke up and saw three unknown persons demanding money to his son Vilas by showing pistol.One of those persons rushed to him and showed him revolver.They took key from his son, opened cupboard and took cash of Rs. 30,331/-.Thereafter, those persons went away with cash.After hearing noise, his ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 21 ) servant P.W.13-Balu, who had ran away, came back and broke glass of window and took them out.This witness stated that on 27.07.2005, he identified accused No.3-Vijay.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::Identification parade panchanama is at Exh.68, which bears his signature.In cross-examination, he said that he had not given description of the thieves and their clothes.Mukund Dabhade is another panch of test identification parade, in whose presence panchanama Exh. 70 to 72 were made.All these witnesses have stated about holding of test identification parade.The learned advocate for the appellants has argued that the provisions of Criminal Manual regarding test ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 22 ) identification parade were not followed.But in the cross-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::In-fact, there was no cross-examination on the point of various measures which are required to be taken for test identification parade and whether those precautions were taken or not.So, the argument that guidelines were not followed or precautions were not taken has no value.It is not expected that in examination-in-chief, witness should tell every minute detail.It is also duty of the cross-examiner to show if there is any infirmity and bring it on record.In this case there is evidence of four police officers, who have performed various parts of investigation.The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has discussed the entire evidence in detail and I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to bring home guilt.There is sufficient evidence to prove involvement of each of the three accused.The learned advocate for the appellant cited cases of Karan alias Baasha Shyam Pawar V/s.State of Maharashtra, 2007 CRI.L.J.2573, Vilas Vasantrao Patil V/s.The State of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 ::: ( 23 ) Maharashtra, 1996 CRI.L.J.1854, Suresh Jaikumar Samuel Godavari and anr.V/s.State of Maharashtra, 2005 CRI.L.J.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::2506, Yeshwant and ors.V/s.The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 S.C. 337, Pralhad Singh V/s.State of M.P., AIR 1997 S.C. 3442 and Manik Shankarrao Dhotre and ors.It may be noted that the witnesses examined in this case had sufficient opportunity to identify the culprits, though some of them may not have described the features or clothes of culprits in their statements.It is not case of anyone that accused had put on any masks or covered their faces or that there was no sufficient light at the petrol pumps.The witnesses examined were working on different petrol pumps.They were not knowing the accused prior to the incident.There was no question of any enmity.There was no reason for any of them to falsely involve the accused.There is no sufficient reason to disbelieve these witnesses when they identified the accused persons.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::In this case though revolver/pistol was not fired or other weapon was not used for causing hurt, but threats with revolvers/pistols were given.It has come in evidence that all the accused were armed and threats were given by them to various witnesses as discussed earlier.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is hereby confirmed.[P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/NOV09/crap214.09 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:21:20 :::","['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The prosecution's case in short is that on 20.1.2003 at about 9.00 a.m one Mihilal Thakur (PW10) had lodged an FIR at Police Station Damoh Dehat that two days prior to the date of FIR a quarrel took place between the sister of Delan and Batu son of the complainant Mihilal and therefore, on 20.1.2003 at about 7.30 when Batu went to a grocery shop at Village Marutal 2 Tek (Police Station Damoh Dehat, District Damoh) the appellant and his companions surrounded him and assaulted him with axe and stick.After lodging of the FIR, Dr. Y. P. Patel (PW1) examined the victim Mihilal and gave his report Ex.An incised wound was found on his left leg.Dr. Patel had also examined the victim Batu and gave his report Ex.He found that he sustained a lacerated wound of left jaw and 2-3 other wounds were found at nose, forehead and upper lip.He was referred to a dental surgeon and it was found that two teeth of Batu were broken.(Delivered on the 30th day of November, 2015)The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 30.1.2015 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in ST.No.200/2003 whereby, the appellant has been convicted of offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and 324 of I.P.C and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-.After due investigation the charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and ultimately it was transferred to First Additional Judge, Damoh.The appellant abjured his guilt.He did not take any specific plea, but has stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter.The Additional Sessions Judge after considering the prosecution's evidence acquitted the appellant from the charges of offence of Sections 506 (Part II), 294 and 341 of I.P.C. However, he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.However, Jirabai (PW7), Mihilal (PW10) and Batu Singh (PW14) have stated against the appellant.They have stated that when quarrel started the appellant Delan assaulted with an axe on 3 nose of Batu Singh and thereafter, Ramal Singh assaulted by a sword due to that his jaw was broken and lip was also cut.It was also stated that the appellant Delan also assaulted Mihilal with an axe on left leg.Looking to the overt act where he was not author of the grave injury caused to the victim Batu Singh, he is convicted with the help of section 34 of I.P.C. He was the first offender and the quarrel was started in a spur of moment.Under these circumstances, it would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence for the period for which he remained in the custody.Since he is a poor person and unable to deposit 4 any fine amount and then if fine continues, he will undergo for default sentence unnecessarily.After considering the aforesaid discussion the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly allowed.Copy of the judgment be sent to the Court below along with its record for information and compliance.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 30.11.2015 bina","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"sh None for the complainant.ad Per contra, the counsel for the respondent/State opposed the appeal.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Abhi Digitally signed by ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Date: 2018.04.13 18:44:11 +05'30'",['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Heard on I.A.No.2108/2014, an application for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304II of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/- and under Section 353 of IPC, sentenced to undergo 2 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/-.",['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
"2 Cr.A No.119/02 and Cr. A. 198/01It is not disputed that Rajni Saxena was married to appellant Manoj Shrivastava in June 1987 and respondents Ramkishan and Sharda Devi are the parents of the appellant Manoj Shrivastava.The facts transpired before the learned Trial Court are that on 10.9.1991 an information was sent by the District Hospital, Bhind to the Police Chowki of the District Hospital that Smt. Rajni Saxena wife of Manoj Shrivastava aged about 24 years, resident of Jain Mandir, Bhind has been brought dead to the Hospital.Merg No. 36/91 was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Dead body was sent for postmortem.Viscera received by police was sent for chemical examination.During investigation, it was found that on 30.6.1987 marriage of Rajni Saxena was performed with accused Manoj Shrivastava.The accused Manoj Shrivastava was demanding scooter from the father of the deceased Rajni since the time of marriage.As the demand was not fulfilled, accused Manoj, his father and mother were harassing Rajni and she was subjected to cruelty.They have threatened her that she will be divorced, if the demand is not fulfilled.Despite the fact that several persons tried to resolve but the accused persons did not pay any heed.The original letters were not produced.The expert, who examined the letters and viscera were not examined.That original document is admissible in evidence.(01/10/2014) Per S.K. Palo, J.Criminal Appeal No. 198/2001 and Criminal Appeal No. 119/2002 have arisen out of the same judgment dated 30th March, 2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhind in S.T. No. 13/92, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted appellant Manoj under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC.At the same time acquitted the accused Ramkishan and Sharda Devi on the same charges.Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, appellant, Manoj has filed appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C assailing and requesting for setting aside the judgment.Whereas, the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed 2 Cr.A No.119/02 and Cr.A. 198/01 Criminal Appeal No. 119/2002 under Section 378 of Cr.Then, father of the deceased was sent a message about her death.Police City Kotwali, Bhind registered a case under Sections 498-A 3 Cr.A No.119/02 and Cr. A. 198/01 and 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC.After due investigation, charge sheet has been filed against accused persons.3 Cr.A No.119/02 and Cr. A. 198/01Charges framed and explained to the accused persons under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC.Accused persons abjured guilt.In their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C they contended that they have been falsely implicated.Accused / appellant, Manoj claimed that the deceased Rajni Saxena died due to illness and on that day he was not at home.They claimed that, father of the deceased Ramprakash claimed the expenses borne by him, at the time marriage, from the accused persons.When this demand was not met, he lodged the report on false ground.The learned Trial Court after adducing the evidence, pronounced the impugned judgment, acquitted the respondents Ramkishan and Sharda Devi and convicted appellant, Manoj Shrivastava under Section 498-A and 304- B of IPC.He is sentenced 7 years RI under Section 304-B IPC and under Section 498-A, he has been sentenced to undergo two years RI with fine of Rs. 1000/-.In lieu of fine, he has to undergo RI for another period of six months.Appellant, Manoj has assailed the judgment on the grounds that the impugned judgment is not in accordance with law.The evidence has not been evaluated and analyzed properly.There was no demand of dowry.The deceased Rajni Saxena and the appellant had gone to her parent's place to attend marriage of her younger brother Rajiv they stayed there 10 to 15 days.No such demand 4 Cr.A No.119/02 and Cr.A. 198/01 was ever made by him.4 Cr.A No.119/02 and Cr. A. 198/01In Criminal Appeal No. 119/2002, just contrary to the above.Before the document can be allowed to be led, as secondary evidence, two things have to satisfy-A No.119/02 and Cr.There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned.9 Cr.A No.119/02 and Cr. A. 198/01","['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 2 of 19Accordingly, a raiding team was constituted and at the instance of the informer, the premises at Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi was raided.He further disclosed that one Bijender Chikara would be sending the answer key of morning shift examination through SMS.Thereafter, a SMS was received from the mobile of Bijender Chikara containing e-mail and password of the same.Another SMS from mobile No.9310441200 was received by Ajeet son of Devi Singh having email and password in respect of another key.The said mails were accessed on the laptop available in the room and the question paper uploaded on the email was printed out.The attachment consisted of 27 papers having code Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 3 of 19 011kpo-Part-A on front page containing 200 multiple questions.The said question papers were counter checked and verified from Examination Centre at Govt. Co-Ed Senior Secondary School, Sector 11, Rohini and the same question paper was found which was circulated to the candidates.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 3 of 19The prosecution has taken the printout of the question papers from the printer installed at the spot.Mobile phones, two laptops and one printer of Canon alongwith slips containing names of candidates, etc. were also seized.Thereafter the case was registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi vide FIR No. 73/2013 under Section 120- B read with Sections 408, 420, 468, 471, 201, 511, 34 of IPC and Section 66 of I.T. Act. Nine persons found at the spot were arrested, when they were in the process of receiving question paper and answer keys for solving the paper.Subsequently, specific recoveries were affected from all the nine accused persons.Ashu Sharma, one of the arrested person disclosed about Bijender Chikara working as LDC in MCD Office at Sector 5, Rohini, who can arrange question paper of SSC Combined Graduate level examination to be held on 21.04.2013 for both the shifts and the same can be sent through email at the cost of Rs.3.5 lac.During investigation, it was revealed that Ajit was assigned to manage a place for execution of conspiracy and his friend Sushil was to arrange one house on rent.Ravinder was sent to Sushil for taking house on rent.Thereafter, the rent agreement was executed and all the Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 4 of 19 accused persons assembled at the rented accommodation in Pooth Kalan, Delhi.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 4 of 19The origin of the paper leak has to be ascertained from the accused.The examination centre, out of the various centres in Delhi, NCR, from where the paper was leaked has to be ascertained and identified.The involvement of the large number of students in the racket who have benefited from the leakage is also to be identified and ascertained at the instance of the accused/respondent.Electronic gadgets of the accused including cell phone, data cards or laptops, computer used etc., are to be recovered which are of utmost evidentiary value.P.S.TEJI, J.The aforesaid four petitions have been preferred by the State primarily for the purpose of cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the accused - Sushil Kumar, Ashish Kumar and Pawan Kumar vide order dated 06.08.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi.However, petitioner - Vikram Dahiya has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 13.11.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi.Since the cause of action as well as facts of all the aforesaid four petitions are same and the accused persons have been granted Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 2 of 19 anticipatory bail on the ground of parity with the main accused, who has already been granted bail in the present case, therefore the same were heard together and are being disposed of together.During investigation, it was revealed that the URL logs, as provided by the franchisee Gaurav Bhardwaj were logged into the Gmail accounts at the time of uploading the SSC CGL 2013 question paper by the persons named - Pawan Kumar, Ashish Kumar, Sarvesh Saroha and Ashok Arya.During investigation, it was also revealed that the internet connection of world Phone Internet Connection was being used at his shop for customer complaints and subsequently used by Ashish Kumar, Pawan Kumar and their relative Vikram Dahiya on weekends.The said fact was confirmed on the basis of the frequent cell phone conversation which took place amongst them as detailed in the call detail records of the said accused.The suspect/accused in conspiracy with Vikram Dahiya had facilitated his premises and his internet connection knowingly as to circulate the leaked SSC CGL 2013 question paper for monetary gains.During further investigation, disclosure statement of accused Bijender Chikara, analysis of mobile phone call detail records of arrested accused and Vikram Dahiya, Sushil Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Ashish Kumar (respondents herein) were found to be having direct nexus in conspiracy.While arguing the present petitions, Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State contended that the offences are not only serious but are targeted towards causing loss to Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 5 of 19 the public at large as the case relates to the leakage of question paper of Combined Graduate Level Examination 2013, illegal solving of the paper and then supplying the answers through answer keys, to the candidates appearing in the exam.It is further contended that none of the accused have direct relation to exam governing agency i.e. SSC, still the question paper and respective keys came in hands of the accused persons and there is every possibility of such leak with different examination centres where the question papers were supplied by SSC.It is further submitted that the question paper was leaked only after the question paper reached the examination centres and before the actual time of the start of the examination i.e. about 1.5 hours before the examination.Therefore, there is every possibility of involvement of school authorities and their officials, i.e. Principals, teachers, etc. in the said offence.It is further contended that the conspiracy is hatched by a group of several persons divided into several groups acting as an organized gang for the said purpose.Some of them procured the question paper, some arranged the prospective competitors, and some arranged their meeting and some solved the question paper.The racket was well organised in the way that they had even obtained mobile phones on fake and fictious identities.The chain of circumstances in between are turning and are woven in such a manner that tampering at any stage will make the efforts to unearth the conspiracy, almost impossible.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 5 of 19Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further contended that till the time of granting the bail by the learned Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 6 of 19 Additional Sessions Judge, the respondents/accused persons were absconding and non-bailable warrants were also issued qua their arrest but it was not taken into consideration by the concerned Court.Apprehension of respondents in manipulating and tampering with the crucial and sensitive evidence has been raised, and it has been submitted that the respondents were members of a well organized racket involved in leakage of question paper, therefore, they are not entitled to have the benefit of anticipatory bail.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 6 of 19Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further drew attention of this Court to the impugned order in which the respondents were granted anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.In this regard, it is contended that the co-accused persons in the case were not granted anticipatory bail and rather they were given regular bail after remaining in custody for more than 60 days and that too, after filing of the initial charge sheet wherein the factum of the respondents absconding was clearly mentioned which resulted in issuance of NBWs against the respondents by the Court.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further contended that one of the co-accused namely Vikram Dahiya having been denied anticipatory bail by the District Court had approached this Court for bail, but the same was also denied vide order dated 23.07.2013 passed in Bail Appl.No.1260/2013, wherein this Court had directed the accused to surrender before the concerned Court.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 7 of 19 contended that the custodial interrogation of the respondents is necessary for providing the following vital and important information:-M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 7 of 19The call detail records (CDR logs) have to be confronted with the accused for further identification of the person involved in the conspiracy.The IP logs also are required to be confronted with the accused.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 8 of 19Hide outs of the co-accused at Jind, Gannaur, Sonepat and other places are to be visited with the accused in custody.The sustained interrogation of the accused/ respondent is required to be conducted which is necessary to unearth and expose the entire conspiracy behind the racket of leaking the concerned question paper.It has specifically been mentioned in the order of learned Additional Session Judge that the respondent shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall report to the Investigating Officer on every Saturday of English Calendar month.It is contended on behalf of respondent - Sushil Kumar that in view of the directions of learned Additional Session Judge, the respondent remained present at the office of the Investigating Officer on 10th August 2013 from 9AM to 7 PM, but no one in the office entertained the respondent.In this regard, the respondent had sent a written communication regarding his physical Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 9 of 19 presence to the Investigating Officer through courier on the same day.It is further contended that the respondent remained physically present at the office of Investigating Officer on 17.8.2013 from 11 AM to 6 PM but he was not entertained and the written communication about his physical presence was conveyed to the Investigating Officer through courier on the same day.Similar was the position on 24th August 2013, when the respondent remained present in the office of Investigating Officer from 10 am to 5.30 pm.Respondent again visited the office of Investigating Officer on 3rd September 2013, 7th September 2013 and 14th September 2013, but he was not entertained.Counsel for the respondent further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolat Ram & Others v. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) CC Cases 66 (SC) in support of his submissions and submitted that the bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of the bail during trial.Counsel for the respondent further contended that there is no averment in the petition filed by the State that the respondent has not joined investigation and did not cooperate with the Investigating Officer; or has mentioned that the respondent had tampered with evidence or pressurised or intimidated any witnesses or that the bail order had been obtained fraudulently, therefore, the petition filed by the State deserves to be outrightly dismissal.Counsel for the respondent further contended that the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent cannot be cancelled as the State failed to make out a Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 10 of 19 case for interference in the order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge under Section 438 of Cr.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 9 of 19M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 10 of 19M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 11 of 19 respondent did not appear before the Investigating Officer in compliance of the directions passed by learned Additional Session Judge, rather it was the Investigating Officer who was not interested in investigation from the respondent and the interest of the State seems to be to somehow take the respondent into custody and to harass him and to ruin his entire life and for such ill motivated and malafide intentions, the petitioner is legally prohibited from seeking cancellation of bail of the respondent.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 11 of 19While arguing the case of the respondents - Ashish Kumar and Pawan Kumar, Mr. V. Madhokar, counsel for the respondents contended that in compliance of the directions given by learned Additional Session Judge, the respondents alongwith his surety and advocate visited the office of ACP, Crime Branch, Sector 16, Rohini on 10.08.2013, 17.08.2013 and 24.08.2013 and showed the order of learned Additional Session Judge to mark his presence and allow them to join the investigation, but they were not allowed to join the investigation and they were not even allowed to mark their presence.In support of his contention, counsel for the respondents relied upon the video clipping to show that the respondents had visited the office of the ACP, Crime Branch.Thereafter, the respondents reported the matter of Commissioner of Police and had also apprised the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi as well as to Sessions Court.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 12 of 19Counsel for the respondents further contended that it is not the seriousness/gravity of the offence only which is to be looked into by the learned Session Judge while entertaining the bail application but the specific role and the involvement of the accused is also to be considered and which the learned Additional Session Judge has rightly looked into and there is no infirmity in the order granting bail to the respondents.Counsel for the respondents further contended that mere issuance of NBWs or filing of charge sheet is no ground to refuse anticipatory bail to the accused.In support of his contention, judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naturasu and other vs. The State, 1988 CriLJ 1762 and Bharat Choudhary and Anr vs. State of Bihar and Anr, AIR 2003 SC 4662 were relied upon by counsel for the respondents.Counsel for the respondents - Ashish Kumar and Pawan Kumar further contended that the prosecution has given clean chits to the other two accused namely Ashok Arya and Sarvesh Saroha against whom there are almost similar allegations and the prosecution is bent upon to send the respondents in jail.The prosecution has already raided the shop and seized the modem and the computer of the Institute, therefore there is no need of any custodial interrogation to make any recoveries from the respondents.The respondents were granted bail Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 13 of 19 on parity with the accused who were already granted bail in the case.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 13 of 19On behalf of respondent- Vikram Dahiya, Mr. K.K. Manan, Senior Advocate, apart from the legal principles settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, contended that the order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent does not call for interference as in compliance thereof, the respondent alongwith his surety and advocate visited the ACP Office, Crime Branch, Sunlight Colony Police Station on 23.11.2013 and the respondent was subjected to sustained and prolonged interrogation by a team consisting of ACP Raja Ram Yadav, Inspector Pawan Kumar, Inspector Surajbhan, one cyber expert and two other officials.The interrogation was conducted in writing and the replies were also given in writing and to a question whether respondent is ready for narco test, it was replied that since he is undergoing treatment for brain tumour, therefore he will consult his doctor.Thereafter the police official left the space blank and obtained the signature of the respondent on the statement.The mobile phone of the respondent was also thoroughly examined by the expert .It is further contended that during the prolonged and sustained interrogation nothing incriminating was Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 14 of 19 found against the respondent.The learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent - Vikram Dahiya contended that apart from the ground of parity the other main ground of the bail application of the respondent was that no offence under Section 420/468/671/34 of IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act are made out against the respondent even if the case of the prosecution is accepted as its face value and the State has failed to satisfy the learned Additional Session Judge that the offences are made out against the respondent.It is contended on behalf of respondent - Vikram Dahiya that the impugned order is not against proprietary and the learned Additional Session Judge has rightly interpreted and followed the order dated 01.11.2013 passed by this Hon'ble Court.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 14 of 19I have heard the contentions raised by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the respective counsel representing the case of the respondents.I have also gone through the impugned order passed by learned Additional Session Judge and also perused the documents placed on record.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 15 of 19The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Basit Vs.Abdul Kadir Choudhary, (2014)10SCC754 held as under:-Generally the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are, (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive.This Court observes that there is specific averment on behalf of the respondents in their replies to the present petitions that they had approached the Investigating Officer for performing their part of Crl.This Court is of the opinion that at best, the investigating officer should have started the investigation and during investigation, if he would have found any clue of respondents hiding any material information or found some concrete reason for not cooperating the investigation, then it was open for the Investigating Officer to approach the Court passing the order of anticipatory bail in favour of the respondents, for cancellation of the impugned order.The real position is that the State has preferred to take steps to file petition for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents, rather than to comply with the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge.In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion and in the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge.Finding no merit in the present petitions filed by the Crl.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 22, 2016 pkb Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 19 of 19","['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"23.12.13 Item No. 11 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 11And In the matter of: Arindam Roy.The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Ashish Dey For the Petitioner Mr. Pabitra Talukdar For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Ashoknagar Police Station Case No. 468 of 2013 dated 25.08.2013 under Sections 498(A)/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has applied for anticipatory bail.Pursuant to the leave granted by us on 17.12.2013 the Petitioner has paid an ad hoc of `20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) to the complainant.This amount has been paid without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to receive any further amount in any proceeding that she may file and the amount is not to be adjusted against any amount which may be awarded in any proceeding.We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J)","['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The second respondent is present in person.The petitioners as well as respondent No.2 are also identified by the Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector Uma Dutt.It is stated that aforesaid FIR came to be filed by the complainant / respondent No.2 as a result of certain matrimonial and domestic differences Crl.A son was also born to the parties.A copy of the said order is annexed to this petition.M.A. No.15054/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.This application is disposed off.This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.689/2013 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC at police station Mangol Puri on 09.11.2013; on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.Issue notice.Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, enters appearance and accepts notice.M.C. No.4389/2014 Page 6 of 7I am of the opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus since the parties have reconciled their differences on terms, and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the investigation.Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.689/2013 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC at police station Mangol Puri, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition is disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 dr Crl.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"[Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.] The petitioner Mrs.Surumi/wife of the detenu namely Sathik Batcha, S/o.Mohamed Hanif, aged about 35 years has come to this Court with this Habeas Corpus Petition, challenging the correctness of the impugned detention order dated 25.07.2019 passed by the second respondent/District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District, branding the petitioner's husband as 'Goonda'.2.A perusal of the Grounds of Detention dated 25.07.2019, passed by the 2nd respondent herein, would disclose among other things that the detenu, viz., Sathik Batcha came to the adverse notice in the following two cases:-Karaikal Town Police Station Cr.U/s 419, 420, 120-B of I.P.C and 166 of 2015 Section 66C, 66-D of IT Act, 2000Mambalam R1 Police Station 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, Cr.No.301/2018 448, 427, 380 and 506(ii) of I.P.C It is further stated in the grounds of detention that the detenu was involved in a case for the commission of offences under Sections 294(b), 307, 506(ii) I.P.C and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992, r/w 26(2) of Arms Act, 1959 in Kumbakonam Police Station Crime No.187 of 2019 (ground case).The detenu was arrested on 07.07.2019 and produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kumbakonam.The detaining authority on being satisfied with the materials placed by the sponsoring authority that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health, clamped the order of detention and making a challenge to the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner.3.We have heard Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to page No.83 of the booklet and would submit that after the arrest of the accused in ground case in Crime No.187 of 2019, the arrest intimation was not communicated to the family members of the detenu and though the arrest intimation was said to have been sent to the mobile No. 9003169990 through SMS, the person to whom the message was sent to the said mobile number has not been identified and the signature of the concerned person has also not been obtained and in the light of the non- communication of the arrest intimation, the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR (1997) SC 610 [D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal] is violated and as such, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.5.In support of his submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on an unreported order of this Court dated 07.06.2019 made in H.C.P.(MD) No.26 of 2019 in the matter of Natarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by The Principal Secretary to Government and two others, in which one of us (B.PUGALENDHI, J) was a party.Accordingly, on this sole ground, thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 detention order is liable to fall.9.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed by setting aside the Order of Detention passed by the second respondent herein, namely, the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District in P.D.O.No.","['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"2.The facts in brief are that on March 19, 1973 being theHoli day, the appellant and one Rajan Mani went to the shopof the deceased bearing No. 1259/A/B situated at BalbirNagar, Shahdara, New Delhi and requested him to close thetea shop which he was vending and asked him to take part inplaying Holi.Thereon the deceased refused to accede totheir request.Thereafter, in a huff the appellant andRajan Mani went away with a dire threat to the deceased andhis father, Ved Prakash, PW-1, who remonstrated against thethreat.The appellant was charged for the offenceof murder ofSudhir on March 19, 1973 at 12 noon.The trial courtacquitted him of the charge, but on appeal the High Courtreversed the acquittal and convicted him under Section 302IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.One hour thereafter the appellant came holding agupti (sharp edged weapon) in his right hand to the shop bywhich time the deceased was closing the shop.Rajan Manitook the deceased in his arms and held him back.Theappellant inflicted a fatal blow near the neck and also gaveother minor injuries.PW 1 and PW 3 have seen theoccurrence.The deceased was made to walk for a distance of2530 feet and thereafter he fell down at the house of PW 4.Then he was taken to the hospital.PW 12, thedoctor, conducted the autopsy and found that there were asmany as nine injuries and injury No. 2 was found to be fatalwhich in the opinion of the doctor was sufficient to causedeath in the ordinary course of nature.PW 1 is the fatherof the deceased.PW 3 is another independent witness, whohappened to come over to the area to his sister's house toplay Holi.3.The trial court disbelieved the evidence of PW 3 on theground that PW 1 did not disclose the name of the PW 3either in his initial statement under Section 161 or in hissupplementary statement.The name of PW 3 was also notdisclosed in the FIR.The statement under Section 164 ofCrPC was got recorded.As a result, his evidence wassuspect.The evidence of PW 1 was also disbelieved.TheHigh Court considered the evidence afresh and found that PW3 is an independent witness.PW 1 being the father of thedeceased is not464interested to exclude the real offender and implicate aninnocent person as the assailant of his son and that,therefore, their evidence was found acceptable.The HighCourt accordingly convicted the appellant and confirmed theacquittal of the co-accused, Rajan Mani.4.Shri Das Bahl, learned counsel for the appellant hasreiterated the contentions which were found acceptable tothe trial court, but on consideration of the evidence wefind no justifiable reason to differ from the High Court.It is seen that in the cross-examination of PW 3 he hasgraphically explained the attack mounted by the appellant onthe deceased, but for the fact that he was an eyewitness, itwould be difficult to give such a graphic description of thehappening of the occurrence.Absolutely PW 3 has no axe togrind against the appellant.No material contradictionshave been brought out to doubt his veracity except statingthat he was speaking falsely.PW 3 being an independentwitness, his evidence cannot become suspect merely becausethe statement under Section 164 CrPC was got recorded by thepolice.Perhaps with a view to see that he cannot be gainedover, the police in its usual precaution has got thestatement of PW 3 recorded under Section 164 CrPC.It mightbe that there is an attempt to pressurise PW 3 by gettingthe statement under Section 164 and the prosecutionattempted to pin him down to the statement given to them.But that ground should be taken as a caution to scrutinisethe evidence of PW 3 and subject it to critical examination.We have carefully scanned his evidence keeping these factorsin view and we find that absolutely there are no compellingreasons to differ from the assessment of the evidence by theHigh Court to disbelieve his evidence.That apart, we havethe evidence of PW 1, Ved Prakash, father of the deceased,which is sufficient to hold that the appellant alone hasinflicted the injury which resulted in the death of Sudhir.It is not disputed that PW 1 was present at the time whenthe shop was being closed.Even at the first instance also,the father was present when the threat was administered bythe appellant to the father himself, when he remonstratedagainst the obstruction to his son continuing the teabusiness in his shop.5.On a totality of the facts and the circumstances, weare satisfied that the evidence of PW 1 and PW 3 inspiresconfidence to be acceptable.Accordingly, we accept theirevidence.We have seen the evidence.7.We have seen the nature of the injuries and also thetime gap between the time ofinfliction of the injury tillthe date of death which was two days after the injurywasinflicted.We have no sufficient material as to the natureof the treatment given to the deceased during those twodays.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Criminal law was set into motion when at around 01.05 A.M. on 19.10.2006, an entry was made in the PCR Form Ex.PW-19/A by HC Jai Kumar PW-19 to the effect that a call has D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 3 of 130 been received from the mobile number 9811042809 informing that children have been murdered by the servants at 6/4, Singh Sabha Road.HC Jai Kumar immediately transmitted the aforesaid information to Police Station Roop Nagar where HC Pawan Kumar PW-20, recorded the DD No.3A, Ex.PW-20/A, to the effect that a wireless information has been received informing that servants had murdered children at 6/4, Singh Sabha Road, Roop Nagar.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 3 of 130On receiving a copy of the afore-noted DD entry, SI Dharampal PW-40, accompanied by Const.Tejpal PW-25, proceeded to the building bearing Municipal No.6/4, Singh Sabha Road, Roop Nagar, Delhi.Simultaneously, Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, who also received the information recorded in DD No.3A, reached the said building.On reaching the said building, the aforesaid police officers learnt that three children of Mr.Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal PW-10 and Nirmal Aggarwal PW-23, who are residing at the second floor of the said building, have been injured and removed to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital.The children who were injured were a boy named Pratham (herein after referred to as the ""Deceased"") aged 4 years, a girl named X aged 17 years and a girl named Y aged 9 years.(The real names of the two girls are not being disclosed D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 4 of 130 as the instant case pertains to the commission of the offence of rape).D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 4 of 130Leaving SI Dharampal PW-40, at the place of occurrence, Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48 and Const.Tejpal PW-25, proceeded to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital where they learnt that the deceased has been brought dead at the hospital as recorded in the MLC Ex.PW-2/C of the deceased.We note that following was recorded on the MLC Ex.""....Alleged H/o stab injury, incise wound over Lt submandibular region at house at 12.45 AM on 19/10/06, brought in casualty by his relatives at 1:15 AM on 19/10/06 for medical aid.L/E incise wound over Lt Submandibular region .....Child was declared brought dead.....""Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48 and Const.Tejpal PW-25, further learnt that X and Y have also been admitted in the hospital in an injured condition as recorded in their MLCs Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-2/B respectively.We note that following was recorded on the MLC Ex.PW-2/A of X:-""Alleged H/o stab injury, incise wound over anterior aspect of neck and multiple incise wound over back at home at 12.45 AM on 19/10/06, brought in casualty by her relatives at 1:15 AM on 19/10/06 for medical aid.L/E Deep incise wound over anterior aspect of neck and multiple incise wound over back.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 5 of 130Shifted to OT Admit in ICU""We note that following was recorded on the MLC Ex.PW- 2/B of Y:-""Alleged H/o stab injury, incise wound over anterior aspect of submandibular region and Lt side neck Rt index and middle finger injury at home at 12.45 AM on 19/10/06, brought in casualty by her relatives at 1:15 AM on 19/10/06 for medical aid.L/E Incise wound over anterior aspect of submandibular region, Lt side neck and Rt index and middle finger.Shifted to OT Admit in ICU""At the hospital, Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48 and Const.Tej Pal met Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal PW-10, the father of the children.Inspector Baltej Singh recorded the statement Ex.PW-10/A of Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal and made and endorsement Ex.PW-48/A thereon, and at around 04.00 A.M. on 19.10.2006 forwarded the same through Const.Tejpal PW- 25, for the purposes of registration of an FIR.Tejpal took the endorsement Ex.PW-48/A to HC Pawan Kumar PW-20, who recorded the FIR No.295/06 Ex.In his statement Ex.PW-10/A Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal stated that his family consists of his wife Nirmala Aggarwal, three daughters Nikita Aggarwal, X and Y and his D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 6 of 130 son Pratham (deceased) and that they reside on the second floor of the building bearing Municipal No.6/4 Singh Sabha Road, Ghanta Ghar, Shakti Nagar, Delhi.The accused used to reside in a room constructed on the roof of their residence.On 18.05.2006 in the evening he was watching television along with his wife and children in his room.At about 10.00 P.M. his three children i.e. X, Y and the deceased left their room while the accused remained in his room till 11.15 P.M. The accused was watching television and pressing his legs till the time he remained in his room.At about 11.15 P.M. the accused left from their room and he and his wife went to sleep.At about 12.45 P.M. his daughter X who was smeared with blood and writhing in pain suddenly came to his room.After telling him that the accused had hit her, X fell on the bed and became unconscious.In the meantime Y who was also smeared with blood came there.She told him that the accused had hit her and the deceased, upon which he and his wife rushed to the room of their children where they saw that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood with a knife stuck in his neck.On seeing the same he raised an alarm and removed his three children to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital with the help of his neighbours and relatives.The deceased was declared as D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 7 of 130 brought dead at the hospital.The condition of both his daughters was serious.The accused absconded from his house.In the meantime, injured girl X was operated upon at Sunder Lal Jain Hospital.The report Ex.""....Alleged H/o Assault Pt has been stabbed at multiple placesTracheal wound - already tube put2. Left side of chest wall around 47th ICS horizontal 5- 9 cm long wound, sucking woundPosterirly - 7-8 multiple wounds 2-3 ling vertically and horizontally placed D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 8 of 130 All the wounds bleeding profusely mid line superior wound has an discharge also.....""D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 8 of 130The report Ex.PW-8/C prepared by Dr.A.464/2009 Page 9 of 130L/w over distal phalagx of Rt index, Rt middle and Lt ring finger L/w of about 1 cm x 0.5 cm over Rt shoulder.""At around 3.45 A.M. Dr.Uma Rani Swain PW-9, conducted the gynaecological examination of Y. The relevant portion of the gynaecological examination report Ex.PW-9/B prepared by Dr.Uma Rani Swain reads as under:-""Ext genitalia: healthy and normal no obvious discharge or bleeding.Hymen intact.No sign of injury....""At about 5.15 A.M. Dr.Neetu made endorsements on the MLCs Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-2/B of X and Y respectively that 'Pt. is not fit for statement because of tracheotomy.'After collecting the MLCs of the deceased, X and Y, Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, proceeded to the place of occurrence.In the meantime, the crime team also reached the place of occurrence; on being summoned.At the place of occurrence, the police officials found that two bed sheets which were spread on the beds which were lying in the room of the children were stained with blood and that a foot print was imprinted on one of the said two bed sheets; a blood stained pyjama and an underwear were lying on the floor of the D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 10 of 130 childrens room; a knife having an iron handle stained with blood was lying in the childrens room; a bunch of hair was lying on the one of the bed lying in the childrens room; a hair was lying on the floor of the childrens room; the floor of the room of the parents of the children was stained with blood; bed sheet which was found spread on the bed which was lying in the room of the parents of the children was stained with blood; the floor of a bathroom which was situated near the childrens room was stained with blood and that a knife was lying outside the said bathroom.The police lifted the aforesaid materials and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-40/A.PW-26/A the same could not be developed.HC Rajpal Singh PW-32, photographer, took 11 photos Ex.PW-32/A1 to Ex.PW-32/A11 of the place of occurrence; negatives whereof are Ex.PW-32/B1 to Ex.SI Ajay Kumar PW-27, Incharge, Mobile Crime Team, North District, examined the place of occurrence and prepared the report Ex.PW-27/A, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:-D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 11 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 11 of 130Articles examined and lifts SOE - Lot of blood lying on the floor of the bed room and beds 1 Two nives - one from bed room floor and other in the bathroom window.I.O. is advised to 1 send the D.B. for P.M. 2 Interrogate the parents, neighbours and corporate 3 to locate and interrogate servants 4 Also interrogate injured ......."" (Emphasis Supplied)Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, prepared the sketches Ex.PW-48/B and Ex.PW-48/C of the two knives found at the place of occurrence and the site plan Ex.PW-48/D of the place of occurrence.PW-1/C8 pertaining to the death of the deceased prepared by Inspector Baltej Singh records that 'One knife has been recovered from the place of occurrence'.The medial angle of the wound is more acute.The shape of the wound is more or less spindle shaped.Two small cuticle deep cuts each 0.4 cm long and about 1 cm apart each other over just below and adjacent to middle part of mandible.""The doctor further opined that the cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia consequent upon choking of trachea (wind pipe) by blood clots as a result of injuries to major vessels of left side of neck.The injuries were caused by sharp, cutting, penetrating and straight weapon and that the same were ante-mortem in nature.Injury no. (1) found on the person of the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.After conduct of the post-mortem, the doctor handed over the clothes, scalp hair and blood sample of the deceased D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 13 of 130 on a gauze to HC Tejpal PW-33, who in turn handed over the same to Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, vide memo Ex.PW-33/A.""He tried to molest me.He entered inside me, took off his clothes.It pained.This all happened in the end when he already stabbed me.He hurt all three of us simultaneously.Firstly he stabbed my younger sister, then me and then my brother.I dont know his name, my mom must be knowing it.I had seen him earlier also and I opened the light.He was working in my house since about 1 week.PW-48/F that 'Patient Y is very anxious and has been anti-xilotius.She would be not fit for statement'.Likewise, at about 11.00 P.M., Dr.Gaurav Singhal PW-3, made an endorsement Ex.PW-3/A on MLC Mark X of X that 'Pt not fit to talk at present as advised by Dr.Anoop K Ganjoo'.In the meantime, the police went about looking for the accused as Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal, the father of the children, indicted the accused as the person who caused death of the deceased and inflicted injuries on girls X and Y. In the early morning of 19.10.2006 the police received information that the accused is present in Rishikesh pursuant to which Inspector Vimal Kumar PW-29, accompanied by HC Yogender PW-28, proceeded to Rishikesh where he arrested the accused at 6.30 P.M. as recorded in the arrest memo Ex.PW-28/A.On being interrogated by Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, in the presence of SI Rishipal Singh PW-34, the accused made his disclosure D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 15 of 130 statement Ex.PW-34/A wherein he admitted that he caused the death of the deceased; committed rape upon X and inflicted injuries upon the person of X and Y. He further stated that he had hidden the clothes which he was wearing at the time of occurrence and that he can get recovered the same.Pursuant thereto, the accused led Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, SI Rishipal PW-34 and SI Ramesh Dixit PW-35, to the place of occurrence i.e. second floor, 6/4, Singh Sabha Road and got recovered a pyjama, vest, underwear and handkerchief from the roof of the room which was built upon the said floor.The aforesaid clothes were seized vide memo Ex.PW-34/A. It may be noted here that Prem Prakash Aggarwal PW-17, the brother of the father of the children, was also present at the time of the recovery of the said clothes.It may be noted here that MLC Ex.PW-4/A of the accused records that no fresh external injury was found on any part of the body of the deceased and that the secondary sexual characters of the accused are well developed.A.464/2009 Page 16 of 130After conducting the medical examination of the accused, the doctor handed over the blood sample of the accused on a gauze to SI Rishipal PW-34, who in turn handed over the same to Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, vide memo Ex.PW-34/C.On the same day i.e. 20.10.2006 at about 3.30 P.M. the accused was examined by Dr.M.K.Panigrahi PW-12, for the purposes of ascertaining whether he is capable to perform sexual intercourse.The report Ex.PW-12/A prepared by Dr.M.K.Panigrahi records that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable of performing sexual intercourse and that no smegma was found in the external genitiala of the accused.On 21.10.2006 Y was discharged from Apollo Hospital.On the same date Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, recorded the statement of Y under Section 161 CrPC.In her statement Y indicted the accused as the person who caused the death of the deceased; committed rape upon X and inflicted injuries upon her and X.On 22.10.2006 SI Rishipal PW-34, accompanied by HC Sanjay PW-30, again took the accused to Hindu Rao Hospital where he was examined by Dr.The MLC Ex.PW-6/A of the accused records that no fresh external injury was found on the person of the accused.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 17 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 17 of 130After conducting the medical examination of the accused, the doctor handed over two vials containing scalp hair and pubic hair of the accused to SI Rishipal PW-34, who in turn handed over the same to Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, vide memo Ex.PW-30/A.On the same day i.e. 22.10.2006 Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, collected pyjama, t-shirt and brassiere worn by X at the time of her admission at Sunder Lal Jain Hospital, panty worn by Y at the time of her admission at Sunder Lal Jain Hospital, vaginal swabs of X and Y, urinal sample of X, blood which oozed out from vagina of X and pubic hair of X from Sunder Lal Jain Hospital and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-9/C.On 23.10.2006 the bed sheet seized from the room of the children and having a foot print imprinted upon it was sent to Sudhir Bhalla PW-14, Finger Print Expert, who opined that no chance print could be developed by him for the reason no ridges were found on the foot print imprinted upon the bed sheet in question.He further opined that the said foot print be got examined by physical and biology division of FSL, Delhi.Sudhir Bhalla prepared the report Ex.PW-14/A in said regard.Pursuant thereto, said bed sheet as also other articles which were seized during investigation were sent to FSL where Ravinder Kumar Jain PW-15, Finger Print Expert, examined the D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 18 of 130 foot print in question.A.464/2009 Page 18 of 130On the same day i.e. 23.10.2006 SI Manohar Lal PW-38, Draftsman, prepared the site plan to scale Ex.PW-37/A was prepared.Unfortunately, the error which had occurred in the rough report and was corrected subsequently found its way in the report Ex.PW-37/A. This practice of callously preparing reports by the officials of FSL is seriously deprecated by this court.It is expected that in future the officials of FSL would be more careful and vigilant while preparing the reports.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 24 of 130The correct factual position is that the hair seized from the spot (exhibit 5) was compared with pubic hair of X (exhibitThe result of the said comparison was that the characteristics of exhibit 5 were found to be dissimilar from the characteristics of exhibit 23 D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.Additionally, the hair seized from the spot (exhibit 5) was also compared with scalp hair of the deceased (exhibit 11) and scalp hair of the accused (exhibit 25).However, no conclusive opinion could be rendered with regard to the said comparison.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 25 of 130Vide FSL report Ex.PW-37/B it was opined that blood detected on the two bed sheets, underwear and strand of hair seized from the room of the children was having O group; blood detected on pyjama seized from the room of the children and blood lifted from the said room was of human origin, group whereof could not be determined; blood detected on the bed sheet seized from the room of the parents, knife seized from the bathroom and clothes of the deceased was having O group; blood group of the deceased was O; no opinion could be given about the group of blood sample of the accused as the same had putrefied; blood detected on pyjama which X was wearing at the time of her admission in Sunder Lal Jain Hospital and t-shirt which Y was wearing at the time of her admission in Apollo Hospital was of human origin, group whereof could not be determined; no opinion could be given about the group of blood sample of X and blood which oozed from the vagina of X as the same had putrefied; blood detected on shirt and pyjama which X and Y respectively were D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 26 of 130 wearing at the time of her admission in Apollo Hospital was having O group and that no opinion could be given about the group of semen which was found on the vaginal swabs of X and Y.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 26 of 130Vide FSL report Ex.PW-37/C it was opined that blood was detected on the vest, underwear and pyjama recovered at the instance of the accused and that human semen was detected on the said underwear and pyjama.Vide FSL report Ex.PW- 37/D it was opined that blood detected on the said vest was having O group; blood detected on the said underwear and pyjama was of human origin, group whereof could not be determined and that no opinion could be given about the group of semen which was detected on the said underwear and pyjama.Armed with the aforesaid materials, a charge sheet was filed against the accused.Following charges were framed against the accused:-D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 27 of 130PW-20/B and the DD entry Ex.PW- 20/C were prepared by him.HC Shiv Pratap Singh PW-24, deposed that the copy of the FIR Ex.Tej Pal PW-25, deposed that he took the endorsement Ex.PW-48/A prepared by D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 28 of 130 Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, to the police station at about 04.00 A.M. on 19.10.2006 for the purposes of registration of an FIR.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 28 of 130Hari Gupta PW-6, Dr.Sudha Kansal PW-7, Dr.Seema Patni PW-8, Dr.Uma Rani Swain PW-9, Santosh Kumar Upadhyaya PW-11, Dr.M.K.Panigrehi PW-12, S.S.Rana PW-16 and Dr.K.Goyal PW-1, deposed that he conducted the post- mortem of the deceased and prepared the post-mortem report Ex.PW-1/A of the deceased.He further deposed that he handed over the clothes, scalp hair and blood sample of the deceased on a gauze to the police.M.Arshad PW-2, deposed that the MLCs Ex.PW-2/A, Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-2/C of X, Y and the deceased were prepared by him.Gaurav Singhal PW-3, deposed that the endorsements Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 29 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 29 of 130Rakesh Kumar PW-4, deposed that he medically examined the accused on 20.10.2006 and prepared the MLC Ex.PW-4/A in said regard.He further deposed that he handed over the blood sample of the deceased to SI Rishipal after conducting the medical examination of the accused.Hari Gupta PW-6, deposed that he medically examined the accused on 22.10.2006 and prepared the MLC Ex.PW-6/A in said regard.He further deposed that he handed over two vials containing pubic hair and scalp hair of the accused to SI Rishipal after conducting the medical examination of the accused.Sudha Kansal PW-7, deposed that she had prepared the history sheet Ex.PW-7/A of X on 19.10.2006 of X and that she made the endorsement Ex.PW-7/B on the MLC Mark X of X.X had multiple stab injuries all over her body, predominantly on the upper chest and abdomen and that her neck was slit open.Tracheotomy tube was put in the throat of X and that a chest tube was put in the left side of the chest of X. Multiple blood transfusions were given to X. She further deposed that she opined that the injuries found on the person of X were dangerous in nature and that the treatment record Ex.PW-8/A of X was prepared by her.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 30 of 130Uma Rani Swain PW-9, deposed that she conducted the gynaecological examination of X at about 3.15 P.M. on 19.10.2006 and prepared the report Ex.PW-9/A in said regard.She further deposed that she conducted the gynaecological examination of Y at about 3.45 A.M. on 19.10.2006 and prepared the report Ex.PW-9/B in said regard.After conducting the gynaecological examination of X and Y she handed over the materials seized vide memo Ex.Neetu made the endorsements that 'Pt. is not fit for statement because of tracheotomy' on the MLCs Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-2/B of X and Y respectively.That he can identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Dr.M.K.Panigrehi PW-12, deposed that he examined the accused on 20.10.2006 at about 3.30 P.M. to ascertain whether the accused is capable of performing sexual intercourse and that he prepared the report Ex.PW-12/A in said D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 31 of 130 regard.S.S.Rana PW-16, deposed that he handed over the materials seized vide memo Ex.PW-16/A to the police.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 31 of 130Urvashi Prasad Jha PW-46, deposed that on 19.10.2006 X had written the account Ex.PW-46/A of the incident in her presence.She conducted the gynaecological examination of X at about 05.00 P.M. on 19.10.2006 and she noted following injuries on the person of X:- (i) A torn hymen;(ii) Circumferential tears between the hymen and the labia minora with slight bleeding; and (iii) Tear in the fouchette with slight bleeding which is suggestive of forced sexual vaginal intercourse.C Witnesses to prove the scientific evidence: - Ravinder Kumar Jain PW-15, Dr.V.K.Goyal PW-36 and Anita Chhari PW-Ravinder Kumar Jain PW-15, deposed that the report Ex.PW-15/A was prepared by him.Anita Chhari PW-37, deposed that the FSL reports Ex.PW-37/A, Ex.PW-37/B, Ex.PW- 37/C and Ex.PW-37/D were prepared by her.V.K.Goyal PW-36, deposed that the police made an application Ex.PW-36/A for return of the parcel containing the pyjama recovered at the instance of the accused and that he D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 32 of 130 made an endorsement Ex.PW-14/A was prepared by him.ASI Manish Kumar Bhardwaj PW-26, deposed that the report Ex.PW-26/A was prepared by him.ASI Ajay Kumar PW-27, deposed that the report Ex.PW-27/A was prepared by him.X PW-21, deposed that on 14.10.2006 her mother employed the accused as a domestic servant.On 18.10.2006 at about 10.00 P.M. she, Y, the deceased and her parents were watching television in the room of her parents.After sometime, she, Y and the deceased went to their bedroom where Y and the deceased went to sleep whereas she studied for about half an hour.Thereafter she also went to sleep on the bed on which the deceased was sleeping.At about 12.00 A.M. she heard the noise of weeping of Y upon which she woke D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 33 of 130 up and saw that the accused was sitting between the bed on which she was sleeping and the bed on which Y was sleeping.She immediately switched on the light and saw that the neck and hands of Y were smeared with blood.The accused who was carrying a knife in his hand rushed towards her.She tried to open the door but the accused gave knife blows on her back and the left side of her body due to which she fell down on the floor.The accused went to Y, slit her throat and asked her to remove her pant.In the meantime, the deceased also woke up and started crying.Y asked the accused to allow her to go out to drink water but the accused told her to drink water from the tap in the bathroom which was situated in the said room.Y went to the bathroom and the deceased started to follow Y. When the deceased was about to enter the bathroom the accused caught hold of the deceased from his neck.The accused lifted the deceased from his neck, gave a knife blow on his neck and threw him on her bed.The knife got stuck in the neck of the deceased.She and Y requested the accused to let them go out and told him that they would not disclose a word about the incident to anyone.The accused went out of the room and brought another knife from the kitchen.The accused gave knife blows on her neck as also on the neck of Y. Thereafter he removed her pyjama and under pant as also his clothes.The accused tried to rape her but she managed to D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.The accused again gave a knife blow on her back and committed rape upon her.While committing rape upon her, the accused removed a ring from the finger of her left hand.The accused again tried to rape her but she fell down from the bed.The accused placed his fingers on her nostrils to ascertain if she was alive or not.She stopped her breath and the accused went out of the room.She asked Y to go to the room of her parents and inform them about the incident but she did not go as she was scared and apprehended that the accused is present outside the room.She and Y were bleeding from their necks.Thereafter she went to the room of her parents by crawling on the floor.On reaching there, she switched on the light upon which her mother woke up.Her mother woke up her father.Her father made her to lie down on the bed.She told her parents about the incident.Her mother and her neighbours helped her to wear clothes.Her father and her neighbours removed her, Y and the deceased to the hospital.The pyjama and the underwear recovered by the police from her room were worn by her at the time of the occurrence.She caught the hair of the accused when he assaulted her for the first time and that some strands of hair of the accused came in her hand.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 35 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 33 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 34 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 35 of 130On being questioned as to why she did not raise an alarm at the time of the occurrence, X stated that (Quote) 'I could not raise any alarm because I had sustained injuries on my neck.I had not struggled with the accused to save myself nor I had fought with him.I had pulled his hairs.'PW-22, deposed that on 18.10.2006 she, i.e. Y, the deceased and her parents were watching television in the room of her parents.At about 10.30 P.M., she, i.e. Y and the deceased went to their bedroom where she and the deceased went to sleep whereas X started studying.After sometime she felt that someone was fondling her body upon which she woke up.She saw that the accused was fondling her body with his hand.She removed the hand of the accused from her body upon which the accused pressed a knife on her neck as a result of which blood started to ooze out of her neck.When she removed his hand she also sustained injuries on her fingers.The accused pushed her from the bed due to which she fell down on the floor upon which she started weeping.On hearing her noise X woke up and switched on the light.X tried to open the door of the room but the accused attacked her with knife.The accused gave two-three knife blows to X. X caught the hair of the accused but fell on the floor.The accused asked her to open her pant.She asked the accused to D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 36 of 130 let her go out as she wanted to drink water upon which the accused told her to drink water from the tap in the bathroom.In the meantime the deceased also woke up and started crying.She went to the bathroom and the deceased started to follow her.The accused caught hold of the deceased from his neck, gave a knife blow on his neck and threw him on the bed.The knife got stuck in the neck of the deceased.The accused ran to the kitchen and brought another knife from there.She followed X. She narrated the whole incident to her parents.Her father and neighbours removed her, X and the deceased to the hospital.She sustained injuries on her neck and other parts of her body.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 37 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 36 of 130A.464/2009 Page 37 of 130On being questioned as to why she did not raise an alarm at the time of the occurrence, Y stated that (Quote) 'I did not cry because I have received cut with knife on my neck...I did not raise any alarm since I was injured.I was not having injuries on my leg.I did not run out of the because it was bolted from upside by a chitkani.' On being questioned about the commission of rape by the accused upon X she stated that (Quote) 'Accused kept on lying on my sister for 3-4 minutes.At that time I was on my bed.The difference between the first bad act and second bad act was half a minute.My sister has tried to free her by moving herself on one side but accused gave a knife blow to her.When my sister took a turn on one side accused had given a knife blow to her.My sister had taken a turn much after the accused laid on her....For the second time, the bad act which the accused did with my sister was on my bed.I was sitting on the same bed'.On being questioned about the movement of the accused to the kitchen the witness stated that (Quote) 'The accused left our bedroom at around 12.30 a.m. The door was open when the accused had left the bedroom to the kitchen to bring a knife.Within 5- 10 seconds, accused had returned back to the bedroom with a knife.We did not try to run out of the bedroom because the accused in the meantime had come to the bedroom again.' D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 38 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 38 of 130Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal PW-10, the father of the children, deposed that they employed the accused as a domestic servant to work in their house five days prior to the intervening night of 18/19.10.2006 on the recommendation of a driver named Jeetu.They gave a room built on the roof of their residence to the accused for his occupation.On 18.10.2006 he, his wife and three children namely X, Y and the deceased were watching television in their room.The accused who was pressing his legs was also present in the said room at that time.At about 10.00 P.M., X, Y and the deceased went to their bedroom.At about 11.15 P.M. he and his wife went to sleep and the accused left their room.At about 12.45 P.M. X who was soaked with blood and writhing in pain entered their room all of a sudden.She told him and his wife that the accused has inflicted injuries on her body and thereafter fell on the bed.Meanwhile, Y who was also soaked with blood and was weeping loudly came to their room and told them that the accused has caused injuries to the deceased.On hearing the same, he and his wife rushed to the room of their children where they saw that the deceased was drenched with blood and that a knife was stuck in his neck.The knife which was stuck in the neck of the deceased did not belong to their household.He pulled out the knife from the neck of the deceased and threw it on the floor.He raised an alarm upon which their neighbours came to their residence.He and his neighbours removed X, Y and the deceased to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital where the deceased was declared as brought dead.The doctors told him that the condition of X and Y was serious at the time of their admission in the hospital.After sometime the police arrived at the hospital and recorded his statement Ex.PW-10/A. The accused managed to escape from their house.On 26.10.2006 he handed over the t-shirt and the pyjama which Y was wearing at the time of the occurrence to the police.The date of birth of X and Y are 09.10.1989 and 28.07.1997 respectively as recorded in the birth certificates Ex.PW-10/C and Ex.PW-10/D.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 39 of 130A.464/2009 Page 40 of 130 the hospital.I did not find that knife there in my house when I came back at 10.00 am from the hospital'.On being questioned about the presence of the accused after the occurrence, the witness stated that (Quote) 'It is correct that after my daughter came to my bedroom I along with my wife and daughter had gone to the bedroom of my children.Nirmal Aggarwal PW-23, the mother of the children, deposed that on 14.10.2006 they employed the accused as a domestic servant to work in their house.On 18.10.2006 she, her wife and her three children namely X, Y and the deceased were watching television in their bedroom.At about 10.30 P.M., X, Y and the deceased went to their bedroom.She had seen a knife in a bathroom situated near the stair case of her house.A.464/2009 Page 41 of 130On being questioned about her movements after the occurrence, the witness stated that (Quote) 'We had removed our children from our house around 12.40 am for hospital.I had not gone to sunder Lal hospital with my children but remained in the house.I remained in my house upto 1.30/1.45 am.Thereafter police came and took me to Jain Colony in search of the accused.SHO had taken me in the search of the accused.I returned back to my house around 4.00 am....It took about 1 hour to search out the house of my driver in Jain Colony.At that time accused was not found in the house of Jeetu.From there we had tone along with Jeetu to Jawahar Nagar where jija of accused had been residing.Accused was not found there also'On being questioned about the knives recovered from the place of occurrence the witness stated that (Quote) 'After D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 42 of 130 removing the knife from the neck my husband had thrown the knife on the floor.When SHO was taking me in search of the accused in my house before leaving the house I had gone to the bathroom near the stair case where I noticed the knife.On hearing the same, he immediately rushed to the second floor of the building in which he used to reside as the voice was coming from there.Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal, his wife, three daughters and one son were residing on the second floor.The family of Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal had employed one domestic servant.When he reached the second floor, Mr.Ramesh Aggarwal and his wife opened the door and told him that their children have been killed by their servant and that their servant has absconded.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 43 of 130 He saw that Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal was carrying the deceased who was badly injured and was bleeding profusely.X was lying on the bed in an injured condition while Y who was also injured was standing in the room.He immediately offered his help to Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal for removing the children to the hospital.He also gave a call to the police from his mobile having number 9811042809 and informed them about the incident.Thereafter he along with Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal removed the deceased to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital in his own car while X and Y were also removed to the same hospital by someone else.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 43 of 130On being questioned about the room in which the occurrence took place the witness stated that (Quote) 'I had seen the room where the incident took place.I had not seen the knife lying in the room.I had seen the room of the children where the incident took place after I came from the hospital.' On being questioned about the arrival of the police at the place of occurrence the witness stated that (Quote) 'I had taken Pratham (the son of the complainant) to the hospital.We had reached the hospital between 12.00 or 1.00 am.PCR came at the house after we left for hospital.In my presence police did not reach the hospital.Jeetan Dass PW-39, deposed that he earns his livelihood by working as a driver.The wife of Ramesh Kumar asked him to get her a domestic servant.Since he had provided a boy named Jheri to her on an earlier occasion she again asked him to get her a domestic servant.The boy he had earlier provided to wife of Ramesh Kumar left her services.A person named Subash who was known to him had requested him to arrange some job for his brother-in-law.He asked Subash to meet the wife of Ramesh Kumar for the job upon which Subash along with his brother-in-law met her.After meeting Subash and his brother- in-law wife of Ramesh Kumar gave him a telephonic call and told him that she has employed the brother-in-law of Subash.The accused is the brother-in-law of Subash.In the month of October 2006 some police officials came to his house and made inquiries about the accused whereupon he learnt about the incident in question.He took the police officials to the residence of Subash where they met Subash.On being questioned about the presence of wife of Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal at the time when the police came to D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 45 of 130 his house, the witness stated that (Quote) 'Wife of Ramesh was also with them.On being questioned about the identity of the accused the witness stated that (Quote) 'It is correct that I had not seen accused present in the court before I had referred him to the wife of Ramesh, complainant.Thereafter I had seen the photograph of the accused in the newspaper and after that I had seen him in the court.HC Yogender PW-28, deposed that on 19.10.2006 pursuant to a secret information he along with Inspector Vimal Kishore and other police officials had gone to Rishikesh to arrest the accused.They apprehended the accused at about 6.30 P.M. on 19.10.2006 at Rishikesh.On being questioned about the time when he left Delhi to go to Rishikesh the witness stated that (Quote) 'We left Delhi at about 1.30 am on 19.10.2006....'Inspector Vimal Kishore PW-29, deposed in harmony with the evidence of HC Yogender.On being questioned about the time when they left Delhi to go to Rishikesh the witness stated that (Quote) 'We left Delhi at about 1.30 am on 19.10.2006....' On being questioned about the time when he left Delhi to go to Rishikesh the witness stated that (Quote) 'I left Delhi at 4.00 or 4.30 am on 19.10.06.......""D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 47 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 47 of 130SI Rishipal Singh PW-34, SI Ramesh Dixit PW-35 and Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, deposed that on 20.10.2006 at about 11.00 A.M. the accused led them to the second floor, 6/4 Singh Sabha Road, New Delhi i.e. the residence of the children and got recovered a pyjama, a vest, an underwear and a handkerchief from the roof of the room which was built on the said floor.Prem Prakash Aggarwal PW-17, the brother of the father of the children, deposed that he was present at the time of the said recovery.Additionally, SI Ramesh Dixit PW-35 and Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, deposed that on 30.10.2006 on being interrogated the accused made his second disclosure statement wherein he stated that the ring which was removed by him from the finger of X at the time when he committed rape upon her was kept by him in the right pocket of the pyjama worn by him at that time.Pursuant thereto, the parcel containing the said pyjama was brought from the FSL to the police station.The said pyjama was checked upon which a diamond ring was recovered from the right pocket of the said pyjama.In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused admitted that on 14.10.2006 he was employed as a domestic servant at the residence of Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal; that in the night of 18.10.2006 he surreptitiously entered the bedroom where X, Y and the deceased were sleeping; that he gave a knife blow on the neck of the deceased and inflicted injuries on the person of X and Y; that he raped X; that on 19.10.2006 he was arrested by the police at Rishikesh and that he got recovered the clothes which he was wearing at the time of the occurrence.The accused however denied having removed a ring from the finger of X at the time when he committed rape upon her.The accused further stated that he committed the aforesaid acts to seek revenge from the father of the children as he used to force him to commit homosexual acts with him.The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 49 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 49 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 50 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.Notwithstanding that the plea of juvenility was not raised before Trial Judge, in the interests of justice, vide order dated 03.09.2009 we directed that ossification test of the accused be conducted by a medical board of AIIMS to ascertain the age of the accused.Pursuant to the said order, Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, constituted a medical board consisting of following members:-""1. Dr.Sanjeev Lalwani - Chairman Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine2. Dr.Ashu Seith Bhalla - Member Assoc.Professor of Radio-diagnosisVijay Prakash Mathur - Member Assistant Professor of C.D.E.R.Kashipa Harit - Member Secy.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 51 of 130Department of Hospital Administration""After conducting the physical, dental and radiological examination of the accused, Board prepared the report dated 18.09.2009, relevant portion whereof reads as under:-""PHYSICAL EXAMINATION SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERS- Fully Developed GENITALS-Adult size fully developed genitalia with bilaterally descended testis.DENTAL CHARTING Right Upper Jaw 1 to 7 8 th Partiall erupted Right Lower Jaw 1 to 8 Left Upper Jaw 1 to 7 8 th Partially erupted Left Lower Jaw 1 to 8 X-Ray - OPG- Report of Dental Radiological Examination OPG X Ray seen wisdom molar (3rd Molar) present and fully developed roots Impression: Ages estimation between 18-22 years (Report Enclosed) RADIOLOGICAL EXAMINATION (REPORT ENCLOSED) .....Report of Radiological Examination-X-ray B/L Humerus- AP & Elbow - B/L Conjoint humeral epiphysis fused - BA > 17.5 yearsThe MLCs Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW-6/A and the report Ex.PW-12/A of the sexual examination of the accused and the order on sentence dated 21.10.2008 passed by the trial court throw some light on the aspect of age of the accused on the date of offence.The MLCs Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.Neither any question was put to the said witnesses in their cross-examination regarding the lifting of finger prints from knives in question nor was any suggestion given to them that they did not make any attempt to lift the fingerprints from D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.The above captioned appeal and the death sentence reference arise out of the judgment and order dated D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 1 of 130 04.10.2008 and the order on sentence dated 21.10.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.09/2007 arising out of FIR No.295/2006 registered at PS Roop Nagar.By virtue of the judgment and order dated 4.10.2008, Sanjay Dass has been convicted for offences under Sections 302/307/376/379 IPC.It may be noted that Sanjay Dass was charged for an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC but has been convicted for a lesser offence i.e. the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.Vide order on sentence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has imposed the extreme penalty of death sentence on Sanjay Dass in respect of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.With regard to the offence(two) punishable under Section 307 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay fine in sum of Rs.1,000/- pertaining to the injuries caused by him to Kumari X and Kumari Y; in default to undergo SI for 3 months.With regard to the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay fine in sum of Rs.1,000/-; in default to undergo SI for 3 months.With regard to the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and pay fine in sum of Rs.500/-; in default to undergo SI for 1 month.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 1 of 130Accordingly, with the able assistance of learned Counsel for the State and Sanjay Dass, hereinafter referred to as the accused, we perused the entire evidence led at the trial while hearing the reference and the connected appeal.The accused has murdered the deceased and caused injuries to both his daughters after committing a murderous attack on them.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 6 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 7 of 130PW-8/A of X prepared by Dr.Seema Patni PW-8, the surgeon who operated X records that she had multiple stab injuries on her chest and that ten wounds were found on her person.Seema Patni PW-8, made an endorsement on the MLC Ex.PW-2/A of X to the effect that the injuries found on the person of X are dangerous in nature.Thereafter at about 1.50 A.M. X was examined by Dr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta.The relevant portion of the case note Ex.PW-11/C of X prepared by Dr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta reads as under:-At about 3.15 P.M. Dr.Uma Rani Swain PW-9, conducted the gynaecological examination of X. The relevant portion of the gynaecological examination report Ex.PW-9/A prepared by Dr.Uma Rani Swain reads as under:-"".....Local pan examination: Whole pubic area with hair stained with fresh blood, bleeding and oozing from introital injury.Internal examination: fresh injury (cut) in the midline of fourchette bleeding + size 1 cm and 4.5 cm deep, hymen ruptured with multiple small bruises on it.Fourchette cut extends upto hymen.No bleeding from internal pa...""Injured girl Y was also operated upon at Sunder Lal Jain Hospital.Seema Patni PW-8, the surgeon who operated Y records that multiple wounds were found on her face and fingers and that a wound was found on her neck.Thereafter Dr.Seema Patni PW-8, made an endorsement on the MLC Ex.PW-2/B of Y to the effect that the injuries found on the person of Y are simple in nature.Injured girl Y was also examined by Dr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta.The relevant portion of the case note Ex.PW-11/A of Y prepared by Dr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta reads as under:-""L/E D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 9 of 130 Multiple lacerated wound over Ant aspect and lateral aspect of neck.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.2 Three bed sheets with blood 3 Hair bunch 4 foot print on rt side bed sheet 5 Blood sample with hair (floor) 6 earth control 7 one plastic print (blood) found on the s/w board in bathroom 8 Blood soaked panty with underwear..... ADVISE TO I/O OF THE CASE1. ........Thereafter he prepared the inquest papers Ex.PW-1/C1 to Ex.PW-1/C11 pertaining to the death of the deceased.It may be noted here that the brief facts Ex.It may be further noted that the death report Ex.PW-1/C9 of the deceased prepared by Inspector Baltej Singh records that the weapon used for committing the death of the deceased was apparently a sharp object.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 12 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 12 of 130Since the deceased was brought dead at the hospital, his body was sent to the mortuary at Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi at 11.30 A.M. on 19.10.2006 where Dr.K.Goyal PW-1, conducted the post-mortem and prepared the post-mortem report Ex.PW-1/A of the deceased which records following external injuries on the person of the deceased:-Incised punctured wound 1.8 X 0.5 cm transversally placed over Lt front of neck about 2 cm left to the midline at the level of just below apple of Adam.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 13 of 130On the same day i.e. 19.10.2006 injured girls X and Y were shifted from Sunder Lal Jain Hospital to Apollo Hospital.Rakesh Kumar Gupta prepared the discharge summary Ex.PW-11/B of Y, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:-"".....Lacerated wound Neck, fingers following on arm Lt Neck: Multiple lacerated deep wound in the neck Hand: Multiple cut in different fingers Lac from Rt shoulder ......Wounds stitched in layers.......""On 19.10.2006 at about 5.15 P.M. X was examined by Dr.Since X was unable to speak as she had undergone tracheotomy in her throat, she wrote her statement Ex.PW-46/A and gave the same to the doctor.The statement Ex.PW-46/A of X reads as under:-I tried to fight.I dont remember his name.I think its Sanjay.A.464/2009 Page 14 of 130A.464/2009 Page 14 of 130After some time Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, made an application Ex.PW-48/F before CMO, Apollo Hospital, for recording the statement of Y. However, at about 10.45 P.M., the doctor opined that Y is not fit for giving a statement.The doctor made an endorsement on the application Ex.Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of the said clothes; being Ex.PW-48/I.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 15 of 130Thereafter SI Rishipal PW-34, took the accused to Hindu Rao Hospital where Dr.Rakesh Kumar PW-4, examined the accused.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 16 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.On 23.10.2006 at about 8.00 P.M. Dr Gaurav Singh PW-3, made an endorsement Ex.PW-3/B on the MLC Mark X of X that 'Not fit to talk at present'.On 24.10.2006 at about 12.00 P.M. Dr.Sudha Kansal PW-7, declared X fit to give a statement as evident from the endorsement Ex.PW-7/B made by her on the MLC Mark X of X pursuant to which Inspector Baltej Singh PW- 48, of X under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In her statement X also indicted the accused as the person who caused the death of the deceased; committed rape upon her and inflicted injuries upon her and Y. Additionally, X stated that the accused removed a diamond ring from her finger at the time when he was committing rape upon her.On 24.10.2006 S.S. Rana PW-16, Security Supervisor, Apollo Hospital, handed over the clothes which X and Y were wearing at the time of their admission in Apollo Hospital and D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 19 of 130 the blood sample of X on a gauze to Inspector Baltej Singh PW- 48, who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-16/A.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 19 of 130On 26.10.2006 Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal PW-10, the father of the children, handed over a torn t-shirt and a pyjama which Y was wearing at the time of the occurrence to Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW- 10/B.On 30.10.2006 the accused made another disclosure statement Ex.PW-35/A wherein he stated that he removed a ring from the finger of X at the time when he committed rape upon her and that he hid the same in the pocket of the pyjama which he was wearing at the time of the occurrence.Pursuant to the aforesaid disclosure made by the accused, Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, made an application Ex.PW-36/A dated 31.10.2006 to the FSL for the return of the parcel containing the pyjama which was worn by the accused at the time of the occurrence.It be noted here that the application Ex.PW-36/A records that 'His clothes were sealed on the spot without thorough search as there was no information of any type regarding the said diamond ring at that time.Further more it was apprehended that too much handling/searching of the clothes may disturb evidence........ and blood vigilance stains of procutics and ..... of accused'.V.K.Goyal PW-36, Director, D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 20 of 130 FSL allowed the request of the Investigating Officer as evident from the endorsement Ex.PW-36/B made by him on the application Ex.After the return of the parcel in question by FSL, Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, checked the pyjama which the accused was wearing at the time of the occurrence in the presence of SI Ramesh Dixit PW-35, upon which a diamond ring was found in the right pocket of the said pyjama.The aforesaid ring was seized vide memo Ex.PW-35/B.On 04.11.2006 Ajay Goel PW-41, Metropolitan Magistrate, conducted the Test Identification proceedings of the ring which was found in the pocket of the pyjama of the accused.X participated in the said proceedings and identified the ring found in the pocket of the pyjama as the ring which was removed by the accused from her finger at the time when he committed rape upon her.Ajay Goel prepared the record Ex.PW-41/B of the said Test Identification proceedings.The aforesaid seized materials viz; two bed sheets, an underwear, a pyjama, a knife, one strand of hair and bunch of hair seized from the room of the children; bed sheet seized from the room of the parents of the children; knife recovered from the bathroom situated near the room of the children; scalp hair, blood sample and clothes of the deceased; pyjama, D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 21 of 130 t-shirt and brassiere worn by X at the time of her admission in Sunder Lal Jain Hospital; underwear worn by Y at the time of her admission in Sunder Lal Jain Hospital; vaginal swabs of X and Y; urinal sample and pubic hair of X; blood which oozed from the vagina of X; pubic hair, scalp hair and the blood sample of the accused; clothes recovered at the instance of the appellant; ring found in the pocket of pyjama of the accused; shirt and pyjama worn by X at the time of her admission in Apollo Hospital; the blood samples of X and Y; clothes worn by the deceased at the time of occurrence and t- shirt and pyjama worn by Y at the time of occurrence were subjected to forensic evaluation at the FSL.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 21 of 130Vide FSL report Ex.PW-37/A, it was opined that blood was detected on the two bed sheets, underwear, pyjama, knife and one strand of hair seized from the room of the children; knife recovered from the bathroom; clothes worn by the deceased at the time of occurrence; pyjama, t-shirt and brassiere worn by X at the time of her admission in Sunder Lal Jain Hospital; underwear worn by Y at the time of her admission in Sunder Lal Jain Hospital; vaginal swabs of X and Y; t-shirt worn by X at the time of her admission in Apollo Hospital and t-shirt worn by Y at the time of occurrence.It was further opined that human semen was detected on the vaginal swabs of X and Y. That the D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 22 of 130 bunch of hair and one strand of hair seized from the room of the children were found to be of human origin and that they were dissimilar in most of their morphological and microscopical characteristics from the hairs contained in exhibit 23 i.e. pubic hair of X and the hair contained in exhibit 24 i.e. the scalp hair of the accused.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 22 of 130A close perusal of the FSL report Ex.PW-37/A shows that 38 parcels were sent by the Investigating Officer to FSL.Out of the said 38 exhibits, 6 exhibits were hairs.Exhibit No.5 was the bunch of hair seized from the room of the children.Exhibit No.6b was one strand of hair seized from the room of the children.Exhibit No.11 was the scalp hair of the deceased.Exhibit 23 was the pubic hair of X. Exhibit 24 was pubic hair of the accused.Exhibit No.25 was the scalp hair of the accused.There is a serious anomaly in the FSL report Ex.PW-37/A. The anomaly is that the FSL report Ex.PW-37/A records that Exhibit No.5/bunch (few strands) of hair seized from the room of the children is dissimilar from Exhibit No.24/scalp hair of the accused.As already noted in para 46 above, exhibit no.24 was pubic hair of the accused and not scalp hair of the accused as recorded in the FSL report Ex.Pubic hair of the accused or scalp hair of the accused? D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 23 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 23 of 130After conducting the said examinations, following conclusions were arrived at by Anita Chhari, which are recorded at page 61 of the record of the FSL:-""i. Exhibit 5 (scalp hair) different from hair in exhibit 23 & 24 (pubic hair)(ii) Only one hair in exhibit 6b & as such no opinion with respect to similarity or otherwise with exhibit 5 can be given.(iii) Exhibit 5, exhibit 11, Ex.25, No opinion is offered whether exhibit 5 is similar with exhibit 11 & Ex.25(i) From morphological and microscopical examination, the hair in exhibit 5, 6b, 11, 23, 24 & 25 were found to be human in origin(ii) Hair in exhibit 5 were found to be dissimilar in most of the morphological & microscopical characteristics with hair in exhibit 23 i.e. Pubic hair of X & exhibit 24 i.e. Pubic hair of accused.(iii) No further opinion.""Pursuant thereto, a rough report was prepared recording therein the results of the hair examinations conducted by Anita Chhari and the other examinations conducted at FSL with respect to the case property.The error which occurred was that exhibit 24 was referred to as containing scalp hair of the accused.However, said error was detected and duly corrected.The word scalp was stroked and word pubic was substituted in its place.At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 48 witnesses.With a view to have clarity in the analysis of the evidence led by the prosecution, we segregate the witnesses of the prosecution into 9 categories, clubbing in one category witnesses who have thrown light on the same issue.We would also be splitting, while noting, the testimonies of the witnesses, whenever required pertaining to the evidence throwing light on different facets/stages of the case of the prosecution.A Witnesses who participated in the preparation of the necessary documents prepared by the police till the FIR was registered: - HC Jai Kumar PW-19, HC Pawan Kumar PW-20, HC Shiv Pratap Singh PW-24 and Const.HC Jai Kumar PW-19, deposed that the entry pertaining to the incident in question was recorded by him in the PCR Form Ex.PW-19/A. HC Pawan Kumar PW-20, deposed that the DD entry Ex.PW-20/A, FIR Ex.B Witnesses who prepared the documents pertaining to the medical condition of the deceased, X and Y:- Dr.K.Goyal PW-1, Dr.M.Arshad PW-2, Dr.Gaurav Singhal PW-3, Dr.Rakesh Kumar PW-4, Dr.A.464/2009 Page 30 of 130 That she made the endorsement Ex.PW-8/B on the MLC Ex.PW- 2/B of Y and prepared the treatment record Ex.PW-8/C of Y.PW-9/C to the police.Santosh Kumar Upadhyaya PW-11, deposed that he is working as Record Clerk at Sunder Lal Jain Hospital and that the case note Ex.PW-11/A of Y, discharge summary Ex.PW-11/C of X were prepared by Dr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta.That Dr.PW-36/B on the said application allowing the return of the said application.A.464/2009 Page 34 of 130 save herself by taking a turn.The accused inflicted several knife blows on her body.The accused also gave knife blows on the neck and back of X. The accused removed the under pant of X as also his clothes.Thereafter the accused committed bad act with X. The accused made X to lie on her bed and again committed bad act with her.(The witness explained the meaning of bad act by stating that (Quote) 'By bad act I mean that he laid himself on my sister'.) The accused placed his fingers on the nostrils of X to ascertain if she was breathing or not and went out of the room.After a while X asked her to call their mother but she did not go as she was scared.After sometime X herself went to room of their parents by crawling on the floor.On the way to hospital I was accompanied by my first floor neighbour Sh.Gurmeet Singh.' On being questioned about the knife which was stuck in the neck of the deceased the witness stated that (Quote) 'I had removed the knife from the neck of my son and the same was left at the spot.That knife remained on the spot when I left for D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.The accused was also present in their bedroom up till 11.00 P.M. and thereafter he also left from there.The accused used to sleep in a room built on the roof of their house.At about 12.40 AM she heard the noise that of light being switched on upon which she woke up and saw that X was smeared with blood and was not having any undergarments on her person.She woke up her husband and made X to lie on her bed.X told her that she has been assaulted by the accused.In the meantime Y also came there and told her that the accused has stabbed D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 41 of 130 her, X and the deceased.On hearing the same, she and her husband rushed to the bedroom of the children where they saw that a knife is stuck in the neck of the deceased.Her husband pulled out the knife from the neck of the deceased.They raised an alarm.She and her neighbours put on the clothes on the person of X and removed the children to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital.On the intervening night of 18.19/10.2006 at about 12.20 PM or 12.30 PM he was about to go to sleep when he heard some noise but he ignored the same.After a while he heard a voice saying that my children have been caused injuries.I remained in the hospital only for 5 D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 44 of 130 minutes.When I returned back to the house I saw the police officials, present there.'D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 44 of 130D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 45 of 130As per the said register, a female D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.Believing the evidence of X PW-21 and Y PW-22, to be creditworthy, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused of having murdered the deceased, attempted to murder X and Y and raped X. With respect to the charge under Section 392 IPC framed against the accused, the learned Trial Judge has held that since there is no evidence to show that the accused used force to remove the ring from the finger of X he cannot be convicted for the offence of having committed robbery of the ring of X. The learned Trial Judge held that the accused is guilty of committing theft of the ring of X, an offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.(We shall be noting the reasoning of the learned Trial Judge with regard to imposition of death penalty on the accused in the later part of this judgment).At the hearing, numerous arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the accused, which arguments can be divided into following two categories:-A.464/2009 Page 53 of 130 the trial court shows that the lawyer appointed by the trial court to defend the accused defended the accused in a most slipshod manner inasmuch as he did not appear before the trial court on many dates and did not subject witnesses of the prosecution to any cross-examination.PW-27/A and FSL report Ex.PW-37/A. Counsel urged that the recordings contained in the PCR form Ex.PW-19/A and DD entry Ex.PW-37/A that semen was detected on the vaginal swabs of both X and Y establishes that both the girls had sexual intercourse on the date of the offence.PW-19/A. Counsel urged that the gap of 35 minutes between the time of reaching of Gurpreet Singh at the place of occurrence and time of his informing the police about the incident shows that the parents of the children and Gurpreet Singh bought time to decide a strategy as to what should have been told to the police before conveying information of the incident to the police.The reason given by Inspector for seeking the remand of the accused was that the accused is required to be interrogated to ascertain the source of knife used by him for committing the offence.PW-6/A dated 20.10.2006 and 22.10.2006 respectively record the age of the accused as 22 years.The report Ex.PW- 12/A of the sexual examination of the accused dated 20.10.2006 records the age of the accused as 20 years.The report further records that the accused is married and is father of a female child.It can again be assumed D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 66 of 130 without any doubt that the aforesaid submission would have been made by the counsel on the basis of the information provided to him by the accused.Considering the aforesaid recordings and the fact that the accused was married and was having a female child on the date of offence, we hold that the accused was aged 19-20 years on the date of offence.We may hasten to add that the accused has very cleverly not informed about the date and the year of his birth or the place of his birth, thereby preventing an investigation into the primary facts with reference to the record of the Registrar of Births and Deaths or the village panchayat, depending upon whether the accused was born in a rural or an urban area.This has also prevented the issue to be investigated by examining the parents of the accused.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 65 of 130The case was adjourned to 23.02.2007 for hearing of arguments on framing of charges against the accused.On 23.02.2007 the arguments on framing of charges against the accused were D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 67 of 130 heard and the case was adjourned to 06.03.2007 for order on charge.On the next dates i.e. 06.03.2007 and 08.03.2007 the case was adjourned.On 09.03.2007 charges were framed against the accused.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him and the case was adjourned to 18.04.2007 for the recording of prosecution evidence.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 67 of 130On 18.04.2007 three witnesses namely K.Goyal PW-1, Dr.M.Arshad PW-2 and Dr.Gaurav Singhal PW-3 were examined.It be noted here that counsel for the accused was not present in the court on the said date and therefore the witnesses could not be subjected to cross-examination.The case was adjourned to 16.05.2007 for recording of the remaining prosecution evidence.On 16.05.2007 the witnesses; Dr.Rakesh Kumar PW-4, Gurpreet Singh PW-5 Dr.Hari Gupta PW-6, Dr.Sudha Kansal PW-7, Dr.Seema Patni PW-8 and Dr.Uma Rani Swain PW-9 were examined.The said witnesses were not subjected to any cross- examination by counsel for the accused.It is most relevant to note here that the witnesses examined till this time were formal witnesses.None of the said witnesses deposed anything which was incriminatory to the accused in the present case.On the same date Gurpreet Singh PW-5, the neighbour of the children, was examined.He was the first witness whose evidence incriminated the accused in the D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.At the time of the cross-examination of the witness, the accused pleaded guilty to the charges framed against him.He also filed an application in said regard and the same was taken on record by the trial court.The witness was not subjected to any cross-examination by counsel for the accused.Thereafter the witnesses; Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal PW-10 and Santosh Kumar Upadhyaya PW-11 were partly examined and the case was adjourned to 26.05.2007 for recording of the remaining prosecution evidence and the accused was directed to rethink over the guilty plea taken by him.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 68 of 130On 26.05.2007 the examination-in-chief of the witnesses; Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal PW-10 and Santosh Kumar Upadhyaya PW-11, was completed and the other witnesses Dr.The said witnesses were not subjected to any cross-examination by counsel for the accused.The accused filed a second application pleading guilty to the charges framed against him.On the next dates the case was adjourned.Thereafter on 13.09.2007 witness namely HC Jai Kumar PW-19 was examined.It be noted here that counsel for the accused was not present in the court on the said date.The case was D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.On 27.09.2007 S.K.Jha, Advocate appraised the court that he does not want to defend the accused and in such circumstances, Mr.K.S.Rana, Advocate was appointed as counsel for the accused.On 01.11.2007 witnesses; HC Pawan Kumar PW-20 and X PW-21 were examined.X PW-21, was cross-examined at length whereas HC Pawan Kumar was not subjected to any cross-examination by counsel for the accused.On 2.11.2007 and 03.11.2007 Y PW-22 and Nirmala Aggarwal PW-23 were examined and subjected to a lengthy cross-examination.Thereafter on 3/4/5/6/7.12.2007 the witnesses; HC Shiv Pratap Singh PW-24, Const.Tejpal PW-25, ASI Manish Kumar Bhardwaj PW-26, SI Ajay Kumar PW-27, HC Yogender PW-28, Inspector Vimal Kishore PW-29, HC Sanjay PW-30 and Const.Ramesh Chand PW-31, were examined and subjected to cross-examination.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 69 of 130On 07.12.2007 counsel for the accused requested the trial court to allow him to cross-examine Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal PW-10, which request was accepted by the trial court and Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal was recalled.On the same date, counsel for the accused cross-examined Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal.On the next dates i.e. 16/17/18.01.2008 the witnesses; HC Rajpal PW-32, HC Tejpal PW-33, SI Rishipal Singh PW-34, SI D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 70 of 130 Ramesh Dixit PW-35, Dr.V.K.Goyal PW-36, Anita Chhari PW-37 and SI Manohar Lal PW-38 were examined and subjected to cross-examination.On 17.01.2008 the accused filed third application pleading guilty to the charges framed against him.Vide order dated 17.01.2008 the trial court rejected all the applications filed by the accused pleading guilty to the charges framed against him.On the same date, counsel for the accused filed an application before the trial court seeking recall of the witnesses; Gurpreet Singh PW-5 and Prem Prakash Aggarwal PW-17, which application was allowed by the learned trial court.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 70 of 130On 02.02.2008 the witness; SI Dharampal PW-40 was examined and subjected to cross-examination.On the next date i.e. 04.02.2008 the witnesses; Gurpreet Singh PW-5 and Ramesh Aggarwal PW-17 were cross-examined by counsel for the accused.On the next date i.e.03.03.2008 the accused filed an application before the trial court seeking transfer of his case from the court which was dealing with his case to another court on the ground that the court which is dealing with his D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.In such circumstances, the matter was placed before District and Sessions Judge.On the same date, District and Sessions Judge sent the matter back to the concerned court in view of the submissions made by counsel for the accused that he does not want the case to be transferred to another court.On the next date 04.03.2008 the witness namely Ajay Goel PW-41 was examined and subjected to cross- examination.The accused filed yet another application pleading guilty to the charges framed against him, which application was again rejected by the trial court.On the next dates the witnesses HC Arun Kumar PW-42, Geeta Arora PW- 43, Santosh Kumar PW-44 and Dr.Urvashi Prasad Jha PW-46 were examined and subjected to cross-examination.On 03.05.2008 the accused filed an application before the trial court for taking on record his confessional statement recorded by Metropolitan Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C., which application was dismissed by the trial court.On 13.05.2008 Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48 was examined and subjected to cross-examination.The evidence of the prosecution was closed by the prosecutor.On 02.07.2008 the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he virtually admitted all the incriminating D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 72 of 130 circumstances appearing against him.Thereafter the case kept on getting adjourned.On 24.09.2008 after a perusal of its order sheets the trial court found that the witnesses; K.Goyal PW-1, Dr.M.Arshad PW- 2 and Dr.Gaurav Singhal PW-3 and Dr.Rakesh Kumar were examined in the absence of counsel of the accused.(It may be noted here that learned trial court has wrongly noted that Dr.Rakesh Kumar PW-4 was examined in the absence of counsel of the accused.In that view of the matter, trial court gave an opportunity to the counsel for the accused to recall the said witnesses for cross-examination, which opportunity was not availed by counsel on the ground that the said witnesses were formal witnesses.Thereafter the arguments were heard and D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 73 of 130 the court passed the impugned judgment and order on sentence.The learned trial court gave an opportunity to counsel for the accused to recall and cross-examine the witnesses who were examined in the absence of defence counsel.Whether a conclusion can be drawn from the PCR Form Ex.PW-19/A, DD entry Ex.PW-27/A that the offence was committed by more than one person?Generally, the process of criminal law sets into motion when the informant rings up number 100 and the said call is received at the police control room which is centralized.The duty officer at PCR thereupon notes the information provided D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 78 of 130 by the informant in the PCR form and conveys the said information either over the telephone or wireless to the concerned police station where the duty officer notes down the same in the DD register.The error which crept in the PCR form Ex.PW-19/A was bound to occur in the DD entry Ex.PW-20/A as the DD entries are prepared on the basis of the information recorded in the PCR form.PW-9/B of gynecological D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 79 of 130 examination of Y records that hymen of Y was found intact.The question which thus arises is that how come semen was found on vaginal swab of Y when she was not subjected to sexual intercourse?D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 79 of 130The answer to the aforesaid question lies in the testimony of X and Y. As already noted herein above, both X and Y deposed that the accused asked Y to remove her pant.Y stated in her cross-examination that she sat on the bed on which the accused raped X. These two depositions explain the presence of semen on the vaginal swab of X. Though it is not clear from the testimony X and Y whether Y did remove her pant or not the fact, that semen was found on her vaginal swab shows that Y did remove her pant.The fact of the matter is that Y removed her pant as directed by the accused and sat on the bed on which the accused raped X after removing her pant.The semen of the accused fell on the bed sheet spread on the said bed and the vagina of Y got stained with the semen which had fallen on the bed sheet as she was sitting on the said bed and her private parts were not covered by any cloth.Pertaining to the submission that the parents of the children and Gurpreet Singh bought time before conveying information of the incident to the police, it be noted here that X deposed that at around 12.00 A.M. on 19.10.2006 she heard D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.It depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.Where was the time for X and Y to comprehend that the accused has left their room and that they should rush to the room of their parents in the absence of the accused?This takes us to the next two submissions advanced by the learned counsel predicated upon the statement Ex.PW- 46/A of X. X was seriously ill at the time when she wrote her statement Ex.PW-46/A. She had undergone tracheotomy and D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 86 of 130 the tracheotomy tube was still inside her neck.It is most reasonable to assume that the mental faculties of X were slow at that time because of which she took some time to remember the name of the accused.What is significant to note that X was able to correctly state that the name of the accused was Sanjay, that he was their domestic servant and that he was working in their house since last one week even when she was seriously ill.Far from showing that X was tutored to falsely implicate the accused statement Ex.PW-46/A goes a long way in showing that X spoke the truth at the first available opportunity.The accused was armed with a knife.The children were caught unawares as the accused attacked them while they were sleeping.The accused was under a fit of rage.He was inflicting injuries on X when she was trying to stop him.X was badly injured by the accused.X was defenceless.In these circumstances could X have managed to injure the accused? The answer is an emphatic NO.The next question which has arisen is that whether the conduct of the mother of the children in going with the police to look for the accused too soon after the occurrence can be D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.Different people react differently in similar situations.In the facts of the present case it is completely comprehensible that the mother of the children was filled with fury against the accused and that her anger for the accused outweighed her other emotions.We find nothing unnatural in the conduct of mother of the children in assisting the police in arresting the deceased too soon after the occurrence.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 87 of 130Whether the knives seized by the police from the place of occurrence were planted?It is no doubt true that the brief facts Ex.PW-1/C8 pertaining to the death of the deceased records that one knife was recovered from the place of occurrence.What is equally relevant to note is the fact that the other documents which were prepared contemporaneously with the brief facts Ex.PW- 1/C8 record that two knives have been recovered from the place of occurrence.The crime team report Ex.PW-27/A records that two knives were recovered from the place of occurrence.The photographs of the place of occurrence show the presence of two knives at the place of occurrence.The police officials who participated in the spot investigation have deposed that two knives were recovered from the place of occurrence.Nirmala Aggarwal PW-23, has deposed about the presence of two knives at the place of occurrence.In the light D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 88 of 130Though the fact that two knives were recovered from the place of occurrence indicates that the weapon of offence was knife, but the same was not a conclusive proof.The picture would have come out clearly only after the post-mortem of the deceased.The investigating officer wanted to be completely sure that the knife was the weapon of offence and therefore he did not record in the death report that the knife was the weapon of the offence.But at the same time it is also worth mentioning that the witness stated in his cross- examination that 'I had removed the knife from the neck of my son and the same was left at the spot.That knife remained on the spot when I left for the hospital.I did not find that knife there in my house when I came back at 10.00 am from the hospital'.A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment.A cumulative reading of the aforesaid deposition made by Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal PW-10, shows that he got carried away while deposing facts and imagined that the knife which was stuck in the neck of the deceased was taken away by the accused.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 89 of 130To deal with the submission predicated upon the deposition of Gurpreet Singh PW-5, relating to the knives recovered from the place of occurrence, it is necessary to closely scrutinize the evidence of Gurpreet Singh.Gurpreet Singh PW-5, deposed that he went to the room where the occurrence took place but did not see any knife there.He stated in his cross-examination that he went to the said room after the arrival of the police at the place of occurrence.The powers of observation differ from person to person.What one may notice, another may not.An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.Having given no opportunity to the witnesses to explain the circumstance pertaining to lifting of finger prints from the knives in question no adverse inference can be taken against the prosecution.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 91 of 130There must have been mayhem at the place of occurrence after the incident.Inspector Vimal Kishore deposed that he along with HC Yogender left Delhi at about 04.00/04.30 A.M. on 19.10.2006 to go to Rishikesh to arrest the accused.It is thus apparent that an innocuous error has been committed by HC Yogender in deposing the time when the police party left Delhi to go to Rishikesh to arrest the accused.PW-2/B of Y. The endorsement dated 19.10.2006 made on the application Ex.The eighth feature is that the parents of the children deposed that X and Y deposed that immediately after the occurrence X and Y came to their room and told them that the accused has committed the crime.It is also relevant to note that Gurpreet Singh PW-5 deposed that he went to the place of occurrence on hearing the alarm raised by the parents of the children, which alarm was raised by them soon after the occurrence.A.464/2009 Page 126 of 130Following aggravating circumstances have been noted by the trial court against the appellant:-The accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC for the reason we have found a taint in the manner the ring has been recovered as discussed in para 144 above.D.Sen.Ref.4/2008 & Crl.A.464/2009 Page 129 of 130","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.47983/2019 (Kalu @ Raees s/o Mazid Shah Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 27.11.2019 Mr. Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.",['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
"(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram and Miss Seita Vaidyalingam forthe Petitioner.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.CHANDRACHUD, C.J. By this petition under Article 32 ofthe Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity ofsection 497 of the Penal Code which defines the offence of'adultery' and prescribes punishment for it.A few facts,interesting but unfortunate, leading to this petition arethese:The petitioner filed a petition for divorce against herhusband on the ground of desertion.The trial courtdismissed that petition, holding that the petitioner herselfhad deserted the husband and not the other way about.Thereafter, the husband filed a petition for divorce againstthe petitioner on two grounds: firstly, that she haddeserted him and secondly, that she was living in adulterywith a person called Dharma Ebenezer.The petitionerconceded in that petition that in view of the findingrecorded in the earlier proceeding that she had deserted herhusband, a decree for divorce may be passed against her onthe ground of desertion.That plea was opposed by the husband.He contended that hewas entitled to obtain a decree of divorce against thepetitioner not only on the ground of desertion but also onthe ground of adultery and that, there was no reason why heshould be denied an opportunity to show that the petitionerwas living in adultery.The husband's contention wasaccepted by the trial court but, in a revision applicationfiled by the petitioner, the High Court accepted her pleaand held that since, the finding recorded in the earlierpetition was binding on the parties, a decree for divorcehad to be passed in favour of the744husband on the ground of desertion and that, it wasunnecessary to inquire into the question of adultery.Weare informed at the Bar that, pursuant to the High Court'sview, a decree for divorce has already been passed in favourof the husband on the ground that the petitioner haddeserted him.Therewill be no order as to costs.","['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:33 :::Shivram and accused Laldas were adjoining land holders.Therewas a dhura in between their fields.Similarly, there were babool trees on the saiddhura.The accused and the deceased were on inimical terms, on the point ofdhura and Babool trees.On the day of the incident i.e. 13.5.2000 at about 11.00am, while Shivram was cutting branches of tree at the dhura i.e. boundary of thefield, at that time, his servant Ashok (PW5) was working in his field.DATED: 20th September, 2017ORAL JUDGMENT:Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 07.11.2003 inSessions Trial No.86/2001 delivered by the learned 3rd Ad-hoc AdditionalSessions Judge, Nagpur, convicting the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'theaccused') for the offence punishable under section 304 Part-II of the Indian PenalCode and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for six months, the present Appeal is filed.Brief facts giving rise to the instant Appeal may be summarized as ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:33 ::: CRI.APPEAL665.03 2under:-Theaccused was also working in his field.As Shivram was cutting babool treebranches, the accused objected for the same.On this issue, quarrel took placebetween the accused and Shivram.At that point of time, accused gave a blow ofstick on the head of Shivram, as a result, he fell down and sustained bleedinginjury on his head.The people from neighbouring fields gathered at that place.Inthe meantime Ashok (PW5) intimated the family members and Sheela (PW 6),who is the daughter-in-law of Shivram.The neighbours of the Shivram tooreached at that place.Accused tried to give water to the deceased.Shivram wasthen shifted by a bullock cart to his village and thereafter to the hospital wherehe was declared dead.It is the case of the prosecution that accused visitedJalalkheda Police Station and lodged his report thereby confessing his guilt.Onthe basis of the report given by the accused, an offence was registered foroffence punishable u/s 302 of the IPC.At the relevant time, Police Inspector-Namdeo Ingole (PW10) was ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:33 ::: CRI.APPEAL665.03 3attached to Jalalkheda Police Station.He recorded the spot panchnama andreferred the dead body of Shivram to the hospital for post-mortem.PW10 thenarrested the accused.The clothes of the accused were taken charge.At theinstance of the accused, a babool stick was seized by the police underPanchnama.The seized articles were sent to the C.A. office for analysis.After theinvestigation was over, charge-sheet was filed in the court of learned JMFC.Thecase was committed to the court of Sessions.The learned Additional SessionsJudge framed the charge.On appreciation of the evidence and after hearing bothsides, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused, as aforesaid.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:33 :::Heard Shri N.D. Khamborkar, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Shri N.H. Joshi, the learned A.P.P. for the respondent -State.The prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of PW1-Dr.Ravindra Ade, Medical Officer, PW 6-Sheela, daughter-in-law of the deceased,PW 9-Rajnarayan Mishra and PW 10-Namdeo Ingole, both Investigating officers.In order to prove that it was a homicidal death, the prosecutionrelied upon the testimony of Medical officer-Dr.Ravindra Ande (PW1) whoconducted the autopsy on deceased-Shivram.On external examination, he noticed the following injuries :-Right eye black swollen, blood oozing from left ear and both nostrils, position of tongue normal, In Column No.17, following external injuries were noted: ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:33 :::Contusion of size 2.5x2.5cm over left tempo parietal bone above left ear with extravaccasation of blood in skin with infiluation of subcutaneous tissues with blood figure is also drawn regarding injury-1, age of injury 20 to 24 hrs, object hard and blunt.Fracture right tempo parietal bone of size 5 x 5 circumference fracture lines radiates towards ferental bone, age 20 to 24 hours.Object hard and blunt, nature grievous injury.3. Contused abrasion 5x3 cm over left side of back age about 20 to 24 hrs.object hard and blunt.On internal examination following injuries were mentioned inColumn No.19:Fractural of right tempo parietal bone 5 x 5 cm circumference fracture lines radiates towards frontal bone as per figure no.Nature of injury dangerous (grievous).Brain intra cerebral haemorrhage present profusely over right side of brain beneath skull (right tempo parietal) due to injury to brain and its membrane.Slight intracerebral haemorrhage present over left side.No any abnormality seen.All organs are pale.According to PW1-Dr.Ravindra, the cause of death was due to intracranial haemorrhage due to forceful impact of hard and blunt object over the ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 ::: CRI.APPEAL665.03 5skull.However PW1 stated that death may be due to cardio respiratory arrestdue to haemorrhagic shock.PW1 stated that exact cause would be revealedafter C.A. of viscera.On going through theCA Report he stated that the CA report rules out the possibility of poison and heconfirmed his opinion.On examination of the stick PW1 found the blood stains.According to him, the injuries over the skull was possible by the stick.Similarly,the injury Nos.1 to 3 were possible by a stick.He issued the report accordingly(Exh.20).It is significant to note that during the cross-examination PW1 statedthat the injuries were possible if the person falls from tree on branches and thendown, but there would be other fracture or dislocation.He however stated that hehad not examined the spinal cord of the deceased.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 :::Thus, the testimony of PW1 does not rule out the possibility of thedeceased falling from tree and receiving injuries.No doubt, the Medical Officerhas examined the weapon i.e babool stick and has opined that the injury over theskull is possible by stick and the death is possible by hard and blunt object.Heissued the medical certificate (Exh.20).According to him, the blood stains werefound on the Babool stick.In this regard, recovery the CA report (Exh.42)reveals that no blood was found on the wooden stick.Thus, the testimony of theMedical Officer although indicates that the injury can be caused by a stick, theC.A. report does not reveal blood stains on the said stick.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 ::: CRI.APPEAL665.03 6vehemently argued that the learned trial Judge has not considered the aspectthat the homicidal death has not been proved by the prosecution and the testimonyof the Medical Officer PW1 reveals that the injury can be caused due to fall fromtree.He further contended that the eye witness PW5-Ashok, who has notsupported the case of the prosecution had, in fact, his testimony shows that theaccused gave him a call that his master had fallen down from the tree.Hecontended that actually the death of the accused was caused due to falling fromthe tree and as such, the persons working in the field at the time of the incident,they had not supported the case of the prosecution that deceased died due to theassault by the accused by means of Babool stick.He pointed out that even thediscovery and recovery of Babool stick has not been proved by the prosecutionbeyond reasonable doubt.Thus, he contended that the prosecution has failed toprove that it is a homicidal death and it was in fact an accidental death.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 :::Reverting back to the prosecution case, PW9-Mishra deposed thaton 13.5.2000 the accused visited the Police Station, Jalalkheda and has given anoral report that the land of Shivram is adjacent to the land accused and there is ababool tree on the border of the said dhura of that land and because of thatquarrel took place and in that quarrel Shivram pelted stone on accused andthereafter accused assaulted Shivram by babool stick.The assault was on theleft side of his head and while taking him in the hospital Shivram died.So far as the report is concerned, it is significant ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 ::: CRI.APPEAL665.03 7to note that under the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, confession ofthe accused before the police is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and itcannot be read in evidence as such.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 :::Apart from the said evidence, the prosecution relied upon thetestimony of PW 6-Sheela, who is the daughter-in-law of the deceased.Accordingto her, on the fateful day, her servant Ashok (PW5) and Shivram went to the fieldin the morning.At about 11.30, Ashok came home and informed her that herfather-in-law was beaten by Laldas/accused.On this, she along with Kundabai,Dipak, Ashok, Subhash proceeded to the field.A babool stag was lying near thedhura and her father in law was laying down and blood was oozing from hismouth, nose and eyes .They offered water to him, however he could not drink it.PW6-Sheela stated that she had not seen the accused at that time.Shivram wastaken in a bullock cart to his house and thereafter shifted to Hospital, however hewas declared dead.From the testimony of PW6 it can be gathered that Ashok(PW 5) informed that the deceased was beaten by the accused.However thereis no corroboration to the testimony of PW6-Sheela as PW 5-Ashok turnedhostile.She has not supported the case of the prosecution, so far as actualincident is concerned.According to PW5-Ashok, on that day he had come to hisemployer's field.Shivram was cutting branches of babool tree and he wasploughing the field and the accused was in his field.The accused called him and ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 ::: CRI.APPEAL665.03 8said that his master had fallen down from the tree.Thereafter, the familymembers of Shivram came to that place and took him to their house.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 :::According to him, on 13.5.2000, the accusedwhile in custody gave information that the stick of babhool was thrown in thefield and he showed his willingness to produce the said stick.PW 10 stated that the stick wasconcealed in the heap of branches of babool tree.He took charge of the saidstick under panchnama (Exh.48).The testimony of PW10 reveals that the baboolstick was kept in a heap of branches of babool tree.Significantly, it cannot betermed as a disclosure of the stick i.e. weapon as such as the said place wasan open space and accessible to public.Thus, the seizure of the stick at theinstance of the accused has not been proved by the prosecution beyondreasonable doubt and it cannot be termed as discovery under section 27 of theEvidenceWith regard to the confession made by the accused vide F.I.R.(Exh.32) , an useful reference can be made to the judgment reported in (1994) 2 ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 ::: CRI.APPEAL665.03 9SCC 467 in the case of Bherusingh vs.State of Rajasthan, wherein the Hon'bleApex Court observed thus:-::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 :::The accused along with others, putShivram in bullock-cart and took him to village.The other facts disclosed in theFIR are in nature of confession made to the police (PW9) which cannot be used ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 ::: CRI.APPEAL665.03 11against the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 :::Hence the order :-i) Criminal Appeal No. 655/2003 is allowed.iv) The bail bond of the appellant shall stand cancelled.JUDGEsahare ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:49:34 :::",['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The present petition u/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. invoking inherent powers of the Court has been filed for quashment of FIR (Annexure P-3) bearing crime No. 264/2014 alleging offence punishable u/Ss. 395, 397 of IPC and section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act registered at police station Civil Lines, Morena against the petitioner.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners primarily raises three grounds; first ground is that the said FIR is an outcome of an act of retaliation because one Parasram who is relative of petitioner was murdered in regard to which separate FIR was lodged on 05/06/2013 bearing crime No. 286/2013 (Annexure P-1) alleging offence punishable u/Ss. 302, 147, 148, 149, 294 of IPC; second ground is that the impugned FIR has been lodged solely on the basis of direction issued by this Court in MCRC No. 631/2014, whereby certain directions were issued to the police authorities to act under section 154 of Cr.P.C. upon the complaint filed by 2 Ramveer & Ors.Government of U.P. & Ors.reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 and the third ground is that the alleged offence contained in impugned FIR is vitiated on the ground that the basic ingredient of alleged offence of Dacoity is not made out.Before embarking on the ground of retaliation, it is important to find out as to whether the allegation contained in impugned FIR make out the basic ingredient of offence alleged or not?The offence alleged is of Dacoity u/S. 391, 395 & 397 IPC are reproduced herein below for ready reference and convenience :-Section 391 - Dacoity ""When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit ""dacoity.""Ramveer & Ors.State of M.P.M.Cr.C. No.5898/2014 Section 395 - Punishment for dacoity ""Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.""Section 397 - Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt :-""If, at the time of commuting robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.""Bare perusal of the allegation contained in impugned FIR reveals that the accused barged into the house of the victim and forcibly took away 300 bags of wheat and some bags of Arahar and Gram pulses.It is also alleged that T.V., Fridge and other utensils were also taken away along with 30 buffaloes, after extending intimidation and dire consequences to the 4 Ramveer & Ors.State of M.P.M.Cr.C. No.5898/2014 victim.The basic ingredients of Dacoity which is an aggravated form of theft are that while causing theft if intimidation, threat to cause injuries or death is extended by five or more persons, the offence of Dacoity is made out.The allegation contained in the impugned FIR which on prima facie basis reflects that the victim was deprived of certain properties belonging to her by entering into the house and taking away the properties by extending intimidation, threat or fear to cause injury / death.The petitioners were more than five in number and, therefore, on plain reading of the FIR the alleged offence of Dacoity is made out.As regards, other ground of lodging of impugned FIR to be an act of retaliation, this Court is of the prima facie view that the offence alleged of Dacoity is made out in view of allegation contained in the impugned FIR, the said ground cannot be considered in favour of the petitioners.Since Parasram (relative of the petitioner) was murdered, the impugned FIR was lodged as an act of retaliation, this Court 5 Ramveer & Ors.State of M.P.M.Cr.C. No.5898/2014 cannot come to the conclusion that injustice is being caused to the petitioners to the extent of compelling this Court can invoke its inherent powers u/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. No such power can be invoked in favour of the petitioners by presuming that due to an act of retaliation the impugned FIR has been lodged by the victim.Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the allegation contained in impugned FIR are absurd and baseless.This Court is afraid that the veracity of the allegation contained in the impugned FIR cannot be adjudged at this stage unless they are put to test on the anvil of evidence adduced.The order passed in MCRC No. 631/2014 has not been brought on record.M.Cr.C. No.5898/2014 542 in respect of the ground that the petitioners were not heard before FIR impugned was lodged against them, Anjani Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Anr.reported in (2008) 2 SCC (Cr.) 582 in respect of the submission that the impugned FIR is an outcome of retaliation and therefore is vitiated by malafide and lastly reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan v. Ram Gopal Poddar and Anr.reported in (2011) 1 SCC (Cr.) 94 in respect of submission that allegation in the impugned FIR are absurd and vague.In regard to decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioners supra there is no quarrel that each one of them is an authority by itself on the facts and circumstances prevailing therein.However, none of these decisions of the Apex Court lay down that even if on plain reading of FIR impugned, the allegation contained therein discloses commission of cognizable offence, even then the High Court is empowered to exercise inherent powers u/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR.State of M.P.M.Cr.C. No.5898/2014 which were found to be a counter blast to the action taken by the accused in his official capacity.13.3 Considering the delayed lodging of impugned FIR and also the fact that the accused in the impugned FIR are the complainant in the earlier FIR Annexure P-1, presumption arises that subsequent FIR is an after thought, lodged merely to take revenge.However, considering the fact that the allegation contained in the impugned FIR relates to dacoity in Morena which is notified as a kidnapping at dacoity affected area under the special enactment of MPDVPK Act, 1981 and allegation on prima facie basis satisfy the 8 Ramveer & Ors.This Court on hearing learned counsel for the petitioners found that the victim in the impugned FIR had informed the police about commission of cognizable offence and since police authorities failed to act upon it, MCRC No. 631/2014 was filed where this Court issued direction keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari(supra) that every police officer is obliged to lodge FIR in case information furnished discloses commission of cognizable offence.Accordingly necessary directions by this Court were issued to the police authorities to act upon the complaint filed by the victim in terms of section 154 of Cr.P.C. after keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra).Reading of impugned FIR does not indicate that merely on the direction of this Court impugned FIR was lodged, but it was lodged on account of furnishing of information in regard to commission of cognizable offence of Dacoity.There is another submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that before passing order in MCRC No. 631/2014, petitioners were not heard.In this regard, this Court is of the considered view that lodging of FIR u/S. 154 of Cr.P.C. there is no need to hear the accused before lodging the FIR.Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is reproduced herein below for ready reference and convenience :-""Section 154 - Information in cognizable cases (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.Provided further that--(a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 376, section 376A,section 376B, section 376C, section 376D or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed or attempted is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person's choice, in the presence of a special educator or an interpreter, as the case may be;(b) the recording of such information may be videographed.Ramveer & Ors.M.Cr.C. No.5898/2014(c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible.(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub- section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.No order as to cost.","['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The appellants are six in number.On 17.09.2002 during mid night, as many as 10 persons came to the house of one Rangiyam V.N. Chidambaram and tied the watchman and the cook of the house and stole a silver idol worth about Rs.10,000/-.During the occurrence, the watchman of the house, namely, Azhagappan was injured.In this regard, the said Azhagappan lodged an information before Panaiyapatti police station on 18.09.2002 at about 3.00 a.m. Based on the same, Crime No.125 of 2002 was registered for the offence under Section 397 of I.P.C.Investigation was taken up and final report came to be laid against as many as 10 persons before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam.It was taken up for trial in S.C.No.66 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai.Out of the 10 accused, only six accused were available for facing the trial and the remaining four accused had absconded.Thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.The charges framed against the appellants as follows:-prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.M.O.1 to M.O.7 were also marked.The learned trial Judge after a detailed consideration of the evidence on record, sentenced the accused as under:-Accused Nos.1 to 6 120(b)of I.P.C. To undergo 2 years R.I. Accused Nos.1 to 5 395 of I.P.C. To undergo 5 years R.I.120(b)of I.P.C. with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months R.I.Accused No.6 412 of I.P.C. To undergo 2 years R.I.Challenging the Judgment dated 31.03.2010, this Criminal appealhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 has been filed.Even though the appeal was filed through a counsel, when the matter was taken up for hearing, there was no representation on the side of the accused.Since they have already served the entire terms of sentence, this appeal is dismissed as far as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned.The identification of an accused before the trial Court alone would be the substantive evidence.In this case, P.W.1 Palani could not identify any of the accused before the trial Court.In fact the entire case of the prosecution rested on the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. from one Sikkandharkani.But he turned hostile before the Court.As regards accused No.6, the learned Government Advocate would contend that the idol in question M.O.1 was seized only from the house of the sixth accused and that is why the charge under Section 412 of I.P.C. was also framed against him.But then, the learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the appellants drew my attention to the testimony of P.W.17, namely, investigation officer who had statedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 that on the date when M.O.1 2¼ Kg.silver Vinayagar idol was seized, no confession was obtained from accused No.6 Ramachandra Prabhu.Looked at from any angle, I am of the view that the impugned Judgment cannot stand as far as accused Nos.1,4, 5 and 6 are concerned and the same is set aside as far as they are concerned.The Criminal appeal stands allowed as far as accused Nos.1,4, 5 and 6 are concerned.No costs.The Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai.The Inspector of Police, Panaiyappatti Police Station, Pudukkottai District.3.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.pmu Crl.A.(MD)No.127 of 2010 22.07.2019http://www.judis.nic.in","['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Nirmalabai was the wife of the appellant.They married 20 years hence the alleged occurrence.JUDGMENT D.P.S. Chouhan, J.It appears that she committed suicide sometime in the night intervening 7th and 8th January, 1990 by consuming poison.She died while on way to hospital on 8-11990 and the F.I.R./Marg (Ex.P/1) was lodged by Ward Boy.Garibdas (P.W.I) at 8.35 A.M. at P.S. Timarni.The prosecution case in brief was that deceased Nirmalabai, the wife of the appellant, was married 20 years hence the alleged occurrence.During her life time about 15-16 years hence the date of alleged occurrence he married a second woman namely Kotubai.The appellant usedto beat and accuse Nirmalabai.On a night between 7th and 8th of January, 1990 Nirmalabai was given a beating, as a result of which she consumed poison which resulted in her death.The accused took Nirmalabai to Timarni Hospital where Dr. Sharad Kumar Gadre on 9-1-1990 sent a written information Ex.P/2 to the police Station Timarni and a case of sudden death was registered and the panchnama was prepared but no cause for death could be ascertained by the Police Officers or the panch witnesses, therefore, the body was sent for post mortem.In the post mortem it was detected that the death was on account of consuming some poison.It was also detected that in the night at about 11.00 A. M. Nirmalabai was shouting in her house for seeking help by saying ^^cpkvks & cpkvks**- On this basis the case was registered against the accused-appellant for an offence punishable under Section 306, Indian Penal Code and after investigation the charge-sheet was filed for offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses.Garibdas, the Ward boy of the Govt. Hospital, Timarni was examined as P.W.I who sent the information of the death of Nirmalabai to the police.There was no dying declaration of the deceased.The cause of death as per the opinion of Dr. S. K Gadre (P.W. 6) was consumption of the poison.In defence, the prosecution allegation was denied and the accused stated that he did not commit any cruelty, did not assault her wife Nirmalabai in the alleged night and it was he who took her to the hospital.7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Panel Lawyer for the State.Learned counsel for the appellant made three-fold submissions :-(i) That the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the presence of the appellant in the house at the relevant point of time and as a result whereof no guilt can be fastened on the appellant for the offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code.(ii) Apart attribution of beating to the deceased it cannot be said and held to be an act of abetting of suicide by the appellant and at the most if any liability in regard to the beating could be found that could be an offence only under Section 323, Indian Penal Code.Before the trial Court there were two questions for consideration as have been stated in paragraph 5 of the Judgment :-So far as the question of cruelty at the hands of the appellant against her wife Nirmalabai was concerned, the Court recorded a finding in paragraph 37 of the judgment.So far as the earlier incident was concerned, the cruelty cannot be established against him and for that he cannot be held guilty and that question was decided in negative.Second question was decided in affirmative but the appellant was not found guilty for offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.He was found guilty for committing abetment between the period 7-1-1990 and 8-1-1990 which resulted in commission of suicide by Nirmalabai.It has come in the evidence of P.W. 2 Sushilabai in paragraph 6 that in the house apart from Nirmalabai, her husband's elder brother Ajabsingh, Tulsabai (wife of Ajabsingh) and Kotubai (second wife of the appellant) were living in the same house.None of these persons has been examined by the prosecution.So far evidence of Sushilabai (P.W.2) is concerned, there was enmity as a result of which she was not in talking terms with the deceased since last 8 years.Further in paragraph 12 she has stated that there are other houses adjacent to the house of the appellant.In the east side are the houses of Jagdish Wadi, Shyamabai and Ramesh Wadi.In the north side, adjacent to the house of the appellant, are the houses of Anarsingh, Yavalsingh, Umeshsingh etc. and in front of the house of the accused are the houses of Madansingh Master, Mastan Singh, Manohar Singh and Jeevan Singh.None of these witnesses has been examined.P.W.2 Sushilabai was not an independent witness as she was an interested witness, She has stated in her statement that Nirmalabai did not use to come to her place.She has stated that her father and brother are in the party of Madan Singh Master with whom the appellant is having litigation.Learned counsel further pointed out that P.W. 2 Sushilabai in her statement stated that on the date of occurrence she went to the temple and after returning back from the temple she heard the voice of Nirmalabai.On that day other ladies, whose houses were in the vicinity, adjacent to the house of the appellant, also went to temple and they returned with her from the temple when she heard the voice of Nirmalabai soliciting help.But in spite of availability of the witnesses, the prosecution did not examine any independent witness.P.W. 4 Jagdish, who was the witness of hearing voice of Nirmalabai soliciting help and calling for not beating, was declared hostile.The witness in the statement stated that the voice which he heard was that of a lady as it was a lady like voice.In his statement in paragraph 6 he has stated that he was working with Gajraj Singh, who is in the party of Madan Master.He worked at his place and was still working on the date of deposition.He clearly stated that between the parties of Devi Singh and Madan Master cases are going on in the Court of S.D.O. He also admitted a case against him where he was included in the party of Madan Master.The witness accordingly is not an independent witness.That apart, from the independent witnesses, the prosecution itself got the witness declared hostile.He was declared hostile on the point that in the statement under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code the police recorded that at that time the voice of Devi Singh was coming out and he was scolding his wife, which statement he denied, that he never gave any such statement to the police and he categorically stated that he did not hear any voice of Devi Singh.Then the prosecution examined Karan Singh as a witness for hearing the voice of Nirmalabai, but this witness did not support at all the prosecution case and he made a statement that on the relevant night no voice of shouting of Devi Singh or his wife was heard by him and he did not give any such statement to the police under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code.On this basis, the prosecution got him declared hostile.There is no other evidence which could link the appellant or establish the appellant about his presence in the house at the relevant point of time.As such the presence of the appellant in the house at the relevant point of time has not been established by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt and when the presence of the appellant in the house at the relevant time when occurrence took place has not been established then the question of abetment by instigation does not arise.","['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"All the proceeding are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for relief of quashing of various first information reports registered for the offences punishable under Sections 272, 273,188, 328 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 26(2)(i),26(2)(iv), 30(2)(a), 3(1)(zz)(v), 27, 59(3) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and various rules framed thereunder.2] The first proceeding is in respect of FIR No. 306/2015 registered with Tuljapur Police Station, District Osmanabad.Second proceeding is in respect of FIR No. 81/2016 registered with the same Police Station third proceeding is in respect of FIR No. 165/2015 registered with the same police station.Fourth proceeding is in respect of FIR No. 307 of 2015 registered with the same Police Station and the last proceeding is in respect of the FIR No. 165/2015 registered with the same Police Station.::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2018 23:44:46 :::5 30-Cri.Appln.various brands, sweet tobacco of various brands are seized from the shops of the applicant of the said proceeding.The applicant is not having the bills in respect of all the quantity of the different varieties showing that he has purchased it from the wholesaler or from the manufacturers.In the second proceedings the applicant was found in possession of the similar items under different names.6] In the third proceeding similar items were found.In the first proceeding not only the packets, labels and names of the Company were found but the description of Gutka were also found and the quantity was worth more than Rs. 1.68 lakh.In that case also packets of scented Masla, tobacco were found.Packets of blended Gutka were also found worth more than Rs. 35,000/- and packets of Goa Gutka worth more than Rs. 41,000/- were found.In the last proceeding packets of Goa Gutka, Bab Gutka, R.M.B Gutka, R.C. Gutka, Ayarn Gutka and others packets of scented tobacco, Pan Masala and betel nut were found.The value of all these articles is more than Rs. 31,00,000/-.7] The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the decision given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1027 of 2015, ( Ganesh Pandurang Jadhao and others Vs.The State of Maharashtra and others) decided with many other proceedings on 04.03.2016 and ::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2018 23:44:46 ::: 6 30-Cri.8 30-Cri.Appln.9 30-Cri.Appln.A.P.P for respondent/ State : Mr. M.M. Nerlikar ...::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2018 23:44:46 :::",['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
"This Petition has been filed for a direction, directing the respondents 1 to 5 herein, to consider the representation, dated 09.08.2019 submitted by the petitioner, restraining the sixth respondent from claiming rights from erecting or putting up poles or towers for passing or transmitting anyhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/22 W.P (MD).No.19118 of 2019 electricity cables or wires through the petitioner's land comprised in Survey Nos.579, 580, 581, 582, 584 and 628, situated at Ayyanaar Oothu Village, Thoothukudi District.2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land comprised in Survey Nos.579, 580, 581, 582, 584 and 628, situated at Ayyanaar Oothu Village, Thoothukudi District, he has also been cultivated without any hindrance.While being so, the sixth respondent illegally trespassed in his land without any permission from the petitioner in order to draw lines for transmitting high-tension electricity in the land, which is absolutely belongs to the petitioner.3.Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that though the sixth respondent is a private concern, they are distributing electricity placed for public purpose as such, there is absolutely no consent is necessary from the concerned land owners to draw electricity lines over the land.He further submitted that now the high-tension line already erected from the wind energy system as directed by the Electricity Board for distribution to the public.The entire work has been completed and as such the present Writ Petition become infructuous.No costs.Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd., NPKRR Maligai, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai.2.The District Collector Thoothukudi District , ThoothukudiLs W.P (MD).No.19118 of 2019 19.09.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 22/22He further submitted that the sixth respondent is a private concerned in nature and he has no right to enter into the petitioner's property without any permission, he is running a business only based on the profit oriented and the land proposed to be drawn over his land is a high-tension line and it caused various issues, the petitioner could not cultivate his agricultural land, it would affect the farming of his land and as such he would sustain huge loss.Therefore, he submitted a detail representation to the respondents 1 to 5 to take appropriate action as against the sixth respondent and unfortunately, it is pending on their file without taking any action.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/22 W.P (MD).No.19118 of 2019Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.4.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) for the respondents 1 to 5 submitted that on the representation submitted by the petitioner, dated 09.08.2019 they conducted enquiry and revealed that the sixth respondent as directed by the Electricity Board transmitted high-tension electricity cables already from there wind energy system above the petitioner's land and distributed to the general public.Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 and the learned Senior Counsel for the sixth respondent.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/22 W.P (MD).No.19118 of 20196.The petitioner is the owner of land comprised in Survey Nos.579, 580, 581, 582, 584 and 628, situated at Ayyanaar Oothu Village, Thoothukudi District.While being so, the sixth respondent erected wind mill energy system in their land and had contracted with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to distribute electricity energy to the general public as directed by the Electricity Board the sixth respondent have erected and had drawn high-tension electricity line to distribute the electricity energy to the general public.It is also seen from the photographs produced by the learned counsel for the respondents revealed that the high-tension electricity line wire already drawn from the wind mill energy system for distribution.The telephone lines and connections were thereafter given from time to time.Till the landlord/tenant dispute arose between the Appellant and M/S. Purolator India Ltd., no objection was raised by the Appellant.In fact, we have also called the officer concerned and perused the records.It is the appellants who approached the first respondent and for the reasons known, they did not appear for hearing.They have asked for numerous documents, which is for the purpose of dragging on the proceedings.It is neither a supervisory nor an adjudicating authority over the second respondent.When the element of expertise is involved and the same ishttp://www.judis.nic.in 16/22 W.P (MD).No.19118 of 2019 undertaken by the statutory body as per law, the power of judicial review will have to be entertained with extreme caution.We cannot interfere with the matter on some apprehension expressed by the appellants.It might have a spiralling effect on the project as well.The appellants cannot ask the first respondent to direct the second respondent to furnish all the documents which they seek.The said Crl.On the strength of the powers conferred upon the Power Grid Corporation, to enter upon the lands and to erect transmission, the 3rd and 11th respondents are carrying out the project.If really there is any element of damage, which are peculiar to the petitioners and others, they have every right to make their representation to the District Collector, to increase the height of the Tower so as to avoid passing of electrostatic field near or under their house.10.This Court held that on the strength of powers conferred upon the power grid corporation, to enter upon the lands and to erect transmission, there is absolutely no consent is necessary from the concerned land owners.11.The above judgments are squarely applied to the case on hand and the sixth respondent is being supplying electricity energy to the general public, the sixth respondent need not get prior consent from the land owners viz., the petitioner herein, to draw the electricity lines.That apart, now the entire drawing of electric line has been over and the high-tension electricity lines erected over the land of the petitioner and distributing the electricity energy to the general public.3.The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd., Tirunelveli4.The Superintendent of Police Thoothukudi District5.The Inspector of Police Kayathar Police Station, Kayathar.http://www.judis.nic.in 21/22 W.P (MD).No.19118 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.",['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The appellantherein was arrayed as A-2 in the said special case and convicted under Sections7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and sentencedto undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- indefault to undergo three months imprisonment for an offence punishable undersection 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and convicted under Sections 7 and13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the said Act and sentenced to undergo one year RigorousImprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo a furtherperiod of three months R.I for the offence, aggrieved by which the appeal hasbeen preferred.It is not in dispute that the copies of documents relied on by theprosecution were furnished to the accused, charges were framed, as perprocedure, under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined andExs.P.1 to 43 and M.Os.1 to 5 were marked.On the side of the accused, no onewas examined, but documents Exs.D.1 to D.3 were marked.The trial court foundthat the guilt against the appellant / A2 and the co-accused have been provedbeyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant / A2 and the other accusedunder Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act.It is seen that the case was registered against the appellant andthe co-accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act.According to the appellant he is an innocent person, howeverhe was found guilty, based on certain unforeseen circumstances.It is not indispute that the appeals preferred by A1 and A3 were dismissed for default,though the appeal preferred by the appellant/A2 was also dismissed, subsequentlyon petition, the same was restored to file.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of thisCourt to Ex.P.3, dated 31.12.1998, and submitted that as per the prosecutioncase, P.W.3 had given a complaint to take action against one LaxmananS/o.Mathavan Naicker and 9 others, on the ground that they were causing damageto his crops by cattle and also attempting to attack him.Asper Ex.P.4, the defacto-complainant, Paara Naicker, P.W.3 gave a complaintbefore the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti corruption,Trichy, stating that the Inspector of Police / A1 had asked him to payRs.5,000/- as bribe for taking action against the aforesaid persons and also totake steps to discharge P.W.3 from the aforesaid case, registered against himand for doing favour to the other accused in getting bail.Though P.W.3 was notwilling to pay the bribe he agreed for paying the amount Rs.5,000/- to the co-accused/A1 and informed the same to the respondent.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A2 further submitted thatthere is no whisper against the appellant/A2 in the written complaint given byP.W.3, that he had demanded any illegal gratification and the defactocomplainant / P.W.3 had raised allegation only against the co-accused / A1.Subsequently, as per the prosecution case, on 25.01.99 at about 17.45 hours theVigilance and Anti Corruption squad came to the police station, as alreadyplanned and P.W.3 entered into the police station as per the trap proposal.Prior to that he had been given fifty hundred Rupee notes by the respondent andwas instructed to hand over the same to the co-accused / A1 and to giveimmediate signal to the Vigilance Squad from the police station.Accordingly,P.W.3 went to the police station and at that time, the Inspector / A1 was alsopresent in his office, then P.W.3 informed him that he had the money Rs.5,000/-,as demanded by him and requested A1 to do the needful, after receiving theamount.However, the co-accused / A1, cleverly informed P.W.3 to hand over themoney to A2, who was the Head Constable sitting in the other room, attending hiswork.Theappellant / A2, after verifying the same with the Inspector / A1 received theamount from P.W.3 and kept it in his shirt pocket.The denominations and thenumber of the currency notes were already noted by the Vigilance and AntiCorruption squad and also applied phenolphthalein powder in the currency notes.P.C, he has stated thathe received the money innocently from P.W.3, as P.W.3 informed him that theInspector had asked him to hand over the money to the Head Constable, theappellant herein, who was sitting in the other room and attending his work.(i) In the trap case, prior to the trap arrangement, the defacto-complainant / P.W.3 had given a written complaint to the respondent, wherein hehas specifically stated that the co-accused / A1 had demanded Rs.5,000/- to dosome favour.(ii) As per the trap arrangement, the defacto-complainant directly went tothe police station and informed the Inspector / A1 that he was ready with themoney, as demanded by him and requested him to do the needful in his favour.However, the Inspector / A1 cleverly asked the defacto-complainant to hand overthe money to the appellant, who was the Head constable, sitting in the otherroom.Had it been known to the appellant / A2, he would not have verified withthe co-accused / A1 before receiving the amount, whether he had instructed, soto receive the amount from P.W.3 and there was no other excess amount availablewith the appellant.The amount handed over by the defacto-complainant and theconduct of the appellant / A2, keeping the money in his shirt pocket would showthat he had innocently received the amount, without knowing that the same was anillegal gratification demanded by A1, otherwise, at least, he could not havekept the money in his shirt pocket itself.(iii) As per the evidence of defacto-complainant / P.W.3, after the amountwas handed over to the appellant / A2, while coming out of the room, A3 / writerof the police station, asked further amount from him and the defacto-complainantsaid that he had already parted with a sum of Rs.5,000/-, for which the reply bythe co-accused / A3, according to P.W.3, is that the amount Rs.5,000/- given byhim was only for the Inspector and hence, something must be given to him.The bail bond, if any executed by the appellant shallstand cancelled and the fine amount, if any paid by the appellant shall berefunded to him forthwith.am / tsvnToThe Additional Sessions Judge-cum-The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Tiruchirappalli.On the side of the prosecution 11 witnesses were examined and 43documents were marked and by the impugned judgment, dated 31.01.2003, the courtbelow found that the appellant / A2 was guilty, accordingly he was convicted andsentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine ofRs.2,000/- as stated above with default sentence.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the chargesframed against the appellant/A2 was not proved by the prosecution beyondreasonable doubt.In the presence of witnesses, thecurrency notes were recovered from the appellant / A2, and the numbers wereverified by the squad and found tallied.Then they asked the appellant / A2 todip both his hands in a tumbler that contained sodium carbonate water and afterthe dip, the same became light pinkish in colour.In order to prove the factumof seizure of currency notes from the appellant / A2 and the phenolphthaleinpower test conducted, mahazars were prepared in the presence of witnesses andthe witnesses were examined before the court below, on the side of theprosecution.The recovery of the currency notes from the appellant / A2 has beenproved, as per the findings of the Court below.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that theappellant / A2 is an innocent person, he had nothing to do with the allegedoffence and there was no allegation against the appellant / A2 in the originalcomplaint, Ex.As per the evidence ofP.W.3, he approached the co-accused / A1 and informed that he was ready with themoney Rs.5,000/- as demanded by him and requested him to receive the same and dothe favour in a pending criminal case relating to him.However, the co-accused /A1 cleverly asked P.W.3 to hand over the money to the Head Constable, theappellant / A2, who was sitting in the other room.The appellant / A2, withoutknowing the illegal dealing of the co-accused / A1 with P.W.3, after verifyingwhether any such instruction was given by the Inspector / A1, his superiorofficer, received the money from P.W.3, without any malafide intention and keptit in his shirt pocket itself.According to the learned counsel for theappellant / A2, the appellant has not committed any offence, punishable underthe Prevention of Corruption Act and that there was no criminal intentionestablished, as against the appellant / A2 by the prosecution.It is seen that P.W.1, Deputy Inspector General of Police has accordedsanction to prosecute the co-accused / A1, being an Inspector of Police and hehas also deposed that after considering the materials placed before him, havingsatisfied, on perusal of the materials, accorded the sanction.P.W.3 is the defacto complainant, who wasmade as witness by the respondent for the trap arrangement.As per theprosecution case, only on the complaint given by P.W.3 before the DeputySuperintendent of Police under Ex.P.4, he was asked to be present at the officeof the Deputy Superintendent of Police at 4.45 p.m on 25.01.1999 and P.W.4,Munusamy and one Selvaraj were also shown as independent witnesses for theoccurrence.In the original complaint given by the defacto complainant / P.W.3,admittedly the allegation of demanding bribe was raised only against the co-accused / A1, Inspector of Police and no whisper about the appellant / A2 in thecomplaint.In the referred case, charges were framed under Sections 7 and 13 ofPrevention of Corruption Act, based on the trap materials, wherein the accused,officer and his junior officer working in Commercial Tax Department, haddemanded and accepted bribe of Rs.300/- from the complainant, who was a dealerin grocery articles for making way bills.As per the evidence, the accusedofficer directed the money to be paid to his Junior Officer and the evidence ofthe complainant and the trap witnesses established the recovery of money fromthe accused / Junior Officer.It was held that presumption could be raised thatsince accused persons therein had accepted illegal gratification, when there wasno tenable defence, as there was no tax due and on the contrary, complainant wasentitled to refund of the amount already paid.Similarly, as perthe trap arrangement, P.W.3 went to the police station and approached thecomplainant / A1 directly, but to his surprise, the co-accused / A1 asked him tohand over the money to the Head constable, the appellant herein.(iv) It is not the evidence of defacto-complainant / P.W.3 that theaforesaid amount, Rs.5,000/- was for the Inspector / A1 and the appellant / A2,as per the said conversation.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur.(Special Judge).",['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Needless to say, both orders are assailed in the present appeal.A. 1388/2013 Page 1 of 36After marriage, they started residing with the appellants parents, sister and her husband, at Ghaziabad.The Vidai ceremony of Asma took place about a year after their marriage.On 23rd June 2011, apparently, the appellant visited the house of Asmas parents, Mohd. Yakub (PW-7) and Sahida (PW-3) and informed them that he had quarreled with his family members, and wanted to stay with Asma at her parents house.It appears that Asmas parents expressed, to the appellant, their reluctance to accede to such a plan.Instead, they requested the appellant to bring his parents to meet them, stating that they would send Asma back with him only after his parents assured them that they would take care of her.Thereafter, the appellant left and returned with his parents, sister and brother-in-law, who assured Asmas parents that they would take care of her, whereupon Asmas parents agreed to send Asma, with him, back to their house.3 Around 2-3 days thereafter, on 26th June, 2011, at around 8.00 AM, a call was received, at P.S. Kanjhawala, from the PCR, informing that Asma had burnt herself.On the basis of the said information, DD No. 8A was recorded, and the case was assigned to SI Om Prakash (PW-18).4 Following thereupon, SI Om Prakash (PW-18) reached the residence of the appellant, with Constable Rohtash (PW-23) and found Asma in a severely burnt condition.The appellant was also seen to have suffered burns.11), who also arrived at the spot of occurrence thereupon.The crime team was called, and photographs were taken.SI Om Prakash (PW-18), thereafter, proceeded to SGM Hospital, where Asma was found admitted vide MLC no. 10187/2011 (EX PW-18/A).According to him, the doctor at the spot told him that she was conscious and oriented.The MLC also contained a report by the doctor, to the said effect, besides stating that her general condition, and prognosis was poor.Burns were said to be present ""over face, chest, abdomen, back, B/L U/L, perennial area, genitals and upper thigh.My husband used to doubt me, because of which we often used to quarrel.Yesterday, on 25th June 2011, at about 9 P.M, my husband beat me severely and said that I had mixed some intoxicant in his tea and given it to him to drink.Though I was in poor health, I prepared food but, thereafter, I went off to sleep.When I woke up in the morning on 26th June 2011, at about 7 A.M. my husband Firasat Hussain poured oil on me and set me afire.When I shouted loudly, my husband, in panic, poured water on me.Thereafter, someone dialed 100, whereupon the police arrived and took me and my husband to the hospital, I want my husband be proceeded against legally so that I can secure justice.You had come to the hospital and recoded my statement which I had heard, and it is correct"".Apart from the two thumb impressions at the foot of the statement, a recital, stating ""statement recorded before me, please take necessary action as per the law"" with the official stamp of signature of Ram Pal Singh, SDM (PW-11) is also to be found.The appellant, whose disclosure statement was recorded (Ex PW-18/F), was arrested and sent to police lock-up.He was, thereafter, produced in court on 27th June 2011, and remanded to judicial custody.A. 1388/2013 Page 4 of 3611. 18 days thereafter, on 14th July 2011, at about 8.30 P.M, Asma expired.Her body was identified by Rais Ahmed (PW-2) who was their neighbour.Inquest was conducted by the SDM.The cause of death, as per the Death Report, dated 14th July 2011 (EX.PW-18/J), was stated to be ""sudden cardio pulmonary arrest due to 77% sup.2. mohd Ajub Alleged history Alleged history of sustaining injuries by Burns on 26/06/11 at about 9:30 AM at her home.She was taken to Sanjay Gandhi hospital where she had been given primary treatment, then patient attendant shifted her to RML Hospital, there she expired on 14/07/11 at 9:30 PM.MLC has been made at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital MLC No 10187, on MLC it shows 80-85% of body burn.General appearance Clothing: Clothes not present Built: Average built Face: Burnt.Eyes: Eyes closed.Eyelids swollen and eyelashes burnt.Conjunctivae: Conjunctivae were congested.Mouth: Lips blackened and swollen.Frenulum of upper lip and the lower lip intact.Tongue: Tongue clenched between teeth.Hands: Degloving present.Discharge from natural orifices: Blood present from mouth Post Mortem changes Corneae: Had hazy appearance.Rigor Mortis: Rigor Mortis present.Limbs flexed at elbows and knees and difficult to extend.Total body surface area involved is 80%.Internal examination Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 6 of 36 Head Scalp: Scalp tissue shows congested appearance on reflection of scalp.No extravasation of blood present in scalp.Skull bones including facial bones and base of skull: No fractures present.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 6 of 36Brain: Brain weight - 1225 gms.Brain had congested appearance.Neck Soft tissue: No extravasation of blood present in subcutaneous tissue and muscles of the neck.Hyoid bone, Thyroid cartilage, cricoid cartilage: Intact.Laryngeal mucosa and Tracheal mucosa were congested.Others: Blood vessels, Nerves, Thyroid gland, esophagus showed no gross abnormality.Chest Ribs and Sternum: No fractures present.Pleurae and pleural cavities: Pleurae had congested appearance.Lungs: Weight of right lung was 460 gms.Weight of left lung was 430 gms.Both lungs had congested appearance and consolidation present in the lungs.Heart: Weight of heart was 260 g. Myocardium had congested appearance.Coronary arteries were patent.On cut section no gross findings suggestive of ischaemia were present.Abdomen Fluid in Peritoneal cavity: No fluid present in the peritoneal cavity.Liver and gallbladder: Weight of liver was 1400 g. Congested on cut section.Spleen: Weight of spleen was 120 g. Congested on cut section.Kidneys - Both kidneys congested Pancreas: No abnormality present on gross examination.Stomach: Empty.Mucosa showed petecheal haemorrhages.Bowels: Small bowels contain fluid and gases and mucosa normal.Large intestine contained faeces and gases and mucosa was normal.Pelvis Urinary bladder empty Uterus and ovaries: NAD Genital organs: No abnormality present.A. 1388/2013 Page 7 of 36Vertebral column and spinal cord: No abnormality present.Opinion: Cause of death is shock consequent to burn injuries Time since death: Consistent with Hospital timing of death.Mohd Yakub, aged 40 years, address C-66, Block-C, JJ Colony, Nangloi, Delhi state that on 23-06-2011, Firasat, husband of my daughter Asma, came to our house and said that I have fought with my family and come to participate in a marriage.He also said that I will not stay with my parents.We told him that we would send our daughter Asma with him only after he brought his family members to us.Whereupon he brought his mother, sister and brother-in-law and returned.I fully suspect Firasat, his mother Sabri, his brother-in-law Shakir and his sister Afsana as being responsible for her death and desire that they be proceeded against legally, so that my dead daughter would secure justice.I have read the statement.It is correct.""Charge sheet was, thereafter, filed against the appellant, cognizance was taken by the Magistrate and the case was committed to Sessions for framing charges and trial, if required.A. 1388/2013 Page 9 of 3624 witnesses were cited by the prosecution.To the extent they are relevant, the evidence of the witnesses may be distilled as under:(i) PW1 Mohd. Sakir, uncle of Asma, who used to stay close to their Jhuggi, and was a butcher by profession, deposed, on 25th February 2012, that (a) at about 7-8A.M around 3 months prior to the date of recording of the statement, he heard a noise, and, on opening the door found his niece Asma outside the house in a burnt condition, (b) he immediately called the police by dialing 100 whereupon the PCR arrived at the spot, and (c) the appellant, who was also present there, had also suffered burns on his hands.(ii) PW-3 Sahida, the mother of Asma stated, in her statement recorded on 25th February 2012, that (a) Asma and the appellant were married on 27th February 2011, (b) she identified the appellant, who was present in the court, (c) no complaint was made by Asma ever after her marriage, (d) one day, around 2-3 months after their marriage (on 23rd June 2011), however, the Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 10 of 36 appellant arrived at her house with Asma and informed her that he had quarreled with his parents and left their house, (e) she, thereupon, asked the appellant to bring his parents whereafter alone they would send Asma with him, (f) Asma remained with them and the appellant went away, (g) sometime thereafter, the appellant returned with his mother Sabri, sister Afsana and her husband i.e. his brother in law Sakir, (h) on the assurance of Sabri, Afsana and Sakir, that they would keep Asma in good condition, she and her husband sent Asma with the appellant, and (i) thereafter, Asma and the appellant resided at the Jhuggi of the appellants parents J.J. Colony, Ghevra, (j) around 2-3 days later, she received information that her daughter Asma had been burnt and was in the RML hospital, (k) she, thereafter, immediately reached RML hospital, where, on seeing Asmas condition, she fell unconscious, (l) sometime later, when she came to her senses, Asma told her that she had been burnt by her husband Firasat Hussain, (m) around 18 days after the said incident, Asma died due to her burn injuries, (n) the police conducted their proceedings thereafter, (o) after postmortem, (exhibited as Ex. Pw-5/A) Asmas dead body was handed over to them, and (p) the SDM, thereafter, recorded her statement, which was exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A and bore her signature.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 11 of 36(f) she remained, throughout, in the hospital with her daughter Asma.At this stage, remaining cross examination was deferred as it was lunch time.After lunch, the cross examination of Sahida continued, wherein she stated that (a) she was unable to talk to Asma as she was unconscious, (b) neither could her husband, Mohd. Yakub talk to Asma for the same reason, (c) Asma was unconscious at the time she (i.e. Sahida) reached the Hospital from Bijnor and remained unconscious throughout till her death, so that, she was not able to talk to her at any time, (d) the relations between the Asma and the appellant were very cordial ever since their marriage and Asma was very happy, (e) Asma never made any complaint against the appellant, (f) neither did the appellant, or any of his family members, ever demand any article from her, or her husband, at the time of marriage, prior thereto or thereafter, (g) she had visited the residence of Asma while she was staying with the appellant, (h) Asma used to prepare food using a kerosene oil stove, (i) the appellant had also received burnt injuries, and (j) it was incorrect to suggest that Asma had accidentally caught fire while preparing food and that the appellant had run to the Crl.He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.(vii) PW-10, Mohd Ahmed, who was a neighbour of the appellant and worked in a ply factory, deposed, on 21st April 2012, that Asma had caught fire while cooking food, and the Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 14 of 36 appellant had burnt his hands in the process of trying to save Asma.This assertion was repeated in his cross-examination by the learned APP.The suggestion, put to him, that he was deposing falsely, was denied by him.During his cross- examination by the appellant he further deposed that he had never seen any quarrel, between Asma and the appellant, at any point of time.He further stated, that at first, he had not noticed whether the thumb of Asma was having burn injuries or not and, immediately thereafter, denied the suggestion that the thumbs of both hands of Asma were badly burned and that skin from the thumbs had peeled off.The suggestion that Asma had caught fire while cooking was also denied.(xii) PW-19, Dr. Brijesh Singh, CMO, SGM Hospital, deposed, in his examination-in-chief on 28 July 2012, that, on 26th June 2011, he had examined Asma, and that the smell of kerosene was present on her.He further deposed that, at the time, she was conscious, oriented and her vitals were stable, and that she was fit for giving statement.He stated that she had superficial to deep burns, to the extent of approximately 60%.He also confirmed that he had prepared the MLC, exhibited as Ex PW-19/A, and signed the same.He further stated that he had examined the appellant on the same day, and found that he had suffered superficial to deep burns on both hands, forearms and Crl.That apart, there is no explanation as to why, when the SDM was present, he got the statement recorded by the I/O, instead of recording the same himself.If any further material, to doubt the credibility of the deposition of the SDM, were required, it is to be found in his final assertion that, on 14 th July 2011, he had received information regarding the death of Asma on his phone, during office hours which, according to him, were 10 AM to 5 Crl.% C. HARI SHANKAR, J.Vide judgment dated 12th April, 2013, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, Rohini (hereinafter referred to as the ""learned ASJ""), held Firasat Hussain - the appellant before us - guilty of committing the murder of his wife Asma, and accordingly convicted him under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ""IPC"").Asma and the appellant were, therefore, taken to Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 2 of 36 SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri.As the case could not be managed at SGM Hospital, on the advice of the doctors there, Asma and the appellant, were transferred to Ram Manohar Lohia (RML) Hospital about an hour thereafter.A. 1388/2013 Page 2 of 36Burnt matchsticks, one yellow plastic bottle, one stove and some burnt clothes were recovered from the spot of occurrence.The SI informed the SHO, Inspector Surender Dhaiya, of PS Kanjhawla, who also reached the hospital, at around 10-10.30 AM.The SHO informed the SDM Saraswati Vihar, Ramphal Singh (PW-However, the MLC opined that she was fit for statement.Consequent on the arrival of the SDM, according to the prosecution, the statement of Asma was recorded (Ex.PW-11/A).The statement was not recorded in the handwriting of Asma but bears two Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 3 of 36 thumb impressions at the foot thereof which had been encircled with an endorsement to the effect that they were Asmas.The statement, which was recorded in vernacular, may be translated thus:A. 1388/2013 Page 3 of 36Because of this, my married life was not progressing smoothly.My mother-in-law left her house 15 days ago.Apart from this, the statement has been signed by the SHO, PS Kanjhawala.Consequent to the purported recording of the aforementioned statement of Asma, the SDM directed registration of FIR.Pursuant thereupon, an FIR No. 158/2011 was registered against Firasat Crl.To deep thermal burns"".The investigation into the case was, thereafter, transferred to Inspector Surender Dahiya (PW-22), who prepared the site plan, got the post mortem done by Dr Manoj Dhingra (PW-5) and Dr. Deepak Sharma, collected the post mortem report and sent the exhibits, recovered from the site to the Forensic Science Laboratory.The post mortem report, which was exhibited as Ex PW-5/A, reads as under:""P.M. No. 643/11 Dated: 16/07/11 Time: 4 PM Name of deceased: Smt. Ashma W/o: Phirasat Hussain Age: 22 years Sex: Female Address: A-110 jj Colony sawada DELHI Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 5 of 36 Body sent by: SDM Ram phal Singh Police station: Kanjhawala FIR No. : 158/dt 26/6/2011 IDENTIFIED/IDENTIFICATION MARKSA. 1388/2013 Page 5 of 36Post Mortem staining: Not appreciable due to extensive burn injuries.Decomposition changes: Not present.External examination (injuries) Dermo-epidermal burn injuries present involving the whole body.The skin is blackened with peeling of skin at places exposing reddish base except Scalp hair.Total inquest papers: Fifteen (15)""On 16th July 2011, the statements of Sahida (PW-3) and Mohammed Yakub (PW-7) were recorded by the SDM (PW-11), under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ""the Cr.P.C"").The statements of Sahida (PW-3) and Mohd Yakub (PW-7), as translated from the vernacular, were as under:(i) Statement of Sahida (PW-3):""I, Smt. Sahida, wife of Sh.In the course of conversation, it was decided that Shakir, the brother-in-law of Firasat took the responsibility that everything would be okay.3 days thereafter on 26.06.2011, we received information of Asma having been burnt.I believe Firasats mother Sabri, his brother-in-law Shakir, his sister Afsana and Firasat to be responsible for Asmas death and I am fully convinced that I want all of them to be proceeded against in law so that my dead daughter may secure justice.A. 1388/2013 Page 8 of 36Heard the statement it is correct.""(ii) Mohd Yakub (PW-7):On 23.06.2011, Asmas husband Firasat Hussain came to our house in the afternoon, after having fought with his sister, brother-in-law and mother.When we asked him the reason, he told us that they had come to participate in some wedding.He also stated that he had fought with his family and would not stay with them.I told my son-in-law that the Vidai had just taken place.Expenses had been spent on the wedding.How could he bear the burden of my daughter alone, we asked him to bring his family members and that we would talk to them.From his family, his elder sister, brother in law named Shakir and his mother came to our house to talk to us.During conversation, his brother- in-law decided that Asmas responsibility was his, and told us to send Asma with Firasat.So we sent Asma with Firasat.On 26.06.2011, in the morning between 9:30 AM 10 AM, a neighbour informed us that our daughter Asma had been burnt and was admitted in the Sanjay Gandhi hospital.We were again informed, by phone, that our daughter had been sent to RML hospital.On 19th January 2011, charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 302, 304B, and 498A of the IPC.The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Evidence, was thereafter, recorded by the learned ASJ.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 10 of 36(iii) PW-3 Sahida was cross examined by counsel for the appellant.In cross examination, she deposed that (a) she did not remember the date on which she received information about Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 11 of 36 the death of Asma, (b) she received information about the death of Asma at 10 AM while she was at Bijnor and arrived at the hospital at about 8-9 PM, (c) she went to the hospital with her sister in law, (d) the police never met her or recorded her statement, (e) neither did the SDM meet her in the hospital, andA. 1388/2013 Page 12 of 36 kitchen, tried to save her from fire and sustained burn injuries in the process.A. 1388/2013 Page 12 of 36(iv) PW-5 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, who was Medical Officer Incharge at the SGM hospital, deposed, on 28th February 2012, that he, along with Dr. Deepak Sharma, had conducted postmortem of Asma and that she was found to have sustained 80% burns with dermo-epidermal burn injuries present, involving the whole body.He further deposed that no injury was found on internal examination and, in his opinion, the cause of Asmas death was shock consequent upon burn injuries.He proved his report as Ex. PW-5/A. He was cross examined by counsel for the appellant, whereupon he stated that Asma had burns on her hands and fingers in a ""degloving manner"", clarifying that ""degloving"" meant ""peeling of skin"".(v) PW-7, Mohd. Yakub, father of Asma, deposed, in his examination-in-chief on 18th April 2012, that (a) about 4-5 months after marriage, the vidai ceremony had come to their place with Asma and stated that as he had quarreled with his mother, sister, brother in law and that he did not desire to stay with them, (b) he (i.e. Mohd Yakub) told him that they would not send Asma back with him till he brought his family members, (c) that the appellant, thereupon, went away and returned with his family members, who assured that they would take care of Asma, (d) on receiving such assurance, they i.e. Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 13 of 36 Asmas parents, sent her with them, (e) 2-3 days thereafter, at about 8-9 A.M he got to know that Asma had sustained burns and was admitted in the hospital, (f) on their reaching the hospital, they found Asma admitted there, (g) she succumbed to her injuries about 19 days thereafter and (h) his statement, which bore his signatures, was recorded by the SDM, and was exhibited as Ex PW-7/A.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 13 of 36(vi) During cross-examination by counsel for the appellant, Mohd Yakub (PW-7) deposed that (a) they reached the hospital at about 8-8-30 PM and remained there till 1 AM., (b) no Magistrate came to the hospital in his presence, (c) Asma used to visit his house, to meet her parents, (d) he had visited Asmas matrimonial home only once, on the occasion of the death of the appellants brother, (e) the relations between Asma and the appellant were very cordial, (f) even on the occasion when, prior to the present incident, Asma had visited their house with her husband, i.e. the appellant, their relations were cordial, (g) the appellant had not demanded anything from them, either before or after the marriage, and (h) the appellant had never misbehaved with him or with any member of his family.(viii) PW-11 Ram Phal Singh, the SDM/Executive Magistrate, deposed, in his examination-in-chief on 19th May 2012, that, on 26th June 2011, he had recorded Asmas statement, which bore her thumb impression at points A and B, and that, after recording her statement, he gave necessary directions to the SHO.He further deposed that the statement, dated 16th July 2011, of Mohd Yakub (PW-7), was recorded before him.(ix) During his cross-examination by the appellant, PW-11 stated that (a) on arrival at the hospital, he had first met the doctor in the Emergency Ward, and confirmed, from him, that Asma was fit for giving a statement, (b) he had, however, not taken any certificate, from the doctor, to this effect, (c) he did not know the name of the said doctor, (d) he told Asma that he was the SDM and had come there to record her statement, though there was no such recital in the statement of Asma, recorded by him, (e) he satisfied himself, before recording her statement, that Asma was fit for doing so, though this fact was Crl.He denied the suggestion that the thumb impression affixed on Asmas statement was not hers, or that the scale of her whole hand had peeled off.He further denied the suggestion that the statement of Asma had not been recorded before him or under his directions.He accepted the fact that the MLC (Ex PW-11/DX) was received by him on 26th of June 2011, when he reached the hospital, and that, below the certification, thereon, that Asma was fit for recording of her statement, there was no date or time, and no signature of the doctor either.A. 1388/2013 Page 15 of 36Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 16 of 36(x) PW-18 SI Om Prakash deposed, in his examination-in- chief on 28th July 2012, that (a) on 26th June 2011, while he was posted as SI in PS Kanjhawala, he received DD No 8A, (b) thereafter, he, along with Ct Rohtash, reached jhuggi No A-110, JJ Colony, Sawada, (c) there, they came to know that Asma had been burnt and had been taken to the hospital, (d) he noticed the smell of kerosene oil, and found some burnt clothes lying there,(e) he also found one kerosene bottle, one stove, burnt matchsticks and a matchbox, (f) he informed the SHO Surinder Dahiya (PW-22), who also reached the spot, (g) the SHO, thereafter, informed the SDM, whereas he, i.e. Om Prakash, informed the crime team, which came after sometime and inspected the spot, (h) the SHO proceeded to the hospital and he, too, reached the hospital after sometime, where he collected Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 17 of 36 the MLC of Asma, (i) the SDM, Ram Phal Singh (PW-11) met him there, and recorded the statement of Asma, which was handed over to him, (j) he was also handed over the clothes of Asma, carrying which he returned to the Police Station, (k) he handed over the statement of Asma to the SHO, (l) the SHO entered an endorsement, therein, for registration of an FIR, (m) he, thereafter, went back to the spot of incident, where he seized the matchbox, matchsticks, plastic bottle, burnt clothes and the stove, and prepared the site plan (n) the appellant arrived at the spot, where he was interrogated and arrested, and his personal search conducted, (o) he made a disclosure statement, which was exhibited as Ex PW-18/F, and bore his, i.e. SI Om Prakashs (PW-18) signature, (p) the appellant was, thereafter, sent to police lock-up, after which he recorded the statement of witnesses, (q) on 27th June 2011, the appellant was produced in court and remanded to JC, (r) on the night of 14th July 2011, information, regarding the death of Asma, was received, and recorded vide DD No 8A, (s) he reached the SGM Hospital on 15th July 2011, collected the dead body, death report and death summary, sent the dead body to be SGM Hospital Mortuary and informed the SDM, (t) after the SDM had reached, he, i.e. SI Om Prakash, recorded the statements of the I/O and of Rais Ahmed (PW-2), whereafter the SDM conducted the inquest proceedings and got the post-mortem of Asma conducted, (u) the statements of Sahida (PW-3) and Mohd Yakub (PW-7) were recorded by the SDM.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 17 of 36Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 18 of 36(xi) In his cross-examination, SI Om Prakash deposed that he had recorded the statement of Asma under the guidance of the SDM, though this fact was not mentioned by him anywhere.The suggestion that he had recorded the statement himself and got signed, later, by the SDM, was denied.Regarding the injuries on the body of Asma, he stated that all the visible parts of her body were having burn injuries, and that her hands were also burnt.A. 1388/2013 Page 19 of 36 forehead, and that he had prepared the MLC for the appellant, which was exhibited as Ex PW-19/B.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 19 of 36(xiii) In his cross-examination, Dr. Brijesh Singh accepted that he had not put his signature below the ""fitness"" endorsement of Asma.He further confirmed that he had not mentioned, in the MLC of the appellant, that he was fit for giving statement, as he had already stated, in the MLC, that he was conscious and oriented, and his injury was not serious.He also accepted that the statement, by him, that Asma had suffered 60% burns, as also recorded on the body of the MLC, could also be 85%, as he had only mentioned an approximate percentage on a preliminary examination.He further confirmed that the reference, to Asma, as ""conscious and oriented"" meant that she could speak properly, and denied the suggestion that a person who had suffered 85% burns would not be in a position to speak clearly.(xiv) PW-22, Inspector Surinder Dahiya, whose statement was recorded on 22nd October 2012, deposed, during his cross- examination, that he was not present when the SDM (Ram Phal Singh PW-11) was recording the statement of Asma.Several questions were put to him, all of which he denied.He stated that he was innocent and falsely Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 20 of 36 implicated in the case.He further stated that while cooking food, the deceased accidentally caught fire and upon hearing her cries, he rushed to her and in the process of extinguishing the fire, he also received burn injuries on his hands and forehand.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 20 of 36Impugned Judgement of learned ASJVide the impugned judgement, dated 12 th April 2013, the learned ASJ has held the appellant guilty of having committed murder of Asma and, accordingly, has convicted him under Section 302 of the IPC.In so holding, the learned ASJ, relies, extensively, and predictably, on the ""dying declaration"" of Asma.He also places reliance on the deposition of PW-19 Dr. Brijesh Singh, to the effect that Asma was conscious and oriented and fit to give a statement.He has accepted, as correct, the deposition of PW-11 Ram Phal Singh (the SDM), regarding the recording of the said statement of Asma.As regards the exculpatory statements of Asmas parents, the learned ASJ holds that, as part of the cross examination of Sahida (PW-3) took place prior to lunch, and part thereafter, there was every chance of her having been won over during lunchtime.He also holds that, though it would have been better if the statement of Asma had been recorded by the SDM himself, or in question answer form, these minor irregularities were not sufficient to discredit the said statement.He has also relied on the fact that the smell of kerosene was present, indicating that kerosene had been ""put on"" Asmas clothes.A. 1388/2013 Page 21 of 36 accused in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. then how kerosene oil fell on her cloth"", and answers the query by opining that ""this is only possible if kerosene oil was poured either by deceased herself or poured by someone else."" On this basis, the learned ASJ has completely rejected the proposal that Asma was accidentally burnt while cooking food.He further relies on the fact that the appellant had himself stated that there were strained relations between Asma and him, and his family members.At the same time, he could neither remember the name of the doctor, nor had any written certification, to this effect, obtained from him.This assertion appears, on a reading of the statement itself, to be, prima facie, unacceptable, as the statement reads as a continuous recitation, and not as answers to questions which were periodically being put to Asma.PW-11 further stated that Asma was burnt from the chest downward, with bandages on both hands, and was crying in pain at the time.If there were bandages on both hands Crl.The two times recorded at the head and foot of the statement are discrepant, inasmuch as the commencement, and conclusion, of the statement are both shown to have taken place at 11:45 AM whereas, as per PW-11, the recording of the statement took 10 to 15 minutes.No positive evidence, medical or otherwise, is forthcoming, to indicate that it was possible for Asma to affix her thumb impressions on the statement.In fact, Dr. Brijesh Singh (PW-19), too, in his examination-in-chief, admitted that Asma had suffered superficial to deep burns on both hands, forearms and Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 27 of 36 forehead.The MLC of Asma also reflects the said position, which stands further fortified by the post-mortem report of Asma (Ex PW- 5/A), which clearly opined that Asma had sustained 80% burns with dermo-epidermal injuries covering the whole body.Even more significantly, Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-5), who had prepared the said report, testified, in cross examination, that Asma had burns on her hands and fingers in a ""degloving manner"", which, he explained, meant that the skin had peeled off.The probability of Asma having been in a position to affix her thumb impression on her statement is, therefore, remote and, at the very least, highly questionable.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 27 of 36That apart, there is no real disconsonance, between the deposition of PW-3 before, and after, lunch.The statement of Mohd Yakub (PW-7) was, for its part, recorded at one continuous stretch, so that no allegation of tutoring could, at any rate, be levelled against him.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 29 of 36It is, moreover, a conceded factual position that, on 23rd June 2011, the appellant did visit Asmas parents, with Asma, stating that he wanted to reside with them, as he had quarrelled with his folks.It also appears, from the statement of Mohd Yakub (PW-7) that the appellant and Asma were proceeding together to attend a wedding.These facts - which are not traversed or controverted by the prosecution - are completely incompatible with the allegation, contained in the ""dying declaration"" of Asma, that she had frequent quarrels with the appellant, or that the appellant and his family members were harassing her for dowry.It is, moreover, difficult to accept that the appellant who, on 23rd June 2011, was ready to leave his house and stay with Asmas parents, only because he had quarrelled with his family members could, 3 days thereafter, be so murderously inclined, against his wife Asma, as to set her on fire.The assertion, by PW-7, to the effect that the appellant had informed him that he had come, with Asma, to attend to a wedding, would also indicate that there was no want of cordiality in the relations between Asma and the appellant.The statement of PW-10 Mohd Ahmed - who was a neighbour of the appellant and could not, therefore, be said to be ""interested"" in any manner - also exculpates the appellant, as he has stated, categorically, that Asma had accidentally caught fire while cooking, and that the appellant, who had tried to save Asma, had burnt his hands in the process.This assertion, which was first given in Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 30 of 36 examination-in-chief, was repeated in cross-examination, and the suggestion that he had deposed falsely was emphatically denied.He also asserted that he had never, at any point of time, seen any quarrel between Asma and the appellant.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 30 of 36Adverting, now, to the initial statements recorded from Sahida (PW-3) and Mohd Yakub (PW-7), a reading of the said statement discloses that they make no allegations, either against the appellant or his family members, except for a suggestion, at the conclusion of the said statements, that they were responsible for Asmas death.The basis, for the appellants parents harbouring such a view, is not forthcoming from the said statements.Rather, a holistic reading of the statements, especially that of Mohd Yakub (PW-7), would go to indicate that the reluctance, on their part, to send Asma with the appellant was not because they feared that she would be ill-treated by her in-laws, but because they had doubts about whether the appellant, on his own, could look after her and bear her responsibility.The appellant was, therefore, requested to bring his parents to meet them only so that they could be reassured that the responsibility of Asmas well-being would be accepted by the appellants parents and other family members.Significantly, on the appellants brother-in-law Shakir agreeing to take on the said responsibility, Asmas parents readily and willingly agreed to send her with the appellant.Such a course of action is entirely incompatible with the theory, sought to be advanced by the prosecution, that there was discord between Asma and the family members of the appellant, and that she was repeatedly Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 31 of 36 being ill treated by her husband and his family.Significantly, there is nothing to indicate that Asma ever hesitated in going with the appellant and his family, which would have been the natural reaction, if she had, as her ""dying declaration"" purports to allege, been subjected to repeated ill-treatment, taunts and abuse by the appellant and his family members.The initial statements, recorded from Asmas parents, i.e. Sahida (PW-3) and Mohd Yakub (PW-7), too, therefore, do not advance the case of the prosecution at all.The mere apprehension, expressed at the conclusion of the said statements, that the appellant and his family members were responsible for the mishap, cannot, in our opinion, render the statements as inculpatory, qua the appellant, in any manner.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 31 of 36There is nothing, either in the examination-in-chief, or in the cross examination, of Shahida, or Mohd Yakub, to even remotely hint at any ill-treatment, by the appellant or by his parents, of Asma, after their marriage.Moreover, the fact that the appellant also sustained superficial to deep burns would also indicate that he intervened after Asma had caught fire which, read with the testimony of PW-10 Mohd Ahmed supra, would appear to be in an effort to save her.Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 32 of 36The assumption, by the learned ASJ, that the presence of the smell of kerosene, on and around Asma, would indicate that kerosene had been poured on her is, in our considered view, far-fetched and entirely hypothetical in nature.Kerosene would be bound to be present on the clothes of a person who caught fire while cooking food using a kerosene stove, and the presence of the smell of kerosene, therefore, could hardly be attributed to an attempt, by anyone, to have set her ablaze by pouring kerosene on her.Rather, the fact that the clothes of Asma were also found to contain kerosene, could equally indicate that kerosene had spilled on her clothes, while she was cooking, resulting in her unfortunately being set ablaze.Indeed, it is impossible to comprehend how, in a case where a person cooking food using a kerosene stove, accidentally catches fire, kerosene would be expected not to be present on her clothes.This is a case in which, after recording the initial statements of Sahida (PW-3) and Mohd Yakub (PW-7) under Section 161 of the Cr PC, the prosecution, inexplicably, decided to completely cool its heels.There has not been the remotest effort to obtain any other evidence which could be said to incriminate the appellant.P.C, as also before the learned ASJ, they were never questioned regarding the relations of Asma, either with the appellant or with her in-laws.Rather, the one neighbour who was so questioned, i.e. Mohd Ahmed (PW-10) has come forward with the clear statement Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 33 of 36 that he had never witnessed any quarrel between Asma and her husband at any point of time and that, as a matter of fact, Asma had caught fire while cooking food and the appellant had sustained injuries in his efforts to save.Thus guided, we are unable to discern any justification for holding the appellant guilty of murdering his wife Asma, in cold blood, just 2 to 3 days after he had gone with her, to her parents, wanting to stay with them.We are inclined, rather, to believe the possibility that Asma caught fire accidentally while cooking food, and that the burn injuries sustained by the appellant were also attributable to his having tried to save her.In the absence of any supportive corroborative evidence, and given the evidence to the contrary, we are fully convinced that, on the sole basis of the alleged ""dying declaration"" of Asma, it would be a travesty of justice if the appellant were to be held guilty of having committed her murder, and sentenced therefor.It is well settled, in law, that, unless all circumstances incontrovertibly point towards the guilt of the accused, and are entirely incompatible with his innocence, the scales must tilt in favour of the accused, rather than against him.We are, therefore, unable to concur with the findings of the learned ASJ, to the effect that the appellant was guilty of having committed the offence of murdering his wife Asma, and was, therefore, liable to be prosecuted under section 302 of the IPC.Resultantly, we set-aside the impugned judgement, dated 12 th April 2013, convicting the appellant under section 302 of the IPC, as Crl.A. 1388/2013 Page 35 of 36 well as the subsequent order, dated 26th April 2013, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life therefor.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"ap C.R.M. 2207 of 2017 In the matter of: an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 16.03.2017 in connection with Nowda Police Station Case No. 235 of 2016 dated 18.08.2016 under Sections 341/326A/307 of the Indian Penal Code.Accordingly, the application for bail stands rejected.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) 2 (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)","['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The case of the prosecution as set out in the charge-sheet is that the prosecutrix a minor was brought up by her father.After the death of her Crl.A.523/2012 Page 1 of 16 father, she was brought up by her grandmother.The respondent-Punnu and his wife Saroj (co-accused and who has already been convicted while judgment dated 24.02.2006), who are the real chacha and chachi, went to the village and brought the prosecutrix to live with them in their jhuggi at Bapu Dham.After about six months the respondent-Punnu raped her.When she informed the co-accused Saroj, the prosecutrix was scolded.Prosecutrix was used as a prostitute and the accused used to earn money.A.523/2012 Page 1 of 16One day she was made to dance naked after having liquor.After the Jhuggi were demolished, the two accused shifted to quarter No.114, Dhaula Kauan.The prosecutrix then started working as a domestic servant in the house of Dr.Shalini Monga.On 16.12.2002 the prosecutrix complained and informed Dr.Shalini Monga that she was harassed and tormented by the accused.Shalini Monga took the prosecutrix to the office of the Chairman, National Human rights Commission and made a written complaint.The complaint was marked to ASI Bal Kishan of Police Station Dhaula Kuan for investigation.Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded in the presence of Dr.Rajat Mitra, Director of an NGO and his wife Dr.Nidhi Mitra.The co-accused Saroj was arrested.Prosecutrix's medical examination was done and her statement was recorded under Section 164 Crl.A.523/2012 Page 2 of 16 Cr.P.C. The ossification examination revealed that the age of the prosecutrix on 15.01.2003 was between 14-17 years.A.523/2012 Page 2 of 16The respondent Pannu could not be arrested and was declared proclaimed offender.Statements of other witnesses were also recorded.By judgment dated 22.02.2006, co-accused Saroj was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 109 read with Section 376(g) IPC and to pay a fine of `1000/- and in default suffer rigoruous imprisonment for two months.The respondent was arrested by ATS South on Crl.The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.On the said date no witness except Inspector Rajinder Mani was present.Inspector Rajender Mani filed list of witnesses in the main case and of supplementary charge sheet.The same were kept on record.SI Ajay Kumar was absent despite service.As such, the statement of the accused is dispensed with.File be consigned to the Record Room.""In his statement Inspector Rajender Mani on 16.03.2011 had stated as under:""FIR No.11/03 PS Delhi Cantt.16.03.2011 Statement of Inspector Rajender Meena, No-D3058, Inspector Investigatin, PS Delhi Cantt.I am IO of this case.The summons of the prosecutrix Ms. Ritu Devi, d/o Late Harparsad Kashyap, r/o village Crl.A.523/2012 Page 5 of 16 Tilokpur, P.O. Alipur, P.S. Bara Sagver, Distt.Unnao, U.P. were given to me for here service.Ayodhaya, Sh.Suresh s/o Sh.Gangaram, Gram Pradhan Ms. Gudiya Devi and inquired about the prosecutrix from them however she could not be traced.The statements of Rajkumar s/o Sh.Ayodhaya, Gram Pradhan Ms. Gudiya Devi Ex. PX to PX2 bearing my signatures at point A and that of Ct.Through : Mr.Sameer Chander, Amicus Curiae.MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG SANJIV KHANNA, J. (OPEN COURT)State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 16.03.2011 in FIR No.11/2003, police station Delhi Cantt.Initially non-bailable warrants for the arrest of the accused were issued and thereafter by order dated 10.02.2003 proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1973 were initiated after recording the statement of process server who had tried to serve the process.She was cross-examined on 11.10.2004 on behalf of co-accused Saroj.He was directed to be summoned again.A.523/2012 Page 3 of 16On 16.03.2011 the following order was passed:-""State Vs.Punnu FIR No.11/03 16.03.2011 Present: Ms. Satwinder Kaur, Ld.PP for state.Accused from J/C with Sh.Amit Chaudhan, Adv.No PW present.He has submitted that the prosecutrix Ms. Ritu Devi is not traceable and has been searched for at various addresses.To this effect his detailed statement has been recorded on oath.In view of his statement, the prosecutrix being not traceable, is dropped.A.523/2012 Page 4 of 16IO as well as Ld. Addl.PP for State have been asked to point out if there is any other incriminating evidence available on record from which the accused can be connected with the alleged commission of offence in the absence of the examination of the prosecutrix.IO has gone through the file and has pointed out that there is no such evidence which can be led by the prosecution other than the prosecutrix to prove that the accused is guilty of the offence he is charged with.In these circumstances, the prosecution evidence is closed.No witness has been examined by the prosecution.I had sent Ct.Sheoraj to the said aforesaid address for effecting the service of summons.Sheoraj had met with Rajkumar s/o Sh.Tejpal Singh at point A1 were recorded by him.A.523/2012 Page 5 of 16On 04.03.2011, Ct.Sheoraj Singh on my directions had gone to H.No.1261, Block A, Phase-II, Holambikala where accused Punnu was residing to find out any clue about the prosecutrix from the said address or nearby places to trace her out however we could not succeed.DD No.66 B was recorded to this effect on his return true copy of which is Ex.PX3 bearing my signatures at point and the signatures of Ct.On 25.02.2011 and 01.03.2011, I had gone to Balika Greh Pratham, Mahila avam bal vikas Vibhagh, after care home for women, Department of Women and Child Dev, Nirmal Chhaya Complex, Jail Road, N. Delhi-64 in search of the prosecutrix.PX4 and PX5 which were duly attested by me at point A. Thereafter I went to East West and Main Sagarpur, Delhi in search of the address of the prosecutrix given by the Superintendent, Balika Greh Pratham and met there with Sh.Bhishan Das, Umesh Kumar, Ishwar Das and Sh.Panna Lal and interrogated them about the prosecutrix and H.No.46, Gali No.4, Sagarpur, Gandhi Market, Delhi, however, this address was found to be incorrect as it was not in existence.PX6 to PX9 all bearing my signatures at point A. Despite my best efforts the prosecutrix could not be traced out.My detailed report to this effect is Ex.PX10 bearing my signatures at point A.""A.523/2012 Page 6 of 16In the impugned judgment acquitting the respondent, the Trial court recorded as under:To this effect his detailed statement has been recorded on oath.In view of his statement, the prosecutrix being not traceable, is dropped.IO as well as the Ld. Addl.In these circumstances, the prosecution evidence is closed.No witness has been examined by the prosecution, as such there is no incriminating evidence on record against accused Punnu, hence his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.A.523/2012 Page 7 of 16File be consigned to Record Room.""Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon Section 299 of Cr.P.C and Section 33 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and has submitted that the impugned judgment and the reasoning given therein cannot be sustained.The said provisions have not been examined.The statement of PW-1 recorded on 16.08.2003 and 11.10.2003 in the proceedings against co- accused Saroj-wife of the respondent can be read in evidence.In the present case the trial, after the charges were framed against the appellant, has proceeded in haste and hurry.Only one opportunity was granted to the State to produce the prosecutrix.On failure, the prosecution evidence was closed.A.523/2012 Page 14 of 16 acquittal was passed.No opportunity or chance was given to the prosecution to move any application or decide or make any further attempt to prove and establish the case.Of course, it will be also open to the prosecution to produce the prosecutrix if possible.The Trial Court will also record evidence of other witnesses if deemed necessary and appropriate.SANJIV KHANNA, J.","['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"regarding grant of stay and he prays for time.List tomorrow i.e. on 25/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 3 W.P.No.20/2015 24/8/2015 Shri Rishabh Sethi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent is again praying for time.List in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 4 W.P.No.452/2015 24/8/2015 Shri Ajay Assudani, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file rejoinder.Two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner to do the needful.List along with W.P. 7374/2014 after two weeks, as prayed.Interim relief granted earlier to continue.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 5 M.Cr.C.No.7495/2015 24/8/2015 Shri P.K. Shukla and Shri MS.Chouhan, learned Counsel for the applicant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.By this second application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., Ghanshyam has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.764/2015 registered by police station Chandan Nagar, District Indore for offence under Sections 304- B, 498-A/34 of the I.P.C.Counsel for the applicant has candidly admitted the fact that this is the second bail application moved on behalf of applicant Ghanshyam, who was the father-in-law of the deceased.The first application has been dismissed on the ground that the challan has not been filed and now the challan has been filed.Counsel submitted that the allegation against the present 6 applicant regarding demand of schooty was for the benefit of the daughter-in-law.Counsel further submitted that the applicant is a businessman and his entire family is suffering due to his arrest.Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicant and prayed for dismissal of the application.Hence, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that the application for grant of bail needs to be allowed since the challan has been put up and the applicant is no longer required for further investigation and it is hereby allowed in the interest of justice.It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.It is also directed that the applicants shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 8 W.P.No.5718/2015 24/8/2015 Shri R.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri V.P. Khare, learned Counsel for the respondent/PSC on advance notice.Heard on admission and interim relief.Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the petitioner had appeared for the examination of Ayurved Medical Officer and he has qualified in the written examination.However, her candidature has been cancelled by the respondent on the ground that he could not file the relevant documents for the interview and there is only one day delay occasioned in filing the documents.Hence, Counsel prayed that a direction be given to the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the ensuing interview of the said examination.In view of the above, it is directed that the respondents shall allow the petitioner to appear in the ensuing interview, if otherwise qualified and on presentation of the relevant documents, but the result of the interview shall be kept in abeyance subject to this petition.Counsel for the respondents is directed to file reply within four weeks.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 10 M.Cr.C.No.6972/2015 24/8/2015 Shri V.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the applicants Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Heard on admission.Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged the fact that the criminal case registered against the petitioners has been illegal and civil remedy was available to the complainant.Counsel placed reliance on Rajib Ranjan and others vs R. Vijaykumar (2015)1 SCC 513 whereby the Apex Court has held that it could be an abuse of process of law when civil case converted into criminal and filling of criminal complaint by party after losing battle in civil litigation; and as in present case it was held to be misuse and abuse of process of law and hence, complaint in 11 present case is also liable to be quashed.In view of the above, let nothing coercive like arrest be done against the present petitioners till the next date of hearing.List on 25/9/2015, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 12 M.Cr.C.No.6981/2015 24/8/2015 Shri V.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the applicants.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Heard on admission.Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged the fact that the criminal case registered against the petitioners has been illegal and civil remedy was available to the complainant.Counsel placed reliance on Rajib Ranjan and others vs R. Vijaykumar (2015)1 SCC 513 whereby the Apex Court has held that it could be an abuse of process of law when civil case converted into criminal and filling of criminal complaint by party after losing battle in civil litigation; and as in present case it was held to be misuse and abuse of process of law and hence, complaint in 13 present case is also liable to be quashed.In view of the above, let nothing coercive like arrest be done against the present petitioners till the next date of hearing.List on 25/9/2015, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.C.C.No.29/2015 21/8/2015 Shri Benudhar Parida, learned Counsel for the applicant.By this M.C.C. under Order 41 Rule 19 of CPC, the applicant has prayed for restoration of 14 M.A.No.583/2013, which has been dismissed due to peremptory order regarding non-payment of Court fees in time.Counsel for the applicant submits that the appeal was dismissed as per order dated 15/9/2014 and the applicant was not aware that the appeal has been dismissed for want of deficit Court fee.Counsel has candidly admitted that the appeal has been put up before the Taxing Officer and as per report of the Taxing Officer the appeal was listed before the Court and the Court has granted three months' time to pay the deficit court fees.Now the appellant is willing to pay the deficit court fee according to the newly amended Court Fee Act and prayed that the appeal be restored to its original number.Considering the entire facts of the case, I find that the appellant is dilly-dallying the payment of Court fees according to the newly amended Court Fee Act. In view of the above, the applicant/appellant is 15 directed to give an undertaking in writing before the Principal Registrar of this Court regarding the fact that applicant/appellant shall be paid the deficit Court fees, according to the newly amended Court Fee Act within two weeks.Subject to which, Registry is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and list at the stage in which it was dismissed.With the aforesaid directions, the present M.C.C. is disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 16 M.C.C.No.444/2015 21/8/2015 Shri Avinash Thorat, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on I.A.No.4522/2015, which is an application for condonation of delay 35 days occasioned in filing this present M.C.C. Counsel for the applicant submits that due to ill- health and inadvertence of the applicant, the delay has occasioned and hence, Counsel prayed that the application be allowed and delay be condoned.Counsel for the applicant submits that First Appeal No.51/2006 was dismissed due to peremptory order regarding non-payment of process fee.The respondents are not being noticed and dilly-dallying the effect of service.In the present application also process has been paid, but there is no service report.In view of the above, the applicant/appellant is directed to give an undertaking in writing before the Principal Registrar of this Court regarding the fact that the respondents shall be noticed by publication on restoration of the appeal.Further subject to depositing a sum of Rs.300/- as costs in the High Court Bar Association, Indore for the negligence and inadvertence the delay is hereby condoned.Thereafter the Registry is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and list the First Appeal at the stage in which it was dismissed after verifying the payment.With the aforesaid directions, the present M.C.C. is disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 18 M.A.No.3319/2009 21/8/2015 Shri R.N. Dave, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on I.A. No.3243/15, which is an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC for bringing the L.Rs.of deceased Dhanji respondent No.1 on record.The name of his son Anupamsingh respondent No.2 is already on record and the other L.Rs.have been named in the I.A.Counsel for the respondent No.2 has no objection.In view of the above, the application is allowed and name of the L.Rs.of the deceased respondent No.1 is taken on record.Counsel for the appellant is directed to make necessary amendment in the cause title of the appeal memo.Counsel for the appellant is also directed to pay 19 fresh process regarding the newly added respondents by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 20 S.A.No.464/2009 21/8/2015 Shri S.I. Ansari, learned Counsel appears on behalf of Shri M.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant and prays for time.List after two weeks on any Wednesday, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 21 S.A.No.529/2012 21/8/2015 Shri A. Siddique, learned Counsel for the appellant.List analogously after two weeks, as prayed (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.218/2015 21/8/2015 Shri Vishal Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni CONC No.560/2015 21/8/2015 Shri Chetan Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within 23 a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni CONC No.558/2015 21/8/2015 Shri Chetan Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of 24 process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 25 S.A. No.132/2014 21/8/2015 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the appellant.Nidhi Bohra, learned Counsel for the respondent.Counsel for the respondent submits that the application i.e. I.A. No.2797/2014 for stay has been rendered infructuous since possession is already taken by the appellant.Counsel for the appellant prays for time to verify the same.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 26 S.A. No.228/2014 21/8/2015 Shri Milind Phadke, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State.Counsel for the appellant prays for one last opportunity to pay process regarding the L.Rs.By way of indulgence, last opportunity Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 27 M.A. No.1828/2014 21/8/2015 Shri Romil Malpani, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 28 F.A. No.92/2015 21/8/2015 Shri Vishal Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant.Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has filed cross-objection and reply to the application.Counsel for the appellant prays for a short time.List in the week commencing from 7//9/2015, as prayed.Interim relief granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 29 S.A. No.1245/2005 21/8/2015 Shri Abhishekh Tiwari, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri S. Mukati, learned Counsel for the LRs.Counsel for the appellant prays for time.List on 3/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 30 M.Cr.C. No.6411/2015 20/8/2015 Shri Aniket Naik, learned Counsel for the applicant/State.Counsel for the applicant has prayed for grant of time to file an application for condonation of delay.He submitted that the present petition is barred by only a single day.In view of the above, the delay is hereby condoned and the present petition is taken up for hearing.Briefly stated; the facts of the prosecution case are that the land of complainant Jagdish and his elder brother Moolchandra was adjacent and in between the 31 land there was a Babool tree and its root came into the field.On 17/5/2015 when Jagdish was cutting the roots of the Babool tree, Moolchandra, the elder brother of Jagdish, along with his nephew Gangaram and Prakash started hurling filthy abuses at him.On being asked to stop abusing, accused Moolchandra snatched the axe from him and assaulted him on the right hand.Accused Prakash and Gangaram assaulted the complainant with lathi.One Pappu and Mangilal intervened to pacify the matter.The complainant reported the matter at police station Ringnod.Crime was registered at No.89/05 for offence under Sections 294, 323/34 and 506 of the IPC.The investigation was launched and the accused persons were arrested and the offence was registered against the accused and they were duly committed to their trial.The accused abjured their guilt and they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the matter.On considering the evidence, the Trial Court has convicted the accused Moolchandra for offence 32 under Section 294, 324 & 506/34 of the IPC.However, the trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused Prakash and Gangaram from the offence as hereinabove stated.Being aggrieved, the applicant/State has filed the present application for grant of leave to file appeal.Counsel for the applicant/State has urged the fact that there was ample evidence available on record, despite which the trial Court had erred in acquitting the respondents/accused.Counsel submitted that the trial Court had ignored the testimony of P.W.4 Tejsingh, who has supported prosecution case.In the testimony of P.W.2 Dr. Arvind Verma, Medical Officer, Government hospital, Jaora, he has stated that on the examination of the complainant it was found that as per injury No.1 there was a contusion of 6 x 2 cm on his thigh, injury No.2 was scratch 4 x 1.5 cm on the paw of left leg and injury No.3 was a lacerated wound 1.5 x 3 cm on the back side of the right upper arm and 33 the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.The injuries No.1 & 2 were simple in nature, however, for the injury No.3 the doctor advised for X-ray.And under these circumstances there was no need to disbelieve the evidence.Hence, Counsel prayed that the application for leave to file appeal be allowed.On considering the above submissions, I find that the lower Court had scrutinized the evidence available on record and the impugned judgement is impeccable and it does not call for any interference.The submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicant State are without substance, primarily because, the prosecution hopelessly failed to prove its case.The presence of the accused respondents in the place of occurrence has been doubted which the prosecution has failed to dispel.According to paragraph 20 of the impugned judgement the lower Court has categorically observed that complainant Jagdish in his cross- examination admitted that accused respondent 34 Moolchand was alone at the time of cutting the root of Babool tree and accused respondents Prakash and Gangaram were not present at the place of occurrence.Similarly, it has been stated by D.W. Rukhnath that the accused Moolchandra was working in his field and after the complainant Jagdish fell on the tree before accused respondents Prakash and Gangaram had come there.Thus, the presence of these accused respondents at the place and time of occurrence is doubtful.Similarly, the nature of injuries sustained by the complainant is concerned, except a single injury sustained by the complainant on his leg, all the other injuries are simple in nature.Moreover, the dispute pertains to agricultural land between the related parties, which has been admitted in paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment of the lower Court.Enmity is a double edged sword and the defence of the accused cannot be dispelled.And hence, the lower Courts had rightly acquitted the accused respondents.There was 35 no sufficient evidence on record for the conviction of the accused respondents.The evidence in order to sustain conviction must be unshakable and consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.I have no hesitation in concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court.The application is without merit and hence the leave to file appeal is rejected and there, the present M.Cr.C.is dismissed as such.as per rules.Besides, in view of the above, it is also directed that till then no coercive action be taken against the appellant by the executing Court and needless to say the executing Court shall also take into consideration the accident of the appellant on humanitarian ground.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 38 M.Cr.C.No.7496/2014 20/8/2015 Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned Counsel for the applicants.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.Both the Counsel for the respondents did not agree to the suggestion put forth by this Court to solve the dispute.Counsel for the applicants prays for a short time to seek instructions.By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the applicants.List for disposal on 7//9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) 39 Judge moni 40 W.P.No.3521/2015 20/8/2015 Shri C.L. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Shyam Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State submits that he would like to enquire whether the work orders have been issued or not?By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondent to do the needful.List for disposal on 25/8/2014, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 41 Cri.A. No.728/2002 20/8/2015 None for the appellant.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Appellant No.2 Pawan s/o Chunnilal has been produced in proper custody by Head constable Abdul Sayed,325 and Constable Raju Savle 851, DRP Line,Khargone.The appellant was absent since he was in custody for some other offence and non-bailable warrant has been issued for his arrest.Since no one appears on behalf of the appellant, the Police officials are directed to be take back the appellant in proper custody, to undergo the remaining sentence.In view of the above, earlier order of suspension of sentence is hereby recalled.However, Counsel for the appellant is granted liberty to move fresh 42 application for grant of suspension of sentence, if he deems necessary under the circumstances.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.1924/2014 20/8/2015 Shri Bharat Malviya, learned Counsel for the appellants.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Dy.Advocate for the respondent/State.Appellants Ramcharan, Rameshwar and Rambabu are present in person.Heard on I.A. No.6142/2015, which is an application for condonation of absence of the appellants.The appellants submits that there was some death 43 in the their family and hence they could not appear before this Court on the date set by this Court Registry.The appellants are directed to mark their presence today and they are also directed to remain present before this Court/Registry on 29/9/2015 and on all other dates as may be fixed by the Registry.List for final hearing in due course.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 44 M.Cr.C. No.5774/2015 20/8/2015 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State on advance notice.Counsel for the applicant prays for a short time to argue the matter.List in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cri.A. No.1095/2015 20/8/2015 Shri Nitesh Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State on advance notice.Heard on admission.Call for the record.List after receipt of the record.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A. No.1028/2005 20/8/2015 None for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Report of non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against the appellant indicates that the appellant has left the place with his family.Issue notices to the Surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.Notices be made returnable within two 46 weeks.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge S.A.Nos.1326/2005 and 1343/2005 20/8/2015 Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Koustubh Pathak, learned Counsel for the respondent.Counsel for the respondent is again praying for time to file reply to the I.A.By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted 47 to the Counsel for the respondent to do the needful.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cr.A. No.385/2010 20/8/2015 None for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Issue notices to the Surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.440/2010 20/8/2015 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant.Hence, Counsel prayed that extension of time be granted to the appellant since the order dated 26/4/2010 is still in existence.In view of the above, it would be more appropriate that the appellant move a fresh application for grant of suspension of sentence regarding the appellant No.8 and one week's time is granted to the appellant to do the needful.Subject to which, list in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.1243/2011 20/8/2015 None for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the 50 respondent/State.There is a report regarding service of non- bailable warrant of arrest issued against the appellant No.1 Santosh @ Santish @ Dadu, which indicates that the appellant No.1 was absconding.In view of the above above, perpetual warrant be issued against the appellant No.1 for his appearance before this Court as and when he is arrested.Issue notices to the Surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cr.A. No.415/2012 20/8/2015 None for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.On perusal of the order sheet dated 15/5/2015, I find that the sole appellant Sumitra Bai has died.Counsel is again praying for time to verify the same.By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondent to do the needful.List in the week commencing from 1st of September, 2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge 52 Cri.A. No.1229/2012 20/8/2015 None for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the appellant/State.However, he was unable to avail the bail since he was in custody and on 17/10/2014 the appellant has already undergone the entire jail sentence and the sentence of fine to the tune of Rs.500/- has been paid.However, he has not been released on bail.And hence, the learned Trial Court Judge prayed for appropriate direction in this matter.In view of the above, I find that appellant may be 53 released, if he is not already released.In this light the present appeal stands abates and rendered infructuous due to efflux of time and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed as such.The P.U.D.is also stands closed and disposed off.A copy of this order be sent to the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain C.c.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 54 W.P.No.11723/2012 20/8/2015 Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Counsel petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Respondent No.2 Deepak Kasliwal is present in person.Respondent No.2 submits that the reply to the I.A. has been filed by the petitioner today only and hence he prays for a short time to argue the matter.List on 25/8/2015 on consent of all the parties.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R. No.1070/2013 20/8/2015 None for the petitioner.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cr.R.No.690/2015 20/8/2015 None for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.This Court had on 21/7/201directed to the applicant to move appropriate application for converting this criminal revision into the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, but the application is not available on record.None appears on behalf of the petitioner today also.It appears that the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the case.In view of the above, this petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge M.A.Nos.1447/13, 1443/13,1445/13,1449/13 and 1450/13 20/8/2015 Shri M. Negi, learned Counsel for the appellant.None for the other respondents.Service report of the other respondents is awaited.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.275/2014 20/8/2015 None for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Time was granted to the appellant for his appearance before this Court on several occasions.Issue notices to the Surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned 59 C.J.M. for compliance.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.389/2014 20/8/2015 Shri Sachin Kumar Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the appellant/State.Hence, Counsel prays for time to seek instructions in the matter.In view of the above, list in the next week, as 60 prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.450/2014 20/8/2015 Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the appellant/State.Shri S.K. Meena, learned Counsel for the respondent.Counsel for the respondents is again praying for time to keep the respondent present before this Court.Time was granted on 29/6/2015 and 30/7/2015 to the Counsel for the respondent, however he was unable to keep the respondent present before this Court.In view of the above, Registry is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrests against the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.696/2014 20/8/2015 Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the appellant/State.Counsel for the respondents is again praying for time to keep the respondents present before this Court.Time was granted on 24/3/2015 and 16/6/2015 to the Counsel for the appellant, but he was unable to keep the respondents present before this Court.In view of the above, Registry is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrests against the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.845/2014 20/8/2015 Shri Avinash Thorat, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the appellant prays for one last opportunity to keep the appellant present before this Court Registry.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.No further time shall be granted.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.1038/2014 20/8/2015 Shri Nitin Vyas, learned Counsel for the appellant.Issue notices to the Surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.Notices be made returnable within two 64 weeks.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge Cri.A. No.1198/2014 20/8/2015 Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Time has been granted to the Counsel for the appellant on several occasions.Issue notices to the Surety as to why the surety amount be not forfeited.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned C.J.M. for compliance.List on 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) moni Judge 66 Cr.A. No.1150/2013 19/8/2015 Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, learned Counsel for the appellant.Appellant Moin @ Golu is present in person.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Tanvir Ahmad, learned Counsel with complainant Shakeb Ahmad s/o Ikram Uddin present in person.Heard on I.A.Nos.9186/14 & 9187/14, which are the applications for taking the compromise on record and the matter can be settled.However, both the Counsel submitted that during the pendency of the appeal a compromise has been arrived at between the parties 67 and the matter has been amicably settled between both the parties.The affidavit in support of the applications have also been filed along with the applications.The complainant has stated before me that the matter has been settled amicably and he has no more grievance and he has no objection, if the offence is compounded.In view of the above, the compromise is taken on record along with the affidavit.Consequently, I find that the authorities relied on by the Counsel for the appellant pertains to quashment of proceedings in the Trial Court; whereas this application has been filed after conviction in this appeal.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed and accordingly allowed by maintaining the conviction recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court but by reducing the sentence already undergone by the appellant.If the appellant has not paid the amount of fine, he will pay such amount within four weeks from today.""However, the custodial sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, subject to the appellant having paid the fine amount.With the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned lower Court for compliance.as per Rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 71 The complainant has stated that he has no more grievance against the appellant and has no objection, if the compromise is taken on record.The appellant set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other offence.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned lower Court for compliance.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 73 M.Cr.C.No.4884/2015 19/8/2015 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Counsel for the applicant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press this case.However, he prays that direction be given to the Trial Court to complete the trial as early as possible.In view of the above, although this M.Cr.C. is dismissed as withdrawn the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 74 four months from today.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.2778/2015 19/8/2015 Shri Bhupendra Singh, learned Counsel with petitioner prays for a short time on behalf of the senior Counsel.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.List in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 75 W.P.No.2426/2015 19/8/2015 Shri Ajay Gupta, learned Counsel with petitioner Smt. Sampurna.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Reserved for orders.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 76 M.Cr.Notices be returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 77 M.Cr.Considering the order of the Trial Court, Counsel for the applicant is directed to amend the cause title.He is also directed to pay fresh process regarding the respondent by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.1802/2013 19/8/2015 Shri Asif Warsi, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the appellant prays for time to keep the appellant No.1 present before this Court.On two occasions, time has been granted to Counsel for the appellant.In view of the above, by way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to Counsel for the appellant to keep the appellant No.1 present before this Court.List on 15/9/2015, as prayed.A.No.1753/2013 19/8/2015 Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State.Counsel for the respondent No.3 prays for time to keep the respondent No.3 present before this Court.Time has been granted on two occasions.In view of the above, by way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to Counsel for the respondent No.3 to keep the respondent present before this Court.List on 15/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 80 moni Cr.R.No.1212/2013 19/8/2015 Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Petitioner Shanu @ Rais is present in person.Heard on I.A. No.3270/2015, which is an application for condonation of absence of the petitioner.Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been granted suspension of jail by this Court on 2/12/2013 and he has never misused the liberty granted to him.However, on 24/4/2015 the petitioner was out of station and hence he could not appear before this 81 Court on the date set by the Registry.Hence,Counsel prayed that the absence be condoned.The petitioner undertakes to remain present before this Court/Registry.For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the absence is hereby condoned.However, the petitioner is warned no such mistake would be repeated in future.The petitioner is directed to mark his presence today and he is also directed to remain present before this Court/Registry on 29/9/2015 and on all other dates as may be fixed by the Registry.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 82 M.Cr.C.No.6942/2015 19/8/2015 Shri Raghuvir Yardi, learned Counsel for the applicant prays for a short time to cure the defects, as pointed out by the Registry.One week's time is granted to the Counsel for the applicant to do the needful.Subject to compliance, list in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.2669/2013 19/8/2015 Shri Romil Malpani, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Zaffar Qureshi, learned Counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company.At the risk of the appellant, the prayer is accepted 84 and service of notices to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 is hereby dispensed with.Both the Counsel pray that the appeal be listed before the Lok Adalat.In the meanwhile, call for the record of the lower Court.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.6349/2013 19/8/2015 Shri Ajay Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant.I find that the matter can be disposed of finally.List for final disposal on 2/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.14102/2013 & 14201/13 19/8/2015 Shri R.T. Thanewala, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Dy.for the respondent/State.Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 prays for a short time.List on 31/8/2015 for disposal, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 86 Cr.A.No.210/2014 19/8/2015 Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the appellant/State.Heard on I.A.No.8107/2014, which is an application for marking the presence of the respondent No.1 before the Trial Court.I find that the appeal itself can be disposed of finally.In view of the above, both the Counsel pray for a fixed date in the matter.List on 9/9/2015 for final disposal, as prayed.Shri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent.Heard on I.A.No.3937/2014, which is an application for condontation of 13 days' delay in filing this appeal.Call for the record.List for final hearing in the last week of October, 2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.2832/2015 18/8/2015 Shri Sanjeev Rawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner.A.G. for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6/State.Considering the submissions made by all the Counsel, I find that the matter can be disposed of finally.Petition is partly allowed.Direction be given to the competent Authority (State Government) to decide the appeal within four weeks.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.2953/2015 18/8/2015 Shri Arjun Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner.for the respondent/State.Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents.Jurisdiction has been challenged by the respondents to file the complaint by the petitioner.In view of the above, Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to argue the matter.List in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 91 Cr.R.No.650/2014 18/8/2015 Shri Ajit Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for a short time.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 92 Cr.Last opportunity of four weeks' time is granted to the petitioner to do the needful.List after four weeks, as prayed.No further time shall be granted.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 93 Cr.A.No.2008/2014 18/8/2015 Shri Vikas Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the appellant submits that no date has been given by the Registry to keep the appellant present before this Court and prays for a fixed date to keep the appellant present before this Court.List on 27/8/2015 for the presence of the appellant.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 94 Cr.R.No.815/2015 18/8/2015 Shri Deepak Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner.None for the respondents.Counsel for the petitioner is directed to pay process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 95 Cr.R.No.824/2015 18/8/2015 Shri Nitesh Singh Chouhan, learned Counsel for time on behalf of the senior Counsel for the petitioner.Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner to argue the matter.List in the next week for disposal, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.831/2015 18/8/2015 Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Anirudh Gokhale, learned Counsel for the applicant.In view of the above, status-quo ante is restored and the proceedings before the Trial Court shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.At this juncture, Counsel for the respondent prays for time.List for final disposal on 15/9/2015, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.No.884/2015 18/8/2015 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the defects have been cured.Registry to 97 verify the same.Heard on I.A.No.6064/15, which is an application for condonation of 463 days' delay in filing this petition.Issue notices of this I.A. to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondent, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 98 M.Cr.Counsel for the applicant prays one more opportunity to verify as to how much amount has been deposited by the applicant.Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the same.By way of indulgence, last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the applicant to verify the same.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 99 M.Cr.C.No.6867/2015 18/8/2015 Shri Hitesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the applicant prays for time to cure the defect, as pointed out by the Registry.Subject to compliance, list in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 100 M.Cr.C.No.7240/2015 18/8/2015 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned Counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this application since earlier petition is already pending consideration.In view of the above, this M.Cr.C. is dismissed as not pressed.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 101 M.Cr.C.No.561/2014 18/8/2015 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant.Shri Nitin Vyas, learned Counsel for the respondent.Counsel for the respondent prays for time.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 102 Cr.964/2014 18/8/2015 Ms. Kiran Gohar,learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent 2/State.He prays for time.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 103 M.Cr.C.No.4921/2015 18/8/2015 This case is not to be listed before me.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.9511/12, 9040/13 & 6140/2013 18/8/2015 None for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/State.Shri D.S. Gandhrav, learned Counsel for the Ku.Shraddha Singh, learned Counsel submits 104 that he has filed an application for intervention.Last opportunity is granted to the petitioner.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.6151/13, 6152/2013 & 6153/2013 18/8/2015 Shri Sadanand Choubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 & 2/State.Counsel for the respondent No.3 is praying for 105 time.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni S.A.No.13/2014 18/8/2015 Ku.Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned Counsel for 106 the appellant.Shri Ramesh Vishwakarma,learned Counsel for the respondent prays for time.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.7622/2014 17/8/2015 Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ishita Agarwal,learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 prays for time to file reply.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 107 W.P. Nos.7980/2014, 7981/14 and 7982/2014 17/8/2015 Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Meena Saxena,learned Counsel for the respondent.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to make compliance of provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act, which is vehemently opposed by the Counsel for the respondent.However, by way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner.Subject to compliance, list after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 108 W.P. No.7992/2014 17/8/2015 Shri Anand Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran,learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file rejoinder, which is vehemently opposed by the Counsel for the respondent/State.However, by way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner.Interim relief to continue.List after two weeks, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 109 W.P. No.8325/2014 17/8/2015 Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran,learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.7/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time since the service report regarding the respondent Nos. 1 & 3 is awaited.Two weeks' time is granted.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 110 W.P. No.8489/2014 17/8/2015 Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Abhishekh Singh Rathore, learned Counsel for the respondents.Reply has been filed.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to argue the matter.List after two weeks for disposal, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 111 W.P. No.8710/2014 17/8/2015 Shri S.P. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos.3,4 & 5/State.Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 prays for one last opportunity to file reply.Counsel for the respondents/State prays that the name of the office of the Addl.Advocate General be reflected in the daily cause list.Registry is directed to do the needful.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 112 W.P. No.8870/2014 17/8/2015 Shri Rishi Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent No.13/State.Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 submits that he has not received the annexures.Counsel for the petitioner is directed to hand over the same to the Counsel for the respondents within a week.Subject to compliance, Counsel for the respondents is directed to file reply within four weeks.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 113 CONC No.122/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Viraj Godha, learned Counsel for the applicant.Issue fresh notices to the respondent No.1 & 2 on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks thereafter.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after two weeks, as prayed.In the meanwhile, Counsel for the respondent No.3 is directed to file reply within two weeks.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) 114 Judge moni M.A. No.219/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Sudarshan Pandit, learned Counsel for the appellant.Counsel for the appellant prays for time to take appropriate steps regarding the unserved respondents.By way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the appellant to do the needful.Call for the record.Subject to compliance, list after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 115 moni CONC No.368/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Kamal Airen, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent prays for time to file reply.By way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the respondents.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 116 W.P.No.1174/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Reply has been filed.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time.By way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner to argue the matter.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 117 Cr.R. No.630/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Palash Chowdhari, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.By way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the respondent.List after two weeks, as prayed.No further adjournment shall be granted.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 118 M.A.No.1535/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on I.A.No.6115/15, which is an application for condonation of 9 days' delay in filing this appeal.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A. is allowed and delay is hereby condoned.The appeal is taken up for admission.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Also heard on I.A. No.6116/2015, which is an application for stay.Counsel for the appellant submits that the statutory amount has already been paid and the receipt 119 of the same is appended with the File.In view of the above, subject to deposition of half the awarded amount within a period of one month from today, the execution proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Failure to abide by any of the condition within the stipulated time and the relief granted today shall automatically vacated without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 120 Cr.A. No.1066/2015 17/8/2015 Ku.Nidhi Bohra, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.6119/2015, which is an application for condonation of one day's delay in filing the appeal.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A. is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.The appeal is taken up for admission.Call for the record.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 121 Cr.A. No.876/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Ramlal Patidar, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Aniket Naik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.5032/2015, which is an application for condonation of delay.Counsel for the appellant is directed to hand over a fresh copy of the appeal along with the copy of the application to the Counsel for the respondent within three days.List in the next week for consideration of the application.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 122 M.C.C. No.662/2015 17/8/2015 Shri M.M. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within two weeks.Notices be made returnable within two weeks thereafter.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 123 M.Cr.C. Nos.6765/2015 and 7009/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Anand Mohan Mathur, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Anand Soni, learned Counsel for the applicants.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Counsel for the 124 respondent/State.Shri P.V. Bhagwat and Shri Prakash Shrivas, learned Counsel for the objector.Both these applications are taken up together since they arise out of the same cause of action and same crime number registered at same police station Vijay Nagar, Indore.By these applications under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., applicants Sanjeev s/o Kaidarnath Dhody and Arjun s/o Babulal Choudhary respectively have moved the application for grant of anticipatory bail being implicated in Crime No.1254/2014 registered at police station Vijay Nagar, Indore for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 474, 465 and 120-B of the IPC.Counsel for the applicants has vehemently urged the fact it was a case of false implication.Counsel submitted that the case is civil in nature, despite which the prosecution is bent on giving it a criminal colour.Counsel submitted that applicant Sanjeev is the 125 promoted Director of M/s Silver Oak India Ltd. and he is the owner of 65% of the shares.Counsel submitted that the allegation against the applicants is that they have appointed five other persons as Directors of the company and including their names in the company register and uploading the same in the Internet and causing loss to complainant Bhupendra Singh and Bhupendra Singh states that he has never given his consent as a Director; whereas Counsel submitted that complainant Bhupendra Singh is not a Director of the Company and he has no right to challenge the application.Moreover, Counsel submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the offence by the complainant and the applicants have full chance of success in the trial.Counsel further submitted that the applicants are reputed businessmen of Indore and they would face social ostracism and embarrassment, if they are arrested.Hence, Counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.Both Counsel for the respondent/State and the objector have opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicants and submitted that the applicants were fully involved in the matter.Counsel submitted that there is one other case registered against applicant Sanjeev Dhody and there was grave allegation against both of them regarding forgery.Hence, Counsel submitted that the applicants did not deserve any sympathy and prayed for dismissal of the application.At this juncture, Counsel for the applicants submitted that co-accused Himanshu has been granted time to surrender by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.6763/2015 and the present applicants would be satisfied, if such a direction is given in this matter also.On considering the above submissions and looking to the nature of allegations, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.However, in the interest of justice and on the grounds of parity 127 alone, the applicants are better advised to surrender themselves before the competent Court, Counsel for the applicants have expressed apprehension that the applicants are likely to be arrested immediately.In view of the above, the applications are partly allowed to the extent that the applicants shall surrender themselves within a period of four weeks from today i.e. on or before 16/09/2015 before the Competent Court and if the applicants shall file an application for regular bail before the Competent Court within the said period then the application shall be considered on the same day on its presentation, in accordance with law.I would like to make it abundantly clear that the application for regular bail shall be considered on its own merits by the trial Court.It is also directed that till then the applicants shall not be apprehended or arrested.In case of failure to do so within the said period and the applicants shall be arrested in accordance with the provisions of law without 128 reference to this Court.With these directions, the application is disposed of.Original order be retained in the record of M.Cr.C. No.6765/2015 and a copy thereof be placed in the record of M.Cr.C. No.7009/2015 17/8/2015 In view of the detailed order passed by me today in M.Cr.C.No.6765/2015, this M.Cr.C.stands disposed of.A copy of the main order be retained in this File.By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., applicant Raghuvirsingh has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in criminal case No.452/13 registered by police station Industrial Area for offence under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act.Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged that co-accused Hakem Khan has been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.1857/2015 and hence he prayed that on the grounds of parity also the applicant is entitled to grant of bail.Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicant and submitted that the parity cannot be 131 claimed as a matter of right.More so, Counsel submitted that there is single case for offence registered under Section 354 and 336 of the IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act against the present applicant.She further submitted that huge quantity of contraband has been seized from the possession of the present applicant and applicant is supposed to be a supplier of the contraband.Hence, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.On considering the above submissions and the fact that a huge quantity of contraband has been seized and the offence is grievous in nature, I find that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant even if bail has been granted to the co-accused and parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right.This M.Cr.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 132 M.Cr.C.No.5172/2015 17/8/2015 Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.However, Counsel for the applicant prays that the matter be listed in the next week.List on 25/8/2015, as prayed.After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press this case.However, he prays that liberty be provided to file fresh application after a period of six months.Counsel for the respondent submits that there are two other cases recorded against the applicant.In view of the above, this M.Cr.C.No.5667/2015 17/8/2015 Shri N.J. Dave, learned Counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press this case.However, he prays that liberty be provided to file fresh application after a period of three months, if the trial is not completed.Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent.In view of the above, this M.Cr.C. is dismissed as not pressed.However, liberty as prayed for, is granted.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 135 W.P.No.2270/2014 14/8/2015 Shri Ashish Sharma learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1to 4, 11 & 13/State.The petitioner was beaten by them 136 mercilessly; besides he was taken in custody.He has incurred disability in the lower part of the body and he was unable to walk.The medical papers and newspaper cuttings and C.D. were attached with this petition.This Court had on 5/5/2014 directed the Inspector General of Police to file the report regarding the outcome of the enquiry that was to be established in his office.Both the Counsel for the respondents have vehemently urged that the petition is not maintainable.However, I find that this Court had on 11/12/2014 directed the Dean, M.G.M. Medical College, Indore to provide proper medical treatment to the petitioner.Today also the case has been vehemently argued for admission.On perusing the report by Shri Vipin Kumar Maheshwari, Inspector General of Police, Indore Zone, Indore dated 13/1/2015, it is found that he has also noted several irregularities, lacuna and lapses on the part of the Police Officers and the petitioner has 137 become disabled after the incident and several irregularities that had occurred during the investigation have been pointed out by the report.In view of the above, I find that the petition is required to be admitted for final hearing.There are several I.As.pending consideration.The first I.A.No.2844/2014 dated 7/5/2014 is taken up for consideration.By this application, Counsel for the petitioner has urged that even today the petitioner is not being provided proper medical treatment.Counsel urged that at least compensation be awarded by the State Government to enable the petitioner to take proper medical treatment.At this juncture, Counsel for respondents/State Ms. Mini Ravindran has submitted that such compensation is not available nor directed by the Court.However, on considering the above, I find the 138 Dean, M.G.M. College, Indore has already been directed as above on 11/12/2014 that the petitioner could approach the Dean,MGM, College, Indore.Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Government hospital does not provide proper facility.Considering the above, submissions, the application is partly allowed.It is directed that the respondents/State Government/concerned Police Officers to see that the M.G.M.College, Indore and M.Y. Hospital,Indore shall provide proper medical treatment to the petitioner free of cost; primarily because it is only in the said medical college and also at M.Y. Hospital, Indore that the petitioner shall be able to avail such a good facility; considering the improvements that have been made recently at M.Y. hospital, Indore.In this light, the respondents concerned are directed to see that the case of the petitioner is properly recommended for proper medical treatment in 139 the M.G.M.College, Indore as well as M.Y. Hospital, Indore, as directed above.In view of the above, this application is partly allowed.List for consideration of the other I.As.after three weeks.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 140 W.P. No.4338/2015 and 4349/2015 10/8/2015 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioners.These two petitions arise out the same impugned order and the same cause of action, and they have been filed by the two tenants against the common landlord, whereas W.P. No.4338/2015 pertains to civil suit No.6-A/15 and W.P. No.4339/2015 pertains to 5- A/15 and a common order has been passed under identical situation and hence both the petitions are taken up together.This common order shall regulate both the petitions.By these petitions under 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by order dated 5/5/2015 and15/6/2015 passed by the 29th Civil Judge Class- I,Indore in Civil Suit Nos.6-A/15,5-A/15 dismissing the application for eviction.The plaintiff has resisted the application submitting that the issue framed by the Court after considering the objection of the plaintiff as well as the respondents.And that such an application is not bonafide but made it with an intention to protract 142 the proceedings.The respondents had in fact resisted the suit and hence, the issue is required to be framed on the point.Similarly by order dated 15/6/2015 another application filed under Rule 6 Order 16 of the CPC by the respondents was also dismissed.This application has been resisted by the plaintiff on the ground that whenever the matter has been listed for evidence by one reason or another the respondents had tried to prolong the trial.This application was also pertains to the dilapidated condition of the accommodation.Besides the Court had observed that the respondent tenant has resisted the ground and hence, the issue No.3 had been framed and on this ground also no fault can be found with the Trial Court's order.However, the costs as imposed by the Trial Court are set aside.With the aforesaid observations, both the petitions are hereby dismissed as such.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 145 W.P. No.4349/2015 10/8/2015 In view of the detailed order passed by me today in W.P.No.4338/2015, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.A copy of the main order be retained in this File.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 146 147 W.A.No.210/2015 14/8/2015 Ku.Neetu Pokharan Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Advocate with Shri M.S. Dwivedi and Shri Akash Vijayvargiya, learned Counsel for the Caveator.Learned Counsel for the Caveator has placed an order dated 3/8/2015 passed by the Urban Development and Environmental Department, Bhopal indicating that the appellant's cause has been satisfied and she has been promoted and her transfer order has been cancelled and the lis has come to an end.Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has no more grievance and she has resumed the charge of CMO at Maheshwar, District Khargone In view of the above, the present writ appeal is disposed of.With the aforesaid, the petition bearing No.W.P. No. 3331/2015 is also hereby rendered infructuous and dismissed as such.No costs.as per rules.Shri Manoj Saxena, learned Counsel appears on behalf of Shri M.S. Chouhan, learned Counsel for the appellant and prays for time.List after four weeks, as prayed.Shri Manoj Saxena, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.None for the complainant.Although several allegations have been made in the application, Counsel for the respondent/State is directed to verify whether any police report has been filed by the complainant/objector.None appears on behalf of the complainant/objector to press this application.Last opportunity is granted to the complainant/objector.List after two weeks, as prayed.Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the appellant prays for time.Prayer is accepted.List after two weeks, as prayed.Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for 153 the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of Safaiwala (Sweeper) has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Counsel for the respondents/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to ""Office Contingencies"" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of permanent work charged or contingency paid 155 employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979.""We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed.""In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 156 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1933/2015 (s) 13/08/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of cattle Attendant has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to ""Office Contingencies"" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of 159 permanent work charged or contingency paid employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979.""We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed.""In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 160 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1932/2015 (s) 13/08/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of Bull Attendant has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to ""Office Contingencies"" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of 163 permanent work charged or contingency paid employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979.""We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed.""In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 164 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1930/2015 (s) 13/08/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of cattle Attendant has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to ""Office Contingencies"" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of 167 permanent work charged or contingency paid employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979.""We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed.""In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 168 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1929/2015 (s) 13/08/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of Bull Attendant has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to ""Office Contingencies"" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of 171 permanent work charged or contingency paid employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979.""We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed.""In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 172 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1927/2015 (s) 13/08/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of Bull Attendant has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to ""Office Contingencies"" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of 175 permanent work charged or contingency paid employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979.""We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed.""In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 176 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1926/2015 (s) 13/08/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of Bull Attendant has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to ""Office Contingencies"" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of 179 permanent work charged or contingency paid employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979.""We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed.""In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 180 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra); the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1260/2015 (s) 13/08/2015 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.The petitioner before this Court, who is working on the post of Bull Attendant has filed this present petition claiming Kramonnati.Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee.Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to ""Office Contingencies"" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year.In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of 183 permanent work charged or contingency paid employees.The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979.""We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules.Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order.We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.The writ appeal is dismissed.""In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed 184 of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim, subject to verification that if the petitioner found eligible, by passing a reasoned and cogent order in the light of Teju Lal Yadav (supra); the same be extended to the petitioner as has been extended in other identical matters.The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.232/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.2170/2015, which is an application for exemption from Court fees.Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application since the appellant has paid the requisite Court fees.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.246/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.2204/2015, which is an application for exemption from Court fees.Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application since the appellant has paid the requisite Court fees.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.241/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.2191/2015, which is an application for exemption from Court fees.Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application since the appellant has paid the requisite Court fees.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.251/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.2217/2015, which is an application for exemption from Court fees.Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application since the appellant has paid the requisite Court fees.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.261/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.2255/2015, which is an application for exemption from Court fees.Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application since the appellant has paid the requisite Court fees.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.267/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.2273/2015, which is an application for exemption from Court fees.Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application since the appellant has paid the requisite Court fees.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.288/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.2368/2015, which is an application for exemption from Court fees.Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application since the appellant has paid the requisite Court fees.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.238/2015 13/8/2015 Shri R.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.In view of the above, Registry is directed to verify the same and list on admission and orders on condonation of delay.List after two weeks, as prayed.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.By this second application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C., Madandas has moved the application for grant of bail being implicated in crime No.52/2015 registered by police station Suwasara, District Mandsaur for offence under Sections 376, 506(II) of the I.P.C., u/s 3(II)(v) of the SC & ST Act and 3/ 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual OffencesCounsel for the applicant has vehemently urged the fact that it was a false case and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the offence.Counsel further submitted that it was an affair of heart and the applicant himself is 18 years of age and the prosecutrix had gone with the applicant on consent and on being recovered she turn around and implicated the applicant.Moreover, the prosecutrix has turned hostile 194 in Court.The parents of the prosecutrix have also not supported the prosecution case.Counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the applicant and submitted that the prosecutrix was only 15 to 16 years of age, according to her mark-sheet.Hence, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.On considering the above submissions, material available in the case diary and looking to the nature of allegations and looking to young age of the applicant, I find that the application for grant of bail needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed in the interest of justice.It is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of 195 Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the concerned trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed by the Trial Court in this behalf during the pendency of trial.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.6449/2015 13/8/2015 Shri Imran Bangush and Shri Vivek Singh, learned 196 Counsel for the applicant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to press this application.However, he prays for direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial as early as possible.Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent.In view of the above, the M.Cr.C. is dismissed as not pressed.The Trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of one year from today.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.A.No.1471/2011 13/8/2015 Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A. 4934/2015, which is the 6th application for grant of suspension of jail sentence regarding the appellant.After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application.However, he prays for early hearing of the appeal now the appellant is in custody for almost four years.Prayer being reasonable is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent.In view of the above, the application is dismissed as not pressed.List for final hearing in the last week of October, 2015, as prayed.Shri M.M. Bohra, learned Counsel for the appellant.None for the respondents.Counsel for the appellant undertakes to pay fresh process regarding the respondents by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Subject to which, Registry is directed to issue fresh notices to the respondents within a week thereafter.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.List after service of notices on the respondents.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in custody for another offence.List on 26/8/2015, as prayed.Heard on I.A.No.5678/2015, which is an application for re-calling of the earlier order of non- bailable warrant issued against the sole appellant.Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant could not appear before this Court since he was in custody in another offence and his is still in custody at Mandleshwar jail.List on 26/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.5925/2012 13/8/2015 Shri Iqbal Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1,3 & 4/State.Counsel for the respondent No.2 prays for time to file reply.All the Counsel are directed to complete the pleadings.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 202 F.A.No.1057/2013 13/8/2015 Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Santosh Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondents.The appeal is already admitted on 18/3/2014 for final hearing.Call for the record.List for final hearing in due course.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 203 M.C.C.No.687/2014 13/8/2015 Shri Prince Raghavan, learned Counsel for the applicants.None for the respondents.Counsel for the applicant undertakes to pay fresh process with correct address of the respondents by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Subject to which, Registry is directed to issue fresh notices to the respondents within a week thereafter.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the case shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni F.A.No.443/2015 13/8/2015 Shri S. Polekar, learned Counsel for the appellants.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.Notices have been served on the respondent No.1, but none appears today.Heard on admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Call for the record.Interim relief granted earlier shall continue till the next date of hearing.C.c.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.1461/2015 13/8/2015 Shri Kailash Kuashal, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.It is a claimant's appeal.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List along with M.A.No.1463/2015 after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.C.C.No.619/2015 12/8/2015 Smt. Pushpa Joshi, learned Counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on I.A.No.5976/2015, which is an 207 application for condonation of delay.248 days delay has occasioned in filing this application.Counsel for the applicant submits that due to ill- health and inadvertence of the applicant, the delay has occasioned and hence,Counsel prayed that the application be allowed and delay be condoned.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A. is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.This M.C.C. is taken up for final disposal.By this M.C.C., the applicant has prayed for restoration of W.P.No.7068/2014, which has been dismissed due to peremptory order regarding non- payment of Court fees in time.Counsel for the petitioner submits that the court fee could not be deposited in time due to financial constraints and she submits that now the applicant is ready to pay the court fees, according to the amended Court Fee Act and prayed that the petition be restored to its original number.Counsel for the respondents/State has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the application.On considering the above submissions, I find that the application needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed.However, subject to depositing a sum of Rs.250/- as costs in the High Court Bar Association, Indore for the negligence.A copy of the receipt shall be demonstrated in the Registry of this Court.Thereafter the Registry is directed to restore the petition to its original number and list at the stage in which it was dismissed after verifying the payment.It is further directed that the Registry shall accept the process fee and issue notices to the respondents by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks thereafter.Subject to compliance, list the writ petition after two weeks, as prayed.With the aforesaid directions, the present M.C.C. is disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni Cr.R.No.748/2015 12/8/2015 Shri Ashutosh Surana, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for 210 the respondent No.1/State.Shri C.S. Panwar and Shri Harish Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 Heard.learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4Reserved for orders.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.Cr.C.No.1167/2015 12/8/2015 Ms. Sangeeta Choudhary, learned Counsel for the applicant.Shri S.D. Lalwani, learned Counsel for the 211 respondent.Heard on admission.Although Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed for grant of stay since the case is almost at final stage and adjudication is necessary.In view of the above, the proceedings pending before the JMFC, Neemuch in Criminal Case No.1770/2010 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 212 moni Cr.120/2015 12/8/2015 Shri M.A. Bohra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Heard on I.A. No.4460/2015, which is an application for permission to serve notice on the respondent through humdast.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A. is allowed.Registry is directed to prepare the notice regarding the respondent on payment of proper process and hand over the same to the Counsel for the petitioner within a week.List after service of notices on the respondent.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.4035/14 and 4331/2014 12/8/2015 Shri Akash Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Shri Ayushman Chowdhary, learned Counsel for the respondent No.4/Indian Oil Corporation.Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent/ Jay Nakoda Petroleum.He prays for time 214 to file reply.Last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the respondent.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.8755/14 & 605/2015 12/8/2015 Shri Vishal Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rakesh Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondents prays for time to file reply.Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the 215 respondents.Interim relief to continue till the next date of hearing.List after four weeks, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.246/15, 250/15 & 252/2015 12/8/2015 Shri Ashutosh Surana, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondents/State and 216 prays for time to file reply.Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the respondents.List in the week commencing from 1/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.3770/14 and 3778/2014 11/8/2015 Shri Amit Panchal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.None for the respondents.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time.List after two weeks on any Wednesday, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.7175/2014 11/8/2015 Shri Amit Pardeshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file rejoinder.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.778/2015 11/8/2015 Shri Vinay Saraf, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Nitin Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent.Counsel for the appellant prays for time.Last opportunity is granted to the Counsel for the appellant to complete the pleadings.No further adjournment shall be granted.Interim relief to continue.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.1340/2015,1752/15,3953/15,3077/15,4195/15,4240 /15, 4263/15, 4265/15 and 4315/2015 11/8/2015 Shri Akshay Kelapure and Shri Ankit Kesharwani, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1/State.Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submits that identical petition bearing W.P. No.3953/2015 is listed on 17/8/2015 and prays for analogous hearing with that petition.Prayer is accepted.List analogously on 17/8/2015 for consideration of I.A.No.3449/2015, as prayed.Interim relief, if any, granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.1488/2015 11/8/2015 Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the petitioners/State.None for the respondent.Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file fresh process regarding service of notices to the respondent 221 by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Subject to which, Registry is directed to issued notices to the respondent within a week thereafter.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.List after service of notices on the respondent.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.1588/2015 11/8/2015 Shri V.K. Gangwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.None for the respondent.Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file fresh process regarding service of notices to the respondent 222 by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Subject to which, Registry is directed to issued notices to the respondent within a week thereafter.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.List after service of notices on the respondent.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.1715/2015 11/8/2015 Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Rishabh Sethi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for 223 the respondent No.2/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for a short time.List in next week , as prayed.Interim relief to continue till the next date of hearing.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.1589/2011 11/8/2015 Shri Benudahar Parida, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri M. Negi, learned Counsel for the respondent 224 No.3/Insurance Company.Suggestion of Counsel for the appellant that matter could be listed in the Lok Adalat, is dispelled since the respondent has filed cross-objection.In view of the above, list for final hearing after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cri.A.No.526/2015 11/8/2015 Shri Gaffar Mohd., learned Counsel for the appellant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A. No.5720/15,which is the second 225 application for grant of suspension of sentence.After arguing the matter for sometime, Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to press this application.The application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni S.A.No.325/2003 11/8/2015 Ms. Megha Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.None for the respondents though duly served.Heard on I.A.No.3496/13, which is an application 226 for bringing the Lrs.of the deceased respondent No.3 Bherusingh on record.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A. is allowed and Counsel for the appellant is directed to make necessary amendment in the appeal memo within a week.Subject to compliance, list after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni S.A.No.324/2006 11/8/2015 None for the appellant.Bharti Lakkad, learned Counsel for the respondents.I.A. No.5992/15, which is an application filed by the respondents for vacating the stay.Last opportunity is granted to the appellant List in next Wednesday i.e.19/8/2015 , as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.3698/2006 11/8/2015 Shri M.S. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.List tomorrow i.e. on 12/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.403/2010 11/8/2015 Mrs. Neelam Abhyankar, learned Counsel for the appellant.Counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent No.4 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.Call for the record.Appeal is admitted for final hearing in due course.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.669/2009 11/8/2015 Shri Manish Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.He prays for time to file application for reduction in valuation.Two weeks' time is granted.Subject to which, list after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.12343/2010 11/8/2015 Shri Lokendra Joshi, learned Counsel petitioner.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent prays for one last opportunity to file reply to the petition.By way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the respondent, failing which, the petition shall be heard without the reply.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni S.A.No.365/2011 11/8/2015 Ku.Chitralekha Hardiya, learned Counsel appellant.None for the other respondents.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.6/State.Heard on I.A. No.5967/15, which is an application for bringing the Lrs.of the deceased respondent No.5 on record.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A. is allowed and Counsel for the appellant is directed to make necessary amendment in the appeal memo within a week.Counsel for the appellant is also directed to pay process regarding the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Subject to which, Registry is directed to issue notices to the respondent Nos.3 & 4 afresh within a week thereafter.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.1586/2011 11/8/2015 Shri Gaurav Shriavastava, learned Counsel appellant.Two weeks' time is granted to do the needful.Other respondents are duly served and represented by 234 their Counsel.Subject to compliance, list after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.3962/2011 11/8/2015 Shri Aviral Vikas, learned Counsel petitioner.Shri R.P. Joshi, learned Counsel for the respondent.Counsel for the petition submits that the reply is ready to the application for vacating of the stay 235 granted earlier and prays for time to file the same during the course of the day with copy to the respondents.Subject to which, list in the next week, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.6032/2012 11/8/2015 Shri Harish Joshi, learned Counsel petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.2022/2015, which is an application for interim relief.Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is in the connected petition bearing W.P. No.6053/2012, 236 which is listed today along with this petition, interim relief has already been granted.And hence, Counsel prayed that the same relief may also be granted to the present petitioner.The relief granted in the said petition i.e. W.P. No.6053/2012 thus:""Any allotment made by the respondents shall be subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition.""In view of the above, the same direction is also given in the present petition and the allotment shall be subject to the final outcome of the present petition.In the meanwhile, the respondents may file rely.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge 237 moni W.P.No.11723/2013 11/8/2015 Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Counsel petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Respondent No.2 Deepak Kasliwal is present in person.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time.By way of indulgence, last opportunity of one week's time is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner to do the needful.List after a week, as prayed.The respondents are free to proceed regarding the violation.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 241 W.P.Nos.11966/12 and 470/2013 11/8/2015 Shri Ankit Kesharwani, learned Counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.3870/2015, which is and application for taking additional documents on record.Counsel for the respondent submits that if any consequential amendments are required, the same be allowed.In view of the above, application is allowed.The documents are taken on record.However,the respondents are free to file any additional reply, if they deem necessary and which shall be considered at the time of final hearing.List for final disposal in the last week of September, 2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 242 M.A.No.754/2013 11/8/2015 Shri V.S. Chouhan, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on I.A.No.5363/2015, which is an application for amendment in the cause title regarding reduction in valuation.Counsel for the appellant is directed to make necessary amendment in the application within a week.Registry to verify the same.Although the appeal has been admitted on 19/6/2015; appropriate Court fees has not been paid.Registry is directed to verify as to whether necessary Court fee has been paid or not?(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 243 W.P.No.5341/2015 10/8/2015 Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Gaurav Chhabra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Counsel for the respondents prays for a short time to seek instructions in the matter.List on 4/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.5351/2015 10/8/2015 Shri Sumit Samvatsar, learned Counsel for the 244 petitioner.Heard on admission.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Issue notice to this I.A. also.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 245 W.P.No.5354/2015 10/8/2015 Shri Nilesh Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week, failing which the present petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.At this juncture, Counsel for the petitioner prays for stay over the proceedings pending before the First Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore.In view of the above, the proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.List after service of notices on the respondent.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 246 W.P.No.5363/2015 10/8/2015 Shri Pankaj R. Sohani, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents/State.Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the services of the petitioner were terminated without giving opportunity of hearing.Hence, Counsel prayed that the same benefit be granted to the present petitioner also.In view of the above, the impugned order shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week, failing which the present petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.List after service of notices on the respondents.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 248 W.P.No.5345/2015 10/8/2015 Ku.Nidhi Bohra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Both the Counsel pray for analogous hearing with W.P.No.5309/2015 tomorrow.List accordingly, as prayed.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.447/2015 10/8/2015 Ms. Bhavna Sahu, learned Counsel appears on behalf of Shri V.S. Chouhan, learned Counsel for the appellant.It is a claimant's appeal.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 250 Second Appeal No.324/2011 Order passed on I.A. No.5060/2015 11/8/2015 By this application, appellant Kimtilal Jain is seeking for permission for repairing of the disputed property.Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the disputed property i.e house No. 95, Mahavir Nagar, Indore is in a dilapidated condition.Due to rainy season the water is logging in the passages and due to unprecedented rain on 21/6/2015 the parapet of the first floor had broken down and fell on the ground floor and it has become dangerous to human life and the property.On 24/1/2015 when the appellant was showing the property to the engineer for carrying out repair work, the respondent No.10 Nirdosh Kumar started quarreling with the appellant and threatened him and warned the appellant not to undertake any 251 repair work.And hence the appellant has moved an application before this Court and photographs of the recent position of the disputed property are also filed along with the application.Counsel submitted that an application has also been moved before the trial Court for seeking repair, but the same was disposed of with the direction that since the matter was pending before this High Court the order should be sought from the same.Hence, Counsel prayed that the application be allowed and the appellant is willing to bear the cost and repairs and to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and also in case of failure of this appeal, the appellant will not claim any compensation.Counsel vehemently urged that it was utmost priority to carry out the repair work and hence the application be allowed.Counsel for the respondents, per contra, has opposed the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the appellant and submitted that the application was 252 without merit; primarily because it was prima facie proved by the photo that the parapet wall was broken by the appellant himself and he has put forth a different story for sympathy whereas the appellant has deliberately broken the parapet wall with an intention of creating a new situation in the garb of repairing the parapet wall.Besides more importantly Counsel opposed the construction stating that the answering respondent would be prevented to use the washroom/toilets constructed in back side of the disputed house.However, when the respondent stopped the appellant from making the construction, he quarreled with the respondent and hence the respondent has moved an application for grant of temporary injunction before trial Court.Although the application was rejected by the trial Court, the appellate Court was pleased to restrain the appellant from interalia changing the nature of the disputed property.Counsel also urged 253 that the appellant was further restrained from obstructing the path of the answering respondent to the wash rooms constructed in the back side of the disputed house.Hence Counsel prayed for dismissal of the application.On considering the above submissions and considering the evidence on record, I find that any relief granted to the appellant would amount to affecting the merits of the case.Besides too many disputed facts have been raised by both the parties.Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that further construction would be required and he is willing to remove the construction if the respondent is found to be incorrect and loses the appeal.Considering the said submissions, I find that the application cannot be allowed at this stage and it creates further complications and multiplicity of proceedings and right of both parties are likely to be 254 affected.In this light, this application is dismissed as such.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 255 W.P. No.5091/2014(O) 04/08/2015 Shri J.B. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Shri S.K. Chourasiya, learned Counsel for the respondent.Briefly stated the facts of the case, Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the respondent, was not noticed regarding the application moved for conducting the suit as an indigent person.The impugned order, permitting the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person, was passed without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/respondents.The petitioners Raju Kaushal and Shashi Kaushal, are the younger brothers of Yashpal Kaushal, who died early, and the present respondent Smt. Sumitra Bai is the widow of Yashpal Kaushal.The petitioners were living on rental basis in these two rooms and on the death of Yashpal Kaushal, Smt. Sumitra, the present respondent took over the house and being the close legal heirs the petitioners/respondents Raju Kaushal and Shashi Kaushal were paying Rs.1,000/- and Rs.2,000/- per month respectively.Subsequently due to irregularities in payment of the rent respondent Smt. Sumitra asked them to vacate the premises.Hence, plaintiff Smt. Sumitra did not wish to continue their tenancy.She also stated that the rent of Rs.3,000/- per month, which was paid to her husband Yashpal Kaushal, is stopped by the petitioners/respondents.However, on the presentation of the plaint, the plaintiff has also stated that she is a widow lady and there is no income for her livelihood and hence she prayed for exemption from payment of the Court fee on the basis of the M.P. State Government Notification No.9-1-93-B-21 dated 1/4/1983, according to which any female person earning less than Rs.6,000/-per year is exempted from payment of the Court fee.Counsel however, urged the fact that no application has been moved by the plaintiff to sue an indigent person despite the order of exemption from payment of court fee.Counsel submitted that misstatement has been made by the plaintiff that the plaintiff is an indigent person.A report is not being called and straightway the plaintiff has been allowed to sue an indigent person.Counsel 258 submitted that such an order is contrary to the provisions of law which requires at least preliminary enquiry be held and it should be considered that whether the plaintiff was an indigent person, but nothing has been done.Counsel prayed that the provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC have not been complied with, despite objection, by the petitioners/respondents and the impugned order has been passed.The certificate of the Tehsildar relied on by the plaintiff as well as the Trial Court was not very reliable and no opportunity of cross-objection has been given to the present petitioners/respondents.Hence, Counsel prayed that the impugned order be set aside.Plaintiff belonging to one of the categories mentioned in the Notification is required to present the plaint by making such a declaration in the plaint itself for grant of exemption and need not file the suit as indigent person along with application seeking exemption from payment of Court fees.""Hence, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition.On considering the above submissions, I find that the single question for adjudication as whether the impugned order is correctly discarded the objection of the present petitioners regarding the plaintiff not having fulfilled the provisions of Order 33 Rule 1 of the CPC as to sue an indigent person? I find that the contention of the Counsel for the petitioners is contrary to the facts of the case.The application did not call to sue as an indigent person, but the applicant 261 claims for exemption from court fees as per the Notification dated 4/1/1983 and proper certificate of the Tehsildar has been filed.In view of the above, I find that the pleas of the petitioners are way off the question in hand.The order passed by the Trial Court is in accordance with Section 35 of the Court Fees Act and the Notification issued by the State Government.Besides, there is also competent certificate of the Tehsildar regarding the earning capacity of the plaintiff being below Rs.6,000/- per year and this light also the order does not call for any interference.With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is dismissed as without merit.C.c.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni 262 W.P.No.8549/2014 05/8/2015 Shri Manoj Manav, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Advocate for the respondent No.9/State.By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 26/9/2014 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Dewas granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and restrained the petitioners/defendants to enter into the property.Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners/respondents are the local residents of Dewas district and a Civil Suit was filed before the Civil Judge Class-II, Dewas for declaration and permanent injunction in respect the land and house situated in survey No.529 and 540 area 1.02 hectares and 0.30 hectares respectively.The land in question was owned by their predecessor in title of both the petitioners and the respondents.The petitioners had filed a written reply to the inunction application.That by order dated 6/8/2014 the Trial Court has dismissed the application with a specific finding of plea of adverse possession is not applicable against the co-owner of the property, because in second application, the respondents have taken the plea of adverse possession.Besides, the names of the 265 petitioners as well as the respondents were jointly recorded in the revenue records and hence, it cannot be said that the respondents are the absolute owner of the property in question.The revenue records also clearly negated the name of the petitioners that they were the co-owners of the property.Besides, the plea of the present petitioners was not considered.The impugned order dated 26.9.2014 is hereby set aside.Needless to say that it is directed that both the parties shall not alienate the property further and status-quo regarding the property as it exists today shall be maintained by both the parties; till the decision of the application afresh; by the trial Court on the ground of possession within a period of three months from today.With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition is disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.5274/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Ashish Kanungo, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondents/State.With the consent of both the Counsel, this writ petition is heard and disposed of finally.ORDER By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the in-action on the part of respondents in granting the benefit of regular pay scale of Adhyapak Samvarg in the post of Senior Teacher, Teacher and Assistant Teacher in the pay scale of Rs.5000-175-8500, 4000-125-6500 and 3000-100-5000 respectively after completion of seven years of service.""Today when the matter came up for hearing the only prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is to dispose of this petitioner directing the respondents to consider and take appropriate decision keeping in view the Circular dated 21.6.2001 (Annexure P/4) as Rule-7 of the Rules.The prayer appears to be reasonable.Accordingly without commenting upon the merits of the matter, I am inclined to dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed representation with supporting documents before the Competent Authority of the respondents.On receipt of such representation the Competent Authority of the respondents shall take an appropriate decision on the said representation and pass appropriate orders in 272 regard to the petitioners' claim within a period of six months form the date of receipt of such representation.With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition is disposed of.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni M.C.C.No.607/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Avinash Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicants.Shri Manoj Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company.None for the respondent Nos.1 & 2/ driver & 273 owner.Heard on I.A.No.5960/2015, which is an application for condonation of 81 days delay in filing this application.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A.is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.This M.C.C.is taken up for final disposal.By this M.C.C. under Order 41 Rule 19 of the CPC, the applicants have prayed for restoration of Miscellaneous Appeal No.2403/2014, which has been dismissed due to peremptory order regarding non- payment of Court fee.Counsel submits that the liability of the Insurance Company is not disputed and the appeal is a claimants' appeal for enhancement.However, the court fee could not be deposited in time due to financial constraints.Counsel submits that now the applicants are ready to pay the court fee according to the amended Court Fee Act and prayed that the appeal be restored to its 274 original number.On considering the above submissions, I find that the application needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed.However, subject to depositing a sum of Rs.250/- as costs in the High Court Bar Association, Indore for the negligence.A copy of the receipt shall be demonstrated in the Registry of this Court.The Registry is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and list at the stage in which it was dismissed after verifying the payment.Subject to compliance, list the appeal after two weeks, as prayed.With the aforesaid directions, the present M.C.C. is disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 275 M.C.C.No.609/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Avinash Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicants.Shri Anil Goyal, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company.None for the respondent No.1/driver & owner.Heard on I.A.No.5958/2015, which is an application for condonation of 53 days delay in filing this application.For the reasons stated in the application, the I.A.is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.This M.C.C.is taken up for final disposal.By this M.C.C. Under Order 41 Rule 19 of the CPC, the applicants have prayed for restoration of Miscellaneous Appeal No.1133/2014, which has been dismissed due to peremptory order.However, the court fee could not be deposited in time due financial constraints.Counsel submits that now the applicants are ready to pay the court fee according to the amended Court Fee Act and prayed that the appeal be restored to its original number.On considering the above submissions, I find that the application needs to be allowed and it is hereby allowed.However, subject to depositing a sum of Rs.250/- as costs in the High Court Bar Association, Indore for the negligence.A copy of the receipt shall be demonstrated in the Registry of this Court.The Registry is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and list at the stage in which it was dismissed after verifying the payment.Subject to compliance, list the appeal in the next week, as prayed.With the aforesaid directions, the present M.C.C. is disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 278 W.P. No.3734/2015 07/8/2015 Shri M.R. Sheikh, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.By this present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 72(1)(a) of the M.P. Motor Vehicle Act, petitioner Suresh s/o late Shri 279 Basant Kumar has come to the Court with a limited prayer for issuance a writ of mandamus to the respondent to decide the petitioner's application for the change of time table of Regular Stage Carriage Permit SCP No.19/14/Dhar for the route Dhar to Indore via Lebad, Betma.The application was filed on 15.05.2015 and is still pending consideration.Considering the above submissions, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to decide the petitioner's application by passing a reasoned order in writing as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.Needless to say that this Court is not making any observation on the merits of the case.as per rules.Shri Shailendra Mukati, learned Counsel for the applicant.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.5965/2015, which is an 281 application for condonation of 141 days' delay in filing this petition.Counsel for the respondent prays for time to file reply to this application.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni S.A.No.331/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Satish Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.List after receipt of the record.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni S.A. No.345/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Manuraj Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2/State.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the appeal shall stand dismissed without 283 reference to this Court.In view of the above, status-quo regarding the disputed property as it exists today shall be maintained till the next date of hearing.List after service of notices on the respondents.In the meanwhile, call for the record.C. c. as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni S.A. No.352/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Sandeep Kochatta, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.In view of the above, status-quo regarding the disputed property as it exists today be maintained till the next date of hearing.List after service of notices on the respondents.C. c. as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni CONC No.494/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Chetan Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within 285 a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.937/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within 286 a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Also heard on I.A. No.4024/2015, which is an application for stay.Counsel for the appellant submits that the statutory amount has already been paid and the receipt of the same is appended with the File.In view of the above, subject to deposition of half the awarded amount within a period of six weeks from today, the execution proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Failure to abide by any of the condition within the stipulated time and the relief granted today shall automatically vacated without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 287 M.A.No.1496/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Manoj Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Also heard on I.A. No.5998/2015, which is an application for stay.Counsel for the appellant submits that the statutory amount has already been paid and the receipt of the same is appended with the File.In view of the above, subject to deposition of half 288 the awarded amount within a period of one month from today, the execution proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Failure to abide by any of the condition within the stipulated time and the relief granted today shall automatically vacated without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.1756/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Anand Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Milind Phakde, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has 289 filed the rejoinder of the reply filed by the respondents.List after two weeks for disposal, as prayed.Interim relief granted earlier shall continue till the next date of hearing.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.2589/2015 07/8/2015 None for the petitioner.List after four weeks.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 290 W.P.No.3030/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Lokendra Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Milind Phakde, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter could be disposed of since it pertains to measurement of the disputed land.Counsel for the respondent prays time to seek instructions.List on 14/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 291 W.P.No.5157/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Arjun Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner.List analogously, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.5188/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Yogesh C. Markan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/State.None for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 despite 292 having supplied advance notice by the petitioner.In view of the above, nothing coercive shall be done against the petitioner.List for confirmation of interim relief on Tuesday i.e. 11/8/2015, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.5185/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Yogesh C. Markan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Milind Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/State.None for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 despite 293 having supplied advance notice by the petitioner.In view of the above, nothing coercive shall be done against the petitioner.List for confirmation of interim relief on Tuesday i.e. 11/8/2015, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.5211/2015 07/8/2015 Shri Sameer Athawale, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within 294 a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated period and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.At this juncture, Counsel for the petitioner prays for interim relief.Issue notice to the interim relief also.At this juncture, Counsel for the petitioner submits that in addition he is willing to serve 'hamdast' notice.Prayer is accepted.Registry is directed to prepare the notices on payment of proper process fees and hand over the same to the Counsel for the petitioner within three days.Subject to compliance, list thereafter, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 295 W.P. No.5283/2015 06/8/2015 Shri Abhishekh Tugnawat, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents/ State.With the consent of both the Counsel, this writ 296 petition is heard and disposed of finally.We find that the Supreme Court in the said judgment has observed the directions contained in the case of 298 Syed Abdul Qadir (2009) 3 SCC 475 and Col. B.J. Akkara (2006) 11 SCC 709 as also in the case of Shyam Babu Verma 1994(2) SCC 521 and Sahib Ram 1994(2) SCC 52 wherein the department is restrained from recovery of excess amount keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case since the beneficiaries had either retired or were on the verge of retirement and so as to avoid any hardship to them.In the present case also the benefit extended to the writ petitioner was sought to be recovered on his retirement.With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition is disposed.No order as to costs.as per rules.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni Cri.A.No.667/2013 06/8/2015 Shri P.K. Shukla and M.S. Chouhan, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A. No. 4475/2015, which is the third application for grant of suspension of jail sentence regarding appellant Kapil @ Golu.Therefore, an affidavit has been filed by Shri Premchand Ratnakar, who is an Advocate himself and maternal uncle of the appellant and he submits that the entire expenses of the operation shall 301 be borne by him and the appellant be granted at least temporary bail.On considering the above submissions, I find that the prayer for temporary bail needs to be allowed in the interest of justice and and it is hereby allowed.It is ordered that the appellant be released on bail temporarily for a period of three months from today on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his surrender before the concerned trial Court on or before 6th of November, 2015, under intimation in writing to this Court.In case of failure to do so and the appellant shall be liable to be arrested immediately by the police without reference to this Court.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge 302 moni W.P.No.5278/2015 06/8/2015 Shri Sameer Athawale, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Ashok Airen and Shri Kamal Airen, learned Counsel for the respondents/Caveator.Counsel for the respondents has opposed the 303 submissions put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner.Counsel for the respondents is directed to file reply to the petition within a period of 15 days from today.List in the week commencing from 24/8/2015, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.C.C.No.586/2014 06/8/2015 Shri Dinesh Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishekh Tugnawat, learned Counsel for the respondents, submits that he has filed the reply.After considering the submissions, this M.C.C. needs to be admitted and it is hereby admitted.List analogously with S.A. No.1513/2005, as prayed.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file rejoinder.Two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the petitioner.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.2162/2014 06/8/2015 Shri Avinash Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant.Shri Jitendra Jhala, learned Counsel for the respondents.Heard on admission.List for final hearing in due course.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.8108/2014 06/8/2015 Shri Sachin Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.None for the respondents though duly served.List for final disposal in the week commencing 307 from 7/9/2015, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.9050/2014 06/8/2015 Shri Prasanna J. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent /State.Order passed in separate sheets.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.9050/2014 06/8/2015 Shri Vijay Assudani, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.I find that the matter can be disposed of finally.List for final disposal after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.9315/2014 06/8/2015 Shri Ranjeet Sen, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file rejoinder.Subject to which, list after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 309 W.P.No.5219/2015 05/8/2015 Shri Padmnabh Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents/State, on advance notice.By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 14/7/2015 (Annexure P/4) by which without giving any opportunity of hearing to them, the respondents have issued direction to recover the amount and all the benefits given to the petitioners, which was given under the compliance of the order of this Court.Counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court towards the order passed in Writ Petition No.9082/2013 (Lokendrasingh vs. State of M.P.and 310 others) dated 31/10/2014 and he vehemently urged that no recovery can be ordered against the present petitioners, without granting any opportunity of hearing to them.Keeping in view the aforesaid, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to follow the principle of natural justice and fair play, in case recovery is being ordered against the petitioners and the respondents shall also keep in 311 mind the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Lokendrasingh (supra), while passing any order of recovery.With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) moni Judge 312 M.C.C.No.265/2015 05/8/2015 Shri Sanjay Patwa, learned Counsel for the applicant.None for the respondent No.2 though duly served and power has been filed.The application is however, taken up for final disposal.By this M.C.C. Under Order 41 Rule 19 of the CPC, applicant Smt. Shantabai has prayed for restoration of Miscellaneous Appeal No.176/2007 which has been dismissed for want of appearance of the appellant.and there was no delay in filing this application for restoration.Hence, Counsel prayed that the appeal be restored to its original number.On considering the above submissions, I find that the mistake is bonafide and the application needs to be allowed.However, subject to depositing a sum of Rs.200/- as cost in the High Court Bar Association, Indore for the negligence, the application is allowed.A copy of the receipt shall be demonstrated in the Registry of this Court.The Registry is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and list at the stage in which it was dismissed after verifying the payment.Subject to compliance, list the appeal after two weeks, as prayed.With the aforesaid directions, the present M.C.C.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) moni Judge M.C.C.No.613/2015 05/8/2015 Shri Dheeraj Singh Panwar, learned Counsel for the applicant.By this M.C.C. applicant Vinod Kumar has prayed for restoration of First Appeal No.173/1999 which has been dismissed due to peremptory order dated 22/7/2015 for non-appearance of the Counsel.Counsel for the applicant submits that there was no delay in filing this application for restoration.Hence, Counsel prayed the appeal be restored to its original number since the matter has been remanded as per direction of the Apex Court in SLP (C )No.On considering the above submissions, I find that the mistake is bonafide and the application needs to be allowed.However, subject to depositing a sum of Rs.250/- as cost in the High Court Bar Association, Indore for the negligence, the application is allowed.A copy of the receipt shall be demonstrated in the Registry of this Court.The Registry is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and list at the stage in which it was dismissed after verifying the payment.Subject to compliance, list the appeal after two weeks, as prayed.With the aforesaid directions, the present M.C.C. is disposed of.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 316 S.A. No.348/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Ritesh Inani, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.The proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the stay granted today shall automatically be vacated and appeal shall also stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondent.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.5230/2015 05/8/2015 Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner.List analogously on 7/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni C.R.No.216/2015 05/8/2015 Shri Sandeep Kochatta, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition 318 has been rendered infructuous and he prays for withdrawal of the petition.In view of the above, the present Civil Revision is dismissed as rendered infructuous.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.8549/2014 05/8/2015 Shri Manoj Manav, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Advocate for the respondent No.9/State.Order passed in separate sheets.Status-quo as it exists today shall be maintained.Both the parties shall not be alienated the property.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.9090/2014, 9160/2014 and 9310/2014 05/8/2015 Shri Amit Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.He may do so within two weeks.Interim relief granted earlier shall continue till the next date of hearing.List after two weeks, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.9300/2014 05/8/2015 Shri S. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Kamlesh Mandloi, learned Counsel for the respondent.He prays for time to file reply.List on 19/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 321 CONC No.53/2015 05/8/2015 None for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been substantial compliance of the order and hence the petition has been rendered infructuous.In view of the above, list in the next week for disposal, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.97/2015 05/8/2015 322 Shri Manish Manana, learned Counsel for the petitioner.None for the respondents.Counsel for the petitioner submits that the process has been paid, but there is no report.Registry to verify the same.Interim relief granted earlier shall continue till the next date of hearing.List after two weeks, as prayed.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni CONC No.166/2015 05/8/2015 323 Shri G.K. Patidar, learned Counsel for the petitioners.Shri Vishal Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the proposed contemnor.Counsel for the contemnor submits that he is unable to keep the Collector, Ratlam present before this Court today due to flood in the City.In view of the above, last opportunity is granted to the respondent/contemnor.List on 26/8/2015, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.166/2015 05/8/2015 324 Shri G.K. Patidar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent prays for time to file reply.By way of indulgence, last opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the Counsel for the respondent to file the reply.List on 26/8/2015 along with Conc No.166/2015, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.262/2015 05/8/2015 325 Shri M.K. Chowdhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to file reply.She is directed to do so positively within two weeks since there is a complaint that the money deposited has not been placed before the trial Court and the petitioner and hence the benefit is not accrued to the petitioner.Counsel for the respondent is also directed to verify whether the amount has been withdrawn by the present petitioner or not?(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.650/2015 05/8/2015 326 Shri S. Choubey, learned Counsel appears on behalf of Shri A. Tugnawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner.List analogously after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.814/2015 05/8/2015 Shri Arjun Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Peyush Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent prays for time to file reply to the petition.By way of indulgence, last week of four weeks' 327 time is granted to the Counsel for the respondent to file reply.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.927/2015 05/8/2015 Shri Rakesh Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant.Both the Counsel pray for time.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 328 Contempt Petition No.882/2014 04/8/2015 Shri Subhash Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Counsel for the State has no objection to such a prayer.Keeping in view the aforesaid, contempt petitioner is disposed of by granting further one month's time to the respondents from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order to comply 330 with the directions already issued in the aforesaid writ petition.""In view of the above, this petition is also disposed of with a direction to the respondents to comply the order already passed in W.P. No.4330/2013(s) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P. No.1199/2014 04/8/2015 Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.G.A. for the respondents/State.Intervenor Shri Deepak Kasliwal is present in person.Shri Vivek Phadke, learned Counsel on behalf of 331 another intervenor Shri Bharat Modi.Reply has been filed by the Counsel for the petitioner.All the Counsel submit that the pleadings are complete and the matter can be taken up for final disposal.In view of the above, list in the last week of September, 2015 for final disposal.Interim relief granted earlier shall continue.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.2539/2014 04/8/2015 Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Dinesh Rathore, learned Counsel for the petitioner.All the Counsel submit that the matter can be disposed of.In view of the above, list in the week commencing from 24/8/2015 for final disposal, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.2854/2014 04/8/2015 None for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.G.A.for the respondent/State.He prays for time to file reply.List after four weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.6373/2014 04/8/2015 Shri V.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.G.A.for the respondent No.1/State.All the Counsel submit that the matter can be disposed of and prays for time.List in the week commencing from 24/8/2015 for 335 final disposal, as prayed.No further adjournment shall be granted.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.No.6950/2014 04/8/2015 Shri Shailendra Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner.None for the other respondents.Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to pay fresh process regarding the unserved respondents by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Subject to which, Registry is directed to issue notices to the unserved respondents within a week thereafter.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.In the meanwhile, Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 6 is directed to file reply.List after service of notices on the respondents, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni W.P.Nos.7439/14,7441/2014 and 7450/2014 04/8/2015 Shri Preteek Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.He submits that identical petition bearing W.P. No.7410/2014 has already been disposed of .In view of the above, let these petitions be also admitted for final hearing.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two 337 weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni S.A.No.572/2012 04/8/2015 Shri Sandeep Kochatta, learned Counsel for the appellants.Heard on admission.This Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List along with S.A. No. 571/2012 after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 339 S.A.No.571/2012 04/8/2015 Shri Sandeep Kochatta, learned Counsel for the appellants.Heard on admission.This Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-Whether the learned Courts below had erred in holding that the respondents/defendants have constructed their house according to the registered Sale Deed; whereas the Commissioner's report is 340 contrary to this fact?Whether the Courts below had erred in considering the fact that the open land left between the dimensions would also devolved upon the purchaser?Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 341 C.R.No.63/2014 04/8/2015 Ku.Nidhi Bohra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned Counsel for the respondent.He prays for time.List after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 342 M.A. No.140/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Akhil Godha, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Counsel for the appellant submits that appropriate Court fee has already been paid.Registry to verify the same.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni Contempt Petition No.143/2015 04/8/2015 Shri P.R. Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.List along with CONC No.360/2015 after service of notices on the respondent.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni Contempt Petition (Civil) No.183/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Viraj Godha, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without 345 reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondent.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni Contempt Petition No.395/2015 04/8/2015 Shri M.M. Bohra, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to this Court.At this juncture, Counsel for the applicant 346 submits that he is willing to serve 'hamdast' notice.Prayer is accepted.Registry is directed to prepare the notices on payment of proper process fees and hand over the same to the Counsel for the applicant within three days.Subject to compliance, list after two weeks, as prayed.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) moni Judge Contempt Petition No.462/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Rajeev Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without 347 reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondent.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni Contempt Petition (Civil) No.479/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Chetan Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without 348 reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondent.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.C.C.No.574/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Vivek Sharan, learned Counsel for the applicant.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Also heard on I.A. No.5623/2015, which is an application for stay.The proceedings pending in HMA Case No.395/15 before the Family Court at Indore shall 349 remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the relief granted today shall automatically vacated without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondent.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni M.A.No.1401/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Also heard on I.A. No.5649/2015, which is an application for stay.In view of the above, subject to the appellant depositing half of the awarded amount within a period of one month from today, the execution proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Failure to abide by any of the condition within the stipulated time and the relief granted today shall automatically vacated without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 351 M.A.No.1407/2015 04/8/2015 Shri Manoj Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant.Heard on admission.Call for the record.Issue notices to the respondents on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Also heard on I.A. No.5662/2015, which is an application for stay.Counsel for the appellant submits that the statutory amount has already been paid and the receipt of the same is appended with the File.In view of the above, subject to the appellant depositing half of the awarded amount within a period of one month from today, the execution proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.Failure to abide by any of the condition within the stipulated time and the relief granted today shall automatically vacated without reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondents.as per rules.(Mrs.S.R.Waghmare) Judge moni 353 W.P.No.2716/2015 04/8/2015 Smt. Neelam Abhyankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Heard on admission.Issue notices to the respondent on payment of process by registered as well as ordinary mode within a week.Notices be made returnable within two weeks.Failure to pay the process within the stipulated time and the petition shall stand dismissed without 354 reference to this Court.List after service of notices on the respondent.Nidhi Bohra, learned Counsel for the petitioner.Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy.G.A. for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4,5 & 6 and Counsel for the petitioner pray for time.List after two weeks, as prayed.","['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Manti Kushwaha in Crime No.33/2017 registered by P.S. Devlond, Tahsil Beohari, District Shahdol under sections 294, 323, 506/34 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.As per the prosecution case, at about 06:00 a.m. on 03.03.2017 petitioner Manti Kushwaha was sweeping her house and pushing the trash towards the house of complainant Mamta.When the complainant protested, the petitioner started to hurl filthy abuses at her.At that time Kashinath Kushwaha, husband of petitioner Manti came out, armed with a stick and started to beat complainant Mamta.Mamta's husband Praveen interceded on behalf of his wife; whereon, Manti's son Ramlakhan armed with an axe arrived and assaulted Praveen.Thereafter, Jammu Bai, Kodu and Anchal etc. intervened in the matter.The First Information Report was lodged under Sections 323, 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, however, three days later i.e. 06.03.2017 Praveen succumbed to his injuries; therefore, an offence under Section 302 of the IPC has registered.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the role that has been ascribed to petitioner Manti is limited to hurling filthy abuses at complainant Mamta.That apart, no act on the spot has been attributed to her.The incident arose out of trivial altercation.Therefore, it has been prayed that petitioner be released on bail.Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the nature of incident and the role ascribed therein to the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Manti Kushwaha, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for her appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified Copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE taj","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The Deputy Superintendent of Police, SPE/CBI/ACD, Chennai. ... Respondent/Complainant in Crl.The period of imprisonment already undergone shall be set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C.The charge against the appellant is that A1[Rakesh Malhothra], while working as Senior Manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mount Road, Chennai entered into criminal conspricy with A2 [V.Ganesh] to do illegal act viz., to cheat the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mount Road, Chennai and to commit criminal misconduct.In pursuant to the conspiracy A2 [V.Ganesh] opened Current accounts in Oriental Bank of Commerce in the name of M/s.Golden Harvest Trading Corporation, Chennai and M/s.Super Capital Marketers and Associates on 15.06.1992 and 22.07.1992 respectively.In his capacity as the branch Manager, these two accounts were introduced by the Rakesh Malhothra [A1].On 21.12.1992 V.Ganesh [A2] presented a conditional letter of credit bearing No.DPC-OCB-205864 dated 11.12.1992 for US $ 2 Million by M/s. Global Trade Insurance and Management Pvt.Ltd, Singapore with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mount Road, Chennai drawn at Hong Kong and Shangai Banking Corporation, Singapore.The condition on the letter of Credit was that M/s. Super Capital Marketers and Associates was to comply the requirements of the conditions of the transaction viz., M/s. Super Capital Marketers and Associates should open a back to back Letter of Credit in favour of M/s. Global Trade Insurance for US $ Rs.2.84 million.Pursuant to the conspiracy [A1] Rakesh Malhothra knowing fully well that the documents presented by A2 [V.Ganesh] were incomplete without the condition of Letter of credit by M/s. Super Capital Marketers and Associates, however Suppressing the fact had forwarded the application to the Regional Manager with recommendation for discounting the Letter of Credit.In view of the recommendation made by A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] the Regional Manager had permitted the LC discount facility to M/s.Super Capital Marketers and Associates, on condition, the bill should be discounted only after the bank get confirmation from the Hong Kong and Shangai Banking, Singapore and acceptance to the effect that the bills should be paid on due date.The HSBC Singapore on 08.01.1993 conveyed its conditional acceptance of the documents subject to the confirmation of M/s. Super Capital Marketers and Associates opening an irrevocable letter of Credit within 30 days acceptable to M/s. Global Trade Insurance, Singapore.Without complying the requirement stipulated by Regional Office, A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] Branch Manager had released a sum of Rs.5,41,95,655/- into the account of M/s.Golden Harvest Trading Corporation owned by A2[V.Ganesh].To mislead Hong Kong and Shangai Banking, Singapore, without any authorization A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] had sent two Telex messages to Hong Kong and Shangai Banking, Singapore on 21.01.1993 and 27.01.1993 stating that M/s.Super Capital Marketers and Associates, Chennai would open an LC for US $ 2.84 Million Dollars favouring M/s. Global Trade Insurance, Singapore after 180 days.Induced by the said messages Hong Kong and Shangai Banking, Singapore had in turn conveyed the conditional acceptance of the documents.He has identified the Ex.P.2, the Telex to Mount Road Branch in which A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] was Senior Branch Manager.Along with the invoice a request for negotiating the document is given by A2 [V.Ganesh].He had also executed the bill of exchange on the same day.The said bill of exchange is marked as Ex.The said covering letter which is marked as Ex.P.14 indicates that Overseas Branch has requested HSBC Singapore to remit the proceedings in their International Account No.41-143156-1121 with the Bank of California International New York, USA.On the part of A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] as Branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mount Road Branch, Chennai on presentation of LC by A2 [V.Ganesh] had duly forwarded the same to the Overseas Branch disclosing all the facts including non-enclosure of 'applicant certificate'.Admittedly, he had enquired with HSBC Bank at Singapore about the credit worthiness of M/s. Gobal Trade Insurance Management Private Limited, Singapore and in response to his letter which is marked as Ex.P.15, the HSBC Bank, Singapore has forwarded the confidential report about the credit worthiness of M/s.P.19, Ex.P.20, Ex.P.8 dated 21.12.1992, the words, will be received by you directly, written in hand after, 'Applicants certificate' issued through issuing bank via tested Telex to your good selves found in Ex.In this letter A2 [V.Ganesh] has stated that he has complied all the request and enclosed the application form for the necessary Foreign Uses Documentary Bills Purchase Limited [FUDBP].When the request [FUDBPL] from the customer namely A2 [V.Ganesh] was received by the A1 [Rakesh Malkothra] only on 04.01.1993, surprisingly A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] through Ex.P.18 has recommended for extending the facility to A2 firm on 13.12.1992 itself.Further, in the letter of 2nd accused dated 04.01.1993 addressed to A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] the accused [A2] has specifically stated that he has submitted all the documents required for ILC bill to A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] for negotiating the ILC Bills.This statement of A2 [V.Ganesh] found in his letter addressed to A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] is apparently a false statement.Since, A2 [V.Ganesh] had never produced any applicant certificate which is very essential for completing the formality of honouring the Letter of Credit to HSBC, Singapore his assertion in Ex.P.25 has mislead the Bank.A-1 who as Branch Manager though had knowledge about the falsehood found in Ex.P.25 did not care to alert the Regional Bank for obvious reason.From this point onwards it would been seen that despite non production of applicant certificate, A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] has recommended for extending the ILC bill purchase facility.A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] had recommended even before formal request made by A2 [V.Ganesh].This conduct of A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] favouring A2 [V.Ganesh] indicates that there is element of indiscretion and excessive exercise of power and not mere error of judgment.On perusing the Ex.P.30, this Court finds that HSBC, Singapore through its telex Message dated 06.01.1992 had informed the Oriental bank of Commerce, Mount Road Branch that the documents forwarded in connection with the LC containing following discrepancy. Applicant's Certificate issued through issuing Bank to advising Bank confirming compliance fulfilment of terms not presented.With the above said modification the Criminal Appeal Nos.91 & 5 of 2007 are disposed of.The appellants herein are directed to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of 30 days, failing which the Trial court shall execute the warrant and secure the appellants to under the remaining period of sentence.21.02.2018Index:yes/noInternet:yes/nobsmToThe Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch, Chennai..A.No.5 of 2007A.Nos.5 & 91 of 2007: Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.58 of 2000, dated 29.12.2006 on the file of the learned Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.In pursuant to the conspiracy to cheat the bank a sum of Rs.4.6 crores was released to the demand loan account of M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation owned by A2 [V.Ganesh] by A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] before acceptance of documents and without any application for the said demand loan from A2 [V.Ganesh].This loan amount was released on 09.02.1993, later transferred to M/s. Ispat Profiles India Limited to which A2 [V.Ganesh] owned a sum of Rs.1,55,71,000/- later the HSBC Singapore, refused the payment on the LC due to non compliance of condition.Thus knowing fully well A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] and A2 [V.Ganesh] pursuant to their conspiracy to cheat, they have made to believe the Oriental bank of Commerce, Chennai that the LC of Rs.2 Million USD is accepted and confirmed by Hong Kong and Shangai Banking, Singapore and siphoned a sum of Rs.5,41,95,655/- thereby committed offence of conspiracy, cheating, and misconduct by a public servant.Finding of the trial Court and the defence put forth by the appellants:-Based on the reliable information, C.B.I has registered the First Information Report which is marked as Ex.P.57 on 23.03.1995 and taken up the investigation.On completion of investigation, final report has been laid against [A1] Rakesh Malhothra, Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mount Road Chennai and [A2] V.Ganesh, proprietor of M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation.To prove the charge of conspiracy and cheating as against both the accused and misconduct of public servant against A1, the prosecution as examined 11 witnesses, 65 Exhibits were marked on behalf of the prosecution.Before the Trial Court while the prosecution canvassing the case of conspiracy and cheating relied upon the documents and evidence let in by them to prove A1 being the Senior Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mount Road Branch, Chennai between 1991 to 1995 in connivance with A2 [V.Ganesh], Proprietor of M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation and M/s. Super Capital Marketing Association in connection with the service charges payable to M/s. Super Capital Marketer and Associates, M/s. Global Trader Insurance and Management Private Limited, Singapore opened conditional letter of credit for 2 million US Dollars on 11.12.1992 with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mount Road Branch, Chennai in favour of M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation through HSBC Banking Corporation, Singapore.The letter of credit was opened with condition that M/s. Super Capital Marketer and Associates should open back to back LC in favour of Global Trader Insurance and Management Private Limited for 2.84 US Million Dollars.The requirement that certified issued by Global Trader Insurance and Management Private Limited, Singapore through HSBC Banking and Corporation, Singapore viz., tested telex by oriental Bank of Commerce, Mount Road branch, Chennai though not received, when the conditional LC was received at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Chennai, A1 and A2 conspired together to credit the amount without fulfilling the conditions and with dishonest intention to cheat the bank with draw the same.In defence, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st appellant would contend that the amount was transfer to M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation only after the approval of the Regional Office and Overseas Branch, hence he has not committed any offence.As far as A2 [V.Ganesh] is concerned he had canvassed before the Trial Court that the letter of Credit was opened by consent of parties and same was approved and confirmed by HSBC, Singapore.Later, they refused to honour their commitment leading to default in payment to Oriental Bank of Commerce.For the recovery the debt, the bank has already initiated proceedings before the debt recovery tribunal which is pending.Hence the charge in respect of transferring Rs.4.5 crores in favour of M/s.Ispat Profiles India Limited is unsustainable.12. A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] has relied upon the order of the appellate authority under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act which has been marked as Ex.D.1 to impress upon the Court that the competent authority under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act has found A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] is not liable for any crime and had acquitted it.While the entire transaction is pure and simple money lending, it is a civil dispute which has been given colour of Criminality.The Trial Court relying upon the letter of A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] dated 30.12.1992 which is marked as Ex.P.18 and the letter of 2nd accused dated 04.01.1993 which is marked as Ex.P.19 has held that A2 [V.Ganesh] falsely written that he has enclosed 'applicant certificate'.On 05.01.1993, the Oriental bank of Commerce has forwarded the advice to bank of California.A day before i.e., on 04.01.1993 M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation [A2] had sent a letter Ex.P.25 to Oriental Bank of Commerce seeking loan with self declaration.Without fulfilling the conditions of LC.[A1] has recommended discount of LC in order to help A2 [V.Ganesh].Though the Regional Office has permitted to discount the LC with condition that it can be discounted only after the acceptance and confirmation from HSBC, Singapore, the LC was discounted without proper acceptance and confirmation.The sanction order of the Regional Office which is marked as Ex.P.45 extracted by the Trial Court and has held that A1 and A2 without complying the condition of LC 11.12.1992, in collusion had issued credit voucher for a sum of Rs.6 crores, after retaining 10% margin deposit money and interest, a sum of Rs.5,41,95,655/- had been credit into the account of M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation.The Trial Court has relied upon the evidence PW.3 [R.Krishnamourthy] that he passed Ex.P.1 credit voucher for Rs.5,41,91,655/- under the Telephonic instruction from A1 [Rakesh Malhothra].The letter written by A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] as Senior Manager to the Overseas Branch on 23.03.1993 which is marked as Ex.P.32 wherein, A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] has informed that all the terms and condition had been complied in the matter of bill purchase under LC for sum of Rs. 2 Million USD Dollars.Taking into considering the other evidences as corroboration to the case of the prosecution, the trial Court has held both the accused guilty and convicted them.P.1, credit voucher 08.01.1993 was pursuant to the sanction order accorded by the Regional Office under Ex.In the letter sent to the Overseas Branch, on 23.12.1992, the Mount Road Branch Office has specifically mentioned that 'applicant certificate' is not enclosed and the same will be submitted by the party directly.Only after disclosure of the above fact, the bill was forwarded to Overseas Bank for collection.This letter signed on behalf of Senior Manager [A1] had specifically made clear to the Overseas Bank that 'applicant certificate' is not furnished by the party.Though it was not enclosed along with the bill, the party has given an undertaking that it will be submit directly.Following this letter, [A1] Senior Manager wrote another letter dated 13.12.1992 to the Regional Manager which is marked as Ex.P.18, forwarding fresh proposal of M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation for discounting the LC value of Rs.2 Million US dollars which was presented earlier and referred in Ex.In this letter, A1 has specifically mentioned that the proposal to discount the bill will be subject to acceptance of Regional Office.In this letter Senior Manager [A1] has also assigned reason for extending the discount facility to M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation.When a Branch Manager being satisfied about the customer who has deposited a sum of Rs.3.60 crores in the bank and had helped the bank to get FCRN deposit to an extent of Rs.5 crores, in his wisdom had thought the LC presented by the customer for sum of 2 million USD could be purchase, provided the regional office accept the proposal.In the said contest, on 08.01.1993 he had allowed the credit voucher which is marked as Ex.P.1 for a sum of Rs.5,41,95,655/-.Till 09.02.1993 the purchase money of bill discounted was laying in the account of M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation.Had the Regional Office informed him about the Telex Message of HSBC, Banking Corporation dated 06.01.1993 [Ex.P.30] which informs that the 'applicant certificate' issued through issuing bank to advise the bank confirming compliance fulfilment of terms not presented and they refused the document and for time being they hold the documents at their risk and disposal, the branch office could not have discounting the bill and credited the amount in the account of Golden Harvest Trading Corporation.Apart from A1 it is collective responsibility of the banking Officials who had dealt the letter of A1, to exercise due diligence.For the purchase of Bill on receipt of sanction from the Regional Office, unknowing the refusal of HBSC to honour the same, the accused A1 cannot be held criminally liable.The Trial Court without proper appreciation of evidence and the role of A1 in the given circumstances had erroneously held them guilty which requires interference.The HSBC Banking Corporation had all time confirmed its genuineness and also accepted the same.Because the 'applicant certificate' was not enclosed along with the bill, subsequently they have refused to honour the bill.The party likely to be aggrieved in this case is the Oriental Bank of Commerce.The enforcement agency which takes care of Foreign Exchange Regulation had also come to a conclusion that there is no Foreign Exchange violation and had exonerated the persons alleged to have been involved in the subject transaction.In a genuine and bonafide trade transaction.PW-2 has perused the Ex.P.2 on 12.02.1992 and had put his initial and written Test to be authenticated. To know the authenticity of the message, he wanted to confirm the test code through his Bombay office.Therefore, 30.12.1992, the Overseas Branch has sent a message to Bombay Branch to confirm the correctness of the test code.The said communication is marked as Ex.In response to this Communication, the Bombay Branch has informed by way of Telex on 05.01.1993 confirming the Test Code found in LC is correct.The said message of Bombay branch is marked as Ex.This confirmation according to PW.2 was after contacting the HSBC Bank, Singapore and verifying the authenticity of the LC.Before getting the confirmation about the genuineness of the LC from the HSBC, Singapore through the Bombay Branch, the Overseas Bank on the receipt of Ex.P.2, had advice the GHTC on 14.12.1992 that the LC will be processed.In response to the said communication Ex.P.5 dated 14.12.1992, Mount Road Branch has informed the Overseas Branch vide letter dated 23.12.1992 which is marked as Ex.From the Exhibits as well as from the deposition of PW.2 it appears that the branch office at Mount Road Branch while requesting the Overseas Branch to negotiate the bill in dispute had also informed the Overseas Branch that the party has not enclosed applicant certificate which is mandatory for negotiation and also placed on record that the party has promised to submit the applicant certificate directly.This letter is signed by A2 as President of GHTC.It is addressed to Mount Road Branch, Oriental Bank of Commerce.P.9 is invoice of the GHTC raised for the service rendered to M/s.The LC referred in Telex marked as Ex.As its President A2 had given a certificate that M/s.Golden Harvest Trading Corporation had fulfilled the terms and condition in respect of the contract for sale and purchase of scrap metal with M/s. Gobal Trade Insurance Management Private Limited.Being satisfied with the genuineness of these documents namely Ex.P.8, Ex.P.9, Ex.Only after making preliminary enquiry about the credit worthiness of the Oriental bank of Commerce at Singapore and getting confirmation about the genuineness of LC. A1 has sought permission of the Regional Office for purchasing the bill.In his request dated 13.12.1992, he had assigned the reasons for his proposal to purchase the bill.Super Capital Marketers and Associates both firms held by [A2] have deposit to a tune of Rs.3.6 crores and they have helped the bank to get FCRN deposits to the extent of Rs.5 crores is not disputed.A1 has also indicated that he will discount the bill only after acceptance by Overseas Branch.The Zone of suspicion against A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] and A2 [V.Ganesh] commences at this stage.When the negotiation of the bill itself was under process, through Ex.P.18 Letter A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] had expressed his intention to purchase the bill.Though the facility of purchasing International LC was not provided for M/s. Golden Harvest Trading Corporation or to M/s. Super Capital Marketers and Associates, A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] has recommended bills purchase facility for the reason stated in its letter which is marked as Ex.Thereafter, A2 [V.Ganesh] had furnished another set of request letter for negotiating, along with the documents like bill of exchange and invoice which is marked as Ex.In Ex.P.19 dated 04.01.1993 which is the request letter for negotiation, though it is almost same that of the Ex.In accordance with Article 16 of UCP400 We have to refuse the documents at this time, and we hold them at your risks and disposal.However, We will refer the discrepancies to the applicant.In the meantime, please forward your instructions, if any, for attention GUAN quoting our Ref.COL:USD2, 000,000.00=01060604Again on 08.01.1993, another telex Message which is marked as Ex.P.31 had been sent to Oriental bank of Commerce, Mount Road Branch wherein the HSBC Bank, Singapore has informed the Mount Road branch as under: Further to UR Telex Message Dated 05Jan93 Advising you on discrepancies noted on the above documents, applicant advises that documents are accepted subject to acceptable to issuance of confirmed irrevocable letter of credit acceptable to applicant.Opened by Super Capital Marketers and Associates and Received by us (Hongkong and Shanghai and Received by us within 30 days from today.Meanwhile, we hold documents at your disposal.In spite of intimation and discrepancy made known to A1 [Rakesh Malhothra], suppressing the information found in Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31 had informed the Overseas Branch on 23.01.1993 that HSBC, Singapore had confirmed they have obtained the necessary documents and all the terms and conditions have been complied with.This letter which is marked as Ex.Informing the Regional office that A2 [V.Ganesh] has produced all necessary documents and had complied all terms and condition, in spite of receiving the Telex Message, from HSBC Singapore on 06.01.1993 and 08.01.1993, reporting about non-compliance of condition.In the light of the above discussion this Court holds that the prosecution has proved the case against the A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] and A2 [V.Ganesh] that there was meeting of mind to cheat the Oriental Bank of Commerce by recommending ILC facility knowing full well that the LC offered by A2 [V.Ganesh] has been refused to be hounoured by HSBC, Singapore as early as 06.01.1993 and reinforced through the Telex on 08.01.1993 which are marked as Ex.P.31 and Ex.In spite of his knowledge about these two telex messages, A1 [Rakesh Malhothra] has forwarded the letter Ex.P.31 dated 23.01.1993 to Overseas Branch as if A2 [V.Ganesh] had complied all the terms and condition.Conspiracy normally hatched in secrecy.The act done in pursuant to the conspiracy would be manifestly seen only through the result of the conspiracy.In this case prosecution has proved through evidence that, in spite of restricted permission granted by Regional Office to extend the loan facilities, A1 [Rakesh Malhothra], without compliance of the pre-condition by A2 [V.Ganesh], had extended the loan knowing fully well that A2 [V.Ganesh] has not complied the condition.The manner in which he has recommended for extending the facility even before formal application from A2 [V.Ganesh] and discounting the LC which was refused to be honoured, clearly indicates the intention of cheating and the meeting of mind between A1 and A2 to cheat the bank.In this case the prosecution has projected offence of cheating pursuant to conspiracy.Therefore Ex.Having held that the both the accused are guilty of cheating pursuance to conspiracy.He had abused his power to show undue and illegal pecuniary advantage to A2, which holds him liable for offence under section 13(1)(d) of PC Act punishable under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.Likewise omission to sentence the offenders for the substantive offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC does no way prejudice the offenders who are the appellants herein.While the prosecution has proved the case of conspiracy to cheat, omission to give separate finding and sentence for the offence of cheating is a curable defect and will not vitiate the trial or the judgment.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, SPE/CBI/ACD, Chennai.The learned Additional Special Judge (CBI), Chennai.The Special Public Prosecutor,(CBI) High Court, Madras.G.Jayachandran,J.BsmPre-delivery judgment made inCriminal Appeal Nos.5 & 91of 200721.02.2018",['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Applicant has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ""The Code"") against the judgment dated 31/10/2018 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sonkatch, District Dewas in Cri.Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on 28/08/2013 at about 7.00 to 8.00 pm, complainant-Reenabai along with her mother-in-law Munnibai and her daughter-Chanchu, aged about 2 years went to attend nature's call at Pipalrawa Road, at that time the applicant came there by driving a motorcycle rashly and negligently and hit complainant's mother-in-law, who fell down and became unconscious.Thereafter he also knocked the complainant's daughter whose leg got trapped in the leg guard of the motorcycle.When complainant went to rescue her daughter, then the applicant fled away from the spot by dragging complainant's daughter along with Cr.R. No.5672/2018 2 the motorcycle.Complainant narrated the incident to her husband and lodged a complaint at police station Pipalrawa.On the basis of which, police registered F.I.R bearing crime No. 159/2013 for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 of IPC against the applicant.During investigation complainant's daughter was found lying dead in a field then offence under Section 304-A of IPC was also added.After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the applicant for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of IPC.R. No.5672/2018 2Trial Court, while passing the judgment, convicted the applicant for offence punishable under Sections 337 (2 counts) and 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 months (2 counts) and 2 years R.I and fine of Rs.500/-(2 counts) and 1,000/- respectively, with usual default stipulation.Even her mother-in-law Munnibai (P.W.2) who accompanied the complainant and the deceased failed to identify the present applicant and other prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution story.Cr.R. No.5672/2018 3In view of the aforesaid and on the basis of the material available on the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Courts below have not committed any illegality in convicting the applicant for offence under Sections 337(2 counts) and 304-A of IPC.The applicant has not challenged the sentence awarded for offence punishable under Section 337(2 counts) of IPC, therefore, the aforesaid sentence is hereby affirmed.So far as the period of sentence for offence under Section 304-A of IPC is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that looking to the fact that the the applicant is the first offender and was facing the trial for more than 5 years therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period of 1 year R.I. under Section 304-A of IPC and the fine amount is enhanced to Cr.P.C With the aforesaid modification the criminal revision stands partly allowed and disposed of.R. No.5672/2018 4A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with record for information and compliance.Certified copy as per Rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2019.01.05 16:33:15 +05'30'","['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In case the answer to column No. 20 was in the negative, an affidavit had to be submitted.Under Column No. 21 of the application form, the petitioner was required to furnish any other information.JUDGMENT Saroj Bala, J.The petitioner further seeks a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to revive the letter of appointment dated 10.05.2002 and to permit him to commence business of dealership of petrol/diesel at Ambari, Tehsil Phulpur, District Azamgarh.The factual matrix emerging from the record of the writ petition is as follows:-In pursuance of an advertisement, made sometime in the year 2001 for dealership of retail outlet of petrol/diesel at different places including Ambari, District Azamgarh, the petitioner applied for dealership on the prescribed application form, which accompanied the copy of the brochure.After interview, the respondent Corporation issued a letter of intent dated 6.05.2002 for dealership of retail outlet at Ambari (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) subject to certain conditions.On 10.5.2002 vide letter (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), the petitioner was required to submit an affidavit stating that no criminal proceedings are pending against him in any Court in India and to submit a Character Certificate from not less than S.P. Police.On the same day i.e. May 10, 2002, a letter of appointment for dealership of retail outlet (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) was issued by the Corporation.On 29.05.2002 a show cause notice (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) was issued by the Corporation to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why letter of intent dated 6.5.2002 and letter of appointment dated 10.5.2002 be not withdrawn and cancelled for suppression of material information about conviction and sentence in Sessions Trial No. 391 of 1997 under Sections 302/149/148 and 506(ii), I.P.C., P.S. Pawai, District Azamgarh against which a Criminal Appeal No. 843 of 2000, Santosh Kumar Yadav and Ors.v. State of U.P. was preferred before the High Court and the petitioner was released on bail.The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice together with an affidavit (Annexures 5 & 6 to the writ petition).The petitioner in the reply admitting his conviction in the aforesaid murder case stated that his involvement in the said offence does not amount to moral turpitude.After taking into consideration the reply of the petitioner, the respondents withdrew the letter of intent and cancelled the letter of appointment on the ground that Column Nos. 20 & 21 of the application form, wherein the petitioner had to make a disclosure about his conviction for any criminal offence, were deliberately and intentionally left blank.In the opinion of the Corporation, the criminal act attributed to the petitioner amounted to moral turpitude.The order of withdrawal of letter of intent and cancellation of letter of appointment have been challenged by the petitioner on the grounds inter alia that conviction for the offence of murder does not fall within the definition of moral turpitude.According to the petitioner the disclosure about the conviction for the offence of murder, was not made by him, as it was not an offence involving moral turpitude.The contention of the petitioner is that his conviction not being for an offence involving moral turpitude, his case does not fall within the purview of Clause 10 of brochure and condition of column 20 of the application form.We have heard Shri Ravi Kant, learned senior Counsel assisted by Shri M.K. Pandey, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Prakash Padia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs which we assess at Rs. 5,000/-.","['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2",['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
"(a) In E.O.C.C.Nos.563 of 1984 and 1410 of 1985, subject matter of Crl.A6 in E.O.C.C.Nos.563 and 564 of 1984, subject matter of Crl.A.Nos.895 and 896 of 1995 and A7 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985 was the Lower Division Clerk working in the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras (JCC I & E).A7 in E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984, subject matter of Crl.A.No.896 of 1995 and A6 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985, subject matter of Crl.A.No.897 of 1985 was the Upper Division Clerk working in the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras (JCC I & E).A8 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985, subject matter of Crl.A.No.897 of 1995 was Class IV employee in the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras, assisting A6 and A7 in handling the files.(b) Cash compensatory support is given by the Government of India to eligible exporters and they are eligible at 10% of the export value.The exporter should be eligible member in the Handloom Export Promotion Council and it should have been a registered firm as exporter.A declaration in the prescribed form is to be submitted along with application that no such application was preferred for grant of cash compensatory support with details of invoice, exported goods value and the name of the party to whom they have exported, the particulars as to the ship through which they were exported, income tax declaration, membership certificate issued by the Handloom Export Promotion Council(HEPC) and the registration certificate issued by the said Council, bank certificate in original in the prescribed form and shipping bills giving the details of the cargo.Cash compensatory support should be given only through the bank negotiated or the bank nominated by the firm, if the firm applies for the first time for payment of cash compensatory support.(c) In E.O.C.C.No.563 of 1984, subject matter of Crl.A.No.895 of 1995, A1 firm applied on 30.3.1983 to the JCC I & E, Madras for cash compensatory support to the tune of Rs.91,940/- as if they have exported handloom clothes to the value of Rs.9,91,400/-.A6 prepared voucher in 'C' form which contained all the particulars relating to the issue of cash compensation to A1 firm.A cheque for Rs.91,940/- was issued in favour of the Indian Overseas Bank, Madras for payment to A1 firm.A2 gave a receipt in the letter-head of Shri Krishna Kumar Textiles for Rs.91,940/- and has signed as Krishnakumar in the letter-head of A1 firm.Account was opened in the Indian Overseas Bank, Washermanpet, Madras by A3 as Krishnakumar.A4 and A5 accompanied A3 to the Bank when account was opened.A3 operated the account by signing as Krishnakumar and withdrew the money.Thus, A1 to A6 entered into a criminal conspiracy and A2 produced false and forged documents and in pursuance of the conspiracy A3 opened account in the fictitious name and A6 having prepared 'C' form with false particulars she abetted the other accused.(d) In E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984, subject matter of Crl.A.No.896 of 1995, A1 firm applied for cash compensatory support on 31.10.1982 for Rs.96,160/-, on 20.12.1982 for Rs.93,910/- and on 3.1.1983 for Rs.96,160/-, on 29.11.1982 for Rs.92,410/- and on 22.3.1983 for Rs.91,660/-.These applications were processed by A6 and one application by A7 in the office of the JCC I & E, Madras.On these applications payments were made by cheques and the cheques were despatched by registered post to A1 firm.All these cheques were despatched in the account No.301 opened in the Bank of Madura Limited, Triplicane, Madras, in the name of M/s. Rajaram Textiles (A1).The amounts were withdrawn from the above account and deposited in the account of S.Ramkumar opened by A3 and they were later withdrawn.Thus A2 to A5 with the active connivance of A6 and A7 entered into criminal conspiracy, submitted false claims to the JCC I & E office towards cash compensatory support to the total sum of Rs.4,70,290/- and obtained the same for which they were not entitled to and that A6 and A7 failed to prepare the cheques in the name of the bank and enabled the cheques to be despatched to A1 firm.(e) In E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985, subject matter of Crl.Some of the applications were processed by A6 and some of the applications by A7 in the office of the JCC I & E, Madras.After perusing all the papers, payments were made by cheques and the cheques were despatched by registered post to A1 firm.All these cheques were despatched in the bank and amounts were withdrawn.JUDGMENT S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1.The appeal in Crl.The appeal in Crl.The appeal in Crl.Since the offence involved in all the three matters are similar in nature and some of the respondents/accused and the appellant are also one and the same, all the three cases have been taken for joint hearing and disposed of by this common judgment.The brief facts that led to the filing of this appeal are as follows:-Thus, A2 to A5 with the active connivance of A6 to A8 entered into criminal conspiracy, submitted false claims to the JCC I & E office towards cash compensatory support to the total sum of Rs.4,62,300/- and obtained the same for which they were not entitled to and that A6 and A7 failed to prepare the cheque in the name of the bank and enabled the cheques to be despatched to A1 firm.In all the three cases separate evidence was let in before the trial Court.In E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984, subject matter of the appeal in Crl.As per trial Court judgment, when the accused in E.O.C.C.No.563 of 1984 were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating evidence made available against them, A1 to A5 have stated that they do not know anything, A6 has stated that she was attached to the despatch section and she was asked to attend to this work and therefore she filled up the 'C' form and thereafter she handed over the file to the Dealing Assistant.When questioned A2, A3 and A6, they pleaded not guilty to the charges.Then after further cross-examination of all the witnesses, A2, A3 and A6 were questioned under Section 313(b) Cr.P.C. and they stated that they have nothing to do with the case.Eventhough they stated that they have got witnesses to be examined in defence, they did not examine any witness.As per trial Court judgment, when the accused in E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984 were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating evidence made available against them, A2 to A5 have admitted that they were partners of M/s.Ranganayaki Extraction Company, Kumarapalayam and the transaction with regard to that company with Bank and other offices and they have denied all other evidence against them.A6 and A7 admitted having prepared the 'C' forms and they stated that they have nothing to do with the cases.When questioned A2, A3, A6 and A7, they pleaded not guilty to the charges.Then P.Ws.43 and 44 were examined on the side of prosecution and the accused were given opportunity to cross-examine all the witnesses.Thereafter accused were questioned under Section 313(b) Cr.P.C. and they stated that they have nothing to do with the case.The accused did not examine any witness in defence.As per trial Court judgment, when the accused in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985 were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against them, A2 to A5 have admitted that they were partners of M/s.Ranganayaki Extraction Company, Kumarapalayam and the transaction with regard to that company with Bank and other offices and they have denied all other evidence against them.A6 stated that the applications will be checked at the Special Counter and then only they will be sent to him.A7 stated that she is only attached to despatch and that since the Dealing Assistant was not available she was asked to attend the preparation of 'C' forms.A8 also denied the evidence against him.When questioned A2, A3, A4 and A6 to A8, they pleaded not guilty to the charges.Then P.Ws.34 and 35 were examined on the side of prosecution.Thereafter accused were questioned under Section 313(b) Cr.P.C. and they stated that they have nothing to do with the case.The accused did not examine any witness in defence.The trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced on either side, by recording finding that A2, A3 and A6 in E.O.C.C.No.563 of 1984; that A2, A3, A6 and A7 in E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984 and that A2 to A4 and A6 to A8 in E.O.C.C.No.1410 of 1985 are not guilty in respect of the charges levelled against them, acquitted them by separate judgments.Challenging the said judgments, these appeals are filed by the Complainant.He further submitted that the trial Court is not correct in rejecting the evidence of P.Ws.14 and 16 showing that A6 was privy to the obtaining of cash compensatory support by fraudulent means by the other accused in the case.14.With regard to E.O.C.C.No.564 of 1984 subject matter of Crl.A.No.896 of 1995, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases for the appellant/complainant vehemently contended that the finding of the trial Court not considering the evidence of P.Ws.2, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 12 with regard to the identity of the accused, is not correct, in that the above witnesses had ample opportunities to see the accused earlier for identifying the accused in the Court and as such, the test identification parade was not at all necessary to identify the accused.He also submitted that the trial Court is not proper in rejecting the evidence of P.W.34, Handwriting Expert that there were dissimilarities in the writing compared by the Expert, though Expert has given evidence that there are no dissimilarities.He further submitted that the trial Court is not correct in rejecting the evidence of P.Ws.23 and 26 showing that A6 and A7 were privy to the obtaining of cash compensatory support by fraudulent means by the other accused in the case.With regard to E.O.C.C. No. 1410 of 1985 subject matter of Crl.A.No.897 of 1995, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases for the appellant/complainant vehemently contended that the finding of the trial Court not considering the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5, 8, 10, 11, 28, 30 and 31 with regard to the identity of the accused, is not correct, in that the above witnesses had ample opportunities to see the accused earlier for identifying the accused in the Court and as such, the test identification parade was not at all necessary to identify the accused.","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"C c as per rules.Heard on the question of admission.This petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr.P.C is admitted for final hearing.Learned P.L takes notice of this admission and undertakes to produce the case diary at the time of final hearing.Heard on IA No. 8688/10, an application for grant of ad interim anticipatory bail to the applicant as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection of Crime No. 14/10, registered at Police Station AKJ, Narsinghpur, for the offence under Sections 294, 452, 506-B, 34 of IPC.It is further directed that at the event of the arrest to the applicant in the above mentioned offence on depositing his licenced rifle with the police and on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000- (Rs. ten thousand) alongwith one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority by the applicant, he shall be released on bail.Such release shall be subject to terms and conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.","['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT Sharief-Ud-Din, J.This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of Mr. S. M. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, dt. 14th March 1984 convicting the appellant of the offence under S. 302 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to the payment of a sum of Rs. 500/- as fine.In default of payment of fine the appellant was sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.The facts are few and they are as follows.Complainant in the case is one Kharak Bahadur, resident of Nepal, who on the date of the incident which is, 4th January 1982 was working in Delhi and was residing at E-C, Railway Quarters, Patel Nagar, where Man Singh had come to see him and his nephews Bomb (illegible) Bahadur and Dil Bahadur who were staying with him.The prosecution case is that they left for Kirti Nagar to see one Nar Bahadur working at 9/56 (illegible) Woollen Mills, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area.It is said that when they reached near the Jhuggies (illegible) Crepes Floor Mill, they noticed the appellant Bhavi Ram together with his accomplice Bal Bahadur Rana, a proclaimed offender now and with whom we are not concerned, standing near the Jhuggis.On seeing Kharak Bahadur Bhavi Ram is stated to have called him whereupon he and Dil Bahadur deceased came near him.Man Singh, and Bomb Bahadur remained at a distance.Bhavi Ram is stated to have protested to Kharak Bahadur for having abducted his wife about six months earlier and he expressed a grievance that Kharak Bahadur was persisting in paying visits to his place.Kharak Bahadur thereupon tried to put him off by saying that his wife had voluntarily joined him and that he had sent her back after a couple of days.It is at this stage that the proclaimed offender Bal Bahadur Rana is stated to have caught hold of Kharak Bahadur by his neck and when the deceased Dil Bahadur rushed forward to rescue Kharak Bahadur, the appellant Bhavi Ram is stated to have proclaimed that they would deal with the deceased Dil Bahadur first.Immediately, thereafter he is stated to have dealt two or three blows on the head of Dil Bahadur with a small lathi which he was holding in his right hand.Meanwhile, Bal Bahadur, the proclaimed offender, is said to have left Kharak Bahadur and caught hold of the deceased Dil Bahadur deceased, however, on receiving the fatal blow bled profusely from his head and fell on the ground.He is said to have died on the spot.In the meanwhile, Man Singh was sent to inform the police and the appellant together with his accomplice were overpowered by Bomb Bahadur and Kharak Bahadur.At the instance of Man Singh a D.D. report No. 78-B (Ex. P.W. 7/A) which was recorded on a telephonic message given by Man Singh at 7.30 p.m. on 4th January, 1982 came to be recorded at police station Moti Nagar.This was handed over to Sub-Inspector Dalip Singh who came on the spot, took possession of the accused as well as the weapon of the offence.He also took into possession some blood, blood soaked earth and control earth and secured and sealed all these exhibits properly.The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Bharat Singh who noticed two injuries on the person of the deceased which he opined to be ante-mortem.He further opined that injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and death was due to coma resulting from head injuries.He was further of the opinion that the lathi seized could cause the injuries noticed on the person of the deceased.We may notice the two injuries sustained by the deceased which are as follows :-(1) One lacerated wound on the right front of parietal area, placed anterio posteriorly.Size of the wound was 1"" x 1/2"" x Scalp deep.Margins of the wound were irregular and swollen wound was covered by clotted blood.Right side of skull was also covered by clotted blood surrounding the injury.(2) Abrasion on the left zionistic area.Size 1"" x 1/2"", brown in colour.This would go to show that injury No. 2 was in the nature of abrasion while it was actually injury No. 1 which was fatal.The prosecution case is, in fact, based on the testimony of Kharak Bahadur (PW 10) on whose statement (Ex. PW 10/A) FIR No. 5 of 1982 police station Moti Nagar was recorded at 9 p.m. In fact, the incident has taken place at 7 p.m. and the statement of P.W. 10 Kharak Bahadur was recorded somewhere between 7 p.m. and 8.45 p.m. as it has been actually dispatched from the spot at 8.45 p.m. The formal FIR was registered at 9.00 p.m. The prosecution case is also supported by Bomb Bahadur (PW 4) and Man Singh (P.W. 12), all of them being eye-witnesses to the incident.The common case of the parties is that Smt. Gian Kumari wife of the appellant Bhavi Ram had gone to stay with Kharak Bahadur (P.W. 10) for a couple of days a few months prior to the incident.The stand of the accused, however, is that on the day of the incident Kharak Bahadur, Bomb Bahadur, Man Singh and the deceased Dil Bahadur had come towards their Jhuggis in an intoxicated state with the intention to abduct his wife.Smelling the presence of the appellant with his wife in his Jhuggi, they entered the Jhuggi of Dharam Singh and tried to molest his wife, that on an alarm being raised by her, her brother rebuked Kharak Bahadur resulting in an altercation during which Dharma Singh's wife's brother was slapped by the deceased Dil Bahadur.At this he alleges, that Dharma Singh's brother-in-law in a sudden rage hit the deceased Dil Bahadur with a danda on his head.The appellant is stated to have asked Kharak Bahadur as to why he had abducted his wife, and why he was persisting in paying visits to her again.Apparently, there was some exchange of hot words in which Kharak Bahadur was caught by the neck by the accomplice of the appellant and then Dil Bahadur came to rescue him.There was an altercation and in that altercation the appellant inflicted one fatal blow on the head of the deceased Dil Bahadur.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"CRA.11057/2019 (MAHENDRA @ PAPPU v/s.STATE OF M.P.) Indore dt.24.8.2020 Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.Mrs. A. Kher, Dy.Advocate General for Non-applicant/State.Per S.C. Sharma, J :-I.A.No.4863/2020, is an application for urgent hearing.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the same stands allowed.Heard on I.A.No.4862/2020, which is first application filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant (Mahendra Gurjar), who has been convicted by the Sessions Judge Neemuch in S.T.No.100/13 vide judgment dated 12.12.2019 and sentenced as under :-S.No Conviction under Sentence the provisions of Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment IPC.in lieu of fine 1 302 of IPC Life Rs.300/ 1 year RI Imprisonment 2 120B of IPC Life Rs.100/ 1 year RI Imprisonment 3 193 of IPC 5 years RI Rs.100/ 6 months RI The prosecution story in short that one of the co-accused person namely Ghanshyam against whom arrest warrants had been issued in NDPS Acts cases, tried to escape prosecution in NDPS cases by showing himself to be dead.He hatched a conspiracy with other co-accused persons including the present appellant and in pursuance of the conspiracy, he killed a man and placed his voter ID Card, Photograph, Mobile and purse in the pocket of the dead person, so that it may be concluded that now Ghanshyam was dead and cases ... 2 ... CRA.No.11057/2019 which have been registered against him may be closed on this account.The accusation against the present appellant Mahendra Gurjar was that it was he who had kept the photograph of Ghanshyam and a voter card of Ghanshyam in the pocket of the deceased.As per prosecution story, Ghanshyam had provided to him the photograph and voter ID card and one photograph of Ghanshyam and the copy of the voter ID card was seized from the possession of Mahendra as per his memorandum.Considering this evidence, the learned trial judge found appellant Mahendra Gurjar to be involved in the conspiracy and found the charges proved against him under Section 193 of IPC, which is regarding giving of fabricating false evidence also found proved against him.Learned Senior counsel has submitted that Mahendra Gurjar has been falsely implicated and the aforesaid voter card and photograph of Ghanshyam Dhakad was implanted upon him by the investigating officer.There is no evidence on record that Mahendra knew Ghanshyam and the meeting of mind, which is pre requisite for hatching of conspiracy has not been proved.Learned Senior counsel submits that it is unfathomable to assume that appellant would retain incriminating evidence with him.He submits that the body of the deceased person as Ghanshyam was identified by co-accused Babulal and Banshilal and not by the appellant, on this ground suspension of jail sentence has been sought.Written reply has been submitted on behalf of the prosecution in which it has been submitted that the factum of memorandum and seizure from appellant shows his involvement as co-conspirator.Submissions were heard and documents were perused.The main accused Ghanshyam in his memorandum Exhibit P/12 has stated that he used to talk on mobile phones to present appellant and co-accused Banshi Gurjar.However, the police has not ... 3 ... CRA.No.11057/2019 obtained the call records of Ghanshyam, present appellant and Banshi Gurjar in order to prove communication between them.Ghanshyam has further stated that he had given more than Rs.13.00 lacs to Banshi Gurjar and the present appellant for making arrangements in order to proclaim him dead, but no efforts have been made by Investigating Officer to recover any amount from the present appellant.In his memorandum dated 26.9.2012, Ghanshyam has stated that he gave two photographs and two voter ID cards to the present appellant, but in his memorandum, he does not state that the present appellant has kept the photograph and voter ID card in the pocket of the deceased.He states that the photograph and ID card were placed in the pocket of the deceased as per instructions of the present appellant.There is substance in the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the appellant that why the appellant would keep photograph and voter ID of Ghanshyam with himself which would have been extremely dangerous.A suggestion has been given to Basant Shrivastava (PW31) the Investigating Officer that he in fact, has implanted the aforesaid photographs and voter card on the person of the appellant.This suggestion has been denied.It can be seen that when the police arrived and searched the body of the deceased, it found photograph and voter card in the pocket of the deceased which were given to Mahesh Dhakad, the brother of Ghanshyam and later on vide Exhibit P/71, the same photograph and voter I.D. card were seized from Mahesh Dhakad.Hence, the suspension application deserves to be allowed.Accordingly, I.A.No.4862/2020 is allowed and it is directed that on depositing the fine amount and on furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, the substantive jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he shall be released on bail, for his regular appearance before the Registry of this Court on 20.10.2020 and all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed in this behalf by the Office/Registry of this Court in this behalf.List the matter for final hearing in due course.",['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
Petition allowed.,['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.The instant application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the proceeding pursuant to the charge sheet dated 14.7.2019 whereupon cognizance has been taken against the applicants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Auraiya in Criminal Special No.168 of 2019 arising out of case crime no.323 of 2019, under Sections 354-Ka,323,504 IPC and Section 3(1)(da),(dha) & (ba) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Bidhuna, District Auraiya.The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue.In S. W. Palanattkar & others Vs.","['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"2.The facts of the case are as follows:(a).The first appellant Mr.S.Thuraisingam, proprietor of M/s.Bharathi Gems and Jewels floated advertisements promising attractive offers under the following schemes viz., A.Bharathi Gems and Jewels; B.Bharathi Subhayagam; C.Bharathi Hire Purchase Scheme; D.Bharathi Saving Scheme; E.Bharathi Gems and Travels.By means of the above schemes, the first respondent dishonestly induced the depositors to part with various amounts.The allegation made in the said complaint is that the complainant had invested in various schemes with the first appellanthttp://www.judis.nic.in and on maturity of the deposits, cheques were issued towards payment 4 of the sum due to him, however on presentation those cheques were dishonoured.Thereafter, number of depositors came forward alleging that their deposits were not repaid.While few cases were compounded/withdrawn on payment of the defaulted sums, presently three cases viz., C.C.No.8038/2001 and C.C.No.6028/2001 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and C.C.No.155/2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai are pending trial.(c).After registration of cases, Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors Act was enacted and as per Section 3 of the said Act, the 5 respondent Competent Authority was empowered to attach the properties of the defaulting accused and the properties purchased out of the sums collected from the depositors.The relevant provisions of the said Act reads as follows:""3.Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force:-(i)where, upon complaints received from a number of depositors, that any Financial Establishment defaults the return of deposits after maturity, orNo.918, Home (Courts II A) Department, dated 16.07.1998 interim attachment ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in movable and immovable properties were made and subsequently, the 6 interim attachment was made absolute by the order of the Special Court for TNPID Act, Chennai.(e).Even prior to the order of absolute attachment u/s 7 of TNPID Act, the first appellant S.Thuraisingam entered into a Memorandum of Undertaking with the depositors association represented by one Mr.G.E.Krishnan and approached this Hon'ble Court praying for permission to reopen the business premises to revive the business.This Court by an order dated 20.03.2003 made in C.M.A.No.1632/2001 permitted the first appellant to open the business premises and possession of some of the properties under interim attachment were handed over to him.The first appellant re-opened the showroom on 10.10.2003, but he was not able to revive the business and thus was not able to fulfill the obligations made under the Memorandum of Understanding with the depositors association.(g).In the said circumstances, the Competent Authority sought and obtained permission of this Court for sale of the immovable properties 7 and thereafter by auction sale of the properties, a sum of Rs.12,65,25,000/- was realized and the same was deposited into State Bank of India, PWD Branch, Chennai by the Competent Authority.Pursuant to the orders of the Division Bench of this Court dated 16.09.2008, the Competent Authority was directed to issue Sales Certificate to the auction purchaser – Elite Builders and Constructions.Thereafter, on the orders of this Court, the Competent Authority gave paper publication in all the leading news papers on 21.09.2008, 24.10.2008, 02.12.2009 and 03.12.2009 calling upon the defaulters to make their claim.Pursuant to the paper publication, the depositors claim was arrived at Rs.14,81,32,450/- after scrutiny of the deposit receipts made with the claims.(h).Again the Competent Authority approached this Court for necessary directions for disbursal of the amount to the depositors and as per the order passed by this Court, the eligible depositors received the deposits without interest on Pro-rata basis which was arrived at 90% and 3722 depositors were paid by the Competent Authority.(i).The Competent Authority also paid the statutory dues of the first appellant, viz., a sum of Rs.1,18,62,719/- to the commercial tax department and Rs.23,31,596/- to the income tax department.(j).Subsequently, by August 2010, another 400 depositors came forward seeking repayment of their deposits.At this stage, the present appealshttp://www.judis.nic.in came to be filed by the appellants seeking compounding of the pending three cases other than the cases compounded earlier on payment of the 8 defaulter claims and also seeking payment of Rs.29,34,500/- towards rent, food, maintenance and defence charges from the year 1996 to 2009, as per Sec.10(a) of TNPID3.The appellants filed the application in O.S.No.16 of 2009 under Section 5A of TNPID Act, 1997 to direct the competent authority to collect the various amounts available and to bring everything to the account and disburse the statutory due, after negotiation and then arrive the amount and the same to be disbursed to the depositors on proportionate basis and also direct the Respondents 1 & 3 therein to compound the offence stated to have been committed by the appellants/accused and discharge them from the case.5.The evidence was recorded based on the pleadings filed by both the parties and finally, both the applications were dismissed holding that the cases in C.C.No.6028/2001 and C.C.No.8038/2001 have been transferred and pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the case in C.C.No.151/2002 has been pending on thehttp://www.judis.nic.in file of the Judicial Magistrate No.Moreover, the matter has been seized of by the High Court and therefore, the appellants were directed to approach the proper form and the Special Court refused to give any directions.These two orders are now being challenged before this Court.7.This Court perused the entire records and various reports filed by the third respondent/Investigating Agency.As per the order of this Court, the third respondent published notice in the newpapers calling for the claims.Further, various reports have been filed by the competent authority.8.By an order dated 08.11.2017, this Court directed the authorities to make paper publication to be effected in one of the issue of ""Malai Murasu"", tamil daily and ""News Today"", English daily informing the depositors to approach the Investigating Officer in the above case within a period of 10 days from the date of publication, failing which no claim application wouldhttp://www.judis.nic.in be entertained, even if the depositors are found to be genuine.When the matter was listed on 21.12.2017, it was represented before the Court that 180 claims have been made along with the original receipts issued by the appellants and they filed the list of claimants before this Court.10.By an order dated 09.03.2018, this Court recorded the statement of Ms.11.Thereafter, this Court by an order dated 26.03.2018 passed the following order:-""Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, a status report has been filed by the Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Chennai, giving the following details.3.Pursuant to the publication, claims were made to the tune of Rs.78,18,550/- from the depositors.Out of those depositors, a few depositors whose claim is valued at Rs.11,19,300/- have not produced the original deposit receipts and they had filed only hire purchase agreement, cheques and receipts.Therefore, the claim of the persons, who have produced the deposit receipts is only to the tune of Rs.66,99,250/-.The amount available, as on date, in cash is Rs.1,47,22,631/- and the depositors claim is Rs.78,18,550/-.Thus, the remaining amount is Rs.69,04,081/-.Out of Rs.69,04,081, a sumhttp://www.judis.nic.in of Rs.9,00,000/- is to be retained as deposit for some time and the 12 balance amount of Rs.60,04,081/- is required to be returned to the appellants, apart from the jewellery and precious materials.For filing of the calculation memo, both by the appellants as well as the respondents, call the matter on 28.03.2018.""Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- is to be retained as deposit for some time and the balance amount of Rs.60,04,081/- is required to be returned to the appellants, apart from the jewellery and precious materials.13.In the said report the authorities have stated that the appellants' vehicle which were kept in the police custody were damaged due to the rusting and natural calamities.As they were parked in open area, the vehicles were damaged beyond recognition and the same cannot be even used as scrap.14.On consideration of the material on record, it is evident that the appellants had never absconded nor concealed any of the properties with an intention to evade payments to the depositors, but on the contra had been rendering all assistance in liquidation of the properties for the purposehttp://www.judis.nic.in of settling the dues to the depositors.Hence, as contemplated under 13 Section 5(A) of TNPID Act, the offence committed by the appellants can be compounded on payment of the entire dues payable to the depositors.15.In view of the aforesaid position, the following directions are issued:All the accused are acquitted from all the offences registered against them.The Investigating Officer is directed to return the balance amount available with them, after retaining the amount which is required to be paid to the remaining depositors.The Investigating Officer is directed to return the machineries and other valuables available with them.The Investigating Officer shall not entertain any further claims.The Banks of America and Citi Bank which are holding the account or deposits of Bharathi Finance or other sister concerns shall give back the amount with interest to the first appellant.The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and learned Judicial Magistrate I, Madurai are directed to handover the precious metals, jewellery and stones available under their custody to the first appellant directly.If any further clarification is required, it is always left open to the parties to approach this Court.16.These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of with the above directions.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.No costs.17.12.2019 pgp Note: Issue order copy on 23.01.20202.State, Rep by Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai - 8, Now by ADGP EOW II Police, Chennai.http://www.judis.nic.in 15 N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.pgp C.M.A.Nos.1323 & 1324 of 2010http://www.judis.nic.in","['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.396/14 registered at P.S. Kailaras, District Morena, for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 147, 148, 149, 506 and 452 of IPC.As per prosecution case, the allegation against the applicants is that they alongwith co-accused armed with Lathi, Farsa entered in the house of the complainant and gave beating to him.This is first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have falsely been implicated in the case.They have not committed any offence.Except the offence under Section 452 of IPC, other offences are bailable.In fact, the complainant party gave beating to the applicant party after entering in their house and on the report of Bharat, cross-case bearing Crime No.395/14 for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 147, 148, 149, 294, 323 and 506-B of IPC has been registered against the 2 M.Cr.C. No.1 1 8 0 7 / 2 0 1 4 complainant party.Just to exert pressure for compromise, the complainant party has lodged this case against the applicants and others.Applicant No.1 is a government servant and applicants No.2 and 3 are students and there is no likelihood of their absconsion.In such premises, applicants prayed for bail.2 M.Cr.C. No.1 1 8 0 7 / 2 0 1 4The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and they will co-operate in the investigation.They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub- section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.This order shall remain operative for a period of sixty days and during this period the applicants are free to move the regular bail application before the concerned Court.","['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are the accusedNo.1,3 to 10, to quash the private complaint in C.C.No.164 of 2009 on the fileof the Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandi and to pass such other orders.2.The brief facts in the petitioners' case are as follows:(i) The complainant/respondent had filed a private complaint againstthe petitioners and one another for the offences under Sections 120(B), 323, 494and 506(ii) read with 34 I.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate,Boothapandi and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.164 of 2009 on 15.09.2009issued summons were issued to the petitioners.(ii) The marriage between the 1st respondent and the complainantwas solemnized on 29.01.2001 as per Christian rites and customs and they havebeen blessed with a child.After the birth of the child, the respondentattempted to commit suicide on many occasions and she had also threatened thatshe would implicate the 1st petitioner and his parents and sister in a dowrydemand case.On 26.11.2002, the respondent has taken all her jewels andvaluable goods and gone to Azhagiapandiyapuram.(iii) In the complaint it has been stated that the 1st petitionerwas living an illegal life with the 2nd petitioner and on 02.08.2009, the 2ndpetitioner and the 1st petitioner were changing a ring and garland in thepresence of the petitioners 3 to 10 and the other petitioners using filthylanguage against the respondent.(iv) The mother of the respondent often visited the house of the 1stpetitioner and ill advised her and hence, the 1st petitioner had filed apetition in I.D.O.P.No.222 of 2002 for restitution of conjugal rights before theDistrict Court, Nagercoil and in that petition, the 1st petitioner and therespondent made an endorsement that both of them were ready and willing to livetogether.However, the 1st petitioner had filed a divorce petition pendingbefore the District Judge, Nagercoil in I.D.O.P.No.63 of 2005 and the respondenthad filed a maintenance petition in M.C.No.4 of 2008 and the same is alsopending before the Judicial Magistrate, Boothapandi.(v) The respondent gave a false complaint against me and the petitioners 3to 10 for demanding dowry before the All Women Police Station, Nagercoil and thematter has been posted before the Social Welfare Officer, Kanniyakumari andafter verifying the records, the District Social Welfare Officer passed an orderon 03.11.2009 stating that there was no such action was necessary against the1st petitioner and the complainant has foisted the case against the petitioners.Therefore, theyhave approached this Court with the present application.3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learnedcounsel appearing for the respondents.6.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant wouldsubmit in his argument that the complaint was lodged by therespondent/complainant, seeking for taking action against the petitioners 1, 3to 10 and also the 2nd accused for committing offence under Sections 120(B),323, 494, 506(ii) read with 34 I.P.C. for the offence committed by all theaccused on 02.08.2009, when they were solemnizing the marriage in between the1st petitioner and the 2nd accused at the house of the 5th petitioner (6thaccused).He would also submit that the offences were committed against thedefacto complainant and her mother, by assaulting on the left cheek of therespondent/complainant by the 1st accused and other accused had abused both thecomplainant and her mother and threatened to kill them with dire consequenceswith iron rod in their hands and the 1st petitioner/1st accused and the 2ndaccused were found as bride and bridegroom,, by wearing garlands and they havealso exchanged garlands and the 1st accused put ring to the 2nd accused with thehelp of other accused and all other accused have joined with accused 1 and 2 incompleting the marriage rituals, while the respondent/complainant, the wife ofthe 1st accused was alive.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.",['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
"No.34 akd [ALLOWED] C. R. M. 3968 of 2019 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 08.04.2019 in connection with Dum Dum Police Station Case No. 919 dated 25.09.2016 under Sections 341/354B/308/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re: Nishit Chakraborty & Anr.... ... Petitioners Mr. Somopriyo Chowdhury .. Advocate Mr. Ayan Chakraborty .. Advocate Mr. H. R. Singh .. Advocate ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Rudradipta Nandy .. Advocate ... ... for the State Heard the learned advocate appearing for both the parties.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there was a free fight between the co-owners of a multistoried apartment.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the accused/petitioners, namely (1) Nishit Chakraborty & (2) Runu Chakraborty @ Runa Das @ Mimi Das, be 2 released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that they shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a fortnight from date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This petition is filed for quashing the proceedings in respect ofthe petitioners in C.C.No.209 of 2012 on the file of the Court of JudicialMagistrate, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District.2.The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.209 of 2012 onthe file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirupathur.The petitioners werethe elected President and Vice President of Piramanampatti Village Panchayat.The complaint wasregistered in Crime No.40 of 2009 for offences punishable under Sections477(A), 408 and 409 of I.P.C. After completing investigation, the Inspectorof Police, Thirukostiyoor Police Station, filed charge sheet and the case wastaken on file in C.C.No.209 of 2012 for offences punishable under Section477A, 408 and 409 of I.P.C. Challenging the proceedings, the above CriminalOriginal Petition has been filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 who were thePresident and Vice President of Piramanampatti Village Panchayat.The FirstInformation Report as well as the charge sheet would disclose specificallegations that the petitioners and the Panchayat Clerk have jointlymisappropriated a sum of Rs.5,14,000/-.In this case, the petitioners areentrusted with the funds allotted by the Central Government under a scheme.The administrators of the fund, the petitioners are liable to account for theGovernment.Since the allegation is that the petitioners havemisappropriated the funds, they are liable to be prosecuted for the offenceof misappropriation.This may be a factor that can be pointed out on behalf of the petitioners indefence to escape from the penal liability after full-fledged trial.Hence,preserving liberty to the petitioners to raise all these factual contentionsbefore the trial Court at the time of trial, this Criminal Original Petitionis dismissed.Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition isclosed.1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District .2.The Inspector of Police, Thirukostiyoor Police Station, Sivagangai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.","['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"6 It is not disputed that the accused persons are known to Puran (PW 1), Premchand (PW 2), Ramlal (PW 3) and Heera Bai (PW 8).7 The prosecution case in brief is that complainant Puran (PW 1) along with his wife Heera Bai (PW 8) and his son were planting Singhara.The accused/appellant Gorelal, his sister Munni and mother Rambo Bai stopped the complainant to plant Singhara.The complainant Puran (PW 1) when did not pay any heed to the accused Gorelal, he inflicted injury on his head by means of wooden stick (danda).Puran (PW 1) sustained injuries and blood came out.His wife and son also received injuries caused by co-accused Rambo Bai and Munni.They also abused the complainant by obscene words.They even threatened the complainant.Thereby criminal intimidation was caused.Shankar Dheemar and other persons came to save the complainant.The complainant then went to Police Chauki Matguma and lodged report.They were sent to hospital for medical examination.There are numbers of contradictions, omissions and improvements.13 The injury, therefore, should be grievous in nature and caused by the accused with the knowledge that the hurt so caused likely to be grievous.(17.08.2017) Law clearly expects the appellate Court to dispose of the appeal on merits, not merely by perusing the reasoning of the trial Court in the judgment but by cross-checking the reasoning of the evidence on record.It is the duty of the appellant and his lawyer to remain present on the appointed day, time and place, when the appeal is posted for hearing.2 The law does not enjoin that the Court shall adjourn the case if both the appellant and his lawyer are absent.In the case of Bani Singh and Others Vs.State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 2439, the Apex Court while dealing with Section 386 of Cr.P.C held that when appellant and his lawyer are absent on appointed for hearing, the Court is not bound to adjourn the case, but should dispose of appeal on merits.The dismissal of appeal simpliciter for non-prosecution is not contemplated.3 In a similar case of K.S. Panduranga Vs.State of Karnataka, 2013 Cr.L.J 1665 the Apex Court has held that it cannot be said that the Court cannot decide a criminal appeal in the absence of the counsel for the accused, even if the counsel does not appear deliberately or shows negligence in appearing.4 This criminal appeal is pending since 1997, but none appeared on behalf of the appellant.Therefore, in view of aforesaid enunciation of law, the appeal is being decided.5 This appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Gorelal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C challenging the judgment dated 19.12.1997, passed by 1st A.S.J, Chhatarpur, in S.T. No. 175/1993, wherein the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 325 of I.P.C and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months.The wife of complainant- Heera Bai (PW 8) and son- Premchand (PW 2) received simple injuries whereas the complainant Puran has received grievous injury.8 After due investigation, charge sheet has been filed under Sections 294, 323/34 506-B, 325 and 307 of I.P.C. The appellant and accused Rambo Bai and Munni abjured guilt.According to them, the complainant Puran, on the instigation of Ramlal and Ramsahay, has given the false evidence.The land in which the complainant- Puran was cultivating Singhara, was cultivated by the appellant/accused in the previous years.The appellant is innocent.The appellant has been falsely implicated.9 Learned trial Court after having adduced the prosecution evidence has acquitted all the accused person for offence under Sections 294, 323/34, 506- B, 307/34 of I.P.C. But has convicted the appellant Gorelal for offence under Section 325 of I.P.C and sentenced as aforementioned.The co-accused Rambo Bai and Munni Bai were given the benefit of doubt and have been acquitted, for offence under Section 325 of I.P.C. 10 The appellant has assailed the judgment impugned on the ground that the appellant is innocent.The conviction of appellant is bad in the eyes of law.The prosecution has failed to prove the offfence beyond reasonable doubts.Heera Bai (PW 8) and Premchand (PW 2) were examined after a lapse of a long time.The trial Court acquitted Munni Bai and Rambo Bai.The appellant is on the same pedestal, therefore, he also be acquitted.11 Perused the record.12 For constituting offence under Section 325 of I.P.C, it is necessary that:-(i) There should be injury to the complainant;(ii) The injury is of grievous hurt;Police Chauki Matgua along with a requisition brought complainant Puran for examination.He examined the complainant and found that there is a lacerated wound 2x2 muscle deep on the scalp.There was bleeding.The injury was caused by hard and blunt object.He advised for x-ray of skull and referred to the specialist.According to him, fracture was found on the parietal bone of right side of Puran (PW 1).15 This evidence reveals that the complainant Puran (PW1) sustained grievous injury on his head by hard and blunt object.There is nothing on record to suspect the above evidence.16 Puran (PW 1) has stated that he along with his wife (PW 2) and son Premchand (PW 8) were planting Singhara when the accused persons came there.The accused persons had the reason to dispute the plantation of Singhara because this land was given to the accused persons earlier on patta.Subsequently, the complainant Puran was asked to do the plantation of Singhara on the same land.According to Puran, (PW 1) the 'Patta' was given to him and he was planting Singhara.There was no eminent danger to save his person or property.Therefore, he ought to have restrained himself and he should have taken the recourse to lodge report or solve the dispute in the Panchayat.17 The statement of Puran (PW 1) has been found support from Premchand (PW 2), Heera Bai (PW 8).18 According to him, the accused- Gorelal had given a blow on the head of Puran (PW 1).Ramlal has admitted his signature in the seizure memo Ex. P/3 though he denies having such seizure in his presence.State of U.P. reported as 2012(5) SCC 777, the statement of Ramlal (PW 3) can be believed as regarding the seizure of wooden stick.Prakash Babu Sharma (PW 9) the Investigating Officer has clearly stated that by panchnama, Ex. P3, the wooden stick has been seized from the accused Gorelal.No reason to disbelieve the same.Though there are few contradictions and omissions, but these are natural and rules out the possibility of being tutored.20 Keeping in view the above circumstances, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant/accused has inflicted injury voluntarily to Puran and caused grievous hurt.23 With the above modification in conviction and sentence, the appeal is allowed in part.(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE awinash","['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This criminal revision has been preferred seeking to set aside the judgment dated 02.03.2013 passed in Crl.A. No.245 of 2011 by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.III), Coimbatore, confirming the judgment dated 19.10.2011 in C.C. No.69 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Palladam.http://www.judis.nic.in 2 2 Shorn of the minute details, the facts necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision are as under:2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 07.03.2008, around 5.45 p.m., the petitioner, who was driving a tempo van bearing Regn.TDI 6984 from West to East in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against one Revathy, resulting in her passing away.2.2 On the complaint lodged by Devi (P.W.1), the sister of the deceased Revathy, the respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.187 of 2008 and after completing the investigation, filed final report against the petitioner in C.C. No.69 of 2009 before the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.2.3 On the appearance of the petitioner, he was furnished with the copies of the relied upon documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the Trial Court framed charges against him under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.When questioned, the petitioner pleaded 'not guilty'.2.4 To prove their case, the prosecution examined six witnesses and marked seven exhibits.When the petitioner was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.http://www.judis.nic.in 3 2.5 The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, by judgment dated 19.10.2011, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:Provisions under which conviction was Sentence made One year simple imprisonment and fine of 304-A IPC Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment 2.6 Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Crl.A. No.245 of 2011 in the Court of Session and the same was heard by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Coimbatore and was eventually dismissed on 02.03.2013, questioning the legality and validity of which, the petitioner has preferred the instant criminal revision before this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.3 Heard Mr. Kumarasamy, learned counsel representing Mr.The case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of Devi (P.W.1), Revathy's sister.6 Devi (P.W.1) has stated that Revathy is her younger sister; on 07.03.2008, she and Revathy were going by walk from East to West to Angaliamman Temple; at that time, they saw a tempo van coming in the opposite direction at a high speed; seeing the said tempo van, they tried to move to the left side of the road; yet, the tempo van hit them both, due to which impact, Revathy was thrown a little away; they were taken to R.V.S. Hospital and were given first aid; from there, they were sent by an ambulance to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore, where, Revathy was declared brought dead; she gave a complaint (Ex.P.1) to the police.7 In the cross-examination, Devi (P.W.1) has stated that she suffered injuries on her right hand, for which, she took treatment in Maavani Hospital in Rasipalayam.She has admitted in her cross- examination that she stated in her complaint that the van first hit them and thereafterhttp://www.judis.nic.in capsized, after hitting a compound wall of a company nearby.It 6 was suggested to her that she was not there at the time of accident and that when her sister Revathy suddenly crossed the road without noticing the tempo van approaching towards her, the accident had occurred, which suggestion she denied.As per the evidence of P.W.1, they were walking along a village road from East to West direction.The road runs East to West.Vehicle was on the opposite direction.As observed by the Trial Court, the left side for the child will be on the South.The left for the accused on the side of the north.But from the sketch it is seen that the accident took place on the extreme southern edge of the road portion.Because it is within his special knowledge as to what prompted to him to go the extreme southern road portion leaving his direction.Absolutely there is no explanation.” The aforesaid reasoning of the lower Appellate Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse.9 Mr. Kumarasamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the identity of the petitioner has not been established, inasmuchhttp://www.judis.nic.in as Devi (P.W.1) has not stated that the petitioner was on the 7 wheels when the accident occurred and hence, the conviction and sentence made by the Courts below are liable to be set aside.In this regard, he placed reliance on the following judgments:In fact, Thirumeni (P.W.4), Inspector of Police, has stated in the chief-examination that on 19.03.2008, at 10.30 a.m., the petitioner himself voluntarily surrendered before the police and he was placed on arrest.In the upshot, this criminal revision stands partly allowed.","['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the F.I.Rdated 25.01.2007 in Cr.No.156 of 2007 on the file of the first respondent.The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition would run thus:Cr.No.156 of 2007 came to be registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and477-A, I.P.C, based on the complaint of the Tahsildhar as against thepetitioners herein.The nitty-gritty, the gist and kernel of the allegations as against thepetitioners are that as the power of attorney of some persons who are not realowners of the Government lands measuring 6 cents, he has chosen to enter into anagreement to sell with third parties by indulging in forgery and in fabricatingdocuments.The petitioner also committed similar offences relating to theGovernment lands.Based on that, the first petitioner was arrested and releasedon bail.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the action taken by thepolice, this petition is focussed on the main grounds as under:The petitioners/A.1 and A.2 did not sell any area in S.No.134/2 or in anyother sub division.The second petitioner herein, is the power of attorney ofone Mrs.The Natham settlementPatta No.575 issued by the Special Tahsildhar, stands in the names of the saidThangaraj and Veeranan in respect of the said 3 cents.So far no sale deed hasbeen executed by the petitioner on the strength of the power deeds and there isonly an agreement to sell exits and now it is also barred by limitation.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit at the time ofargument that those two persons they purchased it from one Balu who got the samefrom Lakshmana Pillai who was awarded with that land by the British Governmentfor his meritorious service.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would address this court on themain ground that absolutely there is no prima facie case made out in the F.I.Rand there is no question of cheating any one based on the agreement to sell.Neither the Tahsildhar nor the Government was approached so as to cause loss toany one.Accordingly, he prays for quashing the F.I.R.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would reiterate what are allfound specified in the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildhar.The warp andwoof of the counter is that after obtaining permission from the Collector only,the complaint was lodged; when the first petitioner on 25.01.2007 with anintention to get round seal with State emblem in a patta pass book, approachedthe Tahsildhar; the latter on seeing the forged signature of the Tahsildhar inthat patta pass book, developed suspicion and probed into the matter andthereby, informed the Collector, Madurai about it and on his instructions, heenquired with his officials and also with the officials of the RegistrationDepartment and found out that the first petitioner is involved in committing thecrimes of grabbing and scrounging the Government Poramboke lands especially, inS.No.134/2 of Madurai North Taluk, which is classified as Pudhukulam kanmaiPoramboke.It has to be seen at this juncture, whether there is any material toquash the F.I.R and the related proceedings?The perusal of the F.I.R would show that the Tahsildhar levelledallegations as against the first petitioner herein that he with the criminalintention, entered into agreement to sell with third parties so as to sell theGovernment land in the said Survey Number.It is also the allegation of theTahsildhar that the first petitioner only indulged in various other activitiesof fabricating pattas by forging the signatures of Revenue officials, etc.The main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for thepetitioners is that Section 420 I.P.C is in no way attracted as mere agreementto sell between the power of attorneys and third parties would not attractSection 420 I.P.C; the Tasildhar is not at all in any way concerned with this,whereas the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has correctly answered thatonce Government land is being attempted to be alienated by fabricatingdocuments, the Tahsildhar who is responsible for looking after the Governmentlands is entitled to lodge a complaint and in this case, the Tahsildhar lodgedthe complaint with the permission of the Collector.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is nofile relating to sanction.If that be so, there should be properevidence on that score and necessary expert opinion would also be required.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that thewitnesses who are examined by the police disowned their signatures in therelevant pattas and their statements have also been recorded.The Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned should call for the filefrom the Inspector of Police concerned and take up further investigation andduring such investigation, due opportunity should be given to the petitionersfor producing documents and the opinion of the hand writing expert shall beobtained and the matter should be processed accordingly.The learned Counsel for the petitioners in an extempore manner wouldpray that since this matter involves the future and welfare of the secondpetitioner, a time frame may be fixed to complete the investigation.",['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
"[Passed on 16 th Day of September, 2014] Per Shri S. K. Palo, J :-This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the detenu- Ajay Singh @ Deepu, seeking quashment of the order of detention dated 12th December, 2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Bhind and the subsequent order of Government of Madhya Pradesh, Home Department, Bhopal dated 25th January, 2014 (Annexure P-2).Both the orders were issued under the National Security Act, 1980 ( for brevity it is referred as ""the Act of 1980'').(2) The Superintendent of Police, Bhind filed a report before the District Magistrate, Bhind on 27-11-2013, stating that due to the criminal activities of the petitioner, the persons are not willing to come forward to record their evidence in criminal cases against the petitioner.Due to the activities of the petitioner, the peace of the area was in danger.The Superintendent of Police has mentioned the details of seven criminal cases registered against the petitioner, which are as follows:-No. Crime Nos. Offence under Sections Police Station1. 94/2010 307, 342, 34, 302 of IPC, Gormi Section 3(ii) of SC & ST Act.Superintendent of Police, Bhind, recorded the statements of the witnesses, namely, Station House Officers- Sunil Khemriya and Damodar Gupta, Police Station Gormi, District Bhind.The grounds are based, on the basis of registration of criminal cases against the petitioner.The matter was referred to the Advisory Board and the Board also recommended the detention of the petitioner under the Act of 1980 and consequently, the State Government vide order dated 25th January, 2014 (Annexure P-2) affirmed the detention order of the petitioner (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Bhind.(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of detention of the petitioner is illegal because the grounds for detaining the petitioner which have been taken, are baseless and without proper application of mind.(i) On the basis of false and bogus report, Crime No.94/2010 was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 307, 342, 34, 302 of IPC and Section 3(ii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner was granted bail vide order dated 21-05-2012 passed by this Court in M.Cr.(3 ) WP No. 3322/2014We, therefore, quash the impugned orders Annexure P-1 dated 12th December, 2013 and Annexure P-2, dated 25th January, 2014, allowing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.The petitioner be set at liberty at once, if not required, in any other case.Copy of this order be sent by the Registry of this Court for further transmission to the Secretary, Department of Home, Bhopal, MP for necessary action.","['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.477 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent police.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offences as alleged in the impugned FIR.He would further submit that the only allegation against the petitioner is that she came along with other accused.Other than that there is no allegations against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.2/4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.18501 of 2018Perused the materials available on record.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioner, which has to be investigated.Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts.Further, it cannot be quashed in the threshold.This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation.The investigating machinery has to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.Further the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.O.P.(MD).No.18501 of 2018 26.02.2020 4/4http://www.judis.nic.in","['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Kumar has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (""IPC"" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28/10/2011, at about, 8 p.m., when the prosecutrix was all alone in her house, respondent entered thereinto, caught her hand, tied her mouth with a piece of cloth and subjected her to rape and threatened to kill in case she divulged the incident to anyone.At this juncture, upon arrival of her husband and daughter from Harda, respondent fled from the window while leaving his Gamcha on the bed.On 30/10/11 report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Sirali and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to be interfered with.Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Deputy Advocate General, impugned judgment was perused.Prosecutrix (PW2) is a married woman.On the night of incident, her husband and daughter, quite unexpectedly, had come from Harda a day before and seeing her husband, the respondent had fled from the spot.Thereafter, prosecutrix was beaten by her husband.Dr. Rashmi Sharma (PW6), though noticed several injuries of Lathi on the thighs and buttocks of the prosecutrix, did not find any injury on her private parts.As per the evidence brought on record, these injuries were caused by her husband.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that prosecutrix was a consenting party and the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view.The application, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.","['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"& 466, 467, 468 and 420 read with 109 IPC., seeks to quash the said proceedings.Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with the above direction.Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.1. JM-II, Erode.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,Erode Town Police Station, Erode District.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Criminal Appeal No. 1136 of 2019 is admitted.The::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2020 06:18:38 ::: 2 Cri.489/2020 learned Addl.Public Prosecutor waives notice after admission.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2020 06:18:38 :::Criminal Application No. 489 of 2020 is filed for suspension of substantive sentence and for bail.Heard both the sides.Present applicants Sagar Vasudeo Patil (original accused No.2) and Sonya @ Sonu @ Lalit Ganesh Chaudhari (original accused No. 6) are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 149, 120-B, etc. of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment is given to them.They were on bail during the trial.This Court has carefully gone through the record of evidence.On that day, the informant was intercepted by accused Bobdya and Bobdya wanted to take informant to Chingyadada.When informant tried to escape, he was assaulted.The informant then called his father on mobile.His father and deceased brother Bhau rushed to the spot.Bhau had brought iron bar with him.Then the incident started.It is alleged that present two applicants came to the spot and they took part in the incident by pelting stones and by using fist blows and kicks.There is no allegation against them that they::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2020 06:18:38 ::: 3 Cri.489/2020 assaulted the deceased.There is no allegation against them that they had used dangerous weapon like knife.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2020 06:18:38 :::The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor submitted that when there was an unlawful assembly aforesaid participation is sufficient for using Section 149 of I.P.C. against these applicants.He is heard on the point of use of Section 120-B of I.P.C. also.This Court is avoiding to discuss the evidence given for proving section 120-B of I.P.C. Other relevant facts are already mentioned in that regard.In view of the nature of the aforesaid material available against these applicants and as the applicants were granted bail during the trial, this Court holds that it is not desirable to keep behind bars the applicants till disposal of the appeal.It is not certain as to how much time will be requried for disposal of the appeal.In the result, the following order.The application is allowed.The substantive sentence against the applicants is hereby suspended, subject to deposit of the fine amount.After deposit of the fine amount, the applicants are to be released on bail on their furnishing PR and SB of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty thousand only), by each of them.They may give one or more sureties.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2020 06:18:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2020 06:18:38 :::4 Cri.Criminal Application No. 1027 of 2020, which was filed for parole and which could not have been allowed, is hereby disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2020 06:18:38 :::","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"ARDR CRR 2497 of 2017 + CRAN 4779 of 2017 Banwari Lal Sharma & ors.State of West Bengal & anr.Mr. Sudipto Moitra, Sr.Adv., Mr. Vijay Verma, ...for the petitioners.Mr. Sanjay Banerjee, Mr. Abhishek Vora, ...for the Pvt. O.P.Ms. Anasuya Sinha, ...for the State.The matter was heard at length today.Thereafter, an appeal has been preferred before the Hon'ble High Court at Jaipur.Before coming to the conclusion, the said High Court has called the parties to undergo mediation proceeding.Thereafter the mediation took place, but result was abortive.He further contended that the alleged incident took place at Jaipur where the petitioner no.1 had been working.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private opposite party contended that there was persistent torture inflicted upon the victim/de 2 facto complainant.Even she was not taken care of while she was pregnant for the second time.When Doctor advised her for surgical operation, the present petitioner no.1 had expected normal delivery leaving aside the advise of the Doctor.According to him this is also a glaring example of perpetrated torture.Learned counsel appearing for the State has produced the Case Diary and from the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.",['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Accused Nos. 2 to 9 are persons who are controlling the business affairs of the accused No. 1 and are in-charge of and responsible to the accused No. 1 company for the conduct of the business thereof.JUDGMENT J.P. Singh, J.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the summoning order dated 27.7.1999 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act passed by Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi, and order dated 10.2.2005 also passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, declining to recall the summoning order.I have heard Ms. CM.Chopra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Shobha, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Ms. Santosh Kohli, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the point of admission, and have gone through the copies of the documents placed on the file.The accused No. 1 was granted financial assistance for procuring raw material.The said cheque was dishonoured because the accused had closed the account meaning thereby that the accused knew that the cheque would be dishonoured.Notice was sent but in vain.I have also gone through the summoning order dated 27.7.1999 wherein the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after hearing and perusing the record, was of the opinion that prima facie case was made out and accordingly summoned the accused persons.Accused No. 7, who is the petitioner before this Court, for the first time moved an application dated 5.3.2004, i.e. after more than four years, for recall of the summoning order.","['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.Certified copy, as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.10.18 16:31:18 +05'30'",['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 22.4.2014 relating to Crime No.163/14 registered at Police Station Mada, District Singrauli for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 354-A of the IPC and Section 8 of the POSCO Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is youth of 19 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Though, case is triable by the Special Judge but looking to the charges framed against the applicant, no offence is punishable for more than three years.Though, charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 305 of the IPC but the trial Court did not frame the said charge.Under such circumstances, if the applicant is not released on bail, his future will be spoiled with the bad company of harden criminals inside the jail.He is unnecessarily kept in the custody.Consequently, the applicant prays for bail.Learned P.L. for the State opposes the application.He submits that the charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 305 of the IPC.Also the learned Special Judge did not mention any reason in the order dated 12.6.2014 as to why the charge under Section 305 of the IPC is not framed against the applicant therefore looking to the gravity of the offence, he may not be released on bail.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj",['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Prosecution witnesses Kaushalya (PW-2) and Ashish (PW-3) were minor children of the couple, who were in their early teens.Sumrati Bai (PW-5) has a field adjacent to that of accused Chhotelal.At about 11;00 a.m. on 2.2.2006, accused Chhotelal and deceased Rampayari Bai were in their field.Their minor children Kaushalya (PW-2) and Ashish (PW-3), who were 12 and 13 years old respectively, were also present.Sumrati Bai (PW-5) was working in her field along with Tijjo Bai @ Tidko Bai (PW-6) and Suhaga Bai (PW-7).At that time, accused Chhotelal started to beat his wife with wooden handle of a pickaxe.When Sumrati Bai tried to intercede on behalf of deceased Rampayari Bai, the accused Chhotelal told her off by claiming that Rampayari Bai was his wife; therefore, he was entitled to do anything to her and Sumrati Bai had no right to intervene in the matter.He chased Sumrati Bai away.The accused inflicted 11 wounds upon the deceased.As a result, she died on the spot.The accused dumped her body on the embankment between his field and that of Sumrati Bai and left.(19-06-2017) Per C.V. Sirpurkar, J:This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 12.1.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mandla, District Mandla in Sessions Trial No. 47/2006, whereby accused/appellant Chhotelal was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. for committing murder of his wife Rampayari Bai and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 500/-.In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.The prosecution case before the trial Court may be summarized as hereunder: Deceased Rampayari Bai was wife of accused Chhotelal.Thereafter, Ashish, son of the accused, reported the matter to Darniya Bai, who lodged the FIR in Police Station Mandla at about 6:30 p.m. the same day.During investigation, on the disclosure statement made by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, handle of the pickaxe was recovered from his possession.During serological examination conducted in Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, human blood was found on handle of the pickaxe.The trial Court framed a charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against the accused.He abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.In his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he stated that he was innocent and the prosecution witnesses had falsely implicated him for claiming Rs.20,000/- from the Panchayat.The trial Court held that prosecution had succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Rampayari Bai had died a homicidal death as a result of shock caused by multiple injuries over her body.Aforesaid injuries were caused by the accused with intent to cause her death; therefore, appellant was convicted and sentenced as herein above stated.During the course of arguments, no serious challenge has been mounted on behalf of the appellant with regard to the finding that the appellant had caused death of accused Rampayari Bai by inflicting multiple blows with handle of a pickaxe.Learned counsel for the appellant has specifically invited attention of the Court to the cross- examination of Kaushalya (PW-2), the daughter of the couple, who had admitted therein that at the time of the incident, her mother had consumed alcohol and was in an inebriated state.Her father had taken meals to the field for her and was trying to cajole her to take the same.However, she refused; whereon, her father remonstrated with her that she consumes liquor and creates a scene Thereafter, he had struck a blow to her head with handle of the pickaxe.In view of aforesaid admission made by Kaushalya Bai (PW-2) in her cross-examination, it has been contended that no intention by the appellant to cause death of his wife was discernible in the facts and circumstances of the case.Consequently, it has been prayed that the conviction of the appellant be converted from the Section 302 of the I.P.C. to Section 304 (Part- II) thereof and the sentence of life imprisonment be reduced to the period undergone by the appellant in custody.Learned Penal Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has supported the impugned judgment on the ground that 4 Cr.A.No.271/2007 appellant had intentionally caused such injuries to his wife as were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.On perusal of the record and due consideration of rival contentions, we are of the view that this criminal appeal against conviction must fail for the reasons hereinafter stated:It may be noted at the outset that the case of the prosecution is based upon the solid foundation of as many as 5 eye witnesses.Though minor, two of them are children of the appellant.Third eye witness Sumrati Bai owns the field which is adjacent to that of the appellant.Remaining two witnesses Tijjo Bai (PW-6) and Suhaga Bai (PW-7) had gone to the field of Sumrati Bai as labourers.As such, their presence on the spot was quite natural.None of the aforesaid witnesses can be said to have any axe to grind against the appellant.In aforesaid backdrop, when we examined the statements of eye witnesses, we find that all five of them have supported the prosecution case.Sum and substance of their testimony is that Kaushalya Bai (PW-2) and Ashish (PW-3) were present at their parent's field along with deceased Rampayari Bai and appellant Chhotelal.Sumrati (PW-5), Tijjo Bai (PW-6) and Suhaga Bai (PW-7) were also present in the field of Sumrati Bai.At that time, the appellant assaulted the deceased with wooden handle of a pickaxe and caused numerous injuries to her on head, face, chest, stomach and thigh.Kaushalya Bai and Ashish tried to protect their mother but the appellant chased them away.Sumrati Bai (PW-5), Tijjo Bai (PW-6) and Suhaga Bai (PW-7) tried to intercede on behalf of the deceased but the appellant did not pay any heed to them.He threatened to beat Sumrati Bai.Unable to watch this merciless thrashing, Sumrati Bai and her companions went away.During cross-examination and arguments before the trial Court, learned counsel for the appellant had tried to contrive discrepancy by contending that some of the witnesses have stated that the injuries were caused by the handle of a 'gaiti' and some others 5 Cr.A.No.271/2007 have stated that injuries was caused by the handle of a 'kudali'; however, it has rightly been held by the trial Court that there is no basic difference between the handle of 'gaiti' on one hand and handle of a 'kudali' on the other.The thickness of the handle depends upon the central hole of the iron piece of the implement.Whether Chhotelal had accompanied the deceased to the field at 7:00 a.m. or had gone there later at 11:00 a.m. with his daughter, is immaterial.Moreover, Kaushalya Bai was a 12 years old rustic child.As such, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of 5 eye witnesses, who have all supported the prosecution case, as none of them springs from a tainted source.Thus, the trial Court was perfectly justified in placing reliance upon the aforesaid 5 eye witnesses and holding that it was appellant Chhotelal, who had inflicted 11 injuries that were found on the person of the deceased.In such a situation, it would be natural for any husband to get annoyed; however, the moot question is whether every annoyance caused by a wife amounts to provocation to her husband giving him license to beat her mercilessly with a dangerous weapon? The answer to this question would be an emphatic and resounding no.There were three other injuries in the chest and stomach region.As a result, the liver had been ruptured.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In the event he fails to appear before the trial court without justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail automatically without reference to this court.The application being CRM 5009 of 2019 is disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT Amar Saran, J.This criminal revision has been filed for challenging the order dated 2.9.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. 2, Bijnor allowing the application moved by the complainant-opposite party No. 2 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to re-examine Rakesh Kumar and Virendra Singh in S.T. No. 220 of 2002 (State v. Deepak and Ors.), under Sections 302/324 IPC, police station Haldaur, district Bijnor.The revisionist Deepak along with two other co-accused Chandu and Sumer had been arrayed as accused in the FIR dated 18.5.2001, which alleged that the incident had taken place on 18.5.2001 at about 9 P.M. where the brother of the informant Madan was murdered by the accused persons including the revisionist.The role of the revisionist was to give a knife blow on the chest of the deceased while the other co-accused Chandu and Sumer were assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased at the time of incident.However, when the witnesses appeared in court, they turned hostile.An application ext.Kha 85, which contained a copy of a report in case No. 467 C of 2003 under Sections 452/504/506 IPC lodged at police station Haldaur, which alleged that the accused Sumer and Chandu (who have been granted bail in the present case) armed with country made pistols had intimidated and threatened the witness Rakesh Kumar on 25.7.2003 at 6 P.M. and had exerted pressure on them to turn hostile in the murder case.It was on account of this threat, that the witnesses could not give the true version in the court because there was such a great terror of the accused persons.On account of this application and the FIR in case crime No. 467 C of 2003, the impugned order had been passed by the Additional Sessions Judge FTC No. 2, Bijnor.The principal ground for challenging the impugned order was that the application had been moved by O.P. No. 2 on 25.8.2004, i.e. after one year of the examination of the witnesses PW.","['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The factual matrix of the case is as follows:The FIR of the instant case was lodged with police on 16.6.2005 at 14.15 P.M.while the incident took place on 16.6.2005 at about 12.30 hours.According to the FIR version the marriage of daughter of the informant Zeenat Perveen was solemnized on 27.12.2002 with Mohd. Rashid s/o Mohd. Kadar Kuraishi.According to the FIR, sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage but Mohd. Rashid husband of the deceased, Shakir Jeth, Mother-in-law Chhoti, Gulabo sister-in-law of the deceased, Shamshuddin brother-in-law of the deceased were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage.An additional demand of dowry was raised regarding Motor Cycle, Colour T.V.and a cash of Rs. 2 Lakhs.The informant and family members tried to convince them on the score of additional dowry but it had no effect.The deceased, daughter of the informant was ousted from the house on certain occasions.There was Community Reconciliation even it yielded no result.Approximately 15 to 20 days prior to the incident before the death of the deceased, filthy abuses were given to her and threat to her life was extended and she was ousted from the house.Thereafter on 14.6.2005 the accused persons visited the house of informant and assured that they would not make any demand of additional dowry in future nor would subject the deceased to cruelty or misbehaviour.Again they pressed their demand for additional dowry just second day when the daughter of the informant reached to her matrimonial home.On 16.6.2005 at about 12.30 hours, the informant received information that his daughter has been murdered by hanging.After receiving the information he along with his son and others visited the daughter's matrimonial home.The accused persons fled away from the spot after seeing the informant and others.The deceased was pregnant and was shortly expected to deliver a child.The corpus of the deceased daughter of the informant was lying there.The FIR was lodged.After registration of the FIR the investigation proceeded.Inquest was prepared and certain documentation was done for the purposes of post-mortem examination of the corpus of the deceased.A recovery memo was prepared with respect to articles recovered from the deceased.By way of additional statement he has stated that his wife was very short tempered.She wanted goad bharai rasam of her child at her parents' home which he declined.Hon'ble Raghvendra Kumar,J.(Per Raghvendra Kumar, J. )Under assail in the instant Criminal Appeal is the judgment and order dated 19.5.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10 Aligarh in S.T.No. 943 of 2005 ( State Vs.Rashid and others ) arising out of Case Crime No. 158 of 2005 under sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C., Police Station Delhi Gate, District Aligarh whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 304-B I.P.C.and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation for further imprisonment of one year and further convicted for the offence under section 498A I.P.C.and sentenced to R.I.for two years and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation for simple imprisonment for one month.He has also been convicted for the offence under section 315 I.P.C.and sentenced to R.I.for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation of simple imprisonment for two months.He has further been convicted for the offence under section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to R.I.for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation with simple imprisonment for one month.Heard Dr. Arun Kumar Srivastava and Ms. Poonam Nigam, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.for the State of U.P.The post mortem of the body was done.After recording the statements of the witnesses and collecting the evidence, the investigation culminated into filing of police report in the shape of charge sheet.After complying with the procedure contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned court below the accused Rashid s/o Kadar , Rashid s/o Nanhey, Shakir, Shamsuddin were charged for the offence under sections 498-A, 304-B and 315 I.P.C.read with ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act.The accused persons denied the prosecution case, claimed themselves innocent and taken plea of false implication.To substantiate the charge the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Mohd. Hanif, P.W.2 Bhuri, P.W.3 Mohd. Chand, P.W.4 Abdul Salam, P.W.5 Abdul Wahid, P.W.6 Anwar, P.W.7 Constable Dhirendra Singh who has proved the execution of chick FIR and relevant entry in G.D.P.W.8 Dr. V.K.Gupta has conducted autopsy of the corpus of the deceased Zeenal Perveen and has noted following ante mortem injuries:-(i) Ligature mark 9 cm x 1 cm on Lt.side neck upper part .(ii) Multiple abrasion on Rt.side neck 8 cm x 3 cm in size.(iii) Contusion 4 cm x 3 cm on Lt. Side abdomen 17 cm below Left nipple.On internal examination, the Doctor has noted presence of blood out side of both the lungs, lungs were found congested.Trachea was not found fractured.There was presence of blood in abdominal cavity.100 ml of water was found in stomach.Spleen was found ruptured.There was triangular lacerated wound on the spleen.The deceased was having pregnancy of 8 ½ months.Cause of death has been assigned Asphyxia, shock & haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injury.9. P.W.8 Dr. V.K.Gupta has proved the execution of autopsy report.The husband Mohd. Rashid has admitted marriage with Zeenat Perveen.He has denied rest of the allegations and has disclaimed the knowledge with respect to the material put to him which appeared during course of trial.He further stated that he went to purchase some items from the market and when he came back he found the deceased lying on the bed in unconscious condition.A Dhoti was found wrapped in her neck.He took her to the hospital where she was declared dead and she was taken back to the house and kept there.The rest of the accused persons also denied about material put to them which appeared during the course of the trial and also disclaimed knowledge.After conclusion of the trial, the accused-appellant Rashid s/o Kadar was convicted and rest of the accused namely, Shakir, Rashid s/o Nanhey and Shamshuddin were acquitted.It has been submitted on behalf of the accused appellant that he does not want to press the appeal on merits and has submitted that the accused appellant is in jail and he prayed for mercy of the Court.Being Court of first appeal, the Court is obliged to scrutinize the evidence which is available on record and to see that the learned Court below has rightly recorded the finding of conviction on the basis of the material available on record.In the instant case, the P.W.1 Mohd. Hanif is father of the deceased whose daughter has been murdered by hanging by her neck.He has categorically stated that the marriage of his daughter Zeenat Perveen was solemnized with Mohd. Rashid son of Kadar about 3 years and 8 months back.He had given sufficient items in the dowry at the time of marriage of her daughter but the husband and his family members ,namely, Shakir, Chhoti, Gulabo, Shamshuddin and Rashid son of Nanhey were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage.The accused persons allegedly assaulted his daughter on occasions after marriage and even they ousted her from the house.Additional demand of dowry for Colour T.V., Motor Cycle and a cash of Rs. Two lakhs was made on which the informant complainant tried to convince to the husband and in- laws of the daughter.There was a Community Reconciliation effort even in the presence of those members the demand of Motor cycle, Colour T.V. and a cash of Rs. 2 Lakhs was reiterated.They did not agree to the suggestion of the Panchayat.15 to 20 Days prior to the incident the daughter was physically assaulted, abused and was even ousted from the house due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.The deceased Zeenat Perveen residing with her parents for 10 - 12 days.Thereafter accused persons again took away the daughter of the informant to their house.On 16.6.2005, the informant received the message that his daughter was hanged and murdered by the accused persons.The witness P.W.1 has stated that the deceased had ligature mark in her neck.She was having pregnancy of 8 ½ months.He further stated that whenever the deceased came to her parents' house, she used to complain of conduct of the accused persons regarding demand of additional dowry and subjecting her to cruelty and misbehaviour on the score of dowry.Before appreciating the evidence, it is essential to appreciate the ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. These ingredients are as under:Thus the appeal deserves to be partly allowed on the quantum of sentence.( Raghvendra Kumar, J.) (S.V.S.Rathore,J.)","['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The present Criminal Appeal has been filed impugning the judgment dated 18.05.2013 and order on sentence dated 27.05.2013 passed by the Ld. District and Sessions Judge (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in FIR No.77/2001 (SC No. 30/10/08) whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC') and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-.In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.The Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 1 of 29 appellant was further convicted for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 120B of the IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-.In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 120B of the IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 1 of 292. Facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that on 17.03.2001 at about 9:30 AM an information was received vide DD No.12A about two dead bodies lying in a garbage bin, B-2, Mayur Vihar Phase-III.On receipt of the said information, SI Sanjay Gupta along with Ct.Vipin (PW27) and Ct.Bale Ram (PW26) reached the spot where upon inquiry it was revealed that one person had already been removed to LBS Hospital by PCR Van and the dead body of one person was still lying in the garbage bin.Inspector Ashwini Kumar (PW10) along with his staff reached at the spot.Vipin (PW27) was left at the spot to safeguard the same while SI Sanjay along with Inspector Ashwani Kumar (PW10) reached LBS Hospital and an injured person was found admitted in the hospital vide MLC No.823/01 and he was declared unfit for statement.The Doctor handed Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 2 of 29 over sealed pulandas containing rope and sweater which were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.Crime Team was called at the spot.ASI Om Prakash (PW18) took photographs which are Ex.PW12/A-1 to A-7 of which negatives are Ex.SI Jawahar Singh (PW5) was the in charge of the PCR van that reached the scene of crime after receiving information and on his pointing out, Site Plan Ex.PW23/A was prepared.A blood stained brick, blood sample, blood scattered on the wall and other blood samples were seized from the scene of crime vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW18/C. Dead body of the deceased was shown to public persons for the purpose of identification but its identity could not be established.Inquest papers Ex.PW23/B were prepared and the dead body was shifted to the Mortuary vide application which is Ex.PW23/C.In the meanwhile, injured was referred to GTB Hospital where he regained consciousness and informed that his name was Munna Lal and provided the telephone number of his brother- in-law Rakesh who was then called in the hospital.The brother- in-law of the injured identified him as Munna Lal (PW1).One Banwari Lal (PW24) telephonically informed that his driver Banwari Lal Vyas (deceased) had gone to Delhi in Jeep No. RJ Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 3 of 29 14 5C 1853 and had not returned.PW1 Munna Lal was declared fit for statement and his statement was recorded in which he stated that Dheeraj (co- accused) had come to him in Jaipur along with his three associates on 16.03.2001 and had asked for a vehicle along with driver to carry drums from Jaipur to Delhi.One Mahindra Marshal Jeep along with driver Banwari Lal Vyas (deceased) was deputed for this purpose.He further stated that in Delhi, co- accused Dheeraj along with other accused bought food for everyone and everyone had food outside co-accused Dheeraj's brother-in-law's house at Kondli.He further stated that two chemical drums were unloaded at co-accused Dheeraj's Brother-in-law's house and after having their meal everyone sat in the Jeep and on the way he became unconscious.He stated that he suspects that the appellant along with his three co- accused had murdered Banwari Lal in order to steal the vehicle.On the basis of this statement, a search was carried out at the house where the drums were dropped off by the accused.One Poonam wife of Sanjay Verma was found at this house and she informed that on the intervening night of 16/17.03.2001, one Chottu and Kala accompanied by others had come to her house Crl.Coming to the first issue, the presence of the appellant with the deceased and PW1 throughout the journey from Jaipur to Delhi was sought to be established by the prosecution primarily through the testimony of PW1 Munna Lal.PW1 Munna Lal is no doubt the most important witness in the present case and his testimony needs to be analysed in detail and corroborated with other witnesses and evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant.PW1 Munna Lal in his examination in chief dated 19.09.2009 had deposed that on 16.03.2001 while he was working as an employee in Laghoo Udyog Sewa Sansthan (now changed to MSME Development Institute, Govt. Of India), some boys had worked for pest control in the same office.One Dhiraj @ Chotu (absconder) had approached him along with two of his associates to arrange a vehicle for taking chemical drums to Delhi.PW1 deposed that he initially took them to Chandra Travels but since no vehicle could be arranged at his place he then took them to Gangawat Travels where one Kamal who was a resident of his locality was also working.He further deposed that the owner of Gangawat Travels had initially refused to arrange a vehicle but on the insistence of Kamal he agreed to arrange a vehicle for Dhiraj @ Chotu.He further deposed that Crl.PW1 further deposed that he accompanied the appellant and his accomplices to Delhi on the insistence of Banwari Lal Vyas who said that he needed someone to help him during the journey and since no other person could be found, he agreed to accompany the driver.PW1 deposed that he informed his wife about the journey to Delhi and then the appellant and the co- accused along with the driver and PW1 proceeded to Delhi.He then deposed that Dhiraj purchased liquor and food for everyone from New Delhi Railway Station and then Dhiraj took everyone to his Jija's (brother in law) house where he brought the food he purchased in a tray and served it to the driver Banwari Lal Vyas and himself.He further deposed that two drums out of the four that they were carrying were dropped off at the above mentioned house.In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.PW18/A. On the basis of the DD entry, rukka Ex.PW18/B was prepared on DD No.12A which is Ex.PW16/A. Duty Officer ASI Gurtej Singh (PW9) recorded FIR No.77/2001 which is Ex.PW16/B.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 2 of 29On 21.03.2001, one Babu Lal along with Satish Vyas and the owner of the vehicle Banwari Lal Punia came to the Police Station and identified the dead body of the deceased Banwari Lal Vyas in the mortuary.The Post-Mortem of the dead body was conducted by PW21 Dr. L.C Gupta who was already examined as PW17 in co-accused Dhirender Singh Tomar's case and the Post-Mortem Report prepared by him is Ex.PW17/B.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 3 of 29The Post-Mortem Report PW17/B shows the following internal and external injuries to the body of the deceased: i. Abraded bruises 3 x 2 cms at left side forehead.Skull, brain, meninges and cerebra vessels - both sides temporital muscles found contused; left side frontal sub scalp haemotoma +ve, subarcechenoid haemorrhage present over left side frontal region of brain (in 5 x 1 cm in are); congested.mesentery and oancrea - multiple loop formed contused with redish.sample, liver, kidney, spleen, sample of blood with swab Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 4 of 29 nail clipping of b/1 hand fingers scalp hair were collected for toxicological analysis.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 4 of 29PW21 testified that he was posted as Specialist (Forensic Medicines) at LBS Hospital on 21.03.2001 when the deceased was brought to the Hospital.He opined the cause of death to be asphyxia resulting from sustained and forceful contruction of neck with the help of ligature material which is sufficient to cause death, homicidal death in the ordinary course of nature.PW19 Dr. Tapasi Chatterjee prepared MLC of PW1 Munna Lal which is Ex.PW7/A. He described the following injuries on the body of PW1 Munna Lal:i. There was strangulation mark i.e. Single mark impression of the rope and at the front of the neck and lateral side with the know at the back.There was lacerated injury on the left side of the occiput measuring 7 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm.There was lacerated wound on the left side of frontal region measuring 5 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm, 4 cm above the left superior arbital margin.There was another lacerated wound of 3 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the lateral part of right eye.v. There was lacerated wound of 2 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm on the mideal canthus of right eye.There was abrasion wound of 2 cm x 2 cm on the right maxilla 2 cm below the inferior of orbital region.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 5 of 29There was sub conjunctival hemorrhage in the right eye.PW19 Dr. Tapasi Chatterjee opined that the injury no.1 which was a ligature mark on the neck due to strangulation was dangerous to life in general.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 6 of 29 to unload two chemical drums.This statement was corroborated by her husband Sanjay Verma who also produced two drums Ex.P-1 and P-2 which were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW4/A.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 6 of 29On 22.02.2008 an information was received that the appellant was lodged in Bareily Jail and an application for production of the appellant was moved by SI Pankaj Kumar (PW15) which is Ex.PW15/A. Custody of the appellant was obtained by SI Yogender Kumar (PW8) and the appellant was arrested vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW8/A. Lalit Kumar (PW16), the then Ld. MM conducted the TIP of the appellant vide Ex.PW16/A and issued a certificate Ex.PW16/B regarding the correctness of proceedings.During the TIP of the appellant, PW1 Munna Lal correctly identified the appellant.A supplementary charge sheet was filed against the appellant and charges under Section 120B and 302, 307, 392 read with Section 120B were framed against him.The prosecution examined 27 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the appellant.Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code') in which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The appellant in his statement under Section 313 denied the case of the prosecution without explaining any of the inculpatory circumstance produced against him.He further stated that he had already been shown to PW1 Munna Lal Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 7 of 29 before the TIP proceedings.The appellant was given the opportunity to lead defence evidence but he opted not to do so.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 7 of 29Ms. Rakhi Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned judgment was illegal and not based on a sound appreciation of facts and law and is therefore liable to be set aside.She further argued that the prosecution failed to examine the wife of PW1 Munna Lal to whom the he had allegedly informed about his travel along with the deceased and accused from Jaipur to Delhi.She had further argued that the Trial Court overlooked various contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of many witnesses which casts a serious doubt on the prosecution story.She further argued that the appellant was arrested on 22.02.2008 after a gap of more than seven years after the incident and his TIP was conducted on 25.03.2008 in which PW1 Munna Lal had failed to identify the appellant according to the statement of Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 8 of 29 the appellant under Section 313 of the Code.She further argued that statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code casts a serious doubt as to the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the crime.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 8 of 29Per contra, Ms. Radhika Kolluru learned APP had argued that the impugned judgment was based on sound legal principles and correct appreciation of evidence on record and therefore does not warrant interference.She further argued that the testimony of the PW1 Munna Lal who was present with the appellant throughout the entire journey from Jaipur to Delhi is corroborated by the evidence on record.She argued that PW1 Munna Lal was then brutally assaulted by the appellant and other co-accused and presumed to be dead which clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The appellant seeks to challenge the impugned judgment primarily on two grounds:-i. The presence of the appellant during the commission of the crime with the co-accused is under a serious doubt because of the various contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of PW1 and also because the prosecution failed to establish chain of events linking the appellant with the crime.The appellant stated in his statement under Section 313 of the Code that he had been shown to PW1 Munna Lal before his TIP was conducted and even Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 9 of 29 during the TIP he was not identified correctly by PW1 Munna Lal who was the most important witness in the case.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 9 of 29Appeal No.733/2016 Page 10 of 29 Dhiraj, Dalip (appellant) and two other persons chose one Marshal Vehicle bearing registration number RJ-14-5C-1852 and Banwari Lal Vyas (deceased) was chosen to be the driver for the journey.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 10 of 29He further deposed soon after having food he and Banwari Lal became unconscious and he regained consciousness in GTB Hospital where he realised that he was having injuries all over his body because of which he was in severe pain and that driver Banwari Lal Vyas was found dead in Mayur Vihar, Phase-III.He further deposed that his Titan wrist watch along with some documents and cash were stolen by the appellant and the co-Appeal No.733/2016 Page 11 of 29He further deposed that he suspected that the appellant and the co-accused had mixed a stupefying drug along with their food in order to rob the vehicle and other valuable properties.He further deposed that he was called to Tihar Jail on 25.03.2008 to identify the appellant.He had also identified co- accused Dhirender and the two drums which were dropped off by the appellant and the co-accused at the house of Sanjay Verma.He further deposed that the appellant was present in Court that day and he identified the other three accused.PW1 in his cross-examination deposed that he was sitting on the front seat with the driver Banwari Lal Vyas during the journey while the appellant was sitting behind him on the rear seat.The testimony of PW1 Munna Lal finds corroboration from the testimony of PW-24 Banwari Lal who was the owner of the Mahindra Jeep No. RJ 14-5C-1853 and he deposed in his examination in chief that he had deputed the said vehicle to Gangawat Travels.He testified that Banwari Lal Vyas (deceased) was the driver deputed for this vehicle.He further deposed that on 16.03.2001 the said vehicle was hired by someone through PW1 Munna Lal and when the vehicle was not returned till 18.03.2001, he went to PW1 Munna Lal's house where he was informed by PW1's wife that something had happened to the vehicle.He deposed that he was then called to Police Station New Ashok Nagar where he was informed that Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 12 of 29 his vehicle was missing and from there he was taken to a Hospital for the identification of the dead body of Banwari Lal Vyas.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 12 of 29The testimony of PW1 also finds strength from the testimony of PW-22 Raj Kumar who is the owner of Gangawat Travels.He deposed in his examination in chief that a vehicle bearing registration no. RJ 14-5C-1853 along with driver Banwari Lal Vyas (deceased) was hired by PW1 Munna Lal on 16.03.2001 on the guarantee of one driver Kamal.He further deposed that on 18.03.2001 he came to know that the driver of the said vehicle i.e. Banwari Lal Vyas had been murdered by someone.The MLC of PW1 Munna Lal also corroborates the case of the prosecution.The MLC of PW1 shows that he had received multiple injuries including ligature marks on his neck.PW-19 Dr. Tapas Chatterjee who was posted as the Casualty Medical Officer in LBS Hospital on 17.03.2001 examined PW1 when he was brought to the hospital and opined that there were strangulation marks which were a result of a rope being used for strangulation and this injury was dangerous to life in general.From the testimony of PW1 Munnal Lal, PW24 Banwari Lal and PW22 Raj Kumar, it is clearly established that the appellant along with the co-accused had accompanied PW1 and the deceased to Delhi after which the driver of the vehicle was found dead, PW1 was found seriously injured, the vehicle hired Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 13 of 29 from Jaipur was missing and the appellant along with his accomplices were found to be absconding.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 13 of 29This is primarily based on the appellant's statement under Section 313 of the Code where he stated that he had already been shown to PW1 and even then he had incorrectly identified him.To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 17 of 29 circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 17 of 29The prosecution has been able to prove the following chain of circumstance in a sequence:i. The appellant along with his co-accused had approached PW1 Munna Lal in Jaipur to arrange for a vehicle to transport chemical drums to Delhi.PW1 Munna Lal arranged a vehicle from the owner of Gangawat Travels i.e. PW-22 Raj Kumar for the appellant and his accomplices.The owner of the vehicle was PW-24 Banwari Lal.The deceased Banwari Lal Vyas was the driver of the said vehicle.After they reached Delhi around midnight, PW1 stated that co-accused Dhiraj purchased food and liquor from New Delhi Railway Station and they headed to the house of Sanjay Verma who was referred to as jija ji by co-accused Dhiraj in Kondli.v. After reaching Sanjay Verma's house after midnight on 17.03.2001, PW1 and the deceased were served food by Dhiraj and other co-accused.The appellant has offered no explanation to any of the inculpating evidence.He only stated in his statement under Section 313 of the Code that he has been falsely implicated and chose not to lead any defence evidence.The time gap between PW1 and the deceased before he was murdered being seen with the appellant and after they were found in the garbage dump is so proximate that no other inference can be drawn apart from holding the appellant guilty.In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lallu Manjhi's case (supra), the testimony of PW1 finds sufficient corroboration in the testimony of official witnesses as well as the medical and circumstantial evidence on record to hold the appellant guilty.The appellant has failed to explain the inculpating circumstances which would make the Court believe that any other inference can be drawn from the existing circumstance and evidence on record.The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baliya v. State of M.P., (2012) 9 SCC 696 elaborated the ingredients that must be proved in order to convict an accused for the offence under Section 120B as under:The offence of criminal conspiracy is defined in Section 120-A of the Penal Code whereas Section 120-B of the Code provides for punishment for the said offence.The appellant along with the co-accused hired a vehicle, laced some food with stupefying drugs and fed the same to PW1 and deceased, murdered the deceased, attempted to murder PW1 and fled with the vehicle and other valuables.The chain of events has already been established and from this chain itself the offence under Section 120B also stands established beyond all doubts.As far as the conviction of the appellant under Section 392 is concerned, we may profit by referring to the view taken by a co- ordinate bench of this Court while deciding appeal of the co- accused Dhirender Singh Tomar who was convicted under Crl.The relevant paragraph is reproduced below:Appeal No.733/2016 Page 20 of 29The testimony of PW-2 establishes that the appellant, his brother Dheeraj and two more accused were with the deceased and PW-2 when they took food.The DD entries and the testimony of SI Sanjay PW-18 establishes that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a garbage dump at Mayur Vihar Phase III which is near village Kondli where the accused took meals along with PW-2 and the deceased.This was the place where PW-2 was picked up in an unconscious condition.The theory of last seen evidence clearly comes into play.So proximate is the time when the crime was committed to the place of last seen that any reasonable person would conclude that the appellant and his three co-accused who are proclaimed offenders are the offenders unless the appellant explains when did he part company with the deceased and the injured [AIR 1955 SC 801 Deonandan Mishra Vs.The testimony of PW-2 clearly establishes that he lost consciousness immediately when he ate the food.At that point of time, the appellant was present.The vehicle which was took on hire is missing and has till date not been traced.Since the vehicle, which was taken on hire, has not been recovered and it was last seen in the possession of the appellant Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 21 of 29 and the co-accused, the charge of Robbery under Section 392 of the IPC stands proved.We find no reason to interfere with this finding as the chain of events that led to the vehicle disappearing establish the criminal conspiracy that the appellant and the co-accused entered into for the purpose of robbing PW1 and the deceased of their valuables and the vehicle that was taken on hire.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 21 of 29In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed and the sentence imposed on the appellant is upheld.TCR be sent back.ORDER ON COMPENSATION TO THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE VICTIMThe appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10, 000/-.In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.The appellant was further convicted for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 120B of the IPC and awarded life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10, 000/-.In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.The appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 22 of 29 120B of the IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.10, 000/-.In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.Even this meagre fine has not been ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased or to Munna Lal by the Trial Court.Considering the mandate, this court proposes to deal with the aspect of granting compensation to the victims.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 22 of 29In this case, the deceased Banwari Lal Vyas Pal died due to asphyxwhia as a result of strangulation.Copy of this order be also sent to Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services Authority.(VINOD GOEL) JUDGE (G.S SISTANI) JUDGE DECEMBER 19, 2017 // Crl.Appeal No.733/2016 Page 29 of 29Appeal No.733/2016 Page 29 of 29","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Though there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage but after about a month of the marriage in-laws of the deceased Crl.A. 245/2001 Page 1 of 12 started making demands of dowry.Their demands were a refrigerator, colour T.V. and a gold chain etc. Nasira Begum was harassed for not fulfilling these demands to the extent that she was given physical beatings, the injury marks of which were shown by her to her father.However, the father thought that the matter would be settled.She was not even permitted to have cold water as she had not brought fridge in dowry.A. 245/2001 Page 1 of 12On the instigation of the sisters of the Appellant, the Appellant used to give physical beating to her with danda and on one occasion he went to the extent of pressing her throat.She had visited her parental house on the Friday prior to the incident and complained about the harassment which she was subjected to by her in-laws.She requested her parents not to send her back as otherwise her in-laws would kill her.However, the Appellant came and took her along with him.As per the parents of the deceased besides her husband, her two sisters-in-law i.e., sisters of the Appellant and their husbands namely Yamin and Zamir also used to abuse her and taunt her for bringing insufficient dowry and instigate her husband/Appellant to give her beatings with dandas.On 7th June, 1998 the deceased was admitted to St. Stephens Hospital which information was given by the Appellant and his maternal uncle to Nasir Ahmed, the father of the deceased.They informed him that she was suffering from vomiting and therefore, was admitted in St. Stephens Hospital.The Crl.A. 245/2001 Page 3 of 124. Learned APP on the other hand contends that the statement of the deceased was kept pending by the SDM till she becomes conscious and since Crl.A. 245/2001 Page 4 of 12 she never regained consciousness her statement could not be recorded.The Prosecution witnesses especially PW1, PW4, PW7 and PW8 have categorically deposed about the demand of dowry and harassment in regard thereto soon before the death.PW11 and 12 have deposed about the cruelty inflicted by the Appellant on the deceased on 7 th June, 1998 at 10.00 A.M. itself.The allegations of physical cruelty meted by the Appellant to the deceased are corroborated by the testimony of PW15 Dr. Ajit Kumar who in the MLC has recorded about the injury marks on the person of deceased.The fact that the deceased had ante mortem injury marks is also proved by PW18 Dr. Sarvesh Tandon who conducted the post mortem of the deceased.M.A. 405/2002 (EARLY HEARING) The application is dismissed as infructuous.A. 245/2001 Page 2 of 12 deceased subsequently died on 10th June, 1998 and on post mortem being conducted the viscera was preserved.The CFSL report opined that the viscera contained a poisonous substance called aluminum phosphate poison.All the accused persons were sent for trial and charges for offences under Section 498A/34IPC and 304B/34IPC were framed.After recording of Prosecution evidence, statements of the accused persons and defence evidence, all other accused persons, except the Appellant were acquitted.The Appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 498A/304BIPC and awarded a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years under Sec. 304B IPC and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and a fine of `3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under section 498A IPC.This is the judgment impugned.A. 245/2001 Page 2 of 123. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that despite the fact that the deceased was hospitalized for three days no statement of the deceased was recorded by the doctor or the investigating officer.The deceased never complained about the harassment either on telephone or by letter before the death.The learned Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witnesses and acquitted the co-accused persons.It is alleged that the father of the deceased was earning only `2,700/- per month and was admittedly spending `2,000/- towards house rent, thus, he could not have spent `1 lakh Crl.A. 245/2001 Page 3 of 12 on the marriage as alleged by the Prosecution.The essential ingredient for an offence under Section 304B IPC is that soon before the death there should be cruelty for demand of dowry.The same has not been proved by the Prosecution.As per the allegations the demands were only after 1 month of marriage and thereafter there was no demand.The matter was compromised between the parties and after the compromise there is no allegation of harassment for demand of dowry.Reliance is placed on Appasaheb and Anrs.The Appellant has already undergone a sentence of 4 years.It is further stated that the Appellant is the only son and has an old and aged widowed mother.There is no one to look after the child as the mother has already died.Besides abrasions, there were burn injury marks on the body of the deceased.As per the opinion of PW18, injury Nos. 1 and 4 could be caused by red hot iron object and injury No.2 could be caused by exposing the area over heated substance interposed by clothes.Thus, the factum that the deceased was harassed for demand of dowry soon before her death and she died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage has been proved.There being no merit in the Appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed.A. 245/2001 Page 4 of 12I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.In the present case there are three sets of evidences which clearly inculpate the Appellant.The first is of PW1 Mohd. Shamim Khan, a friend of the father of Crl.A. 245/2001 Page 5 of 12 the deceased, PW4 Nasir Ahmed, the father, PW7 Nasir Ahmed, the brother and PW8 Mehraj Begum, the mother.All these witnesses have deposed that though there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage, however, after about one month of the marriage there was a demand of fridge, TV and gold chain.Since these demands were not met the deceased was ill-treated and was beaten badly.The matter was got reconciled on many occasions with the intervention of friends and relatives but even after reconciliation the accused persons continued to harass her.The suggestion given to these witnesses is that the Appellant had in fact divorced the deceased and it was desired that she should now be taken to the house of her father and mother however, this was not done by PW4 and PW8 and thus, the family of deceased threatened to implicate the Appellant and his family in a false case for daring to divorce her.The Appellant in his defence has produced witnesses who have stated that the father of the deceased was demanding money and since the deceased was not able to fulfill the same she was always perplexed and she was harassed by them.It may be noted that no such suggestion has been given to the prosecution witnesses.I find the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant not borne from the evidence that after the compromise there was no Crl.From the evidence on record it is proved that there were repeated demands of dowry after a month of the marriage and the matter was sought to be reconciled repeatedly on many occasions but the accused persons continued demanding dowry.The witnesses have consistently stated that a week prior to the incident the deceased came to her parental house where she had expressed apprehension of being killed.Furthermore, on a perusal of their statements it is clear that there was a continuous demand for dowry and harassment in relation thereto by the appellant, as the deceased was incapable of fulfilling the demands raised by them.The testimony of PW1 who is the friend of PW4 also shows that there were demands of dowry and the deceased was given beating even in his presence.He also states that about 1 or 1 month prior to the incident, the deceased told her that she will be killed.A. 245/2001 Page 5 of 12A. 245/2001 Page 6 of 12In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances sowing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct.Such conduct may be spread over a period of time.If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be ""soon before death"" if any other intervening circumstance showing the non-existence of such treatment is not brought on record, before the alleged such alleged treatment and the date of death.It does not, however, mean that such time can be stretched to any period.Proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution.The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough.""The second set of evidence of PW 11 Kumari Mehnaz and PW12 Naeem, the younger sister and brother of the deceased, is a very crucial Crl.A. 245/2001 Page 8 of 12 evidence of the torture meted to the deceased.On the fateful day, that is, 7th June, 1998 they had gone to the house of the deceased at about 10.00 A.M. to get the deceased and the Appellant to their house as their elder sister Nazira was coming to meet the family on that day.These witnesses have stated that Riyazuddin restrained their sister from accompanying them and when she insisted he lifted a Pepsi bottle containing water and hit the same on her hand.When the deceased further insisted the Appellant told her if she had forgotten the previous beatings given to her.He further stated that if she dares to go he will kill her.When her sister still insisted, the appellant started beating her with danda and thus, they returned without the sister accompanying them.The evidence of these two witnesses shows that even on the date of the incident the deceased was assaulted.A. 245/2001 Page 8 of 12The incident in the presence of PW11 and PW12 was about 10.00 A.M. on that day.The Prosecution has produced PW10 Dr. M. Ahmad who stated that about 2.30 or 2.45 P.M. when he had gone to offer namaz in the Masjid the Appellant Riyazuddin had came to him and informed that the condition of his wife i.e. the deceased was serious and he should reach.He went to the residence of the Appellant where the deceased was found unconscious.He gave her an injection and certain medicines and asked the Appellant to wait for some time so that she regains her conscious.A. 245/2001 Page 9 of 12""Cause of death kept pending.Viscera preserved and sent to FSL.All injuries are anti mortem in nature and old in duration.Injury No. 1 could be caused by red hot iron object.Injury No. 2 could be cause by exposing the area over heated substance interposed by clothes.Injury No. 4 could be caused by red hot iron object.Time since death is about 13 hours approx.Blood and viscera preserved for toxicological analysis.A. 245/2001 Page 10 of 12My report is ex.PW-18/A which is in my hand bears my sign at point A and is correct.The application for postmortem was accompanied by 10 papers (inquest) which I had inspected and I had put my initials thereon and I identify my initials on inquest papers.The application is ex.PW-18/B which bears my sign at point A. I have seen the Toxicological report from CFSL, Hyderabad which states that Aluminum phosphide was detected in 1A, 1B and 1C exts, so in my view the cause of death was aluminum phosphide poisoning.""All this leads to the inference that the deceased was assaulted by the Appellant with Pepsi bottle, danda and also inflicted burn injuries.As per the evidence discussed above all the ingredients of Section 304B IPC, that is, unnatural death, within seven years of marriage, and soon before death cruelty in relation to demand of dowry are fulfilled in the present case.The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the Appellant are on the facts of the said cases and in the present case the prosecution has discharged its onus of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.There is ample evidence that soon before death, there was continuous torture and harassment in relation to demand of dowry resulting in the unnatural death of the deceased.I also do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the Appellant that since the co-accused have been acquitted on the basis of this evidence, the Appellant is also entitled to be acquitted.The learned Trial Court has acquitted the co-accused persons as there was no overt act attributed to them.As regards the Appellant there is ample evidence of overt act against Crl.A. 245/2001 Page 11 of 12 him.Moreover, in the absence of an appeal against acquittal of the co- accused by the State this Court will not in this appeal return findings.The acquittal of co-accused persons would not entail the Appellant to be acquitted of the charges framed against him.A. 245/2001 Page 11 of 12I find no reason for taking a lenient view as prayed, in the facts of the present case and to reduce the sentence of the Appellant to already undergone, in view of the continuous harassment and gravity of torture meted out to the deceased.I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.The bail bond and the surety bond are discharged.The appellant be taken into custody to undergo the remaining sentence.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE NOVEMBER 30, 2010 vn Crl.A. 245/2001 Page 12 of 12A. 245/2001 Page 12 of 12","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A.This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ""S.C./S.T. Act"") has been filed for setting-aside the bail rejection order dated 28.05.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jaunpur in Bail Application No.110 of 2019(Raju Vs.State of U.P) and 111 of 2019(Phool Chandra Yadav Vs.State of U.P.) arising out of case crime no.66 of 2018 under Sections 366, 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Singramau, District-Jaunpur.Submission made by learned counsel for the appellants is that for the incident said to have been taken place on 30.07.2018, present FIR was lodged on 19.08.2018 by father of the victim under section 366 IPC against one Virendra Kumar.The subject was produced for recording her statement and on 07.12.2018, almost five months of the incident, she has tried to change the texture of the case by adding the story that she was taken to Mumbai in the stage of intoxication.The main accused is Virendra with whom she had gone to Mumbai and remained in his company.The applicants are associates of the main accused and have no role in the present incident.Neither there is any recovery from the appellants nor any assault was made by them.It is next contended that main accused-Virendra has not been arrested so far.Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for bail.The submission made by learned counsel for the appellants, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.Let the appellants-Raju and Phool Chandra Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANTS WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.(ii) THE APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(iii) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iv) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(v) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellants, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed.Impugned order dated 28.05.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jaunpur, is hereby set aside.Order Date :- 4.12.2019 Sumit S","['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this Appeal may briefly be stated thus :P.W.8 - PSI Dattatraya Falle who on 24 November 2005 was attached to Nigdi Police Station and was on night duty received information about admission of Vidya in the YCM Hospital with history of assault.P.W.8 - PSI Falle accordingly proceeded to the hospital.On reaching the Hospital, he learnt that Vidya had succumbed to her injuries.ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) :The Appellant who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, by the Sessions Judge, Pune, by judgment dated 28 April 2009, in Sessions Case No.276 of 2006, by this Appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 :::On the basis of the report of P.W.1 - Anandrao an offence vide Crime No.451 of 2005 was registered.Upon registration of the offence, the crime was investigated initially by P.W.8 - PSI Falle.The dead body was referred for postmortem examination.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 :::The accused was examined by P.W.7 Dr. Arvind Patil, who noticed the following external injuries :i) Lineal abrasion over left side of forehead at half line tapering upward oblique 3 cm in length.Nape of neck horizontal 8 cm in length tapering towards left, left leg upper third vertical 8 cm in length tapering downwards, semi solid jelly like discharge present on the edge of injury.ii) Small abrasion over right scapular region four in numbers of 3 cm x 3 cm size, on left scapular region three in number 3 cm x 3 cm size with thick serious discharge.iii) Abrasion over left hand extensor aspect 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm.""He opined that the age of the injury was within 12 to 25 hours and the injuries may have been caused by a pointed object.The other injuries were due to hard and blunt object.The investigation of the said crime was thereafter transferred to P.W.9 - PI Eknath Patil, who was also attached to Nigdi Police Station.He recorded the statement of the children of the deceased as well as the statements of other witnesses.During custodial interrogation, the Appellant expressed his willingness to point out ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 ::: PNP 4/19 APEAL719-13.3 the place where the weapon had been concealed.The accused led the police and the panchas to a place called Mahadu Gavade chawl and after alighting from the vehicle, produced the weapon which had been concealed beneath the tree.Further to the completion of investigation a charge-sheet against the Appellant was filed.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 :::The postmortem on the body of deceased Vidya was performed by P.W.6 - Dr. Bal Ughade.P.W.6 Dr. Ughade noticed the following external injuries :1. Contusion over right knee joint 1 cm circular in shape.Multiple abrasion over left knee joint.CLW right middle finger at nail bed.""The doctor also noticed following injuries over scalp.1. CLW over left eyebrow horizontal 3 x ½ cm.2. CLW over right frontal bone oblique 2 cm x ½ cm.CLW right frontal bone immediately left to injury No.2 4 x 1 cm.CLW right frontal immediately left to injury No.3, 3.5 x 1 cm oblique.CLW frontal bone 2.5 cm horizontal.CLW frontal bone left side near to injury no.5 oblique 4 x 2 cm.CLW parietal bone left side near to injury no.6, 5.5 x 2 cm.CLW parietal, bone left side, lateral to injury no.7 vertical 3 x 1.5 cm.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 :::PNP 5/19 APEAL719-13.3CLW parietal bone left side above left eyebrow oblique 3 x 1 cmCLW left parietal bone, oblique 4 x 2 cmCLW left parietal bone, oblique 4 x 2 cmCLW left parietal bone, oblique 3 x 1 cm, Injury Nos. 10 to 12 were 7 cm over left ear.Left temporal bone horizontal 4.5 x 1 cmImmediately near to injury No.13, 4 x 1 cm oblique.At occipital bone lambdoid point 6 x ½ cmLateral to injury no.15 vertical 5 x 1 cmLateral to injury no.15 right side 5 x ½ cmat parietal right side, horizontal 7 x 14 cm.""He opined that injuries 1 to 18 were noticed like incised injuries and were bone deep.On external examination he had noticed fracture of the skull from bone 1.5 cm long on the left side and on the right side 18 cm long.He has opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem.He further opined that the cause of death was due to head injury with fracture to skull with multiple injuries over scalp and intra cranial bleeding.On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the Trial Court vide Exhibit 2 framed charge against the Appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The Appellant denied his guilt and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in support of its case examined nine witnesses.The accused in his defence examined four witnesses.The Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 ::: PNP 6/19 APEAL719-13.3 convicted and sentenced the Appellant as afore stated.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 :::Mr. Kotwal, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant at the outset has urged before us that the only submission which is being advanced before us in the present Appeal on behalf of the Appellant is that the Appellant is entitled to be given the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the Appellant has probablised that the offence was committed by the Appellant when he was suffering from mental illness and was thus incapable of knowing the nature of the act which he was committing.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the aforesaid submission.In order to effectively deal with submissions advanced before us by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.Prosecution has examined P.W.1 Anandrao, father of deceased Vidya and P.W.2 - Udhav - brother of deceased Vidya.These two witnesses have deposed that Vidya used to complain them that the Appellant had illicit relations with another lady and on that count there used to be quarrels in between Vidya and the Appellant and the Appellant used to assault Vidya.Prosecution has examined P.W.4 Viraj Kate, son ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 ::: PNP 7/19 APEAL719-13.3 of the Appellant who is an eye witness to the incident.He was sleeping in the house where he was residing along with the Appellant and his deceased mother and his sister Manali.According to him, he had awakened from sleep on hearing the cry of his mother.He noticed the Appellant assaulting deceased Vidya with an object which was used for breaking the coconut i.e. scythe.The Appellant had assaulted the deceased on her head and on her neck.P.W. 4 -Viraj further deposes that his sister Manali had called his maternal uncle i.e. P.W.2 Udhav.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 :::Thereafter the Appellant had taken them to the house of his sister i.e. aunt.P.W.4 - Viraj in his cross examination has admitted that prior to the incident, the Appellant was taken by the deceased and D.W.3 - Pushpa to the hospital for treatment.He has further admitted that the Appellant used to take some medicine.He has further admitted that his father during that period used to leave the house and be away from the house for two to three days.He has further admitted that the Appellant used to abuse, but after taking the medicines used to sleep.He has further admitted that when the Appellant was mentally ill, the Appellant would not go on his handcart, but would remain in the house.He has admitted that the Appellant had closed the door from outside ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 ::: PNP 8/19 APEAL719-13.3 and had called D.W.3 - Pushpa to the house.The Appellant had thereafter opened the door and had taken P.W.4 - Viraj and Manali to the house of D.W.3 - Pushpa.An omission has been elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement about the Appellant assaulting deceased Vidya on her back.He has admitted not to have stated in his previous statement about his sister Manali telephoning P.W.2 Udhav.Similarly an omission has been elicited in his previous statement that Manali was studying in second standard in C.K.Goyal School.He has denied all suggestions made on behalf of the Appellant that he had not witnesses the incident.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 :::Thus, a perusal of the evidence of the eye witness establishes beyond reasonable doubt that it was the Appellant who had inflicted injuries to deceased Vidya which had resulted in her death.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:49 :::PNP 9/19 APEAL719-13.3 of the Indian Penal Code, is not as heavy as the burden which rests on the prosecution and the accused can discharge the said burden by preponderance of probability.This witness has produced the documents which he was called upon to produce.He has only produced the documents of the hospital run by Lokmanya Medical Foundation.The Appellant has examined D.W.2 - Dr. Bharat Sarode who deposes that from 1997 till 2007 he was attached to the Medical Hospital at Yerawada, Pune and was also having his private practice at Pimpri.As per his report at Exhibit 78 he had found that the accused had history suggestive of brief reactive psychosis.He had infidelity delusion and also delusion of persecution.He had therefore opined that the accused had acute psychotic episode.Accordingly certain medicines were prescribed ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 ::: PNP 10/19 APEAL719-13.3 and a review was advised.He had recorded the finding that the accused was 35 years old and was married having two children.The accused had earlier worked as a priest in the temple.For the last five to six months he had persecution delusion and delusion of infidelity, hallucination and was lacking insight.His judgment was impaired.He therefore diagnosed the case as paranoid schizophrenia.He had accordingly advised the treatment which is recorded as ""B"" and which is part of record as Exhibit::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::Further review was advised on the following Saturday.He has further deposed that after the accused was examined on 5 December 2001 the accused was discharged from the hospital, but later had come to his personal O.P.D. on five to six occasions.He has further deposed that he has examined the accused in the Yerwada Prison, but was unable to produce the record.In the cross examination, he has admitted as correct that the case papers disclosed an entry dated 2 December 2001 where the Appellant ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 ::: PNP 11/19 APEAL719-13.3 was examined by another doctor who had opined that the patient was conscious and oriented.He has admitted that CNS means Central Nervous System.He has further admitted that even if that CNS findings are normal, a patient can be psychologically disturbed.He has also admitted as correct that on 3 December 2001 before the Appellant was examined by him, another doctor had found that the general condition of the Appellant to be stable and that he was conscious and oriented.He has admitted that he had not written the paternal or the maternal history of mental illness of the Appellant.He has also admitted that when the Appellant was discharged, it was recorded that he was conscious and oriented and there were no complaints.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::The Appellant has examined D.W.4 - Dr. Chandrashekhar Bhonde, who deposes that he was also posted at Yerawada Jail as a Psychiatrist.He has admitted that he had examined the Appellant and had found that it was a case of acute psychosis and the Appellant was kept under observation.Certain medicines were also prescribed for the Appellant.He has then deposed that on 14 February 2006 he had advised that the Appellant be discharged.He has further admitted that the Appellant was ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 ::: PNP 12/19 APEAL719-13.3 under his treatment from 24 January 2006 and was responding to his treatment and his condition had improved.The Appellant had again come to him on 2 March 2006 and had declared that he did not want to take treatment from P.W.4 - Dr. Bhonde.Accordingly the treatment was discontinued.Dr. Bhonde has further deposed that on 24 April 2006 he had examined the accused and his status examination was within normal limits.He has admitted that he had not prescribed any medicine, but had prescribed medicinal diet.Similarly, he had examined the Appellant again on 26 May 2006, 1 August 2006 and 29 August 2006 and the result was the same.Subsequently also he had kept the accused under observation, but had opined that the accused be discharged.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::In cross examination he has admitted that when he had examined the Appellant on 27 January 2006, he has observed that the Appellant was quiet and there was no psycho motor excitement.His thoughts were relevant and coherent.Similarly, he has admitted that on 14 February 2006 the condition of the Appellant was much better.Similar was the observation when the Appellant was examined on 22 February 2006 and on subsequent dates.He has admitted that he had found the Appellant to have adequate insight and that the Appellant was mentally fit ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 ::: PNP 13/19 APEAL719-13.3 and was of sound mind and free from symptoms of mental illness.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::The Appellant has examined D.W.3 - Pushpa - sister of the Appellant who deposes that in 2001 the Appellant was afflicted by mental illness and used to assault, abuse and throw articles in his room.Once the Appellant had torn a currency note.She claims that the Appellant was under the treatment of Dr. Sarode for four to five years.She claims that the Appellant in a fit of insanity had assaulted her son as well as the neighbour.She further deposed that on 24 November 2005 deceased Vidya had come to her and complained her that the Appellant was behaving like a ""mad person"" and needed to be taken to the hospital.She corrected herself to state that Vidya had come in the morning prior to the night of incident.According to her on that day the Appellant had thrown articles out of the house.According to her the Appellant was then placed in an auto-rickshaw and then taken to Dr. Sarode, but unfortunately Dr. Sarode was not available.She has further deposed that at about 3 to 3.30 a.m. the Appellant had come to his house along with his children and the Appellant appeared to be frightened. D.W.3- Pushpa further deposed that she took the Appellant to his house and took Vidya to the YCM Hospital.At the YCM Hospital the medical officer ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 ::: PNP 14/19 APEAL719-13.3 pronounced Vidya as dead.D.W.3 - Pushpa then claims that her brother Balu is also receiving similar treatment from Dr. Sarode.Incidentally we may state that there is no evidence on record that the brother of the Appellant also is being treated for any mental ailment.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::The appellant has a family history - his father was suffering from psychiatric illness.Cause of ailment not known - heredity plays a part.The appellant was being treated for unsoundness of mind since 1992 - diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.Within a short span, soon after the incident from 27-6-1994 to 5-12-1994, he had to be taken for treatment of the ailment 25 times to hospital.The appellant was under regular treatment for the mental ailment.The weak motive of killing of the wife - being that she was opposing the idea of the appellant resigning the job of a police constable.Killing in daylight - no attempt to hide or run away.""::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::PNP 15/19 APEAL719-13.3The Supreme Court upon appreciation of the material at paragraphs 26 and 27 has concluded thus :This oral and documentary evidence clearly shows that the respondent was suffering from epileptic attacks just prior to the incident.Immediately prior to the occurrence, he had behaved violently and had caused injuries to his own family members.After committing the crime, he was arrested by the police and even thereafter, he was treated for insanity, while in jail.Thus, there is evidence to show continuous mental sickness of the respondent.Though the High Court has not discussed this evidence in great detail, but this being an admissible piece of evidence, can always be relied upon to substantiate the conclusion and findings recorded by the High Court.""Learned counsel for the Appellant has referred to the unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal 1507 of 2004 dated 6 December 2013 in Ayub Murtaza Pirjade v. The State of Maharashtra.The Division Bench found that the Appellant had been admitted in the hospital almost for a year and was under regular follow up treatment.The Division Bench also found that the Appellant was under treatment even during the pendency of the Appeal.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::PNP 16/19 APEAL719-13.3 Medical Officer at the time of hearing of the Appeal also indicated that the Appellant lacked insight and his judgment was impaired.The Division Bench therefore concluded that in the light of the nature of the evidence which was tendered in that case, the Appellant was entitled to be given the benefit under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel for the Appellant has further relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal 886 of 2005 dated 3 January 2013 in Ravindra Govind Gawas v. The State of Maharashtra.The Division Bench of this Court at paragraph 12 had noticed the following circumstances which warranted the extending of the benefit to the accused under Section 84 :i. the appellant had a history of psychiatric illness, ii.he was admitted in the Government Mental Hospital for more than 5 months, iii.his mental illness was to such an extent that he was given 11 electric shocks in addition to other treatment, iv.after killing his wife, he made no attempt to hide or run away but he stood there at the spot from 12.30 noon till 9.30 p.m.""In the present case, the Appellant has not been able to establish the history of mental ailment or psychiatric illness in the family.The Appellant has not been able to establish the hereditary aspect of the mental illness.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::PNP 17/19 APEAL719-13.3 Though D.W.3 -Pushpa has claimed that her brother i.e. the brother of the Appellant was also undergoing similar treatment, yet no papers had been produced by the Appellant to establish this fact.A vain attempt has been made by the Appellant in the examination of D.W.3 - Pushpa.The case against the Appellant rests on the ocular testimony of the eyewitness.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::However, in the present case P.W.1 Anandrao has clearly deposed that the Appellant had illicit relations and on that score there were quarrels between the Appellant and the deceased.The Investigating Officer in all fairness has admitted that he could not collect any evidence about the illicit relations.Be that as it may, the incident had occurred in the wee hours of the morning.The reason as to why the Appellant assaulted the deceased would remain locked in the impregnable vaults of the mind of the Appellant.There obviously must have been some quarrel before the incident and quarrel had preceded the incident.The Appellant had mercilessly assaulted the deceased and had inflicted several injuries by an iron rod.There is obviously no evidence about mental insanity preceding the incident, nor is there any evidence about the behaviour of the Appellant which would lead to a reasonable inference about the mental illness of the Appellant.Nor is there any evidence of behaviour post the incident which would lead the Court to infer about the mental illness of the Appellant.In short there is no evidence that at the time of committing the act, the Appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act which he was committing.::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::PNP 19/19 APEAL719-13.3(P. V. Hardas, J.) (A.S. Gadkari, J.) ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 18:56:50 :::",['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Heard on this second application for bail under Section 439 sh of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the e petitioner Sanjay Ahirwar in crime no.136/2016 registered ad by P.S.-Harpalpur, District-Chhatarpur under Sections 392 and 394 of the IPC.Pr His first application for the same relief had been dismissed by a hy this Court as withdrawn by order dated 17.03.2017 in M.Cr.ad Since the first application was dismissed as withdrawn, this M application is being considered on merits.As per the prosecution case, in the night intervening of 25th of and 26th August 2014, victim Tanu Gupta was going in his rt ou pickup vehicle along with driver Chhotu Raikwar from Harpalpur to Jhansi.On the highway, a swift vehicle overtook C them and four persons came out.They one mobile phone h each from the possession of Tanu Gupta and Chhotu Raikwar ig and Rs.1,500/- from Tanu Gupta, on the point of a country H made pistol.During investigation, petitioner Sanjay Ahirwar was not identified by the victims; however, on the disclosure statement made by petitioner Sanjay Ahirwar, Rs.500/- in cash and two mobile phones looted in the incident were seized.The offence involved loot of only Rs.1,500/- and two mobile phones.The petitioner has been in custody since 05.10.2016; as such, he has spent more than a year and quarter in custody.The two main witnesses namely Tanu Gupta and Chhotu Raikwar had already been examined by the trial Court; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.There is no case against property earlier registered against petitioner.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application mainly on the ground that there is another case under Section 307 of the IPC, registered against the petitioner.ad It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing M a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- with a solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance of before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with rt the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Code of ou Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.C h (C V SIRPURKAR) ig JUDGE H vai Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2018.03.07 21:35:23 -08'00'","['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Ct-33 Kole CRR 1817 of 2019 Chandan Kumar BeraThe State of West Bengal Mr. Mritunjoy Chatterjee, Mr. S. Maity ... for the petitioner.Ms. Sayanti Santra ... for the State.By the impugned order the learned Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioner for re-investigation of the case after considering the submissions made by prosecution and the defence.During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation ended in the submission 2 of charge-sheet under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code only.On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the State submits that the Investigating Officer has rightly submitted the charge- sheet after considering the materials in the case diary.From the submission and rival submission made by learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner made prayer for reinvestigation before the learned Trial Court but failed to justify why further investigation was required to be conducted by the Investigating Officer.I have gone through the impugned order.I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.From the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has prayed for further investigation only for adding 3 some sections on the basis of materials already collected by the Investigating Officer.However, Learned Trial Judge is requested to consider the materials collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation at the time of consideration of charge.In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.Hence the same is rejected on due consideration.Accordingly, CRR 1817 of 2019 is disposed of.Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.","['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(a) P.W. 1 is the prosecutrix in this case.The father of the prosecutrix is running a cycle tube puncture shop and the mother of the prosecutrix, P.W. 2, is running a tiff in stall.and opposite to his house he is having a portion of a Dharga premises and used the same as a rice grinding shop and he used to accept the rice from the public for grinding with charges.On 7-2-1995, at 6.00 p.m., P.W. 1 went to the place where the accused was having his rice grinding shop and gave rice for grinding and the accused said that she can come collect the rice batter on the next day morning.Thereafter, P.W. 1 went to the house of the accused on the next day morning at 3.00 a. m. and the accused asked her to go to the Dharga and take the rice batter from there, which was kept by him.When P.W. 1 went inside the Dharga the accused also followed her and closed the doors of the Dharga and when P.W. 1 questioned, the accused put a cloth on her mouth, pushed her down and removed her dresses and committed sexual assault on her.Thereafter, the accused is also said to have threatened P.W. 1 that if she informs anyone, he will kill her.P.W. 1 started weeping and left from that place.As she was frightened due to the threat of the accused, she has not informed anyone about the occurrence including her parents.Thereafter, P.W. 2, mother of P.W. 1 and father of P.W. 1 went and questioned the accused along with P.W. 1 and even at that time the accused is said to have threatened all of them with dire consequences.On the same day, P.W. 1 went to D-2, Anna Salai Police Station along with her mother P.W. 2 and father.(b) P.W. 8, the Inspector of Police, stated that P.W. 1 came on 14-2-1995 and informed him about the occurrence and the same was recorded by a person accompanied with her.Ex. P1 is the report and on receipt of the report, Ex. P1, P.W. 8 registered the case in Crime No. 420 of 1995 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 (ii) I. P.C. Ex. P. 12 is the First Information Report.Thereafter, he has examined P. Ws. 1 to 3 and others and recorded their statements.He has also recovered clothes, M. Os.Ex. P. 20 is the Chemical Examination Report.Ex. P. 21 is the Blood Test Report and Ex. P. 22 is the Serologist Report.Ex. P.23 is also the Blood Test Report.JUDGMENT K.N. Basha, J.The appellant/accused has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennal, in S. C. No. 341 of 1996 by the judgment dated 19-12-1997 convicting the appellant under Section 376 I. P.C. and sentencing him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and also convicting the appellant under Section 506 (ii) I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.This is an unfortunate case wherein, the accused is alleged to have committed the offence of sexual assault inside a sacred place viz., Dharga.The accused faced the trial in the following backdrop:Thereafter, he has sent P. W, 1 for medical examination through the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate under Ex. P. 6, Requisition.He has sent the accused for medical examination under Ex. P. 9. requisition.As per Ex. P. 6, the doctor, P.W. 6, conducted examination of P.W. 1 on 16-2-1995 at 11.00 a. m. and found that P.W. 1 is a moderately nourished female.On the examination of private parts, she made the following observations:Vulva : NormalVagina : Torn at 5 and 7 O'clock position.No fresh.Fourchette, Perineum : IntactCervix : Upwards, uterus anteverted, normal in size.Fornices free, no white discharge.The doctor, P.W. 6, is of the opinion that the prosecutrix could have had sexual intercourse.Ex. P. 8 is the medical examination report issued by the doctor.(f) The doctor, P.W. 7, attached to the Royapettah Hospital, examined the accused on 21-2-1995, as per the requisition, Ex. P.9 received by him.He made the following observations on examination of the accused:Moderately nourished male individual.Well developed genital organs present.Pubic hair present, not matted.Smegma absent.Prepuce circumcised.No injuries seen anywhere on the body.No venereal disease seen.No Urethral discharge present.There is nothing to suggest that the person is impotent/incapable of performing sexual intercourse.The doctor, P.W. 7, is of the opinion that he could not give any opinion regarding the sexual offence said to have been committed by the accused since he was produced fifteen days after the incident.Ex. P. 10 is the medical examination certificate issued by the doctor, P.W.7, in respect of the accused.(g) P.W. 8 has also sent the seized clothes for chemical examination under Ex. P. 18, Requisition.P.W. 8 also examined the doctors, P. Ws. 6 and 7, and recorded their statements.After completion of investigation.P.W. 8 filed the charge sheet against the accused on 26-6-1995 for the offences under Section 376 and 506 (ii) I. P.C.The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused, examined P. Ws. 1 to 8, filed Exs.P. 1 to P. 23 and marked M. Os.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against him through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused denied his complicity and he has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.Learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that the entire prosecution case rests on the sole testimony of P.W. 1, the prosecutrix and her evidence is self contradictory and the conduct of P.W. 1 not informing about the occurrence to anyone for more than a week throws considerable doubt about her version.It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the explanation given by P.W. 1 that she has not informed anyone including her parents on the ground that she was threatened by the accused not to inform any one is also unacceptable.Learned Counsel for the appellant also contended that though the father and the mother of the prosecutrix, P.W. 1, are said to have accompanied her for giving the report, Ex. P. 1, they have not attested Ex. P. 1 and the non examination of the father of P.W. 1 is also fatal to the prosecution case.Last but not the least submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the medical evidence totally belies the prosecution case as the doctor has not found any external injury or marks of violence on P.W. 1 and further the evidence of the doctor, P.W. 6, shows that P.W. 1 was accustomed to sexual intercourse.Per contra, Mr. Muniapparaj, learned Government advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the evidence of P.W. 1, prosecutrix, is quite natural and the same is not suffering from any infirmities.It is further contended by the learned Government Advocate that the delay in informing anyone about the occurrence on the part of P.W. 1 is not fatal to the prosecution case, more particularly in a case of rape, as the victim always hesitates to disclose the occurrence to anyone.The learned Government advocate (Crl.It is also pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that apart from P.W. 2, P.W. 3 also corroborated the version of P.W. 2 about P.W. 1 giving the report to the police.I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side.As far as P.W. 2, the mother of the prosecutrix, P.W. 1, is concerned, she has been examined to speak about the disclosure of the alleged offence of sexual assault committed on her daughter/P.W. 1, as she had informed her about the occurrence nearly after seven days.No fresh.As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), the conviction can be passed on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix if the same is reliable and acceptable.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in State of M.P. v. Dayal Sahu reported in 2005 Crl.L.J. 4375 that, Once the statement of prosecutrix inspires confidence and accepted by the Courts as such, conviction can be passed only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the Courts for corroboration of her statement.In this case, it is the version of P.W. 1 that as per the instruction of her mother/P.W.2, she went to the rice grinding shop of the accused on 7-2-1995 evening at 6.00 p.m. and the accused informed her to come and collect the rice batter on the next day morning at 3.00 a.m. Therefore she went to the house of the accused at 3.00 a.m. on the next morning and the accused asked her to go and take the rice batter which was kept inside the Dharga, adjacent to the house of the accused.Thereafter she went inside the Dharga and took the rice batter and at that time the, accused is said to have closed the door of the Dharga and committed the offence of sexual assault on her forcibly.It is also stated by P.W. 1 that at the time of the alleged occurrence, the accused is said to have caught hold of her hands and made her to lie down forcibly and thereafter removed her jacket and dresses and committed the sexual assault.After the occurrence, she, started weeping and returned back to her house, but, she has not disclosed anything about the occurrence to her parents as she was frightened since the accused threatened her not to disclose about the same to anyone.It is the further case of P. W, 1 that she was continuously weeping up to 14-2-1995 and when her mother/P.W. 2 and her father questioned her on 14-2-1995, she had informed her mother about the occurrence and at that time her father was also present in the house.It is also admitted by P.W. 1 in her cross-examination that while she was weeping from 7-2-1995 to 14-2-1995, in spite of her parents asking her the reason for her weeping she has not disclosed about the occurrence, P.W. 1 went on to state further in the chief examination itself that after disclosing about the occurrence to her mother/P.W. 2 and her father, both her father and P.W. 2, her mother, went and enquired the accused about his conduct along with her and even at that time the accused is said to have threatened all of them with dire consequences.But the fact remains that P.W. 2 has not whispered a word about enquiring the accused after the disclosure made by her daughter, P.W. 1 in respect of the occurrence and also the accused threatening them with dire consequences.P.W. 2 has simply stated that on the disclosure of the occurrence by P.W. 1, she went to the police station to give the report along with her daughter, P.W. 1, and her husband and the occurrence was narrated to the police by P.W. 1, her daughter, which was reduced into writing by the police.P.W. 3, who is the neighbour of P.W. 2, is said to have attested the report.It is also admitted by P.W. 2 that she only asked P.W. 1 to gel rice batter from the shop of the accused at 3.00 a.m. It is also pertinent to note that in the report, Ex. P.1, given by P.W. 1, it is stated that the accused asked her to come and collect the rice batter on the next day morning and only P. W, 1, on her own, went to the house of the accused at 3.00 a.m. and therefore, the present version of P.W. 1 to the effect that the accused asked her to come and collect the rice batter on the next day morning at 3.00 a.m. is proved to be false.Further, the explanation given by P. W, 1 for going to the house of the accused at wee hours is that since it was Ramzan fasting period, she went at 3.00 a.m, to collect the rice batter is also, on the face of it, unbelievable.P.W. 2, mother of P.W. 1, has not whispered a word about this explanation and she has simply stated; that she only asked her to get the rice batter at 3.00 a.m. Added to these infirmities in the evidence of P, W. 1, P.W. 1 also stated in her cross-examination that during the occurrence she has sustained scratches on her hand and she has shown the scratches to the doctor, P.W. 6 and further the doctor, P.W.6, also put medicine on those injuries.But the fact remains that the doctor; P.W.6, has not stated anything about seeing neither scratch injuries nor nail marks on P.W. 1 and on the other hand, the Doctor, P.W. 6 stated that PW1 could have had sexual intercourse and he has not found any fresh wounds and marks of violence.Even during the investigation of P.W. 8, Inspector of Police, P.W. 1 has not stated that she suffered any blood stained injuries on her hand.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo v. State of Orissa , Rape sole testimony of prosecutrix Prosecutrix an unmarried educated woman travelling along with accused at night in a jeep for long distance allegedly for meeting her superior officer - She alleging that accused raped her in his house when they reached there - Her conduct unusual.No rational explanation given as to what urgent official work was there at night.Medical evidence not corroborating her version - No stains of blood or semen on her clothes.She asserting that she was virgin till alleged incident however medical evidence revealing that she was habituated to sex - Many loose ends in prosecution case - Accused entitled to benefit of doubt.In yet another decision relating to the case of rape in Uday v. State of Karnataka reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 775 : 2003 Cri LJ 1539, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that.The Court must also weigh the evidence keeping in view the fact that the burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every ingredient of the offence, absence of consent being one of them.Therefore, in view of the above principles of taw laid down by the Apex Court in respect of rape cases, the evidence of P.W. 1 is highly suspicious as she has not suffered any injury, much less any marks of violence were found on her, coupled with the fact that the medical evidence disclosed that she was accustomed to sexual intercourse and her abnormal conduct of going to the house of the accused at the wee hours at 3.00 a.m. in spite of her version in Ex. P. 1 that the accused asked her to come and collect the rice batter only on the next day morning, it is not possible to rule out that the prosecutrix, P.W. 1, is a consenting party for the sexual act said to have been committed by the accused.There is also serious doubt about the genuineness of Ex. P. 1, the report, said to have been given by P.W. 1, It is the case of P.W. 1 that she went along with her father and mother/ P.W. 2 to the police station to give the report.Further P.W. 1 stated that the report was written by a person accompanied with them and thereafter, she has affixed her thumb impression.But P.W. 1 has not mentioned the name of the person who wrote Ex. P. 1, on the other hand, P.W. 2, mother of P.W. 1, stated that she went to the police station on 14-2-1995 along with her daughter and her husband and her daughter P.W. 1, narrated about the occurrence which was reduced into writing by P.W. 8, Inspector of Police.Inspector of Police, has stated that some other person wrote Ex. P. 1 and he was also not able to give the name of that person and further, it is admitted by P.W. 8, Inspector of Police, that it is not recorded in Ex. P. 1 that the contents of Ex. P. 1 were read over to P.W. 1 and P.W. 1, after accepting the contents, affixed her thumb impression.the report.There is no doubt that the offence of rape is a very serious offence and also inhuman on the part of any person committing such a sexual assault on innocent victim girls.Such serious and grave offenders should be dealt with all seriousness and if the offence is proved, they should be punished with adequate sentence and at the same time, the Court should also guard against false and frivolous cases.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in Rang Bahadur Singh v. State of U. P. that, (Para 22 of Cri LJ) The time tested rule is that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person.Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused.The following infirmities in the evidence of P.W. 1, as stated above, cannot be overlooked:(i) The conduct of P.W. 1 going to the house of the accused at wee hours, at 3.00 a.m. in spite of the specific statement in her report, Ex. P1, that the accused asked her to come and collect the rice batter only on the next morning, throws considerable doubt about the veracity of her version.The medical evidence of the doctor, P.W. 6, to the effect that P.W. 1 was accustomed to sexual intercourse also raises doubt about the alleged commission of sexual assault on her by the accused.(iii) The conduct of PW. 1 that in spite of her weeping right from the alleged date of occurrence on 8-2-1995 till 14-2-1995 and in spite of her being questioned by her parents, the non-disclosure about the occurrence till 14-2-1995 is unbelievable and unacceptable.(v) P.W. 1 's version about giving report to the police is also falsified by several infirmities viz., P.W. 1 stated that she went along with her mother, P.W.2 and her father to the police station and on her narration, one person recorded the version in Ex. P. 1 and thereafter she affixed her thumb impression in the report, Ex. P. 1 and the same was given to the police is also falsified by the version of other witnesses.P.W. 2, her mother, stated that the narration of P.W. 1 about the occurrence was reduced into writing by P.W. 8, inspector of Police.Added to these inconsistent versions, P.W. 3, the attesting witness and P.W. 8, the Inspector of Police, have not stated that P.W. 1 was accompanied with her mother/P.W. 2 and her father.","['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This is the first anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.397/2014 registered at Police Station-Kurwai, District-Vidisha under Section 420, 467, 468, 406, 506-B/34 of IPC.According to prosecution case, father of the complainant died in the year 2007 and the complainant went to collect his pass-book from State Bank, Barvai where Bank Officials returned the same after two years.Complaint received notice from State Bank intimating that a loan of Rs.79,000/- has been withdrawn.Complainant went of State Bank and saw that photograph of his father is not pasted in the Credit Card.Instead of his father's photograph, photograph of Shriram Pandit has been pasted.Balwant Singh and Datar Singh identified Shriram Pandit.2 M.Cr.When complainant asked Balwant, Datar and Shriram to pay the loan amount, they refused to re-pay the same, thus, report has been lodged.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has not committed any offence.He has falsely been implicated.It is further submitted that applicant is not the beneficiary but he has only identified Shriram Pandit.There is no likelihood of the absconsion of the applicant, hence, prayed for anticipatory bail.Learned Dy.Government Advocate for the non- applicant/State as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the application.I have perused the case-diary.Taking into consideration the allegations against the applicant and the material collected during investigation and also keeping in view the gravity of the offence, I find that no ground is made out for releasing the applicant on anticipatory bail.Accordingly, M.Cr.","['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"CRL.A. 518/2010 MOBIN & ANR ..... Appellants versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, counsel for the appellants in Crl.Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP on behalf of the State CORAM:The appellants Mobin and Moin impugn a judgment and order of Learned Ms. Mamta Tayal, Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Court, Delhi, dated 21.02.2010 in SC No. 64/ 2009, by which they were convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC.They were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fined a sum of `10,000 each.In default of payment of fine the convicts would further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months each.For the offence under Section 323/34 IPC, they were further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment Crl.A. Nos.142/2004 & 518/2010 Page 1 for three months each.Mohsin impugns an earlier judgment dated 02-1-2002, in the same Sessions case, by which he was convicted for the same offences, in respect of the same incident.It may be noticed that the prosecution took the matter to trial in two stages.Accused Moin and Mobin could not be arrested, and were declared proclaimed offenders.The Prosecution's story is that one Amir Ahmed used to reside in H. No. 109, Pocket- 8, Durga Park, Dabri, New Delhi, and his son Naeem used to reside at H. No. 120, in the same locality.One Lukman was a tenant in Naeem's House.Mobin, Moin, Mohsin, Rukshana, and Bashir (the accused) were also residents of the same colony.The accused and the family had requested Amir Ahmed to get the matter compromised, but he had refused, and this had led to animosity between the two families and the accused used to frequently threaten Amir Ahmed's family.The prosecution alleged that on 28.8.1998, at about 5.00 PM, Naeem Ahmed and his tenant Lukman had bought an asbestos sheet from the Masjid, to repair the leaking roof of their house, and were keeping it outside their house, when Mobin went to them asking why they had brought the sheet.On being countered by Naeem Ahmed, he threatened him and left the place.In a short while, just after a few minutes, he returned with his other family members- Rukshana, Bashir, Mohsin (all three convicts) and Yasin @ Asim (JCL).Moin had a churra in his hand and Mobin had an iron rod.Moin attacked Naeem Ahmed with the churra and caused a stab injury on his forehead.Mobin attacked Naeem Ahmed and his father Amir Ahmed with the iron rod.Rukshana, her husband Munna, and her brothers Mohsin and Asim kicked and punched Naeem Ahmed, his father, Amir Ahmed and his wife Shammi.Amir Ahmed was injured on his head, Crl.A. Nos.142/2004 & 518/2010 Page 2 face and other parts of his body and was bleeding profusely.He ran from the spot to make a call to the police, but fell down on the way.All the accused persons fled from the place of occurrence.The police were informed and the injured were taken to the hospital, where Amir Ahmed was declared brought dead.PW-5 Naeem Ahmed the complainant stated that on 28.08.1998, at about 05.00 PM., he had brought some cement sheets from a Masjid, to his house with the help of his tenant Mohd. Lukman (PW- 9), to repair of the roof.Mobin, who was also a resident of the Colony, went and inquired why he had bought cement sheets.He replied asking him why he was asking him about it.Mobin went away and returned with his brother Moin, Mohsin, Rukshana, Asim, and Bashir @ Munna.Mobin was carrying an iron rod and Moin had a churra with him.All of them attacked him, and then Mobin attacked him and his father with the iron rod.His father suffered an injury on his head.All this happened outside his house.They again caught hold of his father and attacked him with the rod and the churra.On hearing cries, his wife came out.She too was beaten by all of them and suffered injuries on her back.PW-5 was injured on his forehead and shoulder with the iron rod.The police arrived and they were taken to Safdarjung Hospital.His father had died at the spot due to injuries.The assailants fled from the spot.In cross examination, he correctly identified Mobin and Moin in Court.He also spoke about Anwar, the brother in law of the two accused, who had been arrested on charges of rape.He said that the two accused and their family members had asked his father Amir Ahmed, the deceased, to compromise the matter with their neighbour, (whose daughter, he had allegedly raped).But his father had refused, and this had led to them nursing a grudge against his father.PW-15 Shammi, the second eye-witness is the complainant's wife.08.1998, her husband had bought a concrete sheet from a mosque.Mobin @ Guddu saw the sheet at their house, objected to it, and started quarrelling with her husband at about 5.00 pm.Her father-in-law was also present there at that time.Then he left, but returned just a few minutes later with co-accused Moin and other members of his family, namely, Mohsin, Rukshana, Bashir, Munna and Asim.Mobin had an iron rod and Moin had a churra and they attacked her father in law, who sustained injuries on his head.They assaulted her husband and her as well.She said that two-three days before the incident, the accused's family members Crl.A. Nos.142/2004 & 518/2010 Page 5 sought the deceased's help, to arrive at a compromise with his neighbour, Panditji, whose daughter, Anwar, the brother-in-law of the two accused had allegedly raped.But he had refused, due to which they bore ill- will against them.In the cross- examination, she stated that she went to the immediate vicinity of the incident only after hearing the cries.She said that she was assaulted by Rukshana and the others, and could not remember who had actually hit her as they were all together.She stated that she was attacked by a wooden danda.PW-8 Mohd. Shamshad, a mason by profession, was, on the day of the incident, called by Naeem (PW-5), to install a concrete sheet at his house.He reached there at about 4.15 PM.He met Naeem and Lukman (PW-9).In his presence, the two accused Mobin and Moin came there, and asked Naeem and Lukman as to with whose permission, they had taken the concrete sheet from the Masjid.An altercation took place between them and in the meanwhile other family members of the accused came there armed with danda and Churri.Amir Ahmed, father of Naeem also came there.He was also attacked, and sustained serious injuries on his head and face.Charges were framed against the other accused, Ruksana, Mohsin, and Bashir.Yasin, being a juvenile, was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board.By judgment and order dated 4-1-2002, Ruksana and Bashir were acquitted of the charges of having committed the offence under Sections 302 IPC; they were convicted for the offences under Sections 323/34 IPC and given probation.Mohsin was however, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.Later, after arrest of the other accused, Moin and Mobin, they were sent to trial.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by another judgment dated 20-01-2010, convicted them of the offences under Sections 302/323/34 IPC and sentenced them inter alia, to undergo life imprisonment, besides other prison terms and fine.Rukshana, Mohsin, Bashir and Yasin were arrested immediately and sent for trial.A separate trial was initiated against the Juvenile Yasin and he was acquitted by the juvenile board.Mobin and Moin evaded arrest for five years.They were declared PO, but were subsequently arrested, charge sheeted and their case was committed to Sessions.A separate trial SC No. 64/09 was initiated against them.They were charged under Sections 302/323/ 34 IPC, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Over the course of the trial 19 witnesses were produced by the Prosecution.The Trial Court relied on testimonies of the two injured witnesses PW-5 Naeem Ahmed and PW-15 on the basis that not only were they injured witnesses, (which added a special credence to their testimonies as it conclusively proved that they were eye-witnesses to the entire incident, as per the Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (SC) 2009 (4) R.C.R Criminal 253); but also because they had been consistent in their statements, and had withstood the rigours of cross examination.They had deposed in the trial of Rukshana, Mohsin and Munna, and had been consistent there as well.He had also deposed that his clothes had been blood-stained.It was argued that the Trial Court failed to consider the fact that in the trial against Mohsin, Rukshana and Bashir, PW-5 had deposed that Mohsin had been holding the churra, but in this trial he had deposed that Moin had been wielding the churra.The Trial Court, says counsel, failed to appreciate the fact that PW-5 had stolen the asbestos sheet from the mosque, and hence an angry mob from the mosque had attacked PW-5, PW-15 and the deceased, and that when Amir Ahmed ran away to make a call to the police, he slipped on the stairs and hurt himself.This aspect was material during the trial.It was argued that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate that Mobin had been in Aligarh at the time of the incident as was deposed by DW-1, a police officer who stated that he had come to the Police Station to report that this purse was missing.It was argued that there were three eyewitnesses, who had spoken about the attack, and the surrounding facts, during the investigation.The deceased's son and daughter in law too supported this version.This was backed by the evidence of PW-9; and so, the accused's effort to discredit such ocular testimonies was unsuccessful.The attack on the deceased, as well as the injured eyewitnesses was corroborated by independent documentary evidence.It was next submitted that though the incident was the result of a quarrel, which took place between the deceased and the Appellants, the further circumstance that the latter used dangerous or deadly weapons, proved their intention which was to murder the deceased.The police were informed; they arrived at the scene and took the injured to the hospital.He made a statement to the Police.He also stated that Mobin had an iron rod and Mohsin had a churra.In his cross examination, he stated that his statement was recorded after fifteen daysPW-9 Mohd. Lukman was a tenant in the complainant's (PW-5's) house.At 4/4.15 PM, Naeem and PW-9 had bought a cement sheet from a nearby Masjid and placed it outside their house.Naeem had also called a mason to install the sheets.When they were fixing the sheets Mobin came; there was a verbal dispute between him and Amir Ahmed (the deceased, father of Naeem).Supporters from both sides started pelting stones at each other.Amir Ahmed sustained injuries on his head, Naeem sustained injuries above his eye.By this time, the police arrived and Naeem and Amir Ahmed were taken to the hospital.This witness could not recall the weapons carried by Mobin and the other accused persons.He was cross- examined as he partly resiled from his Section 161 statement.He was questioned on whether Mobin had been carrying an iron rod and whether Naeem and Amir Ahmed, (the deceased) had been attacked with a knife and a rod.He said he could not remember such details as the incident had taken place about eleven years back.But he did state that on the day of the incident, he had told the police whatever he had seen.It is settled law that where the prosecution case is based on the evidence of eye witnesses, the existence or non-existence of motive, sufficiency, or its insufficiency will not play Crl.A. Nos.142/2004 & 518/2010 Page 6 a major role as it would, in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence.If the prosecution is able to prove its case on motive it will be a corroborative piece of evidence.But even if the prosecution has not been able to prove its case on motive, that will not be a ground to throw overboard the prosecution case because merits of the prosecution will have to be decided on the basis of the merits of the evidence of such witnesses ((1993 Cri LJ 1656)Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana).Moin reached there, and a quarrel between him and the deceased (father of PW-5) took place.Moin went away, and reached the spot, this time with other accused.A fight or altercation appears to have occurred, in the course of which the deceased received fatal injuries.This is corroborated by PW-8, the mason called in to fix the asbestos sheet, and PW-15, the deceased's daughter in law.The use of a churri or sharp edged weapon, and also of a danda (stick) is proved independently, through the testimony of PW-11, the postmortem doctor, who in his report listed five injuries on the deceased.Interestingly, PW-9 also mentioned that when the attack took place, both sides were attacking each other and pelting stones.The injuries on the eyewitnesses Naeem and others was corroborated by the MLCs placed on the record.The testimony of Naeem (PW-5) is that Mobin had an iron rod; Moin had a churra (dagger).However, the testimonies of PW-8 and PW-9, the other two eyewitness, are unclear as to who was armed with what weapon.The injuries - testified to by PW-16, which caused the death of Amir Ahmed, were the result of rod, or danda blows (Injury Nos. 2 and 5).The doctor also stated that Injury Nos. 3 and 4 could have been caused by a fall on the ground.The question, in these circumstances, is as to what was the intention of the accused, and whether all of them would be guilty of the same offence.It would now be necessary to consider whether the prosecution, which has successfully proved the presence and identity of the Appellants before the court, was able to prove that they had the common intention with the aggressor, so as to be criminally responsible Crl.A. Nos.142/2004 & 518/2010 Page 7 for murder.A lacerated wound on the left side of scalp was found.The appellant went to him (the deceased) to question as to why he had transferred his lands.The appellants on bail are directed to surrender to the Trial Court and undergo remainder of their sentences.The matter Crl.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Arguments heard.Case diary perused.This is first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of applicant Rehan Khan, who is apprehending his arrest in relation to Crime No.44/2018 registered at Police Station Kohefiza, District Bhopal (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-A and 506 of the IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.According to the prosecution story, the allegation against the applicant is that he assaulted the victim with a view to outrage her modesty.He is falsely implicated because applicant's father has lodged FIR on 1.1.2018 and 3.1.2018 against the father and brother of the complainant with regard to quarrel.The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required and will co-operate in the investigation.Certified copy as per rules.","['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The allegations are omnibus.In The High Court At Calcutta 1 Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Indrajit Chatterjee CRM No.2037 of 2014 Gibesh BarmanThe State of West Bengal Mr. Syed Julfikar Ali ...for the petitioner.Mr. Madhusudan Sur ...for the State.Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J:- The petitioner in the CRM saying that he is apprehending arrest in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No.124 of 2013 dated February 28, 2013 under ss.493/376/385/307 IPC (s.302 IPC added subsequently) is seeking bail under s.438 CrPC.Advocate for the petitioner has submitted as follows.At the date of the incident the petitioner was not in house.He was staying elsewhere.Some of the accused have been granted bail.Advocate for the State producing the case diary has submitted as follows.The petitioner was named in the FIR.The statements of the witnesses reveal that the victim was staying at the place of the petitioner from December 16, 2012, and that the petitioner's brother inducing the victim to come with him promised in a village mediation to marry the victim and also to keep her in his house.The dying declaration is that the 2 victim was set on fire by one Monika Barman.It appears that Monika is the petitioner's mother.For these reasons, we dismiss the CRM.Certified xerox.",['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
"(i) PW.1 is the daughter of the deceased.PW.2 is the husband of PW.1.PW.3 is another daughter.The accused, in the instant case, is the youngerbrother of the deceased.They were the residents of R.Kombaipatti.A few daysprior to the occurrence, the deceased sent his men to pick out groundnuts fromthe field.The same was objected to by the accused.Since there was a disputebetween them over the land, the workers returned.They informed the same to thedeceased.(ii) On 23.11.2004 at about 6.00 a.m., the deceased proceeded to thefield.They went near the field.They foundthe deceased and the accused were quarrelling over their land dispute.At thattime, the accused took MO.1 aruval, attacked him on his head and also ondifferent parts of the body.Not satisfied with that, he took a towel andstrangulated him.As a result, the deceased Sankar died instantaneously.Though PW.1 and PW.2 went nearby the occurrence, they were criminallyintimidated.(iii) PW.1 and others went to the respondent police station where PW.11was the Sub Inspector of Police on duty at 8.30 a.m., gave a report Ex.(Judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J) Challenge is made to the judgment of Principal Sessions Division, Dindiguldated 5.4.2007 made in S.C.No.19 of 2006 whereby the appellant/sole accusedstood charged, tried and found guilty under sections 302 IPC and 506 (2) of IPCand awarded imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a defaultsentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment for the first charges; and three yearsrigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of 9months rigorous imprisonment for the second charge.The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal canbe stated as follows:Onthe strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.309/2004 underSections 302 IPC.Printed F.I.R Ex.P.5 was sent to the Court and to the higherofficials.(iv) On receipt of a copy of the F.I.R, PW.12, Inspector of Police,attached to the respondent police station, took up investigation, proceeded tothe scene of occurrence, made an inspection in the presence of witnesses andprepared an Observation Mahazer Ex.P.6 and also a rough sketch Ex.Heconducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence ofpanchayatdars and prepared an Inquest Report Ex.He recovered the materialsobjects available from the place of occurrence.(v) The dead body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem by PW.7,attached to the Government Hospital, Dindigul and he found injuries as describedin the post-mortem certificate Ex.P.3 wherein he has opined that the deceasedwould appear to have died due to head injury, about 10-12 hours prior toautopsy.(vi) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 24.11.2004.During investigation, the accused gave a confessional statement and theadmissible part of that evidence was marked as Ex.Pursuant to theconfession, he produced an aruval MO.1 in the presence of witnesses and the samewas recovered under the cover of mahazer Ex.(viii) On completion of the investigation, PW.12 filed a final reportagainst the accused/appellant as per the charges.The case was committed to theCourt of Sessions.Necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, theprosecution examined 12 witnesses and relied on 14 Exhibits and 9 MOs.Oncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused wasquestioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances found inthe evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which was flatly denied on the partof the accused.No defence witness was examined.The trial Court after hearingthe arguments advanced by either side and on considering the materials availableon record, took the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyondreasonable doubts and found the accused/appellant guilty of the charges andawarded punishments as referred to above.Aggrieved over the same, the accusedhas brought forth this appeal before this Court.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellant, Mr. K.ThirumalaiRaj, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit asfollows:-(i) In the instant case, the prosecution has only two eye-witnesses viz.PW.1 was the daughter.PW.2 was the son-in-law of the deceased.The deceased was actually in inimical terms with the accused since there was aland dispute.Thus, PW.1 and PW.2 were not only interested in the deceased butalso inimical to the accused.Their evidence if scrutinised should have beenrejected by the trial Court.(ii) Apart from that, their evidence is not only inconsistent to eachother but also self-contradictory.Under the circumstances, their evidence isnot worth mentioning to connect the accused with the crime.(iii) The ocular testimony projected by PW.1 and PW.2 was nevercorroborated with the medical evidence.(iv) The arrest, confession and the alleged recovery were all cooked upaffairs in order to strengthen the prosecution case.Thus, the prosecution hadno evidence worth mentioning to offer.(v) Even assuming that the prosecution has proved the fact that it was theaccused, who attacked the deceased and thereby caused death, it was neitherintentional nor deliberate because even as per the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2,there was a quarrel and in the quarrel, the accused attacked with aruval.However, injuries were found to be simple and actually, the occurrence had takenplace in the natural course.PW.7 Doctor has given his opinion that the injuryfound on the skull was the bane for his death and that would be possible byfalling on the ground also, for which the accused cannot be found guilty.(vi) Even though if the act of the accused found to be proved, it wouldonly attract the penal provision of Section 324 of IPC.Accordingly, this legalaspect has got to be considered by this Court.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions.The Court paid its utmost attention to the submissions and made athorough scrutiny on the entire materials available on record.It is not a fact in controversy that one Sankar, the father of PW.1 wasdied out of homicidal violence in the occurrence that took place on 23.11.2004.Following the inquest made by the investigator, the dead body of the deceasedwas subjected to post-mortem by Doctor PW.7, who has given his opinion in Ex.P.3post-mortem certificate that the deceased died out of head injury, about 10 -12 hours prior to autopsy.The fact that the deceased died out of homicidalviolence was never questioned by the appellant at any stage of the proceedings.Hence, it has got to be recorded factually so.In order to substantiate the fact that it was the accused/appellant whoattacked him and caused his death, the prosecution has marched two witnesses.Itis true, PW.1 is the daughter and PW.2 is the son-in-law of the deceased.It isthe well settled position of law that merely on the ground of relationship ofthe witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded.In the instant case, PW.1 andPW.2 have clearly spoken in one voice that when they were nearing the deceased,actually, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused, in which,the accused took an aruval and attacked the deceased on the head and not-satisfied with that, he took a towel and pressed his neck and the deceased diedinstantaneously.When PW.1 and PW.2 tried to rescue him, they were criminallyintimidated.The ocular testimony stood fully corroborated by the evidence ofPW.7 who opined that injury No.5 found on the skull was the reason for thedeath.The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 inspires the confidence of the Court.Hence, the contention put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellant thatmerely falling on the ground, such an injury could be inflicted and that otherinjuries were simple and the death had not been brought out by the act of theaccused cannot be countenanced.Yet another circumstance is the recovery of weapon of the crime fromthe accused pursuant to his confession, which was recorded by the investigatorin the presence of two witnesses.That part of evidence remains unshakendespite the cross-examination.The lower Court has thoroughly accepted thatpart of evidence.All these would go to show that the prosecution has proved the factthat it was none but the accused who attacked his brother and caused his death.The accused had attacked the deceased with an aruval and injury No.5was actually caused by him.It is evident from the ocular testimony, whichstood fully corroborated by the medical evidence.It would be quite clear that this wordyaltercation caused sudden provocation in attacking the deceased with an aruvaland causing his death.However, the contention put-forth by the learned counselfor the appellant that the act would attract only Section 324 IPC can not beaccepted.However, the Court is of the considered opinion that it will beappropriate to convict the appellant under Section 304 (Part - II) of IPC andawarding 5 years of rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence under Section 302 and 506 (2) of IPCare set aside.Instead, the appellant/accused is convicted under Section 304(Part II) of IPC and awarded five years rigorous imprisonment.Fine amount, ifany, was already paid by the appellant under section 302 IPC, the same shall berefunded to the appellant.The conviction and sentence under Section 506(2)IPC are confirmed.The sentences are to run concurrently.The period of sentencealready undergone by the appellant shall be given set off.The Criminal Appealis disposed of accordingly.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul.2.Inspector of Police, Eriyodu, Eriyodu Taluk, Dindigul District.(Crime No.309/2004).3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"C.c.as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)Heard finally at motion stage.This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 27.10.2016 passed by Addl.Sessions Judge, Khategaon, District Dewas in Cri.Appeal No.207/2013, whereby he partly allowed the appeal by modifying the conviction and sentence passed by JMFC, Khategaon in Cri.Case No.766/2008 dated 14.8.2013, wherein learned Judge found the applicant guilty for offence under Section 456, 354, 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months RI with fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine further fifteen days' SI.As per prosecution case on 24.12.2008 at 2.00 AM in the night when complainant was sleeping in varndah applicant came and touched her breast.On that complainant awaked and saw the applicant standing nearby her bed and shouted, upon which the applicant closed her mouth and threatened to kill her.When her husband returned from Indore she lodged a report of the incident at P.S., Nemawar and Police registered Crime No.111/2008 and after investigation charge sheet was filed against the applicant.On that charge sheet, Cri.Case No.766/2008 was registered against the applicant and the trial Court framed charge under Section 456, 354, 324 and 506-B of IPC against the applicant and tried him and after recording of evidence acquitted the accused under Section 506-B of IPC but found him guilty under Section 456, 354 and 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year RI with fine of Rs.100/- on each count.Against this, applicant filed Cri.Appeal No.207/2013, which was partly allowed by Addl.Being aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed.He is first offender and was remained in Jail since 27.10.2016 and no incident of bad behaviour or uncooperative attitude was reported against the applicant.Further the applicant has no criminal past nor was he involved in any unlawful activities subsequent to this incident.So he be released on sentence already undergone.Certainly the pre and past incidents, conduct of the applicant, cannot be lost sight and can be taken as mitigating circumstances.The applicant be released forthwith if he is not required in any other crime.Accordingly this revision petition is partly allowed in the terms indicated above.A copy of this order be sent to the Court of JMFC, Khategaon for information and necessary compliance.","['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"C.R.R. 2744 OF 2016 SB Ct. No. 30 (C.R.A.N. 3215 of 2018) Ritam Bhaumik & Ors.The State of West Bengal & Anr.Mr. Anirban Mitra Mr. Sajal Kanti Bhattacharyya Mr. Subhasish Banerjee Mr. Biswajit Sardar Mr. Arun Bandyopadhyay Mr. Sarthak Burman Ms. Nipa Mullick Mr. Amit Halder .... For the petitioners .Mr. Imran Ali Ms. Debjani Sahu ..... For the State By an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioners have sought for quashing of the proceeding arising out of Baranagar P.S. Case No. 398 of 2016 dated 27.05.2016 under section 342/354/357/509/120B of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3181 of 2016 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas.The facts in brief giving rise to the present application are as follows:Disputed questions of fact are matters to be decided by evidence during the trial.","['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Abhinav Sarup Sharma lodged a complaint with the police that on 2.4.2005, he went to drop his cousin sister (Buaji's daughter) in Ram Nagar, Tilak Nagar.At about 12.30 -1.00 P.M., while he was returning to his home, the present petitioner Sh.Raj Crl.P.228/2008 Page 1 of 8 Kumar Sharma who happens to be his Uncle came in front of him and hit him on the head with a baseball bat.P.228/2008 Page 1 of 8In the meantime, the grandfather of the complainant Anand Sarup Sharma also came out and shouted that Raj Kumar should eliminate the complainant.Raj Kumar is living in the adjoining portion to his sister's house, who happens to be the Bua of the complainant and whose daughter he had gone to drop.Two boys are alleged to have come out from the residence of Raj Kumar Sharma and started beating the complainant with leg and fist blows.The complainant started bleeding due to injuries as he was hit on the head with a baseball bat.The Uncle and the grandfather of the complainant caught hold of the two arms of the complainant while as the boys took out their belt and started hitting the same over the person of the complainant.Admittedly, in the present case, the attack on the complainant seems to be pre-planned as the same is fortified from the fact that the grandfather of the complainant himself shouted for taking the life of the complainant so that there is no one to chase the pending litigation between the petitioner and his father on the one side and the family of the complainant on the other.So far as the learned counsel for the complainant is concerned, he has contended that the nature of the injuries could not be said to be simple, as admittedly the MLC shows that the complainant had received six stitches and it was only providence which saved the complainant, otherwise the petitioner and his father were bent upon liquidating the complaint.P.228/2008 Page 4 of 8Through: Mr. M.N.Dudeja, APP Mr.A.S.Sharma, Adv.for the complainant.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.K. SHALIWhether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?V.K. SHALI, J. (oral)The Uncle of the complainant shouted that since the complainant and his father are contesting litigation against the assailants therefore, if the complainant is eliminated, there will be no one to follow the cases.The wife of Raj Kumar is alleged to have thrown a brick which hit the complainant.The complainant was also hit on the back with the help of a hockey by the grandfather.As a consequence of the entire episode, the complainant is stated to have suffered injuries which were two Contused Lacerated Wounds of 2 Crl.P.228/2008 Page 2 of 8 cms x 0.5 cms and 1.5 cms x 0.5 cms over the mid frontal region of the scalp and the injuries were opined to be simple.P.228/2008 Page 2 of 8The investigating agency filed a charge sheet and the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the statements and documents on record came to the conclusion that prima facie a case of attempt to culpable homicide is made out, therefore, the petitioner along with the other co-accused persons were charged for an offence under Section 308 IPC.The petitioner feeling aggrieved by this has assailed the said order.I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP and the learned counsel for the complainant who is also present.The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the nature of injuries on the complainant are opined to be simple by the doctor, therefore, no charge u/S 308 IPC can be sustained.The petitioner in order to support her point has placed reliance on judgments titled Surinder Kumar Vs.State 1996 V AD (Delhi) 345 and P.K.Ghosh Vs.On the basis of these authorities, it has been contended that as in the present case as the injuries were simple and there was no intention or knowledge attributable to the petitioner that it could have resulted in homicide of the complainant, therefore, the charge could not have been framed.P.228/2008 Page 3 of 8P.228/2008 Page 3 of 8The learned APP has contested the arguments of the defence counsel and urged that merely because the nature of injuries are opined to be simple, it does not warrant the dilution of the charge from Section 308 IPC to one u/S 323 IPC.It has been contended that while considering a prima facie case as to whether a charge under Section 308 IPC is made out against the petitioner or not only the nature of injury is to be seen but even other attendant circumstances are also to be borne in mind.P.228/2008 Page 4 of 8I have carefully considered the submissions of all the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as the relevant documents.P.228/2008 Page 5 of 8The attack on the complainant was not on the spur of moment.",['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']
The allegation against the applicant is of assaulting the complainant and his associates with certain weapons and causing minor injuries which were subsequently discovered as grevious adding the provisions of Section 326 of IPC.It is seen that a cross-case bearing crime no. 376/13 has also been registered against the complainant party where the the applicant was found to have sustained frontal bone depression due to farsa blow as per the CT scan report.,['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
"PW3/A is that the complainant Mohd.Irshad, aged about 25 years was a rickshaw puller who was living on rent alongwith some Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 1 of 12 other persons in house No.14/36, Gali No.1 in front of Arvind Rickshaw Garage, Arya Nagar.He is native of Distt.Madhey Pura, Bihar.On 05.09.2009, after having dinner at Dhaba in Jagat Puri, he was returning home and when he was walking on the pavement of drain (nala) side across Parwana Road, at about 10.00 or 10.15 pm, one motorcycle No.DL-13S-A-2134 stopped near him and two boys, whose names were subsequently revealed as Varun Kumar and 'R' (name withheld being juvenile), showed him a knife and made him to sit on the motorcycle.While Varun Kumar was driving the motorcycle, 'R' was sitting behind him with a knife on his back and they took him to Manglam Marg, AGCR colony.They stopped in front of the house next to Manglam Hospital and after getting down from the motorcycle, they started beating him with belt.Varun also took knife from 'R' and showed the same to him and thereafter 'R' also started beating him with belt and asked him to handover whatever he had or otherwise he would be killed.When Varun tried to put his hand in his pocket, the complainant also put his hand on his pocket and in the meantime, police arrived and saved him.A perusal of the testimony of these two witnesses would reveal that all material aspects including the place of occurrence where the offence was committed, there are material contradictions.As per PW-2 Mr.Sheel Sharma, he was going in his Car bearing registration No.DL-1C-F-0277 and at about 10.15/10.30 PM when he reached near Bus Stand, Jagat Puri, he saw two boys forcibly taking one Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 4 of 12 boy on the point of khukhri on motorcycle No.2134 make Hero Honda Splendor of blue-black colour.He informed the PCR at number '100' and PCR reached.Local police from PS Preet Vihar also reached and they started searching the assailants in the direction in which they had left that place.Across the drain (nala) at some distance they saw both the boys (appellant and the juvenile) giving beating to that boy who was taken away forcibly and both the boys were apprehended.Some other police officials also came there who conducted the proceedings.Police recovered the Khukri with wooden cover from the possession of accused Varun Kumar and sealed and seized the same.He also stated that all the writing work was done in the police station.From his statement, the vital details regarding the incident are :-A. No.105/2012 Page 4 of 12(i) He had seen two boys taking away third boy when he reached in his car near Bus Stand, Jagat Puri.(ii) He saw from the running car that a boy was being taken on the point of Khukri and note complete registration number of the motorcycle i.e. DL-13S-A-2134 make Hero Honda Splendor of blue-black colour as recorded in DD No.38-A (Ex.PW5/A)He also handed over the knife to his associate who put the knife on his (PW-3) back and took him towards AGCR Colony at Manglam Marg where appellant Varun Kumar gave beating to him with belt.The younger boy asked him as to what he was seeing and he replied that he was simply going.The younger boy gave him two-three Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 6 of 12 slaps and the latter one took out a knife and asked him to sit on the vehicle.He was forced to sit on the vehicle.He raised alarm 'bachao- bachao' but he was told that nobody would come to save him.Then the younger boy was handed over the knife and the elder one drove the vehicle.The younger boy continued putting knife on his back and he was brought to Manglam Marg Road, Industrial Area where he was made to get down and beaten with belts 2-4 times.They demanded the money and when he said that he was not having the money, he was shown the knife.After half-an-hour, police arrived and he was saved.It is worthwhile to mention that the DD No.38-A Ex.PW5/A recorded at 10.35 pm at PS Preet Vihar does not contain the name of informant PW-2 Sheel Sharma or his mobile number from which he informed the PCR.Rather DD No.38-A is the information given by Operator through Intercom and from the information recorded, it can be made out that two boys on knife point had taken away towards Preet Vihar.There is no mention of PCR officials leaving for the spot.As per this DD, only ASI Shankar Lal left for the spot to whom this DD was assigned.How the police party reached the spot near Manglam Hospital is again a mystery.In the instant case, even if the offence of extortion is held to be not made out for want of delivery of the property atleast, the offence of attempt to commit extortion is clearly made out.' Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 11 of 12A. No.105/2012 Page 11 of 12The appellant Varun Kumar is aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2011 vide which the learned ASJ has convicted him for committing the offence punishable under Section 365/398/34 IPC.The appellant was sentenced under Section 365/34 IPC to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs.500/- and also under Section 398/34 IPC to undergo RI for seven years with fine of Rs.1000/- and both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.In brief, the case of the prosecution as made out from the complaint Ex.He prayed for legal action against the offenders.Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 1 of 12A knife was also recovered from the spot.On the basis of endorsement made by ASI Shankar Lal, who alongwith Ct.Satender Kumar reached the spot on receiving DD No.38-A Ex.PW5/A, case FIR no.505/2009 under Sections 365/323/506/34 IPC was registered at PS Preet Vihar and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.The appellant was charged by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections 392/511/34 r/w 397 IPC and Section 367/34 IPC.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 2 of 12 in all i.e. PW-1 HC Johnson - the Duty Officer, PW-2 Mr.A. No.105/2012 Page 2 of 12- the public witness, PW-3 - the complainant/victim, PW-4 HC Satender Kumar who accompanied the IO to the spot and PW-4 ASI Shankar Lal- the Investigating Officer.During his examination under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant/accused has taken the plea that on 05.09.2009 at about 8.00 pm when he was going to Preet Vihar, he was stopped by the police at Jagat Puri Barricade and was asked to show the documents.As he was not having the documents, he was sent home to bring the documents.When he reached the police station alongwith the documents to take back his bike, on his inability to pay Rs.3,000/-, he was put in lock-up and falsely implicated in this case.Believing the testimony of the prosecution witnesses especially the public witness i.e. PW-2 Mr.Sheel Sharma and the complainant PW-3 Mohd. Irshad, learned Trial Court was of the view that the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 did not suffer from any infirmity and guilt of the accused was proved beyond any reasonable doubt.On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that the entire testimony of prosecution witnesses has to be discarded for the reason that material contradictions have appeared on record which are sufficient to disbelieve them.Not only that, the complainant has also deposed in an unnatural manner.The MLC of the complainant revealed that there was no fresh injury at the time of his medical examination, so the testimony of the complainant that he was given beating with belts and Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 3 of 12 attempt to rob him at knife point, has to be rejected in view of the fact that as per the police witnesses, a knife was recovered from the hand of Varun whereas the statement of the complainant PW-3 Mohd. Irshad is that knife was thrown and later on searched by the police officials and recovered.It has been further submitted that about the place of occurrence also there are material contradictions as to whether attempt to rob him was made near drain (nala) or near Manglam Hospital and apart from that while PW-2 has referred to presence of other police officials also near Bus Stand, Jagat Puri when the local police has arrived, no such police official has been examined or cited as a witness by the prosecution.The manner in which the entire story has been concocted makes it unbelievable and appellant is entitled to be acquitted.Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 3 of 12On behalf of State, it has been submitted that the prosecution case has been duly supported by the statements of public witness i.e. PW-2 Mr.9. Learned ASJ has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 365/398/34 IPC believing the testimony of the complainant PW-3 Mohd. Irshad as well the public witness PW-2 Mr.Sheel Sharma.(iii) He did not raise any alarm or made an effort to save the victim from the offenders, instead, he preferred not to chase them from safe distance, rather the three left the spot and he continued waiting at the same place for the police to arrive and then the police party and he left in search for them in the direction in which they left.(iv) When he witnessed the occurrence, the victim was given beating by the offenders before taking him away forcibly.(v) Khukri/knife was recovered from the possession of the appellant Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 5 of 12 Varun Kumar.A. No.105/2012 Page 5 of 12Statement of PW-3 Mohd.Irshad, the complainant is to the effect that he was a rickshaw puller.On 05.09.2009 at about 10.00/10.15 pm after taking meal from a Dhaba, he was returning home.When he reached near Bus Stop across the road near drain, two boys came there on motorcycle.Appellant Varun Kumar was carrying a knife who slapped him and made him to sit on the motorcycle.While giving beating to him, the appellant and his associate asked him to handover the money and whatever he was carrying.At that point of time, the police arrived at the spot, apprehended the appellant and his associate, took the keys of the motorcycle and recovered the knife with cover from the pocket of accused Varun Kumar.Thereafter all of them were taken to the police station.He also stated that he made statement under Section 164 CrPC Ex.PW3/B before learned Magistrate.In cross examination, PW-3 Mohd. Irshad has stated that the distance from the place he was taken on the motorcycle and the place where he was beaten is about 750 meters and there was no public person present there.The statement under Section 164 CrPC made by this witness regarding the occurrence is to the effect that when he was returning after having his food, he was stopped by two persons on motorcycle.On seeing the police, the knife was thrown behind.When he informed the police about the knife, police made search for the knife and thereafter they were brought to the police station.Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 6 of 12The MLC of the complainant Mohd. Irshad shows that he was taken to Lal Bahadur Shashtri Hospital, Khichri Pur, Delhi on 06.09.2009 at 7.34 AM with alleged history of assault.Absence of any fresh injury on the body falsifies the statement of the complainant Mohd. Irshad that he was repeatedly given beating with belt by the appellant.Causing injuries with a belt leaves the mark which cannot vanish within 7-8 hours which is the time gap between the occurrence and medical examination.It is relevant to mention here that if three grown up persons are riding on motorcycle, the person on whose back the knife has been put, during driving, the point of knife is bound to Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 7 of 12 leave some injury mark on the back of the victim especially for the reason that date of occurrence is night intervening 5/6-09-2009 when woolen clothes are not worn and if a person is wearing ordinary summer clothes, while riding on motorcycle with force of knife put on the back by another pillion rider, likelihood of being hurt from the point of knife, are very strong.But as already referred, as per MLC there is no injury mark on any part of the body and there was no fresh injury on the person of Mohd. Irsahd.So the entire case of prosecution regarding use of knife in an attempt to commit robbery is falsified from the MLC.A. No.105/2012 Page 7 of 12Statement of PW-4 HC Satender Kumar and PW-5 ASI Shankar Lal regarding who reached the spot whether any police official from PCR was also present there at the spot where Sheel Sharma was waiting for the police or when the local police arrived, is also full of contradictions and in total contrast to what PW-2 and PW-3 stated about the proceedings being conducted which as per them was at the Police Station and as per PW-4 sand PW-5 was at the spot.As per PW-3 the police arrived there of its own and Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 8 of 12 saved him.As per the rukka Ex.PW5/B, the time of arrival of the police near Manglam Hospital is 11.15 pm when they apprehended the appellant and his associate while they were beating the complainant.Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 8 of 12PW-2 Mr.Sheel Sharma in his cross examination has stated that SHO also arrived there in Gypsy.Some police officials were on private motorcycle.One police official sat with him in his car, they left in different directions, the policeman sitting in his car was carrying wireless set and he received the message on wireless set about the apprehension of the appellant and his associate near Manglam Hospital.It is nowhere stated by PW-4 HC Satender Kumar and PW-5 ASI Shankar Lal that one of them was travelling in the car of PW-2 Sheel Sharma or one of them, was carrying wireless set and the other police official conveyed the message on wireless set.The two site plans Ex.PW5/C which is of the place from where the appellant was stated to be apprehended and another Ex.PW5/D which is of the place near Bus Stand, F-Block, Jagat Puri, Delhi have been placed on record.Both are the main roads and place of apprehension is shown in front of house No.A-8 adjoining Manglam Hospital.PW-2 Mr.PW3/B or it was recovered from the pocket of the appellant or it was being used at the time of apprehension of the appellant from the spot.The evidence against the appellant, so far as offence punishable under Section 398 IPC is concerned, is so weak that no conviction could have been passed by learned ASJ for committing the offence punishable under Section 398 IPC.A. No.105/2012 Page 9 of 12The appellant has also been convicted under Section 365 IPC which deals with kidnapping or abduction with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person.PW5/C and D, the complainant was allegedly taken from near Bus Stand, Jagat Puri.The appellant and the complainant were found seen by the police in front of the house adjoining Manglam Hospital which is a main road leading to Karkardooma Court which is at a distance of 750 meters from Bus Stand, Jagat Puri.Thus, it cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the appellant to abduct the complainant with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine him.There is no evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant for committing the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC.Even if reference to the Section under which the appellant was convicted is ignored, from the Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 10 of 12 statement of PW-3 Mohd. Irshad at the most the case of the prosecution falls under Section 385 IPC.In order to complete the act of extortion the person who was put in fear, must have been induced to deliver the property.If the act of inducement caused by the wrong doer should bring forth its result at least by the victim consenting to deliver property even if actual delivery does not take place due to any fortuitous circumstances which would constitute extortion, but if it falls to produce the requisite effect, the act would remain only at the stage of attempt to commit extortion.The statement of PW-3 Mohd. Irshad at the most proved that while he was returning home after taking food from nearby Dhaba, an attempt was made to commit extortion by asking him to handover whatever he had by putting him in fear of injury.So, believing the testimony of PW- 3 Mohd. Irshad to the extent that the appellant came near him and after putting him in fear of injury asked him to handover whatever he had but the offence could not be completed because of the arrival of the police near Manglam Hospital, the appellant can be convicted only for committing the offence punishable under Section 385 IPC.In view of above discussion, the conviction of the appellant for committing the offence punishable under Section 365 and 398 IPC is set aside and he is convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 385 IPC.The maximum punishment provided for committing the offence punishable under Section 385 IPC is two years or fine.The appellant is sentenced to undergo RI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 385 IPC.The appellant be released from custody on the completion of sentence of one year.Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for necessary compliance.PRATIBHA RANI, J September 14, 2012/'st' Crl.A. No.105/2012 Page 12 of 12A. No.105/2012 Page 12 of 12","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 1 of 18The petitioner nos.1 and 2 and the complainant one Hari Mohan Bansal, were the Directors of a company by the name of HMD Technology Ltd. There were some disputes, regarding management and the financial issues, between the complainant and the petitioners.This resulted in registration of the aforesaid FIR.In terms of the said amicable and peaceful settlement, all the past, present disputes /litigation were agreed to be settled on the following terms and conditions:-""1) That the second party agrees to pay to the first party (First party is the complainant and the Second party is the petitioners) an amount of `30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs) in favour of M/s HMD Technologies Ltd., in full and final settlement of all dues and liabilities that may have arisen against the second party.It is hereby agreed that henceforth, after having received the amount above amount of `30,00,000/-, the first part shall have no WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 2 of 18 claim charge, lien and/or demand against the second party.The abovesaid amount of `30,00,000/- will be paid to the first party as follows:-WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 2 of 18A) Rs.10 Lacs by way of cheque within 20 days from the date of present agreement.Details of the cheques issued by the second party is given in annexure A to this agreement.The second party undertakes that all the cheques issued by them will be honouored on presentation for encashment by the first party.That, second party agrees to transfer their entire share holdings of HMD Technologies Ltd. held by second party in the name of M/s Shanti Deep Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Raf Steels pvt.Ltd. to the first party at the time of signing of this agreement and the amount of consideration in respect of share purchase agreement is set off or adjusted within the settled amount amicably arrived at between both the party.The second party will set off the unsecured loan `8,04,168/-in the name of M/s Shri Hans Energy System Pvt. Ltd. and share application money of `13,18,770/- in the name of M/s Shanti Deep Constructions Pvt. Ltd., `5,00,000/- in the name of M/s Akanksha Telecommunication and `10,00,000/- in the name of Bsskay Communication i.e. total amounting of `36,85,938/- stands WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 3 of 18 adjusted/setoff.The set off so affected shall be full and final settlement of the dues against the unsecured loan and share application money of the second party shown as outstanding in the books of accounts of M/s HMD Technologies Ltd. The second party shall not claim any amount from M/s HMD Technologies Ltd. for the aforesaid unsecured loan and share application money at any point of time in future.WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 3 of 18The HMD Technologies Ltd. had availed a financial assistance, from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Safdarjung Enclave Branch, New Delhi and the first and the second parties had furnished a personal guarantee against the working capital loan and term loan or any other financial assistance for and on behalf of the company as security for the financial aid so received from the said bank or any other bank.It is now hereby agreed between the parties hereto that after encashing all the cheques details of which is given in annexure A the totaling of `30 lacs, and assured by the first party, that the first party undertakes to approach the said bank to have the personal guarantee, furnished by the second party be released.Further during the pendency of installments if any liability arises against the second party the first party indemnifies to resolve the same.That after encashing all the cheques details of which is given in annexure A the totaling of `30 lacs, the first party WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 4 of 18 undertakes to make a no objection statement to quashing of FIR no.52/2006 P.S. Preet Vihar which will be filed by the second party by way of a petition u/S 482 Cr.P.C. and the first party shall forfeit its right to prosecute the second party in the FIR.In case this agreement fails, the first party shall take appropriate course of the law to prosecute the second party.WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 4 of 18That after the receipt of `30 lacs, the first party shall take necessary steps, indemnify and shall fully co-ordinate and co-operate with the second party for discharging the second party from the various criminal complaints filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by creditors of M/s HMD Technologies Ltd.The second party will supply their DIN No. to the first party for filing Form 32 to the ROC.That on execution of this agreement the share holding agreement of dated 15.11.2002 stand terminated between the parties.""WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 6 of 18This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.52/2006, under WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 1 of 18 Section 406/420 IPC registered by P.S. Preet Vihar, Delhi.That the first party shall issue a discharge certificate i.e. discharge from all liabilities past and future of the company i.e. M/s HMD Technologies Ltd. in favour of second party.That the first party on signing of this agreement shall appear before the Honble High Court of Delhi and apprise the court about the settlement of agreement among them.The first party shall make appropriate statement for the grant of permanent bail of the second party and Mrs. Leela Pilania in the captioned FIR.The first party shall assist the second party subject to the fulfillment of this agreement.In case the agreement fails the first party WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 5 of 18 reserve its right to approach the Honble High Court for the cancellation of the bail.That the second party on signing of this agreement shall withdraw the Arbitration Petition No.OMP434/2006 and AA No.477/2006 pending before the Honble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.In case this agreement fails the second party reserve its right to continue with the arbitration application or any other legal recourse.That upon signing of this agreement Mr.K.K.Pilania, Mr.A.K.Pilania, Mr.WP(Crl.) No.928/2007 Page 9 of 18As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant has vehemently opposed the quashing of the FIR on the ground that the petitioners have not complied with the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement inasmuch as neither they have signed the resignation letter nor they have signed the other requisite forms and consequently, the petitioners have not fulfilled their obligations under the settlement agreement and therefore, the aforesaid FIR cannot be quashed.In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant has placed reliance on the judgment titled Sushil Suri Vs.The petitioners had also in terms of the settlement agreement withdrawn the Arbitration matters which were initiated against the respondent no.2/complainant.After having received the said benefit, it is not open to the respondent no.2/complainant to urge that the FIR may not be quashed on the ground that the offences u/S 468/471 IPC are non-compoundable offences.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"PW3 is their son.PW3 is the brother of the deceased.9.It is an admitted fact that the marriage was solemnised between A1 and the deceased.PW1 gave Ex.However, it is seen from the evidence of PW4 that the deceased was living separate and he had sent to the house of A1 an advised all the accused to take the deceased into matrimonial fold.PW4 further stated before PW14 that the accused demanded dowry.12.PW1 and PW2 stated during their evidence that due to the dowry demand by the accused, their daughter came to their house and only PW1 requested Ex-President to mediate it and after the mediation, their daughter went to her matrimonial house and after six months again all the accused demanded dowry and the deceased was driven to her parental home and the sister of A1 told that they are going to arrange second marriage for A1 and then only PW1 and the deceased went to the Police Station and gave Ex.P1 complaint and the accused persons went to Aruppukottai Police Station for enquiry and then, they went nearby way of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 property of PW1 and threatened PW1 saying that they will severe the marital tie between A1 and the deceased and due to it, their daughter committed suicide.13.PW3 is the brother of the deceased.PW3 deposed that at the time of marriage, his sister was given 15 sovereign of jewels and Rs.15,000/- cash and household articles worth about Rs. 30,000/- and one year after the marriage, all the accused demanded Rs.50,000/- and her sister came to their house and stated that she was harassed by the accused demanding dowry and his father was not to able to give Rs.50,000/- and due to it, his sister was in their house and his father requested PW4 to mediate the matter and in the mediation, A1 accepted to take back his sister and after six months, the accused again demanded dowry and his sister came to their house and in the meanwhile, the sister of A1 stated that they are going to arrange second marriage for A1 and due to it, his sister gave complaint before the Aruppukottai Police Station and all the accused were called by the police for enquiry and while, they were proceeding near their garden, they threatened his sister by saying that they are going to severe the marital tie between his sister and A1 and due to it, his sister committed suicide.http://www.judis.nic.in 914.It is stated on the side of the revision petitioners that due to misunderstanding between A1 and the deceased, the deceased left the matrimonial home.Hence, it was not proved on the side of the revision petitioner that due to misunderstanding, the deceased left the matrimonial home.But PW1 to PW3 have categorically stated that due to dowry demand, the deceased left the matrimonial home.No contra evidence let in on the side of the accused to prove that due to misunderstanding the deceased left the matrimonial home.Hence, the argument put forth on the side of the accused stating that the deceased went to her matrimonial home only due to misunderstanding is not at all acceptable.15.In this case, in order to prove that for the dowry demand by the accused, the deceased gave complaint before the Aruppukottai Police Station and the accused were called by the Police and Ex.P6 complaint was produced on the side of the prosecution.16.PW10 spoke about the receiving of Ex.This Criminal Revision is directed against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.130 of 2005 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Paramakudi, dated 10.12.2009, which was modified by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram, in Crl.2.According to the prosecution, PW1 and PW2 are husband and wife.The marriage between the deceased and A1 Muniyandi had solemnised on 17.06.1999 and at the time of marriage, the deceased was provided with 15 sovereign of jewels and cash of Rs.15,000/- and household articles worth about Rs.30,000/-.After marriage, the deceased had beaten by the accused and other accused by demanding Rs.50,000/-.In this regard, a complaint was given by the deceased Murugeswari on 27.08.2004 before the All Women Police Station, Aruppukottai and thereafter, she was found to be hanged in a mango tree.The Deputy Superintendent of Police has filed a final report against the accused by examining the witnesses.3.In the trial court, 18 witnesses were examined and 12 Exhibits and one material object were marked.When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances, they denied the same.The trial court convicted A1 to A5 and sentenced them to undergo 7 years R/I each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default S/I for one year each under Section 304(B) IPC and one year R/I under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w 34 IPC each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default SI for 3 months each.Aggrieved by the Judgment of the trial court, A1 to A5 preferred appeal in C.A.No.25 of 2009, which was heard by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram.Aggrieved by the Judgment of the first appellate court, A1 to A5 as revision petitioners are before this court.4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused and that the first appellate court failed to consider the fact that the accused found guilty under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,http://www.judis.nic.in 4 when the accused are innocent in respect of Section 304(B) IPC and that there are material contradictions in the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 and that PW1 to PW3 are close relatives and their testimony is interested one and that the first appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW4 who is the independent and truthful witness and the first appellate failed to appreciate the fact that the death of the deceased was happened in her parental home and not in her matrimonial home and that the first appellate court failed to consider Exs.P6 and P7 in a proper manner and the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.In view of the above circumstances, the impugned judgment has to be set aside and the revision petition has to be allowed.5.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent/State submitted that the first appellate court on proper appreciation of the evidence both oral and documentary, convicted the revision petitioners and passed proper sentence, which does not require any interference by this court and the accused are not entitled for acquittal and prays that the criminal revision may be dismissed.P1 complaint in respect of the occurrence.10.PW1 in his complainant and evidence stated that at the time of marriage, the deceased was given 15 sovereign of jewels and cash of Rs.15,000/- and household articles worth about Rs. 30,000/- and one year after marriage, all the accused harassed the deceased and demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/- and drove thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 deceased to her parental home and the deceased came to his house and told him about the demand of dowry by the accused, but he expressed his inability to pay the amount and asked his daughter to stay with him and the deceased stayed in her parental home for one year and the Ex-President of his village mediated between the two families and then, the deceased went to her matrimonial home and after six months, all the accused again harassed his daughter by way of demanding Rs.50,000/- and thereafter, A1, A2 and A4 went to Theni for their avocation ad the sister of A1 talked that when the deceased failed to bring Rs.50,000/-, they are going to arrange another marriage for A1 and therefore, PW1 and the deceased went to the All Women Police Station, Arupukottai and gave a complaint regarding the demand of dowry by the accused and the police enquired all the accused and his daughter told him, while going to the police station that all the accused stated that they are going to severe the martial tie between A1 and the deceased and then, at about 10.00 am on the same day, he heard noise and found that his daughter hanged herself in a mango tree and then, he found that his daughter was dead and then he gave Ex.P1 Complaint.http://www.judis.nic.in 711.PW4 was examined to speak about the panchayat held for reuniting the deceased and A1 and with regard to demand of dowry and other facts.Since PW4 has not supported the case of the prosecution, he was treated as a hostile witness.P6 complaint and issued receipt Ex.P7 and conducted enquiry.P6 complainthttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 was treated as petition and PW10 conducted the enquiry.In this case, while cross examining PW10 on the side of the revision petitioners/A1 to A5, a suggestion was put to the effect that the deceased has not given Ex.But while cross examining PW1, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/A1 to A5 before the trial court, put the following questions:-jhd; vy;yhtw;wpw;Fk; fhuzk; vd;why; mij ehd; kWf;fpnwd;.” Hence, from the above cross examination of PW1, it reveals that they admitted the giving of Ex.17.On perusal of Ex.P6, the deceased stated the details of demand of dowry by the accused.Further, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/A1 to A5 submitted that there is no necessity for the revision petitioners/A1 to A5 to pass through the garden of PW1, while going to Aruppukottai.http://www.judis.nic.in 11PW1 during his cross examination stated that:-“ehd; bfhLj;j g[fhh; jhd; ,e;j tHf;fpw;F mog;gil fhuzk; vd;Wk;> g[fhh;20.Further, on perusal of Ex.P6 complaint, it is stated that all the accused demanded dowry and drove the deceased out of the matrimonial home and PW14 ordered for conducting enquiry and the first accused Muniyandi agreed to bring the other accused for enquiry.21.It is to be noted that Ex.But on 04.09.2004, the deceased committed suicide.Hence, it reveals that only due to the complaint given by the deceased, the accused threatened by saying that they are going to severe the marital tie between A1 and the deceased and due to it, she committed suicide.22.Further, in this case, it is pertinent to note that in order to settle the dispute between A1 and the deceased, no case was registered.Further, it is a matrimonial dispute.Hence, PW16 conducted enquiry to settle the dispute between the parties.Hence, it is not necessary to suspect Exs.23.On careful perusal of Ex.P1, it shows that all the accused harassed and committed cruelty on the deceased by way of demanding a dowry of Rs.50,000/- one year after her marriage and the deceased was driven out of matrimonial home.Further, PW1, who is the father of the deceased was not able to mobilise the dowry amount and therefore, the deceased stayed at his house for one year and thereafter, PW4/Patchamal effected compromise and the deceased was reunited with her husband and six monthshttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 thereafter, all the accused harassed the deceased again and sent her out of matrimonial home and thereafter, the deceased lived with PW1 until her suicide.24.In view of the above facts, this court is of the considered view that only due to the demand of dowry, the deceased was driven out of her matrimonial home and she lived in her parental home and only due to the harassment by the accused, she gave the complaint before the Aruppukottai Police Station and in the Police Station, all the accused were called for enquiry and due to the threat by the accused by saying that they are going to severe the marital tie, the deceased committed suicide.25.This court, after going through the records, is of the considered view that the first appellate Court has not committed any mistake or error in rendering a finding hold the revision petitioners/A1 and A5 guilty of the offence with which they stood charged.However, considering the family circumstances of the revision petitioners/A1 to A5, this Court finds that the punishment imposed on the revision petitioners/A1 to A5 requires modification.http://www.judis.nic.in 1426.In the result, this Criminal Revision is partly allowed.However, considering the family circumstances of the revision petitioners/A1 to A5, the punishment imposed by the first appellate court is reduced to three months of Rigorous Imprisonment.Further, the revision petitioners/A1 to A5 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to each children of the deceased namely Poorvika (6-1/2 years) and Jeyashree (9 months), within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.Since the children of the deceased are minors, the compensation amount shall be deposited in Recurring Deposit Scheme in the Bank of India, Mandapasalai Branch, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District, till they attained majority.The period of sentence, if any already undergone by the revision petitioners/A1 to A5 shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.26.11.2018 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No erhttp://www.judis.nic.in 15 To,1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kamuthi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 16 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J er Judgment made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.546 of 2010 26.11.2018http://www.judis.nic.in 17 Crl.RC(MD)No.167 of 2009http://www.judis.nic.in 18 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J This matter is posted today under the caption “For reporting compliance.”2.When the matter is taken up, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the order of this court, dated 20.08.2018 has been complied with and he has also filed a memo, dated 02.11.2018 to that effect.3.Today, as per the order of this Court, the revision petitioner gave two demand drafts bearing registration Nos. 314334 and 314335 for Rs.1,00,000/- each to the son and daughter of the deceased Malathi @ Chandra namely R.Pavithra and Naveen Balaji, which were also received by them.4.Recording the above, this criminal revision is closed.02.11.2018 er T.KRISHNAVALLI,Jhttp://www.judis.nic.in 19 Crl.R.C(MD)No.167 of 2009 02.11.2018http://www.judis.nic.in 20http://www.judis.nic.in",['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Thereafter, charge sheet was submitted against the applicant under Section 413 IPC alongwith 394 IPC, therefore, he has filed present bail applicant after rejection of the bail application by the Court below.Applicant is having criminal history of certain cases, which are explained in the affidavit.Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.","['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence Page 2 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No. 9267 of 2020 as alleged by the prosecution.Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.Page 2 of 6The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant and the injured discharged from the hospital.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Namakkal, on condition that each of the petitioners Page 3 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No. 9267 of 2020 shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:Page 3 of 6[a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.O.P.No.9267 of 2020 24.06.2020 Page 6 of 6http://www.judis.nic.inPage 6 of 6The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 324 and 506 (ii) of IPC, in Crime No.297 of 2020, seek anticipatory bail.[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.Page 4 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No. 9267 of 2020 [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.24.06.2020 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order dh ToThe Judicial Magistrate – I, Namakkal.The Inspector of Police, Erumapatty Police Station, Erumapatty, Namakkal District.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.Page 5 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No. 9267 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J dh Crl.",['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
"This revision has been preferred against the order dated 4.2.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Mau in S.T. No. 134 of 2009 (Case Crime No. 268 of 2009), State Vs.Ravindra @ Raghvendra and others, under Sections 302 /34, 504 & 506 I.P.C., P.S. Madhuban, District Mau.Brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2 Smt. Saroj Singh lodged a report at the police station stating that she was married to Devanand.Later on marriage could not continue and the relations of husband and wife between Smt. Saroj Singh and Devanand came to an end by the court.The opposite party no. 2 was being maintained by her mother Vijay Laxmi and was living in the village with her daughter Kumari Jyoti.On 26.2.2009 the opposite party no. 2 had gone to Madhuban to bring admit card of her daughter Jyoti, who was a student of class 10 of Subhagi Devi Higher Secondary School, Madhuwan, Mau but she could not get the admission card and came back to her house on foot managing her other affairs.When she reached her house at about 5 p.m., she saw that her daughter was hanging by a rope.When she was trying to save her daughter, suddenly Raghvendra Yadav @ Kanthi Yadav and Vikas Mall started fleeing away from the other room.The complainant requested both the accused to help her in saving her daughter but they threatened to kill the complainant and ran away with banki in their hands.Just thereafter Rana Pratap Singh @ Pinku Singh and Chandra Prakash accompanied by Santosh Kumar Singh reached the spot.After investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against Raghvendra @ Ravindra and one Ram Kishan Yadav.Charge sheet was not submitted against Vikas Kumar Mall.When the charge sheet was submitted in court, charges were framed against the accused persons and the statement of P.W.1 Smt. Saroj Singh commenced.After examination-in-chief of P.W.1 Smt. Saroj was concluded, an application was moved by the prosecution to summon Vikas Mall under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The learned lower court, vide order dated 4.2.2010 summoned the accused Vikas Mall under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved the present revision has been preferred by the revisionist.I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.","['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This order shall dispose of Crl.Revision Petitions Nos.596/2000, 619/2000, 46/2001 and 47/2001, which are directed against order dated 23.11.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in case FIR No.287/99 registered with P.S. Mehrauli, commonly known as ""Jessica Lal Murder Case"".In Crl.The facts, leading to filing of the above revision petitions, briefly stated, are that on the intervening night of 29th and 30th April, 1999, a party was going on at Tamarind Court Cafe, Qutub Colonnade, Mehrauli, New Delhi in which drinks were being served on payment basis.According to the prosecution, accused Manu Sharma, Vikas Yadav, Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill, Alok Khanna and Amit Jhingan (hereinafter referred to as A-1 to A-5 respectively) also reached this Cafe at about 11.30 p.m. At about 2.00 a.m., A-1 asked a waiter to give him two drinks and on his refusal, he asked Malini Ramani, daughter of the owner of the Cafe to get him a drink, but she also declined.On his insistence, she remarked that he could not have a sip of drink even if he paid Rs.1,000/- on which A-1 remarked that he could pay Rs.1,000/- for a sip of her.It is alleged that thereafter A-1 asked Jessica Lal, deceased, to give him two drinks, but she also refused upon which A-1 took out a pistol from his pocket and fired one shot towards the roof and the second shot towards the deceased, which hit near her left eye.She fell down and later succumbed to her injury.On account of this firing, there was commotion (Hafra Tafri) amongst the guests present in the Cafe and most of them started running away.The prosecution alleges that A-6 succeeded in causing disappearance of this weapon of offence.He is also alleged to have helped and supported A-10 R.K.Sudan to escape from Delhi A-7 Harvinder Chopra, A-8 Vikas Gill @ Ruby Gill and A-9 Yog Raj Singh had allegedly harboured A-1 knowing of having reason to believe that he was wanted in connection with the offence.Some of the leading models of Delhi including deceased Jessica Lal were working as bar-tenders.The accused A-1 to A-5 remained there for a period of about 2/1-2 hours during which nothing objectionable happened.At about 2.00 AM when the party was coming to a close, A-1 first asked a waiter to get him drinks and on his refusal asked Malni Ramani, the daughter of the owner Beena Ramani but she also declined to oblige him.There was exchange of some unpleasant words even between the two and thereafter A-1 allegedly asked the deceased Jessica Lal to provide him two drinks.On her refusal he took out a pistol from his pocket and first fired a shot towards the roof and the second shot towards her which struck above her left eye and caused her fatal injury.The prosecution case is that on account of this firing there was complete commotion in the party and people started running.A-1 to A-05 also escaped from the spot.It is alleged that A-1 was being escorted out of the cafe by his other co-accused.It is also alleged that after leaving the Cafe, they again re-assembled at the house of A-3 and then planned retrieval of the Black Tata Safari of A-1 from the spot as well as the pistol which A-1 had allegedly concealed near Handloom Emporium.(a) Meeting between the accused at the house of A-3 before reaching the place of incident;(b) Exchange of telephone calls before reaching cafe;.(c) Carrying of a pistol to the spot by A-1;(d) Loading of the pistol by a-1 on his way to the place of incident;(e) Circumstances suggesting that they knew the deceased prior to the incident;R.596/2000, the State prays to set aside the discharge of accused No.1 Manu Sharma, accused No.2 Vikas Yadav, accused No.3 Amardeep Singh Gill, accused No.4 Alok Khanna and accused No.5 Amit Jhingan under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC as well as the discharge of A-2 to A-5 for offence under Section 302/34 IPC.A further prayer is to set aside the discharge of accused A-4, A-5 and A-6 Shyam Sunder Sharma, who have not been charged for commission of any of the offences.R.47/2001 has been filed by accused No.2 Vikas Yadav with a prayer to discharge him of the offences under Sections 201, 120-B and 34 IPC.Revision petition No.46/2001 has been filed by (SIC) & Tony Gill with a prayer to discharge him of the offences under Sections 201 and 120-B IPC.Revision petition No.619/2000 has been filed by accused No.12 Raja Chopra with a prayer to discharge him for the offence under Section 212 IPC.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.After coming out of the Cafe, A-1 walked away on foot whereas the remaining accused slipped away in a vehicle.It is alleged that A-2, A-3 and A-4 reached the house of A-3 where A-1 also came later.The prosecution story is that before coming to Cafe also, there was exchange of telephone calls between them, which suggests that they had gone to the Cafe after hatching a conspiracy to murder deceased Jessica Lal.Prosecution alleges that after the incident A-1 to A-4 re-assembled at the house of A-3 where they hatched a conspiracy to remove the Tata Safari belonging to A-1 from the place of occurrence.In furtherance of this conspiracy, A-2 and A-3 again went to the spot in the vehicle of A-4 and forcibly removed black Tata Safari of A-1 from there inspite of resistance by P.W.54 Shravan Kumar.It is alleged that while the accused were taking away Tata Safari of A-1 from the place of occurrence, P.W.54 Shravan Kumar gave a danda blow on account of which one glass pane of vehicle got broken.It is also alleged that before coming to the house of A-3 after the incident, A-1 had concealed his pistol near the place of incident and later on in furtherance of a conspiracy, A-1 and A-2 went to the said place and managed to retrieve the weapon of offence form there.This weapon of offence, according to the prosecution, was later handed over by A-1 to accused R.K.Sudan (hereinafter referred to as 'A-10'), who is turn handed it over to A-6, Shyam Sunder Sharma.Accused No.12 Raja Chopra is stated to have provided his car to A-1 for escaping from Delhi and reaching Chandigarh.The prosecution filed a challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the aforesaid accused for the commission of offences under Sections 302/201/212, read with Section (SIC) IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act as well as Sections 302/34 IPC.Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order held that A-1 should be charged under Section 37 IPC (SIC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. A-1 to A-8 were ordered to be charged under Section 120-B read with Section 201 IPC for conspiracy and removal of the Tata Safari of A-1 from the place of incident.Learned Additional Sessions Judge did not accept the prosecution request for charging A-1 to A-5 under Section 120-B IPC for commission of an offence under Section 302-IPC for murder of the deceased Jessica Lal.Section 34 IPC was also held to be not applicable against them for commission of the offence under Section 302 IPC. A-4 Alok Khanna and A-5 Anil Jhingan were discharged of all the offences.A-6 Shyam Sunder Sharma was also discharged of all the offences alleged against him.Mr.S.K.Saxena, learned Special Public Prosecutor, arguing for the State in Crl.He has assailed the view taken by learned trial Court that there were no grounds for framing of charge under Section 120-B IPC in as much as even if the evidence was to go (SIC), these accused could not be convicted under Section 120-B IPC in relation to the murder of Jessica Lal.According to learned counsel for the State, this approach of learned trial Court was manifestly erroneous for the reason that at the stage of framing of the charge, the Court is not required to (SIC) and appreciate the prosecution evidence on record to find out as to whether the evidence was sufficient or not for convicting an accused, if the evidence was to go (SIC).L.J. 2448 and Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Vs.Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Another, .10 Mr.Saxena submits that for proving an offence of conspiracy-direct evidence is seldom available to the prosecution as dark deeds are done in darkness.He argues that existence of criminal conspiracy can be inferred from the circumstances, events and conduct of the accused prior to the offence, at the time of commission of the offence and subsequent to the commission of the offence.To argue that there existed a conspiracy between the aforesaid five accused for committing murder of Jessica Lal, he relies upon the judgments in Hardeo Singh Vs.State of Bihar & Others, 2000 Crl.L.J.2978; Ajay Agarwal Vs.Union of India & Others, AIR 1993 SC 1637 and Kehar Singh & Others Vs.The State (Delhi Administration), .Learned counsel, in support of his submissions for framing of charge of conspiracy against A-1 to A-5, points out that the prosecution has placed on record enough material to show that the accused persons had not at the residence of A-3 before going to the restaurant, there was exchange of phone calls between them, A-1 was carrying a loaded pistol with him and recovery of empty shells and a live cartridge from Tata Safari of A-1 shows that the pistol was loaded on way to the restaurant in the presence of other accused.According to him, all these circumstances prior to teaching the venue of the incident suggest very strongly that there might have been a conspiracy between A-1 to A-5 commit murder of Jessica Lal otherwise they had no reason to go there when one of them was armed with a pistol.He further submits that presence of all the five accused at the spot is prima facie established and it is also established by statements of some witnesses that the deceased not a stranger to them.He has read the statement of Shyan Munshi to show that A-3 Tony Gill was seen talking to the deceased sometime prior to the incident.It is submitted that in the absence of a conspiracy and a firm resolve to kill Jessica Lal, A-1 had no reason to fire a second shot aiming towards her.Absence of any effort by A-2 to A-5 to prevent A-1 from firing a second shot at Jessica Lal and thereafter omission to provide her help clearly suggest that they had come prepared to murder her.After the incident, all of them escorted A-1 out of the restaurant, which circumstance is also indicative of their plan to commit murder and then escape.His further contention is that even if it is not believed that the conspiracy was hatched at the residence of A-3 Tony Gill, a possibility is there that the conspiracy was hatched at Tamarind Cafe itself where A-1 to A-5 were present for sufficient time before killing the deceased Jessica Lal.Learned counsel for the State submits that even after commission of murder, the accused persons continued to collaborate and cooperate with each other in the matter of retrieval of the vehicle of A-1 from the spot, retrieval of the weapon of offence from the place where he was (SIC) by A-1, refixing of a window pane in the vehicle of A-1, meeting at the residence of A-3 Tony Gill, exchange of telephone calls between them and escape of A-1 from Delhi.According to him if A-2 to A-5 had not been co-conspirators of A-1, they would have (SIC) associated themselves from A-1 at least after the shooting incident and as such, their exists (SIC) suspicion that they all were in conspiracy to commit the murder of deceased Jessica Lal.Mr.S.K.Saxena presses for invoking Section 34 IPC also against A-2 to A-5 for the commission of the offence under Section 302 IPC on the ground that there was some time gap between the first shot fired by A-1 towards the roof and the second shot fired towards the deceased, but none of his co-accused tried to prevent A-1 from firing the second shot towards the deceased Jessica Lal, which resulted in her death.Their omission to prevent A-1 from firing the second shot, according to learned counsel, is suggestive of their common intention.After shooting of the deceased by A-1, the remaining four accused A-2 to A-5 did nothing to help the deceased by way of removing her to the hospital or calling the police and instead were more concerned to escort A-1 out of the restaurant safely.It is submitted that these facts and circumstances strongly suggest that if not conspiracy, they at least shared a common intention to kill Jessica Lal and as such Section 34 ought to have been invoked against them.Learned Special Public Prosecutor contends that the charges under Section 212 IPC also ought to have been framed against A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 in as much as inspite of their knowledge of commission of the offence by A-1, they escorted him out of the restaurant.Inspite of best efforts, the Investigating Agency could nt trace out this weapon and as such, material evidence has been made to disappear.Referring to statement of P.W. A.K.Dutt and the transcript of the taped telephonic conversation between P.W. A.K.Dutt and accused R.K.Sudan, it is submitted that there were sufficient grounds for charging A-6 under Section 201 IPC.He submits that disclosure statement of A-1 led the Investigating Agency to discover the fact that the pistol was handed over by A-1 to accused R.K.Sudan and the transcript of the taped conversation shows that the weapon was passed on to A-6 by accused R.K.Sudan.The telephonic conversation between R.K.Sudan and P.W. A.K.Dutt, learned counsel argues, was an extra judicial confession of R.K.Sudan and as such, admissible in evidence.Learned counsel argue that such serious charge cannot be and must not be framed against the accused unless the prosecution has sufficient material in support of the allegations.They submit that framing of a charge is not an empty formality in as much as an unwarranted and groundless charge, even if likely to fail, results in extreme harassment and hardship to an accused.It is submitted that request of the prosecution for framing a charge under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC against A-1 to A-5 for murder of deceased Jessica Lal is absolutely unwarranted, baseless and without any material on record.It is argued that though motive is not essential to be brought on record for establishing the commission of an offence, but in a case of conspiracy, motive is very material for the reason that it provides basis to the accused persons for entering into a conspiracy.It is argued that in the present case, the prosecution has no material to show that A-1 to A-5 had any enmity or ill will for planning murder of deceased Jessica Lal.According to learned counsel for the accused, the mere fact that prior to going to Tamarind Cafe, accused were together or that they were present at the Cafe or after the incident they escaped from the place of occurrence together, were not sufficient to draw an inference of criminal conspiracy.It is submitted that had the accused persons been in conspiracy to commit murder of Jessica Lal, they would not have waited for hours together at the Cafe before firing upon her.Moreover had the murder been preplanned and in furtherance of any conspiracy, the accused would not have allowed themselves to be seen by so many witnesses for such a long time and then shot at the deceased in full view of so many.Had there been a conspiracy, the accused, in normal course, would have ambushed her at a time and place where they could have found her alone and would have made every effort to conceal their identity.It is also argued that the telephonic conversations prior to the incident do not suggest any conspiracy as the accused might have been contacting each other for reaching the Cafe for having drinks and fun.In the absence of transcript of telephonic talks, no inference can be drawn that these telephonic calls were for hatching a conspiracy to murder the deceased.Their going to Cafe together and presence there are also not an incriminating circumstances.The fact that A-1 was carrying a weapon is also not a circumstance warranting any inference that the accused had gone to the Cafe to commit any murder.It was a licensed weapon and as such, A-1 had every right to keep it with him for his own protection.The argument of the State that at the time of the incident, none of the accused tried to prevent A-1 from firing at the deceased nor gave any help to her and they all escaped from the place of incident together, is also not enough to draw any inference of conspiracy.Learned counsel for the accused submit that evidence on record shows that there was no time gap between the first and second shot so as to enable A-2 to A-5 to prevent A-1 from firing the second shot towards deceased Jessica Lal.Like all others present at the spot, A-2 to A-5 also were taken aback and stunned.Since so many started running from the spot after the firing incident, A-2 to A-5 also escaped from there, which also is not incriminating circumstance to suggest any conspiracy.It is argued that A-2 to A-5 had not escorted A-1 out of the restaurant and had merely escaped from there along with him.Had they been escorting A-1 out of the restaurant, they would not have left the spot in their cars leaving A-1 to manage his own self because the evidence of the prosecution itself shows that A-1 came back from the spot on foot.It is also submitted that the first shot was fired by A-1 towards roof, which also shows that there was no conspiracy at all to commit murder of deceased Jessica Lal.Had there been any conspiracy, even the first shot would have been fired towards her.According to site plan, A-3, A-4 and A-5 were standing towards other side of the counter where the deceased Jessica Lal was itself that these three accused were standing in the same direction in which fire was shot by A-1 and as such, there was every chance that one of them could be hit by the said shot.It is submitted that the firing by A-1 was sudden and on account of such a trivial incident that A-2 to A-5 had no time or opportunity to prevent the firing.It is also argued that the prosecution has not been able to show any abnormal conduct on the part of the accused persons either before the incident, at the time of the incident of after the incident so as to suggest existence of a criminal conspiracy or common intention for murder of deceased Jessica Lal.The firing according to the prosecution evidence itself was quite sudden.Statement of P.W.42 Shiv Dass recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. categorically says ""EK DUM US I ADKE NE PISTOL NIKALI"", which negatives the existence of a common intention.According to him, prosecution has miserably failed to place on record any evidence that after the incident, A-1 and A-6 were in touch or that A-6 had done anything so as to render him liable under Section 201 IPC.Statement of P.W. A.K. Dutt that A-6 wanted to deliver some money to A-10 R.K.Sudan so that he may go back to U.S.A., is not at all an incriminating circumstance as the prosecution has not collected any evidence to show that A-10 R.K. Sudan was keen to go back to U.S.A. but his mother was not sick.He also submits that the prayer of the State to charge A-6 of all the offences is baseless.The argument of learned counsel for the State that Section 212 IPC is attracted against A-6 on the ground that he helped A-10 to escape from India, is not covered by Section 212 IPC as there is nothing on record to show that A-6 knew that A-10 was wanted for any offence.Arguing on behalf of A-3 Amardeep Singh Gill and A-4 Alok Khanna, Mr. I.U. Khan, Advocate has fully supported the arguments on behalf of the other accused that in the present case, there is not even an iota of evidence with the prosecution to show that there was any conspiracy between A-1 to A-5 for commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC nor there is any evidence to suggest that they shared any common intention for her murder.Learned counsel arguing in Crl.R.46/2001 on behalf of A-3 has prayed that he be discharged of the offences under Section 201 and 120-B IPC.According to him, A-4 had no telephonic talks with A-1 either prior to the occurrence or after the occurrence and as such, he had played on role at all and was not liable to be charged for any offence.There is no evidence against him under Section 212 IPC even and the removal of vehicle of A-1 from the spot did not attract Section 201 IPC as it did not amount to causing disappearance of the evidence.He also submits that the allegation of escorting A-1 out of the Cafe by A-2 to A-5 was not at all an incriminating piece of evidence as like many others, the accused were also moving out of the Cafe after the firing incident.It is submitted that mere fact that A-4 had given his car to A-3 for taking A-2 to the spot, does not link him with any offence under Section 201 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC because there is nothing with the prosecution to show that A-4 had given his car to A-3 knowing that the purpose of the visit was to remove the car of A-1 from the spot.The State of Haryana & Another, 1979 Crl.L.J. SC 857 and P.K.Narayanan Vs.State of Kerala, Crimes 1994(3) SC 850 to contend that existence of a criminal conspiracy cannot be inferred on the basis of suspicions, surmises or conjectures.For arguing that no offence under Section 201 read with Section 120-B IPC is made out against A-3 and A-4, he relies upon the judgments in Jogta Kikla Vs.The State, and Jit Singh & Others Vs.The State, .Mr. R.K.Naseem, Advocate appearing for accused No.5 Amit Jhingan has opposed the prayer of the State for framing charges under Section 302 read with Section 120-B and Section 34 IPC and charges under Sections 212 and 201 read with Section 120-B IPC against the accused on the ground that A-5 had not gone to the Cafe in question with the other accused and had reached there separately.After the incident even, he had not left the spot along with the other co-accused.The only allegation against him is that at the time of firing, he was standing near the deceased along with A-3 and A-4 and at about 4.00 a.m. on the asking of A-3 on telephone, he had gone to the house of A-3 in his gypsy and thereafter he had taken A-1 and A-2 to the Cottage Emporium for retrieval of the weapon of offence.Learned counsel for A-5 submits that there is no evidence whatsoever on record that A-5 knew A-1 prior to the incident and his mere presence in the party on that day does not suggest that he was in any conspiracy with A-1 to A-4 for commission of the offence of murder.He also argues that except disclosure statements, which cannot be read in evidence, there is nothing with prosecution to prove the visit of A-1 and A-2 to Handloom Emporium for retrieval of pistol.Relying upon a rough note alleged to be in the handwriting of SI Sunil Kumar, it is argued by learned counsel for A-5 that Special Public Prosecutor had been guiding the investigations and on his behest, supplementary statements of some p.ws.were recorded.He submits that when such padding was being done by the Investigators, the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be taken as gospel truth.According to him, pistol of A-1 was already with the Investigators much before arrest of A-1 and as such, the entire prosecution case in regard to disappearance of the weapon of offence and the conspiracy in respect of retrieval thereof is a crude fabrication.Referring to the site plan placed on record, learned counsel has argued that the story regarding its concealment near Cottage Emporium is preposterous on the face of it as A-1 could not have dared to pass in from of Tomarind Cafe after the incident merely with a view to conceal his pistol near Cottage Emporium.Mr. R.K. Garg, Advocate appearing on behalf of accused No.12 Raja Chopra has prayed for allowing his Crl.R.619/2001 and discharging A-12 for the offence under Section 212 IPC.It is submitted that A-12 has been charged under Section 212 IPC on the ground that he had sent his car from Chandigarh to help A-1 to escape from Delhi, but a certificate issued by the Transport Department shows that this car had already been sold by A-12 to M/s. Piccadly Agro of which A-1 was also a Director.Therefore, in the absence of some other evidence, it cannot be inferred that A-12 had sent this car to Delhi for taking A-1 to some other place.It is also submitted that the prosecution has not placed on record any evidence whatsoever to show that A-12 knew anything about the involvement of A-1 in this offence and as such, had any knowledge of A-1 in this offence and as such, had any knowledge or reason to believe that he was an offender.The State of Himachal Pradesh, .Dilip Nathumal Chordia Another, are the words of caution for the revisional Courts.If upon consideration of the material on record, documents and sorrounding facts and circumstances of the case the Trial Judge considers that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against an accused he is under duty to order his discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.However, if upon the consideration of the material on record the Judge is of the opinion that there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, he is under a legal obligation U/S 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to frame a charge against him and put him on trial.The law as to under what circumstances the Courts should pass an order under Section 228 of the Code for framing a charge and on what ground a discharge should be ordered under Section 227 of the code has been the subject matter of deep deliberations by the High Courts as well as Apex Court in a number of cases.Leading judgments on the question are in Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs.The State of Maharashtra, 1972 Crl.L.J. 329, Malkhan Singh & Another Vs.The State of Uttar Pradesh, , State of Bihar Vs.Ramesh Singh , , Union of India Vs.Prafulla Kumar Samal & Another, , Rambilas Singh & Others Vs.State of Bihar, , Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate Vs.Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja & Others, , Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Vs.Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Another, , State of Maharashtra etc. Vs.Som Nath Thapa etc., 1996 Crl.L.J. 2448, Satish Mehra Vs.Delhi Administration & Another, 1996 (5) SCALE 523 and Sumitra Banik Vs.(f) Failure of A-2 to A-5 to stop or prevent A-1 from firing the second shot towards the deceased;(g) Escorting out of A-1 by his co-accused A-2 to A-5;(h) Their escape from the spot together without doing anything to help the deceased, inform the police or to suggest that they had disassociated themselves from A-1 ;(i) Meeting again at the house of A-3 and planning to retrieve the Tat Safari of A-1 from the spot;(j) Exchange of telephonic calls after the incident;(k) Retrieval of the weapon used in the offence and(l) Harbouring A-1 and helping him to escape from Delhi.Learned Additional Sessions Judge for the reasons given in para 22 of the impugned order declined to charge A-1 to A-5 under Section 120B of Section 302 or Sections 302/34 IPC.There is no doubt about the legal proposition that for proving a criminal conspiracy prosecution is seldom in a position to place before the Courts any direct evidence.conspiracies are hatched in secrecy and as such are usually proved by circumstantial evidence alone.However, the law is well settled that for establishing a criminal conspiracy the prosecution must place on record some connecting link or connecting evidence of meeting of the minds of the conspirators for achieving a particular object.Motive may not be important for proving a criminal offence where ocular evidence is available, but in the case of a conspiracy, motive provides the basis for joining of hands by the conspirators.The facts relevant for inferring a conspiracy and kind of evidence required to be placed before the Courts were discussed in detail by Their lordships of the Supreme Court in the judgments reported in Hardeo Singh Vs.State of Bihar & Others 2000 Crl.L.J. 2978, Rajesh Govind Jagesha Vs.Nalini & Others, and Kehar Singh & Others Vs.The State (Delhi Administration), .The ingredients of Section 34 IPC were discussed in 2000 Crl.L.J. 380 (Supra).In the light of the principles governing the framing of a charge under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the evidence required for proving the offence under Section 120B IPC and common intention under Section 34 IPC, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has not at all succeeded in placing on record any material on the basis of which the Court can come to a conclusion that there are grounds to presume that A-1 to A-5 had entered into a conspiracy.The scales weighing the material on record are not evenly balanced but are clearly tilted in favor of the accused for the reason that for entertaining a suspicion even the Court must have some material on record.Baseless suspicion, imaginary inferences and groundless conjectures are to be discarded by a discerning judicial eye.The reasons for the above conclusions are that the accused A-1 to A-5 are not shown to be having any ill will, motive or reason for the murder of deceased Jessica Lal.Their meeting and telephonic talks before reaching Tamarind Court cafe, where the incident took place are not shown to be for hatching a conspiracy.The circumstances suggest that they were only planning an evening for fun and frolic.The carrying of a loaded pistol by A-1 to the spot is also not suggestive of any criminal design because it was a licensed pistol and he had every right to keep it on his person for his own defense.Even if his co-accused knew that he was carrying a loaded pistol, although there is no cogent evidence on this point, they had no reasons to panic or doubt his intentions because it was not an unlawful arm.There is no ground to presume that pistol was loaded on way to Cafe in the presence of A-2 to A-5. A-1 to A-5 reached the place of incident at about 11.30 PM whereas the firing took p;lace at about 2.00 AM.Had the accused been in conspiracy to murder Jessica Lal, they would not have remained at the spot for about two and a half hrs.before killing her so as to expose themselves to the eye of persons present in the party.Moreover had there been any conspiracy A-1 would not have fired inside the restaurant and in the presence of hundreds of people inviting abundant ocular evidence against him and his co-accused.He could have waited for the time and opportunity when she could be found alone either going out of the Cafe or on her way to her house so that the offence could he committed in secrecy.Therefore, the case as laid is suggestive of absence of conspiracy and not existence of a criminal conspiracy.The subsequent conduct of the accused persons in escaping together or thereafter meeting at the house of A-3 to plan retrieval of the car or the weapon of offence or the harbouring of A-1 is also not suggestive of any conspiracy to murder.Support to A-1 after the incident may render the accused liable for different offences but not at all for conspiracy under Section 120B IPC read with Section 302 IPC.The prosecution evidence as placed on record does not suggest the sharing of common intention even as required under Section 34 IPC for the murder of deceased Jessica Lal.A perusal of the statements of the eye witnesses, site plan and other material on record clearly suggests that the firing was sudden.There is nothing on record to suggest that between first and second shot there was enough time gap so as to enable A-2 to A-5 to prevent or over-power A-1 from firing a second shot. A-2 to A-5 could not have even anticipated that a second shot would be fired towards deceased Jessica Lal.In the statement of PW 42 Shiv Dass recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it has clearly come that A-1 had at once taken out his pistol and fired.One factor which goes very much against the charge under Section 34 IPC is the statements of the witnesses as well as the site plan of the place of incident, which show that at the time of firing A-1 was towards one side of the bar and his co-accused A-2 to A-5 were towards the other side and there was a counter in between.A-3, A-4 and A-5 were standing near the deceased.It shows that the bullet fired by A-1 was in the direction of not only deceased Jessica Lal but his friends A-3, A-4 and A-5 also who were standing near her.Had there been any common intention between A-1 and his co-accused present at the spot, he could not have fired in the direction where his friends were also standing in as much as the bullet could have hit any one of them.Since it is shown that A-1 was on the other side of the counter and his other co-accused were on the other side thereof, there was no chance for them to prevent A-1 from firing a second shot towards deceased Jessica Lal.There is no act of commission or ommission attributable to A-2 to A-5 to invoke Section 34 IPC against them.The Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the facts, material and circumstances placed on record by the prosecution do not at all suggest that the firing was as a result of any criminal conspiracy between A-1 to A-5 or they shared any common intention attracting Section 34 of the IPC.Even if A-3 knew Jessica Lal from before and was found talking to her some time between 11.30 p.m. to 2.00 a.m. it is not at all a circumstance for presuming any conspiracy or common intention to kill her because nothing has come on record that any of the accused had any motive or ill will for killing her.The State is highly aggrieved by the discharge of accused No.6 Shyam Sunder and prays for framing of charges under Section 201/212 IPC against him.Learned counsel for the State has argued that the disclosure statement made by A-1 led to the ""discovery of the fact"" that after the incident the weapon used in the offence was handed over by A-1 to A-10 R.K. Sudan.The statement of PW Ashok Kumar Dutt and the tape recorded conversation between A.K. dutt and accused R.K. Sudan raise strong suspicion against A-6 that the weapon of offence was handed over to him by A-10 R.K. Sudan and thereafter A-6 gave him some money and arranged that he left India without any delay.It is submitted that if A-10 had fallen into the hands of the police, he would have disclosed that he had handed over the weapon to A-6 and then it would have been possible for the police to effect the recovery thereof.He submits that weapon of offence was very material in this case as it was a licensed weapon and if bullets fired at the spot could be linked to this weapon it would have been a clinching piece of incriminating evidence against A-1, which the prosecution has been deprived of on account of non-recovery of the weapon.Shri Rajinder Singh Cheema, learned counsel for A-6 has controverter the submissions made by learned counsel for the State and has opposed the prayer for framing any charge against A-6 on the ground that in the absence of the recovery of the weapon of offence the disclosure statement of A-1 cannot be considered.It is pointed out that the financial assistance given by A-6 to A-10 for going back to USA, even if believed, does not show that A-6 knew the involvement of A-10 in any offence.It is also argued that taped conversation between PW A.K. Dutt and A-10 is hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act. He submits that prosecution has not placed on record anything to show that the mother of A-10 was not sick and it was for that reason only that A-6 had given him financial help for going back to USA immediately.After considering the disclosure statement of A-1, the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW A.K. Dutt and the transcript of the telephonic conversation between A.K. Dutt and A-10 R.K. Sudan, I am of the considered view that there are good and sufficient grounds for holding that a strong suspicion exists against A-6 for charging him under Section 201 IPC as well as 212 IPC.This taped telephonic conversation suggests at least prima facie that A-6 knew as to where the weapon of offence had gone.A-10 who had left India could not possibly take it out of India and as such the only person in whose contact he was before leaving Indian was A-6 with whom he spent some time at Manali also after receiving the weapon from A-1 at Delhi.The over-anxiety demonstrated by A-6 to see that A-10 goes out of Indian and the financial support given by him are suggestive of his apprehension that in case A-10 gets arrested by the police he may disclose the whereabouts of the weapon of offence and the role played by A-6 in the whole transaction.The telephonic talk between PW A.K. Dutt and accused No. 10 R.S. Sudan does not appear to be hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act in as much as inducement even if any was not proceeding from a person in authority.A-10 did not know even that this telephonic call was being recorded by the police.He also ought to have been charged under Section 212 IPC for the reason that the material on record clearly suggests that he had helped A-10 R.K. Sudan to move out of India knowing that he was also likely to be arrested in this case in as much as he had helped A-1 regarding disappearance of weapon of offence which was a material piece of evidence for the prosecution.The prayer of the State that A-2 to A-5 should have been charged under Section 212 of the IPC for harbouring A-1 as they had escorted him out of the restaurant cannot be accepted.The statements of the witnesses recorded by the prosecution do not at all suggest that A-2 to A-5 had given any assistance or help to A-1 for escaping from the place of incident.The statements of PW Bina Ramani and some other witnesses merely show that after the shooting incident, when there was utter commotion in the restaurant, A-1 as well as A-2 to A-5 simply headed towards the exit gate and thereafter left the spot.Moreover, the prosecution case itself is that after the shooting incident A-1 was left alone outside the Cafe whereas his other co-accused moved away in their own vehicles.A-1 had to come to the house of A-3 on foot leaving his own vehicle at the spot.This circumstance negatives the prosecution allegation that A-1 was harboured by A-2 to A-5 in the matter of escaping from the spot.Thus the learned Trial Judge was justified in not framing a charge against A-2 to A-5 under Section 212 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the State has further contended that A-4 also ought to have been charged under Section 120B read with Section 201 IPC on account of his role in the retrieval of the Tata Safari of A-1 from the spot.The prosecution evidence strongly suggests that a conspiracy for the removal of Tata Safari from the spot was hatched at the residence of A-3 where A-4 had also come.It is true that A-4 did not accompany A-2 and A-3 to the spot for the removal of Tata Safari but the prosecution evidence shows that he had provided his own Tata Seira to them for the purpose.In view of the fact that A-4 had seen A-1 shooting at the spot, had reached the house of A-3 after the incident and thereafter had given his vehicle also to A-2 and A-3 for the removal of Tata Safari of A-1 from the place of incident raises a strong suspicion against him that he was also a party to the conspiracy and as such he ought to have been charged under Section 120B read with Section 201 IPC.According to him, mere removal of the vehicle from one place to another did not make the vehicle disappear and as such no charge ought to have been framed in this regard.Therefore in the present case when accused A-1 to A-4 in furtherance of their conspiracy removed the Tata Safari of A-1 from the place of incident and placed it some where else they prima facie committed an offence under Section 120B read with Section 201 IPC for the reason that they caused a material piece of evidence to disappear from the eyes of the investigators.It cannot be disputed that this Tata Safari was a material piece of evidence for the prosecution in as much as its recovery from the spot would have made it easier for the police to trace out and then link A-1 with the offence.Thus a charge in (SIC) against A-1 to A-4 in this behalf.The plea of the prosecution that A-1 to A-5 ought to have been charged under Section 120B read with Section 201 of the IPC for removal and disappearance of the weapon of offence is not sustainable for the simple reason that except the disclosure statement of the accused prosecution has no evidence whatsoever to show that after the incident and in furtherance of a conspiracy A-1, A-2 and A-5 had gone to the spot near Cottage Emporium, Mehrauli and retrieved the weapon of offence.Disclosure statements made by the accused are not admissible in evidence in the absence of any recovery.The prosecution has no other evidence to show that they had gone there for retrieving the weapon of offence.However, in the case in hand the trial is still to be held and at the stage of framing a charge the Court has to see as to whether there exist grounds or not for raising a strong suspicion against A-12 in regard to the commission of an offence under Section 212 of the IPC.The evidence required for conviction is not to be insisted upon at this stage.As observed herein before since A-12 was very close to A-1 being the Director in a company in which A-1 was also a Director, it can be reasonably inferred that the car of A-12 was sent to A-1 for picking him up from Delhi and A-12 knew or had reason to believe that A-12 was involved in an offence and the Car was sent to screen him from legal punishment.The commission of offence as defined in Section 52(a) of the Act was by providing a Car and the knowledge or reason to believe that A-1 was the offender.In the course of arguments Sh.(a) The prayer of the State for charging A-1 to A-5 under Section 120-B for an offence under Section 302 IPC and A-2 to A-5 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murder of Jessica Lal is declined.(b) Accused No.1 Sidharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma was charged by the Trial Court under Section 302 IPC for the murder of deceased Jesicca Lal, 201 read with Section 120B IPC for conspiracy for removal of his vehicle from the spot, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC for the replacement of the glass pane of Tata Safari.The State had prayed that he should be charged under Section 120B read with Section 302 IPC also as there was a conspiracy to commit the murder of deceased Jesicca Lal.The State had urged before this Court for framing charges against him under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of deceased Jesicca Lal and also under Section 212 IPC for harbouring A-1 out of the Cafe after the incident.This accused had filed Crl.Revision petition No.47/2001 praying for his discharge for all the offences.In view of the reasons mentioned in this order, the prayer of the State, for framing additional charges against him as stated above is declined.The Crl.Revision Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the framing of the charge under Section 201 read with Section 34 in regard to the replacement of glass pan of the vehicle of A-1 is allowed and he is discharged for the commission of the said offence.(d) Accused No.3 Amarjit Singh @ Tony Gill was charged by the Trial Court under Section 201 read with Section 120B IPC in regard to conspiracy and removal of the vehicle of A-1 from the place of incident.The State had prayed for framing charges under Section 302 read with Section 120B, 302 read with Section 34 IPC against him for the murder of deceased Jesicca Lal and also under Section 212 of the IPC for harbouring A-1 out of the Cafe.This petitioner had filed Crl.Revision petition No.46/2001 challenging the framing of the charge under Section 201/120B IPC against him.In view of the reasons mentioned in this order, the prayer of the state for framing additional charges against him is declined.The prayer of the petitioner for discharging him for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 120B IPC is also declinest.His Crl.Revision Petition stands dismissed.(e) Accused No.4 Alok Khanna was discharged by Trial Court of all the offences.The State in its Crl.revision petition No.596/2000 has challenged the (SIC) order passed by the learned Trial Judge and has prayed for framing charges against him under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Jesicca Lal.The State also prays that he be charged for offences under Section 201 read with Section 120B IPC for the conspiracy and removal of the Tata Safari Car of A-1 from the spot.It is also prayed that he be charged under Section 212 IPC also for harbouring A-1 by way of escorting him out of cafe after the incident.In view of the reasons mentioned in this order, the prayer of the State of the State for charging A-4 under Section 212 of the IPC is declined.However, the revision petition filled by the State is allowed to the extent that A-4 shall be charged under Section 201 read with Section 120B IPC for conspiracy and removal of the Car of A-1 from the place of incident.(f) Learned Trial Judge had discharged accused No.5 Amit Jingen of all the offences.The state in its revision petition had prayed for framing of the charges against him under Section 302/120B, 302/34 IPC, 201/120B IPC retrieval of the pistol of A-1 and 212 IPC for escorting A-1 out of the cafe after the firing incident.His discharge by Trial Court is upheld.(g) Accused No.6 Shyam Sunder was discharged for all the offences by the learned Trial Judge.The State in its revision petition has prayed for charging him under Section 201 read with Section 120B for conspiracy and disapprearance of the weapon of offence.It is also prayed that he b charged under Section 212 of the IPC also for harbouring A-10 R.K.Sudan by way of assisting him to escape from India.In view of the reasons mentioned in this order, the Crl.revision petition filed by the State qua him is allowed and he is ordered to be charged under section 201 IPC and 212 IPC.(h) No controversy has been raised in regard to accused No.7 H.S. Chopra, accused No.8 Vikas Gill and accused No.9 Yograj Singh who were charged by the Trial Court under Section 212 of the IPC for harbouring accused No.1 after the offence and before his arrest by the police.He filed a Crl.revision petition 619/2000 challenging the framing of the charge against him under Section 212 of the IPC.For the reasons given in this order, this Court finds no force in his revision petition and upholds the orders of the learned Trial Judge charging him under section 212 of the IPC.Accordingly the Crl.Revision petition No.596/2000 filed by the State and Crl.Rev. petition No.47/2001 filed by accused no.2 Vikas Yadav are partly allowed.Revision petitions No. 46/2001 filed by Amardeep sing Gill and 619/2000 by Raja Chopra are dismissed.Nothing stated herein shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case pending before the Trial Court.","['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"in all the Appeals.II, Tirunelveli are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeals.The case of the prosecution is that PW2-Durgadevi and PW3-Nagarajan arethe children of the deceased by name Angammal and all of them have lived inVetrivinayagar Kovil Street, Vannarpettai.On 18.01.2006 at about 10.00 pm., theparents of PWs.2 and 3 have performed pooja so as to drive effect of evil eyeand due to that wranglings have happened in between the parents of PWs.2 and 3and first accused by name Karuppasamy.The complainant (PW1) and senior paternaluncle of PWs.2 and 3 have desisted the parents of PWs.2 and 3 and first accused.On 19.01.2006 the father of PWs.2 and 3 has gone out by using his motor cycle.On the same day, at about 12.30 pm., while the deceased has been standing infront of the house, PW2 has come from school due to her illness.On the sameday, PW3 has not attended school due to his illness.At that time all theaccused have come to the place of occurrence with deadly weapons and all of themhave indiscriminately attacked the deceased and subsequently an ambulance hascome from Sakthi hospital and PW1 has taken the deceased to the said hospitaland subsequently given the complaint (Ex.P7).On receipt of Ex.The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that PWs.2 and3 namely Durgadevi and Nagarajan are the children of the deceased by nameAngammal and all of them have lived in Vetrivinayagar Kovil Street,Vannarpettai.Thecomplainant viz., PW1 and senior paternal uncle of PWs.2 and 3 have desistedthem.The doctor who admitted the deceased in Sakthi hospital has beenexamined as PW9 and his specific evidence is that on 19.01.2006 at about 12.55pm, the deceased has been brought to Sakthi hospital and he found the followinginjuries:1.Abdominal injury - stab wound 3 cm.2.Amputation right upper limb - Elbow level - no liable vital part3.Amputation left thumb.Criminal appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against theconviction and sentence dated 23.02.2007 passed in Sessions Case No.194 of 2006by the Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.II,Tirunelveli.!For Appellants ... Mr.N.Mohideen Basha (Crl.A.Nos.218 & 495/07)For Appellant ... Mr.S.P.Maharajan (Crl.A.No.396/08)^For Respondent ... Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian Addl.Public Prosecutor (All Appeals.) :COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.SELVAM, J.) The conviction and sentence dated 23.02.2007 passed in Sessions CaseNo.194 of 2006 by the Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track CourtNo.P7, PW8, the concerned Sub Inspector of Police hasregistered the same in Crime No.87 of 2006 under Sections 341, 294(b), 324 and307 of the Indian Penal Code and the printed copy of First Information Reporthas been marked as Ex.The Investigating Officer has taken up investigation, conductedinquest, arrested all the accused, recovered material objects and aftercompleting investigation laid a final report on the file of the JudicialMagistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli has issued summonses toall the accused and furnished copies of relevant documents under section 207 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and after coming to a conclusion that theoffences alleged to have been committed by all the accused are triable bySessions Court, he committed the same to the Principal District and SessionsCourt, Tirunelveli and taken on file in Sessions Case No.194 of 2006 andsubsequently made over to the trial Court.The trial Court after considering the materials found on record hasframed first charge against all the accused under Section 341 of the IndianPenal Code, second charge against all of them under Section 302 r/w 34 of theIndian Penal Code and the same have been read over and explained to them.Theaccused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.On the side of the prosecution PWs.1 to 12 have been examined andExs.P1 to P20 and M.Os.1 to 4 have been marked.When the accused have been questioned under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating material available inevidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crime.On the side ofthe accused, DW1 has been examined and Ex.D1 has been marked.The trial Court after perpending the available evidence on record hasfound all the accused guilty under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code andsentenced each of them to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment and alsoimposed a fine of Rs.500/- upon each of them with usual default clause.Theaccused have also been found guilty under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian PenalCode and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed a fineof Rs.10,000/- upon each of them with usual default clause.Against theconviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the first accused asappellant has preferred Criminal Appeal No.396 of 2008, the second accused asappellant has filed Criminal Appeal No.218 of 2007 and third accused asappellant has filed Criminal Appeal No.495 of 2007 on the file of this Court.On 19.01.2006 the father of PWs.2 and 3 has gone out.On the same day atabout 12.30 pm, while PWs.2 and 3 and their mother (deceased) are in theirhouse, all the accused have come with deadly weapons and hurled invectives byusing filthy words against the deceased and all of a sudden they attacked herindiscriminately and subsequently the complainant has taken the deceased toSakthi hospital by using an ambulance van and after some time she passed away.The entire complaint alleged to have been givenby PW1 has been marked as Ex.P7 by the Sub Inspector of Police, who registeredthe same in Crime No.87 of 2006 under Sections 341, 294(b), 324 and 307 of theIndian Penal Code.As pointed out earlier, PW1 has not supported the case of theprosecution.The specific evidence given by PW2 is that the occurrence has takenplace on 19.01.2006 at about 12.30 pm., and prior to occurrence, she, herbrother (PW3), mother(deceased) and senior paternal uncle (PW4) are in theirhouse and at that time all the accused have come there by using an Auto withdeadly weapons and the first accused has hurled invectives against her mother(deceased) by using filthy words and all of them have attacked her mother andsubsequently PW1 has taken her mother to Sakthi hospital through an ambulancevan.As stated earlier, PW3, Nagarajan is the youngerbrother of PW2 and PW4, Chinnadurai is the senior paternal uncle of PWs.2 and 3.PWs.3 and 4 have categorically stated in their evidence that on 19.01.2006 atabout 12.30 pm., all the accused have come to the place of occurrence by usingan Auto and suddenly they attacked the deceased by using deadly weapons.The intimation given to police has been marked as Ex.P9 and AccidentRegister has been marked as Ex.The doctor who conducted necropsy has also been examined as PW10 andhe found the following injuries:(1) Abrasions back of left elbow 4x2cm;(L) knee 4x2 cm; (2) Clean-cut injury, base of left thumb x entire circumstance, the distalportion of the finger is missing.(3)Vertical incised wound (L) breast, above the nipple, 7x.5x.5 cm.(4)Two transverse incised wounds outer aspect of upper part of rightthigh; each 4x.5x.5;(5)R upper limb in hospital bandage, on removal of bandage, beveled cutinjury towards the elbow, 20x8 cm x bone deep back of right forearm & elbow; theunderlying muscles, vessels and both bones clean cut.(6)Transverse incised wound R subcostal region, 5x2 cm.X peritonealcavity depth; the outer end is sharp and the inner end is blunt.The postmortem certificate given by PW10 has been marked as Ex.Further PW10has opined that ""the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhagedue to heavy cut injury in the right forearm.""The trial Court after considering the evidence given by PWs.2 to 4, 9and 10 and other connected witnesses has invited conviction and sentence againstall the accused as stated supra.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants have uniformlycontended that the specific case of the prosecution is that the occurrence hastaken place at about 12.30 pm., on 19.01.2006 and the First Information Reporthas been given on 2.30 pm., on the same day and further PW9 has not specificallystated the name of the person(s) who brought the deceased to Sakthi hospital andon the date of occurrence, PWs.2 and 3 are not in their house and in short, theyare not eye witnesses and even in Ex.P7, the complaint, presence of PW4 has notbeen stated.Likewise, in the inquest report (Ex.P18) presence of PW1 alone hasbeen stated and presence of PWs.2 to 4 have not at all been stated and further,from the evidence of PW2 the Court can easily discern that after the attacksmade by the accused on the person of the deceased she has fallen down and oneKanaga has given water to her.But she has not been examined.Further, PW9has categorically admitted in his evidence that he has given intimation to thepolice under Ex.P9 at about 12.55 pm., But he has been examined by theInvestigating Officer on the same day at about 1.00 pm., Further Ex.P7 has beensent to Court very belatedly without proper explanation and the trial Courtwithout considering the fact that the entire case of the prosecution bristleswith vital infirmities, has erroneously invited conviction and sentence againstall the accused under Sections 341, and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code andtherefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against all theaccused are liable to be set aside.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contendedthat in the instant case even though the complainant (PW1) has become a hostilewitness, the prosecution has clearly established the alleged guilt of theaccused punishable under Sections 341 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code byway of examining PWs.2 to 4 and in fact their evidence has been clearlycorroborated by medical evidence by way of examining PWs.9 and 10 and furtherthe prosecution has given clear explanation for not seizing bloodstained earthand sample earth from the place of occurrence and further mere delay in sendingthe First Information to Court is not fatal to the case of the prosecution andthe trail Court after considering the overwhelming evidence available on record,has rightly invited conviction and sentence against all the accused underSections 341 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, theconviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are not liable to beinterfered with.The first and foremost attack made on the side of the appellants isthat the specific evidence given by PW9 is that he admitted the deceased inSakthi hospital at 12.55 pm., and immediately he has given intimation to policestation and he has been examined by the concerned Inspector of Police on thesame day by 1.00 o' clock, whereas, Ex.P7 has been registered on the same day atabout 2.30 pm.It is seen from the evidence given by PW9 that he admitted thedeceased on 19.01.2006 at about 12.55 pm., Further he deposed to the effect thatimmediately he has given intimation to the concerned police and the concernedInspector of Police has examined him at 1.00 pm., It is an admitted fact thatEx.P7, complaint has been registered on 19.01.2006 at about 2.30 pm.Since Ex.P7has been registered on 19.01.2006 at about 2.30 pm.it is highly impossible onthe part of the Investigating Officer (PW12) to examine PW9 on 19.01.2006 atabout 1.00 o' clock.Therefore, the evidence given by PW9 to that aspect isnothing but a slip of tongue and the same cannot be given effect to.FurtherPW12 has clearly stated in his evidence that he visited hospital on the same dayat about 3.30 pm and examined PW9 and other connected witnesses.Therefore, thefirst and foremost contention put forth on the side of the appellants/accused isof no use.The second/vital attack made on the side of the appellants/accused isthat in the instant case, PWs.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased and bothof them are school going children and the occurrence has taken place on19.01.2006 at about 12.30 pm., and since both of them are school going children,definitely they would not have seen the occurrence and further in the inquestreport, presence of PW1 has not been stated and in Ex.P7, complaint presence ofPW4 has not been stated and therefore, the prosecution has virtually failed toadduce proper evidence with regard to alleged occurrence and the trial Court hasfailed to look into the same.As stated earlier, PWs.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased andPW4 is their senior paternal uncle.In the evidence given by PW2 it has beenclearly stated that on 19.01.2006 morning she attended school.But due toillness, she left the school and arrived home.The evidence of PW3 is that dueto illness on 19.01.2006 he has not attended school.Apart fromthe evidence given by DW1, on the side of the accused, Ex.D1 has been marked.D1 is a xerox copy of attendance register, wherein it has been clearly statedthat on 19.01.2006, PW2 has been absent.At this juncture, a faint attempt hasbeen made on the side of the appellants/accused to the effect that in Ex.It is an admitted factthat Ex.D1 is a document marked on the side of the appellants/accused.Therefore, viewing from any angle, thesecond/vital attack made on the side of the appellants/accused is sans merit.The third attack made on the side of the appellants/accused is that inEx.likewise, in Ex.P7 complaint, presence of PW4 is not foundplace.For the purpose of deciding the above aspects put forth on the side ofthe appellants/accused, it is very much essential to rely upon the recisionreported in (2011)6 Supreme Court Cases 288 [Brahm Swaroop and another Vs.Stateof Uttar Pradesh], wherein at paragraph - 10 it is observed as follows:The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding theapparent cause of death, namely, whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidentalor by some machinery, etc. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter all thedetails of the overt acts in the inquest report.Evidence of eyewitnesses cannotbe discarded if their names do not figure in the inquest report prepared at theearliest point of time.The inquest report cannot be treated as substantiveevidence but may be utilised for contradicting the witnesses of inquest.""Even from a cursory look of the decision referred to supra, it iseasily discernible to the effect that mere non-mentioning of names of witnessesin an inquest report is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and furtherinquest report is not a substantive piece of evidence so as to believe the caseof the prosecution and further it is also equally a settled principle of lawthat mere non-mentioning of names of witnesses in the complaint would notmilitate the case of the prosecution and further it is an archaic principle oflaw that in the First Information Report all details of alleged overtacts by theconcerned accused and all details of persons who witnessed the occurrence neednot be minutely stated.Therefore, viewing from any angle, the third attack madeon the side of the appellants/accused goes out without merit.The fourth contention put forth on the side of the appellants/accusedis that the specific evidence given by PW2 is that after attacks alleged to havebeen made by all the accused on the person of the deceased, she has fallen downand one Kanaga has given water to her.But the prosecution has not chosen toexamine her and therefore, the prosecution has not come forward with genuinecase and the trial Court has failed to look into the said aspect.It is seen from the evidence given by PW2 to the effect that afterattacks alleged to have been made by all the accused, the deceased has fallendown and immediately one Kanaga has given water to her.But as rightly pointedout on the side of the appellants/accused, the said Kanaga has not been examinedas one of the prosecution witnesses and further no explanation has been givenwith regard to her non-examination.It has already been pointed out that PWs.2 to 4 have given cogent andtrustworthy evidence so as to prove the alleged guilt of the accused punishableunder Sections 341 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Since in the instantcase the prosecution has adduced evidence in plenitude with regard to motive anddetails of attacks alleged to have been made by all the accused, mere non-examination of the said Kanaga would not affect the case of the prosecution.In Ex.P2 it has been clearly stated that PW12 has reachedthe place of occurrence at about 3.30 pm and before his arrival, the place ofoccurrence has been bestrown and also daubed by using dung water.Since in Ex.It has already been pointed out that PW12, Investigating Officer hasreached the place of occurrence on 19.01.2006 at about 3.30 pm., and in Ex.Therefore, the said contention put forth on the side of theappellants/accused is also sans merit.The seventh contention put forth on the side of theappellants/accused is to the effect that a vital discrepancy has been inexistence with regard to injuries sustained by the deceased betwixt the evidenceof PWs.9 and 10 and the trial Court has failed to look into the same.As pointed out earlier, PW9 who admitted the deceased initially inSakthi hospital has found three injuries on her person.But PW10, the doctor whoconducted autopsy has found six injuries.Simply because a mere discrepancy withregard to number of injuries sustained by the deceased is in existence inbetween the evidence of PWs.9 and 10, the Court cannot reject or eschew theconsistent and cogent evidence given by PWs.2 and 3 for disbelieving the versionof the prosecution.In the instant case, PWs.2 to 4 have cogently and consistently statedin their evidence to the effect that in the place of occurrence all the accusedhave attacked the deceased by using deadly weapons indiscriminately.The eighth contention put forth on the side of the appellants/accusedis that Ex.Any defect in the preparation of the inquestreport by the investigating officer cannot lead to an inference that the FIR wasnot registered at the alleged time.The FIR contains all the essential featuresof the prosecution's case including names of eyewitnesses, time and place ofincident, names of the victim, motive, name of the accused persons, weapons intheir hands and manner of assault.Thus, all these things lend a seal ofassurance not only to the presence of eyewitnesses at the place of the incident,but also to the participation of the appellants in the crime.Therefore, viewing from any angle, the saidcontention put forth on the side of the appellants/accused are not havingattractive force.The trial Court after considering the overwhelming evidence availablein the present case, has rightly invited conviction and sentence against all theappellants/accused under Sections 341 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.In view of the foregoing elucidation of both the factual and legal premise, thisCourt has not found any acceptable force in the contentions put forth on theside of the appellants/accused and altogether the present Criminal Appeals areliable to be dismissed.In fine, these Criminal Appeals deserve dismissal and accordingly aredismissed.The conviction and sentence dated 23.02.2007 passed in Sessions CaseNo.194 of 2006 by the Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track CourtNo.1.The Additional District and Sessions Court/ Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli2.The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli City,3.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.","['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']"
"As per prosecution story, it is alleged that the applicant on the basis of false promise of giving job to the complainant party had taken some amount from them thereby committed offence under section 420 & 406 of IPC.The applicant is a lady of 55 years of age who has no criminal antecedents alleged against her.The charge sheet has since been filed.The applicant is Anganwadi Worker and is directly or indirectly not connected with the alleged offence.Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Dehat, District Bhind in connection with Crime No. 302/2017 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/S. 420, 406 of IPC.The applicant has not taken any money from the complainant party.The offence under sections 420 & 406 of IPC are not made out against the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 10/06/2017 and early conclusion of the trial is bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty.Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is 2 M.Cr.C. No.6620/2017 made out.The applicant shall appear and mark her attendance before the trial court concerned once every month.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Sukhnandan responded by shouting - what was the matter? At this, the accused ran away leaving the bleeding and weeping girl behind.Suman was taken home, where she narrated the incident to her mother Savitri Bai (P.W. 2).Savitri Bai applied pads over the bleeding private parts of Suman, Sukhnandan contacted the village patel, arranged for a bullock cart and took Suman to the Police Station Unnai, situated at a distance of 11 Kms.JUDGMENT R.C. Lahoti, J.The accused/appellant has been held guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 500/- and further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, in default of payment of fine.An amount of Rs. 400/-, out of the fine realised, has been directed to be paid as compensation to Suman Bai the prosecutrix.Savitri Bai (P.W. 2) is the widow of Sukhnandan.Suman, who was aged about 9 yearns at the time of the incident, is her daughter.Sukhnandan was alive at the time of the incident, but died during the trial and could not be examined as a witness.Sukhnandan used to run a flour-mill at the outskirts of the village and near the fields.It is alleged that on 26-8-81 at about 5 p.m., Suman went to the flour-mill to relieve her father Sukhnandan so as to enable him taking his meals.Sukhnandan went home, leaving Suman alone at the flour-mill, for keeping a watch.The accused/appellant taking advantage of loneliness approached the innocent girl with an indecent offer, which she naturally declined.The accused/appellant overpowered by his lust, forcibly dragged Suman towards the fields and made her lie down behind the thick bushes of Babool and Chhola.With one hand he kept Suman lying on the ground forcibly and with the other hand he removed the undergarments of Suman as also the undergarments of his own.Then he committed rape on Suman.Suman pierced a cry.She started bleeding profusely.Her cry was heard by Sukhnandan, who had returned to the flour-mill by that time.where Suman lodged the F.I.R., Ex. P/1, at 11.20 p.m.Suman was referred for medical examination.She was examined by Dr. (Mrs.) Dipika Chaudhary, Lady Assistant Surgeon at the Female Hospital Datia.She found the girl to be 9 years of age.The sex characters were not developed.Marks of violence were not seen over the body.Labia majora and minor a were not still developed.Fresh blood was oozing out from torn hymen.Vagina admitted only the tip of the little finger with difficulty.On account of pain, Suman did not permit P/V examination.Dr. (Mrs.) Chaudhry could not give a definite opinion about rape by mere clinical examination.However, she prepared slide of the vaqinal swab, also seized the underwear and pads of the victim and delivered them to the Police, after sealing them, for chemical examination.The Chemical Examiner in his report, dt. 31-12-1981 (Ex. P/7) confirmed the presence of blood on the slide, underwear and pads, but seminal stains and spermotozoa could not be detected over them.The Serologist also confirmed the presence of human blood on the underwear and pads.He was promptly referred for medical examination.But nothing incriminating could be found on his person, though he was found sexually capable.Needless to say that by the time the accused was medically examined, about one and a half month had elapsed from the date of the incident.On completion of usual investigation, the accused/appellant was challaned and charged under Section 376, I.P.C. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court expressed dissatisfaction at the manner in which Dr. (Mrs.) Chaudhry had examined the victim of rape.Further, B. S. Sahi, Sub-Inspector of Police, who recorded the F.I.R., was examined as P. W. 6, and he stated in so many words that F.I.R., Ex. P/1; was recorded at the instance of Suman and bore her thumb mark.This witness was left totally uncross- examined.If only, the father of the prosecutrix, who unfortunately died before he could be examined at the trial, would only have been available, the little ambiguity introduced by the defence, would have been removed without any difficulty.In a charge for murder, the husband and brother of one Mst.She was weeping.The appeal Is dismissed.","['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on I.A.No.21405/18 application for removing default.This application has been filed for removing the default regarding maintainability of the appeal as in the memo of appeal there is no averment whether the appellant is on bail or in jail.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has surrendered before the trial Court on 5.12.2018 and since then he is in custody.Hence, the default as pointed out by the Registry may be removed.Having considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, without going into any technicalities and looking to the object of the provision, as the appellant has surrendered, the default as pointed out by the office is considered to be rectified.Also Heard on I.A.No.19986/18 an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.The appeal is barred by 16 days.For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed.Delay in filing this appeal is condoned.The Record of the court below be called for.Also heard on I.A.No.20085/2018 which is an application filed by the appellants under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of their jail sentence passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in S.T. No. 56/2018 convicting the appellant under Section 354 in alternate 354(A) of the IPC in alternate Section 7/8 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.1000/- and under Section 354(D) of IPC in alternate 11(iv)/12 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs.1000/-, for with default stipulations .There is a fair chance to succeed in the case.The disposal of this appeal will take time.At present the appellant is in custody.In the circumstances, if the appellant's sentence is not suspended, his right to appeal will be futile.On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for suspension of execution of jail sentence and grant of bail.Learned G.A. has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.Looking to the short period of sentence and other facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that subject of payment of fine amount, if not already deposited, the execution of jail sentence of appellant Shubham @ Shivam Karainaar shall remain suspended till further orders and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on 26.3.2019 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the concerned trial Court.IA stands disposed of.List the case for admission after receipt of the record.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE vj Digitally signed by VIJAY LAKSHMI JHA Date: 13/12/2018 17:02:47",['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The relevant facts of the prosecution case are that information was received at Police Post Bawana from Police Station Narela that a quarrel was going on at Chowk Bawana.Sub Inspector Mahipal Singh, along with members of his police force, went to Bawana Chowk and was informed that injured had already been removed to Hindu Rao Hospital.SI Mahipal Singh went to Hindu Rao Hospital.He obtained the medico legal reports of Jagan Singh, Khazan Singh besides Zile Singh deceased.Khazan Singh had been declared fit to make statement.In his statement, recorded by SI Mahipal Singh, he had deposed that on 6.4.1983 at 7.00 p.m. he was present in front of his house.His brother Jagan Singh was employed in Delhi Police.He saw him coming down from bus from Bawana Chowk.Respondents Rajbir, Ramesh and Hanumant Singh were sitting on the roof of their house opposite his house.They started abusing his brother.Rajbir Singh respondent exhorted that they be caught hold of and finished so that they are not able to attend the court case fixed on the next day.The brother of the complainant kept quite.Thereafter, the injured complained that he, his son and Jagan Singh went to the roof at first floor of his house.They heard the noise ""Pakad Lo Salon Ko Bhagane Na Payen"".In the mean time Rajbir Singh, Ramesh, Hanumat, Rajesh, Jaggu, Anand and Satbir Singh, who were armed with Knives, climbed up the stairs of his house and attcked.Zile Singh received injuries.JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J.Respondents had been tried by the learned Additional Session Judge, Delhi with respect to offences punishable under Sections 174/148/149/452/325/326/307/34 Indian Penal Code.The State against the judgment of acquittal, referred to above, and also condensation of delay in filing the same.When the complainant and Jagan Singh tried to save Zile Singh, accused Hoshiar Singh gave pharsa blow on the left hand of Jagan Singh while Ram Mehar gave pharsa blow on the head of Jagan Singh.Dhani Ram and Ami Chand gave jellies blow on his left hand and leg and thereafter, Azad Singh, Jahan Singh and Khazan Singh gave lathi blows to him and Jagan Singh, Hoshiar Singh, Hanumat, Rajbir and Ramesh exhorted that they should be finished so that they are not able to see towards the plot in future.Respondents also pelted stones on them.Balram besides Singh and Hari Singh came to save them.On basis of this statement, which was bearing the endorsement of SI Mahipal Singh, formal First Information Report was registered.SI Mahipal Singh prepared the site plan.Certain bricks bats were picked up from the roof of the house and were kept in a gunny bag.From the road side, the blood was lifted and sealed in accordance with law.Blood was also lifted from the roof.They were all converted into different sealed parcels and taken into possession vide different recovery memos.Zile Singh and succumbed to his injuries at Hindu Rao Hospital.Injuries on the person of Khazan Singh and Jagan were opined to be grievours.The death of Zile Sing was opined to be due to shock following injuries on his chest and abodomen.During investigation, one pant, one bushirt of Zile Singh were taken into possession and sealed in a parcel with the seal of HRH.It was taken into possession vide recovery memo.Blood stained uniform of Jagan Singh was sealed with the seal of HRH.Similarly, one blood stained Dhoti of Khazan Singh was taken into possession after converting that into a parcel and sealing with the seal of HRH, vide recovery memo.Blood samples of Jagan Singh and Khazan Singh were also taken by the doctor in the hospital.It was on these broad facts that report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was failed.They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Separate charge under Section 302/34 IPC was also framed against Rajbir Singh and Hanumant Singh.M.189/2001 seeking leave to file appeal is rejected.","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"a)P.W.1 is the son of the deceased Kamala.The accused is the brother ofthe deceased.They are the residents of Velanoor.In respect of an enjoyment ofporamboke land, there has been all along quarrel and tussle between the accusedand the deceased.P.W.1 was actually employed in Madras.During the relevanttime, he came to his native place and on the date of occurrence, he wasavailable in his native place.b)On 31.5.2003 at about 4.15 p.m., P.W.1 and his mother had travelled in amini bus to Keelakarai and in the same bus, the accused was also travelling andthey were sitting apart.When the bus was nearing the house of one Selvakumar,the accused suddenly sprang on the deceased with aruval and attacked herindiscriminately and she died instantaneously inside the bus itself.Immediately, the accused got down from the bus and ran away.c)P.W.1 immediately proceeded to the respondent police station and gaveEx.P.1, the report to P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police at about 17.30 hourson 31.5.2003, on the basis of which, a case came to be registered by therespondent police in Crime No.191 of 2003 under Section 302 IPC.Ex.P.12, theFIR was despatched to the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court.d)P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, tookup the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in thepresence of the witnesses.He prepared Ex.P.3, the observation mahazar andEx.P.14, the rough sketch.He recovered material objects from the place ofoccurrence under a cover of mahazar.(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenging the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,Ramanathapuram made in S.C.No.39 of 2004, the sole accused/appellant, on beingfound guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment and to pay afine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo six months RI, has brought forth thiscriminal appeal.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are asfollows:Then, he conducted inquest on the dead bodyof the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and preparedEx.P.13, the inquest report.Following the same, the dead body of the deceasedwas sent to the Government Hospital, Keelakarai for the purpose of autopsy alongwith a requisition.e)P.W.8, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Keelakarai, onreceipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of thedeceased.He has issued Ex.P.5, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he hasopined that the deceased would appear to have died of injury to spinal cord andinjury to major blood vessels of neck 12 to 18 hours prior to autopsy.He filed an application for policecustody and the same was ordered.On 14.6.2003, the accused voluntarily gave aconfessional statement, which was marked as Ex.Pursuant to the same, theaccused produced M.O.1 aruval, which was recovered in the presence of thewitnesses under a cover of mahazar.All the M.Os recovered from the place ofoccurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and the material object recoveredfrom the accused pursuant to the confessional statement were subjected tochemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department, which resulted in tworeports.P.6 is the Chemical Examiner's report and Ex.P.7 is the Serologist'sreport.g)P.W.18, the Inspector of Police took up further investigation of thecase.On completion of the investigation, he filed the final report before theCourt.3.The case was committed to the court of sessions and necessary chargeswere framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has marched18 witnesses and relied on 14 exhibits and 9 M.Os.On completion of the evidenceon the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned procedurally underSection 313 Cr.P.C as to the incriminating circumstance found in the evidence ofprosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false.No defence witness wasexamined.The trial court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took aview that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and foundthe accused guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment, which isthe subject matter of challenging before this Court.4.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counselwould submit that in the instant case, the prosecution rested its case on directevidence of 6 witnesses, which according to the prosecution are theeyewitnesses, out of 6 eyewitnesses, P.Ws.2 to 6 have turned hostile; that theonly evidence available for the prosecution was the evidence of P.W.1; thatinsofar as P.W.1 was concerned, he is none else than the son of the deceased;that when the test of careful scrutiny was applied, his evidence did not standthe test; that the lower court has accepted the test, which was thoroughly indeviation of the prosecution case; that the occurrence has taken place in arunning bus; and that if to be so, at least one of the independent witnesseswould have come forward to speak the prosecution case, but all of them haveturned hostile, which would clearly indicate that they have not witnessed theoccurrence and they have been added as witnesses by the Investigator in order tomake believe the case.7.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentionsand the Court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.Following the inquest conducted by the Investigator, the dead body of thedeceased was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.8, the Doctor.He has issuedEx.P.5, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceasedwould appear to have died of injury to spinal cord and injury to major bloodvessels of neck 12 to 18 hours prior to autopsy.The fact that she died out ofhomicidal violence was never questioned by the appellant/accused at any stage ofproceedings and hence, it has got to be safely recorded so.It is true, P.W.1 is the son of the deceased and itcannot by itself be the reason to discard his testimony, since it stood the testof careful scrutiny.P.W.1 wastravelling in the bus, in which both the deceased and the accused were alsotravelling.When the bus nearing the place of occurrence, the accused suddenlysprang on the deceased with aruval and attacked her and caused her death.Immediately, P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station and a case came tobe registered within a short span of time.The FIR has also reached theJudicial Magistrate concerned within a reasonable time and thus, he has spokenthe act of the accused in a clear and candid manner and his evidence hasinspired the confidence of the Court.Yet another circumstance is therecovery of M.O.1 aruval, pursuant to the confessional statement.The witnesswas examined to that effect.10.Coming to the question of nature of the act of the accused, the Courtis of the considered opinion that the contentions of the learned counsel for theappellant has got to be discountenanced.It is true, there was a poramboke landand there was a rival claim and tussle between the accused and the deceased asto the enjoyment of the same.The learned counsel took the court to the part ofthe confessional statement to state that the deceased was in practice of abusingthe accused and that was the reason for provocation.A reading of theconfessional statement, which was relied on by the prosecution and accepted bythe lower court, would indicate that the deceased was in practice of abusing theaccused.The object of the accused at that time was to do away the deceased, sothat he can enjoy the land and not because of provocation he has acted, sincethe deceased abused him.Thus, there is distinction between both of them.Therewas neither quarrel nor provocation, which was sudden as expected one in law.Apart from that, in order to attract the sudden provocation, the accused shouldnot take undue advantage of the situation.In the instant case, the deceased wasa womenfolk and when she was travelling in the minibus unarmed, the accusedsuddenly sprang on her and attacked her with aruval and thus, he has taken undueadvantage of the situation.Hence, no question of applying sudden provocationwould arise as one envisaged in the exceptions to S.300 IPC.Hence, the act ofthe accused should be termed as murder.The lower court was perfectly correct infinding the accused guilty Under Section 302 IPC and awarding life imprisonmentand nothing requires for interference either factually or legally.11.In the result, the criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.2.The Inspector of Police, Kilakkarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.3.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"354 and 376 of IPC.As per the prosecution story before the learned Trial Court in brief was that, on 09.02.2013 the prosecutrix with her two year old daughter, Poonam was sleeping at her home at village, Vasantpura.Her husband had gone to other city for earning.In the night, Veersingh was standing in her courtyard.On being asked why he has come to her house the accused embraced her and shut her mouth and committed rape.After commission of the act, the accused ran away from her house.On the following day she reported this to her brother-in-law (Jeth).She went to the Police Station Raun, District Bhind to lodge report.On the basis of her report Crime No.27/2013 under Section 456 and 354 of IPC has been registered.On 15.02.2013 she filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Bhind about the commission of rape.Therefore, Section 376 of IPC was added.completing investigation charge-sheet was filed.After committal of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges and after adducing the evidence M.Cr.C. No.1961/2014 pronounced the impugned judgment.We have given our thoughtful consideration.The prosecutrix is a married woman of 22 years.The medical officer (PW-7) has submitted the report Ex-P3, after examining the prosecutrix.No internal and external injury has been found on the body of the prosecutrix.There has been some enmity between the complainant and the accused.The defense witnesses have deposed that 10,000/- and two bags of Bazraa was given to Banwari the husband of the prosecutrix by the accused.This version has been admitted by PW-4, the sister-in-law of the prosecutrix.This gave rise to a valid and reasonable doubt in the prosecution case.No injury on the body of the prosecutrix, the previous enmity and contradictions and omissions brought on record has been clearly discussed by the learned Trial Court.The learned Trial Court has also given the cogent reasons for its decision.That being so, we decline to interfere with the findings of the learned Trial Court.Hence, petition for leave to appeal is hereby dismissed.","['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the latest Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Civil Appeal No.67 of 2018, dated 08.01.2018, Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Others Vs.13049 of 2019A2(1)/10/306/2018 dated 27.11.2018 and quash the same and to give appointment to the petitioner in Reg.The writ petitioner has completed the decree and participated in the selection process to the post of Grade-II Police in the year 2018 and has attended the physical test and written examination and also participated in the oral test.The petitioner was selected for the post of Grade-II Police, but the first respondent sent a letter in his proceedings No.C.NO.A2(1)/10/306/2018, dated 27.11.2018 informed thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 petitioner that he was not selected the post of Grade-II Police since the petitioner involved in a criminal case.In the aforesaid criminal case in C.C.No.148 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhungar, passed a Judgment by acquitting the petitioner from the aforesaid criminal case and now no criminal case is pending against the petitioner.But, the second respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner and passed the impugned order in C.NO.A2(1)/10/306/2018, dated 27.11.2018 without any justification and the said order is liable to be quashed.The Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents relied upon the following decisions of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court.1. 2008 (2) MLJ 1203 (Full Bench) Manikandan Vs.Chairman, TNUSRB2. 2014(2) CTC 337 (Larger bench) Alex Ponseelan Vs.DGP, Chennai.2015(2)SCC 377 Joginder Singh Vs.Union Territory of Chadigarh.4. 2016(8) SCC 471(Larger bench of Supreme Court) in Avatar Singh and Others Vs.C.A. No.67 of 2018 – Union Territory of Chandigar Vs.Pradeep Kumar.6. 2018(6) CTC 659 – State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs.Abhijit Singh Pawar.http://www.judis.nic.in 14 “(3).In this connection, it is submitted that, at present, the above said candidate was involved in Pandalkudi P.S., Cr.P.C on 15.11.2014 at 04.00 hrs he was taken custody for Preventive Arrest and the same was action dropped by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pandalkudi P.S. After completion of enquiry, he was released on the same day.(4).The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar East Police Station and the Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar Rural Police Station had stated in their reports, dated 13.06.2019 that no criminal case is registered against Tr.T. Iyyappadoss.The Inspectors of Police, Special Branch, Virudhunagar submitted a report, dated 16.06.2019 that Tr.Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned order, dated 27.11.2018 in C.No.A22(1)/10/306/2018 and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent to consider the matter afresh.The 2nd respondent/Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar is directed to re-consider the appointment orderhttp://www.judis.nic.in 15 of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as early as possible, within a period of three (3) weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of the order.With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.No Costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.24.06.2019 ksa Index : Yes / No Internet: yes / No1.The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No.807, P.T.Lee Chengaalvaraya Naicker Maaligai, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.The State of Tamilnadu, represented by its Inspector of Police, East Police Station, Virudhunagar.http://www.judis.nic.in 16 D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J., ksa WP(MD).No.","['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The facts of the case are as follows :The complainant, A. R. Rajan, is the managing partner of Mallur Jayalakshmi Finance.JUDGMENT Karpagavinayagam, J.This revision has been preferred by the petitioner/accused, Krishnamurthy, against the judgment dated March 30, 1992, C.A. No. 36 of 1991 on the file of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Salem, by his judgment dated February 22, 1991, in C.C. No. 288 of 1989 for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ""the Act"").The respondent, A. R. Rajan, is the managing partner of Mallur Jayalakshmi Finance.He filed a complaint against the petitioner/accused for the offences under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the learned judicial Magistrate No. 1, Salem, who in turn acquitted the accused of the charge under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but convicted him for the offences under section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.Aggrieved over this judgment, the petitioner/accused filed an appeal in C.A. No. 36 of 1991, on the file of the IInd Addl.Sessions Judge, Salem.The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused and while dismissing the appeal observed that as the accused is entitled to the benefit of remission as per G.O.Ms.No. 279, dated February 23, 1992, he need not undergo the said imprisonment of six months.Without satisfying the judgment of the first appellate court, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner in this court.The accused/petitioner used to get loans along with his father from the said finance company.The loans obtained by the accused/petitioner, of Rs. 62,000 dated March 20, 1985, Rs. 10,500 dated April 8, 1985, Rs. 9,000 dated May 5, 1986, Rs. 10,500 dated July 16, 1986, Rs. 30,000 dated March 29, 1988, and Rs. 20,000 dated December 2, 1987, totalling about Rs. 1,42,000 have not been settled by him.Part interest due on the above principal has also not been paid by the accused.When the complainant insisted the accused for settlement of the above loans, the petitioner assured that he would discharge the entire amount by one stroke on or before April 15, 1989, after disposing of his landed properties.On April 22, 1989, both the parties arrived at a settlement for the total principal due to the tune of Rs. 1,22,000 and the loan of Rs. 20,000 dated December 2, 1987, was given up.For the said amount interest was calculated at 18 per cent.On the same day, the accused assured that he would pay the said amount by way of cheque the next day, since he has already sold his landed properties.The next day, i.e., on April 23, 1989, the accused came and presented a cheque drawn on the State Bank of India, for Rs. 1,66,360, to the complainant, stating that already the said amount was deposited in the bank and if the cheque is presented, it would be honoured immediately.He requested the complainant to hand over the pronotes executed by him on different dates, in respect of the various loans referred to above.When the cheque was presented on the next day, i.e., on April 24, 1989, for encashment, to the shock and surprise of the complainant, the same was dishonoured, as ""refer to drawer"" for want of sufficient funds.Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice dated May 8, 1989, to the accused demanding payment of the amount mentioned in the dishonoured cheque, within fifteen days from the date of notice.The accused/petitioner sent a reply stating that he never obtained any loan whatever from the complainant and that he never issued any cheque as his cheque book as well as pass book were lost and that the complainant has misused the same against the petitioner.On receipt of such a reply, the complainant/respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner/accused for the offences under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and section 138 of the Act.After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Magistrate dealt with the petitioner/accused as stated earlier, which was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court.Hence, the revision.",['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The appellant Sadhoo alias Sadhuram having been convicted by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Sessions Trial No. 80/91 deciding the charges against him on 27-6-1992 and convicted for committing offence Under Sections 376(2)(f), 366A and 363, Indian Penal Code, whereunder sentenced for 10 years, 5 years and 3 years rigorous imprisonment respectively, has approached this Court by means of the present appeal which is being decided on merit after hearing learned counsel for the State and the accused who is present in person before this Court.Though the accused was represented through a Lawyer but was not granted bail.This Court on 1-11-1996 when the case was posted for hearing passed an order to the effect that none present for the appellant when the case was called for in the second round and directed for issuance of production warrant of the appellant of a date for hearing of this case in the presence of the appellant.The appellant is brought in person before this Court.It needs to be mentioned here that the learned State counsel Shri S. K. Gangrade, Panel Lawyer, was very fair in properly assisting the Court specially in the circumstances of the present case where the accused is the persontieither conversant with the legal position nor record, of his case.The sentences awarded to the accused/appellant Under Sections 363, 366A and 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, were made to run concurrently.The prosecution case in brief is that on 17th February, 1991 Ku.Anita aged 11 years daughter of Ram Prasad (PW 2) at about 8.30 P.M. went to attend the marriage in the locality and while way back to her home at about 9.00 P.M. the accused who met her tried to catch hold her, who tried to rush towards her home but the accused who caught hold her took to the field and thereafter to a dilapidated house of guard-line and committed rape on her but her cry could not attract any body.Accused thereafter took her to a newly constructed house near the railway station where also he committed rape twice on her.P.14 dated 18-2-1991 is the report of missing of Ku.Anita (Gumsuddi report).FIR was recorded on 18-2-1991 (Ex.P.4) which was recorded by P.W. 7 A.S.I. Kotwali Damoh at about 7.45 P.M. Accused was arrested on 19-2-1991 by P.W. 7 the investigating officer.In his statement in para 3 he stated date as 20-2-1991 which apparently seems to be a typographical error and has no adverse impact on the prosecution case.Prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses.The prosecutrix was examined by Doctor Chanda Jain (PW. 9) and the medical report is Ex.P.5-A. The accused/appellant was examined by Dr. K. K. Sachdeo (P.W.8) and the medical report is Ex.The defence was that of denial and false implication in the crime.The defence did not examine any witness.Heard learned counsel for the State and also the accused who is present in person before the Court and has been given adequate opportunity though being illiterate is not of any assistance to the Court.Double burden rested on the State counsel which- he succeeded in discharging fairly.The basic question regarding all the three charges against the accused hinges upon the identification of the accused which is an independent factor.Narayan Singh the Naib Tahsildar (PW. 3) who conducted the identification parade stated in his statement that in the identification parade 9 persons were mixed who were made to stand in a line, and were covered by blanket upto their neck and were of same height.The prosecutrix Ku.Anita rightly identified the accused by placing her hand on him.Identification memo which is Ex.P.1 which contains his signature as well as the signature of the prosecutrix, was prepared by him.In the cross-examination he was put the question regarding showing of the accused to the prosecutrix at the police station and he denied the same, and also denied the fact that the police people went inside the jail and the accused was singly called in the jail to the spot of identification.So far as the statement of this witness is concerned it deals with the identification that identification parade was conducted by him and that the identification was proper.So far as the question of showing the accused in jail is concerned, though this witness is not the proper witness for that purpose as his scope of confinement is limited to the identification parade.He denied the facts that the prosecutrix told him that the accused was shown to her several times at the police station and also denied the fact that the police people were inside the jail.Nothing much could come out from his statement on this aspect of the matter.Though the prosecutrix in court rightly identified the accused but what is relevant for consideration is the statement of the prosecutrix herself made before the court who before the court made statement that during the identification parade she correctly identified the accused and in cross-examination (para 7) she admitted that after lodging the FIR she went to the police station continuously for 3 or 4 days.According to her on Tuesday the accused was arrested who was shown to her at the police station.She also admitted that the accused was got identified to her at the police station and at the police station one person wearing white clothes asked her for identifying the accused person, who was shown at the police station.This statement itself creates a serious doubt to the very reliability of the identification and thereby fixation of the person as to who committed the offence in question.No doubt identification in the court is substantive but the same requires corroboration by test identification parade and the Court identification needs to be careful to be acted upon and for that it is always safe to have corroboration from identification parade.In the present case, the question of corroboration does not arise in view of the statement of the prosecutrix herself as she has stated in her cross-examination that the accused person was shown to her before the identification parade was held and she was told to identify the accused and as such it becomes a case left with mere identification in the court at the time of trial for the first time and such an evidence being of feeble character cannot be reliable so to hold that it has been corroborated by the test identification parade as it could not be held to be identification parade being in proper perspective and is worth not placing reliance.It under the facts and circumstances creates grave doubt as to the very question regarding involvement of the present accused in the crime and as a result thereof the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.Though in view of this it is not necessary to dilate on other points, which very much exists in the present case as the case suffers from all round infirmities, regarding the age of the girl who was student of class IV and no school leaving certificate having been produced in the court in proof of age.The medical evidence of the doctor P.W. 9 is also not worth being placed reliance.The aspersions made by the trial Court against Dr. Smt. Jain in regard to non proper conduction of the medical examination as well as against the prosecution agency are well founded.The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.","['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.15 of 2019 registered by the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 498(A), 323 and 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioners.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.15 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 323 and 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/7 CRL.O.P.No.67 of 2020The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2019, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.15 of 2019 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.27.07.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order arb ToThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 CRL.O.P.No.67 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.arb Crl.O.P.No.67 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.44 of 2020 27.07.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7","['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been filed by Baldev Singh who is one of the complainants in the case registered vide Fir No. 441 of 1987 under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code .The prosecution version in brief is that all the accused persons namely, Durga Prasad, Faqir Chand, Jagdish alias Kalia, Nirmal Sinah alias Gauria, Hira Lal had picked up and dragged Bhagwant Singh inside the katra and struck him with bricks.It is alleged that Ram Swarup and Hira Lal pinned him down on the ground while Jagdish hit him with a brick and Durga Prasad and Faqira climbed up the roof of the house shouting that Bhagwent Singh be finished and thereafter accused Faqira and Durga Prasad threw the brick wall on Bhagvvaiit Singh who succumbed to his infuries.A charpoi is also stated to have been hit on Bhagwant Singh's chest.Bhagwant Singh is stated to have suffered 15 injuries on his person.(2) Faqir Chand and Durga Prasiid during the investigation have proved bail applications in the Court of Sessions.The same were rejected vide order dated November 2, 19S7 and November 7, 1987 respectively Durga Prasad thereafter moved an application for grant of bail in High Court which was registered as Cril.Misc (M) 762 of 1988 and which came to be dismissed on .July 4. 1988 on merits.1988 through In's wife Shaino Devi before the trial Court as in the meanwhile the case has been committed for trial to the Sessions.It is alleged that the application Faqii Chand was moved by Shri P. P. Grover, Advocate and the application moved on behalf of the Durga Prasad by his wife was moved by Shri Ajay Kumar and who are juniors to Shri P. P. Grover, Advocate, Vide order dated August 4, 1988 line Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to Durga Prasad and vide order dated July 18, 1988 the same Court granted bail to Faqir Chand.It has been pleaded that no fresh grounds have been mentioned in the bail application which could entitled them to get bail from the Additional Sessions Judge.It has been strongly urged that a fraud has been practiced on the trial Court by not disclosing in the bail applica''ions of Faqir Chand and Durga Prasad that their previous bail applications have been dismissed on merits and the application of Durga Prasad had also been dismissed by the High Court.The complainant had moved an application before the Additional Sessions Judge also pointing out these facts seeking the order for cancelling the bail of the said two accused but the Additional Sessions Judge vide his impugned order dated September 7, 1988 had dismissed the application although he had mentioned in the order that if the accused bad disclosed in the application regarding dismissal of their applications on merits earlier, lie might have exercised his discretion in a different way but he, following the judgment of the High Court in K. K. Girdhar Vs.M.S. Kafhuria 35(1988), D.L.T. 392(1) dismissed the application.In the cited case.He has urged that there has been no fraud practiced on the Court by mere omission to mention the fate of the earlier bail applications in the fresh application for bail.(4) The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has vehemently argued that by not disclosing the material facts.in the bail application that the previous bail applications has been dismissed on merits, a fraud has been practiced and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge also show's that if the material fact has been disclosed in the new bail applications.One bail application after another can be moved on behalf of the accused for seeking bail.The question which has arisen in the present case is whether on the mere fact that in a fresh application for bail the material fact of previous bail application having been rejected on merits is concluded amounts lo playing fraud on the Court or amounts to abuse of the process of Court if bail is granted on such application without coming to know about the previous application for grant of bail having been dismissed on merits by the High Court or even by the Sessions Court earlier.In case Babu Singh (supra) the only ratio laid down is that repeated applications for bail can be moved by the accused or on behalf of the accused.Counsel for the respondent has also cited Bhagirath singh Judeja Vs.State of Gujarat Facts in brief in the cited case were that an application for bail was moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and on the same day an application was moved for hail before the Sessions Judge.The Sessions Judge granted bail.",['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Pankaj D.Kavale, Advocate for the Applicant.Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the Respondent/State.rejection of first application bearing No.2420 of 20126 vide orderdated 06/12/2017 by this Court.::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2019 04:24:05 :::attention to the Order dated 28/12/2017 passed below Exhibit 22thereby granting bail to co-accused Ilyas Abdul Jabber Choudhariand argued that this accused person has actually received thediesel stolen by the accused persons.He is granted bail by thelearned trial Court.The learned Counsel further drew myattention to the Order dated 28/11/2018 passed in Criminal BailApplication No.1175 of 2017 by co-ordinate Bench of this Court(Coram : Prakash D. Naik, J) and argued that co-accused TayyabMansoor Shaikh, who has installed the electric motor for stealingthe diesel, is granted bail.With this, the learned Counsel arguedthat as the co-accused are released on bail, the applicant is alsoentitled to be released on bail.3 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed theapplication by contending that co-accused Tayyab Mansoor Shaikhis granted bail on the premises that he was working as a plumberand had installed the electric motor as per the duty assigned tohim.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further argued thatanother accused Ilyas Abdul Jabber Choudhari, who is released onbail by the learned trial Court was accused of receiving the stolenproperty, whereas according to the learned Additional PublicProsecutor, the present applicant was in-charge of laying down thepipeline illegally for stealing diesel from the supply main of thePetroleum Company and while doing so, he convinced theGaikwad RD 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2019 04:24:05 ::: (1)BANo.17482018.docwitnesses examined by the prosecution not to oppose the work oflaying down underground pipeline, which was meant for stealingthe diesel in huge quantity from the supply main of the PetroleumCompany.::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2019 04:24:05 :::4 I have considered the submissions so advanced.6 However, the trial Court is directed to expedite thetrial and to finish it of as early as possible and in any case within aperiod of two years from the date of receipt of this of this Court.::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2019 04:24:05 :::",['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A.This application has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 10.02.2019 as well as summoning order dated 01.07.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in Case No. 1063 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 18 of 2019, under Sections 352, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Bewana, District Ambedkar Nagar.It is also submitted that as per the provisions of explanation clause of Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in case, a report made by police officer in a case, which discloses, after investigation, commission of a non-cognizable offence, shall be deemed to be a complaint, and the police officer, by whom such report is made, shall be deemed to be complainant.P.C. and thereafter his witnesses under Section 202, Cr.With the reasons mentioned above, the order of the Magistrate is only required to be modified and not to be quashed as a whole.The application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed partly for treating the charge-sheet as complaint.""The application is, accordingly, allowed.","['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"She was medically examined.Present petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the prosecutrix / petitioner for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No.2 by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge vide orders dated 17.07.2014 and 12.08.2014 in case FIR No.290/2014 registered under Sections 323/341/342/354/354B/376/506 IPC at PS Harsh Vihar.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.The respondent No.2 moved an application Crl.M.C. 146/2015 Page 1 of 3 for anticipatory bail.Vide order dated 17.07.2014, observing that there were no allegations of commission of offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and other offences were bailable in nature, anticipatory bail was granted.Subsequently, after about 24 days on 05.08.2014, the victim recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement where she levelled allegations of rape, molestation, insertion of finger in the vagina.Sections 376/354B IPC were added in the FIR.It prompted the respondent No.2 to seek anticipatory bail under those offences.Vide order dated 12.08.2014 the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail.Aggrieved by the said orders, the instant petition has been filed for cancellation of bail.M.C. 146/2015 Page 1 of 3Admittedly, the prosecutrix and the respondent No.2 are related to each other.There appears to be a property dispute between the parties.In the alleged history, she did not complain about any sexual assault.It is relevant to note that she was accompanied to the hospital by an NGO lady Paramjeet Kaur.After the respondent No.2 was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 17.07.2014 in which it was observed that there were no allegations of offence under Section 354 IPC, after an inordinate delay, the prosecutrix recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement where she made vital improvements and introduced a new story levelling allegations of sexual assault.No medical examination was conducted thereafter.Charge-sheet is stated to have been filed.There are no allegations if after the grant of anticipatory bail the respondent No.2 ever Crl.M.C. 146/2015 Page 2 of 3 misused the liberty.The impugned order dated 12.08.2014 was passed in the presence of the complainant's counsel.The petitioner being duly educated is not expected to omit levelling charge of rape at first instance.M.C. 146/2015 Page 2 of 3Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no sufficient reasons / grounds to cancel the bail granted to the respondent No.2 by the Court below.The petition lacks merits and is dismissed.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE JULY 21, 2016 / tr Crl.M.C. 146/2015 Page 3 of 3M.C. 146/2015 Page 3 of 3","['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. W.P.(C) No.1694/2011 impugns the order dated 25.11.2010 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), Principal Bench allowing the OA No.164/2010 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 preferred by the respondent and directing the petitioner Delhi Police to appoint the respondent to the post of Head Constable along with others of the batch for which he had competed, without however giving him the benefit of back wages but entitling him to seniority from the date the person immediately below him in the merit list of Constables for the selection of the year 2006 was appointed.Since the issue involved in all the three petitions is the same, we heard the same together and are disposing of all the three petitions by this common judgment.The respondent in W.P.(C) No.1694/2011 had in pursuance to the recruitment in the year 2006 to the post of Constable in Delhi Police applied in the OBC category and cleared the Physical Endurance and Measurement WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 3 of 13 Test, Written Test, Interview and Medical Test and was declared provisionally selected subject to the verification of his character and antecedents.The said verification revealed, that he was involved in FIR No.131/99 under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC and FIR No.145/2004 under Sections 147, 323 and 451 of the IPC; that he was vide judgment dated 17.03.2001 acquitted in the criminal case in FIR No.131/1999 by giving him benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; that in criminal case in FIR No.145/2004 also, he was acquitted vide judgment dated 01.12.2006 pursuant to a compromise and giving him benefit under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and clarifying that the same would not have any adverse effect on the respondent.The respondent though had not disclosed the aforesaid criminal cases in the application form but in the attestation form meant for verification of character had made disclosure thereof.The petitioner Delhi Police however after giving a notice to show cause and considering his reply thereto, cancelled the candidature of the respondent.The representation of the respondent also did not find favour.The respondent thereafter filed O.A. No.2083/2008 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 21.04.2009 directing Delhi Police to reconsider the eligibility of the respondent.Ajit Singh S/o Sh.Ramjilal R/o Jogawar PS Mundawar, Distt.Alwar (Raj.) reported that on the morning of 26.07.2004 at about 5-6 A.M. he along with his father Sh.Ramjilal, mother Smt. Servo, wife Manju, Lekhram and Lekhram's wife Munesh were in their house.While his mother Servo was churning buttermilk, Sube Singh, Kanwar Singh, Sanwal S/o Kunjaram, Dharamveer S/o Sube Singh and their wives attacked them with cane sticks and halberds (Pharsa) and inured all of them.Kanwar Singh and Sube Singh were equipped with halberd while rest were equipped with cane sticks.Sube Singh attacked him with halberd on his back.They vandalized the household articles and robbed `40,000/- cash, gold chain of his wife Manju, gold earring of Munesh.Notice of the writ petition was issued and vide interim order dated 06.04.2011, the operation of the order of the Tribunal stayed.2. W.P.(C) No.6253/2011 impugns the orders dated 19.03.2010, 27.07.2010 and 16.05.2011 of the Tribunal dismissing the OA No.2372/2009 preferred by the respondent therein impugning the cancellation of his candidature for the post of Constable in the Delhi Police WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 2 of 13 and dismissing the review applications filed by the petitioner.Rule was issued of the said petition also.WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 2 of 13Delhi WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 4 of 13 Police however vide order dated 17.06.2009 found the respondent unsuitable for a disciplined force like Delhi Police where safeguarding the human right is the utmost priority, giving the following reasons:WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 3 of 13WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 4 of 13On hearing the noise, the neighbours gathered and intervened.WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 5 of 13In Second case FIR No.131/99, PS Mundawar Sh.Ramji Lal S/o Sh.Laxman R/o Jogawar, PS Mundawar, Distt.Alwar (Raj.) reported that he had a hut (chhappar) in the village in which he had stored ""Tura"" & ""Wheat"".On 03.05.99 at about 4:00 PM Sube Singh, Lal Singh, Kanwar Singh S/o Kunja Ram, Rakesh S/o Sube Singh, Dharamveer S/o Sube Singh, Sudesh D/o Lal Singh, Dhamali D/o Sube Singh, Chiriya W/o Sube Singh and Gidoari W/o Kunja Ram came there and broke his hut with the help of wood sticks and halberd.They also stole the wheat, tura and other materials forcibly.When he, his family and other villagers objected to it, they threatened them for dire consequences.Accordingly the case was registered U/s 454/380 IPC.During course of trial the court charged them U/s 147/323 IPC and the accused persons pleaded their guilt.Charges U/s 147/323 IPC were proved against them and the Court fined `100/- each on the five accused persons.Keeping in view the above circumstances, it has been established that you were involved in two criminal cases and played an active role in these cases.WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 6 of 13From the facts as explained above, it shows that you are of the habit of picking up quarrel and resorting to violence.This type of attitude renders you unsuitable for a disciplined force like Delhi Police where safeguarding the human right is the utmost priority.As such, you have again been found not suitable for appointment to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police and your application is considered and rejected.""The said order was impugned in O.A. No.164/2010 (supra).The Tribunal however in view of the acquittal in the criminal cases with clarification that the probation would not adversely affect the respondent held such rejection to be bad and directed Delhi Police to appoint the respondent therein.The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6253/2011 had also applied for the post of Constable in Delhi Police in the recruitment of the year 2008; he also cleared all the tests and was provisionally selected but on verification was found to have been involved in case FIR No.134/2003 under Section 3/6 of WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 7 of 13 the Public Examination Act and was convicted with a fine of `1,000/- and given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. On such revelation, his candidature was also cancelled.The Tribunal dismissed his challenge holding that he has to suffer for the consequences of his conviction and the conclusion reached by the Delhi Police of his being unfit for service could not be questioned.WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 7 of 13The respondent in W.P.(C) No.7811/2011 had also applied during the recruitment of the year 2009 for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police and was provisionally selected; however verification of his antecedents revealed that he was involved in criminal case FIR No.115/2007 dated 16.07.2007 under Sections 341/294/506/34 IPC in which he was convicted but released after admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act for the reason of his being a student and under 21 years of age.His candidature was also cancelled after hearing him.The Tribunal set aside the said order relying inter alia on Commissioner of Police Vs.Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644 and accordingly directed his appointment.WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 8 of 13WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 8 of 13We have recently had occasion to deal with the questions as raised in these petitions in our judgment dated 16.11.2011 in W.P.(C) No.8752/2011 titled Vinod Kumar Vs.Commissioner of Police and judgment dated 20.12.2011 in W.P.(C) No.6518/2011 titled Commissioner of Police Vs.Ranvir Singh.Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.6253/2011 is dismissed and the petitioner therein not found entitled to employment.WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 11 of 13Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.7811/2011 is dismissed and the order dated 27.07.2011 of the Tribunal directing the Delhi Police to appoint the WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 12 of 13 respondent therein is upheld and the petitioner Delhi Police is directed to now comply with the said order within six weeks.WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 12 of 13No order as to costs.RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE FEBRUARY 15, 2012 'gsr' WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 13 of 13WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 13 of 13","['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied against the said order the present revisional application is filed with a prayer for setting aside the said order and to pass necessary order as it thinks fit and proper.Learned Advocate Mr. D. Roy Chowdhury assisted by learned Advocate Mr. Jayanta Dutta argued as follows:-In the petition of complaint filed before the learned Magistrate transpired the allegation under Section 498A/506(II)/427/120B/34 I.P.C. and as a result the cognizance was taken and the matter was transferred to the learned J.M. for trial.,"['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The writ petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, supplying products to Bharath Earth Movers Limited (BEML), which is an establishment under the Ministry of Defence, Union of India.The 4th respondent is a registered Trade Union of the petitioner Company and respondents 5 to 12 are the previous and present Office Bearers of the 4th respondent Union.According to the writ petitioner, there has been some industrial dispute between the Management and the Union and the same is pending.The Union office bearers and other members went on strike from 15.11.2007, which according to the petitioner is illegal, since there was no proper notice given and it was in violation of the wage settlement.5(a).Since there were no effective steps taken by respondents 1 to 3, the writ petitioner has filed O.S.No.54 of 2007 on the file of Sub-Court, Hosur for permanent injunction restraining the 4th respondent and its members from obstructing and preventing the ingress and egress of men and materials from and to the factory and from holding any violent demonstrations and meetings, shouting defamatory slogans, etc. within 300 meters from the petitioner's factory.5(b).When the matter came up for admission, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate, who has taken notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 to find out the actual position of the case.On 07.12.2007, the learned Government Advocate, on oral instructions from the second respondent has submitted that in the writ petitioner's factory there has been a dispute between the Management and its employees regarding the status of alleged temporary workers.It was also submitted that in the Campus of the factory one Sub-Inspector of Police and five Police Constables were posted round-the-clock to give protection.He also submitted that en route the place of manufacture and supply, 20 Policemen were posted for the purpose of giving protection.He also submitted that in order to have a peaceful atmosphere, a suggestion was made by respondents 1 to 3 to the writ petitioner to move the materials from the factory twice a week and in such an event, the petitioner Management can give an advance information to the second respondent, so as to enable the second respondent to give adequate protection and maintain law and order.The said submission made by the learned Government Advocate was recorded and the writ petition was disposed of with direction to the second respondent to give police protection in the above terms as and when the petitioner gives advance information.Today, Mr.N.Senthil Kumar, learned Government Advocate on oral instructions from the second respondent viz. Mrs.Shyamala Devi would submit that in respect of the petitioner's factory, there has been some dispute between the factory and the employees/workmen, regarding the workmen having been changed.It is also further submitted, on instructions, within the campus of the factory one Sub Inspector of Police and 5 police constables have been posted to give protection round the clock.He would also submit that enroute to the place of manufacture and supply, 20 policemen are posted for the purpose of giving protection.He also submitted that in order to have a peaceful atmosphere, a suggestion was made to the petitioner, to move the materials twice a week and in such event, the petitioner-Management can give advance information to the second respondent so as to enable the second respondent to give adequate protection and to maintain law and order.The above submission made by the learned Government Advocate is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to give police protection on the above terms as and when the petitioner gives an advance information.No costs.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.""Considering the genuineness of the claim made by respondents 4 to 12 in the writ petition, who have received the notice about the writ petition only on 08.12.2007, this Court by order dated 21.01.2008, has directed the respondents 4 to 12 to file counter affidavit in the main writ petition and also directed the main writ petition to be posted for counter.The counter has been filed by respondents 4 to 12 and both the Miscellaneous Petition and the main writ petition were heard together.The petitioner has also filed I.A.No.100 of 2007 for temporary injunction.The trial Court, on 09.06.2007, has passed an order of injunction against 4th respondent and its Union members from holding any violent demonstrations and meetings, shouting defamatory slogans, etc. within 200 meters from the petitioner's factory and from gheraoing the management staff, officers, apprentices and from preventing vehicle with finished, unfinished, semi-finished products, raw materials and fixtures and other things from entering into the factory or leaving the factory.5(c).After the said order, the writ petitioner has once again approached respondents 1 to 3 for giving protection to enforce the injunction order granted by the Civil Court.According to the petitioner, even after the order of injunction, respondents 4 to 12 have involved in illegal activities by erecting tent within 20 meters from the factory main gate; assembling in groups and shouting abusive and threatening slogans in front of the gate; threatening and intimidating the staff while entering and leaving the factory; indulging in stopping the vehicles and checking the personal belongings, bags etc. of the staff while leaving the factory; assaulting essential service suppliers and thereby paralysing the functioning of the factory; and causing damages to the vehicles by breaking the wind shield etc. which bring materials to the company.It was in the circumstance that in spite of the injunction being made absolute after hearing respondents 4 to 12, the said respondents have indulged in the said activities, the petitioner filed the above writ petition.Respondents 4 to 12 have filed counter affidavit.As per the counter affidavit, it is the case of the respondents that they have filed CMA.No.44 of 2007 against the order of injunction granted in I.A.No.100 of 2007 in O.S.No.54 of 2007 and they have also applied for the stay of order of injunction.Therefore, according to the respondents 4 to 12, the writ petitioner having approached the Civil court, cannot file the present writ petition.According to the respondents, the writ petitioner has committed unfair labour practice and dismissed 33 workers, including respondents 5,8,11 and 12, without enquiry.There is also breach of settlement by demanding the workers to perform higher work load which created industrial strife.According to respondents 4 to 12, an offender cannot be granted any discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction.The reason for strike called by respondents 4 to 12 is the illegal demand of the petitioner for upward revision of work load, in violation of the settlement between the parties entered in January,2006 which expires on 30th June,2008 and during the bilateral negotiations also the Management is demanding higher work load.6(a).According to respondents 4 to 12, the Management has brought 45 outsiders labelling them as ""Trainees"" and kept them as day in and day out, only to intimidate the workers.The complaint to Inspector of Factories has not been attended by the Inspector properly and the issue is pending before the Division Bench by way appeal.Therefore, according to the respondents, the demands made by them are not illegal.The notice for strike was given on 10.10.2007 and from 15.11.2007, respondents 4 to 12 and its Union workers are on legal strike.The idea of the writ petitioner is to break the strike by undertaking outsiders and also to achieve production.The police protection itself is sought for only to break the strike, which is legal.Since respondents 4 to 12 have already filed appeal against the order of injunction granted by the Civil Court, the writ petitioner is not entitled for any interim order in this case.R.Gandhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that there are totally 163 workmen employed in the writ petitioner Company and while admitting that the 4th respondent is a major Union consisting more number of workers who are on strike from 15.11.2007, his contention is that respondents 4 to 12 have lost their case before the Civil Court in the interlocutory application stage, since the Civil Court has granted injunction pending suit after hearing both sides and it is the respondents 4 to 12 who have filed appeal against the said order and it is not necessary for the writ petitioner to approach the Civil Court again and it is the duty of respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition to give protection to the petitioner in order to implement the civil Court order.7(a).According to the learned senior counsel, even the finished products which are situated inside the factory of the petitioner are not allowed to be taken away and under the guise of right of strike, the employees should not indulge in illegal and violent activities.According to him, respondents 4 to 12 have no right to prevent the employees who are willing to work and other persons who are entering into the factory premises cannot be prevented in the name of strike.His further contention is that respondents 4 to 12 are not allowing any lorry even to go out, with the result, the writ petitioner is unable to supply materials to Defence Department.7(b).He would also rely upon an order of this Court made in W.P.No.33949 of 2007 dated 29.10.2007, in which the claim of the 4th respondent Union for direction to take action against the writ petitioner, viz., not to engage trainees/apprentices, was dismissed.He would also submit that many criminal complaints have been given by the writ petitioner.The learned Government Advocate, on instructions would submit that between 15.11.2007 and 19.11.2007, 2 Police Constables were posted regularly in the premises of the writ petitioner; from 20.11.2007 to 07.12.2007 one Sub-Inspector of Police and 4 Constables were posted daily in the premises and from 08.12.2007 till date two Police Constables have been posted to give 24 hour protection to the writ petitioner Company.The complaints by the employer/writ petitioner relate to damage to public properties while the complaints by the workmen relate to threatening and making division among the workers.According to learned Government Advocate, Crime No.9 of 2008 has been registered by police on 05.01.2008 under Sections 323 and 324 IPC.V.Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 12 submits that the Union members are on legal strike from 15.11.2007, which arose under Industries Disputes Act. According to him, the writ petitioner/employer failed to act as per the settlement on payment of wages and work load and wanted to extract higher work load and many workers have been dismissed without notice.His submission is that in the name of engaging outsiders and calling them as apprentices/trainees, the writ petitioner employed them as regular employees and the idea of the writ petitioner is to divide the Union and if that is allowed, the concept of collective bargain will be thrown to winds, which is not the intend of the legislature in making laws.I have heard Mr.R.Gandhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.L.S.M.Hazan Fizal, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioner has approached the Civil Court and filed a suit against the 4th respondent and its Union members.When the employer attempts to divide the striking workers, which is lawful, it is certainly open to the 4th respondent Union and its members to approach the Inspector of Factories or raise an industrial dispute by treating the same as unfair labour practice, etc. and the immunity granted under Section 18(1) of the Act cannot mean to say that the Union must be permitted to achieve its object by resorting to the method which are not permitted in law.In view of the above said facts and legal position, I am of the considered view that the writ petitioner must be granted police protection in the light of the order of injunction granted on 09.06.2007 in I.A.No.100 of 2007 in O.S.No.54 of 2007, which was made absolute on 21.11.2007, to perform its legal obligations, but at the same time, with liberty to the 4th respondent Union to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of its grievance regarding the alleged employment of trainees/apprentices on regular basis by the writ petitioner.In view of the same, the writ petition stands ordered on the above terms.No costs.1.The Superintendent of Police Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Hosur, Krishnagiri District.3.The Inspector of Police SIPCOT, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.","['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"ORDER K.S. Hegde, J.The appellants were tried before the learned Sessions Judge of Bellary, in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1957 on his file, for the murder of one Mareppa on the midnight of 31 3 1957 at Benakal village, Bellary District.They are also tried for some other offences alleged to have been committed at the time of the said murder.They were convicted Under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life.Further appellants 1 and 2 (Basappa and Badrigadu respectively) were convicted for an offence Under Section 324, for causing hurt to Mareppa, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.Appellant No. 31 (Chakalabandi Adavappa) was convicted for an of m fence Under Section 324 IPC for causing hurt to P.W. 2 (Mariswamappa) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.Appellant No. 4 (Phothagadu) was convicted Under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt to P.W. 2 (Mariswamappa) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.The several sentences imposed on the appellants were made to run concurrently.2. Accused 1 and 2 are cousins.Accused Sections and 4 are brothers and all the accused are related to one another.The case for the prosecution is that in the village of Benakal there were two factions; one of the factions was led by A l (Basarroal by and the opposing faction was led by one Handihal Hanumanthappa; feelings between these two factions were very bitter; the deceased and P. W 2 (Mariswamappa) belonged to the faction of Handihal Hanvrninthappa, whereas all the accused belonged to the faction led by A l. It is further alleged that on the night of 31 3 1957, two haystacks be lonsine to A l and A 3 caught fire; at that time the deceased, P.W. 2 and many others were attending a Baiana performance in Durgamma temple not far from the scene of occurrence; on seeing the haystacks ablaze, the deceased, P.W. 2 and many others went to the scene.With a view to have a nearer view of the burning haystacks, the deceased and P.W. 2 first stood on the roof of A 3' house and later on moved on to the roof of A 3' house which was close to the burning haystacks.The party of the accused suspected that the deceased and P.W. 2 must have set fire to the haystacks and further they were there to enjoy the fun.That first information is marked as Ex P 3 in this case.The police immediately came to the scene or occurrence but by the time they reached the scene,, the body of the deceased was almost burnt.The Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, Medical College Mysore (P.W. 4 Dr. A. T. Srinivasa Iyengar) who examined the burnt bones and flesh of the deceased, was unable to give1 any opinion as regards the cause of death.So also P.W. 7 (Dr. Y. Padmanabha Rao) who held the post mortem examination was not in a position to speak about the cause of death.P.W. 1 (Dr. B. N. Ramakrishniah) who examined P.W. 2 found' two injuries on his person.One of them was a tapering cut wound 4"" x 1/2 which exposed the bones of the elbow and the other was a lacerated wound 1"" x W scalp deep situated 2"" behind the right ear.He was of the opinion, that the injury on .the elbow was a grievous one.There appears to have been some controversy in the Court below as to whether the bones and flesh recovered by tile Police from the burning haystacks were those On the deceased Mareppa.There is little doubt in this case that Mareppa had died on the night of f51 3 1957 and the bones and flesh recovered by the police were those of the deceased.The trial Court, accepted the prosecution case on this point and its conclusions were not challenged before us.Hence it is unnecessary to go over that ground.The existence of the alleged factions was not disputed before us.The immediate occasion for the attack on the deceased and P.W. 2 according, to the prosecution, is the burning of the haystacks.This is clear from the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. & (Saranappa), P.W. 5 (Mari Durgappa).P.W. ft (Talur Mareppa).P.W. 9 (Basappa) and P.W. 1U (Mukkanna).The presence of P.W. 2 at the ' scene of the occurrence cannot be denied.He him , self has sustained injuries.Undoubtedly he b& longs to the faction of the deceased wd he was are enemy of the accused.the first Information laid before the police.It may be remembered that this information was laid before the police almost within three hours after the occurrence and1 that at a place which is about 6 miles from the scene of occurrence.There was little time to concoct a false story.The evidence of P.W. 2 is fully corroborated by P.W. 3 (Saranappa) and P.W. 6 (Talur Mareppa).Their houses are very near the scene of occurrence and hence they are natural witnesses.It is true that P.W. 3 is the brother in law of P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 is the maternal uncle of the deceased.Hence undoubtedly they are interested witnesses.As regards the throwing of the body of Mareppa into the burning haystacks, we have the evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 5 Mari Durgappa).He urged the we should not place reliance on their evidence, particularly in view of the existence of the factions,It was also urged that though a large number of persons have witnessed the occurrence, no disinterested witness has been examined to support the prosecution case.This is true.But in a factious village, people who are really neutral, will be reluctant to come forward as witnesses to support one or the other side, lest they should invite trouble for themselves.This is a common tendency.The fact that the deceased was killed and P.W. 2 was injured on the night of 31 3 1957 admits of no doubt.The sequel of events as disclosed by the prosecution witnesses appear to be natural.But above all, there is the firs' information (Ex. P 3) which is of utmost importance in this case.According to the evidence of P.W. 1, the injury caused on the elbow of P.W. 2 is a grievous injury.The prosecution evidence shows that the said injury was caused by A 4 (Pothugadu).Hence A 4's conviction Under Section 326 IPC is justified.Some attempt was made to show that the injury in question was a simple injury.Similarly the conviction of A 3 (Adiveppa) Under Section 324 IPC for pausing hurt to P.W. 2 cannot be questioned.Now coming to the murder of the decease ed, we are faced with certain difficulties, as the Doctors were not able to give any definite opinion as regards the cause of his death.To some extent We are left to conjecture as to what was the direct cause of his death.","['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"the ground of non-consummation of marriage due to willful neglect on the part of the wife was allowed by the Court below.The wife initiated proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.Now, he wants to include the records of this proceeding and also his oral evidence on that basis as evidence in the 2 present suit.We feel that the section 498A legal proceedings when started some two years after the divorce have no direct connection with this proceeding, although they might be a result of a further fall out between the husband and the wife.All the records of present proceedings would only make the present proceedings unnecessarily time consuming.For All these reasons, we do not entertain the application (CAN 10038 of 2017) under order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.The same is hereby dismissed.( I. P. Mukerji,J.) (Amrita Sinha, J.)",['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
"Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 09.02.2016 relating to Crime No.135/2015 registered at Police Station Dharnawada, District Guna (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 326A, 34 of IPC.Thereafter, the victim was referred to the District Hospital, Guna (M.P.) and he left the hospital against the advice of the doctor and 2 Mcrc.5435.2016 Raj Vs.Under these circumstances, at the most offence under Section 324 of IPC may constitute which is triable by Magistrate.Sufficient time will be required in conclusion of the trial and the applicant cannot be kept in custody for an unlimited period.If the applicant is not released on bail then his future will be spoiled in the company of the hardened criminals inside the jail.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge pd","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"C.C. as per rules.Heard on the point of admission and the filed certified copy of the judgment dated 25.09.2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, in ST No.500154/2016 is perused.Appeal appears to be arguable hence, admitted for final hearing.Record of trial Court be requisitioned.No fresh notice is necessary to the respondent as Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has appeared.Appearing counsel for the parties are heard on I.A.No.7776/2017 filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C, 1973 for suspension of jail sentence of appellant- Chhotu alias Nisar Pathan awarded by the trial Court.Appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 363 of the IPC to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 506-B of IPC to undergo one year RI with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.It appears that fine amount has already been deposited by the appellant before the trial Court, and appellant has been sentenced under Section 363 of IPC for a period of three years and under Section 506-B of IPC to undergo one year RI and there is no possibility of early hearing of this appeal, hence, I.A.No.7776/2017 is allowed and it is ordered that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) by the Appellant-Chhotu alias Nisar Pathan with a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, his jail sentences shall remain suspended till disposal of this appeal and he be released on bail.The appellant is further directed to remain present before the Registry of this Court firstly on 22.11.2017 and, thereafter, on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court for the same purpose in future.",['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
"B of the Indian Penal Code.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. )","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on I.A. No. 2279/15, second application u/S 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the appellant-Rampal Singh for suspension of jail sentence.Appellant's first application I.A. No. 7058/15 was rejected on 08/12/2014 on merits with the liberty to repeat the same after three months.On behalf of the appellant this repeat application has been filed on the fresh ground that at the time of the first application for suspension of sentence it was not considered that offence under section 467 of Cr.P.C. is not made out against the present appellant and after a period of three months the appellant has filed this second application.The appellant submits that he has been in custody for more than eight months now.The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 27.08.2014 in Sessions Trial No.262/2013 by 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior and sentenced as under:- Under Section Conviction Imprisonment Fine imprisonment if Detail liew of Fine Sentence of deposited Rs.467 of IPC 5 years, RI 1,000/- 3 months R.I.Appellant has been convicted for keeping with him forged Cr.A. No. 922/2 0 1 4 (Rampal Singh Vs.State of M.P.) mark-sheets and also mark-sheets which are blank and does not belong to Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi and Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi.Cr.A. No. 922/2 0 1 4It is further argued that appellant-Rampal has received Rs. 3000/- from Anantram towards preparing a forged mark-sheet in the name of his sister-Saraswati.Co-accused Chotelal was acquitted by the trial Court.Apellant has been in custody since 27.08.2014 and during the trial he was in custody for about 32 days.In this manner appellant remained in jail for about 8 months.State of M.P.) of the trials and thereafter appeals in criminal cases, for no fault of the accused, confers a right upon him to apply for bail.If an appeal is not disposed or within the aforesaid period of 5 years, for no fault of the convicts, such convicts may be released on bail on such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the Court, I deem it appropriate to allow the application.Accordingly, the application (I.A. No. 2279/15) is allowed.I.A. No. 2279/15 stand disposed of.C.C. as per rules.(S. K. Palo) Judge neetu",['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Shri Manish Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant.This is application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Applicant Dharmendra s/o Shri Madan Singh Gurjar, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 44/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 325,329,341,323,294,506/34,149 of IPC registered at Police Station Bercha, District Shajapur M.P.Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the earlier case was registered under Section 341,323,294 and 506 IPC and in that case, the applicant has been released on bail.Subsequently, the Police has added the Sections under Section 325,329 and 149 of IPC.The offence under Section 329 IPC is non-bailable offence.It is submitted that after granting the bail, the applicant has not misused the liberty and the applicant is ready to co-operate with the trial.In such circumstances, he be granted anticipatory bail because he is apprehending that he may be arrested for the offence under Section 325 and 329 of 2 IPC.On the other hand, learned PL for the non-applicant/State opposes the prayer.Applicant shall ensure that he would not commit any such offence during currency of bail and rest of the conditions stipulated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be binding on him.It is made clear, that if the applicant will breach any of the condition, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerning 3 Court shall be free to take appropriate action to secure the presence of the applicant.Certified copy as per rules.(JARAT KUMAR JAIN) VACATION JUDGE M.Jilla.","['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Shri Praveen Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the State.This is the third application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail.Both the previous applications were dismissed as withdrawn.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 193/2012 registered at Police Station-Chachai, District Anuppur for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506-B and 326 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.There is possibility of compromise between the parties.The applicant has no criminal past.I have perused the case diary.It has been specifically alleged against the applicant that he assaulted the complainant by an Axe, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his head.In these circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory.","['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The four complainants are partnership firms.The petitioners are facing prosecution/trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as Act, for short) in six different complaints filed by M/s. Super Enterprises, M/s. Shubham Traders, M/s. Decent Electronics and M/s. Trading Systems.M/s. Super Enterprises and M/s. Shubham Traders have filed two complaints each through their partner-Mr. D.P. Gupta.The petitioners herein had filed an application before the Trial Court with the following prayers :-This application has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide Order dated 30th July, 2007, recording that the six different complaints deal with six different cheques which constitute a different cause of action.It was recorded that the complainants are different and were not filed by the same person and therefore joint trial cannot be ordered.Learned Trial Court recorded that the application filed was under Sections 219/220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short).It was also noticed that this was a second application filed by the petitioners praying for the same relief.",['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The petitioner is shown as Accused No.6 in C.C.No.54 of 2013 on thefile of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Virudhunagar.The de-factocomplainant in this case is the second respondent herein.2.Though the second respondent has been served and his name is also figuring in the cause list, he has not not chosen to appear before this Courteither in person or through counsel.It is seen that in respect of one of the propertiesbelonging to the second respondent, the first accused viz., Selvaraj executedPower of Attorney, dated 16.08.2005, in favour of the fourth accused, who inturn executed another Power of Attorney, dated 15.03.2007, in favour of thepetitioner herein.Thesecond respondent had moved the learned Judicial Magistrate No.The first respondent conducted investigation and laid the final reportunder Sections 120-B, 419, 465, 468, 471 r/w. 109 IPC.The petitioner isshown as 6th Accused in the Final Report.To quash the proceedings, insofar as she is concerned, thepetitioner/A6 has filed the present Criminal Original Petition.4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the firstrespondent.But, in this case, the direction issued bythe learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sattur, was not only followed butlater, investigation was conducted and final report was filed and the samewas also taken on file in C.C.No.54 of 2013 by the learned JudicialMagistrate No.II, Virudhunagar.Therefore, much water has flown under thebridge and it is late, in the day, on the part of the petitioner to raise thepoint of territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, who issued directionunder Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. But, then, the other contention of the learnedcounsel for the petitioner merits acceptance.The learned counsel appearingfor the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner did not have any directlink with the first accused.The petitioner was not the Power of Attorney ofthe first accused.It was the fourth accused, who hadexecuted fresh Power of Attorney, dated 15.03.2007, in favour of thepetitioner.The only material to establish a joint conspiracy underSection 120-B IPC is the statement of one Palani.8.This Court went through the said 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of L.W.6 -Palani.It stretches the credulity of this Court.The said statement hasbeen prepared deliberately to rope in all the accused.The de-factocomplainant merely points out that A1 to A4 have joined together and createdfalse documents.The only allegation that is made against the petitioner bythe de-facto complainant is that the petitioner based on the false documentexecuted in her favour by A4, had executed a further sale deed.This Courtis of the view that there is no legally acceptable material to fasten anypenal liability on her.Therefore, the impugned prosecution in C.C.No.54 of2013 is quashed in respect of the petitioner alone.This Criminal OriginalPetition is allowed accordingly.2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.",['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
"On the basis of information police raided the Scorpio vehicle near Vidhi Chandra Dharamshala THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No. 659/2018 (Pintu Singh Tomar and others Vs.State of M.P. and others) 2 Gwalior, seized incriminating documents under Zero FIR, detained ten persons, thereafter registered Crime No. 648/2012 on 30/09/2012, at Police Station Padav under Section 120B, 419 and 477 IPC.It was revealed during the investigation that MP Police had seized the 37 incriminating documents by raiding the Scorpio vehicle at around 1000 Hrs. including the Scorpio, detained the 10 persons sitting in the Scorpio, and brought 10 persons to the Police Station.All the documents were recovered from the vehicle.On arrival at the PS, a General Diary Entry No. 2045 at 1435 hours was made explaining the circumstances of the raid and thereafter, the instant Padav PS Case No. 648/2012 was registered on the 30/09/2012 against the 10 persons who were arrested u/s 120B, 419 & 477 of IPC vide subsequent General Diary Entry No. 2046 at 1445 hours on the same day.The documents seized by the local police also contained the Test Admit Cards of 31 candidates of PCRT- 2012 and some original Mark sheets, Domiciles certificate, etc. of other persons.Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Asstt.Solicitor General for the respondent no.2-CBI.(1) This criminal revision at the instance of accused persons is directed against the order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Trial court declining to accept the closure with a direction that the trial shall continue.Bharat Singh, Constable and Vinod Singh, Head THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No. 659/2018 (Pintu Singh Tomar and others Vs.However, with the matter being transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation, the investigation was further continued.That a supplementary report in final form was filed by the CBI on 21/07/2017 proposing closure of the case for want of prosecutable evidence on the ground that :""(a) There is no entry in the GD showing the departure of the raiding party on 30/09/2012 under SHO, Padav.(b) There is no entry at 1450 hours on 30/09/2012 showing the departure of STF THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No. 659/2018 (Pintu Singh Tomar and others Vs.State of M.P. and others) 4 officials from Padav PS which includes the names of two STF staff who witnessed the arrests made in between 1500 hours and 1555 hours.Thus, arrests made are suspicious.(c) There is no independent witness either to the seizure made at 1000 Hrs or arrests made thereafter in between 1500 hours and 1555 hours on 30/09/2012 despite the arrests having been made from a crowded place.(d) The Police Station Padav is only about 2 Km away from the alleged place where the accused persons were caught while impersonating.There is a delay in registering the FIR at 1445 Hrs although seizure was made at 1000 Hrs at the spot on Zero FIR.(e) The conspiracy among the accused could not be proved during investigation.No seizure has also been made from any of the 9 other accused persons.(f) No suspicious financial transactions have taken place among the accused persons during the relevant period, as revealed from the scrutiny of their bank accounts.(g) The evidence of the owner and the driver of Scorpio vehicle have contradicted the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No. 659/2018 (Pintu Singh Tomar and others Vs.State of M.P. and others) 5 allegations leveled by the Local Police.They were not examined by the Local Police.(h) Planning for commission of offences u/s 419 and 477 of IPC is not an offence as no evidence of any overt or covert action taken by any of the accused persons was found for commission of the alleged offences.(I) Out of the 37 items seized from the possession of accused Pintu Singh including the Scorpio, 31 items were the Admit cards of the candidates for PCRT Examination, 2012 and 13 them appeared in the said examination from different centers at Bhind, Morena and Gwalior, but failed.This fact disproves the allegation that accused Pintu Singh was planning to impersonate from Gwalior with other.Out of 18 candidates who did not appear from the different Centers, some were supposed to appear from the centres at Bhind, Morena also.So the arrested accused persons who were detained at Gwalior at 1000 Hrs could not have reached those places from Gwalior by 1100 Hrs when the examination was going to start.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No. 659/2018 (Pintu Singh Tomar and others Vs.","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"... for the petitioner.... for the State.The present petition has been filed under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the order dated 25th February, 2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar in connection with Bidhannagar North Police Station Case No. 107 dated 15th May, 2011 under Sections 323/341/406/506 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G. R. Case No. 394 of 2011 be set aside.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide impugned order the court below has committed grave error in not acceeding to the prayer made by the petitioner for further investigation.This Court on 14th March, 2013 had passed the following order :-Shri Sanyal is directed to requisition the Case Diary on the next date of hearing.Shri Sanyal is further directed to instruct the Investigating Officer to remain present in this Court on the next date of hearing and serve a notice upon Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 regarding pendency of this revision petition and the next date of hearing.""Today Sri Shiladitya Sanyal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instruction from Sk.Zakir Hossain, ASI, Bidhannagar (North) Police Station, submits that due to inadvertence seizure memo dated 2nd June, 2011, Annexure 'P-3' at page 23 of the paper book was not made as part of charge sheet.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that to rectify the said mistake, a supplementary charge sheet under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be filed and seizure memo dated 2nd June, 2011, Annexure 'P-3' shall be made part thereof.The question regarding validity of the seizure memo is kept open.Parties may advance arguments before the court below regarding the contents of alleged seizure memo at appropriate stage including its genuineness and mode.","['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"sdas allowed C.R.M. No. 2314 of 2019 In Re.: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 25.02.2019 in connection with Barrackpore Police Station Case No. 8 of 2019 dated 21.01.2019 under Sections 147/148/149/323/354B/379/506/307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.And In Re: Dinesh Kumar Sahani ......... petitioner Mr. Debasis Kar ...for the petitioner Mr. Saibal Bapuli, learned A.P.P., Mr. Arani Bhattacharyya .... for the State It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is a dispute between family members and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further 2 condition that he shall meet the investigating officer once in a week until further orders and shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a period of fortnight from date.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. P.P., Mr. Partha Pratim Das CRM No. 4151/17 Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. P.P., Mr. Pradipta Ganguly CRM No. 4157/17 Mr. Atif Ahmed Siddique CRM No. 4158/17 Since the petitioner is common in all the aforesaid bail applications, the same are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by a common order.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the first three cases he was named in the FIR and not named in the last one.He further submits that he has been falsely implicated.On the other hand, from the side of the State prayer for bail is vehemently opposed and it is submitted this is a communal violation and petitioner's direct involvement and participation in the commission of the offence has been clearly transpired from the statement of the eye-witnesses to the occurrence.According to those eyewitnesses, he played active role in the commission of the offence, may be that in one case, he has not been named in the FIR.Accordingly, the application for bail stands rejected.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)","['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"( Jabalpur, dtd.23.04.2019) Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-The instant appeals have been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for brevity `the CrPC'] challenging the judgment dated 23-5-2009 passed by the learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in S.T. No.100/2008 [State of M.P. vs. Ramphal and others], whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:302/149 of the Rs.100/- each, in default, further R.I. for Indian Penal two months each.Under Section Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and 449 of the Indian fine of Rs.100/- each, in default, to Penal Code.undergo further R.I. for two months each.Under Section Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and 148 of the Indian fine of Rs.100/- each, in default, further Penal Code.According to the case of the prosecution, on the date of the incident, i.e. 16-4-2008 at about 08:00 a.m. the appellant - Ramphal went to the house of the deceased - Ganesh and enquired that 3 why was he suspecting him and his sons to fill boring.Some heated words were exchanged between the parties.It is alleged that the other accused persons armed with lethal weapons came at the place of the incident in furtherance of their common object in order to cause death of the deceased-Ganesh.They also caused injuries to Sheelabai and Dalchand, the wife and son of the deceased.Soon after the incident Munnalal - Kotwar of the Village, informed the Police Station at about 10:15 a.m. that Ganesh, Sheelabai and Dalchand have been subjected to beatings.On the said intimation a Roznamcha, Ex.P/49 was written by Rajesh (PW-12).The Investigating Officer (PW-13) after visiting the place of incident recorded in the Roznamcha, Ex.P/50 that the complainant and the family members of the deceased were not found at the spot, as they had already left for the Govt. Hospital, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur.The report - Dehati Nalishi, Ex.P/1 was recorded at 15:00 hrs.on narration of the incident in the Hospital by the wife of the deceased, Sheelabai (PW-01).She narrated that at about 08:00 a.m. when she was preparing tea and her husband Ganesh and son Dalchand were at home, at that time her brother-in-law (elder brother of the husband) Ramphal came to the house and asked for Ganesh and inquired about the boring.When her husband denied the same, Ramphal started abusing him.At that time, the accused persons, namely, Mathura, Lalman, Govind, Hirendra, Narendra alias Nindu, 4 Bori alias Premnarayan arrived there with deadly weapons.It is alleged that Mathura, Lalmani and Hirendra were carrying `farsas' and Nindu and Govind were having axes.Premnarayan alias Bori and Nindu had hit her son Dalchand on the back whereas Ramphal and wives of Mathura, Lalman and Ramphal hit on her back.She further alleged reported that Lalman had hit with 'farsa' on the head of the deceased and killed him.The incident was also witnessed by Moorat Kaurav and Sudama Kaurav.The incident was informed to Kotwar Munna.Her husband was taken to Gadarwara Hospital where he was declared dead by the doctor.Copy of Dehati Nalishi recorded by the investigating officer Shafiq Khan, PW-13 is Ex.The duration of recording of the Dehati Nalishi is 15 hrs.The spot map, Ex.P/2 was prepared by the investigating officer and in the said map the time is mentioned as 11:20 a.m. Sheelabai, PW-01 deposed that at about 8:00 a.m. in the morning when she was preparing tea at home, her husband Ganesh and son Dalchand were at home the accused Ramphal came to the house, called Ganesh and inquired about the boring.On exchange of some heated words 5 Ramphal abused him.It is stated that at that time Mathura, Lalman, Govind, Hirendra, Nindu and Bori alias Premnarayan came at the spot and Mathura, Lalman and Hirendra were armed with 'farsa' whereas the accused Ramphal, Nindu and Govind were having axes.Wives of Mathura, Lalman and Ramphal also came at the spot and they were having `lathis'.Mathura and Lalman had hit on the legs of the deceased with `farsa' and the accused Hirendra caused injuries on the hands.In the Court statement she stated that the accused Ramphal had given an axe blow on the head of the deceased causing deep incised injury.Govind and Nindu had inflicted injuries on the back of her son Dalchand with the backside of the axe.Ramphal had caused axe blow on her face and wives of Mathura and Lalman had beaten her.In the Dehati Nalishi she had not stated that Ramphal had caused any injury to the deceased on his head.She had stated that Lalman had caused injuries on the head of the deceased by means of `farsa'.The other injured witness PW-02, Dalchand deposed that when he was at home along with his father, the mother was preparing tea, his uncle Ramphal came to his house, called his father and inquired about the boring and thereafter he started abusing him.After some time, other accused persons, namely, Mathura, Bori alias Prenmarayan, Govind, Nindi and wifes of Lalman, Mathura and Ramphal also came at the spot.Mathura, Lalman and Hirendra were armed with 'farsa', whereas Govind, Nindu and Ramphal were having `lathis'.He stated that Mathura and Lalman had hit his father on legs with a `farsa' and Ramphal hit him with an axe on his mouth.Hirendra hit his father by means of a `farsa' and ladies present at the spot had also beaten him.R.I. for two months each.Under Section Rigorous imprisonment for six months 324/149 of the to each.In Criminal Appeal No.1086/2009 the appellant No.1, Ramphal and appellant No.4, Govind @ Baddu have been enlarged on bail as their jail sentence has been suspended.Thereafter, the accused Ramphal also brought an axe.The wives of the accused Lalman, Mathura and Ramphal also came at the spot with `lathis'.It is alleged that Mathura and Lalman hit on the legs of the deceased, Ganesh with a `farsa' whereas Hirendra hit on hands of Ganesh by means of a `farsa'.When he tried to intercede he was beaten by Govind, and Nindu and Ramphal had also beaten his mother.Thereafter he called his brother Hemraj and father was taken to the hospital.He also stated that the police had reached at about 11 o'clock and the father was taken to the hospital on the tractor of Moorat Singh. 7The investigating officer Safiq Khan, PW-13 stated that at about 10:15 a.m. a telephonic information was received from the Kotwar that Ganesh, Sheelabai and Dalchant of the village have been beaten.On the basis of the said information he went to the spot and when he reached at the spot he found blood, broken bangles and sickle.According to him the deceased and the injured Sheelabai and Dalchand had already left for hospital.Thereafter he came back to the police station and made entry in the Roznamcha and went to the District Hospital, Gadarwara where he recorded the Dehati Nalishi on the statement of Sheelabai.He admitted his signatures at `A' to 'A'.On the basis of Dehati Nalishi, Ex.P/1 and spot map, Ex.P/2 and the statements of the witnesses, PW-01, PW-02 and PW-13 learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in Ex.P/2, spot map the time is mentioned as 11:20 a.m., dated 16-4-2008, whereas Dehati Nalishi was prepared on 16-4-2008 at 13:00 hrs.As per statement of the investigating officer and roznamcha entry, when he reached at the spot the deceased Ganesh, Sheelabal (PW-01 and Dalchant (PW-02) had already left for hospital then how the map could have been prepared on the information of PW-01, Sheelabai at 11:20 a.m. It is submitted that the prosecution has cropped up a false story and the facts were known to the police immediately after the incident and intentionally Dehati Nalishi was recorded at 03:00 p.m. ( 15:00 hrs.).Further, in para 6 of the cross-examination PW-01 has stated that the police had come at 8 about 11:00 a.m. and had prepared the spot map at 11:00 a.m. Thus, when the investigating officer, PW-13 reached at the spot, the deceased Ganesh, Sheelabai (PW-01) and Dalchand (PW-02) were present at the spot and then the report ought to have been registered at that time.on 16-4- 2008 whereas in the spot map prepared by the Investigating Office (PW-13) the date and time were mentioned as 16-4-2008 at 11:20 a.m. In the Roznamcha entry, Ex.P/50-A he mentioned that when he reached at the spot, the deceased, Sheelabai (PW-01) and Dalchand (PW-02) were not at the spot.There is no explanation that how he could have recorded the spot map on the information of Sheelabai at 11:20 a.m. , when he met for the first time Sheelabai and others in the hospital in the afternoon at 15:00 hrs.Dalchand (PW-02) has stated that the police had come to his village at about 11:00 a.m. and spot map was prepared at 11:00 a.m. and thereafter they had gone to the 9 hospital.It is correct that there are certain defects and faults in the investigation, but taking into consideration the testimony of injured eye witnesses, Sheelabai (PW-01) and Dalchand (PW-02) we are unable to disown the entire prosecution case merely on the ground of defective investigation.The law in this regard is well settled.The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus does not apply in Indian criminal law jurisprudence.Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the conviction with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code [for short ""the IPC""] is not legal as there is no evidence to establish that there was any formation of unlawful assembly with a common object in order to cause death of the deceased-Ganesh, therefore, the trial Court ought to have examined the individual role attributed to the accused.The question that springs up for consideration in the present case is whether any unlawful assembly was formed with a common object to lynch Ganesh and if not, then what individual role is attributed to the accused-appellants ?According to the case of the prosecution the first report was registered in the form of Dehati Nalish, Ex.P/1, on the information given by Sheelabai (PW-01).She has stated that the incident had taken place at about 08:00 a.m. when she was preparing tea in the house at that time her husband, Ganesh (since deceased) and son Dalchand (PW-02) were at home.At that time her brother-in-law, Ramphal came to her house and called Ganesh and uttered that as to why he was suspecting about filling of boring by him.When the same was denied 11 by Ganesh, the accused Ramphal started him abusing.On a careful scrutiny of this statement, we find that Ramphal had gone alone to the house of the deceased unarmed.Ramphal was residing in the adjoining house at a close distance to the house of the deceased, as he is real brother of the deceased and the same is evident from the spot map, Ex.P/2 also.As per her statement, thereafter other accused persons, namely, Mathura, Lalman, Govind, Hirendra, Nindu and Bori alias Premnarayan arrived on the spot.They were armed with the weapons usually kept by the villagers in rural areas for cultivation and cutting purposes, i.e. sickle (hansia), farsa and axe etc. It is clear that Ramphal had come first without any weapon to meet the deceased, who is his real brother and thereafter, there was exchange of heated words between them.It is also stated in the report that ladies had also come at the spot carrying `lathis'.She has stated that when the accused persons started beating her husband - Ganesh, her son - Dalchand also brought a `lathi'.She informed that the accused Lalman had given a blow by means of farsa on the head of her husband.In her deposition in the Court PW-01, Sheelabai stated that Ramphal had caused head injury to the deceased with the help of a farsa, though in her first report - Dehati Nalishi she stated that Lalman had inflicted injury on the head of the deceased with a 'farsa'.There is material contradiction regarding fatal blow on the head of the deceased.PW-02, Dalchand deposed that Mathura had 12 given 'farsa' blow on the head of the deceased.In para 2 of his statement he also stated that Mathura and Lalman had given `farsa' blows on the legs of his father and the accused Ramphal had inflicted injuries on the face of his mother with an axe.On appreciation of the evidence of these two injured witnesses - Sheelabai (PW-01) and Dalchand (PW-02) it is established that the accused Ramphal, who is the real brother of the deceased came alone in the house of the deceased unarmed.There was exchange of heated words between them.Thereafter, other co-accused persons - sons and wife of Ramphal and other ladies of the family reached at the spot and started inflicting injuries to the deceased - Ganesh, and Sheelabai (PW-01) and Dalchand (PW-02) and Ramphal was unarmed at that time.It is alleged that after other accused persons reached at the spot, he brought an axe and Dalchand (PW-02) also brought a `lathi'.Thus, on assimilation of facts and evidence we do not find any evidence that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and made preparation and acted in furtherance of their common object in order to cause death of Ganesh.The facts and evidence reveal that the accused Ramphal reached first in the house of the deceased and inquired about the boring and there was exchange of heated words between them, which lead coming of other accused persons at the spot and then it is alleged that injuries were caused to the deceased and Sheelabai and Dalchand.In absence of any cogent and plausible 13 evidence that there was any formation of unlawful assembly with the common object to kill Ganesh or any other family members, we are unable to sustain the finding of the trial Court that there was formation of an unlawful assembly and, therefore, all the accused persons are responsible on the principle of constructive liability for being a part of an unlawful assembly without establishing individual role attributed to them.Since we have already held that there was no formation of unlawful assembly before causing death of the deceased - Ganesh.Therefore, all the accused persons cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 149 of IPC.We have also noted that the accused persons have not trespassed in the house of the deceased.They are living in the same compound adjoining to the house of the deceased.The incident has taken place in the courtyard which was a common place.Now as per evidence in regard to the role attributed to the accused persons, the case of the appellants are examined and they are convicted and sentenced as under:In Criminal Appeal No.1086/2009 there are four appellants, namely, Ramphal, Lalman, Mathura and Govind.Appellant No.1, Ramphal 14 We have already noted that there were material contradictions and omissions in the allegations made by injured witness, Sheelabai (PW-01) in Dehati Nalishi, Ex.P/1 and her court statement.In respect of Ramphal she had stated in the Dehati Nalishi that Ramphal had given axe blow on her face which had caused injury near the eye, but in her Court statement she stated that Ramphal had hit on the head of the deceased by means of an axe.In the Dehati Nalishi the allegation regarding causing injury on the head was made against the accused Lalman that he had given 'farsa' blow on the head of the deceased and on his legs.Dehati Nalishi is the first report in which information regarding commission of the offence was given to the Investigating Officer (PW-13).Whereas the statement in the Court was recorded after a period of more than four months.It is relevant to mention here that the accused-Ramphal is the younger brother of the deceased, Ganesh and, therefore, the statement made by Sheelabai (PW-01) that an axe blow was given on the head of the deceased by Ramphal after four months of the incident.But it is proved that Ramphal had caused injuries with the help of an axe on the face of Sheelabai (PW-01).Dalchand (PW- 1502) has also stated that Ramphal had inflicted injuries on the face.Dr. K.S. Rajput, PW-07, had conducted MLC of both the injured persons, Sheelabai and Dalchand.The report is Ex.He stated that on the examination of Sheelabai he found two injuries - one in the nature of swelling (xqEek) - 1 x inch on the left lumber region and contusion - x 1 inch at left forearm.As per postmortem report of the deceased, Ex.P/10 and the statement of the autopsy surgeon, Dr. Rajeev Rathoria the deceased had received as many as 13 injuries.The injuries No.1,2,3,9,10,12 and 13 were caused by hard and blunt object.All the injuries were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.In para 4 of the statement in cross-examination he stated that the injury No.1 was on the vital part of the body whereas other injuries were on non-vital parts.Thus, as per allegations made in the Dehati Nalishi by Sheelabau (PW-01) and the statement of Dalchand (PW-02) there is no allegation that the appellant No.1, Ramphal had inflicted head injury on the deceased.Therefore, the appellant is acquitted of the charges under sections 302/149, 449 and 148 of IPC.The jail sentence of the appellant was suspended by this Court and he is on bail.In view of extensive consideration of the allegations delineated in the Dehati Nalish, Ex.P/1 and the Court statement of the injured witnesses Sheelabai (PW-01) and Dalchand (PW-02) the allegations against him are that he had given fatal `lathi' blows on the deceased and on the leg of Sheelabai (PW-01).The injured (PW-02) has also stated that the accused-Lalman had caused injuries with the help of a `farsa' and had given `lathi' blows on the head of the deceased.As we have already discussed that the Autopsy Surgeon (PW-05) - Dr. Rajeev Rathoria has stated that the injury No.1 inflicted on the head was at a vital part which had caused shock and haemorrhage.Considering the aforesaid, conviction of the appellant No.2, Lalman under Sections 302/149, 324/149, 323/149, 449 and 148 of the IPC are set aside.However, conviction and sentence of the appellant No.2, Lalman are modified as under:In view of the analysis of the evidence in preceding paragraphs, we find that as per Dehati Nalishi he had inflicted injury on the leg of the deceased with the help of `farsa' and the injured witness (PW-02) stated that Mathura had given `farsa' blow on the head of the deceased.The appellant is acquitted of the charges under sections 302/149, 324/149, 323/149, 449 and 148 of IPC.However, conviction and sentence of the appellant No.3, Mathura are altered as under :However, conviction and sentence of the appellant No.4, Govind are modified hereunder:In Criminal Appeal No.1152/2009 there are two accused persons, namely, Narendra @ Nindu and Harendra @ Heerendra, appellants No.1 and 2 respectively.It is alleged that the appellant No.1, Narendra alias Nindu had caused injuries by means of a `farsa' on the hands of the deceased and further he inflicted injuries to Dalchand (PW-02), but from his cross-examination, it is evincible that neither in the FIR nor in the Ex.D/1, statement of widow of the deceased and Ex.D/2 any allegation against the present appellant 19 regarding his involvement in respect of causing injuries to the deceased has been made.There are material lapse and omission in the statements of the witnesses from the case diary statement, Dehati Nalish and the FIR.Appellant No.1, Narendra @ Nindu:However, conviction and sentence of the appellant No.1, Narendra @ Nindu are modified as follows :In the light of discussion on Dehati Nalishi and testimonies of PW-01 and PW-02, Sheelabai and Dalchand respectively, and the medical evidence as well, we have already held that the prosecution has failed to prove formation of an unlawful assembly, therefore, therefore, conviction with the aid of Section 149 of IPC is unsustainable.On individual scrutiny of the evidence, we find that the allegation against the appellant No.2, Harendra is that he had caused injuries on the left eye of the deceased by means of a `farsa', as per postmortem report, Ex.P/10 and testimony of Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Rajeev Rathoria, the injury No.1 which was caused on the head of the deceased was on vital part of the body and other injuries were on non- vital parts.","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(R9 impleaded as per the order of this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2011 vide order dated 16.08.2011)(R10 to R17 were impleaded as per the order of this Court in M.P.No.2 of 2011 vide order dated 06.07.2015.)Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, to direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to take steps forregistering FIR with regard to the illegal confinement, torture, violation ofHuman Rights and Malicious Prosecution in S.C.No.259 of 2005 on the file ofthe learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No.II, Thoothukudiof the petitioners namely Koilpillai son of Vedhamani, Balasubramanian son ofKoilpillai, by the police personnel such as the Thoothukudi Rural DeputySuperintendent of Police Mr.Moorthy, the then Inspector of Murappanadu PoliceStation, Mr.Soosai Micheal the then Sub Inspector of Murappanadu PoliceStation, Mr.Vallinayagam Mr.Nagasankaran and Mr.Whether this woman appearing before thiscourt is, in fact, Mrs.Manimegalai or not is the basic issue in thesepetitions.There are three petitioners in these Criminal Original Petitions.Muthu @ Mookan, a resident of Isavankulam Village in Srivaikundam Taluk, TuticorinDistrict.Her mother was Mrs.Kannimariyal.They were residing at PerurVillage in Srivaiakundam Taluk.When Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha was hardly three years old, Mrs.Kannimariyal deserted her husband - Mr.Muthu @ Mookan, along with her female child.Thereafter, she developed intimacy withone Dhanraj of Thirupparankundram and shifted to Thiruppur.Dhanraj wasdoing painting work in Thiruppur and Kannimariyal was working in a privatecompany as a daily wager.Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha was put in a school in Pattukottai, but, she later discontinued.Thereafter, she also joined aprivate banyan company in Thiruppur known as, ?JJ Company?.In course of time, Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha had fallen in love with one Anandan of Thiruppur, who was also working in the same Company.Without the knowledge of her mother and Mr.Dhanraj, she married Mr.Hardly for 7 days, shelived with Mr.Anandan as his wife and then, she deserted him and came down toPerur Village.She stayed in Perur Village at the house of oneMr.Shanmugaraj, who was her mother's sister's husband, for few days andthereafter, left Perur Village for Thiruppur.But, she did not turn up inThiruppur.Her mother also, in the meanwhile, passed away.Her husbandMr.The body was highly decomposed and identity could not be made out.Inquest was held on the body and thereafter, it was sent forpostmortem.One Dr.Subbiah, an Assistant Surgeon, attached to Srivaikundam Government hospital, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 05.04.2002 at 4.30 p.m. He found that the body was half burnt and therewere also injuries on the body.Clotted blood was found on the earth nearthe dead body.But, there was no bloodstain on the body.Hyoid bone wasintact.All the internal organs were also intact.Around the neck, therewas a ligature mark indicating that the deceased would have been strangulatedby using the ligature.The uterus contained a foetus of 6 to 8 weeks old.The Doctor finally opined that the externalinjuries found on the body would have been caused by a weapon, like knife andthat the deceased would have died due to cumulative effect of all theinjuries including constriction of neck.Based on the above, the Inspector of Police, altered the caseinto one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.During the course ofinvestigation, he examined few persons from Perur Village.The photograph ofthe body taken was shown to the relatives of Manimegalai @ Mekala.The body had already been buried.From and out of the photographs, the relatives andthe villagers could not make out the identity of the deceased.However, aclose relative of the deceased, by name, Shanmugaraj, told the police thatthe cloth materials found on the body were like that of the dress materialsof Manimegalai @ Mekala.Therefore, the Investigating Officer had suspectedthat the body would have been that of Manimegalai @ Mekala.Then, during thecourse of investigation, the Investigating Officer went to Thiruppur,examined her husband Mr.Anandan and collected a photograph of Manimegalai.Even Mr.Anandan was not in a position to say about the whereabouts ofManimegalai @ Mekala, because he himself was not informed of by Manimegalai @ Mekala before leaving Thiruppur.The photograph of Manimegalai @ Mekala collected by the Investigating Officer was then forwarded to the Forensic Labat Chennai for superimposition examination with the skull of the dead body.The report revealed that in the superimposition examination, it was confirmedthat the skull was that of the person in the photograph, thereby indicatingthat Mrs.Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha was the one, who was done to death.The accused 1 to 3 gave confessions in thepresence of the Village Administrative Officer concerned.Out of thedisclosure statement made by the 2nd accused, a knife was recovered.On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against all the fouraccused.According to the final report, Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha hadsold the house belonging to her mother - Kannimariyal to the first accused -Mr.A sum of Rs.10,000/- was due from the first accused toMrs.The final report further proceededto say that on 25.03.2002, by seducing Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha, the 2nd accused asked her to come to his house.Accordingly, on 04.04.2002, she came to the house of the second accused.He took Manimegalai at 8.00 p.m. from Ayathurai bus stand to Tuticorin.The accused 3 and 4 were alreadywaiting in Tuticorin bus stand.His wife is the sister of the mother of Mrs.Manimegalai.According to him, Manimegalai came to his house, stayed there for a few daysand then left for Thiruppur.But, thereafter, she was not found.He hasalso spoken about the land dealing between Manimegalai and the first accused.She had further stated that between 24.03.2002 to 25.03.2002, Manimegalai was staying with him at his house at Perur and from 25.03.2002 onwards, she wasfound missing.During the course of investigation by the MurappanaduInspector of Police, when the photograph of Manimegalai was shown to him, heidentified the same as that of Manimegalai.But, he was not able to identifythe dead body, as it was fully beyond recognition.He had further deposedthat the dress materials found near the dead body looked like that of thedress materials belonging to Manimegalai.3.9. P.W.6, one Pechimuthu is the Village Administrative Officer, whohas spoken about the recovery of material objects from the place ofoccurrence, like bloodstained earth, sample earth, Plastic Can, brokensyringe etc., on 05.04.2002 by the Inspector of Police of Murappanadu PoliceStation. P.W.7, one Abdul Khader, was the Village Administrative Officer ofMurappanadu.According to him, on 22.05.2004, at 7.00 a.m., atGnanamadankulam, the accused 1 to 3 were arrested by the Inspector of Police.It was only duringher visit in the month of February 2011, she came to know that it was made toappear to the public by the police, that she was murdered and that themurderers were the accused in the case.Then, on the advice of thevillagers, Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha appeared before the DistrictCollector, Tuticorin on 11.02.2011 and made a representation.In the saidrepresentation, she wanted action to be taken in this regard.But theDistrict Collector did not take any prompt action to ascertain the truth ofthe matter.He simply referred the said complaint to the Superintendent ofPolice, Tuticorin District.The then Superintendent of Police, TuticorinDistrict also did not take any prompt action in that regard.In the reportnow submitted by the Superintendent of Police before this court, it is statedthat the said representation of the woman claiming herself to be Manimegalai@ Mekala @ Punitha forwarded to the Superintendent of Police was in turnhanded over to the Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station.TheInspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station also did not take any promptaction to find out the truth.The District Collector, Tuticorin was directedto depute a responsible Officer to be present before this Court.The District Revenue Officer,Tuticorin was also present.The District Revenue Officer submitted that itis true that a woman claiming herself to be Manimegalai @ Mekala W/o.Anandan appeared before the District Collector, Tuticorin on 10.02.2011 and presenteda representation that she is Manimegalai @ Mekala, who is stated to have beenkilled, for which, the accused in this case were all tried and acquitted.He has further stated that thereafter, he did not see CW1at all anywhere.He has also identified CW1 in Court.He has also identified CW1 asMrs.In order to make the process accurate, 3Dphotographs of the missing person is developed and overlaying of the same isdone with the virtual model of the skull.As per the scheme framed in the Stateof Tamil Nadu, a sum of Rs.3 lakhs is the maximum amount, which could be awarded to the victim of a crime in a case of death.Having regard to thesaid legal position and having taken note of the judgment relied on by thelearned counsel for the petitioners and all the other attendantcircumstances, I am of the view that directing the Government to pay a sum ofRs.4 lakhs for each accused as compensation would meet the ends of justice.In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are disposed ofin the following terms:I am satisfied that though belated, justice isdone to the aggrieved at least now.As Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of theNation preached, ?Truth is a powerful weapon which unfailingly triumphs.? Inthis case, at last, truth has triumphed.1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department Secretariat, Chennai.2.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Beach Road, Chennai.3.The Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation Shastri Bhavan Chennai.4.The Additional Director General of Police (CBCID), Office of the Additional Director General of Police, Chennai.5.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District.6.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.Narayanan, the then police constables of Murappanadu Police Station Mr.Issac and Mr.Franklin, the thenSub Inspector of Srivaigundam Police Station Mr.Directing the respondent No.3 to entrust the investigation to anefficient officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police underthe direct supervisionj of the respondent No.3 to investigate the violationof Human Rights of 1) Koilpillai son of Vedhamani 2) K.Balasubramanian son ofKoilpillai, 3) Kurundhan @ Jeyakumar, and 4) Dhasan.Directing the respondent No.5 to initiate departmental proceedingsagainst the then Village Administrative Officer of Murappanadu Villagenamely, M.Abdul Kadhar, who is P.W.7 in S.C.No.259 of 2005 on the file of thelearned Additional Sessions Judge, cum Fast Track Court No.II, Thoothukudifor given false evidence, by considering the representation dated 22.03.2011preferred by the petitioner.Directing the respondent No.1 to pay fair and just amount ofcompensation to the petitioners namely Koilpillai son of Vedhamani,K.Balasubramanian son of Koilpillai and other victims namely Kurundhan @ Jeyakumar and Dhasan for falsely implicating and for malicious prosecution inS.C.No.259 of 2005 on the file of the learnred Additional Sessions Judge cumFast Track Court No.II, Thoothukudi.Directing the respondent No.5 to pay a relief amount under Serial No.8Annexure I, Rule 12(4) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventionof Atrocities) Rules, 1995 to the affected victims whose names are shown inprayer (b) pending the investigation.This is an unprecedented case where a living woman [Mrs.Manimegalai] has been driven from pillar to post for over a period of four years toestablish that she is alive and that the judicial declaration made by a courtof session in a judgment that she was murdered on 04.04.2002 is inconsistentwith her living body and soul.They are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.259 of 2005, on the file of thelearned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, No.II,Tuticorin.The 4th accused, in the case, is one Mr.Dhasan.There were fourcharges framed in this case.The first charge was under Section 120(B) IPCagainst all the four accused.The third charge was underSection 201 IPC against the accused 2 to 4 and the 4th charge was underSection 302 read with Section 109 IPC against the first accused.The TrialCourt, by judgment dated 20.02.2007, acquitted all the four accused.Thatacquittal has become final.Now, the petitioners have come up with theseCriminal Original Petitions seeking various directions, including a directionfor registration of a criminal case against the police officials, whoinvestigated the case and filed final report, for payment of compensation andfor other reliefs.The background facts of these petitions would be as follows: One Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha is the daughter of one Mr.Anandan went in search of her to various places, including Perur Village,but could not succeed.Finally, on the complaint of Mr.Anandan, a case inCrime No.154 of 2002 was registered on the file of Srivaikundam PoliceStation for woman Missing.During the course of investigation of the case inCrime No.154 of 2012, the whereabouts of Mrs. Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha could not be located.While so, a half burnt dead body of a woman with injuries, agedabout 20 ? 25 years, was found near NaaluKani Bridge at Vellakulam Village,within the jurisdiction of Murappanadu Police Station.On the complaint ofone Mr.He preserved the skull for the purpose of superimposition in future.Theviscera was sent for chemical examination, which revealed that there was nopoison detected in the body.Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha, on account of the said transaction.Mrs. Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha was repeatedly pressurising the first accused to pay the said amount.In order to get rid off Manimegalai @ Mekala @Punitha, according to the final report, all the four accused, on 03.04.2002,at about 9.00 p.m., at the house of the first accused, hatched a conspiracyto do away with the deceased.Thus, according to the final report, all thefour accused are liable to be punished for the offence punishable underSection 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.Then, all of them, took Manimegalai in abus proceeding to Tirunelveli.When the bus reached Muruganpur Village, theaccused 2 to 4 got down from the bus along with Manimegalai and took her toVellakulam near the bridge.It is further alleged that the 4th accused strangulated her byconstricting her neck by a ligature.The 3rd accused closed her mouth toprevent her from making any alarm.The 2nd accused administered injection tomake her unconscious.Then, the 2nd accused cut the neck of Manimegalai with knife.Thus, according to the final report, the accused 2 to 4 committedmurder of Manimegalai, out of common intention and thus, they were liable forpunishment under Section 302 read with Secction 34 IPC.The final reportfurther proceeded to say that after the deceased had breathed her lost, theaccused 2 to 4, with a view to cause disappearance of the evidence, pouredpetrol on the body of Manimegalai and set fire.Then, the body was pushedinto a bush near the bridge.Thus, according to the final report, theaccused had committed offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.So far as the first accused is concerned, according to the final report, he hadconspired to kill the deceased along with others and thus, he was liable forpunishment under Section 302 read with 109 IPC.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriatecharges, as detailed above.When the accused were questioned in respect ofthe charges, they denied the same as false.In order to prove the charges,before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 16witnesses were examined, 22 documents were exhibited and 10 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 ? Mr.Muthurajan had spoken about the fact that the dead body of a woman aged about 20-25 years was found nearthe bridge and that he gave complaint to the police.He had further statedthat the body was found in a half burnt condition and there were injuries onthe body.P.W.2, a villager from Vellakulam, has also stated that the deadbody was found near the bridge on the crucial date.P.W.3 one Mr.Perumal,who was examined to speak about the fact that the said woman was found in the company of three men at Murugapuram bus stop, had turned hostile and he had not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.4 was alsoexamined to speak about the same facts, but he also turned hostile and thus,he had also not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.3.8. P.W.5 ? Mr.Shanmugaraj was the star witness for the prosecution inthe case.On such arrest, all the three accused gave independent confessions.The 2ndaccused gave a disclosure statement, wherein he stated that he had concealeda knife in his hand bag.In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, hetook out the knife from his bag and handed over the same to the Inspector ofPolice.It was recovered by the Inspector of Police under a mahazar.3.10. P.W.8, one Radharamani, was the scientific Assistant, RegionalForensic Sciences Lab at Tirunelveli.According to him, on 05.04.2002, on therequest of the Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station, he visitedthe scene of occurrence, where the dead body was found and he assisted the Inspector of Police for recovery of the said material objects.But, he couldnot extend any more help to the police for further investigation.P.W.9, oneGeetha, the Head Clerk of the learned Magistrate Court, has spoken to thefact that she forwarded the skull produced before the Court to the ForensicLab for superimposition examination.P.W.10, one Suresh, has spoken to thefact that he was a Constable, working in the Dog Squad of Tuticorin Districtand he had brought one sniffer dog to the place of occurrence, where the deadbody was found, but, the dog could not render any help for the detection ofthe culprits.P.W.11 is the Constable, who assisted the Doctor, when thebody was subjected to autopsy.P.W.12 - Dr.Subbiah has deposed that on 05.04.2002, he conducted autopsy on the dead body, opined that the death was due to cumulative effect of the injuries found and that the dead body washalf burnt with petrol.P.W.13 was the then Sub Inspector of Police attached toMurappanadu Police Station, who had spoken about his handing over the FirstInformation Report and the other documents to the authorities concerned.P.W.14 is the Investigating Officer, who had spoken extensively about theinvestigation done by him and the report received by him from the ForensicLab. P.W.15 was the then Sub Inspector of Police at Srivaikundam PoliceStation.He had spoken about the registration of the case in Crime No.154 of2002 for 'woman missing'.P.W.16 was the Investigating Officer, who made furtherinvestigation.He had also spoken about the arrest of the accused and therecovery of the knife.He had finally spoken about the final report filed.When the above materials were put to the accused under Section313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side nor to markany documents.Having considered all the above materials, the trial Courtgave a specific finding in paragraph No.30 of the judgment that the dead bodyfound near the bridge was that of Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha.The trialCourt also gave a finding that the death of Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punithawas caused by mechanical violence.Thus, according to the trial Court, ithad been clearly proved that Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha was murdered.The trial Court, in its judgment from Paragraph No.31 onwards,proceeded to discuss the evidence in respect of the complicity of the fouraccused in the murder.The trial Court did not give much weightage for therecovery of the knife at the instance of the 2nd accused.While so, to the shell shock ofthe villagers, during first week of February 2011, a woman appeared in theVillage and claimed herself to be Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha.Mr.Shanmugaraj, her mother's sister's husband had already died.Thevillagers were surprised to see the said woman coming alive.According to him, the petitioners herein toldhim that they would work out their remedy before the Court and therefore, heclosed it, he claimed.In those circumstances, the petitioners haveapproached this Court with these petitions claiming various reliefs includingthe relief of compensation and for registration of a case against the erringofficials.Though these Criminal Original Petitions were filed in the year2011, and though they were admitted as early as on 28.11.2011, these twopetitions have been kept pending on the file of this Court, approximately,for four years, for which, I take the blame.R.Alagumani, the learnedcounsel for the petitioners made a mention before me on 01.07.2015 that thesepetitions had been pending on the file of this Court for four years withoutany disposal and he wanted to have early disposal.By then, theSecretary, Home Department, Director General of Police, had not filed anycounter.Therefore, they were directed to file counter.On 06.07.2015, Mr.Ashwin M.Kotnis, the Superintendent of Police,Tuticorin, was present before this Court.He further stated with the reference to the records that by the proceedingsof the District Collector in Na.No.C2/9628/11 dated 14.02.2011, the saidrepresentation was referred to the Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin, fornecessary action.Ashwin M. Kotnis, the Superintendent of Police,submitted that the said representation was entrusted to one Mr.P.K.Ravi, theInspector of Police, who had not taken any action, since the petitioners toldhim that they would work out their remedy before the Court.She was accompaniedby her cousin Mr.Veilmuthu Stalin.Before this Court, she said that she isreally Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha.She further stated that when she was three years old, her mother deserted her father Mr.Muthu and left forThiruppur.She further narrated her stay at Thiruppur, her marriage withAnandan and her returning to the Village Perur for some time and then leavingfor Chennai.She vividly spoke before this Court that she confined herselfin Chennai until 2011 , as she had converted to Islam and married oneShajaghan.She further told that she has got two children also.Veilmuthu Stalin also identified her as Manimegalai @ Mekala.When thephotograph which was used for superimposition was shown to her, she identified the person in the said photograph as herself.The Superintendentof Police, Tuticorin, further submitted that the biological father ofManimegalai @ Mekala by name Muthu had been located in Isavankulam Village in Srivaikundam Taluk.He further submitted that he was prepared to hold adetailed enquiry and to submit a further report, after ascertaining whetherthe woman in question is really Manimegalai @ Mekala.This Court, therefore,directed the Superintendent of Police to cause the appearance of the womanbefore the Dean, Government Medical College at Madurai for taking bloodsamples for the purpose of DNA examination.Similarly, the Superintendent ofPolice was directed to cause the appearance of Mr.Muthu, before the Dean,Government Medical College Hospital at Tuticorin, for taking blood samplesfor the purpose of DNA examination.He was further directed to produce theblood samples before the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai forconducting DNA examination.While so, on 07.07.2015, he made a request before this Court to modify the order since the DNA examination could beconducted at the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai itself.Accordingly, this Court modified the earlier order, by order dated 07.07.2015and directed the DNA examination to be conducted at the Regional ForensicScience Laboratory, Madurai.The matter was, thus, adjourned.As directed by this Court, the blood samples were taken from bothand they were subjected to DNA examination.Muthu @ Mookan is the biological father of Manimegalai @ Mekala.The Superintendentof Police then submitted a detailed report before this Court on 14.07.2015,wherein he has vividly spoken about the details of the enquiry conducted byhim and the report of the Deputy Director of Regional Forensic ScienceLaboratory on conducting DNA examination.In Paragraph Nos.14, 15 & 16, he has reported as follows;""14.I humbly submit that on 11.07.2015, I obtained the DNA result fromthe Deputy Director of regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai.Theresult states that ""From the DNA typing results of the above blood samples,it is found that in the absence of identical twins, Mr.Muthu @ Mookan is thebiological father of Ms.Mekala @ Manimekala @ Mumtazbegum.15.I humbly submit that based on the enquiry conducted by me, thestatements of the witnesses and by the Paternity test report, it reveals thatTmt.Mumtaz Begum, W/o.Shahjahan who is claiming herself as Mekala @ Manimekala, is in fact Mekala @ Menimekala, the daughter of Mookkan and Kannimarial of Perur Village.16.I humbly submit that the Inspector of Police, Murappanadu P.S.conducted the investigation in the Murappanadu P.S. Crime No.147/2002 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. @ 302, 201 IPC on scientific evidence.The trial Courthas also given a specific finding that the prosecution had proved that thedead body found near the bridge was that of Mekala @ Manimekala.The above said facts clearly establish that the action has been bonafide.The policehad no motive to falsely implicate the above petitioners in the aforesaidcase.Today, when the matter was taken up, the Superintendent of Policewas present.The woman, claiming herself to be Manimegalai @ Mekala, D/o.Muthu and W/o.Anandan, her biological father Mr.Muthu and her husband Mr.Anandan were present.It will appear as though Manimegalai @ Mekala @Punitha was murdered, however, these accused were acquitted for want ofevidence.The parties were affordedopportunity to cross examine them if they wanted.At Thiruppur her mothermarried CW3 ? Mr.Dhanraj, through whom she has got a son.She has further stated that she married Anandan (CW4) at Thiruppur and then, she lived withhim hardly for a weeks time.She has further stated that she came to Perurand then after having stayed there for few days, she left for Chennai.InChennai, she married one Shajakan, after conversion to Islam and she has gottwo children now.She has stated that she has changed her name as Mumtaz Begum.She has further stated that when she came down to Perur in the year 2011, she came to know about the case and then she made a representation to the District Collector.She has also admitted that on 06.07.2015 bloodsamples were taken from her by a team of Doctors at Government Medical College, Madurai for the purpose of DNA examination as directed by thiscourt.She identified CW3 and other relatives, who were present before thisCourt.CW2 - Muthu @ Mookan, who is the biological father of Manimegalai @ Mekala, has stated that he married Kannimariyal and CW1 was born to them out of the said wedlock.He has further stated that when the child was hardlythree years old, his wife deserted him and thereafter, her whereabouts wasnot known.He has further stated that he is not in a position to identifywhether CW1 - Manimegalai @ Mekala is his daughter or not, because aftershe was taken by her mother at the age of three years, he had no occasion tosee her at all.He has also admitted that on 07.07.2015 he gave bloodsamples at the Government Medical College Hospital, Tuticorin for DNAexamination as directed by this court.According to him, when CW1 was hardly three years old, her mother came to Thirupparamkundram along with CW1 and developed intimacy with him and then he took her to Thiruppur.Out of the intimacybetween him and Kannimariyal, a son was born.He has further stated that CW1 was put in a school at Thanajvur and then in Pattukkottai.He has furtherstated that without his knowledge, CW1 married Mr.He has further stated that after one week of the marriage, Anandan came and told himthat Manimegalai @ Mekala was found missing.The search made for her proved futile.Thereafter, he had no occasion to see Manimegalai @ Mekala at all.He has identified her in Court as Manimegalai @ Mekala, his adopted daughter.Anandan, who married Manimegalai @ Mekala.He has stated that CW1 was his wife.He has identified her in open Court.He hasfurther stated that the marital life lasted hardly for a week's time andthereafter, she disappeared.He has further stated that he went in search ofher to various places including Perur.Since he was not able to locate her,he made a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police at Srivaikundam PoliceStation, on whose complaint the case in Crime No.154 of 2002 was registeredfor woman missing.Manimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha.Ashwin Kotnis.He hasstated about the enquiry held by him as directed by this court and hisreport.As I have already extracted, in his report, he has categoricallystated that CW1 is Manimegalai @ Mekala.He has further stated that the deadbody which was found near the bridge is that of some other woman andregarding her death, investigation needs to be reopened and conducted now.The oral evidences of these witnesses are duly corroborated by the expert opinion, based on DNA examination conducted by a team of three experts at the Regional Forensic Laboratory, Madurai.In this case, a peculiar question has arisen for the first time asto what is the weightage that could be given to the superimpositionexamination often conducted in this State, at the behest of the Police, whenthe identity of the deceased in any case could not be ascertained by thewitnesses.It is a common knowledge that as and when a dead body is beyond recognition, resort is made to send the skeletal remains of the dead bodyfor superimposition.In this regard, I may say that forensic anthropology isbest conceptualized, more broadly, as a field of forensic assessment of humanskeletonised remains and their environments.[vide W.M. Krogman and M.Y. Iscan - The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine, Springfield, 1986 - 2ndEdition].This assessment includes both the identification of the victim'sphysical characteristics and cause and manner of the death from the skeleton.The most important application of forensic anthropology is the identificationof the human being from the skeletal remains.The photographic supra-projection is a forensic process where the photographs or video shots of amissing person are compared with the skull that is found.It is done byprojecting both the photographs on top of each other.But, this method wasnot found to be accurate.But, here,in this case, he had taken every possible efforts to identify the skull bysending the same for superimposition.It may be questioned that as to why DNA examination was not conducted then, in order to conclusively prove that the dead body was that ofManimegalai @ Mekala @ Punitha.From the evidences placed before this Court, it could be culledout that CW1 was not even aware of her father Mr.Muthu, who was present before this Court, would say that he was not in a position toidentify whether CW1 is Manimegalai @ Mekala or not.Thus, neither thefather is able to identify his daughter nor the daughter is able to identifyher father.Anandan, who originally preferred complaint to the police inrespect of missing of Manimegalai @ Mekala, was all along under theimpression that Mr.Dhanraj was her father.Therefore, the investigatingofficer, who conducted the investigation on earlier occasion, was notinformed of that the biological father of Manimegalai @ Mekala is Mr.It is only on the direction of this Court, the Superintendent of Police hastaken efforts to collect these facts and to bring to light that Mr.TheDeputy Superintendent of Police, Mr.Dharmalingam, District Crime Branch,Tuticorin, shall take up the case forthwith for investigation, conduct athorough investigation in respect of the dead body, which was found on05.04.2002 on the road leading to Vallakulam Village.The InvestigatingOfficer shall ascertain as to whose dead body was that and bring to book theperpetrators of the crime.(v) The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, shall pay Rs.4 lakhs as compensation to each accused in S.C.No.259 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast TrackCourt No.II, Tuticorin, namely, Mr.Koilpillai, Mr.Balasubramanian,Mr.Kurunthan @ Jeyakumar and Mr.Dhasan, by means of demand drafts drawn in their respective name within a period of three months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order.(vi) These Original Petitions shall stand dismissed in respect of allthe other reliefs sought for.Before concluding, I would like to mention that this is the rarestcase, where a woman, who was declared dead has come alive before the Court seeking justice.This episode, in my considered opinion, will be an eye-opener for the police in this State that in the matter of investigation, theyshould be extra cautious leaving no stone unturned.I am only hopeful thatin the days to come, learning a lesson from this episode, the policedepartment in the State, will try to use all possible scientific means andmethods to unearth the truth in the matter of investigation, instead ofadopting simply the conventional method of investigation relying only ontestimonies of human beings.As the saying goes, men may lie but not thecircumstances.Similarly, the science shall never fail.Before parting with this case, I would like to place on record myappreciation for the excellent service rendered by Mr.Ashwin Kotnis, theSuperintendent of Police, Tuticorin, who, within a short span of time, asdirected by this Court, had taken all efforts to secure the witnesses so asto find out the truth, to get the report of the DNA expert and to submit afair report before this Court within the time frame.I also appreciate theteam of officers, namely,(i) Mrs.T.Vanitha Rani, Inspector of Police, AllWomen Police Station, Pudukottai, Thoothukudi District, (ii) Mr.F.BernadXavier, Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station, (iii) Mr.Hariharan,Inspector, Special Branch, (iv) Mr.Kandasamy, Sub Inspector of Police, SipcotPolice Station and (v) Mr.P.Arunsakthikumar, IPS, Assistant Superintendent ofPolice, who were in the team who shared the burden with the Superintendent ofPolice to collect all the necessary facts within the time frame.R.Alagumani andMr.E.Athisaya Kumar, the learned counsel, for having taken up the cause ofthese poor people to this Court.Similarly, I appreciate Mr.Had this woman, Mrs.Manimegalai not gone to the DistrictCollector, the travesty of justice declaring her dead would have beenperpetuated .But, for these petitions filed by the petitioners, this mockerywould not have been corrected.7.The Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station,Thoothukudi District.8.The Inspector of Police, Srivaigundam Police Station,Thoothukudi District.9.The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.10.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"CRL.M.C. 1496/2019 Page 3 of 3(ORAL) Quashing of FIR No. 64/2018, under Sections 354/354D/506/509 of IPC registered at police station Barakhamba Road, New Delhi is sought on the basis of Affidavit of 1st February, 2019 of respondent No. 2 and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR, now stands cleared between the parties.Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice"".In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR, now stands cleared between the parties.Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of `25,000/- to be deposited by petitioner with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund CRL.M.C. 1496/2019 Page 2 of 3 within three days from today.Upon placing on record the proof of deposit of costs within two days thereafter and handing over its copy to the Investigating Officer, FIR No.64/2018, under Sections 354/354D/506/509 of IPC registered at police station Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed.CRL.M.C. 1496/2019 Page 2 of 3This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE MARCH 18, 2019 p'ma CRL.M.C. 1496/2019 Page 3 of 3","['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.In this appeal by special leave, which is directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court, the appellant No. 1, Kailash Prasad Kanodia has been convicted under Section 302 and sentenced to imprisonment for life.Appellant No. 2, Gatru Mal Kanodia has been convicted under Section 326 and has been sentenced to three years R.I. A detailed narrative of the prosecution case is to be found in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again.The High Court as well as the Sessions Judge have accepted the prosecution case and have affirmed the conviction of the appellants as indicated above.The only point that was urged before us by Mr. Mukherjee and Mr. Kohli appearing for the appellants, was that the entire case must fail because the statements recorded by the Officer In-charge D. P. Sharma (P.W. 12) on a rough piece of paper were not made available to the appellant at the trial which has caused serious prejudice to them.The High Court as well as the Sessions Judge considered this aspect of the matter and found that this infirmity was not sufficient to vitiate the trial.The prosecution has examined P.Ws. 4, 7, 10 and 12, the eye-witnesses of the occurrence.So far as P.W. 12 is concerned, he was the informant and lodged the F.I.R. within minutes of the occurrence at the Police Station which is about 200 yards away from the place of occurrence.So far as the said eye-witnesses are concerned, there is no doubt that P.W., D.P. Sharma himself admitted that when he arrived at the place of occurrence, he recorded the statements of eye-witnesses but did not make it a part of the diary.This was a serious lapse on his part resulting in his immediate suspension followed by a departmental enquiry.It was contended by Mr. Mukherjee that if the earlier statements would have been available to the appellant, they would have shown that the true version of the occurrence was not presented before the Court.Even so, we have excluded the evidence of the other eye-witnesses excepting P.Ws. 7 and 12 and we find that there was ample evidence on record to justify the conviction of the appellants.P.W. 12 has clearly stated in the F.I.R. that his father was assaulted with a bhala on the chest by the first appellant and his brother was given a blow by the second appellant.His evidence is fully corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 7 Vishwanath and the medical evidence fully supports his testimony.To some extent the evidence of these two witnesses is further supported by Lal Kanodia P.W. 2 who had also reached the Police Station soon after the F.I.R. was lodged.It appeared from the medical evidence that P.W. Bishwanath did not sustain any grievous injury.He has not received any serious injuries on any vital part of the body.The Doctor admits that he did not find any fracture of a serious nature.In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the charge under Section 326 must necessarily fail but the appellant No. 2 cannot escape conviction under Section 374, I.P.C. as that has been fully proved.Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we do not think that this is a fit case in which the second appellant should be convicted and awarded jail sentence.We, therefore, set aside the sentence of imprisonment passed under Section 326 and convict the second appellant under Section 324 and impose a fine of Rs. 2,000 in default one month's R.I. Out of the fine if realized the entire amount will be paid to P.W. Bishwanath as compensation.Two months' time is allowed for the amount to be paid as fine.With this modification, the appeal is dismissed.","['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"asi Crl.O.P.Nos.25281, 25282, 25283,25284,25285, 25105, 25107, 25124 and 25126 of 201202.08.2018","['Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"C.No.680/2017 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.[2] Brief facts of this case are that prosecutrix lodged report on 24.01.2017 at Police Station Meghnagar, District Jhabua averting that appellant sexually exploited her for two years in the pretext of marriage.He also gifted her one mobile phone valued Rs.10,000/-.Her marriage was solemnized with the applicant on 13.02.2005 in Baran (Rajasthan) and after marriage she resided with the applicant in his house at Kota (Rajasthan), but the behaviour of the applicant and his family members was not good with her.Respondent No.1 has no means of earning and she is not able to maintain herself and her minor sons.There he threatened deceased's mother to lodge court case against deceased.Nine or Ten days later, on 21/05/2016 deceased Firoz telephoned her daughter Roshney and applicant No.3 but applicant No. 2 did not let deceased talk with his wife applicant No.3 and daughter Roshni, due to which deceased Firoz committed suicide by consuming poison at his house in Alote.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of charge- sheet as well as proceedings of criminal case No.2130/2013 pending before the J.M.F.C., Indore for the offence under Section 498A, 294 and 506 of the IPC.[2] Brief facts of this case are that, on 09.01.2013 respondent No.2 lodged a report at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore that she had known the applicant since 2009 both liked to each other so they married on 04.07.2012 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Indore and started living together at Nehru Nagar, Janta Quarter, Indore.The respondent No.2 was teacher at that time so she used to come to Satwas.After marriage they lived happily for two months, but from 15.09.2012 her husband started beating and abusing her and also demanded Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs) and on 07.10.2012 her husband and his family members were going to engage her husband with Usha Rathore, then she informed Usha Rathore that she is the wife of Mukesh and applicant and his family members are trying to get her married to him by fraud.Thereafter Usha Rathore's family refused to do the engagement.[2] Brief facts of this case are that on 22.09.2014 deceased Firoz Khan committed suicide in his house situated at Alote, District Ratlam.On the information Police registered merg No.31/14 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered.During investigation it was found that applicant ill treated deceased Firoz.[2] Brief facts of this case are that respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance from the applicant before the trial court averting that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant.But, since marriage the behaviour of applicant and his family members was not good with her.After marriage she lived with her husband only for one & half year .Later applicant sent the respondent with her brother to her maternal home and never recalled her from there.Respondent is handicapped and is not able to maintain herself.Applicant is having 13 Bigha agriculture land situated at Village Utavad, Tehsil and District Dhar from which applicant earns Rs.2,50,000/- per annum.But since marriage behaviour of the applicant and his family members was not good with her.They demanded dowry and for that subjected her to cruelty.Shri R.K.Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant No.3 Ishak Kha.Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Dy.Advocate General for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.1628/2017, which is an application filed by appellant No.3 Ishak Kha S/o Rajjak Kha for suspension of sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Badnagar, Distt.Ujjain in ST No.6/15 and grant of bail.[2] Appellant No.3 Ishak Kha has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and one year RI with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation respectively.[3] As per prosecution story, on 25.09.2014, complainant Bhadar Khan and his younger brother Mubarik came to Bargundaseri Badnagar Cattle Haat for selling a cow.At 9.30 a.m., appelland Ishak and other co-accused Javed, Azad and Zuber came there and abused Mubarik.Javed assaulted Mubarik by knife on his throat.When Bhadar Kha tried to rescue him, Ishak and Zuber caught hold Bhadar Kha and Azad inflicted knife blow on his left palm and Javed also beated him by stick.On hearing the hue and cry Mehboob Kha, Mohd. Azhar, Irfan Kha came to rescue them, then accused ran away.On the report of complainant Bhadar Kha, Crime No.403/14 was registered against the applicant and other co-accused Javed, Azad and Zuber for the offence under Section 307, 294, 323 and 34 of IPC at P.S. Badnagar.[4] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the statements of so called eye witnesses Bhadar Kha (PW-1), Mohd. Azhar (PW-2), Mehboob (PW-3), Umar Farukh (PW-4) and Ditya @ Dattu (PW-5) are not reliable.Hearing of the appeal will take time, so sentence awarded by the Trial Court be suspended and appellant Ishak be released on bail.[5] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that from the statement of prosecution witnesses it is clearly proved that at the time of incident appellant Ishak was present at the spot and also took part in the incident.Learned Trial Court after evaluating all the evidence rightly convicted applicant Ishak and prays for rejection.[6] From the statements of eye witnesses Bhadar Kha (PW-1), Mohd. Azhar (PW-2), Mehboob (PW-3), Umar Farukh (PW-4) and Ditya @ Dattu (PW-5) it is clear that appellant Ishak was also present on the spot at the time of incident along with other co-accused and took active part in the incident in which Mubarik was murdered and Bhadar Kha (PW-1) also sustained injuries.So we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for granting bail to appellant No.3 Ishak.Hence, prayer for suspension of sentence is hereby rejected.[7] The appeal is already admitted, therefore, let the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.as per rules.Civil Revision No.46/2017 15.03.2017 Shri V.P. Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicants.None present for the respondent.This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 17.02.2017 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, District Barwani in Civil Suit No.1400037/2016, whereby learned judge rejected the applicant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this Revision are that respondent/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No.1400037/2016 before the 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, District Barwani seeking declaration and injunction with the averment that suit property was purchased by him in the name of his sister late Sardar Bi D/o Dildar Khan on 04.02.1988 for a consideration of Rs.12,000/-. on which he did some construction.In the year 2012 Khurshid Bi wrongly got her name recorded on the said plot in the Municipal Register and sold that plot by registered sale deed dated 28.02.2012 to applicants No.1 & 2 without any legal right.So plaintiff be declared owner of the suit plot and in alternate plaintiff also sought relief that if learned court finds Sardar Bi owner of suit plot then it be declared that plaintiff is having half share in the suit plot as heir of Sardar Bi and applicants No.1 & 2 also be directed to not to interfere in his possession on suit plot.Although plaintiff also sought other alternative relief, but which is contradictory.So plaintiff is also not entitled for that alternative relief.Plaintiff also did not value the suit property according to value of sale deed, challenged by the plaintiff' in the suit.So suit is rejected.[4] Plaintiff/respondent in his reply opposes the prayer.[5] Learned trial court by order dated 17.02.2017 rejected the prayer observing that the objection raised by the applicant cannot be decided without recording evidence.Plaintiff is not a party to that sale deed against which plaintiff sought cancellation.So he is not bound to valued his suit according to value of that sale deed.Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this Revision.[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent clearly pleaded in his suit that the suit property was purchased by him in the name of Late Sardar Bi.So it is not a case where plaint could be rejected on the ground raised by the applicants at this stage.Hence, the Civil Revision is hereby dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Case diary along with the report of S.H.O.Manawar, District Dhar was received.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 12.09.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manawar, District Dhar passed in Criminal Revision No.119/2016 whereby learned A.S.J., Manawar rejected the applicant's criminal Revision and maintained the order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar wherein learned judge had rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. for getting interim custody of Tractor bearing registration No.MP-11-AB-9674 and trolley attached to it seized by the Police on 23.07.2016 in Crime No.462/16 registered at P.S. Manawar for the offences under section 379 IPC and Section 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996( hereinafter referred to as rules).[2] Brief facts of the case relevant to disposal of this petition are that on 23.07.2016, at 1.30 p.m., when Parvez Constable No.256 of P.S. Manawar, was going to Ravi Garage, on the way, near Gulati Road, he saw a tractor bearing registration No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley carrying illegal sand, then he stopped the Tractor-trolly and brought them at P.S. Manawar, where Kishanchand, the then Sub Inspector, P.S. Manawar seized the tractor-trolly and lodged FIR.On that FIR, Crime No.462/2016 was registered for the offences under Section 379 of IPC and Rule 53 of M.P.Applicant filed an application under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar to get said Tractor No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley in his interim custody.Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar rejected that application by order dated 10.08.2016 observing that the said tractor-trolly was involved in illegal carrying of sand, whereas National Green Tribunal had prohibited illegal mining and carrying of sand in that area.Against this applicant filed Cr.Learned A.S.J., Manawar, Distt.Dhar also rejected that Criminal Revision observing that according to Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 intimation is necessary to invoke the power of Judicial Magistrate First Class for granting vehicle into custody but no intimation was sent by the authority under Rule 53 Sub Rule 3 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules.So, learned Magistrate has not committed any mistake in rejecting the applicant's application.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the provision of Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules come into play when the vehicle is seized by the authority mentioned in Sub Rule 2 of Rule 53 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 but said vehicle was seized by the police.Even otherwise, it is clear from the record that police who seized the said vehicle also sent intimation regarding seizure of that vehicle to the Magistrate.So learned Additional Sessions Judge committed mistake in rejecting the applicant's Revision only on the ground that no information was sent by the authority to the concerned Magistrate.[4] Likewise learned Judicial Magistrate First Class also committed mistake in rejecting the application only on the ground that National Green Tribunal had imposed ban on mining activities as National Green Tribunal imposed ban only on mining activities and not on transportation of sand, therefore, transportation of sand does not come under ban imposed by the National Green tribunal.Even otherwise whether said vehicle was carrying illegal sand or not is a matter of evidence which cannot be ascertained without evidence at this stage and shall be decided by the court at the time of judgment of the case.[6] This court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties.[7] It appears from the record that when learned Trial Court rejected the application of applicant charge-sheet had not been filed, but now charge-sheet has been filed so petition is disposed of with the direction that in the event of filing of fresh application by the applicant before the Trial Court under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. for getting said vehicle in custody the Trial Court will decide that application according to law without taking notice of his earlier order.A copy of this order be sent to the concerning Trial Court for compliance.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1238/2013 15.03.2017 Shri Nitendra Vajpai, learned counsel for the appellant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.870/2017, an application to replace the surety gives in the High Court in the matter of Cr.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in compliance of this Court's order dated 19.02.2014 applicant's surety was given by Smt. Saroj Singh on her plot No.14/16, Mahakal Vanijya Kendra, Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran Ujjain.Now, Smt. Saroj wants loan on that property that's why she may be permitted to give surety on commercial shop No.12/8, Jhawar Nagar, Ujjain in place of plot No.14/16, Mahakal Vanijya Kendra, Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran Ujjain.After due consideration, prayer is allowed.She be permitted to give surety of appellant on shop No.12/8, Jhawar Nagar, Ujjain instead of plot No.14/16, Mahakal Vanijya Kendra, Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran Ujjain and C.J.M., Ujjain is directed to permit the surety of appellant Smt. Saroj Singh to replace the property on which she earlier given surety of appellant.But, it is made clear that earlier property of surety only be discharged when CJM is satisfied with the property on which Smt. Saroj Singh wants to give new surety.This appeal is already admitted, so let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) ns Judge M.A.No.2308/2014 15.03.2017 Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondents No.1 and 2 are avoiding service and they remained ex parte before the lower court and were not interested to contest the claim application.So, service of respondents No.1 & 2 may kindly be dispensed with.Respondents No.1 and 2 remained ex parte before the trial court, so IA No.742/2017 is allowed.Service of notice to the respondents No.1 & 2 is dispensed with at the risk of appellant.This appeal is already admitted, so let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.1202/2014 15.03.2017 Shri K.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Appeal is already admitted, so list the appeal for final hearing in due course.Office is also directed to call for the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.1723/2013 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to file report regarding factum of death of appellant.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns FA No.846/2012 15.03.2017 Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.558/2015 15.03.2017 Shri Umesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns MCC.No.861/2015 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed on 19.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1608/2015 15.03.2017 Shri M.M.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to produce appellant No.2 Tejulal before this court.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.2 Tejulal.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R. No.80/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of order of Second Appeal.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to pay fresh process fee within 7 days.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.484/2016 15.03.2017 Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to file appropriate application regarding appearance of appellant No.2 Lakhan Singh.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.574/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Heard on IA No.4253/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The appeal is barred by 338 days.Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in allowing the application.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.648/2016 15.03.2017 None for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed along with recovery report after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A. No.57/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Vijay Assudani, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Praveen Pal, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 Harish Pal.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 20.03.2017, as prayed.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns FA No.97/2017 15.03.2017 Ms. Varunika Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.Execution of the impugned order is stayed till the next date of hearing on depositing 50% of the awarded amount within one month.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.99/2016 15.03.2017 Shri Manish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for 7 days time to pay process fee.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A. No.2086/2016 15.03.2017 Shri A.S.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.181/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.181/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1412/2015 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9826/2015 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after Two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1535/2016 15.03.2017 Shri P.K.Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the respondents even after service of notice.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after Three weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1579/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after Two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1625/2016 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after Two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3255/2016 15.03.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 12.04.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12192/2016 15.03.2017 Shri N.S.Bhati, learned counsel for the applicants.Arguments heard.Reserved for orders.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.18/2017 15.03.2017 Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant/State is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.72/2017 15.03.2017 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.194/2017 15.03.2017 Petitioner present in person.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.232/2017 15.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after Four weeks, as prayed.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1308/2017 15.03.2017 None present for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Civil Revision No.286/2015 08.03.2017 Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent even after service of notice.This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the Vth Civil Judge Class-I, Ujjain in Civil Suit No.13-A/2015, whereby learned judge rejected the applicant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.[2] Brief facts of this case which are relevant for the disposal of this Revision are that respondent filed a Civil Suit No.13-A/2015 before the Vth Civil Judge Class-I, Ujjain seeking declaration to get invoice worth Rs.5,51,232/- prepared by the defendant null and void, averting that he purchased one Maruti Car through invoice dated 08.01.2014 worth Rs.6,20,438/-.The applicant completed all the formalities of registration and insurance of the vehicle and delivered the car to him.Later on, it came to the notice of the respondent that the petitioner had prepared a new invoice dated 08.01.2014 for RTO purpose wherein there was change of Rs.26,998/- from the original invoice.That invoice was prepared for saving the tax and the petitioner had no right to prepare two invoices for one vehicle.So invoice of Rs.5,51,232/- prepared by the defendant on 24.08.2015 be declared null and void.The respondent valued his suit at Rs.5,51,232/- and paid a fixed court fees of Rs.1,000/-.[3] During trial of the suit Applicant/defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC before the trial court averting that applicant is bound to pay ad-valorem court fees on the valuation of Rs.5,51,232/-.[4] Respondent in his reply opposes the prayer.[5] Learned trial court by order dated 31.08.2015 rejected the prayer observing that applicant filed the suit only for seeking declaration, so the provisions of Article 17 of Schedule 2 of Court Fees Act are attracted according to which respondent is only bound to pay fix court fees and rejected the applicant's application.Being aggrieved with the order applicant filed this Civil Revision.[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent seeks a declaration to get invoice worth Rs.5,51,232/- null and void which has money value, so he is bound to pay ad valorem court fees on the valuation of suit.Respondent is not the party of that invoice, therefore, he is not bound pay ad valorem court fee on the suit value.[5] Full Bench of this High Court in the case of Sunil Radhelia and others V/s Awadh Narayan and others reported in I.L.R. (2010) M.P., 2454 held that, Court Fees Act (7) of 1870, 7 (iv) C and Article 17 Schedule II -- If plaintiff makes an allegation that the instrument is void and hence not binding upon him, then ad valorem court-fee is not payable and he can claim declaration simpliciter from the court.In the instant case also Plaintiff neither executed nor is a signatory to the invoice which he wants to be declared null and void and claimed only the relief of declaration, So Plaintiff is not required to pay ad-valorem court fee.Learned trial did not commit any mistake in rejecting the applicant's prayer.So the revision has no force.Heard finally at the motion stage with the consent of both the parties..This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 12.01.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.Cr.C.No.368/2014, whereby he rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance from respondent.Since then she has been living with her parents and is not able to maintain herself, while respondent runs business of selling cloths and earns Rs.30,000/- per month and able to maintain her but is not doing so without any sufficient cause.So, respondent be directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as maintenance to the applicant.Respondent in his reply denied the all allegations and averted that he and his family members never demanded any dowry from the applicant and respondent does not drink wine.Applicant herself threatened respondent to implicate him in false case as she did not want to live in Biaora.so she herself left respondent's house voluntarily without any sufficient cause and is living with her parents.Respondent tried to take her back but she refused.Applicant does sewing work and is able to maintain herself.On the other hand, respondent is an employee in a cloth shop and only earns Rs.2,500/- per month and is unable to maintain the applicant and pray for rejection.Learned trial court after recording the evidence of both the parties rejected the application observing that since applicant has been living separately from the respondent without any sufficient reason, so she is not entitled to get maintenance.Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this Criminal Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the evidence it is clearly proved that respondent and his family members demanded dowry from the applicant and subjected her to cruelty and owing to their ill-behaviour applicant was forced to live separately from the respondent.Learned trial court without appreciating the evidence only on the basis of some minor contradictions mistakenly disbelieving the statement of applicant and his Father Hari Om (PW-2) and wrongly assuming that applicant voluntarily lived separately from respondent rejected applicant's prayer.He also placed reliance on Apex Court's judgement passed in Deb Narayan Halder V/s.[5] This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties.As far as trial court's finding that the applicant has no sufficient reason to live separately from respondent is concerned, although applicant had deposed that respondent's behaviour became bad with her after one and half months of marriage and that he used to beat her for dowry besides her father Hari Om (PW-2) also deposed that behaviour of respondent and his family members turned bad with applicant after one year of marriage and they demanded dowry and used to beat her and tell her that her father had not given them any cash at the time of marriage and demanded Rs. One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand due to which he brought his daughter back from her matrimonial house and that she has been living with him for the past two years during which respondent never came to take her back.But Applicant averted in the plaint that her marriage was solemnized with respondent on 03.04.2012 and that he expelled her from his house one year back from the date of filing of application i.e. 15.04.2014, which shows that applicant is living separately from 15.04.2013 meaning thereby that applicant lived with respondent only from 03.04.2012 to 15.04.2013 i.e. 1 year 12 days, while applicant herself averted in her application that behaviour of respondent and his family members was good with her upto one year from her marriage.So the statements of applicant and her father Hari Om regarding demand of dowry and ill-behavior of respondent and his family members becomes doubtful.Even regarding harassment and demand of dowry the statement of applicant and her father is contradictory.Applicant stated that respondent and his family members started torturing her only after 1 or 2 months of her marriage, while applicant's father stated that respondent started torturing his daughter after one year of marriage.Likewise Hari Om (PW-2) stated that respondent and his family members demanded Rs.1,25,000/-, while in the application it is mentioned that respondent and his family members demanded Rs.5,00,000/- and one Car.Applicant also stated that she does not remember the year or month or day her husband beated her.She filled report against respondent one year after returning from her parents' house.If respondent had demanded dowry and used to beat her and expelled her from his house after beating then she would have lodged the report of incident soon after the incident.So statements of applicant and her father Hari Om (PW2) that respondent and his family members used to beat her and demanded dowry are do not appear to be correct.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1381/2016 10.03.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.R.No.313/2015 after two weeks.R.No.1510/2015 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of charge-sheet and argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 23.03.2017, as prayed.A.No.554/2016 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Office is directed to place the matter along with service report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9484/2016 10.03.2017 Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.163/2014 10.03.2017 Learned counsel for the parties.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 07.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks two weeks time to file affidavit.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2535/2017 10.03.2017 Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1357/2016 10.03.2017 Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the whole copy of charge-sheet.Let the matter be listed 22.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8915/2016 10.03.2017 None present for the applicants, even after second round.Advocate General for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Let the matter be listed after three weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5654/2015 10.03.2017 Shri Shailendra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.164/2016 10.03.2017 Shri R.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent even after second round.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.691/2016 10.03.2017 None present for the applicant even after second round.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.On 30.06.2016, learned counsel for the applicant was granted time to cure the defects, but till today counsel for the applicant has not cured the defects.Today, none present for the applicant even after second round.It appears that applicant does not want to prosecute this petition, therefore, petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.744/2016 10.03.2017 Shri R.K.Shastri, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of applicant Raghusingh on 06.03.2017 is hereby condoned.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 15.05.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.11/2015 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.581/2016 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicants No.1 to 3 seeks two weeks' time to file compliance order.Notice of respondents No.2 to 5 received unserved.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.431/2014 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks three weeks' time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1271/2009 10.03.2017 None present for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Bailable warrant not received as yet.Office is directed to place the matter along with service report of bailable warrant.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.54/2007 10.03.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Aviral Vikas, learned counsel for the respondents.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.1373/2014 10.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.1270/2016 08.03.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur in S.T.No.344/2015, whereby learned A.S.J. framed charges against applicants under Sections 148 and 307/149 of IPC.[2] Brief facts which are relevant to this petition are that on 26.06.2015, at 11.30 p.m., when complainant Indersingh was satting on dice (chabutara) of Ram Mandir with his brother Liladhar and niece Dhirajsingh at Village Jabiya Gharwas, Kalapipal, applicants came there armed with farsi, lathi and rod and abused and beated Indersingh.Applicant Mansingh assaulted him by farsi on his head with an intention to kill him while Mahendrasingh assaulted on his head by rod and Raghuveer Singh, Pappu and Santosh also beated him by lathi.When complainant's brother Leeladhar came to rescue him, Hindusingh also assaulted him by farsi on his head with an intention to kill him and applicants Kapal Singh, Peer Singh and Raghuveer also beated him by lathi.Indersingh and Leeladhar sustained injuries on head and other body parts.On hearing hue & cry Praveen, Narendra Singh came there and tried to save them with the help of Dheerap Singh and admitted them in the hospital.On that report of injured Indersingh Crime No.250/2015 was registered at P.S. Kalapipal, District Shajapur under Section 307, 147, 148, 149 and 294 of IPC against the applicants and after investigation police filed charge-sheet against the applicants.On that charge-sheet ST No.344/2015 was registered and learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur by order dated 05.08.2016 framed charges against applicants under 307/149 (in two counts) and 148 of IPC.Being aggrieved from that order applicants filed this Criminal Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicants submits that to frame charge under Section 307 of IPC it should appear from the evidence that applicants inflicted injuries to the injured person with an intention to cause death but according to MLC report injuries sustained by Indersingh and Leeladhar are simple in nature and not dangerous to life.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.46/2017 08.03.2017 Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the appellants.Let the matter be listed on any Wednesday after two weeks, as prayed.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.In absence of learned counsel for the respondent No.1, matter is adjourned.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2452/2017 08.03.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks two weeks' time to cure the defect.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.836/2016 08.03.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9195/2016 08.03.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.On 06.02.2017 none present for the applicant and today also none present for the applicant even after second round.It shows that appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter, therefore, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1143/2014 08.03.2017 None present for the applicant and respondent No.1, even after second round.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.In absence of learned counsel for the applicant and respondent No.1, matter is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1267/2015 08.03.2017 Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9829/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Case diary along with the report of S.H.O.Manawar, District Dhar was received.[2] Brief facts of the case relevant to disposal of this petition are that on 23.07.2016, at 1.30 p.m., when Parvez Constable No.256 of P.S. Manawar, was going to Ravi Garrage, on the way near Gulati Road, he saw a tractor bearing registration No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley carrying illegal sand, then he stopped the Tractor-trolly and brought them at P.S. Manawar, where Kishanchand, the then Sub Inspector, P.S. Manawar seized the tractor-trolly and lodged FIR.On that FIR Crime No.462/2016 was registered for the offences under Section 379 of IPC and Section 53 of M.P.Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 against Ganpat S/o Bhimsingh Bhilala.Applicant filed an application under Section 451/457 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar to get said Tractor No.MP-11-AB-9674 with trolley in his interim custody.Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manawar rejected that application by order dated 10.08.2016 observing that the said tractor-trolly was involving in illegal carrying of sand, whereas National Green Tribunal prohibited illegal mining and carrying of sand in that area.Against which applicant filed Cr.Learned A.S.J., Manawar, Distt.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3984/2015 08.03.2017 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed along with status report after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant is also directed to supply the copy of judgment of trial court to the counsel for the respondent.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to file affidavit of technical person, who is aware of the technology relating to the working of computer.Office is also directed to call for the status report of Criminal Case No.10053/2014 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ujjain before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1119/2016 08.03.2017 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed on 12.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1187/2016 08.03.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12709/2016 07.03.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant to this petition are that Special Judge (NDPS Act), Neemuch vide judgment dated 07.09.2007 passed in Special Sessions Case No.27/2003 convicted the accused for offence under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo one year's additional rigorous imprisonment.Against that judgment applicant filed Cr.So, Jailor of District Jail, Neemuch be directed to release the accused.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that during trial applicant remained in detention from 28.09.2005 to 05.03.2007 in other Sessions Case No.09/07 in Central Jail at Arthor Road Jail, Chinchpokli, Mumbai (Maharashtra).No written information regarding that detention has been received as yet from the said Jail.So applicant could not be released.[6] Considering the aforesaid, the Jail Superintendent District Jail, Neemuch is directed that if the applicant Mohammad Iqbal has undergone whole sentence awarded by the court in Special Sessions Case No.27/2003, excluding the period for which he was detained in other Special Sessions Case No.09/2007 then he be released, if not required in any other case.Accordingly, the petition is disposed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8748/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Sunil Verma, learned Counsel for the applicants.Shri Chetan Joshi, learned counsel for the non applicant.Heard finally at motion stage.[1] This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (in brief ""Code"") against the order dated 16.09.2015 passed by the 16th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.R.No.564/15; whereby learned Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 28.07.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore and directed him to take cognizance against applicants for the offences under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 of the IPC .[2] Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of this petition are that non-applicant filed a private complaint against the applicants under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 of the IPC alleging that the applicants had published defamatory news against the non- applicant/complainant.Being aggrieved from that order applicants have filed this petition.A copy of the order be sent to the Revisional Court as well as to the concerned Magistrate for compliance.Thus, the revision is allowed as indicated above.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE ns M.Cr.C.No.2098/2016 07.03.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.None present for applicant on 06.05.2016, 16.07.2016 & 01.08.2016 and on 29.08.2016 applicant seeks adjournment, then on 06.09.2016 none present for the applicant, thereafter on 28.11.2016, 14.12.2016, 03.01.2017 none present for the applicant.On 31.01.2017 applicant seeks adjournment and today also none present for the applicant even in the second round.C.No.7084/2016 07.03.2017 None present for the applicants, even after second round.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11666/2016 07.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks' time to cure the defect.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Prayer is accepted.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4259/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11664/2016 07.03.2017 Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks a fixed date for producing the parties before the court.Let the matter be listed 28.03.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given on that ground.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12041/2016 07.03.2017 Shri Neeraj Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.C.No.13029/2016 07.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.22/2017 07.03.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter and wants a fixed date of any Wednesday.Let the matter be listed on 05.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that arguing counsel comes from Delhi and prays for a fixed date in the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.404/2017 07.03.2017 Shri D.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on admission.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.410/2017 07.03.2017 Shri H.C.Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on admission.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.970/2017 07.03.2017 Shri Harshit sethi, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 23.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.649/2007 07.03.2017 Shri Rohit Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.As per office report, bailable warrant of respondent No.2 Dilip received unserved.Office is directed to issue non-bailable warrant to procure his presence before this court on 28.04.2017 and also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount may not be forfeited.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.400/2016 06.03.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Advocate for the respondent/State.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora) in S.T. No.62/2016, whereby Learned A.S.J.framed charges against applicant Ramprasad under Section 307 of IPC and applicants Kanchanbai, Hokomsingh and Vishramsingh under Section 307/34 of IPC..[2] As per prosecution story, on 19.11.2015, at 5.30 p.m., when complainant Omprakash and his family members were working in the field situated at Rajgarh near National High Way 12, applicants came there armed with lathi and farsi and applicant Ramprasad assaulted Omprakash on his head by farsi with an intention to kill him while Hukum Singh assaulted on Omprakash's hand by lathi and Kanchanbhai by stone.When complainant's son Jaiprakash came to rescue him Ramprasad inflicted farsi blow on Jaiprakash's head and other applicants also beated them.On that report Crime No.617/2015 in P.S. Kotwali, Rajgarh was registered under Section 307 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.After investigation Police filed charge-sheet before the court and on the basis of charge-sheet S.T.No.62/2016 was registered and then learned A.S.J. framed charges against the applicant Ramprasad under Section 307 of IPC and against applicants No.2 Kanchanbhai No.3 Hukum Singh & Vishram Singh under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC.Being aggrieved by the orders of framing charges under Sections 307, 307/34 IPC applicants have filed this Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicants submits that to frame charge under Section 307 of IPC it should appear from the evidence that applicants inflicted injuries to the injured person with an intention to cause death but according to MLC report, injuries sustained by Omprakash and Jaiprakash are simple in nature and not dangerous to life.In the X-Ray report it is clearly mentioned that they have not received any bony injury, therefore, there is no evidence on record to frame charge under Section 307 of IPC.Learned Trial Court committed mistake in framing charge against applicant Ramprasad under Section 307 of IPC and against applicants Kanchanbai, Hokomsingh and Vishramsingh under Section 307/34 of IPC.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that Omprakash and Jaiprakash received incised wounds by farsi on their head which is vital part of body.Therefore, learned trial court rightly framed charge against the applicants and prays for rejection of Revision.[5] For framing of charge strong suspicion about commission of offence and accused's involvement of offence is sufficient.On merits, materials/documents filed by accused can not be considered.Reserved for orders.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns 07.03.2017 Order passed signed and dated.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Counsel for the applicant is also directed to produce registration of vehicle and other necessary documents.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the record of Criminal Case No.616/2013, which is disposed of by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Agar - Malwa by judgment dated 28.11.2016 before the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.652/2006 06.03.2017 Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed after one week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.869/2011 06.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to file rejoinder.He is directed to file rejoinder positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.6/2015 06.03.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1322/2015 06.03.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.15/2016 06.03.2017 Shri G.P.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed on 10.04.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to produce the case diary.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.702/2016 06.03.2017 Shri Kamal Airen, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2/State.Learned counsel for the respondents No.3 to 5Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to produce the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed along with the service report after two weeks.Office is directed to send back the record to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dewas.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4493/2016 06.03.2017 Smt. Bhagyashri Sugandhi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file some documents.Let the matter be listed on 28.03.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.I.R. to continue.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.100/1993 06.03.2017 Shri M.I.Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to argue the matter and wants a fixed date of any Wednesday.Let the matter be listed on 22.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.765/2001 06.03.2017 Shri Raghuveer Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to produce appellant No.2 Tulsibai before this court.Let the matter be listed on 28.03.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.2 Tulsibai.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.895/2000 06.03.2017 Shri Raghuveer Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to produce appellant No.2 Karulal before this court.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed on 28.03.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.2 Karulal.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9742/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Ms. Neha Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent.Heard finally at motion stage.This leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 01.07.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Criminal Case No.3517/2001, whereby he acquitted the respondent from the charge under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the IPC.[2] Learned counsel for the applicant/State submitted that from the statement of Hemsingh (PW-1) it is clearly proved that at the time of accident respondent/accused rashly and negligently drove the vehicle bearing registration No.MP09-K-7976 and dashed against Kinetic Moped, due to which two girls sustained injuries and one of them died.From the statement of Tarachand (PW-2) it is also proved that at the time of accident vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by respondent Mazhar.So, learned trial court committed mistake in acquitting the accused Mazhar from the aforesaid charge.[3] On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that from the statement of Hemsingh (PW-1) it is not proved that driver of the vehicle No.MP09- K-7976 was driving said vehicle rashly and negligently, at the time of incident.Also it is not proved that vehicle No.MP09- K-7976 was being driven by the respondent at the time of accident.Although Tarachand (PW-2) deposed that respondent Mazhar was the driver on said vehicle on the date of accident but he is not an eye witness of the incident so only on the basis of his statement, it cannot be assumed that vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by the respondent Mazhar at the time of accident.So, learned trial court after appreciating all the evidence rightly acquitted the accused and pray for rejection.[4] This court perused the record and considered arguments put forth by the parties.Hemsingh (PW-1) only stated that at the time of accident driver of vehicle No.MP09- K-7976 was driving vehicle at a high speed and dashed against the Kinetic Moped, due to which two girls sustained injuries but he did not specifically deposed in his statement that as to at what speed the vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven at the time of accident.So, only on the basis of statement of Hemsingh (PW-1) that driver of vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was driving vehicle at a high speed, it cannot be assumed that the driver of the said vehicle drove the vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of accident.Hemsingh (PW-1), who is an eye witness of the incident, did not even depose that the said vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by the respondent Mazhar at the time of accident.So, from his statement it is also not proved that vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by the respondent Mazhar at the time of accident.[5] Although Tarachand (PW-2) deposed that on the date of accident respondent Mazhar was the driver on his vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 but he is not an eye witness, so without any other corroborating evidence merely on the basis of his statement it cannot be assumed that the vehicle No.MP09-K-7976 was being driven by respondent Mazhar at the time of accident.So in the considered opinion of this court learned trial court did not commit any mistake in acquitting the accused from the aforesaid charge.Hence, the petition is dismissed.Record be sent back to the trial court along with the copy of this order.Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. is disposed of.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1558/2016 03.03.2017 Shri N.S.Bhati, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.958/2017, which is an application for conversion of this Criminal Revision into Criminal Appeal.After due consideration, application (IA No.958/2017) is allowed.Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to convert the Criminal Revision into Criminal Appeal.After incorporation of necessary amendments, office is directed to register this Criminal Revision as a Criminal Appeal.Let the matter be fixed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.397/2013 03.03.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the appellants/State.Ms. Megha Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.Learned counsel for the appellants/State is directed to supply the copy of IA No.2997/2013 and IA No.2998/2013 to the counsel for the respondents.Let the matter be listed in the next week.Office is directed to call for the record positively before the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11362/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Office is directed to call for the record Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.192/2017 03.03.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.221/2017 03.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the record Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.537/2017 03.03.2017 Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1541/2017 03.03.2017 Shri Sanjay Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file whole copy of order-sheets of criminal case.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to pay fresh process fee within 7 days.Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1783/2013 03.03.2017 Shri P.K.Vishvakarma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.720/2014 03.03.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.R.No.1121/2016 03.03.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the respondent.Heard on IA No.9384/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The revision is barred by 13days.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7863/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.None present for the respondent No.2, even after service of notice.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8510/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9386/2016 03.03.2017 Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11943/2016 03.03.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.679/2017 02.03.2017 Ms. Isha Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Deepak Raval, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 07.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.185/2016 02.03.2017 Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.857/2016 02.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent No.2, even after service of notice.Service report of respondent No.1 is still awaited.Office is directed to list the matter along with service report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.9/2017 02.03.2017 Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the appellant.None present for the respondent, even after service of notice.Lower court record is not received as yet.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.I.R. to continue.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.2340/2014 02.03.2017 Shri Navneet Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondents No.1 and 2 not appeared before the trial court and remained ex-party to the trial court.Service of notice to the respondent No.2 is dispensed with at the risk of appellant.Let the matter be listed for admission after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1450/2015 02.03.2017 Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to verify the factum of death of applicant Mukesh.Office is also directed to call for report regarding death of applicant Mukesh from Police Station Amjhera, District Dhar before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed on 25.04.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1575/2016 02.03.2017 Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 10.03.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.555/2017 02.03.2017 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1103/2015 02.03.2017 Ms. Seema Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Kumar Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent.Status report of MJC (Criminal) Case No.15/2013 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas is still awaited.Office is directed to call the status report positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed along with the status report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 15.02.2017 passed by the Additional Judge to the court of First Additional Session Judge, West Nimar, Mandleshwar in Criminal Revision No.111/2016, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar rejected applicant's Criminal Revision No.111/2016 and maintained the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandleshwar in Criminal Case No.49/2016, wherein learned Judicial Magistrate First Class had rejected the applicant's application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.[2] Brief facts of the case which are relevant to this petition are that, respondent/complainant filed a private complaint before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandleshwar under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the applicant for dishonor of cheque averting that petitioner and respondent were known to each other and out of that friendship when petitioner was in need of money, respondent gave Rs.20,00,000/- to him.In order to discharge the said liability, a cheque bearing No.185939 of Bank of India, Branch - Mandleshwar, was given by the petitioner to the respondent.When the cheque given by the petitioner was presented by the respondent in his bank, the same was returned by the petitioner's Bank due to insufficient funds.So action be taken against applicant.[3] During trial of the case applicant filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. averting that though respondent had filed a criminal complaint against the applicant for dishonor of cheque amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- but he did not file any documentary evidence regarding that amount so respondent be directed to file all documents relating to his income, expenditure and income tax return.In his reply respondent opposed the prayer.Learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated 23.09.2016 rejected that application observing that application filed by the applicant under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.was not maintainable at that stage against which applicant filed Cr.R.No.111/2016, which was dismissed by order dated 15.02.2017 passed by the Additional Judge to the court of First Additional Sessions Judge, West Nimar, Mandleshwar observing that the impugned order was an interim order against which the Revision is not maintainable.Being aggrieved from that order applicant has filed this petition.[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioner averting that respondent gave Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner.In order to discharge the said liability, a cheque bearing No.185939 of Bank of India, Branch - Mandleshwar, was given by the petitioner to the respondent.When the said cheque was presented by the respondent in his bank, the same was returned by the petitioner's Bank due to insufficient funds.Applicant wants to cross-examine the respondent on the point that whether respondent actually has the capacity to give Rs.20,00,000/- to the applicant for which documents regarding income and expenditure and his income tax return are required.so they be called from the applicant.Learned trial court committed mistake in rejecting his application.[5] It appears from the record that respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the applicant averting that applicant took Rs.20,00,000/- from him and to discharge the said liability, a cheque bearing No.185939 of Bank of India, Branch - Mandleshwar, was given by the petitioner to the respondent.So prima facie burden for proving this fact lies on respondent and what documents he wish to file to prove this fact depends upon his will.In his application applicant has not mentioned the year/years for which he sought respondent's income tax return and regarding what documents or for what period he wants income and expenditure details of respondent.His application is vague, so learned trial court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the applicant's application.Hence, petition is dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.132/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Deepak Rawal, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on IA No.1006/2016, which is an application for stay.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed along with the record for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to place the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed along with the service report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns MCC No.805/2016 01.03.2017 Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Let the matter be listed on 22.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.933/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Rajendra Kumar Samdani, learned counsel for the appellants.None present for the respondents No.1 to 5, even after service of notice.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.6/State.In absence of learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5, matter is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.978/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Soumil Ekdi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.None present for the respondent No.2, even after service of notice.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1131/2016 01.03.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2266/2017 01.03.2017 Shri Surendra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of statement of prosecutrix and wants time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1295/2012 01.03.2017 Shri R.S.Shekhawat, learned counsel for the appellant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the report from the Central Jail, Indore regarding detention of appellant Hemu @ Hemant.Let the matter be listed in the next week along with the report.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3685/2016 01.03.2017 Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent, even after second round.Let the matter be listed in the next week.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.122/2000 01.03.2017 None present for the appellant, even after second round.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.On 13.01.2017, 13.02.2017 and 22.02.17 none present for the appellant even in the second round.It shows that appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter, therefore, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.212/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents No.1 and 2 by registered A.D. mode on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1595/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.R.No.214/2017 be listed along with this petition.Let the matter be listed along with Cr.R.No.214/2017 after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.6381/2016 01.03.2017 Shri K.P.Gangore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.80/2017 01.03.2017 Shri Rakesh Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet and also wants time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Shri R.S.Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1054/2015 01.03.2017 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.Let the matter be listed on 22.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.None for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.594/2016 01.03.2017 Shri Navneet Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondents.Let the matter be listed after three weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.[2] Brief facts of this case which are relevant to this petition are that, applicant filed a private complaint against the respondent before the J.M.F.C., Mahidpur, Ujjain averting that marriage of his daughter Heena was solemnized with respondent Firoz on 09.02.2013 at Mahidpur.In the marriage he gave jewellery, cloths, electric goods, almirah, fridge, T.V., washing machine, a cooler and other home appliances worth Rs.3,50,000/- to his daughter.On 20.04.2013, respondent Firoz gave divorce to his daughter Heena but he did not return the aforesaid house-hold goods, which he gave to his daughter as dowry at the time of marriage.That Revision was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur by order dated 12.05.2015 wherein it set aside the trial court's order observing that applicant's daughter Heena voluntarily left her matrimonial house in the night of 19.03.2013 and she clearly admitted in a letter that she does not want to live with respondent Firoz.She wanted to live with Nilesh Suryawanshi and also admitted that respondent Firoz Khan had voluntarily given divorce to her and she had received all house-hold goods which were given by her father as dowry.So offence under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not made out against the respondent.Being aggrieved with that order applicant filed this petition.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that at P.S. Jhalra Patan, District Jhalawad respondent himself promised to return the house-hold goods which were given by the applicant as dowry to his daughter at the time of her marriage but he did not do so.The affidavit filed by the respondent before the Revisional Court alleging given by Heena is fake.Learned A.S.J. committed mistake in rejecting the trial court's order by relying on that fake affidavit.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that according to Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act a list of articles which were given in dowry at the time of marriage should be made but there is no such list.On the contrary Heena at P.S. Jhalra Patan, District Jhalawad clearly admitted before the Police Officers that she got all articles which were given to her at the time of her marriage.So no question of returning the articles arises.Learned A.S.J. rightly rejected the applicant's prayer.[5] First of all applicant himself averted in the application that he gave house-hold goods and other articles to her daughter in her marriage.So those articles are the property of her daughter and not the applicant.According to Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which reads as under :-Section 6 in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961Dowry to be for the benefit of the wife or her heirs.--(1) Where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to the woman-- --(1) Where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to the woman--""(a) if the dowry was received before marriage, within 1[three months] after the date of marriage;(b) if the dowry was received at the time of or after the marriage, within 1[three months] after the date of its receipt; orAlong with the complaint applicant also filed a copy of the notice given by him to the respondent before filing of complaint wherein it is mentioned that a list of articles given to the respondent at the time of marriage was prepared, but no such list was produced by the applicant before the court.The complainant filed complaint against nine persons alleging that all of them received the gifts given to Heena at the time of marriage.It is incredible that all the nine persons together received the gift items while in the notice it is mentioned that all gifts were received by respondent Firoz which is contradictory so in the opinion of this court learned Additional Sessions Judge did not commit any mistake in rejecting the trial court's order.Hence, petition is dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A. No.224/2017 28.01.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri R.C.Verma, learned counsel for the complainant.Case diary perused and arguments heard.This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 01.02.2017 passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Jhabua, in Bail Application No.16/2017, whereby learned Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant Mohammad Zeeshan S/o Mohammad Anees under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.28/2017 registered at Police Station-A.J.K., Jhabua, District- Jhabua for the offence under Section 376 & 506 of IPC & Sections 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act 2012 & Sections 3(2), 5(a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)On 24.01.2017, at 1.00 p.m., at Meghnagar Bus Stand, when she asked appellant to marry her, he refused and abused her and clearly stated that he can't marry her.When she told appellant that she will lodge a report, he threatened to kill her.The appellant filed Bail Application No.16/2017 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for getting bail.Learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Jhabua rejected that application.Being aggrieved appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that complainant is major and she is a consenting party.She has wrongly lodged the report against the appellant.Appellant has falsely been implicated in the crime.Charge-sheet has been filed.The appellant is in custody since 25.01.2017 and conclusion of trial will take time, hence, counsel prayed for grant of bail.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent/State and complainant/prosecutrix opposed the prayer made by the appellant and submitted that complainant was minor at the time of starting of the incident and that appellant sexually exploited her for last two years on the pretext of marriage and pray for rejection.[5] Looking to the fact that charge-sheet has been filed and appellant is in jail since 25.01.2017 and conclusion of trial will take time and that on the date of lodging report prosecutrix was major so without commenting on merits, the appeal is allowed.It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.[6] This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :-The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Accordingly, Cr.A. No.224/2017 is disposed of.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1176/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on IA No.8886/2016, which is an application under Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC for service of summon on respondent No.3 by paper publication.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that service of summon on respondent No.3 has not been effected by ordinary process.So, summon be issued on respondent No.3 by way of publication.After due consideration, application is allowed.On payment of process fee within 7 days, issue notice to respondent No.3 by way of publication in the local newspaper published in the local area in Indore where respondent No.3 is said to be resided.Counsel for the appellant is also directed to supply copy of documents to respondents No.1 & 2, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after publication of notice in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.938/2017 28.02.2017 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.1640/2017, which is an application to add complainant Saradar Mohammad as party to the petition memo.After due consideration, application is allowed.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed along with the record for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.141/2017 28.02.2017 Shri R.T.Thanewala, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.Record is not received as yet.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12636/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.289/2017 28.02.2017 Shri Prafulla Vijay, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed along with the record for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12749/2016 28.02.2017 Ms. Nidhi Bohara, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.75/2017 28.02.2017 Ms. Sangeeta Bourasi, learned counsel for the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1552/2017 28.02.2017 Ms. Anushri Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1706/2017 28.02.2017 Shri Z.A.Khan, learned Senior Advocate along with Shri Dinesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the applicant is directed to file copy of charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9548/2014 28.02.2017 Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.859/2016 28.02.2017 Parties through their counsel.Matter is already admitted, therefore, let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1401/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Umesh Manshore, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 21.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1614/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to cure the defect.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.2231/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.Service report of respondents No.1 to 7 is still awaited.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10576/2016 28.02.2017 Shri Lokendra Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to pay fresh process fee.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.113/2017 28.02.2017 Shri Shivendra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Civil Revision No.214/2016 22.02.2017 Shri K.K. Koushal, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rohit Bhati, learned counsel for the respondents.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 07.11.2016 passed by the XIIth Civil Judge Class-II, Indore in Civil Suit No.6-A/2015, whereby he rejected the applicant's/defendent's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.[2] Brief facts of this case which are relevant for the disposal of this Revision are that respondents/plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit No.6-A/2015 before the XIIth Civil Judge Class-II, Indore for seeking arrears of rent and eviction of applicant from the part of suit house and in alternative for seeking a declaration to declare them owner of that part of the suit house and also declaring that part of the suit house in dangerous state and that it be demolished after eviction of applicant averting that respondents are the owner of the suit house No.181 situated at Netaji Nagar, Indore.In the back side of the suit house No.181 two rooms and kitchen were built in 14x20=280 sq.ft.Area, which was given by the respondents on rent @ Rs.1,500/- per month to the applicant in the year 1993 by an oral agreement.In the year 2010 Municipal Corporation also gave a notice to the respondents that the said construction is in dangerous state and can't be used for human dwelling.That being so, applicant was directed to give vacant possession of that part of suit house to respondents and pay arrears of rent.[3] During trial of the suit applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC averting that the land of suit house was given to applicant's mother Munni Bai by the State Government on lease so the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act would not apply on the suit land.Respondents also did not file any documentary evidence showing that the respondent is owner while applicant is a tenant in his suit house, so respondents' suit is not maintainable.Even otherwise on one hand respondents filed a suit averting that applicant is a tenant in the suit house and for his eviction from the suit house and also for getting arrears of rent while on the other hand applicant sought that he be declared owner of the suit house and it be declared in a dangerous stage and a mandatory injunction be issued against the applicant to vacate the suit house which is contradictory so suit is not maintainable.[4] Learned Trial Court rejected the application observing that suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC cannot be rejected merely on the ground that respondents sought contradictory relief.To decide other objections it requires evidence which cannot be decided at this stage.Being aggrieved of that order applicant filed this Revision.[5] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial court has committed mistake in rejecting the applicant's application without appreciating the fact that the respondents sought contradictory relief in the suit and that without amending pleading of the suit, the same is not maintainable.[6] Respondents in their reply opposed the prayer.[7] This court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant.Although it appears from the averment of the plaint that respondents sought contradictory relief in the suit but the suit cannot be rejected only on that ground that there is no such provision under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.Likewise the suit cannot be rejected only on the ground that respondent has not filed any documentary evidence showing his ownership or landlordship over suit property.It is a matter of evidence so learned trial court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the application of applicant.Hence, the revision is dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1397/2014 27.02.2017 None present for the applicant even after second round.As per office report, notice of respondent No.2 received unserved for want of correct address.Respondents No.1 and 3 are served.Notice of respondent No.4 received unserved.Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee along with the correct address within 15 days.Issue notice to the respondents No.2 and 4 on payment of process fee within 15 days, returnable within six weeks.Let the matter be listed after six weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.921/2015 27.02.2017 Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks' time to file copy of charge-sheet.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed on 09.03.2017, as prayed.C.No.1704/2015 27.02.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.84/2016 27.02.2017 None present for the applicants, even after second round.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.231/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.310/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Amit Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7096/2016 27.02.2017 Ms. Jyoti Tiwari, learned counsel along with Shri D.S.Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2211/2016 27.02.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter and wants a fixed date.Let the matter be listed on 23.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.349/2017 27.02.2017 Shri G.K.Neema, learned counsel for the appellants.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.131/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1356/2014 27.02.2017 Shri Dharmendra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.857/2016 27.02.2017 Shri Saurabh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Prayer is accepted.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1283/2016 27.02.2017 Ms. Monika Billore, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1518/2016 27.02.2017 Shri V.K.Nagpal, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1570/2016 27.02.2017 Ms. Anamika Sen, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7743/2016 27.02.2017 Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8500/2016 27.02.2017 Shri M.S.Chandel, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.18/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant/State seeks time to cure the defect.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2143/2017 27.02.2017 Shri Ravi Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file copy of whole complainant and copy of statement recorded by the trial court on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.375/2009 27.02.2017 Shri V.K.Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant.None present for the respondent.Issue non-bailable warrant of arrest for securing presence of respondent on furnishing correct particulars along with process fee within within 7 days, returnable within 8 weeks.Let the matter be listed after eight weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.621/2011 27.02.2017 Shri Lokesh Arya, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.Heard on admission.Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.627/2011 27.02.2017 Shri Harshad Vadnerkar, learned counsel for the appellants.Issue fresh notice to the respondent No.1 on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9393/2011 27.02.2017 Shri N.L.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 07.03.2017, as prayed.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1126/2007 22.02.2017 Shri M.M.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has already suffered sentence awarded by the trial court, therefore, he does not want to press his appeal.Thus, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1029/2009 23.02.2017 None for the appellant.Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel with Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/CBN.Let the matter be listed along with the report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1266/2009 23.02.2017 None for the appellant.Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel with Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/CBN.Office is directed to call for the report from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ujjain, whether appellant has undergone whole sentence awarded by the trial court or not?Let the matter be listed along with the report after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1901/2017 22.02.2017 Shri Tribhuvan Kulmi, learned counsel for the applicant.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 24.12.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Cr.R.No.251/16, Cr.R. No.252/16, Cr.R. No.253/16, Cr.R. No.254/16 and Cr.By the common order dated 24.12.2016 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain decided Cr.R. No.251/16, Cr.R. No.252/16, Cr.R. No.253/16, Cr.R. No.254/16 and Cr.So office is directed to examine whether one single petition is maintainable against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Five different Criminal Revisions.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.1611/2016 21.02.2017 Shri Kaivalya Ratnaparkhe, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Sameer Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents.Heard finally at the motion stage with the consent of both the parties..This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 01.12.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajgarh in M.Cr.C.No.200/2015, whereby he allowed the application of respondents filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to each of the respondent.Applicant works in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom and earns Rs.40,000/- per month.He also runs one talkies named Janta Cinema at Baran (Rajasthan) and earns Rs.30,000/- per month.He is also having 10 shops at Kota and earning Rs.50,000/- per month as rent from those shops and he is able to maintain his wife and children but has refused to do so without any sufficient cause, so applicant be directed to pay maintenance to the respondents.[3] Applicant in his reply opposed the prayer and denied the allegations levelled by the respondents in his application and averted that he never demanded dowry from respondent No.1 and never harassed her.Respondent No.1 herself is voluntarily living with her mother without any cause.She is working as a Teacher in R.K.Academy, Biaora and earns Rs.10,000/- per month and is able to maintain herself and her children, while applicant is a Store Manager in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom and earns only Rs.17,685/- per month and his parents also depend on him.Therefore, prayed for rejection of application.[4] Learned Trial Court after recording evidence of both the parties observed that respondent No.1 is having sufficient reason to live separately from the applicant and is not able to maintain herself and her children while applicant is able to maintain respondents but has refused to do so, therefore, he directed the applicant to give Rs.5,000/- as maintenance to each respondent.Being aggrieved with this order applicant filed this Criminal Revision.[5] Only contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the amount of maintenance is on higher side.He submits that it is clearly established from the evidence produced by the applicant that applicant earlier worked in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom but he left that job and presently has no means of earning so he is not able to maintain respondents.[6] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that applicant himself in his reply admitted that he works as Store Manager in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom, Kota and earns Rs.17,685/- per month.The Certificate (Ex.D/1) filed by the applicant is not correct.It is clear from the record that applicant is having many means of earning.He runs one talkies and also has many shops in the market and earns much and is able to pay Rs.15,000/-maintenance as awarded by the learned Trial Court.[7] This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties.Learned trial court itself in Para 22 of its judgment held that applicant earns Rs.17,685/-per month as salary but it awarded Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance, which is clearly on higher side.Although respondent No.1 Dipika Chourasiya deposed that applicant runs one talkies named Janta Cinema at Baran (Rajasthan).He is also having 25 to 30 shops at Baran (Rajasthan) and also has one house at Kota (Rajasthan) with 10 shops at its ground floor, which earns him rent.But applicant in his statement clearly denied the fact that he runs one talkies named Janta Cinema at Baran (Rajasthan) and having 25 to 30 shops at Baran (Rajasthan) or has any house at Kota (Rajasthan) with 10 shops at its ground floor which earns him rent.[8] Respondents have not filed any document which shows that applicant possess the aforementioned immovable property.So respondents' statement that applicant is having the aforesaid immovable property and he is earning from that property does not appeared to be true.Likewise although respondent No.1 stated that applicant works in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom, Kota and earns Rs.40,000/- per month as salary and applicant also admitted in his reply that he worked in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom but he got only Rs.17,685/- per month as salary from that job.Respondents have not filed any documentary evidence which shows that applicant's salary is Rs.40,000/- per month.[9] Although applicant in his statement deposed that earlier he worked in Tanishk Jewellers Showroom but form 15.11.2015 he has left his job and also filed Ex.D/1 resignation letter from that job.Applicant filed reply of respondents' application on 10.08.2015 in which he clearly admitted that he works at Tanishk Jewellers Showroom, Kota and got a salary of Rs.17,685/-.Although on the stage of his evidence on 18.11.2016 applicant filed Ex.D/1 showing that he resigned from the said service from 15.11.2015 but has not produced the person, who gave Certificate (Ex.D/1) in this regard, so this Certificate is not believable.Even otherwise it appears strange that he left his job at the time of evidence without any cause so it is incredible and does not appear to be correct.[10] So from the evidence produced by the parties applicant's income appears only as Rs.17,685/- per month.Learned trial court also in Para 22 of his judgment held that applicant's income is Rs.17,685/- per month.In these circumstances, the amount of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month is on higher side looking to the income of applicant.So it is appropriate to reduce the maintenance amount.[11] Hence, Revision is partly allowed and applicant is directed to pay a maintenance Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month each to respondents No.2 and 3 instead of Rs.5,000/- per month as directed by the trial court.Remaining conditions of the trial court's order shall remain same.Accordingly, Revision stands disposed of.as per rules.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.6771/2016 22.02.2017 Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.268/2016 22.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1872/2016 22.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1417/2017 22.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.1067/2016 22.02.2017 Shri M.S.Gurjar, learned counsel for the appellants.Let the matter be listed on 28.02.2016, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.R.No.1535/2016 22.02.2017 None for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Office is also directed to call for the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State on advance notice.Heard on the question of admission.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5739/2016 22.02.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the applicant/State.Office to verify and thereafter list the matter in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10286/2016 22.02.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents No.2 to 4 on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13032/2016 22.02.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.33/2017 22.02.2017 Ms. Mehul Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.42/2017 22.02.2017 Shri Shadab Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.129/2017 22.02.2017 Ms. Arti Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.238/2017 22.02.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1184/2017 22.02.2017 Shri P. Newalkar, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1338/2016 20.02.2017 Shri Anopam Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.Learned counsel for the parties seek time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1245/2015 21.02.2017 Shri Nisheet Wishard, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State has filed copy of Handwriting Expert's report, alleged suicide note and copy of charge-sheet, which are taken on record.It appears that applicant has not filed whole copy of charge-sheet, so applicant is directed to file whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1549/2016 21.02.2017 Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed on 27.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter and also seeks time to produce the complainant before the court regarding compromise application.Let the matter be listed on 24.03.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1042/2014 21.02.2017 Shri S.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Both the parties are directed to appear before the Mediator Dr. (Mrs.) Renu Bharkatiya tomorrow at 5.00 p.m.. Parties are also directed to co- operate with the Mediator in mediation proceedings.Mediator Dr. (Mrs.) Renu Bharkatiya is directed to submit her report after mediation process.Let the matter be listed on 09.03.2017 along with the Mediator's report.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 09.03.2017, with consent of both the parties.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1422/2016 21.02.2017 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10446/2016 21.02.2017 None for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is accepted.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.108/2017 21.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.881/2017 21.02.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed tomorrow, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.249/2015 21.02.2017 Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.934/2015 21.02.2017 Shri R.K.Laad, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9023/2015 21.02.2017 Shri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 09.03.2017, as prayed.R.No.1069/2016 21.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel from the applicant.Shri R.S.Namdeo, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.120/2017 20.02.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Kaushiyal Malya, learned counsel for the complainant.This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 16.01.2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act District - Rajgarh, in Criminal Case No.13/2017, whereby learned Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant Gopal S/o Shankarlal Jat under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to get anticipatory bail in Crime No.184/2016 registered at Police Station - Malawar, District - Rajagarh for the offence under Section 376, 294 and 506 of IPC & Section 3(1)(B)(2), 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (further refer as ""Act"").[2] As per prosecution story, on 30.08.2016, prosecutrix lodged a written complaint at Police Station A.J.K., Bhopal averting that appellant Gopal is threatening her since 1 years and keeps asking her to come to his field otherwise he would kill her husband.In the month of August, 2016 four days before Rakhi between 12.00 p.m. to 1.00 p.m., when she went in Gopal's field for taking kanda (dung cake) Gopal caught her and raped her and threatened to kill her if she narrated the incident to anybody.She narrated the incident to her husband, who asked Gopal as to why he raped his wife, on which Gopal abused them and also tried to kill her husband.On this Police of P.S. A.J.K., Bhopal sent report to P.S. Malawar, Distt Rajgarh, where Police registered Crime No.184/2016 for the offence under Section 376, 294, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) & 3(1)(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the appellant and investigated the matter.During investigation it was found that prosecutrix lodged false report against the appellant Gopal.In these circumstances, Police filed FR ([kkfjth fjiksVZ) in the court of Special Judge, Rajgarh.On that report Special Judge Rajgarh took cognizance against the appellant and registered Special Case No.13/2017 and issued arrest warrant for securing the presence of appellant in the case.Learned Special Judge also rejected the appellant's application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. observing that from the case diary it prima facie appeared that appellant committed rape with the prosecutrix and got FR ([kkfjth fjiksVZ) filed in this case using his influence.From the case diary, provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act get attracted.[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecutrix lodged false report against the appellant to harass him.During investigation, from the statement of prosecutrix herself it appeared that prosecutrix filed false report against him, so police filed FR ([kkfjth fjiksVZ) in the crime.Learned Trial Judge wrongly took cognizance against the appellant and issued warrant and that provisions of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not attracted from the case diary and prayed for anticipatory bail.Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited.[9] So appellant is entitled to get anticipatory bail, his appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of his arrest in Crime No.184/2016 registered at Police Station Malawar, District Rajgarh, in pursuance of the arrest warrant issued by the learned Special Judge Rajgarh or if he surrenders before Special Judge Rajgarh in S.T. No.13/2017 the present appellant namely Gopal Jat S/o Shankarlal Jat be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Atrocity, Rajgarh.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-Accordingly, Cr.C.No.583/2017 20.02.2017 Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed on 27.02.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed on 27.02.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1053/2016 20.02.2017 Shri Pravir Porwal, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed on 02.03.2017, as prayed.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks a fixed date for producing the parties before the court.Let the matter be listed 03.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed 02.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Shalabh Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.Heard on IA No.470/2017, which is an application filed under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C.After due consideration, application is allowed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Office is also directed to call for the record of Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.680/2017 20.02.2017 Shri Mitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Counsel for the applicants is also directed to file the copy of charge-sheet and present status of the case.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondents /State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to file the reply of the petition on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.672/2015 20.02.2017 Shri Swapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent No.2..Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10928/2015 20.02.2017 Shri K.P.Gangore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.In absence of learned counsel for the respondent No.1 matter is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.3552/2016 20.02.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 17.03.2017, as prayed.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.243/2014 20.02.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the respondents.Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.239/2015 20.02.2017 Shri V.P.Khare, learned counsel for the applicants.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.313/2015 20.02.2017 Shri Akshat Pahadiya, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1813/2015 17.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.On 18.10.2016, learned counsel for the applicant prays for adjournment and on 31.01.2017 also none present for the applicant even in the second round.It shows that applicant is not interested in prosecuting the matter, therefore, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7539/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the status report of Crime No.161/2013 of Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam and case diary of the case.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.793/2016 17.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.52/2015 17.02.2017 Shri Kaushal Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter and wants a fixed date of any Wednesday.Let the matter be listed on 08.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1892/2015 17.02.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1838/2014 17.02.2017 Shri Surendra Pal, learned counsel for the appellant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.As per report of non-bailable warrant of arrest of appellant Jitendra Mukhi, appellant is in custody in District Jail Phulwani (Orisa).(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.348/2015 17.02.2017 Shri P.Newalkar, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure presence of appellant No.3 Mohan before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.532/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to produce applicant Sohan before this court.Let the matter be listed on 07.03.2017 for appearance of the applicant Sohan.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1020/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to produce appellants Ghanshyam, Suresh and Sunil before this court.Let the matter be listed on 07.03.2017 for appearance of the appellants Ghanshyam, Suresh and Sunil.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.284/2017 17.02.2017 Shri Shyam Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11599/2016 17.02.2017 Shri S.Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Hemendra Jain, learned counsel for the intervener.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 28.02.2017, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.26/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Piyush Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1275/2016 17.02.2017 Ms. Neha Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1412/2015 17.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Manore, learned counsel appears on behalf of Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1331/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 09.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1625/2016 17.02.2017 Shri V.Asava, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.3/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11593/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Swapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12691/2016 17.02.2017 Shri Kaushal Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.25/2017 17.02.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.484/2017 17.02.2017 Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.Meanwhile, applicant is directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance instead of Rs.5,000/- as directed by the learned Family Court.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.780/2017 17.02.2017 Shri D.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is also directed to verify the factum of death of applicant No.1 Smt. Shakuntala Khandelwal positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed on 14.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 10.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.488/2016 16.02.2017 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the appellants/State.Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the respondent.Heard on IA No.3466/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The appeal is barred by 246 days.After due consideration, application (IA No.3466/2016) is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.Let the matter be listed for admission in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.825/2016 16.02.2017 Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Applicant Suresh is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of applicant on 03.02.2017 is hereby condoned.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 17.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10551/2016 14.02.2017 Shri Pawan Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cr.R.No.619/2016, whereby he affirmed the order dated 04.08.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Cr.M.J.C. No.2/2006, whereby he rejected the applicant's prayer that since he has already undergone whole sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine so recovery proceedings be not carried out against the applicant.[2] Brief facts of this case are that, respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonor of cheque.On the complaint Criminal Case No.1801/2001 was registered by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore and after trial Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore found applicant guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and awarded three months' imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment, against which applicant filed Cr.That appeal was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore by judgment dated 29.09.2004 and affirmed the order of Trial Judge, against which applicant has also filed Cr.No.777/2004 in this court which was also rejected by this court by order dated 24.08.2005 and the judgment of the Trial Judge became final.Applicant has undergone the sentence awarded by the Trial Court.[3] After that respondent filed Cr.M.J.C. No.2/2006 to procure the compensation amount from the applicant.During prosecution of this case applicant filed an application under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore averting that because applicant has undergone one month's RI in default of payment of fine so the recovery proceedings of compensation amount cannot be carried out against the applicant.[4] Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore rejected the prayer observing that even after undergoing the sentence in default of payment of compensation court issued recovery warrant against the applicant for recovering of compensation amount, against which applicant filed Cr.R. No.619/2016, which also was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.Being aggrieved with this order applicant filed this petition.[6] He placed reliance on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court passed in Ramnath V/s.Jagdish Prasad Garg and another reported in 2000 Bank J. 29, in which court held that, ""Petitioner having already undergone the punishment awarded minus the fine; petition becomes infructuous as no other mode of realisation of amount under criminal law is provided.Complainant may if he desires file civil suit for recovery.""But in that case point whether the accused has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine and so recovery proceeding be not carried out was not in issue that Criminal Revision was filed by the accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the appellate court against him.Section 421 of Code of Criminal Procedure makes provision regarding this issue.Section 421 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under :Warrant for levy of fine.(3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law: Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender.[7] Even in the judgment of Karnataka High Court passed in Y.Vishnu V/s.""Section 421 of Cr.P.C. provides for recovery of fine by one of the two ways or by both of them.The second mode of recovery is to issue a warrant to the Deputy Commissioner of the District, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue.[8] So, learned trial court did not commit any mistake in issuing recovery warrant to procure the fine amount from applicant.Hence, petition is rejected.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.466/2007 15.02.2017 Shri Brajesh Pandya, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.5/State.Heard on IA No.1084/2017, which is an application for deleting the name of respondent No.1 Kalyanmal S/o Laxminarayan.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7010/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to file the reply of the petition.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9680/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Lokendra Singh Jhala, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.He is directed to file the document within one week.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.Meanwhile, proceedings of Criminal Complaint No.28558/2014 pending before the learned ACJM, Indore be stayed till the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.367/2017, an application for exemption from filing certified copy of the judgment of trial court.Let the matter be listed for admission after two weeks, along with the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.91/2017 15.02.2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State seeks time to file reply.He is directed to file reply positively before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.161/2015 15.02.2017 Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.861/2015 15.02.2017 Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the applicants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.81/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.None present for the respondent.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.403/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Jai Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant Bherusingh is in jail and he wants time to file an appropriate application in this regard.Let the matter be listed on 20.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.474/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Surendra Patwa, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.691/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file application for condonation of delay.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.10571/2016 15.02.2017 Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioners.Heard on the question of admission.Meanwhile, proceedings of Criminal Case No.13654/2016 be stayed till the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1723/2017 15.02.2017 Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.837/2017 15.02.2017 Smt. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1410/2015 15.02.2017 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.None present for the respondents No.2 to 5 even after second round.Heard on IA No.8314/2015, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The revision is barred by 287 days.After due consideration, application (IA No.8314/2015) is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8642/2015 15.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9564/2015 15.02.2017 Ms. Sangeeta Parsai, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent even after service of notice.Heard on IA No.266/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The petition is barred by 290 days.After due consideration, application (IA No.266/2016) is allowed and the delay in filing the petition is hereby condoned.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.53/2017 15.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.Let the matter be listed after a week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1171/2016 15.02.2017 None present for the applicant, even after second round.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.In absence of learned counsel for the applicant even in the second round, case is adjourned.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed for admission along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.725/2016 10.02.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned Counsel for the applicants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Second A.S.J., Jaora, Link Court, Alote in S.T.No.119/2015, whereby he framed the charge against respondents under Section 306 of IPC.[2] Brief facts of this case are that on 22.09.2014 deceased Firoz Khan committed suicide in his house situated at Alote, District Ratlam.On the information Police registered merg No.31/14 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C..During investigation it was found that applicant no. 1 and 2, are the parents in law of deceased and applicant no.3 is the wife of the deceased.she is also having one daughter Roshni aged 3 years.Due to some dispute between applicant no3 and deceased their matrimonial life got strained.So applicant no. 2 came to deceased's house at Alot and took applicant No. 3 and her daughter Roshni with him.He also left a suicide note.On that basis Police Alote registered Crime No.1403/2014 for the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC against the applicant.During investigation of crime Police recorded statement of family members of the deceased and after investigation Police filed charge-sheet against the applicant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.On that charge-sheet ST No.119/2015 was registered in the trial court and learned Second A.S.J., Link Court, Alote, District Ratlam framed the charge against applicant under Section 306 of IPC.From the statements of witnesses produced by the Police along with charge-sheet, only allegation against the applicants was that applicant No.3 wanted deceased to live with her parents at their house.Firoz committed suicide because applicant No.2 took his wife applicant No.3 and daughter with him to their house since deceased Firoz was unable to maintain his family.On that count deceased Firoz committed suicide.Applicant No.2 took applicant No.3 and her daughter Nine or Ten days before the incident.[7] In the matter of Babbi @ Jitendra V/s.Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of section 306 IPC is not sustainable.""[10] So in the considered opinion of this court evidence collected against the applicants by the prosecution are totally insufficient to infer that the applicants abetted for suicide, they may be cause for the suicide but not the abetted.Resultant, the petition is hereby allowed.The impugned order framing charge against the applicants for the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code deserves to be set aside.On the said refusal the applicant beat and threatened her.Then on 09.01.2013 she lodged the report at Mahila Thana, Indore against the applicant.On that report Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore registered Crime No.2/2013 for the offence under Section 498-A, 294 and 506 of IPC.After investigation Police filed charge-sheet against the applicant.On that charge-sheet Criminal Case No.2130/2013 was registered before the J.M.F.C., Indore and J.M.F.C., Indore framed charges under Section 498A of the IPC against the applicant and tried the matter.The case is pending for evidence before the trial court.Respondent did love marriage with applicnt and after marriage she never resided with the applicant.From the very same day she returned to Satwas.Before that report respondent also filed a report in Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore averting that applicant solemnized temporary marriage with her and soon after the marriage applicant left her.She had lived with applicant only three hours after marriage then applicant left her.So there is no question of applicant's demanding money or torturing the respondent.The FIR lodged by the respondent is false.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that from the FIR prima facie case under Section 498A of the IPC is made out.On the charge-sheet learned trial court prima facie found that offence under Section 498A, 506 and 294 of IPC is made out and framed the charge against the applicant for those offences.So there is no question of quashment of criminal case.The respondent filed another application before the Mahila Thana averting that she only lived with the applicant for three hours after marriage is not a part of charge-sheet under which circumstances, that application is filed, is a matter of evidence.The application filed by the applicant along with petition is not a part of charge-sheet.The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.The court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint.The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised :(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.218/2012 14.02.2017 Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.None present for the respondent.Heard on IA No.997/2017, which is an application for taking legal representatives of deceased petitioner Saubhagyamal on record under Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC.Counsel for the petitioner has also filed a Death Certificate of deceased petitioner Saubhagyamal along with the application.After due consideration, application is allowed.Legal representatives of deceased petitioner Saubhagyamal be taken on record.Necessary amendment be incorporated within seven days.The matter is already admitted for final hearing, therefore, it be listed for final hearing in due course.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.619/2011 14.02.2017 Shri K.K.Kaushal, learned counsel for the appellants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.7/State.Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to supply the copy of IA No.978/2017, which is an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC for legal representatives of respondent No.5 Narendra Kumar to be brought on record.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to argue the matter and also prays for a fix date of any Wednesday.Let the matter be listed on 08.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to produce appellant Bhagwan before this court.Let the matter be listed on 03.03.2017 for appearance of the appellant Bhagwan.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.229/2007 14.02.2017 Shri Saumil Ekdi, learned counsel for the appellants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Appellants No.1 Khima and No.3 Hurji are present in person before the Court and they have been identified by their counsel.After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellants on 04.01.2017 is hereby condoned.They are directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 10.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.830/2013 14.02.2017 Ms. Vinita Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 05.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to call for the record.Let bailable warrant issued to secure the presence of respondent Pradeep by order dated 03.02.2017 be recalled.Applicant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 05.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.Let the matter be listed along with the record for hearing on admission after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.126/2015 14.02.2017 Ms. Archna Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks two weeks' time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice to the respondent by registered as well as ordinary mode, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Counsel for the applicant is free to serve the notice on respondent by hamdast mode also.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.447/2016 14.02.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Applicant Nana @ Dilip is not present.Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure presence of applicant Nana @ Dilip before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.822/2016 14.02.2017 Shri Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file application for condonation of delay.Prayer is accepted.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Section 421 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973Warrant for levy of fine.(2) The State Government may make rules regulating the manner In which warrants under clause (a) of sub- section (1) are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant.(3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law: Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender.M.C.C.No.931/2016 14.02.2017 Ms. Bhagyashri Sugandhi, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent.Heard on IA No.9418/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The petition is barred by 5 days.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that due to calculation mistake he could not file the petition in time.Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer.After due consideration, application (IA No.9418/2016) is allowed and the delay in filing the petition is hereby condoned..The M.C.C. is for restoration of SA.No.68/2015, which has been dismissed on 27.10.2016 for want of prosecution.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on 27.10.2016 he was engaged on another board, therefore, he could not appear for arguments on 27.10.2016 and Second Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.Accordingly, this M.C.C. is allowed and SA No.68/2015 is restored to its original position.M.C.C.No.931/2016 stands disposed of.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.2/2001 13.02.2017 Shri Neeraj Gaur, learned counsel for the appellants.They are directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 22.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.728/2017 13.02.2017 Shri Amit bhatia, learned counsel for the applicant.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1669/2013 13.02.2017 Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.664/2004 13.02.2017 Shri Bharat Patel, learned counsel for the appellants.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each to secure presence of appellants Bhawla and Keru before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.69/2005 13.02.2017 Ms. Archna Jadiya, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after one week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.158/2008 13.02.2017 Shri Vinay Sarraf, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri R.S.Chhabra, learned counsel for the respondent.Today both the parties submitted that new arbitrator Shri S.N.Sharma be appointed in place of Shri N.K.Porwal.Office is directed to take his consent for the matter.Let the matter be listed after one week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns NATIONAL LOK ADALAT 11.02.2017 Since settlement is not possible, therefore, the case is released from the National Lok Adalat.List the matter before the regular Bench.Criminal Revision No.981/2015 10.02.2017 Shri S.S.Garg, learned Counsel for the applicant.Shri Z.A.Khan, learned Senior Counsel with Shri S.Ansari, learned counsel for the respondents.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397(1) and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 01.07.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Criminal Complaint No.26409/2015, whereby he took cognizance against the respondents under Section 294, 323 and 341 read with Section 34 of IPC but did not take cognizance under Sections 506 and 393 of IPC.[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant filed a criminal complaint against the respondents averting that on 30.01.2015, at 2.45 p.m., applicant went to Life Insurance Corporation's Office, Indore, where respondents Sunil Jhinjhore and Abdul Jalal Mulla abused and beated him and another 25-30 persons confined the applicant and respondents Sunil Jhinjhore and Abdul Jalal Mulla tried to loot money from applicant.On that applicant informed Aditya Garg on phone then he came there.Respondents No.1 Sunil Jhinjhore, No.2 Abdul Jalal Mulla and No.3 Bhupendra Rathore with the aid of other persons beated Aditya Garg also and tore his shirt.Applicant and Jitendra lodged report about the incident at Police Station Tukoganj, Indore but Police did not lodge the FIR.So cognizance under Section 294, 506, 323, 342 and 393 read with Section 34 of IPC be taken against the respondents.Learned trial court recorded statements of applicant and Aditya Garg under Section 200/202 of Cr.P.C., then by order dated 01.07.2015 on the complaint took cognizance against the respondents under Section 294, 323 and 341 read with Section 34 of IPC but did not take cognizance under Sections 342, 506 and 393 of IPC against them.Being aggrieved from that applicant filed this Criminal Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the complaint and statements given by the applicant and Aditya Garg (PW-2) offence under Section 393 and 506 of IPC is clearly made out.[4] Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no prima facie evidence on record to take cognizance against the respondents under Section 393 and 506 of IPC, so learned trial court has not committed any mistake in not taking cognizance against the respondents under Section 393 and 506 of IPC.[5] This court perused the record and arguments put forth by both the parties.[6] Applicant only deposed that at the time of incident respondent Sunil Jhinjhore, Abdul Jalal Mulla and Dilip Jain tried to snatch money from him and respondents also threatened to break his legs that if he lodged the report in Police, he would break legs and hand of him.Words used should indicate as to what the accused was going to do and the complainant must feel as reasonable man that the accused was going to convert his words into action, but it is does not appear from the statement of complainant that complainant felt, as reasonable man, that the accused was going to convert his words in action, on the contrary complainant himself stated that after the threat of respondent to break his hands and legs if he lodged the complaint, he went to Police Station Tukoganj, for lodging the report which shows that respondent's threat caused no fear to complainant.So trial court did not commit any mistake in not taking cognizance under Section 506 of IPC, likewise complainant deposed that respondents tried to snatch money from him but it is not stated that from where respondents tried to snatch money either from his pocket or from his hand.Moreover he did not even disclose the amount he was carrying that respondents tried to snatch and where he kept that money.Due to this reason he committed suicide in his house.On that basis Police Alote registered Crime No.1403/2014 for the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC against the applicant.During investigation of crime Police recorded statement of family members of the deceased and after investigation Police filed charge-sheet against the applicant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.On that charge-sheet ST No.119/2015 was registered in the trial court and learned Second A.S.J., Link Court, Alote, District Ratlam framed the charge against applicant under Section 306 of IPC.[3] Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that it is clear from the evidence collected by the Police against the applicant that deceased Firoz died due to consuming poison.The statements of witnesses produced by the Police along with charge-sheet.Only allegation against the applicants was that applicants want to deceased live with them at their house.Firoz committed suicide because applicants took his wife and daughter with them in their house because deceased Firoz was unable to maintain his family.Applicant No.3 Roshan Bee is serving in school, due to this reason applicants not sent their daughter with deceased, apart from that evidence there is no any other evidence against the applicants that they ill treated the deceased.Only on the ground that applicants not sent their daughter with deceased it cannot be said that applicants abetted deceased Firoz for committing suicide.He further submitted that as per prosecution case deceased Firoz was Driver by profession and he was habitual for consuming liquor and after consuming liquor he beated his wife and forcefully took with him.Applicant No.3 Roshan Bee stated to deceased that if he leaves liquor and not ill treat her.Due to this reason Firoz has committed suicide, so as per whole charge-sheet there is no whisper of evidence collected by the prosecution under Section 107 of IPC and there is no evidence of any abetment or instigation for committing suicide found by prosecution.But despite this learned trial court committed mistake in framing charge under Section 306 of IPC against the applicants.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that deceased Firoz himself in his letter mentioned that he committed suicide because applicants not sent her wife and daughter with him and applicants are liable for his suicide.So, there is ample evidence against the applicants to frame charge against the applicants under Section 306 of IPC and reject their prayer.[5] It appears from the record that only allegation against the applicants is that applicants who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased took their daughter with them and not sent with deceased Firoz on that count deceased Firoz committed suicide.[6] Learned counsel for the applicant in this regard also placed reliance on the judgment of this court passed in Hariom S/o Ramesh Kumar V/s.State of M.P. reported in 2007(1) M.P.L.J. Page 195 in which this court held that, ""Abetment to commit suicide - Proof - The act of the accused must fall in any of the three categories as enumerated under Section 107 of IPC.It is the duty of the prosecution to establish that the accused has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining the act of accused it is necessary to see that his act must fall in any of the three categories as enumerated under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.It is necessary to prove that the said accused instigated the person to commit suicide or engaged himself with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for seeing that the deceased commits suicide.In the present case there is no direct or indirect connection between the act of applicant and the act of deceased of commission of suicide.Applicant is said to have entered the house in the night, but the deceased hanged herself in the morning at about 8.00 a.m. It appears that under great stress and depression and feeling ashamed by the conduct of applicant, she committed suicide.Apparently, the charge under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is not sustainable against applicant merely on the ground that deceased felt ashamed by the said conduct of accused.However, there is material on record to indicate that applicant had entered the house of complainant in the night.from the time of quarrel - Act of did not fall within the ambit and scope of abetment as defined under Section 306 Penal Code - No prima facie case of framing of charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 Penal Code is made out - Order of trial Court directing framing of charge against set aside - Revision application allowed.""(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge F.A.No.682/2015 10.02.2017 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.3/State.Heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Let the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.717/2016 10.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicants/State.The M.C.C. is for restoration of FA.No.322/2016, which has been dismissed on 20.07.2016 in compliance of peremptory order.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that on 20.07.2016 office-in-charge could not attend the office, so defect could not be cured, because of that FA no.322/16 was dismissed.His absence is bona fide, so FA No.322/16 be restored to its original position.Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, petition is allowed.Accordingly, this M.C.C. is allowed and F.A.No.322/2016 is restored to its original position.M.C.C.No.717/2016 stands disposed of.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.854/2016 10.02.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.10019/2016, which is an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to renew applicant's passport.The applicant, who is an MLA is required to travel abroad for many government official works, therefore, he may be permitted to renew his passport.Prayer is allowed with the condition that the applicant will not leave India without permission of this court.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.978/2016 10.02.2017 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1185/2016 10.02.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed on 16.02.2017, as prayed.Let the matter be listed for admission after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed in the next week.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1431/2017 10.02.2017 Mrs.K.Mundra, learned counsel for the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1498/2017 10.02.2017 Shri Jitendra Shejwar, learned counsel for the applicant.The M.Cr.Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, petition is allowed.Accordingly, this M.Cr.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1512/2017 10.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.222/2016 09.02.2017 Shri Padmnabh Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.488/2016 09.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellants/State.None present for the respondent.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.This matter has wrongly been listed today.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1136/2016 09.02.2017 None present for the applicant.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1138/2016 09.02.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Record is not received as yet.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1347/2015 09.02.2017 Shri Kantesh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.None present for the respondent No.2 even after service of notice.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is accepted.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.306/2016 09.02.2017 Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.38/2017 09.02.2017 Shri Shyam Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the whole copy of charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.1445/2015 08.02.2017 Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 31.07.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandsaur in M.Cr.C.No.432/2014, whereby he allowed the application of respondent's filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/-.[2] Brief facts of this case are that respondents No.1 and 2 are minor children of the applicant.Earlier they filled M.Cr.C.No.52/2007 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance from the applicant, In that case trial court vide order dated 19.05.2010 directed the applicant to give Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance for each of the respondents.On 04.12.2013, respondents filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial court for enhancement of maintenance amount on the ground that the awarded amount is not sufficent for maintaining them, so amount of maintenance be enhanced.Although applicant opposed the prayer but learned trial court after recording the evidence of both the parties allowed the application and enhanced the amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,500/- for each of the respondent.Being aggrieved with the order applicant has filed this Criminal Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial court without appreciating the fact that applicant is not able to give enhanced amount because his income is on lower side, on the contrary respondents are living with their mother and their mother running beauty parlor and earns Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month and she is able to maintain the respondents wrongly enhanced the amount of maintenance.[4] It is appeared from the evidence on record that applicant himself admitted that between the year 2010 to 2015 went inflation has doubled and also admitted that the respondents are gradually getting older so need of respondents are also growing.There is no reliable evidence on record which shows that mother of respondents is running beauty parlor and earns Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month.Although applicant deposed that he is a laborer and only earns Rs.4,500/- per month.but he also admitted that his mother having shop he works in the house of his mother.It is not believable that applicant is working as labourer in the house of her mother, so it appears that applicant for hiding his income wrongly deposed the facts.in these circumstances learned trial court has not committed any mistake in enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/-.Hence, the Revision is dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.[2] Brief facts of this case are that, the respondents had filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (henceforth the code) in Criminal MJC No.21/1999 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Neemuch which was allowed and Respondent No.1was granted Rs.1300/- per month from 10.9.1996 and respondent No.2 was granted Rs.700/- per month from 10.9.1996 till attaining majority or till her marriage.This proceeding was transferred from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class to Principal Judge Family Court Neemuch.[3] The applicant raised the objection that respondent No.2 has become major so she has no right to get the maintenance.Even otherwise in view of section 125(3) of the code recovery of the amount should be confined to one year prior to filing of the application.The rest of the amount stands time barred in view of subsection (3) of section 125 of the code.[4] The Principal Judge Family Court Neemuch, by order dated 21.11.2015 rejected the applicant's objection by observing that respondent No.2 became major on 01.07.2012 and she filed the application on 02.01.2013 within one year of attaining majority.So her application under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. is maintainable.The applicant is bound to pay maintenance to respondent No.2 from 10.09.1996 to till attaining the age of majority and of her marriage.Being aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed Cr.R.No.1591/2015, which was decided by this court vide order dated 14.12.2016 and maintained the order of the trial court observing that respondent No.2 became major on 01.07.2012 and respondent No.2 filed the said application on 02.01.2013 i.e. within one year of attaining majority which is well within time.Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this petition.[5] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant in the revision filed before this court took an objection that respondent No.2 had become major before filing of execution but respondent No.1 Rashida filed an execution on behalf of respondent No.2 as guardian hiding the fact that she is a major.The minor could have filed an application within a year after attending majority and claimed maintenance from 1999 but the application was filed by her mother which cannot be filed after lapse of so many years.The application is time barred so impugned order may kindly be recalled.The application for getting maintenance was filed by both the respondents.Hence, this petition has no force and is hereby dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicants prays for time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, along with the record.Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with report.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.110/2017 08.02.2017 Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.349/2005 08.02.2017 None present for the appellant.Shri P.C.Vaya, learned counsel for the respondent.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Criminal Revision No.1648/2015 07.02.2017 Smt. Anita Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant filed a copy of statement of respondent Smt. Pooja Sarkar recorded by the trial court in MJC No.120/2015, which is taken on record.This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.J.C.No.3881/2015, whereby applicant is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent during trial of the case.[2] Brief facts of this case are that respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Second Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore for getting maintenance from the applicant and also filed an application for getting interim maintenance during trial of the case.Learned trial court observing that respondent is the legally wedded wife of applicant and presently living separate from the applicant and it is the duty of the applicant to maintain her, directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent during trial of the case.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial court without appreciating the fact that respondent voluntarily without any cause is living separately from the applicant, so she is not entitled for any maintenance.Even otherwise respondent helps her parents in business and earns Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and she is able to maintain herself while applicant is unemployed and unable to give maintenance to the respondent.Thus, learned trial court has wrongly ordered the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance during trial of the case.[4] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that applicant without any cause refused to maintain the respondent.So learned trial court has not committed any mistake in awarding Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance during trial of the case.[5] This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the parties.It is admitted that respondent is a legally wedded wife of the applicant and at present living with her parents.In that circumstances, respondent is entitled to get maintenance from the applicant.Whether respondent is voluntarily living separately from the applicant or she is able to maintain herself is a matter of evidence.It cannot be decided at this stage without evidence.Although applicant stated that he is unemployed presently and it is admitted that applicant is a Software Engineer.It is not the case of the applicant that he is unable to do work because of any inability.So under these circumstances, if learned trial court awarded Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance during trial of the case to the respondent, it cannot be said to be wrong.So, Revision is dismissed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.As per report received of non-bailable warrant of appellant, Remsingh has died on 03.01.2016, so appeal is abated against appellant No.1 Remsingh.Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to delete the name of appellant No.1 Remsingh from appeal memo.Learned counsel for the appellants wants time to produce appellant No.2 Vinod before this court.Let the matter be listed on 20.02.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.2 Vinod.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.1001/2016 07.02.2017 Shri P.K.Sohani, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.None present for the respondent No.2 even after service of notice.Let the matter be listed along with FA No.998/16 in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1324/2017 07.02.2017 Shri Pawan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that case diary is not available.He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after four weeks along with the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.921/2015 07.02.2017 Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file the copy of charge-sheet and to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8654/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.Learned counsel for the parties seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 23.02.2017, with consent of both the parties.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Both the parties are directed to remain present before the court on the next date of hearing.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.846/2012 07.02.2017 Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants.Learned counsel for the respondent is directed to file reply of IA No.1715/2016, IA No.1716/2016 and IA No.1717/2016 positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1688/2014 07.02.2017 Shri Apoorva Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to produce appellant Sanjay before this court.Let the matter be listed on 22.02.2017 for appearance of the appellant Sanjay.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.As per office report, bailable warrant of applicant Chakrawarti Swami received unserved.Office is directed to issue non-bailable warrant to procure his presence before this court on 30.03.2017 and also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount may not be forfeited.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.146/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Siddharth Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed on 02.03.2017 for appearance of the appellant No.3 Ramlal.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1273/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant.After due consideration, application (IA No.9277/2016) is allowed.Appellant is directed to change his appeal into leave to appeal.Necessary amendments be carried out.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1401/2016 07.02.2017 Shri Umesh Manshore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 28.02.2017, with consent of both the parties.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Civil Revision No.89/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Anil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the respondents even after service of notice.Heard finally at motion stage.[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant filed a Civil Suit No.30-A/2014 before the Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Nagda against the respondents for declaring him owner of suit land and restraining the respondent to interfere in his possession in the suit land.For setting aside that judgment and decree respondents filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC on 01.09.2015 before the trial court and also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the application before the trial court.In reply applicant opposed the prayer.But Learned trial court allowed the application observing that the disposal of case should be on merits and not only on technical grounds.Being aggrieved by the impugned order applicant filed this Civil Revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial court wrongly allowed the application of respondents without giving an opportunity for producing evidence.[4] It appears from the record that the applicant in his reply opposed the prayer of respondents.The application filed by the respondents is also time barred and respondent also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC.In that circumstances it is the duty of the court to give opportunity to the parties to give evidence in support of their contentions.Learned trial court without giving proper opportunities to both the parties to produce evidence in support of their contentions decided the application, which cannot be said to be correct.Thereafter, give an opportunity to the applicant for rebuttal and then again decide the application on merits.Accordingly, the Revision is disposed of.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 22.09.2015 passed by the learned First A.S.J., Mandleshwar in Special Case No.18/2013, whereby learned Judge rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall the complainant Nawal Singh for further cross-examination.[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant is facing trial for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act for taking bribe from complainant Naval Singh for correcting entries of revenue record.[3] During trial of the case on 22.09.2015 applicant filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. averting that according to the information received by the applicant from office of Tehsildar Tehsil Bhagwanpura, District Khargone complainant did not file any application before the office of Tehsildar Tehsil Bhagwanpura, District Khargone for correcting the revenue entries and procuring new Bhoo Adhikar Pustika.So, he wants further cross-examination of complainant in this regard.[4] Respondent in his reply opposed the prayer and averted that from the documents produced with charge-sheet it is clear that the work of complainant was pending before the applicant at the time of incident and pray for rejection.[5] Learned trial court rejected his application observing that earlier also applicant had filed application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on 08.05.2015 which was rejected by this court.Applicant again filed the application on the same ground.There is no need to recall the complainant for re-examination and that applicant is free to file document in his defence.Being aggrieved from this applicant has filed this petition.[6] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is facing trial for allegedly demanding and taking illegal gratification for correcting revenue entries of complainant's land and issuing new Bhoo Adhikar Pustika while the information received from office of Tehsildar Tehsil Bhagwanpura, District Khargone after completion of examination of complainants Naval Singh (PW1) before trial court shows that no such work of complainant was pending before the revenue authority at the time of incident.So it is essential to cross examine the complainant on the point on the basis of information received.The trial court wrongly rejected his application for further cross-examination of complainant in this regard.[7] Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant had full opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and he has filed this application only for delaying the trial.Learned trial court has rightly rejected the prayer.At that time trial court gave full opportunity to the applicant to cross- examine the complainant.Applicant himself averted in the petition that he received the information on 11/11/14 while applicant filed the application for further cross examine the complainant before trial court on 03/06/15, almost seven months after receiving the information.Applicant also had full opportunity to file the said documents in his defence.So trial court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the prayer.Hence, the petition is dismissed.Criminal Revision No.1422/2015 03.02.2017 Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel appears on behalf of Shri P.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.C.No.552/2013 whereby he allowed the application of respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent.Applicant and his family members asked for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- cash, a tractor and a car from the parents of respondent for taking her back.Aggrieved by such behaviour of the applicant and his family members respondent filed a petition before the Family Court, Indore for restitution of conjugal rights.Learned Trial Court allowed the applicant's petition.In compliance of that order applicant took the respondent along with him on 01.02.2013, but his behaviour with the respondent remained same but after sometime he left the respondent at her parental house.Then respondent lodged the report against the applicant in Police Station Malharganj.On the report Crime No.251/2013 was registered, which is already pending against the applicant.Applicant is also having business of selling milk and earns Rs.10,000/- per month and is able to maintain respondent, but has refused to maintain the respondent without any sufficient cause.So, the applicant is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance.[3] Applicant in his reply opposed the prayer and denied the allegation levelled by the respondent against him and averted that family members of the respondent solemnized the marriage of respondent with applicant deceiving the fact that she is handicapped .Also, at the time of marriage applicant was minor, so applicant's marriage with respondent is void.Applicant never demanded any dowry and never harassed the respondent.Respondent made false allegation in this regard in her application.Respondent works as Beautician and also works in a private company and earns Rs.13,000/-per month and is able to maintain herself, while applicant earns only Rs.30000-35,000/- per year and he is not able to maintain respondent and prays for rejection of application.[4] Learned Trial Court after recording evidence of both the parties allowed the application of respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent observing that respondent is a legally wedded wife of applicant and is not able to maintain herself while applicant who is able to maintain her is not maintaining respondent without any sufficient cause.[5] Being aggrieved by the impugned order applicant filed this revision.[6] Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that Trial Court by the order dated 18.03.2015 wrongly closed the right of applicant to cross-examine the respondent due to which because applicant was debarred from his right.It is also proved from the evidence that respondent was minor at the time of marriage and the family members of the respondent solemnized marriage of respondent with applicant deceiving the fact that respondent is handicapped.Since applicant was minor at the time of marriage, so marriage of respondent with applicant is void.In these circumstances respondent has no right to claim maintenance.Even otherwise it is clearly proved from the evidence produced by the parties that respondent is able to maintain herself while applicant is having only 1/6th share in 10 Bigha of his agriculture land and only earns Rs.30000-35,000/- per annum.Trial Court without appreciating the fact wrongly awarded Rs.4,000/- per month maintenance.[7] Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Trial Court after appreciating all the evidence rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/-.There is no need for interference in that order and pray for rejection of the petition.[8] The court perused the record and arguments put forth by the parties.It appeared from the record that learned Trial Court by order dated 18.03.2015 closed the right of applicant to cross-examine the respondent but at the same time it also appeared from the record that on 22.09.2014 respondent and her brother was present in the court for giving evidence but applicant sought time to cross-examine.On that date applicant yet again sought time to cross-examine the respondent whereupon trial court gave one more opportunity by way of last indulgence and case was fixed for 18.03.2015 but again on that date applicant sought time to cross-examine the respondent.Then Trial Court closed the right of applicant to cross-examine the respondent.Where, even after taking four opportunities the applicant did not cross-examine the respondent, the trial court did not commit any error in closing the right of applicant to cross-examine the respondent.[9] Although applicant stated that parents of the respondent solemnized marriage of respondent with him deceiving the fact that respondent is handicapped so marriage is void but it does not appear to be correct.Because applicant himself admitted that after marriage respondent lived with him for three years and if parents of respondent solemnized marriage of respondent with applicant deceiving the fact that respondent is handicapped then applicant should have filed the suit for declaring the marriage void on that ground then and there.[10] Applicant also stated that at the time of marriage he was minor so his marriage with respondent is void but as per hindu marriage Act the marriage of a minor is not void.It is not the case of applicant that he after attaining the majority filed any suit for annulling the marriage on that ground.[11] Respondent clearly deposed that after marriage she lived with the applicant for three years but after that applicant sent the respondent with her brother to her maternal home and never recalled her back.Then she filed the petition before the Family Court.On the order of Family Court applicant took her but after one & half year applicant again left her in her parental home.Since then respondent is living with her father.The statement of respondent is corroborated by the statement of Pradeep (PW-2).Respondent also deposed that applicant did natra with Pooja and at present Pooja is living with the applicant as his wife.Applicant himself in his cross-examination clearly admitted that he was not ready to keep respondent with him which shows that applicant himself not willing to keep respondent with him.[12] Respondent also deposed that she is handicapped and she has no earning.Although applicant stated that respondent teaches children and also does sewing work and earns Rs.20000 to 22,000/- per month but respondent clearly denied this fact.Applicant did not produce any cogent evidence which proves that respondent teaches children and also does sewing work and earns Rs.20,000 to 22,000/- per month.[13] So it is clearly proved that respondent is a legally wedded wife of applicant and is not able to maintain herself while applicant is able to maintain respondent but has refused to maintain her without any sufficient cause.In these circumstances respondent is entitled to get maintenance from the applicant.[14] As far as the amount of maintenance is concerned.It appears from the record that learned trial court on the basis of Ex.P/4 and P/5 revenue papers of agricultural land of applicant assumed that applicant is having sufficient income but it is clear from Ex.P/4 and P/5 that applicant has only 1/6th share in total 2.516 hectare land mentioned in Khasra and Khatoni.So the maintenance awarded by the trial court to the applicant appears to be on the higher side.It is appropriate to reduce the amount of maintenance from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.3,000/-.Accordingly, the Revision is partly allowed and the maintenance amount awarded by the trial court to the applicant is reduced from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.3,000/-per month.Remaining conditions of the trial court order shall remain the same.The revision is disposed of accordingly.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.135/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.193/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Dinesh Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawer for the respondent No.9/State.Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.861/2016 06.02.2017 Shri M.J.Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondent, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Counsel for the applicant is free to serve the notice on respondent by hamdast mode also.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, lerned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file fresh application before the Juvenile Justice Board .Prayer is accepted.Thus, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9813/2016 06.02.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13032/2016 06.02.2017 Ms. Monica Billore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 05.12.2015 passed by the First A.M.A.C.T., Mandleshwar whereby he rejected applicant's application to pay the amount of Rs.57,375/- in cash which was kept by the Tribunal in Fixed Deposit in the name of the applicant in the Nationalized Bank.[2] Brief facts of this case are that applicant and other person filed the Claim Case No.3/2012 before the Trial Court in which the Trial Court awarded him Rs.4,25,000/-.The Trial Court deposited Rs.4,25,000/- in the Fixed Deposit in the Nationalized Bank for five years.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant's dwelling house has been damaged because of heavy rains and she wants money to repair the same.[4] Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Trial Court has wrongly rejected her application.Hence, the Revision is allowed.Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for compliance.Accordingly, the Revision is disposed of.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.134/2017 03.02.2017 None present for the applicant.He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after a week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.351/2016 03.02.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.74/2015 03.02.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Heard on IA No.10593/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The revision is barred by 180 days.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.765/2014 03.02.2017 Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after four weeks along with the record, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Respondent wants time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.6/2015 02.02.2017 Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar - present in person.None present on behalf of respondent No.2, even after service of notice.seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.793/2016 02.02.2017 Shri Prateek Patwardhan, learned counsel for the .Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Respondent No.3 - Shri Irfan Ahmed Khan is present in person with learned Panel Lawyer wants four weeks time to file reply.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.226/2012 02.02.2017 None for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Shri Rahul Verma, learned counsel for the surety.Office is directed to list the matter after two weeks along with the report.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.663/2013 02.02.2017 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1115/2016 01.02.2017 Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.Shri Ajay Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant No.3 Abid.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A.No.714/2017, which is an application filed by appellant No.3 Abid S/o Abdul Patel for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.Appellant Abid has been convicted under Sections 148, 326/149, 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo two years RI with fine of Rs.500/-, RI for seven years with fine of Rs.3,000/- and imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- respectively.According to prosecution story, on 21.6.2016, at 5.30 p.m., in village Multanpura when injured Fajju (PW-4) and deceased Afzal were putting sticks on bullock cart, accused Ishaq, Yusuf armed with swords, Abid, Salim armed with guns, Shabbir armed with Axe, Ahmed armed with Dhariya, Akilabi, Shamshadbi, Abdul Salam, Rafique armed with Lathis came there and beated Fajju and Afzal with their weapons with an intention to kill them.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated.Since co-accused Shamshad, Abdul Salam and Akila Bi were released on bail by this Court and appellant's case is similar to their case, therefore, on the ground of parity appellant also deserves to get bail.Hence application for suspension of sentence be allowed.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that injured Fajju (PW-4) and other eye witnesses Ibrahim (PW-2), Farukh (PW-5), Farida (PW-6) have clearly stated that appellant was also present on the spot armed with gun and he also beated Fajju along with other co-accused and prayed for rejection.This Court has carefully gone through the case and judgment delivered by the Court below and arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties.The case of the appellant Abid is not similar to other co-accused, who have been earlier granted bail by this court.It is clearly mentioned in the FIR lodged by eye witness Ibrahim (PW-2) that Abid was also present on the spot with gun and assaulted deceased Afzal by butt of gun in his legs.Injured Fajju (PW-4) and other eye witnesses Ibrahim (PW-2), Farukh (PW-5) and Farida (PW-6) have clearly stated that appellant was also present on the spot armed with gun.He also beated Fajju (PW-4) along with other co-accused and injured Fajju (PW-4) also deposed that Abid break the leg of deceased Afzal.According to the postmortem report, deceased Afzal sustained 13 injuries including on legs, therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is not appropriate to release the appellant on bail, hence, the application is rejected.The appeal is already admitted, therefore, let the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.as per rules.Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Heard on IA No.697/2017, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.The appeal is barred by 2,283 days.Heard on the question of admission.Let the matter be listed for final hearing in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.183/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Paurush Ranka, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed after two months.Let the matter be listed along with Cr.R.No.1604/2016 on 13.02.2016, as prayed.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Office is directed to issue bailable warrant of arrest of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to secure presence of the respondent No.7 Sunil before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.159/2015 01.02.2017 Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to produce the applicant Javed before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1765/2016 01.02.2017 Shri Akash Jadhav, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.53/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Akhilesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the record positively before the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.94/2017 01.02.2017 Shri Gajendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure the defect.Office is directed after curing the defect record be called.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.1430/2016 01.02.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.160/2006 01.02.2017 Shri S.C.Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed on 15.03.2017 for final hearing at motion stage, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5799/2016 01.02.2017 Shri Ajay Mimrot, learned counsel for the applicant.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 30.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.On payment of process fee within a week with correct address, issue notice the respondent by ordinary as well as registered mode, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed for final hearing at motion stage on 01.03.2017, with the consent of both parties.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.6710/2016 31.01.2017 Shri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR of Crime No.69/2016 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore for the offence under Sections 498A, 294 & 506 of IPC against the on the complaint of respondent No.2 Smt. Neha.[2] Brief facts of this case are that on 22.05.2016, respondent No.2 Smt. Neha lodged a report against the applicant at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore averting that she is a legally wedded wife of the applicant.Her marriage was solemnized with applicant on 09.02.2010 at Sagar.Earlier also she had lodged report against the applicant regarding demand of dowry but after some time in June, 2013 she compromised with the applicant and started residing with him and she also got the case disposed of in compromise.But, applicant again tortured her and demanded Rs.40,00,000/- as dowry and in the month of February,2016 applicant by force got divorce papers signed by her and expelled from house.Since then she has been living with her parents at Indore.On 10.04.2016, applicant came to her parental house at 73, Ashish Nagar, Kanadiya Road, Indore and abused her and demanded Rs.40,00,000/- and also threatened to kill her.On that report at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore Crime No.69/16 for the offence under Sections 498A, 294 & 506 of IPC was registered against the applicant.After investigation charge- sheet was filed.Being aggrieved with the FIR applicant has filed this application.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier also respondent No.2 lodged a report against the applicant for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC and after some time she compromised with the applicant and again after some time to harass the applicant lodged a false report against the applicant.Respondent No.2 Smt. Neha herself tortured the applicant by her act.Earlier respondent No.2 and applicant had filed an application under Section 13- B of the Hindu Marriage Act for taking divorce with consent.But after that respondent No.2 wrongly lodged the FIR mentioning that applicant forcibly got the divorce papers signed from her.So, this report be quashed.[4] Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that on the report of respondent No.2 Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore registered Crime No.69/16 for the offence under Section 498A, 294 and 506 of IPC against the applicant and after investigation of that crime charge-sheet has been filed by the Police before the court.Let the matter be listed after two months.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier along with record on the point of admission.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.813/2016 31.01.2017 Dr.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier along with record on the point of admission.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.261/2014 31.01.2017 Shri Sudarshan Pandit, learned counsel for the appellant.None present for the respondents No.1 to 5 even after service of notice.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1468/2013 31.01.2017 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.None present for the respondents No.1 and 2 even after service of notice.As per office report, respondents No.4 and 5 died.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1691/2016 31.01.2017 Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 01.03.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Learned counsel for the applicant is also directed to produce the copy of whole charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of process fee within 7 days, returnable within 4 weeks.Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the chargesheet has already been filed.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to produce the copy of whole charge-sheet before the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the case diary and probation officer's report on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.4477/2014 31.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.81/2015 31.01.2017 Shri P.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13068/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Vinay Saraf, learned counsel for the applicant.[2] It is appeared from the record that on 11.01.2017 this court has directed the Principal Registrar to verify the factum of compromise and the Principal Registrar in its report dated 23.01.2017 has stated that complainant/respondent and s No.1 to 3 admit that they amicably settled their dispute.It appears from the record that it was a land dispute which was amicably settled between the parties.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed on 15.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to call for the record from the Family Court, Neemuch.Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with the service report.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to file the copy of whole charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice to the respondent, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Shri Shalabh Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.She is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.She is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after receiving of the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Office is directed to call for the record.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks along with the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.971/2017 30.01.2017 Shri Ramesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee with correct address within seven days.On payment of fresh process fee within a week with correct address, issue notice the respondent by ordinary as well as registered mode, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 09.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.39/2016 27.01.2017 None present for the appellant even after service of notice.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with the service report.Let the matter be listed after six weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1287/2016 27.01.2017 Shri S.K.Meena, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a liberty to file fresh application under Sections 451 & 457 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court regarding amount.Thus, the revision is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1376/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1635/2016 27.01.2017 Shri S.S.Garg, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Shri J.N.Tiwari, learned counsel for the objector.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8585/2016 27.01.2017 None present for the parties, even after second round, therefore, the case is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9210/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on IA No.8271/2016, an application for condonation of delay in filing petition.After due consideration, application (IA No.8271/16) is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.The M.Cr.C. is for restoration of Cr.R.No.353/2016, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 30.04.2016 counsel could not appear before the court due to some reason, so Cr.R.No.353/16 has been dismissed for want of prosecution.Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, petition is allowed.Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is allowed and Cr.R.No.353/2016 is restored to its original position.A.No.1735/2016 27.01.2017 Shri O.P.Solanki, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this appeal.Thus, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.C.No.13007/2016 27.01.2017 Shri Saumil Ekdi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this application.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within a week, returnable within four weeks.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.He is directed to produce the case diary positively on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed in the next week.Let the matter be listed along with MCC No.980/16, MCC No.981/16 and MCC No.982/16 in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 13.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 23.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.106/2017 27.01.2017 Shri Raghav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.310/2017 27.01.2017 Shri Amit Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to call the report from the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Mandsaur regarding appellant Lalchand @ Sudama S/o Banshilal resident of Garoth, District Mandsaur, whether he has suffered the sentence imposed against him in S.T.No.106/08 or not?Let the matter be listed after two weeks along with the report.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.9304/2014 27.01.2017 Shri Anand Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.None present for the respondents No.2, 4, 5, 6, 7 &Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.776/2015 27.01.2017 Shri Shivendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Applicant is also directed to file the copy of whole charge-sheet on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.981/2015 27.01.2017 Shri S.S.Garg, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 10.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1370/2015 27.01.2017 None present for the applicant.Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.5859/2015 27.01.2017 Shri R.C.Gangare, learned counsel for the applicant.None present for the respondents.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.None present for the respondent even after service of notice.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to file inquiry report conducted by the Police Mahila Cell, District Ratlam as desired by the counsel for the applicant on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.165/2016 25.01.2017 Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to place the matter along with the service report on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Meanwhile, execution of the impugned order remain stayed till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.224/2016 25.01.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed in the next week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.966/2001 25.01.2017 None present on behalf of the sole appellant Rajesh.Office is directed to issue fresh non-bailable warrant to secure presence of the appellant Rajesh before this court.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.349/2005 25.01.2017 Shri V.A.Katkani, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri P.C.Vaya, learned counsel for the respondent.Thus, the application (IA No.587/2017) is dismissed as withdrawn.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.151/2014 25.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1527/2015 25.01.2017 Shri Pawan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Office is directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.5/2016 25.01.2017 Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to send back the record of the trial court.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.475/2016 25.01.2017 Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant.None present on behalf of the respondent even after service of notice.In the absence of respondent matter is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondent, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1017/2016 25.01.2017 Shri Arun Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after a week, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.1001/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.None for the respondent No.2, even after service of notice.Let the matter be listed along with FA No.9982/2016 after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.595/2017 24.01.2017 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent/State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed in the next week.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Office is directed to place the service report along with the record on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8348/2016 24.01.2017 Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file some documents.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11599/2016 24.01.2017 Ms. Shraddha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.11620/2016 24.01.2017 Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after three weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Learned Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.13019/2016 24.01.2017 Ms. Anita Gaud, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file some documents.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.300/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Mohammed Iqbal Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file necessary documents.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1133/2016 24.01.2017 Shri A.S.Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed along with the record after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.2490/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.None present on behalf of the respondent.In absence of counsel for the respondent, matter is adjourned.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.85/2016 24.01.2017 Ms. Kiran Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.As per office report, notice issued to respondents No.1 to 5 received unserved and notice of respondent No.6 not received yet.Applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.Counsel for the applicant is free to service on respondents by hamdast mode.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.460/2016 24.01.2017 Ms. Jyoti Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.As per office report, non-supply of copy of appeal memo notice not issued to the respondents.is directed to produce the copy of appeal memo within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1460/2010 24.01.2017 Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to issue fresh non-bailable warrant to secure presence of the appellant Mohammed Salim before this court and also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount may not be forfeited.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1025/2015 24.01.2017 Shri Deepesh Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.As per office report, bailable warrant of applicant Naushad received unserved.Again issue non-bailable warrant to secure presence of the applicant Naushad before this court and also issue notice to his surety as to why surety amount may not be forfeited.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1497/2015 24.01.2017 Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.488/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State.Ms. Aditi Mudgal, learned counsel for the respondent.By way of last indulgence, time is given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.717/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks time to cure the defect.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.978/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to pay process fee.Prayer is accepted.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondent No.2, returnable within four weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.1761/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondents, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay fresh process fee with correct address within seven days.On payment of process fee within a week with correct address, issue notice the respondent by ordinary as well as registered mode, returnable within four weeks.Let the matter be listed after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.1634/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.7009/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.128/2017 24.01.2017 Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.He is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.He is also directed to comply with the provisions of Section 15-A(iii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.849/2017 24.01.2017 Shri J.C.Dangi, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.He is directed to file the copy of whole charge- sheet on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.936/2016 24.01.2017 Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on IA No.8480/2016, which is an application for conversion of this First Appeal into Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1A of CPC.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1A of CPC.Due to mistake in legal advise the original appeal was filed as ""Civil First Appeal"" under Order 41 read with Section 96 of CPC.It should have been filed as a ""Miscellaneous Appeal"" under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of CPC.So, this First Appeal be converted into Miscellaneous Appeal.Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer.Amendment be carried out within three days.Let the matter be fixed after Four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.125/2017 24.01.2017 Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed along with the record after two weeks.It is also directed to reflect the name of Shri Sunil Yadav as counsel for the appellant.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.R.No.1135/2015 24.01.2017 Ms. Prerana Kataria, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 17.02.2017, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.12415/2016 24.01.2017 Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.10/State.The M.Cr.C. is for restoration of M.Cr.C.No.11538/2015, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to mistake and oversight the case could not be marked by the counsel and, therefore, on account of this bona fide mistake the counsel for the applicant could not appear at the time of hearing of M.Cr.C.No.11538/2015 which was dismissed for want of prosecution.Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, petition is allowed.Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is allowed and M.Cr.C.No.11538/2015 is restored to its original position.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 13.04.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.C.No.422/2017 23.01.2017 None for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Let the matter be listed in the next week.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.58/2017 23.01.2017 Shri Anupam Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.Office is directed to place the matter alonghwith the service report on the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.104/2017 23.01.2017 Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks, as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.Let the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed.One month's time is granted to pay remaining court fees.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed on 10.02.2017 for final hearing at motion stage, with the consent of both the parties.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.Cr.C.No.8921/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Vinod Soni, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to argue the matter.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.396/2014 23.01.2017 Shri M.I.Khan, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.5/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.454/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Sanjay Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.Office is directed to place the matter alonghwith the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC.No.726/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Rakesh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed in the next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.C.C.No.765/2016 23.01.2017 Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri R.L.Patidar, learned counsel for the respondent.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Let the matter be listed on 08.02.2017 as prayed.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.864/2016 23.01.2017 Ms. Sophiya Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for both the parties seeks time to argue the matter.It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.A.No.201/2006 23.01.2017 Shri A.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Appellant Lavkush is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.Heard on IA No.454/2017, which is an application for condonation of absence of appellant on 05.10.2016 and for recall of order dated 12.01.2017 for issuing non-bailable warrant.Appellant submits that he was in jail on 05.10.2016 in other case, therefore, he could not mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on the said date.Looking to the reasons assigned in the application, application is allowed and absence of appellant Lavkush on 05.10.2016 is hereby condoned and order for issuing non- bailable warrant is recalled.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.746/2013 23.01.2017 Shri A.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.As per office report, notice of respondent No.1 received unserved in absence of correct address.Counsel for the appellant is directed to pay fresh process fee with correct address.On payment of process fee within a week, issue notice the respondent No.1, returnable within six weeks.Let the matter be listed after six weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns M.A.No.2675/2013 23.01.2017 Shri J.M.Poonegar, learned counsel for the appellant.None present on behalf of the respondent though served.The appeal is already admitted.List for final hearing in due course.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns C.R.No.246/2015 23.01.2017 Shri V.P.Khare, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Counsel for the respondent seeks time to file the reply.Prayer is accepted.Let the matter be listed after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns Cr.After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellant Pappu Mansuri on 02.01.2017 is hereby condoned.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.Appellant Abdul is present in person before the Court and he has been identified by his counsel.After due consideration, application is allowed and absence of appellant Abdul on 02.12.2016 is hereby condoned.He is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.03.2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.475/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.No one is present on behalf of proposed legal representatives of respondent No.1, even after service of notice.Respondent No.2 is also not present, even after service of notice.Heard on IA No.7815/2016, which is an application for taking legal representatives of respondent No.1 on record under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC, IA No.7816/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of filing application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC and IA No.7817/2016, which is an application for setting aside of abatement under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC.After due consideration, IAs (IA No.7815/16, IA No.7816/16 and IA No.7817/16) are allowed.Applicant is directed to incorporate the proposed legal representatives of respondent No.1 in place of respondent No.1 in appeal memo.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns MCC No.725/2016 23.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.None present for the respondent.Service report of respondents is awaited.Office is directed to place the matter alonghwith the service report on the next date of hearing.Let the matter be listed after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns F.A.No.936/2016 23.01.2017 Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge ns CONC No.39/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Upendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.41/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.41/2017 20.01.2017 Shri V.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.C.C. No.42/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Kaushal Bansal, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.84/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Hemant Kumar Vaishnav, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.125/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Office is directed to call for the record.List next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.144/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Amit Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within one week returnable within four weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.List after four weeks or after service of notice, which ever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.A No.146/2017 20.01.2017 Shri M. Jindal, learned counsel for the appellant.As prayed by learned counsel for the appellant, list next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.67/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.List after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.75/2017 20.01.2017 Shri S.K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF within one week returnable within four weeks.Office is also directed to call for the record.List after four weeks or after service of notice, which ever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.A. No.109/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant.He is directed to produce case-diary before next date of hearing.List next week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.654/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant Heard on admission as well as I.A. No.445/2017, which is an application for stay.Applicant's counsel submits that the non-applicant has filed a private complaint against the applicants and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 06.10.2015 took the cognizance for the the offence under Section 420 of IPC and issued non-bailable warrant against the applicants.He prays that the further proceedings before the trial Court be stayed till the next date of hearing.On payment of PF within a week, issue notice to the non-applicant on admission as well as I.A. No.445/2017, returnable within four weeks.Meanwhile, learned trial Court is directed that if the non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicants, it be recalled.Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.680/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.Issue notice to the respondent No.2 on payment of PF within one week returnable within four weeks.List after four weeks or after service of notice, which ever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.698/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Apporva Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to argue the matter.List after one week.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.755/2017 20.01.2017 Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.List after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.78/2014 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeks two weeks' time to file reply of the petition.List after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CR.No.93/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is allowed.List after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CR. No.100/2016 20.01.2017 Shri S.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the respondent, even in second round.In absence of counsel for the respondent, matter is adjourned.IR to continue till next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.214/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Ms. Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned counsel for the respondent(s) seeks time to file reply.Prayer is allowed.List after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.535/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file reply.Prayer is allowed.List after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.539/2016 20.01.2017 None for the applicants.Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file compliance report.List after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.581/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Notice issued to respondent Nos.4 and 5 is received unserved with a note that they are not residing at given address.Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeks two weeks' time to file compliance order.Prayer is allowed.List after two weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi CONC No.628/2016 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file reply.List after two weeks.List after three weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.6044/2016 20.01.2017 Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.IR to continue till next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.6905/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.10120/2016 20.01.2017 Shri A. Dhanodkar, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.11297/2016 20.01.2017 Shri N.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of charge-sheet.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.List after four weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.12948/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Rahul Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.29/2017 20.01.2017 None for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for respondent/ State is directed to produce case-diary before next date of hearing.List the matter in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.77/2017 20.01.2017 Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to call for the record before next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi F.A No.123/2005 20.01.2017 Parties through their counsel.Prayer is allowed.He is directed to file positively on next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.A. No.513/2010 20.01.2017 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant/State.After due consideration, application is allowed.Counsel for the respondents is directed to delete name of respondent Nos.1 and 3 from the appeal memo.Necessary amendment be incorporated within three working days.Office is directed to call for the record.Office is also directed to send reminder.List the matter in due course.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.2168/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.It is made clear that no further adjournment will be given.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.1384/2015 20.01.2017 Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.On payment of PF within 15 days issue notice to respondent, returnable within six weeks.List after six weeks or after service of notice, whichever is earlier.IR to continue till next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi M.Cr.C. No.11242/2015 20.01.2017 Shri Mukesh Sijonia, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.44/2016 20.01.2017 Shri Vinay Sharaf, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Sanjay Karanjawala, learned counsel for the respondent/State.Counsel for the State is directed to produce case- diary before next date of hearing.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.824/2016 20.01.2017 None for the applicant.Shri B.L. Yadav, learned senior counsel for the respondent.In absence of counsel for the applicant, matter is adjourned.List after four weeks.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.R. No.1029/2016 20.01.2017 None for the applicant.As per office report, notice issued to respondent received unserved.Counsel for the applicant is directed to pay PF within seven days.On payment of PF issue notice to the respondent within one week, returnable within four weeks.Office is directed to call for the record.List after four weeks or after service of notice whichever is earlier.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi Cr.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge Ravi","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Item No. 11And In the matter of: Fulbashi Sarder Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Kallol Basu Mr. Prasanta Bishal For the Petitioner Mr. P.K. Dutta Mr. Subrata Roy For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Minakhan Police Station Case No. 274 dated 26.10.2012 under sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.The Petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased.We have perused the case diary.The husband of the deceased is on bail.Since the charge sheet has been submitted, the Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within fifteen days from today.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Arindam Sinha, J) 2","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"17-11-14 32/skp (Allowed) C.R.M. No. 9903 of 2014 In the matter of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 13th August, 2014 in connection with Deganga P.S. Case No. 391 of 2014 dated 07.06.2014 under Sections 447/325/354B/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In re : Kasem Mondal & Ors.... Petitioners.Md. Younush Mondal ... for the petitioners.Ms. Ratna Ghosh ... for the State.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have been implicated in this case on false allegation due to strained relationship between the parties.We have heard the learned Counsel for the State.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.( Tapan Kumar Dutt, J. ) ( R. K. Bag, J.)","['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"I.A. No.22076/2020, an application for urgent hearing is allowed.Heard learned counsel for the parties.Case diary perused.The applicant has filed this repeat application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The first one was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10/11/2020 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Indarganj, District Gwalior, in connection with Crime No.328/2020 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 411 and 413 of the IPC.Allegations against the applicant, in short, Mobile phones and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.He is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court.He is permanent resident of Gwalior and there is no likelihood of his absconsion, if released on bail.With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made.Learned counsel for the State is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, by the office of this Court.Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge (and) ANAND SHRIVAST AVA 2020.12.02 11:29:33 +05'30'",['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
"On 19.08.1990, the appellant Chat Pal was found wearing one HMT Supria wrist watch on his wrist.However, we find that Exhibit PW21/B, which is the personal search memo of the very same appellant Chat Pal, does not mention any watch being recovered on the personal search being conducted.Exhibit PW21/G, which is a seizure memo, indicates that Narain was wearing the HMT watch on his left wrist, but Exhibit PW21/A, which is the personal search memo, does not mention any watch and only a sum of ` 20/- is said to have been found on the person of the appellant Narain.Here again, the witnesses of the seizure memo and the personal search memo are the same, namely, SI Ram Kanwar and HC Surender Singh.Similarly, in the case of the appellant Chet Ram, we find that the seizure memo Exhibit PW22/E mentions a gold ring with the words Darshan Lal engraved on it as well as a rexine purse containing ` 550/-.It is also mentioned in the seizure memo that the gold ring was worn by Chet Ram on the ring finger of his left hand.However, Exhibit PW22/A, which is the personal search memo of the same date, that is, 30.07.1990, has only a reference to a sum of ` 17/- in cash plus one bus ticket worth ` 20/- and one dagger.It is, therefore, clear that the personal search memo is at complete variance with the seizure memo in the case of Chet Ram also as in the case of Chat Pal and Narain.AND + CRL.A. 332/1997 CHET RAM ... Appellant versus STATE ... Respondent AND + CRL.A 236/1998 NARAIN ... Appellant versus STATE ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Appellants : Mr Ajay Verma with Mr Gaurav Bhattacharya For the Respondent/State : Ms Richa Kapur CORAM:-HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGHWhether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)These three appeals are being disposed of together by a common judgment inasmuch as they arise out of the same FIR and are directed against the common judgment dated 10.07.1997 passed by the CRL.The three appellants, namely, Chet Ram, Chat Pal @ Sat Pal and Narain along with Chakori Lal were charged under Sections 120B, 302 read with 120B, 392 read with 120B IPC.However, the Trial Court acquitted Chakori Lal of all charges.We may also point out that when the charge-sheet was filed, one Lakhan Pal was also named as an accused but he passed away before the framing of charges.The appellant Chet Ram, Narain and Chat Pal were also charged in the alternative under Sections 302 read with 34, 392 read with 34 and 394 IPC.By virtue of the impugned judgment, the appellants Chet Ram, Narain and Chat Pal @ Satpal have been convicted for having committed the offences under Sections 302 read with 34, 392 read with 34 and 394 IPC.All the three accused were awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of ` 1,000/- each for the offence under Section 392 read with 34 IPC and in default of payment of the fine, the appellants were also required to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.In respect of the offence under Section 394/34 IPC, each of the appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years as well as were liable to pay a fine of ` 2,000/- and in default whereof, they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.With regard to the offence under Section CRL.A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.2 of 20 302 read with 34 IPC, each of the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of ` 5,000/- each and in default of payment thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C was to be given to the appellants and their sentences were to run concurrently.The appellants have been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence.In the alleged incident, which is said to have taken place on 23.07.1990, Smt. Kamla Kakkar was found dead in her house by her daughter PW1 Renuka Sethi at about 1:45 pm.It is on the basis of her statement Exhibit PW1/A that the ruqqa and subsequently the FIR was registered.The case of the prosecution was that the appellants along with Chakori Lal (since acquitted) and Lakhan Pal (since deceased) were doing some construction work at the residence of the said Smt. Kamla Kakkar and that with the intention of committing robbery, they committed the murder of Smt. Kamla Kakkar, who was alone in the house when the incident took place.The prosecution has sought to bring home the conviction on the basis of the testimonies of PW5 Darshan Lal Kakkar, PW10 Rakesh Kakkar, PW1 Renuka Sethi and PW4 Surjeet Kaur (Chawla).Apart from the testimonies of these witnesses, the prosecution has also sought to prove its case by virtue of the alleged recoveries made from the appellants.It is alleged that one CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.3 of 20 HMT watch of Supria make was recovered from Chat Pal; one gold ring, which had Darshan Lal engraved in it, was allegedly recovered from Chet Ram and one HMT gold-plated stainless steel watch was said to have been recovered from the appellant Narain.On the basis of the testimonies of PW5 and PW10, which were regarded as the last seen evidence and on the basis of the supporting and corroborative testimonies of PW1 Renuka Sethi and PW4 Smt. Surjit Kaur as well as on the basis of the alleged recoveries made from the said appellants, the prosecution has attempted to bring home the guilt of the said appellants in the said offence.Only a sum of ` 20/- is said to have recovered at the time of the conduct of the personal search.The witnesses of the seizure memo Exhibit PW21/E and the personal search memo Exhibit PW21/B are the same, namely, SI Ram Kanwar and HC Surender Singh.A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.4 of 20 Therefore, we are in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the recovery of the said watch becomes very doubtful.While the seizure memo says that he was wearing the watch, the personal search memo does not disclose any watch.The CRL.A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.5 of 20 witnesses to the seizure memo in the case of Chet Ram as also the personal search memo were also the same, namely, SI Manohar Lal and SI Ram Kanwar.Considering the aforesaid contradictions between the seizure memo and the personal search memo, as also the fact that the said articles were not recovered pursuant to any disclosure but were alleged to have been found on the persons of the appellants, we feel that no reliance can be placed on the said recoveries as they appear to be extremely doubtful.Consequently, the question of identification of these articles at the instance of PW5 Darshan Lal Kakkar is also of no relevance.This leaves us with the testimonies of PW5, Darshan Lal Kakkar and PW10 Rakesh Kakkar, who have been produced in the witness box as the last seen witnesses.PW5 Darshan Lal Kkkar in his testimony has clearly stated that work had been going on at his flat and one Chakori Lal had been fetched by his son Rakesh Kakkar and work had been done for about eight days.Chakori Lal had brought the other accused for the purposes of the said construction work and it was Chakori Lal who had supervised the work.However, since rains had started, the work had been discontinued.He further testified that about four days prior to 23.07.1990, at the instance of Chat Pal, work was resumed under the said flat.He stated that on that day at about 10:30 CRL.A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.6 of 20 am, Chat Pal @ Satpal had come to his flat and had told him that he could get the work completed otherwise they would be going to their village.The witness further stated that considering the fact that these persons were already known to him, he thought it better to get the work completed from them and as such, he told Chat Pal @ Sat Pal to bring his labour and to complete the job.At about 11 am, Chat Pal brought with him Narain, Lakhan Pal and Chet Ram and they started doing their work in his flat.He further stated that soon thereafter, Chakori Lal also came to his flat and after talking to Chat Pal, Narain, Chet Ram and Lakhan Pal went away.He stated that thereafter, he also left his flat leaving Chat Pal, Narain, Chet Ram and Lakhan Pal at his premises besides his wife Kamla Kakkar and his son Rakesh Kakkar, who was also present at the flat.He had left his flat to attend his work at Patiala House.The witness also stated that on the same day, that is, on 23.07.1990 in the afternoon, he received information that his wife Kamla had been murdered.PW10 Rakesh Kakkar had corroborated whatever had been stated by his father PW5 Darhsan Lal Kakkar.He further stated that he remained in his house up to 11:45 am on 23.07.1990 and that his father remained in the house up to 11:30 am and then went to Patiala House Courts.After 11:45 am, he left the house and went to attend his job.He returned at 3 pm and at that point of time he saw a crowd had CRL.A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.7 of 20 collected outside the house as well as inside and his sister Renuka Sethi met him there.He stated categorically in his examination-in-chief that when he left his house at 11:45 am, then, only his mother was in the house and the accused persons were working there.He stated that when he returned to the house at 3 pm his sister told him that their mother had expired and the police had taken her to hospital in a vehicle.In cross-examination, this witness, however, stated that he had not stated to the police that when he left his house at 11:45 am on the day of occurrence, then only his mother was in the house and the accused persons were working there.The learned counsel for the appellants sought to infer from this statement made in cross- examination that PW10 Rakesh Kakkar had made improvements in his statement before Court.However, we do not feel that such an inference can be drawn.The testimonies of PW5 and PW10 have to be read in conjunction and once that is done, it is apparent that the prosecution has been able to establish that on 23.07.1990 the appellants along with Lakhan Pal had started work at the flat of the deceased and that till 11:30 am on that date, both PW5 and PW10 along with Smt. Kamla Kakkar and the accused persons were present in the flat.At 11:30 am, PW5 Darshan Lal Kakkar left the flat to attend his work at Patiala House Courts and that at 11:45 am, PW10 Rakesh Kakkar also left the flat leaving his mother alone with the accused persons who were doing construction work in the said flat.A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.8 of 20 PW10 is the witness who last saw his mother alive and at that point of time, she was alone in the flat in the company of the accused persons who were doing construction work.The next important witness is PW1 Renuka Sethi, who stated that as usual she used to have lunch with her mother at the said flat.She reached there at 1:45 pm and found her mother to be dead.At that point of time, she became hysterical and raised an alarm whereupon, PW4 Smt. Surjeet Kaur also known as Smt. Chawla, who was residing in the ground floor, had apparently told her that Sat Pal and two others had come to the said flat.Although this part of the testimony is hearsay and no reliance can be placed thereon, it is clear that when PW1 Renuka Sethi arrived at the flat at 1:45 pm, her mother was dead.The time gap between Smt. Kamla Kakkar having been seen alive and when she was found dead was 11:45 am to 1:45 pm, which is only a period of two hours.When she was alive, Smt. Kamla Kakkar was in the flat along with the appellants, who were working there.The said appellants were supposed to work for the whole day but, when an opportunity was given to them under Section 313, Cr. P. C, they have not given any explanation as to why they were absent when PW1 Renuka Sethi arrived at the flat at 1:45 pm.In fact, each of the appellants has given a blank denial to all the circumstances which were put to them in the course of their making their Section 313 statements.A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.9 of 20Coupled with this very important circumstance of the last seen evidence, is the fact that each of the appellants was absconding after the said incident.All of them, as mentioned above, refused the Test Identification Parade.In view of the foregoing, we do not find any fault with the decision of the trial court in returning a finding of guilt insofar as the appellants Chet Ram, Narain and Chat Pal @ Sat Pal are concerned.They have been rightly convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.The matter, however, does not end here.We find that Chat Pal @ Sat Pal had made a plea that he was a juvenile before the trial court.Unfortunately, that plea got lost in the records of the trial and no finding was returned by the trial court, although the ossification report clearly suggested that he was only 14-15 years old.The order-sheet reveals that on 21.01.1991, as no report had been received, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the Superintendent, Tihar to appear before the CRL.On 04.03.1991, the complainant had filed an application stating that the X-ray report should not be accepted and a prayer was made that the appellant Chat Pal be referred to the Board of some government hospital.The order dated 11.11.1991 records the factum of an application of treating Chat Pal as a juvenile.Then, we have an application of the Jail Superintendent dated 22.03.1996 stating that Chat Pal has been behaving abnormally and has become mentally upset and even had attempted committing suicide.A prayer was made that in case he committed or attempted to commit suicide, then the jail administration shall be placed in an embarrassing position.In the meanwhile, we find from the lower court record, that on 22.02.1991, Dr B. K. Dey, Medical Officer, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi had submitted a report with reference to the letter dated 05.01.1991 regarding age estimation of the appellant Chat Pal.It was returned that his age was between 14-15 years on 23.01.1992 according to the Department of Forensic Medicine, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi conducted by Dr S. K. Khanna No. 32/91 dated 23.01.1991 at 12:30 pm.The age estimation report from Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, Department of Forensic Medicine, dated 23.01.1991 is also on record and the opinion clearly CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.11 of 20 shows that based on physical, dental and radiological findings, when taken together, the age of the person examined (Chat Pal) was between 14 and 15 years.It is, therefore, abundantly clear that as on 23.01.1991 Chat Pal was 14-15 years old, which would make him 13-14 years old on 23.07.1990, which is the date of the occurrence.Clearly, Chat Pal was a juvenile within the definition of Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).When the said Act come into force, the impugned judgment and order on sentence had already been delivered / passed.Consequently, Section 20 of the said Act would be relevant for our purposes.Section 20, as amended up to date, reads as under:-Special provision in respect of pending cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of a juvenile pending in any court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area, shall be continued in that court as if this Act had not been passed and if the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence.Provided that the Board may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the order, review the case and pass appropriate order in the interest of such juvenile.It is, therefore, clear that Chat Pal @ Sat Pal, being a juvenile in conflict with law, could have, in the maximum, suffered a detention for a period of three years only.But, from the nominal roll on record of the appellant Chat Pal, it appears that as on 02.03.2002, he had already been in custody for a period of 11 years, six months and 23 days and had also earned remission of 1 year, 4 months and 26 days.But, as he could not arrange for the surety, an application, being Crl.By an order dated 21.02.2003, the surety amount was reduced to ` 10,000/- and the requirement of the number of sureties was also reduced to one.Despite this, as the appellant Chat Pal @ Sat Pal was extremely poor, he could not arrange for the surety and moved another application, being Crl.M. A. 3178/2003, for modification of the said order dated 21.02.2003 for further reduction in the surety amount.This application was allowed by an order dated 19.12.2003 and the surety amount was reduced to ` 5,000/-.As the appellant Chat Pal @ Sat Pal was not being able to arrange even a surety of ` 5,000/-, CRL. A. Nos.471/97, 332/97& 236/98 Page No.17 of 20 an application, being Crl.M. A. 5875/2004 had been moved for reducing the surety amount to ` 1000/-.Unfortunately, this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court on 19.07.2004 when the Crl.M.A. 5875/2004 came up for hearing.On that day, the Court, however, rejected the application for any further reduction in the surety.This is when Chat Pal @ Sat Pal could not have been kept in detention for a period of more than three years by virtue of the provisions of the said Act. Consequently, while we uphold the finding that Chat Pal @ Sat Pal had committed the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, the sentence awarded to him is set aside.Since he could not have been kept in detention for a period of more than three years and because he has already been in custody for 13 years, 10 months and 27 days, Chat Pal @ Sat Pal cannot be kept in detention any further.He is to be set at liberty.In this case, an application had been moved claiming that Chat Pal @ Sat Pal was a juvenile and, in fact, the medical report was also available on record, but the trial court, unfortunately, did not pursue the matter any further.This sort of an attitude would result in a great travesty of justice.This Court had, by its order dated 21.04.2010, directed the concerned Additional Sessions Judge to initiate proceedings against all the three appellants as also proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. against the sureties.In so far as the appellant Chat Pal @ Sat Pal is concerned, those proceedings are to be dropped.However, the same would continue in respect of the other two appellants so that they are apprehended and they are made to serve out the rest of their sentences.The appeals are decided accordingly.BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J MANMOHAN SINGH, J FEBRUARY 10, 2011 SR/P CRL.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"On the aforesaid grounds, the learned counsel for the applicants/accused has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants/accused.The learned Panel Lawyer opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicants/accused has prayed for rejection of the bail application.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(M.K. MUDGAL) JUDGE","['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The Petitioner in the first petition is a Senior Inspector of Police and at the time of the filing of the petition was attached to Thane Railway Police Station.He joined the Maharashtra police in 1975 as Police Sub-Inspector.Thereafter, his services were made over to Bombay police in 1977 on the same post.It is the case of the petitioner, that, he had a successful career of 27 years of Police service.The same is clean and unblemished.It is alleged that one Altaf Kadir Shaikh had purchased Shop No. 1, 63/65, Sayed House, Cadel Road, Mahim, Mumbai-16 in October 1999 from one Khalid Ahmed Basekhan.In June, 2000 one Iqbal claimed rights in his shop and alongwith Khalid Ahmed Basekhan started harassing and threatening Altaf Kadir Shaikh.Altaf Kadir Shaikh also received threats from unknown persons.He lodged a N.C. at Mahim Police Station.The complainant Ahmed Ismail Shaikh @ Raja Shaikh was helping the complainant Altaf and therefore he also received threats.On 16.7.2000 at 19.00 hrs the complainant Ahmed alongwith Altaf Shaikh attended the Mahim Police Station and as per the instructions of P.I.Shri Sanghai, PSI Shinde recorded the statement of Altaf Shaikh.The Complainant came to know that an offence has been registered at Mahim Police Station against him and three others.PSI Rajendra Naghbire had registered at Mahim police station, C.R. No. 230 of 2000 under Section 454, 457, 380, 451, 506(II), 34, 120(B), I.P.C. r/w. 23, 25 Arms Act on complaint of Shri.The further investigation of this case was handed over to P.I.Sanghai as per the orders of Sr.P.L.Jedhe of Mahim Police Station.After confirmation on 20.7.2000 at 16.30 hrs, the complainant alongwith Altaf Shaikh met D.C.P. Zone IV, Mumbai Shri Kadam and informed him about the offence registered against them and submitted representation to DCP Zone IV.On the same day at 19.00 hrs the complainant met P.I. Shri Sanghai at Mahim police Station, P.I. Sanghai called PSI Shinde.At that time P.I. Sanghai told the complainant that Altaf Shaikh would not get the shop valued Rs. 40,00,000/ so easily.In order to avoid arrest of complainant, Altaf Shaikh and 2 others, an amount Rs. 20,00,000/ be paid as bribe.After discussion the bribe amount was reduced to 10,00,000/-.The complainant showed his inability to pay the bribe amount.The facts are undisputed.JUDGMENT S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.Both petitions involve identical questions of fact and law and were heard together.They are being disposed off by this common judgment.It is directed against an order dated 7.5.2002 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2002 by Special Judge Mumbai in Complaint ACB/BMU Criminal No. 29 of 2000 and the Sanction Order dated 6.12.2002 passed by the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), Mumbai.Therefore, PSI Shinde told the complainant to come after 2-3 days.At 19.30 hrs the complainant was produced before Sr.P.I.Shri Jedhe.The complainant has stated that Sr.P.I.Jedhe told the complainant that his work will be done and he will have to pay the amount as per the say of PI Sanghai and the complainant was allowed to go.When the complainant attended Mahim Police Station on 25.7.2000 at 19.00 hrs as per the call from PSI Shinde, he met PI Sanghai.Thereafter PSI Shinde was called by P.I. Sanghai.P.I. Sanghai then demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- for not arresting the complainant and others.The complainant accompanied by panch witness Shri Dhumal met P.I. Sanghai at Main gate of Mahim Police Station at 18.25 hrs.At that time P.I. Sanghai asked for amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-.Over this the complainant told that he will pay Rs. 3,00,000/-after taking the same from Shri Dhumal, who is his relative.The complainant was asked to wait till the arrival of PSI Shinde.Thus, it is alleged that on 26th July, 2000 at about 6.00 p.m. Shri Sanghai (Petitioner in first petition) attempted to obtain a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs for himself and on behalf of the Petitioner in the second petition from the Complainant as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or for bearing to do official Acts or for showing favour or for bearing to show disfavour in exercise of their official functions to the Complainant in the matter of not arresting him and others in an offence registered against him at Mahim Police Station.I.P.C. r/w. 3, 25 Arms Act.On 27.7.2000 the Petitioner was arrested but was released on bail on the following day as per the order of the court.During the course of the investigation, statements of various persons were recorded.A draft sanction order was sent to the Competent Authority for getting sanction to prosecute the Petitioner Accused and one P.S.I.Shinde.However, the Learned Special Judge while rejecting this Application observed that the matter be referred to the Sanctioning Authority for Re-consideration.The Special Judge directed that after the Sanctioning Authority takes necessary steps, the A.C.B can approach the Special Court.The order passed on 7.5.2002 and the subsequent act of the Sanctioning Authority of grant of sanction is under challenge in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.The second Writ Petition is by co-accused Dilip Shinde and the facts and circumstances narrated therein are identical.After making such observations, the Special Judge rejected the application of the prosecution and referred the matter back for reconsideration of the Sanctioning Authority.Thus, the Special Judge granted one opportunity to the Authority to consider the matter of sanction afresh.The Sanctioning Authority has reconsidered the whole matter and accorded sanction for prosecution of the petitioners before me.I have perused the application which was preferred by the prosecution before the Special Judge.The petitioner did not make any application before the Special Judge but the prosecution applied for closure of the case.On the prosecutions application the Learned Judge made the observations as above and rejected the same.The Learned Judge only referred the matter for reconsideration of the Sanctioning Authority.The other argument is that the Special Judge did not grant any opportunity to the petitioners before observing that the matter deserves to be referred back for reconsideration of the Sanctioning Authority.In my view, the Learned Judge was considering the application of the prosecution for closure of the said case/proceedings therein.",['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The material facts, which are relevant for the disposal of this Criminal Original Petition, are as follows:-The Petitioners are the Secondary Grade Teachers, working in the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Thiruvennainallur, Villupuram District.The 2nd Petitioner worked in the said School from 28.7.2004 to 13.9.2005 as a Science Teacher and he has been transferred and posted at Kumanantholu in Andipatti Taluk, Theni District.This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records in PRC.No.1/2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Ulundurpet and quash the same.The 1st Petitioner is working in the same School.On 14.7.2005 at about 12.15 p.m., one Rani, Anganvadi Teacher reported to the Teachers that some one had taken a sum of Rs.1200/- from her bag, which was kept in the Balvadi Class and suspected that some of the students of the IX Standard A of the School, who visited the Anganvadi, might have stolen the money.Accordingly, the Petitioners called for those students and their bags were searched.A few minutes thereafter, a student by name Udaya alias Saranya, the deceased herein gave Rs.100/- to the Petitioners, claiming that the said amount was found in the bag of one Kavitha, a co-student.Thereafter, Udaya @ Saranya and six other students were taken to the male staff room and they were enquired by the lady teachers.At that time, Udaya @ Saranya took Rs.600/- from her Churidhar pocket and handed over the same to the Petitioners.Another amount of Rs.500/- was also handed over by Udaya @ Saranya to one Jayanthi, PET Teacher.After, the said incident, the deceased Udaya @ Saranya was in the School during lunch period and attended the post session classes and left the School at 4.20 pm.Thereafter, on an enquiry, the Petitioners had come to know that Udaya @ Saranya had immolated herself and was taken to the Government Hospital at Villupuram, where she had given a dying declaration to the Judicial Magistrate, stating that since the Petitioners scolded her that she had stolen the money and the 2nd Petitioner remarked to her to go and die and as she was so ashamed, she had immolated herself.On the complaint given by the father of the deceased girl, FIR was registered in Cr.Later the deceased died on 16.7.2005 and the offence was altered into one under Section 306 of IPC and the Petitioners have been arrayed as the accused.According to him, the conduct of the Petitioners was very natural, as any prudent man would only try to find out as to who has stolen the money and the real fact is that the deceased girl had stolen the money and the same was exposed before the other students, which had led her to commit suicide.","['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in FIR in Crime No.271 of 2018 on the file of the respondent for offences under Sections 379, 430 of IPC r/w Section 21(1) of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 as against the petitioners.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 CRL.O.P.No.5051 of 2020The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.271 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 379, 430 of IPC r/w Section 21(1) of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents.The correctness or otherwise of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 CRL.O.P.No.5051 of 2020 said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the remand itself rejected for want of documents to prove the illegal transportation of river sand, and the petitioners had valid licence to transport river sand.Considering the submissions, the petitioners are directed to produce all the relevant documents before the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.On receipt of the same, the respondent is directed to consider those documents and file final report after completing the investigation within a period of two weeks thereafter.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRL.O.P.No.5051 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.With the above directions, the criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.04.03.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order lok Note: Issue order copy on 06.03.2020The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurinjipadi Police Station, Cuddalore DistrictThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.CRL.O.P.No.5051 of 2020 and Crl.MP.No.2875 of 2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6",['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
"MANMOHAN, J :The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 13th October, 2006 passed by Ms. Reena Singh Nag, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby the revision petition filed by the Respondent-CBI has been allowed and the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 17th November, 2004 has been set aside.M.C. No. 269/2007 Page 1 of 11M.C. No. 269/2007 Page 1 of 11Briefly stated, the fact of this case are that on 24th February, 1998 CBI registered a case bearing RC No. 4(S)98/SIU.I.After hearing the matter on various dates, the learned trial court on 1st June, 2001 framed charges against the Petitioner under Section 120B, 419 and 420 IPC read with Sections 120B, 468 IPC read with Section 120B, 471 IPC read with Section 120B, 511 IPC.By this order no charges were framed against the Petitioner under Section 120B read with Section 465, 467, 474 and 380 read with Section 411 of IPC and Section 12(1)(a) and (b) read with Section 3 of Passports Act. However, no reasons for not framing certain charges were given.The order dated 1st June, 2001 is reproduced hereinbelow:-""Present : PP for CBI Both accused on Bail with counsel.Arguments on the point of sentence heard.Prima facie case is made out against both the accused for offence under Section 120B IPC, 419, 420 r/w section 120B IPC, 468 r/w section 120B IPC, 471 r/w section 120B IPC, 511 r/w section 419, 420 r/w section 120B IPC and accordingly charge framed to which accused pleaded not guilty.To come for PE for 8.8.2001, 9.8.2001 and 10.8.2001 Sd/-M.C. No. 269/2007 Page 2 of 11On 6th August, 2001 the Petitioner filed a Revision Petition bearing CR (R) No. 29/2001 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge against the order dated 1st June, 2001 framing charges against the Petitioner- Accused.Before receiving any notice of Petitioner's revision petition, on 8th August, 2001, which was the next date of hearing before the trial court, CBI filed two applications.While the first application was filed to place on record some documents, the second application was filed under Section 216 Cr.P.C. contending that the trial court had inadvertently not framed charges against the Petitioner under Section 120B read with Sections 465, 467, 474, 380 and 411 of IPC and Sections 12(1)(a) and (b) read with Section 3 of PassportsWhile the application under Section 216 Cr.The Additional Sessions Judge in its judgment and order dated 7th January, 2003 concluded that the trial court had rightly found a prima facie case against the Petitioner-Accused for the offences for which he had been charged.On 17th November, 2004 the trial court dismissed the CBI's application filed under Section 216 Cr.While setting aside the order dated 17th November, 2004 the Additional Sessions Judge directed the trial court to pass a reasoned order on CBI's application under Section 216 Cr.Mr. Ajay Burman, learned Counsel for Petitioner has contended that for the Sections for which the Petitioner has been discharged vide order Crl.M.C. No. 269/2007 Page 4 of 11 dated 1st June, 2001, no application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was maintainable as the order framing charges had attained finality.P.C., the order framing charges dated 1st June, 2001 had attained finality.He further submitted that in case CBI was aggrieved by the order framing charges dated 1st June, 2001 the only recourse open to it was to file a revision against the said order - which it had failed to do so till date.M.C. No. 269/2007 Page 4 of 11He further pointed out that by the impugned order dated 13th October, 2006, the Additional Sessions Judge had revised the initial order framing charges.Having heard the parties and having perused the file, I am of the opinion that the initial order dated 1st June, 2001, by virtue of which the charges have been framed, is a non-reasoned and non-speaking order.The said order records that arguments on the point of sentence have been heard.A perusal of the first revisional order dated 7th January, 2003 clearly shows that the said court only applied its mind to the offences for Crl.M.C. No. 269/2007 Page 10 of 11 which the Petitioner had been charged.Moreover, in my opinion, no prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner by the impugned order as evidence in the present case is yet to be recorded and the Petitioner would have full opportunity of meeting the charges and putting forward any defence open to him on the charges preferred against him.Therefore, the present Writ Petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs.MANMOHAN, J September 12, 2008 rn Crl.","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(c) At that point of time, A-1 to A-3, who belong to a Muslim association, way-laid the deceased and questioned him as to what is his name so as to know his religion.The deceased replied that his name is Ramasamy.From the name of the deceased, the accused found out that the deceased is a Hindu.Then he shouted that some Hindus must be finished off in order to teach a lesson to them.(d) Then, A-1 stabbed on the left chest, A-2 stabbed on the stomach and A-3 stabbed on the chest of the deceased with knives.When the deceased shouted, A-3 took a reaper wood and beat on the head of the deceased.Then, he threw the reaper wood in a nearby ditch.Since P.Ws.1 and 2 cried aloud, all the accused persons ran away from the scene.(e) The deceased fell down on the ground.On seeing that the intestines of the deceased came out from the stomach, P.W.1 Subramanian tied a towel around the stomach of the deceased and took him to the Government General Hospital, Coimbatore.(f) P.W.9 Doctor found that the deceased was dead.He issued Ex.P-18 accident register.(g) Then, P.W.1 Subramanian went to the Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 complaint to P.W.10 Head Constable, who registered a case for the offence under Section 302 IPC and then, P.W.10 sent the message to the superior officers.(h) P.W.11 Inspector of Police went to the scene of occurrence.There was no sufficient light.Therefore, on 2.12.1997 at about 6.00 a.m., he prepared observation mahazar, drew rough sketch and observed all the other formalities.(i) Then, P.W.11 Inspector of Police went to the hospital and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased.During the course of inquest, he examined the witnesses.He prepared Ex.P-21 inquest report.(j) P.W.8 Doctor conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased and found as many as four external injuries and three internal wounds.He issued Ex.P-17 post-mortem certificate and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage and shock of wound Nos.2 and 3 and corresponding internal appearances described thereunder.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.Samsu alias Samsudeen, the appellant in Crl.A.No.401 of 2000 and Sarafudeen and Hakkim alias Abdul Hakkim, the appellants in Crl.They have filed these two appeals, seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction imposed on them by the trial Court for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentence to undergo life imprisonment each.Short facts leading to conviction are as follows:(a) Two days prior to the date of occurrence, one Constable Selvaraj was done to death by some Muslim fundamentalists.In retaliation, the Muslim people were attacked and there was a law and order problem throughout the area.The Police also announced that public should not come out, in view of the said law and order problem.(b) On the date of occurrence, i.e. on 1.12.1997, the deceased Ramasamy, along with his wife, P.W.2 Parvathamani, went to the Government Sewerage Farm to cut grass.P.W.1 Subramanian, the elder brother of the deceased, was working as an employee in the Municipality.After the work was over, P.W.1, who came by that way, accompanied P.W.2, the wife of the deceased and the deceased, while returning home.(k) On 3.12.1997, P.W.12, the Special CB-CID Officer (Inspector of Police) took up further investigation and examined P.W.3 and others.On 27.12.1997, P.W.12 Inspector of Police arrested all the three accused and on their confession, M.Os.2,3 and 4, the bloodstained knives, were recovered.He sent the material objects for chemical analysis.After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.(l) During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-21 were filed and M.Os.1 to 7 were marked.(m) When the accused persons were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied their complicity in the crime.They stated that they were taken to custody ten days earlier to the date of arrest and had been illegally detained in the Police Station.However, no evidence was adduced on the side of defence.(n) The trial Court, after assessing the evidence adduced by the prosecution, found all the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced them as stated above.Hence, these appeals.R.Sankara Subbu and Mr.A.K.S.Thahir, learned counsel for the appellants in the respective appeals, would submit that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, would not be sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution; the testimony tendered by eye-witnesses, is not trustworthy; in the absence of conducting test identification parade, their evidence cannot be accepted.In support of their contentions, both the learned counsel for the appellants would cite the following authorities:(c) 1994 (2) CRIMES 875 (Madras High Court)(Mathy and Anr.(d) 2004 S.C.C. (Cri) 456 (State of Rajasthan vs. Kishan Singh).On the above aspects, we have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor.We have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records.On a perusal of the entire records and on consideration of the respective submissions made by learned counsel on either side, we are of the view that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of the accused, as the evidence adduced by the prosecution, would not inspire confidence.As such, the appellants/accused 1 to 3 are liable to be acquitted of the charges.The reasons for our conclusion are as follows.According to prosecution, when P.Ws.1 and 2 accompanied the deceased, all the three accused way-laid them and on coming to know that he belongs to Hindu religion, they attacked the deceased.The deceased was taken to hospital by P.W.1 Subramanian and other witnesses at about 5.45 p.m. Ex.P-18 is the accident register relating to the injuries on the deceased, issued by P.W.9 Doctor.It is mentioned in Ex.P-18 that P.W.1 told P.W.9 Doctor that some one attacked the deceased and the deceased was found with injuries in the place of the incident and that he and P.W.2, the wife of the deceased, brought the deceased.From the evidence of P.W.9 Doctor and Ex.P-18 accident register, it is clear that P.Ws.1 and 2 did not tell P.W.9 Doctor as to the details of the occurrence; as to how the deceased sustained injuries, the number of persons involved in the occurrence and the identity of those persons.Only after receipt of information about the death of the deceased from the Doctor, P.W.1 Subramanian went to the Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 complaint.In the complaint, P.W.1 Subramanian stated that himself and P.W.2 were the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and they saw that one among the three identifiable accused, caused injury on the deceased and all the three accused ran away from the scene.The same statement has been made by P.W.1 Subramanian to P.W.11 Inspector of Police during the course of investigation.Similar statement was made by P.W.2 Parvathamani also to P.W.11 Inspector of Police.Strangely, P.Ws.1 and 2 would depose in the Court that they saw A-1 stabbing on the left chest of the deceased; A-2 on the stomach of the deceased and A-3 on the right chest of the deceased.Thereafter, A-3 took out a reaper wood and caused injury on the hand of the deceased and then, ran away.Thus, the reason given by the High Court for distrusting the evidence of Dr.According to prosecution, while the deceased was way-laid, the accused asked the name of the deceased in order to verify as to whether he belongs to Hindu religion.This shows that during the course of investigation, the investigating agency was able to conclude that three persons participated and out of three, only one attacked the deceased.On the contrary, P.Ws.1 and 2 had stated before the Court that all the three accused persons attacked.Thus, it is manifestly clear that the investigating agency has not done their job properly to find out as to who are the real assailants.As such, this Court is left with no other alternative except to give the ""benefit of doubt"" to all the accused persons.Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/A-1 to A-3 are liable to be set aside.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"It is ordered accordingly.6.Having said the above, it is pertinent to point out that the trial was in respect of an occurrence dated 17.9.2004 having taken place at 8.15 am.As per written report Ex. Ka-1 presented by P.W.1- Kapildeo Yadav before the Officer-in-Charge of Bahariawar police station, the informant and his uncle Deep Chandra Yadav @ Lal Ji Yadav (P.W. 2) were taking tea at the tea-stall of one Doodhnath where his co-villagers Rajai Yadav (not examined) and Paltan Yadav (P.W.3) were also present.His uncle deceased Shyamdeo Yadav along with other deceased Devkinandan Yadav, came by a motor cycle from his house and no sooner the two had reached the road than the three accused persons, namely, Shiv Pujan Yadav, Mahendra Yadav and Suresh Yadav also came by another motor cycle which was being driven by appellant Suresh Yadav.Appellants Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker also came by another motorcycle which was being driven by appellant Rajesh Yadav and all the five persons surrounded deceased Shyamdeo Yadav and Devkinandan Yadav.Shiv Pujan Yadav is said to have remonstrated by stating that both of them be killed upon which Shyamdeo Yadav, the uncle of informant P.W.1, leaving his motorcycle aside ran into the field north of the road upon which Shiv Pujan Yadav armed with his gun and Mahendra Yadav and Suresh Yadav both armed with country made pistols started chasing Shyamdeo Yadav and also kept firing at him.When Devkinandan Yadav, the other deceased, ran towards the shop of Doodhnath Chauhan, both Rajesh Yadav and Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker followed him and fired shots at him and all of them sped away towards east after committing the murder of Shyamdeo Yadav and Devkinandan Yadav.7.The informant stated that both Shyamdeo Yadav and Devkinandan Yadav had died at the spot.There was a panic all around and the shop-keepers downed their shutters and people started running helter and skelter, during which course, the accused persons also kept firing shots and might be, that someone amongst the public should have received an injury.The whole environment was charged with terror.8.On the basis of Ex. Ka-1, F.I.R. of the case (Ex.Ka-5) was drawn up by P.W. 7-Constable Mool Chand Sharma, who was posted as Head Moharrir in the Bahariawar police station.P.W. 7 stated that after drawing the F.I.R., he created the copies of the written report and the F.I.R. by carbon process and made entries regarding the contents of those documents in the General Diary dated 17.9.2004 of the Police Station.9.It appears that S.I. Amarendra Nath Bajpayee (P.W.13), who was the Inspector of Police and was the Officer-in-Charge of the police station, took up the investigation of the case and recorded the statement of the informant at the police station itself.He along with some constables set out for the village of occurrence and held inquest upon the two dead bodies of Shyamdeo Yadav and Devkinandan Yadav by preparing inquest reports (Exts.Ka-13 and 14).He also drew up the sketches of the dead bodies and prepared the dead body challan as also letter addressed to the Chief Medical Officer, Ghazipur.After having sealed the two dead bodies, he forwarded them for post mortem examination through Constables Surendra Singh (P.W.11) and Surendra Nath Tiwari (P.W.12).The Investigating officer, thereafter, inspected the place of occurrence and during that course found blood splattered at places where the dead bodies of Shyamdeo Yadav and Devkinandan Yadav were found and seized blood by preparing seizure memos.He also found empty cartridges of 12 bore made of brass and two caps of the cartridges lying near the dead body of Shyamdeo Yadav and he seized them by preparing seizure memo (Ext.Ka-26).The Hero Honda motorcycle, which was used by Shyamdeo Yadav, was also seized by the Investigating officer (P.W.13) and he found that his left slipper was lying near his dead body while his right slipper was found near the Hero Honda motorcycle.Those two slippers were also seized by P.W. 13 by preparing seizure memo (Ext.Ka-27).The seizure memo in respect of motorcycle appears marked by the learned Trial Judge as Ext.Blood found near the dead body of Devkinandan was seized by preparing seizure memo Ex.Ka-29 and P.W. 13 found two empty cartridges of brass along with two cartridges of copper lying near the dead body of Devkinandan Yadav and those were also seized by preparing seizure memo Ext.P.W. 13 inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan, which was marked Ext. Ka-31 by the court below.P.W. 13 recorded the statements of different witnesses and noted them into the case diary along with all the steps of investigation carried out by him.10.P.W.13 stated that he learnt that one Om Prakash Kumhar had also been injured in the incident but he could not trace him out for recording his statement.1 and 2 had stated that they had set out from their house together on a motorcycle and had come at the chowk from their village by the chak-road which has been shown in the site plan as also which has been described by P.W. 1 to run from his village which was situated to the South of the place of occurrence and which merged into the pitch road.On the right side of the chak-road, was installed the pump set of Doodhnath and to the south of the road, there were structures in one of which the clinic of Dr. S.K. Lahsar was located and in the other room of the same structure, the miscellaneous articles shop of Doodhnath Chauhan was situated.The tea shop was located to the east of the miscellaneous articles shop of Doodhnath Chauhan and, as per P.Ws.1&2, when they had come in front of the tea stall of Doodh Nath Chauhan, they were invited for a cup of tea by Rajai Yadav (not examined) and Paltan (P.W. 3) and as such they parked their motorcycle and went inside the tea stall to have a cup of tea.But, it further appears that they had come out of tea stall on to the road in front of it and started sipping tea.The second motorcycle was driven by appellant Rajesh Yadav and appellant Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker was the pillion rider armed country made gun.It is stated by witnesses that appellant Shiv Pujan Yadav remonstrated to kill the deceased upon which deceased Shyamdeo Yadav, leaving aside his motorcycle on the road, ran into the field north of the road and was chased by appellants Shiv Pujan Yadav and Mahendra Yadav and Suresh Yadav who started firing at him and, accordingly, Shyam Dev Yadav was hit and fell down there.The other deceased Devkinandan also ran for safety towards the tea-stall, but he was chased by appellant Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker and appellant Rajesh who also fired simultaneously by their respective fire arms and Devkinandan fell near the tea-stall and died there.Both P.Ws. 1 and 2 had stated that they hid themselves behind the tea-stall and were thus spared and after having achieved their goal, the appellants ran towards east and then had went back in the western direction.The sketch map Ext. Ka-31, is part of the prosecution evidence and the description of different structures as per the sketch map tallies very well and completely with the evidence of P.W.1 as appears from deposition at page 69 of the paper book.These were the places where blood was found and seized by preparing seizure memoes.Margin of the wound was inverted.Blackening and tattooing was also present around the wound in an area of 3cm x3cm.Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Dharnidhar Jha, J.)2.Five appellants of the three appeals were put on trial in the above noted Sessions Trials after being charged with committing various offences and were held guilty by the impugned Judgment.Appellants Rajesh Yadav, Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker, Shiv Pujan Yadav and Mahendra Yadav had been charged with committing offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 149 and 302/149 I.P.C., 25 of the Arms Act as also Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act while appellant Suresh Yadav was charged with committing all the above offences for which the above noted four accused persons had been charged, except that under Section 302/149 I.P.C. All the appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Appellant Suresh Yadav of Criminal Appeal No. 3154 of 2011 was also not held guilty of committing offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act but he was held guilty of committing offences under Sections 147, 148 and 307/149 I.P.C. and was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and two years respectively under Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C. while he had to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years as also had to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for being held guilty of offence under Section 307/149 I.P.C. The learned Trial Judge directed that in case of default in paying the fine, the appellant Suresh Yadav had to undergo simple imprisonment for another term of eight months.3.So far as the other appellants, like, Rajesh Yadav, Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker, Shiv Pujan Yadav and Mahendra Yadav were concerned, they were directed to suffer simple imprisonment for terms of one and two years respectively under Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for a term of eight years under Section 307/149 I.P.C. In addition to the substantive sentence, each of them was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- else to suffer simple imprisonment for six months in respect of their individual conviction under Section 307/149 I.P.C. As regards their individual conviction under Section 302/149 I.P.C., each of the four appellants was directed to be hanged by his neck till he was dead and was further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- or to suffer simple imprisonment for one year.4.So far as the conviction of appellants Rajesh Yadav, Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker, Mahendra Yadav and Shiv Pujan Yadav under Section 25 of the Arms Act was concerned, each of them was to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and had also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, else to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.This is how the learned trial judge made the reference to this Court under Section 366 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of sentence of death which was inflicted upon the four appellants Rajesh Yadav, Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker, Shiv Pujan Yadav and Mahendra Yadav who also preferred their appeals to challenge their conviction as may appear from the array of appellants in the connected four appeals.5.Before we proceed to set out the facts of the case, we want to note that appellant Suresh Yadav of Criminal Appeal No. 3154 of 2011, though, had been convicted for offences, like, 147, 148 and 307/149 I.P.C. and was impressed also that he was being tried for being a member of unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to commit twin murders of Shyamdeo Yadav and Devkinandan Yadav, as may appear from the heading of charges framed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur on 18.7.2005, which is available to the court at pages 56 and 57 of the paper book, and besides being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he along with other accused persons in prosecution of the common object had caused or had known the two murders to be caused, as appears from question no. 2 put to appellant Suresh Yadav, the trial Judge had omitted to frame a charge under Section 302/149 I.P.C. against appellant Suresh Yadav.As such, no conviction of that appellant under Section 302/149 I.P.C. was recorded.This is the reason that Criminal Appeal (Defective) No. 443 of 2011 was brought by the informant of the case, namely, Kapildeo Yadav with a prayer that his sentence be enhanced accordingly.In our opinion, in absence of any conviction of appellant Suresh Yadav under Section 302/149 I.P.C, the appeal against acquittal seeking the enhancement in sentence by convicting him under Section 302 I.P.C. was not maintainable and, as such, before we proceed further with the present Judgment, we have to dismiss Criminal Appeal (Defective) No. 443 of 2010 as not maintainable.However, what we find is that the said Om Prakash Kumhar was examined by a doctor, but there is no evidence as to what was the injury found by the doctor.11.P.W. 13 searched for the accused persons during which, he came to know that appellant Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker was likely to come to the village from some other place and, accordingly, he was arrested on 22.9.2004 at about 5.05 am and, on search of his person, a country made pistol of 3.15 bore (marked 1/2005 for comparison and testing by FSL) was recovered along with a couple of cartridges (marked LC-1 & LC-2 by FSL for comparison).For the recovery of the arms and ammunitions, a separate case was instituted under the Arms Act.12.P.W. 13 learnt that appellant Shiv Pujan Yadav, Mahendra Yadav and Rajesh Yadav had surrendered themselves to the custody of C.J.M., Ghazipur and, accordingly, he came to District Jail, Ghazipur on 16.10.2004 and questioned appellant Shiv Pujan Yadav who pointed out that his gun was lying in the custody of his wife at his house.Accordingly, P.W.13 came to the house of appellant Shiv Pujan Yadav and seized the gun there in presence of witnesses by preparing seizure memo.The SBBL gun was marked by FSL as 4/2005 for comparison and testing.Appellants Mahendra Yadav and Rajesh Yadav were taken out of jail by order of remand passed by the court of C.J.M. and it appears that during the questioning by P.W. 13, both Rajesh Yadav and Mahendra Yadav led the Investigating Officer, P.W. 13, to different places and they produced the country made pistols, which they had concealed at two different places, before the Investigating Officer.The two pistols produced by Mahendra and Rajesh Yadav were marked 3/2005 and 2/2005 respectively for testing and comparison.This evidence of production of weapons by Rajesh and Mahendra Yadav appears at page 131 of the paper book.The two weapons were also seized by preparing two different seizure memos Exs.Ka-35 and 36 respectively.13.It appears further that the seized arms and ammunitions as also the empties were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) through P.W. 10-Constable Suresh Chaube.After examining them, the FSL submitted its report, which is available on the lower court records.It was found that the SBBL gun, which was seized from the house of appellant Shiv Pujan Yadav, had been used in firing the disputed empty of the cartridges marked EC-3 whereas the three different country made pistols, which were recovered from Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker , Rajeh Yadav and Mahendra Yadav, had also been used in firing different cartridges.Besides, on chemical analysis of the materials, which were found in the barrel of the weapons, i.e., the three country made pistols and the SBBL gun of appellant Shiv Pujan Yadav, they were containing firing residue nitrate, Lead and Copper and that indicated that the guns had been used recently in firing shots.These reports of FSL with the report on serological examination of bloodstained earth are at pages 48 to 52 of the paper book with its original on the lower court record which are admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. as evidence due to being the report of FSL, Lucknow submitted under the signature of its Joint Director.We are not sure whether these reports were marked exhibits for the prosecution but assuming that they had not been marked as such, we have read them in evidence by virtue of Section 293 Cr.P.C.14.It appears that P.W.13 was transferred from the police station as a result of which the investigation was taken up by P.W. 8-SI Hari Ram Mishra who did not do any substantial part of the investigation and submitted the charge sheet only.The investigation of the case registered for recovery for arms from the accused persons was carried out by P.W. 14-SI Ram Bharose Yadav who had also submitted charge sheet after obtaining the requisite sanction for prosecuting the appellants Rajesh Yadav, Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker, Shiv Pujan Yadav and Mahendra Yadav for being in possession of different arms.This is how the trial was taken up which ended in the impugned Judgment and gave rise to the death reference and connected criminal appeals.15.It appears that defence of the accused persons was that the deceased Shyamdeo Yadav had many enemies and possibly they had taken advantage of the cover of darkness in the night and had killed him.As regards appellant Suresh Yadav, who has not been found guilty and sentenced under Section 302/149 I.P.C. as he was not charged and tried under Section 302/149 I.P.C., he appears to have taken a specific defence of alibi by pleading that he was not present at the scene of occurrence and rather he was present in Pathankot with his Unit of 51 Brigade of the Indian Army and his implication was out and out false.16.In order to proving the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses out of whom P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 were eye witnesses to the occurrence.Sanjay Kumar Rai had held autopsy on the two dead bodies and had issued post mortem examination reports (Exts.Ka-2&3).P.W.5-Ram Siromani Verma was the Pharmacist who was posted in December 2004 in Sri Shiv Prasad Gupta Hospital, Kabir Chauraha, Varanasi where Dr. B.B.Prakash (not examined) was working as a Radiologist and who had submitted the radiological report Ex.The evidence of P.W. 4 is completely silent as to in whose respect the report had been submitted, but on looking to the evidence of P.W. 6-Dr.B.P. Bouhare, we find that the Radiologist's report was in respect of injury suffered by one Om Prakash, who was examined by P.W. 6 for his injuries in S.S. P.G. Hospital, Varanasi and had advised X-ray of his injuries.P.W.7 was the Constable Moharrir Mool Chand Sharm, who had drawn up the F.I.R. P.W.9-Constable-Munshi Prakash Chand had registered the cases under the Arms Act on the basis of the written report submitted in the police station with the seizure memos by P.W. 13-S.I. Amarendra Nath Bajpayee.P.W.10-Constable Surendra Nath Bajpayee had brought the seized arms and ammunitions and other articles to the court of C.J.M. for getting it forwarded to the FSL and took the seized articles to the FSL, Lucknow.P.W.11-Surendra Singh and P.W.12- Surendra Nath Tiwari had accompanied the two dead bodies to the mortuary for post mortem examination.P.W.13-Amarendra Nath Bajpayee, we have already noted, was the first Investigating Officer of the case and, on his transfer, the investigation was carried on by P.W.8-S.I. Hari Ram Mishra.P.W.14- S.I. Ram Darash Yadav had investigated the case under the Arms Act.The defence examined the solitary witness Dalveer Singh, who was an employee of the Indian Army and who had brought certain records from his Unit 330 Brigade and stated that on the date of occurrence, the appellant Suresh Yadav, posted in the Indian Army as Hawildar, was present in Pathankot with 51 Brigade of the Army.18.After considering the evidence available to him, the learned trial judge recorded the finding of guilt and passed the order of sentence upon the appellants and made the reference which has been noted at the very outset of the present Judgment.19.Sri Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in support of the appeals and in opposition of the death reference, took us through the evidence of witnesses and submitted that the witnesses were not reliable as their presence at the place of occurrence was itself doubtful.It was contended by Sri Chaturvedi that both the witnesses Kapil Dev Yadav (P.W.1) and Deep Chand @ Lalji (P.W.3) were chance witnesses and the reason for their presence at the place of occurrence appears stated for the first time during trial and as such the court should reject their evidence.It was contended that P.W.3- Paltan Yadav had supported the prosecution story during his examination-in-chief, but during cross examination on 9.1.2006 and 8.11.2006, he turned round to go to the extent of stating that even those statements which had been made by him on oath before the learned Sessions Judge on 14.11.2005 during his examination-in-chief, had not been made by him and he did not have any reason to say as to how the learned trial court recorded those statements in his deposition sheets.During the course of his cross examination on 8.11.2006, submitted Sri Chaturvedi, P.W.3 stated that neither he was present at the tea-stall of Doodhnath Chauhan nor he was taking tea and, as such, the claim of P.Ws.1 & 2 that they were invited to have a cup of tea by P.W.3 Paltan and Rajai Yadav (not examined), appears not established.It was contended that the deceased Shyamdeo Yadav was the full brother of P.W.2-Deep Chand @ Lalji.P.W.1-Kapil Dev Yadav was the son of Musafir, who was the elder brother of Deep Chand @ Lalji (P.W.2) and the deceased Shyamdeo.The evidence was ample that there were some good number of witnesses, who were present at the place of occurrence, which was a small place of business-activity where many establishments were located, but none of those independent persons came to support the prosecution story.Submission was that evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 being that of interested and inimical witnesses, the court should reject the same and hold the charges not substantiated.The submission also was that the enmity between the accused and the prosecution party was undisputed and this could be the reason for the false implication of the appellants.The deceased Shyamdeo had many enemies, which has been admitted by P.W. 1 in his evidence, and possibly, he was killed sometimes in the night and an antedated report was collusively made and evidence in support of the false story was led, which ultimately ended in the impugned Judgment and the reference made by the learned Trial Judge under Section 366 Cr.P.C. Sri Chaturvedi, lastly, submitted that it could not be a case which should be the rarest among the rare ones and it was an ordinary murder out of enmity without any element of depravity as regards its execution and the learned Trial Judge, submitted Sri Chaturvedi, had misdirected himself on law in sentencing and has inflicted punishment, which was not proportionate to the act.20.We had the privilege of hearing Sri A.K.Srivastava and Sri A.N. Mulla, the two Additional Government Advocates in opposition of the appeals.It was contended on their behalf that it is true that the deceased Shyamdeo was the full brother of P.W. 2-Deep Chand @ Lalji and uncle of Kapildeo Yadav (P.W.1) too, but on a cautious scrutiny of their evidence what appears is that they were telling the truth and they had assigned good reasons for their presence and that does not appear seriously challenged.Their evidence is consistent on the manner of occurrence and the enmity is admitted and that was the motive for commission of the offence.The evidence was sufficient to indicate that the charges were proved to the hilt.21.P.W. 1 Kapil Dev Yadav had stated in his evidence that his father Musafir Yadav had two brothers Deep Chand Yadav @ Lalji (P.W.2) and Shyamdeo Yadav (the deceased).Thus, the inter se close relationship between the deceased and the witnesses is admitted.What we further find is that it was a well-knit family till the date of occurrence.It appears that the family was residing under one roof.They dined in one-mess and probably they were running the business or other affairs of the family jointly.It was a day-time murder.Thus, the question of the witnesses or the family members, who were very close to the deceased Shyamdeo Yadav, to have spun out an imaginary story, appears a far fetched situation.23.We approached the evidence of both the witnesses with an alert mind as the witnesses have admitted, as appears from the cross-examination of P.W. 1 at page 70 of the paper book, enmity between the parties.Likewise, one Raj Narain had been murdered and it was suggested to P.W. 1 that the deceased Devkinandan was one of the accused in the case instituted for the said murder of Raj Narain.The two deceased Shyamdeo Yadav and Devkinandan Yadav arrived by one motorcycle.No sooner the two had arrived there, the five appellants are also said to have arrived there by two motorcycles.On one motorcycle appellants Shiv Pujan Yadav and Mahendra Yadav were sitting with SBBL gun and country made gun respectively which was driven by appellant Suresh Yadav.The empties of cartridges were also found near the dead bodies and they were also seized by preparing seizure memoes.P.W. 1 described the existence of shops, etc. at different places and their location in respect of the road which was in north of them and parallel to them and the same descriptions appear recorded by the Investigating officer of the case.These evidences of the P.W. 1 do not appear challenged.What is found from the sketch map further is that the dead body of Shyamdeo was found in the field north of the road whereas that of Deokinandan was found lying at point B also on the road and in front of the tea-stall of Doodhnath.These evidences of P.W.1 and the objective findings of P.W. 13 recorded in sketch map are corroborating each other on important aspects of the case.26.Both P.Ws. 1 and 2 stated that they had started from their house for going to Hurmujpur Halt where they had a shop of tether and other rope materials.The submission was that this fact had not been stated in the F.I.R. by P.W.1 and that P.W.2 had not stated this fact during the course of investigation to the Investigating Officer.27.We find from the cross-examination of P.W. 1 that he had admitted that he had not stated this fact in the written report.We do not find it unusual that this fact was not mentioned in the written report.P.W. 1 had stated in the F.I.R. that he and P.W. 2 Deep Chandra @ Lalji had left their house on 17.9.2009 and stopped at the tea-stall of Doodhnath Chauhan for taking tea where Rajai Yadav (not examined) and Paltan Yadav were also taking tea at about 8 am.It is too well known to be stated that all facts need not be stated in the F.I.R.. In fact, during his cross-examination, P.W. 1 had admitted that he had not stated that he was going to Hurmujpur halt, but no question was put to him that that particular fact was not stated by him before the Investigating Officer.So it becomes very difficult for us to reject the claim of the witness as regards the purpose in connection whereof he happened to be at the place of occurrence while he was on way to Hurmujpur halt.Likewise, attention of P.W. 2 was drawn to a statement which was allegedly made by him to the Investigating Officer when he stated that he and Kapildeo Yadav had gone to Laxmanpur Chatti for taking tea.The witness denied that he had made the statement.In order to verifying as to whether the witness had made that particular statement and the further statement, we went through the evidence of P.Ws. 13 and 8 S.I. A.N. Bajpayee and S.I. Hari Ram Mishra respectively and we find that no proof of that fact was obtained by cross-examining the two police officers to that fact.The next fact which was put to P.W. 2 in his cross-examination was that he had not stated that he was going to Hurmujpur halt by the motorcycle and the witness said that he had made that statement to the Investigating Officer.Again, we find the proof of that particular fact regarding going to Hurmujpur halt and making no statement to that effect was not proved by cross-examining P.Ws. 8 and 13- the Investigating officers.Thus, in absence of any evidence from the Investigating Officers that P.Ws. 1 and 2 had not stated before them that they had proceeded on a motorcycle for Hamijpur halt together and they had stopped at the tea stall of Doodhnath Chauhan at the request of Rajai (not examined), we have to accept that they had the same purpose and they had, accordingly, set out together from their house as is claimed by P.W.1 at page 71 and by P.W. 2 at page 78 of his deposition.28.Sri Chaturvedi was criticising the evidence of two witnesses as chance witnesses.What Sri Chaturvedi was arguing was that both P.Ws. 1 and 2 had no reason to remain present at the scene of occurrence and they being inimical might be motivated to make a false statement.A chance witness is one who by co-incidence or chance happens to be present at the place of occurrence at the time when it had taken place (AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2032, Bahal Singh vs State Of Haryana) and if such person happens to be the relative or friend of the victim or inimically disposed towards the accused, then he being a chance witness is viewed with suspicion.The other view, which appears from Jai Singh Vs.State of Karnataka reported in 2007 Criminal Law Journal 2434 at pages 2435 and 2436, was that where, if such witnesses did not explain the circumstances which brought them to the place of occurrence from the village coupled with the fact that they did not inform the incident to anyone even though one of them was related to the deceased being a cousin and kept silent for about six days, it was held that such witnesses were not reliable.Therefore, what appears from Jai Singh(supra) is that if the witnesses are giving sufficient reasons, which may be acceptable to the courts regarding their presence at the scene of occurrence, then the evidence of such witnesses could not be rejected by merely lebelling them as chance witnesses.Here in the present case both P.Ws. 1 and 2 have stated that they started from their house for going to Hurmujpur Halt for looking after their small business of tether and rope materials.The evidence which we have scanned in the previous paragraph of the present Judgment, appears satisfactory as regards their claim for leaving their house by a motorcycle to go to that place.There is no denial or even a challenge by the defence that they did not have any such establishment at Hurmujpur Halt and there was no cross-examination further to show that there was no establishment of the witnesses there as was claimed by them.Moreover, the presence of both P.Ws. 1 and 2 at the place of occurrence may appear per chance but their stoppage there also appears on account of a particular reason.P.W. 3, who turned hostile after more than two months of giving evidence in examination-in-chief, had also stated that when P.Ws. 1 and 2 arrived there by the motor cycle, he and Rajai invited Deep Chand @ Lalji (P.W. 2) and Kapil Dev Yadav (P.W.1) to have tea and, accordingly, they came to the tea stall and started sipping the tea.P.W. 2-Deep Chand @ Lalji had stated that if he and P.W. 1 would not have been stopped for having tea by P.W. 3 and Rajai, both of them ought not have stopped there.This evidence appears in the last paragraph of cross-examination dated 13.9.2005 of P.W. 2 at page 82 of the paper book.Thus, their stoppage at the place of occurrence might have been per chance, but the reason for their stay appears quite convincing and, on that account, we do not find their presence improbable.29.In our opinion, if a witness claims his presence at the scene of occurrence merely due to that reason, he should not be trusted.The Court should still hold an inquiry by scanning the evidence given by such a witness as to whether the reasons which were assigned by him for his presence at any particular place was really acceptable and convincing.If the court found the witness trustworthy on that claim, then only the witness could be said to be reliable else his evidence could not be utilized for any purpose.Here in the present case, we find that both P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that while they were on way to Hurmujpur Halt for attending to their small business there, they stopped near the place of occurrence on account of being requested to have a cup of tea by P.W. 3 and Rajai Yadav and we do find the reasons sufficient to accept the same.Thus, what we find is that P.Ws. 1 and 2 were not mere chance witnesses.They had good reasons to stop and for remaining present at the scene of occurrence.Might be, the occurrence had taken place at the time when they were very much present at the scene of occurrence.30.The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 was scanned by us quite deeply and we find that the cross-examination of P.W. 1 on the manner of occurrence which appears at page 74 of the paper book further inspires our confidence.The witness was put many searching questions on the manner of occurrence and he was responding convincingly by describing the manner in which both the deceased were chased and killed.P.W. 2 was also cross-examined on the manner of occurrence as appears from the perusal of his evidence at pages 83 and 84 of the paper book and we find that the evidences of both the P.Ws. are quite consistent with each other and not even a single line was found by us which could discredit them as eye witnesses.31.P.W. 3, of course, had turned hostile, so much so that he had the audacity of saying that the evidence, which was given by him in his examination-in-chief on 14.11.2005 and which was recorded by the learned trial Judge was never stated to the Court as appears from his cross-examination done by the prosecution after recalling him.But we have to consider some of the circumstances.The examination-in-chief of P.W. 3 was completed on 14.11.2005 and when the turn came for the defence to cross-examine the witness, an application was filed on that very day for adjourning the hearing of P.W. 3 as a result of which the case was adjourned and the witness did not turn up on many dates till he appeared finally on 9.1.2006 when he made statement in cross-examination completely nullifying the effect of his evidence in examination-in-chief.He had stated that he and Rajai were sitting in the tea shop of Doodhnath Chauhan on the date of occurrence at about 8.15 a.m. when P.Ws. 1 and 2 came there and they were requested by him and Rajai to have a cup of tea.Accordingly, P.Ws. 1 and 2 stopped there when the two deceased came by a motor cycle and immediately succeeding them came the five accused persons and surrounded the two deceased, and on remonstration of appellant Shiv Pujan Yadav to kill them, the deceased Shyamdeo Yadav, leaving aside his motorcycle ran into the field situated in the north of the place of occurrence who was chased by appellants Shiv Pujan Yadav, Mahendra Yadav and Suresh Yadav who were respectively armed with regular gun and country made guns and was shot dead.Likewise, when Devkinandan the other deceased ran towards the shop of Doodhnath Chauhan, appellants Rajesh Yadav and Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker also chased him and fired at him and killed him.During the cross-examination on 9.1.2006, he stated that he was never present at the place of occurrence,i.e., in the tea shop of Doodhnath and P.Ws. 1 and 2 had never come and he had not witnessed the occurrence.The prosecution recalled him for cross-examination and he appeared after 10 months of his turning round on his evidence in examination-in-chief during his cross-examination on 9.1.2006, and what we find is that he did not have any hesitation in even stating that whatever was recorded in his examination-in-chief evidence had not been stated by him on oath before the learned trial Judge and he does not know how the same was written by the learned Judge.Thus, the witness appears so completely gained over by the defence that he was not even hesitating in branding the learned Judge who was recording his evidence as partial.The time which was purchased by the defence after filing an application for adjournment on 14.11.2005 and two months which intervened between 14.11.2005 and 9.1.2006 was more than enough for the defence as appears from the conduct of P.W. 3 to produce him and make statements in cross-examination not only to nullify the effect of his evidence in examination-in-chief but also to shamelessly castigate the court proceedings.We have to discard the evidence of P.W.3 in cross-examination and we have to hold that he was also supporting P.Ws. 1 and 2 on material parts of the prosecution case.32.The evidence of P.W. 4-Dr.Sanjai Kumar Rai, who held post mortem examination on the two dead bodies, has also to be considered so as to finding out as to whether the medical evidence was supporting the oral testimony.P.W. 4 stated that he found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of Devkinandan Yadav :-(i) A wound of entry 0.5cm x 0.5cm x bone deep on the right side of face two cm below the right eye the margins of the wound was inverted and collar abraded.(ii) A wound of exit measuring 2.5cm x 2cm x bone deep on the right side of forehead just lateral to the right eye.Margin of the wound was everted.(iii) A wound of exit 2cm x 1cm x cavity deep on the right side of back 22 cm below the right shoulder.Margin of wound was everted.(iv) A wound of entry measuring 0.5cm x0.5cm x cavity deep present on the right side of the chest.Margins were inverted and blackening and tattooing were present in an area of 4cm x 4cm around the wound.(v) A wound of entry 0.5cm x 0.5cm x bone deep on the left palm three inch below the wrist.(vi) A wound of exit 3 cm x 1cm x bone deep present on the back of left hand 3cm below the left wrist.Margins were everted.33.P.W.4 stated that injuries nos. 1 and 2 were communicating to each other.In the opinion of the P.W. 4, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries.During the dissection the doctor found that the left lung had been lacerated.Sanjay Kumar Rai found the following ante mortem fire arm injuries on the dead body of Shyamdeo Yadav:-(i) A wound of exit 2.5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep present on the forehead 4 cm above the root of nose.Margin was everted.(ii) A wound of entry measuring 1 cm x 1cm x bone deep resent on the right side of chin.Margin of the wound was inverted and the collar was abraded with blackening present around the wound and 3cm below the lower lip.(iii) A wound of entry measuring 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm x cavity deep on the right side of back.Margin of the wound was inverted and collar was abraded.The would was located 28cm below the right shoulder.(iv) A wound of exit 3 cm x 3cm x cavity deep present on the left side of abdomen 16 cm below the left nipple.The margin of the wound was found everted.(v) An abrasion measuring 1cm x 1cm in front of right leg 7.5 cm above the right ankle.35.P.W. 4 stated that injury no. 1 was communicating to injury no. 2 and injury no. 3 was communicating to injury no. 3 and all the injuries on the dead body were caused by fire arms.36.During dissection of dead body of Shyamdeo Yadav, the pleura was found lacerated with the pedium.Mandible, palate and the frontal bone of the head were found fractured.The membranes and brain matter were found lacerated along with the fracture of skull.In case of Devkinandan also P.W. 4 had found that his maxillary bone was fractured and the right lungs was lacerated.In the opinion of P.W. 4, death of the two deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem fire arm injuries found on the two dead bodies.In the opinion of P.W. 4, both the deceased could have been killed on 17.9.2005 at 8.15 a.m.37.The evidence of P.W.2 indicates that while deceased Shyamdeo Yadav was being chased, he had looked back also.There is no cross-examination to this fact.In our opinion too, a person when finds himself so confronted by peril out of natural urge instinct to escape it, starts running and during that course, often looks back to see as to whether he had indeed succeeded evading being hurt or killed.It is ordinary human reaction and behaviour in such a situation.The evidence further indicates that three accused were chasing Shyamdeo Yadav and they were firing at him as well.It may not be humanly possible for any witness to give shot by shot account of such incident.One may only narrate the main story of the manner of chase and being fired at.As such, the finding of injuries at the face of deceased Shyamdeo Yadav may not be telling a story different from that narrated by the two P.Ws.38.The other evidence which corroborates the occurrence is the evidence of the Investigating Officer.He had found and recovered empty cartridges near and from the two dead bodies of Shyamdeo Yadav and Devkinandan Yadav and had prepared the seizure memos Exs.P.W.13-SI Amarendra Nath Bajpayee had stated that he arrested appellant Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker on 2.9.2004 on 4.30 a.m. and had recovered from his possession a country made pistol of 3.15 bore and had prepared the seizure cum recovery memo (Ext.Ka-33) in that respect.He further stated that he had questioned appellant Shiv Pujan Yadav in jail and he had pointed out that the gun, which was used by him, was lying in the custody of his wife in his house and, accordingly, he came to his house on 16.10.2005 and took into possession.Appellants Mahendra yadav and Rajesh Yadav had been taken on remand on 21.10.2004 and, during questioning, they had led the Investigating Officer to two different places as per description appearing at page 137 of the paper book, and after bringing out the two country made pistols, each of them produced the same and, accordingly, the seizure memos in respect of those weapons were also prepared.What we find is that the seized empty cartridges and recovered SBBL gun and three country made pistols, which were recovered from the possession of Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker and and Shivpujan Yadav and produced by appellants Mahendra Yadav and Rajesh Yadav were sent for test and report to the FSL, Lucknow and those were examined and a report dated 14.6.2005, which appears at pages 48 and 49 of the paper book, was furnished.As per the report of the FSL, Lucknow, the SBBL Gun, which was probably licensed to appellant Shiv Pujan Yadav, was used in firing cartridge marked EC-3, which was recovered from the place of occurrence.Likewise, the three country made pistols, which had been marked 1/2005 the 2/2005 and 3/2005, were also found to have been used in firing shots, and cartridges marked EC-1, EC-2 and EC-5 were fired from those respective country made pistols.The cartridge EC-4 had not been fired from any of the three country made pistols.We find that the bloodstained earth was also sent for examination analysis to the FSL and the report is available to us at pages 51 and 52 of the paper book and the Joint Director, FSL, Lucknow reported that seized earth at serial nos. 1 and 14 were bearing human blood in the area as indicated in the report.Moreover, there is no challenge that the two deceased had been shot and killed at the place of occurrence.Thus, what we find is that the report was submitted by the FSL after tallying the seized empties of cartridges and seized weapons and those empties were recovered from near the dead bodies while SBBL gun was recovered from the constructive possession of the appellant Shiv Pujan Yadav.A country made pistol was recovered, as we have already noted, from the possession of Triloki Rajbhar while Suresh and Mahendra Yadav had produced the two other country made pistols after bringing it out of the places where they had been concealed by each of them.Thus, there is a support from these circumstances also that the accused persons had used the weapons in killing the two deceased.39.Sri Chaturvedi had submitted that there were number of persons who were present at the scene of occurrence as there were tea-stall and other establishments like the clinic of a doctor, miscellaneous article shop of Doodhnath Chauhan, etc. Not only that at 8.15am, the place of occurrence being amidst two villages, i.e., the village of the informant and the other village Laxmanpur Chatti, there could have been many other independent persons who would have witnessed the occurrence, but were not examined and only interested and inimical witnesses were examined.As such, their evidence should be discarded.40.We have appreciated the evidence of witnesses with great care and caution and we have considered the criticisms which were targeted at their credibility and we have found that the witnesses were appearing telling the truth.Sri Chaturvedi was submitting that there would have been many more independent persons who had been there and who ought to have been examined.We have to appreciate that is not it a changed social behaviour which we find daily in court rooms that independent persons, who could have witnessed an occurrence, avoid appearing before the court of law for many reasons; sometimes it is fear of earning the wrath of persons against whom they could be deposing and sometimes it is their indifference towards commission of offence treating it as personal or private matter that they refrain from appearing before the courts.On many occasions, persons of society sulk in coming forward in support of any particular story on account of unfavourable situation.They find themselves being cross-examined by being put various questions which simply unnerve and embarrass them and cause a sense of disgust and frustration in coming out in help of the cause of justice.No one wants to take up the cudgels against anyone in favour of the cause of justice and, in many cases, even the family members of the victim of an offence are found turning away from court proceedings and refuse to appear before the court of law.42.However, what has intrigued us the most is that while the evidence could be acceptable as regards establishing the charges under Sections 148, 302/149 I.P.C. against appellants Rajesh Yadav, Triloki Rajbhar @ Girija Shanker, Shiv Pujan Yadav and Mahendra Yadav, how could they, on that basis, be said to have committed the offences under Sections 147 and 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. which charge was also framed against them as also against appellant Suresh Yadav who was also convicted of committing the said offence.The witnesses stated that while chasing the two deceased in two different directions, they were also firing at each of them as a result of which both of them fell down and died.","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(c) The applicants shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer and shall remain present for the purpose of investigation in the police station at Indapur on Monday and Friday between 10 am to 1.00 p.m for next two weeks.BHARATI DANGRE, JTilak(a) In the event of their arrest, the Applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs.20,000/- each with one or two sureties of the like amount.(b) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case so as toTilak 6/6 13 ABAST-2396-20.doc dissuade them from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer and should not tamper with evidence.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The accused-4 has been charged under Section 409 r/w 34 IPC, u/s 477(A) (5 counts), 47(A) r/w 34 (4 counts) IPC and the accused-2 has been charged under Section 409 r/w 34, 477(A) IPC, 477(A) r/w 34(8 counts) IPC.Before the trial Court P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.65 were exhibited.A2 was the cashier in the above said Society for the period from 1.10.1985 to 5.6.1987 and that thereafter he was working as a dispatch clerk.A4 was the accountant during the relevant period.Out of the 8 witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1, 3 & 5 speak about A2 about his involvement in the crime.5.According to P.W.1, he was working as a day watchman of the Society from 1984 to 1985 and that he used to collect from the forest, forest products like Manipungai, Etty seeds etc., and used to sell to the other Society and that on 9.6.1987 he has not sold ten tones of manipungai to the Society and that Ex.P.1-receipt dated 9.6.1987 for the sale of 10 tones (200 bags of Manipungai) is not a genuine receipt and that he had not received Rs.20,000/- being the value of 200 bags of Manipungai under Ex.6.P.W.2 is the Assistant of the said Society.During the relevant period.7.P.W.3 is the then watchman of Jamuna Marathoor forest tamarind trees.He would deny for having supplied the Manipungai on 9.6.1987 of the above said Society.Even though he would admit that Ex.P.6-receipt for Rs.20,000/- contains his signature, he would say that he has not supplied Manipungai to the value of Rs.20,000/-.According to him only at the instance of A1-Muthu, Special Officer of the Society, he and Dhamodran have signed in Ex.P.6-receipt and at that time the said Ex.P.6-receipt was blank and nothing was written in it.According to P.W.3, Ex.P.6-receipt was filled up by A1 subsequently and handed over to Dhamodaran.8.P.W.4 is the then Deputy Registrar of the Society, who had conducted an enquiry under Section 81 of the Co-operative Societies Act, as per the directions of the Register of the Co-operative Society.According to him, the Special Registrar had conducted the enquiry and submitted enquiry report Ex.P.7 to him and that on the basis of Ex.According to him, as per Ex.P.9 there is an entry in the Bills No.5421 & 5422 that Manipungai, a forest product, was purchased by the Society to the value of Rs.40,000/-.P.26 is the entry in Ex.P.9, day book.According to him, the receipts given under Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.6 were not genuine receipts, but created for the purpose of showing that the Society had purchased Manipungaia, forest product, worth Rs.40,000/- from P.W.1 & P.W.3 and thereby A2 & A4 along with other co-accused have misappropriated the funds of the Society.The learned counsel would further contend that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that these two accused have misappropriated the alleged amount of Rs.40,000/-, which was collected from P.W.1 & P.W.3 under Ex.P.1 & Ex.P.6 receipts respectively.Except the fact that A2 & A4 have signed in the above said receipts Ex.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would represent that both the accused were on bail through out the trial and also during the first appeal and that there is no evidence to show that the disputed amount i.e., Rs.40,000/- under Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.6 were misappropriated by these two accused and that some leniency may be shown on them in the sentence.P.W.7 & P.W.8 are the Investigating Officers.11.The learned Trial Judge has accepted the case of the prosecution on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused-2 under Section 409 r/w 34, 477(A) IPC to undergo 6 months RI and a fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 477(A) r/w 34 (8 counts) IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100 for each counts.A4 was convicted under Section 409 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months RI and a fine of Rs.500 in default 3 months RI and also convicted under Section 477(A)(5 counts), 477(A) r/w 34 (4 counts) IPC to pay a fine of Rs.100/- for each count.The co-accused A1, A3, A5 were also convicted and sentenced by the learned Judicial Magistrate and another co-accused A6 alone was acquitted under Section 248(1)Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, A2 preferred an appeal in C.A.No.144 of 2003 and A4 preferred an appeal in C.A.No.143 of 2003 before the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Vellore.Since both A2 & A4 could not succeed in the first appeal, they have come before this Court by way of these revisions.13.When both the revisions were taken up for hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioners Mr.P.1 & Ex.P.6 there is no material on record to show that they have received the amount i.e., Rs.40,000/- under each of the receipts and misappropriated the same.But this contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners cannot be upheld because the admitted case of the prosecution is that along with these two accused A1, A3 & A5 were working in the same Society and only they were on duty in the said Society during the relevant period.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Thiru.V.R.Balasubramanian on this point.Taking into consideration the ordeal of trial faced by A2 & A4 for over 10 years and taking into consideration the advanced age of A4 and the fact that A2 has lost his job, I am of the view that while confirming the conviction, the sentence alone can be modified to that of ""till the raising of the Court"" instead of 6 months RI, while confirming the fine imposed by the trial Court.In the result, the revision petitions are allowed in part and the conviction against the revision petitioners/A2 & A4 in C.A.No.144 & 143 of 2003 respectively on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Vellore, is confirmed and the sentence alone is modified to the effect ""till the raising of the Court "" instead of 6 months RI.Both the accused shall appear before Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore on 25.6.2007 at 10.30 am to serve out the sentence.The fine imposed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the first appellate Court, is hereby confirmed.1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore.2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore.3.The Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC), Vellore.4.The District & Sessions Judge, Vellore.5.The Inspector of Police, CCIW.CTD, Vellore.6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.",['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
"C.R.M. No. 12777 of 2014 MNS.In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on September 9, 2014 in connection with Dubrajpur Police Station Case No. 102 of 2014 dated June 4, 2014 under Sections 147/148/149/332/333/338/186/353/325/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently added Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 25/27/35 of the Arms Act and Section 9(b)(ii) of the Indian Explosive Act and Sections 3/ 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 9 of the M.P.O. Act And In the matter of: Mir Lal Babu @ Mir Anawar Sahadat and others ...petitioners.Mr. Sabir Ahmed ...for the petitioners.Mr. N. Ahmed ...for the State.Heard the learned advocate of both the parties.The application for bail is, thus, rejected at this stage.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) (Sudip Ahluwalia, J.)","['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The Petitioner No.2 made correspondence with the Chief Personnel Officer of the Eastern Railway to ascertain whether the husband of the Opposite Party No.2 had drawn the house rent allowance as an employee of the railways during the period for which the Opposite Party No.2 claimed house rent allowance as Assistant Teacher of the school.CRR No. 2486 of 2011 With CRAN No. 1152 of 2013 Ruma Raha Dutta & Ors.The State of West Bengal & Anr.This criminal revision is preferred by the petitioners for quashing the proceeding being G. R. Case No.807 of 2007 arising out of Dankuni Police Station Case No.151 of 2007 dated 30.09.2007 under Sections 341/323/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(x) and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 pending before the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore, Hooghly.The Opposite Party No.2 is the Assistant Teacher of Raghunathpur Balika Vidyalaya and her husband Shri Gora Chand Das is a Senior Labour Welfare Inspector of the Eastern Railway.The Petitioner No.1 is the Headmistress of Raghunathpur Balika Vidyalaya.The Petitioner No.2 is the Secretary, the Petitioner No.3 is the President and the Petitioner No.4 is the member of the Managing Committee of the said Raghunathpur Balika Vidyalaya.The allegations made by the Opposite Party No.2 being the defacto complainant in the written complaint treated as F.I.R. are as follows:""On 29.09.2007 at 11.20 a.m. within the school premises Smt. Ruma Raha (Dutta), Shri Kamal Krishna Ghosh, Bhola Hazra, Johar Jyoti etc., the managing committee members of the school have assaulted mentally with uses filthy languages with loudly voice and tortured in a scientific manner.A no. of filthy languages with loudly voice was used to force me to leave the job and life threatening me being continued.Under the circumstances would request your attention to take necessary action in accordance with Article 359 of the constitution of Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 against them.""It is relevant to point out that the persons whose names are disclosed by the Opposite Party No.2 in the F.I.R. are the petitioners of the instant criminal revision.The police took up the investigation of the above criminal case.The petitioners have prayed for quashing the said criminal proceeding.However, on appeal the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court reversed the judgement of the Learned Single Judge and thereafter the order of the Division Bench was upheld by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court approved the acquisition proceedings.Therefore, the writ petition, out of which the appeal arose before the Supreme Court, purports to be an attempt to litigate once again, inter alia, on the ground that the aforesaid blocks of land were outside the purview of the framework of the agreement and notification issued under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act. In this reported case, the original writ petition before the Single Bench, the appeal before the Division Bench and the appeal before the Supreme Court were decided on merit and as such the subsequent writ petition and appeal were held to be barred by the principles of res judicata and abuse of the process of the court.Mr. Sekhar Basu, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has pointed out the order of dismissal of criminal revision being CRR No.4308 of 2007 in order to urge before this court that the previous criminal revision was not dismissed on merit.On perusal of the order dated 22.06.2011 passed in CRR No.4308 of 2007 it is clear that none appeared on behalf of the petitioners and Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submitted that the investigation was done and charge sheet was submitted before the Trial Court.In view of the fact that charge sheet was submitted the criminal revision was dismissed without hearing Learned Counsel representing the petitioners.Since the criminal revision being CRR No.4308 of 2007 was not dismissed on merit, the ratio of the decision of ""M. Nagabhushana V. State of Karnataka"" reported in (2011) 3 SCC 408 cannot be applicable in the facts of the present case.Now, it is relevant to point out from the materials on record the long standing animosity between the Opposite Party No.2 and the petitioners before the incident dated 29.09.2007, which gave rise to the present criminal proceeding.In the middle of the year 2003, the Petitioner No.1 being the Headmistress of the school and the members of the managing committee of the said school requested all the teachers to donate Rs.50,000/- each towards development fund of the school.The Opposite Party No.2 refused to make donation and thereby strained relationship cropped up between the Opposite Party No.2 and the petitioners.It appears from the materials on record that the Petitioner No.1 stopped giving house rent allowance to the Opposite Party No.2 with effect from 01.04.2005 on the ground that she did not submit the document in support of her declaration that her husband being a government employee is not drawing house rent allowance.However, ultimately the Opposite Party No.2 moved the High Court by filing W.P. No.4391 (W) of 2007 and on 25.06.2007 the High Court passed the order that the Opposite Party No.2 will get the house rent allowance along with arrears within the time frame given by the High Court.The above admitted facts go to establish that there was long standing animosity between the Opposite Party No.2 and the petitioners for two reasons: first, the demand of donation of Rs.50,000/- by the petitioners towards the development fund of the school and secondly, the stoppage of disbursement of house rent allowance of the Opposite Party No.2 by the Petitioner No.1 for failure of the Opposite Party No.2 to submit document in support of the declaration that her husband is not drawing house rent allowance.With the above background of facts, the Opposite Party No.2 was absent from the school for more than three months on medical ground immediately before the incident.The incident took place when the Opposite Party No.2 entered into the office room of the Petitioner No.1 for submitting her application for leave on medical ground.","['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The prosecution case was briefly this.There is a firm Hiremani and Jaglur and Co., carrying on business sin oil and flour at Hubli in the district of Dharwar.That firm is the proprietor of the Sangameshwar Oil and Flour Mills.On 26-5-1956, K. Umakant wrote a letter to the Hubli firm informing the later that he was awaiting the draft for Rupees 8000/- ""as per wire and call"", but the same was not received till 4 p.m. that day.The Hubli firm referred in that letter to a telegram informing K. Umakant that a draft on the Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate Ltd., No. 075509, dated 21-5-1956, had already been despatched on 21st May, 1956 and the balance of Rs. 5,000/- was sent on 27th May. The Hubli firm further stated that they were surprised to learn that the draft for Rs. 8,000/- was not received by K. Umakant.They asserted that it was posted on 21-5-1956 with an enclosing letter.The letter then proceeded to state:""Probably as it is an ordinary post might be received by you in your office by anyone in your office.The draft was then presented in the bank together with a paying-in-slip and the amount of the draft was duly credited in the account.Thereafter the person who opened the account with the bank and deposited the draft for Rs. 8,000 made enquiries from time to time about the cashing of the draft.JUDGMENT Shah, J.The accused Abu Ismail was tried in Sessions Case No. 21 of 1957 for offences under Section 411, Section 467, and Section 471 read with Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code.The accused was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, with a common jury.The jury brought in a majority verdict of 8 to 1 against the accused for the there offences charged against him.All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.The accused has appealed to this Court.The letter was addressed to K. Umakant.It appears that this draft with the enclosing letter did not reach K. Umakant.A partner of the Hubli firm then came to Bombay.It appears that on 25-5-1956 an application for opening an account in the name of Kamalakant Umakant Joshi residing at Patel Mansions, Chowpaty, Bombay 7, was submitted to the Manager of the New Citizen Bank of India, Ltd., Queen's Road Branch, Bombay.In the application the introductory reference was given by one Seth C. Das and the occupation of the applicant was shown as ""Commission Agent"" and address as ""Opposite to Grant Road Station"".The applicant deposited a sum of Rs. 500/ in cash for opening the account.In the specimen signature card which accompanied the application it was stated that the applicant will sign on cheques as ""K. Umakant."" In the afternoon of the same day, the draft for Rs. 8,000/- which was sent by the Hubli firm addressed to K. Umakant of Bombay was presented by the applicant who had opened the account with the New Citizen Bank of India, Ltd. It appears that one Gambre, who was the ledger-keeper in the bank asked the person who presented the draft to endorse the same in his presence even though the draft bore already an endorsement by K. Umakant.On 28th May 1956, he approached Gambre and was told that the draft had been cashed and credit was given to him.Thereupon a cheque for Rupees 7,900/- was drawn in favour of self' and the amount was withdrawn by the person who had deposited that draft.It appears that three more cheques respectively for Rs. 5000/- Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- were deposited but those cheques were dishonoured.On 30th May 1956, the net balance which remained with the bank in the account opened on 25th May 1956, was Rs. 171/12/. It is the case for the prosecution that the accused had received the draft for Rs. 8,000/- knowing the same to be stolen property and had thereafter endorsed the same in favour of the New Citizen Bank of India, Ltd., and had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 7,900/- which as the proceeds of the draft.Pursuant to the complaint made on 4th June 1956, investigation was started by the police and ultimately the accused was arrested and he was charged wit the offence under Section 379, or,in the alternative under Section 411 of the Penal Code and also for the offences under Section 467, of the Penal Code.It appears that the jury accepted the prosecution case that it was the accused who had presented the draft ad the bank and had made an endorsement on the reverse of the draft in the presence of Gambre and that the accused was not the person who was the addressee of the letter which was sent by the Hubli firm with which the draft was enclosed.The learned Judge put the respective versions of the Honorary Presidency Magistrate and of Gambre and told the jury that it was for them to decide whether the evidence of Gambre should be accepted in preference to the evidence of the Honorary Presidency Magistrate.","['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Hon'ble Mahboob Ali,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.)Heard Sri Rahul Misra, Amicus Curiae, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.A.N. Mulla and Sri J.K. Upadhaya, learned A.G.A. for the State.By way of instant jail appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and legality of the judgement and order dated 15.9.2014 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in S.T. No. 1074 of 2012 (State Versus Babu Ram), arising out of Case Crime No. 298 of 2012, under Sections 452, 302, 307, 504 and 506 IPC and S.T. No. 1075 of 2012 (State Versus Babu Ram), arising out of Case Crime No. 322 of 2012, under Section 4/25 Arms Act by which the appellant-Babu Ram has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, 3 years additional rigorous imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, 7 years rigorous imprisonment together with fine and in case of default of payment of fine 1 year rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and 1 year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in case of default of payment of fine 3 months additional rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 IPC.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Course of events leading to filing of this appeal as discernible from the record appear to be that informant P. W. 1 Satish Chandra lodged a written report Ext. Ka1 at P.S. Chandausi, District Bheemnagar at 15:35 hours on 15.7.2012 regarding the murder of his wife Smt. Nanhi Devi and causing injuries to him by the appellant-Babu Ram on 15.7.2012 at about 14:45 hours in front of his house in Village Pathra within the territorial jurisdiction of P. S. Chandauli, District Bheemnagar.Left lungs was punctured.Weight of heart was 180 gram and was empty.100 ml.semi-digested food was present in stomach.Mucous was normal.P. W. 3 Dr. R.K. Sharma was of the opinion that the deceased had died about 18 hours before conducting the postmortem due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.Similarly, P. W. 2 Netrapal and P. W. 4 Ramesh Chandra have also in their respective examinations-in-chief corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1 (informant) Satish Chandra on all material points relating to the time, place and manner of attack and the identity of the perpetrators of crime.However, P. W. 1 Satish Chandra and P. W. 2 Netrapal both fumbled during their cross-examination.Although P. W. 1 Satish Chandra in his examination-in-chief had deposed that the FIR of the incident was scribed by one Ranveer on his dictation and after he had read over the FIR to him he had signed the same and given it at the Police Station Chandausi.However, as noted hereinabove, P. W. 1 Satish Chandra in his cross-examination deposed that before the FIR of the incident was scribed, he had consulted the SHO, the FIR of the incident was thereafter, written on the instructions of the SHO by a police personnel with whom he had met at the police station and whose name he did not know.Similarly, P. W. 2 Netrapal also in his cross-examination on page 20 of the paper book stated on oath that he had left for the police station along with his brother to lodge the FIR of the incident at about 5:30 P.M., they had met the SHO at the police station and narrated the entire incident to him and the report was thereafter, written in the police station after they had consulted the SHO.Although, in the FIR as well as in the statements of all the three witnesses of fact it has been stated that on the date of incident, an altercation had taken place between the children of the appellant and the informant on account of which later in the day while informant and his wife Smt. Nanhi Devi were present in their house and Smt. Shiv Dai mother of the informant was sitting on the door steps of his house, the appellant came armed with a knife to the house of the informant and started abusing his wife and when she objected he stabbed her with his knife and when the informant tried to save her he dealt a blow with his knife to him also.However, on page 17 of the paper book, P. W. 1 Satish Chandra came out with an entirely different version of the occurrence by deposing that he had never quarrelled with the appellant.Appellant-Babu Ram had come to his house from the western side and had stopped at the turning.His wife had then gone out of her house.Neither any quarrel had taken place between the appellant-Babu Ram and informant's wife Smt. Nanhi Devi nor any altercation had taken place between them.Ramesh, Murari and Rubi were not present at the place of incident and they had arrived at the crime scene after 15-20 minutes.The incident had taken place outside his house, near the house of P. W. 2 Netrapal and not inside his house.His wife had received 9 wounds.He had seen the knife which had a copper handle.The blade of the knife was about one foot long and it was sharp edged on one side.The appellant before fleeing from the place of occurrence had left the knife behind which he had handed over to the police.The aforesaid report was noted in the chek FIR Ext. Ka4 as Case Crime No. 298 of 2012, under Sections 302, 452, 324, 504 and 506 IPC on 15.7.2012 at 15:35 hours.He thereafter, dispatched the dead body of Smt. Nanhi Devi to the District Hospital for conducting postmortem.The postmortem on the dead body of Smt. Nanhi Devi was conducted by P. W. 3 Dr. R.K. Sharma on 16.7.2012 who also prepared the postmortem report of the deceased which is on record as.Ext. Ka2 and noted following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of Smt. Nanhi Devi :(i) Straight abrasion 3.0 cm x ½ cm on left side of forehead, just above the left eyebrow.(ii) Punctured wound 4.0 cm x 2.0 cm on left side of chest, 6.00 cm below from clavicle bone.On internal examination, fourth rib was found to be fractured and lungs was ruptured.Around 1 liter blood was present in chest cavity.(iii) Incised wound 11 cm x 7 cm x muscle deep, in front of joint of right elbow.(iv) Five punctured wounds in the area of 22 cm x 10 cm on chest and on right side of abdomen.Minor wound 2 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep and major wound 5 cm x 2 cm x abdomen cavity deep.On internal examination, liver was found to be punctured at three places.Around 1 liter blood was present in abdomen cavity.(v) Incised wound 2 cm x 01 cm x muscle deep outwards on left hand.(vi) Incised wound 4 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep on left arm.(vii) 03 incised wounds in the area of 23 cm x 13 cm outwards of left thigh.Minor wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle deep and major wound 6 cm x 2.5 cm x muscle deep.Fourth leftward rib of chest was fractured and third rib of rightward was fractured.After the appellant was arrested and on his pointing out the crime weapon (knife) allegedly used by the appellant in committing the murder of the deceased and causing injuries to the informant was recovered on 1.8.2012, consequently Case Crime No. 298 of 2012, under Section 4/25 Arms Act was also registered against him.The investigation of Case Crime No. 298 of 2012 was taken over by P. W. 7, S.I. Rajvir Singh after the first Investigating Officer Rajvir Singh was transferred to District Sambhal.Both the cases were committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Moradabad for the trial of the accused by committal order dated 9.10.2012 passed by CJM, Moradabad where the same were registered as S.T. No. 1074 of 2012 and S.T. No. 1075 of 2012 and made over for trial from there to the Court of Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad vide order dated 11.1.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad.The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Thereafter, the prosecution was asked to lead evidence for proving the charges framed against the appellant in both the sessions trial.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, against the appellant examined as many as 9 witnesses of whom P. W. 1 Satish Chandra, P. W. 2 Netrapal and P. W. 4 Ramesh were examined as witnesses of fact while P. W. 3 Dr. R.K. Sharma who had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Smt. Nanhi Devi, P. W. 5 Dr. Mohd. Aslam who had examined the injuries of informant Satish Chandra, P. W. 6 Constable Ram Kumar who had prepared the chek FIR and G.D. Entry, P. W. 7 S. I., Rajvir Singh, second Investigating Officer of the case, P. W. 8 S.H.O., Rajvir Singh, first Investigating Officer of the case, P. W. 9 S. I., Megh Singh, witness of recovery of crime weapon and P. W. 10, Head Constable Omkar Sharma who had prepared the chek FIR and the corresponding G.D. entry were produced as formal witnesses during the trial.The appellant in his statement recorded during the trial under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case as false and incorrect.He denied having committed any murder.As regards the recovery of knife on his pointing out, he stated that it was recovered from a drain and not from the jungle on the alleged pointing out of the appellant as alleged by the prosecution.The appellant did not examine any witness in defence.Learned Trial Judge after considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, convicted the appellant under Section 302, 307 and 506 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act and awarded aforesaid sentences to him.However, the Trial Judge acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 452 and 504 IPC by extending benefit of doubt to him.Hence this appeal.Sri Rahul Misra, Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant has submitted that the motive for the appellant to commit the offence as spelt out in the FIR that a quarrel had taken place between the appellant and the informant and his wife Smt. Nanhi Devi over a fight which had ensued between the children of the informant and the accused earlier on the same day which culminated into stabbing of the informant and his wife by the appellant.The FIR written on the dictation of P. W. 1 Satish Chandra never saw the light of the day.It is not established from the evidence of P. W. 2 Netrapal and P. W. 4 Ramesh that they had witnessed the incident.The correct facts are that the wife of the informant Smt. Nanhi was living with the appellant and his wife and on account of the aforesaid fact he had become inimical towards him and it was on account of the aforesaid enmity that he had falsely implicated him in the present case.In the absence of any public witness, the alleged recovery of the crime weapon on 1.8.2012 on the pointing out of the appellant as alleged by the prosecution is wholly fabricated especially in view of the deposition made by the witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution during the trial that the appellant after committing the murder had thrown away the knife in the drain and the knife was recovered by the police from the place of incident itself.He lastly submitted that the prosecution having miserably failed to prove the charge framed against the appellant by any cogent and reliable evidence, neither the recorded conviction of the appellant nor the sentences awarded to him can be sustained and are liable to be set aside.Per contra Sri.A. N. Mulla and Sri J.K. Upadhaya, learned A. G. A. appearing for the State submitted that the prosecution case stands fully proved from the evidence of three witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution during the trial including that of P. W. 1 Satish Chandra (informant) who had received injuries in the same incident and whose presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted even for a moment.It is also proved from the evidence of P. W. 7 S.I. Rajvir Singh and P. W. 9 S.I. Megh Singh that the crime weapon (knife) was recovered on the pointing out of the appellant pursuant to the disclosure statement made by him before the police after his arrest.The postmortem report of the deceased and the injury report of the injured have been duly proved by P. W. 3 Dr. R.K. Sharma and P. W. 5 Dr. Mohd. Aslam.The medical evidence on record fully corroborates the ocular version.This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length and perused the entire lower court record.The FIR of this case discloses that on 15.7.2012 an altercation took place between the children of the informant and the appellant-Babu Ram at about 2:45 P.M. while the informant and his wife Smt. Nanhi Devi were present inside their house and his mother Smt. Shiv Dai was sitting on the doorsteps.Appellant-Babu Ram residing in Village Pathra at the time of occurrence came with a knife in his hand and started abusing the wife of informant.When the informant asked him not to abuse his wife, appellant-Babu Ram started inflicting knife blows on his wife and when the informant tried to rescue her, he stabbed him also.On hearing the noise, informant's mother Smt. Shiv Dai and his brother P. W. 2 Netrapal and P. W. 4 Ramesh Chandra son of Natthu Lal resident of the same village rushed to the place of occurrence and rescued them whereupon the appellant-Babu Ram fled away from the place of occurrence extending life threats to the informant.The informant then took his wife to the hospital with the help of his family members.However, she succumbed to the injuries sustained by her in the occurrence, on way to the hospital.Leaving the dead body of his wife in the hospital, the informant went to the police station to lodge the FIR of the occurrence.Record further shows that the FIR of the incident which had taken place on 15.7.2012 at about 2:45 P.M. was lodged by the informant P. W. 1 Satish Chandra at P. S. Chandausi at 3:35 P.M.Inviting our attention to the facts deposed by P. W. 1 Satish Chandra and P. W. 2 Netrapal in their cross examination, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the FIR in this case is ante timed.Upon perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.1 Satish Chandra and P. W. 2 Netrapal, it transpires that P.W.1 Satish Chandra has in his cross-examination deposed that he had gone to lodge the FIR at about 3 P.M. half an hour after the incident.His report was lodged at about 4 P.M. Then he said that he did not have a watch.The report was lodged at about 5 P.M. He further stated that he had gone to the police station straightaway and reached there at about 8 P.M., it took him about half an hour in lodging the FIR.Similarly, P.W.2 in his cross-examination deposed that he had gone to lodge the FIR of the occurrence with his brother at 5:30 P.M.It is noteworthy that the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 was recorded almost 1 year after the occurrence.Undisputedly both the witnesses P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 are almost uneducated and merely because of some contradictions in their statements with regard to the time at which the FIR of the incident was registered vis-a-vis the time of the registration of FIR mentioned in the chek FIR and the G.D. entry it cannot be held that the FIR in this case is ante timed.The fact that the FIR was registered at the time mentioned in the chek FIR stands fully proved from the fact that the inquest on the dead body of Smt. Nanhi was conducted on 15.7.2012 at 15:35 hours.The inquest report of the deceased-Smt.Nanhi Devi Ext. Ka9 clearly mentions the case crime number which indicates that the FIR had come into existence before the inquest proceedings started.The complaint was scribed in the police station.Thus, in view of the above, the possibility of the first written report of the incident having been suppressed and another first information report prepared on the advice of and after consultation with the concerned SHO cannot be ruled out.P. W. 1 (informant) Satish Chandra in his examination-in-chief had categorically deposed that his complaint was scribed by one Ranveer on his dictation and thereafter, he had lodged the same at Police Station Chandausi but from the facts stated by him and P. W. 2 Netrapal in their cross-examinations referred to hereinabove, it transpires that the report of the occurrence which was originally scribed by one Ranveer on the dictation of the informant Satish Chandra never saw the light of the day.So far as the credibility of the FIR in this case is concerned, we find upon perusal of the evidence of P. W. 1 Satish Chandra and P. W. 2 Netrapal that the same stands totally shattered.The FIR in this case is proved to have been scribed by a police personnel whom the informant had met at the police station and before scribing the FIR the informant had consulted SHO of the concerned police station, thereafter, the FIR was written by a police man on behalf of informant on the instructions of the S.H.O. In view of the above, the possibility of the prosecution as spelt out in the FIR being false, fabricated and concocted cannot be ruled out.The issue which next arises for our consideration is that whether the evidence of P. W. 1 (informant) Satish Chandra, P. W. 2 Netrapal and P. W. 4 Ramesh Chandra who were examined as eye-witnesses of the incident is reliable and trustworthy or not.P. W. 1 (informant) Satish Chandra in his examination-in-chief has fully supported the prosecution case.On page 25 of the paper book in his cross-examination he further stated that he and P. W. 1 Satish Chandra had reached the place of occurrence on hearing the noise from the side of the road and it was incorrect to say that he was present at the place of incident at the time of occurrence.Satish Chandra had also received injuries at the hands of the appellant in the same incident.The injury report of P. W. 1 Satish Chandra indicates that following injuries were found on his person :(i) Incised wound 7.00 cm x 2.00 cm on lower portion of left hand, edges of which were sharp and bone deep.Blood was oozing and its x-ray advised.(ii) Red straight mark of abrasion 6.00 cm long in middle of left hand.(iii) Punctured wound 1.00 cm x 0.5 cm on left elbow, edges of which were sharp; depth could not be measured.Blood was oozing which was kept under observation and x-ray advised for left elbow.(iv) Incised wound 2.00 cm x 5.00 cm, 22 cm above from left knee on left thigh (sharp edged and muscle deep, red in colour) which was kept under observation and x-ray advised for left thigh.(v) Red abrasion wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm downwards on left chest, 9.00 cm downwards and outwards from left nipple.(vi) Red abrasion wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, 3 cm below on stomach at left side and was outwards.Abrasion wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on posterior of chest leftwards at lower portion.Upon reading the evidence of P. W. 5 Mohd. Aslam, we find that since P. W. 1 Satish Chandra had not got his injuries X-rayed, he was not in a position to state whether the injuries sustained by him were simple or grievous in nature and it was on account of the aforesaid omission that supplementary report of P. W. 1 Satish Chandra could not prepared.He has further deposed that it was possible that the injuries received by him could be caused on 15.7.2012 at about 2:45 P.M.The next question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is that whether P. W. 1 Satish Chandra notwithstanding the fact that he was present at the place of occurrence has given correct and cogent description of the incident or not.However, in view of the categorical deposition made by P. W. 1 Satish Chandra and P. W. 2 Netrapal on pages 17 and 20 of their cross-examination that the appellant after stabbing the deceased in her stomach with a knife had run away abandoning the knife at the place of occurrence which was picked up by P. W. 1 Satish Chandra and handed over to the police personnel on their arrival at the place of occurrence and which was sealed by them in a packet on the date of incident itself and on which thumb impression of P. W. 1 Satish Chandra were obtained, the entire prosecution case that crime weapon was recovered on the pointing out of the appellant-Babu Ram from an open place pursuant to the disclosure statement made by him before the police after his arrest stands totally falsified and fabricated.Thus, upon a holistic view of the facts of the case and a careful appraisal and scrutiny of the evidence on record, we do not find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts.The credibility of the FIR in this case is under a heavy cloud and in view of the above, the possibility of the prosecution case as narrated in the FIR being concocted and fabricated at the behest of the police personnel cannot be ruled out.Moreover, the prosecution has not been able to establish the place of occurrence.P. W. 1 Satish Chandra cannot be categorized as a wholly reliable witness in view of the glaring contradictions and discrepancies in his evidence with regard to the motive for the appellant to commit the offence, the place of occurrence and manner of attack.In view of the foregoing discussion, neither the recorded conviction of the appellant nor the sentence awarded to him can be sustained and are liable to be set aside.The appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed.The impugned judgment and order dated 15.9.2014 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in S.T. No. 1074 of 2012 (State Versus Babu Ram) is hereby set aside.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"And In the matter of : Asis Dey.The State of West Bengal Opposite party.Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh, Ms. Sonasubhra Ganguly For the petitioner.Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty For the State.The petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Suri Police Station Case No.162 of 2013 dated 13.05.2013 under Sections 147,148,149,341,332,333,186,353,224,225,307,506 of the Indian Penal Code, has come to this Court for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and have considered the case diary.In these circumstances, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the further condition that the petitioner shall report to the Investigating Officer at least twice a week until further order.2 The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) ( Kanchan Chakraborty, J.)","['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"NO.1610/2011 Page 2 of 35 Siddhartha Behura, the then Secretary, Telecom (A-2), R.K.Chandolia (A-3), the then P.S. to the Minister, Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka, Directors, M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. (A-4 and A-5 respectively).M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd (A-6), Sanjay Chandra, Managing Director, M/s Unitech Wireless Tamil Nadu Ltd. (A-7), M/s Unitech Wireless Tamil Nadu Ltd. (A-8), Gautam Doshi, Group Managing Director of Reliance, ADA Group (A-9), Surendra Pipara, Group President of Reliance, Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (A-10), Hari Nair, Sr.Vice President of Reliance, ADA Group (A-11) and M/s.Reliance Telecom Ltd. (A-12).BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 2 of 35BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 3 of 35It is also contended that he has roots in the society and, therefore, he is not likely to flee from the processes of law and since the charge-sheet has already been filed, the evidence is already underway, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner incarcerated and, therefore, it was prayed that he may be extended the benefit of grant of bail.BAIL APPL.In this regard, I have gone through the statements of Sh.A.K.Srivastava/PW-1, DDG (Access Service); Sh.Nitin Jain/PW-2, DDG (Data Services); Sh.R.K.Gupta/PW-3, the then ADG (AS); Sh.R.P.Agarwal/PW-20, the then Wireless Adviser, Deptt.of Telecommunications; Sh.Nripendra Mishra/PW-30, the then Chairman, TRAI; and Sh.P.K.Mittal/PW-50, the then DDG (AS-II) and one thing, which emerges from their statements, is very clear that the petitioner has been a perpetrator of BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 20 of 35 the illegal design of A-1 and, therefore, his role was distinguishable from the ten accused persons, who have been granted the bail and were beneficiary of that illegal act.BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 19 of 35BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 20 of 35Another aspect, which is very interesting, in this case, is the fact that it has come in the statements of some of the witnesses that when this illegal and nefarious conspiracy of causing wrongful gain to certain private parties was being executed by A-1 with the help of co- accused A-2 and A-3, who were the two public servants, two employees of Department of Telecommunications, who had withstood like a rock and did not accede to the wishes of these core conspirators, it was the present petitioner, who was instrumental in getting them firstly transferred from the Department in order to remove the obstruction and to implement the illegal design of the 2G Spectrum being allocated to private persons and Unified Access Services allocated for ulterior considerations.BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 21 of 35BAIL APPL.This order shall dispose off an application filed by the petitioner, Siddhartha Behura (A-2), the former Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, for grant of regular bail in respect of 2G Spectrum Scam cases, BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 1 of 35 which was registered vide FIR No.RC DAI-2009(A)-0045 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 1 of 35Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 21.10.2009, Anti Corruption Branch of CBI had registered the aforesaid FIR on the allegations of criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct against the unknown officials of Department of Telecommunications, Government of India and some unknown private persons/companies and others, under Section 120B IPC read with Section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ""the Act"") in respect of allotment of Letters of Intent, Unified Access Services (hereinafter referred to as UAS) Licenses and 2G Spectrum by the Department of Telecommunications.CBI had filed the first charge-sheet on 02.04.2011 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi against A.Raja, the then Minister of Communications and Information Technology (A-1), BAIL APPL.A supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 25.04.2011 in the Court of learned Special Judge for offences under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7/11/12 of the Act against some additional accused persons in which the present petitioner was not named.After filing of the BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 3 of 35 charge-sheet, charges have been framed against all the accused persons.The charges against the petitioner are essentially three in nature.The first charge, against the petitioner and other 16 accused persons, including A.Raja(A-1) and R.K.Chandolia(A-3), is that they all conspired to commit offences under sections 409/420/468/471 IPC and section 7 or section 11 read with section 12/13(2) read with section 13(d) of the Act. The second charge, which has been framed against the present petitioner, along with A-1, is for a substantive offence of breach of trust under section 409 read with section 120B IPC.The third charge, which is alternatively, framed against the petitioner and the A-1 is for cheating under section 420 read with section 120B IPC.BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 4 of 35BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 4 of 35The case is presently going on, for recording of prosecution evidence and I have been given to understand that statements of some of the witnesses have already been recorded by the prosecution.The present application for grant of regular bail of the petitioner was taken up along with the bail applications of the other five co-accused persons, A-13 to A-19, (except the companies).Aman Lekhi, learned senior counsel, was heard partially along with the other counsel, who had appeared for that set of accused persons, however, as the cases of those accused persons were treated as a separate class in itself on account of two reasons; firstly that those five accused persons were not public servants and, secondly, in their case the CBI had not opposed the grant of bail, therefore, they were heard and disposed of vide a separate order on 28.11.2011, while as the present case was segregated to be dealt with separately.Arguments were heard afresh in the present case after BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 5 of 35 disposal of the bail applications of the aforesaid five accused persons and the submissions, which were made by Mr.Lekhi, learned senior counsel, for grant of bail to the petitioner, were essentially the following:BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 5 of 35(i) The first and the foremost submission, which was made by Mr.Lekhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner for grant of bail to the present petitioner, was that he is to be treated at par with the other co-accused persons, who have already been extended the benefit of bail both by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court.Emperor, AIR 1937 ALL.754 and Hira Lal Vs.Emperor, AIR 1917 ALL.BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 9 of 35BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 9 of 35(iii) It was next contended by Mr.Lekhi, learned senior counsel, that so far as the petitioner is concerned there are no allegations of having taken illegal gratification or obtaining any valuable consideration or committing abetment of these two offences, which may be punishable under sections 7 or 11 of the Act. It is also stated that so far as the petitioner is concerned, there is no allegation that he had any role in the alleged giving or taking of the bribe of `200 crores nor has he benefited in any manner whatsoever from the allocation of 2G Spectrum or Unified Access License.In this regard, the learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to certain correspondence, which had taken place between the officials of the Government, prior to 01.01.2008 in order to show so far as the BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 10 of 35 petitioner is concerned, he has absolutely no role to play in the question of formulation of policy of first cum first serve basis and was only implementing the same in terms of the directions of the Department.BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 10 of 35(iv) Next, it was contended by Mr.Lekhi, that the petitioner has already been in custody for almost 10 months and, thus, being incarcerated for the longest period and the fact he is not an influential person or has no political influence or clout, to influence the witnesses, he may not be denied the benefit of bail as has been extended to other persons, as the trial is going to last for quite some time.NO.1610/2011 Page 11 of 35BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 11 of 35Keeping in view the aforesaid broad parameters, I intend to deal with the submissions, which have been raised by BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 15 of 35 the learned senior counsel for the petitioner for the grant of bail.BAIL APPL.NO.1610/2011 Page 15 of 35B.B.Singh/PW-26, the then DDG (LF); Mr.The petitioner has been a member of elite bureaucracy.All the witnesses, whose statements have been recorded by the prosecution, no doubt, have to prove documents but, at the same time, they have also orally testified against the petitioner, which implicates him in the crime.NO.1610/2011 Page 30 of 35 also come by way of oral evidence in as much as the petitioner was posted as an Additional Secretary in the Department of Environment, when his mentor, A-1, was posted there as a Minister.Similarly, the factum of the oral orders, having been issued from time to time so as to permit the A-1, the main conspirator, to have a free hand in the execution of his illegal design, have been issued by the present petitioner, like fixation of four counters so as to defeat the policy of ""first cum first serve"" and implement it in a manner so as to benefit certain pre-determined parties or that the officials of the Department of Telecommunications, who is transferred out of the Department on the oral orders of the Secretary, DoT, clearly shows that there is a likelihood that in case the petitioner is released on bail he will try his best to subvert the trial by influencing the witnesses, who have testified against him especially to the extent to which their statements against the petitioner are oral.I, BAIL APPL.","['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.37956/2019 (Balram s/o Madanlal Korku Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 30.09.2019 Ms. Bharti Shastri, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh.",['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Shri S.S.Kushwaha, Advocate for the complainant.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is first application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.At the outset, learned counsel for the complainant raised preliminary objection as to maintainability of this anticipatory bail application contending that applicants were required to remain present at the time of filing of Challan under section 326 of the IPC, but they chose to abscond and, accordingly, proceedings under section 299, Cr.P.C. have been initiated.As such arguments heard on merits of the prayer made on behalf of the applicants, who apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No.268/2018 registered at Police Station Kurwai, District Vidisha, for the offences punishable under sections 294, 323, 506, 34, 324, 325 and subsequently enhanced 326 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are already on bail in all the sections except S.326 IPC and have not misused the liberty so granted.",['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
"P.W. 1, Rajavadivu, is a resident of Poochampatti village.Jayakodi is the wife of the appellant.Deceased was her maternal uncle.Deceased was a resident of Oorappanur, whereas the appellant was a resident of Ariyapatti village.P.W. 2, Annokodi, resides just south of the house of P.W. 1, in Poochampatti village.Seven or eight months prior to occurrence, deceased Doraiswami had gone over to Ariyapatti village as a guest.When Jayakodi, wife of the appellant, was alone in her residence, deceased was found talking merrily with her.Appellant who saw both of them together, entertained flame of suspicion, against their conduct.About a month prior to occurrence, P.W. 1 in the company of the appellant, were over to P.W. 7, Ammavasai.P.W. 1 told P.W. 7 that the deceased had teased Jayakodi and, therefore, the deceased must be asked to swear, that in further he would not have any connection with Jayakodi.To this suggestion of P.W. 1, appellant was not aggreeable.It is, in this background, that the alleged occurrence had taken place.One Mokkachi, wife of the uncle of the deceased, had expired sometime prior to 11-6-1985 at Poochampatti.On 11-6-1985, the date of occurrence, there was some function in connection with the death of Mokkachi.P.W. 1 was also residing in another portion of the same house.At or about 5-30 p.m., deceased who had participated in the ceremony at the residence of Mokkachi, went over to the house of P.W. 1, and engaged himself in conversation with P.W. 1 for a short while and thereafter accompanied by him went towards the manthai.On the east west street, opposite to the house of Karuppanna Asari (not examined), appellant was found seated on a granite bench.As soon as the deceased neared him, appellant suddenly stabbed the deceased with a knife on his left flank.Shouting that the appellant had stabbed him, injured Doraiswami fell down.When P.W. 2 attempted to catch hold of the appellant, and in such process caught hold of the latter's hand, appellant resisted and ran away.In that transaction, P.W. 2 sustained a simple injury on his left little finger.P.Ws. 1 and 2 chased the appellant.They noticed P.W. 6, Sunthan, coming towards them from the opposite direction.When P.W. 6 attempted to apprehend the appellant, the appellant threatened to stab any one who neared him.Hence, P.W. 6 desisted from catching hold of the appellant.P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 enquired Doraiswami as to the cause of the attack to which injured Doraiswami replied that since the appellant had seen him boisterously engaged in conversation with his wife, he had chosen to stab him.Injured Doraiswami was taken in a bullock-cart to Chek-kanoorani police station at or about 8 p.m. He was not in a position to talk.The dead body was sent to the mortuary.Ex. P. 3 is the extract of accident register.On the same day, he examined P.W. 2 at or about 9 p.m. He found on him an abrasion over the left little finger 2 cm., in size.The said injury was simple.Ex. P. 5 is the wound certificate.P.W. 3 forwarded death intimation, Ex. P. 6, to the outpost police station.Soon thereafter, crime was altered into one under S. 302, Penal Code.P.W. 12 prepared express altered report, Ex. P. 19, and forwarded the same to the higher hierarchy of police officials and the Magistrate.JUDGMENT Arunachalam, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, in S.C. No. 82 of 1986, convicting appellant Selvakkodi, under S. 302, Penal Code, and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.The appellant is also charged under S. 324, Penal Code, for having caused hurt to P.W. 2, Annakodi, with a dangerous weapon.However, after trial, he was acquitted of the said charge.Prosecution case, he brief, is as follows :- Occurrence which led to this prosecution is alleged to have taken place at or about 6.30 p.m., on 11-6-1985, near the manthai, in East Street at Poochampatti village.Appellant is alleged to have stabbed deceased Doraiswami with a knife on his left flank, leading to the victim succumbing to the injury sustained, when he was in the process of transit, to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.P.W. 2 was proceeding behind P.W. 1 and the deceased.P.W. 1 narrated the occurrence to to P.W. 12, the then Sub-Inspector of Police.On Ex. P. 1, P.W. 12 registered Crime No. 173 of 1985 under S. 324, Penal Code.Ex. P. 17 is the printed first information report, which he forwarded to the concerned Magistrate and his superior officers.P.W. 12 also forwarded injured Doraiswami and P.W. 2 with medical memos, Exs.P. 2 and P. 4, to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, for examination and treatment.P.W. 3, Dr. Jayaraman, examined on 11-6-1985 at 8.50 p.m. injured Doraiswami, and found him dead.On him an incised wound over the left side abdomen 2 1/2 cm x 1 cm x depth not probed just below the left costal margin was noticed.P.W. 13, Mohammed Basheer, Inspector of Police, on receipt of copy of Ex. P. 19, took up investigation and reached Poochampatti village on the same night.At the Government Hospital mortuary, he conducted inquest over the corpse of Doraiswami between 8.30 a.m., and 11 a.m., during the course of which he examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 Ex. P. 21 is the inquest report.After inquest, he despatched the dead body through police constable, Kamatchi (P.W. 5) with requisition (Ex. P. 7) to Dr. Thiagarajan, (P.W. 4), for the conduct of post-mortem.He found the following injury on the corpse.A vertically oblique stab injury with regular margins and both ends pointed on upper part of the left side of the abdomen 3 cm x 1 cm, entering into the abdominal cavity downwards and towards the midline, upper end of the wound 17 cm., below and towards the inner side from the left nipple, lower and 16 cm.above and outer side of the umbilicus.Internally wound was found piercing through the abdominal muscles, cutting the lower margin of the left lobe of the liver through and through 1.5 cm.x 1 cm., piercing the pancreas 2 cm x .5 cm x 1.5 cm., and perforating the mesentry 1 cm, with cutting the mesentry and underlying vessels.In the opinion of the doctor, deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to stab injury No. 1 correlated to internal injuries.Death should have occurred about 16 to 18 hours prior to post-mortem.Injury found on the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Ex. P. 8 is the post-mortem certificate.Material objects seized during investigation, inclusive of the apparel of the deceased were forwarded to the Magistrate with a request to despatch them for chemical analysis.P. 15 and P. 16 are the reports of the chemical analyst and serologist respectively.When the appellant was examined under S. 313, Cr.P.C., to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence, he chose to deny his complicity in the crime.He went on to add that P.W. 1 was aggrieved against him since he refused to give his younger sister in marriage to him.P.W. 2 also was inimically disposed towards him.His uncle had purchased a piece of land from P.W. 2 insisted that the said property should be reconveyed which of course was refused by his uncle.In short, the claim of the appellant was that this was a false prosecution.However, he did not choose to adduce any evidence in defence.Learned Sessions Judge, on appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, accepted the prosecution case and dealt with the appellant in the manner stated earlier.Mr. N. T. Vanamamalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who were interested and inimical witnesses cannot be accepted without corroboration to safely find the appellant guilty of murder.On these contentions, we have heard Mr. B. Sriramulu, learned Public Prosecutor.He submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 was cogent and convincing and there was no reason to discredit their versions.It is not seriously disputed that about 7 or 8 months prior to occurrence, appellant had seen his wife in the boisterous company of the deceased, at his residence.Such a meeting kindled suspicion in the mind of the appellant which led to his informing P.W. 1 about the conduct of the deceased.P.W. 1 in his turn complained to P.W. 7 Ammasi and suggested that an undertaking may be obtained from the deceased not to misbehave any more with Jayakodi.Appellant was not aggreeable for obtaining a mere undertaking.It can, therefore, be safely, taken that the appellant was aggrieved against the deceased.In between the occurrence and the prior meeting between the deceased and the appellant's wife, nothing untoward appears to have happened.Appellant who was originally residing at Ariyapatti had chosen to live at Poochampatti village some two months prior to occurrence.P.W. 1 has admitted in his evidence that the appellant was residing in the house of his mother-in-law at or about the time of occurrence.P.W. 1 has further admitted that in the same house, he was residing in the northern portion while his elder brother, the father-in-law of the appellant, was residing in the southern portion with the members of his family.It is thus clear that the deceased who had gone over to Poochampetti village to participate in a ceremony connected with the death of the wife of his uncle, had chosen to step into the house of P.W. 1 around 5-30 p.m., on the occurrence day after the ceremony was over.At that time, admittedly, the appellant was not available at his residence.It appears probable that the appellant who was seated only a few feet away near the house of Karuppanna Asari was able to witness the deceased entering into the house of P.W. 1 where his wife was also residing.Sometime later, when P.W. 1 and the deceased went towards manthai appellant is stated to have inflicted one stab on the left flank of the deceased with a knife.P.Ws. 1 and 2 have been examined as ocular witnesses.If P.W. 1 could be characterised as an interested witness, he is equally interested in the appellant.For both of them are close relations.After perusing the evidence of P.W. 1, we are unable to comprehend as to why P.W. 1 should falsely implicate the appellant in this grave crime unless he had witnessed the attack proper.We cannot overlook the fact that P.W. 1 went in support of the appellant to P.W. 7 and suggested that the deceased must furnish an undertaking that he would not have any relationship with Jayakodi in future.The presence of P.W. 2 at the time of occurrence cannot also be doubted.Both P.W. 1 and 2 are natural witnesses.When P.W. 1 and deceased were proceeding together, followed by P.W. 2, this unfortunate occurrence had taken place.Both of them in unison, have stated that the appellant suddenly stabbed the deceased with a knife on his left flank, leading to the victim falling down shouting that the appellant had stabbed him.As one would normally expect, P.W. 2 had attempted to snatch the knife from the appellant in which process he sustained a simple injury.Appellant was acquitted of the charge under S. 324, Penal Code, in respect of the injuries sustained by P.W. 2 for the appellant cannot be stated to have voluntarily caused hurt to P.W. 2, since he had sustained it, in his attempt to snatch away the knife from the appellant.When the appellant was running away, P.Ws. 1 and 2 and P.W. 6 coming from the opposite direction had attempted to apprehend him.Since the appellant was armed with a knife, they were unable to succeed in their mission.When P.W. 1 questioned the deceased, the latter is stated to have made an oral dying declaration that stabbing was a result of the appellant having seen him talking and laughing with his wife Jayakodi.The learned Sessions Judge was not inclined to accept the oral dying declaration on the ground that if P.W. 1 had seen the occurrence, there was no need to question the deceased.We are unable to agree with the learned trial Judge.It is not as though P.W. 1 was not an ocular witness, but all that the deceased had stated to him was the cause for which he was stabbed.We are able to visualise that P.W. 1 was aware of the estrangement between the appellant and the deceased due to the latter's conduct in moving freely with the former's wife.Disgust coupled with suspicion cropped up again and the appellant simmering with pangs of anger had stabbed once on the left flank of the deceased.We are unable to distrust the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who have spoken cogently and clearly about the role played by the appellant.Soon thereafter, a complaint was preferred before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chekkanoorani Police Station, situated at a distance of 5 kms., from the scene of occurrence.We cannot overlook that the crime was initially registered under S. 324, I.P.C. Injured Doraiswami and P.W. 2 were sent away to Government a Rjaji Hospital, Madurai, situated 19 kms.away from the police station.Only after the death of the deceased was made known to the investigating agency, crime was altered to murder and thereafter altered express report was forwarded to the concerned Magistrate.As soon as the crime was altered at 10 p.m., prompt steps were taken to despatch express report with Ex. P. 1 to the Magistrate who had received them at 4.30 p.m. The residence of the Magistrate was at Usilampatti within whose jurisdiction the offence has been committed.Taking note of the fact that it was night time, we are unable to find any sinister delay in the receipt of the first information report by the Magistrate.In Ex. P. 1 first information report, P.W. 1 has stated the presence of P.W. 2 at the scene, the manner in which the occurrence had taken place and the motive as well.The present evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is fully in tune with the averments made in the first information report.We further have medical corroboration of the ocular evidence, furnished by P.W. 3, Dr. Jayaraman and P.W. 4, Dr. Thiagarajan.The evidence of P.W. 2 has an additional advantage since he was injured in the course of the same occurrence.The evidence is credible, clinching and straightforward.Having arrived at the conclusion that the appellant is the assailant of the deceased, the question which still looms large is the nature of offence committed by the appellant.There is evidence to show that the deceased had visited Poochampatti even on a prior occasion after the appellant had taken residence with his parents-in-law.The proximate cause for the incident appears to be the appellant having seen the deceased in the company of P.W. 1 entering into his house.The appellant was already simmering with anger at the prior conduct of the deceased.Obviously being unable to tolerate yet another visit by the deceased to his residence, he had chosen to inflict one stab, but not on the vital region of the victim.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 27.09.2019 in connection with Kulpi P.S. Case No. 157 of 2019 dated 15.06.2019 under sections 147/148/149/323/325/326/307/332/333/353/186/506 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Mrinal Mondal & Ors.Mr. Brajesh Jha, Mr. Ravi Ranjan Kumar ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Arup Sarkar ... ... for the State It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there was a mob agitation against police personnel due to inaction in undertaking investigation with regard to murder of petitioner no.1's brother.No overt act has been attributed to the petitioners.Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that one of the police personnel suffered grievous injury.We have considered the materials on record and there is no overt act attributed to the petitioners in the alleged crime.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the petitioners shall meet the investigating officer once in a week until further orders and shall appear before the Court below and pray for regular bail within four weeks from date.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The facts giving rise to the filing of the bail application in brief are that in the year 1997 the complainant Harnam Singh filed a complaint against the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant is a Non-resident Indian settled in Kuwait.In connection with the complaint, the applicant filed exemption applications seeking exemption from personal appearance on 26.5.1999 and 10.6.1999 on the basis of two OPD medical Bail Appln.1017/2013 Page 1 of 6 slips dated 20.5.1999 and 7.6.1999 respectively.Exemption was granted on the basis on these certificates.On 22.9.2003 the complaint under Section 138 was withdrawn.Bail Appln.1017/2013 Page 1 of 6On 1.3.2005, on the basis of another complaint filed by the complainant alleging that the medical certificates were forged, the summoning court issued orders summoning the applicant.Against the aforesaid FIR the applicant filed a petition before this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which was however withdrawn.A second petition was filed under Section 482 which is stated to be pending disposal.In the meantime, the applicant had also preferred Crl.By order dated 30.5.2013, this Court (S.P.Garg, J.) quashed the summoning order and allowed the petition.Apprehending arrest in the FIR filed by the complainant, the applicant seeks anticipatory bail.The learned counsel for the applicant strongly relies on the order of this Court cited above and states that the basis for the issue of summons and Bail Appln.1017/2013 Page 2 of 6 the basis for the registration of the FIR being the same, and the summons having been quashed, there is nothing which survives in the FIR and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.He points out that there is inordinate delay in filing the FIR which has not been explained.It is further pointed out that he is 68 years of age and is willing to join the investigation for which purpose he may be put to terms.Bail Appln.1017/2013 Page 2 of 6On the other hand, the learned APP contends that as per the correspondence with the Indian Embassy in Kuwait, the medical certificates would appear to have been forged and thus a case of forgery has been prima facie made out.He submits that the originals of the medical certificates were never filed and were withheld from the Court.The investigation into the case is afoot and the applicant has failed to join the same.It is also pointed out that the originals are to be recovered from the applicant in order to establish the case of forgery.In his brief rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicant states that even on 5.4.2013 the applicant had communicated with the investigating officer which shows his bonafide.He further points out that the complainant had withdrawn the complaint under Section 138 against the applicant and there is nothing to show that any benefit was obtained by the applicant by the use of the certificates.Bail Appln.1017/2013 Page 3 of 6On a careful consideration of the matter, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, the basis for the summoning order dated 1.3.2005 and the basis for the FIR are the same.(d) The application filed by the complainant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was withdrawn.(h) No coercive action was taken by the trial court against the accused.The above finding of this Court impinge on the present proceedings also which arise out of the FIR filed on the same facts and material.The applicant is directed to join the investigation as and when required.He shall also make available his contact telephone number, fax number and E-mail ID to the SHO/IO concerned.Subject to these conditions, anticipatory bail is granted and the bail application is allowed in the above terms.","['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The case in hand also relates to one such unfortunate woman who became a victim of the aggression of her drunkard husband, who under the influence of alcohol went on to commit such horrendous act of burning his own wife.In the present case deceased was just 30 years of age and had a boy child of fourteen years from her first husband.She was attacked by accused when he came back home in a drunk condition.The exact prosecution story as it unfolds in the charge-sheet is as under:-""On 28.11.1987 at 5:50 p.m. an information was received from an unknown person through telephone PCR vide DD No. 41-B CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 2 of 27 that a lady has been burnt by pouring kerosene oil at 1?485, Khichripur colony, some officer be sent.On this information, after recording report of the same was sent to SI Dharmender Kumar through constable Om Prakash, who went to the spot and said SI was told at the spot that the lady Smt. Harjeet has been taken to hospital, SI tried to ascertain the hospital and in the meantime, at 07:25 p.m. vide DD No.15, constable Jai Prakash was informed from safdurjung hospital on telephone that Smt. Harjeet has been admitted in the hospital in the burnt condition.On this S.I reached safdurjung hospital and received MLC No.69629 pertaining to injured Smt. Harjeet.The SI seeing the condition took the SDM, Shadhra, Shri Parimal Rai and reached the hospital.Inviting the attention of this Court to the deposition of PW4-Dharmender who is son of the deceased from her previous marriage, counsel for the appellant submitted that this witness in his examination-in-chief clearly stated that the appellant was having cordial relationship with his mother and no quarrel took place between his mother and the accused.He also deposed that he did not witness any incident of quarrel or threatening by accused to his mother.He also deposed that when he returned to the house he did not see the accused Wilson present at the house.The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant was that this witness was the son of the deceased from her previous marriage and had the accused been involved in the commission of the said crime then at least this witness would have strongly supported the prosecution case instead of coming to the rescue of the appellant.My son, who is from my previous husband, is about 16 years of age.Wilson used to beat me.Earlier I used to CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 9 of 27 reside at Jahangir Puri.Wilson wanted to get rid of me.Even about two weeks back, Wilson had made an attempt to burn me after pouring kerosene oil on me as well as on him and today also he threatened to put an end to my life.It has happened in the evening.The history of assault as is recorded in the MLC would also be relevant and the same is reproduced as under:-""Alleged history of sustaining burns at about 4.30 p.m. on 28.11.1987 at her house in Block No.9, Khichripur, New Delhi, when her husband came home drunk and started abusing her.Then he allegedly poured kerosene oil over her and set her on fire with a matchstick.She rushed out of the house shouting when her neighbour came and poured water over her and brought to hospital.O/E GC critical, smell of kerosene oil.sh Patient fully conscious, oriented.Pulse not palpable CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 10 of 27 Heart rate - 40/ min Resp.rate - 28/ min Tough dug, week veins, collapsed, capitrany ratio poor dehydration & Rest crs & Resp.system NAB L/E Fresh superficial to deep burns over whole of the body except back of head, both treada Part of both lower limbs & groin 85% burns""CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 10 of 27The MLC also records that the patient was fully conscious and oriented.It further records that the burn injuries suffered by the victim were over 85% and also that the general condition of the victim was critical and smell of kerosene oil was coming from her body.The said MLC was proved on record as Ex. PW-21/A in the testimony of PW-21, Mr. J.B. Bhardwaj, Medical Record Technician of Safdarjung hospital.""There are 2nd degree deep burns (... over the face), 3rd degree burn over neck all around, chest & abdomen all around except back of the left forearm, all around the right thighs, portem medical aspect of left thighs and back of both legs.....all around CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 11 of 27 both upper .mere is ___________________ cut open on the left __________ and evidence of vital reaction.Scalp hair show signing at margins.KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.By this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C), the appellant herein seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 30.09.1999 and 01.10.99 respectively passed by the Court of Ld.Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi, thereby convicting the appellant for committing an offence under Section 302 of India Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 1 of 27 together with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 1 of 27Crime against women is not just a crime against an individual but against humanity that makes one lose its faith in humans and relationships.These days it has become a routine affair.Not even a day passes when unspeakable crimes like rape, murder, bride burning etc are not committed against women.This violence is not just restricted to the streets or alleys; but it often travels through the walls and into one's house.There is no empathy left even towards a women living with a man after marriage for several years under the same roof.A separate permission to record the statement of the victim was sought by the police vide application dated 28.11.1987 on which the doctor made the endorsement to the effect ""patient is fit to give statement"" allegedly at 08:30 p.m. in the dying declaration made to the SDM, the victim named her husband as offender.On the statement of the victim a case was registered under Section 307 IPC.""CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 2 of 27After supplying the copies of the charge sheet to the accused as per law, case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Arguments on the point of charge were heard and charge under section 302 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.To CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 3 of 27 prove its case, the prosecution had examined 25 witnesses.The statement of accused was recorded by the learned Trial Court under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the accused pleaded his innocence and false implication.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 3 of 27Addressing arguments on behalf of the appellant, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Advocate, vehemently contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case based on an uncorroborated and unreliable dying declaration of the deceased.Counsel for the appellant also argued that at the time of the incident even the appellant was not present at the house and therefore, also the appellant could not have committed the said crime.Making a serious challenge on the credibility of the alleged dying declaration made by the deceased, the counsel for the appellant contended that as per the MLC proved on CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 4 of 27 record, the deceased had suffered 85% burn injuries over whole of her body and even her both the lips and hands were also burnt and therefore, such a condition of the deceased could not have permitted her to give such a lengthy statement to the SDM or to affix thumb mark on the dying declaration.Counsel for the appellant also argued that even the SDM did not satisfy himself before recording the statement as to whether she was in a sound condition to give her statement or not.Counsel for the appellant further submitted that even no fitness certificate was obtained from the doctor certifying that the deceased remained conscious, oriented and mentally alert till the end of recording of her statement.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 4 of 27Placing reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana reported in 2011 (10) SCC 173, counsel for the appellant submitted that ratio of this judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the facts of the said case also, the dying declaration made by the deceased did not carry a certificate by the Executive Magistrate to the effect that it was a voluntary statement made by the deceased and that he had read over the statement to her.Counsel for the appellant also apprised the Court that the appellant had already undergone more than 7 years of incarceration for an offence CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 6 of 27 which he had never committed and is presently leading a happy married life with his wife along with three children.Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the wife of the appellant who is about 38 years of age is suffering from Cancer, Carcinoma Cervix III B and presently she is undergoing Chemo Therapy involving huge expenses and besides his ailing wife, the appellant has also to look after his old aged mother.Based on the above submissions, counsel for the appellant prayed for acquittal of the appellant.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 6 of 27Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned APP for the State, on the other hand fully supported the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and as per him, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate powers.Learned APP for the State submitted that the dying declaration in the present case was recorded by the Magistrate and there is no reason to challenge the credibility and independence of the Magistrate, in truthfully and correctly recording the last statement of the deceased.Learned CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 7 of 27 APP for the State also argued that in the post mortem report of the deceased, proved on record as Ex.PW-20/A, there is no mention about the hands of the deceased being affected by any burn injuries, and therefore, the deceased could have easily affixed her thumb mark on the dying declaration proved on record as Ex.PW-15/A. Learned APP for the State also argued that even the appellant had also received burn injuries on the back side of his right hand, and therefore, he cannot set up the plea of alibi that he was not present at the time of the commission of the crime.Learned APP for the State has drawn attention of this Court to the MLC of the appellant proved on record as Ex.PW-19/A. Based on the above submissions, learned APP for the State prayed for upholding the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 7 of 27We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length.We have also gone through the Trial Court record before taking a final view in the matter.In the present case, deceased Smt. Harjeet was unsuccessful in her first marriage, which had taken place about 15 years ago with one Mr. Ram Narain.A son, namely, Dharmender was born out of her first wedlock and she was devoting her life in the upbringing of her son.The CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 8 of 27 present accused entered in her life and without formally marrying the deceased as per their customs and traditions, they started living together as husband and wife.On the evening of 28th November, 1987, she was allegedly burnt by the present accused after some quarrel had taken place between them.The deceased was rushed to Safdarjung hospital in the burnt condition where her dying declaration was recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and on 30.11.1987 she succumbed to burn injuries .The text of the said dying declaration is reproduced as under:-CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 8 of 27""My husband Wilson had returned back in the drunken condition, immediately thereafter he started quarrelling.He asked me to go away from the house, at which, I retorted that it is you only who repeatedly moves out of the house and why I should leave.He had vigorously fought with me and thereafter angrily he had poured kerosene oil on me and said that if I do not leave then he will eliminate me.He thereafter with the help of match box ignited fire.Wilson is resident of Jallandhar.This was my second marriage.About 15-16 years have passed after my first marriage.His name was Ram Narain.He left me about 12-13 years back from today.Since for the past 4 years I started living with Wilson.I did not marry him as per customs and tradition.He burnt me with the intention to kill me.He should be apprehended and not allowed to run away.The said dying declaration was recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate at about 08:45 p.m. in the Safdarjung hospital.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 9 of 27The MLC also records the name of Mrs. Bohti, mother of the deceased, who had accompanied the deceased at the time of her admission in the hospital.PW-20, Dr. L.T. Ramani, Lok Nayak hospital, Delhi, had conducted the post mortem of the deceased.As per the post mortem report proved on record as Ex.PW-20/A, the deceased had suffered the following burn injuries on her person:No smell of kerosene oil is directed in the scalp hair.There is no other mark of violence on the body""CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 11 of 27In the present case, the counsel for the appellant first challenged the credibility and truthfulness of the said dying declaration made by the deceased.The Counsel for the appellant contended that the dying declaration made by the deceased is uncorroborated and unreliable and therefore the conviction of the accused cannot be made solely on the basis of said dying declaration.Apparently, the deceased was admitted in the hospital at 07:25 p.m. on 28th November.At 08:30 p.m. the police officer made an application to the Doctor, requesting him to allow the recording of statement of the victim.The said application made by the police officer is proved on record as Ex.PW-24/A. On the application made by the police officer, Dr. Ankur Sarkar made an endorsement (Ex.PW-25/F), stating that the victim is fit to make the statement.Thereafter, the SDM recorded the statement of the victim, which concluded at 08:45 p.m. PW-15, Shri Parimal Rai in his court deposition fully supported the said facts.He deposed that before recording the statement of Harjeet, police had obtained the opinion of doctor as to CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 12 of 27 whether Harjeet was fit to make statement or not and on which doctor opined her to be fit to make statement at about 8.30 PM.He further deposed that he finished recording the statement of the victim at about 8.45 PM.The evidence of this witness remained uncontroverted as he was not cross-examined by the defence.From the above factual matrix, it is clear that the dying declaration was recorded immediately after the victim was admitted in the hospital and after the fitness certificate was obtained from the concerned doctor.Thus the chances of it being embellished or tutored do not arise.Further a dying declaration made by a person on the verge of his death has a special sanctity as at that solemn moment a person is most unlikely to make any untrue statement.The shadow of impending death is by itself guarantee of the truth of the statement of the deceased regarding circumstances leading to his death.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 12 of 27It shall also be noted that the SDM is an independent and an impartial witness.It will be useful here to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Harjit Kaur V. State of Punjab , 1999 (3) RCR (Cri) 700, wherein the Court took a view that Sub Divisional Magistrate, being an independent witness holding high position had no reason to do anything which was not proper and therefore genuineness of dying CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 13 of 27 declaration recorded by him could not be easily doubted and conviction recorded on that basis could not be faulted with.The germane portion of the judgment is extracted below:CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 13 of 27It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that about hundred persons had approached the District Magistrate for getting the Dying Declaration of Parminder Kaur recorded and that some of the relative of the deceased had even accompanied the S.D.M. (P.W.-7) while he was going to the hospital for recording her Dying Declaration.He also submitted that the evidence of this witness discloses that three to four persons were present in the room where Parminder Kaur was kept.According to the learned counsel these two circumstances clearly indicate that P.W. 7 had recorded the Dying Declaration under pressure and in presence of those persons who were interested in Parminder Kaur.We do not find any substance in this contention because this witness has categorically stated in his Examination-in-Chief that when he was recording her statement, nobody was present in the room and even the Nurse attending on her was asked to get out of that room.What he has stated in cross examination is that when he had reached that place, three or four persons were seen sitting in the room.Therefore, it is not correct to say that the Dying Declaration was recorded in presence of some relatives of the deceased.The other circumstances that there was an agitation by the relatives of Parminder Kaur for recording her statement cannot lead to an inference that P.W.-7, who was an I.A.S. Officer and holding high position of Sub-Divisional Magistrate had recorded it under pressure and as desired by the relatives of the deceased.There was no reason for him to do so.As regards the condition of Parminder Kaur, the witness has stated that he had first ascertained from the doctor whether she was in a fit condition to make a statement and obtained an endorsement to that effect.Merely because that endorsement was made not on the Dying Declaration itself but on the application, that would not render the Dying Declaration CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 14 of 27 suspicious in any manner.The said endorsement made by the Doctor was produced by him and it has become evidence in the case.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 14 of 27It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the statement of Parminder Kaur was not recorded by the witness in question and answers form.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 18 of 27In the present case at 08:30 p.m. the police officer made an application to the Doctor, requesting him to allow the recording of statement of the victim.The said application made by the police officer is proved on record as Ex.PW-24/A. On the application made by the police officer, CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 19 of 27 Dr. Ankur Sarkar made an endorsement (Ex.PW-25/F) stating that the victim is fit to make the statement.The plea therefore succeeds only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where the crime was committed.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 24 of 27 Apparently, the accused has not placed anything on the record to show that at the time of the alleged incident he was not present at the place of the incident or that he was present at some other place so far away from the place of the incident that he could not be present at the place of incident at the same time.Apart from this, the evidence placed on record clearly show the presence of the accused at the place of incident, at the alleged time, as history of assault as is recorded in the MLC of the accused (Ex.PW-19/A) is ""alleged injury sustained in saving his wife on 28.11.1987"".Further it is pertinent to note that none of these witnesses were present on the spot at the relevant time, thus they cannot state any fact as to what would have had happened at the time when the accused burnt his own wife and had these witnesses not turned hostile, the evidence of all these witnesses, at its best, could have supported the case of prosecution only to the extent that it could prove the relation between the accused and the deceased.Thus even if these witnesses have turned hostile, their evidence will in no way affect the prosecution version that on the alleged day, the accused had burnt his own wife.CRL.A. 634/1999 Page 25 of 27In the light of the aforesaid discussion we find ourselves fully satisfied that the said dying declaration was made by the deceased voluntarily and truthfully, free from any kind of tutoring or prompting, and it was duly recorded by the SDM.There lies no merit in the present appeal.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"2 Cr. A. No.427/2008The prosecution story in brief is that in the intervening night of 14th and 15th November, 2005 one Vijay informed the complainant Bhimrao that the appellant committed murder of Vinod.Hence, the complainant Bhimrao and his family members went to the house of appellant situated at Panchsheel Nagar and found that Vinod was lying dead.One Anil Tatya was also present there, who has been assaulted by the appellant.He informed that the appellant killed Vinod by inflicting blows of stone on his head.Bhimrao lodged the FIR at Police Station, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal.The trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant abjured guilt and claimed to be tried.The trial Court relied the testimonies of injured eye-witnesse Anil (PW-5) and eye-witness Vijay (PW-4).The appellant called him and directed to bring some goods.When Vinod objected for the same, the appellant abused him.He caught hold his collar of the deceased and threatened him.They separated them.Thereafter, Vinod and his friends came to drop him in the house.The house of appellant was adjacent to the house of Vinod.The appellant again abused them.After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC.It was held that the ocular evidence of aforesaid witnesses was corroborated by Dr. M.S. Khan (PW-11) and Dr. D.S. Badkur (PW-2).Hence, the appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.The accused challenging the findings of learned trial Court on the grounds that the prosecution witnesses Vijay (PW-4) and Anil (PW-5) had good relations with the deceased Vinod.The trial Court wrongly ignored 3 Cr. A. No.427/2008 the material contradiction or omission in the prosecution evidence.Hence, the appellant has prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and further prayed for his acquittal from the charges levelled against him.3 Cr. A. No.427/2008We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.We have perused the record and by carefully scanning the statements of Anil (PW-5) and Vijay (PW-4), we find that at the time of incident, their presence on the spot is quite natural and reliable.Vijay (PW-4) was cousin brother of the deceased.He has stated that, on the date of incident i.e. on 14 th November, 2005 at about 9:00-9:30 p.m. he was standing near the STD shop along with Vinod (since deceased) and 2-3 other boys.Pankaj and Lalit tried to settle their quarrel.Thereafter, the deceased and appellant both had collected Rs.100/- for drinking liquor.Vijay (PW-4) further deposed that he came back to his home for sleeping.At about 1:30-2:00 am in the midnight, the appellant threw stone on his door.When Vijay came to his door, he saw that Anil (PW-5) was 4 Cr. A. No.427/2008 coming out from the house of appellant and he shouted that the appellant inflicted blow of stone (Alanga) on the head of deceased.Thereafter, the appellant rushed towards Anil (PW-5) to assault him.After sometime, the appellant came back to his home and threatened Vijay (PW-4) not go to his house, otherwise he will be killed as Vinod has been killed.Due to fear of the appellant, Vijay (PW-4) went to his uncle Bhimrao's house and informed the incident.They went altogether to the house of appellant and found that Vinod was lying inside the house of appellant.He had sustained injuries.Thereafter, they took injured Vinod to the ""1250-Hospital"", where the duty doctor declared him dead.The testimony of Vijay (PW-4) is duly corroborated by Anil (PW-5) and partly corroborated by other prosecution witnesses.4 Cr. A. No.427/2008Anil (PW-5) is an injured eye-witness.He witnessed the incident.He has stated that at the time of incident, Vinod was sleeping due to the effect of liquor.state of UP (2011) 6 SCC 288 observing as follows: Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone.""5 Cr. A. No.427/2008Dr. D.S. Badkul (PW-2) conducted postmortem of body of deceased Vinod and found the following injuries:-(i) Lacerated wound 3 cm.x 2 cm., vertical on right mastoid just post to pinna along with contusion of 8 cm.x 6 cm.on right pinna on mastoid region.Clotted blood present,(ii) Contusion 3 cm.diameter on right forehead, 2 cm.above the lateral end of right eyebrow, 7 Cr. A. No.427/20087 Cr. A. No.427/2008(iii) Depressed fracture 8 c.m. x 1 cm.present on left temporal parietal bone just above the pinna of ear,(iv) Depressed fracture size of 6 c.m. x 4 cm.on right temporal region,(v) Dura mater tense, brain swellen Difference subdural hemorrhage present on left hemisphere all over on right occipital and temporal lobes and on all over the cerebellum,(vi) Base of skull fractured from right to left involving right spleen.Dr. D.S. Badkur (PW-2) opined that death of the deceased was due to asphyxia, as a result of aspiration of blood due to head injuries.Injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and were homicidal in nature and sufficient to cause death of the deceased in ordinary course of nature.Dr. M.S. Khan (PW-12) medically examined the witness Anil and found the following injuries:-8 Cr. A. No.427/2008As per opinion of Dr. M.S. Khan (PW-12), all the above injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.Therefore, above medical evidence are duly supported the prosecution story.There is no inconsistency in ocular evidence and medical evidence.Hence, we find that the prosecution has duly proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.Generally, at about 1:30-2:00 a.m., in the midnight, at the time of incident, an independent witness is not available.to 8 cm.Due to such injuries, the deceased sustained two fractures on his head.One was about 8 cm.x 1 cm.and another was depressed fracture about 6 cm.x 4 cm.over both ear.In injury no.6, the base of skull was also found broken.All the injuries were inflicted on vital part of the deceased.Force was used by the appellant with intention to kill the deceased.He used a heavy stone for assaulting the deceased.Then, he proceeded to the spot at Panchsheel Nagar.On the spot, he registered Dehatinalishi Ex.P/1 as per information given by Bhimrao.N.K. Saxena (PW-13) prepared spot map Ex.P/2, which undisputedly indicated that incident took place at the house of the appellant.On 15.11.2005 he recorded the statements of Vijay (PW-4) and Anil (PW-5).On the same day, he seized the stone, knife on the basis of memorandum (Ex.P/7) of the appellant.These articles were found stained on the blood.He prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/15).""Evidence of police personnel were made recovery witnesses.Their evidence is reliable and cannot be discarded even though large number of people were available.""12 Cr. A. No.427/2008In our opinion, case of the appellant clearly comes under the purview of murder, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the same.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal has no merit to interfere in the impugned judgment.Copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.284/2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, S-7 Madipakkam Police Station for offences u/s 341, 294(b), 307 & 506(ii) IPC.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.http://www.judis.nic.in 3Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.The Grounds of Detention would reveal that a ground case was registered against the detenu in Crime No.284/2018 for offences u/s 341, 294(b), 307 & 506(ii) IPC subsequently, altered to Sections 341, 294(b), 302 & 506(ii) IPC.Admittedly, the detenu has moved bail application in the ground case and the same is pending before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Chengalpattu, in Crl.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.415/BCDFGISSSV/2018, dated 21.06.2018, passed by the second respondent is set aside.The detenu, namely, Sudalairaja, Son of Subramani, aged about 26 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT Joytosh Banerjee, J.The facts and circumstances leading to the instant application are as follows:The Assistant Secretary (Vigilance) of the Andaman & Nicobar Administration sent a confidential letter to the I. G. of Police, A & N Islands, Port Blair alleging malpractices adopted by the petitioner in the matter of procuring and disposal of a scooter.The background of such allegation was that against an allotment order BCp060084 dated 20.3.79 one Sri Suresh B. Bijalani of Block No. 42/9, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi was allotted with one 'Chetak' Scooter out of foreign exchange quota and the said scooter was duly supplied to Mr. Bijalani by M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., New Delhi.The sale of the scooter within a period of two years of its purchase was not permissible.On scrutiny it was found that various column of Form 'A' for payment of road tax and Form 'B' for registration of the vehicle were filled in by the accused/ petitioner, while in Form 'A' the petitioner affixed his own signature on behalf of Mr. Bijalani in Form 'B', the petitioner, it was alleged, signed posing himself to be Mr. Bijalani.The signature in Form 'A' did not tally with the signature of Mr. Bijalani appearing in Form 'B'.The Insurance Policy of the said scooter shows the name of one Mr. Suresh was not found at the address given or in the Government Service at Port Blair.It was alleged that the present petitioner got it done.The scooter was subsequently sold to one Mr. R.V. Alagar Swamy, Contractor of 46, M. G. Market, Port Blair on 15.1.82 within one year of the original purchase from the dealer for Rs. 16,500/-.It was alleged that there was nexus between the petitioner and the said Alagar Swamy.It was further alleged that the petitioner forged the signature of Sri Bijalani for the purpose of registration of the vehicle.In course of the investigation, the Government Examiner of questioned documents gave the view that the handwriting on the aforesaid documents belonged to the petitioner.In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the police on completion of the investigation submitted chargesheet under Sections 417/ 468/471 of the IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair who transferred the case to the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (1), Port Blair.The learned Trying Magistrate by his order dated 10.8.88 discharged the petitioner on the ground that no prima facie case on the materials on record justified framing of the charge under any of the provisions of the IPC.Thereafter on receipt of anonymous complaint against the order of the learned Magistrate, the impugned proceeding in revision under Section 399 read with Section 401 of the Cr.PC was started by the learned Sessions Judge (Revision Case No. 13/88).The learned Magistrate thereafter proceeded to consider the whole allegation raised against the present petitioner noting the allegation that the petitioner/ accused Sri Amar Singh Verma (S.I. of Police, A. & N.) committed malpractice in the matter of procurement of a scooter (being Bajaj Chetak bearing registration No. AN 3012) and that the accused/petitioner filled up Forms 'A' and 'B' for registration etc. of the scooter in the name of one Suresh B. Bijalani in his own handwriting and further he had signed in the name of the said Suresh who was unknown and who could not be traced out and in this way the said accused/petitioner used the fictitious name of the said Suresh B. Bijalani and thus he forged documents and cheated the registration and taxing authority of A & N Islands by using the forged documents.Thereafter the learned Magistrate observed that it was an admitted position that the accused did not get the scooter registered in his own name but got it registered in the name of the said Suresh B. Bijalani and as such it could not be said that there was wrongful gain or advantage to the accused with corresponding wrongful loss to another and as such there could not be any question of causing or likely to cause damage or harm in body, mind, reputation or property to the registering or taxing authority or to any other person and as such no question as to deceive, forgery or cheating could arise.On these findings, the learned Magistrate passed the order of discharge.In the suo motu revision, the learned Sessions Judge found in the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case that the accused/petitioner signed Form 'B' meant for registration of the concerned vehicle posing himself to be Suresh B. Bijalani.","['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan,J.Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned A.G.A. for State.This is a second bail application.It is further submitted that the cartridge recovered from the body of the deceased could not be tallied with the pistol of appellant.It is further submitted that the appellant was in jail since 17.10.2006 (near about 7 years 7 months 15 days and he was also in jail duration for trial 2 years 1 months) and thus he has undergone about 9 years and 8 months in jail.The appellant was on bail during trial.Learned counsel for appellant undertakes that when the appeal is taken up for hearing he will argue the appeal.Per contra learned A.G.A.has opposed prayer for bail but he did not dispute the aforesaid contentions.Having given our thoughtful consideration to the contention of learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the appellant Afsar has made out a case for bail.Let the appellant Afsar convicted and sentenced in S.T. No.760 of 2003 (State Vs.Afsar and another), under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C., Police Station Ranpura, District Badaun be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.50% of the realization of fine awarded by trial court against the appellant Afsar shall remain stayed during the pendency of appeal.List for hearing showing the name of Shri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey as counsel for appellant.Order Date :- 3.2.2015/RU",['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
"In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the supplementary statement dated 24.03.05 of complainant wherein he identified accused Sanjeev Sawhney to be the person who was found sitting in the office of accused Vipin Sharma and was introduced as senior officer of Canada Embassy by accused Vipin Sharma who further told the complainant that visa shall be arranged for him by accused Sanjeev Sawhney.Not only this, there is another statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of PW Sh.Rakesh Sunjea who has claimed that accused Sanjeev Sawhney was previously working in Thomas Cook and subsequently he shifted to Paul Merchant.He used to visit the office of accused Sanjeev Sawhney.During those visits, he came to know that accused Vipin Sharma also used to visit him and accused Sanjeev Sawhney had arranged some visa of France country for Vipin Sharma against some payment.It is mentioned in the charge-sheet that a sum of `1,00,000/- was found to have been deposited on 06.02.2004 at Paul Merchant Office, Chandigarh for Sanjeev Sawhney and the said amount was subsequently collected by Sanjeev Sawhney on 09.02.04 at Delhi office of Paul Merchant.""In the case FIR No.45/2015 under Sections 406/420/468/471/120-B IPC read with Section 12 of the Passport Act PS Special Cell, charge-sheet was filed against four accused persons, namely, Vipin Sharma, Aman Alam, Bhupinder Singh and Sanjeev Sawhney.After hearing the parties on the point of charge, vide order dated 30 th May, 2013, learned CMM discharged all the accused persons in respect of offence under Sections 467/468/471 IPC.For the remaining offences, the accused were ordered to be charged for the following reasons:-Never the less, I am of the view that there is sufficient evidence available on record which raise grave suspicion against accused persons namely Vipin Sharma, Aman Alam, Bhupinder Singh and Sanjeev Sawhney in respect of offence u/s Crl.P.No.39/2015 Page 1 of 7 474/120-B IPC as pursuant to criminal conspiracy hatched by them, some of them are prima facie shown to have been found in possession of counterfeit blank visa of British High Commission or fake visa stickers of embassy of Czech Republic with requisite knowledge of same being forged and the accused were intending to use the same as genuine documents.Counterfeit blank visa and fake visa stickers are documents purported to be issued by British High Commission and by Embassy of Czech Republic.Hence, prima facie case is made out against the aforesaid accused persons in respect of offences u/s 474/120-B IPC.P.No.39/2015 Page 1 of 73. Accused Sanjeev Sawhney (respondent herein) preferred a revision petition No.41/2013 impugning the order on charge.The learned ASJ vide impugned order dated 15th October, 2015 discharged him.Feeling aggrieved by the order on discharge now the State is in revision with a prayer to set aside the order passed by learned ASJ and direct the respondent Sanjeev Sawhney to face trial in the above noted case.5. Heard.On behalf of the State it has been submitted that material on record was prima facie sufficient to charge the respondent herein for committing the offences.Hence the impugned order may be set aside.On behalf of the respondent, Mr.Sahil Malik, Advocate while supporting the order passed by learned ASJ, submitted that the belated Crl.P.No.39/2015 Page 2 of 7 statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the complainant was nothing but an afterthought and being inadmissible in evidence, could not have formed basis to charge the respondent herein.P.No.39/2015 Page 2 of 7I have perused the chargesheet and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. annexed with the revision petition filed by the State.After hearing all the accused persons on charge, learned CMM, Central District dealt with the accusations against the respondent Sanjeev Sawhney in para No.21 of the order on charge as under:-Thereafter, learned CMM has dealt with the accusations against all the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 467/468/471 IPC and formed an opinion that the simple allegations about recovery of blank Crl.P.No.39/2015 Page 3 of 7 visa and fake visa stickers from the possession of Co-accused Vipin Sharma, Aman Alam and Bhupinder Singh was not sufficient to charge them for the offence punishable under Sections 467/468/471 IPC.P.No.39/2015 Page 3 of 7The respondent herein Sanjeev Sawhney impugned the order on charge before the learned ASJ.The revision petition has been allowed by the learned ASJ mainly for the following reasons:-Apart from his identification by the complainant, the prosecution has also collected evidence to establish that co-accused Vipin Sharma made part of payment to Sanjeev Sawhney through office of Paul Merchant at Chandigarh.This led to seizure of cash book, day book, ledger and other relevant documents of Chandigarh & Delhi office of Paul Merchant were collected.The investigating agency on scrutiny of documents noticed that an Crl.P.No.39/2015 Page 6 of 7 amount of ` one lakh was deposited on 6th February, 2004 at Paul Merchant office, Chandigarh for Sanjeev Sawhney and the same amount was collected by accused Sanjeev Sawhney on 9th February, 2004 at Delhi office of Paul Merchant.P.No.39/2015 Page 6 of 7Copy of the order be given dasti to the parties, as prayed.","['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"M.C. No.3295/2014 Page 1 of 7A copy of the Decree Sheet has also been annexed with the petition.Through Mr. P. K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor.Sub Inspector Sonu Ram.Ms. Nazoo Sharma, Advocate for R2 with R2 in person.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral)This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.135/2011, registered under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC on 19.04.2011 at police station Vijay Vihar, on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the matter.The petitioners as well as the complainant, all of whom are present in person, are also identified by the Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector Sonu Ram.It is stated that the complainant was married to the first petitioner Tapeshwar Singh on 27.11.2009 and thereafter, as a result of certain matrimonial disputes, the complainant lodged a complaint on 10.08.2010 with the Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, Delhi, and ultimately, on 19.04.2011, on the recommendation of the Crime Against Women Cell, the Crl.M.C. No.3295/2014 Page 1 of 7 aforesaid FIR was registered.If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction.It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed....""M.C. No.3295/2014 Page 6 of 7I am of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be given a quietus where the parties have settled the matter on mutually acceptable terms, and the complainant and the first petitioner have obtained a divorce by mutual consent; and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, thereby reducing the chances of its success.Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed, FIR No.135/2011, registered under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC on 19.04.2011 at police station Vijay Vihar, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition is disposed off.12. Dasti.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The first deceased was one Selvaraj andthe second deceased was one Irulayee.The first deceased was the son of thesecond deceased.One Gnanasekar who is the brother of the first deceased and theson of the second deceased had developed illicit intimacy with the wife of thefirst accused Antony.One month prior to the occurrence, the wife of the firstappellant had eloped with Gnanasekar.But both the deceased expressed no knowledge.But the accused 1 to4 believed that both the deceased were wantonly refusing to disclose about thewhereabouts of Jaya and Gnanasekar.Therefore, there arose a quarrel between theaccused 1 to 4 on one side and the deceased 1 and 2 on the other side.On 25.2.2003, at about 5.00 a.m., when the deceased Selvaraj wasproceeding from his village in his cycle to Poolangal village with a milk canfor the purpose of selling milk, near Poolangal kanmai, all the appellants waylaid him and attacked him with sickles and velsticks.The occurrence waswitnessed by P.W.2 and one Asaithambi.Then P.W.2 and Asaithambi rushed to thehouse of P.W.1 and the deceased Irulayee and informed them about the fate of thedeceased Selvaraj.At once, P.W.1 and the deceased Irulayee rushed towards theplace of occurrence from their house.But when they were nearing the house ofone Ravi, all the five appellants way laid them and attacked the deceasedIrulayee with lethal weapons like velstick and sickles.P.W.1 intervened with aview to rescue the deceased Irulayee.But the first appellant stabbed her on herright chest.The second appellant stabbed the deceased Irulayee with velkambu.The fourth appellant stabbed the second deceased Irulayee on her left hand.Thethird appellant and the fifth appellant cut the deceased Irulayee with aruval.The second deceased Irulayee succumbed to injuries instantaneously.P.W.8, was then an Assistant Surgeon inthe said hospital and he examined P.W.1 at 7.40 a.m. and found the followinginjury:Puncture wound 1 cm in diameter on the 4th intercostal space alonginterior axillary line, air coming through the wound.He has opined thatthe injury found on P.W.8 would have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1velstick.P.W.8, sent due intimation to the police.In the meantime, the deceasedSelvaraj died in the hospital at 8.30 a.m. itself.On returning to the policestation at 11.30 a.m., P.W.16 registered a case in Crime No.11 of 2003 underSections 147, 148, 307 and 302 IPC.P16 is the First Information Report.Thenhe forwarded Ex.P.W.16 then forwarded the casediary to P.W.17, who was then Inspector of Police at Thiruchuli Police Stationfor investigation.P.W.17, proceeded to the place of occurrence at 1.00 p.m. on 25.2.2003and prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P11 in the presence of witnesses and alsoprepared a rough sketch Ex.Then he conducted inquest on the body of thedeceased Irulayee at the place where the body was found.P20 is the inquestreport relating to the deceased Irulayee.He also recovered blood stained earthand sample earth from the place where the body of the deceased Irulayee wasfound as well as from the place where the deceased Selvaraj was attacked under amahazar Ex.He also recovered a cycle, milk can and other articles from theplace where the deceased Selvaraj was attacked under Ex.P13 mahazar.Duringinquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and other witnesses.Then he forwarded the deadbody of the deceased Irulayee for postmortem examination.Then he proceeded to the Government Hospital and held inquest on thebody of the deceased Selvaraj and prepared a report under Ex.P6 is the postmortem certificate relating to the deceased Irulayee.He has opined that the injuries found on the deceased Irulayee would have beencaused by a weapon like M.O.s 1 to 5 and has further opined that the death wasdue to the injuries sustained.Continuing the investigation, P.W.17, arrested the first accused on1.3.2003 at 4.00 p.m. at Viswatham village chathram in the presence of P.W.14and other witnesses.On such arrest, the first appellant volunteered aconfession, which was duly reduced into writing.In the said statement, thefirst appellant had disclosed about the place where he had hidden M.Os.1 to 5.Ex.P14 is the admissible portion of the said statement.Pursuant to the saidstatement, the first appellant took the police officials and identified theplace where weapons were hidden and produced the same.P.W.17, recovered thearticles under mahazar Ex.Before parting with the case, we should point out that the Officer,who has investigated the case has not taken pains even to collect the accidentregister in respect of the deceased Selvaraj and to examine the Doctor whotreated him.The way in which he has deposed before the Court also shows that hewas quite indifferent even while deposing.We only express our anguish in thisregard.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District Srivilliputhur.The Inspector of Police Paralachi Paralachi Police Station Virudhunagar District.(The judgment of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU,J) The appellants are accused 1 to 5 in S.C.No.169 of 2004 on the file of thePrincipal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.The first appellant has been convicted under Section 302 readwith 149IPC and Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment forlife for each offence.Appellants 2 and 4 have been convicted under Section 302read with 149 IPC and Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to undergoimprisonment for life for each offence.The appellants 3 and 5 have beenconvicted under Section 302 read with 149 (2 counts) and sentenced to undergoimprisonment for life (2 counts).The appellants 1 to 5 have been convictedunder Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for oneyear and under Section 341 IPC (2 counts) to undergo simple imprisonment for onemonth.The first appellant has been convicted under Section 307 IPC andsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and the appellants 2to 5 have been convicted under Section 307 read with 149 IPC and sentenced toundergo imprisonment for five years.The lower court directed the sentence torun concurrently.Challenging the said conviction and sentence dated 29.6.2006,the appellants have come forward with this appeal.The first accused along with his brothersaccused 2 to 4, made enquiries with the deceased Selvaraj and Irulayee inrespect of the whereabouts of the Gnanasekar and the wife of the first accusedviz.P1, complaint and Ex.P16, First Information Report to thejurisdictional Magistrate through a police constable.He examinedfew more witnesses on the same day.Then he forwarded the body of the deceasedSelvaraj also for postmortem examination.9. P.W.9 who was the Assistant Surgeon attached to the GovernmentHospital, Aruppukottai, on receiving the requisition from the police, conductedautopsy on the body of the deceased Selvaraj at 9.30 a.m. on 26.2.2003 and foundthe following injuries.1) A cut injury over the right side of temporal region of scalp about 8 cmsabove the right ear, size of about 6 cm x 2 cm x bone depth, transverse, edgesare clear cut and regular and tail of the wound towards back.2) A cut injury over the middle of frontal region of scalp about 10 x 5 cm xbone depth causing fracture of underlying skull bone exposing the skull cavityvertical in direction, tail towards front, edges are clear cut and regular.3) A cut injury over middle of scalp just posterior to the injury No.2 about 6 x3 cm x bone depth, edges are clear cut and regular, tail towards front, verticalin direction.4) A cut injury over the middle of occipital region of scalp size about 5 x 1 cmx (muscle) depth, transverse, edges are clear cut and regular tail towardsright.5) A cut injury over the occipital region of scalp just 2 cm below the injuryNo.4 about 3 x 1/2 cm x skin depth, tail towards right, edges are clear cut andregular.6) A cut injury over right side of Mandibular region, about 8 x 3 cm x bonedepth, causing fracture of right Rames of mandible and opening into mountingtail towards right edges are clear cut and regular.7) A cut injury the middle of mandibular region just 1 cms internal to theinjury No.6, size about 2 x 1 cm to bone depth causing fracture of mandible,edges are clear cut and regular, tail towards right.8) Diffuse contusion over front of neck and upper part of chest seen.9) A cut injury over the front of right forearm about 6 cms above the wrist,size about 2 cm x 1 cm x bone depth causing fracture of both bones of forearm,edges are clear cut and regular tail towards right side.10) A diffuse swelling over left upper 1/3 of forearm, causing fracture of bothbones of left forearm.P4 is the postmortem certificate relating to the deceased Selvaraj.He has opined that the injuries found on the deceased would have been caused byweapons like M.Os.1 to 6 and he has further opined that the death was due to theinjuries sustained.On the same day at 11.30 a.m, P.W.19 conducted autopsy on the body ofthe deceased Irulayee.He found the following injuries.A stab injury over middle of front of neck below the thyroid cartilage aboutthe size of 4 x 1 cms x depth about 8 cms transverse, direction towardsbackwards, inferior and to right side, causing complete of (torn) trachae andenter into right hemi thorax causing injury to (torn) apea of right lung.A stab injury over back of left side back about 10 cms below left ear, sizeabout 3 x 1 cm x depth about 5 cms oblique, direction towards posterior,inferior and to right, causing injury to left carotid artery.A stab injury over left strna clavicular joint region, size about 5 cm x 2 cmx depth about 6 cms direction towards posterior and towards right side, causingfracture of left clavicle and cut of trachae.A stab injury over the left side of chest 2 cms below the injury No.3, sizeabout 6 cm x 2 cm depth about 6 cms verticle, direction towards posterior and toright side, causing fracture of left II rib and injury to upper lobe of leftlung on anterior aspect,size about 5 cm x 2 cm, depth about 10 cms, vertical,direction towards posteriorly and to right side, causing fracture of IV left riband injury to anterior aspect of upper lobe of left lung and piercing into leftventricle of heart.6) A stab injury over left side of chest, 5 cms below and lateral to injury No.5size about 5 x 2 cms x depth about 6 cms, direction towards posteriorly and toright side, causing fracture of 6th left rib and injury to upper lobe of leftlung.7) A stab injury over lower part of left side of chest about 6 cms medial toinjury NO.6 and 8 cm below the injury NO.5 size about 5 cm x 2 cm x depth about8cms, vertical, direction towards posteriorly and towards right side, piercinginto abdominal cavity and injury to left lobe of liver on upper surface.8) A stab injury over upper part of left side of abdomen size about 4 cm x 2 cmx depth about 8 cms vertical, direction towards posteriorly and to right side,piercing the abdominal cavity and injury to mesentry.9) A cut injury over left supra clavicular over about 5 cm x 2 cm x muscledepth, transverse.10) A cut injury over left shoulder about 5 cm x 2 cm x muscle depth,transverse.11) A stab injury over left palm piercing the whole of left hand size of 6 cm x2 cm on palmar aspect and about 2 cm x 1 cm on posterior aspect of left hand.12) A stab injury over right side of chest on right mid clavicular bone sizeabout 4 cm x 2 cm x depth about 12 cms vertical, causing fracture of 7th & 8thright ribs, injury to lower lobe of right lung, injury to liver, piercing theliver from superior to inferior surface, direction towards posteriorly mediallyand inferiorly.13) A stab injury over right side of chest about 1 cm below the injury No.12,size about 5 cm x 3 cm x depth about 10 cm vertical, directions towardsanteriorly, medially and inferiorly, causing fracture of 9th right rib andinjury to liver from superior surface to inferior surface.14) A stab injury over right side of abdomen, on right hypochondium size about 2x 1 cm depth about 5 cms, piercing the abdomen direction towards posteriorly andmedially.15) A stab injury over right side of abdomen, near injury No.14, about 1 x 1 cmx depth about 1.5 cms.All the above said injuries are elliptical in shape and edges clear cutand regular.P15 in the presence of P.W.14 and another witness.Then he sentthe appellants 1 to 4 to Court for Judicial remand.On 11.3.2003, the fifthappellant surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, No.5 of Madurai.Then heexamined Doctors and other witnesses.He gave requisition to the learnedMagistrate for forwarding the material objects for chemical examination.P9is the chemical analylist report and Ex.P10 is the serologist report.Oncompleting the investigation, he laid charge sheet against all the appellants.The trial court framed the following charges against the appellants.1) Against appellants 1 to 5 under Section 148 IPC.2) Against appellants 1 to 5 under Section 341 IPC for having restrained thedeceased Selvaraj.3) Against accused 1 to 5 under Section 302 read with 149 IPC in respect ofmurder of the deceased Selvaraj.5) Against accused 1 to 2 and 4 under Section 302 readwith 34 IPC in respect ofthe death of the deceased Irulayee.6) Against appellants 3 and 5 under Section 302 read with 149 IPC in respect ofdeath of the deceased Irulayee.7) Against accused 1 under Section 307 IPC for having made an attempt on thelife of P.W.1, Manimegalai.8) Against Accused 2 to 5 under Section 302 read with 149 IPC in respect ofattempt on the life of P.W.1 Manimegalai.Since the appellants pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial.During trial, on the side of the prosecution, 17 witnesses were examined, 22documents were exhibited and 22 material objects were marked.When the appellants were questioned in respect of the incriminatingevidence against them, they denied the same as false.However, they did notchose to examine any witness on their side or mark any document.Having considered the materials available on record, the trial courtfound the accused guilty under various provisions and accordingly convicted andsentenced them as detailed herein above.Challenging the said conviction andsentence, the appellants have come forward with this appeal.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in so far asthe killing of the deceased Selvaraj is concerned, absolutely there is noevidence whatsoever.He would submit that the positive case of the prosecutionis that P.W.2 and one Asaithambi witnessed the occurrence.P.W.2 has turnedhostile and Asaithambi has not been examined for the reason best known to theprosecution.Thus, according to him, there is no evidence at all for linkingthe accused with the murder of the deceased Selvaraj and therefore, in respectof those charges, all the appellants are entitled for acquittal.Buttheir evidence cannot inspire confidence of the Court, the learned counselcontended.He would further submit that though it is stated that P.W.1 and thedeceased Irulayee were attacked with aruval as well as with velstick, theinjuries found on the deceased Irulayee and P.W.1 could not have been caused bya weapon like aruval since all the injuries found on them were stab injuries.Thus according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the medical evidencealso does not support.He would further submit that though it is stated that M.Os.4 and 5were used by the appellants 3 and 5 to cause injuries on the deceased Irulayee,but there was no blood found on these weapons.Therefore, the learned counselwould submit that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 are fully unbelievable and assuch, their evidence are liable to be rejected.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit thatthe evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 cannot be rejected.More particularly, the evidenceof P.W.1, who is an injured person cannot be rejected, since there are noreasons to do so.He would further submit that though P.W.2 has turned hostile,P.Ws.1 and 3 have seen all these appellants together with weapons somewhere nearthe place of occurrence, where the deceased Selvaraj was killed.Therefore,according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the evidence of P.Ws.1and 2 would be sufficient to convict all the appellants in respect of murder ofthe deceased Selvaraj.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that themedical evidence, of course, does not tally in so far as Accused Nos.3 and 5 areconcerned in respect of the injuries found on the deceased Irulayee.But thesaid infirmity cannot be a ground to reject the entire case of the prosecution.In conclusion, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would pray forsustaining the findings rendered by the trial court.We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the recordsvery carefully.But, unfortunately, P.W.2, who was examined bythe prosecution as an eyewitness to speak about the involvement of theseappellants in the murder of the deceased Selvaraj has turned hostile and hence,his evidence is of no use at all for the prosecution.The other witness, by nameAsaithambi, who claimed to have seen the occurrence has not been examined.The contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that theevidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would be sufficient to hold that the deceased Selvarajshould have been done to death only by these appellants.To examine the saidcontention, we have carefully gone through the sketch and observation mahazar tosatisfy ourselves as to whether P.Ws.1 to 3 could have seen these appellants anywhere near the place where the deceased Selvaraj was killed.In our consideredopinion, the same is not possible, since the distance between the place wherethe deceased Selvaraj was attacked and the place where the deceased Irulayee waskilled is about 350 feet.It is not the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 that they sawthese accused coming together or standing together with weapons some where nearthe house of Ravi, i.e. about 350 feet away from the place where the deceasedSelvaraj was attacked.They found all these accused suddenly emerged and startedattacking them.Therefore, we cannot uphold the findings of the trial courtthat the deceased Selvaraj was way laid and killed only by these appellants.In respect of the second occurrence, according to the prosecution, ithappened near the house of one Ravi.P.W.1 is an injured witness.So, hispresence at the place of occurrence can not be doubted.Though P.W.3 claims tobe an eyewitness, we are not convinced that he would have been present at theplace of occurrence.The first reason is that his name is not found in the FirstInformation Report as an eyewitness.We are notdisbelieving the presence of P.W.3 not solely on this ground.According to theprosecution, there were five assailants, all armed with weapons.Had it been true that P.W.3 was present, certainly attempt on thelife of P.W.3 would have been made.But it is not the case that any such attemptwas made on him.This in our considered opinion is strange which impel us todoubt the presence of P.W.3 at the place of occurrence.Thus, the case of the prosecution rests only on the evidence of P.W.1,who is an injured witness.According to her evidence, the deceased Irulayee wasattacked by all the accused with lethal weapons like velstick and aruval.Morespecifically, she has stated that Accused 3 and 5 attacked the deceased Irulayeewith Aruvals indiscriminately and others stabbed her with velsticks.As rightlypointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, we are not able to seeany cut injury on the deceased Irulayee.Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 in respectof Accused Nos.3 and 5 is not supported by medical evidence.But the medicalevidence contradicts the same.The said contradiction in our considered opinionis material which creates doubt about the involvement of Accused Nos.3 and 5 inthe attack on the deceased Irulayee.The trial court in our consideredopinion was right in holding that Accused Nos.1,2 and 4 had committed the murderof the deceased Irulayee.Even accordingto P.W.1, Accused No.1 alone caused the stab injury on her.Therefore, AccusedNo.1 is surely liable for conviction under Section 307 IPC.However, the accused 2 and 4 are liable to be convictedunder Section 307 readwith 34 IPC.In result, all the appellants are acquitted of charge No.1 underSection 148 IPC and the charge No.2 under Section 341 IPC in respect of thealleged restraint made on the deceased Selvaraj.The appellants 1 to 5 areacquitted of charge No.3 under Section 302 read with 149 IPC in respect ofmurder of the deceased Selvaraj.The conviction and sentence under Charge No.4in respect of appellants 1, 2 and 4 is confirmed under Section 341 IPC and thesentence is also confirmed.Under this charge (Charge NO.4), the appellants 3and 4 are acquitted and the conviction and sentence is set aside.Under chargeNo.5, appellants 1,2 and 4 are convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC andthe conviction and sentence imposed on them is confirmed.Under charge No.6, theappellants 3 and 5 are acquitted and conviction and sentence imposed under thesaid charge under Section 302 read with 149 IPC in respect of the deceasedIrulayee is set aside.Under charge No.7, the conviction and sentence imposed onthe first appellant under Section 307 IPC in respect of the attempt made on thelife of P.W.1 is confirmed.Under charge No.8, the appellants 3 and 5 areacquitted and the conviction and sentence imposed on them is set aside.Theconviction and sentence in respect of appellants 2 and 4 under Section 307readwith 34 IPC is confirmed.In result, the appellants 3 and 5 are acquitted of all the charges andthe conviction and the sentence imposed on them is set aside.They are directedto be set at liberty forthwith, unless they are required in connection with someother case.The conviction and sentence in respect of other appellants ismodified as indicated above.The appeal is partly allowed.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"There were no Lab Assistants available in the CollegeWith respect to the The College building is The College is being run from building and other rented and on non- rented premises.It is situated in physical conforming area.He further raised another legal issue that no sanction was obtained from the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCT of Delhi), which had appointed the petitioners.Section 197 Cr.P.C. specifically requires that before taking cognizance of any offence, the Court ought to have required the complainant to obtain previous sanction from the GNCT of Delhi.1. Vide the present petitions, the petitioners seek quashing and setting aside the Criminal Complaint No. 21/1/11 titled as ""Aditya College of Pharmacy & Science Vs.S.S. Mantha & Ors."", which was filed by the Crl.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 2 of 31 complainant/respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 420/468/471 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC).2. Also seek setting aside of the order dated 15.01.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, pursuant to which summons have been issued to the petitioners.Since all the petitioners have challenged the same complaint and the impugned order, therefore, this Court has decided to dispose of all the petitions by a common judgment.The allegations against the petitioners are that they entered into a criminal conspiracy with each other with a view to cheat the complainant and cause harm to the reputation of the College.In furtherance of this intention, the petitioners forged the inspection report and the words NOT RECOMMENDED were added later on.The complainant led the pre- summoning evidence of two witnesses.One of the witnesses, i.e., Mr. Devender Gupta (CW1) is the Founder-cum-Chairperson of the College and other is Mr.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 3 of 31He submitted, past history of the case is that on 21.05.2009, the premises of the Complainant Institute was inspected as a Ist inspection by the above Committee and since the said Committee found deficiencies, therefore, affiliation was denied.The Complainant Institute challenged the Ist inspection report vide W.P.(C) No. 9706/2009, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.The complainant challenged the same by way of LPA No. 384/2009, wherein the Division Bench of this Court directed that a joint inspection to be conducted by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIP University) as the 2nd inspection.Accordingly, on 20.08.2009, the joint inspection was conducted and same deficiencies, as were in the Ist inspection, were found again.On 25.08.2009, the Complainant Institute had filed objections to the report.As the aforesaid LPA No. 384/2009 was disposed of without granting any relief, thus, the objections of the Complainant Institute were deemed to have been rejected.This was the third inspection.On 27.03.2010, above named retired Judge found that the Complainant Institute was not fit to be run as an educational institute to conduct the B.Pharma Course.Accordingly, this Court while accepting the findings, passed an order dated 05.05.2010 in W.P.(C) No.12724/2009 that students Crl.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 4 of 31 admitted to the roll of the College should be transferred to some other Institute affiliated with the University.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 4 of 31Meanwhile, on 03.01.2009, complainant filed impugned complaint before the learned Magistrate against ten individuals including the petitioners.Vide order dated 14.12.2009, not being satisfied with the pre- summoning evidence led by the complainant, the learned Trial Court directed the local police to investigate the allegations made in the complaint.Accordingly, after investigation, on 13.01.2010 the police filed their report in which they found that no case was made out.Learned senior counsel further submitted that an enquiry was conducted by an officer of the level of Assistant Commissioner of Police.The said ACP, inter alia, recorded the statement of said Dr. Surinder Singh, who was supposed to have admitted to Mr. Devender Gupta over the telephone that the words NOT RECOMMENDED were added later on.He has further stated that ""as far as recording of my voice on telephone, we usually ignore such calls and try to get rid of this as soon as possible.So whatever the conversation has been cited by Mr. Devender Gupta is meaningless and without any substance and allegation"".Thereafter, the local police filed a report on 13.01.2010 with the opinion that no offence was made out.The learned Trial Court allowed the complainant to file the objections against the said report, which objections were in the nature of a protest petition.Accordingly, after perusing the inspection report and the objections, though the LPA was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 01.09.2009, however, no relief was granted to the complainant.Thus, the inspection report has received the imprimatur of this Court.Learned counsel submitted that the allegations of forgery etc. against the inspecting team or any of the officers of the AICTE or the GGSIP University ought to have been raised before the Division Bench of this Court and not by way of a private compliant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.).Learned counsel further submitted that the Complainant Institute was inspected on three different occasions in quick succession.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 8 of 31For the convenience, comparison of the two reports is given below:-No. Ground Considered Findings in the Joint Findings by Justice Mahajan ReportThe latest a congested residential area a 20 infrastructure Lease Agreement made on ft. road.The undersigned was 24th May, 2007, is for a not permitted to carry out period of five year.The Court the Court order, and was Commissioner was unable to not allowed to undertake verify the exact built up area.architect / civil bodies, or for The rooms are not ventilated.the purpose of fire safety and The premises have a narrow Crl.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 9 of 31 escape / exit routes in the maze of lanes and stair cases event of emergencies.See leading to the first and second Annexure-II.The College Circulation is significantly failed to produce the site plan inadequate.The mobility & and furnish dimensions of the movement of students in the various rooms and of the whole College building IS highly property.A single line sketch restricted and unfavourable.for the College premises was The staircases are improper filed.The same is annexed to the report.I have perused the AICTE norms with regard to the land area and built up area norms and it is clear that the College does not conform to the standards and norms.A visual inspection of the premises leaves no room for doubt that the present location, and the layout of the building, surroundings and the lack of facilities is not suitable for imparting education.There is no provision for fire safety and emergency exit routes.There is no space available for sports and cultural activities in the present set up.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 9 of 31With respect to the One principal and six It was stated that the Principal Principal and other lecturers were available on was qualified as she has 15 staff the date of inspection.They years of industrial experience.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 10 of 31The ceiling of building are and ascertain whether the same non-RCC make.The being used as residential representatives of the AICTE & area.University were not allowed toThere are some sign assist the Commissioner.It is boards outside the College not possible to assess whether building indicating ((Jamia the practicals could be done or Milia Islamia Study Centre. were being done as the studentsThe present building is have not been attending the not suitable and fit for College for some time.The running a Pharmacy College.Labs do not indicate that they The Committee was not set have been used for quite some allowed to measure the area.The library is adequately stocked.Adequate numbers of computers were found in the computer room.No record was shown as to when the equipment, computers, machinery, chemicals, reagents etc. were purchased other than what is placed on record.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 11 of 31Tripathi has argued that since findings of all the three inspecting committees were almost identical, the present case is clearly a case of no evidence, therefore, the complaint and the summoning order dated 15.01.2011 deserves to be quashed.He has raised the legal issue that Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the admissibility of the electronic record.The said provision squarely applies to the present case since the only evidence led by the complainant in his deposition is a so called tape recorded conversation between the Founder-cum-Chairman of the Complainant Institute and one member of the inspecting team.The petitioners can only be removed from their office only after obtaining the sanction of the GNCT of Delhi.The GGSIP University has been created by an Act of the State Legislature of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the petitioner, Dilip K. Bandopadhyay is employed in connection with the affairs of the said State.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 13 of 31 nor the orders dated 11.03.2010, 26.04, 2010 and 16.08.2010 passed by this Court dismissing the three contempt petitions were filed by the complainant before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.Such a deliberate suppression of material documents which were available with the complainant tantamounts to committing a fraud on the Trial Court.On the other hand, Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/respondent No.2 submitted that the complainant made out a case for summoning of the petitioners as on 03.08.1999, the College was granted approval by AICTE for starting a B. Pharmacy Degree Course for the session 1999-2000 with 60 admissions.Thereafter, for the sessions 2000-01, 2001-02, 2005-06 and 2006-07, the College was granted extension of approval by AICTE with 30 admissions for each session.Pursuant to order dated 21.02.2007 passed in W.P.(C) No. 13751/2006, this Court directed the University not to insist upon the factors which are covered by AICTE Act or Regulations.Accordingly, the college was granted extension of approval by AICTE for session 2007-08; and University granted provisional affiliation to the College and made 27 admissions to the College.Thereafter, on 19.05.2008, College was granted further extension of approval by AICTE for two years, i.e., session 2008-09 and 2009-10 with 30 admissions.University made admissions of 30 students for the sessions 2008-09 through centralized counseling.Thereafter, in June, 2009, College was inspected by the University and it awarded 335 marks out of 900 towards building and 645 marks out of 1000 towards faculty and infrastructure.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 16 of 31He submitted that the non-grant of admission was subject matter of challenge in W.P. (C) No. 9706/2009, wherein joint inspection was ordered on 20.08.2009, in which the words NOT RECOMMENDEDwere mentioned.Thereafter, Justice C.K. Mahajan ( Retd.) was appointed to carry out the inspection, who submitted his report, which was accepted by this Court and the students were transferred to other College.The complainant filed its complaint on 05.11.2009 with the grievance that the report dated 20.08.2009 was tampered with, in which summons have been issued against the petitioners and other accused persons.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 17 of 31Moreover, the conversation between the Chairman of the College and Prof. P.K. Sahu also shows that the report was written by three persons.The conversation further also shows that the University officials were annoyed with the College.The last paragraph of the conversation with Prof. P.K. Sahu notes that Prof. Sahu says that the Vice-Chancellor was annoyed with the Chairman of the College and being experts they cannot write recommended.He submitted that both the experts do not deny the converstation as under:-""a) That they spoke to the Chairman of the College;b) They do not dispute that the transcript / conversation was not spoken between them and the Chairman of the College;The Appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order placing him under suspension and other orders.The challenge Crl.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 21 of 31 in the writ petition was that the Appellant was placed under suspension on account of malafides which he attributed against the Chief Minister.The Appellant in his writ petition referred to various talks between himself and the Chief Minister's wife, which he tape recorded.The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court.While Section 2(xi) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 defines Public Servant to include Vice- Chancellor, Professor, Reader of any University, the definition of Public Servant under Section 21 of IPC does not define Vice-Chancellor or any other employee of University to be a Public Servant, therefore, there is no merit in the instant petitions and they may be dismissed with heavy costs.I have heard learned counsel for the parties.To this effect, the complainant filed the complaint before the Trial Court and vide order dated 15.01.2011, the learned Magistrate issued summons against the petitioners.Earlier for the session 1999-2000, the College was granted approval by AICTE with 60 admissions and thereafter, for the sessions 2000-01, 2001-02, 2005-06 and 2006-07, the College was granted extension of approval by AICTE with 30 admissions for each session.Thereafter, the College was granted extension of approval by AICTE for session 2007-08 and University granted provisional affiliation to the College and accordingly made 27 admissions to the College.On 19.05.2008, the College granted further extension of approval by AICTE for two years, i.e., sessions 2008-09 and 2009-10 with 30 admissions.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 23 of 31The complainant challenged the same vide W.P. (C) No. 9706/ 2009, wherein joint inspection was ordered on 20.08.2009, in which the words NOT RECOMMENDED were added later on.The Complainant Institute challenged the said inspection report vide W.P.(C) No. 9706/2009, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.The complainant challenged the same by way of LPA No. 384/2009, wherein the Division Bench of this Court directed that a joint inspection to be conducted by AICTE and GGSIP University.Accordingly, on 20.08.2009, the joint Crl.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 24 of 31 inspection was conducted and the same deficiencies, as were in the Ist inspection, were found again.On 25.08.2009, the Complainant Institute filed objections to the report.The aforesaid LPA No. 384/2009 was disposed of without granting any relief, thus, the objections of the Complainant Institute were deemed to have been rejected.On 27.03.2010, above named retired Judge found that the Complainant Institute was not fit to be run as an educational institute to conduct B.Pharma Course.Accordingly, this Court while accepting the findings, passed an order dated 05.05.2010 in W.P.(C) No.12724/2009 that students admitted to the roll of the College should be transferred to some other Institute affiliated with the University.Thereafter, the Complainant Institute filed contempt petitions which were dismissed by this Court on different dates as noted above.Meanwhile, on 03.01.2009 complainant filed impugned complaint before the learned Magistrate against ten individuals including the petitioners.Not being satisfied with the pre- summoning evidence led by the complainant, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 14.12.2009 directed the local police to investigate the allegations made in the complaint.Accordingly, after Crl.M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 25 of 31 investigation, on 13.01.2010 the police filed their report in which they found that no case was made out against the petitioners.The said officer recorded the statement of Dr. Surinder Singh, who was supposed to have admitted the conversation with Mr. Devender Gupta over the telephone that the words NOT RECOMMENDED were added later on.Whereas, he categorically stated that final conclusion NOT RECOMMENDED was mentioned before all the members of the Committee.He further submitted that Mr. Devender Gupta had telephonic discussion with him and he never told him that report is tempered because the final conclusion NOT RECOMMENDED was made in the report before all the members signed it.He even stated in his statement that as far as recording of his voice on telephone, they usually ignore such calls and try to get rid of this as soon as possible.So whatever the conversation has been cited by Mr. Devender Gupta, i.e., the complainant is meaningless and without any substance and allegation.Considering the report dated 13.01.2010 filed by the police with the opinion that no offence was made out, the learned Trial Court allowed the complainant to file the objections against the said report.But on perusal of the inspection reports, one joint inspection carried out by AICTE and the University and another by Justice C.K. Mahajan, retired Judge of this Court, one can make out that the Complainant Institute could not be extended any approval.The discrepancies found in two reports have been shown in the comparative chart in para 28 above of this judgment.On perusal of the telephonic conversation between Dr. Surender Singh and Mr. Devender Gupta, the complainant, it seems that the complainant is very friendly with Dr. Surender Singh and Professor P.K.Sahu, members of the Inspection Team.Thus, joint team deviated from the earlier pattern of not having any remarks under the heading of ""Final Recommendation"".M.C. Nos. 3999 & 4037-39 of 2011 Page 29 of 31In the present case, the tape recorded conversation being sought to be led in evidence by the complainant is between the complainant and some third party.Interestingly, subsequently during investigation, the said third party has clarified that there was no forgery and the words NOT RECOMMENDED were written in his presence.No order as to costs.","['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-The accused is a resident of Chennai and aged about 23 years.The alleged victim girl-P.W.2 was studying in 9th standard at Dhanalakshmi High School, Chennai and went to school on 10.07.2006 and thereafter, she has not returned home.Her father P.W.1-Jothilingam lodged a complaint with the respondent police on 11.07.2006 about missing of his daughter.While he was searching for his missing girl, on 02.08.2006 at about 10.45 hours, the respondent police who deposed as P.W.10 found the missing girl and the accused and secured them, conducted an enquiry and it came to light that the victim girl was taken away by the accused under threat and detained her in the village called Idaikkal near Thenkasi, Tirunelveli District, there the victim girl was raped by the accused.Both the victim girl and the accused were sent for medical examination and the accused was taken into custody.Thereafter, the Investigating Officer-P.W.10 went to the said Idaikkal Village, examined the witnesses and recorded the statement, after conducting medical examination of the victim as well as the accused.After examining the doctors, who were conducted medical test on them, the police filed a final report against the accused herein.The father of the victim girl who deposed as P.W.1 stated that he was living with his wife, three daughters and a son in Chennai and his first daughter the alleged victim girl in this case was aged about 14 years at the time of occurrence and she was studying in 9th std.On 10.07.2006, she left for school at 8.30 a.m. but failed to return back in evening as usual.After searching for her in school and other places and enquired about her in native places, the victim girl did not return home.He went to Tondiarpet Police Station on 11.07.2006 noon and lodged Ex.He further stated that on 02.08.2006, he received intimation from the police that his girl was secured.The victim girl who deposed as P.W.2 stated that she was studying in 9th std and knew the accused, who regularly used to come to her maternal grand mother's home.She also stated that her grand mother's home is next to her house and the accused used to give her sweets regularly.On 10.07.2006, while she was going to school, the accused followed her and asked her to come with him.When she hesitated, the accused offered her that she will get whatever she wants and compelled her to come with him.Accordingly, she went with the accused to Koyambedu Bus Stop, from there she was taken in a bus.When she expressed her apprehension, the accused told her that already he had informed the victim girl's father over phone and took her to Tirunelveli and thereafter to Thenkasi and kept her in a house at Idaikkal Village.When she asked him as to why she was taken there, the accused told her that he will speak to her father.While she was at the house in Idaikkal Village, the accused threatened her and had physical relationship for five times with her.When she insisted to go home, the accused stated that he is not having money to go back and thereafter on 01.08.2006, a friend of the accused gave money to him and on her request, she was taken to Chennai by the accused.On the next day, viz., 02.08.2006, when they were getting down at Maharani Bus Stop in Chennai at about 10.45 hours, the police secured them and later sent them for medical examination.On receipt of the same, he registered a case in Crime No.388 of 2006 and the said FIR is Ex.Thereafter, he took up the investigation and secured the accused along with the victim girl on 02.08.2006 at 10.45 hours near Maharani bus stop and enquired them.After enquiring the victim girl, it came to light that she was forcibly taken to Idaikkal Village under threat by the accused where she was raped by him.The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.384 of 2007 on the file of Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Mahila Court) Chennai.He stood charged for the offences under Sections 366A, 344 and 376(1) IPC.The trial Court by its judgment dated 10.09.2012 found him guilty under all the above said Sections, convicted and sentenced him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment under Section 366A IPC, to undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment under Section 344 IPC and to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment under Section 376(1).Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has come forward with this appeal, seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.Subsequently, the investigating officer submitted a requisition for medical examination and accordingly sent the accused as well as the victim girl for medical examination.5. P.W.4 - Dr.Santhakumar stated that on 03.08.2006 while he was working in Stanley Medical College and Hospital, examined one Ashokraja as per Ex.P3-Requisition Letter and issued Ex.P4 Certificate stating that the concerned person is not an impotent and fit for physical relationship.Another doctor, Kuppulakshmi who deposed as P.W.7 examined the victim girl and stated that on 03.08.2006 while she was working in R.S.R.M. Hospital, she examined the victim girl aged about 15 years brought by the police as per the Requisition Letter-Ex.P6 in respect of S.C.No.384 of 2007 and on examination, she found the victim girl of a normal physic and in good conscious condition.In the medical certificate-Ex.P8 issued by her, she has stated as follows:- ""Cervix pointing downwards Uterus antiverted smaller than normal size.No discharge per vaginum.Specimen taken Vaginal Smear(2) Vaginal Swab (2) and Hair clipping sent for examination"".The Accident Register issued by her is produced as Ex.The Investigating Officer-P.W.10 further stated that he went to Idaikkal Village on 03.08.2006, prepared a Observation Mahazar-Ex.P12 and Rough Sketch-Ex.P13 of the occurrence spot and examined the witnesses and recorded the statement.Thereafter, he continued his investigation and recorded the statement of the medical examiners and on completion of investigation, filed a final report against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the judgment of the trial Court and the same was denied by the accused.In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and produced 13 documents.No material object was marked.On the defence side, no oral or documentary evidence was produced.None of the witness from the alleged place of occurrence Idaikkal Village has been examined to prove that the said occurrence took place in that Village.The contradiction in the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 & P.W.7 about how the victim girl was taken away is also not taken into consideration by the trial Court.The fact of the previous enmity between the family of the complainant and the appellant/accused is not taken into account.There was no other independent witness apart from the interested witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.3 - parents of the victim girl are examined to prove the case of the prosecution.Hence, the appellant seeks to set aside the conclusion arrived by the trial Court and set him at liberty by allowing this appeal.The fact that the victim girl/P.W.2-Abirami was a minor at the time of occurrence is clearly established by Ex.Even though, P.W.2, the victim girl denied any physical assault on her body by the accused in her cross-examination which was conducted nearly three years after completion of her chief examination, she has categorically stated in her chief examination that while she was on her way to school on 10.07.2006, the accused asked her to come with him and inspite of her refusal, she was induced by him to go along and she was taken to Idaikkal Village near Thenkasi in Tirunelveli District by the accused in a bus.P.W.2-Abirami also stated that on 01.08.2006, the accused took her back to Chennai and on their arrival near Maharani bus stop on 02.08.2006 at about 10.45 hours, she was secured by the police.In her cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that on 10.07.2006, she saw the accused and four other persons, who are unknown to her and she was taken in a Auto rickshaw to Koyambedu bus stand and thereafter she was taken to unknown place and she was away from her home for 20 days.She also stated that she was detained in the same place but she was not physically assaulted by the accused or the other four persons.In her cross examination, she stated as follows: ""vjphpnah kw;w 4 egh;fnsh vd;id cly; hPjpahf vJt[k; bra;atpy;iy/ vd;id vJt[k; bra;atpy;iy/ Tl;o bfhz;L btspapy; tplhky; itj;jpUe;jhh;f;s/ itj;jpUe;jJ cz;ik/ ntW vJt[k; bra;atpy;iy"".She also stated that the accused is her own uncle.The complainant-P.W.1, who is the father of the alleged victim girl deposed that his daughter went missing from 10.07.2006 and he was informed by the respondent police on 02.08.2006 that his daughter has been rescued.Likewise, the mother of the victim girl who deposed as P.W.3 stated that her daughter did not return home from school on 10.07.2006 and inspite of searching in various places, they were not able to find her and subsequently on 02.08.2006, they were informed by the respondent police that the missing girl has been secured along with the accused herein.On such intimation from the respondent police, both P.W.1 and P.W.3 went to the police station and met their daughter.The Investigating Officer/PW-10 stated that after registering the FIR on 11.07.2006, he proceeded with the investigation and subsequently on 02.08.2006 secured the victim girl along with the accused herein at 10.45 a.m. near Maharani Bus Stop, T.H. Road, Chennai.Thus, P.W.2 stated that the accused is her uncle and neither the accused nor the four other persons have done any harm to her body and admitted that she has been detained by them in an unknown place.It is therefore clear, that the victim girl was away from her home and she was detained in an unknown place.In such circumstances, even though no one has been examined from Idaikkal Village to prove the said allegation, but the fact that the victim girl has been detained in an unknown place against her will is clearly established by PW2 evidence .Further, it is also clear that the accused took away PW2 from the lawful custody of her parents without their knowledge and against the wish of the minor victim girl.However, there is nothing on record to show that the accused took away PW2 to force her to have illicit intercourse with him and other persons.Hence, no offence under Section 366A IPC is made out on him by the trial Court.However, in view of wrongful confinement of the minor victim girl after taking her away from her parents, the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC, instead of 366A IPC.According to the prosecution, the accused had intercourse with the minor victim girl forcibly against her will.While, the alleged victim/P.W.2 stated in her chief-examination, that the accused had physical intercourse with her five times and detained her in the said occurrence spot, in contrast, in in her cross-examination, PW2, the victim girl stated that she was detained in a place by the accused and four others.Further, in her cross examination, PW2 categorically stated that no physical harm was done to her.She denied any physical relationship with the accused.In such circumstances, a doubt arises as to whether really the victim girl was physically abused by the accused as claimed by the prosecution.The alleged victim girl in her chief-examination stated that she was taken by the accused herein to the Idaikkal Village by bus and kept in a house belonging to the accused friend from 11.07.2006 and there the accused had physical relationship with her five times, after threatening her with dire consequences.Thereafter on 01.08.2006, when she pleaded with the accused, he took her to Chennai and on next day morning i.e. 02.08.2006, while they were getting down at Maharani Bus Stop, the police secured them.However, in cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that she was taken in a Auto to Koyambedu bus stand by the accused and four other persons and she was taken to unknown place and she did not remember the name of the place.She also stated that she was away from her home for 20 days and in spite of her request, the accused kept her in the same place and subsequently she was secured from that place on 02.08.2006 by the police.Further, the victim P.W.2 categorically stated that the accused is her uncle and no one had done any physical harm to her.Thus, P.W.2 contradicts her own version in the chief by stating that she was only detained in a unknown place and no physical harm was done to her.Thus, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, PW2 is giving different versions in her evidence about the occurrence and as such her evidence lacks credibility.In such circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that P.W.2 is not a reliable witness and she is giving contradictory statements only because no occurrence as alleged by the prosecution took place in reality.Thus, in the light of the above said discussion, this Court is of the view that PW2 evidence cannot be treated as reliable one in the absence of any corroboration.Further, P.W.2 in her evidence also admitted that she was taken to the Doctor for medical examination.PW7-the Doctor, who examined the victim girl stated that the private parts of the victim girl was normal and no injury was found over the same.P.W.7 further stated that the hymen was toned and due to that the victim girl seems to have been raped.However, P.W.7 also stated that the victim girl informed her about being taken away by her cousin sister's husband (accused herein) and four other persons and she was detained in a house for two weeks.It is also stated by P.W.7 that the victim girl told her that she was raped five times.As stated above, according to the medical evidence no external injury is found and it also admitted by P.W.7 due to cycling, there is a possibility of hymen being toned.Thus, while PW7 has deposed about PW2 informing him about the physical assault on her by the accused, the same cannot be accepted as PW2 herself has given contradictory evidence as stated earlier.Further, on medical side also PW7 evidence is not categorical about the victim girl PW2 being physically abused as alleged by the prosecution.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further contended that if the victim girl was forced to have physical relation against her will forcibly, she would have suffered physical injury but in the case on hand PW2 has not suffered any external injury as per medical expert-PW7 evidence.Pointing it out the appellant contends that the finding of the trial Court, that the victim girl PW2 was raped by the accused is unsustainable.In such circumstances, taking into consideration the fact, that the victim girl herself has denied any act of rape by the accused and in the absence of any external injuries found on her body and the fact that the victim girl has stated totally different versions about being raped in contrast to what was told by her to PW7 that the accused as well as four other persons raped her, this Court finds that the case of the prosecution that the victim girl was raped by the accused is unsustainable, as the said allegations is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.Admittedly, the victim girl was aged about 14 years at the time of the alleged occurrence.It is evident from her deposition that she was taken away on inducement by the accused from the custody of her parents.It is also clear from her evidence that she was detained in unknown place against her wish.The victim girl has stated before P.W.7-Doctor and also in her cross-examination that she was taken by the accused and four other persons and detained in another place.It is thus clearly established that PW2 was taken away from the lawful custody of her parents without their consent and knowledge.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the prosecution has not investigated about the other persons allegedly associated with the sole accused herein, but lodged the charge sheet only against the only accused herein and that itself will create doubt about the alleged occurrence.However, the victim girl has categorically stated that the accused was present on the occurrence date and she was asked by him to go along and the accused gave assurance that he will inform her father about the same and as she went with him, she was subsequently detained by him, in spite of her request to let her go.It is apparently clear from the evidence of the victim girl, that she was taken away by the accused and detained by him at a place away from her natural guardian against her wish.It is therefore clear, that the said act of the accused will only attract the offence under Section 365 IPC and not the offence under Section 366A IPC, under which the trial Court has found him guilty.There is nothing on record to show that the accused took away the victim girl and she had been forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person.In such circumstances, as the victim girl was taken away on inducement by the accused from the lawful custody of the natural guardian and detained in another place for more than 20 days, the accused is liable to be punished under Sections 344 & 365 IPC instead of 366A IPC as held by the trial Court.It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that due to personal and family enmity, false complaint is lodged against the accused.However, P.W.3, the mother of the victim girl stated that her sister converted into another religion and due to that, she did not attend the marriage of the accused, but whenever the accused visits the victim girl's grand-mother home, he used to talk with the victim girl.P.W.2 also stated that there is no property dispute between her parents and the accused, because her parents have no property at all.Similarly, the alleged victim girl stated that the accused is her uncle, and he is now married and having a child.P.W.2 further stated that the accused used to visit her grand-mother home, which is adjacent to her house and used to give her sweets, which she will receive without the knowledge of her father.It is also seen from the evidence of P.W.1 that his mother-in-law's home is adjacent to his house and the accused used to visit his mother-in-law's home.P.W.1 also admits that his wife and his daughter knew the accused and they used to talk whenever the accused visits his mother-in-law's home.Thus, it is clear from the above said evidence that the accused used to meet the victim girl and her mother in the adjacent house of the complainant and the prosecution has not let in any evidence to prove any enmity on the ground of the property dispute between the accused and the complainant.In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused, that the complainant has falsely lodged a complaint due to family dispute is unsustainable.The learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that PW5 and PW9, the alleged witnesses to the confession statement given by the accused have turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution.Further, it is also pointed out that in Ex.The same is admitted by PW1-the complainant and PW10-the Investigation Officer of the case.Further, it is also pointed out that in the endorsement made by the Sub-Inspector of Police in Ex.P1 Complaint also similar correction is found.This according to the appellant occurred only because false complaint was lodged against the accused.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the following terms:(a).Further, the conviction under Section 366A is modified into under Section 365 IPC and thereby, the fine amount Rs.10,000/- imposed by the trial court found sufficient.In view of the conviction under Section 376(1) IPC is set aside, the fine amount Rs.10,000/- imposed on the appellant/accused is directed to be refunded.Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.23.02.2017Internet : Yes/NoIndex : Yes/NomkS.BASKARAN, J.The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Mahila Court, Chennai.The Inspector of Police, H-3, Tondiarpet Police Station, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor Office, High Court, Madras.The Section Officer, Vernacular Record Section, High Court, Madras.A.No.677 of 201223.02.2017","['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In the car Surya Narain alias Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey, Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dubey were sitting and Shesh Mani was driving the car.At about 3 p.m. when they reached at Trimuhani of Mirzapur road in township Gopiganj on G.T. road, accused Udai Bhan Singh, Tehsildar Singh, Akbal Bahadur alias Atkoti singh, Prem Singh, Dhunni Singh, Munni Singh, Daroga Singh, Rajeshwar Upadhyay, Pintoo Singh and two other persons who were armed with latest weapons started firing.On account of this, his brother-in-law Surya Narain alias Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey and car driver Shesh Mani died on the spot.He and Prem Shanker Dubey who were sitting on the back seat of the car came out of the car and received injuries also.Licensed Rifle of Prem Shanker Dubey was left in the car, which was taken away by one of the assailants.The occurrence was witnessed by Shiv Prasad @ Dangar Tewari, Mukund Lal, Ram Dutt Mishra and other persons.Shopkeepers started running away after closing their shutters.It is further stated that there was enmity between Surya Narain alias Vakil Shukla and Udai Bhan Singh with regard to some contract work.The report was lodged at 3.45 p.m. by one Rakesh Kumar Pandey at police station Gopiganj and the distance of police station from the place of occurrence is one km. Uma Shanker Pandey, Head Constable prepared the chik F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-2) and entered it in the G.D. (Ext. Ka-3).S.I. Vidya Prakash Misra started investigation.He reached at the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of informant Rakesh Kumar Pandey.S.I. Rashid Ahmad prepared the inquest report of Surya Narain alias Vakil shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey and Shesh Mani on his dictation.Dead bodies were sent for the most mortem examinations.He prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-25) and collected blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence, broken pieces of glass of car, a piece of Raxine, blood stained shoes, empty cartridges, one Rifle and 9 mm Pistol of deceased Surya Narain Shukla and prepared its recovery memos (Ext. Ka-26 to Ka-32).The dead bodies were sent for the post mortem examination through constables Devi Prasad Pandey and Prabhu Nath Yadav.Post mortem of the deceased Devi Shanker Dubey was conducted by Dr. Radhey Raman, Medical Officer, Maharaj Chet Singh Hospital, Gyanpur 4.4.1999 at about 11.55 p.m. He found following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased Devi Shanker Dubey:P.W. 5 Ram Dutt Misra stated that the place of occurrence is Gopiganj market on G.T. Road at Mirzapur Trimuha.He and Dangar Tewari reached there on the motor cycle of Mukund Lal.Tehsildar Singh was exhorting them.It is further stated that Ambassador car was going towards West in speed and collided with a Bus which was coming towards Varanasi.Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dube came out of the car and while coming out of the car they received some injuries.At about 2 - 2.15 p.m. he saw Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari and stopped him.He had also taken a lift on the motorcycle and reached at the Trimuhani alongwith them.His statement was recorded by the investigating officer at 11.30 a.m. He had recorded his statement in his room.The house belongs to Adya Tewari who is elder brother of Dangar Tewari.He did not inform the police out post while coming back to his home.P.W. 6 Dr. A.K. Pandey is Medical Officer, Community Health Center Gopiganj.He examined Prem Shanker Dubey at 5.25 p.m. injuries of Prem Shanker Dubey which have already been mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment.P.W. 10 is S.I. Irshad Ali.On 4.4.1999 he was posted as s.I. police station Gopiganj.He reached at the place of occurrence alongwith Station House Officer.He prepared the inquest reports and handed over the dead bodies to constable Devi Prasad Pandey and Manoj Rai.Inquest report of Surya Narain alias Vakil Shukla (Ext. Ka-9).Photo lash (Ext. Ka-10), Form No. 13( Ext. Ka-11) and letters to R.I. and C.M.O. ( Ext. Ka-12 and Ka-13 ).He also prepared the inquest report of Devi Shanker Dubey ( Ext. Ka -14).Challan lash ( Ext.Ka-15), Photo lash ( Ext. Ka-16), report to R.I. ( Ext. Ka-17) and letter to C.M.O. for post mortem examination (Ext. Ka-18).On the same day he prepared the inquest of Shesh Mani Rai (Ext. Ka-19), letter to R.I. and C. M.O. Ext. Ka-20 and Ka-21), Photo Lash ( Ext. Ka-22), and Challan Lash ( Ext. Ka-23).In the cross examination he stated that dead bodies were kept on G.T. road.He stated that before starting the inquest report he had possessed the first information report.He stated that he prepared the inquest report of Shesh Mani Rai.P.W. 11 Constable Prabhu Nath Yadava stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence, Irshad Ahmad was preparing the inquest report.The dead bodies were handed over to constable Manoj Rai and Devi shanker Pandey.He was there for security alongwith constable Rajendra Prasad.P.W. 12 Daya Shanker Misra was transfered on 11.4.1999 as S.H.O. Gopiganj from police station Aurai.The first investigating officer submitted charge sheet on 10.4.1999 and he had to arrest the accused persons.He did not record the statement of any of the witnesses.He did not file any supplementary charge sheet.P.W. 13 is Vidya Prakash Misra.On 4.4.1999 he was posted as S.H.O. police station Gopiganj.He started the investigation of the case.He recorded the statement of complainant Rakesh Kumar Pandey.On his dictation S.I. Irshad Ali prepared the inquest report of Surya Narain Shukla alias vakil shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey and Shesh Mani Rai.After the preparation of inquest repot dead bodies were sealed and handed over to constable Devi Prasad Pandey, Manoj Rai, constable Punnu Lal Yadava and constable Rajendra Prasad.He also recorded the statement of Prem Shanker Dubey.He also recorded the statement of photographer who had taken the photograph of the place of occurrence.On 6.4.1999 he recorded the Statement of Pawan Singh.Thereafter he recorded the statement of Prabhakar Khadhar and Vinod Kumar Dubey.He recorded the statement of the scribe of the report Head Moharrir, Uma Shanker Pandey.He recorded the statement of Sunil Dubey and Munni Pandey.On 8.4.1999 he recorded the statement of Ram Murat Upadhyay and searched for the accused.On 9.4.1999 he received information on R.T. set that Jajjey Singh and other two accused alongwith looted Rifle and cartridges were arrested.He also arrested Tehsildar Singh.He recorded the statement of S.H.O. Vindhyachal, Sharda Bux Singh, S.H.O. Mahihau, Shri Devendra Kumar Singh.He recorded the statement of Laljee Singh.P.W. 13 was recalled and re examined on 16.2.2004 and he stated that the envelope which was opened in court contained only three 12 bore cartridges.He further stated that on inspection of the car he found 8 bullet marks on chasis, 8 on tank, 10 on rear bumper, 12 on Dickey, one on rear class, and one on the bonnet.He stated that on 4.4.1999 the eye witnesses did not give any statement regarding the occurrence.The complainant had confirmed lodging of the first information report.On 18.3.2004 he was recalled and he stated that he got the photography of the place of occurrence and he had mentioned the same in his case diary.One sealed packet was opened in the court which contained one tikli, two empty cartridges of 12 bore, one of 9 mm and one of 30 mm, Rifle and two bullets (Ext. Ka- 28 to Ka-34).In the cross examination he stated that the packet which contained (Ext. Ka-28 to Ka-34 ) had a broken seal but the box which contained the cartridges had a proper seal.P.W. 15 is Sharda Bux Singh.He stated that in the month of April, 1999 he was posted as S.H.O. Vindhyachal.P.W. 16 is Dhananjay Misra, S.H.O. Aurai, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi.He stated that from 8.5.1999 to 21.5.2001 he was posted as S.H.O. Gopiganj.If the statements of eye witnesses were not recorded same day, no adverse inference can be drawn that the F.I.R. was not in existence at the time of preparation of inquest reports.The statement of the complainant was recorded prior to preparation of inquest reports.If he was present at the place of occurrence after the murder of his close relative and he did not go for his medical examination.There is nothing to doubt about his presence at the alleged time of occurrence.JUDGMENT Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.In these seven appeals the factual matrix relates to the same incident and the judgment impugned being the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.I.P.C. for six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default of payment of fine 15 days further R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.On the place of occurrence an Ambassador car was going from east to west, Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker were sitting on the front seat and Shesh Mani Rai was the driver of the car.On the back seat Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Devi Shanker Dubey were sitting.Udai Bhan Singh alias Doctor Singh, Sandeep Singh alias Pintoo Singh, Sanjay Singh, brother-in-law of Doctor Singh and his two friends Sanjay Singh and Santosh Singh, Ashok Singh, Rajeshwar Upadhyay, Suresh Kumar alias Jajjey Singh, Shri Krishna Singh alias Daroga Singh, Chhuni Singh, Munni Singh, Prem Singh and Atkati Singh were chasing the car and firing with their weapons.They were armed with Rifle, Gun, Pistol and Carbine.Rifle of Prem Shanker Dubey was left in the car.Thereafter all the accused surrounded the car and started indiscriminate firing and they kept on firing till Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey and Shesh Mani died.One of them took away the Rifle of Prem Shanker Dube and all the accused persons were raising the slogan Har Har Mahadeo and they ran away in Maruti Car, Sumo etc and on one motor cycle towards Orai.The occurrence was witnessed by him and Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Singh, Mukund Lal and Rakesh Pandey.In the cross examination he stated that on the date of occurrence he had gone to Vindhyachal for 'Darshan' in the morning.He did not know where Mukund Lal and Dangar Tewari had gone.He left Vindhyachal at about 11 - 11.30 a.m. He did not know whether Vindhyachal temple closes in the noon or not.After worshiping he left for Gopiganj in a Tempo.He reached at cheelh turn in a Tempo which is at a distance of 10 - 12 km. from Vindhyachal.He remained at Cheelh turn for about an hour.He prepared the site plan on the pointing out of the complainant and the persons present ( Ext. Ka-25).He prepared the recovery memos of plain and blood stained earth, pieces of broken glass of the car, a piece of Raxine from the seat of the car, blood stained shoes, empty cartridge, one licensee Rifle of Surya Narain Shukla, one pistol 9 mm of Surya Narain Shukla (Ext. Ka-26 to Ka-32.).He recorded the statements of inquest witnesses Dangar alias Adya Prasad Tewari, Jata Shanker, Ramesh Kumar Pandey, Mukund Lal and witnesses of recovery memo, Ramjee Shukla, Pradeep Kumar Shukla, Irshad Ahmad and Jan Mohammad.On 5.4.1999 he recorded the statement of Santosh Kumar Singh, Anoop Kumar, Lallan Singh and Shri Balkeshwar Nath.He filed the charge sheet against the accused persons (Ext. Ka-36).On 4.4.1999 he had recorded the statement of inquest witnesses.1999 at the instance of the complainant he recorded the statements as of eye witnesses.Suresh Kumar Singh alias Jajjey Singh claimed for his identification under Section 54-A Cr.P.C. The application was opposed by the prosecution and the same was rejected.Thereafter by the order of the High Court dated 15.6.1999 the case was again transferred to C.B.C.I.D.. On 8.10.1999 Rakesh Kumar Pandey had informed that his uncle-in-law that some verbal altercation regard to P.W.D. contracts.He recorded the statement of the accused and witnesses and the police officers who conducted the investigation.He filed the charge sheet (Ext.Ka-38).He arrested Ashok Kumar Singh alias Babloo Singh and Suresh Kumar Singh son of Shambhu Singh.The factory made Rifle No. AB 973648 alongwith magazine containing four live cartridges were recovered from the possession of Ashok Kumar Singh (Ext. Ka-12).From the possession of Suresh Kumar Singh one U.S. 30 carbine alongwith magazine containing 9 live cartridges (Ext.Ka-13) and cartridges (Ext. Ka-14 to Ka-22) were recovered.Case under Section 25 Arms Act and 41/411 I.P.C. was registered as case crime No. 126/127 of 1999 against them.On 13.5.1999 he started investigation of the case.The earlier investigating officer had already submitted the charge sheet.He had received the ballistic expert's report on 25.5.1999 and recovered Rifle from the possession of the accused.Thereafter, the case was transferred to C.B.C.I.D.P.W. 17 Devendra Kumar Singh, is the Incharge, S.O. District Sonbhadra.He stated that in the year 1999 he was posted as S.H.O. Marihau.He arrested Ashok Kumar Singh alias Babloo Singh alongwith the Rifle and he also arrested Suresh Kumar Singh and recovered one Carbine US 30 alongwith magazine.P.W. 18 Jagdish Chand Shukla is constable at police station Gopiganj.He stated that on 13.10.1998 he was posted as constable Moharrir at police station Gopiganj.The defence had examined D.W. 1 Pankaj Kumar Dwivedi.He is president of Vindhyachal Panda Samaj, Vindhyachal.The temple is looked after by this Vinchyachal Panda Samaj and Vindhyachal Vikas Parishad.The temple is opened at 4 a.m. for 'Shringar' and it take about one hour and at this time the temple remain closed for 'darshan'.The doors of the temple open at 5 a.m. for the worship.Thereafter the doors are closed at 12 O'clock for the 'Shringar"" etc. Again the temple is opened for worship at 1.30 p.m. During this period nobody is allowed to enter into the temple.During the days of Navratri, the doors close at 12 O'clock and open at 1 p.m. for 9 days only.In the cross examination he stated that the President of Vindhyachal Panda Samaj is appointed for two years.Anil Kumar Dubey remained President for 14 years.The rules which are prepared by the Panda Samaj are given to the district Magistrate and approved by him also.There are two doors for the worship in the temple.S.P. who recorded the same gave evidence about the same.The investigating officer had recorded his statement on 4.4.1999 as a witness of inquest report but if the first information report was available then why his 161 Cr.P.C. statement was not recorded same day.We have carefully examined the above submissions.The testimony of P.W. 2 Uma Shanker Pandey shows that he had registered the first information report at case crime No. 177 of 1999 Ext. Ka-2).He had also prepared the G.D. No. 34 at 3.45 p.m. on 4.4.1999 ( Ext. Ka-3).Special report was dispatched through constable Udhao Singh.He copied the chik report and reached at the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of complainant and S.I. Rasheed Ahmad, prepared the inquest reports of Surya Narain Shukla alias Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey and Shesh Mani Rai, on his dictation.On the same day he prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of witnesses prepared recovery memos of plain and blood stained earth, Raxine of the car etc.The eye witnesses are mentioned in his statement.Prior to reaching at the place of occurrence Chik F.I.R. was with the Investigating Officer.There is overwhelming evidence to prove that the F.I.R. was registered at the alleged time.There is direct testimony of P.W. 1 Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari to prove that informant (Rakesh Kumar Pandey) had prepared the first information report 40 steps away from the place of occurrence and at that time thousand of persons had collected near the dead body.The G.D. Ext. Ka-3 shows that informant and P.W. 4 had come to the police station and their injuries are also mentioned in the G.D. The enclosures which were sent alongwith the inquest report shows that chik was also sent alongwith the inquest report.The testimony of P.W. 9 Devi Prasad Pandey shows that he had escorted the dead body to the mortuary for the post mortem examination.He stated that dead bodies were handed over to him at 6.30 or 7 p.m. and he was given a copy of the F.I.R. and other papers for the post mortem.His testimony remained unchallenged.The first information report shows the seal and signature of the doctor who had received the papers alongwith the dead bodies for the post mortem examination.One more important circumstance is that the post mortem examinations was conducted same nigh on the direction of the District Magistrate.In our view the first information report is registered at the alleged time and it is promptly lodged.The occurrence took place at 3 p.m. and written report is lodged at 3.45 p.m. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is one km. It is significant to mention that criminal courts attach great importance to the prompt lodging of the report because the same substantially eliminate the possibility of embellishments and concoction creeping in the prosecution story.The other submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that according to the prosecution case first information report was registered at 3.45 p.m. and both the injured, namely, Rakesh Kumar Pandey and P.W. 4 Prem Shanker Dubey were sent for medical examination through constable Nathuni Lal but there is long gap between the medical examination of P.W. 4 Prem Shanker Dubey and complainant Rakesh Kumar Pandey.P.W. 6 Dr. A.K. Pandey had examined Prem Shanker Dubey on 4.4.1999 at 5.25 p.m. whereas Rakesh Kumar Pandey, complainant was examined by P.W. 7 Dr. L.S. Mishra at 8.15 p.m. both the injured were brought to the P.H.C. by constable Nathuni Lal who has not been examined in the case.The counsel for the appellant submits that this delay is due to the fact that the informant did not receive any injury in the occurrence and he was called after the occurrence and thereafter his injuries were manufactured and Dr. L.S. Misra was not on duty on the said date and he was deliberately called to examine the complainant and manufactured his injuries.The injury report suggests that injuries of P.W. 4 Prem Shanker Dubey were bleeding therefore, he immediately went for medical examination.The presence of informant is proved at the time of occurrence.He had signed all the inquest reports as an inquest witness.His statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the investigating officer.P.W. 13 V.P. Misra prior to preparation of inquest reports.The dead bodies were dispatched at 6.30 - 7 p.m. Thereafter informant was medically examined by the doctor.There cannot be any doubt that his injuries are manufactured by the doctor and he was not present at the time of occurrence.This submission has no force and is rejected.Another submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that if the F.I.R. was in existence at the alleged time and the names of the eye witnesses were known to the investigating officer then why the statement of eye witnesses was recorded next day.It is further submitted that the investigating officer had recorded the statement of P.W. 1 Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari as a witness of inquest and his statement was not recorded as an eye witness.He was available on the same day.It is further submitted that P. W. 1 Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari stated that he told about the occurrence to the investigating officer but P.W. 13 V.P. Mishra states that he did not disclose about the occurrence same day.If the first information report was available and his name finds place as an eye witness then his statement should have been recorded by the investigating officer.We have considered the submission of the counsel.In the instant case the occurrence took place on a busy G.T. Road at 3 p.m. and the report of the occurrence was lodged at 3.45 p.m. Thereafter the investigating officer had copied the chik, recorded the statement of informant, thereafter he prepared the inquest proceeding of three dead bodies.He also recorded the statements of inquest witnesses.There was also urgency in the post mortem which was conducted same night on the direction of the District Magistrate and the statements of these witnesses have been recorded next day.It is not disputed that prior to the preparation of inquest reports, statement of informant was recorded, Chik F.I.R. was also available with the investigating officer which was also dispatched as an enclosure No. 2 with the inquest report for the post mortem alongwith the dead bodies.There is no force in this submission that only on account of delay in recording of 161 Cr.P.C. statement on the next day it can be said that the F.I.R. was not in existence and P.W. 4 Prem Shanker Dubey and P.W. 5 Ram Dutt Mishra were not eye witnesses.We reject this submission of learned counsel for the appellants.The F.I.R. was registered at the alleged time chithi mazroobi of the informant and injured P.W. 4 Prem Shanker Dube was prepared and chik and F.I.R. was handed over to the investigating officer who had recorded 161 Cr.P.C. statement of informant Rakesh Kumar Pandey and completed the inquest reports of the dead bodies and other formalities with regard to investigation.There is no such delay in recording of 161 Cr.P.C. statement to caste any doubt that these witnesses are got up witnesses.Next submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that P.W. 1 Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari and P.W. 5 Ram Dutt Mishra are chance and partisan witnesses and their testimonies should be rejected.There can be no doubt that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 can be said to be chance witnesses.Their residences are a furlong or two away from the scene of occurrence.The story of P.W. 1 that he closed the shop earlier than usual is difficult to believe because he does not assign any reason for so doing.The allegation that respondent Chander Mohan's complaint was first in point of time but was registered later cannot be lightly brushed aside.It is also surprising that P.W. 1 preferred to write down the complaint on the spot rather than run down 100 paces to the police station to inform the police.P.W. 1 was asked to explain this conduct and he stated that he preferred to write down the complaint ""as I had doubt that the police will not pay any heed and will not take down the report correctly.There was no reason for P.W. 1 to entertain such a doubt.He does not say that he had any such experience in the past.Both the deceased had a criminal record and were history sheeters.Several complaints were pending against Ram Shanker.He must be having many enemies.The defence case is that some of their common enemies got together and killed them and P.W. 1 was not present but who came later filed the report on the basis of the morning incident.Be that as it may, the fact, remains that the genesis of the crime is suppressed and no witness from the locality whose presence would be natural is examined which creates a doubt regarding the truth of the prosecution version.As to the presence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 at the time and place of occurrence the trial court entertained grave doubts.If by coincidence or chance a person happens to be at the place of occurrence at the time it is taking place, he is called a chance witness.And if such a person happens to be a relative or friend of the victim or inimically disposed towards the accused then his being a chance witness is viewed with suspicion.Such a piece of evidence is not necessarily incredible or unbelievable but does required cautious and close scrutiny.In the instant case, P.W.s 4 and 5 were agnatic relations of the deceased, one of them a close one.The reason given by them for being at the place of occurrence did not appear to be true to the trial court.There was not any compelling or sufficient reason for the High Court to differ from the evaluation of the evidence of the two chance witnesses.It may well be as remarked by the High Court that the respondent was also their collateral but they appeared to be partisan witnesses on the side of the prosecution and hence their testimony was viewed with suspicion by the trial judge.We find from the judgment of the Sessions Court that P.W. 2 admitted that there are two rival factions and he filed an application against the accused in the year 1976 for binding over them and consequently proceedings were launched against the accused and that there were certain other instances which would show that P.W. 2 was inimical towards the accused.Further, there is some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W. 2 appears to be a chance witness.He deposed that he went to this particular field which is away from his house to answer the call of nature.On his being a chance witness it is necessary have a closer scrutiny of his evidence.Coming to the medical evidence of P.W. 2 is to the effect that all the other four accused dealt blows with sticks.It is pointed out in number of cases by this court when the case rests on the sole testimony of the single witness, the same should be wholly reliable.We find in the instant case that P.W. 2 is not only an interested witness but the version given by him is highly doubtful apart from the fact he being a chance witness.If we do so then we notice that on the date of incident he had gone to a village Upli for some work.From there he came back by bus at about 11 'O clock.He then allegedly went to the village to meet Ram Rakh where he was told by his wife that the latter had gone to the field.It is the prosecution case itself that the distance between the field of Ram Rakh and the village is about 4-5 miles and P.W. 6 covered that distance on foot and when he reached near the field of Ram Rakh he heard a quarrel and when he went towards the place of quarrel he saw the appellant attack the deceased with an axe.It is his further case that when he reached near the deceased the appellant ran away.It is at this point of time he states that he got scared and he took a different route than the one he took on the way and reached the village at about 4 or 4.15 p.m. It is his case that when he went to the house of Ram Rakh he could not find him therefore he came near the village square where he met P.W. 2 Khyali Ram.From the above evidence of P.W. 6 it is apparent that though there were persons available on his way back, he did not inform anybody about the incident.Even when he reached the village and met Ram Rakh's wife he did not inform her about the incident and it is for the first time he informs about this incident to P.W. 2 at the village square at about 4.15 p.m. Contrary to what he stated in the examination-in-chief that he saw only one assault on the deceased, in the cross examination he stated that he saw the appellant attack the deceased twice and both the injuries were caused in his presence.The prosecution has not found how P.W. 14 came to know of the incident.In this background if we appreciate the evidence of P.W. 6 we notice the fact that he is purely a chance witness whose presence at the place of the incident is highly doubtful.His conduct too seems to be unnatural in not informing anyone else in the village until he met Khyali Ram at the village square.Though the distance is about 30 miles from the place of incident, the complainant had the facility of using the tractors available in the village and they did use the same for travelling to the police station.In such circumstances this unexplained long delay also creates a doubt in our mind as to the genuineness of the prosecution case.The judgment and order of conviction of the two courts below are set aside.The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him.In the present case the evidence of P.W.1 shows that on 4.4.1999 he was coming from Vindhyachal and when he reached at the Trisection of G.T. Road Gopiganj he heard some shots.Me was accompanied by Mukund Lal and Ram Dutt Mishra.5 ram Dutt Mishra also stated that he was returning from Vindhyachal and on his way back home he met Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari and he had taken lift on his motorcycle and he reached at the Trisection alongwith them.The occurrence took place on the G.T. Road.The testimonies of both the witnesses show that they had probablise their presence at the alleged place of occurrence.It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that both the witnesses are partisan.It is suggested that both of them are deposing falsely only at the instance of Vijay Mishra M.L.As There is nothing on record to suggest that Vijay Mishra was instrumental in procuring these witnesses apart from the vague suggestion there is nothing on record to hold that these witnesses are deposing against the appellants on account of the influence of Vijay Mishra.Even it is not suggested to the witnesses that Vijai Misra was present at the place of occurrence or at the police station.The evidence of a. witness who is alleged to be a partisan or chance witness cannot be rejected solely on that ground and the law requires only a closer scrutiny of his testimony.We have carefully examined the testimonies of the witnesses The evidence of P.W. 1 Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari shows that on 4.4.199 at about 3 p.m. he was present on the Trimuhani of G.T. road.He was coming from Vindhyachal alongwith Mukund Lal and P.W. 5 Ram Dutt Mishra on a motorcycle.His evidence shows that accused persons were armed with Gun, Rifles, 30 Carbine and Pistols and were firing at Ambassador car of Vakil Shukla, deceased.Shesh Marti deceased was driving the car and it collided with a roadway bus coming from Allahabad.Tehsildar Singh had exhorted to kill and the assailants came near the car and started firing.Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dubey were sitting on the back seat of the car.They came out of the car leaving the Rifle of Prem Shanker Dubey in the car which was taken away by Suresh Kumar Singh alias Jajjey Singh.They killed Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey and Shesh Mani Rai inside the car.Thereafter they ran away in their Sumo and other vehicles.The motive as alleged is that there was some disputp with regard to contract work and Vakil Shukla shad also contested election of Zila Panchayat against Akbal Bahadur alias Atkoti Singh.The Rifle and Pistol of Vakil Shukla was left in the car.The first information report was lodged by Rakesh Kumar Pandey at 3.45 p.m. He identified the report which was written by Rakesh Kumar Pandey.The investigating officer had prepared the inquest reports of the deceased and he had also signed the same.His statement was recorded on the next day of the occurrence.We have carefully examined the evidence of this witness and in our opinion it is reliable and credible.His testimony is corroborated by the post mortem examination and also by the testimony of the investigating officer which clearly indicates that the deceased were done to death inside the car.The investigating officer had collected blood stained Raxine, shoes, broken pieces of car, empty cartridges and one Rifle and pistol of 9 mm of Surya Narain Shukla and prepared its recovery memo (Ext. Ka-26 to Ka-32).There is no dispute about the identity of the assailants as the occurrence took place in broad day light.The statement of this witness also shows that complainant Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dubey had received injuries while they were coming out of the car.G.D. entry Ext. Ka-3) shows that complainant Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dubey had received injuries and P.W. 2 Uma Shanker Pandey had prepared the 'chithi majroobi' and P.W. 7 Dr. L.S. Misra had medically examined Rakesh Kumar Pandey on 4.4.1994 at 8 15 p.m. and P.W. 6 Dr. A.K. Pandey had medically examined Prem Shanker Dubey on 4.4.1999 at 5.25 p.m. The counsel for the appellants submits that he is close associate of Vakil Shukla and he was also involved in a case of Arms Act alongwith him and he had started doing pairvi of this case after the death of informant.His testimony should be rejected on this ground.He did not avoid any uncomfortable question.He was subjected to extensive cross examination but nothing substantial could be extracted there from which could render either his presence at the place of incident or credibility suspect.His evidence shows that he has fully mentioned the essential features of the prosecution including time and place and of the incident, name of the assailants, names of the victims, manner of assault, name of the informant and motive for the murder.We have no hesitation after careful scrutiny of the evidence to place implicit reliance on his testimony.Another eye witness P.W. 5 is Ram Dutt Misra, His evidence, shows that on the date of occurrence at about 3 p.m. he was coming alongwith P.W. 1 Dangar Tewari from Vindhyachal.He stated that in the Ambassador Car of Vakil Shukla, Devi Shanker Dubey was sitting on the front seat and Shesh Mani Rai was driving the car.Rakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dubey were sitting on the back seat.The appellants were chasing the car and firing with Rifle, Gun, Pistol and Carbine.Tehsildar Singh was giving exhortation to kill them.The Ambassador Car collided with a Bus which was going towards Varanasi.After the accident Kakesh Kumar Pandey and Prem Shanker Dubey came out of the Car and while! they were coming out of the car they received some minor injury.The Rifle of Prem Shanker Dubey left in the car.Thereafter accused had surrounded the car and started indiscriminate firing as a result of which Vakil Shukla Devi shanker Dubey and Shesh Mani Rai died.One of the accused took away the Rifle of Prem Shanker Dubey and all the accused persons were raising slogan Har Har Mahadeo and thereafter they ran away in their Muruti, Sumo, Motorcycle and on other vehicles towards Aural.His statement was also recorded by the investigating officer.He was also subjected to extensive cross examination but nothing substantial could be extracted there from.In our opinion he has fully explained his presence on the spot and there is nothing to suspect his credibility.He has no rancor or ill will against the appellants and in our opinion in the absence of the same he would not falsely implicated the accused.The court should be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness and normally, it should look for corroboration to his evidence.In the light of the above, we have carefully examined his testimony.He admitted that on the alleged date of occurrence he was sitting on the back seat of the car and he had a licensee Rifle alongwith him.He had admitted that when the car stopped he came out of the car and while doing so he received some injuries also.He does not remember whether his injuries were medically examined or not.He does not remember that Rakesh Kumar Pandey was also sitting with him.The testimony shows that he was present in the car alongwith his Rifle.His presence at the police station at the time of lodging of the report is mentioned in G.D. ( Ext. Ka-3) and he was medically examined by P.W. 6 Dr. A.K. Pandey who had examined him on 4.4.1999 at 5.25 p.m. and found two lacerated wounds.His testimony corroborates the version given by the two other eye witnesses.Both the witnesses have stated that Prem Shanker Dubey was sitting on the back seat and while he was coming out of the car he received injuries and his licensee Rifle was left in the car which was taken away by one of the accused.Thus the eye witness account of the case is fully supported by the investigation and the medical evidence on record.The post mortem reports of the deceased persons clearly indicate that all of them had received fire arm injuries from a close range and the place of occurrence is inside the car which is supported by the recoveries (Ext. Ka-26 to Ka-32).The investigating officer has also found dent in the car due to indiscriminate firing by the accused persons and he also made recovery of empty shells.The serologist report also confirms the presence of human blood on the Raxine.Learned counsel for the appellants challenged the findings of the trial court on the ground that participation of 14 persons is doubtful as the medical evidence does not corroborate this part of the evidence that assailants were 14 in number and they have indiscriminately fired.The case of the prosecution is that all the witnesses had witnessed that the assailants were chasing the car and were also firing at the car.The occurrence took place on a busy G.T. road.It is also mentioned that all the accused were firing.Large number of firing is corroborated by the twenty eight pellet marks mentioned by the investigating officer on the ear and it is also mentioned that only some of the pellets could be recovered.It is also noteworthy that the deceased and witnesses who were accompanying them were also armed.In view of this it cannot be said that large number of persons had not participated in the occurrence and this submission has no force.Learned counsel for the appellants had also submitted that one of the appellant Suresh Singh alias Jajjey Singh had moved an application for identification which was rejected on 11.6.1999 by the Magistrate, Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Suresh Singly alias Jajjdy Singh, were not known to the witnesses prior to the occurrence, therefore, he moved an application for his identification.P.W. 5 did not mention anything about the theft of the Rifle, therefore, he was acquitted of this charge.The State has also not filed any appeal against their acquittal.Tehsildar Singh has been acquitted by the Sessions Judge also on the ground that his role was only of exhortation and there was some contradictions with regard to his place from where he has exhorted and the actual time of his exhortation.In view of this the names of Pintoo Singh alias Sandeep Singh Daroga Singh alias Shri Krishna Singh, Chhunni Singh alias Mata Prasad Singh and Prem Singh alias Prem Bahadur Singh have been disclosed by P.W. 1 Shiv Prasad alias Dangar Tewari for the first time in the court and as such absolute reliance cannot be placed on his statement.","['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"No.1/State.This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed seeking quashment of FIR and consequential proceedings of crime No. 106/2019 registered at Police Station Dehat Bhind, District Bhind alleging offence punishable u/Ss.307/34 of IPC against the petitioners.P.C, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience :-In so far as the present case is concerned, the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC mechanically and even when the investigation was under progress.Somehow, the accused managed to enter into a compromise with the complainant and sought quashing of the FIR on the basis of a settlement.The High Court has also failed to note the antecedents of the accused.""In view of above, the present petition stands dismissed.","['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Before adverting to appreciate submissions advanced, it is necessary to consider few facts leading to prosecution of the appellant and filing of appeal.The appellant was subjected to trial to face charge under Section 307, 506 of IPC and section 4 r.w. Section 25 of the Arms Act.On 20.03.2014, Ashabai Harichandra Telang - complainant (P.W.3) visited the Police Station, Air Port, Nanded and reported that at about 19.30 Hrs. while she was present in her house, she heard shouts outside her house.She, therefore, came out of house to see as what happened.She saw the appellant - accused standing in front of house of Savitri Kadam (P.W.2) - the injured.Accused was telling her that he wants to marry with her daughter Archana Kadam (P.W.5).He was quarreling and harassing Archana.When Savitri (P.W.2) asked the accused not to touch her daughter Archana, the accused assaulted Savitri over right side of her chest with the help of sword in his hand and caused bleeding injury.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::784.15crapl 3 When she tried to intervene and save Savitri, the accused caught her arm and pushed her.He left the place by giving threat to see all of them.It is further stated that accused ran away from the spot.She further informed that she along with other persons brought injured Savitri to Vithai Hospital.On the basis of the complaint lodged by Ashabai Telang (P.W.3), offence punishable under sections 307, 506 of IPC and Section 4 r.w. Section 25 of the Arms Act came to be registered as against the accused.Suryakant Jagdale (P.W.10) Police Inspector attached to Police Station Airport conducted the investigation.He visited the spot of incident and made panchanama and collected the plain earth and earth mixed with blood from the spot and also obtained the scrapping of the blood stains from the wall of staircase and surrounding area where the incident occurred.He also obtained scrapping of blood which was found on the door.He seized clothes of Savitri soaked with blood.ORAL JUDGMENT :This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.01.2015 passed in Sessions Case No.66/2014 by the Sessions Judge, Nanded whereby, the appellant has been held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-.Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::He arrested the accused and secured his remand.During the custody, accused made voluntary disclosure to show the place where he concealed the sword used in ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 4 commission of offence.He recorded memorandum statement of accused in presence of panchas and later on, seized the sword used in the commission of offence, which was found to be concealed in the bushes in Shahunagar locality.He recorded statements of the witnesses which include Rani Hardipsingh Maire (P.W.4).Further investigation was conducted by Sanjay Pise (P.W.9).He recorded statements of witnesses which include Savitribai Sambhaji Kadam (P.W.2), Shivkanta Sambhaji Kadam and Archana Sambhaji Kadam (P.W.5).He forwarded Muddemaal property to Chemical Analyzer.On conclusion of investigation, he filed charge- sheet against the accused.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined ten witnesses and further proved certain documents.The accused has not entered into defence.The defence of the accused appears to be of total denial and false implication at the instance of Savitribai and her daughter Archana.On conclusion of trial, learned Sessions Judge, Nanded has found the accused guilty of ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 5 offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and awarded sentence as stated above.Being aggrieved, appellant has preferred this appeal.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::I have heard the submissions advanced by Mr.A.B. Shinde, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned APP appearing for the respondent - State and, further perused record and proceedings.Learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court with contention that there is no cogent, convincing and reliable evidence to sustain the conviction.He submits that the conviction is wholly based upon testimony of interested witness Savitribai (P.W.2) the injured and her daughter Archana (P.W.5).The independent witnesses which includ Ashabai (P.W.3) complainant, have not supported the case of prosecution and declared hostile.Savitribai was against marriage of appellant - accused with her daughter Archana and carrying grudge against the appellant.He further submits that Archana has ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 6 deposed at the instance of her mother - Savitri.In this background, it is contended that in absence of corroboration to the testimony of Savitribai through independent witness, conviction is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::He further submits that no offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the accused.By referring the injury certificate (Exh.39), the learned Counsel submits that as per injury certificate, the injury caused to Savitribai (P.W.2) found to be simple in nature.By referring the overall evidence, learned Counsel submits that no inference can be drawn that accused had attempted to kill Savitribai (P.W.2).It is pointe dout that Archana (P.W.5) has deposed that accused was trying to assault her.In order to protect her from ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 7 accused, her mother Savitri came in front of her and sustained the injury.He, therefore, submits that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that accused attempted to cause the death of Savitribai.In this background the learned Counsel contended that the act of accused can be termed as voluntarily causing hurt, which may invite penalty for committing offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::On the other hand, learned APP supported the judgment and order passed by the trial Court and submitted that Savitribai (P.W.2) the injured has sustained grievous hurt caused by means of sword.She was assaulted by accused on the vital part of her body i.e. over chest.The injury caused proved to be grievous in nature.Looking to the nature of the injury and seriousness, the injured was required to be shifted to J.J. Hospital, Mumbai where she was required to undergo extensive treatment for a period of more than one month as an indoor patient.In this background, learned APP submits that the injury caused to injured ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 8 Savitribai can well be termed as a grievous hurt within the meaning of section 320 of IPC.He further submits that carrying and possessing sword by accused at the time of incident itself reflects that accused went to the house of injured Savitribai with an intention to assault Archana the daughter of Savitribai.He further submits that the evidence of Savitribai (P.W.2) and Archana (P.W.5) inspires full confidence.Nothing is elicited through their cross-examination so as to discard or disbelieve their testimonies.He further submits that the testimony of Savitribai (P.W.2) finds due corroboration from Archana (P.W.5) and other evidence such as seizure of sword, detection of blood as that of the group of injured on the spot as well as the sword used in commission of offence.He submits that the injury certificate as referred and relied upon by the appellant cannot be treated as final opinion given as to nature of injury caused to Savitri (P.W.2).The injury certificate was issued on 19.03.2014 on the basis of preliminary observations made by medical officer without opening the injury and examining the same.The evidence on record ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 9 shows that the injured had sustained serious injury over chest.Due to seriousness of injury and complications the injured was sent to J.J. Hospital, Mumai.Only due to timely treatment, the injured was survived.Otherwise, death of injured was eminent on account of injury sustained by her.He submits that the impugned judgment and order is well reasoned and calls for no interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::In order to appreciate the submissions advanced, I have perused the record and proceedings and closely scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence adduced by prosecution to prove its case.As discussed, the prosecution has come out with a case that accused intended to marry Archana (P.W.5) daughter of Savitribai (P.W.2).It has been brought on record that accused had affair with Archana.Some time prior to the incident, accused as well as Archana went to Shirdi and stayed there for 2 to 3 days.Savitribai (P.W.2) was against marriage of her daughter with accused.On the day of the incident, accused went to the house of Archana to ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 10 force her to marry with him.When Savitri (P.W.2) refused to perform marriage of her daughter with the accused, it appears that the accused caught the hands of Archana to forcibly take her away.When Savitri intervened, the accused assaulted her with the help of sword in his hand.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses which include Savitribai (P.W.2), Archana (P.W.5).Besides Savitribai (P.W.2), Archana (P.W.5), prosecution has examined Asha (P.W.3) the complainant and eye witness to the incident.Besides said witnesses, prosecution has examined Rani Hardeepsingh Maire (P.W.4) an independent witness to incident.She has also not supported the case of the prosecution and declared hostile.In order to corroborate the testimony of Savitribai, prosecution has examined Dr.Umesh Kolekar (P.W.6) Medical Officer attached to Vithai Hospital, Nanded and Dr.Dilip Gaware (P.W.8) Medical Officer ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 11 attached to J.J. Hospital, Mumbai, who examined and treated Savitribai.Besides the said witnesses, prosecution has examined Santosh Tahkur (P.W.1) Panch witness to spot and seizure panchanamas and Police Constable Avadhut Kalne (P.W.7) who carried Muddemaal property to the Forensic Laboratory and Assistant Police Inspector Sanjay Pise (P.W.9) and Police Inspector Suryakant Jagdale (P.W.10), the Investigating Officer.Thus, if we consider the overall evidence as adduced by the prosecution, then the conviction of accused is mainly based upon the testimonies of Savitribai (P.W.2), Archana (P.W.5), Dr.Umesh Kolekar (P.W.6), Dr.Dilip Gaware (P.W.8) and recovery of weapon used in commission of offence at the instance of accused.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::She has deposed that on 19.3.2014 at 7.30 p.m., when she came out of her house after hearing shouts, she heard accused demanding gold ring from her daughter and telling her to marry with him.Accused also told her that he wants to marry with her daughter ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 12 Archana, to which she refused.Thereupon, the accused assaulted her with sword on the upper right side of her chest.She was initially taken to Vithai Hospital, Nanded and later on, shifted to J.J. Hospital, Mumbai and discharged after one month.She identified the sword i.e. Article ""A"" as the same sword which was used by the accused in assaulting her.She further identified the sari, blouse i.e. Articles ""B"" and ""C"" as same clothes, which were on her body at the time of incident and seized by police.She further deposed that at the time of incident, the accused was wearing green T-shirt and identified the Article ""D"" as same ""T"" shirt.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::It has been brought on record through her cross- examination that at the time of incident, there were about 20 - 25 tenants residing in the same building belonging to Asha (P.W.3).She has admitted that her daughter Archana had gone to Shirdi and stayed for 3 - 4 days and accused had also gone to Shirdi and stayed for 2 - 3 days.It is further brought on record that before the incident, she had verbally told accused not to chase her ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 13 daughter, who used to follow her while she was going to school.It is brought on record that at the time of incident, 50 - 60 persons were residing in the building and incident was occurred on the steps of staircase going towards upper floor.It is also brought on record that when she raised shouts the neighbours ran away towards their houses seeing sword in the hand of accused.It is further brought on record that she rushed to room of one of tenants after she was assaulted by accused.Thus, if we consider the testimony of Savitribai (P.W.2), there is nothing to show that she had cooked a false story to falsely implicate the accused.The testimony of witnesses appears to be natural and truthful and same can be safely accepted to form basis to prove guilt of accused even in absence of corroboration.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::If we consider the testimony of Savitri (P.W.2) in the light of other evidence, then her testimony finds due corroboration from other evidence on record.Archana (P.W.5) has duly corroborated the testimony of Savitri.She has deposed that on 19.3.2014 at about 7.30 p.m., ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 14 the accused came to her house and demanded gold ring.When she refused to give him gold ring, the accused started quarreling with her.When her mother i.e. Savitri (P.W.2) came out of house, the accused told her that he wants to marry with her.Her mother refused to marry her with accused.She further deposed that her mother wanted the accused not to touch her.She further deposed that accused assaulted her mother with sword on the right side of her chest.On receiving the blow, her mother fell down.There was profuse bleeding from the injury.Her mother was taken to Vithai Hospital and later on shifted to J.J. Hospital, Bombay.Accused left the place by giving threats.She further deposed that her mother remained admitted in J.J. Hospital, Mumbai for one month.She identified the sword article ""A"" as the same used in the commission of offence i.e. assault on her mother.Through her cross-examination, it is brought on record that accused was quarreling with her and as her mother thought that accused would assault her, her mother Savitri pushed her aside and at that time, her mother sustained blow of sword on her chest.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::Besides the testimony of Archana (P.W.5) the sole eye witness, there is other evidence in the nature of corroboration to the testimony of Savitribai.He has categorically deposed that on 19.3.2014, Savitribai (P.W.2) was brought to Vithai hospital with injury on upper right side of her chest.He further deposed that the said injured was referred to Dr.Shrikant Zanwar and later on, to Dr. Gulati as it required surgical intervention.She was kept overnight under observation and later on, advised to take her to Mumbai for expert treatment as major damage found to be caused to the vessels.The testimony of the injured Savitri further finds corroboration through the testimony of Dr. Dilip Gaware, (P.W.8) Medical Officer, attached to J.J. Hospital, Mumbai.At the time of admission, she found to have ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 16 sutured wound approximately 10 cm in length over right side of her chest.She was then referred to Surgical Department for further treatment.She remained admitted as indoor patient w.e.f. 21.03.2014 to 20.04.2014 and treated by Surgery unit headed by Dr.Rushad Udwadiya.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::Besides oral testimonies of above referred witnesses, there is corroboration to testimony of Savitri (P.W.2) in the form of seizure of clothes, seizure of weapon used in the commission of offence at the instance of accused.The injured as well as eye witness have identified the sword i.e. Article ""A"" as the same weapon was used in commission of offence.The report of Chemical Analyzer reveals that on the sword, human blood of group ""A"" was detected.Similarly, on the clothes of injured Savitribai i.e. blouse and sari, human blood of group ""A"" as that of injured was detected.The blood found on the spot, was also found to be human blood of group ""A"".Thus, there is ample corroboration to the testimony of Savitribai (P.W.2) as to mateerial facts ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 17 deposed by her.I have, therefore, no hesitation to observe that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to prove the complicity of accused in commission of offence of assault on Savitribai (P.W.2).::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that in absence of corroboration to the testimony of Savitribai (P.W.2) through independent witness, the accused deserves to be acquitted.In my view, the evidence of Savitribai is such that it requires no corroboration from independent witness.The testimony of Savitribai inspires full confidence.Apart from this, her testimony finds due corroboration from other evidence.In fact, the prosecution had examined two independent witnesses.However, they have not supported the case of the prosecution.Only for the reason that independent witnesses have not supported the testimony of injured, the testimony of Savitri, her testimony cannot be brushed aside.In my view, the ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 18 testimony of Savitribai and Archana are such that it inspires full confidence and can be safely accepted without corroboration from independent witness.In this view, the reasons and findings recorded by the trial Court are fully in consonance with the evidence adduced by prosecution as well as based upon due appreciation of evidence.Hence, calls for no interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::The next question which poses for consideration is whether the act of the accused can be termed as an attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 of IPC.Learned Counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the injury caused to Savitri, the injured cannot be termed as an injury, sufficient in ordinary course to cause the death of any person.He submits that as per the report of injury at Exh.39, the injury found on the body of injured Savitribai described as simple injury.He has contended that only for the reason ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 19 that the injured was lying admitted in the hospital for a period of more than twenty days itself not sufficient to draw conclusion that injury was grievous in nature and may have resulted fatal if it would not have been treated immediately.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::If we consider report at Exh.39, then the nature of injury described as sutured wound with approximately 10 cm in length on right side of chest caused by sharp weapon.The certificate appears to be given on the basis of superficial examination of the injury.The sutured wound was not opened before issuing certificate.There is ample evidence to show that the injury which was caused to the injured was grievous and serious in nature.If the treatment would not have been provided immediately after the incident to the injured then the injury caused to the injured may have resulted into her death.Dr. Kolekar (P.W.6) has categorically deposed that Dr. Gulati, the Surgeon was called in the hospital as the case was found to be ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 20 requiring surgical intervention.He deposed that Dr. Gulati shifted the injured into Operation Theater and opened the bandage.After examining the injury, he found that there was major damage to vessels.The services of Vascular Surgeon was not available in Nanded City, therefore, he advised to shift the patient to Mumbai for expert treatment.He further deposed that Savitribai was referred to J.J. Hospital, Mumbai.He has produced on record the Medico Legal Case Papers in respect of treatment given to Savitribai.It reveals from the papers produced at Exh.32 that on opening the wound, there was heavy bleeding and it was suspected that there was vascular injury and therefore, the wound was sutured and the patient was referred to Mumbai.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::Dr. Dilip Gaware, C.M.O. attached to J.J. Hospital (P.W.8), deposed that on 21.3.2014 Savitribai kadam was brought to J.J. Hospital from Nanded.He examined her clinically and found sutured wound over her right side chest.He immediately referred patient for emergency ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 21 surgical department for further treatment.Thus, the injury certificate produced at Exh.39 which was issued only on the basis of clinical examination is not sufficient to accept the contention that the injury suffered was simple injury.She was under treatment and care of Dr. Rushad Udawadiya, the Head of General Surgery Department.He has deposed that location of the injury was on vital organ of body of the injured.Thus, the injury caused to the injured Savitribai cannot be termed as a simple injury.The fact that the injured was required to be shifted to Mumbai for treatment itself reflects seriousness of the injury caused to the injured.The period of hospitalization of injured for more than one month has not been undisputed.Thus, the evidence on record sufficiently proves that the injury caused to the injured Savitribai was grievous in nature.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::The intention of the accused needs to be gathered on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence brought on record.The requisite ingredients of the offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code are as under :[vii] whether there was any prior enmity or the injured was stranger ;::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::There may be several other special circumstances depends upon the facts and circumstances with reference to particular case which needs to be taken into consideration while drawing inference as to intention of assault.In order to prove the offence punishable u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the accused has attempted to cause death of the injured.The word 'attempt' referred in section 307 of the Indian Penal Code necessarily refers in a sense as an intentional preparatory action which fails in its object.The intention to cause the death can ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 26 be gathered from the circumstances.It is not necessary to constitute an offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the attack should result in an injury.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::Keeping in mind the above discussed broad principles, I proceed to examine the submissions advanced in the light of evidence adduced by the prosecution.If, we consider the facts of the case, then the case of the prosecution is that on the day of the incident, the accused had visited house of injured and found him quarreling with her daughter.He was asking Archana (P.W.5) to give the golden ring.It has been brought on record that the accused as well as Savitribai were residing in same locality.It is also brought on ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 27 record that earlier Archana as well as accused had gone to Shirdi and they stayed there for 3 - 4 days.It is also brought on record that the accused used to chase Archana while she was going out of her house.When the accused wSec.307 and 326 of IPC as quarreling with Archana, the injured was inside the house.She came out of house after hearing quarrel going on outside her house and saw the accused quarreling with her daughter.She found the accused had caught the hands of Archana.When she intervened, the accused told her that he wants to marry with Archana.She refused to marry her daughter with the accused.Archana (P.W.5) deposed that her mother thought that the accused might assault her (i.e. Archana), and therefore, she pushed her aside and at that time her mother received blow of sword on her chest, dealt by the accused.Thus, it can be safely gathered that though the accused had visited the place with sword in his hand, but he had no such intention to assault Savitribai.It is during the course of quarrel, the accused assaulted Savitribai.Thus, on due consideration of evidence on record, I am of the view that offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC has been made out against the accused.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::In view of above, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be partly allowed to the extent of alteration of conviction of appellant from section 307 of IPC to section 326 of IPC as well as modification of sentence.In the result, I pass the following order:: ORDER :i) Criminal Appeal No.784 of 2015 is partly allowed;ii) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is altered from sectioSec.307 and 326 of IPC n 307 IPC to section 326 IPC.The sentence awarded to the accused to suffer is modified.The appellant is sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and pay fine of ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 ::: 784.15crapl 30 Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for fifteen days, instead of sentence awarded to undergo R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs.1000/-::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::iii) Appeal is disposed of in above terms.[ V.L. ACHLIYA, J ] Kadam.::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:04:42 :::","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Kotwali, District Shivpuri in connection with Crime No.949/2016 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 376, 363, 366, 342 of IPC & 3/4 of POCSO Act.As per the prosecution story, the applicant lured the prosecutrix and tried to commit rape on the prosecutrix.Prosecutrix is seven years of age and is a student of UKG.The offence registered against the applicant are under Sections 376, 363, 366, 342 of IPC & 3/4 of POCSO Act.The prosecutrix has been examined on 27/01/2017 before the trial court and she narrated the story contradictory to the allegations made in the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. which shows that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter.Looking to the allegations made against the applicant, this court is not inclined to grant the benefit of bail to the applicant.In the result, this bail application is dismissed.","['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"None appears.Seen the record.So it is being disposed of as follows:-There was a prayer for quashing of the proceedings of the petition under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Case No. C-435 of 1998 now pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah, South 24- Parganas and an order dated 06.04.1999 passed by the learned ACJM, Sealdah.The background of this case in short is that on 17th August, 1998, the opposite party filed a written complaint before the learned ACJM, Sealdah alleging commission of offences under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner whereupon the learned Magistrate was pleased to forward the said complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police for investigation.Item No. 33The said case was registered as Case No. 133 dated 16.10.1998 under Section 520/406 of the Indian Penal Code.Police commenced investigation.After completion of investigation, police submitted a final report and prayed for discharge of the petitioner.Thereafter, the opposite party filed a Naraji petition before the ACJM, Sealdah for taking cognizance of the original complaint.Pursuant to that Naraji petition on April 6, 1999, the learned ACJM under solemn affirmation took cognizance under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code and directed issuance of process against the petitioner.Pursuant to the warrant of arrest, on 14.04.1999, police arrested the petitioner and produced him before the Court.The allegation in complaint was that sn the complainant is a food-grain dealer.The petitioner is an importer and exporter of food-grains.The complainant had business transactions with the accused for last 2/ 3 years.During the course of business the complainant purchased different types of food-grains from the accused.In December 1997 the complainant asked the accused to supply 70 M.T. canada motor at the rate of Rs.10,350/- per M.T. and for supply of the same the accused induced the complainant to pay Rs.7,24,500/-.Complainant paid the same by six different cheques.The accused encashed all the cheques.But the accused did not send the goods within the schedule time.Complainant thereafter, reminded the accused for sending the goods but the accused did not.Then the complainant sent legal notices to the accused.The accused in reply to such legal notice denied his liability to supply the said goods.The petitioner states that the complainant through broker approached the petitioner for supply of 220 M.T. of imported chick peas @ Rs.20,700/-/M.T.by December 31, 1997 and in default , the petitioner shall be liable for interest @ 18% per annum and on that account made an advance of Rs.6,21,000/-.Accordingly, the petitioner arranged for delivery of the said 220 M./T. of imported chick peas and informed the opposite party.But the opposite party failed and neglected to take delivery of the said chick peas or to make payment of balance sum of Rs.39,33,000/- plus interest.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the continuance of the proceedings in connection with the case No. C-435 of 1998 under Section 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code the petitioner has come up before this Court.","['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"MANMOHAN, J (ORAL):P.103/2012 Page 2 of 3Accordingly, this defence is left open to be decided by the trial court after recording of evidence.Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with the aforesaid clarifications, but with no order as to costs.MANMOHAN, J NOVEMBER 06, 2012 NG Crl.P.103/2012 Page 3 of 3P.103/2012 Page 3 of 3","['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"No costs.18.09.2020 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes / No Speaking Order: Yes/No ar Note: Issue order copy on 24.11.2020http://www.judis.nic.in Page No.6 of 8 W.P.No.40420 of 2005 To:Page No.6 of 8The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Armed Reserve) Vellore.The Superintendent of Police, Vellore, Vellore District.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore.Page No.7 of 8Page No.8 of 8The Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the order of the third respondent dated 23.09.2005 made in C.No.B/A 28/2005, which confirmed the order of the second respondent passed in Ref.H1(1) PR No.237/2004 dated 30.06.2005, whereby awarding the punishment of “Compulsory Retirement”http://www.judis.nic.in to the petitioner.The petitioner also sought a direction to the Page No.1 of 8 W.P.No.40420 of 2005 respondents to reinstate him with continuity of service and back wages together with all attendant benefits.Page No.1 of 8The case of the petitioner is that he, while in service, is said to have involved in a case of rape, alleging that he, having promised to marry a school going girl, married her relative without marrying the victim girl and based on the complaint given by the victim girl, a criminal case has been initiated, apart from initiation of departmental proceedings.It is further case of the petitioner that the criminal case foisted against the petitioner under Sections 417, 376 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.38 of 2004 on the file of All Women Police Station, Vellore, ended in acquittal, whereas in the departmental proceedings, he was awarded the punishment of Compulsory Retirement, despite his acquittal in the criminal case and the witnesses including the complainant turning hostile.It is also the case of the petitioner that he already married his relative on 10.09.2004 and that there is no iota of evidence to establish the charges under the Domestic Enquiry.The punishment imposed in the departmental enquiry was based on the contradictory statement made before the criminal Court and the order of compulsory retirement was issued on 30.06.2005 by the 2nd respondent, which has been confirmed by the 3rd respondent on 23.09.2005 on the erroneous ground, which need to be interfered with.It is stated that even assuming that the charges are established, the order of compulsory retirement is very harsh and this Court has to mould the relief and grant the relief, as the petitionerhttp://www.judis.nic.in Page No.2 of 8 W.P.No.40420 of 2005 was acquitted in the criminal case.Page No.2 of 8The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that the petitioner was recruited as Police Constable on 09.06.1993 and that there were two complaints dated 14.09.2004 and 15.09.2004 lodged by one Kanthalakshmi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Victim Girl') and her mother respectively, alleging that the petitioner, under the pretext of marrying the Victim Girl, who was aged 17 years, took her to his house and had a sexual intercourse with her and later, instead of marrying her, married some other lady on 10.09.2004, that too while on medical leave in a hurried manner.It is further stated that a detailed enquiry has been conducted, apart from registering a criminal case in Crime No.38 of 2004 under various provisions of IPC stated supra and based on the complaint of the Victim Girl, departmental proceedings under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 was also simultaneously taken.It is narrated in the counter affidavit that in the enquiry, it was proved that the petitioner used to pick up the Victim Girl from her house frequently and the other charge that he committed rape on her, has not been proved, whereas the charges levelled against him that he married his relative's girl while on medical leave on 10.09.2004 and he involved in a criminal case, have been duly proved.An enquiry report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the 1st respondent in respect of Charge No.1, while agreeing with other findings.Page No.3 of 8In the counter affidavit, it is described that the fact that the petitioner was moving with the Victim Girl was duly established and the act of the petitioner had totally spoiled the image of Police Force, which attracts Rule 23 of Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers Conduct Rules, 1964 and if the petitioner is really innocent, there was no reason to marry his relative while on medical leave, after having promised to marry the Victim Girl and the said Victim Girl, in the departmental proceedings categorically stated that both the petitioner and she were moving voluntarily and he, under the pretext of going to temple, took her away from her house and had sexual intercourse with her under coercion and threat and later, betrayed her.It is further narrated in the counter affidavit that the mother of the victim girl deposed in the enquiry that she was informed by her daughter's teacher that her daughter confessed to her that she was raped by the petitioner and P.W.3, a colleague of the petitioner also deposed that he had seen the petitioner and the Victim Girl in front of his house in the Armed Reserve Quarters, where outsiders are prohibited and therefore, there is a convincing evidence about the close relationship between the petitioner and the Victim Girl, who has no business to visit the quarters of the petitioner andhttp://www.judis.nic.in Page No.4 of 8 W.P.No.40420 of 2005 since the preponderance of his guilt has been proved, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.Page No.4 of 84. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material documents available on recordThe Appellate Authority rightly came to the conclusion that the Victim Girl was a minor and the petitioner has, not only spoiled the life of the Victim Girl, but also the image of Police Force for his sexual lust and in order to get rid of the problem, he applied for Medical Leave and during that period, he suddenly married another girl.Several witnesses have given categorical evidence against the petitioner, which has been duly taken note of by the Appellate Authority and rightly upheld the order of the 2nd respondent, which, in the considered opinion of this Court does not warrant any interference by this Court.Page No.5 of 8Accordingly, finding no merits in the argument put forth on the side of the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed.","['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"M. N. Phadke and M. N. Shroff for respondent.The prosecution case against the appellant-accused maybriefly be stated thus : There is a Rosary Co-operativeHousing Society Ltd. in a suburb of Bombay, It owns abuilding having 48 flats of which 23 flats belong to thewell-known Tata concerns.Sir Dorabji Tata Trust holds 3flats out of these 23 flats.It appears that in view of thelarge number of flats held by the Tatas they wanted to havea representation on the managing committee of the societyand participate in its affairs.One R. D. Doongaji (PW1)was the General Secretary of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust apartfrom his, being a Legal Adviser to Tatas in their ShareDepartment; on and from November 6, 1964, he after beingelected, was working as a Chairman of the Managing Committeeof the Society.One K. N. Singh, Advocate (PW12) wasworking as the figure-head Secretary of the Society.TheSociety had a Bank account with Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd., which was operated jointly by Doongaji(PWI) and K. N. Singh (P.W. 12).One B. A. Sagar (PW2) wasworking as the Estate Manager of the Society from April 1,1967 and he retired due to old age with effect from December31, 1969, where after one Mathew Figrado (PW7) worked asEstate Manager.As Estate Manager, Sagar's duties were tocollect the monthly compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/-from each flat-bolder of the Society, to look after themaintenance of the-said building, to undertake-the repairsafter obtaining the oral sanction of the managing committeeand incur expenditure therefor either from the collection ofcompensation or from his own pocket, to draw his own salaryand the salary of the staff of the Society from suchcollections, and to hand over the balance to the HonoraryAccountant of the Society together with a statement 'ofaccount and vouchers, in respect of sundry expensesincurred.However, he was not allowed to spend more thanRs. 100/- at a time for carrying out the repairs to thebuilding.The appellant-accused,- who was working asAccounts Clerk in Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, was appointed byDoongaji (PWI) as an Honorary Accountant of the Society inMay 1966 and he worked in that capacity for the Society tillJuly 1, 1970 when his services were dispensed with.As anHonorary Accountant of the Society his duties inter aliawere to write and maintain the books of accounts (Cash-Book,ledger, journal and the voucher file), to receive amounts ofcompensation collected by the Estate Manager from themembers ,of the Society, to reimburse the Estate Manager bycheques for sundry expenses which the latter may haveincurred, to pay the municipal4 8 2taxes and to make other payments of bills again by chequesonly and that too after verifying from the minute book thatsuch payments had been sanctioned by the managing committeeof the Society and also to make payments by cheques onlyagainst the vouchers after satisfying himself about thegenuineness of the vouchers.According to the prosecutionin the month of December 1969 a proprietary firm M/s A. G.R. Patni & Co. had carried out a small job of clearing achoked pipe line of the storage tank of the Society and hadsubmitted its bill No. 49 dated December 14, 1969 for Rs.7.50 (Exh. 5 Colly.).It was received by Sagar (PW2) and wasordinarily required to be paid by him but it appears thatsince he was retiring at the end of December, 1969, he didnot disburse the amount to Patni but handed it over to theappellant-accused.According to the prosecution this bill(Ext.5 Colly.), when it was originally received and washanded over by Sagar (PW2) to the appellant-accused was, forRs.7.50, the identical amount being mentioned both infigures and words, but some time later it was interpolatedby adding the, figure of ""160"" before the figure ""7""inflating the amount to Rs. 1607.50 in figures withoutaltering the amount in words; in other words, as altered thebill showed the amount as Rs. 1607.50 in figures but rupeesseven and fifty paise only in words.Further, according tothe prosecution, another document purporting to be a typedunstamped voucher-cum-receipt dated 3-4-1970 for Rs. 1607.50(Ext.5 colly.) connected with and related to aforesaidinterpolated and inflated bill purporting to bear thesignature of B. A. Sagar, Estate Manager (PW2) and theinitials of R. D. Doongaji, the Chairman of the ManagingCommittee (P.W.1), came into existence.The prosecution wasunable to say who had actually interpolated and inflated thebill No. 49 (Ext. 5 colly.) as also who had brought intoexistence the aforesaid voucher/.receipt (Ex. 5 colly.) onwhich forged signature of Sagar and forged initials ofDoongaji appeared.But the prosecution case was that theappellant accused fraudulently or dishonestly used asgenuine the said bin and the said typed voucher/receiptknowing or having reason to believe that these documentswere forged for the purpose of issuing a bearer cheque forthe said inflated amount and misappropriating the same.Theprosecution story was that for the sake of convenience andfacility of work a practice was followed in the Society thatat a 1 time about 8 to 10 blank cheques used to be signed byDoongaji (PW1) first and then by K. N. Singh (PW12) and thecheque-book containing such signed blank cheques used toremain in the custody of the appellant-accused and wheneverpayment was required to be made by cheque the appellantaccused used to write the body of the cheque in his own handand make the by issuing the same; that asregards bill No. 49 of Patni & Co appellant-accused in hiscapacity as Honorary Accountant on the basis of inflatedbill as well as the forged voucher/receipt (Ex. 5 colly.)made use of one of such blank cheques signed by Doongaji andSingh by issuing a bearer cheque No. 377137 dated 3-4-1970for Rs. 1607.50 in favour of Shivram A Lad (PW8), Peon inDorabji Tata Trust; that Lad withdrew the amount from theSociety's Bank at the instance of the appellant-accused andhanded it over to him, which the appellant-'4 83accused dishonestly misappropriated.Thus, according to the prosecution, the appellant-accused on or about April 3, 1970 dishonestly used asgenuine two forged documents, namely, the bill No. 49 datedDecember 14, 1969 as well as the voucher/receipt dated April3, 1970, knowing or having reason to believe them to beforged at the time of such user that he committed criminalbreach of trust in respect of the sum of Rs. 1607.50andalso falsified the books of accounts of the Society.Itappearsthat in the last week of June 1970, Sagar (PW2)the retired Estate Manager, complained to Doongaji (PW 1)that certain amountswhich had been paid by him to theappellant-accused were not to be found in the books ofaccounts of the Society maintained by the appellant-accused,whereupon Doongaji took Sagar to Professor Choksi, themanaging trustee of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and in July orAugust, 1970 Karsi Gherda (PW11).Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order datedthe 30th September, 1974 of the Bombay High Court in Crl.A. No. 176 of 1974,J.P. Mehta, B. R. Aggarwala and P. B. Aggarwala for theAppellant.Controller of Accounts inTata Electric Company was requested to look into theaccounts of the Society.The crime was registered by_the Palton Road Police Station and subsequently theinvestigation was taken over by the Crime Branch C.I.D. andafter completion of the investigation the appellant-accusedwas charge-sheeted and then committed to the, Court ofSessions to stand his trial for offences under s. 471 readwith s. 468 (two counts) one in respect of each of the twodocuments, the bill and the voucher/receipt, s. 408 and s.477A. I.P.C.The appellant-accused abjured-guilt and denied havingcommitted any of the offences with which he was charged.Hedisputed that there was any practice to keep in his custodythe cheque-book of the society containing the blank chequessigned by Doongaji (PWI) and K. N. Singh (PWI2) as suggestedby the prosecution or that he bad made use of any suchsigned blank cheque by issuing the bearer cheque No. 377137on April 3,1970 for Rs. 1607.50 for the purpose ofmisappropriating the amount as alleged.According to himthe amount of Rs. 1607.50 was paid in cash by him to Sagar(PW2) on the instructions from Doongaji (PWI) but at thattime he had told Doongaji that a large amount was due bySagar to the society and if at all the payment was to bemade to him it should be adjusted against the amount due tothe Society from him.but Doongaji did not accept hissuggestion but insisted that the amount should be paid toSagar without any adjustment.The appellant-accused deniedthat the bill of Patni & Co. was handed over to him by Sagarat any time or at about the time when the payment was madeto him at the484instance of Doongaji but what was banded over to him was abill- cum-receipt of M/s Patni & Co. written in Gujaraticontaining the rubber stamp of M/s. Patni & Co., on thestrength of which the payment was vouched but thisGujarati writing was not forthcoming.Even though he hadmade cash payment of Rs. 1607.50 to Sagar underinstructions of Doongaji, he wanted an entry of this amountin the Bank column of the Cash-Book of the society and thishe did by way of precaution since according to him atthat time a large amount was due to be paid by Sagar tothe Society.Accordingly, he filled in the body of thecheque and in the presence of Doongaji on the top of thecounter-foil of the cheque he made an endorsement ""underverbal order of R.D.D."" He wrote down the name of Lad, aPeon of J. N. Tata in the body of the cheque.TheMaharashtra State Co-operative Bank was not permittingthe bearer cheque to be cashed unless the Chairman and theSecretary of the Society gave their signatures on thereverse of the cheques and since it was difficult to obtainthe signatures of the Secretary Singh, he wrote the name ofLad as the payee of the cheque while on the counter-foil hementioned the name of A.G.R. Patni and Co. because thepayment of Rs. 1607.50 had been made towards thesatisfaction of the bill for that amount to Patni & Co.by Sagar.His case further was that after Lad cashed thecheque, Lad gave the amount to him which be kept in thecash-box; in other words, his defence was that from outof the cash-box he made cash payment of Rs. 1607.50 to Sagaron the insistence of Doongaji and then replenished the cash-box after encashment of the cheque through Lad.Hefurther emphatically disputed that he had used theforged bill and forged voucher/,receipt in connectionwith the payment of Rs. 1607.50 which he made, to Sagar atthe instance of Doongaji.He also denied that he hadmisappropriated the amount or had falsified the cash-book asalleged and the case of the prosecution being entirelyfalse he deserved to be acquitted.At the trial the prosecution led oral as well as documentaryevidence in support of its case.The oral evidence consistedof as many as 15 witnesses out of whom 7 witnesses werematerial, namely, Doongaji (PW1), Sagar (PW2), Abdul GaniPatni (PW3), Shivram Lad (PW8), Nariman Deboo (PW6),Kars Gherda (PWll) and K. N. Singh (PW12).One Nand Kumar Parekh, an Hand-writingExpert and the State Examiner of Documents in the StateC.I.D. was examined who gave his expert opinion that thepurported signature ""B. A. Sagar"" and the purportedinitial ""RDD"" appearing on the485voucher-cum-receipt dated April 3, 1970 (Ext. 5 colly.) werenot in the hand of witnesses Sagar and Doongaji respectivelybut were traced forgeries and gave reasons for his saidopinion of course, this was in addition to the positiveevidence of these two witnesses who had stated that theconcerned 'signature and the concerned initial were nottheir's.The learned Session Judge on a consideration ofthe evidence on record came to the conclusion that theprosecution had failed to establish any of the chargesagainst the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt.Hedid not accept the prosecution case that signed blankcheques 8 or 10 at a time used to be kept with theappellant-accused and did not accept the evidence of eitherDoongaji (PW1) or K. N. Singh (PW12) in that behalf, foraccording to him, the reasons for resorting to such practicewere not satisfactory.He also took the view that it wasnot possible to accept the prosecution case that theappellant-accused was in possession of the original bill No.49 dated December 14, 1969 of Patni & Co. and he felt thatdefence version bad been rendered probable that theappellant-accused must have made the payment of Rs. 1607.50to Sagar at the instance of Doongaji especially as on thecounter-foil of the concerned bearer cheque No. 377137 datedApril 3, 1970 there was an endorsement made by 'theappellant-accused ""under verbal order of RDD""; in otherwords, he was inclined to accept the defence case that theappellant-accused had first paid out cash of Rs. 1607.50 toSagar from out of the cash-box and thereafter replenishedthe cash-box by issuing the bearer cheque and getting itencashed through peon Shivram Lad.Against this acquittal order passedby learned Addl.Inappeal the High Court reversed the acquittal recorded infavour of the accused by the learned Addl.The High Court rejected the defence version thatthe appellant-accused had first paid cash out of the cashboxto Sagar as suggested by him or that be bad done so at the486instance of Doongaji or that he had issued the bearer chequeunder verbal order of Doongaji as suggested.It found thatthe Society had not got so much cash with it on or aboutApril 3, 1970, that the cash balance on hand with theSociety for quite some time prior to April 3, 1970 was onlyRs.505.07p; that Sagar's evidence that he had not gone tothe office in the month of April, 1970 after his retirermentwas acceptable and, therefore, the accused's version that hehad first paid cash to Sagar and had replenished cash byissuing and encashing the bearer cheque was utterly falseand he had dishonestly misappropriated the amount.Holdingthat the prosecution had established its case against theappellant-accused beyond doubt, the High Court convicted himof all the charges levelled against him.However, on thequestion of sentence, for certain reasons mentioned by it inits judgment, the High Court sentenced him to one day'simprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default tosuffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.It was also not disputed that the said bill when itwas submitted by Abdul Gani Patni (PW3) and when it wasreceived by Sagar (PW2) the amount thereof both in figuresand words was Rs. 7.50 and it was some time later that thisbill No. 49 got interpolated and become inflated to Rs.1607.50 by addition of the figure ""160"" before the figure""7"" but such interpolation only appeared in the amountexpressed in figures while the amount expressed in wordscontinued to be ""rupees, seven and fifty paise only."".it istrue that the prosecution has not been able to show as tohow and who made such interpolation in this bill but itcannot be disputed that anyone who would come across suchbill (being Part of Ex. 5 colly) would immediately noticethe interpolation and discrepancy therein, so that whoeveruses the bill at any time subsequent to its tampering wouldhave knowledge and reason to believe that the same has beenforged.In other wordsthe.Dealing first with the prosecution theory that blank chequessigned by Doongaji and Singh used to remain in the custodyof the accused there is evidence of two prosecutionwitnesses on the point, namely, Doongaji (PW1), and Singh(PW12); Doongaji (PW1) has stated that the bank accountcould be operated jointly by himself asthe Chairman andSingh as the Secretary, that Singh used to resideatGoregaon and every time whenever the cheque was required tobe drawn it was not possible for Singh to give hissignature onthe same and further that Singh used toinsist that before he wouldput his signature on thecheque of the society, the Chairman shouldput hissignature on the same and, therefore, with a view tofacilitatethe convenience of Singh, it was thepractice of the society that at atime about 8 to 10blank cheques used to be signed by him first andthey weresent to Singh through witness Sagar the Estate Manager, andSingh used to put his signatures thereon, and the chequebook containing such signed blank cheques always used toremain in the custody of the accused and on every occasionthe particulars of the cheque both in words as well as infigures used to be written by the appellant-accused.Doongaji also stated that the books of account, the vouchersand cheque book used to be kept in the custody of theaccused in the office of Sir Doongaji Tata Trust.To thesame effect was the evidence of Singh (PWI2), who confirmedthat he used to put his signatures on blank cheques wheneverthey were signed by the Chairman 'of the Society and be usedto receive such blank cheques duly signed by the Chairman ofthe Society first through Sagar and later through Sagar'ssuccessor Figrado and that at a time he used to sign blankcheques between 5 to 10 in number and sometimes they used tobe 15 also.This evidence was sought to be demolished bythe defence by relying upon two or three factors.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge has, infact, made a half-hearted finding on this part of theprosecution case by observing as follows in para 36 of thejudgment ""The probabilities would rather show that the chequebook containing the blank cheques signed by Mr. Doongaji as well as by Mr. Singh would continue to remain with Mr. Doongaji and as and when an occasion arose for issuing a cheque the accused would be summoned and he would be asked to fill in the body of the cheque and then the cheque would be issued.""The observation suggests that the learned trial Judge hasaccepted the prosecution case partly, namely that onprobabilities the cheque-book used to contain blank chequessigned by Doongaji as well as by Mr. Singh but according tohim such cheque-book containing signed blank cheque wouldcontinue to remain with Doongaji.We fail to appreciate asto why, if at all, the cheque-book was to remain withDoongaji and the cheques would be issued by the accused inthe manner suggested by him, blank cheques would be signedby Doongaji at all.The evidence of the two witnesses asalso the contents of the letter Ext. 59-D clearly show thatthe practice as put forward by the prosecution did obtain inthe society.Apart from the aforesaid oral evidence of thetwo witnesses and the support it receives from the contentsof the letter Ext. 59-D, there is yet one circumstance whichsupports the prosecution story on the question of aforesaidpractice and that circumstance arises from the defence,version itself.(1) that it was the last month of hisservice and (2) that be did not have sufficient funds withhim and according to the defence both the reasons do notbear scrutiny and if the reasons for not disbursing the,bill are false his evidence, that he handed over the billto the appellant,accused cannot and should not be accepted.It has been elicited in his evidence that he used to keepwith him cash of the, Society out of the collections made byhim for days and months and in any case it would bedifficult to believe that be did not have a paltry sum ofRs. 7.50/- with him and it has been further elicited thatthough it was the last month of his service he had madecollection from the occupants of the flats.It was thusurged that both the reasons put forward by the witness fornot disbursing the bill being false his evidence should beit ejected.Manager,from time to time.Karsi Gherda afterhehad been apprised by Nariman Deboo about the existence ofthesetwo documents (Ext. 5 collectively) which were fictitiousand fraudulent in character.' had a meeting of the personsconcerned and had confronted the appellant-accused withthese two documents.particularly, the bill part of Ext. P5and from what the accused stated at that time to the witnessit would be clear that the appellant-accused was fullyconscious and aware of the clear inter-1,therefore sent for the accused.When I showed this billpart of Ext. 5 collectively and asked him as to what hewanted to say with regard to the clear interpolation in thefigure of Rs. 1607.50 the accused agreed with me and told methat even if it was clear case of interpolation, he paid off the amount under the authority of Doongaji, who wasChairman of the Managing Committee of the Society"".Nothingwas elicited in /his cross-""amination so as to cast anydoubt on this part of the evidence given by him in examina-tion-in-Chief.We might, however, state that for the firsttime in the appeal when it was being heard by the, HighCourt an application was made seeking permission to recallthe witness for the purpose of contradicting him with hispolice statement where, according to the appellant-accused,the witness had not given his version as to what transpiredbetween him and the accused during the meeting in suchdetails but that application was rejected by the High Courtand, in our view, rightly.The aforesaid evidence ofwitness Karsi Gherda, therefore, clearly brings out theaspect that on his own admission the appellant-accused hadmade the payment of the bill on the strength of the billwith full consciousness and awareness that the same was aninterpolated and forged document.from the fact thatin his statement under s. 342 Cr.P.C., the accused has comeout with a story that at about the time when he made paymentin cash to Sagar through Doongaji and issued the bearercheque and got it encashed for replenishing of the cash,some Gujarati voucher byway of a receipt from Patni & Co,had been produced to him but somehow or the other thatGujarati voucher was not forth coming.In other words, thatthe disbursement of the bill would require to be vouched bya voucher-cum-receipt was very well known to the appellant-accused.The Gujarati writing, it seems to us, is not forthcoming because there was no such Gujarati writing at all inexistence and the appellant accused purported to make thedisbursement of the forged bill on the basis of getting thesame vouched by means of the forged voucher-cum-receipt,(being the other part of Ext. 5 collectively.) In our view,therefore, on the aforesaid material which we have discussedabove it appears to us clear that the prosecution could besaid to have established its charge under S. 471 read withs.467 I.P.C. under both the counts against the accusedbeyond any reasonable doubt and the High Court was justifiedin reversing the acquittal recorded by the trial Court inhis favour on these counts.","['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"2.The prosecution case is that on 29.11.2007, at about 02.00 p.m., the appellant herein took away the victim girl from the lawful custody of P.W.1 and went to Kerala and during his stay there, for more than 45 days, he had sexual intercourse with the victim girl.In this regard, Ex.P1-Complaint was lodged by P.W.1 before the Sub Inspector of Police, Poonamaravathy Police Station on 29.11.2007 itself.The appellant herein was found guilty of the offences under Sections 376 and 366 of IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 of IPC andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 366 of IPC, vide Judgment dated 22.01.2010 in S.C.No.65 of 2009 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai.Questioning the same, this appeal has been filed.Based on Ex.P1, Crime No.2 of 2008, was registered on 05.01.2008 for the offence under Section 366(a) of IPC(Ex.P10).Investigation continued and final report came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam for the offences under Sections 376, 366 and 366(a) of IPC against the appellant herein.Charges were framed 3 against the accused under the aforesaid provisions and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In support of the prosecution case as many as 13 witnesses were examined.P1 to Ex.P13 were marked.On the side of the accused, no evidence was adduced.The learned trial Judge, by Judgment dated 22.01.2010, found the accused guilty of the offence under Sections 376 of IPC and under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above.Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the appeal memorandum.The relationship between the parties appears to havehttp://www.judis.nic.insuffered crack on account of this developments.She had admitted the love affair with the appellant.She had voluntarily gone with the appellant.Her evidence further reinforces the appellant's claim that he always had an intention to marry her and that it was only on account of the criminal case filed by the father of the girl, their entire plan got thwarted.What was marked was only 6 Ex.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, following an earlier decision, held that the conviction of the appellant cannot be based on the approximate date, which is not supported by any record and that it would be quiet unsafe to base conviction on an approximate date.The case on hand is quite similar.The age of the victim has not been established beyond reasonable doubt as below 18 on the occurrence date.The impugned Judgment is set aside.This criminal appeal is allowed.","['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"MANMOHAN, J:It is easy for a person in Delhi to reach from one place to other within a hour and the case of the accused is not of that, they were far away from Delhi and it was not possible for them to reach at house on the day of incident.Rather, both the accused were in Delhi and there is no evidence of time of leaving their house in the morning.In the prosecution evidence it is already deposed by the witnesses that accused persons have harassed the deceased in connection with demand of dowry and as the marriage was performed on 13.12.2010 and the death of the CRL.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 3 of 23 deceased has been caused within one month from the date of marriage.The prosecution witnesses has particularly deposed regarding the demand of dowry, in the shape of share from the Malka Ganj property, where the deceased and her sisters were having share of one room and deceased before her death was asked to sell the property.A.606/2018 & Crl.He did not disclose about harassment or demand of dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs or cruelty to his daughter.Even if it is assumed that the appellant was under the shock of death of his daughter or that appellant came to know about demand of Rs. 10 lakhs after cremation of his daughter, as alleged by him in his statement in the Court, he should have made statement immediately or within one or two days thereafter or should have given some complaint in writing to the police or SDM.It is also relevant to note that no complaint regarding harassment, cruelty or demand of dowry was lodged by the deceased Geeta during her marital life or shortly thereafter.It is also pertinent to note that at no point in time, in his statement before the SDM on 22th September, 1999 exhibited as Ex.PW9/B and his statement under Section 161 Cr.However, the testimonies of Pinky (PW-3) and Rakhi (PW-4) do not inspire confidence inasmuch as they are not corroborated.In fact, other relatives of the deceased, namely, sister Kusum (PW-1), uncle Ganesh Lal (PW-2) and aunt Phoolwati (PW-13) have deposed to the contrary inasmuch as they have not mentioned any demand for dowry by the appellant-A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 16 of 23The relevant portions of the testimonies of sister Kusum (PW-1), uncle Ganesh Lal (PW-2) and aunt Phoolwati (PW-13) of the deceased are reproduced hereinbelow:-I and Tai Ji enquired from Anju as to why she was sust from 06.01.11 to 09.01.11, however, she replied sasural main sab kuch theek thak hai......""B) Testimony of Uncle Ganesh Lal (PW-2) "".......At the time of marriage, no demand of dowry was made from me by accused Rohit @ Sunny @ Sandeep or any of his family member.......Q. When Anju visited your house after her marriage, did you feel that Anju was in any trouble / problem?Yes, I observed that she was lazy (sust thi) On this, I asked my niece that is she having any problem to which she replied that she is living comfortably at her matrimonial home......""C) Testimony of Aunt Phoolwati (PW-13) ""..........When Anju came to my house after 4-5 days of her CRL.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 17 of 23 marriage she did not tell me that any cruelty being committed upon her in respect of demand of dowry in her matrimonial home as to sell out the parental home and give the share to them.A.606/2018 & Crl.However, the appellant- convicts have proved by leading defence evidence that they were not present at their house during those hours.The CDR exhibited by Israr Babu (DW-6) of both the appellant-convicts and the testimonies of Hitesh Sahni (DW-1), Rohit Goyal (DW-2) and Hari Ram (DW-3) prove that the appellant- convicts were not at their residence on 10th January, 2011 at the time of the incident.The relevant portion of the testimonies of Hitesh Sahni (DW-1) and Rohit Goyal (DW-2) are reproduced hereinbelow:-On 10.01.2010, I had sent accused Sandeep with my other employee Rohit Goel to pick up some property documents from Mindray Medicals which is based in Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi.He requested me to start for my home immediately or he may be relieved as he has an emergency at his home.Since our work of the day had almost finished, we immediately packed up and started for home in the car being driven by Sandeep.On leaving us at our home in Paschim Vihar, Sandeep had immediately left for his home on his bike which he had parked outside my house.Throughout our return journey of about 45 minutes, Sandeep made some calls and also received few calls and therefore almost kept on talking on his mobile phone.We could assess that there was some serious issue in his family for which reason, I could not stop him from talking on mobile while driving otherwise I would have stopped him.""A.606/2018 & Crl.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 23 of 23While Crl.A.606/2018 has been filed by appellant-convict Sandeep @ Sunny @ Rohit (husband of the deceased) and appellant-convict Deepak (brother-in-law of the deceased) challenging the judgment dated 31st January, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-04, North-West CRL.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 1 of 23 District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Case No.52035/2016 arising out of FIR No.6/2011 registered with Police Station Aman Vihar convicting them under Sections 304B/34 IPC and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 15,000/- , as well as under Sections 498A/34 IPC for which they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-; Crl.L.P. 260/2018 has been filed by the State, against the same judgment challenging the acquittal of the appellant-convicts under Section 302 IPC.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 1 of 23CASE OF THE PROSECUTIONThe case of the prosecution in brief is that appellant-convict Sandeep had married Anju (deceased) on 13th December 2010 and that on 10th January 2011 i.e. within a month of her marriage, she was found dead at her matrimonial home.The FIR bearing No. 6/2011 under Sections 302, 304B and 34 of the IPC was registered with Police Station Aman Vihar.After the investigation, the appellant-convicts were arrested on 5th April, 2013 and a charge sheet under Sections 302, 304B, 498A and 34 of the IPC was filed against them.L.P.260/2018 Page 3 of 23xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxApart from the facts discussed above, I deem it appropriate to discuss the conduct of accused persons also before coming to the conclusion.As it is established on record by the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW 1 that she received a telephonic message from the sister of accused in the night at around 11:00 PM on 10.01.2011 regarding the illness of the deceased.No efforts has been made by them to took the deceased to a Doctor at the earliest.Even no message to the Police had been given in the 100 number at the night.The DW 5 has deposed that they remained in the house throughout a day and they were aware that the deceased was not feeling well.No such well being of the deceased was asked by the accused persons or their family members in the day time.They were silent throughout the period and did not made any efforts to know the reality or truth regarding the death of deceased Anju.This also casts a doubt on their role.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 4 of 2374. ....... Though, there is no direct evidence to establish on record by the prosecution that the deceased has been murdered by the accused persons.Therefore, in absence of any direct evidence regarding strangulation and causing death of deceased Anju therefore, they can not be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC.However, there is sufficient material available on record which has been proved and corroborated by the prosecution witnesses by leading oral and medical evidence.Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt and there was a rebuttable presumption under Section 114 B of Evidence Act as well as under Section 304 B IPC, which is not being rebutted by the accused persons.The death of deceased has been caused in unnatural manner within seven years of her marriage as provided under Section 304 B IPC and here the death has been cause within one month of the marriage and there are allegations of demand of dowry and harassment on account of demand of dowry.Let they be heard on the quantum of sentence.""ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-CONVICTSMr. Mohd. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant-convicts stated that the marriage between the deceased and appellant-convict Sandeep was a love marriage.He further stated that no cruelty was inflicted upon the deceased as there was no demand for dowry by the appellant-convicts and that she was comfortable in her matrimonial home.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 5 of 23He contended that even the statements made by the sister of the deceased, Kusum (PW-1) and their uncle, Ganesh Lal (PW-2) to the SDM (PW-24) on the day after the death of the deceased i.e 11th January 2011 did not contain any allegations of demand for dowry and the same was corroborated by the testimony of the SDM (PW-24).He emphasised that as there was no allegation against the appellant-convicts they were not arrested for more than two years after the death of the deceased.Learned counsel for the appellant-convicts contended that the allegations with regard to demand for dowry by the appellant-convicts were for the first time made in vague statements to the SDM (PW-19) by two other sisters of the deceased - Pinky (PW-3) and Rakhi (PW-4), nearly two years after the death of the deceased.He pointed out that the sisters of the deceased while getting their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., added a new allegation that on 1st January, 2011 when they had gone to the matrimonial house of the deceased, she had informed them that there was a dowry demand with regard to her share in her ancestral one room house and consequently, the appellant-convicts were arrested.It is only for the first time on 22nd September, 1999 (after about 37 days of incident) that the appellant and his wife Suman Gupta made statement to SDM and made allegations regarding harassment and demand of dowry.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 6 of 23Further, the appellant has not alleged that any demand was made from him rather Suman Gupta (PW-12) has deposed that Satpal, uncle of Rajesh Gupta, his mother Pushpa Devi and Suman (sister-in-law) used to demand dowry from the deceased Geeta.PW-12 has deposed that after three days of marriage, her daughter came to her house and disclosed that she was being harassed and money was being demanded.L.P.260/2018 Page 8 of 23L.P.260/2018 Page 9 of 23ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APP FOR STATEPer contra, Ms. Aasha Tiwari, learned APP for the State contended that as per the Post Mortem Report (Ex. PW 12/A) the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia consequent to obstruction of the airway by strangulation of the neck and Dr. Manoj Dhingra, (PW-12) who conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased had opined that ""the injuries on the neck were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature"".She pointed out that as per the Post Mortem Report, all the injuries on the body of the deceased were ante mortem in nature and fresh in duration.She also stated that as per the subsequent opinion on the Post Mortem Report, the injuries were not self inflicted and there was least likelihood of the deceased strangulating herself.12. Learned APP for the State further stated that the dead body of the deceased was found in her matrimonial house itself and the sister of the appellant-convicts, Seema (DW-5) had deposed that on the day the deceased had died, she along with her mother and sister remained in the house throughout the day and no outsider had entered the house.She contended that in view of the aforesaid, the burden was on the appellant-convicts to explain how the death of the deceased had happened and they had failed to discharge the said burden.L.P.260/2018 Page 10 of 23 and Rakhi (PW-4) had deposed that the appellant-convicts had harassed the deceased in connection with a demand for dowry.She pointed out that they had deposed that the demand for dowry was specifically in regard to the deceased's share in the ancestral property situated in Malkaganj and that the deceased before her death was asked to sell the property.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 10 of 23She pointed out that it was not the appellant- convicts' case that they were far away from Delhi and that it was not possible for them to reach their house on the day of the incident.She emphasised that both the appellant-convicts were in Delhi and it is very easy for a person in Delhi to reach from one place to another within an hour and that there was no evidence of the time on which the appellant-convicts had left their house in the morning on the date of the incident.Learned APP for the State also stated that as per the evidence on record, a telephone call was made to the sister of the deceased Kusum (PW-1) at about 11 pm on 10th January, 2011 to inform her that the deceased was not waking up.PW 2's evidence that he met Archana at their parental home on 9-8-1997 and that Archana informed him about the demand of Rs 5,00,000 and cruelty meted out to her and that he proceeded to the house of the appellants to settle the dispute amicably is quite natural and inspires confidence.PW 2 acted like a loving brother and probably he did not want to give tension to his old parents and on seeing the urgency of the matter, went to the appellants' house to convince them.By perusal of evidence of PW 2, it is seen that he remained consistent throughout his cross-examination and nothing CRL.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 13 of 23 substantial was elicited to discredit his version.Merely because PW 2 has not produced documents showing the permission granted to him to be away from the headquarters Tehri from 7- 8-1997 to 10-8-1997, version of PW 2 cannot be doubted.The reasons stated by PW 2 for his stay in hotel is quite convincing and the contention assailing the credibility of PW 2 was rightly rejected by the trial court and the High Court.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 13 of 23It has been further contended on behalf of the appellants that there was delay in recording the statement of PW 2 by the investigating officer and therefore his evidence should be viewed with suspicion, especially when he did not disclose about the alleged dowry demand before he left for Dehradun or till his statement was recorded by the police.In this context as pointed out earlier, PW 2 went to Mumbai for treatment of his wife and on 14-8-1997 he was informed about the death of Archana and on the next day he returned to Delhi by air and from Delhi he reached Dehradun by taxi.Learned APP vehemently denied that the prosecution had withheld the best evidence.She referred to the testimonies of the investigating officer Insp.Vijender Pal (PW-28) and Israr Babu (DW-6).The relevant portions of the said testimonies are reproduced hereinbelow:-A.606/2018 & Crl.This information was also furnished to me by the service provider through email.I do not remember now the name of service provider.I had send the said request to service provider through E-mail, copies of said e-mails were not made part of record.....""PP for the State.It is correct that the updated Cell ID chart Ex.I was able to retrieve the CDR Ex.DW6/A and Ex.DW6/D after about 5-6 years because the same must have been generated initially on the request of any investing agency.....""The investigation was also stated to be defective since the gun was not sent for forensic test.L.P.260/2018 Page 15 of 23COURTS REASONING IN VIEW OF TESTIMONIES OF THE SDM (PW-24) (WHO IS AN INDEPENDENT WITNESS) UNCLE GANESH LAL (PW-2), AUNT PHOOLWATI (PW-13) AND SISTER KUSUM (PW-1), (WITH WHOM THE DECEASED HAD STAYED FROM 06TH JANUARY, 2011 TILL 09TH JANUARY, 2011), THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE TESTIMONIES OF TWO OTHER SISTERS I.E. PINKY (PW-3) AND RAKHI (PW-4) ARE CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, UNCORROBORATED AND AN AFTERTHOUGHT.ACCORDINGLY, THE TESTIMONIES OF PINKY (PW-3) AND RAKHI (PW-4) CANNOT BE RELIED UPON.CONSEQUENTLY, STATUTORY PRESUMPTION FOR DOWRY DEATH UNDER SECTION 304B IPC CANNOT BE DRAWN AGAINST THE APPELLANT-CONVICTS.L.P.260/2018 Page 17 of 23My niece Anju did not tell me that on 1.1.2011, her sisters Pinki and Rakhi went to her matrimonial home for giving new year wishes.(Vol.Nobody went to house of Anju after her marriage).Anju had not told me that on the said new year day, Sunny and Deepak had threatened Pinki and Rakhi to kill Anju if money after selling the parental house is not given to them as dowry.It is correct that I had/have cordial relations with all sisters namely Anju, Pinki and Rakhi and they used to share their happiness and sorrow with me.Till 14.1.2011, when my statement was recorded by the IO, Pinki and Rakhi did not tell me about the incident that took place on new year day at matrimonial house of Anju.I met Pinki and Rakhi, after the marriage of Anju, on the day of death of Anju.Pinki and Rakhi used to talk me on telephone.(Vol.I do not remember whether they had called me before the death of Anju.) After 14.1.2011 till today, Pinki and Rakhi had not told me that accused persons were demanding money after selling share of deceased in her parental house......""(emphasis supplied)In fact, perusal of the paper book reveals that on 11th January, 2011 the SDM (PW-24) had recorded the statements of sister of the deceased, Kusum (PW-1) and uncle Ganesh Lal (PW-2) and they had not mentioned about the demand for dowry.The SDM (PW-24) had also asked other relatives to come forward to make statements, but no one including Pinky (PW-3) and Rakhi (PW-4) came forward.The relevant portion of the testimony of the SDM (PW-24) is reproduced hereinbelow:-No one else including any other sister of deceased volunteered to get her statement recorded before me.Neither any complaint was given to me by any relative of the CRL.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 18 of 23 deceased nor any request was made for recording their statements.....""A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 19 of 23Further, the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellant-convicts or that they had made demands for dowry soon before the death of the deceased or at any time prior.After taking those documents, CRL.A.606/2018 & Crl.L.P.260/2018 Page 20 of 23 both of my aforesaid employees delivered the same documents to Sh.Harvinder Singh, property broker in Bhera Enclave, New Delhi on my instructions.They had thereafter returned back to our office in Connaught Place.In the evening at about 7:00 pm, I had received a call from the accused Sandeep in a very shocking state.Accordingly, Crl.A 606/2018 is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence are set aside.The appellant-convicts are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 34 IPC and are directed to be released forthwith.MANMOHAN, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J OCTOBER 24, 2019 rn CRL.","['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The case of prosecution in short may be stated to be as follows :(a) On 18.4.2012, offence came to be registered at Police Station, Purna, District Parbhani vide Crime No.52/2012 on the complaint of Ahemadbee Syed Imam (P.W.1).She reported that, she along with her family was residing at Sidharth Nagar, Purna, District Parbhani.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::Criminal Appeal No836/2015 3 The F.I.R. gives details about family members who were residing with her including Rizwana, her married daughter, but who was staying with her since last 8 years, having three children.It was reported that, on 18.4.2012, there was a dispute between Rizwana (hereinafter referred as victim) with accused No.4 Ramabai, accused No.3 Latabai and Sangita @ Samina, the daughter of Latabai's aunt from Mumbai, at about 2.30 p.m. ig These people, it was reported, are always under intoxication of liquor and do business in liquor.Because of that, they had trouble.To complain regarding this, victim had gone to Nagarsevak Deorao Khandare.Victim returned at about 4.00 p.m. At that time, accused No.3 Latabai and Vikki (accused No.1), the son of Latabai, accused No.4 Ramabai Devre, accused No.6 Baby, elder sister-in-law of accused No.4 Ramabai, accused No.2 Mahendra, the son of Ramabai and accused No.5 Sangita @ Samina, the daughter of Latabai's aunt from Mumbai, came and told victim that by her going and telling Deorao Khandare nothing will happen to them.They asked as to why she had gone and told that person.So saying, these people entered into the house of complainant and they caught hold of ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 4 her daughter victim Rizwana.Accused No.3 Latabai held victim by her hair and accused No.5 Sangita tore blouse of victim and all these accused brought out the victim from the house and beat her by kicks and blows.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::On the street, the sari of the victim was pushed up and her modesty was outraged.The victim was calling out to save her.The complainant, her daughter Shahanabi, and her husband P.W.2 Syed Imam went to intervene, but in front of them the accused beat the victim.The victim managed to get herself released from the grip of the accused persons and ran inside the house.She ran inside and closed the house from inside.(b) The complainant claimed that, they called out to the victim, but she did not respond.The accused persons kept waiting outside the house and were giving filthy abuses and threatening to kill.As there was no response from victim from inside the house, Maqsood Khan, the nephew of complainant climbed up and pushed aside the tin sheet on the house and peeped inside when he saw that the victim had hanged herself from the wooden log of the house.He got afraid and thus, her nephew Hafizkhan (P.W.4) and one Syed Latif went there.They pushed the tin of roof aside and ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 5 entered the room and opened the latch of the house, which had been closed from inside.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::(c) The complaint claimed that, all of them then went inside and saw that the victim was hanging and she was dead.Thus, the F.I.R. was filed claiming that, because of the incident mentioned above, as the victim was beaten and her sari was pushed upwards and her modesty had been outraged, because of such trouble of the accused, the victim had gone inside the house and hanged herself and committed suicide.The F.I.R. blamed the accused persons for the incident and claimed that they had abetted the suicide.(d) On registration of the crime, the same was investigated by P.W.5 Sk.Abdul Gaffar, who was P.S.I. at the Police Station.The sari by which the victim committed suicide was seized.Inquest panchanama (Exh.29) was done.The doctor reported that, victim died due to asphyxia due to hanging.The appellants have been convicted under Sections 452, 354, 294, 504, 506, 323, 306 and 143, all read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C. in brief).Statements of witnesses were recorded.The clothes from the body of the victim were also seized.After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::Criminal Appeal No836/2015 6Before the trial Court, charge was framed for the Sections referred above and the prosecution brought on record evidence of 5 witnesses.The accused persons pleaded not guilty.Their defence is of denial.According to them, the victim was mentally disturbed and that she had been beaten by P.W.2 Syed Imam as she had quarreled earlier with accused No.5 Sangita and because of that, she committed suicide.The trial Court considered oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution and after considering the evidence, convicted the accused persons for Sections mentioned above and various sentences for the different Sections were passed.I have heard Advocate Shri S.C. Chavan for the appellant Nos.1 and 2 as well as appointed Advocate Shri S.S.Pawar for appellant Nos.3 to 6 and learned A.P.P. Shri R.V.Dasalkar for the State.It has been argued by the learned counsel for appellant Nos.1 and 2 that, the defence brought on record by the prosecution shows that the accused persons had grudge as to why victim complained to Deorao Khandare.According to him, the evidence does not show that the accused ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 7 had any intention that the victim should commit suicide.It is argued that, although this Deorao Khandare was taken as panch in the inquest panchanama and although his statement was recorded, the prosecution did not examine him.It is stated that, the evidence of P.W.1 read with F.I.R. shows that, she made improvements in her evidence.The evidence on record disclosed that the parties did not have any earlier quarrel.The learned counsel tried to argue that P.W.3 Jubedabee was wife of brother of the complainant.Referring to the evidence of other witnesses, it is stated that, the evidence on record suffers from contradictions and omissions.It is stated that, as per the port mortem, the tongue was inside.According to the counsel, if it was case of hanging, the tongue should have been outside.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::It was stated that, in the F.I.R. specific threat was not recorded.The contradictions and omissions should have been considered to discard the evidence of the witnesses.The parties were living peacefully before the incident.The evidence showed that, although the incident went on for ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 8 some time, nobody went to call police at that time.The victim suddenly killed herself and the accused did not abet the act.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::Against this, the learned A.P.P. submitted that, the judgment of the trial Court is properly reasoned and is required to be maintained.According to the A.P.P., all the accused persons had entered into the house of the complainant and dragged the victim outside.In the process, the blouse of the victim was torn and there was also act of trying to push the sari of the victim upwards and her modesty was outraged.The post mortem showed that, the victim had ante mortem injuries, which goes to show that the incident, as stated by the witnesses, did occur and the evidence that the accused persons committed criminal house-trespass and abused, threatened and dragged out the victim and outraged her modesty and caused hurt to her, was established.According to the learned A.P.P., the conviction needs to be maintained.In reply, both the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, if the conviction is maintained, lenient view may be taken looking to the fact that the incident occurred on the spur of moment.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::Criminal Appeal No836/2015 9I have gone through the evidence.There is evidence of P.W.1 complainant Ahemadibee, P.W.2 Syed Imam (her husband), P.W.3 Jubedabee Rajjakkhan (residing in the neighbourhood) and there is evidence of P.W.4 Hafizkhan Rajjakkhan, who had climbed the roof and seen the victim hanging.If the evidence of these witnesses is perused, all of them deposed about the presence of these six accused on the spot at the time of incident.The evidence of P.W.1 Ahemadibee shows that, on the day of incident, her daughter victim Rizwana had gone to leader Deorao Khandare and when she came back, the incident took place.Her F.I.R. Exh.30 is that, the accused Nos.3 to 5 were in the business of liquor and used to be under intoxication and because of their trouble, the victim had gone to complain to Deorao Khandare.The evidence of P.W.2 Syed Imam also shows that, the victim had gone to complain to Deorao Khandare and when she came back, the accused persons picked up quarrel with her.Similar is the evidence of P.W.3 Jubedabee, who deposed that the accused persons are living in the neighbourhood and they used to sell liquor unauthorisedly.She deposed that, the victim Rizwana had gone to Khandare complaining regarding selling of liquor as there was nuisance in the lane regarding liquor.Her evidence also shows that, when the victim returned home, the accused went and beat her.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::Criminal Appeal No836/2015 10The cross-examination of P.W.2 Syed Imam shows that, on the day of incident, earlier at about 11.00 a.m. there was quarrel between accused No.5 Sangita and the victim.In the F.I.R. Exh.35, the complainant had reported that, at about 2.30 p.m. there was a dispute which arose between accused Nos.3 to 5 with the victim and because of the trouble of business of liquor of the accused, victim had gone to complain to Deorao Khandare.In the evidence, no doubt the complainant P.W.1 did not depose about that part of the incident.In the cross-examination, she was put question in this regard, but did not understand the question.The Court does not appear to have tried to explain the question to the witness nor the cross-examiner pursued the same.What appears from record is that, the witnesses had trouble from the accused due to unauthorised sale of liquor in the vicinity and the victim appears to have gone and complained about this to some leader Deorao Khandare and this infuriated the accused persons.The prosecution proved this to be the cause of incident.Point is that, on that day, earlier there was some dispute between victim and accused Nos.3 to 5 and when victim went and came back, accused were agitated as their information was that she had gone and complained to Mr. ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 11 Khandare.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::Regarding the actual incident, P.W.1 complainant Ahemadibee deposed that the victim had gone to Deorao Khandare and had just come home when the accused persons reached there.In her evidence, she referred to the accused Nos.1 to 6 and then deposed that all these persons came and entered in her house and asked the victim what she had told to the said leader.ig P.W.2 Syed Imam has also deposed that, the accused persons came and asked the victim if she had gone to lodge complaint to Deorao Khandare.His evidence is that, the accused were saying that what can she do and what can Deorao Khandare do.P.W.2 Syed Imam has also deposed that the accused persons had entered their house.P.W.3 Jubedabee has also corroborated P.Ws.1 and 2 as well as P.W.4 Hafizkhan.The evidence of these witnesses shows that the accused persons entered the house of complainant so as to pick up quarrel with the victim.The evidence of these witnesses goes to establish house-trespass on the part of accused persons to commit offence punishable with imprisonment.The evidence of complainant is that, when the accused persons had entered her house and started questioning ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 12 the victim, accused No.3 Latabai caught the victim by hair, accused No.5 caught the victim from her blouse and accused No.4 Ramabai caught-hold of the sari of the victim and they pulled out to victim from her house on to the road.According to P.W.1, the accused were saying that the victim should be made naked and to put chilly.In the F.I.R. Exh.35, complainant had reported that, accused No.3 Latabai had held the victim by hair and accused No.5 had held her from her blouse and pulled and tore the blouse and that all the accused persons had taken the victim outside the house and beaten her by kicks and blows.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::P.W.2 Syed Imam, father of victim corroborated his wife deposing that accused No.3 held the victim by hair and accused No.5 tore the blouse of victim and accused No.4 was saying to push up the sari of victim and that they will put chilly.(See Marathi version of the evidence.)12. P.W.3 Jubedabee deposed that, when the victim came back, the accused persons beat her on account of she complaining to Khandare.Her evidence is that, she and one Zakira tried to intervene in the quarrel, but they were told not to come in the quarrel and that the accused threatened to kill them and so they kept themselves on one side.However, P.W.3 has also deposed that, in the course of incident, accused No.3 Latabai ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 13 caught the hair of victim and accused No.5 Sangita tore her blouse and accused No.4 Ramabai and accused No.6 Baby had caught hold of the victim by her legs and brought her outside the house by pulling. P.W.3 has also deposed that, the accused were saying that chilly should be put in the anus of the victim.P.W.3 Jubedabee has referred to specific abuses given by the accused.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::P.W.3 Jubedabee has deposed that, when they were outside the house, at that time, accused No.1 Vikki and accused No.2 Mahendra told them that they should not come in between the quarrel otherwise they will be killed.As far as regards the evidence of P.W.4 Hafizkhan, he has deposed that, on day of incident there was quarrel between the accused and the victim and that the accused pulled out Rizwana from the house.His evidence is that, out of the accused, one caught hold of the hair of victim, one caught hold of her blouse and one pushed sari of victim upwards saying that they will put chilly.(In English version, the words used are that, one removed sari of victim on upper side, however, this is not correctly recorded as the Marathi version shows that, what was deposed was that one accused pushed sari upwards.) Thus, P.W.4 Hafizkhan did not specifically name the concerned persons with the specific acts he has deposed about.However, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 read together, makes it clear that all these six accused entered the ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 14 house and while accused Nos.3 to 5 actively caught hold of the victim and dragged her outside the house, accused No.6 Baby also assisted.Accused Nos.1 and 2 also appear to have committed criminal trespass and the evidence of these witnesses shows that they had threatened the neighbouring people not to intervene.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 shows that, the victim was assaulted inside the house and forcibly dragged outside and she was also beaten at the time of incident.The inquest panchanama Exh.29 in para 4 recorded that there were abrasions to the chest as well as to the hand of the victim.In the post moretm report Exh.30 also the doctor recorded ante mortem abrasions on the person of the victim.Thus, the oral evidence of the witnesses gets corroboration from the inquest panchanama as well as post mortem report showing that the victim had suffered abrasions in the incident.The evidence of P.W.1 has been criticised by the counsel for accused, claiming that, in her F.I.R. she had not stated that accused No.4 Ramabai had held the sari of the victim and stated that they will make her naked and put chilly.Even if this was to be said so, still there is evidence of P.W.2 Syed ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 15 Imam, who has also deposed that, accused No.4 Ramabai was saying that the sari of the victim should be pushed up and to put chilly.P.W.2 Syed Imam was cross-examined, but there are no contradictions and omissions proved in his evidence so as to disbelieve him on this count.P.W.3 Jubedabee has also deposed that, accused No.4 Ramabai had caught the victim from her legs and the victim was forcibly brought outside the house by pulling and it was being said that, chilly should be put in her anus.In the evidence of P.W.3 Jubedabee, in cross-examination read with the evidence of investigating officer P.W.5 Shaikh Abdul Gaffar, the only omissions claimed were that, P.W.3 had not stated in her statement that, ""During the period of two hours Vikrant and Mahendra restrained from entering into the house to the informant and witnesses, and threatened to kill them."" The other omission tried to be shown was that, she had not stated that, ""Rizwana was inside the house and accused abetted her suicide.""::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::The reason why I am saying that these portions in inverted commas are tried to be shown as omission is that, P.W.3 was not asked about these portions in this manner.What was asked in the cross-examination of P.W.3 was not put to the investigating officer in that manner.Thus, these acts of the accused persons of forcibly dragging out the victim and in the process tearing her blouse and in the quarrel trying to push up her sari are proved in ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 16 the evidence of these witnesses.Reading the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 along with the F.I.R., the witnesses cannot be said to be shattered regarding the crux of the incident that these accused persons committed house-trespass in the house of the complainant and abused, threatened and dragged the victim outside the house and in the process, beat her and also caused outrage of her modesty.The trial Court has discussed all this evidence and recorded reasons why the same should be accepted.Going through the judgment of the trial Court, I find myself concurring with the trial Judge in this regard.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::In the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, it has been tried to show that the victim was a person who was mentally disturbed and it was tried to claim that, because of such mental condition, the husband of the victim had left her.However, the suggestions were denied by the witnesses and there is no material to show that the victim was mentally disturbed person.The argument that P.W.3 was related to complainant has no basis as no such suggestion was put to the witness.Coming to the evidence of the victim committing suicide, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 shows that, when such ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 17 incident as mentioned above was taking place, the victim managed to free herself and ran inside the house and bolted it from inside.The evidence is that, the accused persons continued to remain there and were saying that they will see as to how the victim will come out of the house.Thus, although the victim had run away inside the house, the accused persons continued to be there and were giving threats, as per the witnesses.The evidence further shows that, as the victim was not responding from inside, P.W.4 Hafizkhan climbed on the house, and pushing aside the tin sheet, noticed the victim to be hanging.He claimed that, he brought down the dead body on the ground.In the evidence of P.W.1, she had claimed that, the incident went on for about two hours.P.W.3 deposed that, it went on for about half an hour and P.W.4 deposed that, it went on for about 30 - 35 minutes.The time sense of P.W.1, an illiterate lady cannot be much relevant.Point is that, for some time quarrel was going on and when the victim went inside, the accused continued to be there and were giving threats, and after some time when there was no movement from inside, P.W.4 Hafizkhan appears to have climbed the house and noticed that the victim had hung herself.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::It appears that, the victim was taken to the hospital and when it was found that she was dead, inquest panchanama Exh.29 was done and post mortem was also got done.Post mortem showed ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 18 that, she died of asphyxia due to hanging.The evidence that the victim did in fact die due to hanging is not in dispute if the evidence in the trial Court is perused.At the time of appeal, however, the learned counsel for the appellants tried to argue that there was no evidence that the tongue of the victim was outside.State of Karnataka ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 19 reported in 1994 AIR (SC) 1546 to submit that merely by going in a body of unlawful assembly would not be decisive factor regarding common object.I have gone through the concerned judgments.They are based on their own facts.In the present matter, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 had committed criminal trespass in the house of the complainant with the other accused who were ladies and further actively participated in the incident by threatening others so that they do not intervene.The common object is clearly established that they also wanted the victim to be threatened, abused, dragged and beaten, and in the process, participated in outraging of the modesty of a woman (the victim).::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::There is no substance in the arguments of counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2 on this count.State Represented by ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 20 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1238 to submit that, for abetment to commit suicide, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence of abetting the victim to commit suicide.Reliance was also placed on the judgment in the matter of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs.State of A.P. reported in AIR 2010 SC 327 and it has been argued that, for abetment, instigating or intentional aiding the person to commit the act of suicide has to be established.Paras 18, 20 and 21 of the judgment need to be reproduced.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life.Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other.::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::Criminal Appeal No836/2015 21Keeping the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view, it would be now necessary to see whether in the present matter abetment to commit suicide could be said to be established.In the present matter, no doubt there is evidence that the victim was assaulted and dragged outside the house and there was attempt to push up her sari and there was outrage of modesty.No doubt there is also evidence that when the victim ran inside and closed the door, the accused persons continued to be there giving threat.But then, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 shows that, before the present incident there was no quarrel between the parties and their relations were not strained.The cross-examination of P.W.2 Syed Imam shows that the relations between them and accused were cordial prior to the incident and they never quarreled.P.W.3 Jubedabee stated that the relations between her, P.W.2 Syed Imam and the accused were cordial and that it was true that before the incident there was no quarrel between the complainant and the accused.Thus, although there is evidence that these prosecution witnesses had trouble due to the liquor business of the accused persons and the victim had even complained to one Deorao Khandare, before the ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 22 incident there were no strained relations as such.Thus, merely because the incident of house-trespass, assault and outraging modesty took place, that by itself cannot be calculated as abetment to commit suicide.It was also not a situation where circumstances were so created that the victim had no other option than to commit suicide.It appears that, the victim was over sensitive and at the spur of moment reacted in a manner which may not have been expected by anybody.The evidence shows that, even after the victim went inside, for some time the accused were there outside, and the family could not enter.It shows that, the victim had not, even while rushing inside the house, indicated anything that she will commit such act.Had that been so, the family would have made a hue and cry and reacted faster.The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, which relates to house-trespass after ""preparation"" for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.In the present matter, although the accused persons entered the house so as to assault the victim and hurt the victim, there is no material to show that they had made some preparation for causing of such hurt.For these Sections, in addition there was direction for payment of fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month under each of the head against all accused.This needs to be maintained.For reasons already recorded, sentence under Section 306 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 would required to be set aside.I thus pass the following order :ORDER (A) For above reasons, the appeal is partly allowed.In the impugned judgment of the trial Court, the conviction under Section 452 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is converted into conviction and sentence under Section 451 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the accused are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 ::: Criminal Appeal No836/2015 25 two years each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) each, and in default of payment of fine, the defaulting accused shall further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.(A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.) fmp/cri836.15 ::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2016 00:33:50 :::","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"According to the prosecution case, between 03.02.2014 and 08.03.2014, the petitioner had purchased total quantity of 2086 bags of paddy from the second respondent under nine bills.The cost of the paddy so purchased was Rs.19,48,834/-.Thus, according to the complainant, the petitioner had paid a total sum of Rs.2,25,000/- towards partial discharge of the said liability.The balance was Rs.17,23,834/-.The petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No.132 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent alleging that the petitioner along with another accused committed offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of I.P.C. On the ground that the registration of the said case and continuance of the investigating amounts to clear abuse of process of law, the petitioner has come up with this petition seeking to quash the F.I.R. and the connected proceedings.I have heard Mr.R.Gandhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr.S.Ananthanarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.I have also perused the records carefully.The first respondent Mr.Gunasekaran, Inspector of Police, Tirupattur Town Police Station, is also present along with the records.I have the benefit of going through the entire case diary also.A perusal of that records and the F.I.R. would go to show that the petitioner was doing paddy and rice business in Tirupattur in the name and style 'J.K.Traders'.The second respondent is also doing the same business in Tirupanipettai, Tiruvidaimaruthur Taluk, Thanjavur District.According to the further case of the prosecution, when the second respondent demanded payment of dues, the petitioner declined to pay the same and instead he had threatened him along with his manager namely the second accused.On these allegations, the F.I.R. was registered by the first respondent on 01.05.2014, for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of I.P.C.The learned senior counsel Mr.R.Gandhi, appearing for the petitioner, would submit that assuming that the allegations contained in the F.I.R. and other events which came to light during subsequent investigation are true, the same would only make out a pure and simple civil dispute and these allegations do not make out any offence more particularly offences punishable under Sections 420 or 506 of I.P.C. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, the registration of the F.I.R. and continuance of the investigation amounts to clear abuse of process of law and therefore the entire proceedings commencing from F.I.R. should be quashed.Since the entire case is quashed, the rice bags seized from the rice mill of the petitioner shall be returned by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirupattur to the petitioner unconditionally under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. The vehicle already released to the petitioner on conditional basis shall be retained by the petitioner unconditionally as provided under Section 452 of Cr.P.C.With the above directions, this criminal original petition is allowed and the case in Crime No.132 of 2014 is quashed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.S.NAGAMUTHU,J.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirupattur.The Inspector of Police, Tirupattur Town Police Station, Vellore District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.O.P.No.20776 of 2014and M.P.No.1 of 201427.10.2014","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The prosecution's case in short is that the complainant Rajjulal Choudhary (PW-1) was resident of village Saleha.On 7.11.2000 at about 3:30 p.m., he was going to Nagod to see his ailing mother, who was admitted in the Hospital at Nagod.When he was going on the road, the appellant, who was sitting on a flour mill detained him and abused the complainant with obscene words.Also he abused him with words relating to his caste and gave him slaps etc. He threw him on the ground and sat on his chest and thereafter, he gave so many fists to the victim.The witnesses intervened and thereafter, the appellant ran away from the spot.The complainant went to see his ailing mother and at about 9:00 p.m. he came back to village Saleha and lodged the FIR Ex.P/1 at Police Station, Saleha.(Delivered on 10th day of March, 2015) The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 20.9.2002 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Panna in Special Case No.48/2001, whereby the appellant has been convicted of offence under Sections 341, 323, 506(Part-II), 294 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it would be referred as 'the Special Act') and sentenced to six months S.I. with fine of Rs.500/-, six months R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-, one year's R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-, two months R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and one year's R.I. with 2 Criminal Appeal No.1521/2002 fine of Rs.2,000/- respectively.All the sentences to run concurrently, whereas the default sentence was also imposed in lieu of payment of fine.He was sent for his medico legal examination and after due investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the JMFC Panna, who committed the case to the Special Court.The appellant abjured his guilt.He took a plea 3 Criminal Appeal No.1521/2002 that he was falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity.Also he took a plea that a compromise took place between the parties and the complainant took a sum of Rs.2500/- to do the compromise.However, thereafter, the complainant did not accept the compromise.In defence, Bahori (DW-1) was examined.The Special Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.In the present case, Rajjulal Choudhary (PW-1), Nanni Bai (PW-2) and Ghaseeta (PW-3) have stated that they were the eyewitnesses.Lakhanbai (PW-4) and Dayaram (PW-5) were examined as eyewitnesses but they turned hostile.Lapaiya (PW-7) was also examined as eyewitness and he has partly turned hostile.Rajjulal (PW-1) has stated that the appellant was abusing him with the words related to his caste.His testimony is supported by Nanni Bai wife of the complainant and Ghaseeta father of the complainant.However, if the evidence of Nanni Bai and Ghaseeta is considered then, it would be clear that they were not present at the spot from the very beginning.4 Criminal Appeal No.1521/2002 They were informed that the appellant was assaulting the victim then, they went to the spot and hence, they were not the witnesses of portion of crime when the appellant abused the victim with the words related to his caste.Nanni Bai and Ghaseeta have stated that during the assault, the appellant was abusing the victim on the basis of his caste but according to the victim Rajjulal, the appellant abused him with the words relating to his caste in the beginning of the crime and during the assault, he did not state such words.In the FIR Ex.P/1, it is not mentioned that the appellant repeated such words during the assault.Hence, the testimony of Nanni Bai and Ghaseeta cannot be believed.The appellant would have told such words to the victim Rajjulal, where these witnesses come to the spot with delay.Rajjulal has accepted that there was no annoyance between the appellant and him in the past and unexpectedly, the appellant abused and assaulted him.He had filed the FIR Ex.P/1, which was a written report.It was strange that the incident was caused with the victim Rajjulal and thereafter, he did not take care to lodge the FIR or to get his treatment.On the contrary, he went to 5 Criminal Appeal No.1521/2002 see his ailing mother, who was admitted in the Hospital at Nagod and therefore, the FIR was lodged with the delay of 18 hours.According to the document Ex.P/6, the incident took place on 7.11.2000 at about 3:30 p.m., whereas the FIR was lodged on 8.11.2000 at about 9:30 a.m. The reasons relating to the delay in the FIR shown by the complainant Rajjulal appears to be unacceptable.A written report has been given at Police Station, Saleha and therefore, Rajjulal had an opportunity to cook a case against the appellant.As the witnesses Nanni Bai and Ghaseeta were telling a falsehood that the appellant had abused the victim Rajjulal with the words related to his caste, whereas such allegations are not true then, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the complainant Rajjulal while lodging the FIR had mentioned about the fact that the appellant abused him with the words relating to his caste and therefore, a doubt is created as to whether the appellant had abused the complainant on the basis of words related to his caste or the complainant on the basis of his caste had lodged the FIR of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act to get the advantage of his caste.Hence, it is not proved beyond doubt that the appellant 6 Criminal Appeal No.1521/2002 abused the victim with the words relating to the caste of the complainant.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the complainant has given a proof that he was a member of scheduled caste.The complainant and his witnesses have stated that the complainant was ""Chaudhary"" by caste and in the certificate Ex.P/9, Tahsildar concerned has issued the caste certificate that the complainant belongs to the community of Chaudhary, and ""Chaudhary"" falls within the category of scheduled caste.It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that according to the list of scheduled caste prevailed in the Madhya Pradesh, there is no such caste ""Chaudhary"" which falls in the scheduled caste.On the contrary, if the complainant would have claimed in the certificate that he was ""Chamar"" by caste then, that certificate could specify that he was a member of scheduled caste.The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant can be accepted because Tahsildar concerned has issued such a certificate, which has no legal value.It is expected from an officer to verify and inquire about the caste of a particular person and to 7 Criminal Appeal No.1521/2002 issue the certificate.On the contrary, Tahsildar issued the certificate that being ""Chaudhary"" by caste, the complainant was a member of scheduled caste, whereas no such caste is declared to be a scheduled caste for Madhya Pradesh in the schedule appended in the Constitution.Hence, the complainant could not prove that he was a member of scheduled caste.Hence, the appellant could not be convicted of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act.So far as the other offences are concerned, the complainant and his witnesses did not tell the specific words, told by the appellant so that those words could be considered that whether those would have fallen within the category of obscene words.He did not state before the trial Court that the appellant executed his threatening as told on the date of incident or not.If any threatening was given by the appellant on the date of incident, even then it does not fall in the category of criminal intimidation and therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted of offence under Section 506 of the IPC.The trial Court has committed an error of law in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 506(Part-II) of the IPC.Similarly, it was alleged by the complainant Rajjulal that he was going to Nagod and in the way, the appellant started uttering obscene words to him and words on the basis of his caste by detaining him.However, technically it can be said that due to overt act of the appellant, he was restrained to go further but no intention 9 Criminal Appeal No.1521/2002 of the appellant to restrain the complainant to go further is proved and therefore in absence of any intention, no offence under Section 341 of the IPC is made out against the appellant.However, Rajjulal (PW-1), Nanni Bai (PW-2) and Ghaseeta (PW-3) have stated that the appellant assaulted the victim by kicks and fists and also by slaps.The defence witness Bahori (DW-1) has admitted that the quarrel took place between the appellant and the complainant.Though, he has stated that the complainant fell down on the earth due to his drunken condition but it is accepted by the witnesses that in the incident, the complainant fell down on the earth.If the complainant was in a drunken condition then, it was not possible for him to visit the village Nagod to see his ailing mother and thereafter, to come back.Therefore, that fact cannot be accepted that the complainant Rajjulal was in drunken 10 Criminal Appeal No.1521/2002 condition.Looking to the evidence of defence witness Bahori (DW-1), the testimony of Rajjulal, Nanni Bai and Ghaseeta appears to be acceptable that the appellant assaulted the victim Rajjulal.It is not necessary to prove the physical injury for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC.If any bodily pain was caused to the victim then, offence under Section 323 of the IPC is made out.It is for the appellant to prove that he was given any grave or sudden provocation or he had a right of private defence.In alternate, the appellant could not prove such fact.The incident took place when the complainant was going on a way and therefore, no overt act of the complainant was proved that he gave sudden or grave provocation to the appellant and any right of private defence was accrued to the appellant.The appellant gave more than one assault and therefore after the result of his first assault, he continued to assault the victim and hence, the trial Court has rightly found that the appellant had voluntarily caused hurt to the victim Rajjulal.Therefore, the appellant was rightly convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC.So far as the sentence is concerned, the 11 Criminal Appeal No.1521/2002 appellant was the first offender, who was a youth of 23 years of age at the time of incident.Since he was above 21 years of age, it is not a case in which, he may be released on probation but looking to his first offence and the fact that he did not use any weapon, his offence under Section 323 of the IPC, it would be proper that a maximum fine may be imposed upon the appellant for that offence.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 341, 294, 506 (Part-II) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are hereby set aside.The appellant is acquitted from the aforesaid charges.It is informed that the appellant has deposited the fine more than of Rs.1,000/- before the trial Court for other offences, therefore, he would be entitled to get the remaining fine amount back from the trial Court and hence, no default sentence is required to be provided.The appellant is on bail.Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE 10.03.2015 pnkj","['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Shri Tajuddin Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Vijay Sunderam, Panel Lawyer for the State.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The petitioner has filed this first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.The petitioner is alleged with house-trespass, rape and criminal intimidation.","['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"/326/307/304/379/435 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.And In the matter of : Mannan Sk.... ... petitioner Mr. Biswajit Hazra, Ms. Debrapriya Samanata, Mr. Arif Mohammad Khan ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Mr. Bitasok Banerjee ... ... for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Murshidabad P.S. Case No. 129 of 2000 dated 28.09.2000 under Sections 147/148/149/324/326/307/304/379/435 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.The State opposes the prayer primarily on the ground that the petitioner has approached the Court more than 17 years after the case was lodged.However, the State fairly submits that the petitioner's name does not figure in the statements obtained.The charge-sheet has long been submitted.Considering the delay in the matter and the fact that the charge- sheet was submitted in 2001, there may not be any need to take the petitioner into custody at this stage.In addition, the petitioner will also attend the trial on a regular basis on the dates fixed.In default of the petitioner attending the trial, the trial Court will be at liberty to cancel the petitioner's bail without reference to this Court.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)","['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The accused in C.C. No. 173 of 1986 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, has filed this application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the said proceedings against him.The said petition came to be filed in the following circumstances.The Assistant Divisional Engineer T. N. E. B. Palani, gave a complaint on 27-8-1984 alleging that during the inspection of S.C. 160 Neikkarapatti distribution, belonging to the petitioner, he noticed M.R.T. seals provided in three phase meter in the service missing and that the petitioner has committed theft of electricity by opening the cover of the meter and reduced the recorded units thereunder.On the basis of the said complaint a case was registered against the petitioner in Cr.No. 435 of 1984 Palani Taluk, Police station, under S. 397 I.P.C. read with Sections 39 and 44(c) of the Indian Electricity Act. The said complaint was investigated by one Muthuswami, Sub-Inspector, and he examined as many as ten witnesses and after obtaining opinion of the Assistant Public Prosecutors (Grade I and Grade II) sent the final report dt. 7-5-1985 under S. 173 Cr.P.C. to the Court, to the effect that no case was made out against the petitioner, and the case was referred as 'mistake of fact'.Refer notice under S. 169, Cr.P.C. was also served on the petitioner on 18-5-1985 and his acknowledgment was obtained.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dindigul also on receipt of the final report and after perusing the connected records accepted the final report sent by the said Muthuswami and passed an order on 12-6-1985 as follows-Recorded as ""mistake of fact"".When the charge-sheet was returned by the Magistrate on 14-2-1986, whether permission has been obtained to reopen, the respondent resubmitted the same on 15-2-1986 stating the circumstances under which it was reopened and seeking permission to investigate the same.The Magistrate passed an order on 19-2-1986 to the effect that permission is granted to investigate the case.He took cognisance of the case and numbered the same as C.C. 173 of 1986 and issued summons to the accused.On receipt of the said summons the accused has filed this application.Petition allowed.",['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Ls Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12255 of 2019 and CRL.M.P(MD).No.7682 of 2019 19.09.2019 8/8http://www.judis.nic.inThis petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.5 of 2019 registered by the first respondent police for offence under Sections 498(A), 494, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of I.P.C. as against the petitioner.2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petition is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.5 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 498(A), 494, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of I.P.C., as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12255 of 20194.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent.5.Considering the fact that the investigation is almost over, this Court cannot quash the First Information Report at this stage.It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-O.P.(MD)No.12255 of 2019 investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.7.This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file the final report within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed 19.09.2019 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Ls To1.The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.O.P.(MD)No.12255 of 2019 7/8http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12255 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.","['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this third application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The first application was rejected on merit vide order dated 8-8-2018 in M.Cr.The applicant after being arrested in connection with Crime No.7/1999 registered at Police Station Chachoda, District Guna in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 324 of IPC, the applicant was released on bail.The prosecution story in short is that the present applicant along with co-accused assaulted the complainant and also caused hindrance in discharge of official duty.Initially the applicant was released on bail and thereafter she continued to remain absent before the trial court.On the basis of aforesaid allegation crime has been registered.Accordingly without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is, therefore, directed that, applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Committal Court for his appearance during trial on the dates fixed by the concerned Court.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-","['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The facts which are not in dispute in the present case is that accused Chhotelal (since acquitted) is the Sarpanch of the village and Amasso Bai is his daughter.Tejania Bai (PW4) is the sister of deceased Gulabi Baiga whereas Jimmi Bai (PW5) and Premlal (PW1) are his wife and son respectively.The Merg registered by R.D. Dwivedi (PW15) is Ex.A :: 3 ::The seizure of the blood stained soil were made and the statement of Premlal, Budhram, Tejania Bai, Jimmi Bai, Bajaria Bai and Ramailal were recorded.On 18.3.2006 accused Ramchandra, Tejilal and Shyamlal were also interrogated and as per their information Ex.P/7, Ex.P/8 and Ex.(01/02/2018) As per : J.K. Maheshwari, J.Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.1.2007 passed by X Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.178/2006 convicting the appellants for the charge under Section 302 read with 201 of the IPC and directed to undergo R.I. for life and three years respectively with fine of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- each, in default R.I. for three months and two months respectively.The dead body of the deceased was found on date of incident i.e. 15.3.2006 while the head was found on 18.3.2006 at the difference place.As alleged, the case of the prosecution is that on 15.3.2006, at about 5 p.m. in the evening, the mother of Premlal alongwith Bajaria Bai reached on the field.After coming back at about 7 p.m., it was told by her that the dead body of her husband Gulabi without head is lying near a culvert.Premlal reached on spot alongwith mother where the dead body was lying.Buddhu Gaur has told that about 10-11 a.m. in the morning, Gulabi was seen going towards Taparia.Thereafter, at about 3 p.m., Laxman told him that the dead body of Gulabi is lying in a culvert.Premlal and others made an attempt to find out the head of the deceased but could not trace out, however, the information was given to the Police Station on the next date i.e. 16.3.2006 which was registered at Crime No.24/06 under Section 302 read with 201 of the IPC.P/9, the head of the deceased was found and the recovery of Jarkati (Sickle) was also made, thereafter, the Panchanama was prepared.After completing the investigation challan was filed before the competent Court.Since the offence was triable by the Court of Session, therefore, it was committed, where the charge under Section 302 read with 201 of the IPC was framed against the present three appellants and Chhotelal.It is said that his conduct is doubtful and as apparent from the fact that he has not disclosed the name of the accused persons to Budhram (PW2) though narrated the incident immediately.His conduct is further doubtful because he has not informed regarding the death of the deceased to the family members, though, they visited on the spot.Further his conduct is doubtful as at the time when he was preparing the country made liquor, the incident took place but he did not make any attempt to save the deceased if assaulted by accused.In addition thereto, as per the statement of Ramailal (PW8) and Jhallulal (PW13), the seizure were made in between 9 - 10 a.m., though they were arrested later on.On the other hand, Shri Sourabh Shrivastava, learned Dy.It is the contention that Laxman (PW3) is the eye-witness to the incident, merely non-disclosure of incident for 2 - 3 days would not make him doubtful to acquit the accused persons for commission of murder of the deceased, therefore, maintaining the conviction, the appeal may be dismissed.He in his statement said that while he was preparing country made liquor, deceased Gulabi was sitting there.Three persons namely Shyamlal, Ramchandra and Tejilal came and assaulted Gulabi by means of Knife, stones and Sickle.At that time, he ran away and narrated the incident to Budhram.His statement :: 6 ::During this time, he narrated the incident to Budhram without disclosing the name of any accused person in the evening, as reveal from his testimony as well as from the testimony of Budhram.Eye-witness have never made any attempt to save the deceased merely on the pretext of fear and he has also not informed to the family members of the deceased, though, they were known to each other and was staying on the field alongwith deceased at some distance for considerable long time.He has not informed the incidence to police though he must immediately informed.The defence was put regarding enmity due to election of the Panchayat.He admitted that Major Temre of Police Station, Kundam is in his relation.When a specific question was put that you yourself has murdered the deceased and the weapon and other things have been kept in the hut by you, as Budhram should not doubt you, who was also staying on the field alongwith Gulabi, however, after murder of Gulabi, you disclosed the said fact to Major Temre and being his relative in the police department, he saved you.Even having such specific defence and putting the specific question, he has not informed the police for three days, regarding the incident and after three days, he became eye-Shyamlal Baiga and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Cr.A. No.318/2007 articles have been made prior to the arrest of the accused persons.The said fact would reflect from the testimony of Ramailal (PW8) and Jhallulal (PW13) co-relating with the memorandum Ex.P/7, Ex.P.8, Ex.P/9, Ex.P/10, Ex.P/11, Ex.P/12, Ex.P/13, Ex.P/14, Ex.P/15 and Ex.In such circumstances, neither the testimony of the eye-witnesses is of sterling character nor the seizure prior to arrest is justified but the trial Court without considering this vital aspect, relying upon the statement of eye-witnesses coupled with the seizure of the articles and the head of the dead body, convicted the appellants.In addition, such circumstances, one fact is also having much relevance that the weapon seized was sent for FSL examination and the report of FSL do not corroborate with the allegation of use of those weapons in commission of the offence.In view of the foregoing discussion, in our considered opinion, neither the testimony of eye-witnesses is of sterling character which can be relied upon to convict the appellants nor the seizure of the articles prior to arrest is justified.In that view of the matter, merely relying upon the testimony of Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation and relying upon the statement of Budhram (PW2) and the seizure, conviction directed by the trial Court is wholly unsustainable in law.In fact, the prosecution has failed to prove the :: 8 ::Shyamlal Baiga and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Cr.A. No.318/2007 involvement of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt in commission of murder of deceased Gulabi.In such circumstances, the appellants deserve to be acquitted giving them benefit of doubt.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside.Instead, the appellants are acquitted of the offences.The fine amount, if deposited, be refunded to them.They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.At the end, it is my duty to record the word of appreciation in favour of the amicus curiae who assisted the Court in the disposal of the held-up case which was pending since last about ten years, however, his assistance is hereby acknowledged.Appeal allowed.",['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
"1 0.2018 82 KB CRM No. 8100 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 17th September, 2018 in connection with Ghoksadanga Police Station Case No. 54 of 2018 dated 15.04.2018 under Sections 341/324/326/307/109 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Malin Roy and others ... Petitioners Mr. Somnath Banerjee, Mr. Pronojit Roy ... for the petitioners Mr. Madhu Sudan Sur, Mr. Manoranjan Mahata ...for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Ghoksadanga Police Station Case No. 54 of 2018 dated 15.04.2018 under Sections 341/324/326/307/109 of the Indian Penal Code.The State produces the case diary and says that all the petitioners have been named as being a part of a group which attacked the victim and caused his death.However, the statement against the other petitioners do not appear to be of any eye witness.In addition, the petitioners will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2","['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 324 and 506 (II) of IPC, 1872, in Crime No.338 of 2020, seeks anticipatory bail.The case of the prosecution is that on 13.05.2020 around 11 am, the defacto complainant while purchasing fish, the petitioner and his brother along with others enquired the defacto complainant about the discrepancy occurred near the pond and suddenly the petitioner's brother and others have abused and attacked the defacto complainant.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.Page 2 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.9262 of 2020The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant and the injured discharged from the hospital.Hence he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case and the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Mannargudi, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of Page 3 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.9262 of 2020 the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:Page 3 of 6[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.Page 5 of 6O.P.No.9262 of 2020 24.06.2020 Page 6 of 6http://www.judis.nic.inPage 6 of 6[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].Page 4 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.9262 of 2020 [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.24.06.2020 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order dh ToThe Judicial Magistrate - I, Mannargudi.The Inspector of Police, Thirumakottai Police Station, Thiruvarur, Mannargudi – 614 001 Tamil Nadu.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.9262 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J dh Crl.",['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
"W.P.(CRL) 882/2016 Page 1 of 5No child has been born out of the said wedlock.On a complaint instituted by respondent no.2 (wife), the subject FIR was registered against the petitioner (husband).The salient terms and conditions of the settlement as enshrined in the order dated 19th August, 2015 are as follows:-The parties shall get dissolved their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent without levelling allegations and counter allegations against each other in accordance with law before the Court of competent jurisdiction in Delhi.The respondent/husband shall pay a total sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lac Fifty Thousand only) as full and final settlement to the petitioner/wife qua all her claims/maintenance past, present and future arising out of the marriage with respondent which shall include her permanent alimony, istridhan, dowry articles, maintenance, etc.The settlement amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- shall be paid by the respondent/husband to the petitioner/wife by way of cash/DD in three installments in the following manner:-permanent alimony, dowry articles, maintenance past, present and future etc. against the petitioner.Counsel for the parties further state that pursuant to the said settlement before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts, Delhi, a sum of Rs. 7.50 lakh has already been received by respondent no.2 (wife).The balance sum of Rs. 5.00 lakhs has been brought to the Court in the shape of a Demand Draft dated 15.03.2016 bearing No. 133792 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, W.P.(CRL) 882/2016 Page 3 of 5 0741/Rohtak-Sonepat Road, Delhi, in favour of respondent no. 2(wife) herein (copy of the same has been placed on record).The latter acknowledges receipt thereof subject to its encashment.W.P.(CRL) 882/2016 Page 3 of 5In the present case, it is observed that pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties to the union, a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 5th March, 2016 has already been obtained by the parties from the concerned Family Court, Rohini Courts, Delhi.Ms. Garima Dalal, respondent No.2/complainant (wife), who is present in Court and has been identified by the Investigating Officer namely SI Mahendra Pratap, Police Station- Keshav Puram, Delhi, states that in pursuance to the settlement arrived at between the parties to the union, she is no longer keen to proceed with the subject FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom.W.P.(CRL) 882/2016 Page 5 of 5CRL.M.A. No. 4808/2016 (Exemption)Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.The application stands disposed of.W.P. (CRL.)The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No. 153/2013 under Sections 406/498A IPC registered at Police Station- Keshav Puram, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom.W.P.(CRL) 882/2016 Page 1 of 5(i) First installment of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lac Fifty W.P.(CRL) 882/2016 Page 2 of 5 Thousand only) at the time of recording statements in First Motion Petition u/s 13B(1) of Hindu Marriage Act which shall be filed by the parties jointly within a week from today.W.P.(CRL) 882/2016 Page 2 of 5(ii) Second installment of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac only) at the time of recording statements in Second Motion Petition u/s 13B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act which shall be filed by the parties jointly within one month after expiry of statutory period of six months after first motion.(iii) Third and last installment of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac only) shall be paid at the time of quashing of FIR No. 153/2013, PS Keshav Puram, U/s 498A/406 IPC State vs. Sandeep Kundu & Ors., which shall be moved within one month of Second Motion before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.In a nutshell, it has been agreed by and between the parties to the union that respondent no. 2 (wife) shall be paid a sum of Rs. 12.50 lakhs towards all her claims vis.a vis.Since the dispute between the parties which arose out of a matrimonial discord between petitioner and respondent no. 2 and resulted in the registration of the subject FIR, has been settled amicably before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts, Delhi without any undue influence, pressure or coercion; as the parties have obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent; and since the settlement between the parties is lawful, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the subject FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.Resultantly, the FIR No. 153/2013 under Sections 406/498A IPC W.P.(CRL) 882/2016 Page 4 of 5 registered at Police Station- Keshav Puram, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby set aside and quashed qua the petitioner subject to his depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with the Victims' Compensation Fund within a period of two weeks from today.A copy of the receipt thereof be provided to the Investigating Officer in the subject FIR.W.P.(CRL) 882/2016 Page 4 of 5It is also observed that as a consequence of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties to the marriage, a quietus will be applied to the following cases, in addition to the disposal of the present writ petition:-(i) CC No. 146/4/15 titled as Garima Dalal vs. Sandeep Kundu & Ors.under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act against the petitioner, pending in the Court of Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar, Ld. MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi.(ii) Bail Application No. 5955/RC titled State vs. Sandeep Kundu, pending in the Court of Sh.Kanwal Jeet Arora, Learned ASJ, Rohini Courts, Delhi.With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J MARCH 18, 2016 SD W.P.(CRL) 882/2016 Page 5 of 5","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The appellants in Crl.(a) P.Ws.1 and 2 are father and mother respectively and P.W.3 is the uncle of P.W.9 Ms.During the year 2002, P.W.9 was hardly aged at 8 years.She was studying in III Standard in a private school at Puducherry.She used to go to the school in a rickshaw in the morning and return in the evening in the same rickshaw.On 18.10.2002, as usual, P.W.9 had gone to the school.The school working time was over at 03.30 p.m. P.W.9 came out of the school to go to her house.It is alleged that at that time, one person, who was not already known to P.W.9 (identified as A1), came to the said place.He told P.W.9 that her parents had gone to Chengi to purchase a land and they had sent him to take her to Chengi.Believing his words, she went along with him.He took her to the place where he had parked a scooter.The 1st accused then took P.W.9 in the said scooter to a C.D. Shop at Puducherry.P.W.9 was asked to sit on the scooter itself.Two other persons were already lying in wait for the 1st accused (Those two persons have been later on identified as accused 2 and 3).The accused 2 and 3 took P.W.9 in the same scooter.The 3rd accused drove the scooter and the 2nd accused sat as a pillion rider and P.W.9 was made to sit in between them.They drove the scooter to Chengi Kottai.For some time, they made her to sit there.When she enquired, they said that her parents would come.Then, they took P.W.9 to a house of a relative of the 2nd accused.They kept P.W.9 in the said house.The 2nd accused went out of the house.Then, on the next day, in the afternoon, the 2nd accused returned to the said house where P.W.9 was kept.The 3rd accused also came.Again, they took P.W.9 in the very same scooter.They again took P.W.9 in the Scooter to Chengi.When the scooter was nearing a petrol bunk, policemen came in a TATA Sumo Car.The TATA Sumo Car hit the scooter.The accused 2 and 3 jumped out of the scooter and started running.P.W.9 fell down from the scooter.But, from the TATA Sumo Car, the grandfather of P.W.9 and others got down.The accused 2 and 3 could not be caught hold as they ran away from the scene of occurrence.(c) Reverting back to the family of P.W.9, since P.W.9 did not return from the school, P.W.1 and other family members went in search of her.They were told by someone near the vicinity of the school that P.W.9 was taken by an unidentifiable male in a scooter.Ex.P.12 is the First Information Report and Ex.P.1 is the complaint.He forwarded both the documents to court.(e) P.W.12 took up the case for investigation.He proceeded to the place of occurrence and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and recorded their statements.But, he could not succeed.P.W.12 during investigation found that the said telephone call was that of a public booth at No.27, Villupuram Road, Chengi.Therefore, suspecting that the child had been taken to Chengi, along with another Sub-Inspector of Police, he went to Chengi.While so, again P.W.1 received a phone call from Phone No.04145 222594 and again such demand was reiterated.During investigation, it turned out that it was from a public booth at Villupuram Main Road, Appambut, Chengi.The investigation revealed that it was again a public booth at No.162, Tiruvannamalai Road, Chengi.(f) P.W.12, when enquired the person who was present there, he identified the 1st accused who was staying somewhere near the said booth.P.W.12 arrested the 1st accused.He disclosed that P.W.9 had been kept by the accused 2 and 3 at Sathyamangalam.Therefore, along with the grandfather of P.W.9 and others, they went in search of her.She has further stated that at that time, an unknown person came to her, persuaded her and told her that her parents had gone to Chengi and he would take her to Chengi.Then, he took her in the Scooter (M.O.1) to a C.D.Shop in Puducherry.Now turning to the quantum of punishment, the learned Counsel for the appellants is not able to make out any mitigating circumstance in favour of the accused.The trauma of P.W.9 on account of the above crime committed would be everlasting.Having considered all the above, we are of the view that sentencing these three accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each for the offence under Section 365 read with 34 of IPC would meet the ends of justice.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in the following terms:A.No.594 of 2015 are the accused 1 and 2 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.64 of 2016 is the 3rd accused in S.C.No.30 of 2003 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Puducherry.They stood charged for offence under Section 364-A read with 34 of IPC.By judgment dated 09.09.2015, the trial court convicted all the three accused under the said charge and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.Challenging the same, the appellants are before this Court with these appeals.On seeing them, P.W.9 returned.Thus, P.W.9 was rescued.Apprehending that it was a kidnapping, P.W.1 went to Pondicherry Police Station on 18.10.2002 and made a complaint at 08.00 p.m.(d) P.W.12, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.319 of 2002 under Section 363 of IPC.They found the accused 2 and 3 moving in the scooter bearing Registration No. PY-01 A 0443 along with the child.When P.W.12 with his vehicle tried to intercept the accused 2 and 3, they abandoned the scooter along with the child and ran away.P.W.12 then examined P.W.9 and recorded her statement.On 20.10.2002, P.W.12 recovered a compact disc in which the telephone calls and conversations had been recorded and he forwarded the 1st accused to court for judicial remand.Then, he altered the case into one under Section 364-A read with 34 of IPC against all the three accused.Then, he arrested the other accused and forwarded them to court.The investigation was continued by P.W.13 who laid charge sheet against the accused.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry, by his order dated 09.04.2003 committed the said case to the Courts of Sessions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. for trial.The case was made over to the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Puducherry on 11.04.2003 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry for trial.Then, on administrative grounds, the Chief Judge, Puducherry, by order dated 28.11.2006, withdrew the said case from the file of the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Puducherry and transferred the same to the II Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Puducherry for trial.Accordingly, the original records of the case were sent from the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Puducherry to the II Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Puducherry.But the properties (material objects) collected during investigation and submitted to the learned Magistrate were not sent to the trial court.There were number of correspondences between the II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry, the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Puducherry and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry in this regard wherein the trial court wanted the said properties to be sent to the trial court so as to commence the trial.But the properties were never traced out.The learned Judge recorded that since for more than 11 years, the case was pending without any progress in the trial and since the accused was entitled for speedy trial as a fundamental right, he decided to proceed with the case, even in the absence of the production of the case properties.Accordingly, the trial was commenced on 14.11.2014 and the judgment was pronounced on 09.09.2015, convicting all the 3 accused under Section 364-A read with 34 of IPC.During the course of trial, in order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as we have already pointed out, 13 witnesses were examined and 18 documents and 1 material object, namely, the Scooter bearing registration No.PY 01 A 0443 were marked .Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the father of the victim girl.He has stated that since the occurrence was 12 years before, he had forgotten everything about the case.Thus, he did not speak any fact in favour of the prosecution.He only admitted the complaint, namely, Ex.P.1 and his statement recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. vide Ex.Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 is of no use for the prosecution in any manner.P.W.2 is the mother of the victim girl.She has stated that when P.W.9 was doing 3rd standard, the rickshaw puller who used to take P.W.9 to the school, came and told that one person had taken her.He has further stated that thereafter, P.W.1 went to the police station and made a complaint.Thus, his evidence is also of no use to the case of the prosecution.P.W.4 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.As a matter of fact, he was examined to speak about the telephone calls made by the accused 2 and 3 from a STD Booth.P.W.5 has also turned hostile.She was also examined to speak about the fact that the accused 2 and 3 spoke from a telephone booth on the day of occurrence.P.W.6 has also turned hostile.He was also examined to speak about the accused 2 and 3, who according to him, they came in a scooter along with the child and made a phone call.P.W.7 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.8 is the sister--in-law of the 2nd accused.She has also turned hostile and she has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.9 victim girl has stated that in the usual course, she went to the school on 18.10.2002 and at 03.30 p.m. after the school was over, when she came out of the school, the 1st accused took her in a scooter by deceiving her that he was taking her to Chengi where her parents had gone to purchase a land.She has further stated that he took her to a CD shop in Puducherry from where she was taken in M.O.1 Scooter by the accused 2 and 3 to Chengi.She has narrated the entire events in a vivid manner as we already stated.She has further stated that she was kept in the house of one woman at Chengi Fort and on the next day, when they took her in the same scooter to Chengi, police came and intercepted and rescued her.P.W.10 is the Inspector of Police at Chengi Police Station.He has further stated that when the accused 2 and 3 were found moving in M.O.1 Scooter, they were intercepted by the police and at that time, they have started running away, abandoning the scooter and the child.P.W.11, the then Judicial Magistrate No.II, Puducherry, has spoken about the Test Identification Parade conducted.According to him, P.W.9-Sangavi identified all the three accused during Test Identification Parade.P.W.12 has spoken about the investigation done and P.W.13 has spoken about the further investigation and his final report.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court.We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.The learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that in this case, except the evidence of P.W.8, there is no other evidence to prove the charges.For these reasons, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the appellants are entitled for acquittal.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Puducherry, would vehemently oppose this appeal.He would submit that though it is true that the family members of P.W.1 and others have turned hostile, the evidence of P.W.9 would be suffice to sustain the conviction.He would further submit that during the Test Identification Parade also, P.W.9 correctly identified all the three accused.Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants deserve to be confirmed.We have considered the above submissions.But, unfortunately, P.W.1 could not support the case of the prosecution, as according to him, he had forgotten the events, which took place 12 years before.Thus, the allegation that all these accused demanded ransom from P.W.1 for releasing the kidnapped P.W.9 has not been proved.P.W.9 has stated that as usual, she went to the school in the morning on 18.10.2002 and after the school time was over at 03.30 p.m., she came out of the school.Thus, P.W.9 has identified the 1st accused as the said person who took her from the school to the CD Shop.She has identified the 1st accused in the Test Identification Parade as well as during the trial also.We do not find any reason to reject the said identification made by P.W.9 on both occasions.According to the further evidence of P.W.9, in the C.D.Shop, two other persons were already lying in wait.Those two persons took her in the very same scooter to Chengi Kottai.She has identified the accused 2 and 3 as those two persons who took her to Chengi Kottai.Thus, the accused 2 and 3 have also been identified during Test Identification Parade and during the trial of the case.P.W.9 has further stated that she was taken to Chengi where they made her to wait for some time and took her to a house and they kept her there during night.P.W.9 was waiting for the parents to come.One of the accused gave a skirt and told her that it was given by her parents.The next day, the woman in the house shouted at the 2nd accused.Then, in the evening, they took again P.W.9 in the same scooter.It was only, at that time, the scooter was intercepted by the police, namely, P.Ws.10 and 12 and the girl was secured.This fact has been spoken by P.Ws.10 and 12 also.Thus, she was kidnapped and illegally confined by them.The learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that P.W.9's evidence cannot be believed as there are discrepancies.In this regard, we have to state that at the time when she was kidnapped, she was hardly aged at 8 years.After the arrest of the accused, the Test Identification Parade was conducted on 30.10.2002, at the earliest point of time.In that Test Identification Parade, P.W.9, correctly identified all the three accused as culprits.There is no evidence even to remotely infer that before 30.10.2002, P.W.9 would have been tutored to identify these three accused as the culprits.P.W.9 has got no enmity against the accused.After all, she was a child.Then, it was withdrawn by the Chief Judge, Puducherry, on 28.11.2006 and transferred to the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Puducherry, for disposal.Thus, it was pending on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge from 28.11.2006 onwards.Though the charges in this case were framed as early as on 28.07.2005, it was not known as to why it had taken about 11 years for the completion of the trial.This disturbed our mind.Therefore, we called for remarks from the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Puducherry, as to why there occurred such undue delay of 11 years for the disposal of the case.The learned II Additional Sessions Judge by Letter No.193/Jud/II ADJ/2016 dated 05.07.2016 has submitted to this Court that since the case properties were not received by the trial court for more than 9 years either from the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry or from the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Puducherry, the trial could not be commenced on time.The learned Judge has further stated that the properties have not been traced out so far.As a result, the accused have escaped from the punishment for the offence under Section 364-A of IPC.The Registry is, therefore, directed to hold a thorough enquiry into the above episode as to how the valuable property in a sensational case has disappeared and to take appropriate action.The Inspector of Police, Grand Bazaar Police Station, Puducherry.The II Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Puducherry.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.S.NAGAMUTHU,J.","['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Trial Court, are as under:The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.02.2009 on receipt of DD no. 68B, SI Saheb Singh along with HC Rajesh reached at the spot i.e. Enkey India office, near KDR factory, GTK Road, Jahangirpuri where dead body of a lady was lying in a pool of blood and blood was also coming out from the head of that lady.There were four injury marks on the head and both cheeks of the dead body.Since last one year, complainant's wife was working at Kohinoor Beauty Parlour at B-39, West Patel Nagar, Delhi on 35 per cent profit basis and Sanjeev Kumar was owner of the said beauty parlour.Due to some dispute over money, complainant's wife was not going to the said Beauty Parlour from the last ten days and Sanjeev Kumar had telephoned to call his wife but his wife did not go there.On 22-02- 2009 at about 10 pm, Sanjeev Kumar came to the house of complainant in black colour Santro car bearing no. DL3C AQ-7008 and asked them to talk.Complainant sit near the driver seat while his wife Pinki and daughter sit on the back seat of Sanjeev Kumar's car.Sanjeev Kumar drove the car towards Jahangirpuri Metro Station and then turned it towards GTK Depot and when the car reached near KDR factory, in front of factory no. B-3, Enky India office, Sanjeev stopped the car.Sanjeev Kumar asked complainant and his wife Pinki to get down from the car and to go back to their house.As soon as complainant and his wife Pinki got down from the car, Sanjeev Kumar fired two-three times from his pistol on Pinki due to Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 2 of 19 which she along with her daughter fell down on the road.Complainant got perturbed.On hearing the sound of firing, many people gathered at the spot.Sanjeev Kumar ran towards GTK Depot, By- pass in his car.Complainant lifted his daughter in his lap.Someone dialled to PCR.During investigation, Crime Team inspected the spot and photographs were taken.Blood sample, earth control, three empty cartridges were lifted from the spot and taken into police possession.The dead body was shifted to mortuary.The IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant and recorded statement of witnesses.During investigation, it was revealed that Santro car bearing no. DL3C- AQ-7008, in which Sanjeev Mahajan ran from the spot, was standing at Outer Ring Road, near Income Tax Colony.It was further revealed that said car was registered in the name of Ajay Kumar r/o Flat no. D-45, Gujaranwala Apartments, J-Block, Vikaspuri, Delhi.Ajay Kumar disclosed that after getting financed, he had given the said car to Sanjeev Mahajan.Sanjeev Mahajan was not found despite search.Postmortem was got conducted on the dead body of deceased Pinki from BJRM hospital mortuary.The case property was deposited in the malkhana.The testimony of PW1 Surenderjeet Singh is further corroborated from the statement of PW13 Surender Kumar Mishra, a Security Guard in KDR factory that he heard the noise of the firings and one person shouting ""bachao-bachao"" and on opening the gate of the factory, he saw the deceased lying on the ground few steps away from the gate with blood oozing from her mouth after which, he informed the Police Control Room.During cross examination, PW13 stated that shouts of Bachao Bachao was in a gents voice which would also establish that PW1 was present at the spot and escaped after the gun shots.During investigation, PW 5 SI M.D. Meena, who was part of the crime team stated that when he reached the place of incident he saw a body of a lady lying with blood scattered at the spot and Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 13 of 19 having bullet mark injuries on both sides of head ear and check and three empty shells with mark ""KF 765"" were lying there.As per the said register, at serial No. 914 Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sohan Lal, V& PO Bhikwind was issued license of 12 bore double barrel gun vide serial No. 14460 by the order of District Magistrate Amritsar.PW25 further stated that as per the said entry, the holder of the license can carry his weapon all over India and he proved relevant entry as Ex. PW25/A. PW25 also stated that aforesaid person was also issued one Addl.PW28 Sh.V. R. Anand, Asstt.Director, Ballistic Division, FSL, Rohini, Delhi stated in his examination in chief that on 25.08.2009 one sealed parcel was received in his office by messenger HC Joginder from P.S. Jahangirpuri and on 11.02.2011, one another sealed parcel was received through messenger Const.Rajender Singh.PW28 stated that all the seals on the parcel were intact and on opening the parcel No. 1, three 7.654 mm cartridges marked as EC-1 to EC-3 were taken out and on opening the second parcel, Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 14 of 19 one bullet and one deformed bullet marked as EB-1 & EB-2 respectively were taken out.PW28 examined the said exhibits and cartridges EC-1 to EC-3 were fired empty cartridges and bullets EB-1 & EB-2 corresponded to the bullet of 7.65 mm cartridges.PW28 further stated that individual characteristic of firing pin marks and breech face marks present on EC-1 to EC-3 and TC-1 to TC-5 in case FIR No. 104/09, P.S. Jahangirpur (FSL NO. 10/F- 5254) were compared under comparison microscope and were found identical.PW28 also stated that mark EC-1 to EC-3 were fired through the pistol 7.65 mm calibre marked Ex. F-1 in case FIR No. 83/09, P.S. Crime Branch (FSL No. 2009/F-2386) deposied in case FIR No. 104/09, P.S. Jahangirpuri (FSL No. 10/F- 5254).PW28 further stated that individual characteristic of rifling marks present on bullet marked as EB-1 and TB-5 in case FIR No. 104/09, P.S. Jahangirpuri (FSL NO. 10-F-5254) were compared under comparison microscope and were found identical.PW28 stated that EB-1 was fired through the pistol 7.65 mm calibre marked Ex.F-1 in case FIR No. 83/09, P.S. Crime Branch (FSL No. 2009/F-2386) deposited in case FIR NO. 104/09, P.S. Jahangirpuri (FSL No. 10/F-5254).PW28 also stated that individual characteristic of rifling marks present on bullet marked as EB-2 were insufficient for comparison and opinion whether it was fired through the pistol 7.65 mm calibre marked Ex.F-1 in case FIR No. 83/09, P.S. Crime Branch (FSL No. 2009/F-2386) deposited in case FIR No. 104/09, P.S. Jahangirpuri (FSL No. 10/F-5254).After Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 15 of 19 examination, report running into 3 pages Ex.PW28/A was prepared in his office on his dictation.PW28 further stated that on 29.11.2010, one sealed parcel was also received in his office and seals on the parcel were intact.Present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2013 and order of sentence dated 24.05.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 217/09 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 27/54/59 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 6,000/- and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offences under Section 27/54/59 of Arms Act with fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 1 of 19Due to bullet injury in the head, the complainant's wife Pinki died on the spot.During investigation, Inspector J. K. Sharma conducted investigation from the driver of Sanjeev mahajan namely Maninder Singh, partner of Kohinoor Beauty Parlour namely Karan Singh and some other people but he could not be found.The scaled site plan was got prepared from draftsman.In the meanwhile, information was received that wanted accused Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 3 of 19 Sanjeev Mahajan was arrested in case FIR no. 83/09 u/s 25 Arms Act by the Crime Branch SOS and the pistol by which he fired bullet at Pinki, was also recovered from him.On 05.06.2009, accused Sanjeev Mahajan was arrested from Patiala House Court and his one day PC remand was taken from the court.Accused Sanjeev Mahajan gave disclosure statement that due to financial disputes with Pinki, he fired at her from his licensed pistol whose license had expired.Accused led the police to the place of incident and the place where he left the Santro car.Accused disclosed that he threw the cloths in the water of Haridwar which he wore on that day of the incident.Exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini.After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed against the accused Sanjeev Mahajan u/s 302 IPC and 27/54/59 Arms Act.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 3 of 19After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to Sessions Court.Charge under Section 302 IPC and 27/54/59 Arms Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.""The prosecution, in the course of the trial, relied upon the testimonies of 35 witnesses and also placed on record several exhibits whereas one witness has been examined by the accused in his defence.Statement of accused was recorded under Section 323 of Code of Criminal Procedure.The learned Trial Court, after scrutiny of the evidence, found that prosecution had been able to prove the case against the appellant and, accordingly convicted him for the offences and imposed the sentence as has been stated hereinabove.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 4 of 19While arguing the appeal, Ms. Aishwarya Rao, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court are wrong and illegal as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by filling in lacunas in the investigation.Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the case of the prosecution rests only on the sole testimony of PW1 Surenderjeet Singh, whose presence at the spot is highly suspicious; that there are inconsistencies and material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses; that there are many loopholes in the investigation; that the santro car allegedly used by the appellant was identified by PW1 Surenderjeet Singh within 2 hours of the incident whereas the said car was seized by the officials of Police Station Maurya Enclave on 23.02.2009; that the alleged FIR is ante-dated and ante-timed; that prosecution has failed to bring on record the call record of the phone used for informing the police about the alleged incident; that the informer i.e. PW13 Surender Kumar Mishra was not cited as a witness to the memos and recoveries; that the weapon of offence i.e. Pistol could not be identified by PW1 Surenderjeet Singh, who is the sole eye witness of the incidence; that the bullets allegedly recovered from the body of the deceased were not produced before the learned Trial Court and were not exhibited and in this manner, the weapon of offence does not get connected with the offence; that the investigating agency has manipulated the case and the investigation Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 5 of 19 has not been conducted properly; that PW8 Maninder Singh and PW13 Surender Kumar Mishra are planted witnesses to implicate the appellant falsely in the present case.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 5 of 19On the other hand, Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, learned counsel for the State opposed the appeal filed by the appellant and argued that it is a case of direct evidence and the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt; that PW1 Surenderjeet Singh, husband of the deceased, being the eyewitness, saw the appellant firing three rounds of bullets at his wife.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 6 of 19 become witness to the criminal proceedings or investigations and hence there are no public eye witnesses to the alleged crime and appellant cannot take benefit of faulty/defective investigation.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 6 of 19We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and considered their rival submissions.In order to deal with the contentions of both the parties, it would be appropriate to examine the testimony of the material witnesses and documents.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated by the prosecution on the testimony of sole eye witness of the alleged occurrence is PW1 Surenderjeet Singh, who is husband of the deceased and since he is a highly interested witness, therefore, no reliance should have been placed on his statement.In a case, where conviction is based on the sole testimony of an eye witness, it becomes necessary to evaluate the truthfulness and reliability of the said witness.In the present case also, it needs to be examined whether the testimony of PW1 Surenderjeet Singh, who is the single witness to the incident can be relied upon.PW1 Surenderjeet Singh, deposed :""I am working as an electrician in A Block Market, Jahangir Puri.Accused Sanjeev Mahajan, now present in the court, was running a beauty parlour by the name Kohinoor Beauty Parlour at West Patel Nagar.My wife was working in the beauty parlour for the last 1-1 years before her death.She was working with accused on a 35% profit in the partnership.About 10-15 days before her murder, Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 7 of 19 she was not going to the parlour owing to the reason that our daughter was unwell.Accused made a telephone call to her to join her work in the parlour but my wife refused.He took us in the car on the pretext that he wanted to talk to us.Our daughter was also with us.I was sitting besides the driver seat in the car while my wife and daughter were sitting on the rear seat.The accused took the car to Jahangir Puri and from there, to KDR factory at G.T. Road.Accused stopped the car near the KDR factory and asked us to get down and go back to our house.When we got down from the car, accused Sanjeev Mahajan also got down and fired on my wife Pinki thrice from his pistol.My wife along with the child fell down and started bleeding and died at the spot.Accused then fled away towards by-pass with his car.I lifted my daughter.I got scared and rushed towards to the house of my in-laws at I Block, Jahangir Puri which was nearby to the spot.But, my in-laws were not present at the house and therefore I telephonically informed my father in law and then again came back at the spot.The PCR van had reached at the spot.Police had recorded my statement Exbt.PW-1/A which bears my signatures at point A. After about one and a half hour - two hours, the police officials asked me to indentify one car standing near Sunday bazaar, Pitam Pura.I went there and identified the car.Police enquired the name of the owner of the car.The body of my wife was rushed to BJRM Hospital for post-mortem.The body after post-mortem was handed over to me vide receipt Exbt.PW-1/B. My statement was recorded by the police regarding the identification body of my deceased wife which is Exbt.PW-1/C. I had shown the place of occurrence to the police.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 8 of 19 identify the pistol if shown but can identify the car...""Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 7 of 19PW6 SI Sahib Singh deposed that the spot was inspected by crime team and three empty shells were found at the spot were lifted and seized vide memo Ex.PW6/D. PW23 SI Ravinder had proved the arrest of appellant and the recovery of one loaded pistol with 6 live cartridges and a Arms Licence with bullets having marking ""KF 765"".Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 13 of 19On opening the parcel, one pistol 7.65 mm calibre bearing No. RP-129479, one test fire cartridge case and five 7.65 mm cartridges were taken out.These exhibits were already marked in case FIR No. 83/09, P.S. Crime Branch (FSL 2009/F-2386) as F-1 and A-1 to A-6 respectively.PW28 examined the exhibits and two 7.65 mm cartridges from laboratory stock were test fired through the pistol marked Ex.PW28 also stated that the said report Ex.PW28/B was correct and may be read as part of his evidence.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 14 of 19Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 15 of 19The parcels received in the FSL were intact.Individual characteristic of refilling marks present on bullet as stated above were found identical.PW28 proved his report as correct.PW17 Dr. K. Goel proved the post-mortem (Ex. PW17/A) on the body of the deceased which was referred by PW34 Inspector J.K. Sharma with alleged history of gunshot injuries.PW17 Dr. K. Goel opined that the injuries were antemortem in nature and were Crl.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 16 of 19 result of firearm which caused cranio-cerebral injuries which are sufficient in the ordinary course.Appeal No. 1349/2014 Page 16 of 19PW27 Sh.V. Shankaranarayanan proved his report Ex.PW27/A (FSL Report) and Ex.PW27/B (Serological Report) on the basis of Ex. 1, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d (clothes of the deceased) and Ex. 5 (metallic pieces).The ocular testimony of PW1 Surenderjeet Singh stands corroborated with the medical evidence led by the prosecution through PW17 Dr. K. Goel as well as scientific evidence led through PW27 Sh.V. Shankarnarayanan that appellant had committed murder by firing bullets from his licensed pistol on deceased as a result of which she died on the spot.The bullets recovered were compared and found to be identical.",['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE Sha Digitally signed by SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 28/07/2018 10:43:06Heard on admission.Learned Special Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State; as such, no further notice is required.Let record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Heard on I.A. No.12462/2018 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of appellant Raman Singh Uikey.Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of suspension of recovery of fine amount (I.A.No.12463/2018).Consequently, I.A.No.12463/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.A perusal of the impugned judgment dated 28.6.2018 passed in Special Criminal Case No.300048/2008 by the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Seoni reveals that appellant Raman Singh Uikey has been convicted and sentenced as hereunder:Digitally signed by SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 28/07/2018 10:43:06 471 I.P.C. R.I. for 2 3 Rs.30,000/- In default CRA-5459-2018 of years fine R.I. For Deposited 6 months 3 Atyavashya R.I. for six Rs.30,000/- In default of k Vastu months fine R.I. For 7 Adhiniyam Deposited 6 months 1955 13(1) Corruption R.I. for 3 Rs.30,000/- In default of d/13(2) And years fine R.I. For Prevention Deposited 6 months Act 1988 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the quantum of sentence imposed upon the appellant, in the opinion of this Court, the substantive jail sentence of the appellant deserves to be suspended and he be released on bail.Consequently, I.A. No.12462/2018 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of appellant Raman Singh Uikey, is allowed.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19-12-2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall stands suspended and he shall be released on bail.",['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
"This criminal revision is directed against the order dated sh 10.02.2017 passed by the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhnadon, District- Seoni in Sessions Trial No.11/2017 whereby, the e ad charges under Sections 341, 294, 307 read with Section 34 and 506-B of the IPC were framed against the four accused persons namely Naresh Kumar, Atul Jain, Avdesh and Paras.Pr a Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the charges did hy bear the names of the accused; therefore, a direction be made to the ad trial Court to rectify the error and mention the name of the accused in the charge framed against that particular accused.He further prays for M disposal of this criminal revision with liberty to raise all the grounds of taken by the petitioners, herein before the trial Court at appropriate stage.rt Consequently, the trial Court is directed to rectify the error and ou mention the names of each of the accused in the charge framed against C him.The petitioners shall be free to raise all the grounds taken by the h ig petitioners, herein before the trial Court at appropriate stage.H This criminal revision is accordingly disposed of.Date: 2018.04.11 21:59:09",['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The applicants have challenged the first information report 1/4 ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 02:03:30 ::: Cri.Appln.5179.13.odtbearing Crime No. 57/2013 registered against them for the offence punishable under Section 420, 468, 471, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The applicant No. 1 is Talathi and Applicant No. 2 is Circle Inspector.The respondent No. 3 - complainant, Gangaram filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umari under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the present applicants and other accused persons for the offences as referred above.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 02:03:30 :::Complainant respondent No. 3 alleged that the land Gat No. 284 admeasuring 55 R was purchased in his wife's name i.e. accused No. 2 and the accused No. 1 - Balaji purchased the same from his wife.It is further alleged that the complainant had purchased this land after selling his ancestral land.His wife - accused No. 2, without his consent, sold the same in favour of the accused No. 1 under the sale deed dated 12.12.2012 admeasuring 55 R. It is further alleged that the present applicants being Talathi and Circle Inspector assisted the other accused person in taking mutation entry in favour of the accused No. 1 - Balaji.Accused Nos. 3 and 4 namely Sambhaji Bhutale and Datta Jadhav are the witnesses on the registered sale deed.The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umari, directed the concerned police to investigate into the matter, upon which the offence came to be registered as referred above.We have heard the arguments of Mr. Shinde learned counsel for the applicants, Mrs. V. S. Chaudhary, learned APP for Respondent - State 2/4 ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 02:03:30 ::: Cri.Appln.5179.13.odtand Mr. Sonkawade for the Respondent No. 3 and also perused the copies of the document placed on record, particularly the copy of the sale deed dated 25.02.1997 from which it appears that the accused No. 2 - Saraswati i.e. wife of the complainant, purchased the land from Gat No.284 under registered sale deed.Further on perusal of the sale deed dated 12.12.2012, it appears that the accused No. 2 sold 55 R land in favour of the accused No. 1 Balaji under registered sale deed.Accordingly, the mutation entry No. 935 is taken and certified by the present applicants.So from the record apparently, it is seen that the accused No. 2 is the absolute owner of the said land and from the recital of the sale deed dated 12.12.2012, it appears that she executed the sale deed in favour of the accused No. 1 and another accused Sambhaji and Datta were the witnesses on the sale deed.After the sale deed the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 follow the provision of Section 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and after following due process of law the mutation entry was certified in favour of the accused No.1 Balaji.Furthermore, the applicants are the public servants and prior permission is required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not obtained.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 02:03:30 :::The act of the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 appears in their official capacity.Therefore, even considering these allegations in the complaint/FIR, it appears that there are 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 02:03:30 ::: Cri.Appln.5179.13.odtno allegations / ground to constitute the offence alleged against the applicants.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 02:03:30 :::In view of the above, it appears that the first information report lodged against the applicants is without any basis.Hence the following order :O R D E Ra) The application is allowed ;c) The fees of the learned counsel appointed for the respondent No. 3 is quantified as Rs.3000/- to be paid through High Court, Legal Services Authority;d) Rule is made absolute in those terms;e) Application is disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2018 02:03:30 :::","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(01/08/2019) By a common order, all the three appeals shall be decided as they arise out of the same incident.Since, Ghanshyam and Preetam Dhakad were absconding and were arrested at a later stage, therefore, they have been convicted by separate judgments and sentences.These Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.All the appellants have been convicted for the following offences :3 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017The prosecution story in short is that on 7-11-2013, the complainant Gendi bai lodged a report that she was all alone and was sleeping in the porch of her house.At about 2 A.M. in the night, four persons came there and gagged her mouth by tying a cloth and took out her silver Kade, Silver Khangwari, Gold Tops, Gold ring and also took away Rs. 6000/-.Since the tops were pulled from her ears, therefore, her pinna got injured.The appellant Purshottam assaulted on her face, therefore, her teeth have broken.On this report, the police registered crime No. 280/2013 for offence under Sections 394,452,325 of I.P.C.The police arrested the appellant Purshottam, Ghanshyam, Preetam as well as one Laxminarayan and recovered one gold tops from the possession of the appellant Purshottam, Rs. 6000 from Laxminarayan, Silver Khangwari from Ghanshyam and two silver Kade from Preetam.The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined Gendibai (P.W.1), Balram (P.W.2), Govind Prasad Sharma (P.W.3), Dr. A.P. Singh (P.W.4), Madanlal (P.W.5), Sunil Verma (P.W.6), Dr. Vinod Chourasia (P.W.7), Hazarilal (P.W.8), Ramcharan (P.W.9), and Santosh Bhargava 4 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017 (P.W.10).The appellants didnot examine any witness in their defence.Challenging the conviction and sentence recorded by the Court below, the Counsel for the appellant Purshottam submitted that although in the F.I.R., the name of the appellant was mentioned but in the Test Identification Parade, the complainant Gendibai (P.W.1) could not identify the appellant Purshottam, although again in dock identification, She has identified the appellant Purshottam, thus identification is doubtful.She has stated that the appellants came inside the house and broke her teeth.Her mouth was gagged by tying a cloth.The tops were pulled from her ear.Her hands were tied.Her box was broken and silver Kade, silver Khangwari, gold tops and a cash of Rs. 7000 was taken away.After the miscreants left the house, the complainant started screaming as a result of which her neighbour Madan came who was followed by Balram and Jairam.They went to police outpost at about 3-4 A.M. She was sent for medical examination.The spot map Ex. P.2 was prepared.She had identified Purshottam in jail and had also identified Ghanshyam in jail.In cross examination she stated that she had lost her husband about 15 years back.Prior to incident, her eye vision was good, but after the cloth was tied, her eye vision has dropped.She further admitted that She does not have any watch but had narrated 6 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017 the time as per her assessment.She denied that the name of Purshottam was informed by the neighbours.On her own, this witness said that Purshottam is her Samadhi.She admitted that Madan untied the cloth from her mouth.She further admitted that when she went to police outpost, the appellant Purshottam and Ghanshyam were shown by the police.The stolen articles were also shown in the outpost Jhagar.She further admitted that identification memo Ex. P.3 was got signed by Daroga.6 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017Balram (P.W.2) has stated that he was informed by Madan on phone and when he went to the house of the complainant who is the mother, he found that She was tied and her teeth were broken and ear pinnas were teared and the assailants had taken away gold tops, silver Khangwari, Silver Kade, and about Rs. 6000/-.The complainant had informed that Purshottam and Laxminarayan were amongst the assailants.In cross examination, this witness denied the suggestion that some unknown persons had committed the offence.Govind Prasad Sharma (P.W3) had recorded the F.I.R. on the basis of report which was brought by constable Damodar from Police outpost Jhagar.Dr. A.P. Singh (P.W.4) had examined the complainant Gendibai and found empty socket of left and right Lateral Inciser and left central Inciser were filled with blood cot and was exfoliated due to injury.Madan (P.W.5) has also supported the prosecution story and stated 7 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017 that after hearing the screaming of the complainant Gendibai (P.W.1), he went to the spot and found that the ears of Gendibai were injured and her teeth were broken and hands were tied and one towel and rope was tied around her neck.He also informed Balram, the son of the complainant.Gendibai had disclosed the name of the appellant Purshottam and Laxminarayan.The police after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet against four persons for offence under Sections 394,452 and 325 of I.P.C..The Trial Court by order dated 23-1-2014 framed charges under Sections 452,394 read with Section 397 of I.P.C.4 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017The accused statement of Purshottam was recorded on the same day.The Trial Court by judgment dated 27-3-2015 convicted the appellant Purshottam, by judgment dated 29-7-2017 convicted the appellant Preetam Dhakad and by judgment dated 12-5-2015 convicted the appellant Ghanshyam for the above mentioned offences.Thereafter they went to Police outpost and lodged the F.I.R. This witness turned hostile against the appellant Ghanshyam and Preetam and accordingly he was declared hostile.7 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017Sunil Verma (P.W.6) had conducted the Test Identification Parade of the accused persons, and stated that the complainant had identified Laxminarayan only.Dr. Vinod Chourasia, (P.W.7) had medically examined the complainant and found the following injuries :""1. Lacerated wound, Cm.X Cm.X deep upto muscular on left ear labret.Lacerated wound, Cm. X CM.X deep upto muscular on right ear labret.Abrasion, Cm.X Cm., on frontal part of neck.Abrasion, Cm.X Cm., on left forearm.Diffused swelling, 4 X 3 CM., on left hand.Abrasion, Cm.X Cm., on right hand.""8 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017Appellants Preetam Dhakad and GhanshyamThese appellants were put for Identification, and the complainant in the Test Identification Parade, Ex. P. 4, could not identify these appellants.Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has proved the seizure of Silver Khangwari and Silver Kade from the possession of Ghanshyam and Preetam Dhakad 9 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017 respectively.9 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017Now the pivotal question for determination is that whether the prosecution has established the identification of these articles.The complainant Gendibai (P.W.1), has stated that the articles were shown by Daroga in the Police Station and identification memo Ex. P.3 was prepared, whereas according to the prosecution case, the test identification parade for identification of seized articles was conducted by Ramcharan, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sujakhedi (P.W. 9).Ramcharan (P.W. 9) has not supported the prosecution case, and has stated that he was called in Police Outpost Jhagar, where the articles were handed over to the complainant by police and identification memo, Ex. P.3 was prepared by the police in the police station itself and his signatures were obtained.Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish that the articles seized from the possession of the appellants Ghanshyam and Preetam were that of the complainant Gendi bai (P.W.1).There is no other evidence against the appellants Ghanshyam and Preetam.10 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017 P.4, but again identified the appellant Purshottam in the dock.But the prosecution has failed to prove the identification of the Gold Tops for the reasons already mentioned while considering 23 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017 the case of appellants Ghanshyam and Preetam Dhakad.Accordingly, it is held that although Gold Tops were seized from the possession of appellant Purshottam, but since, its identification could not be established by the prosecution, therefore, the seizure of gold tops loses its importance.However, in view of the fact that Purshottam was specifically named by the complainant Gendibai (P.W.1) in the F.I.R., Ex. P.1 which was lodged within a period of 4 hours, because the incident took place at about 3 A.M. in the night and the F.I.R. was lodged at 7:00 A.M., as well as that he was identified by the complainant in the Court, coupled with the fact that the ocular evidence of complainant Gendi bai (P.W.1) is supported by medical evidence, Ex. P.6 and P.8, it is held that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant Purshottam beyond reasonable doubt.The Trial Court has convicted the appellant Purshottam for offence under Section 394/397 of I.P.C. Since, the complainant Gendibai (P.W.1) had suffered dismemberment of her teeth, therefore, the conviction of the appellant Purshottam for offence under Section 397 of I.P.C. is affirmed.Accordingly, the appellant Purshottam is held guilty of committing offence under Section 452 and 397 of I.P.C.So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the minimum sentence for offence under Section 397 of I.P.C. is seven years.In default, the appellant Purshottam shall undergo the rigorous imprisonment of 6 months.The appellant Purshottam is on bail.His bail bonds are hereby cancelled.He is directed to immediately surrender before the Trial Court for undergoing the remaining jail sentence.The appellant Preetam Dhakad is on bail.His bail bonds are discharged.The appellant Ghanshyam is in jail.He be released if not required in any other case.Accordingly, the judgment and sentence judgment and sentence dated 27-3-2015 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in S.T. No. 26/2014 is hereby affirmed with above mentioned modifications.The judgment and sentence dated 29-7-2017 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in S.T. No. 26/2014 and dated 12-5- 2015 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in S.T. No. 26/2014 are hereby set aside.The appeal filed by appellant Ghanshyam and Preetam Dhakad are allowed and appeal filed by appellant Purshottam is partially allowed.","['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The appeals are directed against the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated 08.09.2010 in S.C.No.218 of 2010 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (4th Fast Track Court) Chennai wherein the 1st appellant / A1 was found guilty for offence under Section 397 of I.P.C., and the 2nd appellant / A2 was found guilty for offence under Section 394 r/w. 397 of I.P.C., and were sentenced to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay fine to undergo 3 years Simple Imprisonment.The case of the prosecution is that the appellants/accused with an intention to snatch/rob the chain of a woman who was going alone, on 14.05.2009 at 3.00 p.m, had been waiting in Perambur Besat Road, Scout Camp Office and in pursuance of the same, taking advantage that PW1 one Nithyakalyani was walking alone, the first appellant/A1 waylaid and threatened her with a knife and snatched the gold chain, weighing 5 sovereigns and ran away from the scene of occurrence and got on to the bike with which the 2nd appellant/A2 was waiting and both of them escaped from there.After completion of investigation, the respondent had filed a final report before the learned Magistrate for offences under Section 394 read with 397 of I.P.C. On appearance of the appellants/Accused, they were furnished with the copies of the documents under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate finding that the case was exclusively triable by the Court of sessions committed the case to the Principal Sessions Judge,http://www.judis.nic.inChennai.The Principal Sessions Judge after taking the case on file made over the 3 case to the trial Judge.On appearance of the accused, the Trial Judge framed charges against the first accused/A1 for offence under Section 397 of I.P.C. and against the second accused/A2 for the offence under Section 394 r/w. 397 of I.P.C.. When the appellants / Accused were questioned, they denied the charges and sought to be tried.On the side of the prosecution, PWs1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P12 and MOs.1 to 2 were marked.No evidence was let in on the side of the defence.After completion of evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing the arguments of the counsel, the Trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted and and sentenced them as stated above.Taking into consideration the evidence of the prosecution witnesses PW1, Nithyakalyani/the defacto complainant, she had deposed that she knows the accused and that on 14.05.2009 after attending a funeral while she was coming back home via Carriage Station Beset Road around 3.00 p.m, the first appellant/A1 waylaid, threatened her with a knife and snatched her Gold Chain weighing 5 sovereigns and after he had snatched the chain, she had seen another person waiting with a two wheeler little away from them.She had raised alarm and when the public nearby attempted to apprehend him, he had got on to the pillion of the two wheeler and both of them fled away from the scene of occurrence.She had further deposed that the second person who drove the motor cycle was the person standing second in the Court.Thereafter, she had gone back home and on the next day at 9.00 a.m, she had gone to thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 respondent Police Station and given the complaint.After she had given the complaint against two persons who could be identified and she was asked to come back to the Police Station at 4 p.m. and when she returned to the Police Station, she had seen both the accused in the Police Station and on being enquired she had identified them.The Police have also shown the chain which was snatched and it was shown to her in two pieces and she identified the chain and that the chain was handed over to her at the station and that she had produced the chain in the Court.PW.2 - Babu had deposed that he was working in a shop in Carriage Station Beset Road, Perambur and that P.W1 was known to her and that the accused were also known to him.On 14.05.2009, around 3.00 p.m. the accused had come in a black colour Hero Honda Motor Cycle and that P.W.1 was running behind them shouting 'catch them, catch them' and when he attempted to catch them, he was unable to catch the accused., she had stated that they have snatched her chain.5. P.W.3 Dilip kumar had deposed that on 14.05.2009 around 3.00 p.m, he had gone to the mechanic shop to take his bike which was left for repair and at that time, he had seen the appellants/accused together riding a black colour Hero Honda motorcycle and he had seen one lady running behind the motorcycle shouting that they had snatched her chain and 'catch them, catch them' and when he had attempted to stop the appellants/accused, they had escaped from the scene of occurrence.6. P.W.4 who is stated to have attested the Observation Mahazar did not support the case of the prosecution and he had been treated as hostile.7. P.W.5 had deposed that on 15.05.2009 around 12 p.m, while he was on the way to see his friend, he had seen a group of persons near Venus Bus stop.When he had gone near, he had seen the respondent Police enquiring the first accused/A1 Manohar and the second accused/A2 Rajkumar and they had confessed that they had robed the chain from a lady and while the Police was examining the second accused, he had also stated the same.The first appellant/A1 had confessed to the crime and the Police had recorded the confession statement and that he had attested the same, this signature in the confession were marked as Exs.Thereafter, the respondent had taken him to Kalmandabam, Grace Garden 4th Street and the second appellant/A2 Rajkumar had identified the motorcycle and the motorcycle was recovered under the Recovery Mahazar which was marked as Ex.P4 and that he had signed in the Recovery Mahazar.Thereafter, the first accused/A1 was taken to his house at Vannarapettai from where the respondent Police recovered the gold chain which was in two pieces.Thereafter, the first accused/A1 Manohar handed over a steel knife which was recovered in a Recovery Mahazar.Thereafter, he along with the accused were taken to the Police station and admitted portion of the confession statement of the accused was marked as Exs.He had further deposed that the respondent examined him.8. P.W.6 the Sub-Inspector of Police at K1, Sembiam Police Station, had deposed that on 15.05.2009 while he was in duty, P.W.1 Nithyakalyani appeared before him at 9.00a.m and given a written complaint.Based on which, he had registered the case in crime No.342/2009 for the offence under Section 397 of I.P.C and registered the FIR, which was marked as Ex.Thereafter, at 9.50 a.m, he had gone to the scene of occurrence along with PW1 and prepared an Observation Mahazar in the presence of witnesses Zahir and Manikandan and the Observation Mahazar was marked as Ex.Thereafter, he prepared rough sketch which was marked as Ex.Around 12.00 noon, he had arrested the first appellant/A1 near Venus Bus Stop and when he enquired the first accused/A1, he had given a confession statement in the presence of witnesses Murali and Sathish and he had recorded the confession statement (Ex.P6) and thereafter at 1.00 p.m, the first accused had identified the house of the second appellant/A2 and that he had arrested the accused.When he had enquired second appellant /A2, he had given a confession statement which was recorded in the presence of witnesses Murali and Sathish.Based on the confession statement, he had identified the motorcycle used by the appellants/accused and he had recovered the motorcycle under Ex.P4 Mahazar.Then he recovered the articles involved in Exs.P1 and P12 in Form 95 and that on the next day gone to the scene of occurrence and enquired PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW 4 and one Manikandan and they had come along with the appellants/ accused to the Police Station.Subsequently, he had summoned PW 1 and she was asked to identify the goldhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 chain and that she had identified the gold chain and the appellants/accused and the motorcycle used by them during the occurrence and thereafter he prepared a Remand Report and produced the appellants/accused before the Court and after completion of investigation and after getting opinion from the Assistant Public Prosecutor, has filed the final report for offence under Section 397 of I.P.C. Based on the evidence laid, the trial court has found the accused guilty and convicted them and sentenced as stated above.The learned counsel for the appellants/accused assails the Judgment on the following grounds:There are several contradictions and embellishments in the prosecution case.The appellants and the witnesses are strangers and that nothing had been stated about their identity.The occurrence is stated to have been committed in a locality where there was several persons during noon time.There has been a great delay in the complaint being given to the Police Station and the FIR reaching the Court, more particularly, the printed FIR having reached the Court only after the arrest of the appellants/accused creating a grave doubt in the prosecution case.The manner in which the arrest is stated to be effected greater suspicion and doubt volumes in the prosecution case.The evidence with regard to the arrest of the accused is unbelievable.The identification of the accused for the first time in Court leads to suspicion.It is highly strange that P.W.2 states that he knows the appellants/accused and has not stated anything about them during the course of investigation.The evidence of PW1 with regard to the person who had threatened her is doubtful.Though the witnesses have been stated to be examined on the same day, these statements have reached the Court after several days.The Trial Court did not take into consideration the contradiction evidences of PWs1 and 6 (Investigation Officer) regarding the arrest of the appellants/accused.Further, PW 2 & PW 3 could not have been the witnesses to the occurrence, since their statement with regard to PW2 running a mechanic shed and PW 3 having come to see his two wheeler cannot be believed and as per the observation Mahazar, no such mechanic shed was available and that as per the evidence of PW1, there were other public in the locality and nobody has been examined by the Police.State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, B-4, Baluchetty Chatram Police Station, Kancheepuram District.He would further submit that the reason for the delay in giving the complaint has been explained by PW1 and the reasons for the delay is also reasonable.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the non holding of the identification parade is not a fatal to the prosecution, since the appellants / accused were arrested on the next day and that the PW1 had identified them in the Police Station and had also identified them in the Court.The learned counsel for the appellants/accused would submit that PW1 is not clear as to who is the person who snatched her chain and who is the person who drove the two wheeler and would submit that the trial Court erred in convicting the appellants/accused based on the unconvincing evidence.As per the evidence of PW2 and PW3, it was near a mechanic shop and PW2 and PW3 who were in the mechanic shop were stated to have witnessed the occurrence.Strangely, in this case none of the witnesses havehttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 informed the Police about the occurrence immediately, despite the occurrence happening in a busy locality during day time.The complaint has been preferred to the Police on the next day.While analysing the evidences of PW1, PW2, and PW3, nothing had been stated about the identity or any identification marks regarding the appellants / accused.As per the evidence of PW1, after giving a complaint to the respondent at 9.00 a.m, she had gone back home and that she was asked to come back only at 4.00 p.m and when she had gone there, she had seen both the accused in the Police station and that she had identified them and that the respondent Police had shown her chain and that she identified the chain and the chain was returned to her on the same day.Of course CCTV footage has now become a very important tool for the Police which helps them in a long way in crime detection but this is a facility which is not available in all nook and corner of the State.The Police personnel needs to be educatedhttp://www.judis.nic.in on the availability of a provision under Cr.P.C. For identifying the 12 accused person.By following this procedure, the element of doubt that arises about identity of the accused for the first time in the Court after a very long gap, can also be avoided.”The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court IV , Chennai.2.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 13 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.vum Crl.A.Nos.647 and 769 of 2010http://www.judis.nic.in",['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
"gm H.C.P.No.1889 of 201526.10.2015Such order is under challenge herein.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:Sl.Name of the Police Station and Crime No.Section of Law1Vridhachalam Police Station, Crime No.613 of 2013147, 148, 294(b), 323, 326 & 307 IPC r/w 109 IPC2Vridhachalam Police Station,Crime No.13 of 2014147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 302 IPC r/w 149 IPC3Vridhachalam Police Station,Crime No.648 of 2014399 IPCThe ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.453 of 2015 on the file of Vridhachalam Police Station for offences under Sections 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC.We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions.Finding that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is erroneous, this Court would allow the present petition.The detention order passed by second respondent, detaining the detenu Rajasekar @ Kottan Rajasekar S/o.Pattusamy, aged about 25 years, made in C3/D.O/27/2015 dated 23.06.2015, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.(S.T.,J.) (C.T.S.,J.) 26.10.2015Index:yes/noInternet:yesgmTo1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St.2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.4.The Superintendent of Central Prison Cuddalore.S.TAMILVANAN,J.AND C.T.SELVAM, J.","['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"According to the petitioner, the petitioners are innocents.Further he submitted that the after obtaining permission from the electoral officer the petitioners and others were went to election campaign and hence, the allegation regarding violating the election code of conduct is false and baseless.On precautionary measures, the respondent police hadhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 registered this case as against the petitioners.Therefore, they sought for quashing the proceeding.Though there is a bar under Section 195(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. to take cognizance for the offence under Section 188 of IPC, it does not mean that the police cannot register FIR and investigate the case.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.Perused the material documents available on record.Except the official witnesses, no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to substantiate the charges against the petitioners.He is not a competent person to register FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.As such, the First Information Report or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.Therefore, the final report cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.Accordingly, the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 2191 of 2019 in Crime No. 84 of 2014, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.15.11.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No ksahttp://www.judis.nic.in 7The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur.The Inspector of Police, Seittur Police Station, Virudhunagar District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J., ksa Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16696 of 2019 15.11.2019http://www.judis.nic.in",['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
"He has been falsely implicated.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Samapti Chatterjee, J. ) 3","['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Hariya Kori in Crime No.160/2012, registered by P.S.Rajnagar, District- Chhatarpur under Sections 457, 354, 506 (part-II) and 376 of the IPC.At that time, it came to the notice of the Court that the prosecutrix has stated in her statement that the petitioner had raped her; therefore, it was proposed to move against the petitioner under Section 376 as well.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a 62 years old man and he would be put to great harship if after 5 years of facing trial, he is taken into custody again.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts that the petitioner has been facing trial for lesser offence since the year, 2012 he deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail.Consequently, the first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Hariya Kori is allowed.It is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- and a solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE",['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
"A. Nos. 311/2011 & 309/2011The appellants Parmanand and Mithilesh are the parents-in-law of Bobby (the deceased).A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 1 of 192. Facts of the case leading to the filing of charge sheet under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure against the appellants and two others namely Kamlesh (husband of the deceased) and Santosh (Kamleshs brother) can be extracted from the opening para of the judgment:-""On 28.03.08 at about 11:50 pm, DD No.47 was registered at PP Vijay Vihar, PS Rohini.As per such DD, one lady had set herself on fire.Such information was received from Police Control Room and SI Mahabir Singh and Ct.Rajesh were rushed to the spot.They both reached the spot i.e. House NO.J-42, Vijay Vihar.HC Ravidutt and Ct.Satpal were already present there.They found smell of kerosene, some burnt clothes, one empty bottle, few match-sticks and water on the floor of room where the occurrence had taken place and learnt that PCR Van had already removed the victim to BSA Hospital.Executive Magistrate Sh.Sukhbir Singh was telephonically intimated and HC Ravidutt and Ct.Satpal were left at the spot for preservation of the spot and SI Mahabir Singh and Ct.Rajesh reached at BSA Hospital.Name of injured was found to be Bobby (wife of accused Kamlesh).As per MLC, victim had told the doctor that kerosene oil was poured on her by her father-in-law and mother-in-law and then she was put on fire and her husband was not present at home during the incident.Bobby was declared fit for statement.Executive Magistrate reached the hospital and dying declaration of Bobby was recorded in which she claimed that she was married two years back and her parents-in-law wanted her husband Kamlesh to marry someone else.She claimed that at about 5 pm that evening, her husband left the house and before such departure, her husband and her parents-in-law had quarreled with her.She then stated that between 11:15 pm and 11:30 pm, she was in her room and was about to go to sleep, when her parents-in-law entered her room and her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil on her and her father-in- law set her ablaze with a match-stick.She also stated that she shouted for help and some neighbours collected and tried to douse the fire by pouring water on her and police Crl.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 2 of 19 reached there and took her to the hospital.She, however, succumbed to her injuries.He deposed that on 16.03.2008 (the date has been wrongly given by this witness) at about 11:45 p.m. he was on his way back to his house after selling vegetables.When he reached near the street he saw a crowd.On inquiry he was informed by public persons that Bobby (daughter of Sadanand) was burnt by her in-laws and was removed to the hospital.He gave this information to Sadanand.PW-6 Sadanand, apart from deposing about the demands of dowry and the harassment meted out to Bobby by her husband and the appellants stated that on 28.03.2008 at 12/12:30 a.m. in the night while he was on his way back to his house from weekly bazaar, he met Raja Ram (PW-4).Raja Ram informed him that his daughter had been set ablaze.He (PW-6) immediately left his rickshaw at his house and went to the matrimonial home of Bobby.He found a crowd around the house.On inquiry he was informed that his daughter had already been removed to the hospital by a PCR van.He went to PP Vijay Vihar and was informed that his daughter had been taken to Baba Saheb Ambedkar (BSA) hospital.His daughter told him that "" Ye Sab Milkar Mujhe Jala Diyan Hai"".The deceased was shifted to Safdarjung hospital where she succumbed to her burn injuries on the next morning.He proved statement Ex.PW-9 Dr. Sarvesh Tandon, Associate Professor, Forensic Medicine, Safdarjung hospital, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Bobby on 30.03.2001 and proved his report Ex.PW-9/A. On external examination he found superficial to deep burns all over the body except lower abdomen and external genital area.9. PW-10 Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi, Chief Medical Officer, BSA hospital is the doctor who initially attended to the deceased on 29.03.2008 at 12:15 a.m. He testified that the patient had disclosed that her father-in-law and mother-in-law had poured kerosene oil on her and then put her on fire with a match-stick.She also informed the doctor that her husband was not present at home at the time of the incident.PW-10 testified that on examination, the patient (deceased) was found to be conscious, oriented and crying.Her blood pressure could not be recorded due to burns present all over the body.Her pulse was found not palpable.Smell of kerosene oil was present on the body.He gave the percentage of burns to be about 95 per cent.He proved the MLC Ex.PW-10/A.He gave the details of the treatment given to the deceased.He gave the area of burns to be about 90 per cent.Pulse of the patient was found by him to be feeble.He deposed about the Crl.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 4 of 19 various injections i.e TT, IM Stat, Tramadol, I.V. etc. administered to the deceased.He deposed that the patient was cleaned and dressed with an ointment, silver sulpha diazin.The patient was then referred to Safdarjung hospital for further management.He proved his endorsement at point Y to Y on MLC marked as Ex.PW-10/A.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 4 of 19PW-15 Dr. Jatinder was working as Junior Resident in Safdarjung hospital.He treated the patient when she was admitted in Safdarjung hospital.Raj Mohan Trivedi.He then deposed about recording of the statement of Sadanand after the death of Bobby and after registration of this case.PW-23 SI Mahabir Singh deposed that on 28.03.2008 on receipt of DD No.47, (Ex.PW-14/A) he reached the spot i.e. J-42 Vijay Vihar, Phase-I along with constable Rajesh.Head constable Ravidutt and constable Satpal were already present there.He was informed that the injured had already been removed to BSA hospital.He testified that there was a smell of kerosene coming from the room of the deceased on the ground floor, burnt match sticks, match box and some burnt pieces of cloth were also lying in the room.Some water was found on the floor.He deputed HC Ravidutt and Ct.Satpal to remain present at the spot.He informed the Executive Magistrate Mr.Sukhbir Singh (PW-16) about it and requested him to reach the hospital.He also reached BSA hospital and collected the MLC of Bobby.PW-16 also reached the hospital who consulted the doctor about the fitness of the injured to make a statement.The statement Crl.He got the spot inspected by the crime team; photographs Ex. PW2/1 to 6 were taken.He prepared the site plan Ex.PW-23/C, seized various articles from the spot and sealed them with a seal of MS.When cross examined, he deposed that he wanted to see the opinion of the surgeon before the patient could be referred to Safdarjung hospital.To the same effect is the testimony of PW-11 Dr. Nitin Lashkary.He deposed that initially the patient was examined by Dr.Raj Mohan Trivedi (PW-10).The pulse of the deceased, by the time he examined her and made a note on the MLC, had become feeble from not palpable.Thus it is clear that the patient was examined and managed by a team of doctors and not examined by any particular doctor.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 10 of 19Of course PW-4 gave information to PW-6 about the deceased sustaining burn injuries and her removal to the hospital.Therefore, after leaving his rickshaw at his house PW-6 proceeded to PP Vijay Vihar through the place of incident.He came to know only at the police post that Bobby was removed to BSA hospital by the PCR van.Thus even if PW-6 had hurried and made his best efforts it would have been difficult for him to have reached BSA hospital before 1:30 a.m.It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that PW-23 SI Mahabir has stated in his cross-examination that he reached the hospital at about 12:30 a.m. and collected the MLC within ten minutes which was retained by him.The MLC contains signatures of PW-6 regarding the receipt of articles (Jewellery) by Sadanand which shows that Sadanand was present in the hospital by 12:40 a.m.This contention raised on behalf of the appellants is misconceived.As per the endorsement made at the top of the MLC Ex.G.P. MITTAL, J.They impugn the judgment and order dated 18.12.2010 whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Crl.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 1 of 19 Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each.In default of payment of fine they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months each.Case was registered u/s 498A/302/120B IPC.""A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 2 of 19A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 3 of 19On reaching the hospital he met the SDM.The SDM informed him that he had already recorded her (the deceased) statement and that he could meet her.PW-6/A made by him to the SDM.He deposed that the deceased was declared dead at about 7.45 a.m. He proved the death report as Ex.PW-15/B.PW-16 Mr.Sukhbir Singh Executive Magistrate of the area deposed that on receipt of the message regarding the admission of a lady with burn injuries in BSA hospital, he reached there.He obtained the fitness certificate from Dr.Raj Mohan Trivedi and recorded statement Ex.PW16/A of the deceased.He obtained endorsement on Ex.PW-10/B of Dr.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 5 of 19 recorded by the Executive Magistrate was marked to him (PW-23) for further inquiry by the SHO.He made an endorsement on Ex.PW-23/A on the basis of which the present case was registered.He deposed that on receipt of the information of death of Bobby in the morning of 29.03.2008, vide DD No. 13, further investigation of the case was entrusted to Inspector Raj Singh.Inspector Raj Singh PW-22, second IO of the case corroborated the testimony of PW-23 SI Mahabir Singh.He deposed about the arrest of the appellants and recorded statement of Parmanand, Raj Kumar and other family members.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 5 of 19On close of prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to enable them to explain the incriminating evidence which has appeared against them.The appellants were completely silent as to where they were at the time of the incident.Admittedly immediately after the incident they did not accompany the deceased to BSA hospital.The appellants took up the plea that the deceased was under depression as she was not able to conceive any child and, therefore, committed suicide.They denied that there was any demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased.They denied that they set Bobby on fire.They took up the plea that the dying declaration is false.She (Bobby) never made any dying declaration to Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi.They, however, showed their ignorance if the statement (dying declaration Ex.PW-16/A) was recorded by PW-16 Executive Magistrate Sh.Sukhbir Singh (PW-16).They showed their willingness to produce defence evidence but did not produce any.Along with appellants, Kamlesh (deceased`s husband) and Santosh (Kamleshs brother) were also challaned by the police.Santosh was, Crl.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 6 of 19 however, discharged by order dated 01.06.2009 passed by the learned ASJ.Accused Kamlesh was acquitted by the impugned judgment on the ground that the deceased was completely silent about the allegation of harassment or cruelty for not meeting dowry demands.The learned ASJ held that had there been any such demand or harassment, the deceased would have spoken about the same.Thus the evidence of Sadanand PW-6 (father of the deceased) with regard to harassment and demand of dowry without corroboration from the dying declaration or any other evidence was disbelieved.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 6 of 19The dying declaration recorded on the MLC Ex.PW-10/A by PW-10 Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi and Ex.PW-16/A by PW-16 Executive Magistrate Sukhbir Singh were held to be consistent, voluntarily, true and reliable by the learned ASJ.Thus relying upon the same the learned ASJ convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid.We have heard Mr.Shailesh Kumar learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Jaideep Malik learned APP for the State and have perused the record.He recorded the history of the patient (the deceased) as under:""Allegedly father-in-law and mother-in-law of Bobby poured kerosene oil on her and then put her on fire with Crl.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 9 of 19Learned counsel for the appellants criticized the testimony of PW-10 on the ground that as per the MLC, the deceaseds BP was not recordable and her pulse was not palpable and thus it could not be said that the patient was fit to make the statement.He deposed that treatment of Bobby was given by a team of doctors consisting of two JRs and one SR Surgeon present in the Casualty.He added that the pulse and blood pressure were checked by him (PW-10) as well as by JRs.PW-10 stated that he was a coordinator in the emergency.He stated that when the patient was brought, she was examined by him and simultaneously the surgeon had also come and examined the patient.It has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that PW-6 Sadanand (father of the deceased) got the information about the incident from PW- 4 Raja Ram.PW-10/A by PW-10, Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi small articles of jewellery were removed by PW-10 from the body of Bobby and handed over to the IO.These articles were not handed over by PW-10 to PW-6 Sadanand.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 11 of 19The alleged history of Bobby, the fitness certificate and removal of jewellery articles are all in the hand writing of PW-10 Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi.Of course a suggestion was put to PW-10, PW-11, PW-9 and PW-16 that if the pulse is not palpable the patient cannot make any statement.This suggestion was refuted by each of the doctors.The certificate of fitness has been given by PW-10 Dr Raj Mohan Trivedi initially on the MLC Ex.PW-10/A and then on the statement Ex.PW-16/A at point Ex.PW-10/B.Though the pulse was initially recorded as not palpable but later it had improved to be feeble as per endorsement Y to Y on Ex.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 12 of 19Thus the dying declaration recorded Crl.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 13 of 19 by PW-10 shows that the deceased had informed PW-10 that she was set ablaze by her father-in-law and mother-in-law after pouring kerosene oil on her.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 13 of 19As stated above, the condition of the patient improved a little after she was administered certain injections etc. as senior resident recorded that the patient was oriented/obeying to verbal commands and the pulse was feeble.PW-16 Executive Magistrate Sukhbir Singh reached hospital at 1:00 a.m. on 29.03.2008 and recorded the statement Ex.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 14 of 19 injuries.We have gone through the MLC Ex.PW-10 Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi stated in his examination-in-chief that he had declared the patient fit for statement by his endorsement (Ex.PW10/B).On the statement Ex.PW-16/A Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi was subjected to a very lengthy cross-examination regarding the condition of the patient.PW-10 denied the suggestion that the deceased died due to cardiac arrest because at the time of her admission in BSA hospital her pulse was not palpable.PW-10 stated that if it was so, the deceased would have died in BSA hospital itself.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 14 of 19On the statement Ex.16/A , PW-10 made an endorsement that ""patient was conscious and oriented all the time during the time above statement was taken"".PW-16/A was recorded.PW-16/A of the deceased but the statement just runs into a half hand written page and is a brief statement.In State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay (supra) apart from the third dying declaration running into two typed pages, there were also variations in the three dying declarations and the third one giving minute details appeared to be manipulated.Here the two dying declarations are consistent.The first one made to Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi is just a two line statement whereas the second statement made to the Executive Magistrate runs into hand written page.Both are consistent and the second one corroborates the first statement.again said, he was a government official).""A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 16 of 19It has come in the evidence of PW-16 that the statement was recorded by a police officer on his dictation.PW-23 SI Mahabir Singh stated that he recorded the statement Ex.Thus PW- 10 was right when he stated that it was recorded by a person who was in police uniform.Of course a suggestion was given to PW-16 as also to PW-23 that the endorsement at point B of Ex.PW16/A was obtained from the Executive Magistrate later on but we are not inclined to believe the same.By endorsement at point B the statement was marked to SHO who immediately marked it to PW-23 SI Mahabir Singh for necessary action.The FIR was recorded on that very night at 2.00 a.m. It is not believable that without obtaining the endorsement of the Executive Magistrate PW- 23 SI Mahabir Singh would make a mention thereof in the rukka for recording the FIR.Otherwise also we do not find any reason to disbelieve the document Ex.PW-16/A was recorded by Executive Magistrate after obtaining the fitness certificate from PW-10 Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi who was present throughout the recording of the statement of the deceased.Thus the statement Ex.PW-16/A is not only consistent and corroborative to the first statement given to the doctor at the time of admission and recorded on the MLC Ex.PW-10/A but it meets all the tests of it being properly recorded after the Magistrate was satisfied that the patient was fit to make the statement.The statement is not very long but it contains all the details as to how the appellants had poured kerosene oil on her and appellant Parmanand had lit the match stick and set her on fire.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 17 of 19It is pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased had suffered 95 per cent burns still the thumb impression obtained on the statement Ex.PW-16/A shows the ridges on the right thumb impression.Sukhbir Singh (PW-16).In our view the two dying declarations are true and voluntary.The first dying declaration was very spontaneous and was made to the doctor immediately at the time of admission by the deceased herself.The deceased could not even know the purpose of the doctor recording the history and, therefore, there was nothing which could have impelled the deceased to make a false statement.As stated earlier the first statement is corroborated by the Crl.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 18 of 19 second statement Ex.PW-16/A recorded by the Executive Magistrate.Under these circumstances we see no reason to reject the dying declaration recorded by PW-10 Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi, on MLC marked as PW-10/A and second dying declaration Ex.PW-16/A recorded by PW-16 Executive Magistrate Sh.Sukhbir Singh.A Nos.311/2011 & 309/2011 Page 18 of 19The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly convicted the appellants relying on the two dying declarations.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"a)P.W.1 is the husband of P.W.2. P.W.3 is the brother of P.W.2. P.W.4 isalso the resident of Kombadi village.The appellant/accused and the otheraccused, in whose respect the case was split up, by name Chinnasamy, wereinvolved in prohibition cases registered by the Maniyachi Police station.Two months prior to the occurrence, theaccused/appellant has stolen Rs.300/- from the shop of one Srinivasan and a casewas registered by the respondent police station.From that time onwards, theaccused/appellant was absconding.Donations were collected for the festivaloccasion in the temple at Kombadi village by the other accused Chinnasamy, whowas the Nattamai in the village.In the meeting convened, accounts were demandedby P.W.1 and others.The said Chinnasamy refused to hand over the accounts.The next day, on 21.11.1992 atabout 8.30 a.m., P.W.1 was reaping grass in the nearby field.When P.Ws.2 and 3and others were inside the house, the deceased Suseela was playing in front ofthe house.At about 9.00 a.m., P.Ws.2 and 3 and others heard the distressing cryof the child.They came outside and witnessed the accused taking the child onhis shoulder along with aruval in his hand and was running.Further, they raisedalarm.At that time P.W.1, who was in the field, also turned and saw the accusedwith the child.When all of them were chasing the accused, the accused cut thechild indiscriminately with the aruval and caused the death of the child.Theaccused, leaving the dead body, fled away from the place of occurrence.d)P.W.1 went to the respondent police station at about 12.30 p.m., whereP.W.7 was the Sub Inspector of Police, to whom P.W.1 gave Ex.P.5, the F.I.R. was despatched to the court.Onreceipt of the copy of the F.I.R., the Inspector of Police one Manoharan, whowas attached to the respondent police station, took up the investigation.Duringinvestigation, he died and hence, P.W.11, Manoharakumar, the Inspector ofPolice, after perusing the case records, gave evidence on behalf of him also.e)The said Investigator took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot,made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses and prepared Ex.P.7, theobservation mahazar and Ex.P.13, the rough sketch.He conducted inquest on thedead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars andprepared Ex.P.14, the inquest report.He recovered material objects from theplace of occurrence, namely M.O.6, bloodstained earth and M.O.7, sample earth.The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital, Ottapidaram for the purposeof post-mortem along with the requisition.f)P.W.5, the Doctor attached to Ottapidaram Government hospital, onreceipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of thedeceased.He has issued Ex.P.3, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he hasnarrated the injuries found on the dead body and has also opined that thedeceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuriessustained on her.g)Pending Investigation, the accused was arrested on 12.12.1992 at about7.30 p.m. in the presence of the witnesses.At that time, he gave confessionalstatement, which was recorded by the Investigating Officer.The admissible partof the same was marked as Ex.Following the same, the accused producedM.O.1, aruval, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar in the presence ofthe witnesses.The accused was sent for judicial remand.The dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.5,the Doctor.(The judgment of the court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This criminal appeal has arisen from the judgment of the Fast Track CourtNo.1, Tuticorin made in S.C.No.282 of 2005, whereby the accused/appellant stoodcharged under Section 302 IPC, tried and found guilty as per the charge andawarded with life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default toundergo one year R.I.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could bestated thus:P.1, the report, onthe strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.409 of 1992under Section 302 IPC.All the material objectsrecovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased andM.O.1, aruval recovered from the accused were sent for chemical analysis by theForensic Science Department.P.19, the Chemical Analyst's report and Ex.P.20,the Serologist's report were received.On completion of the investigation, theInvestigating Officer has filed the final report.i)The case was split up in respect of one Chinnasamy, against whom thecase was registered under Section 302 r/w S.109 IPC.The case was committed tothe court of sessions and necessary charges were framed.In order tosubstantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and relied on 20exhibits and 7 M.Os.On completion of the evidence on the side of theprosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to theincriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses,which he flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.The trialcourt, after considering the submissions made and perusing the materialsavailable, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyondreasonable doubt and found the accused/appellant guilty and awarded punishment,which is the subject matter of challenge before this court.3.The learned counsel for the appellant, in his sincere attempt inassailing the judgment of the court below, made the following submissions:a)The prosecution has failed to explain an inordinate delay in registeringthe case and also sending the F.I.R. to the nearby Magistrate Court.Theoccurrence has taken place at 9.30 a.m., but the information was given to thepolice only at 12.30 hours and thus, there was an inordinate delay of threehours.Though the case was registered at 12.30 hours, the F.I.R. has reachedthe court at 6.15 p.m. and thus, there was a delay of nearly 6 hours.This wasalso not explained.b)Further, no specific motive is made against the appellant/accused.All the motives wereavailable only against Chinnasamy, against whom the case was registered underSection 302 r/w S.109 IPC, but he was acquitted of the charges, disbelieving theevidence of the very same eyewitnesses.Hence, the lower court should have takenthe same yardstick in respect of the appellant also and should have acquittedthe appellant.But, it has failed to do so.c)The learned counsel would further add that though the prosecution wouldclaim that the weapon was recovered on the confession made by the accused, itwas sent for chemical analysis after a period of 2 years.The ChemicalExaminer's report would reveal that no human blood was detected.Under thesecircumstances, it would be quite clear that the prosecution has not proved thecase beyond reasonable doubt.d)There was a meeting convened, demanding the accounts in respect of thedonations made for the temple festival and there was a refusal by Chinnasamy.But, nowhere in the complaint, it was found.Further, two cases in Crime Nos.408 and 410 of 1992 were registeredagainst the appellant, but these are all nothing, but foisted against theappellant in order to implicate him in the offence.Hence, P.W.1 has givenexaggerated version.So far as the scene of occurrence was concerned, theprosecution has come forward to state that the child was playing in front of thehouse of P.W.1 and the accused took the child from that place and the occurrencehas taken place away from that place.But, when the Investigating Officerprepared the sketch, he has not mentioned the place where-from the child wastaken.Had the child not been taken from the place where it was playing, asalleged by the prosecution, P.Ws.2 and 3 could not have seen the occurrence atall.Hence, their evidence should have been rejected by the trial court.He has issued Ex.P.3, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he hasopined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage dueto the injuries sustained.The fact that the child died out of homicidalviolence was never questioned by the appellant at any stage of proceedings.Hence, without any impediment, it could be recorded so.6.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against theaccused/appellant that it was he, who attached the child and caused her deathinstantaneously, the prosecution rested its case on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and2, the parents of the child and P.W.3, the brother of P.W.2. P.W.3 has turnedhostile.But, the prosecution had to its advantage the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it would be quite clear that in the past,number of cases were registered by Maniyachi Police Station against theappellant and one Chinnasamy also, since they were indulging in illicit arrackactivities.Itis also quite clear from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the said Chinnasamyand the appellant were close relatives to each other.Further, the accused wasabsconding for a period of two months pursuant to the theft case registeredagainst him.According to P.Ws.1 and 2, on the date of occurrence, when P.W.2was inside the house, she heard the distressing cry of the child and she cameoutside and found the accused, taking the child in his shoulder with aruval inhis hand and the accused was running.When P.W.2 shouted along with the otherwitness P.W.3, P.W.1 heard the same.According to P.Ws.1 and 2, they werechasing the accused, but they could not reach him.Further, they witnessed theaccused cutting the child indiscriminately with aruval and causing her deathinstantaneously.Despite cross-examination in full, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and2, who are the eyewitnesses, remained unshaken.Now, the contentions put forthby the learned counsel for the appellant have got to be considered.Much commentwas made on the delay caused in registering the case and also despatching theF.I.R. to the court.The place of occurrence is situated 9 Kms.away from therespondent police station.The occurrence has taken place at about 9.30 a.m. Thecase was registered by P.W.7, the Sub Inspector of Police at 12.30 hours.Takinginto consideration the nature of the act committed by the accused and also thefact that the police station is situated 9 Kms.away from the place ofoccurrence, the delay of three hours, in the opinion of the court, is naturaland not deliberate.Further, after registration of the case, it has reached thecourt at 6.15 p.m. Thus, there was a delay of 5 to 6 hours in sending the F.I.R.to the court.away from the police station.Even assumingthat there was delay in sending the F.I.R. to the court, the court is of theconsidered opinion that no prejudice could have been caused to the accused,since there was no further embellishment or improvement in the case, in view ofthe facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above.8.In the instant case, the other contention put forth by the learnedcounsel for the appellant that the appellant had no motive at all has got to berejected.According to P.Ws.1 and 2, the appellant was indulging in illicitarrack activities along with Nattamai Chinnasamy and number of cases have beenregistered by Maniyachi Police Station against the appellant accused.Apart fromthat, when the evidence of P.W.1 was scrutinized, the facts that there wasdemand of accounts by P.W.1 and others and there was denial of renderingaccounts by the said Chinnasamy were spoken by P.W.1 during trial.9.The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused isthat in the instant case, there was delay in placing the material objects forchemical analysis and further, the Serologist's report did not contain humanblood.It is pertinent to point out that though there was delay noticed inplacing the weapon before the Forensic Department and also the report wasreceived that there was no human blood noticed, the court is of the consideredopinion that when direct evidence is available pointing to the act of theaccused, the court cannot reject the prosecution case, though the scientificevidence did not support the prosecution case.Further, Crime Nos.408 and 410 of1992 were registered by the respondent police station against the appellantherein.The contention that in order to show that the appellant was available on21.11.1992, these cases have been registered, cannot be accepted for the simplereason that in a given case where there is direct evidence available, there isno need for the police to register foisted cases.Further, so far as CrimeNo.408 of 1992 was concerned, the specific contention of the prosecution wasthat after the registration of the theft case, the accused was absconding andthereafter, he appeared a day prior to the date of occurrence.10.In the instant case, both the witnesses, namely P.Ws.1 and 2, saw thebarbarous act of the accused/appellant, in which he has attacked the child withthe deadly weapon like aruval and caused her death instantaneously.The act ofthe accused in taking the 4 years old child and killing the same has got to bedealt with sternly.The lower court was perfectly correct in finding theaccused/appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarding life imprisonmentalong with fine and default sentence.Hence, the judgment of the lower courtdoes not require any interference either factually or legally.The criminalappeal must fail.Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed.1.Additional Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court-I, Tuticorin.2.The Inspector of Police, Maniyachi Police station, Tuticorin District.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.",['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
"None for the respondent no.2/ complainant.Case diary perused.As per the prosecution case, the applicant has abducted the prosecutrix and committed rape upon her.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime.He further submits that although the prosecutrix is a minor aged about 16 years of age, she has stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that the applicant came to her house at about 11:30 P.M. and took her forcefully however, she has not made any allegation against the applicant regarding commission of rape in the said statement.In these circumstances at the most offence under Section 363 and 366 of I.P.C. will be made out against the applicant.The applicant is not having any criminal record.Conclusion of trial will take sufficient time.Hence, learned counsel for the applicant pray for grant of bail to the applicant.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge amit Amit Kumar 2020.09.02 10:32:47 +05'30'","['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard SriPankaj Bharti, counsel for the applicant and Sri Mohd. Faisal, counsel for theinformant and learned A.G.A for the State.It has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that during the supply of sugarcane in sugarcane mill some dispute took place between the applicant and theinformant and FIR was lodged against the applicant and two other named accused persons, namely, Naresh Pal and Arvind Pal and certain otherunknown persons.The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.",['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']
"JUDGMENT Naik, J.This revisional application No. 1393 of 1958 has a chequered career.It arises in the following circumstances:The case for the prosecution was that the police officer explained the contents of the order and obtained the left hand thumb impression of the accused and the copy of the order was given to the accused.Thereafter on August 24, 1958, at about 8-30 p.m. Police Constable No. 6511/D arrested the accused at Ibrahim Rahimtulla Road on suspicion.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.He admitted that the order of externment was served on him properly.He, however, denied that he had entered within the limits of the prohibited area.According to him, he was arrested at Mumbra Railway Station and was brought by train.This was the only contention that was raised before the learned Presidency Magistrate.The offence committed in 1949 for which he was convicted would not in itself be a sufficient ground on which the Deputy Commissioner would form his belief.","['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(Delivered on 18th day of May, 2018) Per J.P. Gupta, J :Criminal appeal no. 1174/2000, 1342/2000 and 2218/2000 have been filed against the judgment dated 20.4.2000 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S. T. No.44/97 whereby appellants Suresh and Bindawasi (criminal appeal no. 1174/2000) have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304 Part-I and 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years along with fine of Rs.1000/- each; in default of payment of fine further RI for 6 months and RI for 6 months, respectively and appellant / accused Ramadhar (criminal appeal no.1342/2000) has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months and criminal appeal no. 2218/2000 has been filed on behalf of the State against the acquittal of the respondents / accused relating to the appeal of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 294, 341, 323, 506 Part-2 of the IPC and prayed for convicting and sentencing the accused / respondents of the appeal including accused Bhuvneshwar Prasad, Ramesh Prasad, Bhimsen, Lalmani and Ramkhelawan Patel for the charges for which they were prosecuted.Criminal appeal no.2397/2007 has been filed by appellant Dinesh Prasad Patel against the judgment dated 31.10.2007 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in separately S. T. No.44/97 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years along with fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine further RI for 1 year.In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that deceased Koushal Prasad Dubey and eye witnesses of the incident are close 3 relatives.There was a dispute between the appellants / accused persons and the complainant party with regard to the land which was earlier belonging to one Ramsakhi.On 5.7.1996 at about 7 am Rambahore (PW-1) along with his cousin Koushal Prasad Dubey (deceased) and Ansuiya Prasad, and Ganga Prasad (PW-3) and labourer Kalari Kol (PW-6) went to the disputed land situated at village Dihiya, Police station Baikunthpur for cultivating the field whereupon firstly appellants Suresh and Bindawasi came with lathi and assaulted Koushal Prasad, due to which, he fell down.Thereafter, appellant Dinesh came with farsa and assaulted Koushal Prasad and caused injury on his head.When Koushal Prasad made hue and cry, Ansuiya Prasad (PW-2), Ganga Prasad (PW-3) and Rambahore (PW-1) rushed towards him to rescue him and following them, accused Bhimsen, Ramesh Patel and Bhuvneshwar also came with lathi and assaulted them and during incident, other co-accused Ramadhar, Lalmani and Ramkhelawan also reached on the spot and assaulted them and wife of Koushal Prasad namely Vidyawati also reached on the spot, she was also assaulted and caused injury.Rambahore lodged FIR of the incident at Police Station Baikuntpur, District Rewa where crime no. 87/96 was registered for the offence under Sections 294, 341, 323, 506-B read with Section 34 of the IPC and injured Rambahore Sharma (PW-1), Ansuiya (PW-2) and Ganga Prasad (PW-3) were medically examined and condition of Koushal Prasad was serious.He was unconscious.During the investigation it was also found that accused Ramesh and Lalmani were also involved in the incident.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the JMFC; Sirmour who on its turn committed the case to the court of Sessions.On transfer, the case was tried by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa where the appellants / accused were charged for 4 the offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 302/149, 323, 323/149 (in four counts) and 294 and 506-B of the IPC.In the case appellant / accused Dinesh was absconded and learned trial Court vide judgment dated 20.4.2000 convicted and sentenced the appellants Suresh, Bindawasi and Ramadhar as mentioned earlier and acquitted other co-accused Ramesh Prasad, Lalmani and Ramkhelawan Patel of all the charges and Bhuvneshwar and Bhimsen were convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to six months RI and acquitted of the other charge.Both the accused have not filed any appeal against their conviction and sentence.Later on, absconded appellant Dinesh Prasad was arrested and tried and vide judgment dated 31.10.2007 he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned earlier.The defence of the appellant / accused Ramadhar is that on the date of incident he was not present on the spot and other accused persons also took defence about their innocence and further claimed that they assaulted the deceased and the witnesses in exercise of right to defence of the property.Hence, they have not committed any offence.On behalf of appellants Dinesh, Suresh and Bindawasi, finding of the learned trial court have been challenged on the grounds that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt as the statements of so called eye witnesses are full of contradictions and omissions and also against the medical evidence and the circumstances, in which, the incident took place also indicate that the appellants / accused persons assaulted in order to secure their possession over the land in exercise of their right to private defence but the learned trial Court has completely ignored this aspect.The appellants / accused cannot be convicted for commission of offence of culpable homicide as the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellants had any intention or knowledge to cause death of Koushal 5 Prasad and hardly they can be convicted under Section 325 of IPC.It is further submitted that the appeal filed on behalf of the State against the judgment of acquittal is without any merits.Learned trial court has very seriously and deeply appreciated the evidence coming to the conclusion of the acquittal of the acquitted accused persons namely Bhuvneshwar, Ramesh, Bhimsen, Lalmani and Ramkhelawan and there is no ground to convict them for the offence for which they have been acquitted.Hence, the appeal filed by the appellants / accused be dismissed and the appeal filed by State be allowed as the trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the appellants / accused from the charges for which they were tried and all the acquitted accused persons be convicted and sentenced for the offence for which they were charged.Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that in the incident Koushal Prasad died on account of the injuries and Rambahore (PW-1), Ansuiya Prasad (PW-2), Ganga Prasad (PW-3) and Vidyawati (PW-5) also sustained injuries.In this regard, Dr. B. K. Garg (PW-7) has stated that on 5.7.1996 he being an Assistant Surgeon in Civil Dispensary, Baikuntpur examined the aforesaid persons and found following injuries on their person :-Lacerated wound scalp 1""x1/2""x1/4"" right side.2. Lacerated wound scalp ""x1/4""x1/4"" left side.3. Contusion on left shoulder 1x1/2""Simple injury caused by hard and blunt object.Duration was within 6 hours.Ansuiya Prasad (PW-2)Abrasion right fore arm labally middle 1/3 part 1/2""x1/4""Simple injury caused by hard and blunt object.Duration was within 6 hours.Ganga Prasad (PW-3)1. Contusion on right deltoid 1/2""x1/4""Simple injury caused by hard and blunt objection.Duration was within 6 hours.Vidyawati (PW-5)1. Contusion on right hand post 2""x1""Simple injury caused by hard and blunt objection.Duration was within 6 hours.Dr. Pramod Shrivastava (PW-11) has stated that on 11.7.1996 at Medical College, Jabalpur he examined dead body of Koushal Prasad near about 12 O'clock and found following injuries :-Partially healed stitched wound present over scalp on middle part of left parietal region placed anti-posteriorly "" label to sagital interior.Scalp is contused on right frontal parietal occipital region and temporal region on both side.Stitched wound is 3x1/2"" long.There is depressed fracture of right parietal bone leading to fracture and fragmentation of right partial bone in to 5 pieces.From this fracture the fracture line extending on both sides on lower 7 surface and leading to middle cranial fossa on both sides.Large extra-dural haematoma present on both parieto- occipital and left temporal region.Brain is contused over right parietal lobe upper part and it is located in upper part 1""x1/2""x1/2"".Liquefaction of brain started in this area.Fracture of left radius bone of fore arm in lower one third muscularly ward.Partially healed stitched wound in upper part of left leg over standing of tibia, vertical size 1 "" long.Period of death was within twenty four hours.Cause of death is cronio cerebral injuries.All the injuries were anti-mortem in nature and could be produced by hard and blunt object and was sufficient to cause death.The wife of the deceased, Vidyawati (PW-5) and Rambahore (PW-1), Ansuiya Prasad (PW-2) and Ganga Prasad (PW-3) have stated that on account of the injuries sustained in the incident took place on 5.7.1996 on their field Koushal Prasad died.Now the question is that whether all the accused persons constituted an unlawful assembly with common object to cause death of the deceased and in furtherance of their common object, all or some members of the assembly caused death of the deceased and also caused injuries to Rambahore (PW-1) Ansuiya (PW-2), Ganga Prasad (PW-3) and Vidyawati (PW-5).Having considered minutely the statements of Ramkishore (PW-4) and Kalari Kol (PW-6) it is found that they are not trustworthy witnesses.Learned trial court has also discarded their statements because Kalari Kol (PW-6) has stated that all the accused persons came together and started beating to Koushal Prasad.Same statement has been given by Ramkishore (PW-4) which is contrary to the prosecution story and Kalari Kol (PW-6) has also stated that he was suffering from blindness and he was not able to identify anybody.Similarly, Ramkishore (PW-4) is not natural witness and on the spot his presence is doubtful.He resides 3 kms.away from the place of incident.He has stated that with a view to getting shaved he was standing in front of the barber shop near the spot but this fact is missing in his police statement Ex.Thus, their testimonies are not creditable.Similarly statement Ex.D/3 Dying declaration of Koushal Prasad is also not trustworthy.But, Dr. B. K. Garg (PW-7) denied the fact that the same was recorded before his presence and on the statement, a note about fitness of Koushal Prasad was made under the pressure of Investigating officer.Therefore, the trial court has discarded this statement and this considered view of the trial court does not require any interference.So far as the statement of other eye witnesses are concerned, they have never stated that all the accused persons came together on the spot and started beating deceased Koushal.Rambahore (PW-1), Ansuiya Prasad (PW-2) and Ganga Prasad (PW3) have categorically stated that while the deceased was going for taking seed, accused Bindawasi, Suresh Patel armed with lathi and Dinesh armed with farsa restrained Koushal and started abusing him and accused Bindawasi assaulted Koushal with lathi on his head then accused Suresh assaulted Koushal with lathi then accused Dinesh 9 assaulted Koushal with farsa on his head and thereafter other accused persons Bhuvneshwar Prasad, Ramesh Prasad and Bhimsen came and when Rambahore (PW-1), Ansuiya Prasad (PW-2), Ganga Prasad (PW-3) tried to save the deceased, accused Dinesh assaulted Rambahore (PW-1) on his head and accused Bhimsen assaulted with lathi on his head and meanwhile accused Ramadhar, Ramkhelawan and Lalmani also came and started abusing them.Vidyawati wife of the deceased also came over there and lay on Koushal Prasad to save him then accused Bindawasi also beaten her with lathi.On making hue and cry, people gathered there and accused person fled away.Thereafter, Rambahore (PW-1), Koushal Prasdad, Ansuiya Prasad (PW-2) and Ganga Prasad (PW-3) went to the Police station where Rambahore (PW-1) lodged report Ex.P/1 and Koushal Prasad was sent to Rewa District Hospital, where he died.Vidyawati (PW-5) however has stated that all the accused persons assaulted his husband but it is clear that she reached on the spot later- on and after reaching her on the spot, nobody assaulted her husband.However, she was assaulted by accused Bindawasi, FIR Ex.P/1 has been lodged by Rambahore (PW-1) which also reflects that except accused Suresh, Bindawasi and Dinesh, other accused persons reached on the spot after falling down Koushal Prasad on account of the injuries caused by Suresh, Bindawasi and Dinesh.This fact categorically establishes that accused Suresh, Bindawasi and Dinesh at the time of assaulting the deceased were not member of unlawful assembly with other accused persons and they did not act in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly.In the circumstances it is clear that accused Suresh, Bindawasi and Dinesh are responsible for causing death of the deceased they came there and assaulted simultaneously and caused injuries to the deceased which led to his death.As per opinion of the medical expert Dr. Pramod Shrivastava (PW-11), cause of death was head injury of the deceased which was sufficient to cause his death.However, he has not stated that the injury was sufficient to cause death 10 in ordinary course of nature and the death had taken place after 5 to 6 days of the incident.He has also stated that the injury was caused by hard and blunt object.Hence, medical evidence and ocular evidence is contradictory to each other.In such circumstances, the prosecution version cannot be accepted to be correct beyond reasonable doubt.But the aforesaid opinion has no significance as Dr. Pramod Shrivastava (PW-11) has examined dead body after 5-6 days of the incident during which injuries were stitched and were not in the condition to easily find out whether the injuries were caused by blunt object or sharp object.Hence, it cannot be said that there are material contradictions between the medical evidence and ocular evidence.The testimony of the eye witnesses with regard to causing injuries to Koushal Prasad by accused Suresh, Bindawasi and Dinesh is trustworthy and beyond reasonable doubt it establishes that they were author of the death of Koushal Prasad.Now, the question arises whether appellants Suresh, Bindawasi and Dinesh have committed murder of the deceased or culpable homicide.From the record it appears that the deceased and the accused persons are residents of the same village and close relative and there was a land dispute between them and the alleged incident took place when deceased Koushal Prasad and his companion tried to cultivate Raur field and the appellants assaulted the deceased and only one injury was fatal.There is no specific opinion of the medical expert that the injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and no instant death had taken place.The deceased survived 5 to 6 days after the incident.Hence, it cannot be said with all certainty that 11 accused Suresh, Bindawasi and Dinesh assaulted the deceased with a view to commit his murder.However, with all certainty it can be said that they all acted knowingly that by their act death may be caused and the head injury led to death caused by Dinesh; and accused Suresh and Bindawasi had common intention with him as they all came together with weapons and also assaulted him.Hence, all the aforesaid three accused persons may be held guilty for committing culpable homicide of deceased Koushal Prasad sharing common intention of them.The defence taken by the accused persons about exercising right of private defence of their property does not appear to be plausible as there is no evidence that the appellants were in exclusive possession of the land on which the incident was taken place.Hence, his testimony is meaningless with regard to possession over the disputed land.Therefore, the defence is not found to be proved and the learned trial Court has rightly ignored it.As discussed earlier, so far as other accused persons Ramesh and Lalmani are concerned, they reached on the spot after falling of deceased Koushal Prasad on account of sustaining head injury, therefore, they cannot be held guilty for forming unlawful assembly having common object for causing death of Koushal Prasad.Apart from it, the evidence about accused Ramesh and Lalmani with regard to taking part in the incident even later part is also not trustworthy.Their name has not been mentioned in the FIR Ex.Therefore, learned trial Court has not committed any error in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove their participation in the incident.So far as other accused persons Ramadhar, Bhimsen, Bhuvneshwar and Ramkhelawan are concerned, they reached on the spot separately without having common object or common intention, therefore, they can be held guilty 12 for their own individual act.Learned trial court has given benefit of doubt to accused Ramkhelawan as none of the witnesses have specifically mentioned that he caused injury to any member of the complainant party.We also do not find any cogent reason to interfere in the aforesaid finding.On careful reading of testimony of Rambahore (PW-1), Ansuiya Prasad (PW-2), Ganga Prasad (PW-3) and Vidyawati (PW-5) it is established that accused Dinesh also caused simply injury with farsa on the head of Rambahore (PW-1) and co-accused Bhimsen and Bhuvneshwar also caused simple injury with lathi to Rambahore (PW-1) and Ramadhar caused simple injury with lathi to Ansuiya (PW-2) and accused Suresh and Bindawasi also willfully caused injury with lathi to Vidyawati (PW-5).In view of the aforesaid discussions, appellants Suresh, Bindawasi and Dinesh are held guilty for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC for committing culpable homicide of Koushal Prasad and appellants Suresh and Bindawasi are also held guilty for commission of offence under Section 323 of the IPC.They were armed with lathi and have not caused fatal injury.Hence, appellants Suresh and Bindawasi are sentenced to the period already undergone by them in 14 jail as mentioned earlier with the fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default of payment of fine, further 6 months RI.Appellants Suresh and Bindawasi are on bail.Their bail bonds stand discharged.So far as other accused Persons Bhimsen and Bhuvneshwar are concerned, they have been found guilty for causing willfully simple injury to Rambahore (PW-1) and learned trial court has convicted them under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months but they have not filed any appeal and they have already undergone the aforesaid sentence during trial.Therefore, no further order is required to be passed in this regard.So far as accused Ramadhar is concerned, he is convicted under Section 323 of the IPC for causing simple injury to Ansuiya Prasad (PW-2) with lathi.With the aforesaid, the appeals filed by the accused persons are partly allowed and the appeal filed by the State is dismissed.A copy of this order be sent to the trial court and the jail authorities concerned for information and necessary action.2.5.4.20=a650f9cd964b96221568096ac01ab1bf0 19e0b76f6fc652f893c6324a2f64a5a, PAROUHA cn=JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Date: 2018.05.21 11:32:24 +05'30'","['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(a) A1 is the wife of the deceased Shankar.When it came to the knowledge of the deceased., he not only warned her but also began to quarrel and beat her.Hence, A1 and A2 desired to finish him off.On the date of occurrence i.e., on 15.4.2003 at 11.30 hours when both A1 and the deceased were in the house, they were quarrelling.On seeing the deceased beating A1, A2 beat the deceased on different parts of the body.A1 took her husband inside the house and A2 left the place.After sometime, when A2 came there, A1 informed him that she has caused the death of her husband by strangulation.Immediately, A1 and A2 took the body of the deceased and buried the same nearby the lake bund.(b) On 18.11.2004, when P.W.1-Ward Councillor was in his office, A2 appeared before him and gave a confessional statement.It was also recorded by P.W.1 and P.W.1 took A2 to the Police Station and produced him before P.W.7, Inspector of Police of the concerned circle.P9 was despatched to Court.Following the confessional statement made by A2, A1 was arrested.(c) P.W.7, Investigating Officer took up investigation.A1 took the Police Officer and the witnesses to the place of burial and the dead body was exhumed in the presence of Tahsildar, P.W.5 and other witnesses.The investigating officer made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P5 in the presence of witnesses and drew a rough sketch Ex.The dead body was subjected to post mortem.Thereafter, A1 and A2 were sent for judicial remand.P.W.2 registered a case in Crime No.315 of 2004 under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 I.P.C. and the express F.I.R.-Ex.(d) P.W.4 doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased has given the post mortem certificate Ex.P.3 wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to effects of ligature strangulation.On completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report.(e) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and relied on 13 exhibits and 7 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution and they denied them as false.D.W.1 Durga was examined on the side of the defence.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took a view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found A1 guilty under section 302 r/w 34 and 201 I.P.C. and awarded life imprisonment and 7 years rigorous imprisonment respectively along with fine and default sentences and found A2 guilty under section 201 r/w 34 I.P.C. and awarded 7 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine and default sentence.Hence, these appeals at the instance of the appellants.Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellants, learned senior counsel made the following submissions.Learned counsel would submit that the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer.The occurrence has taken place on 15.11.2004, at that time, A2 was not present.(c) The case of the prosecution is that three days after the occurrence i.e., on 18.11.2004, A2 suddenly appeared before P.W.1-ward councillor.It is not the case of the prosecution that A2 already knew the councillor.Apart from that, a perusal of the confession statement would clearly indicate that it was only an exculpatory.Even A2 did not have any direct knowledge of the alleged incident i.e., the cause of death of the deceased Shankar.(d) Further, in the instant case, even according to the prosecution, A2 appeared before the councillor-P.W.1 during night hours on 18.11.2004 but the witnesses clearly reveal that the police came to the spot during noon hours and A1 and A2 informed the cause of death of A1's husband to the Police.Thus, the Police knew about the incident even much earlier.The story that A2 went to P.W.1's office and gave extra judicial confession and the same was recorded and a case came to be registered only thereafter, were all concocted for the case of the prosecution.Learned counsel would submit that the extra-judicial confession made by an accused pointing to the other accused, cannot be a substantive piece of evidence; that the Court in order to find out whether it lends assurance, should also look into whether other pieces of evidence are available.In the instant case, there is no supportive evidence available.In so far as A1 is concerned, the extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by A2 could not be acted to sustain conviction.Hence, A1 has got to be acquitted.(f) Added further learned counsel, as far as A2 is concerned, the trial Court found him guilty under section 201 r/w 34 I.P.C. and awarded punishment of seven years rigorous imprisonment.This part of the judgment cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the confession statement was alleged to have been made before P.W.1 by A2 during night hours on 18.11.2004, that too, to a stranger.Under such circumstances, A2 is also entitled for acquittal.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.It is not in controversy that the dead body of one Shankar was exhumed and examined in the presence of P.W.5-Tahsildar and other witnesses and following the inquest made, the dead body was subjected to postmortem.P.W.4 doctor who conducted post mortem has given his opinion through post mortem certificate Ex.P3 that the deceased would appear to have died due to effects of ligature strangulation.This was never disputed by the appellant either before this Court or before the trial Court.Hence, it could be safely recorded that the deceased Shankar died out of homicidal violence.The charges levelled against these appellants before the Trial Court was that A1 caused the death of her husband and A1 and A2 joined together and buried the dead body and that they have not only committed the crime of murder but also screened the offence.It is seen from the evidence of P.Ws 2 and 3, A1 developed illicit intimacy with A2 and when it came to the knowledge of her husband/deceased Shankar, he scolded her and beat her.On the date of occurrence i.e., on 15.11.2004, A2 beat the husband of A1 for torturing his wife and A1 caused the death of her husband.In order to prove the factual position, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer but only the extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by A2 to P.W.1-Ward councillor.Even as per the prosecution case, A2 had no role to play in the alleged offence and it was only A1 who informed him that she caused the death of her husband.A2 has given extra judicial confession, few days after the date of occurrence, to P.W.1-Ward councillor who was a stranger.A perusal of the extra judicial confession would clearly indicate that he has not given any inculpatory statement regarding participation in the murder.The extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by A2 to P.W.1, a stranger will not in any way bind A2 and this is the only piece of evidence available before the trial Court.Barred this evidence, the prosecution has no evidence at all.Under such circumstances, at no stretch of imagination, conviction could be sustained on the said piece of evidence which has no evidentiary value at all.At this juncture, learned counsel brought to the notice of the Court that from the evidence available, it could be seen that police went to place of occurrence during noon hours on 18.11.2004, earlier before the confession statement given by A2 to P.W.1 but the police have not registered a case at that time.Hence, the extra judicial confession and the alleged arrest are all cooked up story.Under such circumstances, such evidence in the opinion of the Court cannot form basis to sustain the conviction as against A2 and it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction as against A2 on such evidence.The lower court has lost sight of the factual and legal position and has taken an erroneous view and passed the judgement of conviction and sentence which has got to undone only by setting aside the same.Accordingly, these criminal appeals are allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the court below.The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.The bail bonds if any executed by the appellants shall stand terminated and the fine amounts if any paid by them is ordered to be refunded to them.The Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.1), ChenglepetInspector of Police, Peerkan Karanai Police Station, Chenglepet District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras","['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The sole respondent is admittedly the owner of a Kannada Daily Newspaper by name “Jaya Kirana” published from Mangalore, Karnataka.Chelameswar, J.1. Leave granted.On 16.12.2013, the said newspaper carried a news item containing certain allegations against theSignature Not Verified appellant herein.According to the appellant, the allegations areDigitally signed byDEEPAK MANSUKHANIDate: 2017.12.0415:58:33 ISTReason:Aggrieved by the order dated 15.04.2014, the respondentcarried the matter in Revision Petition No.219 of 2014 before theSessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore.By the orderdated 06.11.2015, the respondent’s revision was dismissed.By an order dated23.11.2016, the said petition was allowed and the proceedings inCC No.1252 of 2014, insofar as they pertained to the respondent,were quashed.Both in his revision as well as the petition under Section482 Cr.P.C., the respondent urged various grounds whichaccording to him render the order dated 15.04.2014 illegal.The first threeparagraphs of the judgment under appeal (running into a shortone and a half page) purport to take note of only one submissionof the respondent.The petitioner admittedly was the owner.The petitioner admittedly was the owner.",['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Learned APP waives servicefor the respondent State in all these petitions whereas advocate Mr.N.B. Narwade waives service for the respondent complainant.On therequest of both the sides, the matters are heard finally at the stage ofadmission and are being disposed of by this common judgment.26.wp.1582.16.odtrespondent complainant went missing in the evening of 30.06.2001.He went to the Police Station concerned and attempted to lodged amissing report but he was kept waiting.His complaint was destroyed.On their own the police machinery registered a missing complaint onnext day.All the while he was suspecting about his son having beenmurdered.Heard the learned advocates of all the four petitioners.The petitioners are the accused nos. 10, 7, 4 and 9 from thecomplaint bearing Criminal Case No.572/2008 filed by the respondentcomplainant in the Court of Magistrate at Ahmednagar.In sum andsubstance the allegations are to the effect that the son of the 3/14 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::The dead body was found near a railway track in the nextmorning.In spite of existence of number of circumstances pointing tothe fact that it was a murder the police machinery had acted hand ingloves with the main culprits and at every moment made attempt toscreen the offenders and mala fide did not discharge their duties eitheras was expected of them or in utter disregard to the directions of thesuperior.Giving details he filed the complaint for various offencesagainst the petitioners and the other police officers, covered byChapter IX of the Indian Penal Code like 166, 167, 201, 218, 211 readwith Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 145 of theMumbai Police Act.The learned Magistrate directed an inquiry under Section202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.After receipt of a positivereport, by the impugned order dated 06.01.2014 the learnedMagistrate directed the process to be issued against the petitioners andfew other accused but refused to issue process against some of theaccused.The petitioners preferred separate revisions challenging the 4/14 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::26.wp.1582.16.odtorder of issuance of process before the Sessions Court.By theimpugned separate orders, the learned Additional Sessions Judgedismissed the revisions.Hence these petitions.The learned advocates submitted that accepting theallegations in the complaint at their face value, all the necessaryingredients for constituting the offence cannot be made out.The learned advocates also submitted that the alleged actswhich according to the respondent complainant constitutes theoffences for which the process has been issued have been done by the 5/14 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::The learned Additional Sessions Judge has clearly erred inrefusing to consider it at the stage of inception.The learned APP and the learned advocate for therespondent complainant support both the orders.They submit that at 6/14 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::26.wp.1582.16.odtvery limited in ascertaining as to if there was sufficient material beforethe Magistrate, to form an opinion for proceeding.9/14 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::As far as accused no. 4 is concerned the report reads thathe had accompanied the co-accused who was an Assistant SubInspector who was asked to conduct inquiry in respect of theAccidental Death Case No.41/2001 and had accompanied him to thespot where the dead body was found.He specifically mentioned thatthe dead body was handed over to him for being taken to the CivilHospital.After postmortem examination he had handed over the deadbody and the articles found on it to the relatives of the deceased.Theclothes on the person of the deceased were kept by the sweeper outside the mortuary and since the relatives of the deceased had notdemanded the clothes he did not bring the clothes to the police station.One cannot comprehend as to why the clothes of the deceased werenot seized and also as to how merely because the relatives did notdemand clothes back, the clothes were allowed to go vanish.As far as accused no.7 is concerned during the inquiry hestated about being in charge of Kotwali Police Station as a SubInspector at the relevant time.He submitted that the report in respectof AD Case No.41/2001 submitted under Section 174 by the co-accused was received by him.In spite of having repeatedly called therespondent complainant and his relatives they did not turn up to himand that he had never threatened him.He further stated about havingcollected report from the Medical Officer who opined that the deceased 10/14 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::26.wp.1582.16.odthad died due to dash given by train.It is thus apparent that accused no.4 has not seized theclothes and the articles found on the person of the deceased andallowed such things to go vanish.Accused no.7 to whom the reportwas submitted also ignored this vital aspect.Though the dead bodywas found by the side of the railway track, no inquiry was made withany railway staff particularly the Gangman and the Train Drivers.Besides though according to petitioner accused no. 7 the respondentcomplainant and his relatives had not turned up for the inquiry, still hesubmitted a report about the deceased having committed suicidewithout their being any cogent material.So far as accused no.9 is concerned it was found in thereport under Section 202 that at the material time he was in charge asPolice Inspector of Kotwali Police Station within the limit of which theincident had occurred.On a grievance being made by the respondentcomplainant with the Superintendent of Police the latter had sent aletter dated 19.07.2001 to the petitioner-accused no.9 specificallydirecting him to inquire into and investigate on specific points detailedtherein (Ex. R-1).In spite of such specific and precise directions tocarry out the investigation objectively, this petitioner-accused no.9 hasnot carried out the investigation as was expected.He was specifically 11/14 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::26.wp.1582.16.odtasked to carry out the investigation and if necessary to examine thewitnesses still he never obeyed these directions and no attempt wasmade to recover the bicycle, chapals and clothes of the deceased.As far as the petitioner-accused no.10 is concerned it wasfound that at the material time he was Deputy Superintendent ofPolice and was expected to have supervision over the work ofPetitioner-accused no.9 who was expected to submit the report as perthe directions of the Superintendent of Police.By no stretch of imagination the order can be said to be perverse,arbitrary or capricious without which the learned Additional SessionsJudge could not have intervened under the powers of revision underSection 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.12/14 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::Thelearned Additional Sessions Judge was conscious enough to specificallyobserve that the issue needs to be kept open for a final decision at theend of the trial.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has notstraight away endorsed the conclusion of the learned Magistrate in theimpugned order that the offence was not committed in discharge of theofficial duty and sanction was not necessary.The observation and theconclusion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned 13/14 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::26.wp.1582.16.odtjudgment keeping this issue open is quite reasonable and expects theMagistrate to adopt correct course of action.Nagawwa (supra) so that the order of issuance of process can beset aside and the complaint can be dismissed.There is no substance inany of the Writ Petitions.The Writ Petitions are dismissed.(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)habeeb 14/14 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2019 05:23:03 :::",['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
"S. V. Gupte, D. P. Singh, R. K. Jain and V. J. Francis,for the appellants.Debabrata Mukherjee and R. N, Sachthey, for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byRay, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the orderand judgment dated 9 September, 1968 of the High CourtRajasthan.The question for consideration is whether the AdditionalSpecial Judge, Rajasthan, Jaipur could proceed with thetrial of Criminal Case No. 2/68/Spl.as directed by theorder of the High Court., That case was initiated under asanction accorded' by the Central Government under section197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 6 (1) (a)of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the appellants alongwith four civilians were charged, with offences punishableunder sections 120-B, 161, 165A. 4,20, 409 and 467-A of theIndian Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act read with sections 5 (1 ) (a) and 5 (1 ) (d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act.The Special Police Establishment, Jaipur Branch on 27January, 1966 put up before the Special Judge, Jaipur acharge-sheet against the four appellants and four civilians.One of the civilians turned approver.The four appellantsthereafter made an application on 13 September, 1966 beforethe Special Judge that they were Commissioned Officers ofthe Indian Army and without complying with the provisions ofsection 549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Rulesthereunder called the ""Criminal Courts and Court Martial(Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules,"" the Special Judge couldnot proceed against the appellants in the criminal courtwhich under the Army Act is described as a civil court asopposed to court-martial under the Army Acts.A revision application wasthereafter moved in the Rajasthan High Court.The HighCourt of Rajasthan by order and judgment dated 20 December,1966 said that the Special Judge would proceed in accordancewith the provisions of Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules framedunder section 549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In compliance with the aforesaid order of the High Court,the Special Judge on 12 January, 1967 gave notice to theCommanding Officer, 123 Infantry Battalion (T.A.), Jaipurnotifying under Rule 4 of the Criminal Courts and CourtMartial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952 that theappellants along with three civilians were charged with theoffences as indicated above and charges would be ""framedagainst the accused after the expiry of a period of sevendays from the date of the service of the notice"".The Special Judge requested the Com-manding Officer to make a reference to the CentralGovernment within seven days failing which the Special Judgewould make a reference to the Central Government.TheSpecial Judge did not deliver the four appellants to theCommanding Officer.On 28 January, 1967 the Officer Commanding, 123 InfantryBattalion (T.A.), Jaipur wrote to the Special Judge that thenotice under Rule 5 of the Criminal Courts and Court Martial(Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952 served by theOfficer on the Special Judge by letter dated 16 January,1967 might be treated ,as cancelled.On 21 March, 1968 the appellants made an application beforethe Additional Special Judge, Jaipur that the CommandingOfficer acted illegally and without jurisdiction incancelling the earlier notice dated 16 January, 1967 and theCommanding Officer should have made a reference to the Chiefof the Army Staff.The appellants prayed that they might behanded over to the Commanding Officer in terms of the letterdated 17 January, 1967 issued by the Commanding Officerasking the Special Judge to deliver the appellants, to theArmy authorities.On 5 April, 1968 the Additional885Special Judge held that the Officer Commanding revised hisdiscretion and intimated by letter dated 28 January, 1967that the earlier notice dated 16 January, 1967 issued underRule 5 requiring delivery of the appellants to the Armyauthorities for trial by Court Martial was cancelled andtherefore the Special Judge would try the case and notdeliver the appellants to the army authorities.The appellants thereafter made an application to the HighCourt of Rajasthan under section 435 read with section 561-Aof ,the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing theproceedings before the Additional Special Judge and fordirecting the Special Judge to hand over the appellants tobe tried by Court Martial.The High Court by order dated 9September, 1968 dismissed the revision application anddirected the Special Judge, Rajasthan to conduct the trialexpeditiously, because sufficient time had elapsed since thesubmission of The charge-sheet by the Special PoliceEstablishment Branch, Jaipur.Counsel on behalf of the appellants contended that the orderof the High Court was wrong for 3 reasons : First, that theSpecial Judge having issued a notice on 12 January, 1967under Rule 4 of the Criminal Courts and Court Martial(Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 19,52 to the OfficerCommanding and having received a reply dated 16 January,1967 from the Officer, the Special Judge had nojurisdiction to deal with an application of the State madeon 17 January, 1967 and pass an order on 17 January, 1967 onthe stay application that the Commanding Officer should makea reference to the Central Government.The appeal therefore fails and dismissed.","['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The Appellant was tried in S.C. No. 125 of 1988 on the file of the 8th Assistant Sessions Judge, Madras, under three heads of charges.The first charge was for an offence under Section 452, I.P.C., on the allegation that on 25-4-1986 between 9 and 10 A.M., when P.W. 1 Frederick Kanakaraj, the District Munsif, Ponneri, was travelling in an electric train from Madras Central to reach his work spot, on the way at Ennore Railway Station, the appellant due to prior enmity trespassed into the first class compartment, where P.W. 1, was seated, after having made preparation to attack him.The second charge was framed for an offence under Section 307, I.P.C. alleging that during the course of the same transaction, the appellant attacked P.W. 1, with a koduval knife by chasing the victim, who got down from the first class compartment No. 12252 and got into a second class compartment, to escape from the wrath of the appellant.The third charge was framed for an offence under Section 333, I.P.C. alleging that during the course of the same transaction, due to prior enmity, in that, P.W. 1, had decided against him in a case, caused grievous hurt to P.W. 1, a public servant and prevented him from discharging his duties as such public servant.The trial Judge found the appellant guilty of all the charges and sentenced him as hereunder : In respect of the first charge, the appellant was sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.Under charge No. 3, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.The facts which led to this prosecution need narration.Federick Kanakaraj, at the relevant time, when this incident had occurred, was working as District Munsif at Ponneri.On every working day he used to leave his residence at Kilpauk, Madras, on his motor cycle and reach the Central Railway Station.After parking his motor cycle at the Central Railway Station stand for motor cycles, he used to take an electric train to reach Ponneri.He had obtained permission from this Court, to stay at Madras and go for his work at Ponneri, daily.Every day he used to board the electric train leaving Madras Central Railway Station at 8.25 a.m. On the fateful day i.e., on 25-4-1986, after parking his motor cycle, he was unable to board the electric train which left Madras at 8.25 a.m., and therefore, had to necessarily take the next train, which left at 9.05 a.m. P.W. 1, boarded the first class compartment in which he was authorised to travel by virtue of the Season Ticket Ex.P. 2 obtained from the Railways.P. 4 is the token-cum-pass issued at the Central Railway Cycle Stand, for the parking of the Motor Cycle of P.W. 1, daily.Along with P.W. 1, P.W. 2, Ravichandran, an Engineer working in the Public Works Department at Gummudipundi and two policemen of whom one has been examined as P.W. 17, travelled in the same compartment.The appellant was known to P.W. 1, earlier.The appellant was known to P.W. 1, since he had deposed before him in the aforementioned proceeding.Nearly 2 1/2 months thereafter, when P.W. 1 was travelling on 25-4-1986 in the electric train, he was as usual perusing the morning newspaper, inside the compartment.He was seated adjacent to the window.P.W. 2 was seated opposite to him.The train had reached the Ennore Railway Station at or about 9.35 a.m. At that time the appellant got into the first class compartment, where P.W. 1, was seated, with a small brief case and stood near the entrance to the compartment.The appellant wished P.W. 1 which was reciprocated by the latter.Subsequently the appellant nearer the place where P.W. 1 was seated and suddenly, unexpected by P.W. 1, opened the brief case, removed a koduval and stating ""you have written a judgment against me.Even then, the appellant chased and the next cut aimed by the appellant fell on the right hand of P.W. 1, between the thumb and the index finger.P.W. 1, further ran and got into a second class compartment.The appellant, who followed P.W. 1, also got into the second class compartment and again attacked P.W. 1 with the Koduval.P.W. 1, attempted to ward of the cuts and in the process sustained injuries in the left and right hands.The right ring finger and half of the little finger were precariously hanging due to the cut injuries inflicted by the appellant.The public who were aghast and who had crumbled away, re-gathered and one of them threw a water drum at the appellant and another beat him with an iron rod.Due to the beating with the iron rod, the koduval held by the appellant fell down.Later several members of the public beat the appellant.Soon thereafter P.W. 3, Jayapalan, the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Ponneri, P.W. 4, Rasish, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri, P.W. 5 Munirathinam, the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Ponneri and P.W. 6, Susairaj, an Advocate normally practising at Ponneri and Susheela, not examined, an Examiner in the Court of P.W. 1, helped P.W. 1, to alight from the second class compartment.They boarded him in a tricycle, to take him to the Ennore Police Station.On the way, P.W. 21, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ennore, came in a Mini Bus.He stopped the bus and put P.W. 1 in the Mini Bus, along with P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 to be taken to the Government General Hospital, Madras, for treatment.P.W. 17, Rathinaswamy, a constable attached to the Railway Protection Force, Madras Central Railway Station, who was travelling along with another Railway Reserve-Constable 209 in the Compartment in which P.W. 1, was travelling, had witnessed the attack on P.W. 1 by the appellant, after the latter had uttered the challenging words incorporated earlier in this judgment.He has also spoken about the threat administered by the appellant, when he and others attempted to restrain him.P.W. 17 noticed P.W. 1, running towards the room of the station-master and the appellant chasing him.Regarding this incident, P.W. 17 informed the Inspector of Police, Central Railway Station, over the telephone.Meanwhile, the public had apprehended the appellant and had kept him in the platform, opposite to the waiting room.He had also noticed P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 taking P.W. 1 out of the Railway Station.sound over the dorsal and outer border.Left index ulnar aspect 2"" mid finger over tip.1"" left forearm on dorsum 1"".He also opined, that the head injuries noticed by him, would have endangered the life of the person, if immediate and proper treatment had not been given.He had also advised X-ray being taken.Though the patient was conscious, alert and answered to questions, his condition was serious.Soon after blood groupong was done, blood transfusion was commenced.He was listed as a dangerously ill patient and was referred to various specialists, for further management.P.W. 22, Chinnaswamy, who was the Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Central Railway Station, received the message, of this occurrence, from P.W. 17 at or about 10 a.m. P.W. 2 informed P.W. 17 to guard the place till he reached the scene.A little later P.W. 17 informed over the telephone, that the injured District Munsif, Ponneri, had been sent in a police van by P.W. 21, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ennore, for treatment to the hospital, at Madras, P.W. 22 directed P.W. 17 and Constable 209, to keep the apprehended appellant, in proper custody.The second telephonic message was also entered by P.W. 22 in the General Diary.Soon thereafter P.W. 22 proceeded to the Government Stanley Hospital, excepting the victim to be brought over to the said hospital.Since P.W. 1 had not reached the Government Stanley Hospital till 11.45 a.m., over the phone, he contacted the Central Railway Police Station and learnt that P.W. 1, had been taken for treatment to the Government General Hospital, Madras.P. 29 is the printed form of the F.I.R. P.W. 22 seized M.Os.3 to 5 the bloodstained pant, banian and shirt of P.W. 1 under a mahazar Ex.P. 28 at or about 12.25 p.m. Thereafter P.W. 22 proceeded to Ennore Railway Station.P.W. 21 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ennore Police Station, received a message over the telephone, at or about 10 a.m. on 25-4-1986 from the Superintendent, Ennore Railway Station that a person, had cut the Ponneri District Magistrate, leading to chase and confusion and wanted him to go over to the Railway Station immediately.When the phone call was received by P.W. 21, Sundaramurthy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Arambakkam (Not examined) was with him.P.W. 21 took Sundaramurthy along with him in the Police mini bus TTH 2513 driven by Manoharan, not examined, and went towards Ennore Railway Station.As he was leaving for Ennore Railway Station, the same information regarding the incident, was conveyed to him by police constable, who had arrived there then.When the van had travelled about 100 metres, he noticed a tricycle coming in the opposite direction, in which P.W. 1, was being taken by P.Ws. 3 to 5 towards the Ennore Police Station.He found P.W. 1 with several cut injuries.P.W. 21 directed the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sundaramurthy, to accompany the injured, along with P.Ws. 3 to 5 in the mini bus, to the Government General Hospital.P.W. 4 told P.W. 21, that the assailant of P.W. 1, had been kept at the Ennore Railway Station.After the bus left, P.W. 21 went to the Ennore Railway Station.He found the appellant kept detained opposite to the first class waiting room.He found simple injuries on the appellant.At the main entrance to the station, he found a green drum.A little distance away he noticed an ash colour brief case.As little further away an aruval was found with bloodstains.P.W. 21 noticed bloodstains, near the board ""First Class Ladies"", on the Platform.Soon thereafter from the Ennore Railway Station, he telephoned to the Inspector of Police, Madras Central Railway Station.The latter directed him to keep guard and promised to go over there.At or about 2.15 p.m. P.W. 22 arrived at the Ennore Railway Station.P.W. 22, who had arrived, at the Ennore Railway Station, found the appellant in the custody of P.W. 21, P.W. 17 and another constable.P.W. 22 prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P. 7 in the presence of P.W. 11 and another.The scene sketch Ex.P. 30 was also prepared.He seized the bloodstained kuduval, the ash colour suit case containing a cooling glass and a hacksaw blade.He seized two issues of Murasoli dated 18-4-1986 and 24-4-1986, one issue of Dinamani dated 25-4-1986, four bits of bandages, certain notices, an identity card issued in favour of Balaraman, a dividend cheque for Rs. 90/- in favour of the appellant issued by Ashok Leyland, a comb, a prince blade and two more blades, white pant, a multi-coloured half-arm shirt, a kerchief and a ball-point pen.These articles were seized under the mahazar Ex.P. 8, attested by P.W. 11 and another.At 2.50 p.m. P.W. 10 seized the green colour drum M.O. 6 under the mahazar Ex.P. 11, attested by P.W. 13 and another.Under the mahazar Ex.Outside the Ennore Railway Station, he found a Rajdoot Motor Cycle M.O. 19 bearing registration No. T.M.Z. 615, which he seized under the mahazar Ex.P. 10, attested by P.W. 12 and another.On being questioned by P.W. 22, the accused gave a statement, which was recorded by P.W. 22, which was subsequently registered as Crime No. 130 of 1986 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 336, I.P.C. at 4 p.m. Ex.P. 31 is the printed First Information Report.The accused in the said crime, are stated to be the public.She has opined, that the injuries found on the appellant, could have been sustained, in the manner and time alleged.She had not expressed any opinion in respect of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, and had stated that she would be in a position to offer any opinion only after seeing the case sheet and the subsequent treatment given to the injured at the Hospital.P.W. 22 went to the electric train yard along with the official Photographer, P.W. 16 at 5.30 p.m. on the same day.P.W. 22 also prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P. 32 attested by Narsimhan and sridar, not examined.P.W. 22 noticed bloodstains in both the compartments.He scrapped the bloodstains and seized them under the mahazar Ex.He also prepared the sketches of the railway compartments, Exs.M.O. 21 series are the photographs of the compartments.At or about 6 p.m. P.W. 22 went to the Government General Hospital over again.Due to the injuries sustained by him, even after treatment, P.W. 1, used to experience blackout in his eye-sight, sweating and incessant giddiness, resulting in his inability to perform his duties, as efficiently as done earlier.Apart from P.W. 17, P.Ws. 2 to 6 have also been examined as eye-witnesses.He had seen P.W. 1 running towards the station-master's room from near the first class compartment.He had also noticed a person chasing him and cutting him with a koduval.When P.W. 10 went to the room of the stationmaster to telephone about the stoppage of the train he found P.W. 1 with bleeding injuries on the neck and hands.P.W. 1 was seen by him being taken out of the railway station by a few persons.Before sealing he noticed a suit case inside the compartment which he handed over to a boy nearby with a direction to entrust it to the appellant.The occurrence was in broad day light, witnessed by several ocular witnesses.The assailant was caught, even while he was attacking the victim and kept under guard to be handed over to the investigating agency.The seizure, of the weapon of offence and certain other articles belonging to the appellant, was made at the scene soon thereafter.P.W. 17 had deposed that he got into the train along with another police constable 209 at Korukkupet, in the first class compartment where P.W. 1 was seated.P.W. 17 has fixed the presence of P.W. 2 in the said compartment.As soon as the train started at Ennore Railway Station, a person wearing a cement colour pant and shirt with an identical coloured suit case, got into the compartment and stood at the entrance.After the train, started moving, the person, who got into the train, offered his respects to P.W. 1, who reciprocated.P.W. 2 also joined P.W. 17 to restrain the appellant; but the appellant waving his koduval attempted to cut them.Meanwhile P.W. 1 go out of the compartment and went towards the station-master's room, shouting ""he is cutting"".After witnessing this part of the occurrence, P.W. 17, informed over the telephone from the office of the A.S.I. to P.W. 22, the Inspector of Police, Central Railway Station.P.W. 10 proceeded to the office of the Assistant Station Master to inform his higher authorities about the stoppage of the train at Ennore Railway Station.Under charge No. 2, he was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.The appellant had filed a redelivery petition in E.A. No. 384 of 1984 in R.C.O.P. No. 34 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Ponneri.The appellant got in down from the compartment, chased P.W. 1, and attempted to cut with the koduval, on the back of his head.P.Ws. 3 and 5 had P.W. 1 admitted at the General Hospital, Madras, for treatment.P.W. 19 Dr. Rathinaswamy was working as a Casuality Medical Officer, on 25-4-1986, at the Government General Hospital.He examined at 10.30 a.m. the injured P.W. 1, who was alleged to have been attacked by a known person, with knife at Ennore Railway Station at or about 9.35 a.m. on the same day.The injuries noticed by him on P.W. 1, have been noted in Ex.P. 26, the accident Register, which is typed hereunder :-1) Incised wound over the left elbow on the outer aspect exposing the bone 12 c.m. x 5 c.m.2) Incised wound in the first web space of right hand up to metacarpus joint 3"".Right little and ring fingers severed at distal phalanx level and less of part of bail of the mid finger.3) Incised wound over the left frontal parietal region 6"" Bone deep.4) 3 incised wounds over left occipital region crossing each other, like H5"" each.5) Two incised wounds over right occipital region extending up to right ear 6"" x 3"".6) Incised wound over posterior aspect of right arm exposing triceps 3"" x 1"" near the elbow up to bone.Abrasion over the abdominal wall.7) Left hand incised wound over the hypothenar eminence 2"" disttal palmer crease 2"" thumb 7 cm.Immediately P.W. 22 proceeded to the Government General Hospital and found the injured P.W. 1, in Ward No. 1, undergoing treatment.P.W. 1, was conscious.Though the actual time of the recording of this statement has not been stated, it is clear that this statement marked as Ex.P. 6 was registered at or about 1 p.m. at Korukkupet Police Station in Crime No. 129 of 1986 for offences under sections 324, 326 and 307, I.P.C. Ex.P.W. 22 arrested the appellant.He reached Korukkupet Police Station at 4 p.m. Since P.W. 22 noticed injuries on the appellant, he forwarded him for medical examination with a memo to the Stanley Medical Hospital, Madras.She noticed certain injuries on the appellant, stated to have been caused due to an assault by 10 unknown persons with iron rods.The injuries noticed on the appellant by P.W. 23 form part of the accident register extract Ex.P. 36, typed down below.Lacerated injury 2"" x 1/2"" on the left Parietal region.Lacerated wound on the left index finger at M.P. joint level 2"" x 1"".Contusion right side forehead 2"" x 1"".Lacerated wound vertex 2"" x 1"".Bleeding from the nostrils and complains haemolysis.6. Complains pain on the left hand and the lacerated wound on the left parietal.P.W. 23 directed X-ray to be taken of the appellant.He was admitted as an in-patient.Later in the evening he recorded the statement of P.W. 17 and others.On the same night at Ponneri, he examined P.W. 3, the Judicial Second Class Magistrate.P.W. 22 forwarded the bloodstained articles seized during investigation, through the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Ponneri, for Chemical analysis.Reverting back to some more facts, the prosecution has exhibited the judgment pronounced by P.W. 1 In E.A. No. 384 of 1984 as Ex.P.W. 1 who was admitted in the Hospital on the date of occurrence had to be an in-patient for a period of six months and one week.P.W. 18 the Head Clerk attached to the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, speaks about the bloodstained articles M.Os.2 to 5 seized during investigation having been sent for chemical analysis and report, to the laboratory and the receipt of the reports after analysis.Similar the Court forwarded the blood scrapings from the train M.O. 20 and the sample scrapings M.O. 21 from the compartment and bloodstained earth M.O. 17 and sample earth M.O. 18 to the laboratory for analysis and report.P. 24 and P. 25 are the reports of the Chemical Analyst and Serologist respectively.The blood found on the clothes of the accused, the koduval and the scrapings at the Ennore Railway Station and the train compartment, were found to be of human origin.At the time of discharge, P.W. 14 issued the certificate Ex.The discharge summary regarding the patient has been marked at Ex.The X-rays taken, 40 in number, have been produced as M.O. 20 series.He has deposed as follows :-""On the basis of the injuries sustained by the patient noted in the Accident Register at the time of his admission in the Hospital and also on the basis of the subsequent treatment given to the patient at the hospital I have given my opinion as both injuries of grievous in nature.Almost all the injuries sustained by the patient in that alleged occurrence are grievous in nature.All the grievous injuries sustained by the injured P.W. 1 would possibly having caused by a weapon like M.O. 2 Multiple head injury generally endanger the life of the person who sustained a these injuries, the injuries found on P.W. 1 have created permanent disabilities.Because of these permanent disabilities P.W. 1 is having restricted movements in both of his hands.Because of the head injuries sustained by P.W. 1 out of this alleged occurrence even after treatment he will be having sometimes giddiness, and blackout of eyes.""He examined P.W. 1 on 4-5-1986 and he examined over again some of the other witnesses during the course of his investigation.The Appellant, when questioned by the trial Court under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, denied his complicity in the crime.He stated that the prosecution witnesses had uttered falsehood.P.W. 15 had dispossessed him contrary to the order of interim stay obtained by him.The motor cycle and the articles seized by the police along with the brief case belonged to him; but they were taken away from his house.He was beaten under a wrong assumption.He admitted having been sent to Stanley Medical Hospital for treatment and his remand to the Judicial custody thereafter.He has further stated that the police had beaten him and he was innocent.Though initially he represented that he had witnesses to be examined on his side, later he gave up that stand.However, he had marked Exs.The learned trial Judge, on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, found the appellant guilty of all the three charges and dealt with him as stated earlier.He also contended, that the injuries on the accused had not been explained by the prosecution, which was an additional factor enuring in favour of the appellant.On coming out from the office of the A.S.I., soon after telephoning to.P.W. 22, he found that the appellant had been caught by the Public and kept near the first class waiting room.The appellant had also injuries on him.P.W. 1 who was tottering due to the injuries sustained by him, was being taken out off the railway station by three Magistrates.The train in which P.W. 1 travelled left the station after sometime and before that P.W. 10, the railway guard had sealed the compartment.A little later, P.W. 21, the Sub-Inspector of Police, arrived at the railway station and P.W. 17 along with P.W. 21 awaited the arrival of P.W. 22, the Inspector of Police, Central Railway Police Station.It has been elicited in cross-examination of P.W. 17 that while he gave the message, he did not inform that the victim was a Magistrate and all that he was able to say was that one person had cut another.A contradiction was pointed that the first paragraph of Ex.P. 29 read as though, that P.W. 17 (P.C. 345) had given a message entered in the General Diary stating, that Balaraman (who was the assailant) had cut indiscriminately the Pon neri District Munsif in the compartment and the platform, at Ennore Railway Station, resulting in tension and disturbance and that the accused Balaraman had been beaten and apprehended by the public.When the fact remains that P.W. 17 had given a message to P.W. 22, that the assailant had been caught, while the victim had been sent to the hospital, nothing serious can turn out, on this alleged discrepancy.It was also pointed out that, according to P.W. 17, P.W. 21 had arrived at Ennore Railway Station only after the train had left, but still P.W. 17 would have it that he saw P.W. 2 talking with P.W. 21 at the railway station, which could not be true, for admittedly P.W. 2 had left in the same train, for Gummudi-pundi.It was further pointed out that Ex. D. 2 the remand report showed that the appellant was travelling in the train even from Kathivakkam, a railway station situated before Ennore Railway Station between Madras and Ennore and, therefore, if the appellant had been in the train earlier, he could not have got into the train for the first time at Ennore Railway Station and, therefore, the evidence of P.W. 17 had to be suspected.The admission of P.W. 17, that he could not normally travel in a first class compartment, was also pressed into service to discredit his version.P.W. 22 had prepared the remand report, on the evidence collected till then during investigation.It may be that the appellant travelled from Kathivakkam in another compartment, for in the evidence, it is clear as deposed to by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 17 that the appellant had got into the first class compartment only at Ennore Railway Station.There is overwhelming evidence connecting the appellant with the crime inclusive of his having been apprehended soon thereafter and, therefore, these contradictions though do exist, cannot exculpate the appellant from the crime.The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to seriously challenge the ocular version of the other eye-witnesses including the victim.As far as the victim is concerned, he contended, that the presence of P.W. 2 had not been mentioned in the first information report and specifically the words alleged to have been used by the appellant while he had attacked him had not been mentioned in the earliest document.If we take note of the shock and fright that should have been experienced by P.W. 1, who had been mercilessly attacked, resulting in several injuries, the non-mention of these details, cannot be taken to throw a doubt on the substratum of the prosecution case, which is not only natural, but rings true as well.P.W. 17 has corroborated the version of P.W. 1, that the appellant had stated those words, that he would make P.W. 1 not to write such judgments any more, while inflicting the cuts.I am satisfied that P.Ws. 1 and 17 had spoken the truth, not only relating to the words spoken by the appellant during the course of the attack, but also its subsequent facets.Of the other eye-witnesses, P.W. 3 was the then Judicial Second Class Magistrate at Ponneri, while P.W. 4 was the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri.P.W. 5 was the Assistant Public Prosecutor in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri, while P.W. 6 was an Advocate practising in the Courts situated at Ponneri.These four witnesses were travelling in a second class compartment from Madras, their destination being Ponneri.P.W. 4 alone had got into the train at Basin Bridge Junction.All these witnesses have uniformly deposed, that at the Ennore Railway Station at or about 9.45 a.m. when the train had halted, they heard a noise, which made them to peep out.They found P.W. 1, who was bleeding in his head, face, and neck, running towards the room of the Station Master shouting ""he is cutting"".They also found the appellant running behind P.W. 1 with a koduval 1 1/2 in length.They attempted to obstruct the appellant by getting out of the compartment, but they failed in their attempts, since the appellant was brandishing the koduval.They actually saw the appellant cutting P.W. 1 not only in the platform, but also in the second class compartment where P.W. 1 took refuge after he found, that the room of the Station Master had been locked.Except a general suggestion that these witnesses were desirous of helping a Judicial Officer and, therefore, had uttered falsehood, nothing further has been alleged against them.The presence of these witnesses appears to be natural and the further fact of P.Ws. 3 to 5 having taken the injured from Ennore Railway Station to the Government General Hospital, which had been noticed by several of the witnesses, affords additional assurance that they must have seen the incident as spoken to by them.It is rather unfortunate that P.W. 3 had received the first information report from the investigating agency in his Court and had also chosen to reject the petition filed by the appellant for the return of the motor cycle, though he must have been aware that he was an eye-witness to the incident.It appears that P.W. 3 was under the bona fide impression, that in the course of his discharge of duties he had to receive the first information report and pass orders in the return of property petition, though he had taken steps after the filing of the final report, to have the committal proceedings transferred to some other Court.Equally P.W. 4 could have been a little more vigilant in not having accepted the referred charge sheet in the complaint preferred by the appellant in respect of the same incident, since justice must not only be done, but also must appear to have been done.P.Ws. 3 and 4 should have avoided the roles they had played in receiving certain records during investigation.However, I am unable to attribute any sinister motive to these two public servants, who had meticulously deposed about all that they had seen.As far as P.W's 5 and 6 are concerned, one an Assistant Public Prosecutor and the other a member of the Bar, nothing serious had been elicited to discredit their versions.Their versions proclaim them to be witnesses of truth.The names of P.Ws. 3, 5 and 6 had been stated even in the first information report.As far as P.W. 2 is concerned, who is an Engineer working in the Public Works Department at Gummudipundi, the comment was that he had travelled without a ticket and his name does not find a place in the first information report.It was also commented, that though P.W. 22 claims to have examined him at the General Hospital between 7.30 and 8 p.m. on the date of the occurrence, P.W. 2 would have it, that he was examined by a Police Inspector at his office, on the next day.This contradiction is, of course, there.We cannot overlook that P.W. 2 had admitted that he was available at the Government General Hospital on the evening of the occurrence.Therefore, it is quite possible that P.W. 2 was also examined along with other witnesses at the Government General Hospital, since his statement had also reached the Court along with the statements of the other eye-witnesses, on the same date.The non-mentioning of the name of P.W. 2 in the first information report is not a serious lacuna, since P.W. 1 was in great distress when his complaint was recorded.The reason why P.W. 2 had to travel without a ticket on that particular day had not been elicited.I do not have any doubt, that P.W. 2 as confirmed by P.Ws. 1 and 17, must have travelled in the compartment along with them on the fateful morning.Even if the version of P.W. 2 is erased from consideration, the other evidence on record is clear, consistent and overwhelming, that the omission of the version of P.W. 2, would not in any event, make a difference while deciding the guilt or otherwise of the appellant.P.W. 10 the Guard of the train in which P.W. 1 was travelling on 25-4-1986, has deposed to the limited extent that he saw a Judge going towards the room of the Assistant Station Master and the appellant cutting him.He noticed a police man conversing over the phone with them.He saw P.W. 1 with injuries near his neck and on his hands.He further noticed the bloodstained Judge being taken from the second class compartment, outside the railway station.He has spoken about the sealing of the First Class Compartment before the train left Ennore Railway Station.All that they had said is that they were remand prisoners in the same jail where the appellant had been kept and only after they were freed from jail, they would be able to depose in this prosecution.It looks as though that both the witnesses were afraid that harm would befall them if they chose to depose against the appellant, who was a co-prisoner with them.The medical evidence furnished by P.Ws. 19, 20 and 14 certainly support the oral evidence of the ocular witnesses in confirming the portroyal of the occurrence as putforth by the prosecution.P.W. 19 Dr. Rathinaswamy, had seen the injured initially and he had noticed five incised injuries on the head.Injuries 3, 4 and 5 are these incised injuries, Injury No. 3 itself accounting for three incised injuries on the left occipital region crossing each other 5"" each.P.W. 19 had also noticed incised injuries on the left and right hands of the victim, coupled with right little finger and ring finger severed at distal phalanx level and loss of part of nail of the middle finger.Further the medical evidence discloses, that certain permanent disabilities had resulted to P.W. 1, in view of the attack by the appellant.The bloodstains taken from the scene of occurrence and from the compartment further lend assurance to the truth of the prosecution case.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the injuries on the accused had not been explained and that would constitute a serious lacuna.I am unable to agree.at him.There cannot be a discordant note, if it were to be stated, that the motivated appellant, had vindictively attacked a public servant, since the latter's judgment delivered in the course of his duty as a public servant, went against him or was not to his liking.The trial Judge had taken note of the contents of a petition filed by the appellant on 20-8-1987 before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Trivellore, vowing vengeance against P.W. 15, the police official and others for the injustice rendered to him on 17-4-1984, when P.W. 1's predecessor had decided against him.A perusal of the records does not indicate, that while sentencing the accused, this memo had been put to him to elicit an answer.The appellant has already spent about four years in jail.The appellant has also been acquitted of one count of charge, for an offence under section 452, I.P.C. Taking all these factors into consideration, I am of the view, that the sentence of imprisonment awarded under charge No. 2 for the offence under section 307, I.P.C. could be reduced from 10 years rigorous imprisonment to 7 years rigorous imprisonment.The learned counsel for the appellant contended, that the appellant had not been in a position to pay the varying amounts of fine imposed on him.I do not think, that on facts any sentence of fine, has to be awarded.In that view, the sentences of fine imposed on the appellant under charges 2 and 3 are set aside.The sentence of imprisonment under charge No. 2 for an offence under section 307, I.P.C. is reduced from 10 years rigorous imprisonment to 7 years rigorous imprisonment.In respect of charge No. 1, for the offence under section 452, I.P.C., the appellant is acquitted.In respect of the third charge for the offence under section 333, I.P.C., I confirm the sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the trial Judge.The sentences in respect of charges 2 and 3 shall run concurrently.The return of M.O. 19, the Rajdoot Motor Cycle bearing registration No. T.M.Z. 615 admittedly belonging to the appellant, has been sought for.M.O. 19 has been confiscated by the trial Court, to the State.I set aside the confiscation of M.O. 19 and direct its return to the appellant.This appeal is partly allowed.Appeal partly allowed.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"His earlier applications were dismissed being withdrawn.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 18/12/2014 in connection with Crime No.852/2014 registered at Police Station Adhartal, Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 305, 306 of IPC and Sections 16/17 of POCSO Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 18 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.There was no relation of the applicant with the deceased so that presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act may apply.The deceased had committed suicide on her own.Thereafter the sister of the deceased has created a story against the applicant that he met with the deceased and tried to outrage her modesty, and therefore she committed suicide.However, if the applicant would have done such an act with the deceased, then she could inform her parents, and she could lodge an FIR against the applicant.The overt-acts of the applicant do not fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of IPC, and therefore prima facie no offence under Section 305 or 306 of IPC is made out against the applicant.The applicant is in custody since 18.12.2014 and relatives of the deceased are not appearing before the Court to give their evidence.It would be apparent that the applicant is falsely implicated in the matter.Under such changed circumstances, he prays for bail.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)",['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
"as (Allowed).C.R.M. 1978 of 2019 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 29.01.2019 in connection with Sankrail P. S. Case No.929 of 2018 dated 23.12.2018 under Sections 448/325/354B/379/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8of the Protection of Children from Sexual OffencesIn the matter of : Biswajit Adak....for the Petitioner......for the State.Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.","['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 18.6.2014 relating to Crime No.337/14 registered at Police Station Habibganj, Bhopal for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 453, 506 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Except the offence under Section 452 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, remaining offences are bailable.It is not alleged against the applicant that he had any firearm with him and therefore, no offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act is made out against the applicant.The offence under Section 452 of the IPC is not so grave so that the applicant may not be granted bail.The co-accused Sajid Khan was granted bail vide order dated 26.6.2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No.8032/2014 and case of the applicant is similar to him.Under these circumstances, the applicant also prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted.It is directed that the applicant namely Khalid Anjum be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj M.Cr.C. No.10684/2014 22.07.2014 Shri V.C. Rai, counsel for the applicant.Shri S.K. Kashyap, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 22.4.2014 relating to Crime No.109/12 registered at Police Station Gudh, District Rewa for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 397 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 28 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.After arrest of the applicant, 2-3 similar cases were registered against him.There is no named FIR against the applicant.Similarly, no test identification parade has been arranged against him.Only a cash of Rs.1500/- is recovered from the applicant, which is of his own.Under such circumstances, there is no sufficient evidence to implicate the applicant.He is unnecessarily kept in the custody.Consequently, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Govt. Adv.for the State opposes the application.He submits that the applicant could be arrested with the difficulty after two years of crime and therefore, if he is enlarged on bail then, he may escape.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted with some tough conditions.It is directed that the applicant namely Pradeep Patel be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with two surety bonds of the same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj M.Cr.C. No.10654/2014 22.07.2014 Shri V.C. Rai, counsel for the applicant.Shri S.K. Kashyap, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 22.4.2014 relating to Crime No.108/12 registered at Police Station Gudh, District Rewa for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 397 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 28 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.After arrest of the applicant, 2-3 similar cases were registered against him.There is no named FIR against the applicant.Similarly, no test identification parade has been arranged against him.Only a cash of Rs.900/- is recovered from the applicant, which is of his own.Under such circumstances, there is no sufficient evidence to implicate the applicant.He is unnecessarily kept in the custody.Consequently, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Govt. Adv.for the State opposes the application.He submits that the applicant could be arrested with the difficulty after two years of crime and therefore, if he is enlarged on bail then, he may escape.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted with some tough conditions.It is directed that the applicant namely Pradeep Patel be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with two surety bonds of the same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj M.Cr.C. No.6496/2014 22.07.2014 Shri L.N. Sakle, counsel for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has copy of charge sheet and therefore, matter may be considered with the help of such papers.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 8.1.2014 relating to Crime No.109/13 registered at Police Station Gadhi Malahara, District Chhatarpur for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 23 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.There is no named FIR against the applicant.On evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act given by the applicant, he was arrested.According to the allegations, it is alleged against the co-accused Sartaj that he fired from the gun upon the victim.The applicant was not present at the spot and no test identification parade has been arranged against him.However, the applicant was not aware that the co-accused Sartaj would fire in such a manner.No common intention of the applicant can be presumed with the co-accused for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and therefore, no offence under Section 307 of the IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with the help of Section 34 of the IPC.No prohibited arm is recovered from the applicant and therefore, no offence under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act is made out against him.He is unnecessarily kept in the custody.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Govt. Adv.for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted.It is directed that the applicant namely Nandu @ Nandkishore be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj M.Cr.C. No.6554/2014 22.07.2014 Shri B.K. Upadhyay, counsel for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.This is the 5th bail application filed on behalf of the present applicant, whereas his previous two applications were dismissed on merits.The applicant is in custody since 13.3.2009 relating to Crime No.87/08 registered at Police Station Pathrouta, District Hoshangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 364, 307, 302, 201, 120- B, 147, 148, 149 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted with some tough conditions.It is directed that the applicant namely Santosh Singh Rajwanshi (Kuchbandiya) be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand) with two surety bonds of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj M.Cr.C. No.6873/2014 22.07.2014 Shri Vishal Dhagat, counsel for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.This is a repeat bail application filed on behalf of the present applicant, whereas his previous application was dismissed being withdrawn with the liberty that it may be filed again, if any compromise takes place between the parties.The applicant is in custody since 14.3.2014 relating to Crime No.158/14 registered at Police Station City Gorakhpur, Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 768 and 471 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Though, no crime has been committed by the applicant but it is a case of civil nature.The case appears to be a complex one and sufficient time will be required for the disposal of the case.To show his bonafide intention, the applicant is ready to deposit a sum of `2,10,000/-, which is subject amount to the litigation before the trial Court with the pretext that it may be given to the complainant.The applicant assures that he will co-operate in the investigation and he will be regular in attending the Court.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Govt. Advocate for the State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted subject to deposit a sum of `2,10,000/- as proposed by the applicant before the trial Court.It is directed that, if the applicant namely Anil Choukse produces the receipt of depositing the aforesaid amount before the trial Court, then he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.However, it is made clear that the trial Court would be free to provide the deposited sum to the complainant after taking due undertaking, security etc. This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj M.Cr.C. No.6941/2014 22.07.2014 Shri Satyam Agrawal, counsel for the applicant.Shri S.D. Khan, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Sankalp Kochar, counsel with Shri S.K. Dixit, Adv.for the objector.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 16.11.2013 relating to Crime No.791/13 registered at Police Station Govindpura, Bhopal for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 27 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.There is no ocular evidence against the applicant.It is not alleged against the applicant that he participated in the alleged crime.Only, allegation made against the applicant is that he provided some petrol to the main accused and also dropped him to the spot but he did not know that the main accused would use the petrol in setting the dead body of the deceased on fire.At the most, the offence under Section 201 of the IPC may constitute against the applicant but no offence under Section 302 of the IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with the help of Section 34 or 120-B of the IPC.Under these circumstances, he prays for bail.Learned Govt. Adv.for the State opposes the application.Learned counsel for the objector also opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of offence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted.It is directed that the applicant namely Abdul Amir @ Ameen be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.1303 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.2.The case of the prosecution is that on 14.04.2016, around 09.30 a.m., the petitioners along with other accused blocked the road due to the removal of flex board and microphone set, which was erected without getting prior permission from the concerned authority.On the basis of the above said allegation, the respondent police registered the complaint and filed a charge sheet against the petitioners and others for the offences under Sections 143, 341 & 188 IPC in S.T.C.No.1303 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.Further he submitted that the petitioners or any other members had never involved in any unlawful assembly and there is no evidence that the petitioners or others restrained anybody.However, the officials of the respondent police had beaten the petitioners and others.When there was lot of members involved in the protest, the respondent police had registered this case, under Section 143, 341 & 188 IPC as against the petitioners and others.Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.Therefore the respondent police levelled the charges under Sections 143, 341 and 188 of I.P.C. as against the petitioners and others.Except the official witnesses, no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to substantiate the charges against the petitioners.(i) of Cr.P.C.h) The Director General of Police, Chennai and Inspector General of the various Zones are directed to immediately formulate a process by specifically empowering public servants dealing with for an offence under Section 188 of IPC to ensure that there is no delay in filing a written complaint by the public servants concerned under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.9.In the case on hand, the First Information Report has been registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 143, 341 and 188 IPC.He is not a competent person to register FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.As such, the First Information Report or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.Further, the complaint does not even state as to how the protest formed by the petitioners and others is an unlawful protest and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 143 of IPC.2.The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi North Police Station, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 12 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.","['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This bail application is being decided as per the guidelines dated 19.7.2020 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, through video conferencing.As per the office report dated 13.7.2020, notice issued to opposite party No.2 has been served, but no one has put in appearance on his behalf.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA through Video Conferencing.The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.Order Date :- 23.7.2020 Ruchi Agrahari",['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
"All the petitioners, as well as the complainant, are present.The Investigating Officer concerned is also present.This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying that FIR No. 107/2013 registered at Police Station Gulabi Bagh/Pratap Bagh under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, on 24.08.2013 and all proceedings arising therefrom, be quashed, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.Issue notice.3. Counsel for the State, as well as counsel for the second respondent, Kanika, who is also the complainant in the aforesaid FIR, enter appearance and accept notice.He also recognises the petitioners, as well as the complainant.It is alleged that the proceedings came to be initiated on the complaint of second respondent, who was married to petitioner No. 1, Ajay Chugh, CRL.M.C. 3616/2014 Page 1 of 6 against all the petitioners.At the same time, a petition had also been moved by the complainant and the first petitioner under Section 13(B)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce by mutual consent.The petition stands disposed off in the above terms.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case and that the materials collected in the course of investigation do not implicate them with the alleged assault.Further investigation was directed and statements of the injured persons including victim the lady were recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure.Such statements have been placed before me.I have perused the statements recorded in the course of investigation as well as the statements of witnesses recorded under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure.Proceeding shall, however, be continued against the other accused persons in accordance with law.With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. 2 (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)","['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"However, all the above sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently.The prosecution case MULTUM IN PARVO is that complainant Shabir informed at Police Station Kymore on dated 31.08.1993 that his 16 years aged daughter is missing since 24.08.1993 when she was sleeping with her mother Anvari Begam and other family members at their village Khalwara Bazar.Shri Pramod Kumar Chourasiya, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Govt. Advocate for the respondent /StateJudgment reserved on: 26.07.2013 Judgment delivered on: 01.10.2013 (J U D G M E N T) By means of filing the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant Naresh Kumar has assailed the order of conviction dated 19.01.1998 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge Mudwara in Session Case No.380 / 1995 (State of M.P. Through P.S. Kemore, District Jabalpur vs Naresh Kumar).By the judgment under challenge, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced appellant Naresh Kumar as follows:-2 Cr.A. No.494 of 1998The information also disclosed that she was sleeping with her mother Anvari Begam and other family members during the night of 24.08.1993 at their residence, but she was not found in the morning, search for her till date without success.After registration of missing person report inquiry started.On recovery after one and half year the prosecutrix agreed to accompany the accused her own.Because, this kidnapping was of minor prosecutrix from the lawful guardianship of her father Shabir, therefore First Information Report was registered.The prosecutrix refused for medical examination, after recording of statement of prosecutrix as well as her family member's, the accused arrested and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.Since the case was exclusively tribal by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance committed the case to the 3 Cr.A. No.494 of 1998 Court of Sessions Judge, Sagar, from where it was received in the learned trial Court for the trial.3 Cr.A. No.494 of 1998The learned trial Court framed the charges against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (1) of IPC, who pleaded not guilty therefore, he was put to trial.During accused statement recording under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code the accused denied all the evidence put forth before him and claim to be innocent.Defense did not examine any witness.On conclusion of trial, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted the accused for the offence and imposed the sentence as referred to herein above, hence, this appeal.Shri Pramod Kumar Chourasiya, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that evidence of 10 years' age prosecutrix clearly goes to show that she had voluntary gone with the appellant and married with her own and as a result of that the couple blazed with the two issues, even then learned trial Court passed impugned judgment, thus the appeal deserves to be allowed.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State has opposed the appeal vehemently contending that the appellant has rightly been convicted believing the testimony of the prosecutrix.The finding so recorded by the learned trial Court does not warrant any interference, thus, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.4 Cr.A. No.494 of 1998I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and available entire record.Again, in order to prove the age of the prosecutrix, and to demonstrate that she was below 16 years burden is on prosecution only.Unless the law makes an exceptional, the personal law would not over right the statutory provisions.Muslim is also entitled to the same protection of law as persons belonging to other religions are entitled to.In the case at hand the prosecutrix is Muslim girl.The ossification test is not a secure test, although this is generally accepted as best available test for the determination of the age of human being, but, in present case it is totally lacking.The prosecutrix straight way refused for her person's examination when she was brought to the hospital.Dr. D.C. Singhai (PW/10) stated that that too she left the hospital also.The prosecution produced educational certificate of the prosecutrix.Prior to discuss available evidence for this form it is a matter of common knowledge that the ages given at the time of 5 Cr.A. No.494 of 1998 admission of girls and boys in schools are far from being precise.5 Cr.A. No.494 of 1998Learned trial court based its impugned judgment, ignoring parents and guardians above mentioned natural tendency, on the basis of above evidence alone, without scrutinize other available evidence on this issue on record.The learned trial court not only ignored above mentioned estimation of his own, but also ignored corroborative evidence which was available on record.Right from missing person report (Ex.P-5C), statements of the prosecution witness, the age of the prosecutrix is mentioned 16 years and above not in any case below to 16 years.It is nowhere specifically mentioned in the report (Ex.Anwari Begam (PW/1) and Sabbir (PW/2), parents of the prosecutrix also stated that age of her daughter was 16 years.6 Cr.A. No.494 of 19986 Cr.A. No.494 of 1998In this manner if the age of the prosecutrix be calculated, the age of the prosecutrix would come out 15 years 02 months to 17 years and 6 months on the date 24.08.1993 of her missing.In above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is clear that the prosecution utterly failed to prove that the age of the prosecutrix was below 16 years on the date of the incident.The major prosecutrix admitted that:-"" eSa U;k;ky; mifLFr vfHk0 dks tkurh gwWaA yxHkx nks o""kZ igys dh ?kVuk gSA eSa vfHk0 ujs'k ceZu ds lkFk Hkkx xbZ FkhA igys eq>s ujs'k ceZu vej ikVu ys x;kA vej ikVu esa vfHk0 ujs'k us vius cqvk ds yM+dh ds ?kj esa j[kk] ogka ,d fnu j[kkA mlds ckn vfHk0 eq>s 'kgMksy ys x;k vkSj eq>s ogka ,d fnu j[kkA 'kgMksy esa vfHk0 us eq>ls dksVZ eSfjt djk;k FkkA mlds ckn vfHk0 eq>s ukxiqj ysdj x;kA ukxiqj esa vfHk0 us eq>s vius pkpk f'ko izlkn ds ?kj esa dqN fnu j[kkA mlds ckn vfHk us eq>s vyx ls edku esa j[kkA""She further admitted that:-"" vfHk0 tc ls eq>s dSeksj ls ikVu ,oa vU; txg ys x;k Fkk ml chp esjs ,oa vfHk0 ds laca/k ifr ifRu ds FksA""Her mother Anwari Begam (PW/1) also admitted during the cross examination:-"" esjh yM+dh xksn esa ,d cPpk ysdj Ms<+ lky ckn vkbZA""If the entire factual scenario is tested on the anvil of the evidence of the prosecution and after considering the evidence in a proper perspective manner, it would reveal that no offence is made 7 Cr.A. No.494 of 1998 out against the appellant.Above 18 years aged prosecutrix went with the appellant on her free will with her perspective marriage with the appellant which come true also and the couple blessed with children.7 Cr.A. No.494 of 1998The prosecutrix went with the appellant on her own accord and out of her own free will; therefore, she did not seek any help from the inhabitants where ever she lived with the appellant at Amar Patan, Shadol or Nagpur.During these more then one and half years period she did not complaint to any body or to the police, therefore, irresistible conclusion would be that she left her prenatal roof on her on accord.There is also no proof of criminal intimidation or promise, persuasion, inducement or allurement from the appellant.On the basis of aforesaid premised reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that the learned Trial Judge erred in law in convicting the appellant under Section 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC.His conviction is accordingly deserves to be set- aside.In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed, the conviction of the appellant is hereby set- aside.The appellant Naresh Kumar is on bail, his bail bond stands discharged.Appeal allowed.","['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.On 20th July, 1988 at about 5.30 p.m., Kalpana Sumathi, the victim woman was proceeding with a plastic green vessel carrying in her hand to the bore-well pump situated in a school compound in order to fetch water by crossing through the police station.At that time, she had never dreamt that she would be whisked away and forcibly taken inside the police station and gang raped by four police officials one after another.The irony is that victim woman was taken inside the store room of the police station by a woman Sweeper working in the police station.The incident was so horrible that she was beaten by police officials with sticks inflicting injuries all over her body and then she was raped by the police personnel from the rank of Inspector of Police to the rank of Constable one after another.The uniformity in the sad episode is that while they committed gang rape inside the police station, they were in uniform and on duty.Their lustful duty did not end with that.The victim woman who became unconscious was thereafter bodily lifted to a secluded place behind the police station and was thrown off into a ditch of 7 feet depth.Without satisfying that, those police personnel on duty threw big stones on her head to finish her once for all.Thinking that she died, they went back to police station for joining their regular duties.""(a) Kalpana Sumathi (P.W.1) is the wife of Venkatesamurthy (P.W.3).They are residents of Thalli village.She is working as a Teacher in a private Nursery School.After their wedlock, a female child was born to them.(b) On 20.7.1988 at about 5.30 p.m., P.W.1 Kalpana Sumathi went with a plastic vessel to fetch water from the bore-well pump situated near the Thalli Police Station.At that time, A5 Lakshmi, who was working as the Sweeper in the said police station, put a cloth on her head and after hitting her forcibly abducted and took her inside the police station.There, she was pushed inside the store-room and her head hit the wall.When she tried to go out of the room, A3 Selvaraj, the Writer, A4 Govindasamy, the Constable, A5 Lakshmi closed the door.Thereafter, A1 Balasubramanian, the Inspector of Police, A2 Govindarajan, the Head Constable, A3 Selvaraj, Writer and A4 Govindasamy, Constable committed rape one after another.Then, A2, A3 and A4 again came inside and beat the victim on her head with sticks.The victim receiving bleeding injuries on the head and other parts of the body became unconscious.Then, A2 to A5 lifted her body and took to a secluded place through the backyard of the police station and threw the body into a pit of 7 feet depth.Then, they took two big stones and threw them on her head and left the place.(c) In the meantime, P.W.3 Venkatesamurthy, her husband having waited till 7.30 p.m. for the arrival of P.W.1 from bore-well pump, went to the bore-well pump in search of her along with P.W.4 Sekar, P.W.5 Nagaraj and two others.She was not available there.But, P.W.3 found the plastic vessel which was carried by P.W.1 to fetch water lying on the floor near the bore-well pump.Then, P.W.3, his relatives and others arranged a Van and went to various places like Hosur and Elathagiri where their relatives reside, in search of her.Since she was not available there, P.W.3 and others came back to the village.(d) Next day i.e. on 21.7.1988 at about 11.00 a.m. he came to know that the body of the victim was found lying in a canal at the corner of the village and so, he and others went there.To their utter shock, she was found semi-naked with injuries all over the body in a pit.However, she was found alive.P.W.6 Ramakrishnan, another Teacher immediately rushed to the police station and requested A3 Selvaraj, Writer who was available then to come to the scene for recording her statement.A3 did not evince any interest.He simply asked P.W.6 to take the victim to the hospital,if she is alive.(e) Then, P.W.1 was taken in a Tempo and brought to the Hosur Government Hospital at 12.45 p.m. P.W.18 Dr.Padmavathy examined her and found 21 injuries all over the body.Since there was heavy bleeding, P.W.18 advised that the victim to be taken to Saint John Hospital, Bangalore.Accordingly, she was taken and admitted at 5.30 p.m. in the Bangalore Hospital.P.W.16 Dr.Norman attached to Bangalore Hospital examined her and found serious injuries and also fracture in the bone and different parts of the body.Though she was conscious, she was not able to give any details as to how she sustained injuries.Noticing her condition, P.W.17, a Psychiatric Doctor was brought and constant treatment was given to her.(f) Meanwhile, on a complaint received from P.W.3 husband, the case was registered by Sethu Madhavan, Sub Inspector of Police of the Thalli Police Station on 21.7.1988 at about 3.30 p.m. for the offences under Sections 354, 325 and 323 I.P.C. Nonetheless, the police did not take further action in the matter.P.W.7 Subba Rao, an elder of the village on finding that no further action was taken by the police, presented a memorandum to the Collector to take further action on the complaint given by P.W.3 husband.(g) On 28,7,1988, P.W.7 went to Bangalore Hospital and met her.On seeing him, P.W.1 wept, but did not give any details.When she was insisted for the details, she reluctantly told him that Lakshmi, Sweeper(A5) would give all the details.Thereafter, there was a public agitation expressing their protest for the inaction of the police.Then, an enquiry was conducted and the public were invited to give statements.(i) On 1.8.1988, P.W.19 after such inquiry, sent a report to the District Collector.Then, on 3.8.1988, he was directed by the Collector to initiate inquiry under Clause 145 of the Police Standing Orders to find out the involvement of the police officials in the incident.On 4.8.1988, P.W.19 went to the Bangalore hospital and examined P.W.1 and obtained her statement Ex.Though she stated in Ex.P54 that she was forcibly abducted by A5 to the police station, she did not give further details, as she was not able to remember them.So, again on 6.8.1988, he obtained another statement Ex.P56 from the victim in which she gave all the details about the gang rape and beating etc. by the police.Then, he continued the inquiry and finished the same and then sent the report to the Collector.(l) During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 19 were examined, Exs.""(a) P.W.1 on 20.7.1988 at about 5.30 p.m. went to the bore pump situated in a school compound next to police station carrying a plastic vessel (kudam) to fetch water.P.W.2 Jayammal after taking water came back through police station.She saw P.W.1 coming towards bore pump near the police station.Few minutes later, A5 Lakshmi, a woman Sweeper working in the police station put a cloth on her head and pulled her.P.W.1 felt that somebody beat her on the back of the head.In the process of her being pulled, P.W.1 dropped the kudam at the spot itself.She became semi-conscious.However, she was able to feel that she was taken to police station and pushed into a room.(b) After some minutes, she regained full consciousness and found that she was in a store-room containing old articles.Then, she cried and banged the door which was locked from outside.At that time, A3 Selvaraj, Writer, A4 Govindasamy, Constable and A5 Lakshmi, Sweeper opened the door and came inside.The electric light inside was burning then.They asked her to keep quiet and told her that she would not be allowed to go back to her home.When she cried and tried to escape through the door, the door was closed forcibly by the accused, with the result her right fingers got crushed.Thereafter, she was pushed towards the wall, thereby her head got hit on the wall resulting in the bleeding injuries.Further, they beat her.Unable to bear the same, she again became unconscious.(c) After some time, she gained consciousness and tried to get up from the floor.At that time, A3 Writer and A4 Constable came and asked to call Circle Inspector (A1) and Govindarajan, Head Constable (A2) to the room.Within a few minutes, all the accused (A1 to A4) came inside the room.All the police officers were in uniform.Then, she was made to lie down and A1 pulled the saree up, laid down on her body and raped her.Thereafter, A1 got up and called the other accused and asked them to have sexual intercourse with her and finish her.So saying, he left the place.(e) Then, A3 Writer came and raped her.After he went out, A4 Constable came inside and committed rape.Lastly, A2 Head Constable came and raped her.She could not resist then, since she sustained serious bleeding injuries on the head and hand.Again A2 to A4 came inside and all of them hit on her head.This time, she completely lost her consciousness.She did not know what happened to her subsequently.When P.W.3, the husband of P.W.1 finding that the victim did not turn up home after fetching water, went in search of P.W.1 at 10.30 p.m. to the bore pump.At that point of time, he found that all the doors of the police station were closed and one light was burning inside the police station.He found the plastic green kudam which was carried by P.W.1 while she left home lying near the bore pump.According to P.W.3, on noticing the kudam lying in the ground, he got fainted.It is also not disputed that the pit from where she was rescued was situated at the backyard of the police station just 75 metres away.P.W.18 Doctor in her deposition would state that all the 21 injuries were found smeared with sand.P.W.6, a Teacher working in a Panchayat Union School at Thalli village would state that he went to the police station along with a former M.L.A. and visited the storeroom.He found bloodstained patches in the said room.Both in Exs.P2 and P3, he mentioned about the same.There is no dispute in the fact that the victim was admitted in the Bangalore Hospital on 21.7.1988 and discharged only on 12.10.1988 after nearly 2 1/2 months during which she was in the hospital.Immediately thereafter, he filed the requisition before the Court to make arrangements for conducting identification parade.The perusal of Ex.It is also clear from Ex.P39 F.I.R. and Ex.P41 mahazar for recovery of stones from the scene that the body was lying down in a pit which is just one furlong from the police station.The victim was admitted in the hospital on 21.7.1988 at 12.45 p.m. There was no anxiety shown by the police officials in the Thalli Police Station to register a case, even though a victim girl was found with injuries near the police station.In the meantime, the public gathered in front of the police station and resorted to agitation.It was also informed to the Collector that there would be a Hartal and general strike on 30.7.1988 if no further action is taken.On receipt of the information, P.W.19 R.D.O. went to Thalli village and conducted enquiry.During the course of enquiry also, the agitation by the public continued protesting against inaction of the police.It is noticed that during the course of trial, both P.W.1, the victim and P.W.19, the R.D.O. had been cross-examined at length.All the four police officials and the Sweeper woman, arrayed as A1 to A5, were charged for the offences of gang rape, attempt to commit murder and abetment etc. and tried.Ultimately, they were convicted and sentenced.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, A1, the Inspector of Police has filed a separate appeal in Crl.A.No.765 of 1993 and A2 to A4, the Constables, have filed appeal in Crl.Since the adequate sentence has not been imposed upon the accused who committed gang rape as provided in Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C., the victim Kalpana Sumathi has preferred a revision in Crl.R.C.No.172 of 1994 requesting for enhancement of sentence.Both these appeals and revision are being disposed of through this common judgment.The brief facts of the shameless intrigue as unravelled by the prosecution are as follows:(j) Accepting the report, the Collector then passed an order directing P.W.19 R.D.O. to file a complaint against the police officials concerned.Consequently, the permission was granted to file a complaint to prosecute the officials as well as the Sweeper woman.P1 to P70 were filed and M.Os.1 to 33 were marked on the side of prosecution.The accused while answering the questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C., simply denied their complicity in the crime.They did not adduce any evidence on their side.(m) On appreciation of the evidence available on record, the trial Court found all the accused guilty under Sections 366, 366 read with 109,,342 read with 109, 376, 326, 307, 307 read with 109, 376 read with 109, 201 and 326 read with 34 I.P.C. The Court sentenced A1 to A4 to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 366 read with 109 I.P.C.; R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 342 read with 109 I.P.C.; R.I. for eight years and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C.; R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C.; sentenced A4 to undergo R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C.; sentenced A1 to A3 to undergo R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 307 read with 109 I.P.C.; sentenced A2 to A4 to undergo R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C.; and sentenced A5 to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C.; R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 342 I.P.C. and R.I. for five years for the offence under Section 376 read with 109 I.P.C.R. Shanmugasundaram, the learned senior counsel appearing for A1, the Inspector of Police, the appellant in Crl.A.No.765 of 1993 would submit the following contentions, while challenging the conviction imposed on A1:""(1) P.W.1, the prosecutrix was not doing monetarily well.In order to get a job and to get compensation, she falsely implicated the accused, the police personnel by instigating the people to make a public agitation at the instance of the Communist Party.Even before the recording of the statement from the victim, the Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer fixed the police personnel as accused and filed a false complaint in order to satisfy the public.(2) The statements obtained during the enquiry conducted by the R.D.O. from the witnesses and A5 are not admissible in view of Section 4 of the Revenue Enquiry Act.(3) The testimony of P.W.1, the prosecutrix, is full of contradictions and her version is highly improbable, especially when she did not come forward with the said version at the earliest point of time.The scene of occurrence, namely police station is situated in a busy area surrounded with shops, Bank, School, play ground and police residential quarters.Buses will be parked near the road side.In the said situation, it is improbable to contend that she was forcibly abducted and locked in the police station and she cried and banged the door and at that point of time, a gang rape was committed.(4) The material witnesses, viz., father of P.W.1 to whom P.W.1 talked earliest, one Munusamy Achari who had seen that P.W.1 was forcibly dragged away by A5, one Sampathkumar to whom she talked after regained consciousness and D.S.P. and Sub Inspector of Police who had initially investigated the matter, had not been examined.Non-examination of these important witnesses would draw adverse inference against the prosecution.(6) P.W.18 Doctor who examined the victim on 21.7.1988 gave opinion that there is no clinical evidence of rape.""The submissions made by Mr. V.Gopinath, the learned senior counsel appearing for A2 to A4, the appellants in Crl.A.No.764 of 1993 are these:""(1) Even according to P.W.1, she did not know A1 to A4 previously.The identification parade was conducted only after 1"" months after the discharge from the hospital.Even before P.W.9, the Magistrate in whose presence the parade was conducted, the objection was raised by all the accused that the accused persons were shown to P.W.1 even before the parade and their photos were published in the newspaper.Even according to P.W.1 in her statement before P.W.19, the R.D.O. she was pushed into a storeroom, which was dark.When such was the case, she would not have identified the persons who committed rape.(3) Ex.In Ex.Even though A5 deposed in Tamil, the same was written in English.(4) Even though the bloodstained sample taken from the storeroom was found to be tallied with the blood group of the victim, the samples were not taken in accordance with rules, since the bloodstains were not collected with the help of Scientific Expert.P.W.19, the R.D.O. had not followed the correct procedure in filing the complaint, as he did not adopt the required procedure, while recording the statement from the witnesses.Although P.W.19 stated that he perused the General Diary entry in the police station, the same had not been produced before the Court.(5) The evidence of P.W.18, the Doctor is completely contradictory to the prosecution case.(6) The investigation was conducted by P.W.19 R.D.O. in a hasty manner in order to fix the accused hurriedly in order to overcome the public outcry and law and order problems and as such, the same is faulty.""A1 gave the signal to others to go out and so, A2, A3 and A4 went out of the room.(d) Then, A1 forcibly grabbed the body of the victim P.W.1 and began to bite her cheek, forehead and breasts.She regained her consciousness only at the Bangalore Hospital.""The above details given in the deposition of P.W.1 would show that she was able to remember only this portion of the occurrence.It is the further case of the prosecution that after a gang rape by A1 to A4, A2 to A4 lifted her body and dropped her into a ditch with a considerable depth and threw the stones on her head.Since P.W.1 lost her consciousness, she was not able to say the other details regarding the lifting of her body from police station and throwing into the pit at the place near to the police station i.e. later portion of the occurrence.Let us now scrutinise, whether the evidence with reference to the first portion of the occurrence relating to rape adduced by P.W.1 is reliable and whether there is any corroboration.23. P.W.1 would state that when she was forcibly pulled by A5 in order to take her to police station, she dropped the kudam there itself.He also saw that the green plastic kudam was found near the bore pump.P.W.5 Nagaraj who is the resident of the same village, who accompanied them to bore pump, also saw the plastic kudam near the bore pump and on seeing that P.W.3 fainted.Strangely, when they came to bore pump next day, they found kudam missing.The evidence of P.W.2 would indicate that P.W.1 was crossing the police station while proceeding towards bore pump at 5.30 p.m. with kudam, and the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 would disclose that the said kudam was found lying near the bore pump, when they visited at 10.30 p.m. on the same night.Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 regarding the initial part of the occurrence, has been corroborated by these witnesses.Regarding the rape committed by A1 to A4 inside the storeroom, we have got the evidence of P.W.1 alone.However, the injuries sustained by her at the hands of the accused were noticed by P.W.3 to P.W.6 when the body of P.W.1 was lifted from the pit.As noted above, after searching for P.W.1 in various places, P.W.3 husband of the victim came back to village.Next day at about 11.30 a.m., P.W.3 was informed that P.W.1's body in a semi-naked position was lying down in a pit situated within 75 metre distance from the police station. P.W.3 immediately rushed to the scene along with P.W.4 Sekar, P.W.5 Nagaraj and P.W.6 Ramakrishnan, local residents of Thalli village.All of them would state that she was found lying down in a pit with injuries on the head, hand, legs and other parts of the body.At that time, she was grumbling.P.W.6 Ramakrishnan went immediately to the police station and gave intimation to A3 Writer, who was available then and requested to come to the spot to record statement from her.But, A3 did not care to come and merely asked him to take her to hospital.Then, all of them took her to the hospital at Hosur.P.W.18 Dr.Though she was conscious and able to speak, she did not give out the details about the manner in which she sustained injuries.She found totally 21 injuries.Out of those injuries, injury Nos.2, 3, 4 and 8 are head injuries and injury Nos.14, 15, 16 and 17 are the injuries which were found on hand and fingers.She also found fractures in so many parts of the body.Since her condition was so serious as there are bleeding injuries, she was referred to the Bangalore Hospital on the same day.P.W.16 Dr.Norman who admitted in the Bangalore Hospital at 5.30 p.m. on 21.7.1988 examined the victim.According to P.W.16, he found 21 injuries all over the body.He also gave opinion that some of the injuries are compound fractures.He would state that though the patient was conscious, she was unable to narrate the cause of the injuries.According to him, the injuries on both the hands are grievous in nature.Both these Doctors, viz., P.W.16 and P.W.18 would state that these injuries would have been caused due to bite or caused by a forcible jamming of the doors and the beatings by sticks and the fractures can also be caused by dropping the stones.It is relevant to note that the evidence that P.W.1 was found with injuries on her body and was removed from the pit, as spoken to by P.Ws.3 to 6 has not been challenged by the defence.As per Ex.P3, he removed cement slab along with the bloodstains found in the storeroom and Veranda.As per the Serologist's report Ex.P13, the bloodstain was found to be human blood.It is true that the victim P.W.1 would give statement only on 6.8.1988 alleging gang rape against the accused, even though the occurrence had take place on 20.7.1988and as such, there was a delay for about 15 days.As referred to in the decisions of the Supreme Court, mere delay would not be a ground to reject the prosecution case, particularly in rape cases, since Indian women would be reluctant to report the matter to the police as they would invariably fear for the consequences.According to prosecution, there are two reasons for the delay.The first reason is that P.W.1 lost her consciousness fully at the police station itself on receiving head injury and gained consciousness only in Bangalore Hospital.Though P.W.4 and P.W.5 would state that when she was removed from the pit on 21.7.1988, she grumbled as if some donkeys were responsible for the act, the fact that she was not conscious to speak when she was taken to hospital is mentioned in earlier document, namely Ex.P1, the complaint given by P.W.3 husband to Sub Inspector of Police (Sethu Madhavan) of Thalli Police Station on 21.7.1988 at about 3.30 p.m. In the said complaint, it is specifically stated by P.W.3 that he gave the complaint, since his wife was unable to speak.Even though P.W.18 Doctor would state that she was conscious and answering questions, the Doctor categorically stated in the deposition that P.W.1 did not give the details about the cause for the injuries.At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to refer to the evidence of P.W.17 Dr.Prakash Appaiya, the Head of the Psychiatric Department.He was asked to examine P.W.1.on 22.7.1988 and 23.7.1988 to ascertain as to why she could not explain as to how the injuries were caused.According to him, P.W.1 was suffering from Amnesia and she would not be fit for about 10 days to recollect what happened earlier as there was an apparent loss of memory due to hysterical dissociative reaction.Even in the cross-examination, he would state that the Doctors diagnosed that P.W.1 was suffering from Amnesia and there is no conscious suppression.This evidence would make it clear that even assuming that she stated something while she was removed from the pit or when she was examined by P.W.18 Dr. Padmavathi in Hosur Hospital, that statement could not have been made in a conscious state, since she suffered from Amnesia causing apparent loss of memory for about 10 days.Therefore, the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 regarding the alleged statement of victim with reference to the two donkeys or two legged donkeys, would be of no relevance.With regard to the second reason, namely, fear over the likelihood of desertion by her husband, P.W.3 himself would state that on 4.8.1988 at about 11.30 a.m., she gave a statement to R.D.O.P.W.19 merely mentioning about A5 and not in respect of the main occurrence.After R.D.O. and others left, in the evening, P.W.3, the husband of the victim insisted the victim to tell complete details and only then, the real culprits would be brought into book.He also gave assurance to the victim that she should not be afraid for anything as he would not desert her at any cost and he would take care of her for the entire life.Only after this assurance, P.W.1 gave out the complete details and told P.W.3 and her mother.Then next day, i.e. on 5.8.1988, P.W.3 went to R.D.O. P.W.19 and gave a statement which was recorded by him about what she stated to him.Next day, i.e. on 6.8.1988, P.W.19 R.D.O. came to the Bangalore Hospital and recorded the statement Ex.P56 from the victim P.W.1 who gave full details of the gang rape committed by all the accused (A1 to A4).Hence, both these explanations given by P.W.1 for the delay are acceptable in view of the evidence of P.W.17 Doctor and P.W.3, her husband.(8) She would feel extremely embarrassed in relating the incident to others being overpowered by a feeling of shame.(9) The natural inclination would be to avoid giving publicity to the incident otherwise the family name and family honour will be brought into controversy.(10) The parents of the woman as also the husband and the members of the husband's family would also want to avoid publicity on account of the fear of social stigma on the family name and family honour.P67 would reveal that the Court earlier issued two summons to P.W.1 on 12.9.1988 and 10,10,1988 asking her to appear on 14.10.1988 to participate in the parade.The identification parade was originally fixed at Salem.As per the Doctor's advice, she should not move to other places and she should take rest at home for a period of two weeks from the date of discharge.On that basis, P.W.19 filed an application Ex.The Judicial Magistrate, Hosur, in turn, requested permission through Ex.P8 requisition dated 7.11.1988 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Krishnagiri for conducting parade at Hosur.Accordingly, such a permission was granted.Then, J.S.C.M., Palacode (P.W.9) sent a letter Ex.P9 to Superintendent of Jail, Hosur to make necessary arrangements to conduct identification parade on 22.11.1988 within the prison compound.After such arrangements were made, the parade was conducted in the presence of P.W.9, the Judicial Magistrate, Palacode and in the said parade, P.W.1 identified the accused (A1 to A4) correctly on three times.After the parade was over, the accused were questioned by the Judicial Magistrate in regard to the objection, if any.They said that P.W.1 knew them earlier as they were working in the police station; she would have seen their photographs published in the newspaper and that she also saw them when they came and appeared before the Court for the case.They further stated that P.W.1 dressed as a Gosha Muslim girl and came to the Court and saw the accused even before the parade was conducted.All these objections were recorded by the Judicial Magistrate.Ultimately, P.W.9 Magistrate prepared a report Ex.P10 stating that A1 to A4 were correctly identified by P.W.1 on three times in the parade and the accused did not raise any objection with reference to the formalities observed in conducting the parade.While P.W.1 was cross-examined on this aspect, a suggestion was put to her that she came and saw them in the court in the Gosha dress and saw their photos in the newspaper.On going through the report Ex.P10, it is noticed that all the accused would state that P.W.1 knew them earlier as they were working in the local police station of the village.P.W.1 would specifically state that except A5, she did not know the other accused.If really P.W.1 knew them, she could have very well mentioned the same in her statement given to the R.D.O. P.W.19 at the earliest point of time and in that event, there is no necessity for conducting identification parade.But, the consistent stand taken by P.W.1 is that she did not know them.On the other hand, she was able to see one identifiable feature about A1 that he was wearing a square ring with stones.She would also state that she came to know the names of the other accused as the first accused, the Inspector of Police after committing rape, called them by name to come inside and thereafter, all the three persons came one after another and raped her.These materials would show that the procedure for conducting identification parade was correctly followed without any undue delay and P.W.1 was able to establish her version regarding the identity of the persons who committed gang rape on her, by identifying them correctly in the parade conducted by the Judicial Magistrate.The involvement of the police officials in the gang rape has also been established by two other factors.Firstly, there was an initial reluctance in registering the case with reference to the crime even though the victim was found with injuries all over the body in a pit situated at the backyard of the police station.Secondly, despite registration of the case after a considerable delay, no further action was taken by the police to find out the real culprits, which resulted in the public agitation.The body was found lying in a ditch at about 11.00 a.m. next day.P.W.3, the husband, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, other villagers went to the spot and noticed the victim lying in the pit with a semi nude condition with injuries all over the body.P.W.6 Ramakrishnan, a Teacher working in the Panchayat Union School at Thalli rushed to the police station along with another and complained the matter to the Writer of the police station who was available then.P.W.6 requested him to come to the spot and record the statement of victim, as she is alive and conscious.A3 on hearing this news, exclaimed by asking ""Is she alive?"" He further stated, ""If she is alive, you try to save her by taking to hospital"".However, he did not come to the spot.In the statement Ex.P59, P.W.6 would state that one Police Constable Kaveri was sent.But, he simply came to the spot and shouted at the people who gathered there in a vulgar language and did not take any action.This aspect of the evidence adduced by P.W.6 has not been challenged.As a matter of fact, A3 in his statement to the question No.78 admitted that P.W.6 came and informed him about the victim lying in a pit and he asked him to save her life.After enquiry, P.W.19 sent an enquiry report on 1.8.1988 suspecting the involvement of the police officials of Thalli Police Station in the incident and thereafter, on 3.5.1988 under Ex.P53, the Collector directed P.W.19 to initiate enquiry under Clause 145 of the Police Standing Orders.Accordingly, further enquiry was conducted by the R.D.O. and ultimately, after examination of the witnesses including the victim, he sent a report on 6.8.1988 to the Collector fixing the responsibility against four police officials i.e. A1 to A4 through Ex.In the said report, he specifically stated that in spite of the request of the public, the police officers did not care to register a case even though the victim was found with injuries near the police station and the complaint was registered belatedly by the Sub Inspector of Police and even then there was no further action on that for the main reason that police officials themselves are involved.This circumstance also would add strength to the evidence of P.W.1 victim relating to the incident of gang rape in the police station at the relevant time.We will now come to the second portion of the occurrence.According to the prosecution, after the gang rape, she was beaten again and made completely unconscious.Thereafter, she was bodily lifted from the storeroom and taken through the school veranda and dropped her body into the ditch which was at the backyard of school near the police station.Thereafter, the accused Constables threw two stones on her head and left the place.For this part of the incident, there is no direct evidence adduced by the prosecution.However, it is noticed that P.W.1 in Ex.P56, which was recorded on 6.8.1988 by P.W.19 R.D.O., she stated that the Circle Inspector (A1) after committing rape, asked other three police personnel accused to have intercourse with her and thereafter to finish her.Though she could tell in the statement that she remembered that some mud was thrown on her, she did not give the details as to how and by whom she was taken and thrown into a ditch.But, the consistent stand taken by P.W.1 both in her statement made to R.D.O. and in her deposition before the Court that after all the persons committed rape on her, she was beaten by A2 to A4 with heavy object and subsequently, she lost her consciousness and she regained consciousness only in the Bangalore Hospital.Therefore, she would not be able to say regarding the fact that she was thrown into a pit and stones were thrown on her head to kill her.However, the statement Ex.P62 given by A5, the woman Sweeper to P.W.19 R.D.O., while the enquiry was conducted, would give clear picture as to what happened subsequent to the gang rape.This statement was recorded on 20.7.1988 at 5.45 p.m. even before obtaining the statement Ex.According to the statement Ex.P62, after A1, the Inspector of Police left the station, A2 to A4 went inside the storeroom one after another and came back.When A5 asked A3 as to why there was some sound inside the storeroom, A3 told her that the woman had fainted.Thereafter, the accused Constables lifted her and carried her through the school veranda and pushed into a ditch and thereafter, they threw two granite stones on the girl's head.Then, they left the place.After coming back to police station, the mat on which the girl was raped also was torn by A3, the Writer.This statement is an additional corroboration to the statement (Ex.P56) of P.W.1 in which P.W.1 stated that the Inspector of Police asked other Police Constables to have sexual intercourse and then to finish her.This statement cannot be rejected merely because A5 has retracted the same during the course of trial.A5 never stated that she was compelled to give such a statement.She did not dispute her thumb impression in the said statement.As a matter of fact, P.W.19 who speaks about the statement Ex.P62 made before him by A5 had not been cross-examined by A5 at all, though the other witnesses were cross-examined by her counsel.In the said fact situation, there is no difficulty in holding that the statement Ex.Furthermore, the contents of the said extra-judicial confession is in a way corroborated by the evidence of the witnesses P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 who stated that the body was found lying in the pit and from there, the victim was taken to hospital.In addition to this, P.W.18, the Doctor attached to Hosur Hospital and P.W.16, the Doctor attached to Bangalore Hospital would mention in their certificates Exs.P.50 and 51 respectively that there are several injuries on frontal, parietal and temporal region of the head.They also would state that these injuries on the head would have been caused by throwing the stones on the head.Thus, it is clear from the extra-judicial confession and other materials referred to above that after finishing rape, there was an attempt to commit murder on her.Both the Doctors would state that there was loss of large quantity of blood and if timely treatment had not been given, she would have died.These things would make it clear that there are enough materials to show that the accused Police Constables (A2 to A4) had caused grievous injuries and made attempt to commit murder, thereby to cause disappearance of the evidence.The main thrust of the attack by the senior counsel appearing for the first accused, the Inspector of Police is that the family of P.W.1 was so poor and in her family, P.W.1 alone was doing a temporary job as a Teacher and in order to get permanent job and to get compensation, she falsely implicated A1 and other accused with the help of the Communist Party who were agitating over the lack of interest over the investigation by the police and in order to satisfy the public outcry, the R.D.O. hurriedly fixed the responsibility on the accused police officials.This defence, in my view, is not only artificial but also obnoxious.Though the occurrence had taken place on 20.7.1988, P.W.1 who is the unfortunate victim never said anything initially either with reference to the commission of offences or with regard to the identity of the culprits.Even on 4.8.1988 when she gave first statement to R.D.O., she did not want to tell anything as she was afraid of the consequences, but she merely said that A5 knew everything.P63 and sent it to the Collector, who in turn passed an order directing prosecution.After the launching of the complaint, the articles recovered from the spot were sent for chemical analysis through the Court and identification parade was conducted in pursuance of the order of the Court.Only after collecting all the materials, the matter was committed to Sessions.In the said statement, she did not give the details, since at that time, she was afraid that if details were given, her whole life would be spoiled.However, in the said statement, she mentioned that A5 knew about the occurrence.When P.W.3, the husband found that she was reluctant to tell the truth, she was asked to give entire truth, since he would take care of her and protect her throughout her life.Only on the basis of the words of encouragement by P.W.3, P.W.1 gave out full details in Ex.As noted above, even prior to the recording of this statement, A5 gave the statement Ex.P62 to R.D.O.(P.W.19) which would corroborate the version of P.W.1 that she was locked in a storeroom and in the said room, she was gang raped and the comparison of Ex.This submission also would not impress this Court for the reason that when she was locked in the room, it was only 5.30 p.m. According to the prosecution, the gang rape was committed by one after another between 7.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. P.W.8 mahazar witness would state that in the storeroom, there was a light available.P.W.19 also would state that there were electrical lights available in every room of the police station.P.W.1 has categorically stated in her deposition that there was an electric light burning while the rape was committed.P56, she said that she regained her senses and she felt as if she was in a dark room.She further stated that all the persons one after another came and raped her and she could identify them if she sees them again.They come from an Orthodox family.During the cross-examination, nothing was elicited from them that they were speaking falsehood or they were having any grudge against the police officials.P63 sent by P.W.19 R.D.O. and his deposition made before the Court would clearly indicate that P.W.19 Mr.C. Chandra Mouli, the R.D.O. is a honest and impartial officer who took pains in conducting the enquiry and collecting the statements of the public, even though he was a victim in the attack during the public agitation.His efforts during the course of investigation and in giving full details during the course of deposition would deserve all appreciation from this Court.But for the timely intervention through the Collector's order or through the effective enquiry by P.W.19, a case of gang rape by the police officials at the police station would have been buried.Similarly, the agitation by the public of Thalli village against the police atrocities was also a timely one.Only due to this, P.W.7 Mr.Subba Rao, an elder of the village took up the cause and presented a memorandum to the Collector to take immediate action.Since the sentence imposed upon the appellants (A1 to A4) has been enhanced to life imprisonment, the appellants are directed to surrender before the trial Court or the trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the custody of the appellants/accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence.With these observations, the appeals as well as the revision are disposed of.","['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on I.A.No.12476/2017 an application for grant of bail and suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant.This is first application under section 389 of Cr.P.C., for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant, who has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under sections 354 and 354-A of IPC to undergo R.I., for 1 year, 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.200/- & Rs.200/- respectively and under section 7/8 of POCSO Act to undergo R.I., for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulations.Considering the fact that during trial the appellant remained on bail, there is no allegation that he misused the liberty granted earlier and this appeal is likely to take considerable time for hearing, therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find this a fit case to grant bail and to suspend the sentence of appellant.Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that the substantial sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and appellant Mohit Mirdha shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 3.1.2018 and on such other dates as may be directed from time to time in this regard.I.A.No.12476/2017 stands allowed and disposed of.C.C., as per rules.(Anurag Shrivastava) Judge M.",['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Ct.28 RP 176 CRM 11845 of 2017 In Re : An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 24th November, 2017 in connection with Sankarail P.S. Case No.1028/16 dated 13.12.2016 under Sections 147/148/149 /353/283/427/436/307/295A/296/506/332/333/120B/379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the PDPP Act.And In the matter of : Ainul Laskar @ Aynul Laskar .... Petitioner Mr. Soumya Basu Roy Chowdhury ..... For the Petitioner Mr. Prodipto Ganguly ..... For the State It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that he is in custody for 11 months.It is further submitted that no overt act was attributed by the petitioners in the instant case and co-accused persons similarly circumstanced have been enlarged on bail.Therefore he may be enlarged on bail.Learned lawyer for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for bail.Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/-( Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of like amount, one of whom shall be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah on condition that he shall not enter the jurisdiction of Sankrail Police Station without express permission of the Court and he shall provide the particulars of his place of residence to the investigating officer as well as the trial Court.He shall not intimidate the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and shall not commit similar offences in future and he shall appear before the trial Court on every date of hearing and in the event he fails to do so, his bail shall stand automatically cancelled without further reference to this Court.The application for bail is, accordingly, allowed.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 3","['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"He alleged that he had supplied Agrochemicals to the said Company from 1999-2000 to 2002 when the outstanding was Rs.6, 65,952/-.Such complainant alleged that during 31.12.2002 to 25.8.2004, the management/directors of the said Company did not make any payment.In the end of 2004 the complainant could collect some payments and the outstanding amount as on that date was Rs.3, 65,000/-.In the said written complaint, it was claimed that despite being repeatedly approached, the directors of the Company refused and neglected to make any payment whatsoever.Such continuous uninterrupted torture by not responding to the request for repayment of the money resulted in psychosomatic disorder.The complainant thus became sick.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:The Hon'ble Justice S.P. Talukdar C.R.R. No. 3039 of 2007 Kingshuk Neogi Vs.The State of West Bengal & Anr.S.P. Talukdar, J.: Petitioner, Kingshuk Neogi, by filing the instant application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code sought for quashing of the proceedings arising out of Kotwali Police Case No.207/2007 dated 6.7.2007 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1053 of 2007 pending before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, under Section420/120B of the Indian Code.He has been claiming that certain sum of money is due and payable from the said company.Such O.P. No.2 by letter dated 15.4.2004 addressed to the M/S. Debijhora Tea Company Ltd., demanded an amount of Rs.7, 15,500/- along with interest @ 24% per annum.The said O.P. No.2 thereafter as complainant filed a written complaint on 6th of July, 2007 before the Office-in-Charge, Kotwali Police Station at Jalpaiguri.It was then claimed that he had been denied payment of an amount of Rs.3, 65,000/-.On the basis of the said written complaint, the Officer-in-Charge of the Kotwali, Police Station, district Jalpaiguri started Kotwali Police Case No.207 of 2007 dated 6th of July, 2007 under Section 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.The present petitioner being so implicated in the said case was arrested and was put under detention by the police authority.He was initially pressurized for payment of an amount of Rs.3,65,000/. In view of non-response to such undue request, he was formally arrested.On 10th July, 2007, the petitioner's Association namely Indian Tea Planters' Association submitted a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri against such arrest of the petitioner on allegations of non-payment of some outstanding dues for supplying chemicals to the Tea Garden.The transaction between the parties being purely commercial in nature and since admittedly payment had been made from time to time, there could be no reason for the police authority to be so active as to arrest the present petitioner.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"DATE : 9th JUNE, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. ) Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.2. Heard finally at admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.This is an application by applicants who are arrayed as accused in Crime No. 5/2017 registered at Hatta Police Station, District Hingoli on 10.01.2017 for commission of offence punishable under section 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code seeking quashment of proceedings.Respondent no. 3 - informant has caused appearance before us through advocate Mr. Katkar and has presented affidavit.The same is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification.Informant is also personally present before the Court and admits the contents of the affidavit marked 'X'.It is recorded in the affidavit that after lodging First Information Report on 10.01.2017, on the next day, she went to her husband alongwith child and is cohabiting with her husband.It is further stated that the First Information Report was lodged because of mis-understanding between husband and wife and at the instance of members of her ::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 05:32:45 ::: {3} criappln1371.17.odt family.Respondent no. 3 - informant further states that she is happily continuing her marital life with her husband and she has no objection if the complaint lodged by her registered at Hatta Police Station vide Crime No. 5/2017 is quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 05:32:45 :::Considering the stand taken by the informant and contents of affidavit Exh. X, the criminal application deserves to be allowed.Criminal proceeding initiated against applicants being Crime No 5/2017 registered at Hatta Police Station on 10.01.2017 for offence punishable under sections 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code stands quashed.::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 05:32:45 :::","['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Referring to the said allegations terming them as false and concocted, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint in the court of Crl.M.C. No.1326/2016 Page 1 of 10 Metropolitan Magistrate alleging offence under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) having been committed.It may be mentioned here that the other persons who were impleaded as respondents in the petition under DV Act also filed similar complaints, all the said complaints having been inquired into under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by the Metropolitan Magistrate.In each criminal complaint, including the one preferred by the petitioner, alleging offence under Section 500 IPC, the respective complainant appeared as the solitary witness (CW-1).The second respondent was married to Sidharth Kasana, son of the petitioner, on 15.02.2010, but the marriage ran into rough weather and she statedly left the matrimonial home.Eventually, she filed a petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act, for short) on 26.06.2014, attributing certain acts of commission, inter alia to the petitioner (father-in-law), others impleaded in the said proceedings being inclusive of the husband, the mother-in-law, sisters-in-law etc. In the said petition under DV Act, she levelled certain allegations against the petitioner as well.M.C. No.1326/2016 Page 1 of 10The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed all the abovesaid complaints, by order dated 20.08.2015, inter alia, observing that the same were premature, the falsity or otherwise of the allegations of domestic violence attributed by the second respondent in the proceedings under DV Act being a matter yet to be adjudicated upon.The petitioner and other similarly placed complainants assailed the aforesaid order dated 20.08.2015 in the court of Sessions, the challenge by the petitioner being through Crl.",['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
"JUDGMENT R.C. Mishra, J.This is an appeal, under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the order, as contained in the operative part of a common judgment dated 30-4-2001 passed by III ASJ, Chhatarpur in S.T. Nos. 86/97, 213/96 and 140/90, directing retention of a 12 bore gun, ten cartridges and a wrist watch, allegedly seized from the possession of the appellant in custody of Court till conclusion of the trial of the absconding accused persons.The appellant is amongst the persons, who were prosecuted and tried on the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 395 read with Sections 397 and 396 of the Indian Penal Code.Although, for want of incriminating evidence, learned Trial Judge acquitted the appellant of the offences yet, he proceeded to direct retention of gun on the ground that some of the accused were still absconding.","['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"As per prosecution story, the incident took place on 04.07.2018 when the brother of applicant namely; Sachin along with his accomplice fired on his father from a fire arm owing to some property dispute.The applicant was hand in glove with his brother and was involved in conspiracy and had committed offence under Section 307 read with Section 120-B of IPC against his own father.Accordingly, case has been registered against them.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not present at the scene of crime, rather he was at some other town as a tourist along with his wife.It 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO.47726 OF 2018 (Santosh vs State of Madhya Pradesh) has also been pointed out that there was some property dispute of applicant with his father.On 30.05.2018, the applicant had filed a report against his father and his uncle Mukesh and on that fateful day, the applicant was physically abused by his father on account of property dispute.He also submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime.There is no legal evidence to connect the applicant with the present crime.The conclusion of trial will take a long time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned counsel for the objector has filed a document which is a whatsapp message between the mother of applicant and his uncle which focusses on resolving the dispute between the warring parties.Hence, the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.He also lodged report against Omprakash on 30.05.2018 and also the fact that the applicant was not present on the date of incident where the incident took place, it would be proper to enlarge 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO.47726 OF 2018 (Santosh vs State of Madhya Pradesh) the applicant on bail, but without making any opinion on merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant- Santosh is allowed.Certified copy, as per Rules.(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Arun/-Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR Date: 2018.12.01 17:06:51 +05'30'",['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
"The facts leading up to the filing of the present petition are encapsulated as under:-(a) That the petitioner was a holder of an Arms Licence bearing No.(b) The petitioner was invited to a social function organized in the neighbourhood and during the said event a gunshot was fired wherein the nephew of the petitioner's neighbour got injured.(c) The petitioner was arrested and a case FIR bearing No.121/2013, under section 307 IPC read with section 27/54/59 of Arms Act, was registered on 13.03.2013 at Police Station-Bindapur, Delhi and his revolver as well as his arms licence were seized from his house by the local police.W.P.(CRL) 1845/2015 Page 2 of 10W.P.(CRL) 1845/2015 Page 9 of 10W.P.(CRL) 1845/2015 Page 9 of 10Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC (Criminal) with SI Mukesh Kumar, PS- Badarpur CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL) CRL.M.A.12391/2015 (Exemption) Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.The application is disposed of accordingly.The present is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 assailing the order dated W.P.(CRL) 1845/2015 Page 1 of 10 12.03.2014 passed by the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi in Case No.270/2013 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 against the order dated 13.11.2013 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Licensing Unit, Delhi Police cancelling the petitioner's arms licence bearing No.W.P.(CRL) 1845/2015 Page 1 of 10(d) A show cause notice was served upon the petitioner from the office of Additional Commissioner of Police, Licensing Delhi for cancellation of the arms licence and the petitioner gave a reply to the said show cause notice.(f) The petitioner was acquitted vide order dated 05.11.2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in case FIR No.121/2013, under sections 307/ IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station- Bindapur, Delhi.(g) The petitioner appealed against the said order dated 13.11.2014 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Licensing, Delhi before the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi.The appeal was dismissed by the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, by way of the order impugned herein.3. Notice.W.P.(CRL) 1845/2015 Page 3 of 10W.P.(CRL) 1845/2015 Page 3 of 10Mr. Mahajan, learned Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) accepts notice.With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and disposed of by this order.Mr. Hari Shankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner invites my attention to the impugned order dated 12.03.2014 to urge that it is a non-speaking order and no reasons for accepting the contentions made on behalf of the police and rejecting the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are recorded in the impugned order.A perusal of the order impugned herein reveals that after hearing the parties and perusing the documents on record, without assigning any reasons whatsoever for arriving at the decision impugned herein, the Lieutenant Governor rejected the petitioner's appeal.The operative part of the impugned order dated 12.03.2014 reads as follows:-""After hearing both the parties and careful perusal of documents on record, I am of the opinion that the Licensing Authority, after considering all aspects of the matter, has passed a fair order and I find no reason to interfere with it.The appeal, therefore, rejected.""The impugned order dated 21.11.2014, extracted hereinabove, clearly demonstrates that the concerned Magistrate has acted in a casual, cavalier and routine manner.The said order only refers to the grant of permission to investigate into the matter mechanically without assigning any reasons and cannot be countenanced by this Court.The same deserves to be set aside.""While dealing with the aforesaid issue, this Court also relied upon the Apex Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs Shukla and Brothers, wherein it was held as under:The order dated 12.03.2014 is set aside.The matter is remitted back to the Court of the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi to decide the petitioner's appeal under section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 de novo after affording the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard in accordance with law.The petition is disposed of accordingly.The parties or their counsel shall appear before the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi at the first instance on 16.09.2015 at 4.00 p.m. for further proceedings in accordance with law.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J SEPTEMBER 07, 2015 dn W.P.(CRL) 1845/2015 Page 10 of 10W.P.(CRL) 1845/2015 Page 10 of 10",['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
"M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 5 of 13 fact arrived at by a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 5 of 13Jitender Saini reveals that he had deposed that on 14th November, 2005 he had received a call and the callers were Vijay, Ashok Kumar and Raju.Regarding the first call he did not specify that this was the call only from Vijay, or from Ashok Kumar, or Raju, or all the three spoke to him and demanded ransom for kidnapping the child.From his testimony, it is not clear whether all the three accused talked to him simultaneously, or one of them demanded ransom on the phone and he heard other two Ashok Kumar and Raju in the background.Vijay only.Though he stated that second call on the same date i.e. 14th November, 2005 was received after one hour from Raju threatening him that if Rs.5/-lakhs were not paid, his kidnapped son will be killed, however, this deposition is contrary to his statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C where he had stated that the call was made by Ashok.In the cross-examination, the complainant PW-2 rather stated that he received information that accused Vijay had kidnapped his child on 14th November, 2005 in the evening from Sh.Sanjay and he told about this to the police.He categorically stated that before getting information from Sanjay he had not received any information of any Crl.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 6 of 13 kind about kidnapping of his son.* Crl.M.A No.14604/2010 This is an application seeking exemption from filing the certified copies of the annexures.Allowed subject to just exception.M.A No.14603/2010 This is an application by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 51 days in filing the Crl.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 1 of 13 petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 30th March, 2010 and 31st March, 2010 convicting and sentencing respondent No.1 under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code and acquitting respondent Nos.1 to 4, all the respondents under Section 364-A of Indian Penal Code.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 1 of 13The applicant has contended that copies of the orders were received on 5th April, 2010 and thereafter the report was prepared and was sent to different officers to consider the case and to decide to file petition for leave to appeal leading to 51 days delay.The applicant has contended that considering the averments made in the application, there is sufficient grounds for condoning the delay.For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 51 days in filing the petition for leave to appeal is condoned and the application is allowed.The petitioner/state has sought leave to appeal against the orders of conviction and sentence dated 30th March, 2010 and 31st March, 2010 whereby respondent No.1 has been convicted under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code, however absolving him of the charge under Section 364A of Indian Penal Code and also absolving respondent Nos.2 to 4, namely Raju, Ashok Kumar and Pappu of the charges under Sections 364A and Crl.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 2 of 13 120B of Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.56/1/08, titled as State v. Raju & Others arising from F.I.R.No.750/2005, under Sections 364A & 120B of Indian Penal Code, PS Najafgarh.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 2 of 13The learned counsel for the petitioner/State has been heard in detail and the record of the trial court which had been requisitioned has also been perused and the evidence led before the trial court has been considered to determine the pleas and contentions of the learned counsel to decide whether the petition for leave to appeal should be granted or not.The learned counsel for the petitioner/State has very emphatically contended that there is sufficient evidence to establish that a ransom call was received by the complainant, Sh.Jitender Saini who was examined as PW-2 as he has deposed orally about it.According to him, even though the prosecution failed to carry out the voice test identification and also failed to get the call record of STD Booth and produced the same and even did not seize the cell phone of the complainant, the oral evidence of PW-2 regarding having received a Crl.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 3 of 13 ransom call from Vijay an ex-employee demanding Rs.5/-lakhs is sufficient to establish that the demand for ransom was received and he should have been convicted under section 364 A of IPC also.Even if on, fresh scrutiny and reappraisal of the evidence and perusal of the material on record, the High Court is of the opinion that another view is possible or which can be reasonably taken, then the view which favours the accused should be adopted and the view taken by the trial Court which had an advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court is not to be substituted by another view which may be reasonably possible in the opinion of the High Court.For this reliance can be placed on 2009(1) JCC 482=AIR 2009 SC 1242, Prem Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan; 2008 (3) JCC 1806, Syed Peda Aowlia v. the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad; Bhagwan Singh and Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 (2) Supreme 567; AIR 1973 SC 2622 Shivaji Sababrao Babade & Anr v. State of Maharashtra; Ramesh Babu Lal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, Crl.The Courts have held that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 4 of 13His relevant cross-examination on 25th January, 2007 is as under:-M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 6 of 13"".................For the first time I received information that accused Vijay has kidnapped my child on 14th November, 2005 in the evening.I received this information from Sh.Sanjay on 14th November, 2005 in the evening.I told this information to the police in the evening of 14th November, 2005 itself.I did not receive any information of any kind before or on 14th November, 2005 except the information received through Sh.It is correct that I received a telephonic call from the police station Bakewar, Itawaha (UP) on 16th November, 2005.""The PW-2 had not deposed that he had received any call from Sh.According to him, the ransom call was made by Vijay on 14th November, 2005 along with Ashok Kumar and Raju and after one hour, he had received another call from Raju.Had he received the phone calls for ransom on 14th November, 2005 would he not know that his child had been kidnapped for ransom? In that case, the said witness who is the complainant and father of the kidnapped child would not have deposed that the information that Vijay has kidnapped his child on 14th November, 2005 was from Sh.Sanjay only.In view of the specific statement of PW-2, it was imperative for the prosecution to have seized the cell phone of the complainant and to ascertain its IME number.This was neither deposed by the said witness, nor established by the prosecution whether the alleged ransom call was received on the mobile phone of the complainant or at his STD Booth.The call record of the STD Booth has not been produced.In the circumstances, there is no Crl.On the basis of the oral statement of the complainant also it cannot be inferred that he had received ransom calls from the accused and to that extent his statement cannot be relied on.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 7 of 13The complainant, Sh.Jitender Saini in his statement under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code stated that he had received phone call from Ashok Kumar on 14.11.2005 and not Raju and he could identify the voices of Vijay and Ashok Kumar as Ashok Kumar used to come to Vijay at his shop.In the circumstances, the trial Judge has noticed the improvement made by the said witness who had stated in his statement under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code that Ashok Kumar had demanded the amount and had made second ransom call and it was not disclosed in the statement under section 161 of Cr. P.C that Raju had made the second ransom call.In the cross- examination, the said witness had also admitted that he could not identify accused Raju and Sonu by names.If complainant could not identify Raju and Sonu even by name, then how could he identify their voices? The complainant had not heard them earlier as Vijay was not in the habit of making friends and voice test identification was not done during the investigation.In the circumstances, the inferences drawn by the trial court that the complainant could not have identified their voices cannot be held to be unsustainable or perverse so as to entail Crl.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 8 of 13 interferences by this Court, or to grant leave to appeal to the petitioner as no perversity in the findings of the Trial Court has been pointed out.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 8 of 13The trial court has also noticed and observed that prosecution has not produced any call record, though the complainant had deposed that he had received a ransom call from Vijay on his STD Booth, and therefore, it was incumbent upon the investigating officer to have collected the call record to find out the truth in the statement of the complainant as to whether he had received any ransom call.The failure of the prosecution to establish that any ransom call was made has also been inferred on the basis of the testimony of PW-14, ASI Ishwar Dutt who did not make any attempt to verify whether the complainant PW-2 had received any ransom call as in his deposition he could not disclose the telephone number and mobile number on which the ransom call was received at the house of the complainant.He had admitted that he had not even informed about the time or collected any detail of the STD line phone on which alleged ransom calls were allegedly made by the respondents/accused.Another factor which weighed with the trial court was that the demand for ransom has not been established by the testimony of PW-3 who has alleged that he had heard the accused planning to kidnap the child of the complainant on 8th November, 2005, however, he did not inform about this fact either to the police or to other co-villagers and he Crl.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 9 of 13 informed the complainant Sh.Jitender Saini only on 14th November, 2005 which is also admitted by Sh.Jitender Saini complainant in his cross-examination deposing that he only came to know about the kidnapping of his child from Sh.Sanjay PW-3 also did not depose that kidnapping was done or was planned for any demand or for any ransom.PW-3 was not declared hostile and in the circumstances, the trial court did not give much credence to his testimony for inferring that there was a demand for ransom made from the complainant.Rather the trial court has held that PW-3 appears to be a witness introduced in the case with a purpose to give the colours of kidnapping for ransom to the case.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 9 of 13The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is unable to show any other fact established on record which has not been taken into consideration by the trial court which will make inferences of the trial court perverse or unsustainable.The plea that two ransom calls were received by the complainant was not propounded in the statement initially recorded under section 161 of the Cr. P.C but was disclosed by the complainant, father of the kidnapped child in his supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code where he had deposed that he had received two ransom calls.In the statement under Section 161 of Crl.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 10 of 13 Criminal Procedure Code, the complainant stated that ransom calls were received from Vijay and Ashok Kumar whereas in his statement before the Court, it was alleged that first ransom call was received from Vijay, Ashok Kumar and Raju, and second ransom call was received from Raju.In the circumstances, the inferences of the trial Court that there is no cogent evidence with regard to any planning or criminal conspiracy to kidnap the child cannot be termed to be unsustainable or perverse or not based on the evidence on record.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 10 of 13The prosecution has also failed to produce reliable evidence that complainant had accompanied police from Delhi to bus stand Itawaha on 15th November, 2005 as the prosecution case is that on 14th November, 2005, ASI Ishwar Dutt along with PW-2 Sh.Jitender Saini,PW-4, one Sh.Sarjeet Saini, a relative of PW-2 and constable Sh.However, PW-2 Sh.Jitender Saini, the complainant did not testify at all that Sh.Sarjeet Saini, his relative had accompanied him to bus stand pursuant to the ransom call allegedly received from the accused.The statement of PW4, Sh.Sarjeet, brother- in-law of the complainant has contradictions inasmuch as he stated that the complainant was given a bag with a direction to go to bus stand and no one came to collect the money, however, no clarification was sought about the date of the visit and in these circumstances, the probable inference is that they had not gone to Itawaha on 14th Crl.Even if it is feasible to draw another inferences by this Court that evidence reflect that these two persons had gone on 14.11.2005 and had reached Etawah on 15.11.2005, it will not be appropriate to substitute the findings of the Trial Court with this inference.These persons with policemen had not visited Etawah is further augmented by the fact that no DD entry has been proved that police officials with the complainant and his relative had left for Itawaha on 14th November, 2005, nor any entry at the police station Itawaha to prove their presence in the said District has been produced and proved.In the circumstances, neither prosecution had established that there was a ransom call made on 14th November, 2005, and nor that two police officers along with the complainant and his brother-in-law had gone to Itawaha.In the circumstances, the findings of the trial court, in the opinion of this Court does not suffer from any perversity, nor any such facts or pleas have been raised or shown by the learned counsel which will reflect any unsustainability in the findings of the trial court.M.A No. 14603/2010 & CRL.LP No.323/2010 Page 11 of 13The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms.","['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Shri M.K. Soni, learned counsel for the objector.Case diary perused.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in connection with Crime No.180/2019 registered at Police Station Gopalganj, Distt.Sagar for the offence under Sections 376 (2)(n) of IPC.The allegation against the applicant, in short, is that the prosecutrix aged about 25 years is a married woman having one daughter, but she is living separately from her husband Ranjeet Tiwari.She has alleged that on the pretext of marriage the applicant made physical relations with her from 10/2/2017 upto 20/5/2019 and they have also resided in rented rooms at different places.On the basis of concocted story to implicate the applicant, the case has been registered against the applicant.The applicant is ready to furnish bail as per the order and shall abide by all conditions as may be imposed by the Court.He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 2/7/2019 and the trial will take long time for its final disposal.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.Learned counsel for the objector also opposes the bail application.Looking to the documents filed by the objector, it appears that the prosecutrix and her husband have filed a divorce application before the Family Court, but till date no order of dissolution of marriage has been passed in that application.C.C. as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE rv Digitally signed by REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Date: 24/07/2019 15:17:45",['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Heard finally.On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State vehemently opposed the application.(SUBHASH KAKADE) JUDGE SJ/-",['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Shri Y.M. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the non- applicant.This is first bail application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 306 & 34 of I.P.C in connection with Crime No.46/2016 registered at Police Station Umariya Distt.The applicant No.1 Ramnath is brother-in-law (Devar), applicant No.2 Pan Bai is mother-in-law and applicant No.3 Munna Raidas is father-in-law of deceased.The prosecution has alleged that Panbai and Munna were in occupation to harass the deceased for demand of dowry.The marriage was solemonized more than 7 years back from the date of incident, however the presumption of section 113-A would not attract.Certified copy as per rules.(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE","['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard both the learned counsel for the parties.This is first bail application filed by the applicant Lekhram Luniya under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail.T h e applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.78/2019, registered at P.S. Majhauli, District Jabalpur under Sections 354, 354-D, 506, 376 of IPC.A s per the prosecution case, on 18.02.2019 prosecutrix lodged the report at Police Station Majhauli, District Jabalpur averring that when she was returning from police station to her house after lodging report of the applicant, on the way, at Indrana Chowk, applicant meet her and caught hold of her hand with bad intention and molested her.On that police registered Crime No.78/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-D, 506 of IPC.For the first time on 27.02.2019 prosecutrix disclosed the fact that on 14.02.2019 applicant also committed rape with the prosecutrix.Prosecutrix was major.Applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial.Under these circumstances, applicant prays for anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that prosecutrix was major, in the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix on 18.02.2019, it is not Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 15/04/2019 11:15:48 2 MCRC-12165-2019 mentioned that applicant also committed rape with her.The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Station House Officer for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE (ra) Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 15/04/2019 11:15:48","['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The facts of the case, in short, are that, on 28.11.2010, at about 7 a.m. in the morning, the complainant Nathu (P.W.1) went to village Bakaswaha for shopping and therefore, he went to meet his daughter, the deceased prosecutrix.When he reached the house of his daughter, he found that Roop Singh (P.W.3) and Jai Singh, children of the deceased were crying and they informed that the accused Ramji and Ganesh came in the previous evening and stayed in their house for the entire night.In the night, Ramji held-:- 3 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 the hands of the deceased and Ganesh assaulted her by an axe on her neck and therefore, she had died.When Nathu went inside the house, he saw the dead body of his daughter and thereafter, he came out and he found that neighbours Dhaniram (P.W.2) and Kayyum (P.W.4) and Jinnu Jain (P.W.5) were present.A merg intimation, Ex.P/1 was also recorded.The police went to the spot and Panchayatnama lash, Ex.P/4 was prepared and dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem.L.L.Ahirwar (P.W.8) did the post-mortem on the body of the deceased and gave his report, Ex.He found 4 incised wounds on the neck of the deceased.Out of them, 2 wounds were fatal in nature and due to those injuries, the deceased had expired.He found that left jaw of the deceased was also broken.Vaginal swab of the deceased was taken on the slide and handed over to the concerned constable, after its sealing.Shri R.P.Verma (P.W.12) SHO, Police Station Bakaswaha had investigated the matter.He observed the formalities of the investigation of the spot.The appellants were arrested and clothings of the accused Ramji were seized and sealed.In report, Ex.P/27, given by the FSL expert, it was-:- 4 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 found that sperm and semen particles were found in the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix and on her underwear but, such spots were not found sufficient for serum test.Similarly, on the article 'K', the axe is alleged to be seized from the appellant Ganesh, blood was found on it but, it was not proved that there was any human blood on that axe, whereas blood group of the deceased was 'AB'.He did not turn hostile for seizure etc. However, for few points he was declared hostile.Under such circumstances, the evidence given by Dhaniram (P.W.2) appears to be important.Dhaniram has stated that at about 6 a.m. in the morning, Roop Singh came out of the house and told that someone killed his mother.When he came out of the house he did not tell to Dhaniram, Kayyum and Jinnu Jain that the appellants killed his mother.He says only a single blow was given by the appellant Ganesh, whereas Dr.Ahirwar found 4 incised wounds on the left neck of the deceased.If the story told by the witness is accepted as it is then, it would be apparent from the evidence given by other witnesses that the deceased was a widow, who was not given any share in the family property by her father-in-law.The accused Ganesh, real brother-in- law of the deceased was initially residing in the same locality but, thereafter, he went to stay with his father.If he had(15.7.2014) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by: N.K.Gupta, J. A criminal reference No.7/2013 has been referred by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bijawar, District Chhatarpur against the same judgment dated 23.8.2013 in S.T.No.71/2011 against which the-:- 2 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 appellants/accused Ganesh and Ramji have preferred the criminal appeal No.2311/2013, therefore, both the matters are being decided by this common judgment.Since death sentence was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge therefore, the death reference is referred to this Court.On intimation given by Ganesh, one axe was also seized.Seized property was sent for forensic science analysis.After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the concerned JMFC, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur and ultimately, it was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bijawar.The appellants abjured their guilt.They took a plea that they were falsely implicated in the matter.However, no defence evidence was adduced.The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the prosecution's evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.Death sentence was recorded against the appellants for offence under Section 302 of IPC.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.First of all it is to be considered as to whether death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.-:- 5 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 respect, evidence of Dr.L.L.Ahirwar (P.W.8) who proved the post-mortem report, Ex.P/22, in which he found that 4 incised wounds were caused on the neck of the deceased prosecutrix.Out of them, first two were fatal in nature.Description of the wounds is as under:-(1)Incised wound 10 X 4 X 3 cms on left side of neck.(2)Incised wound 6 X 2 X 1 cms on left side of neck.(3)Incised wound 2 X 1 X 1 cms on left side of neck.(4)Incised wound 2 X 1 X 1 cms on left side of neck.Entire left jaw of the deceased was found fractured and in opinion of Dr.Ahirwar those injuries were sufficient to cause death of the deceased.Looking to the opinion of Dr.Ahirwar, it was established by the prosecution that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.The prosecution has examined Roop Singh (P.W.3) as an eye witness, who is a child witness, aged 6 years.The deceased was the mother of child Roop Singh.According to Roop Singh, the appellants came in the previous evening of the incident to his house and resided in the night.He got up because he received a push from the left leg of the appellant Ganesh and he found that the appellant Ramji held legs of the deceased and the appellant Ganesh assaulted the deceased by an axe.He has stated that in the morning, his maternal grandfather (P.W.1) came to his house and he told-:- 6 -:-A merg intimation, Ex.P/1 was also recorded at Police Station Bakaswaha.However, some discrepancies arose in the story told by Roop Singh and his maternal grandfather Nathu.Initially Nathu did not state about the rape committed upon the deceased prosecutrix and story told in the FIR, Ex.P/2 and merg intimation, Ex.P/1 was that the appellants killed the deceased.However, Nathu as well as Roop Singh improved the story that Roop Singh saw the appellants committing rape on the prosecutrix.If he would have seen the fact of rape committed by the appellants then, certainly he could say that he saw any of the appellants lying upon the prosecutrix or he found that the clothings of the prosecutrix were removed.Roop Singh could not say anything about that fact.Looking to his statement about the alleged rape, it appears that he was tutored by his maternal grandfather to that fact.Hence, the possibility cannot be ruled out that he was tutored about the entire incident.Roop Singh has stated that in his presence, the appellant Ramji had held the legs of the prosecutrix and the appellant-:- 7 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 Ganesh gave a blow of an axe on the neck of the prosecutrix, whereas Dr.Ahirwar found 4 different injuries on the neck of the prosecutrix and therefore, if Roop Singh was the eye witness, he would have seen 4 assaults caused by the appellant Ganesh.It is a material contradiction between the statement of the eye witness and the medical evidence.Thirdly, it is stated by the witness Roop Singh that the accused Ramji threatened him to either sleep or else, he would also be killed.Witness Roop Singh therefore, went to sleep and he got up only in the morning.Such conduct as depicted by the eye witness Roop Singh appears to be unnatural.If mother of the child was injured by the accused persons then, his natural conduct could be that he would pretended himself to be sleeping but, as and when the accused persons disappeared from the house, he would have tried to make hue and cry or to get some help to his mother if she was alive.It was not possible for a child that after getting a threat, he would go to sleep till the next morning.All such discrepancies indicate that possibility of tutoring of the child witness cannot be ruled out.Nathu and Roop Singh were asked about the death of Veer Singh, husband of the deceased.Both of them accepted that Veer Singh was not given any share from the family property by his father and therefore, he committed-:- 8 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 suicide.Child witness Roop Singh has stated that the appellant Ganesh was his real uncle and the accused Ramji was cousin of the accused Ganesh.In the light of the aforesaid judgments, the evidence of witness Roop Singh is to be examined as to whether he was tutored witness or his testimony can be relied upon.In the present case, Dhaniram (P.W.2) is an important witness.Dhaniram and Nathu have accepted that initially Dhaniram was residing at village Jaitpura and he was considering the deceased as his niece due to relation of the village.The police took him as a witness for the statement of the accused persons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and seizure etc. He is the witness of entire investigation.He did not mention the name of anyone.It is apparent from the statement of Roop Singh that after the incident, the main door was closed from outside by latches and on his knocking, some Khatik had opened the door.It was expected from the child to inform about the death of his mother to the person, who opened the door but, the child Roop Singh could not exactly-:- 10 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 say as to who opened the latches.Parsadi Khatik (P.W.13) was examined to establish that he had opened the latches but, he turned hostile and he did not say anything about the incident.According to the witness Nathu, when he reached to the house of the deceased, both the children were weeping and there was nobody except them, whereas Dhaniram (P.W.1) has accepted that after hearing the cries of Roop Singh etc. he, Kayyum (P.W.4) and Jinnu Jain (P.W.5) went to the spot at about 6 a.m. in the morning.Dhaniram has categorically stated that one Ramlal informed the police by phone and when the police came to the spot, the parents of the deceased were called from village Jaitpura.According to the witnesses Dhaniram, Kayyum and Jinnu Jain, they reached at the spot at about 6 a.m. in the morning, whereas, Nathu claims that he reached at the spot at 7 a.m. in the morning.Looking to such discrepancies, where child witness Roop Singh did not inform any of the witnesses namely Dhaniram, Kayyum and Jinnu that the appellants had stayed in his house in the previous night and they killed his mother, his testimony is not trustworthy.Dhaniram, Kayyum and Jinnu Jain have stated that they did not find the appellants in the house of the deceased in the night.They did not hear the voice of appellants or the deceased relating to quarrel.They did not-:- 11 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 hear that TV was on in the late night.In this connection, if the FIR, Ex.-:- 12 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 morning and after getting knowledge of the incident, he rushed to the police station and FIR was lodged at 7.15 a.m. and prima facie, it appears that FIR was lodged promptly but, if version of Dhaniram is considered then, it would be apparent that Nathu came to the spot when he was called by the police.Nathu tried to explain that he came to Bakaswaha for marketing and therefore, he also went to the house of his daughter to meet her.His explanation appears to be unnatural because shops of the market would have opened after 10 a.m. and therefore, it was not necessary for Nathu to leave his village at 6 a.m. in the morning.Secondly, if he came all alone for the purpose of marketing then, there was no possibility of his family members to remain present at the time when the document of Panchayatnama lash, Ex.P/4 (memo relating to description of dead body) was prepared.In that memo, dead body was identified by Ramsakhi, unmarried sister of the deceased and Preetam Singh, brother of the deceased alongwith Nathu, father of the deceased.Presence of Ramsakhi and her brother indicates that statement of Dhaniram is correct.Witness Nathu did not come to the house of his daughter at 7 a.m. on his own and he reached to the spot when he was called by the police.Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that Nathu Singh did-:- 13 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 not reach to the spot at 7 a.m. and therefore, he could not lodge the FIR, Ex.P/2 at 7.15 a.m. The FIR registered by the police appears to be ante timed.When FIR itself is under question for being delayed or ante timed then, it is necessary to examine as to whether the provisions of Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. were complied with or not.In this connection, the witness R.P.Verma (P.W.12) has exhibited the counter of FIR, Ex.P/2-A to show that it was sent to the concerned Magistrate within time.According to the circulars issued by the High Courts, it is necessary for every Magistrate to mention the date and time on each counter of FIR when it was received.-:- 14 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 ""Ishwar Singh Vs.If Roop Singh was an eye witness, he would have-:- 15 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 seen all the 4 assaults caused by the appellant Ganesh.The conduct of Nathu appears to be unnatural that he claims to reach the house of the deceased at 7 a.m., whereas looking to his purpose, it was not necessary for him to leave his village at 6 a.m. in the morning in the cold season.It was natural that if latches of the front door were closed from outside then, someone must have opened the latches and the child would have informed that person and neighbours about the incident, whereas Nathu claims that he was the first person who reached to the spot and he found that Roop Singh and his brother were crying, whereas Dhaniram claims that initially he and other neighbours had reached to the spot.One Ramlal informed the police on phone and thereafter, police called the witness Nathu from his village.The witness Roop Singh made an allegation against the appellants that they committed rape upon the prosecutrix and thereafter, killed her.-:- 16 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 strained relations with the deceased then, certainly he would not have been permitted to take dinner in the house of the deceased and to stay in the night.Ganesh had his own house in the same village then, there was no necessity for him to stay in the house of the deceased for the entire night and if the prosecutrix permitted him to stay in the house then, it would be apparent from her conduct that she permitted the appellants to stay in the house for the entire night, so that she could have cohabitation with them otherwise, there was no reason for such stay.If the prosecutrix was ready to have cohabitation with the appellants then, there was no possibility of any resistance from her side and there was no need to the appellants to kill her.Under such circumstances, the allegation as prepared in the FIR, Ex.P/2 and told by the child witness Roop Singh appears to be unnatural and therefore, if he claims to be an eye witness for such an unnatural instance then, his testimony cannot be believed.-:- 17 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 Dhaniram, Kayyum and Jinnu Jain.On the contrary, it appears that it is an ante timed document.Under such circumstances, in the light of aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court, the evidence of witness Roop Singh cannot be accepted eye witness.Upon ocular evidence being discarded then, it becomes the duty of the Court to consider other circumstantial evidence with a view to assess that it is sufficient in the ordinary course to prove the guilt of the accused.In the present case, first circumstance shown by the prosecution is that the appellants came to the house of the deceased in the previous evening and they resided in her house.Dhaniram (P.W.2) has accepted that he saw the appellants in the evening in front of the shop of the prosecutrix but, Dhaniram, Kayyum and Jinnu Jain did not accept that they heard any noise of any quarrel between the appellants and the deceased in the night or they heard the sound of TV viewed by the appellants in the night in the house of the deceased.They had no knowledge as to whether the appellants resided in the house of the deceased on that night.In this context, witness Roop Singh (P.W.3) has stated that the appellants resided in the house of the deceased in the night.However, as discussed above, when-:- 18 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 the appellant Ganesh had his own house in the same village then, there was no need to the appellants to stay in the house of the deceased prosecutrix and there was no need to the deceased to invite them for dinner and therefore, it appears that the child witness Roop Singh is fully tutored and therefore, by considering the entire evidence, it is not proved beyond doubt that the appellants stayed in the house of the deceased prosecutrix for the entire night.It is proved by Dhaniram that they were seen in front of the shop but, such a fact cannot be considered as a fact of last seen because if they were found in front of the shop in the evening then, at about 11 p.m., the deceased prosecutrix must have closed the doors of her shop and after taking her dinner, she must have slept on her mattress and therefore, by mere presence of the appellants in the evening in front of the shop of the deceased, no circumstantial evidence is created against them relating to the factum of last seen.Second circumstance shown by the prosecution is that the appellant Ganesh admitted his guilt under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and a memo, Ex.P/9 was recorded.Thereafter, one axe was recovered from the appellant Ganesh and a memo, Ex.P/11 was recorded.Similarly, clothings of the appellant Ganesh were seized with a memo, Ex.However, no human blood was found either on the clothings-:- 19 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 or on axe and therefore, seizure of axe as well as clothings is not a material evidence against the appellants.The confession given by the appellants under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is to be considered for a limited purpose, relating to a new fact arising during investigation and therefore, a very little portion of that confession is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, whereas remaining portion is inadmissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. Under such circumstances, only that portion can be accepted that the appellant Ganesh threw an axe in a gutter.However, according to the FSL report, Ex.P/27, no human blood was found on the clothings of the appellant Ganesh as well as on the axe recovered from him and therefore, confession under Section 27 of the Evidence Act given by the appellant Ganesh has no evidentiary value and it cannot be considered as a circumstance against the appellant.The learned Deputy Advocate General has also submitted that in the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix and on her underwear, Forensic Science Laboratory found semen particles and sperms on them and it is a circumstance against the appellants.The Forensic Science Laboratory did not mention that the semen and sperm particles found on the underwear and vaginal swab slides of the deceased were of the appellants and therefore, by presence of such semen-:- 20 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 spots and sperms, it cannot be said that those were of the appellants.Forensic Science Laboratory in its report, Ex.P/27 found that the spots found on articles H-1, H-2 and J-1 were not sufficient for serum examination but, it is no where made clear that as to why serum was not prepared from the spots found on Articles - I i.e. slide of vaginal swab of the deceased.Similarly, the serum slides of the appellants 'F' and 'G' were also available with the Forensic Science Laboratory and these 3 articles were sufficient for preparation of serum relating to semen and sperms.It is no where clear as to why the serum of article - 'I' and articles 'F' and 'G' was not prepared and compared.Under such circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove that in the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix, semen or sperms of the appellants were found.Also, if the memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act recorded by the appellants is considered as a whole then, it would be apparent that there was an admission that Ramji committed rape with the prosecutrix while she was sleeping and when the appellant Ganesh demanded for cohabitation then, due to her refusal, she was killed and therefore, there was no evidence that the appellant Ganesh did any intercourse with the prosecutrix therefore, atleast the semen sample of the appellant Ramji could be compared from the-:- 21 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 semen obtained from the vaginal swab of the deceased prosecutrix.The learned Deputy Advocate General has tried to submit that strong motive was there against the appellants that they committed rape and killed the deceased.It is established from the evidence of Dhaniram and Roop Singh that Ganesh was real brother-in-law of the deceased who was also ousted by his father and therefore, initially, he was residing in the same locality alongwith his wife, in which the prosecutrix was residing.Thereafter, he shifted his residence to his father's house, situated in the same village in another locality and therefore, the appellants had cordial relations with the deceased prosecutrix.There was no dispute relating to any property between the deceased prosecutrix and the appellants otherwise, they would not have been permitted to reside in the house of the deceased.Again if a motive is gathered from the overt-act of the appellants that when the prosecutrix refused to have relations with the appellant Ganesh, she was killed but, as discussed above, if she was not ready to have cohabitation with the appellants then, there was no reason for her to permit the appellants to stay in the house for the entire night when the appellant Ganesh has his own house in the-:- 22 -:-Criminal Reference No.7 of 2013 Criminal Appeal No.2311 of 2013 same village.Under such circumstances, no motive has been proved by the prosecution against the appellants to kill the deceased.State (NCT of Delhi) and another"" [(2013) 7 SCC 192] may be perused, in which it is laid that while dealing with the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should also be consistent with only one hypothesis i.e. guilt of accused.Onus lies on prosecution to prove that chain of event is complete and not to leave any doubt in the mind of the Court.In the light of aforesaid judgment, if evidence of the present case is considered then, the prosecution has failed to prove a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.It is not proved beyond doubt that the appellants were the persons, who committed rape upon the deceased prosecutrix and killed her.-:- 23 -:-The reference sent by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be accepted.The conviction as well as the sentence directed by the trial Court for offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 376 (2) (g) of IPC cannot be sustained.Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is hereby allowed.Their conviction as well as sentence for offence punishable under Section 302/34, 376 (2) (g) of IPC are hereby set aside.",['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
"possibility of his absconding.Crime Under Section Police Date of No. Station Arrest 322/2019 307/34 of IPC Bhanpura, 21/03/2020 MandsaurAs declared by the petitioner, this is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The petitioner has 6 criminal records, which are as under:-In the backdrop of criminal antecedents, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the petition 2HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.with liberty to file fresh application after framing of charge(s).Prayer is allowed.Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.(Virender Singh) Judge soumya Digitally signed by Soum Soumya Ranjan Dalai DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench Indore, ya postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=f4d2118683e Ranjan 84322bb5797cf28ee6 0671538b737cf52962 d84d7b527897e53ac, Dalai cn=Soumya Ranjan Dalai Date: 2020.11.11 18:09:24 +05'30' 3HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.MCRC No.4313/2018 Indore: Dated:-06.02.2018 Shri M. Kumawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the petitioner/State.This application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.10.2017 passed by JMFC, Sardarpur, in Criminal Case No.234/2010 whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the non-petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 325 and 504 of IPC.In their statements complainant - Beenabai (PW-1) and her husband Narsingh (PW-2) have deposed before the Court that at the time of incident, the accused/respondent beat her by a stick and doctor also found injuries on the person of the complainant.Considering the statement, medical report and other evidence available on record, I find it a fit case in which leave to appeal can be granted.Accordingly, the petition is allowed and leave is granted.As a consequence of this order, Office is directed to register the appeal as an admitted appeal and proceed further as per rules.On payment of requisite process fee, office is directed to issue bailable warrant of Rs.5,000/- against the non-petitioner.He is directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with separate solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM/Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry/Office of this Court 23.04.2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office in this behalf.With the aforesaid, MCRC No.4313/2018 is allowed and is 4HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.accordingly, disposed of.(Virender Singh) Judge 5HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.A. No.1226/2018 Indore, Dated: 07/03/2018 Shri S.V. Dandwate, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.Issue notices to the respondents, on payment of P.F. within a week, returnable within six weeks.Record of the trial Court be called for.Heard on I.A. No.1637/2018 - an application for stay.Issue notice of this application also.However, subject to depositing the 50% amount of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal within a period of two months from today (including costs and interest), the execution of the remaining part of the award shall remain stayed, till the next date of hearing.Failing in the compliance, the interim order shall stand automatically vacated without further reference to this Court.(Virender Singh) Judge soumya 6HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23828/2017* (State of MP vs. Pappu @ Tejprakash & Ors.) 03/01/2018 Ms. Bhakti Vyas, learned Public Prosecutor for the petitioner/State.Heard on the question of grant of leave to appeal as well as an application for condonation of delay.This application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 14.07.2017 passed by 3rd A.S.J., Shajapur, in S.T. No.ST/400143/2016 whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the non-petitioners Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 307 in alternative 307/34 of IPC and Section 25(1)(B) of Arms Act.On due consideration, we are of the view that the cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient to condone the delay of 33 days and it is a fit case in which permission for grant of leave to appeal can be allowed, meaning thereby, the matter has to be admitted for final hearing.Accordingly, application filed by the petitioner under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., is allowed and permission for grant of leave to appeal is granted.Office is directed to register it as criminal appeal.Appeal filed as a consequence of this order be registered and proceed as per rules, as admitted.On payment of requisite process fee, office is directed to 7HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.issue bailable warrants of Rs.10,000/- against the non-petitioners.They are directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with separate solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM/Trial Court for their appearance before the Registry/Office of this Court on 16.04.2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office in this behalf.With the aforesaid, MCRC No.23828/2017 is allowed and is accordingly, disposed of.8HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.9HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.(Absence format) Indore: Dated:- /Mr. N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.Mr. Abhishek Soni, learned Dy.G.A. for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A. No.26462/17 an application for condonation of absence of appellant Dharmendra.Appellant-Dharmendra is present in person before the Court and identified by Shri N.J. Dave, Advocate.For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported by affidavit, sufficient cause is made out to condone the absence.Accordingly, the I.A. No.26462/17 is allowed and the absence is condoned.Presence of the Appellant is taken on record.The appellant is directed to mark his presence on 11.07.2018 before the registry of this Court and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.List the matter for final hearing in due course.(Virender Singh) Judge soumya 10HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE R.P. No.260/2017 (delay format) Indore, Dated: 09/03/2018 Shri L.C. Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on I.A. No.3890/2017, an application for condonation of delay.Review petition is barred by 87 days.On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, we are of the view that the cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient to condone the delay.Accordingly, I.A.No.3890/2017 is allowed.Delay in filing this petition is hereby condoned.Heard on the question of admission.Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF within a week, returnable within 6 weeks.Shri HY Mehta, learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State, therefore, no further notice is required.He prays for and is granted six weeks time to file reply.11HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.soumya 12HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.MCC No.3394/2017 (restore format) Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017 Mr. A. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.It is submitted by the learnd counsel for the petitioner that he has filed in total eight appeals and due to inadvertant mistake he could not deposit court fee of Rs.1,40,000/- in the present appeal, therefore, the FA No.282/2017 was dismissed.Now, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that he will file the deficit court fees within a week.Considering the aforesaid and affidavit of learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient to restore the case to its original number.Prayer for restoration of FA No.282/2017 is allowed.FA No.282/2017 be restored to its original number.With the aforesaid, this MCC stands disposed of.(Virender Singh) Judge 13HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.MCRC No.20975/2017 (dismissed for want of prosecution) Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017 None for the petitioner.Ms. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Earlier also on 21.11.2017 no one gave appearance on behalf of the petitioner.It appears that the petitioner has lost his interest in prosecuting the present petition.Therefore, the present petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.(Virender Singh) Judge 14HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.MCRC No.22743/2017 (Temporary bail format) Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017 Shri A. Vikas, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri V. Sanothiya, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A. No.23928/2017 and application for granting temporary bail.Earlier also temporary bail was granted vide order dated 17.11.2017 due to exams of 5th Samester of Final Exams of B.Com.The petitioner has surrendered today and he is in jail.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the exams were being held from 18.11.2017 and the petitioner was granted temporary bail for this reason, but, the exams of 23.11.2017, 27.11.2017 and 30.11.2017, 2017 are postponed due to election of student union and the same are going to be held on 08.12.2017, 12.12.2017 and 15.12.2017, therefore, he prays for further temporary bail.Considering the aforesaid, without commenting on merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner be released on temporary bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The petitioner shall surrender before the trial Court on 18.12.2017 and the trial Court shall submit surrender report thereafter before this Court.List after two weeks for arguments on regular bail application.A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for compliance.C.C. today.(Virender Singh) Judge 15HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.CRA No.220/2011 (bailable warrant) Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017 Shri R.K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri V. Sanothiya, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Bailable warrant issued against the appellant is not received served or unserved.Let issue fresh bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.25,000/- against the appellant no.1-Jagdish to secure his presence before this Court, returnable on 27.01.2018 and notice be also issued to the surety as to why surety bond be not forfeited, returnable within six weeks.List after six weeks alongwith the service report.(Virender Singh) Judge 16HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.CRA No.226/2012 (perpetual warrant) Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri V. Sanothiya, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Non-bailable warrant issued against the appellant is not received served or unserved.Let perpetual warrant be issued against the appellant to secure his presence and notice be also issued to the surety as to why surety bond be not forfeited, returnable within six weeks.List after six weeks alongwith the service report.(Virender Singh) Judge 17HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.CRA No.1411/2012 (non-bailable format) Indore: Dated:- 06.12.2017 Shri S. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri V. Sanothiya, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Bailable warrant issued against the appellant is not received served or unserved.(Virender Singh) Judge HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No.____ (____ vs. State of MP) Indore: Dated:- /02/2019:-Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Raghuvir Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.This is an application for suspension of sentence of petitioner Dinesh.The petitioner is convicted under Section 34(1)(A) r/w 34(2) of MP Excise Act and sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.25000/- with default stipulation vide judgment dated 27/12/2014 passed in Criminal Case No.1365/2010 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhabua.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Courts below have committed an error in convicting the petitioner without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions, contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked.It is further submitted that the hearing of the revision is likely to take long time in its final disposal and if the sentence is not suspended then, it shall be rendered infructuous.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petition is likely to take time for final hearing, the application is allowed.The jail sentence passed against the petitioner shall remain suspended subject to depositing of fine amount, if any and on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 28/01/2020 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this petition.(Virender Singh) Judge Soumya 20HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.210/2018 (Jagdish Sahu vs. State of MP) 17.01.2018 Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Arguments heard with the help of case-diary.As per the prosecution, the prosecutrix was an employee of the present appellant.The prosecutrix was a widow having two children.It was alleged that the present appellant gave false impression that his wife and children were not living with him and under a false promise of marriage, he continuously exploited her sexually.It was also said that she went pregnant, and thereafter,t he matter was reported.It was also said that the present appellant threatened the prosecutrix and her two minor children.First appeal/application was dismissed by coordinate Bench of this Court with liberty to repeat the prayer after 21HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.statement of the prosecutrix.Now the appellant has filed statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the Court.In his Court statement prosecutrix has not made any allegation against the appellant.She has only deposed on oath before the Court that the appellant was living with her.One day suddenly he left the house without her knowledge and without informing her.As she could not find his whereabouts, therefore, she informed the police about his missing.Nothing has been stated in the report.Learned public prosecutor for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer for bail.I have gone through the record.In view of the statement of the prosecutrix, the appeal is allowed.Impugned order dated 22.12.2017 is hereby set aside.Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only), with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, he shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions that:-(i)The appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend the trial Court during the trial:(ii)The appellant shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, thereat or promise to prosecution witnesses so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the 22HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.(iii)The appellant shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activities;(iv)In case, any default in attendance before the Court or involvement in any other criminal activities is found, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled.(Virender Singh) Judge soumya 23HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.1930/2018 (Bail jump format) (Ravji vs. State of MP) Indore: Dated:- 30/01/2018:-Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard with the aid of case diary.There is no evidence against him.He was earlier granted bail and was regularly attending the Court.Later, he went to Gujarat to earn livelihood but could not be returned and leave was not granted by his employer.Due to his absence, the Court issued arrest warrant and the police have taken him in custody on 29.07.2017 and since then he is in jail.Conclude of trial is likely to take time.The petitioner is permanent resident of Sardarpur, District-Dhar.There is no 24HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.He is ready to furnish adequate security.Therefore, he may be granted bail.The Prosecution has opposed the bail application.It is directed that the petitioner Ravji S/o Badiya be released from custody on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Twenty Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, out of which one shall be local surety, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Trial Court as and when required further subject to the following conditions:(i) The petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend the trial Court during the trial;(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, threat or promise to the prosecution witnesses, so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts of the Court;(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activities;(iv) In case, involvement in any other criminal activities is found, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled.(v) The learned trial Court shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate order under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the earlier bail bond furnished by the petitioner.(Virender Singh) Judge 25HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.soumya 26HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.R.P. No.278/2018 (correction format) Indore: Dated:- 26.02.2018 Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Public Prosecutor for the petitioner-State.Heard on I.A. No.1310/2018 - an application for condonation of delay of 474 days in filing this review petition.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-State was under a bonafide belief that MCC No.958/2016 has been allowed, therefore, the writ petition No.7053/2015 will be restored.However, the said petition was not restored for a long time due to mistake regarding number of W.P. occurred in the order passed in MCC No.958/2016, therefore, the delay has occurred in filing this review petition.For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported by affidavit, sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay.Accordingly, the I.A. No.1310/18 is allowed and the delay is condoned.Heard on the question of admission.Learned Govt. Advocate for the petitioner-State has submitted that earlier the petitioner-State had preferred a 27HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.MCC No.958/2016 for restoration of WP No.7053/2015, which was dismissed on 26/09/2016 under peremptory order.It is further submitted that this Court was pleased to allow the MCC No.958/2016 vide order dated 16/12/2016, however, due to typographical error in the number of writ petition i.e. W.P. No.7053/2015, the said petition could not be restored.On due consideration of the aforesaid, this petition is hereby allowed.It is directed that now the order dated 16/12/2016 passed in MCC No.958/2016 shall be read as under:-In the second line of paragraph No.3 of order, the name of writ petition shall be read as ""W.P. No.7053/2015"" in place of ""W.P. No.7053/2016"".In second line of paragraph No.7 of the said order, the name of writ petition shall be read as ""W.P. No.7053/2015"" in place of ""W.P. No.7503/2015"".In the second line of paragraph No.8 of the said order, the name of writ petition shall be read as ""W.P. No.7053/2015"" in place of ""W.P. No.7053/2016"".With the aforesaid, the present review petition stands disposed of.A copy of this order be maintained in MCC No.958/2016 for record.(Virender Singh) 28HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.Judge soumya 29HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9049/2018 (Format-438) Indore: Dated:- 09/03/2018:-Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri R. Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.As per information given by the accused, no other bail application is either filed or pending or has been decided by any co-ordinate Bench of this Court or by Hon'ble the Apex Court in connection with the present crime number.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the offence, hence prayed for anticipatory bail in the matter.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application.According to the prosecution case, on 01/08/2017 a TVS motorcycle without number plate has been intercepted and during search, 28 kg poppy straw was recovered from the conscious of one Sajjan.Considering overall facts and totality of the circumstances, the application is allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner or his surrender before the Investigating Officer or before the concerned Judicial Magistrate within 30 days from today in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.This order shall be governed by the conditions No.1 to 3 of sub section (2) of section 438 Cr.P.C.30HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE soumya HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9049/2018 Indore: Dated:- 09/03/2018:-Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri R. Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard with the aid of case diary.ORDER This is an application under section 438 Cr.As per information given by the accused, no other bail application is either filed or pending or has been decided by any co-ordinate Bench of this Court or by Hon'ble the Apex Court in connection with the present crime number.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the offence, hence prayed for anticipatory bail in the matter.Learned counsel further submits that under identical circumstances, co-accused Lalsingh has been granted anticipatory bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court in 31HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.M.Cr.C. No.21672/2017 on 07/12/2017 and on the ground of parity, the present petitioner is entitled to the same.Though the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application, however, he has fairly admitted that the case of the present petitioner is identical to the case of co-accused Lalsingh, who has been granted anticipatory bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court.According to the prosecution case, on 01/08/2017 a TVS motorcycle without number plate has been intercepted and during search, 28 kg poppy straw was recovered from the conscious of one Sajjan.Considering overall facts and totality of the circumstances and on the ground of parity, the application is allowed and direct that in the event of arrest of the petitioner or his surrender before the Investigating Officer or before the concerned Judicial Magistrate within 30 days from today in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.This order shall be governed by the conditions No.1 to 3 of sub section (2) of section 438 Cr.P.C.(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE 32HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.soumya 33HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.CRA No.4326/2017 30/10/2017:-Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri R.Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.Appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 473/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 4-10-4-10 years RI respectively and fine of Rs.1000/--2000/--1000/--2000/- respectively with default stipulation for identifying Narmada Prasad as Nathuram.Learned counsel for the appellant submit that during the trial appellant was on bail.Final hearing of the appeal is likely to take time.The appellant has a good case in appeal, hence jail sentence be suspended during pendency of the appeal.He further submits that complainant Sumer Singh in his statement has stated nothing against the present appellant and learned public prosecutor has declared him hostile and even after cross-examination, nothing could be brought on record against the present appellant and in cross-examination the complainant has clearly denied the involvement of the 34HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.present appellant in the crime.He has stated that he himself brought the appellant for his own identification.Per contra, learned public prosecutor has drew my attention towards para no. 24 of the impugned judgment, in which learned Trial Court has held that the present appellant has identified Narmada Prasad as Nathuram at the time of execution of sale deed, therefore, the learned Trial Court was of the opinion that the appellant is also involved in the crime and convicted him.I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.Considering the aforesaid, particularly the statement of the complainant Sumer Singh before the learned Trial Court and other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.5410/2018) for suspension of sentence is allowed.It is directed that on deposition of fine amount and also on furnishing personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 07.03.2019 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf, the execution of substantial jail sentence imposed on the appellant shall remain suspended, till final disposal of this appeal.35HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.List for final hearing in due course.(Virender Singh) Judge 36HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.511/2018* (temporary format) (Ganpatlal Vs.State of MP) Indore, Dated:03/05/2018 Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A. No.2996/2018, an application for temporary suspension of jail sentence filed on behalf of appellant - Ganpatlal on the ground of death of his father.As per report of S.H.O. Police Station - Y.D. Nagar, District-Mandsaur, dated 02.05.2018, the death of the father of appellant is correct.Considering the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application for temporary suspension of jail sentence vide I.A. No.2996/2018 is allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of the appellant/Ganpatlal shall remain suspended for a period of ten days from the date of his release and he be released subject to his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and he shall surrender before the trial Court after completion of the period of ten days.In case of failure to surrender within the stipulated time, the trial Court shall take coercive action against the appellant without reference to this Court.(Virender Singh) Judge 37HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.soumya 38HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.W.P NO.2500/2016 14.07.2016:None for the petitioner.Due to call made by the High Court Bar Association, Indore, Advocates are abstaining from Court work.Case is, therefore, adjourned.39HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.(Short Sentence) CRA .2017 Shri ---------, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Peyush Jain, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.9536/2016, an application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of custodial sentence.The appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 363 IPC and has been sentenced to 3 years RI with fine of Rs.500/-.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and that material omissions, contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked.Though the prayer for suspension is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor, however, looking to the aforesaid, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence of the appellant.Accordingly, I.A. No. 8357/16 is allowed and it is directed that on execution of personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial sentence imposed against him shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The appellant after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 21.12.2016 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.CC as per rules.40HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge soumya 41HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1034/2009 (Kailash Vs.State of MP) Indore, Dated:12/10/2018 Shri Apoorv Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard on I.A. No.2996/2018, an application for temporary suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant - Ganpatlal on account of death his mother.The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 27/08/2009 passed in ST No.286/2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District-Dewas, whereby the appellants are convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer 1 years additional R.I.It has been stated that certain rituals are going to take place on 15/10/2018 and he was permitted to attend the funeral by the orders of the Collector, therefore, temporary suspension be granted to the appellant.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for grant of suspension.Considering the averments as made in the application and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the period of custody and the period of sentence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I.A. No.7368/2018 is allowed and it is directed that the substantive 42HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.jail sentence of the appellant/Kailash shall remain suspended for a period of 7 days and he be released subject to his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The sentence is suspended for a period of one month from today.CC as per rules.(Virender Singh) Judge soumya 43HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.39872 of 2020 Rajunath Vs.State of M.P.Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to verify the fact and submit a report.Later on:from _____.As per report received from ____, the accused has been completed the entire jail sentnece imposed against him, therefore, the appeal has become rendered infructuous.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as rendered infructuous.The appellant be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The genesis of the prosecution case was an FIR lodged on 19-12-1977 at 5-15 p.m. by one Devi Das Arya, a social worker, journalist and the president of local Arya Samaj of Police Station Anwarganj, Kanpur.The vision was a Muslim girl of Mandapali, Madras, named Kamla Bi who became orphan.Her brothers were doing some job at Bombay.She went there, but one Khadir Hasan managed to seduce and bring her to Agra on the pretext of getting her married in some house.However, he sold her to one Fatima for Rs. 2,000/-.Fatima, in her turn, allegedly sold her to the accused appellant at Agra itself.The victim heard the bargain being settled from inside the room in which she was locked.The appellant brought her under Burqa by Taxi to Kanpur and put her in House No. 78/17 Behind Moolganj mosque under strong surveillance of another prostitute Lila and forced her to carry on prostitution attending to a number of customers daily.The money was used to be realised by Lila and appellant Shamshad used to come to collect money from her.She herself resided in another House No. 93/ 143, Anwar Ganj at a little distance.The appellant also practised prostitution.On reluctance or refusal of the victim to attend to the customers, she used to be given good thrashing and threats of cutting her nose and hair.Before coming to Bombay, she had come in contact with one Chhotey Lal.This man got the clue and came to Kanpur and met her.The appellant got him arrested and beaten up by the police.JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.She has been convicted under Sections 366, IPC, 368, IPC and 376, IPC read with Section 114, IPC.She has been sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment under Section 366, IPC another four years rigorous imprisonment under Section 368, IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 376/114, IPC.All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.The facts leading to this appeal are set forth briefly.It was Chhotey Lal, who, being sympathized with the victim, passed on the information to the informant who had strong reputation of rendering services in similar cases.He informed the police 'by means of an FIR and got the victim recovered on 19-12-1977 from House No. 78/ 17 where the appellant was also present.She was found to be aged about 19 years and used to sexual intercourse.The appellant pleaded not guilty.The prosecution examined the victim Kamal Bi P.W. 1 and Devi Das Arya.P.W. 2 in support of the case, besides relying on documents.The victim Kamal Bi narrated the prosecution story set forth above and it is not necessary to repeat the same.Devi Das Arya P.W. 2 also narrated his part in getting the victim recovered and also proved the FIR.Later on, he even got the victim married with Chhotey Lal in Arya Samaj Mandir on request of both of them.I have heard learned counsel for the appellant in support of appeal and learned A.G.A. in opposition thereof.It has been urged that she has been convicted on insufficient evidence.It has specifically been urged that there was no evidence to prove the charge under Section 376, IPC read with Section 114, IPC.It is significant to point out in this regard that it was admitted to the appellant herself that Lila was her tenant.According to her, she was living in separate house and did not know what Lila and Kamal Bi were doing.But her defence was that she was prosecuted because Chhotey Lal used to visit Karnal Bi and she had objected to it and informed the police, got him arrested and beaten up by the police.The police had also taken Kamal Bi to police station.In the lower Court, she filed a written statement also according to which, she was innocent and resided in House No. 93/143, Anwarganj and not in house No. 78/17 which was occupied by her tenant Lila from whom she used to realize rent every month or every fortnight.Lila had given shelter to Kamal Bi, saying that she belonged to her village.Chhotey Lal used to visit Kamal Bi and get her to practise prostitution on which he reported the matter to the police.Chhotey Lal asserted that he was her husband.People, therefore, got annoyed from her and Chhotey Lal brought in picture Devi Das Arya and got her arrested, though she did not know what profession Lila and Kamal Bi were carrying on and she never realized and money on this Court from them.According to her, Devi Das Arya was a professional witness.P.C. she gave her profession as prostitution.On a careful judicial scrutiny of the evidence on record, particularly that of the victim Kamla Bi P.W. 1, it leaves not the slightest doubt that the appellant had actual domination and control over the victim through Lila.She was virtual prisoner and bounded person completely under the dominion and control of the appellant.The appellant was physically present when the victim was recovered by the Police at the behest of Devi Das Arya P.W. 2, The evidence is clinching that the victim had been abducted to compel her to illicit intercourse.She had come under the control and dominion of the appellant only for this purpose and she had purchased her from Fatima like a cattle.It also admits of no doubt that she was wrongfully keeping her in confinement for the purpose aforesaid.Technically, however, the offence of Section 376, IPC was not proved for want of specific evidence in this behalf.In the result, the appeal would be partly allowed, so far as the conviction part is concerned.Coming to the sentence part, learned counsel for the appellant has invited the Court's attention to the statement of the appellant made under Section 313, Cr.P.C. on 22-10-1981 wherein she gave her age as 55 years.She must now be of about 76 years of age.There is under observation of trial Judge also that she was ailing at that time with some chest trouble.Looking to these facts, no useful purpose would be served by sending the aged lady to jail.The ends of justice would be metby sentencing her to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 366, IPC and a sum of Rs. 10,000/-as fine for the offence under Section 368, IPC directing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years in default of payment of fine on each count.It is finally ordered as under :--The appeal is partly allowed.The conviction and sentence of appellant Shamshad Bai under Section 376, IPC read with Section 114, IPC are set aside.However, her conviction under Section 366 and 368, IPC is maintained.","['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"It is the case of the plaintiff that the right of such property being enjoyed by the DDA is without authority of law.The Director of DDA informed the plaintiff that the suit land was transferred to the DDA in the year 1982 by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India under a package deal in pursuance to the letter dated 4/1978-55-11 on 'as is where is basis'.The plaintiff was not able to state any reason as to why the status of the properties which existed at site was not disclosed in the plaint.He conceded that he had seen the revenue records himself sometimes for the first time in 1990s and that the jauhar was very old.The sale deeds state that the vendor is the owner and 'in possession' of the land in question and the land is being sold for the bona fide needs and requirements of the vendor.The sale deeds also state that the vendor has handed over the physical possession of the land to the vendee in execution of the sale deed and that the vendor is left with no title or interest in the suit property.The land is claimed to be the exclusive property of the vendor and that the principal was alive and had not cancelled or revoked the attorney.He is to be above the greeds of the world.In fact, in his deposition he has stated that his relationship with his family ceases once he becomes a Mahant.JUDGMENT Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.The plaintiff, claiming to be a Mahant of Kalkaji Mandir, has filed the present suit for declaration, possession and injunction through his attorney Mr.Satish Kumar.The attorney is the natural born brother of the Mahant.The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of 50% share of Khasra No. 629 measuring 4 bigha 2 biswa, Khasra No. 630 measuring 18 bigha 9 biswa, Khasra No. 633, 633/1, 633/2 and 633/2/1 measuring 185 bigha and 1 biswa in Village Bahapur.The remaining land after acquisition is stated to be 45 bigha and 10 biswa out of which the share of the plaintiff is stated to be 22 bigha and 15 biswa.The plaintiff claims that after demarcation of the land which resulted in Suit No. 342/1991, the plaintiff approached the Director (Lands) DDA and asked him to restore the land occupied and fenced by the DDA which measured 22 bigha and 15 biswa as the same was never acquired.The plaint sets out the cause of action for filing the suit as having arisen in the first week of January, 1998 when the plaintiff discovered that the DDA was fencing the land and apparently raised boundary walls encompassing the said land and started developing the same into a green area by trespassing in the suit property of the plaintiff.The period of limitation being 12 years, it is claimed that the cause of action had arisen only in the first week of January, 1998 and, thus, the suit was within time.The plaintiff sought a decree of declaration that the plaintiff was a lawful owner of 22 bigha and 15 biswa of land situated in village Bahapur, Delhi; a decree of possession directing the defendants (UOI as defendant No. 1, Land & Building Department of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi as defendant No. 2 and DDA as defendant No. 3) to restore possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendants to remove the fencing, boundary walls, if any, as also a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, transferring and changing character of the land and from creating any third party interest in the suit property.The verification date of 25.2.1999 appears to be a typographical error as the date in the month are filled in hand while the year of 1999 is typed out.The plaintiff along with the suit filed an application under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) seeking interim relief against the DDA from raising any boundary walls around the suit property shown in the site plan in red or from changing the nature and character of the suit as also from alienating and transferring the same to any third party.This fact has been mentioned as also the date of attestation as it could have some bearing on the matter.The DDA, defendant No. 3, filed its written statement contesting the suit.It is the case of the DDA that the suit land came within Site No. 49 in terms of the sketch of the surveyed land in Kalkaji which was handed over to the DDA vide documents dated 28.9.1983 and 29.12.1983 on payment of Rs. 30.00 crores for maintenance, development and disposal of the said land under the provisions of the Delhi Development Act. The land in question is stated to be green belt maintained by the DDA.The DDA states that on verification from revenue records, some parts of Khasra Nos. 629, 630 and 633 were found to fall in Site No. 49 which were so allotted and transferred to the Ministry of Rehabilitation.The position about the land acquired and the remaining land has also been explained in the written statement but it is not necessary at this stage to deal with the same in detail.It is stated that as per the Jamabandi of the year 1908-09 of Khasra No. 630 there used to be a pond in the centre of the land and the land was enjoyed by the Pujaris of the Kalkaji Temple and Shamlat thok comprising of Bhramins and the Jogies in equal share.Some encroachments are alleged to have been made which have been removed by the DDA.In sum and substance, the stand of the DDA is that this land, of which the plaintiff is claiming the right, vested with the DDA for managing the same and the plaintiff had no exclusive rights over it.In the suit even issues have not been framed when applications started coming in for impleadment as parties by the applicants who claimed interest in the said land on account of the fact that it was Shamlat Thok of Brahmins and Jogies who had 50% share each in the land.It may be noticed that there is a dispute about the percentage of share of land but that aspect is also not again which has to be gone into in the present suit as a separate suit is stated to be pending in respect of the same.It was deemed expedient in the given facts of the case to issue notice to the Land and Building Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi as the position about the status of the land was not emerging clearly.This was so since it was not apparent as to how the public authority claimed possession of the land and as to whether the land had been so acquired.In pursuance to such notice, Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the Land and Building Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.It was explained that a notification was issued by the Government of India on 26.3.1949 under Section 3 of the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 where Khasra No. 638 has been shown as the acquired land and mentioned under Village Bahapur.In respect of Khasra No. 629, 2 bigha and 1 biswa was acquired by notification dated 13.11.1959 but the balance portion in respect of which the plaintiff claims right was stated to be a road since 1908 under the Wilson survey.Khasra No. 630 consisted of 18 bighas and 14 biswa of land out of which 5 bigha had been acquired vide notification dated 13.11.1959 while the balance 18 bigha and 9 biswa was a pond (water body) and was stated to be continuing as such.It is necessary to note what has been stated by the said two persons under oath.The plaintiff claimed that he was the disciple of Mahant Ram Nath Ji from about 1970 and became a Mahant in 1992 on the demise of Mahant Ram Nath Ji.He further stated that he could keep property as a Mahant though he would not inherit any property from his father and the property owned by the Mahant would be managed by the new Mahant.Mahant Prithvi Nath was stated to be the guru of Mahant Ram Nath Ji and Mahant Prithvi Nath Ji had made a Will bequeathing his estate to Mahant Ram Nath Ji.Mahant Ram Nath Ji is stated to have made a Will in favor of the plaintiff though it was conceded that such a Will was not filed in any proceedings so far including in relation to the dispute pending about his Mahantship.The plaintiff Mahant stated that he was a graduate by qualification and that he was aware of the present suit filed.It was further stated that the suit land consisting of 22 bigha and 16 biswa of land had a park of the DDA though it was stated that he had not seen the site as to what else existed on the land in question.He conceded that he stayed in the Kalkaji Mandir.On a query being posed, he conceded that there was a jauhar on the land and there was a road between the jauhar and the mandir.The plaintiff has stated that the plaint was not signed and verified by him but was filed through his attorney Mr.Satish Kumar.The same was shown to the plaintiff before it was filed.He further could not state any reason as to why after becoming a Mahant in 1992 it had taken him eight years to file a suit for possession.The only reason given was that he was verifying the records.The plaintiff further conceded that half of the share of the total land lies with the plaintiff while the other half remains with the families of the Brahmins.After recording the statement of the plaintiff, the statement of Mr.Satish Kumar, the attorney of the plaintiff was recorded.The attorney has stated that he was running a business of trading of herbal products and was educated up to inter class.The attorney stated that he was looking after all the land affairs of the plaintiff for which he was paid a remuneration of Rs. 10,000/- per month apart from other expenses.He again reiterated that the plaint was shown to the plaintiff and that what was stated in the plaint was correct.The attorney admitted that he had gone to the site where the land is located and the land was possessed by the DDA and there was a park and a road apart from a jauhar on the road.The demarcation stated to have been carried out in the year 1989 when he was the attorney.Even at that time he was looking after the lands on behalf of the previous Guruji.It was conceded that from 1986 to the year 2000 no steps were taken to seek possession of the land though they kept on approaching the revenue authorities.The attorney has stated that he has no personal right in the land but for the first time disclosed that he had entered into agreements in respect of the suit land with the third parties and even executed sale deeds which had not been filed in Court.He categorically stated that the plaintiff was duly informed of all the transactions and that he did not inform his advocate about the same.The sale was stated to be on 'as is where is' basis and the agreement was at the rate of one lakh per bigha and on the land getting cleared, the plaintiff was to get a minimum of Rs. 500/- and the maximum amount of Rs. 1,000/- per square yard.The sale deed was stated to have been executed as attorney and the money was still lying with the attorney.The name of the purchasers was given as Mr.Mahender Pal, Mr.Akhilesh Singh and Ms.Anita Yogi with all the original documents being in the possession of the attorney.The whole land was stated to have been sold and the sale deeds duly registered.The attorney further stated that he had seen the Khasra Girdwari and Jama Bandi and the land was registered in the name of the Mahant and he obtained the documents from the revenue authorities which were filed with the plaint.In view of the said statement, the plaintiff was examined again and on being asked stated that he did not know that the land had been sold.He, however, stated that the land of the Mahant could be sold in case of necessity or need.The plaintiff claimed that it is only on 3.12.2007 that he had been informed about the sale of the land and no money had been credited to his account.He further stated that he had not specifically asked his attorney to sell the land though the land could have been sold for some charitable purposes or activities connected with the temple but not for profit motive.In view of the contradictions between what was stated by the plaintiff and the attorney, it was observed that the matter required a deeper examination.The plaintiff was stating that he had no knowledge of the sale while his attorney stated that he was fully informed of the same.A direction was issued that all documents be filed in this Court which have since been so filed.20. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff today states that the suit as framed is not maintainable as without seeking partition of the land in which the plaintiff claims 50% share, the possession could not have been asked for.The sum and substance of the opposition is that though the plaintiff may be permitted to withdraw the suit, no leave ought to be granted to file any fresh suit in view of the conduct of the plaintiff who has come with unclean hands before the Court and has failed to disclose the material aspects.Interestingly a new counsel, Mr.A further plea of the learned Counsel for the defendants is that the suit, being an abuse of the process of the Court, exemplary costs ought to be imposed on the plaintiff while dismissing the suit.It is further pleaded that the present case is a fit one where proceedings must be initiated against the plaintiff and his attorney under Section 340(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.).The original sale deeds have been filed on record which number seven.All the sale deeds have been executed on 26.10.1999 for different portions of land.Three sale deeds have been executed in favor of Mr.Mahender Pal, two sale deeds in favor of Smt.Anita Yogi and two sale deeds in favor of Mr.Akhilesh Singh.Mahender Pal is another brother of the plaintiff (and thus also brother of the attorney) while Smt.Anita Yogi is the wife of Mr.Mahender Pal.Akhilesh Singh is the brother of Smt.Anita Yogi.Mahender Pal and Smt.Anita Yogi are residents of Bhairon Mandir, Kalkaji while Mr.Akhilesh Singh is a resident of Rohini.The common thread which runs through all the sale deeds is that they have been executed through Mr.Satish Kumar, the attorney.Satish Kumar has a registered power of attorney so registered on 7.10.1998 and executed by the plaintiff Mahant.The said registered power of attorney is irrevocable and has been made specifically for the purposes of sale of the property in question and for obtaining necessary permissions for the same.Apart from this, authority has also been given for construction on the land obtaining, obtaining water and electricity connection, instituting legal proceedings, collecting compensation or taking allotment of alternative plot.The attorney further authorises appointment of other attornies by the attorney so appointed.An appreciation of the aforesaid facts show that the suit is replete with the concealment of material facts.",['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Shahul Hameed, the appellant herein, was a Class IV employee in the Accountant General's Office, Trivandrum Vijayachandran, the deceased, who had studied upto the predegree course, was residing at Pettdh, about 2 or 3 miles away from the city of Trivandrum.Mohanchandran (PW 1), the brother of the deceased, was studying for the B.Sc.degree course, at the relevant time.On March 5, 1970, the appellant who was original accused 1, and one Perumal who was original accused 2, gave a beating to Ramchandran, and Suseelan, friends of the deceased.After that beating, both the assailants were waiting for a bus at the Statue Bus Stop near the University College.The deceased and his brother, PW 1, came to the bus stop, where they learnt from their friends about their beating The deceased then slapped the appellant and a scuffle ensued.The by standers interceded and separated them.The appellant proclaimed that he would see that the deceased did not beat any person any more.Two days thereafter on March 7, 1970 at about 7.00 p m., the appellant and his three 'co-accused were standing at the bus stop called Spencer Junction near south eastern gate of the University College.The deceased and his brother, PW 1, alighted from a bus at the University College Bus Stop and proceeded south along the main road towards the Indian Coffee House, where their friends, one Radhakrishnan, had invited them to tea to celebrate the latter's appointment in the Syndicate Bank When the deceased and his brother came near the Spencer Junction, the appellant shouted that he was waiting for them, adding whether they had become so bold as to come from their house there to the main road to settle matters.On hearing this challenge, PW 1 and she deceased quickened their pace.The appellant and his companions ran after them and gave blows with their hands On receiving the blows, the deceased and his brother ran south pursued by the appellant and his companions.The appellant was carrying the dagger (M C. 1).He reached close on the heels of the deceased and stabbed him in the back.On receiving the blow, the deceased turned round.The appellant then stabbed him again with sufficient force on the left chest below the nipple.The deceased staggered further 7 or 8 paces and fell down.The appellant was about to stab him again, when PW 7, who was nearby, picked up an iron rod from near the Statute and hit the appellant on the head.Thereupon, the appellant and his companions flad from the place toward the north.Apart from PW 1 the occurrence was witnessed by PW 2, whose shop was situated close to the scene of occurrence.Just after the occurrence, the Mayor passed that way.He phoned to the City Control Room from the shop of PW 2 for rendering necessary assistance to the deceased who lay injured on the spot.JUDGMENT R.S. Sarkaria, J.This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment, dated July 28, J972, of the High Court of Kerala, whereby the appellant's conviction under Section 299(1) (Section 304?), Penal Code was converted into one under Section 302, Penal Code, with a sentence of imprisonment for life.Within five minutes, the Police van arrived and removed Vijayachandran to the Medical College Hospital; while PW 1 went to the Cantonment Police Station, 300 metres away, and ledged the First Information Report (Ex P-1) at 7.00 p.m The deceased was examined on his arrival in the Hospital at 7.45 p.m. and was declared dead by the doctor.The appellant and accused 2 and 3 were arrested on March 13, 1970, while the 4th accused was arrested later.After his arrest, the appellant is said to have made a statement Ex. P 15(a) regarding the injuries sustained by him.On the basis of that statement, a cross-case under Section 324, 323 read with 34, Penal Code, was registered against PW 1, PW 7 and the deceased.After investigation, the Police referred the cross case; white in the other case, the appellant and his companions were charge sheeted to stand their trial to respect of various offences, including that of she murder of Vijayanchandran.The appellant also filed a private complaint (Ex P.19), wherein he named nine persons, including PWs.1, 6 and 7 and Suseelan as his assailants.The complaint was to the effect, that those accused-persons, including the deceaeed, formed an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of which on March 7, 1970, they made a conceited assault on the complaintant when he was about to cross the road for going to the India Coffee House.In particular, it was alleged that PW 1 had fisted the complaintant with a folded knife; while PW 7 kicked him in the abdomen falling him to the ground.It was further alleged that when the complainant was lying on the ground, the deceased stabbed him on the head with a weapon which locked like a chopper.Several persons collected there, Then the complainant escaped and ran south to the Cantonment Police Station and gave an information.One motive for the occurence, mentioned in the complaint, was that the accused named by him harboured hostility on account of a previous quarrel that took place on March 5 1970, when PWs 1 and 7 and the deceased had harassed the complainant and exchanged blows.Both the cases were tried separately but concurrently.The complaint made by the appellant against some of the PWs, and deceased ended in acquittal; while in Vijayachandran's murder case, the Session Judge convicted the first accused (appellant) under Section 299 Part II, Penal Code, (evidently a mistake for Section 304, Part II) and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment.He convicted accused 2 to 4 under Section 323, Penal Code, and sentenced each of them to six months' rigorous imprisonment.Aggrieved by the acquittal of the appellant on the charge of murder, the State preferred an appeal to the High Court, The Division Bench, who heard the appeal, was divided in its opinion According to Narayana Pillai J., the acquittal of the appellant on the capital charge deserved to be reversed and converted into the under Section 302, Penal Code On the point of sentence, he would award death penalty to the appellant, V. Kualid J., in his dissenting judgment held that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable and it was not safe to accept the prosecution evidence as wholly true.He left considerable doubt regarding the manner in which the first accused sustained injuries.He would therefore accord the benefit of doubt to the first accused and acquit him of the murder charge.He would acquit accused 2 to 4, also.On account of this difference of opinion, the connected appeals were placed before Issac J. for decision, under Section 429, Criminal Procedure Code.After a careful examination of the entire evidence., Issac J set aside the acquittal of the appellant on the murder charge, and convicted him under Section 302, Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.Hence this appeal by special leave.Mr Harindra Nath, learned counsel for the appellant, firstly, tried to contend that the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses, namely, P.W, 1 PW 2 and PW 7 was not worthy of credence.Secondly, it was argued that the appellant had inflicted the injuries, if at all, on the deceased in the exercise of his right of private defence.Support for this contention was sought from the following circumstances:(a) The deceased and his brother PW 1, were residing in Pattah at a distance of about 2 or 3 miles from the place of occurrence.They had no good reason to come to the place of occurrence at that time.The explanation given by them, that they had been invited there by one Radhakrishnan to take tea at the Coffee House, was false because to such person was present any where near the scene for incident.Nor was the said Radhakrishnan examined.(b) The deceased and his companions, including PW 7, must have tome armed to wreak Vengeance upon the appellant on account of the beating by the latter to their friends and the exchange of blows with the appellant on the 5th March 1970 The explanation given by PW 7 that he picked up the iron-rod from a compound near the place of occurrence was false.His evidence with regard the place where he found the rod was contradictory.In his earlier statement, PW 7 stated that he had picked up the lion-rod from the compound of the Accountant-General's Office whereas in his subsequent statement he deposed to have found it lying near the Statue.(c) Medical evidence shows that the appellants had sustained a grevious injury on the head involving fracture of the outer table of the skull.This injury, was attributed by the appellant in the criminal complaint filed by him to PW 7 and the deceased.PW 1 suppressed the injuries caused to the appellant by the deceased and his companions.In the alternative, it is urged that, in any case, Exceptions II and IV to Section 300, Penal Code, would be attracted, and the offence committed by the appellant was one under Section 304, Part II only.In this premise, it is submitted that the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 304, Part II, Penal Code, by the trial court should be restored; and since the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for more than five years, he should not be committed to jail for an enhanced term.P.W. 1 is, no doubt, the brother of the deceased and, as such, could be called an 'interested' withess.But his version was amply corroborated by the other evidence on the record.His evidence was corroborated by the F I R. which was lodged by him with great promptitude at the Cantonment Police Station, 300 metres away, when he had no time to spin out a false story.Further, PW 2 was an independent and natural witness.He had no axe of his own to grind against the appellant The stabbing of the deceased took place at a distance of 30 40- feet only in front of his shop He testified that on hearing the commotion, he came out into the verandah and saw the appellant, dagger in hand, chasing the deceased, and then giving him the first blow on the buck and the next on the chest.He further stated that when the appellant was about to strike the deceased again, a fair-complexioned boy, meaning PW 7 hit the appellant on the head, The evidence of PW 2, hit any way shaken in cross examination.In his examination under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant states that PW 1 and PW 7, the deceased and some others attacked him : PW 7 hit him with an iron rod on the head, while Vijyachandran struck bins, on the head with a chopper.The appellant then succeeded snatching the chopper from the deceased.The appellant disowned the statement (Ex P:15/A) on the basis of which the Police had registered the cross case.The presence of P.W. 7 at the spot and his participation in the occurrence was thus not denied by the appellant.PW 7, also supported the prosecution story in ail material details, Court below have accepted his evidence and we see no reason to take a different view.Dr. G. Gopinathan (PW 12) who had examined the injuries of the appellant on March 13, 1970, found two injuries on the person of the appellant.One was an infected wound on the left side of the head.The outer table of the skull was found fractured.This defect in the bone was felt at the base of the injury and pus was present in the wound.The second injury found by him was a healed abrasion on the left side of chest.Injury No. 2 was evidently caused with a blunt weapon.With regard to injury No. 1, PW. 12 opined that it could be caused with an iron rod or ever with a sharp weapon.Since the doctor did not note that there was a cut on the outer table of the skull, the greater probability was that this injury had been caused with an iron rod and not with a chopper or other cutting weapon, After the receipt of this stunning injury on the head, the appellant, must have, temporarily at least, lost the capacity to cause any injury to anybody.This means, the appellant received this injury only after he had caused the fatal injury to the deceased.The deceased was unarmed.After being manhandled by the companions of the appellant, the deceased and his brother had turned tail and taken to their heals, Dagger in hard, the appellant chased the fleeing victim, and first stabbed him in the back.He did not stop there and followed up with a stab on the left side of the chest of the deceased, with great force.All these facts unmistakably show that the appellant was the aggressor, and he inflicted these injuries on the deceased maliciously and vindictively, and not in self defence.Exception II to Section 300, Penal Code does not apply, because no right of private defence ever accrued to the appellant.Penal Code, the same also is not attracted.It is impossible to believe that the deceased and his companions came prepared for a fight.The deceased was empty handed.The assertion of the appellant that the deceased came armed with a chopper with which he caused an injury to the deceased, was manifestly false.No such chopper was found or discovered.The version of the appellant, was that he had snatched away that chopper from the deceased and used it against him.This was also patently untrue.The appellant could produce that Chopper before the police.He did nothing of the kind.Moreover, as already observed, the nature of the skull-fracture underneath the injury as noted by the medical witness, shows that the injury on the head of the appellant was not caused with a cutting weapon but with a blunt weapon like an iron-rod.Similarly, the injuries found on the back and chest of the deceased were caused with a stabbing weapon, Thus, the deceased being unarmed, did not and could not cause any injury to the appellant.There was no mutual exchange of blows between the appellant and the deceased.The assault on the deceased by the appellant was deliberate and pressed with determination, when the victim was fleeing for his life.","['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The application is hereby allowed.The applicant - SANTOSH RAJARAM WAFARE @ BACCHA PATIL in connection with Crime No.I-371 of 2018 registered with Parner Police Station, Parner, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under sections 376 (d), 363, 392, 384, 120(b), 323, 504, 506 (2), 34 of Indian Penal Code be released on bail on furnishing P.B.::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2019 04:56:22 :::( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ...::: Uploaded on - 01/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2019 04:56:22 :::",['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
"These orders were not challenged.In April, 2001 the second respondent filed nomination papersfor four constituencies in respect of the general election to be held tothe Tamil Nadu Assembly.On 24th April, 2001 three nominationpapers were rejected on account of her disqualification under Section8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by reason of herconviction and sentence in the two criminal cases.The fourthnomination paper was rejected for the reason that she had filed hernomination for more than two seats.The correctness of the orders ofrejection was not called in question.On 13th May, 2001 the results of the election to the TamilNadu Assembly were announced and the AIADMK party, which hadprojected the second respondent as its Chief Ministerial nominee, wonby a large majority.On 14th May, 2001, consequent upon the result ofthe election, the AIADMK elected the second respondent as itsleader.On 14th May, 2001 the second respondent was sworn in asChief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu.JUDGMENTWithW.P.(C) No. 245 of 2001, W.P.(C) No. 246 of 2001, W.P.(C)No.& C.A. No. 6589 of 2001 @ S.L.P. (C) No.11763 of 2001DELIVERED BY:S.P.BHARUCHA, J., BRIJESH KUMAR, J.G.B.PATTANAIK Bharucha, J.Leave granted.A question of great constitutional importance arises in thesematters, namely, whether a person who has been convicted of acriminal offence and whose conviction has not been suspendedpending appeal can be sworn in and can continue to function as theChief Minister of a State.In respect of thattenure in office she was (in CC 4 of 1997 and CC 13 of 1997)convicted for offences punishable under Section 120B of the IndianPenal Code read with Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for the offence under Section409 of the Indian Penal Code.She w as sentenced to undergo 3years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.10,000 in the firstcase and to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine ofRs.5000 in the second case.The fine that was imposed in both cases was paid.The second respondent preferred appeals against her convictionbefore the High Court at Madras.The appeals are pending.In S.P. Anand, Indore Vs.H.D. Deve Gowda and Others [1996(6) SCC 734], the first respondent, who was not a member ofParliament, was sworn in as Prime Minister.Reference was made to the earlierjudgments.It was held, on a parity of reasoning if a person who isnot a member of the State Legislature can be appointed a ChiefMinister of a State under Article 164(4) for six months, a person whois not a member of either House of Parliament can be appointed PrimeMinister for the same period.At the time of his appointment as a Minister Tej Parkash Singhwas not a member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly.He was notelected as a member of that Assembly within a period of six monthsand he submitted his resignation.During the same legislative termSardar Harcharan Singh Barar was replaced as Chief Minister by Smt.No order as to costs.Itreads as follows:-The original common-law writ of quowarranto was a civil writ at the suit of the crown,and not a criminal prosecution.It was in the natureof a writ of right by the King against one whousurped or claimed franchises or liabilities, toinquire by what right he claimed them.","['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"persons and filing a charge-sheet in Crime No.143/2020 registered at Police Station Sirsod District Shivpuri for offence punishable under Sections 341, 307, 34 of IPC.On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the police registered the FIR under Sections 341, 307, 34 of IPC but the police has neither arrested the accused nor has concluded the investigation so far.So far as the prayer made by the applicant for issuing a direction to the police to arrest the accused persons is concerned, the same cannot be granted.The High Court, within a period of one month from the date of filing of the petition, finally disposed of the same observing that, ""it is obligatory on the part of the 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-34388-2020 Sanjay Kushwah Vs.State of MP and another respondent police to conduct investigation in accordance with law, including recording of statements from witnesses, arrest, seizure of property, perusal of various documents and filing of chargesheet.It is also needless to state that if any account is available with the accused persons, or any amount is in their possession and any account is maintained in a nationalised bank, it is obligatory on the part of the respondent police to take all necessary steps to safeguard the interest of the aggrieved persons in this case"".The Court accordingly directed the police to expedite and complete the investigation within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.The said order of the High Court is impugned in these appeals.","['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"As per this report, accused Raju took her to a fair and mid-way through, made her sniff some intoxicant because of which she became unconscious.Next day, when she regained consciousness, Raju left her in the custody of Amer Khan.It is further averred in this report that during the period she was unconscious, she was taken by Raju from Prithvipur to Jhansi.( 08.02.2019) Heard on the application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. 1973 against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.09.2018 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Niwari, District- Tikamgarh in Sessions Trial No.217/2015; whereby, respondents were acquitted by the Court below of the offences punishable under Section 376, 344, 379 and 506 (part-II) of the IPC.Learned Government Advocate for the petitioner/State submits that Court below erred in passing the judgment of acquittal; whereas, there was sufficient evidence against the respondents on the strength of which they should have been convicted.Learned Government for the petitioner/State by placing reliance on judgment Lillu @ Rajesh & another Vs.State of Haryana 2013 (3) SCC 643 submits that merely because the prosecutrix had married thrice, her statement cannot be disbelieved.Learned Government Advocate for the petitioner/State by 2 M.Cr.C. No.50448/2018 taking this Court to the statement of prosecutrix submits that she categorically deposed against the respondents, on the strength of which Court below should have passed the judgment against the respondents.2 M.Cr.No other point is pressed by the learned Government Advocate for the petitioner/State.We have heard the learned Government Advocate for the petitioner/State at length and perused the record.The court below has analyzed the statement of prosecutrix in great detail.Her statement was not disbelieved by the court below merely because she was married thrice.The prosecutrix had filed a written report (Ex.P/5), on the basis of which the F.I.R. was recorded.The prosecutrix, in her statement recorded under section 164 IPC had stated that Raju took her to Jhansi and left her in the custody of Amer.In the statement recorded in the court, prosecutrix stated that Raju took her to the fair where Amer Khan met her and gave her the intoxitant to sniff because of which she had become unconscious.Amer Khan took her to Jhansi.In view of aforesaid material contradictions in the statement on the aspect as to who took her to Jhansi, the court below disbelieved her statement.We do not find any infirmity in the finding of the court below.The prosecutrix in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she telephoned her mother from Niwari station and; in turn, she was taken by her mother from the said station.The court below rightly held that when prosecutrix had a mobile phone during the period she was allegedly in the custody of accused persons, she could easily have contacted her parents or police, if she wanted to.The prosecutrix has not 3 M.Cr.C. No.50448/2018 deposed anything against accused Raju and Dharampal in relation to offence of rape, wrongful detention, threatening or snatching of gold chain etc.3 M.Cr.In this backdrop, the court below examined the evidence whether any case is made out against the accused Amer Khan.As noticed, the prosecutrix had taken a diametrically opposite stand as to who had taken her to Jhansi.The starting point of incident itself is not established.The prosecutrix's statement that she was in the custody of Amer for one and half month and was subjected to rape during this period repeatedly was disbelieved by court on the ground that during this period she never tried to take help of neighbours and public.In medical examination also, nothing was found which can establish the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.The prosecutrix reached police station Prithvipur on 28.07.2015 (Ex.P/7).On 31.07.2015, F.I.R was lodged and her undergarments were seized and slide was prepared.As per prosecutrix's statement, eight days before lodging F.I.R (31.07.2015), she came back to her home.The vaginal slide was prepared after about eight days.Thus considering the life span of sperms, the court below rightly opined that it cannot be safely concluded that said sperms were of Amer Khan.More so, when prosecutrix had categorically deposed that after the incident she had taken bath and changed her cloths.Dr. Richa Jain (P.W.14) in her examination opined that no internal or external injury was found on the body of prosecutrix and no definite opinion regarding rape could be given.After considering the relevant evidence, the court below opined that prosecution has failed to establish its case.In the considered opinion of this court, the court below has meticulously examined the evidence produced before it and reached a plausible and correct conclusion.No perversity in the findings could be 4 M.Cr.",['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
"In order to examine the rival contentions raised in thepresent appeals, it will be necessary for us to refer to the factsappearing from the case of the prosecution.On 19.11.1988 at about 6.15 P.M. one Deo Pal, who wasexamined as PW1, had lodged the FIR in the Police Station atKakkarwai stating that on the evening of 19.11.1988 at about4.30 P.M., he along with his brother Devi Singh and one Kalluwere sitting in the cattle shed of Jawahar, carpenter.He hadgone to sharpen his sickle.After about 10 minutes, his brotherBahadur Singh (since deceased) came there to sharpen hisgandasa.In the meanwhile, appellants Ram Sanehi, Baladin @Balla, Shiv Dayal and Ramadin came there.Accused Shiv Dayalhas a sphere and Ram Sanehi, Baladin and Ramadin had guns.Appellant Shiv Dayal inflicted sphere blow on the left shoulderof Bahadur Singh and thereafter, the three accused carrying 6 guns fired from their respective guns.After receiving the bulletinjuries, Bahadur Singh fell down and died.The witnesses,present there, were not able to save him because of the fearcaused by the accused persons.After murdering BahadurSingh, Ram Sanehi said that they had killed him and his fatherPyare Lal should also be killed.Saying these words, theappellants proceeded towards the fields where Pyare Lal waswatering his bajara crops.Deopal, Devi Singh and his wifeMoola Bai were present in the field.At that time, appellantDharnidhar also came there and joined the other appellants.Dharnidhar snatched the kulhari of Pyare Lal.Thereafter, thesaid three accused, who were carrying guns, fired on Pyare Lal.Sustaining the fire arm injuries, Pyare Lal fell down.Notsatisfied with the same, Dharnidhar then cut his neck withkulhari.Deopal then raised an alarm and made a hue and cry.Several village persons rushed towards the spot but before theycould reach, the appellants escaped and went towards thejungle.This incident took place at about 4.45p.m.PW1 reportedthe matter to the police station, as already noticed, and on the 7 basis of the report, H.C. Shiv Charan prepared the report(Ext.Ka 27) made endorsement on the same at the G.D. report(Ext.Ka 28) and registered the case against all the appellantsunder Sections 147, 149, 302 and 149 of the I.P.C.The case was initially investigated by Ram Autar Mathur(PW 10) who went to the spot along with two constables but theinvestigation could not be completed because of paucity of light.Next morning the I.O. conducted inquest of the body of deceasedBahadur Singh and recovered one empty cartridge from the spot,collected blood stained and simple earth sample from the spotand prepared recovery memos.Pleura was lacerated.These injuries caused and it may be possible that these injuries caused on dated 19.11.88 at 4.30 o' clock in the evening.These injuries were normal but these injuries are sufficient for death.I had seized from the body of the deceased one cork and 21 metal pallets from the left side's lungs.One Cork and 12 pallets were seized from the right lung and from forensic cavity of muscles.2 Corks and 18 pallets were recovered from the lever and stomach cavity.From the body of the deceased one Baniyan and one Chaddi, One Lungi was recovered and after preparing its Bundles were given to the constable.The injury No. 1 and 2 by Kulahdi Ex2 was possible to have occurred.Axe was shown to the witness injury No.3 to 8 is possible to be caused by fire arms.Injury No. 9 to 10 could be caused by falling on the ground.be caused by fire arms.Injury No. 9 to 10These injuries were sufficient to cause death.These injuries could have been possibly caused on 19.11.88 at about 4.30 in the evening.One cork one big pellet and two small pellets' were recovered from his level and two corks and five small pallets were recovered from his left and right lever.These articles were handed over to the constable after sealing it.That from the body of the deceased one Kurta, One Dhoti, One Baniyan and One ring of Coper were recovered which were sealed and handed over to the Constable who had come with.""This witness was cross examined at some length, but nothingfavourable to the accused could come on record.The statement 24 of this witness clearly shows that there were gun shot injurieson the bodies of both the deceased as well as sphere and kulhariinjuries on their shoulder and neck respectively.Their presence at the site was natural.In addition to this, it must be noticed that upon the statement ofShiv Dayal, the sphere (Ext. Ka 1) was recovered from thebushes of the village Kharwanch in presence of Thakur Das,PW 7, and Kanhaiya Lal.The ld.Sessions Judge, Jhansi,vide its judgment dated 7th August, 1992 after finding all theaccused guilty of different offences, including Section 302 of theIndian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ""IPC"") punishedthem.The order of punishment reads as under:""Accused Ram Sanehi, Ramadin, Baladin and Shiv Dayal are hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment under section 302/34, I.P.C. for committing murder of Bahadur Singh.They and accused Dharnidhar are also sentenced to life imprisonment under section 302/149, I.P.C. for committing murder of Pyare Lal.Accused Ram Sanehi, Ramadin, Baladin and Shiv Dayal are mentioned to the year's R.I. u/s 148 I.P.C. and accused Dharnidhar is sentenced to six month's R.I. u/s 147, I.P.C. All these sentences shall run concurrently.All the accused preferred appeals against the judgment ofconviction and order of sentence before the High Court whichalso came to be dismissed vide judgment dated March 22, 2004,wherein the High Court declined to interfere either with thefindings of conviction or order of sentence which consequentlystood confirmed.Accused Dharnidhar filed Criminal AppealNo.239 of 2005 against the judgment of the High Court, accusedRam Sanehi along with other accused filed an appeal beingCriminal Appeal No. 429 of 2005 and Shiv Dayal preferred aseparate appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 2005 againstthe judgment of the High Court.Thus, by this judgment weshall dispose of all the above three appeals as they are directedagainst the common judgment of the High Court and are basedupon common evidence.Sessions Judge, inter alia, is primarilyon the following grounds:i) The alleged eye witnesses PW1 and PW3 are family members of the deceased and as such are interested witnesses.The conviction of the appellants is based, 3 primarily, on the statements of these witnesses, which as such, is liable to be set aside.ii) The prosecution has failed to prove any motive for the alleged commission of the crime.The appellants had no motive to commit the said crime and, therefore, the story put forward by the prosecution stands falsified.iii) The evidence, including the evidence of Dr. P.N.On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for therespondent has vehemently argued that there was sufficientdocumentary and expert evidence on record.The version of theeye witnesses cannot be doubted, their presence on the site wasnatural and they had no reason to falsely implicate all or any ofthe accused in the murder of their brother and father.He also completed theinvestigation at the place of the murder of Pyare Lal.The deadbodies of Bahadur Singh and Pyare Lal were subjected toautopsy on 21.11.1988 by PW6, and he found the followinginjuries on the bodies of the deceased.""Postmortem report of Bahadur SinghAnte mortem injuries:-(1) Gun shot wound of entry 2 = cm x 2 cm x thoracic cavity deep on the left nipple.Blackening present.Direction from front to back.Margins inverted.(2) Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 0.75 cm x thoracic cavity deep on upper and medical portions of chest of right side, 2 cm below from medical margin of clavicle.Blackening present and direction from back to front and backwards.Margins inverted.(3) Two gun shot wounds of exit measuring 1 cm x 0.75 cm diameter in an area of 2 cm on right lower portion of back of chest.(4) Gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm on left lower portion of back, 30 cm below from left shoulder joint, direction from left to right.(5) Gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on epigastria portion of abdomen 18 cm above from umbilicus.Direction front to back.(6) Gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x 1 cm on the epigtastrian portion of abdomen, 1 cm above from injury no. 5, Direction from front to back.(7) Contusion 4 cm x 3 cm on middle and front of forehead.(8) Contusion 5 cm x 2 cm on middle and right side of back of chest, 4 cm away from mid line.(9) Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on lower and left side of back of chest.(10) Incised wound 2 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep, 9 cm below from the left shoulder.9 Internal examination showed that third and fourth ribs of left side and third rib of right side were fractured.Both lungs were lacerated.Thoracic cavity contained about 1 = liters of liquid blood.Peritoneal cavity contained about = liter of Liquid Blood.Stomach was lacerated and contained semi digested food material.Liver, gall bladder and spleen were lacerated, death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from ante mortem injuries.The doctor recovered one cork and 21 metallic pellets from left lung and thoracic cavity.One cork and 12 metallic shots were recovered from right lung, liver and thoracic cavity.Two corks, 18 metallic shots were recovered from spleen stomach and abdominal cavity.Postmortem report of Pyare LalAnte mortem injuries:-(1) Incised wound 8 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on right lower jaw.4 cm below from angle of mouth right side.(2) Incised wound 10 cm x 6 cm x bone deep on front portion of neck.Under lying bone of cervical vertebrae No. 3 fractured.Soft tissues and muscle cut.(3) Gun shot wound of entry 3 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on lower and front portion of left arm.Direction from left to right, 8 cm above from elbow joint.Blackening present.Margins inverted.10 (4) Gun shot wound of exit 4 cm x 2 = cm on lower and front portion of left arm.Margins everted.(5) Gun shot wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on left exilla.(6) Gun shot wound of entry 2 = cm x 1 = cm x thoracic cavity deep on left side of chest 11 cm below from left axilla.(8) Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep on upper and left portion of abdomen, 10 cm above from umbilicus, Blackening present.Margins inverted.Directions from front to back.(9) Abrasion 5 cm x 1 = cm on right lower front portion of thigh, 7 cm above from knee joint.(10) Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm on the rest of the middle finger of right hand.Internal examination showed that brain was pulpy.Third cervical vertebrae was fractured.Pleura was lacerated.Larynx, trachea and bronchi were cut.Both lungs were lacerated.Neck was cut.Abdominal cavity contained 11 about 200 ml liquid blood.Stomach was lacerated.Liver was partially lacerated.Cause of death was shock and hemorrhage resulting from ante mortem injuries.The doctor recovered one cork, one big metallic shot and two small metallic shot from stomach, 2 corks and 5 small metallic shorts were recovered from right and left lung."" The prosecution had amongst others examined Deopal,PW1, Devi Singh, PW 2 and Manohar, PW 3 who had claimedto be the eye witnesses to either or both of the murders.Duringthe course of investigation, recoveries were made upon thestatements made by the accused.Thakur Das, PW 7 was anindependent witness for the recovery of sphere, as pointed out byaccused Shiv Dayal.The investigation of the case was conductedby different officers.H.C. Shiv Charan Singh, PW 11 was postedas Head Muherer and he had prepared (Ext. Ka 27) as well asregistered the case in GD as (Ext.Ka 28).PW1 and PW2 hadfully supported the case of the prosecution.The blood markswere found at both the places of occurrence.After completingthe investigation, challan under Section 173 of the CriminalProcedure Code (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C.') was filed 12 before the Court of competent jurisdiction.After the case wascommitted to the Court of Sessions, all the accused were tried inaccordance with the law.Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.was recorded and finally, as noticed above, they were convictedand sentenced by the trial Court and the same was sustained bythe High Court, giving rise to the present appeals.The arguments raised on behalf of the appellants, in fact,can be discussed together inasmuch as they are based uponsomewhat common submissions.There is no doubt that PW1and PW2, both are related to the deceased.The contentionraised before us is that both of them are interested witnessesand have not stated true facts before the Court and thus, theirstatements should be entirely disbelieved.It has come on record that PyareLal was pursuing a case in which members of the family of theaccused persons were involved in a murder.There wasapparently some anger and rift between the families.Accordingto the story of the prosecution, they had come prepared to killBahadur Singh as well as Pyare Lal as they were carrying guns, 13 sphere etc. The deceased were attacked by the accused in thepresence of their brothers, who could not intervene and savethem because of the fear of the gun fire and the manner in whichthe incident occurred.It was but natural for the prosecution toproduce PW1 and PW2 as the main eye witnesses as they hadactually seen the occurrence and they have been believed by thetrial Court, as well as by the High Court.The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency.Thakur Das, PW 7, appeared as awitness and corroborated the evidence of Ranjit Singh, PW 9.The sphere was sent for chemical and serological examination.The report of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist (Ext. Ka 32)was received and it showed that the sphere contained humanblood.The involvement of accused Shiv Dayal along withother accused persons, the recovery of the weapons and the factthat human blood was traced on the recovered weaponcompletes the chain of events relating to the commission of the 25 crime.It will not be in conformity with the settled canons ofcriminal jurisprudence to disregard the evidence merelybecause Devi Singh, PW 2, had made a variable statement whichcould be the result of confusion or lack of understanding thequestion in its proper perspective, more so, when he immediatelyin answer to the Court's question, stated, that he had gone tovillage Durkhuru on the day subsequent to the commission ofthe crime and not on the same day.It will be unfair, in any case,to disbelieve the presence of PW1 and PW3 at the respectiveplaces of occurrence and their statements, merely because PW2'sstatement creates certain doubts as regards his presence.Asalready noticed, the counsel for the appellant had, with somevehemence, argued about the unnatural conduct attributed bythe prosecution to the accused.It was argued that brother ofdeceased Bahadur Singh was right in front of the accused at theplace of first occurrence, and they would have killed him ratherthan going to the other site to kill Pyare Lal, the father ofdeceased Bahadur Singh.This argument hardly cuts ice, muchless, leads to any favourable conclusion for the accused.There 26 is specific evidence on record which has been noticed by theHigh Court as well as by the Trial Court that Bahadur Singhwas prosecuted for the murder of Umrao, Ram Sanehi's fatherand was acquitted.The case was contested by Pyare Lal, fatherof Bahadur Singh.We have already indicated that there is somemotive apparent for commission of the crime, which furtherindicates in the light of this evidence that they preferred to killBahadur Singh and his father Pyare Lal.If this witness was lying, then he would havecertainly deposed that he also was an eye-witness to the firstoccurrence i.e. murder of Bahadur Singh.Thetruthfulness and bona fide of this witness can hardly be doubted.27 He has further deposed that Dharnidhar had not come withother accused but had suddenly entered there and snatched thekulhadi from his father.With that kulhadi, he has causedinjury on the neck of the deceased Pyare Lal.If this witness wasto falsely implicate all the accused, nothing preventing him fromstating that Dharnidhar had come with all other accused andthey together attacked the deceased and also that he was awitness to the murder of Bahadur Singh and that evenDharnidhar was involved in the murder of his brother.Hisstatement is fully supported by PW1, as well as theInvestigating Officer.If they were falsely implicated, in allprobability, PW1, PW2 and the Investigating Officer could havenamed Dharnidhar in relation to the first occurrence, i.e. murderof Bahadur Singh.The attempt was also made to create a dentin the case of the prosecution on the ground that Jawahar, whowas stated to be present, was not examined by the prosecutionand was the only independent witness.Thus, adverse inferenceshould be drawn against the prosecution for this purpose.Thiscontention has rightly been rejected by the learned trial Court 28 and for correct reasons.Shiv Dayal was stated to have given sphere blow to thedeceased Bahadur Singh and thereafter with the intention to killPyare Lal, moved together with the other accused to the sitewhere Pyare Lal was murdered.Dharnidhar had joined RamSanehi, Baladin, Ramadin and Shiv Dayal.Thus, there were 5 34 persons who constituted a common unlawful assembly and werecarrying weapons with an intention to commit an offence.Shiv Dayal has been thrown the bhala to my brother namely Bahadur which was hit to his left shoulder sides chest portion.Then Ramsanehi, Balaprasad and Ramadinhad fired with their own rifflesrespectively.My brother Bahadur fallen onthe ground we persons who were presentthere has not said any word on account offear.After theirdeparture I have seen my brother Bahadur.He was dead.My brother Bahadur was laydown in the court yard which was in frontdoor of the Jawahar Badhai.I Devi andLally have been followed to Ram Sanehi andothers and reached to the court yard of thefield where my father was busy in storingthe jwar.My brother Manohar and motherMula bai were present there.I have seenthat these four accused were present there.In the meanwhile Dharnidhar came fromsome where/or from some place Dharnidharhas snatched the Kulhadi (an axe) from thehands of my father.Ram Sanehi, Baladinalias Balla & Ramadin had fired on myfather from their own riffles.My father laydown on the ground.Dharnidhar wascutting the neck of my father.After hearing theshouting so many persons rushed out here.But they could not reach at the spot.My father had been fallenat the distance of 7 steps away from theMahua Tree in the Ladaiya fields.Whenthe accused persons left that place at thattime we had gone to seen the condition ofmy father.""36 (emphasis supplied) Let us examine the judgments of this Court in relation tocommon intention and commission of crime by the members ofan unlawful assembly.It is a settled principle of law that toshow common intention to commit a crime it is not necessary forthe prosecution to establish, as a matter of fact, that there was apre-meeting of the minds and planning before the crime wascommitted.","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The prosecution case is that the accused trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, assaulted him and his family members and snatched away gold chains.Informing the said occurrence as also the grevious injuries sustained by him and his family members, the de facto complainant has preferred a complaint before the first respondent police.A case was registered in Crime No.204 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent for offences under sections 147, 294(b), 323, 355, 448, 427, 506(ii) and 379 IPC against six persons.On completion of investigation, charges have been altered to reflect offences under sections 294(b), 353, 355 and 448 IPC and only four of the six persons have been arrayed as accused.The same was taken on file in STC No.122 of 2012 on the file of learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannar Koil.Accepting the plea of guilt by the four accused put up for trial, the trial Court, under judgment dated 25.09.2012, convicted them and imposed fines in meagre sums as follows:AccusedOffenceFine amountA1 and A2294(b) IPCRs.300/- eachA1, A2, A3 and A4352 IPCRs.300/- eachA3 and A4355 IPCRs.300/- eachA1 to A4448 IPCRs.300/- eachAgainst such finding, the present revision has been filed by the de facto complainant.3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that upon complaints preferred by the de facto complainant, a case was registered in Crime No.204 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent for offences under sections 147, 294(b), 323, 355, 448, 427, 506(ii) and 379 IPC.Neither the Court nor the respondent police had caused notice to the petitioner/de facto complainant regards the final report despite two of the named accused in the First Information Report not being put up as accused.Heard learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) on the above submissions.The order under challenge calls for immediate interference.The very fact that as against alleged alteration of First Information Report and preparation of final report on 20.06.2012, the same were forwarded to Court only on 25.09.2012, on which very date, the accused appeared before Court, pleaded guilty and walked away with petty fines, reveals that the police and the accused are hand-in-glove.In adopting the practice above informed, justice has been the sufferer.The order of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannar Koil, passed in STC No.122 of 2012 on 25.09.2012, shall stand set aside;(ii)A further investigation in Crime No.204 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent shall be carried out by the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police (Cuddalore District).Upon completion thereof, its outcome shall be informed to the petitioner by such investigating officer.If aggrieved, it would be open to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as available to him in law.(iii)A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, who shall cause an enquiry into the conduct of the first respondent and file a report informing the outcome thereof/action taken, if any, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.16.09.2014Index :Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NogmTo1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannar Koil.2.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.C.T. SELVAM, J.R.C.No.257 of 201316.09.2014","['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The short facts necessary for disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:(a) P.W.1 is the Village Administrative Officer of Veriappur.On 18.3.2005, at about 12 noon, when he was in his office along with his Assistant Kumaravel, the accused/appellant appeared before him and gave a confessional statement that he threw his child in a well and caused the death of the child.The statement was reduced to writing and marked as Ex.P.W.1 prepared his report under Ex.He produced the accused along with Exs.He interrogated the accused, when he came forward to give a confessional statement and the same was also recorded by the investigating officer.He proceeded to the scene of occurrence, conducted inquest on the dead body of the child and prepared the Inquest Report in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars.He prepared the Observation Mahazar and also a rough sketch.Following the same, the dead body was subjected to Postmortem by P.W.10, the doctor attached to the Government Hospital.He opined that the child would appear to have died before 5-6 hours before the commencement of the autopsy due to Asphyxia due to drowning.P.8 is the Postmortem Certificate issued by him.JUDGMENT M. Chockalingam, J.(b) On the strength of Exs.P1 and P2, a case was came to be registered by the respondent Police in Crime No. 61/2005 under Section 302, IPC.The Inspector of Police, P.W.11, took up the investigation on receipt of the Express First Information Report (F.I.R.), Ex.P.6 which was despatched to the Court.(c) The accused was sent to judicial remand and the Material Object which was recovered from the place of occurrence was sent to the Court.On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed the final report.The accused was committed to the Court of Sessions.In order to substantiate the charge levelled against the accused, the prosecution marched 11 witnesses and relied on eleven exhibits and one material object.On completion of evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused/appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied them as false.No defence witnesses were examined.After hearing the arguments advanced, on the scrutiny of the materials, the Trial Court took a view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found the accused guilty and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.The said document Ex.P.1 could not have been come into existence as put forth by the prosecution for more reasons:(a) P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer has candidly admitted that he has seen the accused only once.They were not previously acquainted.He did not know whether the accused was employed in Pondicherry and thus, in such circumstances, it is highly improbable and impossible that the accused met the Village Administrative Officer and gave such a confessional statement and thus, Ex.P.1 was nothing but one created and fabricated to suit the prosecution case.(b) Added further, the counsel stated that in the instant case, the writing of the charge would read that the child was born in the tenth month from the time of marriage and thus, it could be easily inferred that the fidelity of the wife was suspected.If it be so, the wife of the accused was a necessary and material witness.But, she was not examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution that was fatal to the prosecution case.(c) Thirdly, even from the evidence of P.W.1, he took the accused/appellant at about 12.30 hours and produced before the Police Station and prepared Ex.P.1 by 12.20 p.m., and even the confessional statement alleged to have been recorded by the investigating officer was at about 1.30 p.m. and it is pertinent to point out that the Police Station is situated about 15 kilometres from the place of occurrence.The preparation of Ex.P.1 covering the distance of 15 kilometres, producing the accused before the Police Station within ten minutes and the recording of the confessional statement by the investigating officer at about 1.30 p.m., all would go to show that the documents could not have come into the existence, as put forth by the prosecution, nothing but it is a falsehood and thus, all these documents should have been rejected.Added further, the learned Counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that the medical evidence was not in support of the prosecution case.The doctor thoroughly opined in the Postmortem certificate that the child died out of Asphyxia by drowning and he further placed that no water is found in the lungs.But, the witness spoke that the child was floating and if it be so, and if the child had died out of Asphyxia by drowning, the water should have been found.But, the doctor has given the answer in the negative aspect.But, in this case, the prosecution had the evidence through P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer to whom the confessional statement was made by the accused.Secondly, the child was found floating in the well and was taken from the well.1. To whom the said extra judicial confession is made?;Whether the person to whom the extra judicial confession is made, his evidence inspires the confidence of the Court?; andHe came to the village in the previous evening with his family and there was a commitment for the child in a temple.Accordingly, he invited his parents.P.1 and he also prepared Ex.The child was taken from the well.But, he came with a different stand when he was questioned under Section 300 of I.P.C. He stated that he went to the well to take bath at 8.00 a.m. on 18.3.2005 and when came back, he found the child missing.He went to the Police Station and a false case has been foisted against him.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"ORDER P. Sathasivam, J.1.The petitioner by name R. Sekar, who has been detained as ""Goonda"" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 04.07.2006, challenges the same in this Petition.Further, he brought to our notice that apart from copy of First Information Report, statements of witnesses were duly served on the detenu.Coming to the ground case, admittedly, copies of all the relied on documents were supplied to the detenu along with the grounds of detention.In the First Information Report it is specifically stated that, VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED The Sub-Inspector of Police, J9, Thuraipakkam Police Station has reiterated the same thing in his statement.","['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard arguments.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.553/2017 registered at Police Station Ganj Basoda district Vidisha against him and co-accused Vakil Panthi for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 (2) (N) (F) of the I.P.C.According to the prosecution, on 25.6.2017, the complainant lodged the F.I.R stating that in the night between 24.6.2017 and 25.6.2017, his daughter/the prosecutrix aged about 15 years and 20 days has been missing from his house.The police registered a case against an unknown person under Section 363 of the I.P.C. On 1.7.2017, the prosecutrix was recovered.Thereupon, the police recorded her case dairy statement.On the basis of her statement, the police made the applicant and others accused of the case for the offences punishable under the aforesaid Sections of law.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody in the case since 27/06/2017 and that the charge-sheet had been filed.(Rajkumar Vs.State of M.P) .that the prosecutrix's statement under section 164 Cr.P.C is recorded on 3.7.2017 by the J.M.F.C Ganj Basoda.After referring to her statement, he submits that the prosecutrix has categorically stated that the applicant had not committed any sexual act with her.On the other hand, he helped her when she got herself freed from the clutches of co-accused Vakil, to whom her father had sold her having taken from him Rs.50,000 to 60,000/-.He committed rape upon her several times.He submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of village Uhar which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of the said police station and that he has no criminal antecedents.Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel and upon perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix, but without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.Hence, the application is allowed.The Court concerned is directed to release applicant Rajkumar on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (forty thousand) with one solvent surety of the same amount to its satisfaction for securing his presence in the course of trial of the case.Certified copy as per rules.(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge (Rks) Digitally signed by R. K. SHARMA R. K.DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P.BENCH GWALIOR, ou=P. S., postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, SHARMA 2.5.4.20=fddb839268e92e8a7e21 3279c322478eb4761365df45a6e5 90a0c9b59957024a, cn=R. K.SHARMA Date: 2017.11.20 14:31:41 +05'30'",['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
"First and foremost, the testimony of PW/1 - the prosecutrix was recorded on 13/02/2002, while the alleged incident is of the year 1996 i.e. after 6 years of the incident.Evidently, at the relevant time, her age was 13 years.She was studying in 5th standard.She deposed that the incident took place on Sunday, at about 9.00 am.Her sister - Savita and one neighbour - Ravindra were present in her house.Her mother had gone to Chandrapur as there was an accident of her brother.Her father went on his morning duty.The accused came there, pressed her mouth and took her in the room which was::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 5 beside the kitchen room.He removed her nicker and committed intercourse with her and therefore, she became unconscious.She was taken to the hospital but she was not knowing.Her vagina was swelled.She gave report at Police Chowki, Sasti.apeal 423.02 5To support her testimony, the prosecution examined PW/2 - Savita.She deposed that the prosecutrix is her elder sister.At the relevant time, she was 11 years old.On the day of the incident, she herself, Ravindra and the prosecutrix were present in their house.Her father had been to his duty.The accused came to their house and he sent her for bringing biscuit packet.It was about 10.00 am.The accused send Ravindra outside and took the prosecutrix in the room by holding her hand and shut the door.Then the accused put down the curtains of the door.She and Ravindra saw from the window that the accused was sleeping on the person of the prosecutrix.Yes, smears from vagina collected and slides sealed and handed over to the police.In the cross-examination of PW/1 - the prosecutrix, it has brought on record that her father, accused and one Navnath Khanke were working in W.C.L. Their houses are situated in the same ward.At the relevant time, she was suffering from piles deceased and because of that, she was sick.The accused was on visiting terms with them.On the day, when she was going for lodging report, at about 9.00 am, a meeting took place at the house of Navnath where 25-30 ladies and 10- 12 gents were present.She was also called in that meeting.Then they went from the house of Navnath to the house of the accused.At that time, the accused had gone for the meeting of W.C.L. Union.The wife of the accused was present.The people::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 9 in the meeting did not give her idea to lodge report.Navnath gave information to the Police.When the accused was coming from union meeting, Police restrained him and took him to the Outpost and then to the Rajura Police Station.She herself, Navnath, 30-40 ladies and 10-12 gents went to the Rajura Police Station.She lodged report as per the say of Navnath.She has admitted that in their village, election of the Gram Panchayat took place before lodging the report and in that election, Navnath was defeated.apeal 423.02 9From the tone and tenor of the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, it appears that the accused tried to take the defence that because of political rivalry and on the say of Navnath, who was defeated in the Gram Panchayat elections, false report was lodged against the accused.In the written submission of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, he has stated that as the parents of the prosecutrix did not want to lodge any complaint, Navnath organized a meeting in his house, men and women of::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 10 the ward were gathered and took the procession to his house, but he had left the house at 7.30 in the morning for attending a gate meeting, being the president of the Union.While returning home from the meeting at about 11.00-11.15 am, 35-40 men and women obstructed him on his way.The family of Navnath and his brother's family were present in the mob.The Police from the Police Station, Sasti came and took him to the Police Chowki without stating any reason.JUDGMENT : (PER PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 16/07/2002 passed by the 3rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Trial No.78/1996 whereby the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short ""I.P.C."") and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.Criminal Appeal No.423/2002 is preferred by the accused against his conviction while Criminal Appeal No.581/2002 is preferred by the State for enhancement of sentence.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 22/01/1996, the accused committed rape on a minor girl, aged around 13 years.The crime was registered against the accused::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 3 vide Crime No.18/1996 at Police Station Rajura, District Chandrapur after which the matter was investigated and the accused was arrested.The accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of the charge.The Trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and he was sentenced as aforesaid.The impugned judgment is challenged by the accused as well as by the State.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 3We have heard Shri R.P. Joshi, learned counsel for the accused and Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. for the State.We have also perused the record.The sole testimony of the prosecutrix is not reliable.The accused has been falsely involved in this crime due to political rivalry.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 4::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 4On the contrary, Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, while supporting the conviction of the accused, argued for enhancement of sentence up to 7 years, which is the minimum sentence provided for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C.We have heard learned counsel for the parties.We have also perused the evidence on record with the assistance of learned counsel for the accused.She identified her signature and contents in the report and F.I.R. which are at Exhibit Nos.12 and 13 respectively.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::He was committing rape on the prosecutrix.Then the accused went away from the spot.She narrated about the incident to::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 6 her father in the evening.On the very next day, the prosecutrix gave report at Police Station.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 6The prosecution also examined PW/3 - Ravindra in support of the testimony of PW/1 - the prosecutrix and PW/2 - Savita. PW/3 - Ravindra also deposed in the same line as deposed by PW/1 - the prosecutrix and PW/2 - Savita.He deposed that he saw that the accused removed the clothes of the prosecutrix and also removed his pant.The accused committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.The accused told him that if he discloses about the incident, the accused will beat him.11. PW/8 - Mangala is the lady Police Constable, who deposed about taking the prosecutrix at Rural Hospital, Rajura on 22/01/1996 for medical examination, however, as there was no lady Medical Officer in Rajura Hospital, she took the prosecutrix in the Civil Hospital, Chandrapur.She produced on record the supporting documents (Exh.32, 33, 34 and 35).::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 7::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 7PW/11 - Dr. Mrs. Sharmili Amol Potdar is the Medical Officer at the General Hospital, Chandrapur at the relevant time.She deposed that on 22/01/1996, she examined the prosecutrix as per the requisition (Exh.32).On examination, she found that the prosecutrix was a young girl, looking sick, may be due to agony of pain.Her general condition was fair.She found tenderness over valva (labia majora), hymen torned and can introduce one finger easily.She gave following answers to the queries made by the Investigating Officer:-Yes, she can undergo sexual intercourse forcefully.Yes, it has been done.Yes, on examination of private part, there shows evidence of injuries on hymen.She handed over the public hair and blood sample after sealing it.There may be pain over back, may be due to injury to the back.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 8 Accordingly, she gave certificate (Exh.50).::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 8However, she denied the submission that she gave false report on the say of Navnath.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::From there, they took him to the Police Station, Rajura and arrested him.The Police registered a false case against him at the instance of opponents in the village.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 10On comparing the cross-examination of the prosecutrix and the written submissions of the accused, they are mutually corroborated.From these facts, it can safely be inferred that the parents of the prosecutrix (step mother and father, who was in the habit of drinking liquor and was not performing his duty properly) were not ready to lodge report.However, Navnath took initiative, called meeting of the residents of the ward, and the report came to be lodged.The::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 11 report was lodged on the next day of the incident.The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination.With regard to her age, there is no serious dispute.At the relevant time, she was aged about 13 years.PW/11 - Dr. Mrs. Sharmili, the Medical Officer noticed tenderness over valva (labia majora), hymen torned and can introduce one finger easily.In her report (Exh.50), the Medical Officer has opined that the prosecutrix can undergo sexual intercourse forcibly and it was being done.She also opined that on examination of private part, it shows coitus has been done.She also noticed signs of blunt injury over her back.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 11Learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the Medical Report is not clear with respect to the time of sexual intercourse and there are inconsistencies in the report of the Medical Officer (Exh.50) and the testimony of the Medical Officer before the Court.We are unable to accept this submission.It is true that the answer to query No.3 in the report (Exh.50) is "" ""Yes"", on examination of private part, it shows coitus has been done"", and in her evidence, she gave answer::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 12 "" ""Yes"", on examination of private part, there shows evidence of injuries on hymen"".A perusal of both the said answers would reflect that these answers support the case of the prosecution.Evidently, on the next day of the incident, the prosecutrix was medically examined where tenderness over valva (labia majora) and tearing of hymen were seen.Evidently, she was 13 years of age at the relevant time.As per medical report (Exh.50), her secondary sexual characters were not very well developed and her menarche was not started.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 12Learned counsel for the accused also strenuously argued that there can be many other reasons for tearing of hymen.There is no dispute with regard to this proposition.However, considering the facts which are brought on record in this case, mainly the testimony of the prosecutrix coupled with the opinion of the Medical Officer, the reason for tearing of hymen of the prosecutrix and tenderness over valva, in our::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 13 considered view, was only due to the forcible sexual intercourse with the victim and we do not find any other reason.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 13Much has been argued by the learned counsel Shri Joshi with regard to the false involvement of the accused in this crime by Navnath, who is the political rival of the accused.The defence counsel during the cross-examinations of the prosecution witnesses could not bring on record any material omission or contradiction to disbelieve the witnesses and the prosecution story.Though, the testimony of PW/1 - the::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 14 prosecutrix, PW/2 - Savita and PW/3 - Rajendra - the eye witnesses were recorded after 6-7 years of the incident, they supported the prosecution case and stood up firmly during the cross-examination.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 14Learned counsel in support of his submissions placed reliance on the bunch of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the other High Courts.In the instant case, looking to the oral testimony of the prosecutrix coupled with the testimony of the eye-witnesses, expert witness and medical evidence, there is no semblance of doubt about the false implication of the accused.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 15With regard to the State's appeal for enhancement of sentence, at the relevant time of commission of the offence in this case, the minimum sentence of imprisonment was seven years, however, with special reasons, the Court was empowered to reduce the same.Considering the time gap from the date of offence till date i.e. 24 years, in our view, there is no point in enhancing the sentence.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 ::: apeal 423.02 16::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::apeal 423.02 16For the foregoing reasons, we do not find merits in both appeals filed by the State as well as by the accused and accordingly, the same are dismissed.The bail bonds of the accused are cancelled.He be taken in custody forthwith to undergo remaining part of his sentence.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 05:29:20 :::",['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
"JUDGMENT P.K. Bhasin, J.The three appellants and four other persons, namely, Dr. Amrik Singh, Iqbal Singh, Gursewak Singh and Sarwan Singh were charge-sheeted for the commission of different offences under the Indian Penal Code in Sessions case No. 151/95 in respect of FIR No. 334/83 of Hauz Khas police station.Vide judgment dated 29-05-99 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi held appellants Piara Singh and Kewal Singh, both of whom are real brothers, guilty under Sections 302/323 IPC and appellant Piara Singh was also convicted Along with the third appellant Resham Singh under Section 120B r/w Section 218 IPC while the other two accused Amrik Singh and Sarwan Singh, who were tried under Section 120B r/w Section 218 IPC, were acquitted.Resham Singh was convicted under Section 218 r/w 120B IPC also.Accused Gursewak Singh and Iqbal Singh died during the trial and so the case against them abated.Vide order dated 02-06-1999 learned Additional Sessions Judge awarded life imprisonment to appellants Piara Singh and Kewal Singh for the offence of murder and they were also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default of payment they were ordered to undergo further six months rigorous imprisonment.All the three convicted accused preferred separate appeals against their convictions and they were heard together and are now being disposed of by this common judgment.The facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants and other accused persons have been noticed by the learned trial Court in para No. 1 of the impugned judgment and they are as under:A telephonic information was received at P.S. Hauz Khas from Const.Ramesh Chander, Duty Constable, Safdarjang Hospital on the night intervening 22/23rd April, 1983 regarding one Gurdhian Singh have been brought dead to the hospital by his son Tarlochan Singh.On the basis of this information, DD No. 26A was recorded which DD was handed over to SI Govind Ram who Along with Const.Lila Singh went to the hospital where Gurnam Singh met him and gave his statement.A case Under Section 302/34 IPC was registered on the basis of statement of Gurnam Singh.In his report, Gurnam Singh stated that he was a taxi driver at New Friends Taxi Stand, Ber Sarai, for one year.Disputes were going on between Gurdhian Singh and Piara Singh over the taxi stand and litigation was pending in the court regarding the same.On that day, there was a small quarrel , between Kashmira Singh who was brother of Piara Singh and Kewal Singh, with Gurdhian Singh at about 9.30 P.M. in which Kashmira Singh received simple injuries.After the quarrel, Kashmira Singh went to the house of his relation while Tarlochan Singh went to his house for dinner.Kewal Singh was having a lathi in his hand and he gave beatings to him and Iqbal Singh with the same upon which both of them ran from there and raised alarm.On hearing the noise, Gurdhian Singh tried to run away after leaving his cot.Meanwhile, Kewal Singh caught hold of Gurdhian Singh and Piara Singh took out the Kirpan with him and gave blows with the same on the chest and abdomen of Gurdhian Singh who fell down.It is further stated in the report that he and Iqbal Singh rushed to call Tarlochan Singh at the spot and thereafter they took Gurdhian Singh to Safdarjang Hospital in injured condition where doctors declared him dead.The complainant also stated that he had received injuries on his arm and leg on account of lathi blows given to him by Kewal Singh....It appears that during the investigation the investigating officer found that accused Piara Singh and Kewal Singh had after committing the murder gone to village Dasuya in Hoshiarpur District of Punjab and there they managed to get prepared false documents/record showing that Piara Singh had been arrested on 22/04/83 at about 8.30 p.m. in Dasuya village by co-accused Gursewak Singh, who during those days was the SHO of Dasuya police station, for an offence under Section 34 of the Punjab Police Act for creating nuisance in public after consuming liquor.They also managed to get prepared an MLC of Civil Hospital at Dasuya from co-accused Dr. Amrik Singh, who was working there, showing that he had medically examined Piara Singh at 9.30 p.m. and he was found under the influence of liquor and then a false kalandra was also got prepared from co-accused Resham Singh, who was posted as Head Constable at Dasuya police station, and it was filed in Court on 26/4/83 when Piara Singh, as per the pre-planned conspiracy between all the seven accused, appeared in Court and pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced to fine of Rs. 10/- vide judgment dated 26-04-1983(Ex.PW-23/M).After their arrest accused Piara Singh allegedly got recovered blood stained kirpan used by him in the incident of murder at Delhi from some place in Punjab and accused Kewal Singh also got recovered the lathi used by him in that incident.They were also awarded rigorous imprisonment for six months for their conviction under Section 323 IPC.Piara Singh and Resham Singh were further awarded two years rigorous imprisonment for their conviction under Section 120B r/w 218 IPC.Resham Singh was also awarded two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 218 IPC.On completion of the investigation the police charge-sheeted seven accused persons under Sections 302/34/201/218/193/212/120B IPC.The learned trial Court framed charges under Section 120B IPC and Section 218 IPC read with Section 120B IPC against all the seven accused.The two appellants Piara Singh and Kewal Singh were also separately charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 read with 34 IPC also.To prove its case prosecution examined as many as 32 witnesses.The accused persons in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the prosecution allegations in toto and pleaded false implication.Piara Singh claimed that he had been falsely involved in this case by the son of the deceased as there was a dispute over the taxi stand with his brother Kewal Singh.He took a plea of alibi and claimed that at the time of the alleged murder of Gurdhian Singh he was not in Delhi and was in Dasuya where he was arrested by the police for creating nuisance under the influence of liquor for which he had pleaded guilty before the Court.Appellant Kewal Singh claimed that since there was a dispute between him and the deceased about the taxi stand he and his brother Piara Singh had been falsely involved in this case by the son of the deceased.Appellant Resham Singh claimed that Piara Singh was actually arrested on 22-04-1983 by SHO Gursewak Singh(the deceased accused) who had also prepared the rukka for the medical examination of Piara Singh.Resham Singh further pleaded that he had prepared the kalandra on the instructions of Gursewak Singh and that kalandra was filed in Court where Piara Singh had pleaded guilty and judgment was passed against him.The plea taken by accused Amrik Singh, who was finally acquitted, was that the deceased was having some police officers in Delhi Police and it appeared that they had implicated so many persons falsely in this case.Four witnesses in defense were examined by accused Piara Singh, Resham Singh and Sarwan Singh.The trial court after examining the evidence adduced during the trial rejected the plea of alibi taken by accused Piara Singh and convicted all the appellants for different offences noted already.The star prosecution witness is PW-7 Iqbal Singh who not only was the eye witness of the assault on the deceased Gurdhian Singh by the appellants Piara Singh and Kewal Singh but he himself was also beaten in the incident.He has deposed that in the year 1983 he was working at New Friends Taxi Stand, Ber Sarai and knew accused Piara Singh and Kewal Singh.He further deposed that there was a quarrel between the deceased Gurdhian Singh and accused Piara Singh and Kewal Singh about the taxi stand.On 22-04-83 at about 9.30 p.m. when he along with Kewal Singh, Piara Singh, Kashmira Singh, Gurnam Singh, Gurdhian Singh and Tarlochan Singh was present at the taxi stand there was a quarrel between Kashmira Singh and Gurdhian Singh and in that quarrel Kashmira Singh received minor injuries.Thereafter Kashmira Singh left the spot and went to the house of accused Kewal Singh whom Kashmira Singh used to call as his Mausa.At about 11.30 p.m. accused Kewal Singh and Piara Singh came to the taxi stand in a vehicle bearing No. PJQ-9474 and at that time accused Kewal Singh gave lathi blow to him(PW-7) and Gurnam Singh(PW-2) on which they raised noise and Gurdhian Singh started running from there but accused Kewal Singh apprehended Gurdhian Singh and accused Piara Singh inflicted five or six blows of kirpan on the chest of Gurdhian Singh as a result of which Gurdhian Singh fell on the ground.The deceased was lifted and taken to Safdarjang Hospital where after some time the doctor declared him dead.PW-7 further deposed that the police met him in the hospital and since he had also received injuries on his left arm he was got medically examined and also that the police had recorded his statement in Safdarjang Hospital.The other eye witness of the incident is PW-2 Gurnam Singh.He has deposed that some litigation was pending regarding the said taxi stand between Gurdhian Singh, the deceased, and accused Kewal Singh and Piara Singh.On 22-4-83 at about 10.30 p.m. he along with Gurdhian Singh were present at the taxi stand when Kashmira Singh came there and enquired about Kewal Singh and Piara Singh from Gurdhian Singh.Kashmira Singh was told by Gurdhian Singht that he was not on good terms with Kewal Singh and Piara Singh and then they started exchanging abuses with each other and also had a scuffle by grappling with each other.Gurdhian Singh picked up a lathi lying there and hit Kashmira Singh with that lathi and when he(PW-2) intervened he was pushed back by Kashmira Singh due to which he received injury on his arm.PW-2 further deposed that Gurdhian Singh was having a kirpan which he took out from its case and then he(PW-2) went to call Gurdhian Singh's son from his house.At the house of Gurdhian Singh his son Tarlochan Singh(PW-9) and Iqbal Singh(PW-7) were present and both of them accompanied him to the taxi stand where Gurdhian Singh was found smeared with blood.At that stage the public prosecutor had sought permission from the Court to cross-examine PW-2 since he had resoled from the version of the incident which he had given to the police.The public prosecutor was permitted to cross-examine this witness and then this witness admitted that his statement had been recorded by the police regarding this case.However, he denied having claimed before the police that accused Kewal Singh and Piara Singh had injured Gurdhian Singh in the incident.PW-2 also denied having informed the police that he himself was also given a lathi blow on his arm and leg by Kewal Singh and Piara Singh.The learned trial Court found the evidence of the eye witness Iqbal Singh reliable despite the fact that he admittedly was closely related to the deceased and as such an interested witness.The learned trial Court also did not give any importance to the fact that admittedly there was enmity between the deceased and appellants Piara Singh and Kewal Singh and also the fact that one independent witness PW-16 Gurdhian Singh, who was examined to establish extra judicial confession made by Piara Singh to him on 23-04-83, had also not supported the prosecution.Learned Judge also found the evidence regarding recovery of Kirpan at the instance of Piara Singh and lathi at the instance of Kewal Singh to be reliable.At the same time he also observed that still no finding of guilt could be recorded until the plea of alibi of accused Piara Singh was considered and found to be false.While coming to the conclusion that the statement of PW Iqbal Singh and other evidence could not be said to be unreliable, no finding of guilt can be recorded until the plea of alibi of accused Piara Singh is considered and found to be false.On the contrary, if it is held that the prosecution has not been able to displace the defense of alibi set forth by accused Piara Singh, the accused shall be entitled to acquittal and with that the prosecution case against accused Kewal Singh and other accused persons may also fail....After observing so the learned trial Court went on to consider the plea of alibi taken by accused Piara Singh and came to the conclusion that this defense of Piara Singh was absolutely false and concocted.The learned prosecutor while arguing before us did not disagree with the view of the learned trial Judge that if the plea of alibi taken by the accused Piara Singh is accepted then the prosecution case not only against Piara Singh but against all the accused would fail.However, the learned prosecutor had submitted that the conclusion of the trial Court regarding the plea of alibi to be false and concocted was absolutely correct.It was contended that in view of the wholly reliable testimony of PW-7 Iqbal Singh, the eye witness of the incident, an evidence about recoveries of the weapons of offence at he instance of Piara Singh and Kewal Singh the plea of alibi taken by Piara Singh was rightly rejected by the trial Court.The submission of learned Counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, was that evidence of the eye witness Iqbal Singh and that of other witnesses regarding the recovery of kirpan and lathi was totally unreliable and as far as the plea of alibi of Piara Singh is concerned, from the prosecution evidence itself it stands established that this plea of Piara Singh was correct and that the learned trial Court has rejected the plea of alibi on totally unsustainable grounds.We have considered the evidence and also the rival submissions made at the Bar by the counsel for the parties.That fact is established from the post-mortem report also about which no dispute was raised before us.According to PW-7 Iqbal Singh on 22/4/83 at about 9.30 p.m. accused Piara Singh and Kewal Singh were present at their taxi stand at Ber Sarai, New Delhi and same day at about 11.30 p.m. Kewal Singh had first hit him and Gurnam Singh(PW-2) with a lathi and then Kewal Singh had caught hold of Gurdhian Singh and Piara Singh had assaulted Gurdhian Singh with a kirpan.We, however, do not find the evidence of PW-7 to be reliable at all.As far as the first informant is concerned he has not supported the prosecution.The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant was that the statement of Gurnam Singh, the author of the FIR of this case, containing the names of Piara Singh and Kewal Singh as the assailants and which statement has been treated as FIR by the police can be said to have been recorded later on and was ante-timed and since it was a false version of the incident Gurnam Singh finally did not stick to that version in Court when he gave his statement on oath.We find force in this argument.PW-7 has claimed that after the incident he had gone to the house of the deceased to call his son Tarlochan Singh(PW-9).Although PW-9 Tarlochan Singh in his testimony claimed that Iqbal Singh and Gurnam Singh(PW-2) had come to his house at about 11.35 p.m. and had informed him that his father had been stabbed with kirpans but he did not claim that Iqbal Singh and Gurnam Singh had told him that his father had been stabbed by Piara Singh and Kewal Singh.If actually PW-7 had witnessed the incident, as claimed by him, he would have told to the son of the deceased about the assailants also and the names of the assailants would also have been disclosed to the doctor who examined the deceased after the incident.However, a perusal of the MLC Ex. PW-14/A shows that even though Tarlochan Singh, the son of the deceased, had brought Gurdhian Singh to the hospital and had informed the doctor that there was an assault on his father but names of the assailants were not disclosed at that time.A perusal of the inquest report Ex. PW 23/F prepared on 23-04-83 also shows that the names of the assailants were not mentioned there also by the investigating officer.Similarly, in the brief facts Ex. PW-23/G prepared by the investigating officer on 23-04-83 the names of the assailants were not mentioned.The absence of the names of the assailants in these papers prepared by the investigating officer on 23-04-83 casts a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the account of the incident given by PW-7 Iqbal Singh.For this view we find support from a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as 2000(II) Apex Decisions (SC) 103, ""Rang Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P."" wherein it was held that in the inquest papers at least the names of the assailants who are known by that time are expected to be mentioned by the investigating officer and if that is not done it can be presumed that by that time the assailants were not known.The contention that inquest report need not contain the names of the assailants, as has been raised in the present case also on behalf of the State, was also taken before the Supreme Court in the said case but was rejected.The afore said infirmities in the evidence of PW-7 Iqbal Singh coupled with the fact that there was enmity between the two sides make his evidence highly doubtful and unreliable.Learned prosecutor had also contended that the prosecution was not relying upon merely on the statement of PW-7 but there is evidence adduced to show that after his arrest accused Piara Singh had got recovered blood stained kirpan which was used by him in the incident and when that weapon was examined by the autopsy surgeon Dr. Chandrakant he had given his opinion Ex. PW-32/C to the effect that the injuries noticed by him on the body of the deceased at the time of post-mortem examination were likely to be caused by the said kirpan.Learned prosecutor had also submitted that accused Kewal Singh had also got recovered one lathi Ex. PX-I which he had used in the incident for causing injury to the eye witnesses Gurnam Singh and Iqbal Singh.As far as the recovery of lathi is concerned PW-7 Iqbal Singh had stated in cross-examination that accused Kewal Singh had thrown the lathi at the spot itself when they raised the alarm.However, PW-22 Ct.Leela Singh has claimed that accused Kewal Singh had got recovered the lathi from some place near the Deer Park on Africa Road.Another witness of this recovery is PW-27 Paramjit Singh, who in his cross-examination admitted that he was related to the deceased, has deposed that Kewal Singh had got recovered the lathi drom a place near ITI Hostel near R.K.Puram.If the accused Kewal Singh had left the lathi at the spot itself after the incident the same could not have been recovered from any other place.In view of these contradictory statements of the three prosecution witnesses the recovery of the lathi at the instance of Kewal Singh becomes doubtful and in any case PW-7 Iqbal Singh was not even shown the recovered lathi during his evidence to find out from him if it was the same lathi which had been used by Kewal Singh as had been claimed by him in his examination-in-chief.So, the evidence of recovery of the lathi, even if it were to be accepted, is of no help to the prosecution.Similarly, the evidence of recovery of kirpan at the instance of appellant Piara Singh is also of doubtful nature.PW-22 Ct.Leela Singh is a witness to the disclosure statement of accused Piara Singh pursuant to which he had allegedly got recovered one kirpan.Thus, according to this prosecution witness himself Piara Singh did not make any statement voluntarily.The investigating officer, who has not been examined as a witness because he died, appears to have threatened Piara Singh and then obtained a confessional statement from him.PW-22, however, does not claim that Piara Singh had after making the disclosure statement got recovered a kirpan.The prosecution has examined one Mahender Singh(PW-11), a resident of Punjab in village Jaswa, to prove the recovery of kirpan at the instance of Piara Singh.Although this witness had deposed that on 07-05-83 when he was present at village Roopowar at about 5 p.m. and was coming on his truck from the side of Tanda and going towards Gar Di Wala the police stopped him.At that time accused Piara Singh was present with the police officials and he led the police party in a jungle from where he took out a kirpan which was then sealed by the police.The learned trial Court entertained doubt about the truthfulness of the evidence of this witness on the ground that he was not truthful about his actual relationship with the family of the deceased.In his chief-examination he had not disclosed that he knew the family of the deceased and it was only in cross-examination that he knew the deceased Gurdhian Singh.It cannot be a coincidence that a person known to the deceased only could be spotted by the police on road side to be associated as a witness for the recovery of the kirpan.It appears that the investigating officer chose to associate only those persons as witnesses who were either related to the deceased or otherwise were known to him.So we also are not inclined to rely upon the evidence of PW-11 Mahender Singh.The learned trial Court also observed that the recovery of kirpan was established from the evidence of the police official PW-21 SI Ran Singh.There is no doubt that this witness has deposed about the recovery of kirpan at the instance of Piara Singh.However, we feel that since the investigating officer intentionally had been associating interested witnesses only at different stages we cannot place any reliance on the evidence of his subordinate police official.We are, therefore, of the view that the prosecution evidence, as discussed above was not reliable and sufficient enough to convict the accused persons.Now we come to the plea of alibi taken by accused Piara Singh and the charge under Section 218 IPC framed against the accused persons.It is now well settled that plea of alibi is to be established by the accused who takes it.Learned prosecutor did not dispute this proposition.In the present case the plea of alibi had been taken not only during the cross-examination of the eye witness Iqbal Singh but also at the time of recording of statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the accused had sought to establish the same from the evidence of prosecution witnesses from Dasuya police station to show that Piara Singh was not arrested by them on 22/4/83 as well from the documents placed on record by the prosecution.We shall now consider if the accused had been able to succeed in their plea or not and whether the learned trial Judge was right in rejecting their plea of alibi.The investigating agency in order to verify the fact about the arrest of Piara Singh at Dasuya village his medical examination at Civil Hospital on the night on 22/04/83 and his conviction on 26/04/83 by a Magistrate's Court at Dasuya had during the investigation collected certain documents which actually showed that Piara Singh was arrested at Dasuya on 22/4/83 around 8.30 p.m. and at about 9.30 p.m. on the same day he was medically examined also by the acquitted accused Dr. Amrik Singh at the civil hospital in Dasuya and those documents had been submitted Along with the challan filed in the present case.The prosecution has placed on record a copy of the judgment (Ex.PW-23/M) passed by the Court of Shri S.C.Marwah, JMIC, Dasuya in kalandara case No. 126/1 of 1983 whereby Piara Singh s/o Gulzara Singh, the appellant in criminal appeal No. 330/1999, was convicted under Section 34 of the Punjab Police Act on the allegations made in the kalandra(Ex.PW-23/H) that he was arrested for creating nuisance under the influence of liquor at a public place.It was contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the conviction of Piara Singh as recorded by the Magistrate at Dasuya should not be given any importance since it had been obtained by playing a fraud on the Court and the Court did not go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against Piara Singh in the kalandra, which according to the prosecution case was a false document prepared by accused Head Constable Resham Singh of Punjab Police, and had convicted appellant Piara Singh simply on the basis of his pleading guilty which also he did as was the plan of all the accused persons.The prosecution claims that the averments made in the kalandra Ex.PW-23/H to the effect that Piara Singh was apprehended on 22-4-83 around 8.30 p.m. under Section 34 of the Punjab Police Act were false and this document was prepared by appellant Resham Singh only in order to help appellant Piara Singh in creating a plea of alibi to be used in the event of his getting implicated in the case of murder of Gurdhian Singh.That judgment does help the accused in his plea of alibi.Not only that, there are other reasons also for us to accept the plea of alibi taken by the accused that Piara Singh was first arrested around 8.30 p.m. on 22/4/83 at Dasuya and then he was medically examined also at about 9.30 p.m. at the Civil Hospital, Dasuya by Dr. Amrik Singh.As noticed already, that Dr. Amrik Singh who was charged for preparing a false MLC Ex. PW-28/A showing that he had medically examined Piara Singh on 22-04-83 at about 9.30 p.m. at Civil Hospital, Dasuya has been acquitted.The acquittal of that accused Dr. Amrik Singh shows that the prosecution has not been able to establish that Dr. Amrik Singh had prepared a false MLC(Ex. PW-28/A) and if that be so, it has to be held that the MLC Ex. PW-28/A was a genuine document.It was this very document which was sought to be shown as a forged document by the prosecution and it has failed to do that.PW-28 Dr. Ramgopal Singh, who was also working in the Civil Hospital, Dasuya has proved the aforesaid MLC, which is an attested copy of the original and this witness claims to have attested the copy of the MLC after comparing it with the original.He has also claimed that this MLC was signed by Dr. Basra.Since accused Resham Singh was claiming that Piara Singh had, in fact, been medically examined and this MLC was prepared at the time of his medical examination and the prosecution which was claiming the same to be a forged document, has failed to show that this was a forged MLC it has to be held that Piara Singh was actually medically examined by Dr. Amrik Singh at the Civil Hospital, Dasuya on 22-04-83 at 9.30 p.m. In these circumstances the statement of PW-7 Iqbal Singh to the effect that on 22-04-83 at 11.30 p.m. appellants Piara Singh and Kewal Singh were present at the taxi stand of Ber Sarai where according to him Gurdhian Singh was murdered becomes unacceptable.There is another reason also for us to accept the plea of alibi taken by the accused Piara Singh and the supporting pleas taken by his co-accused persons and to doubt the prosecution case regarding the involvement of Piara Singh and Kewal Singh in the incident of murder as was sought to be established through the testimony of PW-7 Iqbal Singh.In order to substantiate the allegation that on 22-4-83 Piara Singh was not arrested by the Punjab Police as had been claimed in the aforesaid kalandara by the appellant Resham Singh and he had also not been medically examined around 9.30 p.m. on 22-04-83 by the acquitted accused Dr. Amrik Singh at the Civil Hospital, Dasuya the prosecution had examined PW-31 HC Gurdev Chand, who on 22-04-83 was posted as a constable at Dasuya police station.He was examined to show that he had not got Piara Singh medically examined on 22-04-83 and that somebody had forged his signature on the MLC Ex.PW-28/A which showed that he had taken Piara Singh for medical examination.This witness, however, claimed that on 22-04-83 he was posted as a driver constable at Dasuya police station and on that day he had taken one person for medical examination and that MLC Ex.PW-23/Q bore his signature at point 'B'.This MLC, as noticed already, was according to the prosecution case a forged document but the learned trial Court has not accepted the same and has acquitted the accused who had allegedly prepared this false MLC.Since this witness did not support the prosecution he was cross-examined by the public prosecutor.In that cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the signature at point 'B' on Ex. PW-23/Q was not his.When he was cross-examined on behalf of the accused Resham Singh he categorically accepted the suggestion that the SHO had directed him to take Piara Singh to hospital for medical examination.This witness also admitted that on 22-04-83 at about 8/8.15 p.m. one person had come to the police station and had informed the SHO that some incident had taken place at the bus stand and then he(PW-31) along with the SHO went to the bus stand where they found accused Piara Singh creating nuisance.He further claimed that the SHO had tried to pacify Piara Singh but Piara Singh started abusing on which the SHO wrote an application and directed him to take Piara Singh to the hospital for medical examination which he did.This witness was not further cross-examined by the public prosecutor after he had made this statement in his cross-examination on behalf of the accused regarding Piara Singh having been found creating nuisance and his having taken Piara Singh to the hospital for medical examination.Therefore, the statement of this prosecution witness went unchallenged and stood admitted by the prosecution.Thus, the evidence of this prosecution witness himself who was examined to establish that he had not got Piara Singh medically examined on 22-04-83 on the contrary has substantiated the plea of alibi taken by appellant Piara Singh.The learned trial Court although referred to the statement of PW-31 HC Gurdev Chand while narrating the evidence of various prosecution witnesses but did not accept the same on the ground that he had not recorded any entry in the DD register while leaving the police station for getting medical examination of Piara Singh done nor even arrival entry was made by him on his return to the police station from the hospital.In our view this reasoning of the learned trial Judge is not sound enough to be sustained.As observed already, PW-31 was not cross-examined by the public prosecutor after he had stated in his cross-examination on behalf of the accused that he had taken Piara Singh to hospital for medical examination after he had been arrested by the SHO at a bus stand for creating nuisance.Even when earlier this witness was cross-examined by the public prosecutor it was not suggested to him that his statement that he had taken one person for medical examination on 22-04-83 was false statement.This witness had denied the suggestion that on the MLC Ex. PW-23/Q(another copy of this MLC was marked as Ex. PW-28/A also) the signature at point 'B' purporting to be his signature were not his.The prosecution has not made any attempt to show that on the MLC of Piara Singh prepared at Dasuya hospital PW-31 had not put his signature in token of his having received the same after medical examination of Piara Singh.When the concerned person claims that the MLC was having his signature at point 'B' there is no reason to reject his statement and to hold that somebody had forged his signature.Another reason given by the learned trial Judge for disbelieving the statement of PW-31 is that PW-30 constable Surender Nath has not claimed that he had accompanied Gurdev Chand for the medical examination of anybody on 22-04-83 as claimed by Gurdev Chand.There is no doubt that PW-31 had claimed that constable Surender Nath had also accompanied him when he had taken Piara Singh for medical examination and PW-30 constable Surender Nath does not claim so but in our view that also cannot be a ground to reject the testimony of PW-31 which has remained unchallenged on behalf of the prosecution.Another reason given by the learned trial Court for disbelieving the plea of arrest of Piara Singh at Dasuya on 22-04-83 is PW-30 Ct.Surender Nath, who was posted as a constable at Dasuya police station on 22-04-83, has deposed that on 22-04-83 he along with HC Resham Singh and another constable had left the police station for patrol and their duty was from 4 p.m. to 12 midnight.He further deposed that in his presence HC Resham Singh has not arrested any person that day between 4 p.m. to 12 midnight.Accused Resham Singh has not claimed that he had arrested Piara Singh.As noticed already, his stand was that SHO Gursewak Singh(the deceased accused) had arrested Piara Singh and he himself had simply prepared the kalandara as instructed by Gursewak Singh.Therefore, PW-30 claiming that Resham Singh had not arrested anyone on 22-04-83 does not in any way demolish the plea of alibi taken by Piara Singh.The afore said finding of the learned trial Court based on this statement of PW-30 appears to have been arrived at by the learned trial Judge without taking into consideration the plea taken by accused Resham Singh.Yet another reason given by the learned trial Court for not accepting the arrest of Piara Singh at Dasuya is that the DD register containing entry No. 13 showing the arrest of Piara Singh at Dasuya had been tampered with by tearing of some of the pages of that register including the one which contained the genuine entry No. 13 and replacing those pages with other pages after making an entry No. 13 showing the arrest of Piara Singh.In this regard trial court has also placed reliance on the CFSL report which says that some pages in the DD register of the month of April,1983 including the one containing the entry of arrest of Piara Singh were different from other pages and appeared to have been inserted after tearing original pages.The learned trial Court, however, has not returned any finding as to who had changed the pages of the DD register and the prosecution has also not led any evidence to show as to who was the custodian of that register.For the fore-going conclusions arrived at by us, all these three appeals deserve to be allowed and the three appellants have become entitled to be acquitted.","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgmentand order dated 23.2.2005 of Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), by whichthe appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed and their convictionunder Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC and sentence of 7 years RIimposed thereunder by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, was affirmed.The appellant no. 2, Kadubai is the motherof the appellant no. 1 and both the appellants were residing in the samehouse in village Palshi.According to the case of prosecution, a sum of Rs.5000 and some gold ornaments had been given at the time of marriage ofBhimabai.For about six months Bhimabai was treated well but thereafter theaccused started asking her to bring Rs. 1,000-1,200 from her parents tomeet the household expenses and also for purchasing manure.WheneverBhimabai went to her parental home, she used to tell her parents that herhusband and mother-in-law (accused appellants) were harassing her and usedto occasionally beat her.Her father PW.1 Tukaram along with some of hisrelatives went to the house of the accused and tried to persuade them notto ill-treat Bhimabai.Thereafter, the accused treated Bhimabai properlybut after about four months they again started harassing her.A few daysbefore Nag Panchami festival Bhimabai came to her parental home andcomplained that the accused were not giving her proper food, clothings andeven footwear.She also told her parents that her husband had asked her tobring an amount of Rs.1,000-1,200 for the purpose of household expenses andmanure.The case of the prosecution futher is that in the evening of15.9.1991 a person came from village Palshi on a motorcycle and informedPW.1 Tukaram that Bhimabai was unwell.PW.1 then immediately went to thehouse of the accused along with some of his relatives.There he saw thatBhimabai was lying dead and froth was coming out of her mouth whichindicated that she had consumed some poisonous substance.The Police Patilof the village PW.3 Sandu Mohanrao Patil lodged an accidental death reportat 9.00 p.m. on 15.9.1991 at the police station.On the basis of the saidaccidental death report, PW.6 Sandeepan Kamble, Police Sub-Inspector,visited the house of the accused, held inquest on the dead body ofBhimabai, and thereafter sent the same for post-mortem examination.The last time Bhimabai visited her parentalhome was on the occasion of the festival of Nag Panchami and she hadcomplained that she was being ill-treated and was sometimes given beatingfor bringing money from her parents.She has specifically stated that for aperiod of six months after the marriage, Bhimabai was treated well andthereafter she had started complaining about the harassment being caused toher.In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not makedetailed enquiries as to what was the cause of death and where the incidenthad taken place.He has further deposed that Bhimabai had come to his houseabout six months earlier and had said all was not well between her and herhusband, but she had not given any specific details.The main witnesses regarding the alleged demand of money and alsoharassment and beating to Bhimabai are her father and mother, viz., PW.1Tukaram and PW.5 Sumanbai.In his examination-in-chief PW.1 has said thatwhenever his daughter came to her parental home, she used to complain thatshe was being subjected to harassment by the appellants on account of some""domestic reasons"" and further that her husband (appellant no.1) had toldher that while coming back from her parental home she should bring Rs.1,000-1,200 for expenses and for manure as he had no sufficient money.JUDGMENTG.P. MATHUR, J. :PW.1Tukaram lodged the FIR of the incident at 7.00 p.m. on 16.9.1991 at P.S.Chikalthana, on the basis of which Case Crime No. 144 of 1991 wasregistered against the appellants under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B IPC.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted againstthe appellants and in due course, the case was committed to the Court ofSessions.The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 498-A,304-B read with Section 34 IPC and Section 306 read with Section 34 IPCagainst both the appellants.The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimedto be tried.The prosecution in order to establish its case examined sixwintesses and filed some documentary evidence.The post-mortem examination on the body of deceased Bhimabai wasconducted by a team of two doctors of Department of Forensic Medicine andToxicology, Medical College, Aurangabad, namely, Dr. S.M. Jawale and Dr.The doctors did not find any sign of external orinternal injury on the body of the deceased and in their opinion, the causeof death was insecticide poisoning.The viscera was preserved for chemicalanalysis.The report of the post-mortem examination was admitted by thedefence.The specific case of the prosecution is that Bhimabai ended her life byconsuming poison because of harassment caused to her by the appellants foror in connection with demand of dowry.It is, therefore, necessary tobriefly examine the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.PW. 1 Tukaram,father of the deceased, has given details of the prosecution version of theincident in his statement in Court.He has deposed that in the marriage hehad given Rs. 20,000 as dowry.Initially, Bhimabai was treated well forabout six months, but thereafter the appellants started ill-treating her.Whenever Bhimabai came to her parental home, she used to complain that forsome domestic reasons she was being harassed.When she had visited herparental home on the last occasion, she had said that her husband Appasahebhad asked her to bring Rs. 1,000-1,200 for domestic expenses and forpurchasing manure as he had no sufficient money.Bhimabai had complained tohim that she was not being given proper food, clothings and even footwearand occasionally the appellant no. 1 used to beat her.The last time shevisited her parental home was during the festival of Nag Panchami and atthat time she looked depressed.The witness has further deposed that on thedate of incident, a man came from village Palshi on motorcycle and informedthat he should immediately go there as Bhimabai was not well.He then wentto village Palshi along with other persons of his family where he reachedafter sun set.He saw that Bhimabai was lying dead and froth was coming outof her mouth which was smelling of Thimet (insecticide).He has also deposed that it was after about 1-1/2 years ofmarriage that Bhimabai first complained to him about the harassment beingcaused to her.There used to be some bickering in the marital life ofBhimabai and her husband on trifling matters.He has admitted that it wasappellant no. 1 who had sent a person on motorcycle who had giveninformation regarding Bhimabai being unwell and that both the appellantswere present at the time of her funeral.PW.2 Babaji is real brother offather-in-law of PW.1 Tukaram.He has deposed that on an earlier occasionhe had gone along with PW.1 and some others to the house of appellant no.1to persuade him not to harass Bhimabai and to treat her well.In his cross-examination he has admitted that when he had gone to village Palshi to talkwith the appellants regarding the ill-treatment being meted out toBhimabai, there was no talk regarding monetary giving and taking.He alsoadmitted that he had not gone to attend that funeral of Bhimabai.PW.5Sumanbai is the mother of the deceased Bhimabai.She has stated in herexamination-in-chief that Bhimabai was being ill-treated by the appellantsand the reason for ill-treatment was that they were demanding money to bebrought from her parental home.In her cross-examination, PW.5 Sumanbai has stated that after newsabout the condition of Bhimabai was given by a man from village Palshi, shealong with her husband and some other relations went there and noticed thatBhimabai was lying dead in the house and froth was coming out of her mouth.She has further stated that she did not make any enquiry as to how Bhimabaihad died.In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which was recordedvery next day of the incident i.e. on 16.9.1991 she did not state thatcause of ill-treatment was ""a demand for money and a consequent beating"".When confronted with her aforesaid statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., shereplied that she did not know why there was no mention in the saidstatement that the cause for ill-treatment was ""a demand for money and aconsequent beating"".She further stated that it will be correct to say thather daughter was receiving ill-treatment as a result of ""domestice cause"".The learned trial Judge then sought clarification from the witnessses byputting the following question.""Que:- What do you mean by ""domestic cause""?Ans.:- What I meant was that there was demand for money fordefraying expenses of manure etc. and that was the cause.""In the very next paragraph she stated as under :-""It is not true to suggest that in my statement before the police I never said that ill-treatment was as a result of demand for money from us and its fulfillment.I cannot assign any reason why police did not write about it in my statement.""3 Sandu, Police Patil of village Palshi has deposed that at about4.20 p.m. on 15.9.1991, Narayan who is uncle of appellant no.1, Appasaheb,informed him that the wife of Appasaheb had expired.He then went to thehouse of the appellant and saw Bhimabai lying with froth coming out of hermouth.Thereafter, he gave a report about the incident in writing at thepolice station.PW.5Sumanbai has deposed that Bhimabai was receiving ill-treatment as a resultof ""domestic cause"" and to a specific question put by the Court as to whatshe meant by ""domestic cause"" she gave a reply that there was a demand formoney for defraying expenses of manure etc. It is important to note that inher statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which was recorded on the very nextday of the death of Bhimabai, this witness did not state that the cause forill-treatment was ""a demand for money and a consequent beating"".Theevidence on record does not indicate that the police had any reason tofavour the accused and deliberately omitted to mention about the allegeddemand of money while recording the statement of PW.5 Sumanbai underSection 161 Cr.P.C. The evidence shows that the accused come from veryhumble background and they could not have exerted any kind of influence,financial or otherwise, upon the police so as to manage a statementfavourable to them when in the course of investigation the statements ofwitnesses were being recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Accepting thestatements of father and mother on their face value that utmost which canbe held is that the appellant no.1 had asked his wife Bhimabai to bringmoney for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure.Asalready stated, the appellants were also charged under Sections 498-A and306 read with Section 34 IPC but were acquitted of the said charges by thelearned Sessions Judge, which order has attained finality for the reasonthat the State did not prefer appeal agains the same.The appeal before theHigh Court and also in this Court has been preferred by the appellantschallenging their coviction under section 304-B read with section 34 IPC.It has been held in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Thadi Narayan, AIR (1962) SC240 that Section 423(1)(b)(i) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (whichcorresponds to Section 386(b)(i) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) isclearly confined to cases of appeals preferred against orders of convictionand sentence, the powers conferred by this clause cannot be exercised forthe purpose of reversing an order of acquittal passed in favour of a partyin respect of an offence charged, in dealing with an appeal preferred byhim against the order of conviction in respect of another offence chargedand found proved.","['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard finally.This is the first bail application on behalf of the applicants under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicants are in custody since 21.06.2014 in connection with Crime No.577/2014 registered at Police Station Kolgowan, District Satna (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 376- G and 506 of IPC.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.It is further submitted that initially a case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC on the basis of FIR, however, thereafter after recording the statement of married major prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., section 376- G of IPC is added.The applicants are in custody and conclusion of trial would take considerable time.On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the applicants be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State vehemently opposed the application.Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the material available on record, without commenting upon the merits M.Cr.C.No.10776 of 2014 2 of the case, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicants deserves to be and is hereby allowed.It is directed that applicant Jaswant Balmik and applicant No.2 Chhotu Basor be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 / - (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court /trial Court securing their presence before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.Certified copy as per rules.(SUBHASH KAKADE) JUDGE SJ/-","['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"07.8.13 Item No. 93 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 93And In the matter of: Sk. Mujibor Ali @ Sk. Dilkush Ali & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal & Ors.Opposite Parties Mr. Milon Mukherjee Mr. Kamal Kanta Kar For the Petitioners Mr. Sandip Kundu For the State Mr. Tapan Dutta Gupta Mr. Atis Biswas Mr. Suman Chakraborty For the de facto complainant The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Arambag Police Station Case No. 476 dated 17.7.2013 under Sections 498A/323/325/406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.The Petitioners are all relatives of the husband of the complainant.We have heard the learned Advocates for the Parties.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record.ALLOWED Hence in the event of arrest, the Petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of `10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties each, one of whom must be a local surety, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and with the further condition that the Petitioner Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 7 will meet the concerned Police Station once a week until further orders.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)","['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"PARIPOORNAN, J.:The appellants in this appeal, Prem Kumar Singh (a),Prem Singh S/o Mundrika Singh and Ramesh Singh S/o ChandrikaSingh are Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Trial No. 219 of1983, Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau.The abovetwo accused, along with one Mundrika Singh, Accused No. 6,father of Accused No. 1 Prem Singh, and eight others werecharge-sheeted to stand Sessions Trial for the murder of oneTarkeshwar Prasad Singh on 13.1.1983 at 6.30 p.m. at a placeknown as Ketat.Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were charged for of-Thedefence plea was that the death of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singhin the bus, belonging to Santosh Transport Company, mighthave been caused at the hands of some unknown dacoits andthe accused persons have been falsely implicated by theinformant because of long drawn enmity between the parties.The plea of alibi was also put forward by Accused No. 6Mundrika Singh, Accused No. 1 Prem Singh, Accused No. 10Raja Dixit and Accused No. 7 Muni Dixit.On an analysis ofthe entire evidence in the case, the Additional SessionsJudge, Palamau, by judgment dated 9.6.1987, held that oninstigation given by Accused No. 6 Mundrika Singh to killTarkeshwar Prasad Singh, the deceased, Accused No. 1 PremSingh and Accused No. 2 Ramesh Singh intentionally causedthe death of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh by firing at him withtheir rifles in consequence of which Tarkeshwar Prasad Singhdied instantaneously on the spot.TheSessions Judge came to the conclusion that there isabsolutely no evidence of any other attack by the remainingaccused persons (other than Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6).Theoffence under section 27 of the Arms Act was also not provedagainst such persons.In the result Accused No. 6 MundrikaSingh was found guilty under section 302 read with section34 IPC and convicted thereunder.Accused Nos. 1 and 2 werefound guilty for offence under section 302 IPC for causingthe murder of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh and they wereconvicted thereunder.They were also found guilty foroffence under section 307 IPC for attempting to commit themurder of PW 5 and 6 and were accordingly convicted.Accused No. 6 Mundrika Singh and oneChandrika Singh are brothers.Accused No. 1 Prem Singh isthe son of Mundrika Singh.Accused No. 2 Ramesh Singh isthe son of Chandrika Singh.It is alleged that one Rajan,brother of Accused No. 1 Prem Singh, and Bishwanath, brotherof Accused No. 2 Ramesh Singh, were murdered by TarkeshwarPrasad Singh.The case was stillpending when the incident relevant to the instant casehappened on 13.1.1983 at about 6.30 p.m. at Ketat.It isfairly clear from the evidence in the case, that enmityexists between the members of the appellants' family andthose of the deceased family.The prosecution alleged thaton 13.1.1983 after attending the hearing of the murder caseof Rajan and Bishwanath at Daltonganj, Tarkeshwar PrasadSingh accompanied by Bashishth Narain Singh, PW 8, as alsoSheo Pratap Singh and Ramadhar Pathak, boarded the busbearing Registration No. BRO 3555 of Santosh TransportCompany, for returning to Rehla at 5.30 p.m., and the busstopped for a while at the stop of Ketat, when car bearingRegistration No. WMB 5989 came from behind and stopped infront of the bus.The time was about 6.30 p.m. Then AccusedNos. 2 and 6 and their colleagues Satyender Singh, MunniDixit got down from the car.Accused No. 6 was empty handedbut the remaining persons were armed with rifles.In themeanwhile Jeep bearing Registration No. BRO 2770, which alsoarrived from the side of Daltonganj, stopped in front of thebus.From that Jeep, Accused No. 1, armed with a rifle, andhis colleagues Rajeshwar Singh, Bishwanath Singh, ParsuramDixit, Basistha Dixit, Fakira Dixit and Chandardhan Singhand two other unknown persons, all armed with guns alike,alighted.The accused and other co-culprits startedproclaiming that as Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh was inside thebus, he should be cut into pieces.On hearing this, thepassengers of the bus were struck with terror and startedfleeing away.Passengers were in the process of gettingdown from front and rear entrances.At that time AccusedNos.1 and 2 came inside the bus from the front entrance.PW 8 Dudhnath Singh, in order to hide his identity, hadwrapped his face with the chadar and rushed towards the backdoor of the bus, when he saw Accused Nos. 1 and 2 firingindiscriminately at Tarkeshwar126Prasad Singh.In that firing Ram Raj Pandey - PW 5, aforest guard, and Ghanshyam Languri - PW 6, a police offi-cial, also received injuries.PW 8 Dudhnath Singh had bythat time managed to get down from the bus like many otherpassengers and he concealed himself nearby in thick bushes.On knowing that Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh had died, theaccused and others raised victory slogans and fled towardsDaltonganj in their car and jeep.On hearing the news, SubInspector Sachchidanand Deo, PW 14, entered the informationas Entry No. 195 (Ex. 4) at 7.00 p.m. in Rehla PoliceStation and rushed to the place of occurrence, arrivingthere at 7.15 p.m. On seeing the police PW 8 Dudhnath Singhcame out of the hiding and made a statement (Ex. 5) whichwas sent to the Police Station, Bishrampur and on this basisthe case was registered vide FIR (Ex. 7) at 9.00 p.m. PW 5and 6 were transported to Daltonganj hospital.Though thesearch was made for the culprits they were not found.TheSub Inspector retained to the spot at about 1.30 a.m. andprepared the inquest report with respect to the dead body ofTarkeshwar Prasad Singh.PW 1 Bashishth Narain Singhand Bipin Bihari Singh attested the documents prepared atthe spot.The dead body of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh wassubjected to postmortem examination by Dr. R.K.P. Pandey (PW4).No doubt he had developedweakness in the eyes two months prior to the date ofexamination, but he had clear vision and his eyes werealright at the time of the occurrence.He admitted that hehad given statement before the police that Ramesh Singh andPrem Singh started firing at Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh afterentering into the bus.He heard the noise of firing when hewas fleeing from the bus and also heard the shout ofTarkeshwar Prasad Singh to save him.PW 2 Ran Vijay PratapDeo, deposed that he boarded Santosh Bus in the evening tocome back to Rehla along with PW 1, PW 8 and TarkeshwarPrasad Singh and when the bus halted near Ketat village todrop some passengers, a fiat car came from Daltonganjdirection and stopped before the bus.Accused Ramesh Singhand others with rifles in the hands, and Mundrika Singh gotdown.Mundrika Singh's hands were empty.A jeep also camefrom behind and Prem Singh and others got down from the jeepwith the rifles.The jeep and the car surrounded the busand thereafter, he heard the noise of firing from the busgate.Prem Singh and Ramesh Singh were standing near thefront gate of the bus with rifle.The moment he came out ofthe bus, he heard the noise of firing andsimultaneously theshout of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh.fence under section 302 read with section 34 IPC for causingthe murder of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh.They were alsocharged for offence under section 307/34 IPC for attemptingto cause murder of Ghanshyam Languri and Rajnath Tewari, twoco-passengers, who boarded the bus along with TarkeshwarPrasad Singh.The remaining nine accused persons werecharged for offences under section 302/ 149 IPC.6 Mundrika Singh was charged for offence, under section147 IPC also, whereas the ten other accused persons werefurther charged for offence under section 148 IPC read withsection 27 of the Arms Act. All the accused persons pleadednot guilty for each of the charges framed against them.Exceptaccused Nos. 1 and 2 and 6, the other accused were notfound guilty for any of the charges framed against them andthey were acquitted and discharged from the liability oftheir respective bail bonds.Accused Nos. 1 and 2 weresentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302 IPC.Accused No. 6 was also sentenced to imprisonment for lifeunder section 302 read with section 34 IPC.Accused Nos. 1and 2 were further sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for seven years for their conviction under sec-tion 307 IPC.It was further held that both the sentencespassed against the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall runconcurrently.Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6 filed Criminal AppealNo. 90 of 1987 before the High Court of Patna, Ranchi Bench,Ranchi.A Division Bench of the High Court, after a verydetailed discussion of the entire evidence, by Judgmentdated 8.9.1989, acquitted accused No. 6 Mundrika Singh andcon-firmed the conviction of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 under section302 of the Indian Penal Code.The conviction of AccusedNos.1 and 2 under section 307 IPC was set aside.The HighCourt observed that the case of Accused No. 6 Mundrika Singhis not free from doubt and the case against him appears tobe similar to the other co-accused, who were acquitted bythe Sessions Judges.In this view, the conviction ofAccused No. 6 Mundrika Singh, appellant No. 3 before theHigh Court, was set aside and be was acquitted of thecharge.But as regards Accused Nos. 1 and 2 the High Courtcame to the conclusion that though their conviction andsentence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code areliable to be set aside, their conviction and sentence undersection 302 IPC were justified.We heard Sri Rajender Singh, learned senior counsel forthe appellants and Sri H.L. Agrawal, learned senior counselfor the respondent.Statements of driver, conductor and other witnesseswere recorded- The accused surrendered in court and werearrested later and chargesheeted.One of the accusedChandardhan Singh was subsequently murdered on 23.6.1983.Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6 were sentenced and other accusedwere acquitted by Sessions Judge.The postmortem examination of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singhwas conducted by PW 4 on 14.1.1983 at 10.50 a.m. atSubdivisional Hospital, Daltonganj.The record relatingthereto discloses the following injuries : -Six oval lacerated wounds with inverted margins of the sizes varying from 1/4"" to 1/2""in diameter on the middle and left side of the front of the chest;One oval lacerated wound with inverted margins of the size 3/4"" in diameter on the upper part of the left side of abdomen with two metal pieces embodied in the wound;Three circular lacerated wounds with inverted margins of the sizes varying from 1/4"" to 1/2"" in diameter on the right shoulder with blackening of the skin around the wound.Fractures of the body of the external bones of third, fourth, fifth and sixth ribs and cartilages on the right side, as well as the fourth, fifth and sixth ribs and on the left side were noticed.The third and the fourth thorazix vertebra, the right of devicles, right scapula, and the upper part of the numerous on the right side were also found fractured.Injury Nos. 1 and 3 referred to above were wounds of entry, while injury No. 2 was the wound of exit.All the above injuries were caused by fire arms.Death of Tarkeshwar Singh had been caused by shock and hemorrhage as a result of above noted injuries.The time elapsed since death was with 12 to 18 hours of the postmortem examination.All the injuries individually were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Ext. 3 is the postmortem examination.The medical examination of PW 5 Ram Raj Pandey on 13.1.1983conducted by Dr. K. Singh disclosed the following:Lacerated wound on left side of neck 1"" x 1/2"" surrounded by charring of skin.The X-ray plate dated 14.1.1983 showed a big oblique subset with small radio opaque particle.It was a skin (deep) injury caused by afire arm, may be a rifle.Age of the injury was within 24 hours.Ex. 2 is medico legal certificate.Dr. K. Singh, who examined PW 6 found the following injury:-One lacerated wound on left side of the shoulder 3 "" x 1"".The depth could not be probed.This injury was surrounded by charring skin.The X-ray plate no. 41 dated 14.1.1983 showed three shots on the upper left side of back.It was simple in nature caused by afire arm such as a rifle or gun.Age of the injury was within 12 hours.Ext.2/1 is the medico legal certificate.As stated earlier, the plea of the appellants was thatthe prosecution allegations are untrue and that they wereinnocent.Accused Nos. 1 and 6 and two other accusedadvanced the plea of alibi and examined DW 1 to 3 in supportof the same.The said evidence did not find favour with thetrial court.The appellants also examined DW 4 Kuldip Royand DW 5 Priya Brat Singh to show that Tarkeshwar PrasadSingh was a terror.Certain crucial aspects appearing in the case deserveto be highlighted.Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh was shot deadinside the bus bearing Registration No. BRO 3555 at the busstop Ketat at about 6.30 p.m. on 13.1.1983.The deceased metwith instantaneous death.PW 1, PW 2, PW 5 an PW 8 are theeye witnesses.PW 8 lodge FIR on the same day at 7.30 p.m.PW 5, forest guard, was a co-passenger and independentwitness.Thepostmortem report and the evidence of PW 4 proves that theinjury resulted due to shots of fire arms.There was,admittedly enmity between the family of the informants andthat of the accused.Deceased Tarkeshwar Prasad singh,along with PW 1, 2, 8 and PW 5 & 6, and few others wasreturning in the bus belonging to Santosh Transport Company,on 13.1,1983, after attending the murder case of Rajan andBishwanath.The prosecution states that Prem Singh andRamesh Singh (Accused Nos 1 and 2), who came from behind inthe jeep and the car along with few others, fired fatalshots at Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh with their rifles infurtherance of common intention of the other accused per-sons, which caused the instantaneous death of TarkeshwarPrasad Singh.The courts below have concurrently held thatthe motive suggested by the prosecution against the accusedpersons is established.We shall discuss in brief theevidence of the four cye-witnesses PW 1,2,5 and 8, to theextent it is necessary to show how far the prosecution hasestablished its case.The main arguments advanced before us onbehalf of theappellants-accused are (a) PW 1 to 8 arc not really eyewitnesses and they were not able to depose, who fired thefinal shot and when; (b) the shot received by TarkeshwarPrasad Singh is of the gun and not of the rifle as spoken tothe prosecution witness; (c) there is inconsistency in theprosecution evidence, and what is more the statement in FIRis not fully substantiated.We were taken through the evidence of PW 1, and 4(medical witness), PW 5 independent witness (Forest Guard)and PW 8 - first informant and PW 12, We have also gonethrough the FIR appearing at pages 51-54 (paper book No. IIIAnnexure p-10) and also the statement given by the accusedin their examination under Section 313 of Criminal ProcedureCode.He knew Mundrika Singh, Ramesh Singh andPrem Singh for a long time.He also speaks about theenmity between the accused and Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh.Ac-cording to him, there was indiscriminate firing in the bus.PW 5, a forest officer and independent witness, statedbefore the Court that he boarded Santosh Bus at Daltonganjbus stand on 13.1.1983 and when the bus stopped in front ofKetat village, 5-6 persons surrounded the bus and startedfiring indiscriminately.He was injured due to firingTarkeshwar Prasad Singh died inside the bus, hit by the bul-let.Persons firing were outside the bus next to the busdoor and were firing inside.The bullet hit the witnessafter breaking the glass of the bus window.He knewTarkeshwar Prasad Singh before since he was a forestcontractor.PW -8 Dudhnath Singh, who gave the FIRavailable at pages 51-54 of Volume III of the paper book, isthe brother-in-law of the deceased Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh.In the FIR he has stated that along with Tarkeshwar PrasadSingh, PW 1, 2 and others, they boarded the bus atDaltonganj' and when the bus reached Ketat village at about6.45 in the evening to drop a passenger, a car, belonging toChandrika Singh, bearing No. WHB 5989, came overtaking thebus and stopped in front of It.The passengers, sitting init, got down and were armed with guns and rifles.Herecognised those persons Among them Ramesh Singh, AccusedNo. 2, and others had rifles.immediately after this thejeep, bearing No. BRO 770, came and Prem Singh, Accused 1,and others got down with rifles in hand.All the persons inthe car and the jeep surrounded the standing bus and saidthat 'sala' Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh is in he should be takenout and cut into pieces.The persons traveling inside thestarted begging for life and started fleeing.Prem Singhand Ramesh Singh were identifying the, passengers and PW 8,by hiding his face, got down from the rear gate.TarkeshwarPrasad Singh was in the back.As soon as the witnessreached the rear gate, he saw Prem Singh and Ramesh Singhentering the bus from the front gate with their rifles andstarted indiscriminate firing on Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh.The130witness ran outside to save his life, but while running heheard Tarkeshwar Singh's shouts from inside the bus.He hidhimself in nearby bushes.The reason for this murder isthat Prem Singh, Ramesh Singh and others had enmity towardsTarkeshwar Prasad Singh and wanted to take revenge due tothe pending murder case of Rajan and Bishwanath inDaltonganj.As PW 8, the witness, substantiallycorroborated what he stated in the FIR.He deposed that hewas travelling along with Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh, PW 1 andothers in the bus belonging to Santosh Transport Company.At about 6.45 p.m. at Ketat village the bus stopped to dropa passenger when a Fiat car bearing No. WHB 5989 stopped infront of the bus and Ramesh Singh and others came out of thesame with rifles and thereafter a jeep bearing No. BRO 2770came and Prem Singh and others got down out of the jeep withrifles and all of them abusing Tarkeshwar Prasad Singhstated that he should be cut into pieces.Prem Singh andRamesh Singh stood near the front door of the bus and firedshots with rifles.PW 8 was successful in fleeing away bycovering his face with a chadar.He saw that TarkeshwarPrasad Singh got injured by the bullet inside the bus.Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh was behind him when firing had takenplace.He did not see bullet being fired on any otherpassenger other than Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh.who was a forest guard, was injured, hit by abullet.The FIR available at pages 51-54 of volume III ofthe paper book and the deposition of the eye witnesses, PW1, PW 2, PW 5 and PW 8, of when PW 5 is an independentwitness, clearly bring out the fact that Accused Nos. 1 and2 came in a jeep and a car with rifles, with a few otherpersons, that they got into the bus from the front and firedindiscriminately at Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh.PW 5, a forestofficer as an independent witness, who himself sustained in-juries, has also stated that Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh diedinside the bus due to hit by the bullets. 'Mere is nocontradiction with regard to the crucial aspects, namely,that these witnesses travelled with Tarkeshwar Prasad Singhin the same bus, that the bus stopped at Ketat village todrop a passenger, at that time Accused Nos. 1 and 2 came ina jeep and a car with rifles, from behind, along withothers, surrounded the bus and after proclaiming thatTarkeshwar Prasad Singh is inside the bus and he should becut into pieces, they entered the bus and firedindiscriminately, at Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh, which resultedin the death of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh instantaneously.Six metallic pieces recovered from the dead-bodywere properly sealed and sent to the police.All theinjuries were caused by some fire arms.The postmortem re-port - Annexure p-8, (Volume III of the paper book)-mentionsabout two metallic pieces embodied in the wounds in the up-per left side of the abdomen and also refers to a recoveryof total six metallic pieces.The postmortem report alongwith the evidence of the medical witness PW 4 substantiatesthat the injuries sustained by Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh wereas a result of shots received from the fire arms and thatthey were fatal.The direct evidencein the case, amply corroborated by the motive of theaccused, positively points out the intention of the accusedto murder Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh.Sachchidanand Deo, Inspector of Police, PW 14, whorecorded the FIR, stated that he had seized two bullet onthe front gate foot-steps of the bus and that he did notfind any rifle or gun at the place of occurrence or nearbyand that he recorded the FIR and other statements from thewitnesses etc. It is also important to notice that PW 8 hasgiven the number of the Fiat car and the jeep and PW 12Chandreshwar Upadhyay, who came along with Prem Singh injeep has categorically stated that the number of the jeep isBRO 2770 and Prem Singh regularly used to bring him in thatjeep.It willbe found from page 825 of the Report that the accused in thesaid case produced ""a 12 bore gun"" Ext. p-16, for which heheld the licence.He denied that he had firedwith the said gun.His case was that Gurnam Singh, whoreached the spot at about the time of incident, had fired atthe deceased Dalip Singh.There were certain puzzlingfeatures of the injuries of Dalip Singh, It is in thatconnection the court observed as follows:-""In a case where death is due to injuries or wounds caused by a lethal weapon, it has always been considered to be the duty of the prosecution to prove by expert evidence that it was likely or at least possible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon with which and in the manner in which they are alleged to have been caused.""The above observations were made in a case where the weapon.with which the victim sustained injuries was before theCourt and there was doubt whether the injuries could havebeen caused by using that weapon - Extp-16, in the reportedcase.In this case, the rifles used by Accused Nos. 1 and2 were never recovered.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J.)","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"M.A.13222/2017 (stay), Crl.Petitioners are the parents-in-laws of the deceased.CRL.REV.P. 605/2017 Page 1 of 6The husband and wife are alleged to have shifted to Delhi where the husband was working.It is alleged in the FIR that from time to time the husband of the deceased as well as the petitioners used to make demand for dowry and the father of the deceased would meet the demand from time to time.It is alleged that few days before her death, the father of the deceased had provided Rs.30,000/- for purchase of a TV.SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) CRL.REV.P. 605/2017 & Crl.M.A.31993/2018 (for early hearing)Petitioners impugn order dated 31.05.2017, whereby, charge has been framed against the petitioners under Section 498A/34 304B/34 IPC and an alternative charge under Sections 302/34 IPC has also been framed.Subject FIR was registered on the complaint of the father of the deceased, who contended that his daughter had got married on 25.02.2008 and she was initially living with her in-laws at their house in the village.It CRL.REV.P. 605/2017 Page 1 of 6 is alleged that immediately after marriage, petitioner No.2 started demanding dowry from her and even the petitioner No.1 - her father-in-law used to harass her.Within one year of marriage she was turned out of her matrimonial house and started residing with her parents.Subsequently, it is alleged that the parents made her understand and she went back to her matrimonial house.Further, it is alleged that the petitioners being uneducated and the deceased being a graduate was being harassed with regard to upbringing of the child.The deceased is alleged to have committed suicide on 19.06.2012 and chargesheet was filed alleging that the nature of injuries recorded in the MLC was not supportive of the theory of suicide and indicated towards the commission of offence of murder.On perusal of the record, the Trial Court framed charges against the petitioners under Sections 498A/304B read with Section 34 IPC.Alternatively, the Trial Court has framed a charge under Sections 302/34 IPC.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations with regard to demand for dowry and harassment are general and vague and CRL.REV.P. 605/2017 Page 2 of 6 there is no material to show that the petitioners were either residing with the deceased or were present at the time when she died.CRL.REV.P. 605/2017 Page 2 of 6Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Trial Court has framed an alternative charge under Section 302 IPC merely on presumption.8. Learned APP for the State as also learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that there is sufficient material to show that the deceased was subjected to demand for dowry as well as harassment from time to time on account of dowry and further the demands for dowry were met by the parents of the deceased from time to time.Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that a cheque for Rs.1,44,000/- was given to the petitioner No.1 to meet his demand for dowry.It is disputed by the petitioners that the said amount was given towards dowry.Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Trial Court has framed an alternative charge under Section 302 IPC raising a negative presumption.The Trial Court has inter alia held as under:-""From the material on record, I am of the view that there is prima facie case for framing charge against accused Babu Lai Jha and Urmila Devi u/s. 498-A/34 and 304-B/34 IPC.As far as alternative charge u/s. 302 IPC is concerned, since the presence of these two accused at the spot is neither confirmed nor ruled out, it is better to frame charge in the alternative u/s. 302/34 IPC as well.Charges framed accordingly to which both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.""A charge cannot be framed solely on a presumption that their presence is neither confirmed nor ruled out.For framing a charge, grave suspicion is required to be shown by the prosecution of the involvement of the accused in the subject offence.Coming to the charge under Sections 498A and 304B/34 IPC, I am prima facie of the view that there is sufficient material to give rise to grave suspicion against the petitioners of having committed the subject offence.The complainant, i.e., the father of the deceased, her mother and her brother have categorically stated that from time to time demand for dowry was being raised by not only the husband but also the petitioners.They have also averred that the said demand was being met from time to time.The complainant has also alleged that few days before the death of the deceased, he had paid Rs.30,000/- for purchase of a TV.The death of the deceased has occurred within 7 years of marriage and is a death other than from natural circumstances and there are averments of the family of the deceased that soon before the death of the deceased, she was subjected to demands for dowry inter alia by the petitioners.In my prima facie view, the allegations give rise to grave suspicion of petitioners having committed an offence under Sections 498A/304B IPC and the facts, as alleged, satisfy the basic ingredients of the said Sections.In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned order insofar as it framed charges under Section 498A/34 & 304B/34 IPC against the petitioners.CRL.REV.P. 605/2017 Page 5 of 6Accordingly, the petition is allowed to the limited extent that the impugned order, insofar as it frames alternative charges under Sections 302/34 IPC against the petitioners is concerned, is set aside and the impugned order, insofar as it frames charges under Sections 498A/34 IPC and 304B/34 IPC against the petitioners is concerned, is sustained.The Trial Court shall, accordingly, modify the charges in terms of this order.The petition is disposed of in the above terms.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"As per prosecution case, on 23.5.14 at about 8 p.m. one patient Shama was admitted in Neuro Surgery Ward.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.347/14 under Sections 353, 323/34, 506-B of IPC and its subsequent criminal proceedings.The complainant asked the attendants of the patient to control the number, then petitioner and 4-5 others beat the doctors who were on duty.On the report, Crime No.347/14 under Sections 353, 323/34 and 506-B of IPC has been registered.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that parties have settled their dispute and filed an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. for compromise.3 M.Cr.","['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"By way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) the petitioners seek quashing of the criminal complaint case No. 49 of 2012 filed by respondent No.1 in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate-06 (East), Karkardooma Court, Shahdara, Delhi alleging offences under Section 499 read with Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) alongwith quashing of the summons issued pursuant thereto.Succinctly stating the facts of the present case as emerging from the petition are that marriage between petitioner No.3 and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 26.11.2001 as per Hindu rites, customs and Crl.M.C. No. 447/2013 P age 1 of 14 ceremonies.At that time, she took along with her their minor daughter who was only five years old.Since then, there have been continuous inter se disputes between petitioner No.3 and respondent No.1 which are pending adjudication before various courts.During the course of the said proceedings, pleadings were filed by the petitioners which were taken to be defamatory by respondent No.1 and accordingly a criminal complaint was filed.On the basis of the said complaint case No. 49/2012, the petitioners received summons on 01.02.2013 from the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi under Sections 500/34 IPC.It is against the said complaint case and the summons received by the petitioners that the petitioners have filed the present petition.Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that the complaint is not maintainable as the respondent No.1 has not specified the averments in the pleadings on the basis of which she is resting her claim for defamation.Pleadings filed by the petitioner in the civil proceedings as well as the statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be made the basis of the complaint for defamation.Respondent Crl.M.C. No. 447/2013 P age 2 of 14 No.1 has not identified any specific allegations/imputations made by the petitioners against her constituting an offence of defamation of respondent No.1 in public.It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the inferences drawn by respondent No.1 on the basis of circumstances and statements made during litigation between the parties cannot be considered defamatory under Sections 499/500 IPC.The police officer, who investigated the complaint of respondent No.1 and witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police, cannot be made co-accused in a defamation complaint.The petitioners have always made highly defamatory false statements.The opinion given by the IO in the closure reports without any substantive proof on record are not the acts done in official capacity and may have an effect of tarnishing the image of respondent No.1 before the public.It was also contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that despite the defamatory allegations made by the petitioners and other accused persons against respondent No.1, the trial court has ordered to file supplementary chargesheet against the petitioners after finding the truth in the protest petition of the respondent No.1 in FIR No. 273/2010 under sections 498A/406/34 IPC.I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.","['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Allowed md.Shrabanti Das and another ... Petitioners Mr. Suman Chakraborty .. for the petitioners Mr. Bidyut Kr.Roy, Mr. Arabinda Manna .. for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Onda Police Station Case No.114 of 2018 dated 07.1`0.2018 under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.The petitioners are the brother and the married sister, respectively, of the husband of the victim.There does not appear to be any witness to the incident which led to the unnatural death of the victim.1 2 Considering the material against the petitioners, their custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary.In addition, the petitioners will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer, till the investigation is completed.C.R.M. 11124 of 2018 is allowed as above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"It is pertinent to note the facts giving rise to the appeal in a detailed manner.The respondent no. 2­ complainant is the director of a money lending company by the name of Dharshan Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. The appellant, who is a retired bank employee, approached the complainant’s company in the month of January 2008 for a loan of Rs. 27,00,000/­. Accordingly, the respondent no. 2 transferred the funds as a loan, which was to be repaid by the appellant within a year with interest.N. V. R AMANA , J.1. Leave granted.Further, respondent no.2 alleged that when he approached the appellant, he was threatened by the appellant with dire consequences.Thereafter, the respondent no.2 filed a complaint based on which the FIR bearing I/C.R. No. 22/2012, dated 25.01.2012, was filed before the Kagdapith Police Station, Ahmedabad, against the present appellant under Section 406, 409, 417, 420, 294 (b) and 506 (2) of IPC.The appellant 2 preferred an application under Section 482 of the Cr.The charge sheet No. 28 of 2012 dated 01.03.2012, came to be filed against the appellant under Sections 406, 420 and 417 of IPC.Pursuant to the same, the Magistrate issued summons.The appellant alleged that on 04.12.2013, he was given a copy of the said charge sheet, and that the charges were framed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on the same day in a blank sheet without giving him an opportunity of being heard, as the appellant was unaccompanied by any counsel.In light of the aforesaid developments, the appellant filed an application seeking amendment of the prayer in Criminal Miscellaneous Application no. 4033 of 2012 wherein he sought for the inclusion of prayer seeking to quash and set aside the charge sheet no. 28/ 2012 in FIR No. I/C.R No.22/2012 and the charges framed by the Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 04.12.2013 and all further proceeding carried out in 3 Criminal Case no. 388/2012 pending before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate.It is pertinent to note that, simultaneously respondent no.2 had preferred a summary suit in Summary Civil Suit no. 928/2011 seeking the recovery of Rs.33,46,225/­ which was inclusive of the interest upon the principal amount.The same was admitted on 25.04.2011 and is still pending before the City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad.Vide order dated 12.04.2018, the High Court dismissed the quashing petition preferred by the appellant and directed the trial court to complete the trial within three months.The High Court further went on to observe that, prima facie an offence of cheating under Section 420 is made out but charge under Section 406 pertaining to criminal breach of trust is not applicable in the given factual scenario.However, the High Court did not remove the charges under Section 406 and observed that no case has been made out to get the charge quashed.Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal, the appellant has preferred the present Special Leave Petition.Moreover, it is pertinent to note that after filing Summary Suit No.928 of 2011 on 21.04.2011, the complainant has filed the written complaint dated 05.01.2012 and has attempted to give the cloak of a criminal offence to the present case which is purely civil in nature, just to harass the appellant.","['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"69.In all these revisions, the petitioner is one and the same namely, Sadasivam.pri Crl.R.C.Nos.1204, 1205, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220 and 1221 of 2008 10.01.2019http://www.judis.nic.inCriminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records made in C.C.No.70 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Vellore –http://www.judis.nic.in 2 Order dated 24.08.2007 as confirmed by Judgment made in C.A.No.284 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore – Order dated 20.3.2008, set aside the same and allow this Criminal Revision Petition.For Petitioner : Mr.P.Srinivasan For Respondents : Mr.R.Ravichandran for R1 Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Ms.T.Girija for R2 COMMON ORDER The petitioner in Crl.Whileso, on 20.10.1992, he did not disburse the loan amount of Rs.2,284/- to one Mannu Naidu, however, recorded in the relevant documents as though the amount has been disbursed.As such, the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.2,284/-.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409, 477(A) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.2.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 7 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and 14 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.3.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406, 477(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 69 of 2001 to run concurrently.The lowerhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.5.The petitioner in Crl.Whileso, the petitioner by making false entries in the records has misappropriated a sum of Rs.56,810/-.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409, 477(A) (14 counts) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.6.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 19 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.19 and 62 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.7.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406, 477(A) (one count) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 71 of 2001 to run concurrently.8.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.286 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.9.The petitioner in Crl.Whileso, on 28.03.1994, he did not disburse the amount of Rs.3,073/- to one Ravikumar, however, recorded in the relevant documents as though the amount has been disbursed.As such, the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,073/-.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409, 477(A) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.10.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 7 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and 14 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.11.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406, 477(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 offence under Section 406 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 73 of 2001 to run concurrently.12.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.288 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.13.The petitioner in Crl.Whileso, the petitioner has assisted the first accused in misappropriation of a sum of Rs.1,613/-.Hence, the petitioner washttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 charged for the offence under Section 409 r/w.109 of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.14.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 6 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and 17 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.15.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC.16.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.282 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.17.The petitioner in Crl.Whileso, the petitioner had forged the documents and misappropriated a sum of Rs.29,000/- which had to be disbursed to one Unnamalai.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409, 467, 471, 477(A) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.18.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 8 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and 25 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.19.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406, 467, 471, 477(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 467 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 471 of IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 81 of 2001 to run concurrently.20.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.296 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lowerhttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.21.The petitioner in Crl.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409 and 477(A) (28 counts) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.22.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 30 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.30 and 74 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.23.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406 and 477(A) (1 count) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 72 of 2001 to run concurrently.24.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.287 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409 r/w 34 and 477 of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.26.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 20 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.20 and 32 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.27.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406 r/w 34 and 477 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 r/w 34 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Sectionhttp://www.judis.nic.in 14 477 of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 82 of 2001 to run concurrently.28.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.297 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.29.The petitioner in Crl.Whileso, on 18.07.1995, he did not disburse the amount of Rs.3,230/- to one Sundari, however, recorded in the relevant documents as though the amount has been disbursed.As such, the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,230/-.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409 and 477(A) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.http://www.judis.nic.in 1530.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 13 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and 32 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.31.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406 and 477(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 80 of 2001 to run concurrently.32.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitionerhttp://www.judis.nic.in 16 preferred appeal in C.A.No.295 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.Whileso, he has misappropriated several amounts from several persons by not disbursing the amount to them and making false entries as though the amount has been disbursed or by disbursing the amount to another person instead of disbursing the amount to the relevant person.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409 and 477(A) (4 counts) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.34.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 8 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and 22http://www.judis.nic.in 17 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.35.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406 and 477(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 79 of 2001 to run concurrently.36.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.294 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.http://www.judis.nic.in 18Whileso, without the knowledge of one Parasuraman, the petitioner fraudulently misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,500/- and made false entries in the records as though the amount has been disbursed to the said Parasuraman.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409, 467, 471 and 477(A) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.38.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 8 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and 21 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.39.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406, 467, 471 and 477(A) of IPC andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 19 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 467 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 471 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 78 of 2001 to run concurrently.40.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.293 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.http://www.judis.nic.in 2041.The petitioner in Crl.Whileso, the petitioner fraudulently misappropriated a sum of Rs.9,400/- from several persons and made false entries in the records as though the amount has been disbursed to them.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409, 467, 471 and 477(A) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.42.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 16 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.16 and 37 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.43.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406, 467, 471 and 477(A) of IPC andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 21 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 467 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 471 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.44.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.292 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.Whileso, the petitioner fraudulently misappropriated several amounts by making false entries in the records as though the amounts have been paid to the persons who did not own agricultural land, however, the amounts were not paid to them.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409 and 477(A) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.46.When the petitioner was questioned under Section 313 (1) (A) of Cr.P.C. about the incriminating materials available against him, he said that inorder to dismiss him from service a false case has been foisted against him.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 8 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and 20 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.47.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406 and 477(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and to undergo rigoroushttp://www.judis.nic.in 23 imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 76 of 2001 to run concurrently.48.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.291 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.49.The petitioner in Crl.Whileso, the petitioner fraudulently misappropriated several amounts from several persons, by receiving the amounts from them and not making entries in the relevant records; by making false entries in the records as though the amounts have been disbursed tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 24 the relevant persons and by giving only part payment however made false entries in the records as though the entire amounts were paid to them.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409 and 477(A) (151 counts) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.50.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 51 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.51 and 124 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.51.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406 and 477(A) (1 count) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 25 Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 75 of 2001 to run concurrently.52.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.290 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.53.The petitioner in Crl.Whileso, without the knowledge of one Ganesan, the petitioner fraudulently misappropriated a sum of Rs.4,000/- and made false entries in the records as though the amount has been disbursed to the said Ganesan.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409, 467, 471 and 477(A) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.http://www.judis.nic.in 2654.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 9 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and 25 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.55.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406, 467, 471 and 477(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 467 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 471 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 27 run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 74 of 2001 to run concurrently.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.57.The petitioner in Crl.Whileso, on 20.10.1992, he did not disburse the loan amount of Rs.2,750/- to one Mannu Naidu, however, recorded in the relevant documents as though the amount has been disbursed.As such, the petitioner has misappropriated the said sum.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Sections 409,http://www.judis.nic.in 28 477(A) of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.58.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 6 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and 14 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.59.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406, 477(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 477(A) of IPC.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67 to 70 of 2001 to run concurrently.60.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.285 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Section 409 r/w.109 of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.62.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 7 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and 13 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No materialhttp://www.judis.nic.in 30 object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.63.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC.The Trial Court further ordered that the sentence imposed on the petitioner in the present case and the sentences imposed on the petitioner in C.C.Nos.67, 68 of 2001 to run concurrently.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.Whileso, though the petitioner's wife did not own any land obtained chitta and adangal from the Village Administrative Officer and gave to the first accused and as such, misappropriated a sum of Rs.2,395/-.Hence, the petitioner was charged for the offence under Section 409 r/w.109 of IPC by the Trial Court/ Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore.66.The charges framed against the petitioner were explained and read over to him and when questioned about the same, he denied the charges.Hence, trial was proceeded against him.On the side of the prosecution 6 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and 15 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.No material object was marked.On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked.67.After trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 406 of IPC.68.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal in C.A.No.281 of 2007 before the learned Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the revision before this Court.The petitioner during his tenure as Clerk, Cashier, Senior Grade Clerk, Secretary Incharge and Secretary in the Mallavadi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, has misappropriated several amounts from several persons.Initially, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies ordered for preliminary enquiry for the loss caused to the Society.Thereafter, Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act was conducted.During enquiry, the statements of all the victims were recorded and they were forwarded to the Deputy Registrar.Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar lodged complaint before the first respondent Police.The first respondent Police, after completing investigation filed final report before the Trial Court.After trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated supra.http://www.judis.nic.in 3370.When the revisions were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed a memo dated 10.01.2019 signed by him as well as by the revision petitioner.The relevant portion of the memo reads as follows:“1) It is most respectfully submitted that the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Thiruvannamalai, vide letter dated 13.04.2018 in Na Ka 1250/1998 Sa Pa, has stated that the Revision petitioner should pay Rs.3,60,424.95/- only (Rupees Three Lakhs and Sixty Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Four and Ninety five paise only) to the PACB, Mallavadi, Thiruvannamalai.http://www.judis.nic.in 34 Therefore, the Revision Petitioner begs to consider his old age & physical ailments mentioned above, leniency may be shown while passing the orders and thus render justice.”73.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.74.On a perusal of the entire records, including the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and other documents relied upon by the prosecution, the same were considered by the lower Court as well as by the lower Appellate Court.It reveals that P.W.1 to P.W.4 are official witnesses and they sanctioned the departmental proceedings and approved the criminal complaint against the accused persons.P.W.5 is the crucial witness who clearly deposed that while he was working as Sub-Registrar at Chengam and he perused the entire documents in which it is revealed the lot of discrepancy in the amount, the share amount deposited in the Bank, share amount collected from the agriculturist were not deposited in the Banks and the loans were advanced when a person is not owning lands and the said loan amount was taken and prepared a bogus document as if the loans were sanctioned to the agricultural persons and the said amount was mis- appropriated by the Officials.On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.5 and other witnesses, this Court is also satisfied that the prosecution has proved the guilt on the accused beyond reasonable doubt.Hence, the conviction passed against the petitioner is confirmed.The petitioner shall pay the entire fine amount in default shall undergo one week simple imprisonment.Further, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.3,60,424.95/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Four and Ninety Five Paise only) before the Mallavadi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Thiruvannamalai/ second respondent on or before 24.01.2019 and shall file a memo before the Trial Court.The petitioner is further directed to surrender before the Trial Court i.e., Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Vellore, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and serve the above sentence.76.In the event of the petitioner failing to pay the amount of Rs.3,60,424.95/- before the Mallavadi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Thiruvannamalai/ second respondent on or before 24.01.2019, the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Trial Courthttp://www.judis.nic.in 37 and confirmed by the lower Appellate Court shall stand restored.77.Accordingly, these criminal revisions are partly allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.10.01.2019 pri Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No1.The Additional District cum Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Vellore.3.The Sub Inspector of Police C.C.I.W.C.I.D.4.The Special Officer, Mallavadi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Thiruvannamalai.http://www.judis.nic.in 38 M.DHANDAPANI,J.","['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Brief facts of this case are that the complainant's cousin Mohd. Haroon s/o Abdul Lateef R/o 44/33 Ajeetganj Colony, P.S. Babupurva Kanpur has a shop of repairing of interlocking machine situated at House No. 109/198 Mohalla Jawahar Nagar, P.S. Nazirabad.On 6.4.1987, complainant was present in the shop of his brother Mohd. Haroon and talking with him; at 7:30 pm, Ramji Nai, House No. 109/91 Resident of Mohalla Jawahar Nagar and his brother in law, Ram Chandar and two unknown people came to the shop armed with countrymade pistol, threatened and said to make arrangement of Rs. 1,000/- till tomorrow, otherwise, you will be no left alive and also said that immediately give him Rs. 100/- for wine then Mohd. Haroon tell him that he had no money.On this, the companion of Ramji Nai abusing him said that he would not give such money, kill him today.On this pretext Ramji Nai fired by countrymade pistol on Mohd. Haroon with intention of killing him.This bullet hits on left hand of Mohd. Haroon when both of us shouted then all the miscreants fled from the spot.Due to terror of this miscreants, panic caused among the shopkeepers and they started closing their shop quickly.Lacerated wound 4cmX2cmX muscle deep, bone exposed on left hand and wrist back.Bleeding profusely.This appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar dated 28.4.1993, in Sessions Trial No. 567 of 1991 convicting and sentencing the appellant u/s 324 IPC to undergo two years R.I. And a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default payment of fine one years R.I. all the sentences shall run concurrently.On this allegation injured as well as complainant rushed to the police station and lodge the written report (Exhibit Ka 1) against Ramji Nai, Ram Chandar and two unknown miscreants.Chik FIR (Exhibit Ka 2) registered at 8:05 pm under Section 307 IPC.The case was entered by means of General Diary.On the request letter of the S.H.O. Nazirabad, Mohd. Haroon was examined by the Doctor G.V. Saxena (PW-4) who has medically examined Mohd. Haroon.On medical examination following injuries were found on PW 2 Mohd. Haroom:-Injury kept under observation.Advised x-ray, caused by hard and blunt object, Duration about fresh.Investigation of this case is conducted by Investigating Officer during investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statement of witness and also prepared site plan and collect the injury report and collect the relevant papers.Investigating officer was not examined by prosecution during trial.After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet submitted against Ramji Nai, Ram Chandar and Mohd. Hasoon under Section 307 IPC.The charge framed against Ram Chandar, Prem Shankar on 12.9.1991 under Section 307/34 and against Ramji Nai under Section 307 IPC on 12.9.1991 charge read over and explained to the accused in hindi.They pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.In order to substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant, prosecution examined four witnesses PW 1, Abdul Jabbar complainant of this case and cousin of the injured.PW 2 Mohd. Haroon injured, PW 3 Shiv Autar Pandey, Head Constable and PW-4 Dr. G.V. Saxena.After the conclusion of trial statement of appellants was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has stated that witnesses giving false statement due to enmity.No defence witness was examined by appellant.Learned trial court after hearing both the parties acquitted Prem Shanker and Ram Chandar against the charge levelled u/s 307/34 IPC.Only Ramji Nai is convicted under Section 324 IPC as aforesaid.Being aggrieved with the order of sessions court, sole appellant Ram Ji Nai preferred this appeal.No appeal preferred by the prosecution against the acquittal of accused Ram Chandar and Prem Shankar.This is a clear cut bullet injury and injured witness is most reliable witness and the testimony of the injured witness PW 2 cannot be doubted at strech of imagination.Statement of PW 2 regarding implication of appellant is clear and cogent.Prosecution has established its case beyond any shadow of doubt against the appellant as such appeal is liable to be dismissed.One of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that no independent witness examined by the prosecution and only related & interested witnesses were examined by the prosecution so no reliance has been placed on the testimony of these two witnesses.In his statement, he fully narrated the version of the prosecution, injured witness (PW 2) corroborated the version of the FIR but he clearly denied the role of the co-accused Ram Chandra, on this point, he already declared hostile and on the basis of this statement, Ram Chandra was acquitted by the learned trial court but with regard to the evidence against Ram Ji Nai, concerned PW 2 clearly shows that Ram Ji Nai inflicted injury by firing gun shot by countrymade pistol.Although, the medical examination report does not fully corroborate the oral evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 but during examination of PW 4, he clearly stated that if the bullet hit on hand then such type of injury may also occur so it cannot be said that injury inflicted on the hand of the injured witness did not cause by the countrymade pistol.Their evidence has a ring of truth.Hence, learned trial court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 324 IPC resultantly, conviction of the appellant under Section 324 IPC is hereby affirmed.Coming to the sentence to be imposed on the appellant since incident occurred more than 33 years ago and presently, the appellant is aged about 60 years and during intervening period, he had not indulged into any criminal activity nor he had any criminal background and presently, appellant is well rooted in society.Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant for showing leniency in this matter regarding sentence, is liable to be acceptable.Failing to deposit the same, appellant shall surrender or he be taken in custody to serve out one year rigorous imprisonment as default sentence.So the appeal is 'dismissed' on the point of conviction and partly allowed on the point of sentence as above.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE kafeel Digitally signed by KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Date: 26/09/2019 03:45:54Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time to conclude.,['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Heard on question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing..Requisition the record of the lower Court.Heard on I.A. no. 5984/2015 which is an application under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Rahul S/o Sardar Mogiya The present appellant suffered the conviction and the jail sentence as follows :After going through the impugned judgment and taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, without commenting on merit of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that on production of personal bond for Rs.30,000/- and solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on Page no. 2 payment of fine, the appellant shall be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 15th October, 2015 and thereafter, on each subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this behalf.List for final hearing as per the scheme formulated.C c as per rules.( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE amol",['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :-(a) There is a Kaliamman temple at Melmanakkudi Village, which is situate within Bhuvanagiri Police Station limits.A festival on the day before the Tamil New Year's day had been celebrated for quite long by the villagers in the said temple.The temple was not provided with electricity connection.During the times of Festival, electricity connection had been usually taken from the house of one Krishnamoorthy Nadar (since deceased).For the New Year's festival in the year 1985, as usual, electricity connection had been taken from the house of the deceased.(c) Accused 1 to 6 are residents of Memanakkudi Village.Accused 1 to 3 are brothers.Accused 4 and 5 are their step-mother's sons.Accused 6 is their cousin P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the sons of the deceased.(d) During the course of the meeting, accused 3 suggested that the electricity connection for the temple should be taken in his name.He was in possession of the cash belonging to the temple and he would utilise the same for the purpose of electricity connection.This was objected to by P.W. 1 and others and that they then suggested was that the electricity connection should be taken in the name of one Kalimuthu, Village Administrative Officer, of Akkadavalli.In the process of such an altercation, accused I was stated to have pushed P.W. 1 down and beat him at his right hand and back by means of a stick.P.W. 2, who had been present there, tried his level best to separate them.But, it proved futile and consequently, he was stated to have given a hit on the head of accused 1, by means of a stick, which was lying there.At that time, the deceased was stated to have intervened, pacified them and averted any untoward incident being happened.The deceased was also stated to have proclaimed that he would take the electricity connection to the temple, in his own name, utilising his own funds.At that time, accused 1 to 6 registered their protest and questioned whether it was proper for all the things to be done in the name of the deceased, in relation to the temple.So, saying, they vowed to wreak vengeance and then left the place.(e) The deceased, after reaching his house, was sitting in the front verandah of his house, which is situate on the north of the east-west road, that is to say, his house faces south.There is also a lamp post on the western extremity of the road at a point when the road takes a slight tilt and deviates towards south-western direction.A bulb in the said lamp post was burning during night hours.There is also another lamp post on the eastern extremity of the road on the northern side at a point or place, where the said road takes a turn and deviation towards north-eastern direction.The bulb in the said lamp post was also not burning during night hours.There is one more lamp post situate on the eastern side extremity of the road on the southern side at a point where the road takes a turn and the bulb in the said lamp post was also not burning during night hours.Kaliamman temple is situate 100 feet away on the west of the house of the deceased.(f) The deceased mandated his son P.W. 2 to bring cattle to-the-shed in the backyard of his house to the lane situate on the east of his house for tying the cattle there.While doing so, P.W. 2 was stated to have put on the light above the window facing the lane.At that time, P.W. 1 was stated to be washing his hands in the hand pipe situate on the backyard of his house.The moment the cattle was brought by P.W. 2 to the lane, the deceased took custody of the cattle and tried to tether it to the peg on hook there.(g) At that time, accused 2 emerged from the garden belonging to accused 4, arming himself with a crowbar (MO 3), after removing the fence put up on the eastern ridge of the lane.On receipt of the hit, the deceased sat down in quick succession, he gave two more hits with M.O. 3 on the head of the deceased.Thereafter, the deceased fell down.At that time, P.W. 3 and one Prakasam were making onward march from north to south in the lane and they had the opportunity of witnessing the occurrence.(h) Thereafter, the injured - deceased was bodily lifted by P.Ws. 1, 2 and others and placed in the front Verandah of their house.P.Ws. 1 and 2, along with their mother Thillaiammal took the injured - deceased in the bus to Bhuvanagiri Police Station.They reached the police station at 10.30 p.m., P.W. 11 Head Constable was then in charge there.P.W. 1 gave a report, to P.W. 11, who reduced the same into writing, as per his dictation.Accused 1 also appeared before P.W. 11 at 11 p.m., and gave a report, as respects the occurrence.He would, however, send P.Ws. 1 and 2, injured - deceased and accused 1, with a memo to the hospital for treatment.Then, he visited the scene village at 11-30 p.m. and returned to the police station at 2 a.m., (on 14-4-1985).Thereafter, he registered a case in crime No. 151/85 for alleged offence under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code.Exhibit P. 13 is the printed FIR.(i) P.W. 8 was the then Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Chidambaram.He examined the injured-deceased at 11-15 p.m. and treated him for the injuries.Exhibit P. 7 is the copy of the accident register.He examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 at 11.20 p.m. One after another and treated them for their injuries.Exhibits P. 8 and P. 9 are the copies of the accident registers issued to P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively.Exhibit P. 16 is the printed FIR.(k) The deceased, sent to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Cuddalore, got admitted as an inpatient there at 3 a.m on 14-4-1985 and he breathed his last at 3.50 a.m there.(l) P.W. 12 left the police station and reached the scene village at 4 a.m. After inspecting the scene, namely, the lane lying on the east of the house of the deceased, he prepared Exhibit P. 2 observation mahazer at 6 a.m. Exhibit P. 17 is the rough sketch of the scene.At 6-15 a.m., he seized M.O. 1 series-stones, under the cover of Exhibit P. 3 Mahazar.Exhibits P. 2 and P. 3 were attested by P.W. 5 and another.He searched for the accused and they were not available.He returned to the police station at 9.15 a.m.(m) He came to know then that the deceased died at 3.50 a.m. at Cuddalore Head Quarters Hospital, as revealed by Exhibit P. 18, death intimation.He then altered the case in Crime No. 152/85 into one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.He prepared express reports and sent the same to the court and the officers concerned.Exhibit P. 19 is the express FIR.(n) P.W. 13 was the then Inspector of Police (Law & Order), Chidambaram Town Police Station.On receipt of express FIR at 9.15 a.m., he went to Bhuvanagiri police station and took up further investigation.At 10.15 a.m., he recovered the blood stained Cement scrapping (M.O. 4) from the front verandah of the house of the deceased.He also seized the sample earth (M.O. 5).(o) He then went to Cuddalore Headquarters Hospital.He held inquest over the body of the deceased.Exhibit P. 20 is the inquest report.During inquest, he examined P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and others.He handed over the body of the deceased to the Constable, P.W. 10 at 3.30 p.m., along with Exhibit P. 11 requisition for the purpose of autopsy.(p) P.W. 9 was the then Medical Officer attached to the Government Headquarter's Hospital, Cuddalore.On receipt of requisition, Exhibit P. 11 at 4 p.m., he commenced autopsy over the body of the deceased at 4.30 p.m. on the same day.Exhibit P. 12 is the post mortem certificate.He is of opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple fracture of skull bone with coreberal haemorrhage and shock 12 to 14 hours prior to autopsy.(r) P.W. 13 then examined P.W. 9 in the hospital.Thereafter, he went to the scene village and examined P.W. 5 and others.On 15-4-1985, he examined P.W. 4 and others.In the process of obeying of such a command, P.W. 2, switched on the bulb hanging above the window facing the lane on the east and brought the cattle to the lane.At that time, P.W. 1 was washing his hands in the hand pipe situate on the backyard of his house.The cattle brought by P.W. 2 was handed over to the deceased to be tethered in the lane in a peg or hook situate there.JUDGMENT Janarthanam, J.Appellants were respectively accused 1 to 6 in Sessions Case No. 195 of 1985 on the file of Court of Session, South Arcot Division, Cuddalore.They faced their trial for the charges as below :-Firstly, accused 1 & 3 to 6 147Secondly, accused 2 148Thirdly, accused 2 302Sixthly, accused 1, 3, 4 & 5 323Seventhly accused 1, 2 & 5 323Lastly accused 1, 2 & 5 323Learned Sessions Judge found accused involved in Charge Nos. 6, 7 and 8, not guilty and acquitted them thereof.He, however, found accused 1 and 3 to 6 guilty under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted them thereunder then sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for one year and accused 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in respect of accused 6, instead of under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code), convicted them thereunder then sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life.P.W. 4 had been engaged for providing sound and light, during the celebration of the festival in the said temple.(b) It so happened, an issue, as respects electricity connection for the said temple came to be raised and in that connection, that villagers at 8.00 p.m., on 13-4-1985, congregated in front of the temple.At 11.55 p.m. he examined accused 1 and treated him for the injuries.Considering the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the injured-deceased, he referred him for further treatement and management to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Cuddalore.(j) P.W. 12 is the Sub Inspector of Police Bhuvanagiri.He has gone for investigation in connection with another case and returned to the police station at 2-10 a.m. (on 14-4-1985).He perused the FIR in crime No. 151/85 and on such perusal, he came to the conclusion that what P.W. 11 Head Cosntable had done in registering the case only under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code was not correct and what he had done was that he registered the complaint of P.W. 1, namely, Exhibit P. 1, as Crime No. 152/85 for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.Exhibit P. 15 is the printed FIR.He also registered the complaint given by accused 1, namely, Exhibit P. 14, as a case in Crime No. 153/85 for alleged offences under Section 147, 148, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.Immediately after arrest and on interrogation, one of the accused namely, accused 2 gave a confession under Section 27 of the Evidence Act stating that he kept concealed the crowbar underneath the culvert in the lake at Melamanakkudi.The admissible portion of the said confession statement in Exhibit.Pursuant to the said confession, he took P.Ws. 6, 7 and 13 to lake at at Melamanakkudi he took out the crowber M.O. 8 kept concealed underneath the culvert in that lake, which was seized under Exhibit P. 6 mahazar.Then all the accused were brought to the police station and from there, they were sent to court for remand.After completing the investigation in crime No. 153/85, he dropped further investigation.Chidambaram Taluk Inspector filed a final report under Section 173(4) Crl.P.C. against accused in crime No. 152/85 for the aforesaid offences.On committal, charges, as aforesaid, had been framed against accused and when they had been questioned as respects those charges, they denied the same and claimed to be tried.The prosecution, in proof of the charges so levelled against the accused, examined P.Ws. 1, to 13, filed Exhibits P. 1 to P. 20 and marked M.Os.The accused when questioned under Section 313 Crl.P.C., as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, denied their complicity in the crime.They did not choose to examine any witness of their behalf.Learned Sessions Judge, on consideration of the materials placed, rendered the verdict as aforesaid.Arguments of Mr. K. V. Sridharan, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Sriramulu, learned Public Prosecutor representing the prosecution were heard.Accused 8, it is said, died pending appeal : Consequently, the appeal as against him has to abate, pursuant to the salient provisions adumbrated under Section 394 Crl.Of them P.Ws. 1 and 2 narrate the entirely of the occurrence, which consists of two parts, namely, occurrence that had happened at or about 8.00 p.m. on the fateful night in front of Kaliamman temple and the other part of the occurrence that took place in the lane, situate adjacent to the house of the deceased, on the east; whereas the other witness, namely, P.W. 3 speaks to the latter part of the occurrence only.The picture, as painted by P.Ws. 1 to 3 regarding the occurrence is not at all in accord with the earliest information.Exhibit P. 1 proceeds on the footing that the entirety of the occurrence involving in causation of injuries to not only the deceased, but also to some of the prosecution witnesses, happened only in the lane situate adjacent to the house of the deceased on the east.The said occurrence happened at 9 p.m. No doubt true it is that the narration in Exhibit P. 1 leads us to think that igniting cause for the occurrence was relatable to dispute relatable to Kaliamman temple.In the said occurrence, the deceased was stated to have been attacked by accused 1 to 6 with stones, culminating in the deceased sustaining certain injuries on his upper lip and head.Likewise, P.W. 1 was attacked by accused, 1, 2 and 5, with stones, resulting in his sustaining an injury on his right hand.These things apart, Thilliammal was the victim of attack at the hands of accused 1, 2 and 5, in the sense of her tuft being caught hold of by them and she being beaten with their hands.This sort of an occurrence was witnessed by P.W. 8 from the beginning to the end.For projecting such a version, there was no time left either for P.W. 1 or others, interested in his welfare, to consult and confabulate for giving a version, different from the one that had happened, with a view to implicate the persons involved in the occurrence.Head Constable or other Police personnel working in Bhuvanagiri Police Station, so that there was any sort of want of cordial atmosphere between him and the police personnel.P.W. 1 had a bitter experience with them, so that there was no lovelost between him and the personnel in the police station.Of course true it is that under the foot of Exhibit P. 1, no certificate had been appended to by P.W. 11 that the same had been recorded, as per the narration of P.W. 1 and the same, after having been recorded, had been read over to him.Therefore, normal it is, we feel, that the prosecution entertained some sort of anxiety to some how or other throw mud on P.W. 11 Head Constable and that perhaps was the reason for the prosecution to have resorted to seek permission of the Court by treating him as hostile, on the ground that he had exhibited an element of hostility to the case of the prosecution.The Court below also readily granted such a permission and allowed the prosecution to put questions in cross-examination treating him as hostile.The grant of permission by the Court below to treat P.W. 11, as hostile, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel, is rather unwarranted and we only feel that the Court below, without applying its mind, simply granted permission to treat him as hostile, when the prosecution prayed for such a permission.P.W. 11, put in such a position, cannot be expected to say that he had not faithfully recorded the version as projected by P.W. 1, simply because he has not appended a certificate at the foot of Exhibit P. 1 to the effect that the same had been recorded as per the narration of P.W. 1, besides the same having been read over to him.May be the non-appendage of a certificate, due to the negligence on his part and for such negligence, the prosecution must have to pay its price.to 3, it examined in detail, would reveal the core improvement of the prosecution case beyond recognition, by giving different place of occurrence, introduction of lethal weapon utilised, in causing injuries to the deceased and what not.When the issue relatable to taking electricity connection the temple was being discussed in a heated fashion, there arose a wordy altercation between P.W. 1 and accused 1 and such an altercation rose to the height of mutual fight between them, which resulted in accused 1 beating on his right hand and back by means of a stick, thereby causing him injuries.P.W. 1 who was stated to have been present there, too up a stick, which was lying there and gave a hit with such a stick on the head of accused 1 causing him bleeding injuries.In order to avert any further untoward incident, the deceased intervened and pacified P.Ws. 1 and 2 and took them to his house.Thereafter, the deceased was sitting in the verandah of his house.He would mandate P.W. 2 to go to the backyard and bring the cattle tethered there to the lane.It is only at that juncture, accused 2 arming himself with M.O. 3 crowbar emerged therein through the garden of accused 4, situate adjacent to the lane, after removing the fence and hit with M.O. 3 on the right flank of the deceased.Immediately after the receipt of the hit, the deceased sat on the ground.In quick succession, he also gave two more hits with M.O. 3 on his head causing bleeding injuries.On receipt of those injuries, the deceased fell down over on the ground.Rest of the accused, namely accused 1 and 3 to 6 hurled stone on P.Ws. 1 and 2, besides the deceased.In the process of hurling of such stones, P.W. 1 would categorically state even in chief examination that why were not at all injured by any of the stones to hurled on their person.P.W. 3, a near relation of the deceased, not being a resident of the locality, had an occasion to pass through that lane from north to south so as to make himself available in the scene and have the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the occurrence and in the process of hurling of stones, though he was also available in the vicinity, he also did not sustain any sort of a scathing injury on his person.The shifting of the place of occurrence to the lane, adjacent to the house of the deceased on the east is not without significance.If the prosecution projects that the occurrence had happened in front of the temple, then there was necessity to cite a witness of independent origin available in the vicinity to the temple, when especially the time and day of the occurrence was the day of celebration of Tamil New Year's festival in the temple and such being the situation, the prosecution would be impelled to come forward with an explanation for the non-examination of natural witness in the locality, who had the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the occurrence.Another intriguing factor is that if we examine the evidence of the doctor, P.W. 8, we find that P.W. 2 had on his person as many as three injuries as revealed by Exhibit P. 9 copy of the accident register.He had not at all come forward with an explanation as to how he came by the injuries, especially when we took into account that in the process of hurling of stones by the accused, as already stated, neither he nor his brother P.W. 1 was injured.It is quite interesting to note from what he has stated to the doctor, P.W. 8, that he was assaulted with stick by known persons near the temple.It is here we have to take into account the defence version, as respects the place of occurrence.Accused 1 would assert in Exhibit P. 14 he gave to P.W. 11 that the occurrence took place near the temple and he was assaulted with a stick by specified individuals, that is to say, the prosecution party.Exhibit P. 10 is the copy of the accident register, which reveals that he had four injuries on his person on various portions of his person, namely, parietal region, dorsum of hand, middle lateral portion of left fore arm and lateral aspect of right shoulder.The injuries are either contusions or laceration.The prosecution would resort to explain the injury on the head of accused 1, by making P.W. 2 to say that he gave a hit on his head, when he was engaged in hitting P.W. 1 by means of a stick near the temple.The other injuries found on his person had not at all been explained.It is to be noted here that the candid admission made by P.W. 1 in his cross-examination is that before ever, he along with the deceased, his brother P.W. 2 and his mother Thillaiammal, went to the police station he saw accused 1 in the police station, giving a complaint Exhibit P. 14 It is the case of the prosecution that P.W. 1 alone gave Exhibit P. 1 at the earliest point of time before even accused 1 gave the complaint.In unguarded moments, somehow or other, the truth had come out in the form of a candid admission by P.W. 1, in the course of cross-examination.Why we point out all these aspects is that the prosecution had not come forward with the true origin and genesis of the occurrence and had made assiduous attempt in projecting a version before Court, divorced of reality of the situation, thereby making this Court not possible to sift truth from falsehood.We may also point out here the calculated attempt made by the prosecution to make it appear that a lethal weapon had been used in the commission of the heinous crime of murder of the deceased.From Exhibit P. 7, we are able to decipher that crowbar had been introduced by interlineation in the column relatable to the alleged use of weapons for causing injuries.Further, Exhibit P. 7 is not the original; but its triplicate.The accident register is usually prepared in triplicate; the original being sent to Court, the duplicate being retained by the investigating agency and the triplicate by the Medical Officer himself, who issued copy of the accident register.It is also usual to prepare copies of the accident register with carbon copies underneath the original and the triplicate by writing on the original by means of a ball-point or pencil.Unusual it is to find the triplicate copy of the accident register, namely, Exhibit P. 7 being written in ink with all sorts of interlineations, not only with regard to the weapons alleged to have been used in the commission of the crime; but also in nothing down the injuries.The marking of the triplicate, with all such corrections and interlineations make us feel that all is not well with the prosecution in projecting the true version as respects the manner of occurrence and the usage of weapon in the commission of the crime.The manner of occurrence, we feel, is highly artificial.Where was the occasion for the deceased to go and take the custody of the cattle from P.W. 2 for tethering the same to the peg or hook in the lane, except for the purpose of his receiving a hit on his right flank and two hits on his head at the hands of accused 2 by means of a crowbar ? Is it not possible for P.W. 2 to have tethered the cattle brought from the backyard by himself to the peg or hook there ?Admittedly, the occurrence took place during dark hours of the night.Therefore, visible factor looms large and assures importances.For the so-called eye witnesses, to introduce the course of events that had followed at the time of occurrence.But for the switching on of the bulb hanging over the window facing the lane on the east, there could have been no visible factor at all for anyone to have witnessed anything.Switching on the bulb was necessitated by a mandate being issued by the deceased to P.W. 2 to fetch the cattle from the backyard to the lane and in such process, P.W. 2 was stated to have switched on the bulb so as to enable them to have visible factor to witness the course of events that was to follow.But for the switching on the bulb situate above the window facing the lane on the east of the house of the deceased, there could have been no visible factor at all for anybody to have witnessed anything.Therefore, we are of the view that the case of the prosecution is also riddled with artificialities and inherent improbabilities, in projecting the manner of the occurrence.The investigation in this case, we also feel, is rather tainted, slipshod and perfunctory.We are unable to digest, when P.W. 12 Sub-Inspector of Police would state that when he returned to the police station at 2.10 a.m. after having been engaged in investigation in another case, he happened to see the records in the case in Crime No. 151/85 and immediately he felt that the action of P.W. 11 was not proper and therefore, he registered two cases in Crime Nos. 152 and 153 of 1985, based upon Exhibits P. 1 and P. 14 for offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 I.P.C. in both the cases.We are quite astonished to hear him say that he immediately left the police station and reached the scene village at 6.00 a.m. and after inspecting the scene, he would prepare an observation mahazar, Exhibit P. 2, besides preparation of the sketch, Exhibit P. 17, as if he was engaged in the heinous crime of murder.This is the first time, we are able to come across a case registered under Section 147, 148, 323 and 324 I.P.C. getting prime attention at the hands of the public personnel like P.W. 12, in the sense of rushing to the scene of occurrence and collecting material and other available clues in proof of the case of the prosecution.The hand of fabrication is also getting exposed by the inbuilt materials available on record.There is one more instance, which we can also point out for exposing the hand concoction of the investigating agency.P.W. 13, Inspector of Police would categorically state, in his evidence in chief-examination, that he conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased between 12 noon and 6.30 p.m. If he had conducted the inquest during the relevant period, as revealed by the inquest report Exhibit P. 20, we are absolutely at a loss to understand as to how the Dr. P.W. 9 could have received the requisition, Exhibit P. 11 at 4.00 p.m. and commenced autopsy at 4.30 p.m. From this, we are able to infer that the records have been manipulated in such a way to suit to the exigency of the case of the prosecution and in the process of preparation of such records, the hand of concoction got automatically exposed by the mistakes they had committed unawares.Further, the injuries found on the person of accused I had not been properly explained.Even the little bit of effort had by the prosecution in explaining the injury on his head through the medium of P.W. 2 faced colossal failure, as we had pointed out earlier.From this, the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution made assiduous attempts in suppressing the genesis and origin of the occurrence cannot be ruled out of the consideration, in the facts and circumstances of the case.For all the reasons, as above, we are of opinion that the prosecution thoroughly failed in bringing home the guilt of all the accused to any offence whatever, the consequence of which is that there is no other go except to acquit all the accused by giving them the benefit of reasonable doubt.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on the question of admission.This appeal is having arguable point, hence admitted for final hearing.T h e appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable under Section 451of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulation and under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the injuries received by the victim is simple in nature.Only one cut injury was found on the head of the victim.No other incised wound was found on the body of the victim.Learned trial Court has erred in convicting both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC as well as other offences.It is further submitted that the disposal of the appeal will take considerable time, therefore, he prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellants.Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State objected this bail application.Perused the statement of the victim and other witnesses and also perused the statement of the doctor R.K.Baliya (Pw-1) and also considered the fact that both the appellants were on bail during trial.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE Sha Digitally signed by SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 01/08/2019 11:20:12",['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
"C.C. as per rules.(S.K. GANGELE) V. JUDGE Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA Date: 2018.06.14 16:04:16 +05'30' Pallavi sh e ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig HRecord of the trial Court be called for.sh For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is e allowed.ad Also heard on I.A. No. 9306/2018, an application for suspension Pr of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.Appellant has been convicted for commission of offence a hy punishable u/s 451 of IPC, r/w Section 354 (ka), 354 & Section 8 of POCSO Act with a direction to undergo one year R.I. with a fine of ad Rs. 500/- in first count, one year R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- in second M count, three years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in third count and three years R.I. with a fne of Rs. 1,000/- in fourth count.of The trial Court has already suspended the sentence and released rt the appellant on bail.ou In view of the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application is allowed and subject to depositing C the fine amount, jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended.h It is directed that on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- ig (Fifty thousand only), alongwith solvent surety to the satisfaction of H the trial Court by the appellant, he be released on bail.It is further directed that appellant shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 18.12.2018 and on such other dates, as may be notified by the office in this regard till disposal of this appeal.",['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
"BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)The question which arises for consideration, at the outset, is whether this Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable or not.The appeal is directed against the order dated 10.09.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.M. A No. 13306/2010, whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the application filed by the appellant / plaintiff under Section 340 read with Section 195 (b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting the criminal law into motion against the respondent No.1/ defendant LPA 134/2011 Page 1 of 14 No.1 and any other person/ persons for having committed the offences referred to in Section 195 (b)(i) Cr.29, Serial No. 201 to 218, Serial No. 435 dated 18.03.2008 registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bingha, U.P. It was contended on behalf of the appellant / plaintiff that upon an enquiry from the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar, the appellant / plaintiff had been informed that no such document had been registered in that office.LPA 134/2011 Page 2 of 14P.C for an enquiry and for submitting a complaint in writing.We may point out that that application had been dismissed by the impugned order dated 10.09.2010 by the learned Single Judge holding as under:-LPA 134/2011 Page 13 of 14As a result, the present appeal is not maintainable and, therefore, there is no occasion for us to examine the matter on merits.The appeal is dismissed as such.","['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"State of M.P.) changed his course of life and living as peaceful citizen.He undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial and would make himself available as and when required.He would not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the complainant.The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be; applicant would not move in the vicinity of complainant party in any manner;The applicant shall not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused; and he would not move in the vicinity/area of the complainant party.The applicant shall not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; andAs per the undertaking given by counsel on behalf of the applicant, it is hereby directed that applicant shall plant 5 saplings (either fruit bearing trees or Neem/ Peepal) alongwith tree guards or has to make arrangement for fencing for protection of the trees because it is the duty of the applicant not only to plant the saplings but also to nurture them. ""o`{kkjksi.k ds lkFk] o`{kkiks""k.k Hkh vko';d gSA"" He shall plant saplings/ trees preferably of 6-8 ft.This is the first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C filed by the applicant, who apprehend his arrest in connection with Crime No.268/2019, registered at Police Station-Gohad, District Bhind for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 354-C, 354-D and 363 of IPC and Section 11/12 of POCSO Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has apprehension of his arrest on the basis of offence registered as above.The main allegation against the co-accused Sahdev Khare.Prosecutrix was in relationship with the said person and only allegation against the applicant is that he has seen couple together and therefore, he wanted some favour.The statement initially recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was non-implicative.Prosecutrix wants to live separately and did not want to go with her parents and therefore, ordered for Nariniketan, thereafter, Juvenile Justice Board.She made statement against the present applicant.He fairly submits that he has 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.36681/2019 (Guddu alias Vishwnath Singh Vs.He also would not move in the vicinity of complainant party in any manner.Therefore, under these undertakings, the applicant may be given the benefit of anticipatory bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer made by the applicant.Heard learned counsel for the parties and case diary perused.Considering the submissions and facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer/Arresting Authority.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-The applicant shall comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.36681/2019 (Guddu alias Vishwnath Singh Vs., so 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.36681/2019 (Guddu alias Vishwnath Singh Vs.State of M.P.) that they would grow into full fledged trees at an early time.For ensuring the compliance, he shall have to submit all the photographs of plantation of trees/saplings before the concerned trial Court alongwith a report within 30 days from the date of release of the applicant.The progress reports shall be submitted by the applicant before the trial Court on expiry of every three months for two years.It is the duty of the trial Court to monitor the progress of the trees because human existence is at stake because of the environmental degradation and Court cannot put a blind fold over any casualness shown by the applicant regarding compliance.Therefore, trial Court is directed to submit a report regarding progress of the trees and the compliance made by the applicant by placing a short report before this Court every quarterly (every three months), which shall be placed under the caption ""Direction"" before this Court.Any default on behalf of applicant in plantation or caring of trees shall disentitle the applicant from enjoying the benefit of bail.The applicant shall be at liberty to plant these saplings /trees at the place where he lives or place of his choice if he intends to protect the trees on his own cost by providing tree guards or fencing.This direction is made by this Court as a test case to address the Anatomy of Violence and Evil by process of Creation and a step towards Alignment with Nature.The natural instinct of compassion, service, love and mercy needs to be rekindled for human existence as they are innately engrained 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.36681/2019 (Guddu alias Vishwnath Singh Vs.State of M.P.) attributes of human existence.""It is not the question of Plantation of a Tree but the Germination of a Thought.""A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Anand Pathak) Judge Rashid RASHID KHAN 2019.09.13 18:18:45 +05'30'",['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
"This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of conviction dated 30th March 2005 and sentence dated 31st March 2005 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No. 05/2004: Sessions SL No. 103/2004, thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant no. 1 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for committing an offence under Section 376 of the Penal Code, convicting and sentencing the appellant nos. 1 to 4 each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for committing the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and further convicting and sentencing the appellant nos. 2 to 4 each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for one month for committing the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, all sentences having to run concurrently.She alleged that due to severe threats given by the accused, the informant could not come before the Learned Court although 3 the police had taken no action over the alleged offences.Pursuant to the direction passed under Section 156 (3) of the Code, Farakka Police Station Case No. 20/2004 dated 29th February 2004 was started against the present appellants for commission of offences under Sections 201, 302, 376 of the Penal Code.The allegations made by the de facto complainant in the said First Information Report were as under:-The accused 1, 2, 3 and 4 lived right next door to the complainant.The daughter of the complainant was aged about 14 years.At 6 p.m. on the day of occurrence the accused no. 1 told the daughter of complainant that his mother had sent for her for some urgent reason.Accordingly, she told her mother that her next door neighbour Minati Halder had sent for her and asked whether she should go.As the complainant consented, she went to Minati's place.The complainant waited for quite a while, but as Kalpana did not return she went to Minati's house.There she found her daughter lying in the room, all but dead and almost naked with her pants and clothes lying around blood-stained.As soon as the complainant entered the room, the accused no. 1 ran away.The complainant asked her daughter about who had done this to her.The victim girl said that Ujjal Halder (of that household) called her there on a false pretext and taking advantage of the vacant house, forcibly raped her.When she said she would tell this to all, he tried to throttle her.Then as the complainant raised a cry, the villagers and the people of the household came there and heard this.The accused no. 3 throttled the victim girl lest she would talk.Then as the people of the complainant's household and the villagers came to see the aftermath, the accused no. 2, 3 and 4 ordered 4 everyone out and shut the door, saying that they would take her to the hospital themselves.After a while, the appellants proceeded with the victim girl in a van towards Beniagram P.H.C. Hospital.She died on the way.After a while, as the aforesaid witnesses went to the hospital the doctor said that the victim girl had died and the accused had taken her to the cremation ground for burning.As the aforesaid witnesses went to Beniagram cremation ground, they found accused no. 2, 4 and some other unknown people burning the victim girl in the cremation ground.As the witnesses created an uproar, the accused threatened that they would settle the issue in the village and if people informed the police, they would kill them.The above incident was intimated to the Farakka Police Station in writing through another person.But the police then took no action.3. Investigation commenced.The Investigating Officer prepared a sketch map and examined witnesses.As the dead body of the victim was forcibly cremated several months ago, no post-mortem examination of the deadbody could be held.She deposed about a 'salishi' or 'bichar' that took place after 2/4 days.In fact the 'bichar' took place twice.He too was a post-occurrence witness.The victim told him as well as PW 1 that the appellant no. 1 had raped her and had tried to throttle her.6 The appellant no. 2 also tried to throttle her.The accused then drove them out.The appellant thereafter took away the dead body and burnt it without any post-mortem examination.After that the appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4 threatened him.They further stated that they would do some 'bichar' in the village only.In his cross-examination PW 3 stated that there was a panchayat member in the village and a chowkidar.But, he was not doing his duty properly.He deposed that in the burning ghat at that time there were about 8/10 persons.The 'dom' or the' 'ijaradar' was actually not present there.PW 4 was a co-villager and a post-occurrence witness to the incident.He saw the victim lying naked.PW 1 told him about the incident.After that the appellants 2, 3 and 4 threatened her that they would assault her and they ousted PW 4 from their house.The local doctor Dr. Sajal Pandit stated that the victim was brought dead to him.On their way back, PW 4 could see the burning ghat.They all asked the appellants 2, 3 and 4 as to why they were burning the dead body of the victim without conducting post-mortem examination.But the said appellants did not allow them to stay near the burning ghat and they stated that they would do 'bichar' of the matter in the villager itself.PW 5 was the father of the victim.At the time of the incident he had been to the river for catching fish.After coming back home at about 3 O'clock in the night, he found his daughter absent and learnt that she was taken to the burning ghat.Then he went and saw the appellants 2, 3 and 4 and some others burning the dead body of his daughter.She saw the victim lying naked on floor of the appellant's house with clothes stained with blood.The victim's mother narrated the incidence to her.She also saw the appellant no. 2 throttle the victim and thereafter the appellant no. 2 threatened her and drove her out of their house.PW 6 deposed that at that time the victim was still alive, but the appellants brought a van and took her away.In her cross, she stated that she told the police that she had seen the victim in almost senseless condition.Hearing hue and cry raised by the victim's mother, she went to the appellant's house and saw that the victim was lying on the floor of the house.The victim's mother narrated the incident to her.The appellant no. 1 tried to throttle the victim, but thereafter fled away.Then the appellant no. 2 throttled the victim and forcibly ousted them from the house.After that the appellants went to a burning ghat and cremated the victim.After completion of investigation, PW 14, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet dated 21st May 2004 under Sections 201, 302, 376 of the Penal Code.On 12th August 2004 charges were framed against the appellant no. 1 under Section 376 of the Penal Code and against all the four appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code as also under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.During trial the prosecution examined 14 witnesses to establish its case.The case of the defence was mainly a denial of the prosecution case.She alleged that the accused had offered money to her, but she refused to accept the same.In her cross, she categorically said that when she went to see her daughter, the appellant no. 4 pulled her down from the van in which the appellants carried her daughter allegedly for treatment.PW 2 was a co-villager and a post-occurrence witness.She deposed that the victim told her that the appellant no. 1 had ravished her.After the appellant no. 1 tried to throttle the victim, the appellant no. 2 too came and throttled the victim.Seeing all these, PW 1 the mother of the victim became ill.The appellants 2, 3 and 4 drove them out of their house.In her cross-examination PW 2 vouched that she had stated to the police that she saw the appellant no. 2 throttling the victim girl and that the appellant no. 1 was also going to throttle the victim.She admitted that PW 1 was her 'ja'.She also stated that the accused were one group and the witnesses were the other group.PW 3 was a co-villager and an uncle of the victim.He deposed that the appellants then took the victim away in the name taking her to a hospital.The local doctor, Dr. Pandit said that the victim was brought dead.PW 7 was a neighbour of the victim.In her cross, PW 7 deposed that she stated to the police that she had seen the victim in the appellant's house in unconscious state.She also stated to the police that the appellant no. 2 had throttled the victim and the appellant no. 1 had tried to throttle her.She admitted that there were divisions in the village, the accused belonged to one division and the others belonged to another division.PW 8 was a doctor who examined the appellant no. 1 and found him sexually capable.PW 9 was a neighbour of the victim.He heard about the incident from others in the village.PW 10 was another neighbour who admitted his signature on Ext.3 which was a mass petition given to the police in respect of cremation of the victim's dead body without the parents' permission.PW 11 was a learned Advocate who prepared the de 8 facto complainant's petition under Section 156 (3) of the Code.PW 12 was the victim's brother and a pre-occurrence witness to the incident.The appellant no. 1 had called the victim to his house.Thereafter PW 12 went to the market and came back after the incident and found his mother crying.In the cross-examination he stated that the police had arrested the accused after 3/ 4 days of the incident.PW 13 was a co-villager who had turned hostile.PW 14 was the Investigating Officer of the case.He examined available witnesses and submitted a charge-sheet against the appellants under Sections 376, 301, 201, 34 of the Penal Code.In his cross- examination, he admitted that the burning ghat was not a registered one.In his answer to question no. 8 under Section 313 of the Code, the appellant no. 1 stated that he did not know whether the victim's father killed her, but the said father was the one who had burnt her.Likewise in his answer to question no. 9, the appellant no. 1 reiterated that the victim's father had burnt her.The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that there was an inordinate delay, in filing the complaint, of more than five months and the same was not properly explained.He submitted that even the purported initial intimation to the police about the incident was neither proved nor explained.According to him, mere saying that an intimation was sent to police is not enough.As per the Learned Advocate the only evidence present in the case is alleged verbal dying declaration, which is itself a very weak piece of evidence.The Learned Advocate submitted that the appellant no. 1 did not murder the victim nor was there any medical evidence on rape 9 or murder.He wondered as to why the doctor to whom the victim was taken was not examined.Moreover, if the intention were to murder, then the appellants would not have taken the victim to a doctor, but would have directly proceeded for the burning ghat.He further submitted that there was no document of any 'salish' or 'bichar'.Even the so-called mass petition was not exhibited.The Learned Advocate submitted that PW 2 was contradicted by the Investigating Officer over the issue whether she saw the appellant no. 2 throttle the victim or the appellant no. 1 for that matter throttle the victim.According to the Learned Advocate, PW 2's deposition that it was discussed about who would be accused and that there were two divisions in the village exposed the malice of the informant's side in falsely implicating the appellants.He also referred to a cross-examination of PW 3 which mentioned that the local people burnt the body.The Investigating Officer also deposed that PW 4 did not state that he had seen the appellant no. 2 throttling the victim.The Learned Advocate relied on a few decisions on the question of delay in lodging First Information Report and the need to explain the said delay.The decisions are - AIR 73 SC 501: Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu; (1994) 5 SCC 188: Mehraj Singh (L/Nk.) vs. State of U.P.; AIR 2007 SC 155: Ramdas & Ors.vs. State of Maharashtra; (2014) 9 SCC 365: Ramaiah @ Rama vs. State of Karnataka.On the question of reliance on a dying declaration made only to the victim's mother, he relied on (2001) SCC (Cri) 1148, Arvind Singh vs. State of Bihar.The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State strongly supported the conviction and sentence.He submitted that the incidents 10 commenced from the victim going to the appellant's house upon the appellant no. 1's call and ended at the burning ghat.All these long the victim was under the control of the appellants.As the appellants had full knowledge of the incident, they should have explained as to how the victim got killed and illegally cremated.There were several witnesses like PWs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 to the verbal dying declaration.According to PWs 1 and 2, the appellants took away the dead body.PWs 2, 3 and 4 saw the appellant no. 1 throttle the victim.PWs 1, 6 and 7 were the ones before whom the victim said that the appellant no. 1 tried to throttle and kill her.PWs 2, 3, 6 and 7 raised the question before the appellants as to why they did not send the dead body of the victim for post-mortem before cremation.PWs 1, 4 and 12 said that the incident was reported to police and police came and assured them that the police would inquire further and take appropriate steps.PWs 3, 4 and 5 saw burning of the dead body.PWs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 saw the appellant no. 2 throttle the victim.He submitted that threats were given by the appellants not to report to the police.The Learned Advocate further submitted that a 'bichar' was held.As police did not do anything, the de facto complainant filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Code.Delay has thus been well explained.In any event, the circumstances as referred above provide a good explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint.From the evidence of PW 1, the mother of the victim and PW 12, the victim's brother it is clear that the appellant no. 1 had asked the minor victim to come to their house on the pretext that his mother had asked for her.After taking permission from her mother, the victim girl went to the appellant's house.There, by taking advantage of absence of others, the appellant no. 1 raped the victim.According to the statements given by the victim to other witnesses like PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 after committing such crime, the appellant no. 1 throttled her as she stated that she would tell others about the incident.PW 6 saw the appellant no. 1 throttle the victim.When the victim girl did not return home for sometime, her mother PW 1 went to the house of the appellants and found the victim girl lying practically naked on the floor of the room.Seeing PW 1, the appellant no. 1 fled away from inside the room.The victim then told PW 1 about the incident.Thereafter the appellant no. 2 also came and tried to throttle the victim.By this time upon hearing the hue and cry raised by PW 1, other neighbours like PWs 3, 4 and 6 had come to the appellant's house.They too saw the victim girl in such dishabille condition.PWs 2, 3 and 4 saw the appellant no. 2 throttle the victim.Thereafter the appellants, in an ostensible use of their relatively elevated status and position of influence, ousted all the visitors from their house.Then the appellants took the victim girl in a vehicle purportedly to see a doctor.In fact, the appellant 13 no. 4 pushed away PW 1 when she tried to get into the car.There is no witness about what happened inside the vehicle.But, the local doctor Dr. Sajal Pandit to whom the appellants took the victim stated to other witnesses that he had found the victim brought dead.Thereafter without intimating the police and waiting for a post-mortem examination over the dead body and without any kind of permission from the victim's parents, the appellants took the dead body to an unofficial burning ghat and illegally cremated the dead body.PWs 3, 4 and 5 were the witnesses to such cremation.The non-examination of the doctor to whom the victim was taken was a gross error committed by the Investigating Officer.But, that does not take away the copious amount of evidence adduced by others about the sequence of events.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Waregaon, Taluka Fulmabri, District Aurangabad.The marriage of the deceased Muktabai was solemnized on 22-04-2002 with one Sunil s/o.Fakirchand Sonawane.The gold ornaments and dowry of Rs.35,000/- was given in marriage to husband and inmates of matrimonial home of deceased Muktabai.The elder sister Anita of deceased Muktabai agreed to gift the cot/bedstead in the marriage to deceased Muktabai.After marriage, the deceased Muktabai joined the company of husband Sunil for cohabitation at her matrimonial home located in Sanjay Nagar area, Aurangabad in joint family comprising in-laws, brother-in-law Bharat and his wife accused Rekha.It has been alleged that after the marriage, the deceased Muktabai was subjected to maltreatment and harassment by the sister- in-law accused Rekha for demand of cot/bedstead agreed to be given in marriage by elder sister Anita.According to prosecution, the deceased Muktabai was subjected to torture on trifle reasons.She was also beaten-up and abused by the sister-in-law, accused Rekha for demand of money.It has been contended that on 28-11-2002, the brother PW- 1 Santosh received the message that the sister Muktabai sustained burns and she was admitted in Government Hospital, Aurangabad, for medical treatment.Thereafter, the brother, parents and other relatives of deceased Muktabai rushed to the Government Hospital to see the deceased Muktabai.When they all arrived in the hospital, the accused and other inmates of matrimonial home of deceased Muktabai were present near her.Thereafter, on 30-11-2002, the deceased Muktabai::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 ::: 3 32-CriAl-262-04-J spill-the-beans that since last two days of burning incident, her sister- in-law accused Rekha was ill-treating her on flimsy reasons.She was also assaulted and abused by accused Rekha.At last, on 28-11-2002, in the wee hours of the morning at about 6.45 a.m. the accused-Rekha poured the kerosene oil on the person of deceased Muktabai and set her ablaze.Thereafter, the husband Sunil, in-laws and others taken her to the Government Hospital for medical treatment.The brother Santosh rushed to the Police of Jinsi Police Station and filed the complaint-application for recording the declaration of sister Muktabai afresh to ascertain the cause of her burns and for penal action against the culprits.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::It is to be noted that after occurrence of burning incident of deceased Muktabai, she was immediately escorted to the Government Hospital, Aurangabad, for medical treatment.The injured deceased Muktabai verbalized that she received the burns due to sudden blaze of stove.The police personnel deputed at GHATI Hospital recorded the MLC No. 3395/SSG/dated 28-11-2002 at 7.45 a.m. The concerned P.S.O. of Jinsi Police Station took the entry of MLC in the Station Dairy and enquiry was entrusted to PSI Shri.The requisition was forwarded to the Executive Magistrate Mr. Imranul Haq for recording statement of injured Muktabai.Accordingly, the Special Executive Magistrate immediately on 28-11-2002, visited to the injured Muktabai in the hospital and recorded her statement for cause of her burn.The deceased Muktabai once again disclosed that she sustained the burns accidentally due to sudden blaze of stove.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::4 32-CriAl-262-04-JMeanwhile, the PW-1 Santosh moved an application to the police to record the statement of his sister deceased Muktabai afresh to ascertain the cause of her burn.Therefore, the police personnel PSI Sirsath, once again rushed to the Government Hospital and recorded the statement of deceased Muktabai.However, at this juncture, the injured Muktabai blamed her sister-in-aw accused Rekha for her burns.She divulged that the accused Rekha subjected her to cruelty for demand of money.She used to abuse and torture her mentally and on 28-11-2002 at 6.30 a.m., the accused Rekha poured the kerosene on her person and put her on fire.The appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer RI for 15 days.The appellant-accused was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer RI for fifteen days.All the above sentences were ordered to run concurrently to serve out the punishment.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::2 32-CriAl-262-04-J::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::Pursuant to First Information Report (FIR) of injured Muktabai recorded by police personnel PSI Shri.Sirsath, on 30-11-2002, the Crime No. I- 41 of 2002 under Sections 498-A, 307 and 504 of IPC came to be registered.The investigation was set in motion.Investigating Officer (IO) recorded statement of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case.He collected the documents of spot panchnama, etc. prepared during enquiry of MLC.Pending the investigation, the injured Muktabai, on 02-12-2002 at about 11.25 a.m. succumbed to burn.IO drawn inquest panchnama and referred the dead body for autopsy.IO applied Section 302 of IPC against the accused.IO send the seized muddemal to forensic laboratory for Chemical Analysis.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::The learned Sessions Judge proceeded to frame charge against the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC.The appellant- accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.The prosecution examined in all seven witnesses to bring home guilt of the accused.However, the learned Sessions Judge, held the appellant-accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC and rendered the impugned judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence, which is the subject-matter of present appeal.The learned counsel Shri P.F. Patni appearing for appellant scathingly assailed that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence is totally illegal, perverse and bad in law.The learned trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and circumstantial evidence adduced on record in its proper perspective.There were no allegation of abetment of commission of suicide by the deceased Muktabai.But the learned trial Court suo-moto framed the charge under Section 306 of IPC.The conviction of appellant-accused under::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 ::: 6 32-CriAl-262-04-J Section 306 of IPC without any evidence is erroneous, illegal and against the principles of law.The leaned counsel Shri Patni also criticized the findings of conviction of appellant-accused under Section 498-A of IPC.According to learned counsel Shri Patni, there are general and omnibus allegations of cruelty on the part of accused to the deceased Muktabai.The evidence of prosecution witnesses are vague and cryptic in nature and not sufficient to draw adverse inference against accused.He has also harped on the circumstances that victim Muktabai sustained burns accidentally owing to sudden blaze of stove.The documents of MLC and dying declaration recorded by Special Executive Magistrate at the earliest on 28-11-2002, all pointed out the incident of accidental burns.But, later-on, at the behest of brother and other relatives, the deceased Muktabai changed the version and blamed the accused Rekha for her burns.The multiple dying declarations of deceased Muktabai recorded on 30-11-2002, all were the product of tutoring and prompting to deceased Muktabai by her kith and kins.There was delay in lodging the FIR.According to learned counsel, all the prosecution witnesses are related and interested witnesses.The evidence of neighbourer or denizens of locality is not available on record.The learned counsel explained the circumstances on record and submits that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not sufficient to nail the appellant-accused in this case.There are material discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.There were no allegations against the husband, in-laws and brother-in-law of deceased Muktabai.He fervidly contends that the prosecution failed to prove charges against the accused::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 ::: 7 32-CriAl-262-04-J beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore, the appellant-accused be absolved from the charges pitted against her.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::The learned APP raised the objections to the arguments advanced on behalf of appellant-accused.According to learned APP, the learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the circumstances on record and drawn adverse inference against appellant-accused for charges of cruelty and abetment to commit suicide by the deceased Muktabai.The learned APP submits that deceased Muktabai died due to burn and her death was occurred within 7/8 months of her marriage.The victim Muktabai in her dying declarations before Police and Special Executive Magistrate (Exhibits-20 and 23 respectively) stated about the harassment by the accused for demand of money.The brother and sister of deceased also testified about the oral dying declaration of Muktabai.Therefore, learned APP urged not to cause any interference at the instance of appellant in the findings of conviction of appellant- accused recorded by learned trial Court.I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides.I have also delved into the oral and circumstantial evidence adduced on record including factual score of the matter.I find painful to subscribe to the findings of conviction of the appellant-accused recorded by learned trial Court.It is not in dispute that the deceased Muktabai died due to shock following 80%::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 ::: 8 32-CriAl-262-04-J burns.The PW2- Dr. Shinde conducted the Post mortem (Exhibit-3).The Inquest Panchnama (Exhibit-24) also indicate the cause of death of Muktabai due to burns.According to prosecution, the accused Rekha was the author of burn injuries sustained to deceased Muktabai and therefore, the accused Rekha was the perpetrator and responsible for homicidal death of victim Muktabai.The prosecution also cast allegation that the death of victim Muktabai was an dowry death caused due to burns within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry.In order to bring home guilt of the accused, prosecution relied upon the oral dying declaration of deceased Muktabai made to brother and sister PW-1 Santosh and PW3-Anita.The prosecution also attempted to keep reliance on the written dying declarations (Exhibit-20 and 23) of the victim Muktabai recorded by Special Executive Magistrate PW 6 - Sanjay Vyawahare and PW - 7 PSI Sirsath.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::Unfortunately, the learned Sessions Judge found reluctant to appreciate the versions of brother and sister, PW 1 and PW 3 of the Muktabai in regard to cause of her burns.The evidence of dying declarations (Exhibits-20 and 23) of the deceased Muktabai was also discarded by the learned trial Court on the ground that it may be the product of tutoring and prompting by the brother and sister etc. Therefore, the learned trial Court disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witnesses for the allegation of homicidal death of victim Muktabai.It was also observed by the learned trial Court that the conduct and demeanour of PW 1 Santosh and PW 3 Anita found suspicious and dubious one.The PW 1- Santosh must have received::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 ::: 9 32-CriAl-262-04-J the information about the exact cause of burn of sister Muktabai on very same day i.e. 28-11-2002, when he immediately visited to sister Muktabai in the hospital.But, PW 1- Santosh attempted to suppress these facts and approached to the Police at belated stage on 30-11- 2002 with the allegation of homicidal death of sister Muktabai by the accused Rekha.Be that as it may, the learned trial Court refused to accept the evidence of oral and written dying declaration propounded on behalf of prosecution and proceeded to exonerate the accused for the charges of murder and dowry death as envisaged under Section 302, 304-B of IPC.The learned trial Court held that there was no agreement for giving cot/bedstead in the marriage to deceased Muktabai.The PW 3 Anita was intending to give the cot / bedstead as gift on her own volition to younger sister Muktabai in her marriage.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::Eventually, the learned trial Court exonerated the accused for the charges under Section 302 and 304-B of IPC, but, held the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC.It is worth to mention that there were no allegations on behalf of prosecution that owing to maltreatment/cruelty, the deceased Muktabai committed suicide.In contrast, the prosecution came forward with specific allegations that the death of victim Muktabai was homicidal and accused Rekha was responsible for her death.In alternative, the prosecution alleged that the death of victim Muktabai occurred due to::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 ::: 10 32-CriAl-262-04-J burn within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty by accused for demand of dowry.It was an offense of dowry death punishable under section 304-B of IPC.But, as referred above, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused on both these counts of offences under Sections 302 and 304-B of IPC pitted against her and proceeded to convict her under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::Albeit, the learned trial Court held the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC on the allegation that the deceased Muktabai on 28-11-2002, committed suicide by pouring kerosene and set herself ablaze.The learned trial Court drawn the adverse inference of self immolation of deceased Muktabai on the basis of attending circumstances found prevailing over on the scene of occurrence reflects from document of spot panchnama (Exhibit-17).The learned trial Court in paragraph No. 19 observed as below :-POINT NOS.4 AND 5 : It is not in dispute that within 8 months from the date of the marriage Muktabai died of burns.Muktabai's relatives namely her brother and sister tried to take revenge of the death of their sister making out a story that Muktabai was in fact murdered.However, it has been held that prosecution has failed to establish that the death of Muktabai was a murder.PW7 has stated that during investigation, he drew panchnama of the place where Muktabai was burnt.To prove panchnama Exh. 17, the prosecution examined Sk.Yakub (PW5).Yakub admitted his signature::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 ::: 11 32-CriAl-262-04-J upon the panchnama, but refused to support its contents.However, PW 7 in his evidence stated that he drew the panchnama Exh. 17 and the articles found at that place namely a stove, match box and burnt clothes of Muktabai were seized.It is mentioned in the panchnama that the floor of the room was emitting smell of kerosene, means the kerosene was spread on the floor.The half burnt clothes of Muktabai were sent to CA and Chemical Analyzer had found residue of kerosene on the clothes.Had it been a case of accident as stated by the accused due to sudden rise of the flames of the stove, then in that case there would not have been spreading of kerosene on the floor and residues would not have found on the clothes of the deceased.The fact that kerosene was found spread on the floor and residues were found on the clothes of the deceased shows that kerosene was poured on her before she was set ablaze.The possibility of accused setting fire to Muktabai is ruled out.There is also no possibility of there being accidental rise of the flames from the stove.The only possibility is that Muktabai committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her.As she herself poured kerosene nobody could reach her till she was engulfed by flames.The relatives of the husband of Muktabai tried to suppress the fact of death of Muktabai being suicidal, as in that case they would be blamed.The prosecution witnesses namely PW 1 and PW 3 also suppressed the fact as they wanted to take revenge of the death of Muktabai, as Muktabai was telling them that accused was harassing her for not fulfilling a demand of cot.The only unescapable conclusion under the given circumstances is that Mutkabai committed suicide.""::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::12 32-CriAl-262-04-JIt would be reiterated that no one else put forward the theory of suicidal death of victim Muktabai in this case.As referred above, prosecution cast allegation of murder and dowry death as envisaged under Sections 302 or 304-B of IPC.The accused categorically came forward with specific defence of accidental death of victim Muktabai.It has been contended on behalf of accused that there was mishap occurred with the deceased Muktabai and she sustained the burns due to sudden blaze of stove.The accused also reproduced it in her statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In such backdrop, the Court has to evaluate the circumstances to determine whether the death of victim Muktabai was homicidal or accidental in nature.The learned trial Court discarded both the possibilities and arrived at the conclusion that the death of victim Muktabai would be an suicidal death.The above referred observations of learned trial Court for conclusion of suicidal death appears to be rest on figment of imagination, surmises and conjuncture.The deceased Muktabai at the threshold narrated the history of accidental burn for MLC No. 3395/SSG dated 28-11-2002 (Exhibit-30).It has an reference in the letter (Exhibit-31) dated 28-11-2002 addressed to Special Executive Magistrate by Police Personnel PW-7 Mr. Shirsath.Moreover, in dying declaration (Exhibit-32) recorded by Special Executive Magistrate Mr. Haq, the deceased Muktabai divulged about the accidental burns due to sudden blaze of stove.The learned trial Court refused to keep reliance on the dying declaration of victim Muktabai (Exhibit-32) recorded by Special Executive Magistrate Mr. Haq.According to learned trial Court, it was not proved and deceased::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 ::: 13 32-CriAl-262-04-J Muktabai might have given it under pressure of husband or relatives of accused.These sort of findings of learned trial Court appears to be preposterous and incomprehensible one.It is to be noted that these documents (Exhibits 30, 31 and 32) were brought on record on behalf of accused during cross-examination of IO PW-7 Mr. Shirsath only to fortify her defence.The prosecution did not painstake to produce all these documents fairly on record to ascertain the truth.It was the defence of accused that deceased Muktabai sustained burns accidentally.The defence of accused was required to be considered on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and it is not necessary to prove the defence beyond all reasonable doubt.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::Ironically, the learned trial Court on its own proceeded to substitute a new story of suicidal death, totally different from one propounded on behalf of prosecution in this matter.It is to be born in mind that law does not permit such endeavour on the part of learned trial Court to reconstruct a new theory of its own from the residual part of evidence of prosecution and convict the accused on that basis.The Honourable Apex Court in paragraph No. 11 has held that :::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::It is well settled that the prosecution can succeed by substantially proving the very story it alleges.It must stand on its own legs.Nor can the Court on its own make out a new case for the prosecution and convict the accused on that basis.""In the case of Prafulla Bora and others Vs.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::In the matter in hand, it would be reiterated that the learned trial Court on the basis of document of panchnama of spot of incident (Exhibit-17) and CA report attempted to introduce the new story of suicidal death of Muktabai and convicted the accused under Section 306 of IPC.The approach of the learned trial Court for inventing the new story of suicidal death of deceased Muktabai is totally absurd, illogical and not within the ambit of law.It is fallacious to fasten the guilt on the accused for offence under Section 306 of IPC under the pretext of suicidal death of Muktabai.Moreover, there are no circumstances available on record to show that accused at the relevant time instigated the deceased Muktabai to commit suicide.In the result, the conviction of accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC deserves to be set aside and quashed.The conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court about the cruelty meted out to victim Muktabai also found erroneous, imperfect and perverse one.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::Admittedly, the allegation of cruelty recorded in dying declaration by public servant being hearsay evidence cannot be taken into consideration to evaluate the guilt of accused.The learned trial Court, taking recourse of legal ratio laid down in the case of Ganinath Patnaik Versus State of Orissa reported in (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 619, rightly held that the allegations made in the dying declarations are not admissible to hold the accused guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.In such circumstances, the evidence of PW 1- Santosh and PW 3 - Anita only remained available for appreciation for the allegation of cruelty.But, the evidence of these witnesses found cryptic and slender in nature.They made allegation about maltreatment to deceased Muktabai for demand of cot/bedstead and thereafter demand for money.These witnesses cast stray and general allegations without any details of it.The learned counsel Shri.Patni for accused rightly kept reliance on the ratio laid down by Honourable Apex Court in Jagdishraj Khutta' s case as referred above.The general and omnibus statement of prosecution witnesses without::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 ::: 17 32-CriAl-262-04-J any supporting evidence cannot be taken into consideration to book the guilt of the accused.The evidence of no any neighbourer or denizens of the locality is available on record to nail the accused in this case for charges of cruelty under Section 498-A of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::In sequel, there is no impediment to arrive at the conclusion that the entire approach of learned trial Court for convicting the accused under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC is erroneous, illegal and bad-in- law.There were no circumstances on record sufficient to conclude that the appellant-accused abated the commission of suicide by the deceased Muktabai.It would hazardous to draw inference that the suicide by deceased was the direct result of instigation by the accused.Moreover, as referred above, the prosecution did not make any allegation of abetment of suicide of the deceased Muktabai.The learned trial Court discarded the evidence of prosecution witness in the form of oral and written dying declaration and turned down the allegation of homicidal or dowry death of deceased Muktabai.Unfortunately, the learned trial Court on the basis of residual part of evidence i.e. spot panchnama (Exhibit-17), C.A. report etc, proceeded to introduce new theory of suicidal death, which was totally not in consonance with the allegations propounded on the part of prosecution.The law does not permit such endeavour to re-construct the story of its own out of the rest and convict the accused.In such circumstances, the impugned findings of conviction and resultant sentence rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad deserves to be set aside and quashed.::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::18 32-CriAl-262-04-JAccordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed.The impugned Judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 473 of 2002 dated 31-03-2004, against present appellant-accused for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside.She is acquitted from the charges pitted against her.The bail bonds furnished by appellant-accused stands cancelled.The fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant being meager amount, same be forfeited to Government.The order about destruction of muddemal property is hereby confirmed.The Criminal Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE MTK::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 08:41:17 :::","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The said case arises out of a complaint preferred by the second respondent, who at the relevant point in 2006 was a nun and shehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 has alleged in her complaint that she was repeatedly raped by certain Father Rajarathinam arrayed as A1 in this case.The case has been charge sheeted, committed to sessions and the charges have been framed and now pending trial before the Mahila Court, Trichy.At this stage, the petitioner herein has come forward with the present petition for quashing the charges.Isacc Mohanlal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the only allegation against the petitioner is that after the repeated acts of alleged rape by the first accused, the prosecutrix / second respondent approached the petitioner, who at the time was functioning as Provincial in the church hierarchy and he is said to have hold preliminary enquiry into the allegation made against A1, who at the relevant time was a Principal in a college run by the Jenit's and subsequently held out threat to the petitioner.Before the Sessions Court, the petitioner faces trial for the charges under Sections 201 and 506(i) IPC r/w Section 34 IPC.On a reading the entire final report, which necessarily includes the statements of witnesses, including that of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 prosecutrix, it is clear that the allegation of rape was directed only against the first accused and that itself has spread over a period of time.Even according to the statement of the second respondent, she was once conceived in one of those repeated acts of force-sex and the same was aborted and the only allegation, where she brings in the present petitioner is that on 29.09.2010, she made a complaint to the petitioner in his capacity as Provincial and further makes a statement that the Provincial on enquiry discloses that the first accused had denied the allegations made against him.The threat part of the second respondent is said to have been taken place subsequent to this enquiry.6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate and the learned counsel for the second respondent.The second respondent has also filed as styled as counter affidavit.On a reading of the same, it gives the wholesome concession to all the accused, who she had earlier alleged to have either raped her or supported the acts of rape as the case may be.http://www.judis.nic.in 4A reading of the entire statement of the witnesses including the prosecutrix, one fact that stands out is that nowhere there is an allegation that the petitioner had either harboured criminal or participated in any of the acts constituting rape at any point of time nor he suppressed any information deliberately to the Investigating Agency.Possibly if the Investigating Agency has treated him as a witness he might have been parted with any information.Herein the Court now wants to rely on the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent.This Court does not want tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 N.SESHASAYEE, J., ta stretch it for the offence of 376, for which the first accused now faces trial.Necessarily, charges for this offence should also now go.In conclusion, this Court holds that the charges framed against the present petitioner for the offences under Section 201 and 506(i) IPC r/w 34 IPC is quashed and this criminal original petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.22.03.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No ta Note: Issue Order copy on 05.04.20191.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, 4th Circle, Fort Police Station, Trichirappalli.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.CRL.O.P.[MD]No.21512 of 2018http://www.judis.nic.in","['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT Alok Kumar Basu, J.Appellant Narayan Prasad Sen was convicted under Section 489B/511 and also under Section 489C of the IPC in connection with Shankar Mukherjee, being suspicious of the movement and action of the appellant, reported the matter to the CBI authority and according to suggestion and advice of CBI officials, a trap was laid down on 22nd January, 1995 at ""Gyan Sweets"" where the appellant was supposed to come along with counterfeit currency notes for exchange.On 22nd January, 1995 as per previous plan, CBI officials were present along with independent witnesses and appellant was apprehended within the shop along with 23 number of 500/- rupee currency notes and 57 number of 100/- rupee currency notes.On interrogation of appellant and without, getting any reasonable explanation from him over his possession of so many counterfeit currency notes, the boarding house at.Sealdah where the appellant was staying temporarily was also searched and a Rs. 100/- denomination note was seized.Search was also made at the official quarter of the appellant at Coachbehar Fire Service Station and a 500/- rupee currency note was seized.CBI, on receipt of a regular complaint from Shankar Mukherjee and after seizure of counterfeit currency notes, started investigation and in course of investigation, obtained expert's report regarding the counterfeit notes and after being satisfied with a strong prima facie case about possession of counterfeit notes by the appellant and his intention to transact with those counterfeit notes, CBI submitted charge sheet against the appellant recommending his trial in open Court under Section 489B/511 and under Section 489C of the IPC.The learned Sessions Judge of City Sessions Court at Calcutta, from the necessary papers placed before it.framed charge against the appellant and since the appellant denied the charge and pleaded his innocence, CBI authority was asked to produce evidence to substantiate the charge framed against the appellant.CBI during trial examined 14 witnesses in all including Shankar Mukherjee, the complainant, several witnesses to search and seizure, Mr. S.K. Joshi.the technical officer of bank note press who submitted report on examination of the counterfeit currency notes and officers of the CBI including the investigating officer.Appellant, during trial and also during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr. PC took a specific plea that out of inter-union rivalry, Shankar Mukherjee hatched a conspiracy against the appellant and in connivance with CBI officers, a concocted case was prepared against the appellant.The learned Sessions Judge of City Sessions Court, after considering the evidence produced by CBI during trial particularly with reference to the search and seizure taken place at ""Gyan Sweets"", came to the conclusion that appellant, was found in possession of several counterfeit currency notes and with reference to the report of the expert and statement of the expert as P,W,8, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that all the currency notes found in possession of the appellant were counterfeit notes.The learned Judge mainly banking upon the statement of Shankar Mukherjee P.W. 10 followed by search and seizure of the appellant came to further conclusion that appellant had the intention to exchange the counterfeit currency notes and the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, accepted the prosecution case and held the appellant guilty for the offence both under Section 489B/511 and under Section 489C of the IPC.Mr. Roy contends that P.W. Shankar Mukherjee lodged the complaint regarding possession of counterfeit currency notes by the appellant and also regarding the intention of the appellant to put those currency notes in circulation and thereby to make material gain in the form of collection of genuine currency notes.Mr. Roy submits that following the complaint of P.W. Shankar Mukherjee.CBI officials with the help of independent witnesses like Pradip Kr.Roy, Pranab Saha, Pradip Thakwani recovered the currency notes from the possession of the appellant and on examination of those currency notes by P.W. S.K. Joshi, a Government expert it was ascertained that those currency notes were counterfeit notes.In this appeal we have the privilege to consider the written note placed before us both by Mr. Safiullah appearing for the appellant as well as by Mr. Roy representing the CBI authority and we have considered both the written notes along with oral submissions put forward by the learned advocate of both the sides.It will not be out of record to mention that Mr. Safiullah was very much candid and clear that his only point to challenge the order of conviction and sentence centers around the question of legality and propriety of the investigation started by the CBI on the basis of a complaint from a citizen within the territory of this State.Thus, having regard to the submissions of both the sides along with their written note, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal.The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.The order of conviction and sentenced passed against the appellant are hereby confirmed.The prayer for certificate to prefer appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is considered and rejected.Pranab Kumar Deb, J.I agree.",['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
"According to prosecution version, accused-appellant Zahid Khan as well as deceased Khalid used to ply their respective rickshaws.Three-four days prior to the incident, rickshaw of deceased Khalid has got struck with rickshaw of accused-appellant Zahid Khan and due to that reason, accused-appellant Zahid Khan has threatened him.On that day at about 7:00 pm accused-appellant has sent one boy to call the deceased from his house and accused-appellant Zahid Khan took position in nearby lane (Gali) by concealing himself.When deceased Khalid, while taking his rickshaw, reached near water tank in the lane, accused-appellant Zahid Khan attacked him with knife.Deceased Zahid Khan sustained knife injury at his abdomen.Hearing his noise, one Bhoora Khan and Zafar Khan as well as some other nearby residents rushed to spot but Zahid Khan fled away from there.Injured Khalid was medically examined by PW-6 Dr. S.K. Gupta vide MLC Ex. Ka- 3 and he has sustained following injuries:(i) Incised wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm x abdominal cavity deep.Loops of intestines were protruding out.19. PW-5 Zafar Miyan has stated that accused-appellant is known to him.On day of incident at around 6:45 / 7.00 PM while he was passing through Jail road and he reached near house of Azam Khan, after hearing noise, he reached in the lane and saw that accused-appellant Zahid Khan was causing injuries to Khalid.At that time Bhoora Khan, Bachhan Khan and Sher Ahmad have also reached there.This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 16.9.1982, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rampur, in Session Trial No. 33 of 1982, State vs. Zahid, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Ganj, District Rampur, whereby, accused-appellant Zahid was convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/. In default of payment of fine he has to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.Kept under observation.Advised X-Ray.It was on left side of abdomen 6 cm below umblicus.(ii) Incised wound 4.5 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep on inner surface of right hand.It was a simple injury.Deceased Khalid, being in injured condition, was admitted in hospital but during course of treatment on 21.09.1981 he succumbed to injuries.Inquest proceedings were conducted by Investigating Officer P.W.-9 S.I. Ompal Singh vide inquest report Ex. Ka-10 and dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem.Deceased has sustained following injuries.(i) stitched wound 3.2 cm left iliac region of abdomen 10 cm below and laterally to umblicus 2 cm above the ingunial legament left side that is in the lowest part of the abdomen.(ii) stitched wound 4.5 cm right palm posteriorly between thumb and index finger (roots) extending upwards to dorsum of palm.Cause of death of the deceased was on account of injury no.1 causing hemorrhage and shock.Investigation of the case was conducted by PW-9 S.I. Ompal Singh.After completion of investigation, accused-appellant Zahid Khan was charge-sheeted for offence under Section 304 IPC.Trial court framed charge under Section 302 IPC against accused-appellant Zahid Khan, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to bring home the guilt of accused-appellant Zahid Khan, prosecution has examined nine witnesses.After prosecution evidence, accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein, he has denied prosecution evidence and claimed false implication.However, no evidence was adduced in defence.After hearing and analyzing the evidence on record, trial Court convicted accused-appellant Zahid Khan under Section 304 Part-I of IPC and sentenced as stated in opening part of this judgment.Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, accused-appellant Zahid Khan has preferred the present appeal.Heard Sri Moeez Uddin, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Sri Attreya Dutt, learned A.G.A. for the State.Learned Amicus Curiae has argued:I. that both the eye-witness PW-3 Bhoora Khan and PW-5 Zafar Miyan are inimical witnesses and their presence at the spot is highly doubtful and that there are contradictions in their testimony.It was stated that statements of these witnesses are not reliable.that prosecution has failed to prove any motive on the part of accused-appellant to cause death of deceased Khalid.The prosecution version that a few days prior to the incident, rickshaw of deceased has got struck with rickshaw of accused-appellant, is not established.It was stated that accused-appellant has taken a specific plea that as he used not to run any rickshaw.that alleged statements of deceased, recorded by PW-1 Salim Khan, which has been treated as dying declaration, is not reliable and there is no evidence that deceased was in a fit state of mind to make such an statement.As per prosecution version, deceased has sustained serious injuries at his abdomen area and thus, it does not appear reliable that he was in such mental state to make any such statement.Per contra, it has been submitted by the learned State Counsel that first information report of this case was lodged by deceased himself within half an hour of the incident naming the accused-appellant Zahid Khan.Both the eye-witnesses PW-3 Bhoora Khan and PW-5 Zafar Miyan have made clear and consistent statement.No material contradiction or inconsistency could emerge in their cross-examination.Their version is amply supported by medical evidence.There are no reasons to disbelieve the alleged dying declarations.Learned State counsel submitted that there is overwhelming evidence against accused-appellant, which has been duly appreciated by trial Court and that conviction of accused-appellant is based on evidence.I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.In evidence PW-1 Salim Khan has stated that on 17.09.1981 Khalid has got written tahreer Ex. Ka-1 from him and whatever was dictated by Khalid, the same was written down in the same.The tahreer was read over to him and after that Khalid has affixed his thumb impression on the same.PW-1 Salim has stated that Khalid has got written the following tahreer from him:udy rgjhj fgUnh **Fkkuk bZUpktZ xat jkeiqj fuosnu gS fd rhu pkj fnu igys esjk fjd'kk tkghn eksgYyk tsy jksM dh fjd'kk ls Vdjk x;k Fkk rks blus eq>s dgk Fkk fd rw>s ns[akwxkA vkt djhc 7 cts 'kke tkghn us eq>s cqykus ,d yM+dk Hkstk vkSj vius vki Nqi dj xyh eas [kM+k gks x;k tc eS viuk fjd'kk ysdj Vadh ds ikl vk;k rks blus Nqjh ls esjs Åij okj dj fn;k Nqjh esjs isV esa o nk;s gkFk esa yxh esjs 'kksj ls eksgYys ds Hkwjk [kka o tQj vk;s vkSj cgqr ls vkneh vk;s ftUgsa vkrk ns[kdj tkghn Hkkx x;k esjh jiV fy[k dj dkjokgh dh tk;s eq>s vLirky Hkst fn;k tk;sA** izkFkh [kkyhn iq= cUus [kak eksgYyk enjlk dksuk Fkkuk xat jkeiqjA rgjhj ys[kd& lyhe [kka iq= utkdy vyh [kka eksgYyk BksVj Fkkuk xat jkeiqj g- vaxzsth lyhe [kka 17-9-81PW-2 Dr. P.L. Shah has conducted postmortem.PW-3 Bhoora Khan has stated that he knows the accused-appellant Zahid Khan.On the day of incident, at around 7:00 pm when he was going towards his field and reached at some distance from the house of Azam Khan MLA, near turn of road, he heard noise and when he reached there, he saw that in the lane accused Zahid Khan was giving knife blow at stomach of Khalid.PW-3 Bhoora Khan raised alarm and thereafter accused-appellant ran away towards north side.PW-3 Bhoora Khan further stated that one Bachhan Khan, Zafar Khan and some other persons have also reached there.Deceased Khalid, while he was in injured condition, has dictated a report to Salim Khan.They all raised alarm and thereafter accused-appellant fled away.Deceased Khalid sustained injuries at his stomach and hand.20. PW-4 constable Omkar Singh and PW-7 constable Devendu Singh have assisted during investigation.21. PW-6 Dr. S.K. Gupta has medically examined the deceased Khalid Khan, while deceased was in injured condition.PW-8 Rashid is brother of deceased and he has stated that after incident, deceased was admitted in hospital and on 21.09.1981 he was to be taken to Delhi institute but as soon as he was taken out from the hospital, he succumbed to injuries and thus, deceased was again taken back to the same hospital.PW-9 S.I. Ompal Singh has conducted investigation.He has stated that on 17.09.1981 after registration of case he has recorded statement of Khalid at the police station.PW 9 Ompal Singh has spoken the contents of exhibit Ka-6 as under:""rkbZn o rLnhd jiV nkf[ky djrs gq;s C;ku fn;k] fd eaS fjd'kk pykrk gwWA rhu pkj fnu igys esjk fjd'kk tkfgn dh fjd'kk ls Vdjk x;k Fkk tks fd tsy jksM ij jgrk gS rks tkfgn us eq>ls dgk Fkk fd rq>s ns[kwXkkA vkt djhc] 7 cts tkfgn us eq>s ,d yM+ds ls cqyok;k tcfd eS viuh fjd'kk ysdj tsy jksM dks tk jgk Fkk ml yM+dk dk uke irk eS ugh tkurk gwW vkSj tkfgn [kk xyh esa Nqidj [kM+k gks x;kA tc eS viuh fjd'kk ysdj eksgYyk ?ksj ehjckt [kk dh Vadh ds ikl igqWpk rks tkfgn [kk us esjs Åij Nqjh ls okj dj fn;kA Nqjh esjs isV o nkfgus ckg esa vaxwBs o vaxqyh ds ikl yxhA esjs 'kksj ij eksgYYkk Hkwjk [kka o tkQj vk x;k ckn dks vkSj Hkh cgqr ls vkneh vk; x;s FksA ftUgsa ns[kdj tkfgn Nqjh fy;s gq;s Hkkx x;kA eSusa ogh ij lyhe [kka cki dk uke utkdr vyh [kka ls bl ckr dh] [kqn cksydj ,d rsgjhj fy[kokbZ tks eSus cksyk mlus ogh fy[kk eq>s i<+dj lqukdj esjk fu'kkuh vaxwBk yxok;kA rsgjhj ysdj Fkkus vk;k vkSj nhokuth dks rsgjhj nsdj jiV fy[kkbZA nhokuth us jiV fy[kdj udy eq>s nh gSA vkSj pksVsa ns[kdj fy[kh gS vc eS vLirky tk jgk gwWA**""PW 9 further stated that during course of investigation, statements of other witnesses were recorded.On 21.09.1981 after receipt of information regarding death of Khalid, case was converted from Section 324 to Section 304 IPC.Perusal of record shows that conviction of accused-appellant Zahid Khan is based on dying declaration of deceased Khalid as well as testimony of eye-witness PW-3 Bhoora Khan.So far the dying declarations of deceased Khalid are concerned, the case of prosecution is that in alleged incident deceased Khalid has sustained knife injuries at his abdomen area.For reporting the matter to police, he dictated a tahreer exhibit ka-1 to PW 1 Salim Khan and submitted the same to police and case was registered on the basis of that tahreer.On fourth day deceased succumbed to injuries and thus, after death of deceased, the said document (exhibit ka-1) amounts to dying declaration made by deceased before PW 1 Salim Khan.Secondly after registration of case at the police station, statement (exhibit ka-6) of deceased was recorded under section 161 CrPC by PW 9 SI Ompal Singh at the police station itself and thereafter he was sent to hospital.As stated earlier, on 21.09.1981 deceased succumbed to injuries, thus according to prosecution said statement exhibit ka-6 made by deceased to PW-9 SI Ompal Singh would also fall within the ambit of 'dying declaration'.Here it may be stated that both PW-1 Salim Khan and PW-9 SI Ompal Singh have made clear and consistent statements regarding alleged statements exhibit ka- 1 and exhibit ka-6 respectively.PW-1 Salim has made a consistent and cogent statement that on 17.09.1981 Khalid has got written tahreer exhibit Ka-1 from him and whatever was dictated by Khalid, the same was taken down in the tahreer exhibit ka-1 and that it was read over to him and after that Khalid had affixed his thumb impression on the same.PW-1 Salim has also spoken about contents of exhibit ka-1 in his statement.The investigating officer (PW 9) was not contemplating to record the dying declaration of the victim inasmuch as the victim was seriously injured and immediately needed medical aid.Before sending him to the hospital for proper treatment, PW-9 thought it fit to get the version about the occurrence recorded from the victim himself that had taken place and that is how Exhibit Ka-6 came to be recorded.No such evidence was brought on record to support the said allegation.Date: 06.08.2020 A. Tripathi (Raj Beer Singh, J)","['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The incident generated widespread nationaland international coverage and was widely condemned both inIndia and abroad.This incident brought in questionthe safety of women into city like Mumbai which, with its activenight life was considered safe heaven for women.The SessionsCourt in Delhi, delivered its verdict on 10th September 2013,convicting the perpetrators of the crime.Another incident inthe financial capital of the country - Mumbai, shocked thewhole nation.This time it was another young girl Esther aged22 years who fell prey of the bestial proclivity at the hands of aman who ended her journey of life mercilessly for satisfying hislust.""It took me quite a long time to develop the voice and now that I have it, I am not going to be silent""2 The prosecution case, as unfolded, discloses thatMs.Esther Anuhya, aged 23 years, on completion of her B-TechDegree course, was recruited as a Software Engineer in TCS inGoregaon at Mumbai.The deceased was a resident ofMachilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh and had completed hergraduation from Kakinada.On acquiring a degree, she shiftedto the city of Mumbai and was residing in YWCA Hostel forWomen in Andheri.The deceased came to reside with her parents atMachilipatnam on account of the leave availed by her and shestayed there from 22nd December 2013 to 4th January 2014.Shri Singavarapa Surendra Prasad, PW No.26, the father of thedeceased accompanied her to Vijaywada, nearest Railwaystation to Machilipatnam at about 5.00 a.m on 4th JanuaryTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 6 CONF_CASE_3_15.doc2014, from where a train was available to Mumbai.Estherboarded LTT Express at Visakhapatnam which reaches Mumbaion the next day at 5.00 a.m. At 9.00 p.m, she had a telephonicconversation with her father and she informed her father thatshe had reached Solapur.The LTT Express was to reachMumbai at 5.00 a.m in the morning and accordingly reachedthe station.PW No.26 - Singavarapa - attempted to contacther in the morning on her mobile phone to inquire whether shehad reached safely, but the call was not answered and themobile went on ringing.The father, thereafter, contacted theHostel to inquire whether Esther had reached there but hereceived a reply in the negative.On 5th January 2014 itself, thefather (PW 26) approached Vijaywada Railway Police Stationand lodged a missing complaint.With the said missingcomplaint, the devastated father landed at Lokmanya TilakTerminus Railway Station, Mumbai.He was informed by therailway police that the jurisdiction was that of Kurla PoliceStation and resultantly, he approached the Kurla Police Station.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::Then, began a frantic search of Esther and itcontinued till the date when it was revealed on the father thatTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 7 CONF_CASE_3_15.dochis daughter is no longer alive and this happened on 16 thJanuary 2014 when body of Esther was traced in the bushes onthe Express Highway.The body was found in a burnt anddecomposed condition but the father could identify Esther, hisdaughter by the ring in her finger and also from her belongingswhich were lying nearby.The area where the body was tracedwas falling in Kanjur Marg area and a complaint came to belodged at Kanjur Marg police station alleging that Esther wasmurdered by some unknown person.3 On a complaint being lodged, the Investigatingmachinery was set into motion by the Kanjur Marg PoliceStation.The spot panchnama was drawn in presence of panchwitnesses.A broken wrist watch of Fast Track Company,knicker and a pad, one pink colour T-shirt of 'M' size, one scarfof slate colour with white dots, one mobile phone containingTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 8 CONF_CASE_3_15.doctwo sim cards, and a tuft of hair were found lying on the spotand all the said articles were seized by drawing a panchnama.The same were forwarded to the Forensic Laboratory.A map ofthe spot came to be drawn and it reveals that the said spot is ata distance of approximately 8.90 metres from the Service Roadadjoining to the Eastern Express.The Forensic Personnels whoreached the spot also collected the samples of soil, dry grassand oily grass at the place of incident.The photographer wasalso summoned who clicked the photographs of the spot alongwith the photographs of the body of the deceased.InquestPanchnama was drawn in presence of panch witness and itdivulged that the body was in a partly burnt condition and onthe chest portion, there was a black brassiere which was alsopartly burnt.The portion of abdomen was completely burnt,whereas the private parts and adjoining parts were found to bepartly burnt.and reserved the final opinion, pending the Chemical Analysisof the samples.4 The investigation was carried out initially by KanjurMarg Police Station but it came to be transferred to the CrimeBranch.PI Dattatraya Naikodi registered the FIR, and carriedout further investigation in Crime No.6 of 2014 for the offencepunishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian PenalCode.Further investigation was carried out by PW No. 34Nishikant Tungare, Sr.Police Inspector attached to Kanjur MargPolice Station.During the investigation, the CCTV footage fromthe Lokmanya Tilak Terminus was obtained with the assistanceof PW No.33 Shri Vishal Patil who was on duty in RPF, sincethe security of LTT was under the Government Railway Forceand RPF.The necessary clippings/footage was collected fromthe 36 cameras installed at the LTT Railway Station.The CCTVfootage revealed that Esther had walked out of the Railwaystation on 5th January along with one stranger who was walkingalong with her, carrying her trolley bag.Thecomplainant identified his daughter who was going along witha trolley and while coming out, she was talking on mobile andone stranger was pulling her trolley bag.Similarly, one Nokia Mobile was alsoTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 11 CONF_CASE_3_15.docfound in another pocket of his jeans pant with one sim cardwhich was seized.After the arrest of the accused, he made astatement of disclosure in presence of panch witness that hewas ready to produce the motor cycle which was used by him tocarry the deceased to the spot of crime.On such disclosurestatement being made, the motor cycle came to be seized.Further, the accused also made disclosure statement leading toseizure of bag and articles belonging to the deceased whichcame to be seized from two distinct places.The said articleswere identified by the complainant as the one belonging to hisdaughter.On seizure, the said articles were forwarded forChemical Analysis.The accused was also referred for medicalexamination and was examined by Dr.The spot panchnama reveals that the body of thedeceased was found at a place located to the East of the ServiceRoad of Eastern Express Highway at a distance of about 29 feet.All the said articles were seized from thesaid spot and came to be seized.The Inquest panchnamadiscloses that the dead body of the deceased was partly burntand blackened.It also mentions of long black hair of thedeceased which were found in partly burnt condition, eyes wereopen and had blackened.The face was completely burnt and soalso both the ears.Some portion of the body including the lefthand was bereft of any skin and was exposed.The right handwas spread over and the second finger was bent and yellowmetal ring was found in the middle figure.The caseof the prosecution is unfolded by the complainant, the father ofthe deceased who is examined as PW no.26 i.e. Singavarapa.PW No.26 is resident of Nobel Colony, Machilipatnam, AndhraPradesh.Deceased Esther, aged 23 years was his daughter.Hehas deposed before the Court that she had completed her B-Tech and she was a scholar academically and on acquiring theeducational qualification, she immediately secured a job in TCSas a software engineer.In Mumbai, he had arranged for herstay in YWCA Hostel for Women at Andheri.Shri Singavarapadeposed that whenever his daughter used to get leave, she usedTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 28 CONF_CASE_3_15.docto come to stay in Machilipatnam and on 22 nd December 2013,she came to reside with him and stayed till 4th January 2014.He further deposed that on 4 th January 2014, he took her toVijaywada which was the nearest railway station and fromthere, she boarded LTT Express which reaches Mumbai at 5.00a.m on the next day.He contacted her on her mobile phone at9.00 p.m when he was informed by his daughter that she hadreached Solapur and that she was going to sleep.He hasfurther deposed that when he attempted to contact her in themorning, her mobile phone was ringing but nobody wasresponding.He, therefore, contacted the YWCA Hostel and itwas reported that Esther did not report to the hostel.Shrikant Ladeis a Post Graduate in Bio-Chemistry and trained at Centre forDNA Finger Printing Diagnosis at Hyderabad.He had deposedthat he had handled 2500 cases and had given evidence in 200cases.In his deposition, he has given the details of theuniqueness of a body cell containing DNA and has deposedDNA technique is a very sensitive and stable technique.Hedeposed that from 15 intact cells, DNA profile is generated andthe source of DNA is stated to be any type of body cell, blood,semen, saliva, hair with root without root, teeth, nails,dandruff, ear wax, muscle tissues and bone.He furtherdeposed that on 18th January 2014, he received a letter fromKanjur Marg Police Station and received 2 sealed phials, onesealed test tube and three plastic containers in sealed condition.He further deposed that the description of articles in parcelswas blood sample of Singaravapa, the father of the deceased.He was requested by the Investigating Agency to examine theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 31 CONF_CASE_3_15.docvaginal swab, bone, teeth and nail of deceased as against theblood sample of the claimant i.e Singavarapa (PW 26).Hefurther deposed that he extracted DNA from the bone teeth andblood sample of Singavarappa and the DNA profiles weregenerated.Hefurther deposed that he had also obtained the articles in sealedparcel i.e Identity card, belt, spectacles, jeans pant, ladies halfT-shirt, ladies top, kajal pencil and he had extracted DNA fromsweat detected from Exhibit-1 i.e. Identity card with belt andspectacles and the bone of deceased which was received at thetime of earlier DNA sampling.He opined that DNA profileof sweat detected on Identity card, belt and spectacles and DNAprofile of bone teeth is identical and from one and the samesource of female origin.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::14 The deceased Esther who had boarded the train atVisakhapatnam, reached its destination at Mumbai with Estherbut thereafter, her whereabouts were not known and she didnot report to the Women's Hostel at Andheri where she waslodged.The Investigating Agency was therefore, focused oninvestigating as to how did this young girl who alighted thetrain at Lokmanya Tilak Terminus, reached the place where herbody was traced i.e. on the Service road adjoining the EasternExpress Highway.The prosecution relied on the CCTV footagefrom the cameras which were installed on the Lokmanya TilakTerminus to establish and prove that Esther had reached LTT.The Investigating Agency approached the RPF authorities sincethe security of the LTT was entrusted to the GovernmentRailway Force and the RPF.He also informed that he was a coolie and his services areTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 43 CONF_CASE_3_15.docconfirmed as a gang-man.PW No.19 Surendra informed thesaid person that he can go to the General coach and he wentthere and came back informing that there was no place in thegeneral boggie and thereafter this witness told the said personto go to sleeper coach since there was quota for NashikManmad.PW No.19 deposed that the said person was havingThumbs-up bottle in his hand and there was no luggage.The CCTV footage which was obtained, during thecourse of investigation, was also shown to one Hemant DharmaKohli examined as PW No.27 who was residing in the vicinitywhere the accused was residing i.e. at Kanjur Marg.The saidwitness deposed that he knew the accused Chandrabhan Sanapand his family members since he was residing in the same areawhere the witness was residing.When the CCTV footage wasshown to him, he identified the person in the footage walkingon the platform with one bottle of cold-drink in his hand.Hefurther deposed to the Court that he identified the said personin another footage as Chandrabhan Sanap who was pulling thetrolley bag.Nandkishore deposed that heknew him as he was staying at Kanjur Marg and they used toplay cards.He deposed that on 4th January 2014, he visitedRajashree who was staying in the chawl and doing the businessof selling liquor, where he consumed liquor till 11.30 p.m. Hestated that at about 11.30 p.m, Chowkya came there and sat forconsuming liquor and till 1.30 a.m, they were sitting there.During the search, one xerox copyof letter was found in his back pocket of jeans pant and onfurther inquiry, it was found that it was a kundli prepared byJyotish Visarath Rajabhau Aher.ShriRajabhau Aher deposed before the Court that he was anAstrologer and used to prepare Horoscope.He deposed thaton 5th January 2014, at about 2.00 p.m, he was approached byChandrabhan Sanap who was accompanied by one elderly lady.The witness deposed that he was under pressure and he toldhim that his stars are not good and therefore, he wants to showhis horoscope.Accordingly, the horoscope was prepared andPW No.17 informed the accused that there are few faults in hishoroscope Kal Sarp Dosh and Ati Gandh dosh and he advisedhim to perform Shanti Puja at Trimbakeshwar.The witnessdeposed that he handed over to the accused the visiting card ofTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 ::: 53 CONF_CASE_3_15.docone Prasad Shukla and asked him to approach him to performthe puja.He accepted an amount ofRs.3,000/- from the accused and performed puja on 6th January2014 at 7.30 a.m which was completed at 11.45 a.m. Thewitness deposed that the accused was accompanied by hismother.The accused further deposed that he asked him aspecific query as to whether a sin committed towards a ladycould be cleared by performing this puja, to which the witnessreplied that there is no relation between one's act and this Puja,but because of this puja, problems are solved.The prosecutionhas relied on the Register maintained by this witness and whodeposed before the Court that he used to maintain the registerand enter the name of the person, date and amount.Theprosecution has relied on the testimony of one Pralhad KumarYadav examined as PW No.23 who happened to be strolling hisdog on the highway near Service road in the morning hours.The said witness deposed before the Court that he was workingin a Salt Office which was located between Kanjur Marg andBhandup and he was staying in the office.He had furtherdeposed that in early morning, he used to take the dogbelonging to his owner for stroll on highway near service road.On 19th January 2014, one constable approached the saidwitness and took him to the police station for making certaininquiries.He revealed to the police that he had seen oneperson starting the bike near service road and when he inquiredfrom the said person whether his bike was not starting.Thewitness deposed that when he saw the said person, he foundmud on his shoulder and he inquired whether he had a fallwhich the person answered in the negative.He furtherinquired whether he should assist him in starting the bike toTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 ::: 56 CONF_CASE_3_15.docwhich the person answered that there was no petrol in the tank.The witness further deposed that there was one bag on his backand one bag was kept on the petrol tank.Thereafter, he parkedthe said bike and he started proceeding towards Vikhroli andalso pulled the trolley bag.The said witness has deposed thatthe said person was walking in front of him and was wearing awhite colour t-shirt and blue colour jeans pant and his heightwas 5.5"" and complexion was of wheatish colour.The said witness also identified theaccused present on the screen of the video conferencing and heclarified that he is the same person, but at that time, he was nothaving a beard and he was of a strong built.She further deposed that when sheasked the accused why he is giving the same, he informed thathis sister is no more and, therefore, he gives the black colourbag of the wheels.(iii) An old jeans pant of blue colour;(iv) An used ash gray colour half ladies T-Shirt and another black and pink hosiery ladies top.(v) A light blue colour pant and one leggings of green colour.(vi) One used eye pencil of Maybelline company.The said articles came to be seized on executing aseizure panchnama at the instance of the accused from RoomNo.12 in Sai Building where the sister of the accused wasresiding and running a mess.were not answered and she did not reach her hostel located inAndheri.1 An incident of rape and fatal assault that occurredin the National Capital on 16 th December 2012 which involveda 23 year old physiotherapist intern, shocked the conscience ofthe whole nation.There was unrest and public protest in thecapital which was followed in several major cities in its ownway.Social networking sites were put to use to raise a demandof strict law against rape.This resulted into constitution of aTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:23 ::: 3 CONF_CASE_3_15.docthree Member Committee on 23rd December 2012 headed bythe Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Justice J.S.Verma to recommend amendments to the Criminal Law so as toprovide for speedy trial and enhance punishment for offence ofsexual assault against woman.This was followed by the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairstabling its report recommending amendments to the criminallaw.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:23 :::Barely could have the law makers given a sigh ofrelief by enacting a drastic law dealing with the offencesagainst women and before the Court seized of the said trial,Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:23 ::: 4 CONF_CASE_3_15.doccould deliver its verdict, in August 2013, a 22 year old photojournalist who was interning with an English Magazine inMumbai was gang raped by five persons, including a juvenilewhen she had gone to the deserted Shakti Mills Compound inrelation to an assignment.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:23 :::The series of incidents which came to highlight andseveral other incidents which are not even reported by themedia or not even reported to the police have resulted in theentire womenfolk in the country posing a question of theirsafety and security.The entire womenfolk is heard raising anoutcry and find themselves in a panic striken state of mind andTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 5 CONF_CASE_3_15.docexpect the Executive Legislature and the Judiciary to restoretheir faith in the system.They echo the sentiments similar towhat Madeleine Albright has once remarked :-::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::The body was handedover to the grief-striken father on 17th January 2014 aftercompletion of the necessary formalities for the purpose ofconduct of last ritual and the father carried it to Machilipatnamfor performance of last rites.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::The body was forwarded for post mortem to Sir J.J.Hospital and PW No.25 Dr. Gajanan Chavan conducted the postmortem and submitted a report and expressed the probablecause of death as ""Blunt injuries over body and genital injuries""::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::His statement came tobe recorded.On the basis of the CCTV footage, an investigationteam proceeded to carry out further investigation and madeinquiries from the persons on the railway station and nearbyspot on the Expressway where the body was found.Based oncertain statements which came to be recorded, the InvestigatingMachinery succeeded in arresting one Chandrabhan Sanap asthe person who was accompanying Esther on 5 th January 2014while coming out of Platform No.4 as seen in the CCTV footage.The accused Shri Chandrabhan Sanap came to be arrested videArrest Panchnama dated 2nd March 2014 and panch SalimMushtaq Shaikh executed the said panchnama.The accusedwas taken into custody at Kanjur Marg Police Station and onphysical search of the accused, one piece of paper was found inhis back pocket of jeans pant and it was a writing of anAstrologer Rajabhau Aher from Nashik, Trimbakeshwar.It wasin the form of a Kundli.Kushal Tayde whoopined that his genital organs are normal and that he wascapable of performing a sexual act.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::On completion of the investigation, chargesheet wasfiled before the Addl.The prosecution alleged that deceased Esther, resident ofTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 12 CONF_CASE_3_15.docVijaywada, working at TCS in Mumbai had boarded LTTExpress at Vijaywada on 4th January 2014 to reach Mumbai.However, when she reached Mumbai, she was kidnapped byaccused Chandrabhan Sanap who took her to the place ofincident and after committing rape on her, committed hermurder and in order to destroy the evidence, burned the bodyat a secluded place at a close distance on the EasternExpressway.The accused was charged for abducting Esther on5th January 2014 at 5.30 am from Lokmanya Tilak TerminusStation on the pretext of dropping her at the hostel andthereafter he made to sit her on his bike and took her to alonely place behind the bushes on Mumbai-Thane Service Roadand forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her.He wascharged with Sections 364, 366, 376(2)(m), 376(A), 392 r/wSection 397, 302, and 201 of Indian Penal Code.He was alsocharged with offence punishable under Section 170 of the IPCsince he pretended to hold office of Railway Security RPF andby assuming his character as such, refrained from payingParking charges.He was also charged with Section 147 of theRailways Act, 1989 for committing an offence of trespass.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::The accused pleaded not guilty to all the saidcharges and thereafter, the prosecution proceeded to prove thecharges against the accused by adducing evidence.Theprosecution examined 39 witnesses.The statement of theaccused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedurecame to be recorded and the accused examined four witnessesin his defence.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge convicted the accusedfor the offence punishable under Sections 302, 364, 366,376(2)(m), 376A, 392 r/w Section 397 and 201 of the IPC.Hewas acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 170 ofthe IPC and Section 147 of the Indian Railways Act. Foroffence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and theaccused was ordered to be hanged by neck till he is dead.Onconviction under Section 364, 366 and 376(2)(m), the accusedwas sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 yearsseparately.On conviction under Section 376A, he is sentencedTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 14 CONF_CASE_3_15.docto suffer RI for Life, which shall mean the Imprisonment forremainder of his natural life.For offence punishable underSection 392 r/w Section 397, he is sentenced to suffer RI for 7years.Further, for offence punishable under Section 201 of theIPC, he is sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years.All the substantivesentences of the Imprisonment of the accused are directed torun concurrently.The accused is directed to pay compensationof Rs.50,000/- which is directed to be paid to the parents of thedeceased provided they are ready to accept the same.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::While imposing the death sentence, the Addl.learned Sessions Judge has recorded that the accused has actedwith extreme brutality and committed the offence in a pre-planned and a diabolical manner.TheConfirmation Case No.3 of 2015 which has been placed beforethe High Court came to be tagged by order dated 5th January2016 with Criminal Appeal No.1111 of 2015 filed by theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 16 CONF_CASE_3_15.docaccused/appellant.Both thematters were taken up for final hearing on 11th October 2018and accordingly, the accused was directed to be produced.Weconcluded the hearing of the matter on 1st November 2018 afterconducting day to day hearing.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::Raja Thakare.In Criminal Appeal No.1111 of2015, Shri Nitin Pradhan appears for the appellant and theState is represented by Special Public Prosecutor Shri Thakare.We have heard both the matters on day-to-day basis and theaccused was present in the Court on all the dates of hearing.7 With the assistance of the learned Special PublicProsecutor Shri Thakare and Shri Pradhan learned counsel forthe accused, we have scrutinized the entire record and theevidence brought on record by the prosecution and also theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 17 CONF_CASE_3_15.docdefence.The learned counsel Shri Pradhan appearing for theappellant would submit that the prosecution has not dischargedits burden in proving the guilt of the accused beyondreasonable doubt when it was duty bound to establish all thepieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinchingevidence and the circumstances so proved must result into achain of events which would lead to no conclusion other thanthe guilt of the accused.Shri Pradhan would submit that thecircumstances cannot lead to other hypothesis and meresuspicion, however, grave it may be, cannot be a substitute fora proof and in the case based on circumstantial evidence, theCourt must be extra cautious in relying on the evidence broughton record by the prosecution.Shri Pradhan would submit thatin the present case, several links are missing and there is noproof of any motive, much less a strong motive attributed to theaccused and in absence of such proof, the most vitalrequirement of law to prove a case of circumstantial evidence isnon-existence.Shri Pradhan submits that body of the deceasedwhich was discovered, was in an advanced stage ofdecomposition and was beyond recognition and in thisTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 18 CONF_CASE_3_15.docbackground, the prosecution has not made out a case of rapeand in fact, no injuries to that effect could be discerned fromthe post mortem report and Shri Pradhan is very critical aboutthe manner in which the prosecution has brought an improvedversion of its case through the doctor who conducted the postmortem by raising certain queries and in its response, thenproceeded to foist a charge of rape on the accused.Shri Pradhan has also disputed the legality of theevidence brought on record in form of CCTV footage, which isthe only genesis on the basis of which the prosecution isderiving an inference that the deceased was last seen in theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 19 CONF_CASE_3_15.doccompany of the accused.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::8 As against this, Special Public Prosecutor ShriThakare submits that the prosecution has successfullyestablished the circumstances which pointed to the accused andthe Special P.P would submit that it has not relied on a solitaryTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 20 CONF_CASE_3_15.doccircumstance but through the evidence brought on record, theprosecution has established a chain of circumstances which isaptly corroborated and led to an irresistible conclusion that itwas only the accused who had committed the crime.His submission isTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 21 CONF_CASE_3_15.docthat the subsequent conduct of the accused after commission ofthe crime has also been brought on record through evidence ofthe witnesses who had deposed about the acts of the accused inthe normal course and Shri Thakare submits that thestatements of these witnesses were recorded even before theInvestigating Agency had zeroed down on the accused to be theperson who was responsible for causing death of the accused.Shri Thakare would submit that the Sessions Court, by takinginto consideration the totality of circumstances and thecumulative effect of the evidence brought on record hasappreciated the same in light of the well settled norms ofcriminal jurisprudence and has arrived at a finding of guiltagainst the accused.As far as the imposition of death penalty isconcerned, we would refer to his submission a while later whenwe come to the point of sentencing.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::9 The case of the prosecution is based oncircumstantial evidence and the prosecution has relied on 39witnesses to establish its case apart from several documentaryevidence.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::the prosecution places reliance on the spot panchnama provedby PW-2 Bapu Adsul.The spot panchnama discloses that on the said place a space of5 x 3 feet was in a burned condition and at a distance about 8feet from the said place there is a space of 4 x 3 feet which isblackish in colour where the dead body was lying.The spotpanchnama further reveals that on careful perusal of the spot,at the north of the said place, a Samsung Duos company mobileis lying at a distance of 5 feet.One rubber mobile cover darkblue in colour was also found lying on the spot.On the spotone black gray colour scarf with white spots was also foundwhich came to be seized.On the spot one pink colour T-Shirtin partly burned condition with M-size also came to be seizedfrom the spot.Further, at a distance of 2 feet from where thebody was lying, one Fast track company watch with a black dialwith broken belt was also lying on the spot.The spotTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 23 CONF_CASE_3_15.docpanchnama further reveals that a purple colour doted knickerand white colour pad attached to the said knicker was alsolying on the spot.The chest portionwas found to be completely burned and the black brassiere wasattached to the body and the portion of abdomen was charred.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::The body of the deceased was sent for conduct ofpostmortem and Dr.The postmortemTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 ::: 24 CONF_CASE_3_15.docreport relied on by the prosecution also refers to black colourbra with avulsed hook-metallic.Rigor mortis was absent in thebody and postmortem report makes mention to the followingeffect:::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:24 :::""Variable mix pattern of decomposition seen.Facial skin burnt, blackish adherent to skull bone, Skin absent at some places of extremities and abdomen exposing bones and abdominal viscera at places.Ends of long bones are nibbled and exposed.Natural separations seen at most of the joints without evidence of ante mortem fractures No Maggots"".As far as the column of surface wound and injuries thepostmortem notes mention as under :1. Contusion over LT-Left fronto temporal area 4 x 5 cm, blackish red colour.""2. Contusion over lower lip right side against canines- blackish red in colour 2 x 2 cm.Both contusion confirmed by cut section.The postmortem makes note of decomposition seenin pericardium and heart.Abdomen is found to be absent.Theopinion as to the probable cause of death has been cited asfollows :-""Blunt injuries over body and genital injuries seen.However, final opinion result, pending for CA of samples"".The cause of death in the saidcertificate is described as follows :-::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::""Death due to Head injury with smothering associated with genital injuries.""11 The prosecution has also relied on the response tothe query raised by the Investigating Officer to the team ofdoctors who conducted the postmortem in regard to the injuryin column No.15 which postmortem was described in thepostmortem notes to the following effect.""15. injuries to external genitals.Indication of purging-genitals distorted due to decomposition, vaginal wall shows blackish reddish discoloration at posterior wall, confirmed by cut section""The query that was raised by the Senior Police Officer tothe J.J. Hospital on 28.07.2014 raised the following doubts:-""(i) What can cause the state of the organs mentioned in column(ii) In the state of organs in column no.15 whether can be caused by forcible insertion of anything in the vagina.Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 26 CONF_CASE_3_15.doc::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::(ii) Whether the state of organs as mentioned in column 15 is on account of decomposition.""The Medical Officer replied to the said query on 12.08.2014 by thefollowing reply:-(i) As to point no.1 the state of the organs can caused due to antemortem injuries to the private part and subsequently due to its decomposition.(ii) As to point no.2 answer state of organs as mentioned in column 15 can caused on account insertion of anything into the vagina.(iii) As to point no.3 answer to point no.1 to be perused.12 On the basis of the aforesaid documentary evidencethe prosecution has established that the deceased whose bodywas found on the Service Road of the Eastern Expressway on16.01.2014 was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse andthereafter was done to death by causing Head injury coupledwith smothering.It is also the case of the prosecution that thedeath had occurred on account of the said Head injury withsmothering associated with genital injuries and the prosecutionattributed it to the accused and it is alleged that she wasassaulted on her head resulting into the injury mentioned incolumn no.17 which was confirmed by cut section.It is alsoTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 27 CONF_CASE_3_15.docthe case of the prosecution that the contusion over lower lipright side against the canines, which is reflected as blackish redin colour depicts the force applied.Further the prosecutionalso relies on the response to the query report to sustain thecharge that the injuries to the genitals are ante-mortem andsubsequently decomposed.The postmortem report hadmentioned the same to be distorted due to decomposition.13 The prosecution relies on oral testimony of witnessesto support its case based on circumstantial evidence.Thereafter, PW No.26 lodged a missing complaint with theRailway Police Station at Vijaywada and landed in Mumbai andapproached the Kurla Police Station.He further deposed thathe undertook search of his daughter and the police found thelast signal of the location of her mobile at Bhandup and onfurther search on Express Highway, on 16th January 2014, thebody of his daughter was found near Express Highway in thebushes.He recognised the body to be of his daughter from aTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 29 CONF_CASE_3_15.docfinger ring in her finger.He has deposed that the condition ofthe body was very bad and beyond recognition.He lodged anFIR and took possession of the body for performance of lastrites.He has further deposed that the Investigating team atKanjur Marg contacted him and they inquired about the articleswhich his daughter was carrying, which he informed to be atrolley bag, laptop bag, one sack, one or two handbags andsome other articles.He was also shown the CCTV footage onpen-drive when he recognized his daughter entering theplatform along with the trolley and a bag and sack on her back.In one footage, he recognized his daughter who was holding amobile and one man was drawing her trolley.This witness hasdeposed that his daughter was wearing one wrist watch of FastTrack company when she left the house.PW No.26 alsorecognized a Yellow metal ring on her finger which was seizedand marked as Article 27 and also the Fast Track wrist watch aswell as her other belongings i.e. scarf, trolley bag, identity card,spectacles etc. The identity of the body found lying nearBhandup on the Express Highway was established by PW No.26as to be of his daughter.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::Through this witness, the prosecution has thereforeestablished that the body found on the Expressway on 16 thJanuary 2014 was of the daughter of PW no.26 and the articleswhich were seized during the course of investigation andTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 32 CONF_CASE_3_15.docclaimed by the prosecution to be belonging to the deceasedwere proved to be matching with the DNA extracted from thebone of the deceased.For security purposes, the 36 CCTVcameras were installed on the railway station with its displaybeing monitored in the CCTV control room.On requisiteTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 33 CONF_CASE_3_15.docpermission from the RPF, the Personnel from the Company whowas maintaining CCTV cameras was instructed to provide theCCTV footage.The CCTV footage came to be transmitted to thepen drive and it was collected for the period from 4.00 a.m to7.00 a.m on the date of incident i.e. 5 th January 2014 whenEsther de-boarded the train at LTT which she had boarded atVisakhapatam.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::The said witness has deposed before the Court thatthere are cameras installed on all the platforms of LTT and alsoin the rooms and there were two monitors, the first monitoring20 cameras and another monitoring 16 cameras.He alsodeposed before the Court that the servers are kept in thecontrol room and there is an automatic recording system incamera.He further deposed that there is Hard disk in theserver and recording gets saved in the server.He furtherTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 34 CONF_CASE_3_15.docdeposed that in one server, there is recording of 12 days and inanother server, there is recording of one month and after theexpiry of the said period, recordings are automatically deletedfrom the said servers.He also deposed that since there wassome fault in the server, he visited the control room in themonth of January and at that time, the Police Officers fromKanjur Marg Police Station sought for a footage and heinformed that it could be done only with the permission of theRPF.He deposed that after obtaining the necessary permission,he had transmitted the footage of 5 th January 2014 which wasavailable on CCTV camera to the pen drive.The footage wasplayed and verified and thereafter, the pen drives were sealedin presence of two panch witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::PW no.29Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 35 CONF_CASE_3_15.docdeposed before the Court that when he visited Machilipatnamand showed the CCTV footage to the complainant, he identifiedhis daughter while going with the trolley and while she wastalking on mobile and one person was pulling her trolley.Hefurther deposed that PW No.26 identified the trolley bag asbelonging to his daughter and he also informed that he wasaware of the articles in the said bag since he was present at thetime when his daughter packed her bag.This version iscorroborated by PW no.26 who deposed before the Court whenhe was shown the CCTV footage on pen-drive and he saw hisdaughter entering the platform along with the trolley and a bagand sack on her back.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::The prosecution, therefore, established through theevidence of these witnesses that Esther had reached Mumbai byLTT Express and deboarded the train since the CCTV clippingsrecorded the images of Esther walking on the Railway Platformat 04.59.30 when she was seen pulling a trolley bag.However,the next footage of 05.06.45 is an image of one person wearingwhite t-shirt and blue jeans pulling the trolley bag and womanseen in the earlier footage following him talking on mobileTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 36 CONF_CASE_3_15.docphone.The CCTV footage which was recorded from 4.00 amto 7.00 am on 5th January 2014 is in form of different clips.16 The prosecution has also examined the panchwitness Girish Mishra who is examined as PW No.1 and whohas proved the panchnama prepared while transmitting thedata from the Control room to the pen drive.PW No.1 hasdeposed before the Court that an attempt was made to searchthe footage of 1 ½ hour as there were too many cameras.Hefurther deposed that two pen drives of 64 GB were to be usedto retrieve the data of 5th January 2014 from 4.00 am to 7.00a.m.He further deposed that the pen drive was inserted inDigital Video Recorder (DVR) which was connected to 16cameras on the said railway station and before the data wastransmitted, it was ensured that the pen drive was blank.Hethen deposed that pen drive was removed from DVR andconnected to the computer thereby properties of the pen driveof 425 files were copied in another pen drive and he signed thepanchnama which was prepared by which pen drives wereseized, sealed and stamped.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::The CCTV footage obtained by the InvestigatingAgency during the course of investigation and which was putbefore the trial Court through Prosecution Witness No.31 is theaxis of the whole chain of circumstances relied upon by theprosecution.We requested the learned Special PublicProsecutor Shri Raja Thakare to play the CCTV footage beforeus so that we can appreciate the case of the prosecution.Accordingly, the pen drive which carried the CCTV footage wasconnected to the laptop during the course of hearing and wehad an opportunity to examine the entire footage and thelearned Special Public Prosecutor also supplied the stillphotographs of the relevant clippings on which the prosecutionrelies.A copy of pen drive was also supplied to Shri Pradhan,learned counsel for the accused.17 On examination of the various clippings, bothrunning and in form of still photographs, reveal the followingdetails.1 The first clip beginning time is 04:48:20 a.m, which is recorded in the camera installed on platform no.5 towards Kalyan side.In this clip, itTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 38 CONF_CASE_3_15.doc is seen that one person is getting down from a stationary train wearing white t-shirt and blue jeans and having a bottle of cold-drink in the hand.The clip is upto 04:49:06 a.m. This clipping will have to be appreciated in light of evidence of PW 18 who has identified the accused as the person who had purchased the bottle of Thums-Up from his stall.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::Here, a person in white t-shirt gets down from a railway boggie and sits near the pillar of the railway shade.The clipping starts at 04:59:30 which shows one lady going inside the waiting area pulling a trolley bag and having other bag on the shoulder (Although the features of the person are not identifiable).4 This footage is from the camera installed in the hall and relevant time is 05:00:57 wherein a girl is seen pulling a trolley bag having other shoulder bag and wearing a scarf.5 There is one more clipping captured in the CCTV camera installed on platform no.5 towards CST showing same lady walking while pulling a trolley bag and having one more bag and purse on the shoulder.Both these clippings (4 and 5) make is clear that it is one and the same woman.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::wearing white t-shirt and blue jeans is alighting from one of the boggies and walks on the platform.The screenshot is taken at 05:07:02 where the face is clear and the person is the same as in the earlier clippings.This is on platform no.5 towards CST.The relevant time is 05:10:52 when it is seen that the same man with the white t-shirt and blue jeans is pulling the trolley bag and the same woman which was seen in the earlier footages is walking along talking on mobile phone.Screenshot is taken at 05:11:13 when the face of the person pulling the trolley bag can be clearly seen.Also the pink t-shirt worn by the woman is seen.18 Relying on the CCTV footage, the prosecution hasestablished that Esther reached Mumbai at approximately4.59.30 a.m when she approached the waiting area pulling herown trolley bag and having another bag on her shoulder.Inanother clipping, she is walking while pulling her trolley bagand one more bag and purse on her shoulder.The earlierclippings recorded at 4.48.20 am discloses one person gettingdown from a stationary train wearing white t-shirt and bluejeans and having a bottle of cold-drink.The screen shots of theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 40 CONF_CASE_3_15.docsaid clipping clearly reveal that it is the accused who is presentbefore us.Another clipping captures the person in white t-shirtwalking on the railway platform and we had noticed that hewas walking in a shaky condition.A screen shot taken at4.58.48 clearly focuses on the face and the said person in thesaid screen shot in the accused who is present before us.In thelast footage recorded at 05.10.52, the accused in white t-shirtand blue jeans is seen pulling the trolley bag and Esther who isseen in the earlier footage is following him and she is talking onher mobile phone.The pink t-shirt worn by the woman isclearly seen.Thus, the prosecution with the help of CCTVfootage has established its case to the extent that Estherreached the LTT and she exited the railway station along withthe accused.Shri Pradhan has alleged that the said evidenceled by the prosecution do not withstand the test of 'evidence' interms of the Evidence Act and we would be dealing with thesaid submission a later.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::19 In order to further corroborate the presence ofaccused at LTT and to establish that the deceased accompaniedTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 41 CONF_CASE_3_15.dochim while leaving the Terminus, the prosecution has relied onthree witnesses.He stated beforethe Court that it was not possible for him to exactly state if it isso, since thousands of people come to him.However, hefurther deposed that on 5th January 2014, one person hadapproached him after opening the stall and purchased aThumbs-up for Rs.34/- and gave him currency note of Rs.100/-and when he requested him to give change of Rs.4 and herefused to hand over the change, in turn, this witness gave hima chocolate.Then, the accused started abusing him and arguedwith him for approximately 10 to 15 minutes and that is howhe remembered him.He also deposed that he was his firstcustomer and he had a mustache and his forehead was broadand he was wearing white t-shirt and blue colour pant and onekey was hanging from his pocket.He also deposed that hisheight was 5.5"" and he was having a well built body and was ofTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 42 CONF_CASE_3_15.doc28 to 29 years of age.He further deposed that he can identifythe said person if shown to him.He also stated before theCourt that he was asked to attend the Arthur Road Jail forIdentification Parade of the accused and in the said Parade, heidentified the person who came to his shop on 5 th January2014 and purchased cold-drink and abused him.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::Another witness examined by the prosecution isShri Surendra Nair PW No.19, working as an A.C. Mechanic inCentral Railway who deposed that on 4 th January 2014, he wason duty at Kurla Terminus and on the relevant date, he was onstand-by duty.He further deposed that on that date, there wasno A.C. mechanic in Tulsi Express and was sent as A.C.Mechanic in the said train which was to arrive at KurlaTerminus at 4.30 a.m. He deposed that the said train arrived at4.30 a.m and he was standing near the train for boarding italong with two attendants since he was to enter the A.C.Compartment before one hour of departure and switch on theA.C. At that time, he was approached by one person informingthat he is from railway staff and he wanted to go by the train.Healso deposed that he was wearing white color t-shirt and jeanspant and he was well built and not having hair from the frontside.PW No.19 alsoidentified the accused during Identification Parade held on 25 thJanuary 2014 at Arthur Road Jail.This witness also identifiedthe accused on the screen of the Video Conference.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::The third witness whom the prosecution has examined toestablish the presence of the accused on LTT platform alongwith the deceased in the early hours of 5th January 2014 is PWno.20 Ramesh Rathod.The said witness was engaged in thejob of Supervisor in the pre-paid taxi booth at Kurla TerminusTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 44 CONF_CASE_3_15.docrailway station and the nature of his work is to look after theworkers and go to RTO for the said purpose.He further deposed that on 5th January 2014,Visakhapatnam train came on platform at 5.00 am to 5.15 amand he saw one lady going with one man who was havingtrolley bag in his hand.PW 20 - Ramesh Rathod inquired fromhim whether he required a taxi and he answered that he washaving vehicle.The witness gave the description of the saidperson as having broad mustache and bald from front side andwearing t-shirt and blue jeans pant and was of approximately35 years.He deposed before the Court that the police weremaking inquiries about the said incident regularly in regards toone girl missing from the said railway station and when hecame to know about such an inquiry, he on his own went toCrime Branch Ghatkopar on 20th March 2014 and he gave hisstatement to the police that he saw the girl going with oneperson.The said witness also identified theaccused person on the Video Conferencing screen.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::20 Thus, the prosecution with the assistance of theaforesaid witnesses has established the presence of the accusedon the platform where the deceased terminated her journeyfrom Visakhapatam and the prosecution has established its caseTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 46 CONF_CASE_3_15.docthat the accused convinced the deceased to follow him orassured her of reaching the destination at Andheri and as such,the deceased handed over her trolley bag to the accused andboth of them were seen walking out of the railway stationbetween 5.10.52 a.m and 5.11.15.a.m.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::21 Chandrabhan came to be arrested on 2nd March2014 after his identity was established during the course ofinvestigation on the basis of the CCTV footage and thestatements recorded.The arrestpanchnama was prepared after physical search of the accusedand on inquiry, the accused gave his address of Nashik and alsosupplied another address of Building No.2, Door No.108, KarveMarg, Kanjur Marg (West).On inquiry, in relation to theaccused person at his given address, the prosecution was ableto collect further evidence in relation to the past and postincident conduct of the accused and which was brought beforethe Court.PW No.12 is one Rajashree Shetty who was residingTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 47 CONF_CASE_3_15.docin MHADA building, Karve Nagar, Kanjur Marg and who wasknowing the accused Chandrabhan Sanap.The said witnessdeposed before the Court that she knows one NandkishoreSahu (PW No.9) who is staying adjacent to her house and whoused to visit her for consuming liquor and on occasions,accused who was also known as Choukya, also used to visit herhouse.She deposed before the Court that on 4 th January 2014,at about 10.30 p.m, Nandkishore Sahu came to her house withliquor and when they were consuming liquor, ChandrabhanSanap also came there with a bottle of liquor and asked forsome snacks.However, since there was no food in her house,he asked for a key of motorcycle of Nandkishore and took hisbike and Nandkishore waited for the accused to return with hisbike.The prosecution also relies heavily onthe said witness, as according to it, it is to this witness, theaccused had given an extra judicial confession about thecommission of crime.Nandkishore Sahu is the owner ofmotorcycle bearing No.In his depositionbefore the Court, he recognized the accused produced by VideoTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 48 CONF_CASE_3_15.docconferencing as Chandrabhan Sanap @ Choukya who wasresiding behind his building.PWNo.9 further deposed that the accused told that he was hungryand asked for some eatables.However, there was nothing thereto eat and therefore, he asked for key of his motorcycle and theaccused took his bike and went away at 1.30 a.m. It is furtherdeposed by PW No.9 that he waited for 40 - 45 minutes, but hedid not return back and thereafter, he went to his house andwent to sleep.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::PW no.9 further deposed that at 7.30 a.m, hereceived a phone call from the accused and PW no.9 visited hishouse where is mother and sister were present.He noticed onehand bag and one trolley bag there and there was also onewhite colour t-shirt stained with mud lying there.Thereafter,Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 ::: 49 CONF_CASE_3_15.doche came after wearing the clothes and when this witness askedfor the key of his motorcycle, the accused told him that as therewas no petrol and he had parked the vehicle at highway and heasked him to accompany by taking some other vehicle.PW 9Nandkishore further deposed that he asked for a motor bikefrom Kadir Murgiwalla and on his splendor, the accused satbehind him and told him that he would take him to the placewhere the motorcycle was parked.On reaching the Serviceroad at Bhandup where the motorcycle was parked, but whenhe attempted to start the motorcycle, he did not succeed asthere was no petrol.PW 9 deposed that thereafter the accusedwent 100 ft away inside the bushes and he followed him.Heasked the accused what he was searching for.At that time, hesaw one girl was lying there and she was not alive and hedeposed that she was 23 - 24 years old.On seeing the body,PW 9 was scared and he came back and the accused followedhim running.At this point of time, as per the version of PWNo.9, he has deposed to him that he had gone to KurlaTerminus by taking his bike and one girl got down from thetrain.He asked the girl where she wanted to go and when sheTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 ::: 50 CONF_CASE_3_15.docinformed him that she wanted to go to Andheri, he told that heis also going to Andheri and he had taken her on themotorcycle and brought her on the spot.He further told thathe had taken her in the bushes and thereafter he raped her andwhen she started shouting, he pressed her mouth andstrangulated her by scarf and killed her.PW 9 further deposedthat he put petrol in the said motorcycle from anothermotorcycle and reached home.PW 9 further deposed that hewas threatened by the accused not to report this incident toanybody.As per the said witness, on 6th January 2014 and 7thJanuary 2014, the accused called him and threatened him, buthe refused to receive his calls as he was aware that the accusedis of quarrelsome nature and two more crimes were registeredagainst him.The witness deposed that on 15 th January 2014,he did not receive the call of the accused and thereafter, heproceeded to Nashik since his mother's health was not good.The prosecution has heavily relied on theextra-judicial confession and which is clearly criticized by ShriTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 ::: 51 CONF_CASE_3_15.docPradhan and the reliability of the prosecution on the said extra-judicial confession would be dealt by us at a later point of time.22 In order to further establish the link of the accusedto the crime in question, the prosecution has placed reliance ontestimony of witnesses who throws light on the subsequentconduct of the accused after commission of the crime.He further deposed that the accused was married forthree times and his first wife had expired and his second wifehad left him and he was residing with his third wife in the saidhouse.He deposed that on 5th January 2014 at 9.00 a.m, hesaw the accused going with his mother and at that time, theaccused was having one bag on his back and one trolley bag.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::arrest panchnama on 2nd March 2014, the accused wassubjected to physical search.The witness has categorically deposed that afterdiscussing the horoscope, the accused asked him if any sin hasbeen committed by him against woman, whether the Puja couldrectify him.The said witness also identified the xerox copy ofthe horoscope prepared by him and since the original of thehoroscope was with the accused.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::In order to complete the chain of the conduct of theaccused, the prosecution has examined another witness whohas performed the Kal Sarp Puja as per advise of PW no.17.The said witness is Prasad Sharadchandra Shukla and examinedas PW no.16 by the prosecution.The said witness deposedbefore the Court that he was working as a Priest inTrimbakeshwar temple and was performing the puja of KalSarp Yog.He deposed that one Rajabhau Aher, an Astrologistsends people to him for performance of puja.He furtherdeposed that on 5th January 2014, Chandrabhan Sanap visitedhim on recommendation of Rajabhau Aher for performing pujaof Kal Sarp Yog and Ati Gandh Yog.The arrangements of stayof the accused were made by PW no.16 at his home and he hadTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 ::: 54 CONF_CASE_3_15.docalso brought his horoscope.The said extract of the register was seized inpresence of panch witness Ashok Kumar Pandey who isexamined as PW no.15 by the prosecution.The aforesaidwitnesses have thus been relied upon by the prosecution toestablish the conduct of the accused post-commission of theoffence.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::The prosecutionhas relied upon this witness who happens to be a chancewitness and who deposed about the presence of the accused onthe service road on the Expressway at morning hours on 5 thJanuary 2014 i.e. the date on which Esther landed at LokmanyaTilak Terminus but was untraceable.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::form of the seizure of the belongings of the deceased which shehad carried at the time when she left her hometown to proceedto her work place.The prosecution has examined PW-4 andPW-5 who are the panch witness to the disclosure panchnama.The accused made a statement that heis ready to produce the bag which Esther was carrying and theaccused has taken the said bag to Nashik and handover to oneelderly lady.A memorandum statement of the accused wasrecorded under a panchnama exhibited at Exhibit-44 and 44Aand PW-4 Abdul Satar Sayad Ali Shaikh has acted as a panchwitness on the said panchnama.The said disclosurememorandum laid to recovery of one trolley bag of black colourwith words ""Skybag"" endorsed on it.The said witness corroborated the disclosure statementleading to the discovery of the bag and depose before the Courtthat she was doing labour work and on one day when she wassitting near the public toilet, accused person, whom sheidentified on the V.C. Screen came there and asked her if shecan accept the said bag.She deposed there were clothes inside thebag and she sold it and kept the bag at Misrawada in a room.She handed over the bag to police when she was approached bythe police and identified the said bag of black colour whenshown to her at the time of deposition.Another circumstancerelied on by the prosecution is the recovery of the bag whichthe deceased was carrying and the bag and its contents wereseized at the instance of the accused on a disclosure statementbeing made by him and were seized from the sister's room ofthe accused.PW-5 Pradeep Shirodkar acted as a panch witnessto the said disclosure panchnamma at Exhibit- 81 and 81ATilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 ::: 59 CONF_CASE_3_15.docwhich led to seizer of certain articles belonging to deceasednamely:-::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::(i) An identification card of University College of Engineering (JNEU, Kakinada) bearing the deceased name;(ii) An used black and blue framed spectacles with a broken glass;All the said articles were placedin a plastic bag in the house belonging to the sister of theaccused and the articles came to be seized and marked asArticles.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::deceased Esther was forwarded for DNA Analysis in sealedparcels.Prosecution witness No.28 Shrikant Hanumant Lade,the Assistant Director in FSL Kalina Generated the DNA profilefrom the sweat detected on one Exhibit-L on the I-card andExhibit-L-2 spectacles he compared the same with the bonesamples of the deceased.The prosecution has thus establishedthat the said articles which were seized at the instance of theaccused belonged to the deceased Esther and these articles i.e.the identity card and the spectacles were identified by thefather of the deceased as belonging to Esther.The prosecution has also examined PW-14 SatyawanGawade who has acted as a panch to the panchnama executedfor seizure of the brassiere which was found on the body of thedeceased at the time of the conduct of postmortem.The saidbrassier came to be seized and the panchnama executed on17.01.2014 records that belt and hook of the brassiere wasbroken and it was having holes on it.The deceased was last seen in the company of theaccused in the CCTV footage drawn from the cameras fitted onthe LTT terminus station and she has been identified by theprosecution witness No.26 her father.The person whom shewas accompanying in the CCTV footage is identified byprosecution witness No.27 Hemant Dharma Koli who wasstaying in the area where the accused were residing.The prosecutionhas also relied on the Test Identification Parade where all theaforesaid witness have identified the accused as the person whowas present on the platform and whom the deceased hadaccompanied when she exited the LTT terminus.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::These aforesaid circumstances are relied upon bythe prosecution and which it has brought on record throughvarious witness.The investigating officers have been examinedin form of prosecution witness No.29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37 andThe investigating officer has deposed before the Courtabout the details of the investigation including the recording ofthe various witnesses and forwarding of the material seized forChemical Analysis and also has thrown light on the seizertraced to the disclosure statement of the accused.PW-39 is theexecutive Magistrate who has conducted the postmortemreport and since the postmortem report in form ofmemorandum panchnama of Identification Parade was alsoaccepted through PW-56 at Exhibit-163, this witness was madeavailable for cross-examination at the instance of the accusedand was extensively cross-examined.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::record by the prosecution which we have carefully scrutinized,we would proceed to deal with the arguments of the learnedcounsel for the accused which came to be advanced byAdvocate Shri Pradhan.Learned counsel Shri Pradhan makes asubmission that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt ofthe accused beyond reasonable doubt by bringing on recordcogent and reliable evidence.He submits that the prosecutioncase was based on circumstantial evidence, but according tohim, the events brought on record are bereft of any materialconnecting the accused to the crime.Referring to the evidencebrought by the prosecution on record, Shri Pradhan vehementlydisputes the case of the prosecution that deceased wassubjected to sexual harassment and that she was raped.By inviting our attention to the statein which the body was found and which, according to ShriPradhan, was completely in a decomposed state and wasTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 ::: 64 CONF_CASE_3_15.doccharred beyond recognition.Shri Pradhan would submit thatinjury to the private part which has been described to be thecause of death in the final opinion submitted by the Doctor isnot an inference based on any material.Shri Pradhan wouldplace heavy reliance on the testimony of PW 6, the panchwitness to the Inquest Panchnama who had categorically statedthat the body was half burnt and that the chest portion wascompletely burnt.According to him, the credibility of the saidwitness is doubtful since she states that she did not rememberthe material particulars.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::Further, he also makes a reference to the testimonyof the Medical Officer of the J.J. Hospital who conducted thepost-mortem i.e. Dr. Gajanan Chavan.He submitsthat in terms of Section 273 of the Code, all the evidence takenin the course of the trial or other proceedings shall be taken inthe presence of the accused or when his personal attendance isdispensed with in the presence of his pleader except asotherwise expressly provided.The submission of Shri Pradhanis that the said principle enumerated in the said section is tosafeguard the right of an accused to have a fair trial and hewould place reliance on the Report of 41st Law Commission ofIndia as regards Section 353 which is a reproduction of Section::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:26 :::The said judgment itself provides an answer to theobjection raised by the learned counsel Shri Pradhan.In light of aforesaiddevelopments, we do not find any flaw when the evidence inthe present trial was recorded through video conferencing.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::The submission of the Special P.P is to theeffect that the said certificate as contemplated under clause (4)of Section 65B of the Evidence Act is not a pre-requisite forconsidering it as an admissible evidence.35 We have considered the arguments of both thecounsel on the said point and we delved into the issue.Navjot Sandhu9 which had an occasion to consider an issue onproduction of electronic record as evidence in form of print outsof the computer records of the calls pertaining to the cellphones, the three Judges Bench made following observations:::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,--(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 ::: 80 CONF_CASE_3_15.doc::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::The Hon'ble Apex Court was called upon to deal withan apprehension expressed on the question of applicability ofconditions under sub-section (4) of section 65B of the EvidenceAct to the effect that if a statement was given in evidence, acertificate was required in terms of the said provision from aperson occupying a responsible position in relation to operationof the device or management of the relevant activities.In thisbackdrop, the Apex Court made the following observations.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::The Hon'ble Apex Court has, therefore, clarified the legalposition on the subject of admissibility of electronic evidence inabsence of the certificate contemplated under Section 65B(4) ofthe Evidence Act being produced and has clarified that a partywho is not in possession of device from where the document isproduced, such party cannot be required to produce theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 ::: 83 CONF_CASE_3_15.doccertificate under Section 65B(4) and the applicability of therequirement of certificate being merely procedural can berelaxed.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::We are unable to accede to theargument of Shri Pradhan to declare that the law laid down inShafhi Ahmed is per incuriam for, in our opinion, it is not uponfor us to access whether it is so since we are bound by the ratioof the said judgment which gets clearly attracted in the facts ofthe present case.37 The witness examined by the prosecution on thesaid point i.e. Prosecution Witness No.31 who was working inthe CCTV department of the Central Railway has deposedTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 ::: 84 CONF_CASE_3_15.docbefore the Court about the operation and the mechanism ofautomatic recording system on the LTT Railway Station.He hasclearly deposed that there are two monitors covering 20 and 16cameras respectively which are fixed on all the platforms andinside the rooms.He had categoricallydeposed that the footage was collected in January 2014 withthe permission of the RPF and which was transmitted to thepolice officials from Kanjur Marg Police station in a pen drive.The said evidence is corroborated by the testimony of PW no.33who was on duty in RPF who was responsible for the security ofthe Lokmanya Tilak Terminus and for ensuring the security, hedeposed before the Court that 36 CCTV cameras were installedon railway station.The said witness also corroborated that thedisplay of the said cameras is in the CCTV control room and themaintenance of CCTV cameras was given to a private company.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::This witness has given the date on which the police hadapproached the RPF and the said date is disclosed as '18 thJanuary 2014'.After obtaining the permission from the RPF,instructions were given to Shri Pandey who was responsible formaintenance of the CCTV cameras to give the footage to theInvestigating Officer.A specific question was put to this witnessas to whether there was any fault in the CCTV server during thesaid period and he deposed that on 18th January 2014 therewas the fault and the server was not working on account offluctuation in electricity and therefore, Shri Pandey was calledfor maintenance.Perusal ofthe panchnama would disclose the detailed procedure that wasfollowed for transmitting the data in the pen drive, and it wasensured that the said pen drive was blank, and thereafter, itTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 ::: 86 CONF_CASE_3_15.docalso describe the folders that were retrieved from two DVRs i.e.DVR1 and DVR2 and how it was downloaded and transmitted.The entire procedure being enumerated in the panchnama, wedo not have any hesitation to hold that it was not susceptiblefor any intervention as the cameras affixed on the LTT wererecording the events and storing it as a part of its regularactivity and it was being fed into the hard disk in the ordinarycourse of the said activities.We have perused the cross-examination of the said witnesses, which, in any way, do notshake the credibility of the witnesses as far as the technicalprocedure described by the said witnesses and the witnesseshad categorically admitted that the hard disk was never seizedby the police, but what was transmitted was the data from thetwo DVRs.In such circumstances, we do not find merit in thesubmission of Shri Pradhan that the electronic evidence reliedon by the prosecution do not stand the scrutiny of Section 65Bof the Evidence Act.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::38 Shri Pradhan also makes a serious complaint thatthe learned Sessions Judge has completely thrown to air theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 ::: 87 CONF_CASE_3_15.docprocedure for conduct of a criminal trial.Shri Pradhan hasinvited our attention to certain dates and specifically theroznama dated 20th November 2014 when the accused was notproduced in person and when he was called on videoconferencing, it was informed by the jail authority that he wassuffering from Tuberculosis and is hospitalized and grievance isthat in his absence the trial was conducted.We have carefullyperused the roznama and we have noted that on occasions, theaccused was produced from Judicial Custody and whenever thiswas not done, he was produced through video conferencing.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::We have carefully perused the roznama of theproceedings which forms part of the paper book.From theperusal of the proceedings dated 13th November 2014, we havenoted that an application was filed by the Advocate for theaccused for adjourning the case till the accused gets propermedical treatment.The learned Sessions Judge in thisbackdrop observed that direction was already given foradministering proper medical treatment to the accused and hewas taken to Sir J.J. Hospital and therefore, there was no needto adjourn the case.On an application filed for giving properTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 ::: 88 CONF_CASE_3_15.docmedical treatment, since the accused was suffering from fever,cold, cough and body pain, directions were issued by the Court,and he was taken to Sir J.J. Hospital and his blood sample wasalso collected and it was suspected that he was suffering fromTuberculosis.The Court therefore, gave directions to theconcerned Medical Officer to get him properly examined andthereafter, he be treated further for the ailment.On thesubsequent date i.e. 14th November 2014, the accused wasproduced from the jail and he complained about ill-health.On20th November 2014, accused was not produced from JudicialCustody but the witnesses were present.Application foradjournment was filed on behalf of the accused.When he wascalled on video conferencing, it was informed that he wassuffering from Tuberculosis and he was hospitalized.Thelearned Addl.Sessions Judge record that the counsel for theaccused came at 12 noon and sought an adjournment andsubsequently moved an application for adjournment and hestated before the Court that he would proceed with him only inpresence of the accused and he was not ready to proceed in hisabsence.The witness also stated before the Court thatTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 ::: 89 CONF_CASE_3_15.docsomebody had approached him yesterday and even it wasinformed by the police officials that the accused is trying toapproach the witnesses to tamper with the evidence.TheCourt, therefore, issued directions after recording the statementof witnesses that somebody had tried to approach him.It appears that on 24 thNovember 2014, the accused was not present from JudicialCustody since he was undergoing treatment and hospitalized,but on the said date, when two witnesses i.e. PW No.8 and PWNo.9 were examined, the Advocate for the accused was presentand he cross-examined both the witnesses on the said date.However, thereafter, on 3rd December 2014, the accused wasproduced on video conferencing.The Court hasclearly noted in its next order dated 12th December 2014 passedbelow Exhibit 94 on an application for meeting his father whoTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 ::: 90 CONF_CASE_3_15.docwas on death-bed.When we have carefully gone through the record, wehave noted that barring two dates, i.e. 20th November 2014 and24th November 2014, the accused was produced either fromvideo conferencing or from Judicial Custody and in his absencesince he was hospitalized, his counsel was present and hadwillingly cross-examined the witnesses.In the backdrop of theaforesaid facts, we do not find any merit in the submission ofShri Pradhan that the proceedings against the accused arevitiated on account of his non-production on certain dates.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::Shri Pradhan also took an objection to the relianceon the evidence of PW No.9 in form of extra-judicial confession.He submits that it cannot form the basis of conviction and itsreliance is unsustainable.It is no doubt true that evidence inform of extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidenceand the Court must ensure that it inspires confidence and itnecessarily needs a corroboration by other prosecutionTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 ::: 91 CONF_CASE_3_15.docevidence.The extra-judicial confession withstand the scrutiny,must be voluntary and inspiring confidence.The admissibilityand evidentiary value of such a confession is by this time well-settled and the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sahadevan andAnother v. State of Tamil Nadu10, observed thus :::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:27 :::(iii) A partly burnt decomposed body was found on 16 th January2014 near the service road of Eastern Express Highway nearKanjur Marg which came to be identified by PW no.26 as to be ofhis missing daughter Esther.(iv) The post mortem report establish that the death of thedeceased was homicidal and there was injury to her private parts,thereby establishing that she was raped.(v) The Inquest Panchnama and Post Mortem report establishthe the body was partly burnt and attempt was made to destroythe evidence by burning the body.(vii) The CCTV footage collected from the LTT Railway stationdisclosed that the accused was loitering on the platform at 4:50am(viii) In the CCTV footage it is seen that the deceased hadaccompanied the accused while leaving LTT and she was last seenin the company of the accused in the footage.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::(viii) The accused was seen near the spot on the Eastern ExpressHighway with the trolley bag and a bag pack belonging to thedeceased.(ix) The circumstance of the accused seen along with thetrolley bag in the morning on the date of incident by PW 13leaving the building.(x) The subsequent conduct of the accused i.e. going tothe Astrologer and performing a puja in order to wash off the sincommitted on a woman and the entry in the register of PW 17establishing that he has paid an amount of Rs.3,000/- forperforming the said puja.(xi) Articles 22, 23 and 24 belonging to the deceased wereidentified by PW No.26 came to be recovered at the instance of theaccused along with her articles i.e. identity card, spectacles, hereye-liner, pencil and the DNA Test confirm that it belonged to thedeceased.(xii) The accused in his extra-judicial confession to PW 9had disclosed that he had poured petrol on the dead body ofEsther and set it on fire after committing rape and on killing her.(xiii) The medical examination of the accused about hispotency test and mental health.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::which has been brought by the prosecution on record has beenestablished by cogent and reliable evidence in form of oral anddocumentary evidence.The above circumstances and the chainof events is complete with regard to the commission of crime inquestion leading to death of Esther.The cumulative effect ofthe entire prosecution points unmistakable towards the guilt ofthe accused.42 The prosecution has also proved the circumstance ofthe deceased last seen in the company of the accused.Theprosecution witness no.26 - father of the deceased hasidentified the deceased in the CCTV footage whereas PW 27Hemant, a person staying in the area where the accused wasresiding has identified the accused in the CCTV footage of theplatform to be the accused.The prosecution has relied on theevidence of PW No.21 Ganesh Shetty working as Pay and ParkTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 100 CONF_CASE_3_15.docSupervisor at Kurla Terminus who had seen the accused anddeceased leaving together on motorcycle on 5 th January 2014.The said witness has also identified the accused during the TestIdentification Parade conducted in Arthur Road jail.Throughthe said witness, the prosecution has established that thedeceased alighted at LTT in the morning hours on 5 th January2014 and she left the railway station along with the accused onhis motorcycle.The prosecution has thus pressed into servicethe last seen theory which comes into play where the deceasedis seen lastly in the company of the accused and where the timegap between the point of time when the accused and thedeceased was last seen alive and when the deceased is founddead, is so small that the possibility of any person other thanthe accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.By invoking the said doctrine of last seen together, the burdenof proof then shifts to the accused requiring him to explain as tohow a live person became a deceased and at what point of timedid he part with the company of the deceased since they werelast seen together.In case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs.Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 101 CONF_CASE_3_15.docState of Maharashtra12, the Hon'ble Apex Court observedthus :::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::12 (2006) 10 SCC 681Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 102 CONF_CASE_3_15.doc Illustrations::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket.The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on himThe accused has failed to discharge the said burden.In State of Maharashtra Vs.Suresh14, the ApexCourt has observed thus :""when his attention was drawn to the aforesaid circumstance renders that circumstance capable of inculpating him.In a situation like this such a false13 (2012) 11 SCC 20514 (2000) 1 SCC 471Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 103 CONF_CASE_3_15.doc answer can also be counted as providing ""a missing link"" for completing the chain.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::When the prosecution has proved its case beyondreasonable doubt and the accused has expected to furnish someexplanation to the incriminating circumstances which havecome in evidence and put to him.A false explanation may becounted as providing a missing link for completing the chain ofcircumstances and a non-explanation would also be taken as alink for completing the chain of circumstances.44 In Munish Mubar Vs.State of Haryana15, wherethe Act was dealing with a case where the dead body of thedeceased, an NRI was found lying in a plot of land havingmultiple injuries and the boarding card issued by the JetAirways and one blood stained hammer and a knife was foundnear her body.The appellant who claimed to be arrested whiletravelling in a Santro car and the Investigating Officer collectedthe records related to parking of the said Santro car at therelevant time from car parking stand of New Delhi Airport.Theappellant upon his arrest made a disclosure statement to the15 (2012) 10 SCC 464Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 104 CONF_CASE_3_15.docpolice to show the place where he had disposed of the deadbody of ""A"" and recovered the articles belonging to and theblood stained clothes of the deceased.The call record of theappellant's telephone were also pressed into service to establishthat he was present in the vicinity of the place of occurrence.The appellant failed to offer any explanation in respect of theincriminating circumstance associated with him.The Apexcourt then held that it was the duty of the appellant to furnishsome explanation in his statement under Section 313 of theCode of Criminal Procedure and under what circumstances, hiscar had been parked at Delhi Airport and it remained there forthree hours on the date of occurrence during exactly the timeperiod in which the deceased was to arrive and was thenallegedly done to death by the appellant.Appreciating the caseof the prosecution based on circumstantial evidence, when thecircumstances were fully established and found to be consistentwith the hypothesis regarding guilt of the accused, the Hon'bleApex Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the appellant on theground that the prosecution had proved its case beyondreasonable doubt.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::service several circumstances, each being independent andconclusive.Each of the circumstances relied on by theprosecution being taken together form a chain of events leadingto the accused being the perpetrator of the crime and each andevery circumstance was put to the accused while beingexamined under Section 313 of the Code.The accused hasanswered every question put to him by asserting that he did notknow or that the circumstance put to him was false.On askedas to why the witnesses are deposing against him, he respondedto Question no.378 by saying that on say of the police, thewitnesses had deposed against him.The accused had relied on three witnesses asdefence witnesses.The first witness relied on by theprosecution is one Abhijit Dattatraya Sathaye working as SeniorAssistant Editor with Mumbai Mirror.The said witness haddeposed that he had covered Esther Anuhya murder case fromthe time of registration of the offence till the filing of thecharge-sheet.The extract of Mumbai Mirror has been exhibitedTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 106 CONF_CASE_3_15.docas Article 40 which had published the photographs of theaccused along with a kundli.He deposed that he had obtainedthe photograph of kundli from his friends and it came to bepublished in the newspaper.The said Article 40 alsohighlighted the criminal antecedents of the accused and whichdescribed him as history-sheeter, being indulged into activity ofbag lifting in railway.The said witness being subjected tocross-examination by the prosecutor admitted that the accusedwas history sheeter and bag lifter in the railway and many caseswere registered against him in Gowandi, Nasik, Manmad andMadhya Pradesh.Another witness which the accused hasexamined is Defence Witness No.2 and is the senior crimereporter in Mid Day Newspaper who had published thephotographs of the accused, victim and the witnesses.Article41 which carried a news about the incident was also placed onrecord during the said witness.Another reporter of Mid-DaySagar Rajput came to be examined as D W no.3 who hadpublished the photograph of the accused, parents and wife inthe newspaper dated 8th March 2014 and the name of theaccused was disclosed as Chandrabhan Sanap.He deposed that the CallDetails Record (CDR) of Phone No. 9833841248 in the name ofNandkishore Sahu was given by him to the police and he hasgiven a certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act. The saidwitness has been cross-examined by the learned Prosecutor whohad deposed that from 12th February 2014 to 2nd March 2014,there was no phone call or SMS delivered from the said mobileand since the mobile was not active, it cannot be said whetherits location was Mumbai or out of Mumbai.However, it isadmitted by the witness that on 6th January 2014, Sahureceived phone call from Mobile No.7775853547 and two callswere received on 8th December 2014 from the same number.The cross examination of the defence witness only lead to theconclusion that the said witnesses examined by the accused inno way come to his rescue nor have they been able to demolishthe prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence.Theonly attempt on the part of the accused was to establishthrough the DW No.1 to DW No.3 is that the face of theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 108 CONF_CASE_3_15.docaccused was known to the general public and it was all overpublished in the newspaper and that is how Shri Pradhanmakes a feeble attempt to argue before us that the TestIdentification Parade conducted is faulty and cannot be reliedon by the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::46 The specific submission advanced by Shri Pradhanis that the evidence of Prosecution Witness No.39 and the cross-examination of this witness who conducted the TestIdentification Parade exposes the case of the prosecution.Thesaid witness who conducted the Test Identification Parade wassubjected to exhaustive cross-examination.He deposed beforethe Court that he was conversant with the guidelines whileconducting the Test Identification Parade and accordingly, hehas mentioned the procedure followed by him in theMemorandum.He had admitted that there was a lapse on hispart to mention in the panchnama that unauthorized personswere not present at the time of Test Identification Parade.Theextensive cross-examination of the said witness do not yield anybenefit to the accused.Though certain procedural lacunae haveTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 109 CONF_CASE_3_15.docbeen attempted to be drawn from the said witness, it does notshatter the testimony of the said witness.In any contingency,the law as regards the Test Identification Parade and thereliance on such evidence is settled by now.Test IdentificationParade has been considered as merely a corroborative piece ofevidence and not substantive evidence.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::Above-mentioned decisions would indicate that while the evidence of identification of an accused at a trial is admissible as substantive piece of evidence, would depend on the facts of a given case as to whether or not such a piece of evidence can be relied upon as the sole basis of conviction of an accused.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::Further, such conduct of Test Identification Parade may lose itsworth if the witnesses either know the accused or if they havebeen shown his photographs or if he has been exposed by themedia to the public.Holding a Test Identification Parade onlyassist the Investigating Agency to ascertain whether theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 111 CONF_CASE_3_15.docinvestigation is being conducted in a proper manner and in aproper direction.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::48 The evidence brought on record by the prosecutionthus establishes its case beyond reasonable doubt.Though Mr.Pradhan has invited our attention to the extensive cross-examination to which the prosecution witnesses were subjectedto, he was not able to pinpoint from their cross-examinationthat the credibility of these witnesses is doubtful and that theyare not trustworthy.The evidence adduced during the courseof trial needs to be appreciated cumulatively and in its correctand true perspective.It is the duty of the Court to unravel thetruth and while appreciating the evidence its primary attemptshould be to sift the chaff from grain and to ascertain from theevidence brought on record as to whether there is a ring oftruth in their testimony.Where the evidence brought on recordis consistent and corroborated by other piece of evidence, then,there is no reason as to why version of prosecution case, asunfolded, be not believed.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::appearing on both sides, our attention was painstakingly drawnto the extensive and exhaustive cross-examination of all thewitnesses.We must note with great responsibility thatthough burden of proof to prove the guilt of the accused lies onthe prosecution and in a case based on circumstantial evidence,the prosecution is duty bound to prove the existence of eachfact independently and taken together which would lead tochain of circumstances, through the prosecution witnesses whowould prove a particular fact and these prosecution witnessescan be subjected to cross-examination.Section 137 of theIndian Evidence Act, 1872 permits the cross-examination of awitness by the adverse party who has been called and who hasdeposed before the Court.However, the purpose of cross-examination being to attack the credibility of witness who isdeposing before the Court and though at times its object is toascertain the truthfulness of these witnesses, it is also rule ofprudence and also contemplated under Section 149 of theIndian Evidence Act, 1872 that witness should not be subjectedTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 114 CONF_CASE_3_15.docto such questions unless the person asking it has reasonablegrounds for thinking that the imputation which it conveys iswell founded.The purpose of questions which may be lawfullypermitted in cross-examination and which are set out in section146 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, are any questions whichtend to test his veracity, to discover who he is and what is hisposition in life or to shake his credit by injuring his character.In respect of some of thewitnesses, like PW-16 and PW-17, namely, the Astrologer andPriest, learned Sessions Judge has noted that the evidence ofthese witnesses does not create any incriminating fact inTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 ::: 115 CONF_CASE_3_15.docconnection with the offence with which the accused is chargedand there is no reason for the police to fabricate such a piece ofevidence after going to such a far-off place to the scene ofoffence and its occurrence.Panch-witnesses whose credibilitywas attempted to be destroyed by subjecting them to seriouscross-examination, also did not result into any shadow beingcast on their credibility.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:28 :::""In each and every case it is not incumbent on the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime.If the prosecution is able to prove its case on motive, it will be corroborative piece of evidence.But even if the prosecution has not been able to prove its case on motive that will not be a ground to throw the prosecution case nor does it corrode the credibility of the prosecution case.Absence of proof of motive only demands careful scrutiny of evidence adduced by the prosecution.In the present case, absence of convincing evidence as to motive makes the Court to circumspect in the matter of assessment of evidence""Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 ::: 117 CONF_CASE_3_15.doc Once we have concluded that prosecution on thebasis of the medical evidence brought on record has proved thatthe deceased was subjected to rape and the accused was triedfor the offence punishable with rape, we do not think that themotive of the accused in committing the crime needs to beexclusively spelt out.It is obvious that the accused who afterdrinking liqour was wandering the whole night and spotted onthe railway platform in the early hours and on seeing a younglonely helpless woman, who easily fell prey to his concoctedstory of offering to drive her to destination and who took her tothe secluded spot from where the body was recovered in ahighly decomposed state, we need not to find motive forcommitting the crime with which the accused was charged.52 Mr Pradhan was severally critical about the mannerin which the test identification memorandum was exhibitedduring the course of trial.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 :::In anycontingency, Mr. V.J. Kanekar, the Resident Deputy Collectorwho had conducted the test identification parade was broughtinto witness box and since the document in the form ofmemorandum panchanama was already exhibited, he was notexamined by the prosecution; but at the same time opportunitywas afforded to the accused to cross-examine him.In the cross-examination, the witness has re-iterated the fact that he hadfollowed the procedure stated by him in the memorandum.Hehas withstood the scrutiny on the manner in which the cross-examination has been conducted and Mr. Pradhan has failed topoint out any legal infirmity in conducting of the testidentification parade which would nullify its effect.54 It is not now strange to note that the crimes andspecially the crimes against the society are duly reported by theprint media as well as the electronic media.When such crimesare reported, all the details of the investigation even when inTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 ::: 121 CONF_CASE_3_15.docprogress is frequently reported including the photographs of thesuspect or the accused.Whenever a person is arrested as asuspect and before he is converted to an accused, the media isall out with the details of investigation and some times, at thecost of investigation.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 :::55 On being satisfied with the case of the prosecutionwhich has established the factum of commission of the crime bythe accused, which involved extreme depravity and reflective ofunrestrained selfishness, which conserves the individual interestand the ultimate tendency of the accused, we come to the issueof imposition of death penalty on the accused.The learnedAddl.The learned Judge has taken intoconsideration the mitigating circumstances put forth i.e. theabsence of direct evidence, accused being of young age,absence of criminal antecedents, his diagnosis for Tuberculosisand he being the sole earning member in the family on whomhis wife, children and old mother are dependent on.Anothermitigating circumstance in form of the subsequent conduct ofthe accused while undergoing the sentence was also pressedinto service and it was attempted to canvass that there was nocomplaint against him from the jail authorities during the19 AIR 1980 SC 989Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 ::: 123 CONF_CASE_3_15.docperiod of under trial detention.The learned Judge has givendue consideration to the said mitigating circumstance as againstthe aggravating circumstances which were noted to be asfollows:-::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 :::(a) Offence committed in a pre-planned and diabolical manner with exceptional brutality and depravity.(c) the incident has caused a stir in the society and shocked its collective conscious.HareshTilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 ::: 124 CONF_CASE_3_15.docMohandas Rajput Criminal Appeal No.1020 of 2001 decidedon 11th January 2008 wherein the following observations weremade :::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 :::It degrades and humiliates the victim and leaves behind a traumatic experience.It has been rightly said that whereas a murderer destroys the physical frame of a victim, a rapist degrades and defiles the soul of a helpless female.The courts are, therefore, expected to try and decide cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity.(6) That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:30 :::35 It can hardly be even imagined that what torture and brutality the minor child must have faced during the course of commission of this crime.All her private parts were swollen and bleeding.She was bleeding through her nose and mouth.The injuries, as described in EX.P17 (the post mortem report) shows the extent of brutal sexual urge of the accused, which targeted a minor child, who still had to see the world.He went to the extent of giving bites on her chest.Appeal No.1563-1564/18::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:31 :::""It will be a mockery of justice to permit the accused to escape the extreme penalty of law when faced with such evidence and such cruel acts.(SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (RANJIT V. MORE, J)Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 22:07:31 :::","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"3.According to the petitioner, the petitioner is living with her twochildren and also with an age old mother-in-law.The husband of thepetitioner was the sole bread winner of the family and after the demise ofher husband, they left with no other income, now she has to take care of herage old mother in law and her minor children.Immediately, the petitioner lodged a complaint beforethe Inspector of Police, Melur Police station and a case was registered inCrime No.1039 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and302 IPC., and now the investigation is going on.Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.Under Section 357 (A) (3) of the Cr.P.C., the victim is entitledfor compensation, pending trial and the interim relief also can be granted bythe District Legal Services Authority under Section 357 (A) (6).Apart fromthat as per Section 357 (A) (4) of the Cr.P.C., where the offender is nottraced, but the victim is identified, and no trial takes place, the victim orhis dependants can make an application to the State or the District LegalServices Authorities for awarding compensation.In the instant case, thepetitioner's husband was murdered and a criminal case was also registered bythe fifth respectively in Crime No.1039 of 2016 for the offences pubishableunder Sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC., Now the investigation is going on inthe above matter and the petitioner also submitted an application within aperiod of six months before the District Legal Services Authorities.Hence,according to the senior counsel, the petitioner is entitled for compensationunder such scheme.7.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondentssubmitted that even though the petitioner filed an application under theprovisions of the said Scheme, she has not filed the legal heir certificatewith the aforesaid application.But, on perusal of the records, it could beseen that the petitioner had obtained the death certificate and the legalheir certificate and had enclosed the same in the typed set of papers filedin support of this Writ Petition.8.In the above circumstances, since the application is already pendingwith the third respondent from 08.05.2017, the third respondent is directedto consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with lawwithin a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder.The petitioner is also directed to approach the District LegalServices Authority and produce the required records for the purpose ofgranting compensation to the petitioner.9.This Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.There shall be noorder as to costs.","['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on admission.The appellant-accused has filed this appeal against the conviction and sentence dated 15.4.2019 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge to Additional Sessions Judge, District Katni in Criminal Appeal No.61/2017 convicting the appellant- accused under Section 279 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 1 month along with fine of Rs. 500/-, under Section 337 (3 count) of IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 3 months (3 counts) along with fine of Rs. 500/- (3 count), under Section 338 (2 count) of IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 3 months (2 count) along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and under Section 304-A of IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 2 years along with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, with default stipulation.Hence the application filed on behalf of applicant be allowed and the period of his remaining jail sentence be suspended and he be released on bail.Learned counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.List this case for final hearing in due course as per listing policy.(J.P. GUPTA) JUDGE VKV/-Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2019.05.06 04:30:59 -07'00'","['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 3 as eye-witnesses to the occurrence, out of whom, P.Ws 2 and 3 turned hostile.P.W.2 is the husband of P.W.I while P.w.3 is a local village leader.Her evidence would show that she, along with her husband, was inside the house on the day of occurrence, at that time, both the deceased were sleeping inside the house in the verandah while P.Ws 1 and 2 were sleeping inside the house on the southern portion.During the occurrence time, she heard the murmuring noise of her father and mother and when she and her husband woke up, they saw the accused attacking D-l first on his head, neck, shoulder and other parts and the body.On seeing D-l being attacked, D-2 stepped in and she was also not spared by the accused, who cut her indiscriminately.The witnesses shouted and on hearing their shout, P.W.3 also came there.The accused ran away with the weapon of offence in his hand.Thereafter, P.W.1, along with others, went to the Police Station, where she gave an oral complaint before P.W.10, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who reduced the same into writing.The said complaint is Ex.P.W.10 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who speaks about P.W.1 appearing before him at 4 a.m. on 6.10.94 and giving a complaint, which he registered as Ex.Pl in his Police Station Crime No. 132/94 for an offence under Section 302, IPC.Ex-P13 is the printed First Information Report prepared by him and he sent the material records to the Court as well as to the higher officials.P.W.12 is the police constable, who carried the material records to the Court as well as to the higher officials.The material records were handed over by him in Court at 5.15 a.m. on the same day.P.W.15 is the Investigating Officer, who, on receipt of information over wireless at 4.30 a.m. on 6.10.94 from P.W.10, directed him to bring the material records to the scheme of occurrence, where he reached by 6 a.m. On collecting the material records, he commenced the investigation.In the presence of P.W.4 and another, he prepared Ex.P2, the Observation Mahazar and Ex.P20, the rough sketch.Between 7 a.m. and 10 a.m. he conducted inquest over the dead body of D-l in the presence of panchayatars and witnesses.During inquest, he examined P.Ws 1 to 3 and recorded their statements.Then, he sent the dead body of D-l for.From 10 a.m. till 12.30 p.m. on the same day, he conducted inquest over the dead body of D-2 in the presence of the same panchayatars and prepared Ex.-P22, the Inquest Report in regard thereto.During the said inquest, he read out the statements recorded from the aforesaid witnesses.Through police constable P.W.14, he sent the dead body of D-2 for postmortem.He gave one requisition for each postmortem.After postmortem, P.W.13 removed M.O.9 - lungi from the dead body of D-l and handed over the same under Form 95 - Ex.P19 to the Investigating Officer.P.W.8 is the doctor, who did postmortem on the body of D-1 on receipt of Ex-P9 requisition.He commenced postmortem at l0.am.on 7.10.94 and found various symptoms as noted in Ex.P10, the postmortem report.Form the place where the dead body of D-l was lying, he recovered a bloodstained mat, a bloodstained towel, a bloodstained brick and a sample brick at 12.30 p.m. in the presence of P.W.4 under a valid mahazar.At 12.45 p.m., from the place where the dead body of D-2 was lying, he recovered a bloodstained mat and three bloodstained bricks in the presence of the same witnesses under a mahazar.He arrested the accused at 4 a.m. on 9.10.94 in the presence of P.W.6 and another.For the former offence, he stands sentenced to undergo 2 years RI and for the latter offence, on each count, he was sentenced to undergo 14 years Rl.The sentence imposed on each count of murder was directed to run consecutively.Finding that the sentence of 14 years RI imposed for the offence of murder, on each count is illegal, we caused notice to be issued to the appellant as to why, if the Court ultimately agrees with the finding rendered by the learned Sessions Judge on that offence, the sentence imposed on him by the Sessions Court should not be enhanced to fit in with the sentence prescribed by law.Notice was served on the accused in prison and he sent a written response stating that the offence complained of could not be under Section 302, IPC but only under Section 304(III) ,IPC (probably, an error for 304(II), IPC) and therefore, he must be taken out of the rigour of Section 302, IPC.A set of material papers was handed over to the learned counsel in Court itself and the learned counsel submitted that if the appeal is taken up for hearing today, he would be in a position to argue the appeal.Accordingly, the appeal is heard by hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.The case of the prosecution is that annoyed over the illicit intimacy of his wife with one Shanmuganathan, the accused, on 6.10.1994, at 01.00 hrs, trespassed into the house of the said Shanmuganathan and committed his murder and in the course of the same transaction, when Leelavathi, wife of Shanmuganathan attempted to intervene, she was also stabbed to death.The Doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died about 32-36 hours prior to autopsy due to injury to vital organs (spinal cord) and due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries sustained.P.W.9 is the doctor, who did postmortem on the body of D-2 on receipt of Ex-P11 requisition.She commenced postmortem at 12.15 p.m. on 7.10.94 and found various symptoms as noted by her in Ex-P12, the postmortem certificate.P.W.I5 continued the investigation further by examining witnesses and recording their statements.Pursuant to Ex-P8, M.Os 7 and 8 came to be recovered under Ex-P7 attested by witnesses.P.W.5 is the photographer, who took photographs of the scene of occurrence on the direction of the Police Officer.M.O.5 series and M.O.6 series are the photographs and the negatives.P.W.15 sent the case properties to the Court with a requisition to subject the same for chemical examination.Exs-Pl6 and P17 are the Chemical Examiner's Report and Serologist's Report respectively.After completing the investigation, P.W.15 filed the final report in Court against the accused on 13.10.94 for offences under Section 302, IPC (2 counts) and Section 449, IPC.Neither documentary nor oral evidence was brought before Court at his instance.Mr. N. Duraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, relying upon the history of the case attached to Ex.The learned counsel, by taking us through the oral evidence of P.W.I, requested us to disbelieve it.We heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above points.All the charges namely, charge No. l for the offence under Section 449, IPC, charge No. 2 for the offence under Section 302, IPC had been read over to the accused and he pleaded guilty to all the charges.It is not as though the accused went back on his plea of guilt referred to above and we find, in fact, that the had admitted his involvement in the crime when he was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Question No. 2 put to him at the time of his questioning under Section 313 of the Code is based on the oral evidence of P.W.1 as an eye-witness to the occurrence and the accused had admitted her evidence before Court as true.In his answer to question No. 4 relating to the oral evidence of P.W.3, the accused had admitted that the house of D-l is next to his and that after cutting, he ran away.Question No. 19 put to the accused is the oral evidence of P.W.6 regarding the arrest of the accused; recording his confession statement and recovery of M.O.s 7 and 8 under Ex-P7 and the accused had affirmed it as true.Therefore, there are enough materials on record to show that the accused had not disputed his involvement in the crime.Her oral evidence is crisp and clear about the involvement of the accused tin perpetrating the crime on her parents resulting in their death.No material worth mentioning is available in her evidence, which would discredit her evidence in chief examination regarding the occurrence proper.The cause of death of both the deceased is shown to be due to homicidal violence and the medical evidence in regard to the same is that of P.W.8, who did postmortem on the body of D-l and P.W.9, who did postmortem on the body of D-2 coupled with Exs-P10 and P12, the respective postmortem certificates.Therefore, the above referred to materials, leave no room at all to doubt the case of the prosecution holding the accused responsible for causing the death of Shanmuganathan and Leelavathi in this case.It may be true that the history of the case attached to Ex-P9 would show that the accused was annoyed over his wife having an illicit intimacy with D-l.But, we find from the other materials on record that the accused had not taken any stand based on such illicit intimacy of his wife with D-l.Therefore, looking from any angle, the conviction of the accused/appellant for committing the murder of D-2 cannot be set aside.As already referred to above, except the history of the case attached to Ex-P9, there is no other material to show that D-l was having an illicit affair with the wife of the accused, which constituted the source for his sustained provocation due to which he had acted in the manner as brought to the notice of the Court.Let us now apply our mind to the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence of murder on 2 counts.But, we find that the learned Sessions Judge, while finding the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302, IPC on both the counts, was inclined to sentence him to 14 years, RI on each count and also gave a further direction that the said sentences would run consecutively.We also though very carefully as to whether we would be committing any illegality in taking up the appeal ourselves after having issued notice for enhancement of punishment.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"P. K. Chatterjee, for the appellant.H. J. Umrigar and B. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM, J.-This appeal is by special leave.The appellant was convicted under s. 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to, imprisonment for life.He appealed to the Bombay High Court.According to the judgment of the High Court the appeal was admitted only on the point of sentence.The High Court reduced the sentence from imprisonment for life to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment.It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the High Court could not, in law, admit an appeal only on the point of sentence and the appellant was entitled to have his appeal heard on the merits of his conviction as well.The evidence upon which the appellant was convicted was unsatisfactory and he was entitled to be acquitted.Shortly stated, the case of the prosecution was that the appellant had caused the death of Zina Hira on April 6, 1957, when the deceased was returning from an adjoining village to the village of his residence.The appellant met him on the way and accused him of having committed theft in the appellant's house which the deceased denied.Upon this the appellant attacked him with a stick which had iron rings round it.A number of blows were given by the appellant with this stick in consequence of which Zina Hira fell down.In our opinion, the form of the order admitting the appeal in the present case was invalid and the appellant could have insisted that since the appeal had not been summarily dismissed, the High Court should have heard his appeal on the merits as well.As the appeal was not heard on the merits, we considered whether the appeal should be sent back to the High Court for rehearing on the merits.We have, however, thought it fit to hear the appeal on the merits for ourselves.We, accordingly, heard the learned Advocate for the appellant on the evidence.It is clear to us from a perusal of the evidence that the case has been amply proved against the appellant.There was an eye-witness who saw the appellant assaulting the deceased with a stick.Bogha Jiwa also corroborated Keshav in this respect.None of these witnesses have any real motive to depose against the appellant.In addition to this evidence there was the dying declaration of the deceased as to who his assailant was.The other circumstantial evidence need not be referred to.It was urged on behalf of the appellant that the reason for the appellant assaulting the deceased could not be true as no reference was made to it in the First Information lodged by Keshav.Reference also was made to the evidence of the Police Officer Priyakant that no information of the theft had been lodged by the appellant at the thana.The appellant in his statement denied that the deceased had committed any theft in his house and the witness Karsan brother of the appellant had stated in cross examination that there had been no theft in their house.This witness was examined by the prosecution but was declared hostile and permission was granted by the Court to cross-examine him.It seems to us, however, that even if the story about the accusation of theft against the deceased made by the appellant was not stated in the First Information the omission is of little consequence because even 137 Keshav stated in the First Information that he ha( enquired from Bava Tapu as to how the quarrel ha( started.Merely because there was no information lodged about the theft at the police station, it doe not necessarily follow that the appellant could no have been suspecting the deceased.The denial of the appellant and of his brother cannot assume much.importance as it would be natural for them to den, any such thing.Apart from this even if the read cause for the assault may be obscure, if the evidenc is clear that the appellant assaulted the deceased, matters very little if the Court has not before it a verclear motive for the assault.As we have already said apart from Bava Tapu hesitating to admit that he was somewhat related to the deceased, there was no apparent motive for him to depose against the appellant in such a serious case as this.His conduct would show that he had, in fact, witnessed the assault because, immediately after the assault he went to the Police Patel Keshav and informed him that the appellant had assaulted the deceased with a stick.There is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the dying declaration.There is no good reason for supposing that the deceased would have accused the appellant falsely a there was no previous enemity established.It is also unlikely that he would let go his real assailant and accuse the appellant falsely.The dying declaration in corroborated by the evidence of the eye- witness Bava Tapu.It further receives corroboration from the recovery of the stick stained with human blood at the instance of the appellant which had been identified by Bava Tapu as belonging to the appellant.It is clear, therefore, that the evidence in the case which we have carefully examined and see no good reason to distrust, established beyond doubt that the appellant had struck the deceased several blows with a stick and thus caused his death.He was, therefore, guilty at least under s. 304 of the Indian Penal Code as found by the trial court.The reduced sentence imposed by the High -Court does not appear to be unduly severe' The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.Appeal dismissed.","['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on admission.This revision petition has been preferred under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ""the Code"") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 31.10.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in Cr.A. No.54/06, whereby judgment dated 12/10/06 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Harda in Criminal Case No.640/95 acquitting respondent Ravindra Kumar Tiwari, of the offences under Sections 409, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ""the IPC""), was affirmed.Upon the aforesaid information given by Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Khirkiya on 25/5/91, First Information Report (Ex.P/12) was registered and after investigation, charge- sheet was filed.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Inherent powers of this Court are invoked by filing this petition u/S 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the FIR bearing Crime No.32/2016 dated 08/02/2016 (Annexure A-1) registered at Police Station Noorabad, District-Morena alleging offence punishable u/S.406, 420, 34 of IPC against the petitioners.2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on admission.Consequently, the present M.Cr.",['Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Looking to facts and circumstances of the case and as to the fact that applicant is a young boy and has no criminal past, charge-sheet has been filed and applicant is in custody since 13.04.2019 and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned C.J.M/trial Court for his appearance before the concerned Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 10/05/2019 10:25:46 2 MCRC-17577-2019 following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court.C.C. on payment of usual charges.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE (ra) Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 10/05/2019 10:25:46","['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"When a voice of protest was raised, filthy language was hurled at the petitioner and his lady friend.P.C. was received by the petitioner and in fact an attempt was also made to meet the I.O. but due to non-availability of the I.O. the petitioner could not comply with Section 41A notice.Charge sheet has already been submitted.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 3","['Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In default of payment of fine he has to further undergo additional six months rigorous imprisonment.(2) In the instant appeal, the case of the prosecution may be summarized as under :-That on 30.1.1995 at 5.15 P.M. a first information report was lodged at Police Station Rajapur District Banda regarding an incident which is said to have taken place on 30.1.1995 at about 4 P.M.(3) The prosecution case, in brief, is that about 20 days before the incident the accused-appellant Mahendra Singh forcibly wanted to cut the Neem tree situated in the field of the informant's grand father.However, Mahaveer (deceased) and did not permit him to cut the tree.On that day the accused-appellant left the place.However, on 30.1.1995 he again came at the tube-well of the first informant at about 4 P.M. armed with his licensed double barrel gun.The informant's grand father looking to his agitated mood permitted him to cut the tree, but it was strongly opposed by his father Mahaveer (deceased).Upon it, the accused started hurling abuses and fired on the deceased which hit on his near the neck due to which he fell down.Then the accused-appellant again fired which hit on the left side of chest.The informant and other family members who are present there had witnessed to the incident.Immediately after the incident he went to his village and scribed the first information report in his own handwriting.(12) Budhraj P.W.2 is also an eye-witness of the incident.He is the nephew of deceased-Mahaveer and has stated that on 30.1.1995 at about 4 P.M. he along with grand father Shiv Balak and other family members were present near the tube well when the appellant made two fires on the deceased, who died on the spot.The defence has also given him a suggestion that the deceased was murdered at an unknown place by some unknown miscreants and no such incident as alleged by prosecution had taken place at the time and place as alleged which was specifically denied by the said witness.(13) P.W.3 Sub-Inspector Prasuram Verma is the Investigating Officer of this case.The first information was registered in his presence.Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.( Delivered by Justice Rajul Bhargava ) (1) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 22.5.2006 passed by Special Judge, (S.C./S.T. Act) District Banda in Special Sessions Trial No.90 of 2005 (State of U.P. Vs.Mahendra Singh), under Sections 302/504 IPC and 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Rajapur, District Banda, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000/-.Then the first informant Bachcha scribed first information report in the village and got it registered as Case Crime No.12 of 1995, under Sections 302/504 IPC and 3(2) 5 of S.C./S.T. Act, police station Rajapur District Banda.(4) After the registration of first information report, the investigation was taken over by P.W.3 Sub-Inspector Prasuram Verma posted as Station Officer at police station Rajapur, District Banda.After thorough investigation he submitted charge sheet against the sole accused-appellant Mahendra Singh under Section 302/504 IPC and 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T. Act. After committal of the case to the Court of Session the same was tried by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Banda, who vide impugned judgment and order found the appellant guilty of the charges and sentenced him as noted above.(5) In order to prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution examined six witnesses in all.Out of which P.W.1 Bachcha is the first informant as an eye-witness, P.W.2 Budhraj eye-witness of the incident and remaining four witnesses are formal witnesses.P.W.6 Swatantra Kumar Clerk, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda proved the statement of witness Shiv Balak recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate Sri Ram Narayan Maurya.(6) Thereafter the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has categorically denied the facts stated by the prosecution witnesses about the recovery of his D.B.B.L. Gun.He has stated that he had no knowledge about it and the recovery shown by the prosecution is false.He has stated that he has been implicated on account of enmity.It may be noted that on being questioned as to whether he wants to be lead any defence evidence he stated in the affirmative.However, the fact remains that the appellant did not examine any witness in defence.(7) Learned Special Judge after hearing the arguments of both the sides and after appreciating and discussing the evidence on record held the appellant guilty of murdering the deceased and convicted and sentenced him accordingly by the aforesaid judgment and order which is impugned in this appeal.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and carefully perused the record.(8) Briefly summarized the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has assailed the reliability and truthfulness of the prosecution case mainly on the following grounds:-(iii) The presence of witnesses at the spot is highly doubtful.(iv) The deceased was done to death at some other place and the first informant in collusion with the Investigating Officer has changed the place of incident.(v) There are material contradiction between the statements of eye-witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2, therefore, no reliance can be placed on their testimony.(vi) Lastly it is contended that the Trial Judge has erroneously believed and has placed reliance on eye-witnesses account and the incident was not fairly investigated.(9) On behalf of the State-respondent learned AGA submitted that the first information report in the present case has been lodged promptly.The presence of eye-witnesses is very natural and probable as the incident had taken place at the tube well of the deceased and the same finds corroboration from the recovery of the blood, the pellets found embedded on the wall of the room near the tube well where the deceased was shot twice by the appellant and also the recovery of two empty cartridges, pellets and tickly recovered from the spot.The findings recorded in the impugned judgment are well substantiated from the record.After scribing the first information report he went to police station Rajapur and got the first information report registered.He has also proved that in his presence the Investigating Officer had recovered two empty cartridges lying at the place of incident.P.W.1 in his statement has given graphic description of the manner in which the incident had taken place and has also proved the motive for the appellant to commit the murder of his father.It was also suggested that on account of village party faction between the Pandits and Thakurs, the appellant has been falsely implicated.He has proved the handwriting of Constable Chandra Prakash, who had prepared the chick report exhibit Ka-2 and also the General Diary of the case of 30.1.1995 vide G.D. No.24 at 5.15 P.M. He has stated that he recorded the statement of first informant at the police station and proceeded at the place of incident along with him.Thereafter he inspected the spot and conducted inquest proceedings on 30.1.1995 at 7.15 P.M. and concluded the same at 8.15 P.M. and despatched the dead body for post-mortem along with relevant papers.He also recovered two empty cartridges, two tickli and pellets from the spot also took in possession the blood stained and plain earth from the Chabutra where the dead body of the deceased was found lying.On the same day he recorded the statement of eye-witness Shiv Balak, Smt. Maini and other witnesses.In his cross-examination he has categorically stated that after the registration of first information report he left the police station at about 6 P.M. on 30.1.1995 and reached at the spot within 15 minutes.(14) P.W.4 Dr. Bharat Bhushan Kathoriya conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 31.1.1995 at 3.30 P.M. and he has noted the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of Mahaveer, which are as under:-i) A gun shot wound of entry on left side of chest in lower part anteriorly 7 cm.below left nipple in mammary line 2.5x2.5 cm.Circular, margins of wound inverted blackening around the margins of wound present.This wound is through and through with injury no.2 piercing stomach, diaphragm left lung and anterior chest wall on right side.ii) A gun shot wound of exit on right side of chest, 4.0 cm.X4.0 cm.circular, margins of wound back everted, 2 cm.below right clerical 8 cm.iii) Multiple 12 small wounds of exit 0.5 cm.to 1.5 cm.over right shoulder anteriorly.iv) 5 pellets withdrawn from back and axillary region on the right side.In his opinion, the cause of death due to shock as a result of ante-mortem injuries noted above.In the post-mortem, Doctor noted that the stomach and small intestine contains partiall y digested food and gases.(15) So far as P.W.5 CP Hariom is a witness of recovery of gun from the appellant along with cartridges and has also admitted his signature on the recovery memo.(16) P.W.6 is the clerk of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda.He has simply proved the handwriting of Sri Ram Narayan Maurya, Judicial Officer, who had recorded the statement of the grand father of the informant namely Shiv Balak recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., we find that the evidence of P.W.6 is of no relevance as the statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and who has not been examined during trial does not have any evidentiary value as the same is not a substantive piece of evidence.(17) Now, we will examine the submissions of learned defence counsel assailing the prosecution version.One of the main argument of defence counsel is that the first information report though stated to have been lodged promptly but in fact it is ante timed which would make the entire prosecution case suspicious and the implication of the appellant doubtful.It has been submitted that according to prosecution the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 30.1.1995 at about 4 P.M. and the alleged registration of the first information report on the same day at 5.15 P.M. by the informant after covering a distance of 10 kilometres is unbelievable as the lodging of the first information report is too prompt and the only inference which can be drawn is that it was registered much later.Thus, the prosecution in order to show the promptitude in lodging the first information report after manipulation has shown its registration at 5.15 P.M. In this behalf, learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the first informant P.W.1, who in his cross-examination has stated that after the incident he remained present at the spot for about 15 minutes and during this period he did not even touch his father.Thereafter, he went to his village and scribed the first information report in which he took about 15 minutes and then it took twenty minutes to reach the police station by bus.Based on this fact, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it was not possible for the first informant to have scribed the first information report within such a short time and lodge the same within one hour 15 minutes of the incident after covering the distance of 10 kilometres as noted in the chick report.(18) First of all, we deal with the first limb of the submission of learned counsel for the appellant regarding the time taken in lodging of the first information report, we may observe that it is not expected of rustic villager before whose eyes brutal murder of his father has taken place in broad day light would narrate or describe the time consumed by him in scribing the first information report or the time taken by him to reach the police station with precision.The statement of such a witness is his own estimation of time in which they may be some variation.(19) The Hon'ble Apex Court in reference to rustic witness has made a very illuminating observation in the case of Dimple Gupta Vs.According to it villagers are prone to misjudge time and distance and they are not skilled in narrating chain of evidence with precision.It may be noted that the statement of P.W.1 was recorded almost after 4 and half years from the date of incident and on account of which certain discrepancy with regard to timing, distance, manner and mode of assault was bound to occur which unless are too major and go to the root of the prosecution not much importance can be attached to such insignificant and minor discrepancies.We find that the Trial Court had dealt with the aforesaid arguments of the defence about the timing of registration of the first information report within one hour and 15 minutes of the incident in extenso on page 61 and 62 of the paper book.It is recorded that the timing given by his informant are based on his estimation and the same cannot be considered independently but the entire statement of the first informant has to be taken into account.(20) Learned defence counsel also argued that according to statement of P.W.1, the Investigating Officer arrived at the spot at 7 P.M. and after staying there for about one hour took the dead body along with him to the police station where it was kept for the whole night and next day the dead body was sent from the police station Karvi for post-mortem.From this statement the defence has tried to draw an inference that since the first information report was not in existence and the accused was not known therefore, the dead body was taken to the police station and the first information report was thereafter made ante timed.We do not find any merit in the submissions made by learned defence counsel inasmuch as after the registration of the first information report it was read over to him by the concerned clerk and he was given a copy of the same.P.W.1 has denied the suggestion of the defence that the first information report was scribed by him on the dictation of Daroghaji at the police station in the night.We also find from the evidence of P.W.3, the Investigating officer on being cross-examined and suggested by the defence that he had taken the dead body to the police station and the same was kept throughout the night has been specifically denied by him.He has stated that before despatching the dead body for the post-mortem he had already inspected the place of incident recovered the pellets found embedded on the wall of the room near the tube well.The defence has not been able to elicit anything very material from the said witnesses about the alleged ante timing of the first information report.(21) However, we may record that in the inquest report the crime number, sections and other requisite particulars on other spot papers namely site plan, recovery memos etc. have been mentioned which only indicate that the first information report had already been registered.There is no interpolation, cutting or manipulation in the inquest report exhibit Ka-6 to suggest that the first information report was not in existence when the inquest report was prepared.(22) One of the other main argument of defence counsel is that the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses is completely belied by medical evidence and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on it.He has argued that according to the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are son and nephew of the deceased have specifically stated that the accused Mahendra Singh had made two fires from his gun.The first one had hit near the neck of the deceased and when he fell down he made second fire which caused injury on the left side of chest.It is submitted that according to post-mortem report, only one gun shot injury of entry was found and the other two injuries, injury nos. 2 and 3 are wounds of exit.Therefore, on this very material point the ocular version of the eye-witnesses is wholly unreliable and indicates that they have not witnessed the incident and in consultation with the Police the case was concocted and the appellant was falsely implicated.(23) We find agreement with the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the prosecution case of two fires made by the accused-appellant cannot be out-rightly rejected as it appears that the first informant on the basis of wrong judgment or description has given a description of two fires being hit on the deceased.However, the fact remains that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is that the appellant-accused had fired at the deceased after hurling abuses from a very close range.This fact also finds corroboration from the post-mortem report in which the first gun shot injury contained blackening around it indicating thereby that the firing was resorted from a very close range.We may also record that it is not necessary that every fire made by the accused-appellant would certainly hit the deceased or injured.As a normal reaction any human being in his instinct of self preservation would try to move and save himself and there is every possibility that only one fire out of the two fires made by the appellant-accused, only one had hit him from a very close range which had caused extensive damage to vital parts of the body.(24) The next argument about the alleged medical conflict raised by the defence counsel is that P.W.1 has stated that his father (deceased) had eaten food about half an hour before the incident.However, according to post-mortem report partially digested food was found in small intestine and according to P.W.4 Dr. Kothariya the food must have been consumed within 8 hours of the death.Submission of defence counsel is that if the deceased had eaten food half an hour before the incident then in his stomach and intestine undigested food should have been found present.We may record that according to Modis' Medical Jurisprudence, the digestion process continues even after the somatic death whereby the heart stops functioning whereas, molecular death takes place after about two hours of somatic death, therefore, till the dead body reaches the stage of molecular death, the digestion process continues to take place.Besides it, according to medical treaties the estimation of duration of death based on the digestion process is not very authentic and it only gives a rough estimation about the duration inasmuch as the time taken by individual for digestion of food differs from person to person depending on his age, general physical condition and climate etc. (25) Here we would recall the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in the case of Jitender Kumar Vs.""In view of the above medical references, the view expressed in Modi's book (supra) and the principles stated in the judgments of this Court, it can safely be predicated that determination of the time of death solely with reference to the stomach contents is not a very certain and determinative factor.It is one of the relevant considerations.The Court should examine the collective or cumulative effect of the prosecution evidence along with the medical evidence to arrive at the correct conclusion.""(26) We, therefore, do not find any substance in the argument of the learned defence counsel about any such medical ocular conflict in order to discard the testimony of eye-witnesses.(27) Submission of defence counsel is that the alleged incident had taken place at the tube well of the deceased and had taken place elsewhere.We may record that from the bare perusal of the site plan, we find that the Investigating Officer has shown that the pellets were found embedded on the walls of the room near the tube well.The two empty cartridges, pellets and tiklis were also recovered from the place of incident and from the Chabutara itself.The Investigating Officer recovered blood stained earth which has clearly fixed the place of incident.(28) During cross-examination, same normal discrepancies have occurred in the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 which are quite natural.We could not find any of them to be major contradiction between the statements on oath and the version contained in the first information report, therefore, the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 even after long cross-examination remained unshaken.There is no material on record to discard the eye-witness account of these witnesses.It was a broad day light incident in which the first information report was lodged promptly and the appellant Mahendra Singh is sole accused to whom the main role of firing has been attributed which finds corroboration by the medical evidence.The said weapon used by the appellant was recovered from his possession and, thus, we may record that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.The defence has not cross-examined the prosecution witnesses on motive and thus the same remained unchallenged.(29) There is one more ground that investigation was not fairly conducted.In support of his ground learned counsel for the appellant could not indicate a single fact from the record.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"According to the suicide note the deceased has given Rs.9,60,000/- to the applicant, however, he has not executed the sale-deed of the house and denied for receiving the amount.This petition preferred u/s. 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter, for short, 'the Code') being aggrieved by order dated 11/01/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Manasa, District Neemuch in S.T. No. 35/2017, whereby charge for offence u/s. 306 of the IPC has been framed against the applicant.The facts of the case are in brief that the deceased- Mahesh Kumar Soni was running a clinic at Sadar Bazar, Bhatakhedi.On 31/01/2017, at about 17:00 p.m., he committed suicide by hanging.On receiving the information regarding the incident the Merg No. 05/2017 was registered was registered by Police Station-Manasa, District-Neemuchg under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. During enquiry it was found that the deceased left a suicide note, in which the present applicant was blamed for his suicide.Reliance in this regard has been placed on Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs.","['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner be kept on record.The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's matrimonial house is situated at Village - Barati, P.O Baidyapur, P.S Madhabdihi, District - Purba Bardhaman, the petitioner's husband is the owner of the same.The private respondents who are residing in the same village had, since long, been attempting to disturb the petitioner's peaceful possession and are threatening the petitioner of dire consequences.Such fact was brought to the notice of the police authorities but no steps were taken.Mr. Deb Roy, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that the police authorities treated the petitioner's complaint as FIR and registered Madhabdihi Police Station Case No.28/18 dated 16th March, 2018 under Section 341/323/325/354B/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In connection with the said case the respondent no.10 and respondent no.12 were 2 arrested and the other accused persons surrendered before the learned Magistrate and upon completion of investigation a charge sheet has also been filed and as such, there is no inaction on the part of the police authorities.Let the written instruction, as produced, be kept on record.The learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.10 denies the allegation as levelled in the writ petition and submits that the said respondents have not in any manner prevented the petitioner from residing in her matrimonial house.There shall, however, be no order as to costs.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties on compliance of all formalities.(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)","['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"He is also directed to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM/Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry/Office of this Court on 09/03/2016 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office in this behalf.With the aforesaid, M.Cr.",['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
"This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.5.2015, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Varanasi, in Case No. 1514 of 2013, Santosh Verma Vs.Prem Bada Singh and others, under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi, whereby the discharge application moved by the revisionist has been rejected.Learned counsel has submitted that the opposite party no. 2 entered into an agreement to sell with co-accused Ram Singh alias Pintoo Singh and paid him Rs. Three Lakhs.Neither any agreement to sell was executed by the revisionist nor any amount was received by her.On the aforesaid grounds it is prayed by learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order dated 8.5.2015, which has been passed without appreciating the evidence on record, be set aside.At the stage of framing a charge only a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court concerned is sufficient and the courts are not required to see whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.Only prima facie evidence as available on record is to be considered by the court concerned at the initial stage of framing charges.At this stage learned counsel for the revisionist prayed that the court below be directed to release the applicant on bail, if possible on the same day, and the trial proceedings be also directed to be expedited and to be concluded within a stipulated period.","['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']"
Learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the bail application and submits that there was an scuffle between the parties admittedly wherein the injuries were caused to the complainant and as such the accused-applicant could not be absolved simply for the reason that both the parties were involved in scuffle.,"['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Item No. 71And In the matter of: Ranjit Mondal Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Tilak Mitra For the Petitioner Mrs. Debjani Sahu Banerjee For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Jagaddal Police Station Case No. 332 of 2013 dated 04.05.2013 under sections 498A/406/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.The Petitioner is the husband of the Complainant.The Complainant will accept the amount without prejudice to her rights and contentions to file any proceedings for maintenance.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This is an application challenging an order dated 14.11.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrat, Kalyani, Nadia in connection with G.R. case no. 591 of 2016, thereby discharging the accused from the charges under sections 420/467/468/471/120B read with 34 of the Penal Code.The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows.The present opposite party no. 2 had claimed herself to be the wife of the present petitioner.An affidavit of service to that effect shall be filed on the next date of hearing.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.(Jay Sengupta, J.)",['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
"Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that the complainant Farmida Begum (PW7) lost her husband about four years prior to the occurrence.The appellant Banne Khan had been pestering her to marry him, but she refused his offer.On 09.04.92 at about 7.00 AM in the morning, appellant Banne Khan is stated to have visited the house of the complainant and repeated his proposal of marriage to her.She, however, declined the offer and refused to marry him.Son of the Crl.A.179/95 Page 1 of 7 complainant, Salim (PW6) also told the appellant to leave.After some time the complainant went to fetch water from the house of a neighbour.When she was coming back after fetching water, at about 7.30 AM, appellant Banne Khan is stated to have attacked her with a knife and inflicted knife injuries on her chest, head, nose, left shoulder, left buttock and right side of the stomach.The incident is stated to have been witnesses by PW5 Vinod Kumar, a neighbour and PW6 Salim, son of the complainant.Because of the injuries, the complainant became unconscious.She was shifted to GTB Hospital by her son.The information about her admission in GTB Hospital was conveyed to the Police Station, which was recorded in the daily diary register as DD No.6A at the Police Station, Seelampur and investigation of the case was entrusted to ASI Kadam Singh.ASI Kadam Singh visited the hospital and obtained the MLC of the complainant who was declared unfit for statement.Thus, he appended his endorsement on the copy of DD No.6A and sent it to the Police Station for registration of the case under Section 307 IPC.A.179/95 Page 1 of 7After registration of the formal FIR, investigation was entrusted to ASI Kadam Singh.He recorded the statement of the witnesses and after completing the formalities of investigation submitted the challan against the appellant.Appellant was charged under Section 307 IPC, to which he claimed to be not guilty and claimed to be tried.A.179/95 Page 2 of 7A.179/95 Page 2 of 7On conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge relying on the testimony of the witnesses PW5 Vinod Kumar, PW6 Salim and PW7 Farmida Begum, convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him vide impugned judgment and order on sentence.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted though the learned trial Judge was right in convicting the appellant for assault and inflicting injuries on the person of Farmida Begum(PW7) with a knife, he erred in convicting the appellant under Section 307 IPC.He has submitted that the trial Judge failed to appreciate that there was neither any motive nor any intention on the part of the appellant to commit murder of complainant Farmida Begum.He has further submitted that the Trial Court also failed to take note of the fact that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the nature of the injuries caused to the complainant which could give rise to an inference that those injuries were caused with an intention to commit murder.He has urged us to set aside the conviction under Section 307 IPC and convert it into the conviction under Section 324 IPC.Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, defended the conviction under Section 307 IPC.In our view, the aforesaid refusal ordinarily would not push a reasonable person to take such an extreme step to assault the lady with the intention to take away her life.However, the fact remains that different people react to a situation in different manner.Therefore, in order to infer whether or not the appellant had intention to commit murder of the complainant Farmida Begum, it is essential to advert to the medical evidence with a view to find out the place of injuries as well as the nature of injuries.In absence of the medical evidence, we find ourselves handicapped in coming to a conclusion about the place and the nature of injuries suffered by the complainant Farmida Begum which could help in coming to the conclusion about the intention of the appellant Crl.A.179/95 Page 5 of 7 behind the assault on the complainant.Since the prosecution has failed to produce the best evidence pertaining to the injuries suffered by the complainant and the nature of the injuries, the benefit of the lapse must go to the appellant.A.179/95 Page 6 of 7Therefore, there is no need to direct his arrest for undergoing the sentence.Appeal is disposed of accordingly.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"25.09.13 Item No. 71 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 71And In the matter of: Sk.Karam Hossain Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Sardar Sahin Imam For the Petitioner Mr. Amanul Islam For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Bagnan Police Station Case No. 316 of 2013 dated 15.08.2013 under Sections 417/420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record.The Petitioner is a deed writer.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)","['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard Sri Shankar Saun, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned AGA for the State.It is stated by the counsel for the applicant that the complainant Narendri Giri has filed an affidavit before the SSP, Gautam Budh Nagar denying about the incident and participation of the applicant.A copy of the affidavit dated 16.7.2014 has been annexed as Annexure-2 at page 15-19 of the bail application.Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that the affidavit has been filed by the complainant before the S.S.P. Gautam Budh Nagar.Let the applicant Sachchidanand Chauey involved in Case Crime No. 475 of 2014 under Sections 354, 354 Ka (1) IPC and 7/8 Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012, police station -Phase -2, NOIDA DADRI, district Gautam Budh Nagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.","['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Arguable points are involved in this criminal revision, hence, admitted for hearing.Record of both the lower Courts be requisitioned.No fresh notice is necessary to the respondent as Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has appeared.Appearing counsel for the parties are also heard on I.A.No.24019/2017 filed under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C, 1973 for suspension of custodial sentence of the petitioners Mewaram and Sanjay.Petitioner - Mewaram was convicted by the JMFC, Jaura, District Morena, under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC and petitioner - Sanjay was convicted under Section 324 (two counts) of IPC.The lower appellate Court has affirmed the conviction recorded by the trial Court but has reduced the jail sentence and increased the fine amount for the petitioner No. 1 - Mewaram under Section 323 of IPC, which is as under:Appearing counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already deposited the modified fine amount and they were released on regular bail during the trial and their custodial sentence was previously suspended by the lower appellate Court and there is no possibility of early hearing of this criminal revision before this Court.On the other hand, above-mentioned prayer has been strongly opposed by the Public Prosecutor.After considering the rival contentions made by the parties and looking to the facts that the petitioners were released on regular bail during trial and their jail sentence was suspended by the lower appellate Court and there is no possibility of early hearing of this revision, without commenting on the merits of the matter, I.A.No.24019/2017 is allowed and it is ordered that subject to depositing the fine amount and on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) by each petitioner - Mewaram and Sanjay with a solvent surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, petitioners' jail sentence shall remain suspended till disposal of this revision and they be released on bail.Petitioners are further directed to remain present before the Registry of this Court firstly on 20.03.2018 and, thereafter, on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry for the same purpose in future.Certified copy as per rules.(Ashok Kumar Joshi) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2017.12.12 10:18:08 +05'30'","['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Case diary perused.This is the first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicants, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.235/2019, registered at Police Station- Digaura District Tikamgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC.The allegation of the prosecution is that on 26.8..2019 at about 5.45 p. m. at village Vadau P.S. Digaura District Tikamgarh in front of the house of Rajendra Singh some altercation had taken place between Rajendra Singh and complainant Durg Singh at that time co-accused Rajendra Singh has inflicted injury by axe on the head of Durg Singh, by which he has sustained grievous injury.It is also alleged that at the time of incident the applicants have also inflicted injuries by means of axe and sticks by which the complainant sustained injuries in his palm of his right hand and near right eye respectively.The complainant Durg Singh has lodged the report of the incident.On that basis above mentioned crime has been registered against the applicants and other co-accused.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicants have not committed any offence and have falsely been implicated in the crime.It is further submitted that the applicant are permanent resident of the address shown in the application.They are ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all terms and conditions imposed upon them.There is no chance of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.Learned counsel for the respondent/ State on the other hand has opposed the application.During the course of investigation the presence of co-accused Rajencra Singh was not found to be proved at the place of the incident and therefore, further proceeding has been deferred against him.Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicants on bail.Consequently, the application filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the applicants is allowed.It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. thirty thousand only) each with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly, the aforesaid M.Cr.C. is allowed and disposed of.Certified Copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE kkc Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 31/01/2020 16:52:52","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The facts leading to filing of this Criminal Revision Petition and necessary disposal are as follows:The petitioner/ Accused had married the defacto complainant , Krishneveni, PW 1 on 27.04.2001 at Chennai.After three days, he left to USA and thereafter the defacto complainant had also joined the petitioner/ accused on 23.06.2001 at USA.She lived there with great difficulty for four months and she left from USA and came to Chennai.In the mean time, at USA, the petitioner/accused had filed an application for divorce.The defacto complainant had returned to India and also approached the Sub Court, Poonamallee, seeking restitution of conjugal rights.Then, she had filed the complaint, Ex.P.1 against the petitioner/Accused and his family members A2 to A6 for dowry harassment and cruelty inflicted upon her.On the basis of Ex.P.1, the petitioner/accused along with other accused were charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 498(A) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.b) The case was taken on file in C.C.No. 1003 of 2004 by the Judicialhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 Magistrate, Alandur and necessary charges were framed.The accused had denied the charges and sought for trial.In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW 6 and also marked Exhibits.c) On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused have come with the version of total denial and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case.During the trial A2 died and hence the charges levelled against him stood abated.d) The trial Court after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also looking into the materials available on record, acquitted A1 to A6 from the charges levelled under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, while acquitting A3 to A6 for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC found the petitioner/ A1 alone guilty for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment.Against the order of acquittal of the other accused in C.C.No.1003 of 2004 dated 10.02.2005 the second respondent filed Crl.R.C.No. 742 of 2005 and Crl.However against the order of acquittal of the petitioner in C.A.No. 31 of 2005, the second respondent filed Crl.R.C.No.442 of 2014 and set aside the order of acquittal by order dated 10.02.2014 and remitted the matter back to the Principal Sessions Court, Chengalapattu.The petitioner had filed a petition to recall the exparte order in Crl.R.C.No.442 of 2014 and it was dismissed by this Court on 29.09.2014 against which the petitioner had file Special Leave Application (Crl.) in Crl.M.P.No.21952 of 2014 before the Honourable Supreme Court.The Apex Court dismissed the same by order dated 17.11.2014 however held that the Appellate Court shall not weigh with the observation made by the High Court in Crl.After remand the appeal was heard afresh and in and by the impugned judgment of the lower appellate Court, the judgment and conviction of sentence of the trial Court was confirmed.The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the trial Court having acquitted the petitioner and the other accused for offence under Section 4 of DP Act and having acquitted the other accused for offence under Section 498(A) of IPC erred in convicting the petitioner alone for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC on the same set of evidence.The trial Court erred in convicting the petitioner when no ingredients of offence under Section 498(A) of IPC has been made out against the petitioner.The trial court disbelieved the case of prosecution in respect of incidents regarding demand of dowry and cruelty in India.However, trial Courthttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 taking into consideration the allegations regarding the incidents that happened in USA found the petitioner guilty for offence under Section 498(A) of IPC.The allegations made in respect of the incidents that happened in USA do not made out a case for offence under Section 498(A) of IPC.The finding of both Courts below suffers from the legality and perversity and the judgment of conviction and sentence have to be set aside.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that even beforehttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 marriage there was a demand of dowry and at the time of marriage 150 sovereigns of jewels and Rs.2 lakhs was paid in cash and thereafter they wife/defacto complainant went to USA.During her stay in USA, the petitioner had issued a legal notice for divorce and had filed the petition for divorce and thereby committed cruelty.5.The learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant would submit that there was a demand of dowry by the parents of the petitioner and Rs.1lakh was paid to the parents of the petitioner and subsequently there was a demand of Rs. 5 lakhs and after going to USA the petitioner had committed cruelty on the defacto complainant/wife had sent her legal notice and also by filing the petition for divorce.During the stay of the defacto complainant at USA the petitioner had pushed her from the cot and caused harassment and cruelty on her.Per contra the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial court had disbelieved the evidence with regard to the receipt of Rs.1 lakh and further demand of Rs. 5 lakhs during the defacto complainant's stay at India and had categorically held that the prosecution has not proved the allegations of demand of Rs.5 lakhs and had acquitted the petitioner and other accused for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court had erred in finding that by sending the legal notice at USA the petitioner had committed cruelty on the defacto complainant.He would further submit that at no stretch of imagination the conduct of sending a legal notice and filing a petition for divorce at USA can be held to behttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 an act of Cruelty within the meaning of Section 498(A) of IPC.The trial Court after analyzing the entire evidence had taken into consideration the contradiction between the witnesses and found that the prosecution has not proved the case with cogent evidence and had disbelieved the case of prosecution with regard to receipt of Rs.1lakh and demand of Rs.5 lakh by the accused and acquitted all the accused for offence under Section 4 of D.P.Act.However, the trial court had rendered a finding that the petitioner by sending legal notice at USA and having initiated the proceedings against the defacto complainant for divorce at USA had committed cruelty and convicted him for offence under Section 498(A) alone.","['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Case diary is available.Heard, learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has filed this first application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Godan, District Datia, in connection with Crime No.165/2020 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 294, 323, 506, 34, 326 of the IPC.Allegations against the applicant and other co-accused in short are that when the complainant was installing lighting in a wedding, at that time, the present applicant along with co-accused Mahesh Vanshkar, Narendra Vanshkar and Arjun Vanshkar came there and started abusing the complainant.When they were stopped, co- accused Mahesh hit Gulab with Lathi on his head due to which he started bleeding.When complainant's son-in-law Pavan came to save them, Narendra hit Pavan with a Lathi on his head causing injury.Thereafter when his daughter-in-law Kusuma and daughter Sunita came forward to intervene, applicant Veer Singh gave a Lathi blow on Sunita's left hand causing injury.Thereafter, co-accused Arjun gave a Lathi blow on left hand of Kusuma causing injury to her.No overt act has been assigned to the applicant.Even as per the medical report, Sunita has sustained simple injury, therefore, offence under section 326, IPC would not be attracted against the present applicant.","['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 27.2.2009 in afternoon at around 3 o'clock, Mangal Giri, Baba of temple of village concerned had raped niece of the first informant Mukesh namely Km.Saroj D/o Shankar Lal r/o Jaanipur Kalan, a minor girl, after calling her in a room of the temple while she was playing alone outside the temple.The Baba, thereafter, fled away.When the informant visited his cousin Smt. Rani's house, he came to know about this occurrence and he further inquired from children and villagers who reported that they had seen the incident.His brother-in-law (father of the victim) had gone to work as labour.He took his niece Saroj-victim smeared in blood to his sister's house from the temple.On the basis of the written report of the Mukesh F.I.R. of the offence u/s 376 IPC was registered against unknown Baba of the temple situated in village Jaanipur Kalan at the police station Shikarpur, Bulandshahar.Initially, this case was investigated by S.S.I. Sri Arjun Singh, thereafter investigation was handed over to Adil Raseed, S.S.I. Shikarpur.During investigation, the victim smeared in blood was sent to the District Hospital Shikarpur by S.S.I. Arjun Singh.Having taken victim's blood stained clothes and Baba's langot into custody, its memo was prepared.Thereafter, the place of occurrence was inspected at the instance of the first informant and site-map was prepared.Thereafter, the investigation was received by S.S.I. Aamil Raseed.Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh, J.(Delvered By Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh, J.)1. Heard Sri Sarvesh Chandra Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Anjum Haq, Ms. Anita Srivastava, Sri Sagir Ahmad and Sri Gautam Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.In order to prove its case following evidences were produced by the prosecution:-Victim Km.Saroj P.W.1 2 Complainant Mukesh P.W.2 3 Con.-512 Ram Shesh Mishra P.W.3 4 S.I. Aamil Raseed P.W.4 5 S.I. Arjun Singh P.W.5 6 Dr. Abhilasha Gupta P.W.6 7 Dr. Vaibhav P.W.7 8 Dr. Madhu Sharma P.W.8 9 Ravindra Singh P.W.9 10 Dr. Pritam Singh P.W.10 Documentary Evidence:-Statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C.Ka-1 2 First Information Report Ex.Ka-2 3 Chik Ex.Ka-3 4 Carbon Copy of G.D.Ka-4 5 Arrest-memo of the accused Ex.Ka-5 6 Charge-sheet Ex.Ka-6 7 Recovery-memo of blood stained clothes Ex.Ka-7 8 Site-map Ex.Ka-8 9 Discharge-slip Ex.Ka-9 10 Medical-Report of the victim Ex.Ka-10 11 Reference-form Ex.Ka-11 12 Reference form of C.M.O.Ka-12 13 Clinical history Ex.After the evidence of the prosecution, statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused again denied the charges.To determine this, the following points are considerable, keeping in view the charges levelled by the prosecution on the accused, to dispose off the case:-1- Was the victim minor at the time of incident- if yes, was she an immature girl of under 12 years?In the report/discharge slip Ex.The conclusion of above said analysis is that at the time of the incident the victim was minor girl under 12 years.Point No:-2 As far as this point is concerned, it is a question of fact and for its disposal it would be justifiable to peruse the evidences of prosecution witnesses separately.Prosecution Witness No.1/The victim was examined as PW-1, she was aged about 12 years when she entered in the witness box.The trial court has taken care to ascertain as to whether she was able to understand the questions and able to give rational answer thereof by asking certain questions before recording her statement.After recording that she was a competent witness to depose to the fact, the trial court has proceeded to record her statement.So far as competence and reliability of testimony of a child witness, the law is fairly well settled.In the court, this witness has narrated the incident being of five months ago happened in the afternoon and the place of occurrence being the temple and the accused being the Baba residing in that temple.She has stated on oath that she was taken in the room on the pretext of giving Prasad and there she was raped.I wore my clothes, my clothes got soaked in blood after wearing it.I had received injuries on my vagina.The deposition of this witness U/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Magistrate too.When the sealed envelope of statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. was opened, showed and read over to the witness, she admitted the said statement and has proved it as Ex.Ka-1 stating the thumb impression and signature on it being of her own.This witness/victim has been thoroughly cross-examined.In cross-examination also, she was not shaken rather fully corroborated her statement made in examination-in-chief and stated that she used to go to the temple to play and other children too go for playing.People come there for worship but they used to come in morning, not in afternoon.On the fateful day, she alone had gone to temple for playing.Baba had called her for giving prasad while she was playing outside, but he did not give prasad and took her into the kothari of the temple where nobody was present.On asking, what game she was playing in the temple, she replied that she was playing gintu.The witness was questioned by the learned counsel for the defence that in the statement given under section 164 Cr.P.C., she had stated to the Magistrate about having gone to see barat, whereas now she stated about having gone to play.In reply, the witness clarified her statement that though she had gone to see the barat but by that time the barat had already left.So she went to the temple to play.She has categorically stated that she was striped in the room and her mouth was closed by the Baba on raising alarm.On being questioned by the court whether the door of kothari was open when the Baba put off the clothes, the witness replied that when the Baba took her into the kothari, the door was open and after entering, Baba closed the door.This witness has identified the accused present in court that this was the same Baba and has rebutted the contention that her father visited to Baba.(she) has also proved her statement to the sub-inspector and the fact of being admitted in the hospital after the incident.In her cross-examination, the witness has clearly stated that ""Baba Mangal Giri had committed the same bad act with me as told by me.I am not lying rather telling truth"".This witness has stated about regaining consciousness in the hospital and has stated that she firstly got consciousness, then she put on the clothes and after wearing clothes, she again went unconscious and then she got consciousness in the hospital.The learned counsel for the defence has contended before the court that this witness has stated that she fell unconscious and thereafter reached home stumbling and on reaching home, she narrated the incident to her mother, whereafter her parents took her to the hospital.But on the contrary in her statement in the Court, she states that she regained consciousness in the hospital, and that if she became conscious in the hospital, how did she reach her home and on this basis, (he) attempted to rebut the credibility of the witness.This question has also been asked by the court to the witness that if she got consciousness in the hospital, how did she go to her home and her reply was that she had gone stumbling in unconscious condition.This witness is very young girl and it clearly appears from her statement that by falling unconscious she means not being fully comprehended and instead not being fully conscious and being in semi-conscious condition.She is an immature girl, even mature witnesses call it fainting when they happen to feel dizzy.Otherwise too, minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a witness who is otherwise unshaken, are not worth consideration.It is clear that in her examination-in-chief and cross-examination, the witness has not at all deviated on the substantial points i.e. time of the incident and the place, happening of the incident and the accused and therefore, she is totally reliable witness.This witness is complainant and the report regarding the incident has been lodged by him.This witness has also proved the fact of admission of his niece in the hospital and her medical examination.This witness/P.W.-2 was questioned in the cross-examination that when did he reach the village; how come the victim is his niece; when he got the information of the incident.In reply, the witness has clearly stated that he is resident of village- Bhailayee which is at the distance of twenty kilometers from the victim's village and the victim's mother namely Rani is his cousin, and on the fateful day, he along with his cousin (brother) and Rani's real brother namely Dhannu had gone for visiting his sister namely Rani and when reached at village- Jaanipur at about 3.00 o'clock, he got the information in the way.He stated that the incident occurred during the period when winter was on subside and it was month of February.He stated that on reaching at the village, children told him about the incident and hubbub ensued that the Baba committed such offence, then only he came to know about the incident.Hearing this, he alongwith his sister's family members and neighbors went to the temple.(This witness) has stated about writing report by himself; and then narrating the incident to the sub-inspector who had demanded for written report which was given by him.This witness has clearly stated that he did not see the incident through his own eyes and that he reached after the incident.The witness was asked that when the victim's real maternal uncle was present, why did he not lodge the report, thereupon he replied that since all people were going to Bulandshar for medical examination, so he lodged the report.(He) has stated in his report about seeing the incident by children of the village and has stated the victim's house was 100 meter away from the temple.This witness has also stated that the next day, he went back to his village- Bhailayee.This witness has also stated the victim was taken to Bulandshar Medical College from the police station by the police and was then referred to Meerut from Bulandshar.The fact is also corroborated from the documents available on the file.The witness rebutted this contention that the pradhan had taken forty thousand rupees from the Baba for repairing the floor of the temple, and on demand, the false report was lodged against Mangal Giri by misleading the complainant by pradhan.This contention has also been rebutted that he did not see the temple and has stated that (he) has had seen the temple and the kothari inside it where the Baba lived.Thus, so far as this witness is concerned, he has also corroborated the victim's statement and prosecution version.And the defence could not extract such substantial contradiction from this witness, so as to discard this witness or the victim.A contention has also been necessarily made by defence that there are contradictions in the witness's statement.Saroj smeared in blood in the village; Km.Saroj is lying unconscious; blood is oozing; please take immediate action'.He nowhere stated that he went to the temple and took the victim from the temple himself.His averment was the victim was laying in pool of blood at his sister's house and he had come to lodge the report and the same statement he has given before the court.Thus, so far as witnesses of the facts are concerned, the prosecution version has been completely corroborated by the aforesaid both the witnesses.Now, it is to be examined whether the oral evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence or not.Prosecution Witness No.:-06:-Dr. Abhilasha Gupta the doctor at Meerut Medical College who treated the victim after she was referred by Bulandshahar District Hospital.This witness has stated on oath that on 28.2.09 while she was on duty, in the above medical College, the victim namely Saroj r/o Shikarpur, Bulandshahar, village Vaireena aka Janipur Kalan, was brought on being referred by District Hospital Bulandshahar and that she underwent treatment at the Medical College.This witness has categorically stated that the victim had injuries in her vagina which was possible to have been caused by rape.""A small laceration is seen on Rt vaginal wall of size 3 x 4 mm between 5 O' clock to 6 O' clock position.""The Report Exhibit Ka-10 of Bulandshahar District Hospital contains the same injury in it. ""xx Hymen freshly torn, edges congested, bleeds on touch ragged torn edges at 6 O'clock position.Vagina full of clots.xx she is referred to Meerut Medical College for further management.""During cross-examination, this witness has stated to have found injury on the private parts of the victim, and has also stated that the victim was treated only by administering medicines without any operation.Under the clinical summary in the Ext. Ka-9, it is clearly mentioned that ""It is a medico-legal case referred from Bulandshahar District Hospital with c/o physical assault x 9 hr back bleeding per vaginum x 9 hr back."".No other major injury was found by this witness on the person of the victim.On being asked in cross examination whether such injury could be sustained on falling over some pointed object, the witness absolutely denied it.Dr. Sangeeta Jain and Dr. Vaibhav who treated the victim and whose names are there on the discharge slip, are stated to be her associates who had attended the victim under her supervision and direction.Dr. Abhilasha Gupta was Head of the department and it was under her own supervision and before her own eyes that her Associates Dr. Sangeeta, Dr. Uzma, Dr. Mona had attended the victim.Dr. Sangeeta was the consultant Doctor.This CRS number is entered by the record section at the time of admission.All the details- the name of the patient, her permanent address, date of discharge are same and the name of father is written as Sri Shanker.This witness has admitted in cross examination that the discharge slip does not contain the signature of Dr Sangeeta and that of Dr Urmila but it contains his own signature as an associate Doctor.(He) also proved the discharge slip to be in his own writing as well as that of his junior doctor Dr Uzma's handwriting and it contained the signatures of Dr. Uzma and Dr. Mona as well.During the cross examination this witness was cross-examined with regard to the name of victim's father being recorded Shivkumar instead of Sri Shanker.In reply he stated that he had clarified this during the examination in chief itself that it was a mistake and there is no difference in rest of the details.Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the name of victim's father being recorded as Shivkumar instead of Sri Shanker creates doubt as to the identity of the victim and therefore the statement cannnot be relied to implicate the accused.It is noteworthy that all the details i.e. the name of the victim, age of the victim, her being referred from Bulandshahar District Hospital, and address are same in the discharge slip Ext. Ka-9 of Meerut Medical College but the name of father is written Shivkumar instead of Sri Shanker.The victim was referred to Meerut Medical College on 27.2.09 by the district Hospital for further treatment.Verified photocopy of the above-mentioned Reference Form has been submitted by PW-6 the doctor of the Meerut Medical College.The date and address are the same as all other details.The photocopy of the case sheet Ext.Ka-13 of Medical College by PW-7 bears that very Annual number which is on the discharge slip Ext. Ka-9 and it contains name of the father of the victim as Sri Shanker.Under these circumstances only because the name of father got written as Shivkumar instead of Sri Shanker in the discharge slip due to inadvertent mistake, the identity of the victim cannot be doubted.It is not the contention of the defence that on that day some other girl named Saroj of the same address, police station and of same age was admitted on being referred from Bulandshahar District Hospital.May be due to hustle and bustle, the name of father was not heard correctly.Prosecution Witness No.8:-Dr. Madhu Sharma was examined as this witness.This witness is doctor of the District Women Hospital Bulandshahar.She has stated to have conducted medical examination of victim Saroj on 27.2.09 at 7.30pm in the above capacity and had found no external injury on the person of the victim, found breast undeveloped and pubic hair absent.Internal examination was as follows- hymen was freshly broken.Hymen was bleeding on its sides being touched.The hymen was ruptured in the condition of 6 'O' clock.The vagina had blood clots inside it.she has stated the slide having been prepared from the vaginal discharge for the examination of sperms and the same was sent to the pathology department, and in view of the critical condition of the victim she was referred to the Medical College, Meerut for further treatment, and she has also stated that the medical examination report of the C.M.O. and the photo copies of the reference letters sent to the Medical College to be present in the file and having brought along the original M.L.C. report, has verified them with the original and while stating them to be in his own handwriting and under his own signature, has proved them as Ext. Ka-8. Ka-9 and Ka-10 and has also opined that such injuries are probable to receive, if the victim is raped forcibly.This witness, in the cross-examination, has stated that the victim's parents had come with her at the time of examination and that she was in conscious state.She could not state whether she came on her own or was carried in arms by her family member.This witness has completely denied the statement of defence that the victim might have received such injury on being fallen on any pointed object while playing.She has clearly stated that such injury can not occur on being fallen on any pointed object.She has also stated that the liquid discharge could not come out because of blood clotting inside the vagina.Preetam Singh has been examined as this witness.This witness is a Pathologist.He has proved the pathological report as Ext-Ka14, and has stated that no sperm has been found in the medical examination.Hence, it is evident from the deposition of PW6 to PW8 all the three witness that the statements of the victim PW-1 and 2 are corroborated from the medical evidences also.It will be worthwhile to peruse the deposition of formal witnesses now.Prosecution Witness No.3:-Ram Shesh Misra is the writer of Chik and GD.He has proved the original G.D., Chik FIR and the carbon copy of G.D., as Ext.This witness has also corroborated the statement of PW-2 that the victim did not come alongwith the complainant.He is an informal witness.No other remark is expected on his statement.S.I. Amil Rashid has been examined as this witness.This witness has also deposed to have sent the clothes of the victim and of the accused to the Forensic Science Laboratory.He has also stated to have received the medical reports of the victim from the Medical College, Meerut.This witness has denied it that he in the collusion of the complainant has concocted a false story and that no such incident took place.He has stated that no such fact came to his cognizance, during the investigation, that the accused owed forty thousand rupee to the Pradhan Ravindra.Rather he has stated to have learnt that the accused earned his livelihood by begging and that he puts on just an underwear.Prosecution Witness No.5:-This witness, while being posted as S.S.I at PS-Shikarpur on 27.02.09, has stated the instant case being registered on the report of the complainant lodged about the rape of his niece Saroj, and that he went to the spot along with the complainant Mukesh, the victim Saroj soaked in blood at the spot, then having sent her to the Government Hospital by a private vehicle, taking into custody the clothes of the victim viz. two Kachhis, one blood stained frock and the accused's underwear into custody, and then getting the recovery memos prepared by the witness Devendra Singh, and Ravidnra Singh under their signature, wrapping and sealing and stamping of the clothes, recording statement of the witnesses, inspecting the spot and preparing the memo and site plan on pointing out of the witnesses in his handwriting & signature, and proved them as Ext.Ka-7 and Ext.He admitted the investigation having been transferred from him to S.I., Adil Rashid.One bundle sealed and stamped was opened before this witness, under the permission of the court, which had the stamp of Forensic Science Laboratory.He has also stated about taking three sepoy and one S.I along with in a jeep to go to the victim's village and making its entry in GD.He has also stated about his meeting with the Pradhan of the village Ravindra Singh, Devendra Singh, so many other persons and the victim's family members, about the victims's house being 200 metre away from the temple, about inquiring Bachchu Lal and Rajpal at the place of occurrence.This witness on cross-examination has described the place of occurrence/room that the door of the room opens in west, there was haystacks in the room, there was one mattress also on the haystack.This witness, has denied the suggestion that the frock did not have blood-stains on it.This witness has denied the suggestion that he did not go to the spot and prepared the site plan while sitting at the police station.The bundle containing the accused's underwear was not presented before this witness.In this way, no such contradictions could come out from the version of this witness which would raise a doubt on the investigation conducted by this witness.Ravindra Singh has been examined as this witness.He is witness of the recovery-memo of victim's clothes.This witness has stated the accused Mangal Giri's underwear and the victim's blood-stained clothes were taken into custody on 27.02.09 in his presence, has proved his signature on the memo and has also proved the recovery-memo 8A/7, available on file.One sealed & stamped bundle was opened under the permission of the court before this witness, and this had proved the underwear marked as material Ext.5 and the clothes was marked as material Ext.6 having been recovered in his presence.This witness, in the cross-examination, has denied that the temple was not under-construction that time.That time, the idol of Shiv Ji, and the photographs of Hanuman Ji and Parvati ji were installed.This witness informed that his house is 60 metre away from the temple.He was informed by his wife over the phone, about the incident.He came to know about the entire episode when he reached the village.He deposed that he reached before the dawn fell and the police reached just one minute after his arrival.Other persons had already gathered there.It took around half an hour in completing the whole proceedings.By that time night had completely fell but there was light.He has denied this point that he was not there at the spot and that he did not put his signature on the recovery-memo and that the underwear did not belong to Baba Mangal Giri.This witness has been alleged to have taken Rs. Forty thousand from Baba Mangal Giri as loan and in order to avoid repaying that he has falsely implicated him.The suggestion of enmity has been strongly denied by him with the statement that there was no question of the accused lending him money when he himself earn his livelihood by begging for daily commodities from others.This witness has further stated that he had a good relationship with the accused as he was visiting temple frequently for Darshan.Answers provided by accused of different questions asked in reply to questions put regarding prosecution case are that ""it is false"" and ""I do not know"", and that he was implicated due to village fractionalism"".In reply to the questions about his loincloth (lungi) he said that ""he does not wear any such cloth."" In reply to the question ""what else you want you say"", it was stated by the accused that Pradhan used to visit him and borrowed money but he refused of having any dispute or enmity with the Pradhan.While recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the material evidence have been put to him including the statement of Pradhan, he, however, completely denied each circumstance.The object of recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is based on the principles of right to fair trial and the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty.We feel that the appeals were heard in a slipshod manner.It was open for the respondents to press the appeals on merits and pray for acquittal.Reasons must contain extenuating circumstances which prompted the High Court to reduce the sentence below the prescribed minimum.Appeal deserves to be dismissed being bereft of merit.Appellant shall serve out the remaining sentence.","['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The prosecution case was that on 07.6.2002 Nitin Aggarwal (PW-2) lodged a complaint to ASI Phool Chand in P.S. Dilshad Garden regarding kidnapping of his father Jai Narayan Aggarwal.In this complaint, he mentioned that he resided with his parents at Model Town.His shop was in Sikriwalan, Delhi and their factory was at B 16/6, Jhilmil Industrial Area.He claimed, that, he had earlier informed the police of a call he had received on the factory telephone, on 31.12.2001, wherein the caller had threatened to kidnap him and had demanded ` 5,00,000/-.In the present instance, he stated that his father, Jai Narayan Aggarwal had left for the house from the factory in his Maruti Car (No. DL 6CD 2817) at around 09.30 PM.Since his father had not reached home even at 10.30 P.M., he had called him on his mobile phone, but the call was not answered.He called his father again, at about 12.30 A.M. but his call was answered by an unknown man who told him that his father was in their custody and their ""Bhai"" would talk to him in the morning.PW-2 further stated that the informer had warned him that in case the police was informed, the body of Lalaji (his father) would be found in the drain.He suspected that Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 2 his father had been kidnapped by some gang.It was alleged that the kidnappers had demanded ` 15 lakhs for the release of Lalaji.On 13.6.2002, for securing safe release of his father, PW-2 arranged the ransom amount (30 bundles, with hundred notes of the denomination of Rs. 500 in each) and the I.O. and Nitin Aggarwal (PW-2) signed on some of the notes in ten of these bundles, and the currency notes in these bundles were then mixed up in the other twenty bundles.The kidnapper did not disclose the exact location where the ransom was to be handed over.The bag containing the ransom amount was given to Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (the uncle of PW-2 who deposed as PW-4), Surender Kumar (the brother-in-law of PW-2 who deposed as PW-9) and Kamal Kant (PW-2's friend who deposed as PW-8) who assumed false identities, and as directed by the kidnappers boarded the Delhi-Saharanpur train and sat in the last bogie of the train.When the train crossed the New Ghaziabad Railway Station they were asked to throw the bag containing the ransom money, which they did.On 14.06.2002, PW-2's father was released.Thereafter the investigation of the case was handed over to Inspector C.S. Rathi.In the course of the investigation, he got the telephone numbers used by the kidnappers for demanding ransom and the addresses, where these telephones were installed were traced.The I.O. also met the victim PW-1 Jai Narayan and obtained descriptions of the kidnappers.The IO, along with his staff, then visited the address from Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 3 where these calls had been made, which turned out to be a house in Khatoli, Muzaffar Nagar (where Telephone No. 73119 was installed).There, they met one Rakesh who told them that Titu@ Mukesh Verma used to receive and make calls from that number to Deepak.They were also told that Deepak was related to Pradhan Ram Naresh.The IO met Pradhan Ram Naresh and enquired about Deepak after disclosing all the facts to him.He admitted that Deepak was his brother-in-law and resided in Lajpat Nagar, Ghaziabad.Thereafter, the IO along with the staff and the Pradhan reached Deepak's house, where they found him.On seeing the police party, Deepak tried to flee; however, he was nabbed and interrogated.During interrogation, Deepak confessed his involvement in the offence and his disclosure led to recovery of a sum of ` 9,49,500/- which was kept in a black colored suitcase lying in the almirah.The notes were sealed and seized; Deepak was arrested.At his instance, Sukram Pal was caught who led to recovery of a desi katta and two cartridges which were used in the commission of the offence.A sum of ` 9,000/- was also recovered from his possession; it was seized.Sukram Pal and Deepak led the police to Mukesh's house where a scooter was parked.Deepak allegedly revealed that the said scooter was used to receive the ransom amount.The scooter was taken into possession; Mukesh, however was untraceable.Sukram Pal and Deepak also pointed out Rihan's house (No. 112, Devi Dass Mohalla, Khatoli) where Jai Narayan was kept captive, after his abduction.Rihan was not present in the house.However, his wife Samina was there.The police party searched the premises and recovered Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 4 cash of ` 60,000/- in the denomination of Rs. 500/-.On 25.06.2002, accused Deepak was interrogated and he revealed that he had deposited ` 9000 in Citi Bank.This money was seized.Learned counsel highlighted that PW-2 had deposed about a threat six months prior to the incident, i.e. 31.12.2001 whereby a call demanding ` 5 lakhs as ransom and a further threat to kidnap had been made-out.The complainant had alerted the police about this fact.The truthfulness of the testimonies of PWs-2 and 19, Inspector Brij Mohan was evident from the fact that Ex. PW-2/B, which is prepared on 13.06.2002, clearly described the currency notes which were marked.Learned counsel submitted that the relative series on the currency notes were noted and countersigned by PW-2 and PW-19. PW-4 deposed having witnessed that 30 packs of cash in denominations of ` 500/- each, totaling ` 15 lakhs had been seen and that the police official, PW-19 had signed on the 10th, 20th and 30th note of each of ten bundles and that ten bundles were then mixed with 20 bundles.The signed currency notes were in 10 bundles.The recoveries made pursuant to the disclosure statement of Deepak, (who was arrested on 20.06.2002) established that several of those signed notes were taken into custody; these were evidenced by the Memo, Ex. PW-12/E. Deepak failed to explain these and merely denied having possessed them, in his reply to the queries put under Section 313 Cr.PC.Learned APP argued that the case was in fact solved after Deepak's arrest since he led to the place where PW-1 had been confined, i.e., Rihan's house.Further, currency notes were seized from that place.They were the subject matter of Ex. PW-12/Q.Learned APP urged here that the these accused were in fact arrested much later on 25.06.2002; they had refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) proceedings as deposed to by PW-18, who recorded his observations in the documents marked during the trial as Ex. PW-18/A to PW-18/D. It was argued that besides the recoveries made on 20.06.2002 from Rihan's house, aggregating ` 60,000, a further amount of ` 31,000/- was recovered pursuant to his disclosure statement, after his arrest.Furthermore, the belt which belonged to the abducted person, PW-1 was also recovered and produced during the trial; it was seized under Memo Ex. PW-11/E.Like in the case of Rihan, Mukesh too was identified by PW-1; he too was arrested on 25.06.2002; his disclosure statement, assisted the police in the recovery of currency notes to the tune of ` 2,69,500/-.These also contained some marked notes; photocopies of all the notes and some of the original notes were produced during the trial.It was urged that during the course of investigation, specimen finger prints of the accused were taken.The specimen print, S-2 (belonging to Mukesh), part of Ex. PW-22/B-3 matched with the specimen of left thumb, designated as Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 12 chance prints Q-2 and marked as S-2 in the report, which was produced as Ex. PW-22/L. Similarly, the chance print developed by the finger print expert, PW-22, i.e. Q-3 was identical with the right thumb mark, S-3 from the finger print specimen of Rihan, according to the report, Ex. PW-22/F and 22/M. These recoveries, coupled with the positive identification by PW-1, of Mukesh and Rihan established beyond reasonable doubt that they were involved in the offence alleged against them.It was submitted that as regards Sukhram Pal, two recoveries of ` 9,000/- and ` 10,000/- (Ex. PW-12/L and Ex. PW-11/C), and the recovery of katta, Ex. PW-12/N proved his involvement.Furthermore, the evidence of PW-1 revealed that Sukhram Pal guarded the premises when the victim was in custody of the abductors.At that time, the callers had threatened to resort to abduction and demanded ` 5 lakhs.On the day of the incident, i.e. on 06.06.2002, the witness was worried since his father did not return at the scheduled time from his factory.At 12.30 AM, he made a telephone call to his father's mobile; it was received by someone else, who stated that his father had been abducted; a ransom demand was made thereafter.PW-1 further deposed having received another call at his residence, later on 07.06.2002, by which the Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 13 caller asked him to arrange ` 25 lakhs.He was thereafter allowed to talk to his father at 10.00 PM that night.Apparently there was a lull after this and on 13.06.2002, PW-2 arranged for ` 15 lakhs and had them marked by the police; PW-4, his uncle, Pramod Kumar supports this statement.After 30 bundles containing ` 500/- denomination notes, aggregating to ` 15 lakhs, (of which 10 bundles were marked and signed by PWs-19 and PW- 2 at serial numbers 10, 20 and 30 of each bundle), all currency bundles were mixed.PWs-4, 8 and 9 went along with the bundles, on the last bogie of the train from Shahdara Railway Station.According to a pre-arranged plan with the abductors, the bundle was thrown near the New Ghaziabad Railway Station.The next day, i.e. on 14.06.2002, PW-1, Jai Narayan was released.The investigation thereafter proceeded and the police traced the calls somewhere to Khatoli in U.P. According to the prosecution version, initially Rakesh and subsequently Pradhan Ram Naresh were questioned; this led to the arrest of Deepak and Sukhram Pal on 20.06.2002 and subsequent arrests on 25.06.2002, of Mukesh and Rihan, and the recoveries alleged in this case.Apart from bald and general denials, these Appellants could not give any reasonable explanation to these incriminating circumstances.Mr. K.B. Andley, Sr.Advocate with Mr. M.Shamikh, Advocate for appellant in Crl.A. Nos.1315 & 1383/2011 Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate for appellant in Crl.A. No.1/2012 Ms. Stuti Gujral, Advocate for appellant in Crl.A. 2/2012 Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP on behalf of the State in all the matters.In these appeals, common judgment and order on sentence dated 17.09.2009 of learned Additional Sessions Judge SC No.15/2009 has been challenged.The Appellants were convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 364-A/34 IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, with fine.On the same day Rihan and Mukesh Verma @ Titoo were arrested by the police; they made disclosure statements.On 26.6.2002 at the instance of Mukesh, one charger along with one mobile, a police uniform were recovered from his house.He also assisted in the recovery of ` 2,67,500/- which was taken into possession by the I.O. Sukram Pal assisted in recovery of ` 10,000/- from his house.Rihan's disclosure led to recovery of ` 31,000/- from his house which was also taken into possession.After completion of investigation charge sheet for the offences punishable U/s 365/364A/34 IPC was filed against the accused before the Trial Court.Upon being charged, the accused claimed that they were not guilty.The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution - which included testimony of 25 public witnesses and the exhibits produced in the case, concluded that the Appellants were guilty as charged, and sentenced them, in the manner described above.Appeals Nos.1315/2011 & 1383/2011, though filed in 2011, involved individuals who were in jail for about 9 years (Deepak and Mukesh); consequently the matters were set down for hearing.At the stage of final hearing, on 03.01.2012 it was noticed that the co-accused, Rihan and Sukhrampal had not preferred appeals.Consequently, the Court directed Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee to contact them, and Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 5 ascertain if they wished to file appeal.The DHCLSC did contact them; their appeals were filed, as Crl.At the outset, this Court wishes to record its appreciation and acknowledgement to counsel assigned by the DHCLSC, i.e., Shri.Bhupesh Narula, and Ms. Stuti Gujral (who appeared and argued on behalf of Shri Siddharth Agarwal).They were fully prepared with the matter, and rendered meaningful assistance to the Court and, as shall be seen hereafter, their contribution was invaluable.It was submitted that the two individuals, through whom Deepak's role was ascertained, i.e., Rakesh and Pradhan Ram Naresh, were deliberately not examined during the trial.They could have given valuable information about the role, if at all, played by Deepak, in the episode.It was urged that admittedly, according to PW-1's testimony, two individuals had abducted him; one pointed the katta at him, and later muffled his face with a towel, and the other was in a police uniform.Deepak was not among these two.Furthermore, Deepak was not shown to Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 6 be connected with any of the co-accused.Moreover, though the witness mentioned the currency notes, the prosecution had not proved their seizure, as the originals were not produced in court; only photocopies were relied on.This, according to the counsel was unacceptable, and did not amount to proof of such fact.It was argued that even if it was assumed that Deepak had currency notes which he could not explain or account for, that circumstance, in the absence of positive evidence linking him with the abduction, threat to PW- 1's life, or apprehension of his bodily injury, and in the absence of any Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 7 demand (by Deepak) could not have led the Trial Court to find his guilt for the offence under Section 364-A, IPC, especially when there was no charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC.He did not ascribe any special role, i.e. his Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 8 standing guard over him, when he was held captive, after abduction.It was urged in this regard, that the victim had been confined after his abduction for quite some time; had this accused been keeping guard over him, all the while, PW-1 would have named him, or mentioned his role, in the statement recorded during investigation, immediately after he was set free.Such was not the case.Counsel for Rihan also argued that the prosecution version about recovery of ` 91,000/- from him, in two lots was unbelievable.Here, it was argued that none of the notes bore any markings or signatures, as alleged during the trial.The entire conviction hinged on the testimony of PW-1 who could not have identified the appellant, as he saw him fleetingly at night.During the trial, all the accused had refused to participate in the TIP (testified by the concerned Magistrates - PW-18 and 21).However, the victim, PW-1 was able to identify Mukesh and Rihan during the trial, without any difficulty.The role attributed to Mukesh was that he initially Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 14 asked PW-1 to give him a lift till a turning (bend in the road).Mukesh was dressed in a police uniform which too was also seized pursuant to the disclosures made by him after his arrest.Rihan, who too was identified by PW-1, accompanied Mukesh.Both of them had approached PW-1's car.Rihan sat at the back.When the car reached the turning, the accused were asked to get-down; they, however, requested PW-1 to cross the bridge.PW-1 further stated that when the car reached the middle of the bridge, Rihan pointed a country made pistol to his temple and asked him to stop.Jai Narayan snatched the pistol and threw it on the road.Mukesh took out a knife and pointed it at his abdomen and pushed him.Rihan, in the meanwhile, took-out a towel and threw it on Jai Narayan's face.Both of them pulled him out and kept him in the back seat of the car; Mukesh took over the wheel and drove it for about 2-2 hours.It is also stated that Rihan lifted the country made pistol which had been thrown down by Jai Narayan.He further deposed being taken to the accused's house, and identified Rihan's wife as Shamina and his eldest daughter's name as Shibbo.PW-1 could recount all the events which took place when he was in the custody of the abductors.He had led the police to the house where he had been confined.It can be seen from the evidence of PW-1 that he was clear as regards the identification of Mukesh and Rihan.He could identify the family members as well as the location of Rihan's house.Though PW-1 was cross- examined, on the behalf of the accused, nothing significant could be elicited to discredit his testimony.A submission on behalf of Mukesh was that the prosecution could not establish how the investigation in fact commenced.Added to these were two other circumstances, according to counsel, which falsified the prosecution story.Here it was urged that the police witnesses deposed to having having ascertained the call details as well as the ownership of the telephone number and yet omitted to bring that material evidence during trial, on record.Two, the entire story about the currency notes being handed-over to the police for marking on 13.06.2002 and being dropped at a pre-arranged destination on that day itself is unsupported by any objective material.It was urged that no call details were proved, to establish that in fact any of the witnesses, who had boarded the train were contacted at the relevant time, signaling them to throw the bags of Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 16 currency.Furthermore, argued counsel, the easiest thing that the police could have done was to follow the train or try and nab those who tried to pick-up the currency notes.As far as the recoveries from Rihan and Sukh Ram Pal are concerned, the witness who primarily deposed about it is PW 11 HC Anil Kumar.He deposed that on 26.6.2002 accused Mukesh led the police to a house; this led to recovery of a police uniform, Panasonic make mobile phone and a charger.Mukesh's statement also led to the recovery of ` 2,67,500/-.Yet ` 19,000/- was recovered at his behest.He was not a party to any covert or overt act, threatening PW-1; nor was he a party to his abduction and illegal confinement.Their appeals, Crl.A. Nos. 1383/2011 and 2/2012 are consequently dismissed.The conviction of Deepak, is, for the reasons discussed above, modified to one under Section 365/34 IPC read with Section 411 IPC.He is sentenced to undergo RI for seven years, for the offence under Section 365/34 IPC.","['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"ORDER P.N. Sinha, J.This revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding being Special Case No. 2 of 1997 arising out of Haldibari P.S. Case No. 106/94 dated 1-10-1994 under Section 468/471/409 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the I.P.C.) now pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Cooch Behar.On the basis of such charge sheet the Special Case No. 2 of 1997 is now pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge at Cooch Behar.He further submitted that though the de facto complainant submitted a prayer before the District Magistrate for withdrawing from prosecution, there was no step by the State Administration to withdraw from prosecution.In this case, the accused was denied his right and Article 21 of the Constitution was violated.The criminal proceeding accordingly should be quashed.On the other hand, Mr. Alok Roy Chowdhury, the learned advocate for the State submitted that the Chairman of the Haldibari Municipality has no authority or jurisdiction to withdraw from prosecution.At the stage of consideration of charge these points may be raised by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge.There is no ground at all to quash the criminal proceeding.Secondly, the de facto complainant himself submitted a prayer before the District Magistrate, Cooch Behar for withdrawal from prosecution though no action was taken over such application.It gives the clear indication that the de facto complainant was not interested to proceed with the criminal proceeding since the amount allegedly defalcated was already paid by the accused.","['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard Sri Vikas Tiwari, learning counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj Saxena learned AGA appearing for State and perused the material brought on record.By the order under challenge dated 14.02.2020, the applicants have been summoned by learned Special Judge (D.A.A. Act)/Additional Session Judge, Jhansi, under Sections 392, 323, 504, IPC, Police Station Lahchura, District Jhansi, in Complaint Case No. 80 of 2019(Suresh Vs.Sachin and another).Thereafter the opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court of Additional Session Judge(Special Judge (D.A.A. Act), with respect to the incident dated 10.06.2019 with prayer to direct the SHO of concerned police station to register the case against the accused-applicants.The learned magistrate called the report from the concerned police station and also recorded the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.. and passed the summoning order dated 14.02.2020, against the applicants, to face trial under Sections 392, 323, 504, IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and no such incident occurred.No offence under Sections 392, 323, 504, IPC is made out against them.Learned AGA appearing for the State submits that the summoning order has been passed on the basis of the material available on record before the learned Special Judge (D.A.A. Act)/Additional Session Judge, Jhansi, which supports the complaint case and prima-facie cognizable offence is made out against the applicants for their summoning.The order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality..I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels.From the perusal of record and the summoning order it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicants on the basis of the material available before the learned magistrate.The learned Magistrate was satisfied that a prima-facie case for summoning was made out.The satisfaction is based on the material on record before him.",['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The charge as against the first accused is that on 3.3.2003 at the Auto stand opposite Koyambedu Market, the first accused Settu alias Dhanasekaran attacked Senu alias Sreenivasan with knife and thereby he committed murder.In the course of the same transaction, the second and the third accused caught hold of the head and hands of the said Senu alias Sreenivasan facilitating the first accused to stab him to death and thereby the second and the third accused committed the offence punishable Under Section 302 r/w 34, I.P.C. During the course of the very same transaction the fourth and the fifth accused also facilitated the first accused to commit the crime of murder and thereby fourth and the fifth accused committed the offence punishable Under Section 302, r/w 34, I.P.C.The brief facts of the prosecution case as brought out in the testimony of the witnesses examined are as follows:Soundarajan P.W. 1, Sekar P.W. 2, Peter P.W.3, Venkatesan P.W.4, Udayakumar P.W.5 and Saravanan P.W.6 are all auto drivers attached to the same auto stand opposite Koyambedu Market.Soundarajan P.W. 1 was elected as the President of the Auto Drivers Association.Udayakumar P.W.5 was a close friend of Senu alias Sreenivasan since deceased.P.W.5 has spoken to the fact that there used to be quarrels between the first accused Sethu alias Dhanasekaran and himself and that Senu alias Sreenivasan, since deceased used to support him and the accused 2 to 5 used to support the first accused Settu alias Dhanasekaran, P.W.5 is a resident of Nerkundram.The first accused Settu and the 5th accused Selvakumar alias Omakumar came to the house of P.W.5 armed with knives to attack him.But he having witnessed those two accused, took to heels from his house.This incident took place about a week prior to the occurrence.On the next day, P.W.5 informed Senu, since deceased about said incident which took place the previous day.The first accused procLaimed that he would take the life of either Senu or Udayakumar.Soundarajan also witnessed the other accused going in the auto-rickshaw of the first accused bearing Registration No. TN-09 E-8366 during the night on 3.3.2003 near Kaliyamman Kovil Street.Kalidas P.W. 15 saw all the 5 accused at about 1 a.m. on 4.4.2003 at a tea shop in front of Kasi Theatre.He found all the 5 accused in a nervous state.When he enquired about their presence, the first accused told him that he murdered Senu.The first accused also requested P.W. 15 not to devulge the same to any other person.Soundarajan P.W. 1 spotted Senu in a pool of blood in the Auto-rickshaw of the latter in the Auto stand opposite Koyambedu Market.JUDGMENT M. Jeyapaul, J.The first accused who prefers Crl.A. No. 345 of 2004, the second accused who prefers Crl.A. No. 309 of 2004, the third and the fifth accused who prefer Crl.The fourth accused who also suffered the judgment of conviction has not preferred any appeal.The trial Judge convicted all the four accused/appellants and the accused who has not preferred appeal for offence Under Section 302 r/w 34, I.P.C. and sentence each of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine Rs. 5,000/- each, failing which to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.Though the Criminal Appeal No. 935 of 2004 was not listed we called for the bundle of the said appeal and took up the same along with these three appeals for disposal.P.W. 17 registered a case in Crime No. 367 of 2003 Under Section 302 r/w 34, I.P.C. He prepared the printed First Information Report, Ex. P. 14 and dispatched the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate.He rushed to the scene of occurrence and drew a rough sketch Ex.P.W. 17 recovered blood-stained shirt M.O. 1, blood stained pants M.O. 2 and Auto-rickshaw M.O. 3 under Mahazar Ex.P.3 in the presence of the abovesaid witness.Dr. Manokaran P.W. 16 on receiving a requisition from P.W. 17, commenced postmortem examination on the dead body of Senu at 12.15 p.m. on 5.3.2003 and he found the following injuries on the dead body of Senu:(1) Nine (9) linear Parallel superficial Incised wounds 0.5 cm-1 cm apart measuring 17 cm-60 m (1) x 0.5 cm (B) x 0.5 cm (D) extending from right side of the neck, wound margins are regular and clean cut, one superficial incised wound entered deeply into the structure on right side of the neck and ' aroused common carotid artery, Extensive subcutaneous reddish haemdrrhage on the right side of the neck, extensive pharyngeal and para-pharyngeal haemorrhage on right side of the neck.(2) A central punctured wound at the middle of neck at 3-4 trachcal ring level 2 cm x 1 cm x lumendeep; margins are regular o/d if entered into the lumen of trachea with haemorrhage in the mucosal surface of trachea;(3) Reddish brown abrasions of the back of right shoulder 3 x 3 cm; 2 x 2 cm; 2 x 1 cm.(4) A small puncture wound 0.5 x 1 cm X skindeep of the middle of abdomen, 5 cm above the umbilicus o/d the depth is 1 cm.All the above injuries are ante-mortem in nature.Internal Exam.:Normal in size, C/s All Chambers contain fluid blood; coronaries patent, lungs, liver, spleen, kidneys C/s pale.Contains 300 cc of brown colour fluid with thick food substance present; No definite smell.Pale, Hyoid bone, Pelvis skull and scalp intact.P.W. 15 has opined in the post-mortem certificate Ex. P. 13 that the deceased appeared to have died due to cut injury over the neck.13 were recovered from the dead body.He examined them individually and recorded the confession statements voluntarily given by them in the presence of Shanmugam and Subramaniyam.6, blood-stained Gray colour pants M.O. 7, half sleeve khakhi colour shirt M.O. 8, another khakhi colour pants M.O. 9, khakhi colour shirt M.O. 10 and Auto bearing Registration No. TN-09 E-8366 M.O. 11 were recovered under relevant Mahazars in the presence of the abovesald witnesses.On 10.3.2003, all the abovesaid 3 accused were remanded to Judicial custody.The material objects recovered in this case were sent to the Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of consigning them to chemical examination.The other two accused were thereafter arrested and remanded to Judicial custody.A.3 Sreekanth is the brother's son of Arumuga Nayakar.He would state that as per the demand made by A.3, he gave a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to him.Krishnasamy, P.W. 11 is the Metropolitan Magistrate.He had recorded the statements of the witnesses Under Section 164, Cr.P.C. Gopinath P.W. 13 is the owner of the Auto-Rickshaw bearing Registration No. TN-09 E-8366 driven by A.5 Omakumar at the time of occurrence.Ramu, P.W. 14 would state that the first accused approached him to arrange a lawyer for the case of murder.having obtained the Forensic report' Ex. P. 12 and the Chemical report Ex. P. 19 Laid the final report as against the accused for the offence Under Section 302 r/w 34, I.P.C.The incriminating circumstances found In the testimony of prosecution witnesses were put to the accused Under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The accused submitted that a false case was foisted on them.in the background of the prosecution version as spoken to by Udayakumar, P.W.5 and Soundarajan, P.W. 1, has come to the conclusion that all the accused joined together and committed the murder punishable Under Section 302 r/w 34, I.P.C.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that the extra judicial confession alleged to have been given to Kalidas P.W. 15 does not inspire judicial confidence as P.W. 15 has been examined about 7 days after the occurrence.However, apart from Kalidas P.W. 15, there is no evidence to establish that these accused committed the offence of murder as alleged by the prosecution.The trial Judge has failed to see the extra Judicial confession in its proper perspective and proceeded to accept the same and record a judgment of conviction as against all these accused.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the extra judicial confession has been given by the first accused to his close friend Kalidas P.W. 15 immediately after the occurrence.The conduct of the accused involved in the crime will also have to be taken into consideration.The trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion based on the testimony available on record that it was only these accused who committed the murder in pursuance of common intention punishable Under Section 302 r/w 34, I.P.C.At that time, he found all the accused at the Tea shop.The first accused confided to him that the accused had murdered Senu.However, during the course of cross-examination, he had stated that he had not passed on the information either to his friends or to his kith and kin.It is not as if he had gone to the police station immediately after the occurrence.He has categorically deposed before the Court that from 4.3.2003 to 10.3.2003 he was very much available in Chenhai.His explanation is that he did not divulge the information to any person as the first accused A.1 asked him not to reveal the fact to any other person.It is found from his testimony that he came down to police station when A1, A3, A5 were brought to police station for examination.P.W. 15 would state that he had informed the police that A.1 confessed that he had committed the murder of Senu.The delay in examination of P.W. 15 has not been properly expLained by the prosecution.If P.W. 15 had been examined the next day and he has come out with the extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by the first accused, then we can give some credence to his testimony.It is quite unnatural for a person not to reveal to anybody such information for seven days.Therefore, extra judicial confession reportedly given by A.1 to P.W. 15, is unreliable and untrustworthy.It is totally unsafe to rely upon such doubtful version to return a verdict of conviction.Soundarajan P.W. 1 has spoken to the motive part of the prosecution story.Udayakumar P.W. 5 has also spoken the fact that the deceased used to Support him and pick up quarrel with the first accused.P.Ws. 1 to 6 have spotted the accused at about 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. on 3.3.2003 near Kaliyamman kovil temple.There is no evidence to establish that they came there to annihilate Senu.The presence of the accused was not connected to the crime at all by the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution.There is evidence to show that the third accused approached not only Arumugam Nayakar P.W. 9 but also father in law Ranganathan P.W. 10 demanding a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to go over to Chennai.Such piece of evidence is not so material to incriminate the accused in a case of murder.The statement of P.W. 1 to P.W. 4 recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Krishnasamy, P.W. 11 would disclose that there was motive for the crime and the accused were spotted during night on the date of occurrence.P.W. 1 to P.W. 4 have spoken to such fact before the Court also when the trial was taken up by the learned Sessions Judge.The learned trial Judge should have avoided examining the Judicial Magistrate when the witnesses have not turned hostile.We cannot assume things based on the motive part of the prosecution story spoken to by this witnesses conjectures and surmises are quite alien to criminal jurisprudence.The recovery has been made at the instance of A.1, A.3 and A.5 only after they were taken to police custody.As the recovery has been effected based on the alleged confession statement given by A.1, A.3 and A.5 when they were in the police custody, we do not attach much importance to the recovery part of the case put forth by the prosecution.Of course the testimony of Dr. Manokaran, P.W. 16 in the background of the' postmortem certificate Ex. P. 13 would establish that Senu @ Sreenivasan was put to death.But when there is no cogent evidence to connect the accused to the crime, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.We find that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that A. 1 to A.5 committed the murder of Senu @ Sreenivasan punishable Under Section 302 r/w 34, I.P.C.In result the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No. 385 of 2003 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai is set aside and Appellants 1 to 5 are acquitted of the charge Under Section 302 r/w 34, I.P.C. and they are set at liberty.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(29-11-2012) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 22-9-2009 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa hereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Collector/District Magistrate, Rewa dated 14-7-2009 cancelling the petitioner's arms licence has been affirmed.The facts that have been brought on record by the petitioner briefly stated, are that the petitioner, who lives in village Gaddi, within the jurisdiction of P.S.Govindgarh, District Rewa, is an agriculturist and has also obtained a mining lease.It is stated that the petitioner had applied for obtaining an arms licence under the provisions of the Arms Act for a .315 Bore Rifle which was accordingly granted to the petitioner on 30-5-2004, however, on a complaint being filed by one Safia Khan, his business rival, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 7-5-2007 by the District Magistrate to which the petitioner had filed a reply but the concerned authority without properly appreciating the same, suspended the arms licence of the petitioner by order dated 11-9-2007, which was assailed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa who is the appellate authority.It is stated that the appellate authority, by order dated 6-11-2007 quashed the order of suspension of the arms licence and remanded the matter back to the District Magistrate for fresh adjudication after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner pursuant to which the District Magistrate/Collector, Rewa, again took up the matter, called for the report of the Superintendent of Police, Rewa and the concerned police station in respect of the criminal cases registered against the petitioner and his activities and thereafter passed an order dated 14-7-2009 cancelling the petitioner's arms licence.The petitioner challenged the order of cancellation of his arms licence before the Commissioner, Rewa, who, by the impugned order dated 22-9-2009 has affirmed the same, being aggrieved by which the petitioner has filed the present petition.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The allegations leveled in the present case are that on 06.08.2012, a police report was lodged by one Yogesh with regard to missing of his mother Smt.Darshana Devi.It was alleged by the complainant in the complaint that his mother left the house on 21.07.2012 after being called by an unknown lady.Thereafter, the Bail Appln.732/2016 Page 1 of 5 mobile phone of his mother could not be connected.The complainant found two registers from the room of his mother wherein entries regarding money transaction were made.732/2016 Page 1 of 5During the course of investigation, call detail record of the mobile phone of Smt. Darshana Devi was analyzed and on the basis of same, accused Yash Pal @ Sonu was arrested, who disclosed that he had taken money from Smt.Darshana Devi and was unable to return it and thus, he planned to eliminate her.He also disclosed that on 21.07.2012, he along with accused Manoj took Smt.Darshana Devi towards village Daryapur.They both got down from the car on the pretext of tyre puncture and sat on the rear seat.Accused Yashpal caught hold the hands of Smt.Darshana and accused Manoj strangled her to death with her chunni.Accused Yashpal took ear ring, gold chain, mobile phone and cash of Rs.12,000/- of the deceased and then threw the dead body on the side of canal in bushes near village Rohat, PS Sadar, District Sonepat, Haryana.During further investigation, receipt of Muthoor Finance Corporation regarding mortgage of jewellery and SIM card which was used for talking to the deceased were recovered from accused Yashpal.At the instance of accused Yashpal, decomposed dead body of deceased was also recovered which was identified by her son Yogesh.Accused Manoj was also arrested and at the instance of both the accused persons, car used in the crime was recovered.The present application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for the grant of regular bail in FIR No.427/2012, under Sections 364/302/201/404/120B IPC, Police Station Narela.On the basis of complaint made, FIR No.427/2012, PS Narela under Section 365 IPC was registered.Bail Appln.Thereafter, Sections 302/201/120B/34 Bail Appln.732/2016 Page 2 of 5 IPC were added in the present case.Bail Appln.732/2016 Page 2 of 5During further investigation, ornaments of deceased were seized from Muthoot Finance office.A sum of Rs.47,045/- from accused Yashpal was also seized which he had taken after mortgaging the ornaments.Mobile phone of accused Yashpal was also seized.Two diaries of deceased having entry of Rs.14 lacs lent to accused Yashpal were also seized.Statement of one public witness Jogender was recorded who stated that he saw the deceased and accused Yashpal along with one person in the car near Sannoth Village, Narela.Moreover, the accused Manoj even refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade.Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the deceased went missing since 21.07.2012 and her missing report was lodged on 06.08.2012 and the FIR was registered on 11.08.2012, whereas the statement of public witness PW7 Jogender was recorded on 18.08.2012 which creates doubt regarding the story of prosecution.It was further argued that the dead body was recovered on 14.08.2012 and in the post mortem report, no ante mortem injuries were found and also no exact cause of death was opined by the doctor.It was further argued that there is no report of the doctor to the effect that the death of the deceased was a homicidal death.Nothing incriminating has come on record against the petitioner.It was further submitted that the petitioner is behind the bar since 15.08.2012 and the conclusion of trial is likely to take time.On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Bail Appln.732/2016 Page 3 of 5 the State has argued that witness Jogender has clearly identified both the accused persons as the persons who were lastly seen in the company of deceased on 21.07.2012 i.e. the day she went missing.It was further argued that the mobile phone locations of both the accused persons were found at the same location of mobile phone of the deceased on the day when the deceased went missing.The ornaments of deceased as well as their receipt mortgaging the same with Muthoot Finance Company were also recovered from accused Yashpal.Bail Appln.732/2016 Page 3 of 5In the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature to the effect that he criminally conspired with his co-accused and in furtherance of the said conspiracy committed the murder of deceased for a sum of Rs.1 lacs.It is specifically alleged against him that he was last seen in the company of deceased along with co-accused Yashpal and this fact has been stated in the statement of witness PW7 Jogender.The contention of the petitioner that no cause of death of deceased has been given by the doctor cannot be appreciated at this stage for the reasons that the trial is still going on and no comments on the merits of the case can be made at this stage.It is also apparent from the record that the highly decomposed dead body of the deceased was recovered and that too after many days of death.It is also specifically alleged against the petitioner that he strangled the deceased with the help of her chunni.It is also matter of record that the petitioner refused to join the Test Identification Parade.Bail Appln.732/2016 Page 4 of 5In view of the seriousness of the offence and the fact that there was active involvement of the petitioner in the commitment of the murder of the deceased and he refused to join the Test Identification Parade, this Court does not find it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail.The bail application is accordingly dismissed.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE MAY 30, 2016 dd Bail Appln.732/2016 Page 5 of 5Bail Appln.732/2016 Page 5 of 5","['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
Order Date :- 11.5.2020,"['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"It is not in disputeand cannot be disputed that she died due to asphyxia by strangulation asfound by PW 1, autopsy doctor.A contusion of 9 cm x 3 cm size was foundacross the front of the neck underlying skin, muscle, trachea, oesophaguscongested and hyoid bone was fractured, extravasation of blood in the neckregion due to injury of neck vessels.It was also found that the tongue hadprotruded out and was bitten by teeth of both jaws.Blood was coming outfrom mouth and and nose.Both eyes were closed and congested and face wasalso congested.The membranes were congested, brain base of skull, pleura,larynx, trachea, bronchi, both the lungs and pharynx were found congested.Yet another circumstanceput forward and which is highly artificial and unbelievable and beyondcredulity is that he started in the morning on 27-9-198 from DW 1's houseand directly reached the court, covering a distance of 70 kms by 10 a.m.and he remained in the court up to 11 a.m. without going to the house whichis situated hardly 1 1/4 kms from the court.It is highly unbelievable andunacceptable.It is also an admitted position that he had news of hiswife's death in the court at 11 a.m. He did not disclose the name of theinformer.The bail bonds of the first respondent standcancelled.He should surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence.In casehe does not surrender himself, the Superintendent of Police, Banda Districtis directed to take him into custody forthwith and report the compliance tothe Registry of this Court.The bail bonds of the second respondent standdischargedWe have heard learned counsel on both sidesIn Sessions Trial No. 78 of 1985 in the Court of the Special Judge (E.C.Act), Banda, the Sessions Judge convicted Ramesh Prasad Misra, the firstrespondent under Section 302 Indian Penal Code ('IPC', for short) andsentenced him to death.He was also convicted under Section 201 IPC andsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for four years and to pay afine of Rs 1000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for sixmonths.He was also convicted under Section 498-A and sentenced to undergotwo years' RI and to pay a fine of Rs 1000 and in default to undergofurther simple imprisonment for six months.All the sentences were directedto run concurrently, Smt Butto Devi, the second respondent, mother of thefirst respondent, was acquitted of the offence under Section 302 but wasconvicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for four yearsand a fine of Rs 1000 and in default to undergo six months' simpleimprisonment.She also was convicted under Section 498-A and sentenced toundergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs 1000 and in default toundergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.Both thesentences were directed to run concurrently.A Division Bench of theAllahabad High Court consisting of B.N. Katju and D.S. Bajpai, J.J.,however, by judgment dated 21-7-1988 in Criminal Appeal No. 2108 of 1987acquitted both the respondents of all the charges and also rejected thereference for confirmation of death sentence.Thus this appeal by specialleaveThis is one of the most horrendous bedroom murders of a young marriedgirl, Urmila Devi, of 19 years on the intervening night of26-9-1985/27-9-1985 in Karwi town in Banda District of Uttar Pradesh.Shewas married to Ramesh Prasad Misra, aged around 28 years, a practisingadvocate at Karwi, on 25-4-1985 and hardly after five months she met withcruel death.She was carrying 4 to 6 weeks' pregnancy.These circumstances clearly indicate force and pressure put upon her andconclusively establish that the death occurred due to asphyxia bystrangulation.Thereafter, the dead body was burnt and the entire body wasburnt except the feet.It would thus be clear that the burns were post-mortem.The offence is, therefore, one of murder.It would beconclusive that the death had taken place around midnight of26-9-1985/27-9-1985 in the bedroom of the first respondentThe question, therefore, is whether the first respondent has committedthe murder of his wife ? Undoubtedly, the entire prosecution case rests oncircumstantial evidence.It is settled law that it is the duty of theprosecution to establish all the circumstances conclusively to hold thatthe respondent alone had committed the offence.Witnesses may be prone tospeak, and in this case, material witnesses have spoken falsehood but thecircumstantial evidence will not.It is, therefore, the duty of the courtto carefully scan through the evidence on the anvil of human conduct,probabilities and attending circumstances extending all doubts in favour ofthe accused.In a case of this type, hardly any direct evidence would beforthcoming for the prosecutionThe case of the prosecution is sought to be based on the evidence of PW2 and PW 6 - a practising advocate who are, admittedly, the neighbours.Intheir statement under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, ('CrPC', forshort) they have stated that they heard the quarrel between the firstrespondent and his wife, Urmila Devi and the latter was heard crying.However, both the witnesses turned hostile to the prosecutionThe question is whether the first respondent was present at the time ofdeath or was away in the village of DW 1, his brother-in-law.It is rathermost unfortunate that these witnesses, one of whom was an advocate, havinggiven the statements about the facts within their special knowledge, underSection 161 recorded during investigation, have resiled from correctness ofthe versions in the statements.They have not given any reason as to whythe investigating officer could record statements contrary to what they haddisclosed.It is equally settled law that the evidence of a hostile witnesswould not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or theaccused, but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of theevidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defencemay be accepted.One clinching circumstances, viz., that PW 2 and PW 6 hadheard some quarrels in the house of the respondents and the deceased wascrying out, is not on record as substantive evidence.PW 2 and PW 6 had noregard for truth; they fabricated the evidence in their cross-examinationto help the accused which did not find place in their Section 161statements that they had seen one man of white complexion and aged between30 to 35 years, going to the house of the deceased on the fateful night andleaving the house at 8.00 a.m. on the next dayHe slept in the houseand left the house on the next day, i.e. 27-9-1985, at 8 a.m. This wasspoken of not only in his statement made under Section 313 CrPC by thefirst respondent but also, as stated above in the evidence of PW 2 and PW 6in their cross-examination.PW 2, Biswas Kumar, a neighbour of therespondents and PW 6, Harshvir Singh were examined to prove the prosecutioncase that on the intervening night of 26-9-1985/27-9-1985 they heardquarrels emanating from the house of the accused and the deceased was heardcrying; but they turned hostile at the trial and were duly declared hostileand were cross-examined.PW 6, is none other than a practising advocate anda colleague of the 1st respondent.Equally, PW 5, Alok Dwivedi is anotherpractising advocate who was also examined to prove that the firstrespondent himself and one Avadh Vishwa Karma, Advocate, together had gonefrom the Court with the written report, Ex. KA-3 signed by the firstrespondent to the police station and had given it at the Police Station,Karwi at about 2.00 p.m. DW 2, Bhavendra Kumar Singh, an advocate of 20years' standing and the senior of the first respondent was examined toprove the alibi.It is most distressing to note that practising advocate,PW 6 and DW 2, with a view to exculpate the first respondent from theclutches of law, have, without any compunction, spoken falsehood and haveno regard for truth betraying their duty of being responsible law officerswho are expected to uphold truth and nothing but the truth.DW 2 has spokenfalsely that after the first respondent got the news of the death of hiswife he was often fainting and swooning which was not even spoken by thefirst respondent in his Section 313 statement.He should have rushed home to find outthe cause for the death and search out whether the crime was for gain etc.and immediately swing into action and make the police investigate into thecrime.On the other hand, although he had the news at 11 a.m. he went tothe police station at 2.10 p.m. after finding no escape from furtherdelaying the reporting to the police of the crime.This conduct isinconsistent and incompatible with normal human behaviour of an innocentman but seems to be one of a clever demeanour.The evidence of DW 2regarding occasional faints and swooning and ultimate unconsciousness is abunch of tissues of lies unsavoury to be acceptedThe question is whether this theory of alibi and of a strangercommitting crime is true, likely and probable ? The deceased was hardly 19years' old, a young teenager who was studying in intermediate standard atthe time of marriage.PW 2, Chandra Shekhar had five daughters and UrmilaDevi was the third one and being a man of small means, he anxiously marriedher to the first respondent, spending Rs 35, 000 with fond hope that shewould have a bright married life which ultimately turned out to be helllosing her precious life.After the marriage, she was staying with herhusband and had spent hardly five months and was having 4 to 6 weeks'pregnancy.There is no suggestion even of her being of loose character.Ifthe stranger had really come and stayed in the house and committed murderby strangulation, would he have burnt the dead body so as to createevidence to alert the neighbours to come and catch him ? It would beabhorrent to the common sense to believe it.Yet another circumstance todisbelieve this theory is that having committed the murder at midnight,would he have waited till 8.00 a.m. and left the house after daybreak so asto secure evidence of his presence and of having committed the murder ?Under this clinching impossible human conduct, the theory of a stranger'scoming to the house, staying with the deceased during the intervening nightof 26-9-1985/27-9-1985 and of committing her murder is a false one.Theevidence of PW 2 and PW 6 in this behalf is a figment of imagination,emanating from fertile confabulation of 1st respondent, PW 6 and obviouslyof DW 2 and his other colleagues who are all practising advocatesYet another theory set up by the first respondent to prove his alibi isthat pursuant to a letter dated 18-9-1985 written by his brother-in-law, DW1, resident of Jharimajugaon, a railway employee stating that his sisterwas unwell and that on its receipt on 24-9-1985, he went to see his sisterdirectly from the court on 25-9-1985 without coming to his house andkeeping his briefs and coat in the house.He is stated to have kept hiscoat in a shop.It appears to be a highly artificial theory set up by thefirst respondent.On his own admission of DW 1, his wife, viz., the sisterof the first respondent had usual fever which did not warrant him to gostraight from the court to his sister's house without coming to his houseand informing his wife of his going, without keeping his coat and also hisrecord in the house.DW 1 admitted that one vaidya was treating her forfever and that fever continued even after the first respondent left thehouse.DW 1 was attending to his duties going to a distant place.Noprescription of medicine was given.The distance between Karwi and hissister's village is 70 kms.Even assuming that he had gone on 25thSeptember, he would have returned on 26th evening.He merely mentions that while he was in court at 11 a.m. he received themessage that his wife had died and he went to the house and after seeingher dead body he went to the police station and lodged the report.There isno explanation as to where he was moving or what he was doing from 11 a.m.to 2.10 p.m. and why he had lodged the report at 2.10 p.m. when he hadreceived the message of the death of his wife at 11 a.m. He did not evenmention that his wife was having burn injuries.It is now seen that thedeceased was first strangulated and done to death and was then burnt.Obviously, therefore, he had not committedhimself to any specific cause of the death.If the theory of stranger'scoming and causing the death of his wife is excluded and his theory that hehad gone to his sister's house and he did not come back to his house tillhe received the information that his wife was dead which information hereceived at 11 a.m. on 27-9-1985, stands excluded, and for the aboveobvious reasons, it does get excluded, then the necessary conclusion isthat he must have been present in the house.None could have access to hisbedroom at midnight.So he committed the murder and he wanted to createevidence of screening the offence of murder by burning her to create anevidence of suicide committed by the deceased.These false theories set upby the first respondent are yet another circumstance to complete the chainto inculpate the first respondent in the commission of the offence ofmurder and scratching the evidence of murder.There is strong evidence ofPW 2, father and PW 4, sister of the deceased, of demand for dowry whichfurnishes motive to commit murderTheevidence of PW 2 and PW 4, father and sister of the deceased who spokeabout the motive, was excluded on applying Section 32 of the Evidence Act.Thus, evenassuming that Section 32 is inapplicable to the facts of this case as heldby the learned Judges of the High Court, the narration of the facts ofdemand for dowry of sofa, motor cycle etc. and non-supply thereof is apiece of evidence to prove motive for committing the offence of murder.Such evidence would be relevant and admissible under Section 8 of theEvidence Act. The deceased informed these witnesses of the ill-treatmentmeted out to her due to her inability to secure the articles demanded byRamesh Prasad Misra.On the other hand, the learnedJudges of the High Court betrayed their duty of final court of fact, tosubject the evidence to close and critical scrutiny.They either have noknowledge of the elementary principles of criminal law or adopted casualapproach towards a serious crime like the present one.In either case,miscarriage of justice is the inevitable result at their hands in criminalcasesAccordingly, we set aside the acquittal of the first respondent inrespect of all the three charges and restore the conviction of the firstrespondent for an offence of murder under Section 302 IPC.However, thesentence of death, recorded by the Sessions Judge is converted into RI forlife.","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"116 15.12.2020 rkd Ct. No.28 (Allowed) C.R.M. 9977 of 2020 (Through Video Conference) In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Uttarpara P.S. Case No. 277 of 2020 dated 13/09/2020 under Section 448/323/325/306/354B/427/379/506/34/201 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Falguni Mandal ....petitioner.He and his family members assaulted the petitioner and others.General diary was recorded.Subsequently, petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the victim committed suicide as his sister had been ill-treated by the petitioner and others.We have considered the materials on record.Grievances expressed in the suicide note may be assessed in the light of the fact that the deceased was accused of torturing his wife who committed suicide.In view of the aforesaid facts, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)","['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This is projectedas the motive for the occurrence.On 29.03.2000, at about 10.00 AM, PW-1 and the deceased wereproceeding through the land of one Annamalai Thevar.At that time, the accusedcame there with a sickle in his hand.He shouted at the deceased saying that hewould not leave the deceased without wrecking vengeance.So saying, the accusedcut the deceased with sickle.The deceased warded off the said attack by hishands.The blow fell on the right forehand.Then, the accused cut him on theright side of the abdomen of the deceased.The injury was so deep and theintestine protruded out.PW-1 attempted to rescue the deceased.Immediately, theaccused cut PW-1 on her right hand, left hand, right shoulder and right upperhand, repeatedly with sickle.In the said dying declaration,the deceased told that due to previous enmity, the accused cut him with sickle.[Dr.Ramakrishnan was not examined before the Trial Court, as he had goneabroad].PW-15 was a Head Constable, attached to the Murappanadu Police Station.Then, he handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police forinvestigation.He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an ObservationMahazer, EX-P3 and a Rough Sketch, EX-P27, showing the place of occurrence inthe presence of PW-4 and another witness.Then, he recovered bloodstained earthand sample earth from the place of occurrence under a mahazer in the presence ofthe same witnesses.Then, he examined PW-2 to PW-4 and recorded theirstatements.At 07.30 PM, he examined the deceased at the hospital and recordedhis statement.[The said statement, though a dying declaration, falling withinthe sweep of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has not been proved inevidence by the prosecution].He recovered the dressmaterials of PW-1 and the deceased.On 31.03.2000, the accused surrendered before the learnedJudicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli.On the orders of the learned JudicialMagistrate, on 10.04.2000, PW-18 took the accused into his custody.On the sameday, at 06.30 PM, while in the Police Station, the accused gave a voluntaryconfession in the presence of PW-6 and another witness.In the said confession,he had disclosed that he had hidden the sickle in his house.In pursuance of thesaid statement, he took PW-18 and the witnesses to his house and produced thesickle, [MO-1].The deceased was removed to the hospital.*************[Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.] The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.369 of 2001, on the fileof the learned Additional Sessions Judge, [Fast Track Court No.I], Tuticorin.Hestood charged for offences under Sections 341, 302, 326 and 506(ii) of theIndian Penal Code.By Judgment dated 07.10.2003, the Trial Court has convictedhim under all the charges.For the offence under Section 341 of the Indian PenalCode, the Trial Court has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment forone month and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to undergo imprisonment forone week, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergoimprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergoimprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 326 of the IndianPenal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fineof Rs.500/- in default to undergo imprisonment for six months and for theoffence under Section 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorousimprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergoimprisonment for one month.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, theappellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was one Mr.PW-1 is hiswife and PW-2 is the son of the deceased.Twoyears prior to the occurrence, there arose a dispute between the deceased andthe accused in respect of cutting of acacia trees.This resulted in a criminalcase against the deceased, PW-2, one Marimuthu and few others.PW-2 and PW-3 were then working in a nearby field.On hearing the alarm raised, they rushed towards the place of occurrence andwitnessed the entire occurrence.On seeing them, the accused criminallyintimidated them by brandishing sickle against them.Then, the accused fled awayfrom the scene of occurrence with the weapon.PW-2 and PW-3, forthwith, took PW-1 and the deceased to theGovernment Medical College Hospital at Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.PW-12, Dr.The deceasedtold him that on 29.03.2000, at 10.00 AM, in a field at Agaram, he was attackedby a known person with sickle.The deceased was, at that time, fully conscious.He noticed two injuries on his body as follows:-""(i) A cut injury measuring 15 x 3 cm-traverse- on the right side of theabdomen.(ii) A cut injury on the right upper arm measuring 15 x 4 x 3 cm exposingthe bone.""According to P.W.12, from out of the X-ray taken and on his own assessment, boththe injuries were grievous in nature.On the same day, at 11.10 AM, he examined PW-1, who told thatat 10.00 AM, on 29.03.2000, in a field at Agaram, she was attacked by a knownperson with sickle.A cut injury on the right arm above elbow measuring 2 X + cm.A cut injury measuring 5 cm X + X + cm at the right shoulder.A cut injury measuring 2 X 1 cm on the left arm.A swelling on the middle of left arm.""X-ray was taken on PW-1, which revealed that the injuries 1 and2 were grievous in nature.PW-1 and the deceased were admitted in the hospitalas inpatients.P.W.12 opined that the injuries on the deceased as well as on PW-1 would have been caused by a weapon, like sickle.He gave an intimation to thepolice as well as to the learned Judicial Magistrate in respect of the same.PW-17 was the then Judicial Magistrate No.6 at Tirunelveli.Onreceipt of the intimation from the Hospital Authorities, he proceeded to thehospital at 12.05 PM.One Dr.Ramakrishnan was attending on the deceased.Ramakrishnan opined that the deceased was conscious and was in a fit state ofmind to make dying declaration.On his own assessment and also based on theopinion of Dr.PW-16 was the then Sub - Inspector of Police, attached to the said PoliceStation.Since PW-16 could not write, as he had met with an accident,PW-15 reduced the same into writing.EX-P1 is the statement.On returning to thePolice Station, PW-16 registered a case in Crime No.65 of 2000 under Sections341, 302, 326 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.PW-16 forwarded thestatement, EX-P1 and the First Information Report, EX-P24 to the jurisdictionalMagistrate.Then, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remandand also produced the Material Objects before the Court.While so, at 06.00 AM, on 22.04.2000, the deceased died in thehospital.PW-19 was the then Inspector of Police, attached to the MurappanaduPolice Station.On receipt of the death intimation from the HospitalAuthorities, he altered the case into one under Section 302 of the Indian PenalCode.Then, he proceeded to the hospital and conducted inquest on the body ofthe deceased between 10.00 AM and 12.30 PM.Duringinquest, he again examined PW-1, PW-2 and few more witnesses and recorded theirstatements.Then, he forwarded the dead body for postmortem.K.Selvaraj, was an Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, TirunelveliMedical College Hospital, Tirunelveli.He found the followinginjuries:-""1.Partly healed vertically oblique cut injury with evidence of suturingon the right lateral abdomen, 16 X 5 CM entering into the abdominal cavity.Sutured vertically oblique cut injury on the back, outer aspect of andfront of right forearm, 15 cm below the right elbow, measuring 15 cm X 5 cm Xbone deep.On dissection: fracture of right radius with surrounding infection.Sutured incised wound in the front of abdomen in the middle withproline sutures.18 cm X 1 cm entering peritoneal cavity, through the lower partof the wound a loop of intestine seen protruding out.[end to end anastomosis ofthe intestine has been done] [surgical procedure].Durainage wounds on the right and left flanks of abdomen withcorrugated rubber drainage tubes in situ [surgical procedure].""He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of cutinjuries - abdomen and its complications.PW-19 collected the PostmortemCertificate and examined the doctor.Then, he made a request to the Court toforward the Material Objects for chemical examination.EX-P16 is the ChemicalAnalyst Report and EX-P17 is the Serology Report.As per EX-P16, there wasbloodstain found on the sickle [MO-1].Finally, on completing the investigation, PW-19 laid chargesheet against the accused.The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 341,302, 326 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.The accused pleaded innocence,and therefore, he was put on trial.During trial, on the side of theprosecution, as many as nineteen witnesses were examined and twenty eightdocuments were exhibited, besides, five Material Objects.Out of the said witnesses, PW-1 is the injured eye witness andPW-2 and PW-3 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.They have vividly spokento about the entire occurrence.PW-6 has spoken to about the recovery of MO-1,sickle on the disclosure statement made by the accused.PW-12 has spoken to thefact that he admitted PW-1 and the deceased as inpatients in the hospital.PW-13has spoken to about the postmortem conducted by him and the cause of death.PW-15 and PW-16 have spoken to about the complaint made by the deceased and theregistration of the case.PW-17 has spoken to the fact that he recorded thedying declaration of the deceased.The others are the official witnesses.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accusedunder Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied the same asfalse.However, he did not choose to examine any witness on his side nor toexhibit any document in his defence.Having considered all the above materials,the Trial Court found him guilty under all the charges, and accordingly,punished him.That is how, the appellant is now before this Court with thisCriminal Appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the recordscarefully.As we have already pointed out, PW-1 is an injured eye witness.Due to the attack made by the accused with sickle, she had suffered twofractures.According to the medical evidence, the said injuries were grievous innature.There is no controversy before this Court that PW-1 and the deceasedsustained injuries in the very same transaction.Therefore, the presence of PW-1, at the time of occurrence, cannot be doubted at all.Of course, they are inimical towards the accused.It is on this ground,the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that these two witnessescannot be believed at all, and their presence, at the time of occurrence, cannotbe true.But, we do not find any force in the said argument advanced by thelearned counsel for the appellant.PW-2 and PW-3 have stated that they wereworking in a nearby field at Aharam and on hearing the alarm raised, they rushedto the place of occurrence and witnessed the entire occurrence.Simply becausePW-2 and PW-3 are closely related to the deceased and enimical towards theaccused, their evidence cannot be rejected.In our considered view, theevidences of PW-2 and PW-3 deserve to be accepted.Immediately, after the occurrence, PW-2 and PW-3 took PW-1 andthe deceased to the hospital.On 29.03.2000, at 11.05 AM, when PW-12 examinedPW-1, she told that she was attacked by a known person at 10.00 AM, on29.03.2000 with sickle.The said statement duly corroborates the evidence of PW-This statement falls within the sweep ofSection 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as a dying declaration.Nextly, PW-17, the learned Judicial Magistrate, recorded thedying declaration of the deceased at 12.15 PM.One Dr.Ramakrishnan, who wasattending on the deceased, certified that the deceased was in a fit state ofmind to make dying declaration.It is the contention of the learned counsel forthe appellant that in the absence of the examination of Dr.The said argument of the learned counsel, in our consideredopinion, deserves only to be rejected, for the reason that PW-17 has stated thatnot only on the basis of the opinion offered by Dr.Ramakrishnan, but on his ownassessment, from the answers given by the deceased to the questions put by him,he was satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make dyingdeclaration.At this juncture, we may point out that the opinion of the doctoris only a guiding factor to a Magistrate to arrive at a satisfaction regardingthe mental fitness of an injured person.Ultimately it is only the subjectivesatisfaction of the Magistrate about the mental fitness of the declarant thatmatters.In this case, PW-17 has categorically stated that from theopinion of the doctor and out of his own assessment, he was satisfied that thedeceased was in a fit state of mind to make dying declaration.In respect of thenon - examination of Dr.Ramakrishnan had gone abroad, and therefore, hispresence could not be secured.Thus, we hold that EX-P26, dying declaration,recorded by PW-17 does not carry any infirmity with it.Next comes the complaint given by the deceased to PW-15 and PW-16, at 12.25 PM.The deceased gave a statement orally to PW-16 and the same wasreduced into writing by PW-15, [vide EX-P1].This statement is yet another dyingdeclaration.In the said dying declaration also, the deceased had stated that hewas cut by the accused with sickle.There is no reason to doubt this dyingdeclaration as well.During the course of investigation, PW-18 recorded the statementof the deceased under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In thesaid statement also, we find that the deceased said about the circumstancesleading to his cause of death.But, unfortunately, the prosecution has not proved the same in evidence.We apprehend that the prosecution was under the mistaken impression that thesaid statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure isnot admissible in evidence, in view of the bar contained in Section 162 of theCode of Criminal Procedure.For a moment, the prosecution had failed to noticethe proviso to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which makes itclear that a statement, falling within the ambit of Section 32 of the IndianEvidence Act, 1872, as a dying declaration, is admissible in evidence and thebar contained in Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicableto such a dying declaration.From 29.03.2000 onwards, the deceased wasundergoing treatment in the hospital and he died at 06.00 AM, on 22.04.2000.Thus, he was in the hospital for 24 days as an inpatient, undergoing treatment.PW-13, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, noticed as many asfour external injuries.Two of those injuries were surgical wounds.The injury found onthe abdomen was partly healed and the other injury found on the forearm was alsopartly healed.According to the doctor, the deathwas due to the cut injury to the abdomen and its complications.In other words,according to him, the death was due to infection and the injury to the abdomen.He underwenttreatment as in-patient.The deceased died after 16 days.Injury No. 1 was the fatal injury.The deceased died in the hospital after five days.We see from the injuries that they had been caused from a very closerange as tattooing was present.As stated above theoccurrence took place on November 18, 1988 and the deceased died 18 days lateron December 5, 1988 due to septicaemia and other complications.The Doctor foundonly one injury on the head and that was due to single blow inflicted with aniron pipe not with any sharp-edged weapon.1.The Additional Sessions Judge, [Fast Track Court No.I], Tuticorin.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.3.The Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station, Tirunelveli District.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Learned A.G.A. as well as Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail application but they have conceded on the point of parity.Let applicant(s), Vinod, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:","['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The second respondent / complainant Vishal Sharma is present in person.The petitioners as well as the complainant are also identified by the Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector Amit in Court today.It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged at the instance of the complainant pertaining to certain negotiations, which, according to the complainant, resulted in agreements for the purchase of two plots between the parties.The matter is at the stage of preliminary investigation.The Crl.M.C. No.3115/2014 Page 1 of 6 matter was referred by the court below to the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Court, Delhi whilst a Bail Application No.4644 moved by the first petitioner was being considered, and ultimately, on 27.06.2014, the parties arrived at a settlement before the said Mediation Centre.In terms of the settlement, the complainant was to be paid a sum of Rs.25 lakhs in full and final settlement.Out of this amount, Rs.10 lakhs are stated to have already been received by the complainant on 23.10.2013, and the remaining amount of Rs.15 lakhs has been over to the complainant in Court today by way of a Demand Draft bearing No.780308, dated 17.07.2014, drawn on Union Bank of India.M.C. No.3115/2014 Page 1 of 6The complainant, who is present in person, approbates the aforesaid settlement dated 26.06.2014 and undertakes to be bound by the same.This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.602/2012 registered at police station Narela under Sections 420,406,506, 120-B IPC on 01.11.2012 on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.Issue notice.Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, enters appearance and accepts notice.Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No.602/2012 registered at police station Narela under Sections 420,406,506, 120-B IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition, along with Crl.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on the question of admission.Heard on I.A.No.17969/2017 an application for condonation of ad delay of 49 days in filing the revision.M Considering the averments, I.A. aforesaid is allowed.The delay of 49 days in filing the revision is condoned.of Also heard on I.A.No.17968/2017 an application for suspension rt of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant.ou The applicant stands convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 279 and 337 of IPC with a direction to C deposit fine of Rs.700/- each, in default of payment of fine amount, h ig additionally he is sentenced to undergo S.I. for 30 days, Section 337 (2 counts) of IPC with a direction to deosit fine of Rs.400/-, in default H of payment of fine amount, additionally he is sentenced to undergo S.I. for 15 days and for Section 304-A of IPC he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appellant was on bail during trial and during pendency of appeal.Considering the short sentence awarded by the trial Court, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, I.A.No.17968/2017 is allowed, subject to deposit of fine amount if not already deposited.It is directed that the custodial sentence of applicant-Shankar @ Ramdayal be suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand), sh along with one solvent surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of e the trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on ad 22.02.2018 and on such other future dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this regard, till disposal of the revision.Certified copy as per rules Pr a hy (H.P. SINGH) ad JUDGE ASH M Digitally signed by ASHWANI WANI PRAJAPATI DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=482004, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=aa8f72857f3bf78e15d95745 PRAJ 62da856998b54d5fd5155003ab17db of da73f06859, serialNumber=f487d5a6440348495cf c3dec95a81237144a3514db9c56881 95627b992f5dc04, cn=ASHWANI PRAJAPATI APATIA.Praj.Date: 2017.10.09 11:05:24 +05'30' rt ou C h ig H","['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Thereafter, the deceased walked out of the house that he would commithttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 suicide and on the next day, his body was found on the railway track.This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to transfer the case in Crime No.389 of 2012 from the file of the fifth respondent to fourth respondent [CBCID].The petitioner before this Court is the father of one S.Arjun Raj, who was found dead on 21.06.2012, at Perumalpuram KM 302/700-800 Railway Track between Nagercoil and Aralvaimozhi Railway Station railway track.Based on the information given by Railway Gangman, namely, Mani, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Nagercoil conducted spot enquiry and thereafter, lodged a complaint before the fifth respondent stating that the deceased appears to be brutally murdered by unknown persons.She has alsohttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 noted down cut and stab injuries on the body of the deceased.Alleging that the fifth respondent is not conducting the enquiry in a proper manner and is attempting to close the case as suicide, the petitioner has filed this petition for transfer of investigation.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that based on the complaint lodged by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Nagercoil, a case was registered in Crime No.389 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.The deceased was studying B.E., ECE Department, IV year, at the relevant point of time and was staying in a rental house, along with his friends, namely, Nikhil, Kiran, Arun, Dominic, Anup, Seriyan, Thomas and Thibin at Murugan Koil Street, Subramaniapuram, belonging to one Nainaar.On the night of 20.06.2012, they had liquor and there was a wordy quarrel among themselves, due to which, the neighbours shouted that they would call the police.Thereafter, the deceased left the house stating that he is going to commit suicide and on the next day, he committed suicide by falling over the railway line.The investigation reveals that the deceased, because of the playful pranks among the friends, committed suicide.The postmortem report sails with the same and therefore, the prosecution has altered the Section from 302 IPC to 174 Cr.P.C., and filedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 the final report before the Executive Magistrate under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code.4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the documents placed on record.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Nagercoil, who lodged the complaint and who conducted the spot enquiry, has noted several cut and stab injuries on the body of the deceased and further stated that the deceased appears to be brutally murdered.But, the Doctor, who conducted the Autopsy, has noted down 20 injuries, of which, most of them are of laceration and abrasion.The Doctor has further gave his final opinion that the deceased appears to have died of head injury and according to the prosecution, the injuries found on the body of the deceased are due to the contact with the railway engine.As per the version of the prosecution, the deceased and his roommates, who were in the final year of their college studies, had alcohol on 20.06.2012 and there was a petty wordy quarrel among themselves.Due to the noise raised by them, the neighbours shouted that they would call the police.",['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Theapplicant No. 2 is the father-in-law of complainant, whereas, applicant No. 3 isher mother-in-law and the applicant Nos 4 and 5 are brothers-in-law.According to prosecution, after marriage, wife -Sarlabai joined the company of husband for cohabitation at Pimprala, Dist.She received proper treatment initially at her matrimonial home.Inthe year 2003, she gave birth to daughter Divya during wedlock.After aboutone and half year of the birth of daughter Divya, she was again pregnant forsecond time and since then the members of matrimonial home including in-laws, brothers-in-law and sisters in law started harassing her on trifle grounds.The in-laws and husband used to demand money for purchasing the motorcycle.The complainant made endeavour to convince the in-laws and husbandabout poor financial condition of her parents that time she was beaten up anddriven out of the matrimonial home.Thereafter, the husband, his maternalaunt and cousin brother came to complainant and after giving assurance, theytook back her for cohabitation.In the meantime, she gave birth to son -Premraj.But, her ordeal did not come to an end.Mr. Girish Nagori, Advocate for Applicants.ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER K.K. SONAWANE,J] :-1. Heard.Rule is made returnable forthwith.Matter is taken up forfinality with the consent of learned counsel for parties.The applicants preferred present application under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure (""Cr.P.C."") seeking relief to quash and set aside theFirst Information Report (""FIR"") bearing No. 80/2018 registered at RamanandPolice Station, Dist.Jalgaon for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A,323, 406, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (""IPC"").It has been alleged on behalf of prosecution that the first informant -complainant Sarlabai approached to the Police of Ramanand Police Station,Jalgaon on 16/5/2018 and ventilated the grievance that her marriage wassolemnized on 9/5/2002 with applicant No. 1 - Fakira Pandit Bhoi.After some days, she wasbeaten up by the in-laws on the ground that there was a lizard found in thefood cooked by her and again she was sent to her parents house.Thecomplainant stayed at parents home for some days, but the financial conditionof her parents was so critical, therefore, she on own volition returned tomatrimonial home for cohabitation.there was no change in the behaviourof members of matrimonial home.They used to beat her for satisfaction ofdemand of Rs. 5 Lakhs for construction business and for purchase ofmotorcycle.On 30th August, 2013, the husband of the complainant andbrothers in law forcibly taken away her girl with them.When she had been to ::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 ::: {4} crapln 1681.18.odtthe matrimonial home to take daughter back, the members of the matrimonialhome picked up quarrel with her.The brother in law - Maharu instigated thehusband of complainant to beat her, and due to instigation, the husband ofcomplainant dealt a blow of wooden log on her hand, which resulted intofracture injury to the complainant.The members of matrimonial homeincluding father in law, mother in law, brother in law assaulted her.Thebrother in law - Vijay Bhoi and sister in law Ashabai also gave fist blows on herchest and back.In the month of September, 2013, all the members ofmatrimonial home assaulted her, hurled abuses and for demand of moneydriven her out of the matrimonial home.Eventually, she approached to thePolice Station and filed report.::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::Pursuant to FIR, Police of Ramanand Police Station registered the crimeand set the penal law in motion.Pending the investigation, applicants movedpresent application by invoking remedy under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. forrelief to quash and set aside the penal proceeding initiated against them.Learned counsel for applicants vehemently submits that there were nophysical and mental cruelty to the complainant on the part of applicants.But,she has filed present penal proceeding with ulterior motive to harass theapplicants.There were no specific allegations about maltreatment and torturemeted out to the complainant - Sarlabai to attract the ingredients of Sections498-A, 406 etc. of IPC.He produced therelevant document on record.According to learned counsel, the complainant -wife is suffering from mental disease known as ""paranoid schizophrenia"".Theapplicant produced medical treatment of various doctors to the complainant.But all efforts did not yield result.All the allegations are vague and fabricatedone.The applicant Nos. 7 and 8 are residing separately.They are the distantrelatives and have no concern with the marital life of spouses.These applicantshave no reason to cause interference in the domestic problems of husband andwife.There was no direct and indirect involvement of applicant Nos. 7 and 8into the crime.::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::The learned APP as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2-firstinformant vociferously opposed the contentions put-forth on behalf of ::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 ::: {6} crapln 1681.18.odtapplicants and submit that the allegations of ill treatment nurtured on behalf ofcomplainant in the FIR discloses commission of crime punishable underSections 498-A, 323, and 504 etc. of the IPC.The complainant categoricallydescribed the episodes of her maltreatment and torture at the hands ofapplicants.There were unlawful demand of money from the applicants forconstruction business and purchase of motorcycle.The respondent No.2 filedaffidavit-in-reply on record and submits that she filed the Regular Civil AppealNo.922 of 2017 against the impugned judgment and decree of dissolution ofmarriage passed by learned Civil Judge, Jalgaon.She has also filed proceedingunder Section 125 of Cr.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::In such circumstances, we are unable to persuadeourselves to favour the applicant Nos. 1 to 6 in this proceeding.In so far as allegations nurtured against applicants No. 7 and 8 are ::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 ::: {7} crapln 1681.18.odtconcerned, we find that the allegations cast on behalf of complainant - Sarlabaiagainst sister-in-law and her husband are vague and general in nature.Thereare no specific allegations attributing overt-act of both these applicants tomaltreat and harass the complainant - Sarlabai.The only allegation againstapplicants No. 7 to 8 are that they had assaulted and hurled abuses tocomplainant and subjected her to cruelty.But, these are vague and generalallegations and no particulars are given in the FIR.The allegations aboutcruelty by these applicants are found stray and sweeping in nature.Theseapplicants are the distant relatives and residing separately from husband ofcomplainant and it is hard to believe that these applicants are the beneficiariesafter causing interference in marital affairs of the of spouses.They have noreason to torture the complainant without any purported motivation.::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::In the cases, where accusations aremade, the overt-acts attributed to persons other than husband, are required tobe proved beyond reasonable doubt.Their Lordships of Apex Court further ::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 ::: {8} crapln 1681.18.odtobserved that, ""in their over-enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction formaximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be makingefforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of theprosecution even against the real accused.""::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrestedunder this provisions.""::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::It would be an futileefforts and would cause injustice to them if they are compelled to face agony oftrial before criminal court of Magistrate.The ends of justice would be served by ensuring that the applicants maynot be forced unnecessarily to go on litigations before the Criminal Court.Hence, penal proceeding initiated against these applicant Nos. 7 and 8 deservesto be quashed and set aside.Therefore, we proceed to pass following order :::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::The Criminal Application is allowed partly.2. Application in respect of applicants No. 1 to 6 stands disposed of as withdrawn.Criminal Application is disposed of in above terms.No order as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Doctor, PW-3, who conducted postmortem, in his evidence deposed that he had found following 8 injuries on the person of the body of the deceased :This is repeat application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.428/2011 registered at Police Station-Unchehara, District- Satna for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 325, 323, 341, 294, 506-B/34 of IPC.Earlier applications were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court.Trial is still pending.PW-6, who is the eye-witness, deposed that there was quarrel between the parties and accused Raghvendra Singh had inflicted a blow of tangi on the head of the deceased and the present applicant had also caused injuries to the deceased by a wooden stick (danda).","['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard Shri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.The applicants are facing prosecution in Case Crime No. 243 of 2020, under Section 147, 323, 504, 304 I.P.C., Police Station-Najibabad, District-Bijnor.Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that there are three applicants, namely, Sumit, Ranjeet and Inderjeet.Contention raised by the counsel that the name of the applicants figured up in the F.I.R. lodged promptly naming five accused persons.From the F.I.R. it is clear that the informant Anil Kumar and Sumit are real brothers.On a significant issue with regard to closing of the D.J. in the marriage ceremony this scuffle crept up.It is submitted by the counsel that all the named persons assaulted upon causing serious injuries to deceased Sanjay (the injured).I have perused the injury report as well as his post-mortem report.There is a single lacerated wound only on the left of the skull and bleeding is present.On account of this injured took his last breath on the same day and as per information of the doctor he died as a result of coma as a result of ante-mortem during investigation it has been surfaced that the role of assault is being attributed to the co-accused Tushar on whose pointing out the weapon of assault was also recovered.The applicants have got a chance of fleeing away from the incident.Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.(i) THE APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL.IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicants to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:The applicants shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored.","['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"One Bibhishan Premraj Gund (original accused No.1) and the present appellant No.1, hereinafter referred to by her first name i.e.""Rukminbai"" were chargesheeted by Police Station, Bembli for the ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 2 criapl421-2006offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (""IPC"", for short), on the allegations that Bibhishan had illicit relations with Rukminbai prior to and even after the marriage of Bibhishan with the deceased Shivnanda and therefore, both of them were beating and illtreating the deceased Shivnanda.The deceased Shivnanda always used to ask both of the accused to abstain from keeping illicit relations.Ultimately, because of the illtreatment meted out to her by both of these accused, the deceased Shivnanda committed suicide by setting herself ablaze in her house on 27th June, 2000 at about 12.00 noon.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::The deceased Shivnanda was taken to the Civil Hospital at Osmanabad for treatment by her brother-in-law namely Dilip.Her statement was recorded by PHC Patil, attached to police outpost of Civil Hospital, Osmanabad on the same day at about 2.10 p.m., after getting it verified from the Medical Officer that she was in a fit condition to give statement.In that statement, she alleged that on 27 th June, 2000, when her husband i.e. accused No.1 Bibhishan had gone to the field for sowing and when she was sleeping in her house ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 3 criapl421-2006at about 12.00 noon, Rukminbai, her parents and brother i.e. appellant no.3 namely Bharat, came there.Rukminbai was holding a kerosene can.All of them hurled abuses against her and beat her by kicks and fists.Rukminbai poured kerosene from the can on her person and the mother of Rukminbai, i.e. appellant no.2 namely Suman, set her on fire by igniting a matchstick.When she was caught by fire, all of them ran away.She tried to extinguish fire from her person by pouring water.She sustained extensive burns on various parts of her body.Her brother-in-law namely Dilip Gund took her to the Civil Hospital at Osmanabad for treatment.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::PHC Patil sent the above mentioned statement of the deceased Shivnanda to Police Station, Osmanabad, on the basis of which a crime came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504, read with Section 34 of the IPC under ""0"" number, since the incident had taken place within the local limits of jurisdiction of Bembali Police Station.Shivnanda died in the hospital on 28th June, 2000 at 2.05 a.m. The inquest of the body of the deceased Shivnanada was prepared.Her body was referred to the Medical Officer for the postmortem.The Medical Officer found 98% of ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 4 criapl421-2006burns on her body.He opined that she died of shock due to 98% of burns.After her demise, the offence under Section 307 of the IPC came to be substituted by the offence under section 302 of the IPC.The statements of the deceased Shivnanda and inquest panchanama were sent by PHC Patil from Police Station, Osmanabad to Police Station, Bembli with his forwarding letter.He read over the contents thereof to her whereon she stated that they were as per her say.On the basis of that letter, Crime No.43 of 2000 was registered in Police Station, Bembli, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::The investigation followed.The spot panchanama was prepared.Statements of the witnesses were recorded.Accordingly, he submitted chargesheet against them in the Court of Chief Judicial Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad.The offence under Section 306 of the IPC being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 5 criapl421-2006Court of Session, Osmanabad.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::The learned Trial Judge initially framed charges against Bibhishan and Rukminbai for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC vide Exh.50 on 5 th December, 2005 and explained the contents thereof to them in vernacular.They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.He explained the contents of those charges to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty.Their defence is that of total denial and false implication.The prosecution examined six witnesses to establish guilt of the above named accused persons for the above mentioned offences.After evaluating the said evidence, the learned Trial judge found that the dying ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 6 criapl421-2006declaration of the deceased Shivnanda was voluntary and truthful.He, therefore, relied on that dying declaration and convicted Rukminbai, Suman and Bharat (original accused Nos.2, 3 and 4, respectively) only for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.He acquitted Bibhishan (original accused No.1) of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC.The original accused Nos.2 to 4 are the appellants before this Court.The learned Trial Judge sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the case of the prosecution is solely depending on the alleged dying declaration of Shivnanda recorded by PHC Patil (PW1).According to him, the deceased Shivnanda had sustained 98% burns.She was not a fit state of mind to give any statement much less the detailed and exhaustive dying declaration (Exh-63).He submits that the language used and the manner in which the events have been narrated in the said dying declaration themselves make it clear that the deceased Shivnanda is not the author of the said dying ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 7 criapl421-2006declaration.Admittedly, the brother-in-law of the deceased Shivnanda namely Dilip Gund had taken her to the Civil Hospital for treatment after the incident.He would have been the best witness to state as to whether the deceased Shivnanda was in a condition to speak and whether she had any allegation to make against anybody behind the incident of burning.However, the prosecution has not examined him without assigning any reason.The daughter of the deceased Shivnanda was present at her house at the time of the incident.However, she has been given up by the prosecution vide purshis (Exh.99).According to the learned counsel, the daughter of the deceased Shivnanda was knowing that the deceased Shivnanda had committed suicide and therefore, her evidence was suppressed by the prosecution.He submits that the house in which the incident took place is situate abutting a main road of the village.There were a number of houses and shops in front of or adjacent to that house.However, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution.He submits that as stated in the dying declaration, the husband of the deceased Shivnanda had illicit relations with accused No.1 since before the marriage of the deceased Shivnanda which had taken place prior to about seven years of the ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 8 criapl421-2006incident.The prosecution has not produced any evidence to show as to what happened on the day of the incident which prompted the appellants to go to the house of the deceased Shivnanda and to set her on fire.According to him, the very genesis of the incident as stated in the dying declaration is not natural and probable.No motive has been attributed against the appellants for setting the deceased Shivnanda ablaze.The learned counsel further submits that the Medical Officer has not endorsed on the dying declaration that deceased Shivnanda was conscious, oriented and in a fit condition to give statement.This fact also creates doubt about fit mental condition of the deceased Shivnanda.All these witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution without assigning any reason.This fact also creates doubt about truthfulness ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 9 criapl421-2006of the contents of the dying declaration of the deceased Shivnanda.He, therefore, submits that the appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::Where it is proved by the testimony of the Magistrate that the declarant was fit to make the statement, even without examination of the doctor the declaration can be acted upon provided the Court holds the same to be voluntary and truthful.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::The learned A.P.P. further relied on the judgment in the case of Atbir Vs.It creates great confidence.She, therefore, submits that the learned Trial Judge has rightly believed the said dying declaration and rightly convicted the appellants on the basis thereof.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::11 criapl421-2006The husband of the deceased Shivnanda, who was original accused No.1, has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC.The said acquittal has not been challenged by the prosecution and as such, has attained finality.As seen from the evidence produced by the prosecution, the case is solely based on the dying declaration (Exh.63) of the deceased Shivnanda.PHC Patil (PW3) (Exh.101) deposes that on 27 th June, 2000, after receiving the MLC intimation (Exh.102) from the doctor of Civil Hospital, he went to the burns ward alongwith the doctor and requested the doctor to examine the deceased Shivnanda and to opine whether she was able to give statement.Accordingly, the doctor put his endorsement that she was conscious.Then he obtained her thumb mark below it and then put his own signature.Thereafter, the doctor made endorsement thereon and signed it.He sent that statement alongwith his forwarding letter (Exh.102) to City Police Station, Osmanabad.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::12 criapl421-2006Dr. Alangekar (PW3) (Exh-94) deposes that on the request of a Police Constable, he went to the burns ward in the Civil Hospital and examined the deceased Shivnanda.He found her to be conscious and able to give statement.Therefore, he asked the police to record her statement.Accordingly, he put endorsement on the statement on the top thereof.After her statement was recorded, he again examined her and found her to be conscious.He then put his endorsement as ""in front of me"" and signed it.There is no dispute that the deceased Shivnanda had sustained 98% of burns.One can imagine the physical and mental condition of a person suffering from 98% of burns.The case papers of the deceased Shivnanda have not been produced on record.Therefore, the appellants could not get an opportunity to point out the medicines which were being administered to the deceased Shivnanda when her dying declaration (Exh-63) is stated to have been recorded.Generally, the history of the incident is asked to the patient when he/she is admitted in the hospital.In the absence of those case-papers, the said history also was not made available to the appellants.The history of the incident given by the ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 13 criapl421-2006deceased Shivnanda at the time of her admission would have been of a great help to the Court also to consider the state of mind of the deceased Shivnanda and her first version about the incident in which she sustained burns.The prosecution has withheld this material evidence without assigning any reason.Therefore, adverse inference will have to be drawn and accordingly drawn that had the said evidence been produced, it would not have supported the case of the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::Dilip Gund, the brother-in-law of the deceased Shivnanda had brought her to the Civil Hospital at Osmanabad after the incident.In the natural course, the deceased Shivnanda would have disclosed him the reason of her sustaining burns.He would have been the best witness to prove the oral dying declaration of the deceased Shivnanda which certainly would have thrown light on the factual position leading to the incident of burning.The prosecution did not examine him without assigning any reason though his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer as seen from the particulars of witnesses given in the chargesheet.The daughter of the deceased Shivnanda was present at the house at the time of the incident.She ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 14 criapl421-2006appeared before the Court.However, the prosecution did not examine her and informed the Court vide Pushis (Exh-::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::99) that she was given up as she was not supporting the case of the prosecution.The evidence of the daughter of the deceased Shivnanda also would have made the factual position clear.However, her evidence has been withheld by the prosecution.From the evidence of Sahebrao (PW2) (Exh-96), who happened to be a panch to the spot of incident, it is clear that there was a main road running from near the spot of incident.There were shops in front of that house.There were other houses adjacent to that house.None of the witnesses residing near the house, where the incident took place, has been examined by the prosecution without assigning any reason.The dying declaration (Exh-63) of the deceased Shivnanda reads as under :""Patient is conscious Sd/- 2.10 pm.fu-63 t ck c fnukad 27@6@2000 eh f'kouank Hkz-fcHkh""k.k xaqM o; 27 o""kZ /kank ?kjdke jk- ikMksGh rk-ft- mLekukckn-::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::15 criapl421-2006 le{k ljdkjh nok[kkuk mLekukckn ;sFks vkS""k/k mipkj pkyw vklrkauk fopkjsyo:u lkaxrs dh] eyk ,d eqyxh vklwu ,d nhj o tkow vklwu lklw o ek>s irh vkls loZt.k vkEgh ,d= jkgrks- ek>s ekyd 'ksrh djrkr ek>s ekgsj fHklsy fiaijh rk-ykrwj ;sFkhy vklwu ek>s yXu gksowu lkr o""kZ >kyh vkgsr- ekÖ;k uo&;kus vkeP;k xkokrhy :Deh.kh /kuxj ;k ukokph j[ksy Bsoysyh vkgs- o R;kaps izse laca/k ekÖ;k yXukiwohZiklwu pkyw vkgsr o R;keqGs ek>h o :Deh.khckbZph usgeh HkkaM.k raVk gksrvkt fn-27@6@2000 jksth ek>s ekyd gs ,sdchyk isj.kh dj.;klkBh xsys vkgsr eh tsou [kku d:u ?kjh >ksiys gksrs- rsOgk nqikjh ckjk okt.;kP;k lqekjkl ekÖ;k uo&;kph j[ksy :Deh.kh o rhph vkbZ] oMhy nRrw /kuxj o Hkkm vkls ekÖ;k ?kjh vkys rsOgk :Deh.khP;k gkrkr jkWdsyps dWUM gksrs- rsOgk lokZauh eyk f'kohxkG dsyh o ykFkk&cqD;kauh ekjgk.k dsyh o :Deh.khus gkrkrhy jkWdsy dWUM ekÖ;k vaxkoj vksrys o frP;k vkbZus dkMh vks<wu ekÖ;k lkMhl ykoyh rsOgk ekÖ;k loZ vaxkl tkG ykxyk rsOgk rs loZt.k iGwu xsys- ekÖ;k vaxkl iksGw ykxys rsOgk eh iGr tkmu ?kjkrhy jkat.kkrhy ik.kh rkaC;kus ekÖ;k vaxkoj vksrwu ?ksrys eyk tkG ykxY;kus ekÖ;k Mksdhps v/kZoV dsl] psgjk xGk] Nkrh] iksV nksUgh ik;] gkr ikB vkls Hkktys vkgs- uarj ek>s fnj fnyhi xaqM ;kauh [kktxh thi d:u vkS""k/k mipkjkdfjrk l-n-mLekukckn ;sFks vkuys- l/;k ekÖ;koj vkS""k/k mpkj pkyw vklwu eh iw.kZi.ks 'kq/nhoj vkgs-rjh vkt fnukad 27@6@2000 jksth nqikjh ckjk okt.ksP;k lqekjkl :Deh.kh /kuxj] frph vkbZ&oMhy o Hkkm ;kauh eyk ekjgk.k d:u thos ekj.;klkBh jkWdsy vksrwu dkMh vks<wu isVowu eyk tkGys vkgs- rjh ojhy pkj tukfo:/n ek>h dk;ns'khj rØkj vkgs- :Deh.khP;k vkbZps o Hkkokps ukao eyk ekfgr ukgh-ek>k tckc fygyk rks eyk okpwu nk[kfoyk rks eh lkafxrys izek.ks cjkscj o [kjk vkgs-::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::The contents of the dying declaration (Exh-63), which is in a narrative form, exfacie show that the manner of narration therein is not expected of an illiterate woman like the deceased Shivnanda.It seems to be in the language of PHC Patil (PW1).The deceased Shivnanda, who had sustained 98% of burns, would not have given such a detailed and exhaustive statement.Moreover, in the natural course, after stating the events those took place at the time of the incident, the deceased Shivnanda would not have repeated the same.However, the last paragraph of the dying declaration (Exh-63) again contains the summary of the preceding paragraph.This fact creates strong doubt about authorship about the dying declaration (Exh-63) as that of the deceased Shivnanda.Even if the dying declaration (Exh-63) is accepted as that of the deceased Shivnanda for a while, it will be clear therefrom that she was residing jointly with her brother-in-law Dilip, mother-in-law and the wife of Dilip in the house where the incident took place.It is not the case of the prosecution that the mother-in-law and the wife of the brother-in-law of the deceased Shivnanda were not present in the house at the ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 17 criapl421-2006time of the incident.None of them has been examined by the prosecution.Indisputably, the marriage had taken place prior to about seven years of the incident.There is nothing on record to show that during the said period of seven years, appellant No.1 or anybody from her family had illtreated the deceased Shivnanda at any point of time on any count.In the natural course, there would have been some other incident preceding the incident of burning, which would have made the appellants to think of setting the deceased Shivnanda on fire.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::The incident took place at about 12.00 noon.A number of persons were residing near the house where the incident took place.None of them has come forward to ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 18 criapl421-2006state that he/she had seen the appellants visiting the house of the deceased Shivnanda.The deceased Shivnanda would not have kept total silence after seeing the appellants coming to her house with any oblique motive.She would have tried her level best to resist them.She would have tried to run away out of the house.In any case, she would have at least raised shouts to attract attention of the others so as to seek their assistance to save herself.Nothing that of sort seems to have been done by her.In the circumstances, the incident as has been narrated by the deceased Shivnanda, does not appear to be natural and probable.It does not inspire confidence.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::The evidence of PSI Chavan (PW7) (Exh-113), who recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of investigation filed chargesheet, shows that it transpired in his investigation that the deceased Shivnanda committed suicide, in the circumstances of the case, assumes importance.He cannot state before the Court as to what was stated before him by the witnesses, but being the Investigating Officer, after considering the evidence collected by him, he was supposed to form an opinion as ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 19 criapl421-2006to what offence was disclosed against the accused persons.Accordingly, he formed an opinion thatthe offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC was disclosed.If that be so, the theory of the prosecution that the appellants themselves set the deceased Shivnanda on fire, cannot be believed.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::In the above circumstances, the sole dying declaration (Exh-63) of the deceased Shivnanda was not sufficient to hold the appellants guilty for a serious offence like murder for which the minimum punishment is imprisonment for life.It was incumbent on the part of the prosecution to produce corroborative evidence to establish the facts narrated in the dying declaration (Exh-63).The prosecution has suppressed the evidence of material witnesses, which itself creates a great doubt about the truthfulness of the contents of the dying declaration (Exh-63).In the circumstances, the learned Trial Judge should not have believed the dying declaration (Exh-63) and should not have convicted the appellants solely on the basis of the said dying declaration.The learned Trial Court committed a grave error in holding the appellants guilty of the offence of murder of the deceased Shivnanda on the basis of the ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 20 criapl421-2006dying declaration (Exh-63) without seeking corroboration thereto.The evidence of record creates doubt about the case of the prosecution.Therefore, the benefit of doubt necessarily would have to be given to the appellants.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::The prosecution failed to adduce sufficient, cogent and dependable evidence to establish guilt of the appellants for the offence of murder of the deceased Shivnanda, beyond reasonable doubt.The evidence on record is not free from doubt.The appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt.The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants are liable to be quashed and set aside.In the result, we pass the following order:O R D E R (A) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.(B) The impugned judgment and order are quashed and set aside.(C) The appellants are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"SINGLE BENCH HON.SHRI JUSTICE B.D. RATHI *** (Criminal Revision No.579/2006) Petitioner (1) Jalam Singh S/o Shri Devlal, Bheel by caste, Aged 70 years, Occupation-Agriculturist.(2) Ranglal s/o Shri Bherulal, Bheel by caste, Aged 62 years, Occupation-Agriculturist.(3) Dashrath s/o Shri Mathuralal, Occupation-Agricultuist, All residents of Gram Kakraya, P.S. Kumbhraj, Tehsil Chachoda, district Guna.Versus Respondents State of Madhya Pradesh through P.S. Dabra District Gwalior (M.P.).Shri B.S.Bhadoriya, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri R.K.Shrivastava, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Order (Passed on the day of 3rd July, 2014) The following order of the Court was passed by : B.D. Rathi, J:-2 Crr.579/2006 (Jalam Singh & others Vs.State of M.P.) Heard on R-I.A.No.4968/14, second repeat application preferred under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. and section 446A of Cr.P.C.Case No.278/03, the petitioners were convicted for offence punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo two-two years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.500/- each on both the counts.Thereafter, Cri.The petitioners were directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned.It is submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid directions, the petitioners were released on bail on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds.On 17/8/07 the petitioners failed to appear before the Registrar of this court, the date fixed for their appearance.In compliance of the arrest warrant, on 16/6/14 the petitioners were arrested and brought to this court and after 3 Crr.579/2006 (Jalam Singh & others Vs.In this situation, this second application has been filed for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of the petitioners.(3) In support of the application aforesaid, first of all, the argument raised by their learned counsel is that proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. have not been initiated against the petitioners or their sureties and therefore, by virtue of proviso to Section 446-A of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have a right to be released on bail because the order dated 17/7/06 was not declared as cancelled.","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The accused appellant has preferred this appeal u/S. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 15/4/2000 passed by the Special/Sessions Judge, Shivpuri (M.P.) in SST No. 76/99 convicting him u/S. 302 I.P.C. and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment.Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Govind (deceased) who was a member of the SC & ST Community on 14/8/1999 was working in the agricultural field alongwith Gebu (PW-2), Kishori (PW-1)) and Chhute (PW-3) when at about 3 p.m. the appellant who was owner and had given his field to Gebu under crop sharing came to the spot and expressed his annoyance at the late arrival of the deceased Govind who had come at around 9 a.m. in place of the normal starting time of 8 a.m. Criminal Appeal No. 435/2000 2 for labourers.The appellant hurled abuses at the deceased, who objected to it whereafter the appellant who was carrying a gun fired at the deceased who died on the spot.Kishori (PW-1) reported the incident to the police station Karera, district Shivpuri vide FIR Ex.P/1 which was written by Ashok Kumar Bharadwaj (PW-9), SHO of the concerned police station.The Judicial Magistrate of the concerning area was informed u/S. 157 Cr.P.C. whereafter the investigation was set into motion, conducted by SDO (P) T.K.Vidyarthi (PW-8).The Investigating Officer reached the spot where the dead body of Govind was lying.Panchnama of the dead-body was prepared vide Ex.The memo, requisitioning the witnesses to identify the dead-body was issued.Spot- map vide Ex.P/3 was prepared.Plain and blood stained soil were seized vide Ex.Statements u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded of witnesses Kishori, Gebu, Chhute, Devilal, Pistabai, Hailal, Mugar Singh and Prakash.The clothes worn by the deceased were received in a sealed condition from the Primary Health Centre Karera which were sent for chemical examination to FSL, Gwalior report of which was received vide Ex.P/9 opining the presence of blood on the clothes of deceased.The postmortem report (Ex.P/4) discloses various pellet injuries on the body out of which Injury No.3 sustained on the side of abdomen was found to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.The prosecution in all examined 9 witnesses namely, Kishori (PW-1), Gebu (PW-2), Chhute (PW-3), Omkarlal (PW-4), Murli Singh (PW-5), Dr. N.S.Chauhan (PW-6), Devlal (PW-7), T.K.Vidyarthi (PW-8) and Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj (PW-9) among whom, Kishori (PW-1), Gebu (PW-2) and Chhute (PW-3) are eye-witnesses who are unanimous in Criminal Appeal No. 435/2000 3 their revelation that when the appellant had come to the field to inspect the work being done by the labourers he found one of them i.e., deceased Govind missing.The appellant went back home.(Delivered on 10th day of November,2017) Per Sheel Nagu, J.Later the deceased Govind arrived at 9 a.m. and started working alongwith others.At 3 p.m., on the same day the appellant came again and expressed his annoyance at the late coming of the deceased to work.The appellant abused the deceased who objected to the same whereafter the appellant is said to have fired at the deceased who sustained pellet injuries on three different parts of the body, i.e. left forearm, left thumb, and forefinger and the third injury was found on the lower part of the back portion of the abdomen.The third injury caused fracture of left ilium and left ulna bone.The defence of the appellant was that of complete denial and of false implication.In his statement u/S. 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant raised plea of not being present at the scene of crime and further alleged false implication based on some earlier financial transactions between the appellant on one side and Gebu and Chhute on other.DW-1 Mahesh Kumar was produced in support of the defence.Believing the prosecution case and evidence, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated earlier and aggrieved thereby the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.We have heard Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri T.C.Bansal, Advocate for the accused-appellant and Shri Girdhari Singh Chauhan, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the record of the trial court.On perusal of the record, ocular evidence in shape of eye- witnesses Kishori (PW-1), Gebu (PW-2) and Chhute (PW-3) elicits that when the appellant had come to the field to inspect the work being done by the labourers he found one of them i.e., deceased Govind missing.The appellant went back home.Later, the deceased Govind arrived at 9 a.m. and started working alongwith others.At 3 p.m., on the same day the appellant returned to the spot and expressed his annoyance at the Criminal Appeal No. 435/2000 4 late coming of the deceased to work.The appellant abused the deceased who objected to the same whereafter the appellant fired at the deceased who sustained pellet injuries on three different parts of the body, i.e., left forearm, left thumb, and forefinger and the third injury was found on the lower part of the back portion of the abdomen.The third injury caused fracture of left ilium and left ulna bone, which ultimately resulted in death of Govind.Thus, the ocular evidence in shape of testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 is duly corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. N.S.Chauhan (PW-6).","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The petitioners were initially arrested in connection with Bhadreswar P.S. General Diary Entry Nos. 1586 and 1597 both dated August 26, 2007 for their alleged involvement in connection with offence punishable under Section 379/411/413/414/468/472/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code.On perusal of relevant General Diary Entry bearing No. 1597 dated August 26, 2007 and the First Information Report in connection with Bhadreswar P.S. Case No. 196/2007 dated August 30, 2007, we find that the offence being investigated by the police as disclosed in the General Diary Entry dated August 26, 2007 and the First Information Report dated August 30, 2007 are identical.In view of the apprehension of the petitioners that they may be arrested in connection with Bhadreswar P.S. Case No. 196/2007 dated August 30, 2007, they have moved this Court seeking an order of anticipatory bail in terms of provisions as prescribed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.We have, also, perused the case diary in connection with FIR No. 196/2007 and the documents filed along with the application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It, further, appears that Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also inserted in the forwarding report and also in the General Diary Entry bearing No. 1597 dated August 26, 2007 along with other provisions of the Indian Penal Code as mentioned above.It appears from Annexure -A to the application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that learned Magistrate by his order dated August 27, 2007 granted bail to both the petitioners.In the same order learned Magistrate considered the prayer submitted by police officer to conduct inquiry and permitted the same directing police to inquire and submit P/R (prosecution report).On perusal of the case diary, we find that written First Information Report was lodged by SI Sukamal Kanti Das, Officer-in-Charge, Bhadreswar P.S. on August 30, 2007 against four persons including the petitioners.On the basis of such First Information Report dated August 30, 2007, a case being First Information Report No. 196/2007 dated August 30, 2007 was registered under Section 379/411/413/414/468/471/420/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code.We accordingly reject the application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.","['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.The applicant is in custody since 01.08.2018 in connection with Crime No.333/2018 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Satna (MP), for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376(D), 354(D)/34, 506 of IPC and Sections 5/6 and 11/12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offence, Act.As per prosecution story in short, complainant has lodged the report dated 20/07/2018 stating that applicant-Wasim Khan came to her house for making railing.Thereafter he started chating to complainant through his mobile.On 17/07/2018 applicant has sent to message to complainant in her whatsapp Number for calling her out from her house.when the present applicant has taken away the prosecutrix.The present applicant was standing and thereafter co-accused-Aman Singh left the complainant to her house, this report was registered under Sections 363, 354(D) r/w 34, 506 of the IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, thereafter, the complainant has submitted a written complaint on 25/07/2018 to SHO, Police Station, Civil Line contending that on 17.7.2018 at about 11:30 in the night present applicant and other accused took the prosecutrix forcefully in their vehicle and after that they have committed rape upon her.He further submits that the other co-accused Aman Singh has already been released on bail vide Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 03/11/2018 14:48:01 2 MCRC-43842-2018 order dated 23.10.2018 passed in M.Cr.He also further submits that the prosecutrix has not stated against the present applicant regarding commission of rape.there is no case made out against the present applicant and he has no criminal past against the applicant and trial will take long time to conclude.Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 03/11/2018 14:48:01","['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The petitioner would further submit that he was producedbefore the TADA Court on 16.4.1995 and gave a statement under Section 164(5)Cr.P.C. and he was remanded to judicial custody; that yet another case on aprivate complaint filed in the Court of XVI M.M., G.T. Chennai was taken onfile for alleged offences punishable under Sections 19 3,211,469,307 and 109r/w.120-B IPC and the said Court, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directed theCentral Crime Branch Police, Chennai or any other appropriate jurisdictionalpolice to register a case, investigate into and file a final report and therespondent filed the final report in his Cr.No.403/2001 for offences made outunder Sections 1 93,211 and 469 IPC on the file of the Court of AdditionalMetropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the said case was alsotransferred to the designated TADA Court, Trichy.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The Police caught hold of the running applicant/accused.With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the revision is finally disposed of.The petitioner preferred this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26/04/2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Criminal Appeal No.198/2001, arising out of the judgment dated 12/10/2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar in Criminal Case No.1544/96, whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under:-Shri K.D.Sharma (PW-5) Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station G.R.P., Sagar, received an information from the informer that one person has put a Chandan (sandle) wood in Bamboo box in Train No.1505 and taking the same to sell.On the said information, he went to platform No.1 along with police staff and arranged for checking the train and he found the Bamboo box covered by chaddar.On search, they found 95 pieces from one box and 70 pieces from another box, wet chandan weighing approximately 23 kg and seized it by a seizure memo Ex.The cost of the said sandle wood was estimated to Rs.14,000/-.The applicant was arrested and a case No. 430/96 was registered against the applicant/accused.Both the Courts below have not committed any mistake in believing the statements of prosecution witnesses corroborated by medical evidence.With regard to sentence, admittedly the petitioner remained in jail for a period of 18 days.No previous criminal conduct of the petitioner had been proved by the prosecution therefore he seems to be first offender.With the aforesaid directions and modifications in the sentence, revision petition stands disposed of.A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.(SMT.VIMLA JAIN) JUDGE manju",['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
"(Delivered on this the 09th day of January, 2017) PER: Subodh Abhyankar,J.The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 19.5.2007 passed by the Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rewa in Special Case No.30/2006 whereby each of the appellants have been convicted under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for one year and fine of Rs.1000/-; under Section Section 302/149 of IPC RI for life and fine of Rs.1000/-; under Section 307/149 of IPC RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/-; under Section 323/149 of IPC (on seven counts) six months RI under each count and fine of Rs.1000/-, under Section 452 of IPC rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/-; under Section 427 of IPC six months RI and fine of Rs.500/-; under Section 506-B of IPC RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/-.In default of payment of fine of Rs.1000/-, the appellants have been directed to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and in default of Rs.500/-, the appellants have been directed to suffer simple 2 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007 imprisonment for three months.All the sentences are to run concurrently.2 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007The facts of the case in brief are that on 16.3.2006, at around 8.30 in the morning at village Itwari Tola, Khatkhari, the accused persons, namely, appellant No.1 Baijnath, appellant No.2 Umesh @ Chotani, appellant No.3 Ghanshyam, appellant No.4 Awadhesh and appellant No.5 Ramsahodar armed with various weapons including gun, Farsa, Lathi etc. came to the house of deceased Buddhsen Saket and after breaking into the house, caused his death.In this incident, Radhiya, Jirraua, Ratan, Savitri, Asha, Devnarain, Gulabiya and Kiran were also assaulted and were caused injuries especially Jirraua, who received grievous injuries and her dying declaration was also recorded, but, fortunately she survived.The case of the prosecution is that on the fateful day of 16.03.2006 when the appellants barged into the house of deceased Buddhsen Saket, his wife Radhiya tried to stop them but the appellants broke the door open and murdered her husband Buddhsen Saket.The FIR (Ex.P/1) was lodged by Radhiya (PW-1) herself at around 9 a.m. in the morning against as many as nine accused persons.Since other accused persons, namely, Nichani S/o Ramsahodar, Vishwanath S/o Ghanshyam, Raghurai S/o Kamla Prasad and Sanjay S/o Raghurai were absconding, hence the trial was conducted against the present appellants only.Radhiya (PW-1) has stated in her statement that her husband Buddhsen Saket was fired upon by accused Marchani.She has also stated that all the accused persons assaulted her husband by various weapons and Sahodar caused Gandasa injury.She has stated that the dispute arose because they were constructing a latrine on their land.She has also stated that she knows all the accused persons present in the court and that she had also received an injury in her right hand.She has been declared hostile only on the point that the assault was made on them on account of their caste.She has also stated that appellant Baijnath had hit by Gandasa on her hand and also that they 3 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007 assaulted Buddhsen as well.He has also supported the case of the prosecution and named all the accused persons as the assailants.He was declared hostile because of non-mentioning of his caste and because he did not say that they were assaulted only because of their castes.He has stated that he was also assaulted by the accused persons.Monu has been examined as PW-4, who is nephew of the deceased Buddhsen.He has also stated to have seen the appellants committing the offence.Bhailal Chamar (PW-5) has also stated that he knows all the accused persons, who came from a tuck and then committed the offence by forcefully entering into the house of Buddhsen Saket.Similarly Chhotelal (PW-6) has also supported the case of the prosecution and has also stated to have seen the appellants causing injuries to Jirraua on whose private parts an injury by rod was caused.Vidhinarain (PW-7) the another prosecution witness has also supported the case of the prosecution.Kaushal Prasad Saket (PW-8), aged about 10 years, who happens to be another nephew of the deceased has also stated that in the morning when he was playing outside his house, all the accused persons came to his house broke open the door and killed his uncle Buddhsen.He has also stated that when the assault was being made, he slipped below a cot and has seen the entire incident.Ratan Saket (PW-3 Cr.A. No.1261 of 20079), aged about 15 years, whose house is adjacent to the house of deceased Buddhsen has also supported the case of the prosecution.Ramvishal (PW-10) was declared hostile.Gulabkali (PW-11) is the daughter of deceased Buddhsen.Apart from confirming the incident she has also stated that she was assaulted by Sahodar with the aid of Tangi.Savitri (PW-12) is the daughter-in-law of the deceased.She has also seen the incident and has deposed the same that the accused persons came to her house and caused injuries.Kiran (PW-13) has also supported the case of the prosecution.Asha (PW-14) is the daughter-in-law of the deceased.She has supported the case of prosecution and stated that Ghanshyam assaulted her by Tangi and Chhotani caused injuries by lathi.4 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007Dr. Achla Tripathi (PW-16), who has examined Jirraua (PW-2), has also confirmed that Jirraua had received injury on her pubic area which was bleeding.The medical report is exhibited as Ex.Vivek Gupta (PW-17) is the Naib Tehsildar who had recorded the statement of Jirraua when initially it was apprehended that she might succumb to injuries.R.D.Dwivedi (PW-18) is the Sub Inspector, who recorded the FIR (Ex.1) as well as Dehati Marg Intimation (Ex.P-15) while the deceased Buddhsen was being taken to the hospital.He stated that he referred Radhiya, Ratan and Asha for medical examination.R.P. Shukla (PW-19) is the Scientific Officer of scene of crime Unit Rewa.He has proved that on the southern wall of the house there were marks of pallets and some pallets were recovered from the house of the deceased.Mewalal Dubey (PW-21), who is the Head Constable has confirmed that he has sent the injured persons Jirraua, Savitri and Devnarain for medical examination.Kashi Prasad Kushwaha (PW-25) who is a seizure witness, has been declared hostile.He has stated that nothing was seized before him and no accused persons informed the police regarding any weapons which were recovered at their instance.7. PW-26 is Dr.V.N.Satnami, who was posted as Medical Officer at Mauganj District Rewa has conducted the postmortem of the deceased.He has stated that the deceased Buddhsen had received as many as nine injuries which are mentioned as under :-pksV dz0&1 dqpyh ?kqlh gq;h Fkh rFkk QVh pksV flj ij nkfgus rjQ Fkh tks 6x3x efLrd dh xgjkbZ rd ftlesa [kwu cg jgk FkkA pksV dz0&2 yky [kjkspnkj pksV flj ds lkeus nk;s rjQ 4x3 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&3 dVh gq;h pksV nk;s dqguh ij ihNs dh rjQ 4x2xpeMh dh xgjkbZ rFkk yky jax dk [kwu dk FkDdk yxk gqvk FkkA pksV dz0&4 yky [kjkspnkj pksV ck;s dksguh ij ihNs dh rjQ 6x4 lseh0 dh FkhA 5 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007 pksV dz0&5 yky [kjkspnkj pksV xnZu ij nkfgus rjQ 2x1 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&6 yky [kjkspnkj pksV nkfgus iSj 4x3 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&7 yky lwtunkj pksV ihB ij nkfgus rjQ 8x3 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&8 yky lwtunkj pksV ihB ij ck;s rjQ 9x2 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&9 yky [kjkspnkj pksV nkfgus rjQ dej esa 4x2 ls0eh0 dh FkhA The first injury has resulted in fracture of the head, which was the cause of death of deceased Buddhsen.He has also examined Jirrua (PW-2) and found the following injuries :5 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007pksV dz0&1 QVh gq;h pksV nkfgus dyk;h ij 8x6 ls0eh0 dh Fkh tks gM~Mh dh xgjkbZ rd FkhA rFkk gkFk dh dykbZ Vs<h gks x;h FkhA pksV dz0&2 yky lwtunkj pksV nkfgus Hkqtk ij 8x6 lseh0 dh FkhA rFkk gM~Mh dks Mqykus ij vkokt vkrh Fkh tks fMLyksdsVsV FkhA pksV dz0&3 yky [kjkspnkj pksV ck;s tkap ij 1@x2 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&4 QVh gq;h pksV ckg~; tuuax ij 10x8 ls0eh0x2 ls0eh0 dh Fkh ftlesa yky jax dk [kwu dk FkDdk yxk FkkA He also examined Radhiya (PW-1), who had received following injuries :pksV dz0&1 yky [kjkspnkj pksV ck;s vxzHkqtk ij 4x3 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&2 yky lwtunkj pksV ihB ij ck;s rjQ 6x4 ls0eh0 dh FkhA He also examined Ratan (PW-9), who had received following injuries :,d yky [kjksp nkj pksV nkfgus ,Mh ij 3x2 ls0eh0 dh FkhA He also examined Savitri (PW-12), who had received following 6 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007 injuries :6 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007pksV dz0&1 [kjkspnkj lwtunkj pksV nkfgus dyk;h ij Fkh 8x6 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&2 dVh gq;h pksV ck;s iSj ds xkaB esa 3x2 ls0eh0 dh Fkh tks gM~Mh dh xgjkbZ rd FkhA pksV dz0&3 yky lwtunkj pksV ck;s iqV~Bs ij 7x5 ls0eh0 dh FkhA He also examined Asha (PW-14), who had received following injuries :pksV dz0&1 dVh gq;h pksV nk;s rjQ xnZu ij 3x1x-5 ls0eh0 vkdkj dh Fkh] ftles yky jax dk [kwu dk FkDdk yxk FkkA pksV dz0&2 yky lwtunkj pksV nkfgus dU/ks ij 10x6 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&3 yky lwtunkj pksV nkfgus Hkqtk ij 5x2 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&4 yky lwtunkj pksV nkfgus tka?k ij 6x3 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&5 yky lwtunkj pksV ck;s iSj ij 8x3 ls0eh0 dh FkhA He also examined Gulabiya (PW-11), the daughter of the deceased, on whose person following injuries were found :-pksV dz0&1 yky lwtunkj pksV nk;s dU/ks ij 7x4 ls0eh0 dh Fkh A pksV dz0&2 yky lwtunkj pksV nkfgus tka?k ij 6x3 ls0eh0 dh Fkh A Nothing substantive could be extracted from all these witnesses in their cross-examination.Chhotelal (PW-27) is also a witness of seizure and has been declared hostile.Ramsagar Gupta (PW-28) who is a witness to incident is also declared hostile.7 Cr.A. No.1261 of 20079. Dr.A.K. Mishra (PW-30) is a Senior Medical Officer and has examined Jirraua (PW-2).He has stated that Jirraua had received fracture on her right humerus, radius and ulna and has proved the X-ray reports (Ex.P/52, P/53 and P/54).Durgesh Rathore (PW-31) is the Investigating Officer, who has duly corroborated the evidence collected by him during the course of investigation.The defence set up by the accused persons is that the accused Umesh @ Chotani used to park his truck in the Harijan Basti by the side of the house of Guruprasad because there was no road so that the truck could be driven up to the house of Umesh @ Chotani and because of this reason when Umesh, Awdhesh and Baijnath were coming from the truck, at that time the people of Harijan Basti started running and Buddhsen, the deceased also ran into his house struck his head on the door frame and hence he got the head injuries and so far as other injured persons are concerned, they all caused injuries which were self-inflicted.11 Since none has appeared for the appellants, we have heard Shri K.S. Wadhwa, the learned Additional Advocate General with Shri Pradeep Gupta, the learned Panel Lawyer but we have carefully gone through the entire evidence on record and have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.So far as the nature of death of Buddhasen is concerned, the same was homicidal in nature as has been proved by Dr.Although, a suggestion has been given to him that the injury no.1 may be caused if the head is hit by the door but this suggestion is not given to any of the eye witnesses, especially, the PW/1 Radhiabai hence no importance can be attached to such suggestion.Thus, the death of Buddhsen was homicidal in nature.The presence of the appellants on the spot has been duly proved by the witnesses, most of whom were injured and the nature of their injuries is such that their presence on the spot 8 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007 cannot be denied.The injuries caused by the appellants have also been duly corroborated by the medical evidence.It may be that the witnesses have not attributed each and every injury to any specific appellant but this only gives more credence to their story as the incident took place on 16.3.2006 whereas the commencement of the trial and the examination of witnesses took place from 2.9.2006 which is almost a period of around six months.8 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007The learned Judge of the Trial court has rightly held that it is not a case where accused persons can be convicted under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and has rightly acquitted the appellants from the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.So far as the witnesses to seizure memos, namely, Kashi Prasad Kushwaha (PW-25) and Chhotelal (PW-27) are concerned, even if they have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been won over, in that case also, the injuries caused to as many as six witnesses and their depositions in the Court are sufficient to bring home the offence of murder and assault.It is pertinent to mention here that even the child witnesses have received injuries and it is rather preposterous to come up with such a defence that the injuries received by the witnesses were selfSo far as the injuries caused to deceased Buddusen are concerned, the explanation as offered by the accused persons that he struck his head on the frame of the door while running into his house is also ridiculous especially when the witnesses have not even been suggested that Buddhesen died due to the injury which he received while running into his house and that other injured witnesses have self-inflicted injuries.Thus, the defence advanced by the appellants is a clear afterthought and cannot be accepted.The FIR in the present case has been 9 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007 lodged immediately wherein names of all the accused persons were mentioned.Thus it cannot be said that their names have been subsequently added after deliberation to falsely implicate them.The evidence of the material witnesses who were also injured, reveals that the appellants have actively participated in the commission of offence.The case of the prosecution that accused persons forcefully entered into the house of the deceased is also corroborated by Ex.9 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007So far as the finding of the learned Trial Court regarding attempt to murder of witness Jirraua (PW-2) is concerned, the same cannot be sustained.The learned Judge in para 39 of the judgment has mentioned that the injuries caused to Jirarua (PW-2) were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, which is supported by the medical evidence.After perusing the medical evidence in this regard viz. the testimony of Dr. Achla Tripathi (PW-16) and Dr.V.N.Satnami (PW-26), it appears that none of the doctors have mentioned that the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.It appears that the learned Judge has arrived at such a conclusion on the basis of the fact that initially a dying declaration of Jirraua was recorded, which may have led the learned Trial Judge to form an opinion that the appellants are also liable to be convicted under Section 307 of IPC.In view of the aforesaid, the conviction of all the appellants under Section 307/149 of IPC awarded by the learned Trial Judge is set aside and in its place they are convicted under Section 326/149 of IPC as there are as many as three fractures caused to Jirraua (PW-2) and sentenced to suffer five years' rigorous imprisonment, which they have already undergone until now.So far as the conviction of appellants under Sections 148, 302/149, 323/149, 452, 427 and 506-B is concerned, as already discussed herein above, there is no error committed by the learned 10 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007 Trial Court in convicting the appellants under aforesaid offences.10 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent as indicated hereinabove.","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Jameela a young muslim woman was found killed on18.9.1991 by Baiju, allegedly hired killer at Vattolikadavuroad after having received stab injuries.PW1, the elderbrother of the deceased lodged the First Information Reportin Police Station Ayyuampuzha without naming any person asaccused.At the time of her death, the deceased was inadvance stage of pregnancy.The lungi and shirt MOs 12 and 13respectively worn by him at the time of crime were seized asper Mahazar (P16).After recording his disclosure statementMO1, the weapon of offence was recovered from the busheswhere he had allegedly hidden it.Accused No.2 was alsoarrested in connection with the murder of Ms.is not known to the witness.Her deposition is mainlywith respect to the relationship of the deceased with theappellant.Jose (PW7) stated in the trial court that on thedate of occurrence at about 2.45 p.m., the appellant hadcalled him.He told him to come after some time.He wentthere and talked to the appellant, George (PW8) and Mohanan(PW10).He saw Jameela, deceased getting down from the busat about 2.30 p.m. She had gone to the house of her sisterAmina (PW9).Jameela afterthree days of the occurrence.Upon trial both the accusedwere found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections120B and 302 besides Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.They were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.Theappellant was also imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in caseof default, directed to under rigorous imprisonment for twoyears.Aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Court,both the accused persons filed appeal before the High Courtwhich was dismissed on 1.4.1997 vide the judgment impugnedin this appeal.This Court on 14.7.1998 dismissed the SLPin so far as it related to Accused No.1, namely, Biju andgranted leave only with respect to the appellant Saju.Thecase of the prosecution is that Jameela, a young unmarriedwoman of 24 years of age had developed illicit relationswith the appellant, with the result that she becamepregnant.She insisted that the appellant should marry herbut her request was declined on the ground that the marriagewas not possible because Jameela and the appellant belongedto different religions.The appellant is stated to havequarreled with the deceased for which Jameela filed acomplaint against him at Police Station Ayyuampuzha.Jameela did not accede to the advise of the appellant tohave abortion.On the date of occurrence she is stated tohave gone to the hospital at about 11 a.m. for a check upand on her way back she visited her sister Amina (PW9) atabout 2.30 p.m. After she left the residence of her sistershe was fatally stabbed by Accused No.1, Biju who hadfollowed her from the bus stop where she had alighted fromthe bus.After inflicting the stab injuries the saidaccused left the place of occurrence.The offence wasalleged to have been committed by Accused No.1 in conspiracywith Accused No.2 who wanted to get rid of the deceased.Admittedly there is no eye-witness in the case which theprosecution has sought to prove by leading circumstantialevidence.(2) Jameela requested 2nd accused to marry her andthat was turned down by second accused because they belongedto different religions.(3) When the close relatives of Jameela persuadedsecond accused to marry Jameela since she became pregnantthrough him, second accused proclaimed that she would notallow Jameela to deliver the child.Second accusedmanhandled Jameela in connection with this dispute and thatwas seen by her neighbours and there was also involvement ofthe police.(4) The conduct of the accused on the fateful day(both accused were seen together on the date of occurrenceby several persons and from PW.11's tea shop they hadtaken food.(7) Recovery of MO1 as a result of information givenby first accused from the bushes where it was hidden andvery near to the place of occurrence.(8) Recovery of MO 25 footwears (Hawai Chappals) fromthe place of occurrence and identified as similar to the onepurchased by first accused from the shop of PW 14 few daysprior to the date of occurrence.(9) Immediately after the incident the accused wereabsconding and arrest of first accused on 19.9.1991 by PW 22from the place he was hiding.""According to the prosecution the injuries found on theperson of the deceased were caused by Accused No.1, Bijuwith the weapon of offence seized in the case at hisinstance consequent upon his disclosure statement.Hisconviction and sentence has already been upheld by thisCourt while dismissing the SLP filed by him.The appellanthas been found guilty and convicted of offences underSection 302 read with Section 120B and Section 119 of theIPC.Some conversation is also stated to have takenplace between the accused persons, the contents of which areneither disclosed nor suggested.Accused No.1 alone wasfound to have boarded the bus in which the deceased wastravelling and alighted from it along with her.Regardingthe circumstance relating to the existence of motive, PW9who is the sister of the Ms.Jameela deposed that thedeceased had told her that the pregnancy conceived by herwas through the appellant.According to her the appellantadmitted the paternity of conceived child in the initialstage but denied the paternity attributed to him six monthsthereafter.The trial court found that ""in the answerselicited in the further cross-examination also it wouldappear that her version about the first source of knowledgeabout the pregnancy of Jameela was inconsistent andunnatural"".Dealing with her statement, the trial courtobserved that PW9 had no occasion to meet Jameela as she wasnot visiting her mother's house and also because the secondaccused had consented for the marriage.What the witness stated was only thatJameela and the appellant were in love and they knew eachother for a period of two years before the death of Jameela.According to her the marriage between the deceased and theappellant could not be solemnised as they belonged todifferent religions.She never saw the deceased and theappellant talking as according to her they used to talk onlyin her absence.The appellant is stated to have visited thehouse of the aforesaid witness on 15.5.1991 and assaultedthe deceased regarding which report Exhibit P-4 was lodged.According to her Jameela was killed while returning from thehospital where she had gone for a check up.Nowhere in hertestimony Nabeesa (PW6) stated that the appellant wanted thechild, conceived by Jameela, to be aborted.There is nopositive evidence proving or suggesting that the appellantwas responsible for the pregnancy of the deceased.In theabsence of evidence regarding the circumstance attributingthe pregnancy of the deceased to the appellant and hisinsistence for abortion of the child, the importantcircumstance of motive cannot be held to have been proved.PW2 who is the neighbour of the deceased statedthat she had known about the pregnancy from Jameela herself.According to her the appellant had quarreled with Jameela inconnection with the pregnancy.Despite denial of theappellant Jameela was stated to have asserted that she didnot have sexual intercourse with anyone other than theappellant.In her cross-examination the witnesses statedthat the appellant never threatened Jameela.She admittedthat the appellant had apparently told Jameela that he wasnot the father of the child in her womb.The witnessconceded that she had no direct knowledge about therelationship of the deceased with the appellant.PW3 who isa neighbour and husband of PW2 was declared hostile as hedid not support the case of the prosecution.It was deposedby him that he was not aware that Jameela had requested theappellant to marry her.It is true that a number of witnesses havedeposed that they had seen both the accused together on thedate of occurrence but it is equally true that such meetingwas not unusual as admittedly they were working together inthe plantation.Mere meeting would by itself not besufficient to infer the existence of a criminal conspiracy.There is no suggestion, much less legal evidence to theeffect that both the accused were so intimate which wouldhave compelled Accused No.1 to agree to be a conspirator forthe killing of the deceased at the instance of theappellant.To a specific question as to whether he hadseen any other person going through the road towards theside where Accused No.1 had gone, the witness emphaticallyreplied in the negative.Davis (PW5) stated that on thedate of occurrence he had seen Accused No.1 at about 2oclock in the afternoon.In reply to a question as towhether he had seen anyone-else going through the road whileAccused No.2 was talking to PW4, the witness replied ""I havenot noticed"".Nabeesa (PW6) who is the mother of thedeceased has stated that on the date of occurrence both theaccused were sitting near her house on some timber logs atabout 2 p.m. but at 2.45 p.m. she saw only Accused No.1washing his knife near the stream which is on the southernside of her house.What happened between 2.00 p.m. to 2.45p.m.He did not see Accused No.1 with Accused No.2.He saw only the appellant, PW8, PW10 and some other people.George PW8 stated that he saw appellant on the date ofoccurrence at about 2.30 p.m. at the gate of his house.Both the witness and the appellant had conversation on thesteps of the house of the witness.Appellant was there forabout half an hour.This statement of PW8 belies theaverments of other witnesses that the appellant committedthe crime in conspiracy with Accused No.1 at about 2.45 p.m.Amina (PW9), the sister of the deceeased stated that she hadseen both the accused together sitting on the timber lognear the road.She did not see appellant accompanying theaccused No.1 thereafter.Devasi (PW11) Stated that on theday of occurrence both the accused had come to his shop atabout 1 p.m. and each had one plate tapioca and meat.Meharban (PW18) stated ""I saw Accused No.2 at 2.30 p.m. atthe timber log.I saw A-2calling PW-7 Jose.Then I saw he was talking with PW-8George.That was about 2.45 in the afternoon.I saw A-1following Jameela when she alighted the bus.Then I saw A-1swiftly walking from eastern side to western side"".Thisstatement of the prosecution witness does not suggest, evenby implication that both the accused were together on theday of occurrence.The statement of the witnesses noticedhereinabove may probabilise the presence of both the accusedtogether but does not prove beyond doubt that they weretogether near the road at the place of occurrence on thefateful day.Assuming they were together, would notnecessarily lead to the conclusion that they had met infurtherance of the conspiracy to murder the deceased.No fact orcircumstance with respect to the abetment attracting theapplicability of Section 109 IPF has been brought to ournotice.To prove the charge of abetment, the prosecution isrequired to prove that the abettor had instigated for thedoing of a particular thing or engaged with one or moreother person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing ofthat thing or intentionally aided by an act of illegalomission, doing of that thing.The prosecution miserablyfailed to prove the existence of any of the ingredients ofSection 107 IPC.","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"16- In the present case, according to police report situation was controlled and was maintained, then he left the village for search of the assailants.Further as per report tension was prevailing in the village for 3-4 days.The petitioners were already in jail.Hon'ble Raghvendra Kumar,J.The detention order was passed on 30.9.2014 i.e. after three months of the incident, hence there was no live and link in the incident and as such detention order itself is liable to be quashed.7- Learned counsel for the petitioners relied the following judgments:Sanawwar Vs.State of U.P. and others, LCrR 1993 page 67 decided on September 10, 1992:""18 We have noticed earlier that the detention of the petitioner has been based on sole incident of murder two persons in the Jungle.The alleged threatening to the witnesses in the same case and the allegation that villagers were fleeing do not amount to breach of maintenance of public order.It was individual act of the petitioner and his associates against individual and the same could not be said to be the grounds of such nature as to lead to any apprehension that the even tempo of the community at large would be endangered by this incident.The question whether a man has only committed a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the pubic order is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the Act upon the society.The test is whether it leads to disturbance of even tempo and current of life of the community so as to amount a disturbance of public order or does it affect merely an individual without affecting the tranquility of the society.""Islamuddin Vs.The State, L.Cr.The assault was committed against two persons, namely Aman Ilahi and Ahsan IIahi who were done to death.No other person was sought to be assaulted.The incident was directed against the members of the same community for the reason that the deceased had failed to deliver possession to the assailants on a shop and a plot of land.From the grounds of detention it is apparent that the same was not a law and order situation but a public order situation as rightly contended by learned counsel for the State.Relevant portion of the grounds of detention reads as follows:""From the letter of the Superintendent of Police Mainpuri and the report of Incharge of the Police Station Kotwali Mainpuri annexed with report of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri and from the records annexed therewith, this is evident that you are a person of criminal tendency and in collaboration with your associates, and by creating fear and terror on the force of illegal arms, realize forcibly and illegally money from the traders and property-dealers, you by use of criminal force, by indulging in mar-peet (physical assault) and by resorting to other criminal acts are habitual to commit crime by terrorizing that person whoever opposes these increasing criminal activities, fear and terror psychosis has gripped the minds of the common public.In this very backdrop you for establishing your hegemony, while going on a scooter, along with your other associates on 13.10.2002 at 11.00 a.m. in the busiest market of town Mainpuri, near the Bada Chauraha (crossing) in front of the Shafi Hotel on the road itself and in the day time, stopped Shri Anand Kumar Jain, property dealer and by firing bullets indiscriminately committed his heinous murder in a planned manner.When, at the time of the commission of this criminal act deceased's son Ajai Kumar Jain wanted to save his father, you fired aiming at him who any how or other saved himself by fleeing away.Nobody dared, in the said busy market who could save the deceased from you and your associates.The dead body of the deceased remained lying on the road and bleeding continued profusely.Thereafter parawise comments was prepared on 16.10.2014 which was finally dispatched through speed post on 17.10.2014 to the Central Government.Admittedly the representation was handed over by the petitioner to Jail Authority on 09.10.2014 and the same was received in the office of District Magistrate, Hardoi and on 10.10.2014, the police report was called for.24- In the present case accordingly to the ground of detention on 24.6.2014, when the informant Shatrughan Singh alongwith his brother Udai Bhan Singh, nephew Amar Bahadur, Ram, Pratap Singh, Ajay Pratap Singh were sitting at the door and having some conversation at that time, due to village 'parti- bandi; with pre plan, Raj Kumar Singh with licensed DBBL gun Guddu Singh with country made pistol, Janak Singh with single barrel gun, Rana Pratap with country made pistol, Dharampal and Udai Bhan having lathi, Jagdish Singh alias Dhakku Singh armed with country made pistol(Addhi) came at about 2.00 P.M. They abused and exhorted to kill and they started firing causing grevious injuries to Udai Pratap Singh, Amar Bahadur, Rana Pratap and Ajay Pratap Singh.When Kallu and Rajpal of the same village dared to challenge, they threatened to finish the entire family, again they fired and left the place of the occurrence.Subsequently Amar Bahadur succumbed to injuries.Due to firing people started running helter-skelter to take shelter and closed their doors.No order as to costs.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The investigation is in progress.dsa Crl.O.P.No.30304 of 2019 03.12.2019http://www.judis.nic.inThis petition has been filed seeking for a direction to thehttp://www.judis.nic.in respondent police to alter the FIR.O.P.No.30304 of 2019If in the course of investigation, the respondent police collected sufficient materials, the offenses will be accordingly altered and all the accused persons will be brought to book.In view of the above submission, there shall be a direction to the respondent to continue the investigation effectively and based on the materials collected during the course of investigation, either alter the FIR or file the final report by showing the necessary offences.All the persons involved in the crime was also be made as accused persons.This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction.03.12.2019 dsa Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/Nohttp://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.30304 of 2019The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.30304 of 2019 P.RAJAMANICKAM,J.","['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Certified copy as per rules.Heard on I.A. No.25728/2017, an application for suspension of jail sentence of appellant--Raju Drodawat and I.A. No.25724 of 2017, an application for suspension of jail sentence of appellant--Sudheer Yadav.They are convicted under Sections 364-d/120-B and 365/120-B of IPC and Section 25 (1-(d) of Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment, 5 years R.I. & two years R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.On due consideration of statements of (PW-1) Deshraj and abductee Vaibhav (PW-2) and other witnesses so also the fact that present appellants have not been identified nor any ransom was paid by the (PW-1), without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, (I.A. No.25728 of 2017 & I.A. No.25724 of 2017) are allowed.The substantive jail sentences of the both appellants- Raju Drodawat and Sudheer Yadav are suspended subject to their depositing the fine amount and furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.40,000/- each with separate 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 13th August, 2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Let this matter be fixed for hearing under the heading ""Contested Hearing"" two weeks after vacation.(Sahidullah Munshi, J.)","['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Item No. 30And In the matter of: Bapi Mallick Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Sudip Ghosh Chowdhury For the Petitioner Mr. Suman Saha For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Dadpur Police Station Case No.62 of 2011 dated 09.06.2011 under sections 341/323/325/307/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material.The charge sheet has been submitted.All the other accused have been granted bail.Since the charge sheet has been submitted, the Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within fifteen days from today.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J.)","['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard with the aid of the case-diary.This order shall govern the disposal of M.Cr.O R D E R THIS is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicants are in custody in connection with Crime No.301/15 registered at Police Station-Kanwan, District-Dhar for the offence punishable under Sections 354-D, 509 of the IPC & 11(1) (IV) of POCSO Act.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are young persons and permanent resident of District Dhar, having no criminal antecedents.They have been falsely implicated in this case and they are detained since 16/09/2015 & 10/09/2015 respectively; whereas trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicants be released on bail.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.The applicants are also directed to attend each hearing of their trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in the Court would result in automatic cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.C. stands disposed of.C.C. as per Rules.[ J.K. Jain ] Judge Adarsh",['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
"No.112 akd [Adjourned] C. R. M. 12445 of 2019 with C. R. A. 236 of 2017 In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 24.12.2019 in connection with Daspur Police Station FIR No. 399 of 2018 dated 31.12.2018 under Sections 448/323/325/307/354B/379/435/34 of the Indian Penal Code.(G.R. Case No.01 of 2019) And In Re: Sk.Lutphar Rahaman ... ... Petitioner Mr. Suman De .. Advocate ... ... for the petitioner Mrs. Sukanya Bhattacharjee .. Advocate Mr. Arindam Sen .. Advocate ... ... for the State Department is directed to submit informal Paper books by the next date.Let this matter appear four weeks hence.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"3973/11 Case No. 27/11 pending Sale-deed dated 21.12.09 before JMFC, Lakhna- executed by the petitioner don, in respect of the relating to land bearing offences under Sections survey no.66, having a total 409 and 420 of the IPC.area of 2.60 hectare, situated in Kevlari, for a considerable of Rs.65,000/-.4537/11 Case No. 387/11 pending Sale-deed dated 21.12.09 before Shri A.S. Sisodiya, executed by the petitioner and JMFC, Lakhnadon, in Arun Singhania relating to 10263/11 respect of the offences land, bearing survey nos.101, under Sections 420, 467, 123/11, 165/3, 165/4 and 468, 409 and 120B read 264, situated in Mouja Baiga-:: 4 ::MCrC Nos.3973/11, 4537/11, 4538/11, 4539/11, 7717/11, 8288/11 and 10263/11 with 34 of the IPC.Pipariya, for a considerable of Rs.5,18,000/-.4538/11 Case No. 386/2011 Sale-deed dated 21.12.09 pending before Shri A.S. executed by the petitioner Sisodiya, JMFC, relating to land bearing Lakhnadon, in respect of survey nos.46/2, 99/2, 134/3, the offences punishable 136/2, 165/5, 165/6, 267/2 under Sections 420, 467, and 321, having a total area 468, 409 and 120B read of 21.32 hectare, situated in with 34 of the IPC.Mouja Baiga- Pipariya, for a considerable of Rs.8,52,800/-4539/11 Case No. 385/11 pending Sale-deed dated 21.12.09 before Shri A.S. Sisodiya, executed by the petitioner JMFC, Lakhnadon, in relating to lands bearing respect of the offences survey nos.19/1, 19/2, 20, 21, under Sections 420, 467, 22/4, 59, 61/1, 61/2, 140, 468, 409 and 120B read 146, 148, 149, 177, 206, 211, with 34 of the IPC.212/1, 258/2, having a total area of 29.90 hectare, situated in Pindria, for a considerable of Rs.23,17,500/-.7717/11 Case No. 768/2011 Sale-deed dated 21.12.09 pending before Shri executed by the petitioner A.S.Sisodiya, JMFC, relating to land bearing Lakhnadon, in respect of survey nos.30/12, 36, 38, the offences punishable 49/3, 49/4, 75/2, 101, 115/2, under Sections 420, 467, 115/3, 146, 270, having a 468, 409 and 120B of the total area of 21.48 hectare, IPC.situated in Mouja Kevlary, for a considerable of Rs.8,59,200/-.:: 5 :::: 6 ::MCrC Nos.3973/11, 4537/11, 4538/11, 4539/11, 7717/11, 8288/11 and 10263/11However, upon his decision to leave the Company, he was authorized to collect the amount of Rs.50 lacs, invested by him, by selling useless pieces of land, purchased by him, for and on behalf of the Company and to adjust the considerations there- against and also to get two pieces of agricultural lands, admeasuring 10 acres and 4 acres, transferred in the name of his wife and respective amounts of consideration viz. Rs.5,50,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- paid or credited to the Company.(iii) Under the authority so granted, he, during the period from 8.12.2009 to 25.12.2009, had sold nine pieces of agricultural holdings for a total consideration of Rs.49,16,100/- and handed over the same, in cash, to Vinod Kumar Agrawal (for brevity 'Vinod Agrawal'), the Chairman of the Company, . :: 7 ::MCrC Nos.3973/11, 4537/11, 4538/11, 4539/11, 7717/11, 8288/11 and 10263/11:: 8 ::MCrC Nos.3973/11, 4537/11, 4538/11, 4539/11, 7717/11, 8288/11 and 10263/11Attention has also been drawn to a specific allegation contained in some of the complaints that it was co-accused Sneh Gupta who had rendered necessary assistance to Arun Singhania in generating the above-mentioned false documents on computer.:: 9 ::MCrC Nos.3973/11, 4537/11, 4538/11, 4539/11, 7717/11, 8288/11 and 10263/11(26.4.2012) This common order shall govern disposal of all the aforesaid interconnected petitions preferred, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), for quashing of the criminal proceedings, details whereof, for sake of convenient reference, may be tabulated in the following manner -MCrC No. Criminal Proceeding Document & amount forming pending as subject matter of the offences.:: 13 ::","['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The petitioner who is the Proprietor of the factory under the name and style of M/s. Poddar Iron Industries was prosecuted by the respondent No. 2 under Section 14(1) of the Employees' Provident Fund Act for not making payment of employees' contribution for the period between September, 1974 and September, 1975 before the S. D. J. M. Howrah.The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay fine in default imprisonment in all the cases.Thereafter, the petitioner was prosecuted under Sections 406 and 409, I.P.C. on the complaint of respondent No. 2, being G. R. Case No. 104/76, It is against this prosecution that the petitioner has come up before this Court.",['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate(E.O.2), Egmore, Chennai was preferred by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chennai against the accused for an offence punishable under Sections 9(1)(a)(i), 9(1)(b)(i) and 9(1)(b)(b)(i) (four counts)of Central Excise and Salt Act 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ""the Act"") for the violation of payment of excise duty to the goods manufactured and fabricated by the accused.Admittedly, the first accused is engaged in the fabrication of steel structural for BHEL, Trichy, Ashok Leyland, Welmen Incondacent India Limited, South India Carbonic Gas India Limited, S.F.India Limited, Industrial Engineerings India Private Limited alias Foundary Limited, Hack Prestige Heavich Easan Limited.The second accused is the Managing Partner of the first accused.On the basis of the authorisation issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Department Preventive Unit conducted a raid on 6.9.1982 in the premises of the first accused and the Officers of the Central Excise conducted a random check up of the accounts maintained by the accused firm for the year 1979 and it was brought to the light that the value of the clearance of goods for the year 1979 had exceeded the prescribed exemption limit of Rs.30 lakhs.According to the accused, the defence taken before the trial Court was that they were manufacturing the steel structural fabrications either out of the raw materials supplied by others or out of their own raw materials.According to the complainant, the first accused manufacturer had cleared the goods without obtaining Central Excise Licence and without payment of duty.In C.C.1680 of 1989, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined Exs P1 to P13 were marked.In C.C.No.1681 of 1989 P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and Exs P1 to P20 were exhibited.In C.C.No.1682 of 1989 Pws 1 and 2 were examined.Exs P1 to P20 were marked.In C.C.No.1683 of 1989, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined.Exs P1 to P12 were marked.4 In C.C.No.1680 of 1989, P.W.1 Romand, the then Superintendent of Central Excise Department(Preventive Unit) would depose that as per Ex P6, the accused have produced manufactured goods to the value of Rs.29,38,360.48ps for the year 1979-80 and as per the accounts under Exs P8,9 and 10, the accused ought to have paid Central Excise Duty to the tune of Rs.57,534.42ps for the value of the goods Rs.29,38,360/48ps manufactured by them and for the period from 8.1.1980 to 31.3.1980, the value of the goods manufactured by the accused comes to Rs.5,48,891/04 and after considering the representation made by the accused, the excise tax to be paid by the accused was fixed as Rs.13,180/01ps, but the accused without paying the above said central excise duty , they marketed the goods manufactured by them.P.W.2, Thiru C.Hari Rao, the then Superintendent of the Central Excise Department during the relevant period would depose that he had issued a show cause notice dated 1.1.1985 to the accused under the Original of ExP11.Ex P12 is the order of the departmental enquiry held by the Collector of Central Excise Department Thiru K.J.Raman.As per the said order of the Collector of Central Excise , the accused have been levied a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 173(q) of the Act and that evasion of tax by the accused for the year 1979-83 comes to Rs.4.97,222/24ps.In C.C.No.1681 of 1989, P.W.1 is Mr.The Collector of Central Excise, after considering the representation made by the accused, had levied only Rs.22,722/97ps towards Central Excise duty.Ex P16 is the order of the Collector of Central Excise Department dated 24.10.1985 wherein he has levied Rs.1,00,000/- towards Central Excise duty for the evasion of tax to the tune of Rs.4,97,222/24ps.The accused have manufactured the goods from out of the raw materials supplied by the various companies like BHEL, Trichy, Ashok Leyland, Welmen Incondacent India Limited, South India Carbonic Gas India Limited, S.F.India Limited, Industrial Engineerings India Private Limited alias Foundary Limited, Hack Prestige Heavich Easan Limited.As per ExP6 and Ex P7 bills, the accused have manufactured goods worth of Rs.40,26,754/28 and marketed the same and that they are liable to pay the Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs.3,22,140/34 ps.P.W.2 , Mr.In C.C.No.1683 of 1989, P.W1 Thiru A.Romond, the Superintendent of Central Excise Department(Preventive Unit) would depose that the accused have manufactured steel goods to the value of more than Rs.30 lakhs and from the records seized under Exs P2 to P5, it came to light that the accused have manufactured the goods with the help of raw materials supplied by BHEL, Trichy, Ashok Leyland, Welmen Incondacent India Limited, South India Carbonic Gas India Limited, S.F.India Limited, Industrial Engineerings India Private Limited alias Foundary Limited, Hack Prestige Heavich Easan Limited.i) P.W.1 was residing at Kolathupalayam Village, wherein he had landed properties.On 8.3.2000 he went to cut leaves in his land and on his way to his land he saw the deceased.After cutting the leaves, P.W.1 returned from his land with leaves and saw the deceased proceeding in his cycle.when the deceased reached the main road from canal, P.W.1 was nearing the bridge.At the time the deceased was crossing A1's rice mill, A1 to A3 and one Palanisamy Gounder and Ramalingam were standing there.A1 was armed with knife and others were armed with stick.The accused intercepted the deceased and caught hold of him and from road dragged him into the rice mill.Palanisamy attacked the deceased on the fore head of the deceased with stick.Ramalingam beat on the chest of the deceased with stick.When deceased tried to escape from there, Palanisamy again best the deceased.But, that attack fell on A2 and A2 fell down.A2 beat the deceased.At that time, P.W.1 raised alarm.A1 cut the deceased and deceased fell down.Palanisamy Gounder and Ramalingam kicked the deceased on his flank.Then the accused ran away towards western side.ii) On hearing P.W.1's hue and cry, P.W.2 and P.W.3 came to the scene of occurrence.P.W.3 informed about the occurrence to P.W.4, who is the brother of the deceased.P.W.4 came to the scene of occurrence.P.W.5 arranged a car and took the injured to the hospital for giving treatment.At 2.30 p.m. injured/Sathasivam without responding to the treatment died in C.K.Hospital. P.W.1 went to the Kodumudi Police Station and gave a written complaint-Ex.P.W.5 is the driver, who took the deceased to C.K.Hospital at Erode.iii) P.W.13 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who had registered a case in Cr.No.77/2000 under Section 341, 342 and 302 IPC on 8.3.2000 at 6.00 p.m. on the basis of the complaint-Ex.On 9.3.2000 at 1.00 am, P.W.13 went to the Erode Government Hospital and recorded the statement of A3 and based on the statement of P.W.13 registered a case in Cr.No.78/2000 under Section 341, 324 IPC and that report is Ex.The First Information Report is Ex.iv) P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, Malayapalayam incharge of Kadumudi Police Station, on receipt of the First Information Report, went to C.K.Hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of panchyatars.P.27 is the inquest report.Vijayakumar had sent the death intimation to Kodumudi Police Station.P.W.11 is the Doctor, who had conducted postmortem over the corpse of Sathasivam on 9.3.2000 at 8.20 am and issued Ex.P.22-Postmortem certificate.The Doctor has opined that the cause of death is due to head injury and other injuries.P.W.15 went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar and drew rough sketch-Ex.A1 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate on 20.3.2000 and P.W.16 took the custody of A1 and recorded his confession.On the basis of the confession statement of A1, P.W.16 recovered M.O.3-blood stained aruval under Ex.After observing the other formalities, P.W.16 had completed his investigation and filed final report.P.W.16 closed the First Information Report in Cr.No.78/2000 (complaint preferred by A3) as mistake of fact.On 6.11.2000 P.W.16 received a letter from Joint Secretary(Home) to conduct further investigation.P.W.17 took up further investigation and after completing the investigation filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 under Sections 341 and 302 Rule with 34 IPC.vi) The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi in PRC.No.7/2000 and on appearance of the accused copies under Section 207 of Cr.When questioned the accused denied their complicity in the crime.On the side of the prosecution P.W.1 to 17 were examined, Ex.P.1 to 31 and M.O.1 to 13 were marked and on the side of the accused D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D.1 to 6 were marked.The point:- Originally there were five accused viz., 1.Sengottaiyan, 2.Palanisamy, 3.Ramalingam, 4.Muthayee Ammal and 5.Kolandaisamy Gounder, cited in the First Information Report as well as in the charge sheet filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. A2's son-in-law viz. Kathirvellu had presented a petition dated 13.3.2000 to the Secretary to the Home Department, Tamil Nadu stating that the accused Palanisamy Gounder and the accused Ramalingam were innocents and they were not present at the time of occurrence and an enquiry was conducted by the CB-CID Police, Coimbatore and the report of the DSP was accepted by the Additional Director General of Police(Crime), CB-CID.According to the said report, the accused Palanisamy and the accused Ramalingam were not present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence.JUDGMENT A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.A.Romond, the Superintendent of Central Excise Department(Preventive Unit).Ex P3 is the statement of A2 and as per the bills Exs P6 and P7 produced by the accused, the value of the goods manufactured by the accused for the year 1980-81 comes to Rs.36,99,661/62ps and that they are liable to pay the Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs.55,972/93ps.As per Ex P6,P8 and P9 for the year 1982-83, the accused have manufactured the goods to the value of Rs.17,39,736/49ps.But they have evaded the central excise duty of Rs.1,39,178/92ps and the Collector of Central Excise Department has also levied a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused for the violation of Section 9(2) Rule with 10 and 7A of the Act.On the above evidences, when incriminating circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were put to the accused, they would deny their complicity with the crime.The learned trial Judge, after going through the evidence both oral and documentary let in before him, has come to a conclusion that the guilt against the accused has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the accused under Central Excise Rules 174 Rule with Section 9(1)(a)(2) and also under Section 9(1) Rule with 9(1)(b)(2)of the Act and under Rule 173-F Rule with Section 9(1)(b)(ii) and Rule 173-B Rule with Section 9(1)(bb)(ii), Rule 173C Rule with Section 9(1)(bb)(ii),Rule 173G Rule with Section 9(1)(bb)(ii) and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and also slapped a fine of Rs.500/- under each count with default sentence in all the above said Calendar cases.The learned first appellate Judge, after meticulously scanning the evidence let in before the trial Court and also after due deliberation to the arguments advanced by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has held that there was no evidence let in by the prosecution to show that the goods manufactured by the accused exceeded the limit prescribed under the Act and that the trial Court without giving due consideration for the Notification Nos.118/75 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government in the Ministry of Finance(DR &T) which has exempted goods falling under Item No.68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944(1 of 1944) and also the Notification No.119/75 dated 30.4.1975 issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Finance wherein as per Rule 8(1) of the Central Excises Rules,1944,the Central Govoernment hereby exempted the goods falling under Item No.68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944(1 of 1944), manufactured in a factory as a job work from levy of excise duty and has held that the accused were not liable under the charge levelled against them and accordingly acquitted both the accused thereby allowing the appeal and setting aside the findings of the learned trial Judge.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Principal Sessions Judge in C.A.Nos.20 to 23 of 1992, the Central Excise Department/complainant has preferred this appeal.Now the point for consideration in this appeal is whether the findings of the learned Principal Sessions Judge in C.A.Nos.20 to 23 of 1992 is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal?The Point:Even according to the evidence of P.W.1, the raw materials for the manufacture and fabrication of steel goods to the accused were supplied by various companies like BHEL, Trichy, Ashok Leyland, Welmen Incondacent India Limited, South India Carbonic Gas India Limited, S.F.India Limited, Industrial Engineerings India Private Limited alias Foundary Limited, Hack Prestige Heavich Easan Limited.The learned first appellate Judge has allowed the appeal only on the ground that as per Notification No.119/75 -CE, dated 30.4.1975 issued by the Central Excise, Ministry of Finance, the accused are liable to be exempted from the Central Excise duty.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for Central Excise cases would contend before this Court that Notification No 119/75 came into force only in the year 1985 and hence the accused are not entitled to take shelter under the benefits conferred in the above notification.This contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor cannot be upheld because absolutely there is no pleadings in the grounds of appeal to the effect that the Notification No.119/75 dated 30.4.1975 came into force only in the year 1985 and that the benefits conferred under the above said notification cannot be extended or availed by the accused.It is pertinent to note here that even before the learned Sessions Judge, Chennai in the first appeal, the said defence was not taken by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, who had argued the appeal.If the Notification 119/75 dated 30.4.1975 would apply to the accused then the entire charge levelled against them will go, as correctly held by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.It is pertinent to note that the accused had already undergone the imprisonment till rising of the Court as ordered by the learned trial Judge.Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge in C.A.Nos.20 to 23 of 1992 which is neither illegal nor infirm.Point is answered accordingly.In the result, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed confirming the judgment dated 25.9.1996 passed in C.A.Nos 20 to 23 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge,Madras.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for Central Excise cases would submit that the observation made in this Judgment shall not affect the departmental proceedings pending against the accused before the appellate authority against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise Department.The submission made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor has got force and it is made clear that the observations made in this Judgment shall not have any impact on the Departmental proceedings pending before the appellate authority.A. No. 475/1997Vii) When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, they pleaded innocence.On the basis of the available evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Additional Session Judge(FCT.I), Erode has come to a conclusion that A1 to A3 are liable to be convicted under Section 341 and 302 Rule with 34 IPC and conbsequently convicted and sentenced them to undergo one month simple imprisonment under Section 341 IPC each and sentenced under Section 302 Rule with 34 IPC to undergo life imprisonment each of the accused.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,(FTC.I), Erode, the accused have preferred this Appeal.The Inspector of Police, Kodumudi Police Station filed M.P.1439/2000 before the Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C for permitting to conduct further investigation in Cr.No.77/2000 (complaint preferred by P.W.1) on the file of Kodumudi Police Station and the said petition was allowed and on that basis, P.W.16 has conducted further investigation and filed fresh charge sheet-Ex.P.30 only against A1-Sengottaiyan, A2-Muthayee Ammal and A3-Kolandaisamy Gounder.The charge sheet was dropped against the accused Palanisamy and Ramalingam on the ground that they were not present at the time and place of occurrence.Ex.P.29, petition of the Inspector of Police under Section 173(8), contains the report of the Additional Director of CB-CID, as per the report of the Additional Director of CB-CID, on the date of occurrence i.e., on 8.3.2000, A3-Kolandaisamy Gounder and his wife Muthayee Ammal(A2) and their son Sengottaiyan(A1) were drying the turmeric in the disputed place without heeding to the words of the deceased-Sathasivam and since the deceased-Sathasivam had objected the accused, for drying turmeric in the disputed place, all the three accused had attacked him, which resulted in the death of Sathasivam in the hospital and the complaint was preferred by the brother of the deceased-Sathasivam after consulting the advocates and after implicating Palanisamy Gounder and his son Ramalingam as accused, the murder case was registered against the above said five accused.It has been further stated in the report that on investigation it was brought to light that on the date of occurrence at the time of occurrence the accused Palanisamy and his son Ramalingam were not present at the scene of occurrence, but they were working in the turmeric field some four kilometers away from the place of occurrence and they retuned only at 6.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence to their house.The above said report was also filed along with Ex.P.29 by P.W.16, which cuts at the root of the prosecution case for the following reasons:i) According to P.W.1 to 3 the place of occurrence is the rice mill belonging to A1 and at the time of occurrence A1 had assaulted the deceased-Sathasivam with knife and the accused Palanisamy and accused Ramalingam (Who have been dropped subsequently in the re-investigation from the charge sheet) also attacked the deceased-Sathasivam with wooden stick on the head and chest of the deceased respectively and A2 had assaulted Sathasivam with a wooden stick and Palanisamy and Ramalingam kicked Sathasivam on the flanks.According to P.W.1 the accused had way laid Sathasivam and dragged him into the rice mill belonging to A1 and assaulted him.P.W.2 and 3 have also deposed to the fact that all the accused along with the accused Palanisamy and the accused Ramalingam assaulted the deceased-Sathasivam. P.W.3 has also corroborated that A1 to A3 along with Palanisamy and Ramalingam have assaulted the deceased-Sathasivam.According to P.W.3, the motive for the occurrence was that there was some enmity prevailing between Palanisamy and Ramalingam on one hand and the accused on the other in respect of a ditch and the motive for the occurrence against A2 & A3 and the deceased-Sathasivam was in respect of 5 cents of lands.In the cross-examination, P.W.3 would depose that about 25 cents of land belong to one Kolandaivel Samboornam, who had appointed the deceased-Sathasivam as his power of agent, already had executed the entire 25 cents in favour of A3, but P.W.3 has purchased 5 cents in the same survey number in the above said 25 cents of land from the power of attorney agent deceased-Sathasivam and there was a civil dispute pending before the civil court at Kodumudi.P.2-sale deed will go to show that the deceased-Sathasivam had executed the sale deed as a power of attorney for Sambooranam in favour of P.W.3-Palanisamy, in respect of 5 cents in survey No.542/16 of Kulathupalayam village.According to P.W.1, the entire 25 cents in the said survey number property was purchased by A1 and had constructed a rice mill thereon, but through the deceased-Sathasivam as power of attorney for Sambooranam, another sale deed in favour of P.W.3 was executed for 5 cents.As per Ex.P.29, as per the investigation of CB-CID both the erstwhile accused Palanisamy and Ramalingam were not present at the place of occurrence, that is why, they have been dropped in the charge sheet filed after reinvestigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. On the other hand, P.W.1 to 3, the eye witnesses, would depose that the said Palanisamy and Ramalingam also assaulted the deceased/Sathasivam at the place of occurrence.So the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 cannot be believed at all.ii) As per the evidence of P.W.9, the Doctor, who had deposed on behalf of Doctor Vijayakumar, who had conducted autopsy, there were three cut injuries on the head to bone deep, and stab injury behind the left ear and a contusion on the right fore head and another contusion on the left fore head and an aberration on the left forearm and left thigh.In the cross-examination, the Doctor-P.W.9, who had admitted and treated the deceased/Sathasivam at about 12.30 p.m. On 8.3.2000 at C.K.Hospial Erode, has deposed that Sathasivam had expired due to massive heart attack.But, P.W.11-Doctor, who had issued Postmortem certificate-Ex.P.22, would depose that the deceased-Sathasivam would have died due to the injuries he had sustained on the head.So, with regard to the cause of death also there is a discrepancy between the evidence of P.W.9-Dr.S.K.Krishnan and P.W.11-Dr.iii) Yet another point to be noted is the fracture of occipital bone on the skull seen as per Ex.P.22-Postmortem report.According to P.W.1 to 3, the other two accused viz. Palanisamy and Ramalingam were also assaulted with wooden stick on the head of the deceased/Sathasivam.But according to the prosecution, the said Palanisamy and Ramalingam, who were previously shown as accused in the charge sheet before re-investigation were not at all present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence.Under such circumstances, we cannot give any credit to the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 to arrive at a conclusion that the occurrence had occurred in the manner as alleged by them.iv) The next point to be noted is that A3 also sustained injury and according to P.W.16-Investigation Officer, a case under Cr.No.78/2000 of Kodumudi Police Station was registered on the complaint made by A3 and Ex.But, without investigating the same, the said First Information Report was closed as mistake of fact.Further the occurrence had taken place at 11.00 am on 8.3.2000, but P.W.1 has preferred Ex.P.1-complaint only at 6.00 p.m. After having deliberations with P.W.4 and that other advocates.The preponderance of possibilities seems to indicate that not only Palanisamy and Ramalingam were falsely implicated in this case earlier, but also the present accused 1 to 3 have been falsely implicated.There is no overtact attributed against A3, whereas the overtact attributed against A2 is that she had assaulted the deceased-Sathasivam with a wooden stick on the hands. P.W.3 in his evidence has stated that A2 had assaulted with a wooden stick on the left hand of Sathasivam.But, P.W.16, the Investigation Officer, has stated in his evidence that he had not seen any bleeding injury on the left hand of the deceased-Sathasivam.The delay in preferring the First Information Report, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by A3 and the implication of Palanisamy and Ramalingam falsely into the crime will cast cloud on the investigation of the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt shall go to the accused.We are of the constrained opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 341 and 302 Rule with 34 IPC beyond any reasonable doubt.In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants herein-A1 to A3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,(FTC-I), Erode in S.C.No.174/2001 is hereby set aside and the appellants herein/A1 to A3 are acquitted from the charges levelled against them.","['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 27.9.1998 at about 9.00 a.m a quarrel took place between the deceased and the appellants.The appellants assaulted the deceased by fists.The deceased tried to move for some steps and thereafter, he fell 2 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 1999 down.The deceased was taken to the Police Station and thereafter to the hospital but, before he could reach the hospital he expired.A panchayatnama lash Ex.P/1 was prepared and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem.(Delivered on the 17th day of October, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 12.2.1999 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, East Nimar Khandwa in ST.No.203/1998 whereby the appellants were convicted for offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C and sentenced for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.250/ and in default of payment of fine six months rigorous imprisonment was also directed.Dr. A N. Bajpai (PW5) did the post mortem upon the body of the deceased and gave his report Ex.He found no external injury visible on the body of the deceased but, on opening he found that the spleen of the deceased was ruptured from its base and huge blood was present in the concerned cavity.The deceased died due to rupture of the spleen.After due investigation a charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khandwa who committed the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately it was transferred to the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa.The appellants abjured their guilt.They took a specific plea that the deceased was the husband of their sister who was suffering from malaria since last 10-15 days.He was in habit to drink and then to assault his wife and therefore, he could have sustained that injury due to fall.However, no defence evidence was given by the appellants.The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution acquitted the accused Jamila Bi from all the charges whereas the appellants were acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C but, convicted for offence punishable under Section 3 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 1999 325 of I.P.C and sentenced as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is very much clear that from the evidence that the appellants did not use any weapon in assaulting their brother-in-law.9. Akram (PW1) and Imran (PW2) were examined as eye witnesses.They have stated that the appellants assaulted the deceased by fists.It is clear that no M.L.C was done by any doctor and after the death of the deceased the post mortem could be done by Dr. A. N. Bajpai (PW5).However, Dr. Bajpai has stated that no external injury was visible to the deceased.The witnesses were relatives of the deceased as well as the appellants.The appellants were also the relative of the deceased and therefore, it cannot be said that the witnesses have submitted falsely against the appellants.It was not possible for the witnesses to save the actual culprits and to tell against the appellants whereas the appellants were the relatives of those witnesses.It is true that no FIR could be lodged by any of the witnesses and only a merg intimation was recorded by the Police and investigation was initiated.Therefore, registration of the case was done by FIR Ex.P/9 which was registered after due inquest and therefore, the document Ex.P/9 cannot be considered as an FIR.But the eye witnesses did not prove that such blow was given by the appellants.Under such circumstances, if a fist was given in the abdomen then spleen could be ruptured if it was enlarged.The learned Sessions Judge found that the appellants were not intended to kill the deceased.Neither they assaulted in such a manner so that the deceased could die in natural course of 6 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 1999 his life and therefore, since due to their assault a fatal injury was caused which was covered as a grievous injury under section 320(8) of the I.P.C and therefore, the appellants were convicted for offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C. However, the appellants did not know that the spleen of the deceased was enlarged and therefore, it is not established that they intended to cause a grave injury to the victim.Secondly for offence punishable under section 325 of I.P.C it is to be established that who was the culprit who had an intention to cause a grievous injury to the victim and he should be convicted for offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C and thereafter, common intention of another accused is to be considered.In the present case it is no where established by the eye witnesses that out of the appellants who assaulted the victim on his spleen.No intention against any of the appellants was established that they aimed to assault the victim on his spleen Under such circumstances, their intention was not present for causing grievous injury to the deceased and therefore, their common intention for offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C cannot be presumed.If the common intention of each of the appellants was not present for causing a grave injury to the deceased then none of the appellants can be convicted for offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C with the help of Section 34 of I.P.C. It is not proved against anyone of the appellants that they assaulted the deceased on his spleen and it is also not 7 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 1999 proved that they had any common intention to cause grievous injury to the deceased because the deceased was the brother-in- law of the appellants.It is unfortunate that due to that assault the spleen of the deceased was ruptured and he died.The appellants remained in the custody for more than three months and therefore looking to their overt act and also the fact that they have faced the trial and appeal for last 14 years, it is a fit case in which they should not be sent to the jail again.However, some fine may be imposed upon them.Criminal Appeal No.451 of 1999On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the appeal filed by the appellants appears to be acceptable partly.Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is hereby partly allowed.The conviction as well as the sentence directed by the trial Court for offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C is hereby set aside.They are acquitted from that offence.However, they are convicted for offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C and sentenced with the rigorous imprisonment for the period which they have already under gone in the custody.Also fine of Rs.1000/- is imposed upon each of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C The appellants are directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today.In default of payment of fine each oft them shall undergo for three months rigorous imprisonment.The appellants are on bail.Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information and compliance.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 17.10.2012 bina 9 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 1999","['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"P.C. during investigation have also stated in one voice that during the stay of the complainant in her matrimonial home at Mainagurie, the complainant was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband and by the present petitioner also.In her written complaint, on the basis of which the case has been started, the complainant has clearly alleged that during her stay in her matrimonial home, she was subjected to ill- treatment, mental torture as well as assaults by her husband's elder brother who is the present petitioner in this case.In her written complaint, the complainant has gone to the existent of alleging that because of ill- treatment and torture by the present petitioner she was feeling insecure in her matrimonial home.The parents of the complainant in their 5 statement under Section 161 of the Cr.In the case referred by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the main allegations against the accused persons was that they were spreading rumors without any basis against the complainant and when the complainant's - husband was residing abroad, he used to disconnect the telephone connection while taking to his wife due to which the wife became mentally sick.It was another allegation in that case that when the wife went to the house, where the accused was residing at the relevant time, she was turned out from there.",['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
"C.R.M. No. 14930 of 2014 MNS.And In the matter of: Atul Mondal ...petitioner.Mr. Aslam Khan ...for the petitioner.Ms. Faria Hossain ...for the State.The application for bail is, thus, rejected at this stage.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) (Sudip Ahluwalia, J.)",['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
"In the present case, dying declaration Ex. P/1 was recorded by the Tahsildar - Ramji Lal Verma (PW-1) is negative.The deceased did not mention about harassment relating to demand of dowry etc. Her parents namely Ajmer Singh Chauhan (PW-2) father and Suman (PW-3) mother have stated for the first time to the police in merg inquiry on 17.3.2011 i.e., approximately after five weeks of the incident that there was a demand of motor-cycle, golden chain and a cash of Rs.50,000/-.The deceased had died within seven months of her marriage and if she would have been tortured for dowry demand etc., then there must be some FIR lodged by her in her life time and she would have stated about the same in her dying declaration.Heard on IA No.5361/2016, an application for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant No.2 Anandibai.The appellant No.2 has been convicted for offence under Sections 304 B of IPC and 498-A of IPC and sentenced to 14 years RI with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and 2 years RI respectively.Learned counsel for the appellant No.2 submits that the appellant No.2 was on bail during the trial and she did not misuse the liberty granted to her.Some conciliation proceedings would have been initiated by the parents of the deceased in Cr.Appeal No.1196/2015 6-7 months before the respected persons of the community or any other steps would have been taken to resolve the dispute.It would be apparent from the statements of Ajmer Singh Chauhan (PW-2) father and Suman (PW-3) mother that they have stated that the deceased was harassed for dowry demand was only on the afterthought basis.There are fair chance of success of criminal appeal.Therefore, appellant No.2 Anandibai prays for bail and execution of jail sentence.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Consequently, application I.A.No.5361/2016 is hereby allowed.Subject to deposit of fine amount, if the appellant No.2 Anandi Bai furnishes a bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) along with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court that she shall appear before the Registry of this Court on 29.11.2016 and on subsequent dates given by the Office for appearance till the disposal of the present appeal then the appellant shall be released on bail and execution of jail sentence is suspended till the disposal of this appeal.Certified copy as per rules.",['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar Patel, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shams Uz Zaman, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.","['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.45 of 2016, on the file of the first respondent.http://www.judis.nic.in 2The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.45 of 2016 registered for the offences under Sections 341, 452, 294(b), 324 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code, based on the complaint given by the second respondent/defacto complainant.Now, to quash the above criminal proceedings, the present petition has been filed.11.Even though the crime was registered for the offences under Sections 341, 452, 294(b), 324 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code.On perusal of the record it could be seen that it is predominantly the civil dispute between the parties and the parties are close relatives and now, the petitioner and the second respondent/defacto complainant have amicably settled their dispute between themselves peacefully, both are living in peace and harmony and the second respondent/defacto complainant is not interested in prosecuting the complaint.1.The Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station, Arumuganeri, Tirunelveli District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case registered inCrime No.13 of 2015 dated 04.07.2015 on the file of the 1st respondentpolice, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties.The counsel appearing on either side filed a joint memo ofcompromise dated 06.01.2016, duly stating that since the parties have arrivedat an amicable settlement by way of compromise among themselves, the second respondent has agreed to withdraw the above case in Crime No.13 of 2015pending on the file of the first respondent.When such a situation arose in similarly placed matters inCrl.Theantecedents of the accused have also to be taken into consideration beforeaccepting the memo of compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law.Taking note of the judgments referred to supra, considering thenature of allegations and also recording the joint memo of compromise dated06.01.2016, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would beserved in keeping the matter pending.Therefore, the entire proceedings inCrime No.13 of 2015 dated 04.07.2015 on the file of the first respondent inrespect of the petitioners/accused alone, are hereby quashed.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis ofthe compromise entered into between the parties.The joint compromise memo dated 06.01.2016 shall form part of this order.Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petition is closed.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Karur.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.","['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The petitioners have questioned validity and legality of the order dated 17th December 2012 passed by the Additional Collector, Beed, District Beed, whereby staying the elections to the post of Sarpanch/Up-sarpanch of Village Panchayat at Mauje Babhulwadi-Belkuchiwadi, Taluka and District Beed.The petitioners also prayed for direction to the Returning Officer for election to Sarpanch and Up-sarpanch in the village panchayat of Babhulwadi, Taluka and District Beed to the effect that petitioners be declared as elected Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of group Grampanchayat of Babhulwadi and Bedkuchiwadi, Taluka and District Beed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:22 :::The facts briefly stated are as under:The meeting was for electing Sarpanch/Up-Sarpanch for Babhulwadi, Bedkuchiwadi and Belwadi Group Grampanchayat, informing members of the Grampanchayat that nomination forms would be submitted during the period between 10.00 and 12.00 noon on 17th December 2012 and at about 2.00 p.m. at noon time and meeting would be held for electing Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch for Babhulwadi group Grampanchayat.Accordingly, it appears that nomination for the post of Sarpanch was filed by petitioner No.1 Parmeshwar Kachru Satpute, proposed by Dadasaheb Baburao Khindkar, while nomination of Dadasaheb Baburao Khindkar was proposed by Parmeshwar Kachru Satpute, for the post of Up-Sarpanch.In the meeting, however, minutes dated 17th December 2012 indicate that members of the village panchayat were absent.Importance of Gram Panchayat cannot be undermined as it helps to train the villagers in the art of governing themselves.It trains and develops local leadership.It trains rural people in democratic procedure.In smaller villages a group gram panchayat for two or three villages is established.Members of gram panchayat are elected by villagers for a period of five years.One of the members is elected as Sarpanch and another Deputy Sarpanch.Grampanchayat has a paid secretary (Gramsevak) who is appointed by Zilla Parishad.Election of Gram-Panchayat is conducted by state's election Commissioner through District Collector and Tahasildar.The elections are conducted for every five years.An adult with an age of 21 years and above is eligible for contesting the election and for voting in the same.The Chief executive officer makes the inquiry and collects the information in prescribed form and put in the meeting of standing committee.Election of Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch is conducted in 1st meeting of Panchayat under Chairmanship or representative of Collection.The 1st meeting is called as early as possible after election.The notice of election is given to elected members at least before three days.The names in prescribed form are accepted form are accepted before 2 hours of meeting from elected members The election is conducted by ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 ::: W.P.No.68/2013 14 open voting election method but if any member desires, the secret ballet method is may be used.Onerous responsibility have been placed upon the authorities concerned under the Rules of Election to the post of Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch of the village Panchayats.The appointments may be subject to reservation for the Post of Sarpanch and /or Deputy Sarpanch.The State Government is required under the Rules to specify by the notification in the official gazette the number of the offices of the Sarpanchas and Upa-sarpanchas kept reserved for the scheduled tribes and the Scheduled castes and for the category of the backward class of Citizens in the State of Maharashtra.1/3 of the seats is reserved for women.Hooligans whosoever they may be, can never be allowed to take control of the situation so as to override the just and fair democratic election process.We find in the facts and circumstances disclosed in the case in hand the respondent aspirant for the post of Sarpanch had made a serious grievance that he and his supporting members were prevented at the instance of the Petitioners from attending the meeting of the Gramsabha, by hooligans causing the obstructions created on their way by digging done by means of JCB machine, laying of stones, ploughs etc on the access way to the place of Gramsabha.A complaint to the police was also lodged in respect of the incident and the police who arrived on the scene had ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 ::: W.P.No.68/2013 16 reportedly fired shot in the air to disburse the mob to help restoring the normalcy in the village .The incident was reported widely by local newspapers as well as it appears so from the Newspaper cuttings annexed with the affidavit-in-reply of the respondent.1. Rule.In view of urgency pleaded made returnable and heard forthwith., In the result, for want of quorum, meeting was postponed to 18th December 2012 at about 2.00 p.m. in the noon time (vide Annexure ""C"" to the petition).Returning Officer on 17th December 2012, had received report from Ramnath Suryabhan Chinchkar, resident of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 ::: W.P.No.68/2013 4 Bedkuchiwadi, Taluka and District Beed reporting that while he along with his supporting members were coming by jeep No.MH-14-CV-8001 from Bedkuchiwadi to Babhulwadi, they were prevented by Parmeshwar Kachru Satpute and his twenty to twenty-five associates obstructing by means of J.C.B. (machine used for excavating the soil) and creating obstruction by means of placing wood, stones etc. The mob, which had collected had also pelted stones towards Police.Police had fired in the air to disburse the mob, but the mob had pelted stones towards the jeep.In the result, injuries were caused to members of the Grampanchayat namely Vandana Keshav Bhore, Champabai Karbhari More.Thus, Ramnath Suryabhan Chinchkar and members of the village panchayat were prevented from filing the nomination forms as well as attending the meeting.Considering that, under the circumstances, request from Ramnath Suryabhan Chinchkar is to be considered and inquiry is required into dispute.Thus, the incomplete election ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 ::: W.P.No.68/2013 5 process for electing Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch for Grampanchayat Bangladeshi-Bedkuchiwadi-Belwadi, Additional Collector, Beed, using his discretion, according to law decided to stay the election process.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::Thus, while petitioners prayed for declaration for their election to the post of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch, respondent No. 5 Ramnath Suryakant Chinchkar contested the petition on the ground of its maintainability in view of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as also on the ground that petitioners had suppressed the fact of their creating atmosphere of terror in the village by obstructing members of Grampanchayat to enter in the village by means of closing the way by putting J.C.B. machine and other things in the way preventing entry of respondent No.5 and his supporting members.On behalf of respondent No.5 it is contended that Rule 12 of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch) Election Rules 1964 gave ample power to the Additional Collector to stay the election process to ensure process of free and fair and equitable elections to the post of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch for Babhulwadi-Bedkuchiwadi-Belwadi group Grampanchayat and prayed for dismissal of the petition on the ground that petitioners had resorted to prohibitive acts of violence or to distort the election process, which also resulted in a complaint, lodged as F.I.R.No.1491/2012 dated ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 ::: W.P.No.68/2013 6 17.1.2012 at Pimpalner Police Station, District Beed under Section 307, 324, 341, 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 333, 337, 504, 506, 427 of I.P.C. and also under Section 3 and 7 of Representation of People::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::On behalf of State of Maharashtra, an affidavit is filed by Naib Tahsildar (Election) in the office of Naib Tahsildar, District Beed indicating that Ramnath Suryabhan Chinchkar was interested to submit nomination form but was restrained from doing so, as force was used against him.In the result, election process could not be completed due to problem of law and order, when the Police machinery had to resort to fire in the air in the interest of public security.The fact that Additional Collector, Beed was awaiting inquiry report from the Police is also disclosed in the affidavit-in-reply by Naib Tahsildar (Election).It is under these circumstances that Additional Collector, Beed resorted to emergent step to stay the election process to prevent further violence and hoodwinking in the village.Sub-Auditor Class II Officer of the Co-operative Societies (Flying Squad, Beed doing duty as Returning Officer for the election of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of Grampanchayat of Babhulwadi-Bedkuchiwadi-The fact is that the Police had to fire in the air to disburse the mob because of chaos at about 11.30 am and because of that the meeting could not be concluded on 17th December 2012 and further fact must be noted that the matter was reported to Tahsildar, who forwarded the report to Collector who in turn had to stay the proceedings of election of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of Group Grampanchayat Babhulwadi-Bedkuchiwadi-Belwadi.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::(v) Kameshwar Singh Srivastava Vs.IV Additional District Judge, Lucknow, reported in AIR 1987 S.C.138 In case of Surinder Kaur Vs."" It is her case that the 7th respondent had forcibly taken the nomination papers from her and torn them off and since her husband was already ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 ::: W.P.No.68/2013 10 under police custody at the relevant time, she was incapable of resisting the high-handed action.It is obvious that she was prevented from filing the nomination papers.Under these circumstances, she was constrained to approach the authorities.But when she did not get any tangible result, she had gone to the High Court and filed the writ petition.Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the conduct of the election in the circumstances was not valid in law.""::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::It is urged on behalf of the Petitioners that in view of Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpancha and Upa Sarpancha ) Election Rules, 1984, when only one candidate has been nominated each for the post of Sarpanch and Upa Sarpanch they must be declared duly elected in the absence of any contest.When any equality of valid votes is found to exist between any two or more candidates and the addition of one vote will entitle any of them to be declared as Sarpanch or, as the case may be, Upa-Sarpanch, the determination of the candidate to whom such additional vote shall be deemed to have been given shall be made by lot to be drawn by the Presiding Officer in such manner as he shall determine"".::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::- If for any reason (other than lack of quorum) the meeting called for the election of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch does not result in the election of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch, the Presiding Officer shall adjourn it, and hold it again for the purpose on the next day at the same place and hour.A notice of such adjournment shall be fixed on the notice-board at the office of the Panchayat.ig The business which would have been brought before the original meeting, had there been a quorum thereat, shall be brought before the adjourned meeting and may be disposed of at such meeting or at any subsequent adjournment thereof whether there be a quorum present or not.""I have perused the rulings cited in the light of submissions advanced before me.I have also perused the Bombay ( now 'Maharashtra' ) village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1984 as amended from time to time .It must be borne in mind that any Gram Panchayat function at the village level.It is the primary and important unit of local self-Gram Panchayat is expected to act as village level self- Government under the three tier system of democratic decentralization of Panchayat Raj democratic system.A Gram Panchayat is also a local self-government responsible for orderly ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 ::: W.P.No.68/2013 13 administration of the village and the agency for planning and executing the local development programs for the welfare of the people in the village or group of villages.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::27% seats are reserved for other backward class (OBC) members.In proportion of population of NT and VJ to total population the seats of the Sarpanch are reserved.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::The reservation of seats is fixed by Collector by draw method.The collector of the District is under the statutory obligation to notify the offices reserved for the Sarpanchas in the District by drawing lots according to the instructions given from the State Government from time to time.The roster of reservation for each block of five years need to be prepared.In substance the Rule have to be harmoniously read to vouchsafe that entire election process for village Panchayats in the State has to be fair, socially equitable and just according to prevalent law.The rules as to election of Sarpanch and deputy Sarpanch are enacted and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 ::: W.P.No.68/2013 15 amended from time to time in the State of Maharashtra to ensure the orderly, free and fair election process.Any candidate aspiring to be Sarpanch or Deputy Sarpanch must have due regard and respect for the well established and sound principles of the law providing for the healthy democratic way of conducting the elections and socially equitable appointments of Sarpanch at local level of village Panchayats.If any body have decided to adopt Strong arm tactics, to use influence by money or otherwise upon the members of the body and resorting to dirty village level politics of any sort, and when any such act is complained against the person concerned, it need to be inquired in to expeditiously, and recurrence thereof ought to be prevented at such important village level election.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::""243-O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters- Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution -(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243-K, shall not be called in question in any court;Therefore the objection as to maintainability of this writ Petition is sustainable .Even otherwise there is alternate remedy of appeal statutorily prescribed ,since the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector , Beed is passed under Section 33(5) of the Bombay (now 'Maharashtra') Village Panchayat Act, 1958 the decision was appealable before the commissioner.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::( A.P. BHANGALE, J.) (vvr/68.13wp) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::","['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"ORDER Tej Shankar, J.These three Revision Petitions arise out of three different cases against the present petitioner.As they raise common questions of law, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.The facts on the basis of which the petitioner has been prosecuted Under Section 3 r/w Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and violation of Section 19 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, in the aforesaid three different cases are also more or less similar.It is alleged that Raghuveer Saran Gupta non-petitioner No. 2 was proprietor of M/s Raghuveer Saran Arun Kumar, a dealer in fertilizers at Dinara (326/96) Satish Kumar Jain, non-petitioner No. 2 was proprietor of M/s Vivek Traders, a dealer of fertilizers at Pohri (327/96) Hukum Chand Nagaria.non-petitioner No. 2 was proprietor of M/s Jwala Prasad Hukum Chand, a dealer in fertilizers at Sirsaud (328/%).There was a stock of Vishwas Brand Single Super Phosphate (In short SSP) with the said proprietors and sample was taken on different dates in the aforesaid three cases and it was sent to the fertilizer analyst for examination.A report dated 4-9-1995 was received and according to the report sample was found Sub-standard to the extent mentioned in the report.In all the three cases it was mentioned in the report that the fertilizer was purchased from the firms mentioned therein.The allegation made against the petitioner was that he was the manufacturer of Vishwas Brand Single Super Phosphate (SSP) which was a company known as Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. Jhansi (U. P.).The petitioner claimed that there was, however, no mention of the procedure adopted by the complainant in taking sample.There was no allegation about the business relationship between the said firms and the petitioner.The said firms are not agent of the petitioner.The shops from which the sample was received did not belong to Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. Jhansi (U.P.) Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. had no sale depot in M.P. or at Shivpuri.There is no allegation in the F. I. R. that the sample was taken from the bags which were owned by M/s Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. even if it was found that the fertilizer in question was the same which was manufactured by M/s Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd., Jhansi (U.P.).There was no allegation to support the allegation that sample was taken from the bags which were in the ownership of the M/s Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. There is also nothing to show that the said firms had obtained any warranty from M/s Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. or that the goods were kept intact in the same condition in which they were purchased.Procedure for taking sample had been laid down in Schedule-II of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and the provisions are mandatory.Nothing has been shown that the procedure was actually followed.Unless it is specifically alleged that the petitioner was the owner he could not be proceeded with under the Essential Commodities Act. There could not be a joint trial under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act of the alleged manufacturer or vendor or distributor.They can only be tried if allegations are made that they have connecting links between them so as to constitute the same transaction.Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length that the revision petition lies.In support of his contentions he placed reliance upon certain authorities.The Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, accepted the final report and set the appellants at liberty.The complainant preferred a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal against the order of the Judicial Magistrate which was dismissed.The informant thereafter filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate against the 11 accused persons including the appellants.After examining the complaint and going through the record learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint as he was satisfied that no case was made out against the appellants.Again a revision was preferred and it was allowed and the case was remanded for further enquiry.The learned Judicial Magistrate thereafter issued summons to the appellants straightway.The appellants then moved before High Court Under Section 482 and Section 397 of the 1973 Code for quashing the order of the Judicial Magistrate.The statements had been published in newspapers.The Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra was examined as a witness in the Court of Sessions to prove the sanction order.An application was moved by the appellant before learned Sessions Judge for rejecting the complaint on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.The appellant raised three contentions before the learned Sessions Judge regarding the legality of the trial and all the contentions were rejected by learned Sessions Judge.He framed a charge against the appellant Under Section 500 of Penal Code.A revision petition was filed before the High Court challenging the order of the Sessions Judge.A preliminary objection was raised about the maintainability of the revision petition which was upheld.Aggrieved party approached the Apex Court.The revision application challenging an order framing charge was maintainable.",['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Shri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard and perused the case diary.The applicant has filed this second application u/S 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.His first application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 08.02.2019 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Dimni, District Morena in connection with Crime No.185/2018 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/S 306/34 of IPC.It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant is 2 innocent, who has no criminal past.It is also submitted that the incident was occurred on 10.09.2018 and after a long time on 21.10.2018, first time the evidence was recorded by police and he has been falsely implicated in the crime, hence prayed for grant of regular bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State as well as counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.",['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
"On 3.10.1987 Indel and Basanta took Jagdish and his driver Pappu alongwith the said tractor, but on 13.10.1987 when Jagdish did not return back, then his brother Ramesh (PW-2) searched for him at Gohad and other places and thereafter lodged a report at police Station, Madhoganj.In this report, it is mentioned that accused Indel Singh has been caught by police Station, Malpura, Distt.Agra (UP) and his brother Jagdish alongwith driver Pappu had gone with him for cultivation and they have not returned, therefore, he has an apprehension that Indel and Basanta have committed some offence with his brother giving details of the clothes which were worn by Jagdish and Guddu at the time of leaving their 3 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 home.During investigation, it is revealed that Jagdish and Guddu were taken by Indel and Basanta with a view to kill them and Indel and Basanta in criminal conspiracy with Rambabu and Babukhan looted tractor from Jagdish and Guddu inasmuch as said tractor was recovered by police Station, Malpura, Distt.These hairs could be a vital link to ascertain the identity of the deceased.They were also not produced before the Court.Another link which has not been carefully examined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is the evidence of Laxmibai (PW-3) who has admitted in para 12 of her cross- examination that the day Agra police had visited, on the same day skeletons of her husband and Guddu alongwith clothes were recovered by them from Kanipura close to Gohad.This admission of Laxmibai makes the whole prosecution story and recovery on 22.10.87 vide Ex.P/6, Ex.P/7, Ex.P/8, Ex.P/9, Ex.P/10 and Naksha Pachayatnama Ex.P/5 and Ex.P/11 doubtful as none of them have been prepared by Agra police but have been prepared by Mahoganj police leaving a void in 22 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 the chain of circumstances.Another missing link in the chain of circumstances is lodging of missing person report by Ramesh (PW-2) after admitting this fact that Agra police had visited him and his sister-in-law Laxmibai on 13.10.87 alongwith Indel and informed him about confession of Indel that he has killed his brother and driver and thrown the remnant in a canal at Dang Birkhari, yet missing person report was lodged and not a report of murder in the hands of Indel.(Delivered on this 24th day of July, 2019) Per Justice Vivek Agarwal :This appeal has been filed by appellant Indel Singh @ Udai Singh son of Badam Singh being aggrieved by judgment dated 28.7.2000 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Sessions Trial No.117/88, whereby appellant has been convicted under Sections 120-B, 302 and 394 of IPC and sentenced to five years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- and ten years RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- respectively.The appellant was charged for committing murder of 2 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 Jagdish and Guddu with a view to loot their tractor alongwith co-accused Basanta and Rambabu.Co-accused Babu Khan, who was tried alongwith the appellant, was charged under Section 411 of IPC for receiving the looted property knowingly.Prosecution story, in short, is that on 3.10.1987 Indel alongwith co-accused Basanta visited Jagdish asking him to cultivate his fields with his tractor and cultivator as Jagdish was having a tractor bearing registration No.MP W 4653 which he was using to cultivate fields of different persons on remuneration.Agra from Indel Singh and Babu Khan, as a result of which initially case was registered under Section 364, 392 and 120-B of IPC at Crime No.441/87 by police Station, Madhoganj, on 16.10.1987, as is evident from FIR, Ex.It has also come on record that in the memorandum Ex.P/1 recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, Indel Singh has admitted committing such crime.It is also a matter of record that Babu Khan has been acquitted of the charges under Section 411 of IPC on the ground that in prosecution evidence there is no material to show that Babu Khan had either purchased tractor bearing registration No. MP W 4653 or any part of such tractor.From the record, it is also evident that police has not taken any steps to either arrest Basanta and Rambabu.After preparing a Farari Panchnama on 27.10.87, 4 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 no steps were taken to declare them absconding inasmuch as no proceedings were undertaken under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is purely a case of circumstantial evidence based on the doctrine of last seen and recovery of clothes of the deceased plus broken pieces of the bone and an axe at the instance of Indel Singh.It is submitted that Laxmi Bai (P.W.3) is the widow of deceased Jagdish, who has identified the clothes of the deceased and is a witness of T.I.P., but there are several loopholes in such identification and TIP rendering them inadmissible, and therefore, it is apparent that theory of last seen too has been developed subsequently so to falsely implicate present appellant Indel Singh.It is also submitted that in case diary statement (Ex.D/2), Ramesh Kumar (P.W.2) has categorically admitted that his brother Jagdish was knowing Basanta and Indel Singh from a previous date inasmuch as Babulal Sharma resident of Girwai had recommended that Basanta is his relative and shall not commit any dishonesty in paying the money for cultivation.It is also submitted that this Babulal Sharma has not been examined by the prosecution though he is an important witness on whose recommendation tractor was sent for cultivation as he had 5 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 made a recommendation in favour of Basanta.It is also submitted that though Babulal Sharma son of Jagannath Prasad has been cited as a witness by the prosecution, but he was not examined before the Court and such non-examination of an important prosecution witness is fatal to the prosecution story.Agra Police reached their home on 13.10.1987 alongwith Indel Singh and asked them as to the name of their brother and his whereabouts.His sister-in-law Laxmi Bai (P.W.3) also identified Indel Singh and Agra Police had informed them that Indel Singh was caught selling his tractor and further informed that as per the statements of Indel Singh he killed his brother and driver and had thrown their dead-bodies in a canal at Dang Birkhari.It is submitted that this witness has also deposed that he visited Dang Birkhari canal alongwith Agra Police accompanied with his neighbour Thakur Singh, but on investigation, it was revealed that no such incident had taken place in that locality, then Agra Police had taken back Indel Singh.It is also pointed out that thereafter Ramesh (P.W.2) 6 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 lodged missing person report at Police Station Madhoganj.It is submitted that when Agra Police had already informed him about killing of his brother and driver, then there was no occasion for lodging a missing person report with Madhoganj Police after his meeting with Agra Police and Indel Singh.It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that Ramesh (P.W.2) in para 13 of his cross-examination has admitted that Agra Police had interrogated him and obtained his signatures on certain documentation which was carried out by Agra Police both at his residence and at Agra and thereafter, tractor was handed over to him in his custody, but also admitted that such tractor was not registered in his name and further admitted in para 13 of his cross-examination itself that tractor is not available on the date of giving statement.It is further submitted that this witness in para 17 has admitted that when he visited Madhoganj Police Station he was knowing that his brother is dead.Reading such evidence of Ramesh (P.W.2), it is submitted that when tractor was not registered in the name of Ramesh, then it could not have been given in custody to this witness.Secondly, if tractor was obtained by Ramesh (P.W.2) on Supurdiginama, then he was required to preserve such tractor as it was a vital piece of 7 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 evidence in the chain of evidence, specially in a case based on circumstantial evidence.It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that Ramesh (P.W.2) has admitted in para 14 of his cross- examination that Madhoganj Police had not obtained any of his statement when report was lodged with them.He also admitted in para 15 that he had informed Madhoganj Police that Agra Police had brought Indel Singh to his house and then they visited Dang Birkhari alongwith Agra Police when Agra Police had informed that Indel Singh has confessed to them that he has killed his brother and driver.P/18 and they have been improvised subsequently in Court statements.It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that testimony of Ramesh (PW-2) and Laxmi (PW-3) in regard to identification of Indel Singh is doubtful except that they had seen Indel Singh when Agra police had brought him to their residence on 13.10.1987 inasmuch as, as per prosecution story Indel Singh and Basanta had taken their tractor, but though these witnesses have given graphic account of Indel Singh's appearance, but Ramesh (PW-2) in para 18 of his cross-examination admitted that he cannot give details 8 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 (Huliya) of Basanta.If Basanta and Indel Singh are to be implicated on the basis of theory of last seen, then this witness would have given details of Basanta with equal firmness and this omission is a major omission which has not been adverted to by the learned trial Court.It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that Laxmi (PW-3) has admitted that her husband was taken to cultivate about 150 Beegha of land.Rate of cultivation was fixed at Rs.25/- per Beegha.150 Beegha roughly translates into 90 acres of land and during season of cultivation it takes about 45 hours to cultivate such land which roughly translates into 4-5 days looking to the fact that those who are aware of farming practices are aware that about 2 acres of land is cultivated in an hour and usually cultivators work for 8-10 hours a day and at this rate there was no occasion for the complainant party to wait for 10-12 days for the return of their near dears.It is submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated.It is submitted that as per Laxmi (PW-3) deceased was wearing a white shirt with some lining and a Khaki coloured pant with a watch in his hand.It is submitted that the clothes which have been recovered by the police at the instance of Indel Singh vide seizure memo Ex.P/9 contain a 9 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 white Bushirt with squares and not the lines which was containing spots of diesel.It is submitted that description of this shirt is different from the one given by Laxmi (PW-3).It is also submitted that admittedly Laxmi had seen Indel Singh on 13.10.1987 when Agra Police had brought him to their house, therefore, identification parade carried out vide Ex.P/3 loses its sanctity as prosecution had already shown Indel Singh to prosecution witnesses Ramesh (PW-2) and Laxmi (PW-3) at their residence.It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant was brought from Agra jail on 20.10.87 from where he was formally arrested, but such witnesses of formal arrest, namely, Indrapal Singh and Babu have not been examined by the prosecution in support of such formal arrest.It is also submitted that prosecution has not bothered to produce any DNA report to connect recovered pieces of dead- body to deceased Jagdish and Gudda.It is submitted that Ex.P/26, which is a report from the department of Anatomy, G.R. Medical College, Gwalior, to Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, clearly makes a mention that sex cannot be determined for material A, whereas in regard to material D, it is mentioned that it was a male body aged 30 to 50 years.Material E is a body of a male aged 21 to 30-40 years.It 10 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 contains mark of injury on left temporal bone by a blunt object.There was a recommendation to send the case to the Institute of Forensic Medicine, M.G. Medical College, Bhopal, for determination of skin and hair, but there is no report from Institute of Forensic Medicine on record.It is submitted that in fact bodies were sent in five parts and in memo Ex.P/21, age of Jagdish has been shown to be 30 years, whereas that of Guddu to be 18 years.P/26 age of material D, which is allegedly part of body of Jagdish, has been shown to be 30 to 50 years, whereas age of part E which is allegedly head of dead-body of Guddu has been shown to be 21 to 30-40 years.It is submitted that when this memo Ex.P/26 is taken into consideration in the light of evidence given by Dr. O.N.Khare (PW-13), then it becomes evident that in para 4 of cross-examination, this witness has admitted that minimum age given by him could not have been breached and age of such person cannot be below such minimum age mentioned in his report.In view of such facts, it is submitted that identification of deceased Jagdish and Guddu cannot be said to be complete on the basis of such report and evidence of Dr. O.N.Khare (PW-13).It is also submitted that Dr. O.N.Khare has admitted that he had not received all the 11 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 bones of a human body, and therefore, in absence of any forensic report like DNA report to corroborate that bodies recovered were that of Jagdish and Guddu only, no conclusive evidence can be gathered as to death of Jagdish and Guddu.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that seizure was not properly made at the time of recovery of dead-bodies.According to Naksha Pachayatnama (Ex.P/5), death was caused with an axe and gunshot, but factum of gunshot has not been corroborated by Dr. O.N.Khare (PW-13).There is no recovery of gun.It is also submitted that as per FSL report, blood stains were found on the axe recovered from an open space as is evident from Ex.Such recovery of an axe from an open place makes recovery doubtful and also creates doubt that how blood stains could have remained clinging to the axe after several days of the incident inasmuch as it has come on record that body which was recovered was found to be about 20 days old (please refer to Ex.P/10, Fard Japti).12 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 Recovery was made on 22.10.87, whereas deceased had allegedly left their home on 3.10.87 and this causes doubt as to the prosecution story.It is also submitted that none of the relatives of deceased Guddu have been examined in the matter so to seek his identification and even Supurdginama of tractor is not on record.Learned Additional Sessions Judge has also recorded a finding that after getting information about seizure of tractor from accused Indel, since Jagdish and Guddu had gone with Indel for cultivation work, missing person report was lodged by 16 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 police Station, Madhoganj, after which accused Indel was arrested and then on the information of Indel dead-bodies of Jagdish and Guddu were recovered.Such memorandum (Ex.P/1) has been relied by the learned trial Court.In para 25 to connect such recovery of dead-bodies and clothes at the instance of Indel Singh, it has been referred to that vide seizure memo Ex.In Ex.Thereafter, there are reports about material D and material E which leads to a doubt as to whether there were bodies of more than two persons, two persons or less number of persons.As far as determination of age is concerned, as per Parikh's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, III Edition 1979 revised reprint 1981, on identification of mutilated bodies, fragmentary remains and mass disasters mentions that a description of colour, length and waviness of hairs offers useful contributory evidence in identification.In the present case, though Ex.No cause has been ascribed to such bruising; it was 21 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 due to animals drifting the body or otherwise.In fact, there is mention of injury to the right and left halves of mandible by sharp weapon, but it has not been mentioned that how such finding has been recorded, specifically when the lower part of the mandible was absent.Yet another missing link is handing over of the tractor in Supurdgi (custody) to Ramesh (PW-2) despite the fact that he was not the owner of said tractor.Another lacuna is that information of incident was recorded on 22.10.87 vide Ex.P/19, whereas FIR (Ex.P/18) was recorded on 16.10.87 under Sections 394, 392, 120-B of IPC while both Ramesh (PW-2) and Laxmibai (PW-3) have admitted of having knowledge of death of Jagdish and Guddu on 13.10.87 itself when Agra police had visited them.As per prosecution in the TIP (Ex.P/3) which was conducted on 29.10.87 Laxmibai had identified Indel.This TIP was carried out at police Station, Madhoganj, whereas in para 9 of her testimony, Laxmibai has admitted that she had not met Indel at jail.She had seen Indel in a garden alongwith 23 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 Agra police and then she met Indel in the Court and had not met him anywhere else.Therefore, TIP carried out in jail or police Station becomes doubtful because this witness (PW-3) has admitted in para 9 of her cross-examination that she had not met Indel in the jail/police station.This very witness has admitted in para 11 that the day Agra police had arrived at their place, she learnt about death of her husband and driver.She again admitted in para 11 itself that she had no doubt as to the factum of death of her husband and driver after meeting with Agra police.In para 12, she has admitted that she had no talks with accused Basanta and Indel.Another missing link in the chain of circumstances is that Ramesh (PW-2), who had seen Indel alongwith Agra police, has given a graphic account of his personality, but allegation on Indel is that he after hiring tractor alongwith Basanta, had taken it alongwith Jagdish and Guddu, but this witness has not given any details of Basanta and has expressed his ignorance about the physical parameters of Basanta.This causes serious dent to the prosecution story of last seen inasmuch as if Basanta and Indel had taken the tractor together and they were constantly seen by Ramesh (PW2), Laxmibai (PW-3) and Pappu @ Umesh (PW-4) coming to their house 24 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 prior to 3-10 days of hiring of tractor and they had offered them tea etc., then nothing prevented them from giving physical parameters of Basanta.This leaves sufficient room for doubt as to the identity of Indel as the person who was seen last by the prosecution witnesses in the company of deceased Jagdish and Guddu.Another missing link is of non-examination of Babulal.In his case diary statement Ramesh (PW-2) has admitted that it was on the recommendation of Babulal that Basanta was known to him and Basanta shall not misappropriate the labour charges, the tractor was taken by Jagdish and Guddu allegedly alongwith Indel and Basanta, but even when police had declared Basanta and Rambabu as absconding, yet no steps were taken to record statements of Babulal and even no steps were taken to obtain a proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. in regard to Basanta.This leads to a possibility that in fact it was Basanta, who was known to deceased Jagdish, had taken tractor and Indel may be a purchaser of such tractor alongwith Babukhan, who has been exonerated by the Court, but since Indel was caught with the tractor and brought by Agra police, therefore, theory of last seen has been developed so to complete investigation and take credit for bringing the 25 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 accused to the books.Another missing link is that prosecution has neither produced the engine number or chasis number of the tractor which was allegedly in possession of Jagdish, nor bothered to corroborate such details of the tractor found to be in possession of Indel.He has admitted that Rs.400/- were still outstanding towards Jagdish and tractor was not transferred in the name of Jagdish and was still registered in the name of Ramswaroop.He has also admitted that he had not given any transfer paper to Jagdish.In cross- examination, this witness has admitted that police had not taken any statement from him after death of Jagdish in relation to tractor.He also admits that he had not made any documentation in regard to sell of Harrow Thresher and Trolley.This statement of Ramswaroop makes the prosecution more vulnerable, specially when as per the settled law as per the provisions contained in Chapter XXIV of Cr.P.C. in regard to disposal of property, it is the criminal Court alone which 26 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 can make an order during any enquiry or trial handing over the proper custody of the property pending conclusion of enquiry or trial.But there is no such order of handing over of the custody by the concerned Magistrate on record.Besides this, there is an admission of Ramesh (PW-2) of disposal of such property.In fact, such property could have been handed over only to registered owner of such property and not to Ramesh, and therefore, whole story of Indel taking such tractor alongwith cultivator on hire becomes doubtful.Another circumstance which has not been taken into consideration by learned Additional Sessions Judge is non- recording of statement of Thakur Singh (PW-7) who has admitted that he had informed TI Madhoganj that he alongwith Ramesh had gone with Agra police upto Gohad Chauraha in search of the deceased.This statement has not been controverted and when such statement is examined in the light of the statement given by Laxmibai (PW-3) that skeletons were recovered by Agra police from Kanipura, Gohad, non recording of statement of this witness and denying opportunity to the defence to confront him with such statement of the Town Inspector Hakim Singh (PW-11) leaves a vacuum in the story of prosecution.27 Criminal Appeal No.573/00Another lacuna is that this witness (PW-7) has admitted that when he had signed Panchnamas, at that time he is not in a position to explain whether another witness of Panchnam had signed or not and then further admitted that at the time of putting his signatures on such Panchnamas, signatures of Shrilal were not present and then further admitted in para 14 of his cross-examination that Shrilal had not signed on such Panchnamas in front of him.When this statement is seen in the light of evidence of Laxmibai (PW-3) that skeletons were recovered by Agra police, Shrilal has not been examined as a prosecution witness but as defence witness and has not supported prosecution story, authenticity and genuineness of such Panchnamas becomes doubtful.Another missing link is non-examination of any of the relatives of deceased Guddu in regard to identification of his clothes and dead-body.Testimony of Kanhaiyalal (PW-9) in regard to last seen is also doubtful.He deposed that he has a scooter repairing shop at Phoolbagh Gurudwara.He further deposed that he is also involved in the work of tractor repairing.He is a resident of Girwai close to the house of deceased Jagdish.He has given his deposition in abstract terms without giving any details.He has only deposed that at 28 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 that time at about 12 he was standing at Chandravadni Naka when Jagdish stopped after witnessing him standing there.Guddu, Basanta and Indel were with him.This witness has submitted that thereafter Jagdish had gone on Dabra road, then he gathered information that Jagdish and Guddu have been murdered.This witness has admitted that he is neighbour of Jagdish.Witness of seizure Thakur Prasad and deceased Guddu are of his community.Guddu has been shown to be a scooter mechanic who was working at a scooter agency of one Mr. Bali.Though this witness has denied the suggestion that Guddu Kushwaha was his close relative, but has admitted that he had gone to purchase spare parts of Jeter tractor at the agency of Sancheti.He has further admitted that such spare parts are available in close proximity of his shop at Phoolbagh and all the mechanics and spare part sellers close to his shop are known to him.He also admits in para 6 that he was not knowing Basanta, Indel or Babu prior to the date of incident.He admits that Jagdish had given names of these three persons to him at Jhansi road square.This is contrary to his statements given in examination-in-chief.It is also an admitted position as per his examination-in-chief that only Guddu, Basanta and Indel were the persons whom he met, and therefore, his 29 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 admission in para 6 that name of Babukhan was given to him by Jagdish is a major contradiction inasmuch as Babu Khan was not admittedly present, and therefore, there was no occasion for Jagdish to have given name of Babu Khan.This when read in conjunction with the fact that Guddu and Thakur Prasad, witnesses of seizure are his relative and he is neighbour of Jagdish, leaves sufficient doubt as to how he has been roped in by the prosecution to fill in the lacuna in the testimony of Ramesh (PW-2) and Laxmibai (PW-3) so to complete the chain of last seen.Testimony of this witness does not inspire confidence as to the theory of last seen.Hakim Singh (PW-11), who has been wrongly shown as PW-11 inasmuch as one Narayan Singh has also been shown as PW-11 so also Hakim Singh by the trial Court which recorded the evidence.Narayan Singh has admitted that no seizure of any tractor or its parts was made in front of him by the police at village Dhanoli under Malpura police Station.He refused to identify the accused person.He refused to testify arrest of Indel by Daroga and also denied that Indel had given any confessional statement as to theft of tractor.He has denied that two persons had absconded from the place from where tractor was seized.Therefore, seizure of tractor could also not 30 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 be proved by the prosecution.Evidence of Hakim Singh (PW-11) to the effect that dead-bodies of Jagdish and Guddu were excavated from under the stones in the jungle of Udaukho is not supported by statements of Laxmibai (PW-3), who has admitted that Agra police had already recovered skeletons.Seizure memos are doubtful as per the testimony of Thakur Singh who has admitted that another witness of seizure had not signed seizure memo in front of him and even his signatures were not present at the time of his signing such seizure memos.Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of dead-bodies and cause of death.","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"acquitted for charges pertaining to offences under Sections 504, 324, 323/34 and 506-B of IPC.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record.In para 13 of the impugned judgment, the learned trial Magistrate has adverted to serious anomalies found in the evidence of Balwant Singh (PW.1) and Sohan Singh (PW.2), who are said to be injured persons.The FIR (Ex. P/1) has been lodged by Balwant Singh (PW.1), wherein it has been stated that the incident took place at 6:00 am in the morning, in which he himself as well as Sohansingh (PW.2) and Gulabsingh (PW.4) sustained bodily injuries.On the contrary Sohan Singh (PW.2) says that the incident took place in the evening and he did not accompany Balwant Singh (PW.1) to the field in the morning.Further, it is noticeable that as per version given by Balwant Singh (PW.1) a mason and some labourer were also present at the alleged time of incident i.e. 6:00am.However, the learned Magistrate has disbelieved it on the ground that ordinarily mason and labourer will not go to work at 6:00 pm in the morning.Learned Magistrate has also noticed that one of the witnesses J.C. Malviya (PW.7) has stated that the incident took place at around 9:00 am while as per Balwant Singh (PW.1) the incident took place at 6:00 am.Thus the three witness namely Balwant Singh (PW.1), Sohan Singh (PW.2) and JC Malviya (PW.7) have stated different timing regarding the incident, which is not reconcilable.Apart this, no independent witness has been examined, though it is stated that a mason and some labourer were present at the time of alleged incident.","['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Mr.S.V.Marwadi with Mr.Kartik Garg, Advocate for the Appellant Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP for the Respondent/State.This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 19/12/1997 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar convicting the appellant, who was the accused No. 2 in Sessions Case No.271 of 1996 (Original Sessions Case No.407 of 1991) of an offence punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code (In short 'IPC') and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months.There was one more Gaikwad RD 1/8 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::18.APEALNo.7941997(J) accused: viz:- Ramesh Pathak (accused No.1) in the said case, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted him.The appellant and the said accused No.1 were also charged of having committed an offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC, but were acquitted of the said charge.I have heard Mr.S.V.Marwadi the learned counsel for the appellant.I have heard Mrs..A.A.Mane, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the entire evidence adduced during the trial and I have gone through the impugned Judgment.The prosecution case, as put forth before the trial Court was to the effect that the First Informant Smt.Sheela was running a shop in the name and style of, 'Prabha General Stores'.One Tanaji Patil and one Bhaskar Sutar (PW5) were working in the said shop as servants.On 28/09/1990, when Sheela and her associate Avinash (PW2) were not in the shop, the appellant and the accused No.1 Ramesh came along with 10 to 11 persons, drove Tanaji and Bhaskar, who were in the shop, out, removed certain goods from the shop and took forcible possession of the shop by locking the same from outside.When Tanaji reported the matter to Sheela, she lodged a Report with the police on the basis of which a case in respect of offences punishable under Section 395 of the IPC and Section 452 of the IPC came to be recorded.::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::The prosecution examined six witnesses during the trial.The first witness is Sheela herself.The second witness is her associate Avinash.The third witness Prabhakar and the fourth witness Ajij are panchas in respect of the spot panchanama.None of them supported the case of the prosecution.Even otherwise, their evidence is not very relevant in the context of the facts of the prosecution case and the admitted position.The fifth witness is Bhaskar who, as aforesaid, was at the material time working in the shop of Sheela as a servant.He is the only person, who witnessed the actual incident and who speaks about it.The sixth witness is Dinkar Bagal, Sub-Inspector of Police, who was attached to Boisar Police Station, at the material time, and who has investigated into the alleged offences.It is clear that Bhaskar (PW5) is the only witness in respect of the alleged incident and, therefore, his evidence assumes importance.The other person - who was said to be present in the shop - Tanaji could not be examined during trial, because he had passed away.Bhaskar states that on the particular day, the appellant and others came to the shop and directed Bhaskar and Tanaji, who were present there, to leave the shop.Though Bhaskar and Tanaji were not ready to go out of the shop, the appellant drove them out of the shop.The appellant and the persons, who had come with Gaikwad RD 3/8 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::18.APEALNo.7941997(J) him, removed articles from the shop and then locked the door of the shop from outside.Bhaskar then went to Sheela and reported to her about the incident.There is a bald assertion made by the prosecution that some articles from the shop were removed, but this assertion has rightly not been believed by the learned trial Judge.Bhaskar has not specified in his evidence what were the articles, which were allegedly removed.Dinkar Bagal, Investigating Officer has admitted in his evidence that no articles were actually recovered in the course of investigation from the appellant, or the other accused.::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::(i) with intent to commit an offence;There was no other object behind such entry.It is significant that in its application to State of Orissa and State of Uttar Pradesh, Section 441 of the IPC has been amended, so as to include entry into, or remaining upon any property for the purpose of taking unauthorized possession of such property, as an ingredient of the Gaikwad RD 6/8 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::The Additional Sessions Judge did not consider, while holding the appellant guilty, as to what were the ingredients of an offence of 'criminal trespass' and 'house trespass'.He just assumed Gaikwad RD 7/8 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::18.APEALNo.7941997(J) that once the entry in the premises is proved, it would automatically amount 'house trespass'.This view was clearly contrary to law.In view of the fact that the prosecution case - as believed by the trial Court - even if accepted in its entirety does not show that any offence punishable under Section 452 of the IPC was committed by the appellant, it is not necessary to discuss the reliability of the evidence that was adduced during the trial to establish its case.The impugned Judgment being contrary to law, needs to be set aside.The appeal is allowed.The impugned Judgment and Order of conviction is set aside.The appellant stands acquitted.Fine, if paid, be refunded.Appeal is disposed of accordingly.::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::","['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"During the suspension period the petitioner was served with a chargesheet dated 30.08.1995 under Clause 15(2) of the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952, read with Section 4(e) of the Delhi Road Transport Laws (Amendment) Act. The allegation against the petitioner was that he did not intimate about the above said case and his arrest to his department.Vide order dated 17.02.2003 issued by Manager (P & A) the petitioner was released from suspension and was ordered to be taken back on duty w.e.f. 18.02.2003, pending inquiry into the case.The petitioner was served with another memo dated 10.03.2003 whereby he was called upon to show cause as to why the penalty of 'censure' be not imposed upon him.The petitioner vide his explanation dated 13.03.2003 explained that his delay in informing the office regarding the arrest was not intentional but beyond his control as he was handicapped due to police custody and there was not even a single member of his family who could have informed the office as all of them were in jail.Vide impugned order dated 18.03.2003 the punishment of 'censure' was imposed upon the petitioner and it was further ordered that ""the subsistence allowance which had already been paid to him for the period he remained under suspension is considered adequate"", meaning thereby, that the remaining pay and allowances stood forfeited.The review petition was also dismissed.Consequently, the present writ petition was filed wherein it was prayed that writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 18.03.2003 passed by the respondent forfeiting his residue pay and allowances for the period of suspension w.e.f. 19.03.1995 to 18.02.2003 kindly be issued.It was further prayed that interest be also granted.I have heard the counsel for the parties.He urged that it was incumbent upon the respondent to give him reasonable opportunity to show cause as to why the above said portion of salary and other allowances should not be paid to him.In order to bring his point home, he has cited following authorities.(11) The appeal is allowed and the High Court's order is set aside.The competent authority is directed to consider the question de novo after giving to the appellant a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed against him.The respondent will pay to the appellant costs of this appeal as also the costs of the petition in the High Court.It must be borne in mind that vide order dated 18.03.2003 the punishment of censure was imposed upon the petitioner.It has not been called into question in these proceedings.It has attained finality.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"At that time applicants were taking their bullock cart through his field which was objected by the complainant Ramsingh at which all of a sudden applicant No. 1 Harisingh taken out a Spear (Ballam) from the bullock cart and dealt a blow, causing injury at the wrist of right hand.The complainant tried to run away towards his house but he was assaulted by the applicants by lathi.The matter was reported in the Police Station by the complainant.In medical examination by Dr. R. Kumar (P.W. 5), injuries were found on the person of the complainant Ramsingh out of which injury No. 1, incised wound on the left forearm and injury No. 3 on right thumb and index finger were caused by sharp edged weapon and rest injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.JUDGMENT S.L. Kochar, J.This revision has been preferred by the applicants against the judgment dated 18-6-2004 passed by II Addl.Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Narsinghgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2003 arising out of Criminal Case No. 370/2000, judgment dated 28-11-2002 passed by learned JMFC, Narsinghgarh, whereby affirmed the conviction of the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 326, 326/34 of IPC but modified the sentence.Instead of three years R.I. with fine of Rs. 750/- the applicant No. 1 Harisingh has been sentenced to R.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 750/- and applicants No. 2 Hanumantsingh, No. 3 Indarsingh and No. 4 Jagdishsingh have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 750/- each under Section 326/34 of IPC.The learned Counsel for applicants Shri Mayank Upadhyaya, has submitted that prior to filing application for grant of permission to compound the offence, the complainant Ramsingh who is present today before this Court had also filed an application dated 10-5-2003 for grant of permission to compound the offences before the learned Lower Appellate Court.This application is available in the record and this Court has perused the same.Looking to these facts, there is no doubt that the complainant Ramsingh s/o Dayaram has amicably settled the dispute between the applicants and also filed application for grant of permission to compound the offences before this Court also.In brief the prosecution case before the Trial Court was that on 9-10-2000 at 5.00 p.m., complainant Ramsingh was going to his house from his field.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the learned Trial Court framed the charges against applicant No. 1 Harisingh under Section 326 and against No. 2 Hanumantsingh, No. 3 Indarsingh and No. 4 Jagdishsingh under Section 326/34 of IPC because the complainant had fracture of left ulna, metacarpal bone and right febula bone underneath the incised injury.The applicants denied the charges before the Trial Court.Therefore, put on trial.The learned Trial Court, after examining the prosecution and defence witnesses and hearing them, convicted the applicants as mentioned above against which they went up in appeal and the Lower Appellate Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence as indicated above.The application filed by the complainant for compounding the offence was dismissed because the offence was not compoundable.The contention of the learned Counsel for applicants is that the conviction of applicants No. 2 Hanumantsingh, No. 3 Indarsingh and No. 4 Jagdishsingh with the help of Section 34 of IPC is not tenable because at the time of causing of injury by sharp side of Spear (Ballam), they were not present.They reached later on and joined the applicant No. 1 Harisingh and thereafter all had caused injuries by lathi and all those injuries are simple in nature.Having heard the learned Counsel for parties and after perusing the entire record, there is substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for applicants regarding conviction of applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC.There is no evidence on record that there was pre-meeting of mind, premeditation and pre-plan between the applicants for causing grievous injuries to the complainant by sharp edged weapons.According to the prosecution case itself the incident had occurred all of a sudden when the applicant No. 1 Harisingh was taking his bullock cart through the field of the complainant.At that time, applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were not present.At the time of causing of the injury by Spear (Ballam), the applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were not present.Therefore, for the act of applicant No. 1 Harisingh, causing grievous injuries by Spear (Ballam), applicants No. 2 Hanumantsingh, No. 3 Indarsingh and No. 4 Jagdishsingh could not be held liable.Therefore, the conviction of the applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is hereby set aside instead thereof they are convicted under Section 323, IPC.The learned Counsel filed application for compounding the offence and the complainant Ramsingh is also present before this Court.The complainant has submitted that he has compounded the offence without any threat, inducement or promise.He has also submitted that in the Lower Appellate Court he had filed an application for compounding the offence.According to him, he and the- applicants are residents of same village and now they want to maintain peace and harmony.The application for compounding the offence filed by the complainant so far as the applicants No. 2 Hanumantsingh, No. 3 Indarsingh and No. 4 Jagdishsingh are concerned, is allowed.The fine amount, if deposited by them before the Trial Court, be refunded to them.The application for compounding the offence filed by the complainant so far as applicant No. 1 Harisingh is concerned, the same is refused because the offence under Section 326, IPC is not compoundable.The conviction of the applicant No. 1 Harisingh is maintained under Section 326 of the IPC, but in view of the compromise arrived at by the parties, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand).In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo R.I. for six months.The revision is allowed in part in the terms as indicated above.","['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"She, her son Ajay Choudhary along with Dinesh were watching television.Deepak was known to the deceased and her two sons as he was their neighbour, residing in the same street.It was alleged that Ajay, Dinesh and Beermati were laughing, upon which Deepak got enraged and called Ajay outside asking him the reason for their laughter.It was alleged that Deepak held Ajay by the neck, when he (Ajay) stated that the three were laughing over something that was being screened on TV.Deepak is alleged to have abused Ajay and told him that they were laughing and mocking him and that they were lying to him; it was alleged that he told Ajay ""saale mujh par haste ho, mera mazak udate ho aur jhoot bolte ho"".The Injury was antemortem, caused by sharp edged cutting stabing weapon and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature Blouse showd a cut mark corresponding to external injury.The post mortem report No. 457/95 was prepared by me, i.e. in my own hand writing bears my signatures at point A. the same is exhibited PW.12/A.Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP.The appellant (hereafter called ""Deepak"") impugns the judgment and order dated 13.01.1998 in S.C. No. 414/1995 whereby he was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of ` 1000/- and in default further R.I. for one month.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge also convicted Deepak for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay ` 500/- as fine, in default of which he was to undergo R.I. for a period of 15 days.A CRL.A. 45/1998 Page 1 similar sentence was imposed, after conviction was recorded under Section 450 IPC.The prosecution case was that on 19.07.1995, Deepak, in a stabbing incident, had attacked one Beermati with a knife and also stabbed Dinesh.He slapped Ajay 3/4 times.At that time, Ajay's brother Dinesh came out and separated the two.Deepak allegedly left towards his house stating that he (Ajay) had been rescued but that he would not be left alive in future; the prosecution alleged that the actual words used were ""ab to bach gaya hai, ise zinda nahi chodoonga"".It was alleged that thereafter Ajay and Dinesh went inside their house.About 3/4 minutes later, Deepak came back with a knife in his hand.At that time Beermati was near the entrance of her house and on seeing Deepak armed with a knife, she asked him to stop, enquiring where was he going.Deepak allegedly told Beermati that she was shielding her sons and that he would first remove her from his way - allegedly stating ""tu ladkon ke bahut himayat karti hai, pehle tujhe hi raste se hataa deta hoon"".Thereafter Deepak stabbed her in the lower portion of the left breast resulting in her bleeding and Beermati's falling down.It was alleged that Dinesh tried to save his mother from Deepak but that the latter said that he too used to favour his brother and would not be left alive.The alleged words used by Deepak were ""tu bhi bhai ka himayati banta hai, tujhe bhi zinda nahi choroonga"".With these words he attacked Dinesh with the knife in the lower left side of his abdomen.On hearing the noise, many people, including Om Bir Singh reached the spot.On seeing them, Deepak ran away along with his knife.It was alleged that Ajay took Beermati and Dinesh to G.T.B. Hospital with a neighbour and others; Beermati was declared dead.According to the prosecution version, Deepak was arrested on 20.07.1995 and on the basis of his interrogation, the recovery of a knife was made.It was alleged that a disclosure statement, Ex. PW-6/B was recorded.On 02.05.1996, the court charged Deepak for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 450 IPC.He entered the plea of not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution examined 25 witnesses in support of its case; Deepak examined two defence witnesses.On the basis of the materials, depositions of witnesses and rival contentions, the Trial Court found the accused Deepak guilty as charged and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for committing the concerned offences, in the manner indicated previously in the present judgment.At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that having regard to the evidence, particularly the depositions of PW-2, the deceased's younger son Ajay, as well as PW- 4, the elder son of the deceased, who sustained injuries, the attack by Deepak stood established and could not be denied.It was, however, submitted that Deepak got enraged due to remarks made by PW-2 Ajay Pal and other members of his family.Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that even as per allegations of the prosecution, there was no history of enmity or malice and that there was no motive for Deepak to have attacked Beermati and Dinesh.In this context, it was argued that according to the line of questioning adopted during the cross- examination, there was hardly any time-gap between the first incident when all members of the family were laughing and when the attack took place.Therefore, the versions of PW-2 and 4 about the reason for Deepak's anger are to be seen in the context of the deposition of other witnesses.Even though PW-2 and PW-4 deposed that there was trivial provocation for the attack, a reading of PW-5's testimony clarifies that the reason for the attack was something else.The said witness had deposed very clearly having witnessed the incident and heard Deepak stating CRL.A. 45/1998 Page 3 ""tere bache rozana jaghre karte hain, tu inki himayat karti hai, mere raste se hat jaa"" and an altercation between Birmati and the accused had taken place.""It was submitted that even though PW-2 and PW-4 had stated that they were laughing due to a humorous or comic scene aired on the television, it was evident that there was some previous history of the appellant Deepak being teased or quarreled with.Learned counsel also pointed to the cross-examination of PW-4 to the following effect:""It is incorrect to suggest that I and my brother were standing on the door of our house when the accused Deepak had passed through the gali clad in a white trouser and shirt and that upon seeing him, we passed a taunting remark by saying ""look the black crow in a white dress is coming"".It is further incorrect to suggest that the accused felt bad when he heard the remark and an altercation took place between the accused and us.It is further wrong that the accused told us that we should not taunt in this way to which we replied that if we behave the same manner, what harm he could do to them.It is further wrong to suggest that thereafter an altercation took place between us which resulted in fight between the accused on one side and both of us on the other side.It is further incorrect to suggest that meanwhile, our mother also joined us and all of us dragged the accused inside our house and started beating him and the accused got released himself and tried to run away from there but we all three again caught hold of him.It is further incorrect to suggest that our mother picked up a thapi (wooden stick) for washing clothes and started beating the accused with that thapi and that Deepak also started beating us with fists and slapped blows and that he slapped fist blows to me also.It is further incorrect to suggest that I got angered at the beating received by me and in the fit of anger I went inside the house and brought a knife and that on seeing the knife, the accused became nervous and he tried to snatch the knife and in that process of snatching the knife, which was snatched by the accused from me, my mother received injuries and in the same process, I also received the injuries.It is further correct that after the incident the accused ran away from the spot and I cannot say he ran away towards his house.""It was emphasized that the evidence of PW-2 made it clear that Deepak was the son of the deceased's neighbour and that they did not have any previous history of enmity.The entire facts revealed that an altercation took place on account of a trivial provocation which evidently had some previous history.Learned senior counsel highlighted that the post mortem report of the deceased suggested that she died on account of a single blow and the Court should take this aspect into consideration and hold that this was not a case of previous deliberation or premeditated action.In these circumstances, submitted learned senior counsel, the appellant could not have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 but instead it could have been under Section 304 IPC.To achieve this end, he went back home, returned armed with the knife, which was recovered subsequently during the investigation.The appellant, going back in the first instance and returning with such a dangerous weapon and proceeding to use it without hesitation betrayed his real intention which was to inflict deadly injuries upon those who he was angry with or against whom he bore a grudge.The MLC of Dinesh, PW-4, marked as Ex. PW-18/A, reveals that he too was examined at 5.30 PM on the date of the incident.The doctors declared him fit for statement.The observations in this document revealed that he had suffered a stab wound on the left side of the abdomen in mid-auxiliar line at the line of the last CRL.A. 45/1998 Page 5 rib to the extent of 1 inch into 1 into 6th of an inch.The postmortem report prepared by PW-12, Dr. A.K. Tyagi indicated the following injuries and cause of death:""XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX External Injury:- 1) Incised stab wound of 3.0x0.8 cm xcavity deep was present obliquely over middle outer front of left side chest.The upper inner angle was more acute than lower outer angle & upper angle is 10.0 cms horizontly out words & to left from the nipple.The injury entered the left side chest cavity by cutting the 4th rip and then went through and through the lower part of upper lobe of left lung near its inner margin it further entered the Heart i.e. left ventricle from its left wall by making a cut of 1.7x0.2 cms and ended by making small nick over inter-ventriculor septum.The depth in the heart is 04.00 cms and total depth of the injury was 11.5 cms.The direction of injury was from left to right obliquely downwords, inwards and slightly backwards.Left side chest cavity contains blood about 600 cc.Injuries to left lung and heart as mentioned with external injuries.Opinion - Death in this case was due to shock as a result of haemorrage caused by injury to chest.XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX""Since the appellant Deepak has not disputed having attacked the deceased and PW-4, it would be unnecessary to discuss the details with regard to depositions of various prosecution witnesses.These had claimed to be eye witnesses to the incident and were present when the attack took place.11. PW-2 and PW-4 are consistent by and large, in stating the details and origins of the attack.It was deposed that on the day of the incident, both of them, along with the deceased were watching television around 4.00 PM.Deepak was passing by.Simultaneously, he heard them laugh.Thinking that they were laughing or mocking at him, he called out Ajaypal, PW-2 and asked him the reason for the laughter.PW-2 informed him that the laughter was on account of some comic incident in the television programme or film.The two eyewitnesses PW-2 and PW-4 CRL.A. 45/1998 Page 6 were extensively cross-examined whether the film ANDAAZ APNA APNA was screened at that time and who were the lead actors in that film.Deepak was unsatisfied with PW-3's explanation and tried to attack Ajaypal upon which PW-4 Dinesh interceded and separated the two of them from a scuffle.Thereupon, according to both the witnesses, Deepak left the scene, threatening to return and finish Ajaypal.Barely three-four minutes later, he came back and tried to enter the house of PW-2, 4 and the deceased.According to the two witnesses, Beermati tried to stop him but was fatally stabbed.When Dinesh, PW-4 intervened, he too received stab injuries in the abdomen.The contention deserves to be accepted.This was not a case of premeditation as the accused and the deceased met by chance and the appellant had given only one blow.The evidence regarding raising of a lalkara by the other accused has not been believed by the trial court.On the basis of the evidence led in this case it is not possible to say with certainty under which circumstances the appellant gave a kirpan blow to Amrik Singh.No attempt was made by him to give another blow.The injury caused on the head of Amrik Singh does not appear to have been caused intentionally.However, the fact remains that the deceased died because of this injury.The High Court however failed to note that the prosecution has to prove that the appellant intended to cause that particular injury.In Jagtar Singh the facts were that the accused had inflicted a single knife injury which proved fatal.""The next question is what offence the appellant is shown to have committed? In a trivial quarrel the appellant wielded a weapon like a knife.The incident occurred around 1.45 noon.The quarrel was of a trivial nature and even in such a trivial quarrel the appellant wielded a weapon like a knife and landed a blow in the chest.In these circumstances, it is a permissible inference that the appellant at least could be imputed with a knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause death.In the present case too, the quarrel between the appellant and the deceased's sons, was due to a trivial reason.He tried to assault Ajaypal; the deceased tried to prevent him; he attacked her.PW-4 thereafter tried to intervene; he too was attacked.All these facts do not suggest pre-meditation, or a previous history of ill will between Deepak and the deceased's family.He launched an attack on the deceased, when he thought that she would prevent him from assaulting Ajaypal.Both she and PW-4 were given single blows, when they tried to prevent his attack.","['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"According to him, thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 erection of the proposed electric tower would compromise the property in several ways and his objections in regard to the project ought to have been taken into account.1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Energy, Government of Tamilnadu, Fort.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 DR.ANITA SUMANTH,J.gns / TM W.P.(MD)No.16084 of 2019 22.07.2019http://www.judis.nic.inThe prayer in this writ petition is for a Mandamus forbearing the second respondent/Power Grid Corporation of India Limited from erecting High Tension Electric Tower in S.F.Nos.525, 550/A3, B, C1, C2, C3 and 533/1, 534, 535 in Kuppam Village, Pugalur Circle, Aravakuruchi Taluk, Karur District, without obtaining a prior permission from the 1st respondent/District Collector.2.The petitioner appears to have addressed a representation in this regard to the District Collector on 09.07.2019 and has rushed to Court with the present writ petition without affording adequate opportunity to the District Collector to receive, process and conduct enquiry upon his representation.3.The petitioner has raised various objections in the writ petition itself with regard to the certainty of the High Tension Electric Power in the middle of his property.At best, the second respondent may be diverted to consider the objections put forth by the land owners in regard to the compensation sought by a land owner for any damage that may be caused by the proposed laying of High Tension wires.http://www.judis.nic.in 68.The District Collector before whom the representation of the petitioner is pending shall consider the same and after hearing both the respondents as well as the Land owner, shall pass suitable order on merits only on the aspect of compensation to the landowner, if any payable, for damage or inconvenience caused to the property or the residents therein by virtue of the action of the respondent in laying the High Tension Electric Tower.Such order shall be passed within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order.The learned counsel for the fifth respondent agrees that the proposal, insofar as it relates to the property in question, shall be kept in abeyance till such time orders are passed in this matter by the fourth respondent as above.No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.2.The Chairman, Tamilnadu Transmission Corporation Limited, No.144, Anna Salai, Tamilnadu Electricity Board,http://www.judis.nic.in Chennai – 600 002. 73.The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Karur District, Collectorate, Karur.",['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
"(01/08/2019) By a common order, all the three appeals shall be decided as they arise out of the same incident.Since, Ghanshyam and Preetam Dhakad were absconding and were arrested at a later stage, therefore, they have been convicted by separate judgments and sentences.These Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.All the appellants have been convicted for the following offences :3 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017The prosecution story in short is that on 7-11-2013, the complainant Gendi bai lodged a report that she was all alone and was sleeping in the porch of her house.At about 2 A.M. in the night, four persons came there and gagged her mouth by tying a cloth and took out her silver Kade, Silver Khangwari, Gold Tops, Gold ring and also took away Rs. 6000/-.Since the tops were pulled from her ears, therefore, her pinna got injured.The appellant Purshottam assaulted on her face, therefore, her teeth have broken.On this report, the police registered crime No. 280/2013 for offence under Sections 394,452,325 of I.P.C.The police arrested the appellant Purshottam, Ghanshyam, Preetam as well as one Laxminarayan and recovered one gold tops from the possession of the appellant Purshottam, Rs. 6000 from Laxminarayan, Silver Khangwari from Ghanshyam and two silver Kade from Preetam.The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined Gendibai (P.W.1), Balram (P.W.2), Govind Prasad Sharma (P.W.3), Dr. A.P. Singh (P.W.4), Madanlal (P.W.5), Sunil Verma (P.W.6), Dr. Vinod Chourasia (P.W.7), Hazarilal (P.W.8), Ramcharan (P.W.9), and Santosh Bhargava 4 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017 (P.W.10).The appellants didnot examine any witness in their defence.Challenging the conviction and sentence recorded by the Court below, the Counsel for the appellant Purshottam submitted that although in the F.I.R., the name of the appellant was mentioned but in the Test Identification Parade, the complainant Gendibai (P.W.1) could not identify the appellant Purshottam, although again in dock identification, She has identified the appellant Purshottam, thus identification is doubtful.She has stated that the appellants came inside the house and broke her teeth.Her mouth was gagged by tying a cloth.The tops were pulled from her ear.Her hands were tied.Her box was broken and silver Kade, silver Khangwari, gold tops and a cash of Rs. 7000 was taken away.After the miscreants left the house, the complainant started screaming as a result of which her neighbour Madan came who was followed by Balram and Jairam.They went to police outpost at about 3-4 A.M. She was sent for medical examination.The spot map Ex. P.2 was prepared.She had identified Purshottam in jail and had also identified Ghanshyam in jail.In cross examination she stated that she had lost her husband about 15 years back.Prior to incident, her eye vision was good, but after the cloth was tied, her eye vision has dropped.She further admitted that She does not have any watch but had narrated 6 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017 the time as per her assessment.She denied that the name of Purshottam was informed by the neighbours.On her own, this witness said that Purshottam is her Samadhi.She admitted that Madan untied the cloth from her mouth.She further admitted that when she went to police outpost, the appellant Purshottam and Ghanshyam were shown by the police.The stolen articles were also shown in the outpost Jhagar.She further admitted that identification memo Ex. P.3 was got signed by Daroga.6 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017Balram (P.W.2) has stated that he was informed by Madan on phone and when he went to the house of the complainant who is the mother, he found that She was tied and her teeth were broken and ear pinnas were teared and the assailants had taken away gold tops, silver Khangwari, Silver Kade, and about Rs. 6000/-.The complainant had informed that Purshottam and Laxminarayan were amongst the assailants.In cross examination, this witness denied the suggestion that some unknown persons had committed the offence.Govind Prasad Sharma (P.W3) had recorded the F.I.R. on the basis of report which was brought by constable Damodar from Police outpost Jhagar.Dr. A.P. Singh (P.W.4) had examined the complainant Gendibai and found empty socket of left and right Lateral Inciser and left central Inciser were filled with blood cot and was exfoliated due to injury.Madan (P.W.5) has also supported the prosecution story and stated 7 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017 that after hearing the screaming of the complainant Gendibai (P.W.1), he went to the spot and found that the ears of Gendibai were injured and her teeth were broken and hands were tied and one towel and rope was tied around her neck.He also informed Balram, the son of the complainant.Gendibai had disclosed the name of the appellant Purshottam and Laxminarayan.The appellant Preetam Dhakad is on bail.His bail bonds are discharged.The appellant Ghanshyam is in jail.The police after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet against four persons for offence under Sections 394,452 and 325 of I.P.C..The Trial Court by order dated 23-1-2014 framed charges under Sections 452,394 read with Section 397 of I.P.C.4 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017The accused statement of Purshottam was recorded on the same day.The Trial Court by judgment dated 27-3-2015 convicted the appellant Purshottam, by judgment dated 29-7-2017 convicted the appellant Preetam Dhakad and by judgment dated 12-5-2015 convicted the appellant Ghanshyam for the above mentioned offences.Thereafter they went to Police outpost and lodged the F.I.R. This witness turned hostile against the appellant Ghanshyam and Preetam and accordingly he was declared hostile.7 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017Sunil Verma (P.W.6) had conducted the Test Identification Parade of the accused persons, and stated that the complainant had identified Laxminarayan only.Dr. Vinod Chourasia, (P.W.7) had medically examined the complainant and found the following injuries :""1. Lacerated wound, Cm.X Cm.X deep upto muscular on left ear labret.Lacerated wound, Cm. X CM.X deep upto muscular on right ear labret.Abrasion, Cm.X Cm., on frontal part of neck.Abrasion, Cm.X Cm., on left forearm.Diffused swelling, 4 X 3 CM., on left hand.Abrasion, Cm.X Cm., on right hand.""8 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017Appellants Preetam Dhakad and GhanshyamThese appellants were put for Identification, and the complainant in the Test Identification Parade, Ex. P. 4, could not identify these appellants.Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has proved the seizure of Silver Khangwari and Silver Kade from the possession of Ghanshyam and Preetam Dhakad 9 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017 respectively.9 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017Now the pivotal question for determination is that whether the prosecution has established the identification of these articles.The complainant Gendibai (P.W.1), has stated that the articles were shown by Daroga in the Police Station and identification memo Ex. P.3 was prepared, whereas according to the prosecution case, the test identification parade for identification of seized articles was conducted by Ramcharan, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sujakhedi (P.W. 9).Ramcharan (P.W. 9) has not supported the prosecution case, and has stated that he was called in Police Outpost Jhagar, where the articles were handed over to the complainant by police and identification memo, Ex. P.3 was prepared by the police in the police station itself and his signatures were obtained.Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish that the articles seized from the possession of the appellants Ghanshyam and Preetam were that of the complainant Gendi bai (P.W.1).There is no other evidence against the appellants Ghanshyam and Preetam.10 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017 P.4, but again identified the appellant Purshottam in the dock.But the prosecution has failed to prove the identification of the Gold Tops for the reasons already mentioned while considering 23 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017 the case of appellants Ghanshyam and Preetam Dhakad.Accordingly, it is held that although Gold Tops were seized from the possession of appellant Purshottam, but since, its identification could not be established by the prosecution, therefore, the seizure of gold tops loses its importance.However, in view of the fact that Purshottam was specifically named by the complainant Gendibai (P.W.1) in the F.I.R., Ex. P.1 which was lodged within a period of 4 hours, because the incident took place at about 3 A.M. in the night and the F.I.R. was lodged at 7:00 A.M., as well as that he was identified by the complainant in the Court, coupled with the fact that the ocular evidence of complainant Gendi bai (P.W.1) is supported by medical evidence, Ex. P.6 and P.8, it is held that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant Purshottam beyond reasonable doubt.The Trial Court has convicted the appellant Purshottam for offence under Section 394/397 of I.P.C. Since, the complainant Gendibai (P.W.1) had suffered dismemberment of her teeth, therefore, the conviction of the appellant Purshottam for offence under Section 397 of I.P.C. is affirmed.Accordingly, the appellant Purshottam is held guilty of committing offence under Section 452 and 397 of I.P.C.So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the minimum sentence for offence under Section 397 of I.P.C. is seven years.In default, the appellant Purshottam shall undergo the rigorous imprisonment of 6 months.The appellant Purshottam is on bail.His bail bonds are hereby cancelled.He is directed to immediately surrender before the Trial Court for undergoing the remaining jail sentence.He be released if not required in any other case.Accordingly, the judgment and sentence judgment and sentence dated 27-3-2015 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in S.T. No. 26/2014 is hereby affirmed with above mentioned modifications.The judgment and sentence dated 29-7-2017 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in S.T. No. 26/2014 and dated 12-5- 2015 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in S.T. No. 26/2014 are hereby set aside.The appeal filed by appellant Ghanshyam and Preetam Dhakad are allowed and appeal filed by appellant Purshottam is partially allowed.(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2019.08.02 09:47:54 +05'30'","['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The Executive Engineer, Heavy Electricals Ltd. (hereinafterreferred to as HEL), Bhopal invited tenders for constructionof four BCC overhead tanks, each of one lakh gallonscapacity, by a tender notice published on December 23, 1965.Four contractors, including the accused appellant, submittedtheir tenders.It was found that the tender of the appellant, whohad stipulated that he would use 18 tons of steel, was ofthe lowest amount.The other three contractors badstipulated that they would use 24 tons of steel.The case of the prosecution is that on April 9, 1966 PW 1Shivnarain Wadhwa, Chief Engineer Construction of HEL waspresent in his office.PW 5 Niranjanlal Shrivastava,Personal Assistant to the Chief Engineer, was also presentthere.A partition divides the office of the Chief Engineerfrom the place where Shrivastava used to sit.At about11.45 a.m. on that day, the appellant accompanied by twoothers, came to PW Shrivastava.The appellant gave visitingcard P4 to Shrivastava and said that he wanted to see theChief Engineer.Shrivastava sent that card through a peonto Chief Engineer Wadhwa.A short time thereafter on beingcalled by Wadhwa, the accused appellant accompanied by histwo companions went inside the office of Wadhwa.On arrivalthere, the accused talked about big tender and stated thatas his tender was the lowest,15-L382SupCI/74638the same should be accepted- The accused also handed overcopy P3 of letter dated April 8, 1966 which had beenaddressed by him to the Executive Engineer in connectionwith the above tender Wadhwa then told the accused thataccording to the information received by him, the accusedhad stipulated the use of only 18 tons of steel as against24 tons stipulated by others.The accuse however, persistedin saying that his tender was the lowest.Wadhwa then toldthe accused that whatever he had to say in the matter, heshould tell the Executive Engineer and that he might alsohand over a copy of his letter to the Assistant ChiefEngineer.The two companions of the accused, then left theoffice of Wadhwa, while the accused remained sitting there.Wadhwa then told the accused also to go, but the accusedinstead of going took out from the left pocket of histrousers an envelope and presented it to Wadhwa.Wadhwa reprimanded the accused for doing somethingwrong and at the same time he (Wadhwa) pressed the buzzerfor his Personal Assistant.Shrivastava PW then came insidethe office of Wadhwa.In the meantime, the accused had putback the envelope containing currency notes in the pocket ofhis trousers.On the arrival of Shrivastava, Wadhwa toldhim that the accused had given him bribe.Wadhwa also askedShrivastava to take out the envelope from the pocket of thetrousers of the accused.Shrivastava then took out theenvelope containing currency notes from the trousers' pocketof the accused.There were thirty 100-rupee currency notesin that envelope.Wadhwa then rung up R.C. Gupta (PW 3) whois the Secretary and Vigilance Officer of HEL as well asChandra Shekhar Tiwari (PW 4), who is the Chief SecurityOfficer of HEL.The offices of Gupta and Tiwari are also inthe Administrative Building of HEL, in which building issituated the office of Wadhwa PW.The accused then expressed his apologies and statedthat he was sorry and ashamed for what he had done.Theaccused also requested that he might be forgiven and thatotherwise he would lose his career as a contractor.Whenthe accused offered his apologies, Wadhwa remarked that ifthe accused gave anything in writing, he would consider thematter.The accused thereupon wrote something on a piece ofpaper.As the writing was not found to be satisfactory, thesame was not accepted by Wadhwa and the paper remained withthe accused.Wadhwa then asked Shrivastava to take Lalwanito his room.Wadhwa thereafter asked for the advice ofGupta and Tiwari.It was then decided that the mattershould be reported to the police.In the reportthe number of currency notes were also noted by Shrivastava.The report was then signed by Wadhwa.Appeal by special leave from the, judgment and Order datedFebruary 4, 1970 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh(Jabalpur Bench) in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1967.Hardayal Hardy, M. S. N. Nambudri and B. R. G K. Achar, forthe appellant.Ram Paniwani and H. S. Parihar, for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byKHANNA, J. This is an appeal by special leave by MohandasLalwani against the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Courtwhereby the High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal ofthe Special Judge Bhopal and convicted the accused appellantunder section 165A Indian Penal Code and sentenced him toundergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.The accused and, thereport were thereafter sent to police station Govindpura.Formal first information report P8 was prepared at thepolice station on the basis of report P1 and a case wasregistered against the accused at6392.15 P.M. Complaint about the occurrence was thereafterfiled in the court of the Special Judge Bhopal by TownInspector Gurbir Singh on.At the trial, Wadhwa (PW 1) gave evidence in support of theprosecution case as given above.Gupta (PW 3) and Tiwari(PW 4) deposed about, the extra judicial confession of theaccused in the office of Wadhwa PW when they were calledthere by Wadhwa PW on telephone.The prosecution furtherexamined Shrivastava (PW 5), according to whom, he wascalled by Wadhwa and was told that the accused had offeredhim bribe.The witness took out an envelope containingcurrency notes of the value of Rs. 3,000 from the pocket ofthe accused under the directions of Wadhwa- The witnessfurther deposed regarding the extra ' judicial confessionmade by the accused after the arrival of Gupta and TiwariPWs.The accused also admitted thatthe Personal Assistant of Wadhwa had taken out 30 currencynotes of Rs. 100 each from his pocket under the directionsof Wadhwa.The fact that Gupta and Tiwari were called ontelephone by Wadhwa was further admitted by the accused.The other prosecution allegations were denied by theaccused.He denied having offered any amount to Wadhwa orabout his having made any confession after the arrival ofGupta and Tiwari PWs.The accused further gave thefollowing version of the occurrence :""On 7-4-66 1 had gone to the office of the Executive Engineer Shri Karajgi.He was not there.I learnt from the office that my tender and the tenders of two or three persons more sent to the Assistant Chief Engineer, and there was remark on my tender that the testimonials were not attached whereas I had sent the same on the 21st.Therefore, I went to the Chief Engineer on the sameday and told him that my tender was the lowest and they say, that the testimonials have not been sent.On being asked by him I replied, 'can bring the testimonials'.Then I went to Delhi and on 9-4-66 1 came with the testimonials and the consultant Engineer and I had brought the amount of security also.For taking out the papers I was required to take out money also and after keeping money in my pocket I showed the papers to him.I said 'I have brought the testimonials also.I have brought the Engineer also.' You discuss with him and give final reply. 'He replied', Do not talk to me.Speak to the Executive Engineer. 'I said', There is corruption.Otherwise why my certificates have been removed from my tender? 'Thereupon he began to say, 'I am not prepared to hear this much.' Whereupon I replied, 'You are Head of the Depart-If you do not hear who will hear?' Thereupon he replied,. 'Do not talk anything more with me?' Whereupon I said, 'Are you also included in that corruption ?' Thereupon, he pressed the, buzzer.I had a hot talk with him.My Engineer also told, him.Thereupon he replied, 'I am not prepared to hear anything.' Then my Engineer spoke in Sindhi language, 'He is not hearing I go downstairs and I send any other person.' At the same time Wadhwa Saha ,threw away the testimonials and said, 'Where those persons have gone ?' Whereupon I replied, 'They have gone down- stairs'.He questioned, 'What did they say?'- I replied, 'They have not said anything.' 'Then I put the testimonials in my pocket and he pressed the buzzer.""In defence, the accused examined one witness V. S. Asnani,Consulting Engineer.According to this witness, he wentwith the accused on the day of occurrence to Wadhwa PW.The trial court was of the view that Wadhwa PW was notwholly reliable witness.As regards Gupta and Tiwari, itwas observed that they were interested witnesses.Reference, was also made to some discrepancies in theprosecution evidence as well as to the fact that there wasno mention in the first information report of the extrajudicial confession of the accused.The version given bythe accused, in the opinion of the trial court, could notbe said to be unreasonable.In the result the trial courtgave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him.On appeal the High Court considered the evidence adduced inthe case by the prosecution and found the same to bereliable.The High Court disagreed with- the trial courtthat the prosecution evidence suffered from infirmities.The defence version was rejected by the High Court asunworthy of evidence.In the result the appeal was acceptedand the accused was convicted and sentenced as above.The trial court did not place much reliance upon thetestimony of Wadhwa because the witness admitted thatcomplaints had been made against him for showing favouritismas well as for corruption and highhandedness.On someoccasions the witness also had to give explanation toclarify some particular action.",['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
"H (J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE PK Digitally signed by PARITOSH KUMAR Date: 2017.12.13 11:14:05 +05'30'rt Learned G.A. prays for time to pass appropriate order of ou suspension within a week.h Let a typed copy of this order be sent to Shri N. Dubey, ig learned G.A. for communication and compliance.","['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT A. Barua, J.This revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against an order dated 4.8.2001 passed by the learned Additional session Judge, Kalna, Burdwan, in Criminal Motion No. 87 of 2001 which affirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kalna, Burdwan in C.R. Case No. 133 of 2000 under Section 498A, IPC.The wife Tripti Roy instituted the case being C.R. Case No. 143 of 2000 under Section 498A IPC of Monteswar Police Station.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said final report submitted by the police, Tripti Roy submitted a ""Naraji"" petition and on the basis of the petition, treating the same a petition of complaint the learned SDJM, Kalna, Burdwan took cognizance of the offence on 9.11.2000 and thereafter the learned Magistrate transferred the case of the file to the learned J.M., Kalna.The said case registered as C.R Case No. 133 of 2000 (T.R. No. 166 of 2000) on 31.1.2001 the learned Magistrate after examining the complaint and one witness found a prima facie case and issued summons against the petitioners under Section 498A of the IPC.The husband and others being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said action by the learned Magistrate preferred the said criminal motion before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his impugned order dated 4.8.2001 dismissed the same and affirmed the order of the learned Magistrate.The complainant of the housewife who was allegedly tortured physically and mentally then made the instant ""naraji"" petition before the learned SDJM, Kalna with the allegation that in the said case being C.R. case No. 143 of 2000, in respect of which a final report has been given had been a product of collusion between the police and the accused persons and that she protested to the said investigation made by the police resulting in the final report and she wanted the case to be investigated afresh by a higher police officer and she further prayed for Justice so that the culprits that is the accused persons in the case that she had brought viz, G. R. Case No. 143 of 2000, be punished.",['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
"It is an admitted position that PW3 Umesh was indoor patient for 5-6 days.By the said judgment and order of sentence, the appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 ::: 2 APPEAL307.06.odt 324 of the Indian Penal Code and for that he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 :::The appellant along with one Rajesh Kirnake was charged in the Sessions Trial for making murderous assault on Umesh Chavan (PW3) by means of knife and therefore, they were charged for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The learned Judge of the Court below acquitted both of them of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, however, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.I have heard Shri A. K. Bhangde, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Amit A. Madiwale, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Also perused the record and proceedings.According to the submissions of Shri Bhangde, the::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 ::: 3 APPEAL307.06.odt learned counsel for the appellant, there are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PW1 Mukesh Chauhan, who has lodged the oral report (Exh.23) and PW3 Umesh Chauhan, the injured, on material particulars.He submitted that there is no uniformity in respect of the weapon used by the appellant while committing the offence.He submitted that there was previous enmity between the injured and the appellant and therefore, the appellant is falsely implicated in the crime.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 :::Per contra, Shri Madiwale, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the injured in clear terms has stated that it is the appellant who has assaulted on him and the omissions are in respect of the acquitted accused.The first information report (Exh.23) is lodged by PW1 Mukesh Chavan.He is not the eye-witness.The injured is his younger brother.On 21.5.2004, after his brother Umesh left the house in the morning hours at 7.00 O'clock for procuring food for his pigs, some time thereafter somebody informed his mother that Umesh is assaulted by means of knife.In response to the::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 ::: 4 APPEAL307.06.odt information, he and his mother rushed to the spot.There they got knowledge that Umesh is already taken for treatment at Mayo Hospital.Therefore, they reached to the said hospital and on an enquiry, Umesh disclosed that it is the appellant, has given blow of knife.Evidence of PW1 Mukesh is on the line of his report (Exh.23).::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 :::He was proceeding to procure food for his pigs.When he was nearby to the Hyderabad house, the appellant and others came there and the appellant gave knife blow on his left shoulder near his neck.Another blow was also inflicted on him.Those::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 ::: 5 APPEAL307.06.odt omissions were in respect of the co-accused Rajesh, who is already acquitted by the Court below.The core of the evidence of PW3 Umesh has not shattered at all on the point of giving knife blow on him by the appellant.Further, he has identified the weapon also.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 :::PW4 Dr. Dattu Satai has proved injury report (Exh.56).He found following injuries on the person of victim Umesh.Incised wound present over infra scapular region size 1 x ½ inch x ? depth Air bubble present.2. incised wound size 1½ inch present over upper 1/3rd of left arm.3. incised wound size 1½ inch x ? depth at the level of Thorasic Vertibra.4. incised wound present over back side size 2 inch x ?depth at the level of T-105. incised wound size over right shoulder region size 1½ inch x 1 cm.Incised wound present over right thigh sixe 1 ½ inch x 1 cmLacerated wound present over scalp size 1 inch x 1 inch x ½ inch.He has prepared the injury report on the basis of Bed Head Ticket, which he brought in the Court at the time of his evidence.He placed photo copy of the Bed Head Ticket on record.It is at Exh.55.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 :::The Investigating Officer also sent a weapon to PW4 Dr. Dattu Satai along with requisition letter (Exh.57).He gave his query report (Exh.58) and opined that the weapon can cause the injuries.Another doctor is examined by the prosecution and he is PW5 Dr. Abhijeet Deshmukh.He examined the patient and noticed the following injuries :Infra claviter region.2. Left armOver the back at the level of T-2 and T-10Over the Scalp.The prosecution has also proved the recovery of knife at the behest of the appellant on his memorandum statement.His memorandum statement was recorded in presence of Madhukar Karnuke (PW2).After recording of his disclosure statement (Exh.26), weapon knife which was concealed by the appellant in the bathroom of his house, was recovered.It is thus clear that the place from where the weapon was seized, was in exclusive possession of the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 :::The learned Judge, in my opinion, has correctly appreciated the prosecution case, especially the evidence of injured and the medical evidence.The appellant, who is on bail shall surrender his bail bonds immediately, else, the Court below is directed to take necessary steps for procuring the appellant for serving his jail sentence.Needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for set off for the period, which he has already undergone in jail.JUDGE Diwale::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 :::","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Many people were victimized due to his criminal activities and they feared to complain about his atrocious activities.He has further stated that in the third week of the month of March, 2003, on one evening at 19.00 hrs.JUDGMENT V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.Through this writ petition, the petitioner-detenu Raja @ Raju Namdev Kharade, has impugned the order of detention dated 054.05.2003 passed by the Respondent No. 1 Shri V.D. Mishra, Commissioner of Police, Solapur.By the said order, the petitioner has been detained under Sub-section 1 of Section 3 of Maharashtra Pretention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ""MPDA Act"" for the sake of brevity).B to the petition, shows that the impugned order of detention is founded on one C.R. viz. C.R. No. 92/2003 registered under Section 307 and 504 of I.P.C. r.w. Section 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act and r.w. Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The said complaint dated 26.3.2003 has been registered on the basis of the complaint of Gajendra Dattatraya Harale lodged at Faujdar Chawdi Police Station, Solapur.Besides C.R. No. 92/2003, the detention order is also based on two incamera statements of two witnesses namely 'A' and 'B' which were recorded on 15.4.2003 and 16.4.2003 respectively.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.Although, in this writ petition, a large number of grounds have been pleaded i.e. ground 6(A) to 6(L), the learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed only two grounds.The first ground is that the detention order has been issued relying on three incidents i.e. C.R. No. 92/2003 and two incamera statements, however, none of the three incidents affect public order.Shri Chitnis has further contended that all the three incidents are confined to individual persons and they are private crimes as distinct from public crime.He has further contended that none of the incidents in any way affect the even tempo of the life of the community nor do any of the incidents affect the peace and tranquillity of the people of that particular locality where the crime had been committed and hence none of the incidents affect public order.In the said case, the detaining authority had relied on two incidents and issued the order of detention.In case of the first incident i.e. Crime Case No. 109/1985, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the said incident did not affect the public order whereas as far as the second case was concerned i.e. Crime Case No. 222/1985, the Supreme Court held that the public order was disturbed by the said incident.In respect of the first incident the Supreme Court in para No. 12 observed thus:-In the instant case, the criminal acts referred to in ground No. 1 are to the effect that on 4th June, 1985 at about 11 p.m. some persons informed the complainant that his brother has been shot by some persons and when complainant reached the spot he found his brother Vishnu Narain Awasthi lying in the pool of blood and he had already died.Crime Case No. 109/1985 under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered at Ghazipur Police Station.This incident is confined to individual persons and it is private crime as distinct from public crime.Further they have stated that due to fear of reprisal they did not lodge complaint with respect to the said incident.Hence, considering the incidents as narrated by the incamera witnesses 'A' and 'B', it would affect the public order as defined under the Act.""In respect of the contention that the incident pertaining to C.R. No. 92/2003 does not affect public order, the detaining authority has inter alia stated in para No. 11 of his affidavit that (SIC) say that the complainant in C.R. No. 92/2003 had stated that after witnessing the said incident, due to fear the witnesses ran away and nobody came to their help.The said fact as stated by the complainant in C.R. No. 92/2003 alongwith the other material such as statement of eye witnesses and other witnesses having being considered clearly falls within the purview of public order under the MPDA Act.""The learned A.P.P. Mrs. A.S. Pai has brought to our notice that in the grounds of detention, it is mentioned that the detenu assaulted the mother of the complainant on the head with sword.Thereafter, the detenu assaulted the complainant Gajendra Harale on the head and on the left hand finger.Then to save Gajendra, his old grand mother Kausalyabai covered Gajendra Harale with her body, but the detenu continued his attack and assaulted her on the head and on her hands.this witness was passing from Tuljapur Naka with his auto-rickshaw.At that time, the detenu and this one associate stopped his auto-rickshaw and asked to take him to Kali Masjid.After leaving the detenu at Kali Masjid, the witness asked him to pay the fare of Rs. 20/-.At that time the detenu abused and threatened him that if he asked for the fare, the detenu would kill him.Then the witness requested the detenu to pay him at least Rs. 10/- for petrol.Due to the request made by this witness, the detenu get annoyed and took him out of the auto-rickshaw forcibly and abused and assaulted him.The associate of detenu damaged the glasses of the auto-rickshaw with a stone.During this incident no one came to help the witness but ran away due to detenu's fear.The two nearby shop-keepers closed their shops.While leaving the spot the detenu threatened this witness not to complain regarding this matter otherwise the detenu would not allow him to do his business in that area.Due to fear of reprisal the witness did not complain about this incident.From the fact that the other persons instead of coming to help the witness ran away due to fear of the detenu, it is clear that the act of the detenu generated a feeling of fear and terror in the minds of the persons who witnessed the incident.The reach and effect of this incident is that it disturbed public tranquillity and thus it affected public order.It is also seen that two nearby shop keepers closed their shops on witnessing this incident.Thus, it is clear that this incident affected public order.In relation to the incident pertaining to witness 'B', on perusal of the grounds of detention, it is seen that witness 'B' has stated that he knew the detenu as a notorious goonda operating in the area.Due to his criminal activities, ordinary people in the area are unwilling to complain against him.His associates are involved in the offences of extortion.They often extort money from the witness and from small scale business persons.The vegetable cart of the witness was burnt in the riots, which occurred in the month of October 2002, hence, the witness did not pay the amount to the associates of the detenu.This witness has further stated that in the first week of March, 2003 on one morning at 10.00 hrs.he was selling vegetables on his cart.When the witness came near Dhangekar Automobiles in Budhwar Peth area, the detenu and his one associate were passing from that place on the detenu's motorcycle.At that time, the detenu's associate told some thing to the detenu pointing towards this witness, due to which the detenu came to the witness and started to assault him, threatening that the witness was doing the business in his area and he is not paying the detenu.The detenu threatened the witness that if he saw this witness in that area, the detenu will kill him.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.By orders made from time to time, the learned Magistrate authorised their detention, initially in police custody for twelve days and thereafter in jail custody for fifteen days at a stretch awaiting report, in final form, of investigation.In the meantime on 21-12-90 to be precise the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the five accused persons and on receipt thereof, the learned Magistrate passed the following order on that day:--taken Under Section 302/34, IPC.Put up on 26-12-90 for orders.""The case was put up before the learned Magistrate on 26-12-1990 as directed and on subsequent dates also and various orders were passed.Ultimately, by an order dated 9-1-91, the learned Magistrate transferred the case to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Calcutta in accordance with Section 192(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.While the case was pending inquiry before the transferee Court, the opposite party, whose prayer for bail had earlier been rejected by the learned Magistrate, moved the City Sessions Court with a similar prayer.By his order dated 28-1-91, the learned Chief Judge of that Court granted bail to the opposite party after recording the following finding:--Haridas Das, J.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"It is said that during investigation the police recorded statements of complainant Ravindra Kumar Jain, one Mukesh Kumar Jain and also that of the staff Nurses namely Neelima Mishra and Smt. Preeti Masih.It is also said that Smt. Preeti Masih had attended to Smt. Manisha Jain and had found that the patient had not developed any problem and therefore, the applicant had not been sent for to attend to her.ORDER Uma Nath Singh, J.This order in the criminal revision No. 426/2002 arising out the order dated 8-3-2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh, in Criminal Case No. 3474/1997 shall also dispose of connected Criminal Revision No. 348/2002 filed against the order dated 15-3-2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.It is said that on 9-3-1997 a child delivered at 06.30 by one Smt. Manisha Jain under care and supervision of staff nurse died in a Government Hospital allegedly due to negligence of the applicant.It is also said that being a Government.Medical Officer in the District Hospital, Damoh, the applicant had treated Smt. Manisha Jain wife of Ravindra Kumar Jain, the complainant herein, privately and had also received a fee of Rs. 80/-.It is also a case of the prosecution that the applicant had demanded Rs. 2,000/- and since the money had not been paid, the applicant had refused to attend to the patient in the hospital.It is also alleged that despite a request sent to the applicant, she had not attended to the patient and she had reached only at 07.30 and had declared the child dead.On a report lodged by the complainant on 12-3-1997, the police registered an offence and also filed a charge-sheet under Section 304A of IPC.The applicant, accordingly, filed an objection application under Sections 239 and 258, Cr. P. C., in view of protection granted to a public servant under Section 197, Cr.P. C. The said objection appears to have been rejected only on the ground that since a newly born child died, there is a prima facie material that the applicant was negligent.The applicant being employed as a Class I Officer has taken a plea that she is not removable from her office save by or with due sanction of the State Government and thus, a sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P. C, is required for her prosecution.The applicant has also taken a plea that there is a dearth of materials constituting a prima facie offence under Section 304A of I.P.C. against her.A part from relevant documents filed with the revision, a report of the Office of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Hospital Superintendent, Damoh dated 4-7-2002 addressed to the Police Station Officer, Damoh, was submitted by the Government Advocate during the hearing from the said report, it appears that the wife of the complainant had been admitted in the Hospital on 9-3-1997 by emergency duty Medical Officer Dr. Sailendra Khatri.It also appears that the applicant had been assigned a duty to attend to emergency patients only on a call from the Hospital.",['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
"CRM 12954 of 2014 BD Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 11th September, 2014 in connection with Falta Police Station Case No. 148/2014 dated 30.03.2014 under Section 302/120Bof the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act read with Section 9(b) of the I.E. Act.In the matter of : Raja Khan .... Petitioner.Mr. Prabir Rej.... For Petitioner.Mr. Manjit Singh.Having heard the learned advocate of both the parties and considering the materials available in the case diary and also considering the fact that two other charge sheeted co- accused persons are still absconding and specially considering Rejected the gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioner, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.The application for bail is, thus, rejected at this stage.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J) (Sudip Ahluwalia, J) 2",['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
"(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J) This Writ Application challenges an Order of Detention made by the secondrespondent on 14.9.2009 whereby the petitioner herein was ordered to be detainedunder the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities ofBoot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral TrafficOffenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil NaduAct 14 of 1982) branding him as a ""Goonda"".The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner andlooked into all the materials available, in particular, the order underchallenge.The detenu was involved in eight adverse cases as follows:D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, interalia, assailing the order of detention would submit that the detenu filed bailapplication before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai in respect ofthe ground case in Crime No.1879 of 2009 and the same was dismissed on 31.8.2009on the ground that the case was exclusively triable by Courts of Sessions.Thus, the said bail application was dismissed.The order of detention came tobe passed on 14.9.2009 but the day when the order came to be passed, noapplication was pending before any Court of criminal law insofar as the groundcase was concerned but the detaining authority has stated that there was a realpossibility of the detenu coming out on bail.Thus, the observation was madewithout any basis or material much less cogent material.Under thecircumstances, the order of detention has got to be set aside.According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for theState, a statement was recorded from the wife of the detenu that she was takingsteps to apply for bail.Hence, the detaining authority was perfectly correctin recording so.After looking into the materials available, the Court cannotcountenance the reason adduced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor forthe State.It is true a bail application was filed before the Court of JudicialMagistrate No.II, Madurai in respect of the ground case in Crime No.1879 of 2009and the same was dismissed on 31.8.2009 on the ground that the case wasexclusively triable by Courts of Sessions and thereafter, no bail applicationwas filed.Thus, it would be quite clear that no bail application was filed orwas pending on 14.9.2009 when the order under challenge came to be passed.Underthe circumstances, the observation made by the detaining authority that therewas a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is only an expression ofapprehension passing in the mind of the detaining authority without any basis ormaterial much less cogent material.Under the circumstances, the order ofdetention has got to be set aside.8.Accordingly, the order of detention is set aside.The detenu isdirected to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required inconnection with any other case.The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.3.The Inspector of Police, D-2, Sellur Police Station, Madurai.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.","['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.296 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Puducherry as against the petitioners having been taken cognizance for the offences underhttp://www.judis.nic.in 1/11 CRL.O.P.No.5572 of 2020 Sections 447, 427, 294(b), 506(ii) r/w 34 of IPC.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent herein filed private complaint as against the petitioners alleging that the father of the respondent herein owned the disputed property and the same was used as cattle shed.From the date of the settlement deed, the respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the said property and also laid compound wall around the said property.While being so, the father of the first accused filed suit in O.S.No.131 of 1987 on the file of the Sub Court, Puducherry for eviction as against the respondent’s father.The said suit was dismissed for the reason that the schedule of the property differed, and it went upto the second appeal before this Court and he failed before all the courts.After the demise of the father of the first accused, restored possession and enjoyment of the said property by the respondent herein and as such the respondent constrained to file suit for permanent injunction as against the petitioners herein in O.S.No.155 of 2015 and it is pending.Further alleged that on 17.02.2015, the petitioners have trespassed into the complainant’s property and also damaged the compound wall and cattle shed worth about Rs.1,50,000/-.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/11 CRL.O.P.No.5572 of 2020The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that though the suit filed by the first petitioner’s father was dismissed on the ground that the boundary of the property differs, the respondent’s father had no title over the property and executed settlement deed in favour of the respondent herein.Therefore, the first petitioner lodged complaint before the Inspector of Police, D.Nagar Police Station, Puducherry on 22.12.2014 with the allegation that the respondent on the strength of the dismissal of the suit filed by the first petitioner’s father completely encroached the property comprised in RS.No.185/130 and also trying to encroach the property of the petitioners comprised in RS.No.185/131 by fabricating the document.Therefore, the first petitioner filed application before the District Registrar, Puducherry to cancel the settlement deed registered as document No.2588 of 2013 with the Office of the Sub Registrar, Oulgaret, Puducherry.After conducting detailed enquiry, the District Registrar rightly cancelled the settlement deed by order dated 28.10.2015 in Ref.No.DRP.No.5/2015 executed in favour of the respondent herein.Thus it is made absolute that the first petitioner is the owner of the disputed property.Therefore, the present complaint is lodged only to harass the petitioners and nothing else.As such hehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/11 CRL.O.P.No.5572 of 2020 sought for quashment of the proceedings.Heard, Mr.D.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners.Though notice was served, no one appeared on behalf the respondent in person or through pleader.On the complaint lodged by the respondent herein, the trial court have taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 294(b), 506(ii) r/w 34 of IPC.They are none other than the son and mother.In fact, the father of the first petitioner herein filed suit for eviction in O.S.No.131 of 1987 as against the father of the respondent herein and the same was dismissed.While being so, the petitioners trespassed into his property and also caused damage to the compound wall and cattle shed to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/11 CRL.O.P.No.5572 of 2020On perusal of the records, the first petitioner’s father filed suit in O.S.No.131 of 1987 as against the father of the respondent herein for eviction of the complainant’s father from the disputed property.The said suit was dismissed only for the reason that the schedule of the property was not property mentioned.It is also noted that the said suit was filed only for eviction from the disputed property.Immediately, after the dismissal of the second appeal, the father of the respondent herein executed settlement deed in favour of the respondent on 24.05.2013 and the same was also got registered in document No.2588 of 2013 with the Office of the Sub Registrar, Oulgaret, Puducherry.Therefore, it is clear that after the dismissal of the second appeal by this Court, the father of the respondent herein without any title over the disputed property on the strength of the judgment and degreehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/11 CRL.O.P.No.5572 of 2020 passed against the father of the first petitioner herein, executed settlement deed.Therefore, the first petitioner challenged the same before the District Registrar, Puducherry.In DRP.No.5/2015 after conducting detailed enquiry, the District Registrar, Puducherry by order dated 28.10.2015 cancelled the settlement deed executed in favour of the respondent herein.While passing the order, the District Registrar observed as follows:“that the Settlement Deed No.2588 dated 24.05.2013 registered by Thiru.Ramalinga Mudaliar to his son without bonafide title records by defrauding the Sub-Registrar, Oulgaret, I order cancellation/annulment of the Settlement Deed No.2588 dated 24.05.2013 with immediate effect.To attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there must be an uttering of words to affect the person who lodged the complaint.In this regard it is relevant to extract the Section 294(b) of IPC.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed, and the entire proceedings in CC.No.296 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Puducherry is quashed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.","['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"a) The first accused / first appellant is the husband of the deceased-Saraswathi.The second accused-Pappathi @ Sesili Pappa and third accused-Saveriya @ Saveriyan are the parents of the first accused.P.W.1-Michael, P.W.2-Selvi and P.W.3-Arockiyam are the brother-in-law, sister and father of thedeceased respectively.The deceased was given in marriage to the first accused /first appellant in the year 2002, as a result of which, they had got two maleborn.All of them were living together.From the time of marriage, all the threeaccused were torturing her, demanding money.On a number of occasions, thedeceased came to the house of P.W.3 and informed him about the same.He used togive money and also advise her to join her husband and live peacefully.On oneoccasion, a complaint was given to P.W.14-Sub-Inspector of Police, All WomenPolice Station and thereafter, the parties were called, and the situation waspacified.Even thereafter, they continued to exert cruelty and demanding money.A complaint was given for the second time before the respondent-Police Station,and thereafter, they were called, and again they were advised.On the next dayto Pongal, she proceeded to her parental home and returned with the children onthe very day.On 18.01.2008, just before the occurrence, the deceased was beatenby the first accused.Then she went to a shop, purchased kerosene and broughtthe same in a can.After she came to the house, all the three accused personsteased her.Not satisfied, the first accused beat her, pushed her inside theroom, poured kerosene brought by her and set her ablaze, as a result of which,she sustained burn injuries.On hearing the distressing cry, a few persons camethere, and they attempted to quench the fire.Then she was taken to theGovernment Hospital, Tuticorin.P.W.21-Doctor attached to the GovernmentHospital, Tuticorin gave her initial treatment and issued Ex.P22-AccidentRegister copy to that effect, wherein it has been recorded that she sustained80% burn injuries.The Sub-Inspector of Police concerned, who receivedintimation from the Government Hospital, Tuticorin, went to the hospital andrecorded the statement of the deceased marked as Ex.P1, wherein P.W.2 has alsoattested the same.On the strength of Ex.P19-Rough Sketch.He also recovered M.Os.1 to 8 from the place of occurrenceunder a cover of Ex.P20-Seizure Mahazar.d) Pending the investigation, on 30.01.2008, the deceased died.On receiptof the intimation from the hospital, P.W.20-Inspector of Police, altered theSections into 304-B and 302 IPC under Ex.P21 and the same was sent to the Court.e) P.W.18-Revenue Divisional Officer, on receipt of the requisition,proceeded to the hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of thedeceased in the presence of witnesses and panchayatars and prepared Ex.P16-Inquest Report.(Judgment of the Court was delivered byM.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to a judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Fast Track Court No.II, Tuticorin passed in S.C. No.271 of 2008 on 16.07.2009,whereby the appellants / accused 1 to 3 stood charged, tried and found guiltyunder Sections 498-A and 302 r/w 34 IPC and each of them was awarded 3 yearsR.I. with a fine of Rs.500/- and default sentence for the first charge underSection 498-A IPC, and also awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/-and default sentence for the second charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal canbe stated as follows:-P24-ExpressF.I.R. was despatched to the Court and the copies were sent to the higher-ups.b) On receipt of Ex.P14-Intimation from the hospital, P.W.17-DistrictMunsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District, went to thehospital and verified as to the mental fitness of the deceased and after gettingthe opinion of P.W.6-Doctor that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to givedying declaration and getting a certificate therefor under Ex.P4, recorded thedying declaration of the deceased, which is marked as Ex.c) P.W.19-Inspector of Police, on receipt of a copy of F.I.R., proceededto the spot, made inspection and prepared Ex.P18-Observation Mahazar and alsoEx.He also sent a final report under Ex.P17 stating that there wasno dowry demand, and the deceased died out of burn injuries.f) The dead body of the deceased was subjected to autopsy by P.W.8, theDoctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Tuticorin and he issued Ex.P8-PostMortem Certificate wherein he gave an opinion that the deceased would appear tohave died of complications of burns.The viscera of the dead body were subjectedto chemical analysis which resulted in a report, viz. Ex.P9-Viscera Report.g) Further investigation was taken up by P.W.22-Deputy Superintendent ofPolice and thereafter, by P.W.23-Inspector of Police.P.W.23 completed theinvestigation on 13.03.2008, and filed final report against the accused beforethe concerned court, which in turn committed the case to the Court of sessions,and necessary charges were framed.h) In order to substantiate the charges, at the time of trial, theprosecution examined 23 witnesses and relied on 24 exhibits and 8 materialobjects.On completion of the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution,the accused/appellants were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to theincriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.Theydenied them as false.No defence witness was examined.After hearing thearguments of the counsel and looking into the available materials, the TrialCourt took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonabledoubt and found the accused guilty and awarded the punishments as referred toabove.Under these circumstances, this criminal appeal has arisen at theinstance of the accused/appellants.Advancing arguments on behalf of the accused / appellants, the learnedcounsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution has miserablyfailed to prove the charges made on the accused.According to the prosecution,the occurrence has taken place on 18.01.2008 at about 9.15 a.m., and immediatelythe deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Tuticorin where P.W.21-Doctortreated her at 9.30 a.m. and issued Ex.P22-Accident Register copy, wherein ithas been stated that she sustained 80% burn injuries.Pointing to this, thelearned counsel stated that if she had sustained 80% burn injuries, then surelyshe would not have been in a position to give any such statement as to theincident.Further, the counsel added that it is claimed by the prosecutionthat, on receipt of the intimation from the hospital, the Sub-Inspector ofPolice concerned, went to the hospital and recorded the statement which ismarked as Ex.P1, but the said Sub-Inspector of Police was not examined and noexplanation was forthcoming from the prosecution.He further submitted that theprosecution has marked Ex.P1 only through P.W.2 who is actually the sister ofthe deceased.4. Added further the learned counsel for the accused / appellants that inthe instant case, even a reading of Ex.P1 would clearly indicate that she wentto the shop and fetched kerosene with an intention to commit suicide andpursuant to which, after coming to the home, she committed suicide.The learnedcounsel also would add that the prosecution has relied upon Ex.P15-dyingdeclaration of the deceased, alleged to have been recorded by P.W.17-DistrictMunsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District, and even the dyingdeclaration would indicate that it was the act of all the three accused, butnowhere in any one of the documents, A2 and A3 are implicated and hence, it wasonly a developed version by the deceased against the entire family members, andit is also evident from the records that earlier, she had given two complaintsagainst the first accused which would clearly indicate that she had a grudgeagainst the family members to implicate them all.He further submitted thateven in the dying declaration, there was nothing spoken about any dowryharassment or anything and there was no whisper about A2 or A3 that theyinstigated A1 to do certain act.The learned counsel further added that itwas a clear case of suicide and these documents were marked to show that A1 toA3 have committed the offence.6. Added further the learned counsel for the accused / appellants that shewas admitted in the hospital on the date of occurrence itself, but she died onlyafter 12 days due to complications of burns and therefore, Section 302 of theCode will not apply to the facts of the case.Learned counsel for the accused / appellants, put forth the second lineof argument that it was a case where the first accused was unarmed and hence itwas not his intention to murder his wife.He further submitted that at the timeof occurrence, the first accused requested the deceased to prepare coffee andwhen she refused to do it, he got provoked and in the circumstances, he hadacted so and hence, it would clearly indicate that the act of the accused wouldnot come under the penal provisions of murder.Hence, according to the counsel,all the accused have got to be acquitted.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and alsoscrutinised the materials available.After examining the deceased, P.W.21 issued Ex.P22-AccidentRegister copy which would show that the deceased sustained 80% burn injuries atthe time of admitting into the hospital.Following the inquest made by P.W.18-Revenue Divisional Officer,the dead body was subjected to autopsy by P.W.8-Doctor, and he issued Ex.P8-PostMortem Certificate in which he gave a categorical opinion that the deceased diedout of burn injuries and complications thereon.The fact that she died out ofburn injuries was proved by the prosecution beyond any controversy.In order to substantiate the involvement of all the three accusedpersons in the crime of dowry demand and cruelty and also causing her death bypouring kerosene and setting her ablaze, the prosecution had no direct evidenceto offer.It relied only upon circumstantial evidence.Insofar as the firstcharge of dowry demand and cruelty is concerned, i.e. under Section 498-A ofIPC, the Court is unable to find any evidence insofar as A2 and A3 areconcerned.Admittedly, the first accused, after the marriage with the deceased,have got two children and they were living separately from A2 and A3, and on twooccasions, complaints were given by the deceased to All Women Police Station andalso to the respondent-Police.A perusal of those complaints would clearlyindicate that nowhere she has whispered anything about A2 or A3 and thus, itwould clearly indicate that there was no cruelty exerted by A2 or A3 on her,insofar as the demand for dowry.Under the circumstance, it would clearlyindicate that A2 and A3 have no role to play insofar as the crime of dowrydemand is concerned.All would clearly indicate that since A1 was not employed due to hisdisease, he was torturing her, and hence A1 has got to be found guilty underSection 498-A IPC.Insofar as the second charge of murder is concerned, on an analysis ofthe evidence available, the Court is of the considered opinion that the case inrespect of A2 and A3 cannot be said to have been proved.On the date ofoccurrence, i.e. 18.01.2008 at 9.15 a.m., after the occurrence, the deceased wastaken to the Government Hospital, Tuticorin where P.W.21-Doctor attended her at9.30 a.m. and issued Accident Register copy and the same has been marked asEx.Actually, a statement was given by the deceased in the hospital and thesame was recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police at about 10.00 hours, pursuantto which a case came to be registered by the respondent-Police.A comment wasmade regarding the non-examination of the Sub-Inspector of Police who recordedthe statement.It is true that he was not examined, but the prosecution hasrelied on the evidence of P.W.2 fortunately, wherein she has deposed that shesigned Ex.In Ex.P1, it is specifically stated that the deceased went to theshop for purchase of kerosene to commit suicide, and after her returning to thehouse, the first accused, with an intention of causing death, beat her, pushedher inside the room, poured kerosene and set her ablaze, and she has not statedthat A2 or A3 instigated A1 to commit the offence.Further, P.W.17-District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti,Madurai District recorded the dying declaration of the deceased within a shortspan of 1 hour and 45 minutes.A reading of the dying declaration makes it clearthat it was her husband, the first accused, beat the deceased, pushed her insidethe room and poured kerosene from the can.The occurrence has been spoken to bythe deceased in clear and unambiguous terms and hence this Court finds noillegality or infirmity in the dying declaration.P.W.17 has categoricallystated that when she went to the hospital, she first verified as to the mentalfitness of the declarant to give such a declaration, and it was actuallyrecorded only after due certification by P.W.6-Doctor, as could be seen fromEx.The Doctor was all along present at the time of recording the statement.All these would clearly indicate the involvement of the first accused in thecrime, and nowhere the Court is able to notice any evidence as against A2 and A3insofar as the offence of murder is concerned.Hence the contention put forthby the learned counsel for the accused / appellants that the deceased made anattempt to commit suicide for which she bought kerosene and set her ablaze andhence it was a case of self-immolation, cannot be accepted.The accused was all along quarreling with the deceased earlier whichnecessitated her to give two complaints, one to the All Women Police Station andthe other to the respondent-Police Station.Pursuant to both these complaints,A1 was called for and the situation was pacified, and even then, on the date ofoccurrence, he was quarreling with her.She went to the shop and purchasedkerosene, but it was not she who poured kerosene on her.Immediately, the firstaccused / first appellant, beat her and also poured kerosene on her and set herablaze.In the circumstances, it was he who acted so.In view of the reasons stated supra, the judgment of the trial Courtfinding the first accused / first appellant guilty under Section 498-A IPC hasgot to be sustained.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by theTrial Court on the first accused / first appellant under Section 498-A areconfirmed.The conviction of A1 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC is modified and heis convicted under Section 302 of IPC.The life sentence and fine amount imposedby the Trial Court are confirmed.Insofar as the second and third accused are concerned, the judgment ofconviction and sentences passed by the Trial Court is set aside, and they areacquitted of all the charges levelled against them.The appellants 2 and 3 /accused 2 and 3 are directed to be released forthwith, unless their presence isrequired in connection with any other case.The fine amounts if any, paid bythem shall be refunded to them.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tuticorin.2.The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Tuticorin.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"""(c) till January, 1998 the pay and allowances of my husband were being received by my in-laws at Delhi and only 10% of the pay and allowance were being received by us to meet our domestic expenses which were quite meagre and not sufficient to meet out essential requirements at home.Thereafter a lot of criminal force by way of beating me and my son had started by my husband at the behest and intimation by Shri.P.R. Kaloty, Mrs. Swaran Kaloty and Mrs. Anu Gill (Family of my husband) followed by breaking and destruction of domestic property provided by my parents mercilessly and(d) that it was at the behest and sudden demand of my husband (after the receipt of telephone call from his father at Delhi) that I should arrange Rs. 11 lakh in cash to meet the expenses for ""Chuchak"" to be given by his parents to M.S. Anu Gill (Sister-in-law) as she was in family way and also a brand new Maruti Car and certain other domestic costly appliances for Ms. Anu Gill from my parents who were at that time on live in Delhi.My husband gave me strict instructions to meet above demands immediately otherwise he shall get me killed.....""ORDER S.K. Agarwal, JThis is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 140/99 u/s 498A/406 IPC PS Patel Nagar qua the petitioner; the married sister-in-law ""Nanad"" of the complainant (Respondent no. 2).I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and respondent no. 2 who is appearing is person.Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are: on 16.1.1994 (Respondent No. 2- complainant) was married to Major Sanjeev Kaloti who was serving in the Indian Army; the marriage was solemnised in Delhi; she lived with her husband at the places of his postings, firstly at Kanput and at Dibrugarh, Assam.The petitioner, at the time of marriage of her brother Sanjeev was working as an assistant in the Ministry of Finance, Delhi was allotted Government accommodation.On 16.11.1997 the petitioner was married and she is living in her matrimonial home at Noida.On 9th June, 1998 respondent no. 2 sent a detailed complaint to the DCP, CAW Cell, Nanakpura, Delhi alleging physical and mental torture by her husband and his other family members on account of demand of dowry.On the basis of the same abovenoted case was registered.Investigations have been completed.Challan has been filed.Against the petitioner it was alleged:-""(a) besides above mentioned articles my in-laws had demanded and had taken Gold ornaments i.e. 1 Chain, 1 Ring for Shri P.R-Kaloty, Father-in-law, golden chain and ear-ring and a golden bracelet for Mrs. Swaran Kaloty (mother-in-law) one golden chain, bracelet and earring for Ms.Anu(sister-in-law) and 2 golden sets, 2 gold chain, 2 gold bangles, 5 gold rings, and 6 gold ear-rings for myself and later on their demand for a golden Mangal-Sutra was also met by my parents....""""(b) the Govt. Quarter allotted to Mrs. Anu Gill(Sister-in-law) is learn to have been in the possession of parents of my husband illegally and is being used by them for them for their illegal and other nefarious activities which I feel ashamed and not in a position to express myself in writing.....""After her marriage complainant-respondent no. 2 started living with her husband who was never posted in Delhi.Such a tendency ought to be deprecated.","['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The petitioner is an accused in this case.He was aggrieved with the protraction of the proceeding.However, at present, trial is going on at reasonable pace and dates are being fixed regularly.(Jay Sengupta, J.) 2",['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
"As per the prosecution, Gajraj Singh Yadav- PW 5, an employee of the MTNL posted at Gulabi Bagh, Delhi, was residing at House No.173, Page 1 of 51 Libaspur, Delhi with his family comprising of his deceased wife Smt. Sunita Yadav and two sons namely Sushant Yadav and Prashant Yadav.In the year 2003, Sushant and Prashant, were studying at the Panasia National Public School.Sunita Yadav was a housewife and remained at home.The children used to return from school at about 2.00 p.m. On the fateful day of 22nd of September, 2003, Prashant Yadav (PW 3), the younger child was suffering from pain in his foot and returned home at about 1.40 p.m. with his friend Sunil on his cycle.There was no response from inside when Prashant Yadav rang the bell of his house.The child saw blood near the door of the room; jumped into the house over the gate; opened the gate from inside and took his bag into the house.Raj Kumar @ Guddu-the appellant, was present in the room and he asked Prashant not to cry and to lock the gate.The appellant disclosed to the child that he had seen someone who had attacked Sunita Yadav with a knife and escaped.Raj Kumar asked him to bring a cloth to clean the floor so that the blood does not flow outside the gate.The child cleaned the floor as directed by the appellant.His efforts to Page 2 of 51 telephonically contact his father were obstructed by the appellant who told him not to do so.Page 2 of 51Prashant Yadav has testified that the appellant did not let both the brothers make the telephone call to their father to inform him about the incident.Both children have deposed that their mother Sunita Yadav was breathing at the time when they reached their house.So far as the plight of the injured Sunita is concerned, Prashant has stated that Raj Kumar held up his mother from the neck and told him (PW 3) to bring water.The appellant thereafter proceeded to press the throat of his mother and poured water into her mouth, as a result of which there was bubbling therefrom.Sunita was breathing even when Raj Kumar was pouring water into his mother's mouth.As Page 3 of 51 Raj Kumar was pressing their mother's throat when pouring water into her mouth Prashant told Sushant to hit Raj Kumar.Page 3 of 51The child also stated that when he was able to connect with his father's telephone, Raj Kumar snatched the phone from him and the phone line snapped.Prashant was able to reconnect the phone line and managed to contact his father's office but while he was talking to the person who had answered the phone, the accused pulled out the telephone wire.In these circumstances, Prashant states that he could only convey the message that his mother has been attacked (""mere Mammy ko mar diya"") before the phone line was pulled out.It is further in the testimony of PW 4 Sushant Yadav @ Sunny, the elder of the two children, that Prashant was also extremely frightened when Raj Kumar enquired from him as to whom Prashant was calling and asked Sushant to hit him.PW 4-Sushant had also asked the appellant to call for an ambulance at which Raj Kumar pretended to call one Shanta Nursing Home asking for an ambulance.No ambulance ever arrived at the spot.On being asked by the children as to why the ambulance was not coming, the appellant assured them that the ambulance would come.In the meantime, the appellant kept asking them repeatedly to get more water which he kept pouring into the mouth of their mother Sunita.Both the children have referred to Page 4 of 51 Raj Kumar pressing Sunita's throat and pouring water into her mouth.Sushant also stated that when he turned his back on the appellant, he saw that the appellant pressed his mother's nose while pouring water into her mouth and that her mother expired at that time.Page 4 of 51It was amidst such commotion that Prashant managed to convey the aforesaid message at his father's office before the appellant pulled out the telephone wire.In the struggle between the appellant and Prashant, a utensil in which the water had been brought, fell down.On hearing this sound, PW-4-Sushant who had gone out of the room, rushed back and saw that Raj Kumar was now throttling his brother.Upon Sushant's return to the room, Raj Kumar pretended as if he was in fact massaging his brother Prashant's neck.At this Sushant attacked Raj Kumar trying to save his brother from the clutches of Raj Kumar and also raised an alarm.He told his brother Prashant to rush out of the room.As Prashant tried to flee from the room, Raj Kumar tried to grab his leg but Prashant managed to escape his clutches.Prashant rushed to his neighbour's house (referred to as ""taiji"" on record) and returned with her to the house.In the meantime, as per PW 4-Sushant, the appellant fled through the terrace of their house, even though Sushant tried to prevent him by catching his leg.Page 5 of 51Page 5 of 51It is in the testimony of both the brothers that the clothes of the appellant were blood stained.Sushant has also testified that while fleeing, the appellant wore his father's shirt hanging on the terrace.It appears that at 1412 hrs.on 22nd September, 2003, the Police Control Room received information to the effect that one lady had been murdered in the house no.173 of Gajraj Yadav in Gali No.9 located in village Libas.The form of the police control has been exhibited as Exh PW 21/X-1 before the trial court.At 14:20 hours it is recorded that the head constable had gone there and it was stated that the SHO be sent to the spot as soon as possible.In this police control room record, at 14:35 hours, it is recorded to the effect that Sunita, wife of Gajraj, aged 30 years was alone at home when Guddu @ Raj Kumar committed the murder and ran away; that she was lying on a cot covered with a sheet and that the arrival of the SHO was being awaited.At 14:52 hours, it has been recorded that ACP had come on the spot and entered the premises.It is further recorded on the police control room form at 15:20 hours that the two sons of Sunita, wife of Gajraj, namely Prashant aged thirteen and a half years and Sushant aged twelve years returned from school when they saw Guddu@Raj Kumar son of Kanwar Singh (their Page 6 of 51 `tau'), throttling (`reta') their mother's neck.The neck of their mother had been cut; there were two knife injuries on her left hand and one knife injury on the other hand.The appellant refers to the further entry that ""Guddu ko pakkad liva"".Page 6 of 51The crime team of the North-West District, Delhi conducted an inspection on the spot from 3.22 p.m. to 4.10 p.m. As per its report, Exh.PW 21/X-2, the crime team left several instructions for the investigating officer.The local police station Samaipur Badli received information from the wireless operator on the 22nd September, 2003 itself at about 2.20 p.m. that in House No.173, Gali No.9, Libaspur, Delhi belonging to one Gajraj Singh, one person had been murdered.This information was recorded as DD No.13/A (Exh.PW 13/2) and handed over to SI Dhruv Narain through Yashpal Singh to take appropriate action.The crime team officials as well as photographers were called to the spot.The then SHO Inspector R.P. Gautam-PW 21 (who retired as ACP) proceeded to the spot at about 2:45 p.m.PW-21-SHO R.P. Gautam also made inquiries from Prashant Yadav and recorded his statement Exh.PW 3/A. In view of the statement given by Prashant and the position on the spot, an offence under Section 302 of the IPC was found to have been made out.SHO R.P. Page 7 of 51 Gautam prepared a Rukka which was sent to the police station through Constable Yashpal at 5:30 p.m. FIR No.473/2003 under Section 302 IPC was registered by the police station Samaipur Badli and DD No.17A was endorsed in this regard.PW 21/D) were prepared.It appears that at this stage, PW 11 Vineet Yadav-brother of the deceased, also reached her house at 4:15 p.m. Prashant's statement Exh.PW 3/A was recorded in his presence and investigation was undertaken by the police.The witness has stated that Sunita's husband Gajraj Singh was not present when he had reached the spot.PW 11 Vineet Yadav has supported the statements of PW 3 Prashant & PW 4-Sushant with regard to the position on the spot and the blood which was found lying on the ground as well as on the bedding which included two sheets, a `bichona', pillow cover as well as a towel.He has also supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the multiple injuries on the body of the deceased; blood stains; Page 8 of 51 samples taken by the crime team and the police; the seizure of articles; preparation of the site plan; photographs of the spot and the recording of statements.PW 11-Vinod Yadav has made a further categorical statement that the deceased was clutching a bunch of hair in her left hand and that this hair was also seized by the police.Page 8 of 51We find that the defence has extensively cross-examined PW 3 Prashant Yadav as to the manner in which he reached the house and has been unable to shake his testimony.PW 9-Sunil Yadav has corroborated PW 3 when he stated that he dropped his friend Prashant Yadav.In his testimony before the court, Sunil Yadav stated that he dropped Prashant Yadav at the Libaspur More (turning) on his cycle and left him there.Their mother Sunita used to remain in the house.On 22.9.2003 PW-3 Prashant Yadav ad PW-4 Sushant Yadav had gone to school in the morning.The school used to close at 1.30 pm and both of them used to come back at home at 2 pm.Page 24 of 51 On 22.9.2003 PW-3 Prashant Yadav was having pain in his foot as such, he came back to his house along with his friend PW-9 Sunil Yadav on his cycle at about 1.40 pm and at that time, the brother of PW-9 Sunil Yadav was was also on the cycle along with PW-3 Prashant Yadav and PW-9 Sunil Yadav.Thereafter PW-9 Sunil Yadav requested a glass of water then PW-3 Prashant Yadav rang the bell of his house and also made noise on the gate but none responded from inside the house.PW-3 thought that his mother i.e. Sunita (deceased) might have gone to the terrace for drying of clothes.What you have to say?Page 24 of 51On 22.09.2003, I was passing from outside the house of my Chacha Gajraj Singh when I heard some noise and voice of my Chachi from inside.The main gate of the house was locked from inside but side gate was open.The Page 31 of 51 prosecution was unable to prove its case that PW 6 Kavit Monga had not provided the recovered paper cutting knife to the appellant who worked as his indenting agent.It could only prove that the appellant was working as an indenting agent in his office and that paper cutting knives were used for their work.However, in the present case, the source of the knife would be irrelevant.The appellant is stated to have also taken out the blood stained black pant (Exh.PW 5/3) which he was wearing at the time of commission of the offence from beneath the sofa kept in the room of his house.The accused then led the police party to the roof of the house of PW 5 Gajraj Singh Yadav; pointed out towards the bathroom from where on his pointing out one blood stained sky blue shirt (Exh.PW 5/4) and a sando baniyan (Exh. PW 5/5) from beneath gunny bags of cement, and a parcel which were seized as per the seizure memo Exh.PW 5/J. These recoveries are proved by the testimonies of PW 5 Gajraj Yadav; PW 18-Head Constable Krishan Kumar Kaushik and PW 21 ACP R.P. Gautam.The sealed seized articles were kept in safe custody in the malkhana.We, however, find that in the very next sentence, PW 4 Sushant Yadav has stated that he had not personally witnessed the recovery Page 33 of 51 but had come to know about it.According to PW 14-Shyam Singh, the doctor took a hair sample of appellant Raj Kumar and converted the same into a parcel which was duly sealed and handed over to the Head Constable Krishan Kumar Kaushik vide memo Exh.PW 14/A. The testimony of PW 14-HC Shyam Singh that the hair sample of the appellant was taken, sealed and handed over to Head Constable Krishan Kumar Kaushik was corroborated by PW 20-Dr.Neeraj Chaudhary.The witness PW 20, was not cross-examined on these aspects at all.No dispute has been raised by the appellants with regard to safe custody of any of the samples.However, Ms. Ritu Gauba, learned APP for the State has drawn our attention to the testimony of PW 14-Shyam Singh , PW 16-Head Constable Ram Singh & PW 19-Constable Ranbir in this regard who have established the safe custody of the sample; its deposit with the forensic laboratory and receipt of the report.We have noticed hereinabove the several injuries in the nature of six incised wounds on the body of the deceased as well as the cut throat wound.Perusal of the photographs Exh.He proved in court his opinion as Exh.PW 7/B regarding the single edged cutting metallic knife of metallic nature with imprint of New R.K. Brand over the handle on both sides as being the weapon of offence.Dr. Anil Shandilya also gave opinion (Exh.PW 7/C) regarding the plastic handle single edged sharp blade paper cutting knife with the reddish brown stains opining that injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report (Exh.PW 7/A) including the cut throat injury might have been caused by the knives produced by the investigating officer or similar thereto.All articles/objects and samples seized or recovered were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for forensic examination.The recovered articles which included concrete material described as blood Page 36 of 51 stained earth; the pillow with cover; bed sheet; mattress; towel; duster; few strands of hair; salwar; lady's shirt; dupatta; under clothing; blood stained gauze cloth piece (described as `blood sample'); one all metallic weapon of offence having brownish stairs; one broken weapon of offence of plastic and metallic blade; pant; shirt & baniyan; few strands of hair were marked Exh.1, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 4, 5, 6, 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 8. 9, 10, 11, 12a, 12b & 13 by the Forensic Laboratory.Blood was detected on exhibits `1', `3a', `3b', `3d', `4', `5', `6', `7a', `7b', `7c', `7d', `8', `9', `10', `11', `12a' & `12b'.Blood could not be detected on exhibit `2'.From morphological and microscopical studies the hair in exhibits `6' & `13' were found to be human in origin.Exhibit `6' (hair recovered from the spot and from the hand of deceased) and exhibit `13' (Hair of accused) were found to be similar in most of their morphological and microscopical characteristics.""The serological analysis of the blood sample of the deceased (Exh.8) shows that the deceased was having blood group `O' Page 37 of 51Page 37 of 51It is noteworthy as per the report (Exh.PW 21/X-4) of the Forensic Science Laboratory, though human blood was identified on the two knives, its grouping, however, could not be identified.As per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory dated 27th February, 2004 (Exh.PW 5 Gajraj Singh Yadav has explained that a telephone message was received at his office by another employee Smt. Indermani who got the impression that her daughter was calling on the telephone in an emergency and she requested PW 5-Gajraj Singh Yadav to take her to her residence.We have noticed above the deposition of PW 5's son Prashant who had actually telephoned his office about the injury to his mother but the phone line was pulled away by the appellant.Given the information communicated by Smt. Indermani and her request, Gajraj Singh Yadav accompanied her to her residence in Shastri Nagar where they found her daughter in normal condition.Thereafter, a telephonic message was received from the office of PW - 5 Gajraj Singh Yadav informing that the earlier message related to him and not to Smt. Indermani.PW 5 has explained that on receipt of this message, he called his house when he was informed for the first time that the condition of his wife was very serious.He thereupon took permission from his immediate boss and reached his house when he found that the police had already reached there.Analysis & ConclusionIn the instant case, on examination of the evidence which has been brought on record as well as the admissions by the appellant, the following facts have been proved beyond reasonable doubt:-(i) On 22nd September, 2003, when PW 3 Prashant and PW 4 Sushant came home from their school, they found their mother, Sunita in an injured condition on a cot in their house and blood coming out from her body which had spilt over the ground.(ii) The accused was found to be present alone in the room where the deceased was lying in an injured condition.No effort was made to call the police.(iv) The main gate of the house stood closed from inside and the son of the deceased PW 3 Prashant Yadav had to jump the gate as none responded to his ringing the bell.(v) PW 3-Prashant was asked by the appellant to close the door after he was inside and also to clean the blood which was spilt on the floor.(vi) The appellant obstructed the child from telephoning his father to inform him about the occurrence.(vii) The deceased was alive when her sons reached the house.The appellant made no effort to get medical help for her.(viii) It is in the evidence of both, PW 3 & PW 4 that instead of getting medical assistance, the appellant was pressing the nose and throat of their mother and pouring water into her mouth resulting in bubbles.Sunita expired when the appellant was doing so in the presence of her two sons.(ix) PW 3 Prashant Yadav as well as his brother PW 4 Sushant Yadav were also not permitted by the appellant from raising hue and cry.It is manifest that Page 44 of 51 no call for an ambulance was made as no ambulance from any nursing home reached the spot.Page 44 of 51(xi) PW 3 Prashant Yadav tried to get out of the room to seek help.The appellant physically prevented him from doing so.(xii) The appellant made attempts to throttle PW 3 Prashant Yadav.(xiii) Both, PW 3 & PW 4 have categorically stated that PW 4 managed to escape with difficulty and brought a neighbor to the house.The appellant then fled from the spot from the terrace of their house.(xiv) The first official record i.e. the form of the police control room (Exh.PW 21/X1) mentions the presence of the appellant, children and also that the appellant had been named by the children.(xv) The police arrested the accused next morning on 23rd September, 2003 from a spot near the house of his in-laws.(xvi) After his arrest, the appellant made a disclosure statement leading recovery of two knives (Exh.PW 5/1 & PW 5/2) and blood stained clothes worn by him.(xvii) The appellant was wearing the recovered pant, shirt and vest on 22nd September, 2003 when he was found with the injured Sunita by her two sons.Page 45 of 51 (xviii) As per the expert medical opinion, the injuries found inflicted on the body of the deceased were possible by the two recovered knives.The forensic science laboratory confirmed human blood on the blade of these two knives.His friend had left by that time.Page 1 of 51Inside the house, Prashant saw his mother-Sunita Yadav lying on the cot with blood spilt all around at which he started weeping.In the meantime, his brother Sushant Yadav also reached the house.According to Prashant, Raj Kumar dissuaded him from opening the gate for his brother Sushant but he still proceeded to do so.Sushant testifying as PW 4, stated that Prashant was weeping when he reached the house.Their mother was lying in an injured condition.Raj Kumar repeated the story to Sushant Yadav to the effect that someone had attacked his mother Sunita with a knife and thereafter escaped.The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 23rd September, 2003 by PW 7-Dr.Anil Shandilya.The post mortem report was proved as Exh.PW 7/A. The deceased was found to have suffered the following ante mortem injuries:-""External injuries:Clean incised stab wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm spindal shaped situated 19 cm from medial end of left clavical and 3.5 cm from midline and 11 cm from left nipple.On dissection of the wound, the wound entered the chest cavity in between the sixth and seventh rib and pierced through lungs and entered the heart.Size 2 cm x 0.5 cm spindal shaped.On dissection of the wound, the wound entered the chest cavity and pierced the lung between seventh and eighth rib.Clean incised wound in mid axilliary line 15 cm from axillia size 3 cm x 1 cm piercing the abdominal cavity.On dissection of the wound the wound pierced the spleen as mentioned already.Page 9 of 51Back of the chest clean incised stab wound 12 cm from midline and 9 cm from angle of scapula on left side.The wound entered the chest cavity and pierced the lung in between fifth and sixth rib as already mentioned.Right side back of chest 9 cm from midline and 8 cm from right angle of scapula, clean incised stab wound entering the chest cavity and piercing the lung size 2 cm x 1 cm.Multiple incised wounds skin to muscle deep in both upper limbs, nine on left and ten on right upper limb.They are all defensive wounds of varying in size.Internal Injuries:No extravassection of blood in underlying neck tissues or blood and clots in and around tissues of the wound.No foreign body in tracea and its division.Chest : Both ribs intact.Left lung linear incised cut mark size 1.8 cm x 01 cm, 2 cm x 0.1 cm and 1.9 cm x 0.2 cm, three in number present.Right lung showed linear incised cut mark size 2 cm in length.Chest cavity full of 2 ltr of liquid blood and clots.the lateral aspect size 2 cm x 0.2 cm x 1.5 cm.All visceras pale.Abdominal cavity full of liquid blood and clots.Stomach : Mucosa NAD.Abnormal smell nil.Contents - Juice like fluid about 500 ml.""Page 10 of 51Page 10 of 51As per the opinion of Dr.Anil Shandilya, the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock following multi visccral injury i.e. injury to heart, lungs and spleen.It was also opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature except injury no.7 which was caused by sharp weapon.On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.By the orders passed on 30 April 2004, the charge for the offences punishable u/s 302 IPC and u/s 27 Arms Act, 1959 was framed against the petitioner.The appellant pleaded not guilty and was put to trial on the above charge.The prosecution examined 21 witnesses whereafter the learned trial Judge put the incriminating circumstances to the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. giving him an opportunity to render his explanation for the same.The appellant also opted to lead his defence and examined DW-1, his mother Premvati as the sole witness.There was no eye witness to the inflicting of injuries on the deceased and the case of the prosecution rests solely on circumstantial evidence.The appellant was heard on sentence and the afore-noticed order on sentence was passed the same day.This judgment and order on sentence are assailed before us by way of the present appeal.Page 11 of 51We may note that the prosecution was unable to prove motive for the murder and it was so concluded by the learned trial Judge.This finding has not been challenged by the prosecution.However, it is well settled that failure to prove motive would not necessarily be fatal to the prosecution case even if the case rested on circumstantial evidence.Child Testimony - ReliabilityMr. Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the testimonies of the two minor sons of the deceased are unnatural, improbable and full of contradictions.It is disputed that these testimonies could be relied upon to base the conviction of the appellant.Before us, it is contended that PW-3-Prashant Yadav and PW-4- Sushant Yadav have stated that they had gone to the school on their own in the morning of 22nd September, 2003 whereas their father PW-5-Gajraj Yadav has stated that he had dropped the children to the school.Page 12 of 51Page 12 of 51Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the testimony of PW 3 & PW 4 is contradictory with regard to the clothes which the accused was wearing at the time.PW 3 Prashant Yadav has stated that the appellant Raj Kumar was wearing a sky blue shirt with full sleeves and black pant at the time of incident, while PW 4 Sushant Yadav has stated that the appellant was wearing a black pant, white vest and cream T-shirt.Immediately after that he deposed that he was wearing a light blue T-shirt.Thereafter he finally deposed that he was not sure of the colour of the T-shirt.Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel or the appellant has also challenged the testimony of PW 3 Prashant Yadav who had stated that his friend Sunil Yadav had accompanied him to the house as he wanted to drink water.It is urged that Sunil Yadav has appeared as PW 9 and has not supported his friend PW 3-Prashant Yadav on this aspect.Ms. Ritu Gauba, learned APP for the State has placed reliance on several judicial pronouncements on the manner in which child testimony has to be evaluated.In this regard, she has drawn our attention to the judgment reported at (2010) 12 SCC 324 State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.Krishna Master & Ors.; (2011) 4 SCC 786 State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.Ramesh & Anr.& (2012) 4 SCC 559 Promode Dey Vs.State of West Bengal.Page 13 of 51Page 13 of 51In the Krishna Master case supra, a child, aged six years at the time of occurrence in the dead of the night, was an eye witness to the incident.He had given evidence in a simple manner without making any noticeable improvements and/or embellishments.The defence had set up a case of false implication.The child was the sole witness to the incident.This witness has claimed on oath before the Court that he had seen five members of his family being ruthlessly killed by the respondents by firing gun shots.When a child of tender age witnesses gruesome murder of his father, mother, brothers etc. he is not likely to forget the incident for his whole life and would certainly recapitulate facts in his memory when asked about the same at any point of time, notwithstanding the gap of about ten years between the incident and recording of his evidence.This Court is of the firm opinion that it would be doing injustice to a child witness possessing sharp memory to say that it is inconceivable for him to recapitulate facts in his memory witnessed by him Page 14 of 51 long ago.A child of tender age is always receptive to abnormal events which take place in its life and would never forget those events for the rest of his life.The child would be able to recapitulate correctly and exactly when asked about the same in future.Therefore, the spacious ground on which the reliable testimony of PW2, Madan Lal came to be disbelieved can hardly be affirmed by this Court.""The appellant obstructed their contacting their father or seeking help otherwise for their mother.They witnessed their mother dying before their very eyes.In other words even in the absence of oath the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to understand the questions and able to give rational answers thereof.I went inside and say my chachi Sunita Yadav was lying injured and blood was coming out.I asked her who had injured her but she could not tell.She asked me for a glass of water.In the meantime, her son Prashant Yadav returned from the school.I told him that someone had injured his mother and ran away and asked him to bring water as Sunita Yadav was asking for same and I thereafter telephoned Shanta Nursing Home for calling of an Ambulance.Sunita Yadav was breathing heavily at that time and I further asked Prashant to call his father Gajraj also and inform him about the said incident as I di not know the phone number of gajraj Yadav (Chacha).I do not know how did Prashant return from school.No person with the name of Sunil Yadav had accompanied Prashant when he came back from the school and nobody rung any bell"".The appellant has thus admitted that PW 3 & PW 4 had also reached the spot while he was there and that Sunita Yadav was alive at that time.Page 25 of 51Page 26 of 51 We have noticed heretofore several pronouncements wherein the Supreme Court has categorically held that the testimony of a child witness relating to circumstances in which his parents has suffered injury, deserves to be accepted, if otherwise found reliable.Page 26 of 51The children have also spoken in one voice with regard to what transpired after they had entered the room where their injured mother was lying.As per the evidence on record, PW 3-Prashant Yadav and PW 4 Sushant Yadav found their mother Sunita in an injured condition when they reached home on 22nd September, 2003 from school.She was injured and profusely bleeding.The gate and doors of the house were locked from inside.They both deposed that Raj Kumar @ Guddu was pressing Sunita's throat and pouring water into her mouth.It is in the testimony of PW 4-Sushant Yadav that the appellant had even pressed her nose closed while pouring water into her mouth.There is no contradiction at all in their statements with regard to the events which transpired after they returned home from school.The appellant was found inside the house alone with a badly injured Sunita.His conduct was odd and not normal.No contradiction or improvement in material particular in their evidence has been pointed out.PW 3 & 4 are truthful witnesses who Page 27 of 51 have given cogent and reliable evidence noticed above and have been rightly relied upon by the learned trial Judge.Challenge to time of Arrest of AppellantPage 27 of 51Learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to support his challenge to the arrest of the appellant placing reliance on an illegible portion of a noting on Police Control Room Record Exh. PW 21/X1 recorded at 15:20 hours.At the end of this note, the person scribbling the same has endorsed the words ""Guddu ko pakad liva"".Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn our attention to the testimony of PW 3-Prashant Yadav who has stated that Raj Kumar @ Guddu was caught by the police on the date of the incident at about 4.00 p.m. However, this statement is not supported by the witness who has categorically testified that he was not present Page 28 of 51 when the accused was apprehended and that he (PW-5) came to know that the accused was apprehended from his house.The witness has only deposed that Raj Kumar was present in the police station where he had gone to sign the statement.No clarification has been sought by the defence with regard to the date or time at which the statement of Prashant Yadav was signed by him.Nothing has been put to the investigating officer in this regard.Page 28 of 51As per the prosecution, the appellant was arrested on 23rd September, 2003 at around 6.50 a.m. from Sant Nagar Burari bus stand.Ms. Ritu Gauba, learned APP has pointed out that after the appellant fled from the scene of occurrence, he could not be traced out despite best efforts by the police.We find that as per the arrest memo (Exh.PW 5/A) the appellant was arrested by PW 21-Retired ACP R.P. Gautam on 23rd September, 2003 at 6.30 a.m. from the main road, Sant Nagar, Burari in the presence of PW 5-Gajraj Singh and HC Krishnan.PW 5 Gajraj Singh a witness to the arrest, has stated that the appellant was arrested on that location in Sant Nagar Burari where his in-laws stay.The arrest of the appellant is also corroborated also by the testimony of PW 18 Head Constable Krishan Kumar Kaushik and PW 21-Shri R.P. Gautam.No question has been put with regard thereto on behalf of the appellant to the witness.Even in his own statement, it is not the appellant's case that he was arrested at the spot.We find no discrepancy in the evidence with regard to the appellant's arrest.The reliance on the contents of Exh.Disclosure & Recovery of two knives pursuant theretoIt is also in the evidence of PW 21 Shri R.P. Gautam that after his arrest, the appellant had made a disclosure statement Exh.PW 5/D leading to the recovery, on his pointing out, of two blood stained knives from the room on the first floor of his house which had been hidden in a packed fridge.It is stated that one knife was an iron knife and while the other was a paper cutting knife.The sketch of the iron knife was prepared which was proved on record as Exh.PW 5/F while the sketch of the paper cutting knife was proved as Exh.PW 5/G. The Page 30 of 51 two knives were kept in a separate seal vide Exh.PW 5/E by PW 21-R.P. Gautam.The seizure memo of the knives was proved on record as Exh.PW 5/E.Page 30 of 51The disclosure statement Exh.PW 5/D was proved in the testimony of PW 5 Gajraj Singh Yadav as well as PW 21 Shri R.P. Gautam.These witnesses also identified the paper cutting knife as Exh.PW 5/1 and the metallic knife as Exh.PW 5/2 in the court room.The recovery of these two knives on 23rd September 2003, was also proved at the instance of the accused was also proved by the deposition of these witnesses.The issue is as to whether the knife which was recovered was used in the commission of the offence.Page 31 of 51We find that the trial court has rightly rejected the challenge to the recovery of the knives on behalf of the appellant, placing reliance on the testimonies of PW 5, PW 7 & PW 21 as well as the forensic science laboratory report.The appellant has not made out any ground before us as well to reject the authenticity thereof.Recovery of clothes of accused worn at the time of commission of the offence.After his arrest on the 23rd September, 2003, the appellant made afore-noticed disclosure statement, Exh.PW 5/D wherein he disclosed that the blood stained shirt and vest (baniyan) which he was wearing at the time of the incident in the bathroom in the roof of the house of Gajraj Singh Yadav which he could get recovered as also the recovery of the pant worn by him at that time.It is in the evidence of the Page 32 of 51 witnesses that the accused thereafter led the police authority to his House No.120, Gali No.10, Libaspur, Delhi.Page 32 of 51Therefore, Sushant Yadav's statement that the police has recovered the t-shirt and vest on the date of the incident is not based on personal knowledge and no significance can be attached to this part of the deposition.Page 33 of 51The appellant has thus been unable to challenge either the admissibility of the disclosure by the appellant to the extent of the recovery or the authenticity of the recoveries at all.Weapon of offence and forensic examination of recovered articlesMs. Ritu Gauba, learned APP for the State has also pointed out that the blood stained clothes of the deceased seized by the police were sealed with the seal of the Medical Superintendent, Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi.It is in the testimony of PW 11-Shri Vineet Yadav; PW -20 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary; PW 21-retired ACP R.P. Gautam & PW 22-Jag Narayan that in her left hand, the deceased Sunita was clutching a bunch of hair.The hair which the deceased was clutching was seized by PW 21-Retired ACP RP Gautam.After the arrest of the accused, he was taken for a medical examination to the Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi for medical examination where he has examined by Dr.Manohar Kumar Nirala.Page 34 of 51Page 34 of 51In order to prove the medical examination of the appellant as well as the drawing of the sample, the prosecution examined PW 20-Dr.Neeraj Chaudhary who had proved the record prepared by Dr. Manohar Kumar Nirala, the examining doctor.PW 12/1- Exh.PW 12/8 Page 35 of 51 of the dead body also reflected that the injuries were inflicted by sharp edged weapon which could have been by the knife in question.To establish that the knives were the weapons of offence and whether the two knives recovered at the instance of the accused persons were the weapon of offence, the prosecution examined PW 7 Dr. Anil Shandilya who had conducted the post-mortem.Page 35 of 51Pursuant to an application being Exh.PW 21/X by the investigating officer before Dr. Anil Shandilya for obtaining his opinion with regard to the two recovered knives, PW 7 Dr. Shandilya examined the two knives.Page 36 of 51The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory dated 27 th February, 2004 (Exh.PW 21/X-3) reported the following on the forensic examination:-""RESULTS OF ANALYSISPW 21/X 3), the microbiological study of the hair samples showed that they were human in origin and similar in most of their morphological and microbiological characteristics.This indicates that the deceased was clutching the hair of the appellant in her left hand at the time of her death.Conduct of husband of the deceasedMr. Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant, has challenged the conduct of PW 5 Gajraj Singh Yadav urging that there are contradictions in the statements of various witnesses with regard to the time at which PW 5-Gajraj Singh had reached the spot.Reference in this regard is made to the testimony of PW 21 R.P. Gautam who has stated that he reached the spot at 3.00 p.m. when Gajraj Singh Yadav, husband of the deceased Sunita Yadav, was present.As against this, PW 11-Vineet Yadav-the brother of deceased Sunita who reached the spot at about 4.00 p.m., has categorically stated that Gajraj was not present at the spot when he had reached there.Page 38 of 51Page 38 of 51His sons Prashant and Sushant told him that the appellant had murdered his wife Sunita Yadav and run away from the spot by way of the terrace.The testimony of PW 5 Gajraj Singh could not be shaken in cross- examination.Page 39 of 51Page 39 of 51The appellant opted to lead defence and examined his mother Smt.Premvati as the sole witness who stated that the appellant was a person of good behavior and was innocent.She claimed that PW 5 Gajraj Singh Yadav was having disputes with her husband (brother of Gajraj Singh Yadav); that her husband was missing since 10-12 years and that Gajraj Singh was taking revenge from her son, the present appellant for which reason he had falsely implicated him.She also claimed that the appellant had been lifted from their house.PW 5 Gajraj Singh had denied all suggestions to the above facts.The absence of PW 5 Gajraj Singh Yadav (husband of the deceased) from the spot when PW 2 R.P. Gautam reached the spot and conducted the inspection is also manifested from the fact that memos of various items seized from the spot by PW 21-ACP R.P. Yadav have not been witnessed by Gajraj Singh Yadav, who would have been a natural witness if he had been present.On the contrary, the seizure memos contain the signatures of PW 11-Vineet Yadav as witness.None of the other witnesses have stated that Gajraj Yadav was present at the spot at that time.It is also not the case of the appellant that he had seen Gajraj Singh Yadav anywhere near the spot at the time of the occurrence.In this background, the statement of PW 21 R.P. Gautam with regard to Page 40 of 51 the presence of PW 5 Gajraj Singh is mistaken.It is also not of such significance or a contradiction in material particulars so as to dent the prosecution case in any manner.Nothing therefore turns on the statement of PW 21 with regard to the presence of PW 5 Gajraj Singh yadav in view of the other convincing evidence on the issue.Page 40 of 51This question was put to PW 5 Gajraj Singh in his cross-examination when he explained that because his two children (Prashant and Sushant) were of tender ages and there was none to look after them, under social pressure his family had observed the final ceremony (Chhamai) relating to the death of his wife Sunita so that he could be remarried.He has further stated that after the expiry of one year from her death, the traditional anniversary was also observed.The witness remarried only after performing `chhamai' ceremony.The witness has denied the suggestion of the defence side to the effect that he had got married two months after the death of his wife because he had an affair with another lady during the lifetime of his wife.The defence led no evidence to establish such affair.There is no evidence also of any prior relationship of PW 5 with his second wife.Page 41 of 51 We, therefore, find no reason to doubt the explanation given by PW-5- Gajraj Singh Yadav.In any case, it is not the case of the appellant that PW 5 Gajraj Singh Yadav was in any way responsible for or instrumental in the murder of Sunita Yadav.Page 41 of 51Failure to examine a witnessA half hearted submission has been made on behalf of the appellant to the effect that though Prashant and Sushant Yadav have stated that their Taiji came to the spot, she has not been examined as a witness.We may note that in answer to the question by the court in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant has admitted that Taiji was brought to the spot by Prashant Yadav.She, in any event, is not witness to the crime or to any of the events which transpired thereafter.Her testimony is wholly irrelevant for the purposes of the present case.Ms. Ritu Gauba, learned APP has placed reliance on the judgment reported at (2011) 1 SCC (Crl) 381 State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.Krishna Master & Ors.so far as choice of a witness is concerned.It is submitted that in this pronouncement, it was held that it was the prerogative of the public prosecutor to decide who has to be examined as a witness.Page 42 of 51Page 42 of 51(x) The appellant made the pretence of calling an ambulance from a private nursing home which never reached the spot.Page 45 of 51(xix) The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory confirmed that the blood group `O' which was the blood group of the deceased was present on the pant, vest as well as shirt worn by the appellant on 22nd September, 2003 which were recovered at his instance.(xx) The forensic examination also confirmed human blood on the knives recovered at the instance of the appellant which have been established as the weapons of offence.(xxi) The forensic examination report confirmed that the deceased was clutching hair which was similar in morphology and microscopical character to that of the appellant in her left hand.(xxii) The injuries found on the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and all injuries were ante-mortem in nature.The appellant has failed to render any explanation at all for any of the above circumstances.His explanation to the effect that some intruder caused the injuries and ran away is rendered unacceptable given his conduct in not raising a hue & cry even, let alone giving a hot Page 46 of 51 pursuit to the attacker and the above circumstances and evidence on record.Instead, the appellant was found inside the room with the doors of the house bolted from within and blood on his clothes.The appellant's conduct even thereafter was suspicious as he failed to get medical help for the deceased, who was still alive then, and prevented her sons from informing her husband or getting help.The appellants actions in physically pulling out the telephone line, attempting to throttle one son and preventing the other son from reaching other persons and seeking help, pouring water into her mouth, pressing the throat of the deceased was highly unnatural and does not inspire any confidence.On the contrary, these circumstances point towards the guilt of the appellant.Instead of being concerned with the life of the dangerously injured lady, he compelled her children to mop her blood from the floor.The same reads as thus:Inasmuch as the appeal was taken up for regular hearing, this application was not pressed.",['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
"23.09.2020 Index : Yes Internet : Yeshttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/5 Crl.O.P.No.22988 of 2019 mfa ToThe Superintendent of Police, Villupuram.mfa Crl.O.P.No.22988 of 2019http://www.judis.nic.in 4/5 Crl.O.P.No.22988 of 2019 23.09.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 5/5It is represented by the Government Advocate that following the investigation in Crime No.54 of 2018, the case has been taken on file in STC.No.976 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram and the same was disposed of on 08.09.2018 by imposing conviction and sentencing the accused.In such view of the matter, nothing further survives in the Criminal Original Petition.Resultantly, the Criminal Original Petition is closed.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram.The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Villupuram.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/5 Crl.O.P.No.22988 of 2019 T.RAVINDRAN, J.",['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.Applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss. 306/34 of IPC registered as Crime No. 187/2016 at Police Station Basoda, District Vidisha.As per story of the prosecution, one Mahadev Dubey committed suicide for which the allegation of abetment of such offence was attributed over the applicants as according to prosecution, such applicants have preferred some false complaint against the brother of deceased Mahadev Dubey, which prompted him to commit suicide.According to applicants, the brother of deceased, Krishan Murari Sharma with an intention to outrage the modesty has tried to force the applicant No. 2 to go with him and hurled abusive language over her caste.Heard learned counsel for the parties.It is an admitted fact that the applicant No. 2 has lodged an FIR on 12/7/2014 against the conduct of brother of deceased.","['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The occurrence waswitnessed by him and Prem Singh, who was standing at a distance of 5/7 paces.punishable under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian penalCode, 1860 (in short 'IPC').The factual position as projected by the prosecution is as follows:On 9.2.1993 at about 8.00 A.M.,Dev Singh was heading from the house to hisfields carrying a Sutli and Sua for the purpose of stitching the bags in which potatoeswere to be packed and he had hardly covered a distance of 4/5 yards when he foundaccused Balkar Singh, Chuhar Singh, Surinder Singh, Sher Singh (hereinafterreferred to as 'deceased') and injured Shamsher Singh standing near the tubewell ofChuhar Singh, where a drain existed and some water had stagnated by the roadside, because the height of the drain was more than the height of the road and somewater had tricked inside the house of Harbans Singh.Sher Singh and ShamsherSingh requested Balkar Singh and Chuhar Singh to deepen the drain so that water would not flow into their houses, to which Balkar Singh and Chuhar Singh did notagree and asked them to do themselves and thereafter the accused left the place.Deceased Sher Singh and Shamsher Singh started deepening the drain with thehelp of a kassi.After about one minute accused Balkar Singh carrying a Gandasiand the remaining two Chuhar Singh and Surender Singh armed with lathis camethere.Balkar Singh gave a gandasi blow to Sher Singh, which hit his left temple.Chuhar Singh gave a lathi blow which hit the left side of the temple and SurenderSingh gave a blow on the head of Sher Singh, who fell down and Shamsher Singhran towards his house.Thereafter there was free exchange of danda blows fromboth sides.Shamsher Singh was injured by all the three accused, who receivedinjuries on both shoulders, left side of the chest and head.Thereafter the accused left with their respective weapons and the injured Sher Singhand Shamsher Singh were removed in a tractor-trolley and got admitted in Civilhospital, Ladwa.The police came there and recorded statement,Ex. PD/2 which wasthumb-marked by him in token of its correctness.Injured Sher Singh and Shamsher Singh were got medico-legally examined.Sher Singh, who had been referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh,succumbed to the injurieson 13.2.1993, where upon Faqir Chand ASI (PW-12) conducted inquest proceedingsEx. PJ/3 and autopsy was conducted by Dr. B.Suri (PW-14).From the accused sideall the three suffered injuries and were medico-legally examined by PW-2 Dr.P.R.Pruthi, Medical Officer, CHC, Ladwa.After investigation, accused were challaned for the offence and a chargeunder Section 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code wasframed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to substantiate the accusations, prosecution examined 14 witnesses.The trial court found that the evidence is not sufficient to establish the guilt ofthe accused person and accordingly directed acquittal.The same was questioned inappeal before the High Court.The stand of the State before the High Court was thatthe injury was caused to Sher Singh and Shamsher Singh.PW9 was eye-witness who was present at the spot where the incident took place.It was stated thatthe accused persons also had sustained injuries and had taken similar plea in theirdefence.The accused persons placed reliance on the evidence of Dev Singh.In hisstatement made to the police he had stated about having reached the place ofoccurrence after hearing the cries for help.The High Court noticed that the trial courtwas justified in holding that Dev Singh and Prem Singh had reached the spot afterhearing the cries.The High Court also noticed that the possibility of injuries on thebody of the deceased and the accused could not be directly attributable to theaccused persons.The trial court and the High Court noticed that the occurrence tookplace in the course of free fight and there were more severe injuries caused on theperson of the accused person than the deceased and the so-called eye witness.Considering the nature of evidence, the trial Court and the High Court have come tohold that the prosecution version is not acceptable.In the circumstances, the HighCourt observed that the number of injuries make it clear that it was a case of free fight and it cannot be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor.Therefore,the view taken by the trial court was a possible view and the High Court did notinterfere.Learned counsel for the appellant-State vehemently argued that the analysismade by the trial court and the High Court and the conclusions arrived at are not inline with the evidence adduced including that of the eye-witness and injured eye-witness.",['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
"HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD GOEL VINOD GOEL, J:Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (NDPS), West Delhi (ASJ) in Session Case No.50/2010 vide FIR No.25/2010 u/s 302/304B/498A IPC, PS Moti Nagar, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and order on sentence dated 28.02.2011 sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of fine, simple imprisonment for two months.The Ld.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 1 of 20As per the factual matrix, the appellant and the deceased got married on 20.10.2004 as per the Arya Samaj rites and rituals.On 30.01.2010, the appellant made a telephonic call to the deceaseds father, Mr. Shanti Prakash Sardana (PW-1), at about 1:45 AM and informed him that she had fallen ill and has to be taken to a Hospital.PW-1 along with the deceaseds sister-in-law, Mrs.Shiksha Sardana (PW-5) reached the appellants house where they found the deceased in an unconscious condition and took her to Khetrapal Hospital where she was declared as brought dead.PW-1 along with PW-5 and the appellant then took the deceased to Acharya Bikshu Govt. Hospital, Moti Nagar where after examination, she was declared as brought dead.3. DD No.6A (Ex.PW11/A) was recorded on 30.01.2010 by HC Mewa Ram (PW-20) posted at P.S. Moti Nagar after a call was received from Acharya Bhikshu Hospital about the deceased being brought to the Hospital by her father and husband and declared as brought dead.PW-1 refused to give his statement to the Police Officials as he informed them that his son had gone to London and his wife had gone to Kota and he would give a statement only on their return.The dead body was taken to DDU hospital for preservation by Constable Jai Prakash (PW-16).ASI Jai Singh (PW-9), Incharge of the Mobile Crime Team (West) on CRL.A.572/2011 Page 2 of 20 receiving information from P.S. Moti Nagar reached the house of the appellant at WZ 81/1, Gali no.10, Ram Garh Colony at 5:30 AM and inspected the house till 6:00 AM.He submitted his report, Ex.PW9/A. He found that the injured was taken to the Hospital.He got the photographs of the site taken from the photographer, Ct.PW-11 along with PW-21 also reached the appellants house and inspected the scene of crime.PW-19 proved the negatives of the photographs, Ex.PW19/1 to Ex.PW19/5 and the positives, Ex.PW19/6 to Ex.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 2 of 20Dr. Munish (PW-12), Junior Resident in Acharya Bhikshu Hospital, Moti Nagar deposed that on 30.01.2010, he had examined the deceased, Chandni who was brought to the casualty.He declared her brought dead vide casualty card, Ex.PW12/A. He stated that the police had reached there and shifted the body to DDU Hospital.Whole brain oedematous with flattened gyri of the brain with relatively congested meninges of the brain.""The statement of PW-1 (Ex.PW1/A) was recorded in the presence of Shri R.K Saini, Executive Magistrate (PW-13).The Rukka (Ex.PW21/A) was prepared by PW-21 on the basis of this statement and FIR (Ex.PW7/A) was registered at P.S. Moti Nagar by HC Bricha Singh (PW-7).On 01.02.2010, the viscera sample of the deceased was deposited by PW-11 with MHCM, P.S. Moti Nagar HC Rajesh Kumar (PW-13).On 25.02.2010, the viscera sample was sent to FSL through Ct.The appellant was apprehended on 01.02.2010 from Moti Nagar Metro Station and CRL.A.572/2011 Page 4 of 20 brought to P.S. Moti Nagar.He argued that the deceaseds family members had concocted a false story to falsely implicate the appellant which is clear from the CRL.A.572/2011 Page 5 of 20 fact that PW-1, who had accompanied the appellant to the Hospital on the fateful night, had refused to give his statement on the same day i.e. 30.01.2010 and had waited for two days till 01.02.2010, to give his statement.He further argued that since the Trial Court had disbelieved the testimony of the deceaseds father (PW-1), brother, Atul Sardana (PW-6) and the appellants landlady of the house, Ms. Rajani Kapoor (PW-2) with respect to the alleged demand of dowry and causing cruelty to the deceased by the appellant and acquitted the appellant under Section 498A and 304B, the testimony of PW-1 and PW-6 on the other aspects is under serious doubt.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 5 of 20What do you say?It is correct.Question: It is evidence against you that on the date of the incident i.e. 29/1/2010 you had not reached so Chandani was perturbed you reached at room of PW2 Rajni Kapoor by knocking her door and called her.What do you say?CRL.A.572/2011 Page 9 of 20My wife was suffering from high blood pressure for which she was taking medicines and had become anemic.On the day of incident she fell from the bed and suffered injuries.Immediately I called my father in law and brother in law.""Ans: It is possible, Vol.Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, APP.The present criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 26.02.2011 passed by the Court of Ld.On 01.02.2010, at 1:15 PM Dr. B.N Mishra, Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine (PW-15) conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased aged 25 years.5. PW-15 founds the following external injuries on the body of the deceased:Fractured nasal bone with brusing of adjacent tissue and collection of blood clots in the nasal cavity and torn nasal Macosa with dark reddish in colour.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 3 of 20Two apartly places linear Bruise of size 03 x 1 cm and 2.5 cm x 1 cm respectively with vertical placement at lower part of back over lumber spine with reddish brown in colour.Abrasion of size 4 x 2 cm present on the right lower part of the back 5 cm apart from external injury no.2 with reddish brown in colour.Abrasion of size 2 x 2 cm present on the left side of cheek bone with reddish brown in colour.Nails marks in cresentric shape presen on the right side of cheek bone and 2 cm below from Laternal canthus of right eye with reddish brown in colour.Bruise of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm present on tip of the right shoulder with reddish brown in colour.Bruise of size 4 x 5 cm present on the thenier eminence of right palm with dark reddish colour, blood cots on secion.HEAD: Subdural Haematoma present on the right tampero parital region with thick layered and dark red in colour.He was interrogated and then arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/G.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 4 of 20As per the Post Mortem report dated 01.02.2010 (Ex.PW15/B), the time since death was about two and a half days prior to the Post Mortem examination.The cause of death was kept pending in the Post Mortem Report (PMR) dated 01.02.2010 till the FSL and the Histopathological Reports were received.Dr. B.N Mishra (PW-15) mentioned in the PMR ""However the association of assault on the part of her death could not be ruled out.All injuries are ante- mortem."" The FSL report (Ex.PW21/E and Ex.In the subsequent opinion (Ex.PW15/A) dated 25.10.2010, the cause of death was opined as ""due to coma caused by Cranio Cerebral injury (Head injury) by means of hard blunt and forceful impact upon head.The possibility of homicide cannot be not ruled out.""On 19.05.2010, the Ld. ASJ framed charges against the appellant under Section 498A/304B/302 IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution examined 21 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused while the appellant examined one witness in his defence.He contended that the Police did not recover any weapon from the appellants home to connect him to the incident and no motive has been imputed to the appellant by the prosecution.He argued that the injuries were well explained by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and in any case, these injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death and hence the ingredients of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) were not fulfilled.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 6 of 20Per contra, Mr.Amit Gupta, the ld.APP for State argued that the impugned judgment suffered from no perversity or illegality and hence does not merit any interference.We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant and the ld.APP for the State.The appellant has given different versions of what had transpired on the fateful night in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. It would be necessary to analyse his version of the events here, hence the relevant questions and answers in the statement under Section 313 are being reproduced herein below: -""1. Question: It is in evidence against you that on 30/1/10 at about 3:15am an information was received in Police Station Moti Nagar from Acharya Bhikshu Hospital telephonically that Chandni w/o Sarbjit R/o WZ 81/1 Gali no.10 Ram Gard Colony was brought in the hospital by her father and husband and was declared brought dead.What do you have to say?Ans: It is correct as my wife was sick, I called my father in law and along with him took her to the hospital as she had fallen from the bed.""CRL.A.572/2011 Page 7 of 20Question: It is in evidence against you that the fact regarding death of Chandni was disclosed to PW6 by his wife by saying that you had telephoned her and asked her to come immediately to your residence as there was a fight between you and chandani and at that time you were with her on which PW6 also talked with you and inquired from you on this you told him that there was a fight between you and Chandani and you had given her a push on her neck and thereafter she was not getting up.What do you say?Ans: It is incorrect.I never had any fight with my wife Chandani.However, she was sick and was lying on the bed because of weakness she could not even go to natural calls and she fell down from the bed I immediately called my father in law and her brother.My father in law came to my house and alongwith me went to the hospital.I made several calls and had also received several calls to my father in law and brother in law.""What do you say?Ans: My wife was anemic and required good food which she avoided.She was given proper medical treatment and all the goods and papers were removed by the police and my father-in-law from the house.""Question: It is evidence against you that on the night of 29/1/2010 at 1:45am PW1 received a call which was made by you and told to him to come soon as Chandani fell ill and you have to go to hospital for treatment of Chandani.What do you say? Ans: Since my wife had developed uneasiness because of fall from her bed I immediately made a call to my father in law for help and also to inform him about the CRL.A.572/2011 Page 8 of 20 illness and took him alongwith him to the hospital my immediate neighbours were also called and they also helped me in taking my wife to the hospital.""CRL.A.572/2011 Page 8 of 20Question: It is in evidence against you that when PW1 reached at the residence of his daughter she had already died as PW1 checked her pulse to verify whether she was dead or live.What do you say?It is incorrect.I do not know at what time she had died but she was responding at the time she was taken the hospital.""Question: It is in evidence against you that Chandani was at the residence of PW1 Shanti Prakash Sardana till about 3pm.What do you say? Ans.As soon as my wife fell from the bed I had informed my father in law and brother in law of the incident on telephone and they immediately came to my residence I alongwith my father in law and brother in law went to the hospital but before that my father in law took my wife to his house to pick up my mother in law at that time my wife was alive and responding.""Question: It is in evidence against you that on receiving the call from you PW1 had reached initially in the house no.81/1 gali no.10 Ram Garh Colony where Chandani was lying unconscious consition and she was taken to the hospital.However, my wife was not unconscious and was responding.""Since my wife was not responding to the door because of her weakness I called Rajni Kapoor so that she could open the door from inside.""Question: Do you want to say anything else? Ans.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 10 of 20Question: The photograph on which no.171 (Ex.PW19/8) is written is shown to the witness and asked, is it possible if a person have sudden fall which face towards the ground and hits the edge as shown in pt-A on the photograph, the said person may get nasal bone fractured?However, same may be caused by getting hit with blunt object.Question: For the 7 external injuries as mentioned in the postmortem report Ex.PW15/B either the person be hit with some solid edged object like danda or a person may have a free fall on some solid edged object like bed?The injury noted in PM report are not possible to be inflicted on the body during the single episode as above mentioned modes.stated as the above mentioned injuries are variable in their nature and the distribution on the body, the above suggested conditions cannot caused these injuries.Question: How many hits are necessary for causing the injury no.1 to 7?Ans: The injury present on the body of the deceased cannot be caused only due to falling on the hard surface/blunt object.The same may have been caused by different means of causing injuries.Question: I suggest to you that the injury no.1 to 7 had been sustained by the deceased when she was coming to the bed in darkness and had struck with something on the floor due to which she lost balance and had a free fall on the edge of the bed?Ans: These injuries no.1 to 7 are not possible only in the above manner and the same are not possible to have been sustained only by one fall as above mentioned.""CRL.A.572/2011 Page 18 of 20For this purpose, a certified copy of this judgment shall also be delivered forthwith to the Secretary, DLSA with a further direction to submit a compliance report to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.If no such compliance is forthcoming within the stipulated time, the Registry will place the matter before Roster Bench for further directions.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 19 of 20The appeal is dismissed on the above terms.(VINOD GOEL) JUDGE (HIMA KOHLI) JUDGE JULY 08, 2019 CRL.A.572/2011 Page 20 of 20","['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"2. Being aggrieved with the order dated 31.12.2018 (Annexure-P/3) passed by the respondent No.2 i.e. Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, this petition has been filed seeking quashment of the same.As per the facts of the case, the Superintendent of Police, Tikamgarh, vide his memo dated 22.03.2018, recommended that the petitioner is an habitual criminal and had been involved in criminal activities since year 2004 and committing crime continuously, due to which, terror has been created among the public and nobody is coming forward to record his statement against the petitioner.Whatever restrictions had been imposed against the petitioner, no fruitful result yielded as the petitioner did not 2 W. P. No. 511/ 2019 restrain himself from getting involved in criminal activities, therefore, it is appropriate that power under Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam, 1990') be exercised and he be externed from the revenue boundaries of District-Tikamgarh and it's adjoining districts.With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.In the said memo, the Superintendent of Police, Tikamgarh, had given details of ten cases registered against the petitioner.The Police had also imposed prohibitory measures initiating proceeding under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the petitioner, but nothing positive came from the petitioner's side.Considering the recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate issued a notice under Section 8 of the Adhiniyam, 1990, explaining therein as to why power under Section 5 of the Adhiniyam, 1990, shall not be exercised against him and he be externed for a period of one year from District-Tikamgarh and it's adjoining district.W. P. No. 511/ 2019The District Magistrate recorded the statement of the witness namely Shri Anand Singh Parihar, Station House Officer, who has narrated the criminal record of the petitioner and also disclosed that there were ten cases registered against him and also apprised the District Magistrate that the petitioner has created terror in the society and due to fear and terror of the petitioner, nobody comes forward to get the statement recorded against him.One Shri Ramla Ahirwar, the witness of a criminal case registered against the petitioner at Police Station-Prithvipur, also recorded his statement and stated before the District Magistrate that he had made 3-4 complaints against the petitioner in the said police station as the petitioner has grabbed two acres of his land.He further stated that since the petitioner is always armed, therefore due to fear, he did not approach him for getting his land back.He has also stated that he had fear of his life and not only he, but other villagers were also terrorized by the petitioner.Likewise, Shri Amit Dangi, also recorded his statement and stated before the District Magistrate that the petitioner had assaulted him by lathis and report of that incident was made to the Police Station-Prithvipur.He had 4 W. P. No. 511/ 2019 also stated that the petitioner was in a habit of creating property disputes.He has further disclosed that the petitioner had also assaulted the Forest Officers.Thereafter, Shri Swami Prasad Yadav, has also recorded his statement and disclosed that on his land, the petitioner has constructed his house and due to terror, he is not able to get his property back, although he lodged report to the Police Station-Prithvipur.He has also stated that there were several cases registered against the petitioner in respect of grabbing immovable property of the villagers, but due to fear of life, nobody is able to fight against him and even record his statement in the Court.The petitioner has also recorded the statement of his witnesses, but those were not found satisfactory.As such, the petitioner was provided adequate opportunity to defend himself and to put-up his stand.The District Magistrate has also observed that earlier on 29.09.2018, an order of externment was passed against the petitioner, but in an appeal preferred by him, the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, set-aside the said order and remitted the matter back to the District Magistrate for deciding the same afresh after giving an 5 W. P. No. 511/ 2019 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, he was provided full opportunity.During the course of arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioner had stated before the Court that the petitioner was falsely implicated in criminal cases registered against him due to some political rivalry.He had also disclosed that in maximum cases, the petitioner had been acquitted and he had never threatened any of the witnesses.","['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Velkondasamy/A1 got married to the defacto complainant, namely Kanagaselvi on 11.11.2002 and through their wedlock, they had a son.Their marital life ran into rough weather resulting in her getting estranged.Facts leading to the filing of this Criminal Revision Petition briefly narrated are as follows:A1 was arrested by the police on 06.09.2007 and remanded to custody.During the course of trial, A2/Chinnammal died.The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 498(A), 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused.When questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.The prosecution, in order to sustain its case, examined 9 witnesses and marked 6 exhibits.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 CrPC about the incriminating evidence against them, they denied the same.Neither any witness was examined on behalf of the accused nor any document was marked.After hearing either side and considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court, vide judgment dated 07.04.2011 in C.C.No.553 of 2007, acquitted A4/Dharmalingam, but convicted and sentenced Velkondasamy/A1 and Kaladevi/A3 as follows:Name and Conviction for the Sentence awarded by the Rank of the offence under Trial Court Accused Section Velkondasamy/ 498(A) I.P.C. 6 months Rigorous A1 Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment.323 I.P.C. Fine of Rs.500/- in default tohttp://www.judis.nic.in undergo 1 month Rigorous 4 Imprisonment.The sentenced were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court granted set off to A1 under Section 428 CrPC.Challenging the conviction and sentence, Velkondasamy/A1 and Kaladevi/A3 filed C.A.No.89 of 2011 on the file of the Sessions Court, Coimbatore.Challenging the conviction and sentence, Velkondasamy/A1 is before this Court.Per contra, Ms.Krithika Kamal, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and Mr.Ponraj, learned counsel for the defacto complainant/Kanagaselvi/PW1 refuted the contentions.The defence was not able to make any serious dent in the cross examination in the testimony of this witness.The evidence of PW1 was corroborated by the evidence of PW2/Balasubramaniam and PW3/Thangavel.PW3 has stated about the injury sustained by PW1 and medical treatement given to her.The prosecution has also examined the Doctor - PW8/Dr.Arunadevi and marked Ex.The Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court have appreciated the evidence in right perspective and there is no infirmity in the findings of the Courts below warranting interference by this Court under Section 397 CrPC.Hence, the conviction awarded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Court, F.T.C. No.1, Coimbatore, vide judgment dated 13.06.2011 in C.A.No.89 of 2011 stands confirmed.However, as regards sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 submitted that the petitioner has been maintaining his wife/PW1 and son for the last 5 years and that his wife is suffering from kidney failure and that if he has to undergo imprisonment, he may not be able to take care of his wife, who is at a very critical state.PW1 told this Court that the accused/A1/husband is taking care of her now and that they have also reconciled their differences.A1/Velkondasamy was also present before this Court on 23.01.2019 and also filed an affidavit dated 23.01.2019, wherein in paragraph Nos.4 and 5, he has stated as follows:I submit that I give solemn undertaking that I would clear the arrears of the past maintenance of Rs.1,83,000/- within a period of 4 weeks from today.I, further, undertake that I would not commit default inhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 payment of monthly arrears to the 2nd respondent herein and our son Master, Vidhya Bharathi.I also assure this Hon'ble Court that I shall pay for the academic pursuit of my son Master.Vidhya Bharathi in future.I am ready paying for his school fees and other necessities since his seventh standard for the past six years and I shall continue to do so.I am maintaining cordial relation with my son.I am also meeting the medical expenses for the 2nd respondent who is undergoing treatement for chronic kidney disease.I shall continue to meet out her medical expenses.I humbly pray that this my solemn undertaking may be taken on record and pass suitable direction and thus render justice.""Today, learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 and the learned counsel for Kanagaselvi/PW1 have submitted that A1 has paid Rs.1,83,000/-, being arrears of maintenance to PW1 and the original receipt issued by her was produced.A1 also agreed that he would continue to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.5,200/- p.m. and also the enhanced maintenance amount, if any ordered by the concerned Court, will be paid by him.In view of this development, this Court is of the view that in the interest of justice, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on A1 is reduced to the period already undergone by him as under trial prisoner.With the above modification of sentence, this Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras Note: Free copy to Kanagaselvi to be send through Inspector of Police,http://www.judis.nic.inAWPS, Negamam P.S. Cr.No.308/2007, Palladam. 10P.N. PRAKASH, J.Jvm Crl.No.1024 of 2011 07.06.2019http://www.judis.nic.in","['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"""The deviding line between hunger and anger is very thin.""True it is keen demands of appetite substantially governs men's actions.A hungry man looses control over his thinking ability, rational approach and sense of proportion and indulges in uncalled for acts which under normal circumstances he would not have conceived of.His action become an embodiment of insensitivity of finer human emotions.Here is a sad story where a man of 32 years, when informed about non-availability of food forgetting the relationship and abdicating his rational thoughts as well as human considerations, he assaulted his paternal grand-mother, a feeble old lady, who succumbed to the injuries.The prosecution story, as unfurled, is that on 26-12-93 in Village Tokni, the deceased Ojebai, Kamubai (PW-4) and Guddi alias Manotabai (PW-5) had finished their dinner and were in their house.At about 9 p.m. the accused came and asked Guddi for food.Reply came from Ojebai that there was no food at home.Blood rushed into the hand of the accused and he assaulted Kamubai, his mother and Guddi, his sister.Thereafter he brought out an axe and assaulted Ojebai on her head, chest, back and the right hand.Kamubai went to the house of Roshanlal (PW-2) and informed him about the incident.Roshanlal came to the house of Renubai and found Ojebai was lying dead.Next day, Roshanlal, Hari (PW-3) and some others came to the house of Renubai who narrated the entire incident.The investigating agency did 'panchnama' of the dead-body (Ex. P-6).The dead-body was sent for post-mortem.John Steinteck, the nobel laureate wrote thus :-Renubai and Guddi were also sent for medical examination.There medical examination reports are (Ex. P-13) and (Ex. P-14).The accused led to the discovery of the axe which was seized under (Ex. P-4).The sample earth from the spot and the clothes kept on the bed of the deceased were sent for chemical examination.The accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication : It is his further plea that he has been implicated falsely due to pre-existing dispute with regard to ancestral property.To substantiate the charge against the accused the prosecution examined 10 witnesses.PW-1 Shivlal is uncle of the accused who has been declared hostile; PW-2, Roshanlal who had arrived immediately at the place of occurrence; PW-3 is Hari; PW-4, Renubai is the mother of the accused; PW-6 is Guddi, the sister of the accused; PWs-5, 6, 7 and 8 are the formal witnesses; PW-9 is the Sub-Inspector attached to Navgaon Police Station who had conducted investigation; and PW-10 is Dr. N. R. Azad who had conducted the post-mortem examination.Apart from adducing oral evidence the prosecution also marked number of documents in furtherance of its case.On consideration of the oral, documentary and medical evidence on record the learned Sessions Judge came to hold that the accused had assaulted his grand-mother, mother and sister.However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, he convicted the accused under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code for the assault on Ojebai and under Section 323, IPC in relation to assault on PWs-4 and 5, the mother and sister and sentenced him for seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence, under Section 304-II and for six months imprisonment under Section 323, IPC, with a further stipulation that both the sentences would run concurrently.Mr. Dipak Okhade, learned panel Advocate for the State has supported the impugned judgment for the reasons indicated therein.He has further proponed that the Court below has rightly accepted the version of PWs-4 and 5 who are no other than the mother and sister of the accused, and as they had no axe to grind against him their evidence has to be given due weightage.To appreciate the rival contention raised at par, I have perused the impugned judgment with utmost anxiety and closely gone through the evidence on record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.Dr. Azad, who had conducted the post-mortem examination has observed that the number of injuries found on the dead-body of the deceased, were sufficient to cause death.He has also strongly relied upon (Ex. P-4), the memorandum under which the weapon used was recovered at the instance of the accused.On a close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-4, the mother of the accused, it is already perceptible that the accused had assaulted with an axe on the head and other parts of the body of Ojebai and there was prefuse bleeding.She has also stated that Ojebai died inside the house because of the injuries sustained by her.She has remained embodied in her version.As far as her information to Shivlal, Roshanlal, Vinti and Hari is concerned she has deposed with clarity.She has proved the FIR and has remained unshaken in the cross-examination.She has also explained the reasons for not lodging the FIR in the night itself.PW-5 is the sister of the accused.She has narrated vividly with regard to the altercation between the deceased and the accused relating to non-availability of food at home.She has also deposed that the accused had assaulted her and her mother.She has clearly stated with regard to the assault on Ojebai.Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to discard her testimony.There is no reason on the part of the mother and the sister, who have no axe to grind against the accused to implicate him.There is no suggestion to any of the witnesses that there has been some dispute with regard to the landed property and, therefore, these two witnesses have implicated him to gain advantage.In fact, suggestion is to effect that she had already gone to the flour grinding machine and there she sustained injuries and her life spork was extinguished.On a perusal of their testimony I find that it is unimpeachable and absolutely trustworhty.Quite apart from above, there is material on record that the accused has led to the discovery of the weapon used in the crime.The weapon on the question was hidden on the slope of the house.There is evidence on record that he had given recovery in presence of witnesses.Appreciating the evidence of PWs-4 and 5 juxtaposed with leading to discovery of the weapon used there is no reason to disbelieve the version propounded by the prosecution.On a perusal of the materials on record and the aforesaid evidence I am of the considered view that the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Judge has to have the stamp of approval of the Court.Now to the question of sentence, Ku.Kiran Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant has seriously pressed that the appellant should not have been sentenced for seven years RI and the said sentence is quite excessive.She has further highlighted that the appellant was not given food and therefore, he got into an emotional fury and assaulted.She has tried to impress upon this Court that the appellant belongs to backward area of the State, where finer sentiments have not yet been cultivated, hence he committed the crime without any intention or motive.As factual scenario is potrayed by the prosecution the accused assaulted the sister and mother.There was altercation with regard to the food.The state of hunger worked as a catalyst giving rise to uncontrollable anger.The special backdrop, the milieu to which the appellant belongs, the peculiar facts and circumstances in which the crime had occurred, the absence of criminal antecedents of the accused are certain aspects to be taken into consideration while imposing sentence.On overall consideration of the factual matrix, I am of the considered view a sentence of five years RI for the offence under Section 304-II would be meet and proper.Accordingly, the custodial sentence of seven years for the aforesaid offence is reduced to five years.","['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner / 5th Accused praying to call for the records in PRC No.183 of 2009 on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.It is averred in the petition that the FIR initially registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C was altered to 306 IPC mainly based upon the suicide notes found in the possession of the deceased person who committed suicide.The petitioner / 5th accused was also added along with four other accused in the case.The deceased was alleged to have been subjected to mental torture by the four accused persons to repay the loan obtained from them.The deceased sought help from the petitioner / Accused No.5 to procure loan from the Bank so as to save himself from the agony of high pressure exerted on him by the four accused.161 statements of witnesses and the suicide notes disclose only that the petitioner / accused No.5 failed to obtain Bank loan for the deceased, who was desperate to discharge his monetary liabilities towards his creditors.Therefore, the alleged offence as against the petitioner / A5 was not made out.There is no material to satisfy the ingredient of abetment as provided under Section 107 IPC.The petitioner was not shown to have facilitated any act amounting to instigation leading to abetment of suicide.The deceased had grate hopes in the petitioner / A5 for securing loan from the Banks and when the petitioner told that he was not able to secure the loan in spite of his persistent efforts with the Bank officials, the deceased felt himself to be left abandoned at the mercy of the creditors and therefore, he put an end to his life.There is absolutely no criminal liability on the part of the petitioner and therefore, proceedings as against the petitioners are to be quashed.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that as per the materials filed along with the charge sheet including the 161 statements of the witnesses and suicide notes, no ingredient of Section 107 IPC has been attracted and therefore, the proceedings as against the petitioner are to be quashed.This Court perused the entire statements of witnesses and 161 statements recorded by the Investigating Officer and the suicide notes recovered from the body of the deceased.As per the statements of witnesses and suicide notes, it is stated that the deceased was put under pressure to settle the amount to the four accused from whom he got the loan for his business and he was not even allowed to go out.As far as the petitioner / A5 is concerned, the deceased sought his help to get loan from the Banks so as to clear all the debts he obtained from the other accused and he made payment (Rs.40,000/-) for such help to the petitioner.The petitioner after trying with the banks finally told the deceased that he could not get the loan by him for the deceased.The petitioner / A5 along with other accused has been charge sheeted for the offence under Section 306 IPC.As per this Section, the person who abets the commission of suicide is punishable.Section 107 IPC defines abetment as comprising (i) Instigation to commit the offence (ii) engaging in conspiracy to commit the offence; and (iii) aiding the commission of an offence.P.C at this stage and hence, this Criminal Original Petition is liable to be dismissed.In fine this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.The Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to commit the case to the Court of Sessions within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.P.KALAIYARASAN, JtsvnCrl.O.P No.8902 of 2010 28-11-2016http://www.judis.nic.in","['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"C.R.M. 10241 of 2010 In the matter of : The applications for Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on July 07, 2010 And In re.: Najar Ali Mr. Dipankar Paramanick ...For the petitioner Ms. Bhaswati Pal ...For the State This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner who apprehends arrest in connection with Islampur Police Station Case No. 458 of 2009 dated 26.10.2009 under Sections 354/376/511 of Indian Penal Code.We have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioner and for the State.In case he surrenders, his prayer for bail will be considered in accordance with law.( Banerjee, J.) ( Raghunath Ray, J.) akb 2","['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to direct the second respondent police to alter the FIR in Cr.No.102/2016 by implicating Sections 326 and 307 IPC and to add the names of the respondents 3,4 and 5 in the final report which has to be filed by the second respondent.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.On the complaint lodged by Seshavaradhan, the respondent police have registered a case in Cr.No.101 of 2016 u/s 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC against one Saravanan (A1) and 2 unknown persons and investigation is pending.While so, the petitioner who is one of the injured in the accident, has come up with this petition with the above prayer.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR has been registered on the complaint given by petitioner's brother, when the petitioner was in the hospital and that the wound certificate shows that he has suffered fracture.On a careful reading of the FIR it is seen that the petitioner's brother Seshavaradhan has stated that, on 22.03.2016 around 8.45 a.m. when they were all working in the vacant land, the accused who are relatives, came there and a quarrel ensued, in which it is alleged that Saravanan had taken a reeper stick and assaulted Selvaraj.The direction as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted u/s 482 Cr.P.C. However, the respondent police is directed to conduct investigation and during the course of investigation, if the name of the persons who were involved in the offence comes to light, it is needless to state that they should also be included in the case by filing an alteration report.With the above direction, this petition is closed.23.09.2016gmsTo1 The District Superintendent of Police Tiruvannamalai District2 The Inspector of Police Kalambur Police Station Tiruvannamalai District (Crime No.102/2016) Pothuammal3 The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras P.N. PRAKASH, J.gms Crl.O.P. No.21475 of 201623.09.2016","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The applicants are in custody.The applicants are small and minor children.Heard on I.A.No.9940/2016, which is an application filed on behalf of the applicants for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.Vide judgment dated 10.09.2015 passed by J.M.F.C, Khandwa in Criminal Case No. 1914/2008, the applicants have been convicted under Sections 498 (a) and 323 of the I.P.C.The applicants have been convicted and have been sentenced as under:-On behalf of the applicants, it is submitted that they have deposited the fine amount.The applicants be given the benefit of bail and their remaining jail sentence be suspended.Considering the fact that the Criminal Revision would take considerable time, I.A. No. 9940/2016 is allowed.It is directed that if the applicants deposit the fine amount if not deposited and furnish bail bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- with a surety to the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court each, they be released on bail and their remaining jail sentence is suspended.Certified copy as per rules.(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO)",['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Ms. Savita Choudhary, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Devendra Shukla, Panel Lawyer for the State.This is the second application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Earlier application M.Cr.C. No. 6982/2014 was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.7.2014 with liberty to repeat the same after recording the evidence of the prosecutrix.The applicant is in custody since 27.12.2013 in connection with Crime No. 393/2013 registered at P.S. Cheechali, District Narsinghpur for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 343, 376-Gha, 506 of the IPC.As per prosecution, it is alleged that co-accused Ramdarshan abducted the prosecutrix and kept her in the house of Narayan where the applicant and other co-accused persons committed rape upon her.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.The statement of prosecutrix Sita Bai has been recorded before the trial Court, she herself has stated that the applicant has not committed rape upon her.The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail.Learned counsel for State has opposed the application.(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB","['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Injured Smt. Narmada Ahirwar is present before the court who has been identified by Advocate Shri Lokendra Shrivastava.This is first bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.11/2014, Police Station Dursada, District Datia, offences registered under Sections 323, 324, 294, 506-B, 326 & 498-A of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that today the injured Narmada Ahirwar has filed an affidavit stating that she was not assaulted or inflicted any injury by her husband Dayaram Ahirwar.Copy of the said affidavit has been produced before the court for perusal.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.Further, the injured herself has denied the allegations made against the applicant/accused by the prosecution.On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prayed for grant of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.C.No.6398/2014 (Dayaram Ahirwar v. State of M.P.) Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during pendency of the trial of the case concerned and shall also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.A copy of this order be sent to the court concerned.C.C. as per rules.","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This reference raises a shot; question which may be stated as follows.Felirani filed a complaint against Kanhaiyalal stating that on 10.2.1949 the accused dismantled the hut of the complainant and took possession of the material and that he was.laying a foundation of a new house.I.P.C. and holding.that his act amounts to trespass, convicted him under Section 447, I.P.C. and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 50/-.The accused filed a petition in revision before the Sessions Judge who has made this reference under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code.","['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']"
In Re : An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 10.10.2018 in connection with Itahar P.S case no. 308 of 2018 dated 28.8.2018 under sections 147/148/149/447/188/186/353/333/325/326/307/427/435 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 25/27/35 of the Arms Act and 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act and 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Section 9 of the West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order Act And In Re : Ajoy @ Ajay Karmakar ...... petitioner Mr. Sudip Guha ...... for the petitioner Mr. N. Ahmed Zareen N. Khan ...... for the State Supplementary affidavit is filed enclosing documents in support of compliance of conditions imposed on the petitioner.,"['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The facts are brief.They have been living with their children in a compound where there arc 4 or 5 hours, Pappathi Ammal had been confined within four weeks before the commission of this offence.It would also appear that she was unwell from diarrhoea and fever after child birth.On account of the poverty and inability to secure other help she had to do her household chores.They started searching the compound.Then they heard a noise from within the well.They found the accused within the well.They raised an alarm.A crowd of people gathered.A ladder was brought and set inside the wed.The accused came out of the well climbing the ladder.On coming out of the well she was enquired about the child.The accused stated that the child was inside the well.Thereupon P.W. 1 made a written report to the Police at 7-30 A.M. in the morning.When she is treated she would get better.She was ""alright after delivery till about 4 days before the incident.From four days before the incident she was not alright in her mind and had fever"".Then he was treated as hostitle and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor.Then he stated:JUDGMENT Ramaswami, J.Therefore, she seems to have been depressed and fed up with her life.On the night of 28-10-1957 the landlady P.W. 2 heard the noise of a splash and she woke up and found lights burning in the house of the accused.Therefore, she went and woke up P.W. 1, the husband of the accused, and told him what she had heard.They found the accused missing.The Police came to the spot, took out the child whose legs were protruding over the surface of the water in the well.Inquest was held and Investigation followed.The accused was charge sheeted for the murder of the! child and for attempt-ling to commit suicide.These facts are spoken to by the husband Of the accused P.W. I, the landlady P.W. 2 and the other people who came there P.Ws. 3 to 5 and the Doctor P.W. 6 who spoke to the death of the child due to asphyxia due to drowning.The case set up for the accused was that she was a sleep walker or somnambulist, that during such sleep walking she must have walked into the well with the child and that by reason of that somnambulism when the offence was committed, the accused would be entitled to the benefit of section 84 l.The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved as a fact the somnambulism attributed to the accused and secondly that somnambulism would not amount to that unsoundness of mind and incapacity of knowing the nature of the act or knowing what she or he was doing was cither wrong or contrary to law, contemplated under Section 84 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge therefore convicted the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced her to imprisonment for life.He also convicted her under Section 309 I.P.C. and sentenced her to simple imprisonment for one year.The sentences were made to run concurrently.Three points which fall for determination in this appeal are: whether the accused was a somnambulist at the time of the commission of the offences; secondly, whether somnambulism would amount to that insanity contemplated under Section 84 I.P.C. and thirdly, the scope and extent of the plea of insanity open to the accused in the circumstances of this case.Point 1:-- It has not been shown as a fact that the accused was a somnambulist or a sleep walker.P.W. 1 the husband of the accused first stated in chief-examination:She was treated by magician and she became alright.After that she used to get bewitched at intervals.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows :The victim PW 5 Shila De was given in marriage with the appellant Meghnath De of Bhairabdangaon 11th Ashar, 1397 B.S. After the marriage she joined her husband in the Matrimonial House at Bhairabadanga village on 3rd Kartik, 1397 B.S. corresponding to 21st Oct. 1990 according to English Calendar.When she was watching closely a television programme at about 7.50 p.m. the victim Shila went out of the house and after a while returned to the courtyard of the house of P.W. 1 Tulshi Charan Bhuin who is the father of the victim in naked condition and fell down in the courtyard suddenly.PW 1, who is the informant in this case had seen several injuries on the face of his daughter PW 5 and also on different portions of her body.Shila had bleeding injuries oh her mouth.It was noticed further that teeth of her upper gum were uprooted on account of severe assault on her face.Therefore, PW 1 immediately shifted Shila to Sonamukhi Police Station and from there, under the advice of the police, the victim was shifted to Sonamukhi Hospital and subsequently to B.S.M.C. Hospital through one Swapan Bhuin.P.W. 1 Tulshi Bhuin submitted a written information at Sonamukhi Police Station which was treated as F.I.R. Tulshi Bhuin subsequently came to know about the incident from one Sunil Bhuin who narrated to have seen the victim and her husband, namely, the appellant together.Ranjit Bhuin also told to have been them together sitting by the side of a well which was situated near the house on the date of the incident.Shila, the daughter of Tulshi after admission in the Medical College Hospital reported to Tulshi Bhuin that her husband caused those injuries by striking her with a knife .JUDGMENT Basudev Panigrahi, J.This appeal has been filed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bankura in S.T. No. 5 (1)92 dated 24th Nov. 1993 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 307, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. .The Sonamukhi Police Station after treating the written complaint as F.I.R. proceeded with the investigation of the case and after such investigation was closed, placed the charge sheet against the appellant.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bankura after careful consideration of the evidence of the prosecution was, however, inclined to record an order of conviction and sentence the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment of a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rupees 2000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.Therefore, being aggrieved by such conviction and sentence the appellant filed this appeal.Mr. Roy, the learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant has invited our attention to several inherent infirmities and improbabilities.He strongly urged that although the injury was alleged to have been inflicted by the appellant on the person of the victim on 21st Oct. 1990 but till 6th of Nov. 1990 there was no disclosure either by the victim or by her father or by any other witness.Only the name of the appellant was disclosed on 6-11-1990 and thereafter he was arrested on 8th Nov. 1990 although the Investigating Officer in his evidence, in clear and unambiguous term deposed to have gone to the Medical College Hospital twice and recorded her statement.It is not understood why the Investigating Officer, who is PW 11 did not record the incident on 21st Oct. 1990 although her statement was recorded on that day.It has also been contended by the appellant that the prosecution has cooked up a case falsely to implicate the appellant without any material.P.W. 5 Shila De in her evidence stated that her husband persuaded to terminate an early pregnancy because she had not then attained sufficient age.She further stated to have agreed to the proposal of her husband.It has been deposed that on the Jamdwitya day the appellant came to her village and at the time she was standing near her house.Then, they went towards the well of their village.After reaching at the well, her husband pursuaded to undress herself.Thereafter she was given some medicine.After she was stripped herself of her clothes, her husband with help of a root touched her body.After a while her husband standing at the back assaulted her by a big knife, as a result of which she received severe injuries over her neck, cheek and also on knee.In such helpless bleeding state she ran towards her house and fell down on the courtyard.It has been-deposed that her husband had some extra marital relation with another lady.Mr. Roy, the learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant has invited our attention that the victim has woven a ""cock and bullstory"" only with a view to falsely implicate the appellant.It has been submitted that no husband with the sense of honour will ever ask his wife to take off her clothes on the public road near a well to the sight of the others.. It was further contended by the appellant that the well is situated by the side of a village road which has been used by the villagers for making ingress and egress to the village.It is, therefore, impossible that any sensible person would ask his own wife to disrobe her clothes for administering some roots at the sight of the others.PW 11 made a categorical statement that Shila, the.PW.5, did not state before him that her husband had any love with a girl of Bhairabdanga.Therefore, in such view of the case, it cannot for a moment be believed that there was any motive of the husband for causing such severe bleeding injuries.The appellant has also placed another circumstance which might belie the prosecution case.That the evidence of PW 5 Shila, disclosed that immediately after the injury she ran to her house and fell down on the courtyard.From the statement of PW 1 it does not disclose that she was senseless.She was immediately carried to the police station and thereafter to the hospital.Till she was examined for the second time she had not disclosed the name of her assailant.Had she known that the appellant was the author of the crime, she could not have faltered to utter his name immediately to her father or at the police station.Such non-disclosure of the name of the appellant goes a long way in proving his innocence.It has been stated that the appellant came on 'Jamdwitya' day around 7-15 p.m. In that event how had at that time the victim, PW 5 gone to the village road so that both of them met each other and thereafter the appellant pursuaded her to accompany him to the well.This also improbabilised the prosecution story.PW. 1, the father of the victim in his evidence narrated that his daughter lost her teeth of the upper gum which were found to have been uprooted due to assault.PW 5, the victim herself did not support the version of her father that due to such assault she lost her teeth, nor the medical report disclosed that there was any loss of teeth.The medical officer who had examined the injured PW 5, has not stated in the report the length, size and depth of the injury.The nature of the injuries have been peculiarly not described in the injury report.In the absence of such description it is very difficult to determine as to the nature of injury said to have been sustained by PW-5 .The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW 8 Sunil Bhuin.It has been contended that he had seen the appellant and PW 5 Shila going together towards the well near the house of Tulshi.Accordingly, the appellant be set at liberty forthwith.",['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Memorandum of appeal alongwith the copies of documents and IA No. 4459/15 be given to Shri Jain within one week.Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on IA No. 4459/15, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant.The appellant has been convicted to undergo imprisonment on various terms from three years to five years under Section 120-B, 420 of IPC, 471 of IPC r/w Section 13 (1) (D) of Prevention of Corruption Act with total fine of Rs. 4,35,000/-.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the appellant on depositing the 50% of the fine amount and on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac) alongwith one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, he shall be released on bail and operation of the sentence of conviction shall remain suspended subject to his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 1st of September 2015 and on other dates as may be directed.C c as rules.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Gangubai Nisal, P.W. 3 was married to Santu Nisal about three years prior to the incident.Ever since her marriage, she was living with Santu in village Nalegaon within the limits of Taluka Dindori, District Nasik.She was the second wife of Santu.The name of the first wife has not come in evidence.All the three respondents are also said to be residents of village Nalegaon.On 28-7-1983, her husband Santu along with his first wife had gone to the field for agricultural operations.It was decided that she would carry food to the field.At about 11/11.30 a.m. after preparing the food, she set out for the field.On the way, she stopped at the shop of the respondent Suresh in order to buy a match-box.Before entering the shop, she kept the food and the blanket which she was carrying outside the shop.As soon as she entered the shop, she found that the three respondents namely Suresh, Sahebu and Damu were present.She asked Suresh to give a match-box.Sahebu thereupon caught hold of both her hands and dragged her inside the middle room.It appears that the shop of Suresh was housed in one of the rooms of his residential premises.Thereafter, Sahebu stuffed cloth inside her mouth; pressed her breasts; and Damu took off her sari.During the trial, she was shown the sari and blouse which she was putting on and she recognised them.The evidence of the prosecutrix is that after being raped, she went to her house.In the evening, her husband Santu along with his first wife came home.At that time, she was shivering.Evidence of both the prosecutrix and her husband Santu shows that she was carrying pregnancy.Santu deposed that when he reached home, she was unable to speak.But, after sometime, she disclosed to him that the respondents had raped her.Santu had a feeling that the prosecutrix may not survive.Consequently, he and his first wife started fomenting her abdomen.Next evening (evening of 29-7-1983) the prosecutrix aborted.The evidence of Santu is that on account of her pregnancy, and abortion, she was in a state of bad health.Evidence of Santu shows that the day following the abortion of the prosecutrix, Gangubai, he took her to police station, Dindori.3) No matting of public hair.4) Swab taken from post fornixShe is habitual of intercourse.""In short, theevidence of the prosecutrix is that on the date of the incident, namely on 28-7-1983, her husband Santu with his first wife had gone to the field and had asked her to bring food during the course of the day.At about 11/11.30 a.m. after cooking the food, she proceeded for the field.On the way, she stopped to buy a match-box, from the shop of respondent-Suresh.ORDER Vishnu Sahai, J.The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11-5-1984, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Sessions Case No. 117 of 1983, acquitting the respondents for an offence punishable under section 376 I.P.C. and 342 I.P.C., has preferred the present appeal under section 378(1)Briefly stated the prosecution case as emerging from the evidence of the prosecutrix Gangubai Nisal, runs as follows :---Then, she was subjected to the traumatic experience of being raped by all the three respondents.First Sahebu raped her.Next, Damu raped her and finally Suresh raped her.It is said that the said persons raped her after latching the door from inside.On being shown the lock (Article 2) in the Court, she identified the same.It appears that after she had been ravished, by the three respondents, her brother-in-law Shankar came to purchase a tobacco packet from the shop.He kicked the door of the shop after asking as to who was inside it.Thereupon, Suresh opened the door and took her out of the shop and sent her home after kicking her.As she was not in her senses, she did not disclose the incident to Shankar.It is alleged that while being raped, she was putting on a string of black beads around her neck and the same was broken.That day i.e. on 30-7-1983, at 4 p.m. Gangubai lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station Dindori.After registering the case on the basis of the F.I.R., head constable Madhukar Jadhav, prepared a Yadi and sent Gangubai for medical examination to Primary Health Centre, Dindori.She was examined there, the same day (30-7-1983) at 4.30 p.m. On examining her, the doctor found as under :---""1) No mark of violence such as scratches, bruises, on back, forearm, wrist, breast, chest, inner aspect of thighs and on bullock.2) Mo blood or seminal stains on weared clothes at the time of exam.As per the dictation of Dr. (Mrs.) Sulay, Dr. Anand Kakade, RW. 6, noted down the findings.The reason for this unusual practice, which emerges from the evidence of Dr. Kakade is that Dr. (Mrs) Sulay toid him that she did not want to note down the findings in her own hand because, if she did so, she would be required to attend the Court.The learned trial Judge rightly, in our Judgment, has deprecated this attitude of Dr. (Mrs) Sulay.Dr. (Mrs) Sulay told Dr. Anand Kakade that excepting bulkiness of uterus, she did not find any positive finding suggesting recent abortion.Evidence of Dr. Kakade also is to the effect that in order to ascertain whether Gangubai had contracted pregnancy, she was referred to Dr. Kotwal, who was a Pathalogist.Dr. Kotwal gave a certificate in the negative after the pregnancy test.The investigation was conducted in the usual manner by P.W. 7 Madhukar Jadhav, P.W. 8 Vasant Naik, Police Jamadar and a P.S.I. whose name has not come in the evidence.Evidence of Police Jamadar Vasant Naik is that on 31-7-1983, he visited the place of the incident.He found broken string of black beads lying in the house and seized the same under a panchanama.He examined P.W. 5 Santu, P.W. 4 Shankar and some others the same day.He called the three respondents at the office of the Gram Panchayat and arrested them.He thereafter, sent them for medical examination to Primary Health Centre, Dindori.They were examined there on 31 -7-83 and no scratches were found on their person.7A. It is said that during the course of the investigation, sari and blouse which the prosecutrix was putting on at the time of the incident and the clothes which the respondents were putting on, were seized under a panchanama.We are not going deeper into this aspect because, the evidence in respect of recoveries of clothes from the prosecutrix and the respondents does not inspire any confidence.Out of two public panchas, Rajaram Raut, P.W. 1 candidly stated that nothing was seized in his presence from the respondents and Gangubai did not produce her sari and blouse in his presence.The second panch Gopala Hari, P.W. 2 turned hostile.After completion of the investigation, the respondents were charge-sheeted.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner.To the said charges, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.During the trial, in all, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses.Only one of them, Gangubai, is an eye-witness of the incident.In defence, no witness was examined.After recording the evidence adduced by the prosecution; the statement of the respondents under section 313 Cr.P.C.; and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents under both the counts.It is this acquittal of theirs, which has been impugned by the appellant-the State of Maharashtra, through the present appeal.We have heard Mr. R.S. Deshpande, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Mr. V.Z. Kankaria for the respondents.At that time, inside the said shop the respondents Suresh Sahebu and Damu were present.Instead of giving her a match-box, Suresh dragged her inside the middle room, Damu put on the latch; thereafter, Sahebu stuffed a cloth in her mouth; pressed her breasts; and Damu took off her sari.Then, all of them by turns raped her; first Sahebu, then Damu and finally Suresh.From her evidence, it appears that after she had been ravished by all the respondents, her brother-in-law Shankar, came as he had to buy a tobacco packet from Suresh's shop.He kicked the door of the shop.Suresh opened the door of the shop.Thereafter, Suresh forcibly took her out from the shop and after kicking her, asked her to go home.She stated that she was not in her senses and hence did not tell Shankar anything.Thereafter, she went to her house.In the evening, Santu with his first wife came.She was in pains and agony and the same must have been aggravated on account of the respondents raping her because, the evidence is she was carrying pregnancy.Sometimes, later when she regained senses, she disclosed to Santu her traumatic experience of being raped by the respondents.Evidence of the prosecutrix and that of Santu is that she was in great agony and consequently, Santu and his first wife were fomenting her abdomen.Next evening, she aborted.Thereafter, next day i.e. on 30-7-1983, Santu along with her proceeded to Dindori Police Station, where she lodged an F.I.R., at 4.50 p.m.We have gone through the said statement of the prosecutrix.We find the same to be implicitly reliable.She stated that she was putting on the said string at the time of the incident and it broke while she was being raped.The two principal reasons which have weighed with the trial Court in holding the prosecutrix to be a consenting party are absence of injuries on her person and on that of the person of the respondents.The courts cannot overlook the fact that in sexual offences delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. can be due to variety of reasons particularly, the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family.It is only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged.""In the instant case a very cogent explanation has been forthcoming for the delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. The prosecutrix has alleged in the F.I.R. that in the evening, her husband Santu and his wife came and she told Santu about the incident.She has also stated therein that since she was carrying pregnancy, she was having a throbbing pain in her stomach and her husband and his first wife were fomenting her abdomen.She has stated in the F.I.R. that it was the next day, that she aborted.Evidence of Santu is that it was in evening time that she aborted.If in such a situation, the F.I.R. was lodged at 4.50 p.m. on 30-7-1983, it cannot be stigmatised as being belated.We can safely assume that it must have beensometimes on the morning of 30-7-1983 that the prosecutrix and her husband Santu would have proceeded from their house to lodge the F.I.R. From a perusal of para 2 of the statement of police Jamadar Vasant Naik, it transpires that Police Station Dindori, where the F.I.R. was lodged was situated about 14 kms.from the village Nalegaon where the incident had taken place.In the said para, the said witness stated that Nalegaon is situated 4 kms from Umrale and Umrale is situated at a distance of 10 kms.from Dindori.In our view, in order to cover a distance of 14 kms which is approximately 9 miles, sometime must have been spent.Neither the prosecutrix nor her husband Santu were cross-examined on the mode of transport they took for proceeding to Police Station, Dindori.In our judgment, the said reason for acquitting the respondents is also untenable.The trial Judge has also held that it appears that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.We may have agreed with him, had she nominated only one person as her rapist.Here, as per her evidence, she was raped by three persons in immediate succession.In our judgment it is impossible to accept that the prosecutrix would have consented to have sexual intercourse with three persons.The trial Judge was wholly oblivious to this angle of approaching the evidence of the prosecutrix.In cross- examination, Dr. Kakade statedthat if a woman is examined within 7 to 10 days of her abortion, then alone a definite opinion can be given whether abortion was done or not.In the instant case, the evidence is that the abortion took place on 29-7-1983, and the prosecutrix was medically examined on 11-8-1983 i.e. two weeks after abortion.Now only one question remains to be answered i.e. the quantum of sentence to be awarded to the respondents.We have carefully weighed the rival submissions.The respondents should thank their stars that at the time when the incident took place, the amended provisions of section 376 I.P.C. which provide for a minimum sentence of 10 years in case of gang-rape, had not seen the light of the day.Looking to the overall circumstances, we feel that the ends of justice would be squarely satisfied if each of the three respondents are sentenced to undergo five years R.I. for the offence under section 376 I.P.C. and one months R.I. for the offence under section 342 I.P.C. Since these offences arise out of the same transaction, we feel that the sentences on both the counts should run concurrently.In the result, this appeal is allowed.The acquittal of each of the three respondents namely (1) Suresh Nivrutti Bhusare (2) Sahebu Narayan Shete and (3) Damu Kashinath Shete for offences under sections 376 and 342 I.P.C. are set aside.Each of the said respondents are found guilty of having committed said offences and are sentenced to undergo five years R.I. under section 376 I.P.C. and one months R.I. under section 342 I.P.C. Their said sentences shall run concurrently.In case an application for a certified copy of this judgment is preferred, the same shall be issued on an expedited basis.Appeal allowed.","['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(a) P.W.1 Rengaraj, is the husband of the deceased Rani.They wereliving at Ammapalayam Village.They used to take the cattle for grazing.Onthe date of occurrence namely 3.3.1999 at about 3.00 P.M., she took her cowfor grazing.Till 5.00 P.M., she did not return.P.W.3 Narayanan, whobelonged to the same place, was working at the field of one Poosigounder.Atthat time, the cow of the deceased got into the field.Immediately, he tiedthe same.At about 6.00 P.M., he returned with the said cow and informedP.W.1 about the same.When P.W.3 was proceeding, he found the accused sittingunder a banyan tree.P.W.10 Radhakrishnan, who belonged to the same village,found the accused sitting under a karuveli tree.The next morning, P.W.1 wasinformed by a boy that the dead body of his wife was found near the bushes.P.W.1 accompanied by his relatives, went over to the spot and found the deadbody of his wife in the bushes.They have also noticed that 7 + sovereigns ofgold jewels marked as M.Os.1 to 5, were found missing.Then, P.W.1 went toP.W.4 Arjunan, Village Administrative Officer, and gave a report.Based on Ex.(b) P.W.4 placed both Exs.P1 and P2 before P.W.9 Elangovan, SubInspector of Police, attached to Perambalur Police Station, who on thestrength of which, registered a case in Crime No.222/99 against the accusedunder Sections 302 and 379 of I.P.C. The First Information Report Ex.P8 wasdespatched to the Court.On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., P.W.12 SyedMohamed, Inspector of Police, took up the investigation and proceeded to thespot.In the presence of witnesses, he made an inspection and prepared Ex.P3observation mahazar and Ex.P15 rough sketch.The bloodstained earth M.O.6 andthe sample earth M.O.7 were collected from the place under Ex.P4 mahazar.Inthe presence of witnesses and panchayatdars, he conducted inquest on the deadbody of Rani and prepared Ex.P16 inquest report.Through a Constable, thedead body along with a requisition was sent to the Government Hospital forpostmortem.Abrasion on the both heel posterior aspect 6 cm x 3 cm.The Doctor had issued a certificate Ex.P6 opining that the deceasedwould appear to have died of asphyxia 48-50 hrs before postmortem due to strangulation.(d) On 13.6.1999 at about 15.00 hours, the first accused was arrestedby P.W.13 Ramachandran, Inspector of Police, Padalur Police Station, at thetime of the investigation in some other case.The accused volunteered to givea confessional statement, and the same was recorded, pursuant to which he tookthe police personnel to his residence, and from there M.Os.1 to 5 the goldjewels, were recovered under a search list.The said articles were sent toCourt.Apart from that, the accused was also produced before the Court.Index: yesInternet: yesTo:The Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief JudicialMagistrate, Perambalur.The Inspector of Police, Perambalur Police Station.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) The first accused in a case of murder, in which he stood charged underSections 302 and 404 of Indian Penal Code along with the second accused, whostood charged under Sections 302 read with 109 and 404 read with 109 ofI.P.C., on being found guilty as per the charges and awarded punishment oflife imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of which toundergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.302 ofI.P.C. and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years along with a fine ofRs.1,000/-, in default of which to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for sixmonths for the offence under Sec.404 of I.P.C., has preferred this appeal.The second accused was acquitted of both the charges by the trial Court.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are:(c) On receipt of the requisition, P.W.7 Dr.Ganeshbabu, attached tothe Government Hospital, Perambalur, conducted the autopsy on the dead body ofRani and found the following injuries.External Injuries:ILL defined abrasion seen encircling the neck above the hyoidbone, the abrasion becomes broken at the back of neck.2. Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on the back of Right elbow, through whichfluid blood oozing.3. Abrasion in the back of left elbow 4 cm x 2 cm through whichfluid blood oozing.Abrasion left popliteal fossa 15 cm x 6 cm.Multiple abrasions over the left thigh which extends to the lower part of left buttocks.20 cm x 10 cm.Multiple abrasions over the both scapular region 6 cm x 4 cm.A-2was also arrested and produced before the Court.P.W.14 Panneerselvam,Inspector of Police, took up further investigation.A requisition wasforwarded to the Court for sending the material objects for chemical analysis.Accordingly, they were subjected to chemical analysis.P25 ChemicalAnalyst's report and Ex.P26 Serologist's report were received.On completionof the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report, whichwas taken cognizance by the trial Court.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused,the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and relied on 26 exhibits and 11material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of theprosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of the Code of CriminalProcedure as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of theprosecution witnesses.Both the accused flatly denied the same.No defencewitnesses were examined.The trial Court on consideration of the rivalsubmissions made and scrutiny of the materials, has found the first accusedguilty as per the charges and awarded the punishment referred to above, buthas acquitted the second accused.Hence, the first accused has assailed thejudgment of the lower Court before this Court.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant made the followingsubmissions:The prosecution had no direct evidence in the case and had reliedexclusively on the circumstantial evidence.But, the prosecution has failedin both.According to the prosecution, the first accused was arrested on13.6.1999, and the requisition for conduct of the first identification paradewas given after a period of 10 months.The proceedingspertaining to the same, marked as Ex.P11 would clearly indicate that P.W.3could not identify the first accused, though he was shown not only once butalso thrice.Atthat time, P.W.3 identified the first accused.But, the second identificationparade has taken place after a very long time from the time of arrest i.e.,nearly one year and one month.This delay would be sufficient to reject theentire identification parade proceedings.Apart from that, at the time ofidentification parade itself, the first accused has categorically stated tothe Judicial Officer concerned that there were number of occasions when he wasshown to P.W.3, and in particular before the trial Court, where the firstaccused was produced.P.W.3 was already known to him and a relative also, andhence, he has identified the first accused.Under the circumstances, theidentification parade loses its significance in law.Added further, the learned Counsel for the appellant that so faras the recovery relied on by the prosecution, is concerned, there is norecovery under Sec.27 of the Evidence Act at all.Even from the evidence ofP.W.6, it would be clear that the place of arrest, confession and recoverywould differ.Apart from that, so far as the recovery is concerned, a perusalof the document would clearly indicate that it was not a recovery mahazar;but, it was only a search list, and it would also be strengthened by theevidence of P.W.6, who has deposed to the fact that there was no recovery;but, it was only a search, pursuant to which the gold jewels were recovered.Not even a mahazar has also been prepared in that regard.Under thecircumstances, the prosecution cannot place any reliance on the recovery, andthus, the recovery alleged to have been made, loses its importance.Therefore, the prosecution has nothing to put forth before the lower Court.Apart from the identification of thefirst accused by P.W.3, P.W.10 a villager and who was also a member of theHome Guard, has also identified the first accused before the trial Court,which has also been relied on by the lower Court.The learned Government Advocate would further add that so far asthe recovery of the gold jewels M.Os.1 to 5 was concerned, they, according toP.W.1, belonged to his wife.Further,from the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 13, it would be quite evident that thesejewels were recovered from the first accused, pursuant to the confession madeby him.A scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.6 would clearly indicate that itwas the first accused who gave a confessional statement recorded by theInvestigating Officer, pursuant to which the gold jewels have been recovered.Under the circumstances, the lower Court was perfectly correct in drawing thepresumption under Sec.114 of the Evidence Act that it was he who committed theheinous crime of murder, and hence, the defence version was rightly rejectedby the trial Court.In view of these reasons, the appeal is bereft of merits,and hence, it has got to be dismissed.This Court paid its full attention on the rival submissions madeand had a thorough scrutiny of the prosecution case as well as the materialson record.At that time, P.W.3was asked to identify the first accused.On all the three occasions, he couldnot identify.P14, that P.W.3 was able to identify thefirst accused, after a long delay of nearly one year and one month, whichwould be suffice to reject the identification proceedings.Apart from the above, the first accused even at the time of theidentification, has complained to P.W.11 Judicial Officer that he was shown toP.W.3 earlier, and P.W.3 was also known to him, and one occasion, he wasactually shown to P.W.3, who was sitting in the Court hall at the time whenthe other proceedings were going on, in order to identify him in this case.At the time of hiscross-examination, he has categorically stated that he gave an oral statementto the police the very next day, when they came for an enquiry, but, hisstatement was not recorded.When a query was raised by the Court in thisregard, the prosecution was unable to tender any explanation why such astatement was not recorded at that time.On the contrary, it is seen from therecords that the statement of P.W.10 was recorded only in the month ofSeptember 2000 and was sent to the Court.Hence, the conviction of theappellant/first accused under Sections 3 02 and 404 of I.P.C. and theconsequent sentence imposed on him by the trial Court, have got to be setaside, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal.In the instant case, the gold jewels M.Os.1 to 5 have been placedbefore the trial Court, and the first accused has not claimed them as of his,and when P.W.1 came forward to state that those jewels belonged to his wife,the same was not disputed by the appellant.Hence, a direction is issued thatthe gold jewels M.Os.1 to 5 have got to be returned to P.W.1 on his making arequest to the trial Court.In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Perambalur.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Mr. Ashish Virmani, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in person.JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI Crl.According to the prosecution, SI Raghubir Singh Yadav went to 20/8, Shahbad Dairy on 01.10.2002, and found a crowd gathered there.The prosecutrix (referred to as P) recorded her statement alleging commission of various offences.In that statement, P alleged that on 30.09.2002 around 03:00 PM, Lalita who was her parents' neighbour together with Chander Shekhar (known previously to her) came to her jhuggi at ITO i.e. her matrimonial home.She was alone at that time.Lalita told P that her daughter was missing and since she was friendly, she ought to help in tracing her.It was alleged that P accompanied the accused to Model Town and at around 8:00 PM, they took her to Chander Shekhar's office, which is located at Shahbad Dairy.P asked the accused why they had taken her there.The accused forcibly took her to the first floor; three girls were already there i.e. Sunita, Aarti and Bitoo (who deposed during the trial as PW-5, PW-6 & PW-9).Lalita allegedly shut the door and both the accused started slapping and beating up P, trying to elicit the whereabouts of Janki, Lalita's daughter.P, the prosecutrix stated that Crl.It was alleged that at around 02:00 AM, after consuming alcohol, the accused locked the other three girls in the toilet besides the staircase.She was made to sit in the corner of the room and other girls were called in.It was alleged that Lalita asked her to take a bath; she complied with the demand.She was asked to leave her clothes and given Janki's clothes by Lalita.PW-8/B. The first is of prosecutrix ""P"".The date mentioned as 02.09.02 time: 12.45 a.m. However, there is cut but there is no explanation on change of date to 02.10.02 with different pen and ink.The MLC Ex.PW-8/B mentioned the date 2nd September, 2002 time 12.55 a.m. However, there is another examination of Dr. M.G. Kalyanpal.It is on 02.10.02 time: 2.10 a.m. No explanation regarding two dates.MLC of Arti Ex.PW-8/C mentioned the date 02nd September, 2002 time: 1.14 a.m. MLCs of Bitto Ex.PW-8/D at one column has not mentioned the date of examination but at other column D - 1st October, 2002 at 1.45 a.m. Other date of examination by Dr. M.G. Kalyan Pal mentioned the date 02nd October, 2002, 1.45 a.m. in the night.The half of the examination on Crl.L.P.189/09 & Crl.Rev.Pet.434/09 Page 5 02nd September, 2002 and the remaining examination on 02nd October, 2002 at early hours of the morning.The initial handwriting has not mentioned the history which is different from the other handwriting.The 2nd September, 2002 date and examination suggests that it was for bonne-x-ray of all the four girls.Then how it is possible that on 02nd September, 2002, the same MLC has been prepared and how investigation officer seized the pulandas and medical samples on 02nd October, 2002 when four girls are under medical examination.The Trial Court further recorded as follows: -Now in the examination of MLC Ex.PW-8/A to PW-8/D of four girls and Ex.PW-8/E of Chander Shekhar, some important factors erupted.The Ex.PW-8/D of Bitto is number 07294 and Ex.All the four girls examined in the night intervening night of 1/2.10.02 then how MLC number of Bitto chased the serial from 15000 to Crl.L.P.189/09 & Crl.Pet.434/09 Page 6 07295 when examined by the same doctor.In Section-164 statement Ex.PW-1/C, she mentioned that only Lalita had visited her jhuggi, however, in the Court she improved upon this and mentioned the names of both persons.Similarly, there was a variation in her account in going to Model Town.The police statement under Section-161 was silent as to whether she was interviewed by the police officers when they were looking for Janki; in the statement recorded under Section-164 Ex.PW-1/C, she stated that the accused took her to PS Model Town where some policemen had recorded her statement.The Trial Court observed in this regard as follows: -XXX The appreciation of this portion prosecutrix statement again reflects material contradiction.According to Ex.PW-2/A she went to Lalita and Chander Shekhar in a three wheeler at police station Model Town.As per statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. she was taken by Lalita only to police Crl.L.P.189/09 & Crl.Rev.Pet.434/09 Page 7 station Model Town.According to testimony in the court she remained at police station prior to 8.00 p.m. The investigation officer has not enquired from police station Model Town regarding this aspect although in the charge sheet one line is written.No effort is made by IO to join the police officials from police station Model Town to further explain and corroborate this fact.No documentary filed on record regarding any FIR is pending at police station Model Town and what inquiries conducted by police officials from prosecutrix ""P"" at police station Model Town.However, Ex.PW-14/A DD No.16 SI Narender Yadav made some inquires from girl which was taken by parents from police station Model Town.However, investigation officer did not make any effort to join SI Narender Yadav during investigation.Statement of prosecutrix ""P"" Ex.PW-2/A further states that at about 8.00 p.m. in the night, Lalita and Chander Shekhar both forcibly took her to first floor, C Block office, there three girls namely PW-5 Bitto, PW-6 Arti and PW-9 Sunita were already sitting there.The door was shut.Thereafter both accused started slapping and giving fist blows on all the four girls and asking about missing Janaki.At about 2.00 a.m., Chander Shekhar after drinking liquor along with Lalita confined all the three girls in a latrine outside room at staircase.Then closed door of the office.In statement 164 Cr.P.C. prosecutrix states that Lalita taken her C Block Office by dragging from the staircase.There she saw three more girls Arti, Sunita and Bitto already confined there.Both Crl.L.P.189/09 & Crl.Rev.Pet.434/09 Page 8 accused gave beating to three girls.Thereafter three girls were confined in bathroom.When prosecutrix as PW-2 she testified that Lalita took her dragging on first floor office of Chander Shekhar, she saw there three girls were already confined one or two days prior to her.Lalita again made inquiries about missing daughter Janaki.In cross-examination she states that she never went to office of accused Chander Shekhar.The story of confinement also differs from each witness.How new and new facts are introduced.Everything is happening in a small room but how they were depicted and then reproduced while under examination for statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. and finally before this court.PW-9 Sunita introduced son of Lalita who consumed liquor and Crl.The analysis and appreciation of PW-2 prosecutrix, PW-5 Bitto, PW-6 Arti and PW-9 established that prosecution case now further grows but element of truthfulness is diminishing at a very fast speed in respect of wrongful confinement, threat and outraging modesty and kidnapping.It is pertinent to mention here that how it can be believed that four girls missing from their house but their parents or husband never approached to the police.""The Trial Court also disbelieved the circumstances in which the alleged escape took place by the four girls and observed as follows: -The last part of the prosecution story regarding escape of PW-6 Arti is contradictory to each other of the witnesses PW-5, PW-6 and PW-9 and also to the statements under section 164 Cr.P.C. Each witness has given her own story of escape.The common fact is that public persons gathered there.They called police officials there.The investigation officer has not proved any DD entry which was registered on the information of Crl.L.P.189/09 & Crl.The story regarding arrest of accused as stated by four girls and police officials are also contradictory to each other.Some say they were escaped.Some say they were apprehended by public.PW-14 investigation officer SI Raghubir Singh simply stated that they were arrested and proved their memos PW-13/A and PW-13/B and PW-11/C and PW-11/D.According to Ex.According to PW-13 both were present in front of B-19 but however, there is difference of half an hour.MLC of accused Chander Shekhar Ex.PW-8/E suggests that he was medically examined at 8.50 a.m. at same BJRM Hospital.There is a gap of nine hours from the arrest time to the medical examination.All the four girls were sitting in the room.At around 04:00 AM, one of the girls, Aarti, managed to get out and raised an alarm as a result of which, people gathered.The accused quietly slipped away from the office.On the basis of these allegations, FIR No.254/2002 was registered at PS Bawana.The accused were arrested and after conclusion of investigation charged with committing the offence mentioned previously.They claimed to be innocent and sought trial.In the course of the trial, the prosecution relied upon testimonies of 14 witnesses and several materials including the Medico Legal Certificates and other documents.After considering all these, Trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused.It is argued that the Trial Court placed undue importance on the minor contradictions and variations to acquit the respondents/accused.It was argued that since all the witnesses were victims of abduction, Crl.L.P.189/09 & Crl.Rev.Pet.434/09 Page 3 the police had ensured that their statements had recorded under Section-161, Cr.P.C. Broadly, each one corroborated the other as to the abduction and confinement as well as the rape committed upon P. In that sense, there was ample material to substantiate and corroborate the prosecutrix version about the abduction, confinement and her rape.Each one of the witnesses PW-5, 6 & 9 had heard the prosecutrix crying out and had even heard her telling them about the assault on her.The medical evidence in the form of MLC as well as the Doctor's testimony supported the version about the rape.Having regard to all these, the Court ought not to have given undue importance to minor contradictions in regard to location or the sequence of events or the kind of clothes that was worn by them or the prosecutrix.Since the identity of the assailants i.e. Chander Shekhar and Lalita was known to each one of the victims who deposed i.e. PW Nos.5, 6 & 9, the respondents' acquittal was not justified.We have carefully considered the submissions as well as Trial Court's records.In this case, the Trial Court disbelieved the MLCs observing as follows: -Now let us examine MLCs of four girls Ex.PW-8/A to Ex.The medical examination of four girls, seizure memo Ex.PW-11/B and MLCs PW-8/A and PW-8/B completely demolishes the prosecution story.She also revealed before Magistrate that she said that Lalita threatened her to put on her chilly powder and tezab.Three girls were confined in a bathroom close to her.Latrine and bathroom were combined where she was confined.""Commenting on the vide variations between the statement of all the witnesses including 'P' - each one of them had recorded the further statement under Section-164 Cr.P.C. - the Trial Court observed as follows: -The statements of all the four witnesses PW-2 prosecutrix, PW-5 Bitto, PW-6 Arti and PW-9 Sunita on the aspect of their meeting with both accused persons and how they were brought to the office C Block, Shahbad Dairy are contradictory.The conduct as alleged of accused Lalita and Chander Shekhar how mismatched.L.P.189/09 & Crl.Rev.Pet.434/09 Page 9 gave beating to them.PW- 5 Bitto states that Lalita compelled prosecutrix ""P"" to take Sharab.PW-9 also introduced new facts regarding the teasing, touching and undressing her.PW-5 Bitto in cross-examination stated a story of visiting police station Model Town, Adarsh Nagar and Jahangir Puri.Similarly, the testimonies recorded all the four girls in the court are contradictory to each other on all material aspects.PW-2 has not proved this arrest memo.The memos of Lalita are Ex.PW-11/C and Ex.PW-11/D. According to these memos, accused Lalita was arrested at 11.40 p.m. half an hour of the accused.PW-2 is the witness but she failed to proved these memos.During this nine hours custody period investigation officer had no time to record disclosure statement of any of the accused.There is no explanation for not recording of disclosure statement by the investigation officer.""We further notice that the MLC of the prosecutrix P does not Crl.L.P.189/09 & Crl.Rev.Pet.434/09 Page 11 bear any sign of forcible sexual intercourse as is sought to be made out by the prosecution.The evidence on record establishes that she was married even though at a young age.","['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The relevant facts for our purposes are these.Gopal deceased was married to the sister of the appellant.The appellant and his father Badri were living in a railway quarter at Gorakhpur.Gopal's sister was married to one Banarsi, who was also living in another railway quarter nearby.S. P. Sinha and S. D. Sekhri, for the appellant.G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal (for G. N. Dikshit), for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in a criminal matter.The facts of the case, as found by the High Court, are no longer in dispute and the 648 question that is raised in this appeal is whether the appellant had exceeded the right of private defence of person.Gopal had been living for some time with his father-in-law.They did not, however, pull on well together and Gopal shifted to the house of Banarsi.Badri persuaded Gopal to come back to his house but the relations remained strained and eventually Gopal shifted again to the quarter of Banarsi about 15 days before the present occurrence which took place on June 11, 1953, at about 10 p.m. Gopal's wife had continued to live with her father as she was unwilling to go with Gopal.Her father Badri and her brother Vishwanath appellant sided with her and refused to let her go with Gopal.Gopal also suspected that she had been carrying on with one Moti who used to visit Badri's quarter.Consequently, Gopal was keen to take away his wife, the more so as he had got a job in the local department some months before and wanted to lead an independent life.On June 11, there was some quarrel between the appellant and Gopal about the girl; but nothing untoward happened then and the appellant went back to his quarter and Gopal went away to Bansari's quarter.Gopal asked Banarsi's sons to help him in bringing back his wife.Banarsi also arrived and then all four of them went to Badri's quarter to bring back the girl.On reaching the place, Banarsi and his two sons stood outside while Gopal went in.In the meantime, Badri came out and was asked by Banarsi to let the girl go with her husband.Badri was not agreeable to it and asked Banarsi not to interfere in other people's affairs.While Badri and Banarsi were talking, Gopal came out of the quarter dragging his reluctant wife behind him.The girl caught hold of the door as she was being taken out and a tug-of-war followed between her and Gopal.-The appellant was also there and shouted to his father 649 that Gopal was adamant.Badri, thereupon replied that if Gopal was adamant he should be beaten (tomaro).On this the appellant took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed Gopal once.The knife penetrated into the heart and Gopal fell down senseless.Steps were taken to revive Gopal but without success.Thereupon, Gopal was taken to the hospital by Badri and the appellant and Banarsi and his sons and some others, but Gopal died by the time they reached the hospital.On these facts the Sessions Judge was of opinion that Badri who had merely asked the appellant to beat Gopal could not have realised that the appellant would take out a knife from his pocket and stab Gopal.Badri was, therefore, acquitted of abetment.The Sessions Judge was further of opinion that the appellant had the right of private defence of person, and that this right extended even to the causing of death as it arose on account of an assault on his sister which was with intent to abduct her.He was further of opinion that more harm than the circumstances of the case required was not caused; and therefore the appellant was also acquitted.The State then appealed to the High Court against the acquittal of both accused.The High Court upheld the acquittal of Badri.The acquittal of - the appellant was set aside on the ground that the case was not covered by the fifth clause of s. 100 and the right of -private defence of person in this case did not extend to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant and therefore it was exceeded.The appellant gave only one blow with a knife which he happened to have in his pocket.Appeal allowed.","['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can bestated as follows:a) P.W.1 Rajagopal is a resident of Maniyampatti and his father isa cousin of the deceased Mani @ Perumal.All the accused belonged to the sameplace.The first accused was doing the job of sellingillicit liquor.The deceased, who initially worked in a tea shop, wasworking under A1 during the relevant period.The deceased was notmarried.The remaining accused were also attackingthe deceased.Then, they tied the deceased in Vadanarayana tree andbeat him with sticks and the deceased fell unconscious.On seeing thedeceased unconscious, the accused removed the deceased from the treeand poured some water on his face.They took him to the resident ofthe first accused and found him dead.Later the deceased body wascovered with cloth and all the accused escaped from the place.P.W.1 has given a complaint underEx.P.1 before P.W.4 Village Administrative Officer at 9.00 p.m. and the samewas sent to the Police Station through Headman of thevillage.P.W.9 Sebasthian Head Constable attached to the PulivalamPolice Station received the said complaint on 13.1.1995 at about 11.00p.m.On the strength of which, he registered a case in Crime No.3 of 1995 under Section 302 IPC.Express F.I.R. under Ex.P.11 wasdespatched to the concerned court.The copy of the same was forwarded to theSuperior officers.On 14.1.1995 at 6.30 a.m. he madeinspection on the site of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar in thepresence of witnesses, which was marked as Ex.P.3 and rough sketch Ex.He examined thewitnesses and recorded their statements.The dead body was sent toGovernment Hospital, Thuraiyur for post-mortem.On 14.1.1995 onreceipt of requisition, P.W.8 Dr.Kannabai conducted autopsy and has issuedEx.P.10 post-mortem certificate.He opined that the deceased wouldappear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vitalorgan liver and right kidney ruptures about 20 to 22 hours prior toautopsy.On 15.1.1995, the Investigating Officer went to Maniyampatti,examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements.Oninformation, he proceeded to Kannanur and arrested accused No.1 Raju andChinnu.A1 gave confessional statement in the presence of the witnesses andthe admissible portion of the confessional statement was markedas Ex.M.Os.1 to 3 were recovered pursuant to the confessionalstatement.The accused were produced before the Court and remanded tojudicial custody.He examined both Pws.5 and 6 Head Constables andrecorded their statements.The Judicial Magistrate, ThuraiyurThe Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, TrichyThe I Additional Sessions Judge, TrichyThe Principal Sessions Judge, TrichyThe Superintendent, Central Prison, TrichyThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, ChennaiThe Dy.The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3, who stood charged and tried forthe offences under Section 302 IPC for A1 and Section 302 r/w 109 & 34IPC for A2 and A3 and under Section 342 IPC against all the accused, and A1 toA3 were found guilty under Sections 342 and 304(2) andsentenced to undergo RI for one year each under Section 342 IPC andsentenced to undergo RI for four years each under Section 304(2) IPC,have brought forth this appeal.On 18.1.1995, A2 surrendered before thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Musiri.On 23.1.1995, the InvestigatingOfficer obtained post-mortem certificate and examined P.W.8 Doctor.Healso examined the photographer and obtained the statement.Oncompletion of the investigation, he laid a charge sheet against the accusedunder Section 342 and 302 IPC.In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, theprosecution examined 10 witnesses and marked 14 exhibits and 3 M.Os.The accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to theincriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecutionwitnesses, which they flatly denied as false.No defence witnesses wereexamined.The trial court, on consideration of the rival submissions made andscrutiny of the available materials, found all the accusedguilty under Section 342 and 304(2) IPC and sentenced them to undergoimprisonment as referred to above.Aggrieved accused have broughtforth this appeal.Arguing for the appellant, the learned Counsel Ms.J.JulietPushpa made the following submissions for consideration by this Court.P.W.2 hasturned hostile.P.W.1 was a close relative of the deceasedand he was interested, and hence it was uncorroborated and selfinconsistent testimony.The evidence of P.W.1 should not have been relied onby the trial court for finding the accused guilty.The prosecutionrelied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 to the effect that the deceased wasbeaten with sticks.But, in the post-mortem certificate it could be seen thatno external injury was found corresponding to the saidversion of the prosecution witnesses.Hence, the prosecutionwitnesses could not have seen the occurrence at all.The medical evidence has not in any way corroboratedthe ocular evidence.Under the stated circumstances, the lower courtshould have rejected the case of the prosecution and acquitted theaccused.Opposing the contentions put forth by the appellants' side, thelearned Government Advocate would submit that the prosecution hasclearly brought home the guilt of the accused under Sections 342 and 304(2)IPC as found by the trial court.It is true that P.W.2 hasturned hostile, but the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3,who have given a cogent evidence as to the fact that it was A1 to A3who tied the deceased in Vadanarayana tree and even before tyingthe deceased, they beat him and after tying also, they beat him.It is truethat there was no corresponding external injury found, but ithas in no way affected the case of the prosecution, because, P.W.8Doctor has opined that the death was caused not due to injury by beating thedeceased, but because of tying of rope tightly, the vital organs kidney andliver were not functioning and rupture was also found.Under the stated circumstances, it cannot be said that the ocularevidence was not corroborated by the medical evidence, and thus, theprosecution has clearly proved its case.Hence, the judgment of the trialcourt has got to be affirmed.After careful analysis of the evidence available andconsideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is unable to agreewiththe contentions of the appellants' side.The gist of the prosecution case wasthat on the date of occurrence, on entertaining suspicionthat the deceased took away the amount of A1, he questioned thedeceased and not satisfied with the answer, A1 beat the deceased and A2 and A3have also joined with him.All the accused tied the deceased with a kadambarope in Vadanarayana tree situated nearby the house of A1 and beat him.Thedeceased fell unconscious.Hence, the accuseduntied the rope and poured water on his face.They took him to the houseof A1 and found him dead.They fled away from the scene of occurrence.It istrue that P.W.2 has turned hostile.P.W.1 who gave acomplaint was a close relative of the deceased.Itis pertinent to point out that the complaint was given by P.W.1 wherehe has given a full narration of the occurrence as he narrated theoccurrence before the trial court.Both P.Ws.1 and 3 have categorically spoken to the fact that all theaccused have tied the deceased in a tree.P.W.8 Post-mortem Doctor has givenpost-mortem certificate andhas also deposed thatwhen he was tied tightly there was all possibility of non functioningof vital organs, namely, kidney and liver and which caused his death.He hasalso noticed rope mark in the waist of the deceased.Theappellants' side is unable to show any circumstance or reason why theevidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 should be disbelieved or rejected.In other respect, the judgment of the trial court isconfirmed.With the above modification, this criminal appeal is dismissed.Inspector General of Police, Chennai-4O.Srinath, Govt. Advocate (Criminal Side) High Court, ChennaiThe Inspector of Police, Thathaiyangarpettai, Pulivalam Police Station M. CHOCKALINGAM, J vvk C.A.NO.322 OF 1996 31.07.2003","['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(3) Raju Dhonde (PW 3) - Brother of victim.(4) Sk.(5) Nandu Kale (PW 5) - Independent witness, and (6) Kaduba Bankar (PW 6) - Head Constable & Investigating Officer.finger ring in the marriage, and after marriage she went to reside with the accused at her matrimonial home.Initially she was treated well for about six months, but thereafter accused started assaulting and illtreat her on account of demand of Rs.25,000/- for the purchase of agricultural land.His daughter used to disclose about the same whenever she used to go to her parental house.Laxman (PW 2) has further stated that he had assured his daughter that he would pay the amount.He has also ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (9) stated that he had gone to her matrimonial home for bringing her for Nagpanchami festival, but accused refused to send her.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(9)However, on the next day, she came.On the third day, she was sent back.He has further stated that when his daughter had come for Panchami festival, his daughter had told him that accused were making demand of Rs. 25,000/- for the purchase of agricultural land and accused also threatened her that if the said amount was not brought, she should not come back.Laxman (PW 2) has also stated that thereafter in Bhadrapad, his cousin brother Rameshwar expired and, therefore, Surekha stayed for about two days and during said visit, she disclosed that her husband and other inlaws were making demand of cash.However, Laxman (PW 2) did not give her any amount and sent her back to her matrimonial home.On the same day, she had gone to her agricultural field.However, accused no.1 assaulted her and told not to come unless she could bring Rs.25,000/- and, therefore, accused no.1 had also assaulted her with hunter.Hence, she returned to her parental home on the same day and disclosed that accused no.1 had assaulted her and she showed weal marks on her back and, therefore, victim Surekha stayed at her parental home for some time.Laxman (PW 2) has further stated that on the next day, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (10) he went to Grampanchayat office and took two persons, namely Bandu Kale (PW 5) and Rakhmaji Dhongade.These persons had called accused no.1 Vithal in Grampanchayat office.At that time, accused no.2 came there.He has further stated that he told accused nos.1 and 2 that he would pay the amount after sale of sugarcane crop and that they should not illtreat his daughter Surekha.During the cross examination, Laxman (PW 2) has admitted that all Bhonde belonged to Shivsena Party, whereas accused belonged to Congress Party.He has further stated that wife of Subhash Kale belonged to Shivsena Party and she was Sarpanch of said village at the relevant time.He has also admitted that there was regular dispute between both the political ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (11) parties.Laxman (PW 2) has further stated in the cross examination that he had 25 Acres of Bagayat land and he had taken loan from Society to lay pipeline in his field and, therefore, there was attachment of his land to the Society.He has also stated that he had taken money from Babasaheb Shinde from the same village and gave 3 Acres of land therefor.He has also admitted that death of his daughter Surekha took place one day prior to Dasara festival.He has further admitted that accused no.2 got about 25 acres of Bagayat land.He has further admitted that he has not lodged any complaint agaist the accused nor he had informed Police or Sarpanch, that accused had assaulted his daughter with hunter.He has further stated that he and Bappaji had gone and questioned accused no.3 as to why his daughter was assailed with hunter.But at that time, accused questioned them as to why they ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (12) had entered into their land.He has also stated in the cross examination that the accused and he used to reside in the same village.(12)Coming to the testimony of Raju Dhonde (PW 3), brother of victim Surekha, who has deposed that Surekha was his sister and she was married with accused no.1 who belonged to the same village and during the marriage, they had given dowry of Rs. 38,000/- and 10 Gms.golden finger ring.He has also stated that she was treated well for about six months after the marriage and thereafter accused started illtreating her and was making demand of Rs. 10,000/- for purchase of land and his sister disclosed about the same when she had come at the time of festival.However, he has stated that they did not pay the said amount.Moreover, his father had gone to the house of accused to bring his sister for Nagpanchami festival but the accused did not send her along with him, but after some time, his sister ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (13) Surekha along came.At that time, his sister Surekha disclosed that accused had told her that she should not return until demand of Rs. 25,000/- is met.(13)- 4 days.It appears that the accused nos.1 to 5 faced the trial under Sessions Case No. 16 of 1998 for the charges levelled against them under Sections 498-A, 306, 323, 504, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and the appellant herein i.e. original accused no.1 was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, and was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code, but was acquitted for the offence punishable ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (3) under Sections 504, 506, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, whereas accused nos.2 to 5 were also acquitted for the aforesaid offences and, therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence in respect of appellant herein i.e. original accused no.1, present appeal is preferred.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(3)The facts and events leading to the present appeal are as follows :2Sheshrao is her brother-in-law and accused no.3 Mhasuji is her father-in-law and accused no.4 Sow.It is alleged that after the marriage, deceased Surekha was treated well initially for a period of six months, but thereafter accused persons started to harass and illtreat her over demand of Rs. 25,000/- for the purchase of agricultural land.It is also alleged that when Surekha came to her parental house at the time of last Diwali, she disclosed about the unlawful demand of Rs. 25,000/- and illtreatment due to non-compliance thereof by the accused.But she was pacified and was sent back to her ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (4) matrimonial home.It is further alleged that Laxman (PW 2), father of Surekha i.e. complainant, had gone to the matrimonial home of Surekha to bring her for Nagpanchami festival.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(4)However, accused refused to send her and, therefore, he alone returned back.After some time, Surekha came to his house.At that time also, she disclosed that accused were demanding Rs.25,000/- and threatened her that if the said amount was not brought, she should not return back.However, at that time, cousin brother of complainant, namely, Rameshwar, had expired and, therefore, she stayed back at parental house for some time.Thereafter, she was sent back to her matrimonial home.However, Surekha returned back on the same day and on inquiry, she disclosed that her husband i.e. accused no.1 had assaulted her with hunter as she had not brought the demanded amount.(ii) It is also case of the prosecution that on the next day, the complainant, namely, Laxman (PW 2) went to Grampanchayat office and called Nandu Kale (PW 5) and Sakharam Dhongade and narrated them about illtreatment sustained by his daughter Surekha at the hands of accused, in presence of accused nos.1 and 2 who were present there.Hence, both the said persons i.e. Nandu Kale (PW 5) and Sakharam Dhongade advised the accused, not to illtreat Surekha.Moreover, the complainant assured that he would pay the amount to the accused after sale of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (5) sugarcane crop.Thereafter, the accused took Surekha to her matrimonial home with them.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(iii) However, the prosecution case reveals that on 12-10-1997, when complainant was near the bus stand, he received news that Surekha was ill and hospitalized in Government Hospital.Hence, complainant rushed to the Government Hospital and found that Surekha had already expired.Police arrived in the hospital and drew inquest panchanama of the dead body of Surekha and forwarded it for post mortem examination.Dr. Ramesh Khobare (PW 1) performed post mortem on the said dead body on 13-10-1997 and prepared post mortem report which is produced at Exhibit 10 and probable cause of death ascertained was due to poisoning, and viscera was sent for C.A. examination.(iv) It is also case of the prosecution that after cremation of dead body of Surekha, complainant i.e. Laxman (PW 2), lodged complaint with the Police personnel at Paithan Police Station and offence was registered against the accused under Crime No. 125/1997 on 13-10-1997 under Sections 498-A, 306, read with ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (6) Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::Constable Kaduba Bankar (PW 6) filed charge sheet against the accused before Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Paithan.Since offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Aurangabad.Accordingly, charge against the accused was framed on 17-6-2000 under Exhibit 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34, 306 read with Section 34, 323, 504 read with Section 34 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried.To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, as ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (7) mentioned below :::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(1) Dr. Ramesh Khobare (PW 1) - Medical Officer.(2) Laxman (PW 2) - Father of victim Surekha (complainant).The defence of the accused is of total denial and appellant stated that Surekha died because of vomitting and lose motions, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and accused submitted that he has been implicated in this case falsely and claimed to be innocent.The accused neither examined himself on oath nor examined any defence witness.After considering oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution on record and after considering rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for parties, learned trial court acquitted accused nos.2 to 5 for the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (8) charges levelled against them under Sections 498-A, 306, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, and acquitted accused no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, but convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 323 of IPC and sentenced him as afore stated.Hence, the appellant i.e. original accused no.1 has challenged the order of conviction and sentence by filing present appeal and prayed for quashment thereof.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::Before adverting to the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, it is necessary to scrutinize the material evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution and in the said context, coming to the deposition of Laxman (PW 2) i.e. father of the victim, who stated that his daughter Surekha was married with accused no.1 Vithal about two years prior to her death and they had given dowry amount of Rs. 25,000/- and 10 gms.Accordingly, Surekha was sent back along with accused nos.1 and 2 to her matrimonial home.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(10)Laxman (PW 2) has further stated that on the day of Ekadashi, he had gone to Paithan and while he was proceeding to bus stand, Vishnu Rakhmaji met him and told that his daughter was ill and requested to go to the hospital at Paithan.Accordingly, Laxman (PW 2) went to the hospital and saw that his daughter was already expired and body was handed over to him for cremation.Thereafter, he lodged complaint at Exhibit 13 after cremation took place.He has also stated that he had taken amount from a person, namely Mohan, from Jalgaon (Taluka : Shegaon), to whom he had given 5 Acres land.He has also admitted that maternal uncle of Surekha had spent the amount for the marriage and they had purchased 10 Gms.gold ring, but could not state the denomination in which he had paid dowry of Rs. 38,000/-.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(11)Laxman (PW 2) has also stated in the cross examination that he sold his house about a month back and sells vegetable.She stayed at his house on that day but next morning he went to Grampanchayat office and took two persons, namely Nandu Kale (PW5) and Rakhmaji Dhongade and they called accused no.1 Vithal in Grampanchayat office.Few suggestions were given to Laxman (PW 2) putting the case of the accused to him, but the same were denied by him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::He has further stated that as his uncle Rameshwar had expired, his sister stayed at his house for about 2::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::Thereafter she left for house of the accused.However, she immediately returned back to parental house and disclosed that accused had assaulted her with hunter.Hence, he himself, his father Laxman (PW 2), his uncle and his brother immediately went to Grampanchayat office.Nandu Kale (PW 5) and Rakhmaji Dhongade met them in Grampanchayat office.Moreover, accused nos.1 and 2 were also called at the said office and a meeting was held at the Grampanchayat office in presence of villagers.He has further stated that accused nos.1 and 2 were assured that they would pay amount of Rs. 25,000/- after sale of sugarcane.Thereafter accused nos.1 and 2 took victim Surekha to her matrimonial home.He has also stated that after lapse of about 2 months from the said incident, his sister expired.However, he did not go to the house of accused to see her.He has also stated that on the next day, he saw his sister when her dead body was brought.During the cross examination, he has admitted that he cannot state, exactly up to what date his sister was treated well.His brother Bappasaheb used to meet her whenever he went to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (14) the village.He has also stated that his sister used to visit regularly at his house for festivals and holidays.However, she never used to come casually to meet them.He has also stated that he is educated up to 12th standard and he used to visit regularly to the house of the accused.However, he has further stated that for about two months from the date of alleged assault, he did not go to his sister.Few suggestions were given to him in the cross examination that there was no illtreatment to his sister and that he was deposing falsely at the instance of his father, but the same were denied by him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(14)That takes me to the testimony of Nandu Kale (PW 5), who has deposed that he knows Laxman Dhonde who is resident of village Wadwali, and his daughter was married with accused no.1 Vithal at the same village.He has also stated that after 8 days of Panchami, Laxman (PW 2) came to his house and told him that some quarrel was going on in the house of inlaws of his daughter over demand of money and he was called therefor.He has also stated that accused nos. 1 and 2 met them near Grampanchayat office.He has further stated that Laxman (PW2) assured accused nos.1 and 2 that he would pay amount after sale of sugarcane crop, as well as, he told both the accused to settle the dispute as Laxman (PW 2) had agreed to pay the amount subsequently.Thereafter, victim Surekha went along ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (15) with accused nos.1 and 2 to her matrimonial home.However, he has stated that he learnt thereafter that daughter of Laxman had expired.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(15)In the cross examination, he has admitted that one Mr. Hirale had lodged complaint against him for burning his hut, as well as, one Santram Jadhav had also lodged complaint against him and others in the court of J.M.F.C., Paithan, which was ended in compromise.He has also admitted that there was complaint against Arun Rustum Kale for having assaulted Education Officer of Zilla Parishad and he belonged to his relations.Hence, suggestion was given to him that he and Arun Kale belonged to Shivsena Party, but the same was denied by him.He has further stated that many people assembled near Grampanchayat office when he had talk with the accused, but people had not questioned Laxman (PW 2) about it in his presence, although they were standing near Grampanchayat office for about 15 minutes.He has further stated that he did not call Police Patil or Sarpanch of the village for settling the dispute.He has also stated that he did not make inquiry with Laxman (PW 2) after the death of Surekha.Hence, suggestion was given to him that the complainant did not call him and there was no settlement at his instance, but the same was denied by him.It was also suggested to him that complainant never assured in his ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (16) presence to the accused that he would pay the amount of Rs. 25,000/- after sale of sugarcane crop, but the same was denied by him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(16)That takes me to the deposition of Dr. Ramesh Khobare (PW 1), who has stated that he was working as Medical Officer at Paithan since 1997 and on 13-10-1997, he himself and Dr. Killarikar performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Surekha Vithal Gade, between 8.15 a.m. to 9.05 a.m. Body was brought by K.K. Bankar of Paithan Police Station.He has also stated that it was dead body of female aged about 25 years, and clothes were stained with reddish froth and also with fical matter and there was fine bloody froth oozing from mouth and nostril.However, there was no evidence of external injury.He has also stated that on internal examination, brain, larynx, lungs and internal organs were congested.On opening, the stomach mucosa was highly congested and it contained about 200 Ml. of liquid material with black granules smelling kerosene.He has also stated that probable cause of death was due to poisoning.Accordingly, he has stated that he issued post mortem report which is produced at Exhibit 10, disclosing probable cause of death ascertained was poisoning.Dr. Ramesh Khobare (PW 1) has further stated that he ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (17) preserved routine viscera and the same was sent through Police personnel to Chemical Analyser.He has stated that on perusal of C.A. report, it does not show that poison was detected in viscera.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(17)He has further stated that though C.A. report does not detect poison, he could ascertain that death was due to poisoning because (1) there was fine oozing froth from nose and mouth, (2) internal all organs were congested, (3) stomach containing black granules which suggested that it was unknown poison with kerosene as solvent.He has further stated that in addition to that, he did not detect any other reason which would draw a different conclusion than that of poisoning.As regards the negative C.A.report, he has stated that probability cannot be ruled out that because of less quantity of poison, C.A. report must not have been detected.During cross examination, he has admitted that he did not preserve her fine froth for sending it for analysis.He has further stated that routinely they do not preserve the froth.He has further stated that in case of head injury and convulsion, there would be froth and blood even from nose and mouth.He has also stated that there is no such poison which cannot be detected by analysis.A suggestion was given to him, that by consumption of kerosene, there cannot be death, but the same was denied by him.It was also suggested to him, that he gave false opinion ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (18) regarding cause of death, but the same was denied by him.However, he has stated that he did not find that the body was smelling of kerosene.A suggestion was also given to him, that findings on column No.20, so far stomach and its contents are concerned, are false, but the same was denied by him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(18)On the background of the aforesaid evidence, Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellant canvassed that prosecution has not examined any independent witness in respect of unlawful demand of money and harassment due to non- fulfillment thereof.It is also canvassed that there is no close proximity regarding matrimonial cruelty and the death of victim in suspicious manner by way of suicide and in fact, there is two months gap therein, and it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between suicide by victim Surekha and the matrimonial cruelty at the hands of the accused to her.Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no matrimonial cruelty proved before the death, leading suspicious death of victim Surekha and hence it is urged that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (19) prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 306 against accused no.1 beyond reasonable doubt in respect of abetment to suicide by victim Surekha.Besides as regards the alleged offence under Section 306 of IPC, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that for the proof of offence under Section 306, suicide has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but C.A. report dated 4-6-1998, Exhibit 20, categorically discloses that ""general and specific chemical testing does not reveal any poison in exhibit Nos.1 and 2 i.e. viscera of victim Surekha"".Hence, it is submitted that no poison was detected in the viscera which was sent to Chemical Analyser for examination purpose and hence the very aspect of suicide allegedly committed by victim Surekha is under doldrums and hence prosecution has failed to bring guilt at home against accused no.1 in respect of offence under Section 306 of IPC.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(19)As regards offence under Section 498A of IPC, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that evidence of Laxman (PW 2) and Raju Dhonde (PW 3) are contrary to each other in respect of the demand of the amount and there is variance in the allegedly demanded amount by the accused from victim Surekha since Laxman (PW 2) has stated in his deposition that amount of Rs. 25,000/- was allegedly demanded from victim Surekha, whereas Raju Dhonde (PW 3) has stated that amount of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (20) Rs. 10,000/- was allegedly demanded from victim Surekha.Moreover, it is also canvassed that it has come in evidence that the accused persons already owned 25 Acres of Bagayat land, but the complainant had no money even to meet with the marriage expenses which were incurred by his maternal uncle of victim and even it has come in evidence that Society attached land of the complainant and complainant was surviving by selling vegetables.Hence, it is canvassed that on the said background, when the accused already owned 25 Acres of Bagayat land it is not digestible that accused would demand alleged amount from the victim for purchase of plot and would harass and illtreat the victim due to non-fulfillment thereof.Hence, it is submitted that the evidence regarding alleged demand and harassment is not probable and not acceptable.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(20)Moreover, as regards the evidence of Nandu Kale (PW5), allegedly independent witness, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the said witness has criminal background.Moreover, evidence of Nandu Kale (PW 5) does not whisper regarding alleged demand and harassment of victim due to non-fulfillment thereof and, therefore, it is submitted that testimony of Nandu Kale (PW 5) does not support the prosecution case.Moreover, it is also canvassed that the version of Nandu Kale (PW 5) and Laxman (PW 2), complainant, differ ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (21) from each other and there is no corroboration to the said versions of any independent witness.Accordingly, it is urged that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against the appellant under Section 498A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::Accused no.1 has been implicated in this case falsely and hence, presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act cannot be raised against accused no.1 since there is no basic foundation of evidence in that respect.In the context of alleged offence under Section 323 of IPC, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is big question mark, whether any such incident occurred at all and there is no independent witness to substantiate the charge against the accused under Section 323 of IPC and, therefore, the bald statements made by the interested witnesses in respect of the said alleged offences cannot be accepted and cannot be believed.Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following reported cases :::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::Absence of this evidence coupled with the fact that evidence on demand was totally inconsistent and the evidence on cruelty was vague, the evidence of these witnesses lacks necessary assurance which is required in criminal trial to bring home the guilt essentially in respect of the offences of the present nature.For raising presumption under S. 113-A of the Evidence Act it is imperative for the prosecution to establish that a married woman was subjected to cruelty and harassment.In the circumstances, learned Counsel for the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 ::: (28) appellant urged that the present appeal be allowed and conviction and sentence inflicted upon accused no.1 be quashed and set aside, and accused no.1 be acquitted thereof.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 :::(28)Mr. B.V. Wagh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, countered the said arguments and opposed the present appeal vehemently and submitted that death of deceased Surekha took place within three years from the marriage and considering the said very aspect and also considering all other circumstances of the case, presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is required to be raised against accused no.1, since accused no.1 failed to give plausible and convincing explanation in respect of custodial death of victim in the custody of accused no.1 in suspicious manner.It is further submitted that it is pertinent to note that no suggestion was given to Nandu Kale (PW 5), independent witness, that whether was there enmity between accused no.1 and him and since there was no enmity ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 ::: (29) between Nandu Kale (PW 5) and accused no.1, the evidence of Nandu Kale (PW 5), independent witness, against accused no.1, is required to be accepted.He has further submitted assault by accused no.1 to victim by hunter has been proved and established by the prosecution and there is close proximity between the matrimonial cruelty and the suicide committed by victim Surekha and accused has failed to give any explanation why victim Surekha committed suicide.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 :::(29)Perused the oral, documentary and medical evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution, as well as, heard the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for parties, and considered the judicial pronouncements cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant.At the outset, the prosecution has not examined any independent witness in respect of unlawful demand of money and harassment due to non-fulfillment thereof.True it is, that the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 ::: (30) prosecution has examined Nandu Kale (PW 5) who is alleged to be independent witness, but he does not state about alleged unlawful demand of money from deceased Surekha by accused persons and harassment to her due to non-fulfillment thereof.Moreover, the said witness Nandu Kale (PW 5) also does not whisper about the alleged assault on victim by hunter.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 :::(30)Moreover, Laxman (PW 2) has stated in his deposition that his daughter Surekha had come to her parental house for Panchami i.e. in the month of August and she allegedly told that accused were making demand of Rs. 25,000/- for the purchase of agricultural land.He has also stated that thereafter in the month of Bhadrapad i.e. August end or September, his cousin brother Rameshwar had expired and his daughter had come for his funeral and at that time, she stayed for about two days and disclosed that her husband and other inlaws were making demand of cash, but he did not give her any amount and sent her back.However, he has further stated that the appellant assaulted her by hunter and, therefore, she returned back on the same day and she disclosed that appellant assaulted her by hunter and showed weal marks on her back.On the next day, Laxman (PW 2) went to Grampanchayat office and took Nandu Kale (PW 5) and Rakhmaji.He has further stated that thereafter his daughter did not return back and he got the message on 12-10-1997, that his daughter was ill and accordingly went to the hospital and found that she was already expired.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 :::(31)Thus, from Bhadrapad i.e. August end or September till 12-10-1997, no matrimonial cruelty at the hands of accused upon the victim Surekha was reported and hence it is amply clear that there is no close proximity regarding matrimonial cruelty and death of victim in suspicious manner by way of suicide since there is long gap of almost one and half month to two months, and hence prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between suicide by victim Surekha and matrimonial cruelty at the hands of the accused to her.Moreover, there are no specific instances of matrimonial cruelty established by the prosecution leading to suspicious death of victim Surekha and hence, there is no cogent and convincing evidence to prove and establish beyond reasonable doubt that offence under Section 306 of IPC against the appellant herein, in respect of abetment to suicide by victim Surekha.Moreover, other aspect also cannot be overlooked that the C.A. report dated 4-6-1998, Exhibit 20, disclosed that general and specific chemical testing of the viscera of the victim does not reveal poison and accordingly, no poison was detected in viscera ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 ::: (32) of the victim which was sent to C.A. for examination purpose and, therefore, the very aspect of suicide allegedly committed by victim Surekha comes under suspicion although Dr. Ramesh Khobare (PW 1) has opined that death was due to poisoning because there was fine oozing froth from nose and mouth, internal all organs were congested, and stomach contained black granules which suggested that it was unknown poison with kerosene as solvent, and hence, considering the said C.A. report Exhibit 20, appellant herein is entitled for benefit of doubt in respect of offence under Section 306 of IPC.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 :::(32)As regards offence under Section 498A of IPC, evidences of Laxman (PW 2) and Raju Dhonde (PW 3) are contrary to each other in respect of very aspect of demand of amount and there is variance in the alleged demanded amount by the accused from victim Surekha since Laxman (PW 2) has stated that amount of Rs. 25,000/- was demanded from victim Surekha, whereas Raju Dhonde (PW 3) has stated that amount of Rs. 10,000/- was allegedly demanded from victim Surekha.Moreover, it has also come in evidence that accused persons already owned 25 Acres Bagayat land, whereas the complainant had no money even to bear the marriage expenses which were incurred by maternal uncle of the victim and even Society had attached land of the complainant and he was surviving on selling ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 ::: (33) of vegetables and, therefore, on the aforesaid scenario, alleged unlawful demand by the accused from victim Surekha for the purchase of agricultural land, does not appear to be probable.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 :::(33)Moreover, the testimony of Nandu Kale (PW 5), who is posed to be independent witness, loses its weightage since there is criminal background to the said witness which has been revealed in his cross examination.Moreover, even so called independent witness Nandu Kale (PW 5) nowhere spells out about alleged demand and harassment by the accused to victim Surekha due to non-fulfillment thereof and hence, his testimony cannot be of any aid and assistance to the case of the prosecution in respect of the said charge.Besides, there is variance between version of the said independent witness Nandu Kale (PW 5) and Laxman (PW 2), the complainant, regarding the said charge under Section 498A of IPC.Thus, the evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution is inconsistent and there are infirmities and discrepancies in the evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution and hence, considering the said deformities and also considering the other circumstances of the case, presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act cannot be raised against accused no.1 i.e. appellant herein, and conviction inflicted upon the appellant herein under Section 498A of IPC shall not sustasin since there is no basis and foundation of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 ::: (34) legal evidence therefor.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 :::(34)Pertinently, as regards charge under Section 323 of IPC, there is no independent witness to substantiate the same against the appellant herein and conviction cannot be based against the appellant (accused no.1) merely on the basis of bald statements made by interested witnesses.Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant, be refunded to him.His bail bond stands cancelled.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 :::(35)::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 :::","['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The present appellanthas been convicted by the High Court under Section 302 of Indian PenalCode, 1860 (for short “IPC”), and sentenced to imprisonment for life anddirected to pay a fine Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine he isdirected to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of sixmonths.Appellant Darshan Singh has been further found guilty of the chargeof offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, and sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine ofRs. 1,000/- with default clause directing to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor further period of two months.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperson record.Prosecution story, in brief, is that there was dispute betweencomplainant and his relatives on one side and accused persons on the otherside regarding their turn of irrigating their fields.On account of this,earlier there had been incidents of assaulting each other.In thecircumstances, both the parties were facing proceedings under Section107/151 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.PC”) beforeExecutive Magistrate, Faridkot.On 17.02.1995, complainant Amrik Singh (PW-1) along with Raj Singh (PW-3), Sukhchain Singh (PW-2) , Harbans Singh (oneof the deceased), and their father Mander Singh and cousin Gursewak Singhwith maternal uncle Santa Singh (another deceased) and Boota Singh had goneto attend the proceedings of the court.From the side of accused SurainSingh, Jasmail Singh, Darshan Singh (present appellant), Jhanda Singh andBoota Singh had also come to the court on said date.At about 11.00 a.m.both the sides started quarrelling and had a heated exchange of words, asSurain Singh objected to presence of Bhajan Singh who was relative ofcomplainant Amrik Singh and not a party to the proceedings.He (SurainSingh), a Amritdhari Sikh, took out his Siri Sahib (Small Kripan, a sharpedged weapon) and gave blow to Bhajan Singh.When complainant partyattempted to separate them, Surain Singh gave Kripan blow on the person ofMander Singh.He assaulted also on the left shoulder of the complainantAmrik Singh, and gave two blows on the person of Suckhchain Singh.He didnot stop there and also assaulted Harbans Singh (deceased) with Kripan.Accused Darshan Singh (appellant) also took out his Kripan and inflictedinjuries on the person of Santa Singh (another deceased).Accused DarshanSingh (appellant) is said to have given blows also to Raj Singh.Pal Singhand Jhanda Singh caught hold of Gursewak Singh, and Darshan Singh assaultedthem also.Accused Boota Singh instigated other accused that no one shouldbe escaped alive.The injured were taken to Guru Gobind Singh MedicalHospital, Faridkot, where Santa Singh and Harbans Singh succumbed to theirinjuries.Report of the above incident was lodged by complainant Amrik Singh(PW-2).Prafulla C. Pant, J.The appeal filed by the Statequa Darshan Singh (present appellant) against his acquittal by the trialcourt, was allowed and his acquittal was reversed.On the basis of it, FIR No. 14, dated 17.02.1995 was registered atPolice Station, City Faridkot.The investigation was taken up by Sub-inspector Ranjit Singh (PW-17), who took the dead bodies in his possession,sealed it, prepared inquest report and got sent them for post-mortemexamination.Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu (PW-4) conducted post-mortemexamination on the dead bodies of Santa Singh and Harbans Singh on17.02.1995, and prepared autopsy reports.The other injured were alsomedically examined by PW-4 Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu and PW-5 Dr. ManjitSingh.There were injuries also on the side of the accused, and from theirside accused Pal Singh, accused Surain Singh and accused Jhanda Singhsuffered injuries.After interrogating witnesses and on completion ofinvestigation PW-16 Assistant Sub-inspector Ram Singh (who took overinvestigation from S.I Ranjit Singh) submitted charge-sheet against accusedpersons in the court.On 7.7.1995, Additional Sessions Judge,Faridkot framed charge against all the accused, namely, Surain Singh,Darshan Singh (present appellant), Pal Singh, Jhanda Singh , Jasmail Singh,Boota Singh and Lachman Dass relating to offences punishable under Section148, 302/149 (on separate counts of death of two persons), 307/149,324/149, 218 and 201 IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed tobe tried.Thereafter prosecution got examined PW-1 Amrik Singh (informant), PW-2 Sukhchain Singh, PW-3 Raj Singh (all the three injured eye witnesses), PW-4 Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu who conducted post-mortem examination, PW-5 Dr.Manjit Singh, PW-6 Gurcharanjit Kaur, Ahalmad, PW-7 Ujjagar Singh, Steno toA.D.C. Moga, PW-8 ASI Basant Singh, PW-9 Head Constable Shagan Singh, PW-10 Inspector Prithvi Singh, PW-11 Prithi Pal Singh, S.S.Teacher, PW-12Dharam Singh, Draftsman, PW-13 MHC Baljit Singh, PW-14 Dr. S.P. Singla, PW-15 Sub Inspector Shivraj Bhushan, PW-16 Sub Inspector Ram Singh, PW-17Inspector Ranjit Singh, PW-18 Constable Jagjit Singh and PW-19 SatishKalia, Ahalmad.The evidence adduced by prosecution was put to the accused by thetrial court under Section 313 of Cr.PC.In reply to which the accusedpersons alleged that evidence against them was incorrect.Appellant DarshanSingh took the specific plea of alibi stating that on 17.02.1995 he wasattending his duty as a Laboratory Assistant in Senior Secondary School,Janerian.Other accused took pleas of self defence.On behalf of thedefence DW-1 Satnam Kaur, DW-2 Rajinder Kumar, DW-3 Darshan Singh (Teacherin primary school, Pakhi Khurd), DW-4 Pawan Kumar, Ahalmad, DW-5 J.V.Tiwari, DW-6 Mukhtiar Singh, DW-7 Om Parkash and DW-8 ASI Harvinder PalSingh were examined.The trial court after hearing the parties found that charge asagainst accused Boota Singh, Darshan Singh and Lachman Dass is not provedand, as such, they were acquitted.However, accused Surain Singh wasconvicted under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of Harbans Singhand also under Section 307 of IPC for attempting to murder Sukhchain Singh.He (Surain Singh) was further convicted under Section 324 of IPC.Rest ofthe accused Jhanda Singh, Jasmail Singh and Pal Singh were convicted underSections 302/34, 307/34 and 324/34 of IPC.After hearing the sentence, thetrial court sentenced the convicts to various sentences.Convicts Surain Singh, Jhanda Singh, Jasmail Singh and Pal Singhchallenged their conviction before the High Court, and by the impugnedorder the High Court allowed appeal of Jhanda Singh, Jasmail Singh and PalSingh, but appeal of Surain Singh was dismissed.The connected appeal No.568 DBA of 1998 filed by the State qua Darshan Singh against order of hisacquittal was allowed, and he was convicted under Section 302 of IPC forcommitting murder of Santa Singh and sentenced to imprisonment for life anddirected to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default clause.He was furtherconvicted under Section 324 of IPC for voluntarily causing hurt with adeadly weapon on person of Gursewak Singh and Raj Singh and sentenced torigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause.Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated02.09.2008, passed by the High Court, this appeal is filed by accusedDarshan Singh who was acquitted by the trial court, but order of acquittalwas reversed and was convicted by the High Court.Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Senior Advocate, on behalf of the appellant, hasargued before us that where two views are possible on the basis of evidenceon record, the High Court should not have reversed the order of acquittalrecorded by trial court.It is further contended that appellant DarshanSingh was discharging his duties in the school on 17.02.1995 and was notpresent at the place of incident when occurrence took place and as such,the acquittal recorded by the trial court was not liable to be interferedwith.Our attention is drawn to the evidence adduced in defence in supportof plea of alibi.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State pointed out that inthe incident in question, while Surain Singh committed murder of HarbansSingh, the appellant (Darshan Singh) committed murder of Santa Singh.It isfurther submitted that plea of alibi taken by the defence was correctlyfound false by the High Court after re-appreciation of evidence.Learnedcounsel for the State referred to the statements of injured eye witnesses.We have considered rival submissions and perused the entire record ofthe case.There are three injured eye witnesses in the present case,namely, PW-1 Amrik Singh, PW-2 Sukhchain Singh and PW-3 Raj Singh.It is acase of day light incident.Injuries on the person of said eye witnesseshave been corroborated by PW-4 Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu, PW-5 Dr. ManjitSingh and PW-14 Dr. S.P. Singla.Ocular testimony of eye witnesses cannotbe discarded lightly.Once the prosecution has discharged its burden, theburden to prove that appellant Darshan Singh was not present with otheraccused at the place of incident and had gone elsewhere, lies on him.Injured eye witnesses have assigned specific role as to how he assaultedSanta Singh who suffered ante mortem injuries which gets corroborated fromthe autopsy report of Santa Singh.There are as many as five stabbed woundsout of the six ante mortem injuries.The same are being reproduced belowfrom autopsy report of Santa Singh:-Transverse stab wound 3 x 0.5 cm was present on the anterior side ofchest on the left side, 6 cms below and lateral to left nipple at 4.00 O’clock position.C.B.P was present.On dissection, it is going in wards andmedially through 6th inter costal space, piercing the pericardium and leftvertical.Pericardial sac contains about 200 C.C of fluid blood.It was bone deep C.B.P.Transverse stab wound 2 x 0.5 cm was present at the back of the leftside of abdomen 3 cms lateral to midline and 15 cm above the posteriorsuperior iliac spine of left side on dissection, the peritoneum largeintestia was cut.Peritoneal cavity contained about 500 C.C. of fluid andclotted blood.Transverse stab wound 2.5 x 0.5 cm was present on the back of the leftside of abdomen, 6 cms lateral to the injury no.3 C.B.P. It was skin deep.An oblique stab wound 1.5 x 25 cm on the back of left side of chest, 2cms from the midline and 20 cms below the nape of the neck, it was bonedeep C.B.P.A transverse stab wound 4 x 0.5 cms on the back of left side ofchest, 5 cms from the midline and 12 cms below the nape of the neck.C.B.P.It was bone deep.”From the record, PW-1 Amrik Singh (eye witness) appears to havesuffered following injuries at the time of the incident:-“2.4cm x 1cm incised wound-10.5 cms below and posterior to leftshoulder joint.X-ray of left shoulder joint advised.Injury was kept under observation and duration was within 6 hoursweapon used was sharp weapon” Injuries were declared simple in nature as per x-ray report and wasresult of a sharp weapon.”Another eye witness PW-2 Sukhchain Singh found to have sufferedfollowing injuries as per the injury report proved on the record:-“1. 1.0 cm x 0.25 cm incised wound on the middle of forehead.X-rayadvised.2. 2 cm x 1 cm incised wound on right side of chest 17 cms fromxiphisternum.Profuse bleeding was present.X-ray advised.Surgical opinion and X-ray advised.”Third eye witness PW-3 Raj Singh suffered following injuries on thedate of incident, as proved on the record:-“1. 1.9 cm x 1 incised wound in right Gluteal region-6 ½ cms below theright.Anterior superior iliac spine.X-ray advised.2cms x 1 cm incised wound on right lower chest.Bonedeep 22 cms belowthe right anterior, Axillary fold-17 cms below and slightly lateral toright memory gland.Surgical opinion was advised.”Now, we come to the defence plea of appellant Darshan Singh which wasaccepted by the trial court but rejected by the High Court.There is nocavil over the fact that appellant Darshan Singh was posted as LabAssistant with the Senior Secondary School, Janerian.After carefully goingthrough the statements of defence witnesses and other evidence on record,we agree with the High Court that accused Darshan Singh has taken falseplea of alibi.His presence and role is narratedin detail by the injured eye witnesses.In view of his role in the incidentnarrated by the eye witnesses, it is hard to believe that after movingapplication on 16.02.1995 for casual leave for 17.02.1995, Darshan Singhattended the school next day in the first half and sought half day leavethereafter.The attendance register was not seized immediately after theincident.His plea of alibi is vacillating.The word alibi means “elsewhere”.In the present case said conditionis fulfilled.After scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, we do not find anyillegality in appreciation of evidence, or in arriving at the conclusion asto the guilt of the present appellant by the High Court.Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we find no force in thisappeal which liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.","['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.","['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Session Judge, Court No.1 Jhansi in S.T. No. 257 of 2015 (State vs. Azhar and others) under Sections 149, 302, 500, 506, 34 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi, arising out of Case Crime No.0157 of 2015 whereby a prayer is made that the said judgment and order dated 7.12.2017 be set aside and court below be directed to summon Dr. R.P. Kala for taking his evidence.The trial court illegally and arbitrarily rejected the application No.121-B vide impugned order dated 7.12.2017 on the ground that the injuries of 1998 were not related to the present incident.The fire arm which has been recovered is 315 bore by which the incident has been carried out.The statement of Dr. R.K. Saxena has tried to mislead by saying that injury no. 2 is communicating to injury no. 3, which is an old injury which had been treated by Dr. R.P. Kala in the year 1998 as has been admitted by Dr R.K. Saxena in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is well settled that justice should not only be done but it should appear to have been done.Therefore, in view of the statement of Dr. R.K. Saxena mentioned above, it was necessary to examine Dr R.P. Kala who had treated the deceased Mohd. Rashid in 1998 to prove that the injury no. 3 was an old injury because that would be necessary for proper and just adjudication of the present trial and would be helpful to punish the real culprit who has committed murder of Mohd. Rashid.From the side of the opposite party no.2, Azhar, a vakalatnama has been filed by Sri Amit Daga which is taken on record.No counter affidavit has been filed by him but he has orally made argument opposing the present revision vehemently.Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the post mortem of the deceased would show that he had received five antemortem injuries which were as follows:""i) Incised wound size 3x1 cm, margin clean, sharp, situated 6 cm above from Rt.ear on the Rt. side of skull underlying bone fractured.ii) Lacerated wound size 22x11 cm on left side of skull, 5 cm above from left ear underlying bone fractured, brain matter is coming out.iii) Wound no. 3 is communicating with left side supra clavicular area along Lt. side of neck where 24 pallets of metallic characteristic found.iv) Abrasion size 12.0x0.5 cm over Rt.side anterior abdominal wall 12cm laterally from unbilicus.v) Abrasion size 5.0x0.5 cm over Lt. side of abdomen......."" and the cause of death has been recorded due to antemortem injuries.Pointing out the above injuries statement of Dr. R.K. Saxena was read out by the learned counsel for the revisionist which is annexed as Annexure-4, in which he has stated that he conducted autopsy of the dead body of deceased Mohd. Rashid.The 24 pallets which were recovered from behind Lt. side of the neck of the deceased which was an old wound.Thereafter, the attention of the Court was drawn towards the statement given by the witness before court as PW-4, in examination-in-chief wherein he stated as follows:-""....ii) Lacerated wound size 22x11 cm on left side of skull, 5 cm above from left ear underlying bone fractured, brain matter is coming out.iii) Left side supra clavicular area, which was towards Lt. side of neck, was communicating with injury no. 2 where 24 pallets were recovered....""Instead of that the revisionist wants to summon a witness who was not named in the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer nor any document which he now wants to get proved by calling the said witness were handed over to the prosecution/Investigating Agency.Nor the prosecution had provided the copies of these documents to the accused under section 207 Cr.P.C. If without providing any copy of these documents to the accused, the prosecution is allowed to proceed that would cause prejudice to the accused.","['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT K.K. Misra, J.This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7.9.1981 passed by Shri Gauri Shankar Nath Tripathi, the then Ist Addl.Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Session Trial No. 530 of 1979 connected with session Trial No. 529 of 1979, convicting and sentencing the appellants Tashreef Ahmad and Sahvan Ali under Section 302/149 I.P.C. to life imprisonment.They were further convicted and sentenced to one year's R.I. under Section 148 I.P.C. and to six months' R.I. under Section 323/149 IPC.The rest of the appellants Munna, Badrudding alias Achhan, Ismail, Ayub, Sajjan, Javed Alam, Achhan and Sabir were convicted and sentenced under Section 302/149 I.P.C. to life imprisonment, under Section 323/149 I.P.C. to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment.All the sentences on all counts were directed to run concurrently.The prosecution version as contained in the F.I.R. was that litigation was going on between the complainant Ibne Hasan on one side and Achchan alias Munne, Sajjan etc. on the other.For compromising the matter, it was decided that a Panchayat be held at the Chaupal of the deceased Sakir Hussain, Shabbar, Fareed Mistri son of Allahadiya, Tafsil Ahmad, Qamaruddin alias Bhole son of Aminuddin, Kalifuddin, alias Chunnu son of Azimuddin, Aminuddin alias Munne son of Azimuddin and Raisul Hasan son of Faizal Hasan assembled from one side.From the other side, Sabir Hasan son of Naza Hasan alias Chhote (who posted in Delhi in Police Department), Tashreef Ahmand son of Jamir Ahmad, Sahavn Ali son of Mubarak Hasan, Javed Alam, Munna son of Nazir Hasan, Badludding alias Achchan son of Bundu, Ismial Ayub, Achchan son of Avrarul Hasan and Sajjan were present in the Panchayat.A pertromax was glowing in the Baithak.As the Panchayat started, the members from the side of Achchan asked to withdraw all the cases.In reply, the members from the side of the complainant also said to the accused party to withdraw the case and then only the matter would be settled.On their saying so, heated arguments took place between the parties.At that time, Tashreef went to the house of Sahvan situate in the vicinity and brough Lathies, Ballam and Tabal kept there from before and shouted aloud to teach a lesson to the complainant party in respect of the litigation pending in the court.The members of the accused side took the arms brought by Tashreef.At that time, at about 9.10 O' Clock in the night, the accused Sabir Hasan, Sahavn Ali, Javed Alam, Munna, Badluddin alias Achchan, Ismail, Ayub, Achchan, Sajjan and Tashreef attacked the complainant party with Lathies, Tabal etc. By their assault, some members of the complainant party received injuries and Sakir Hussain, the brother of the complainant fell down on the Chabutara sustaining injuries.Hearing the cries of the complainant party, Ghissu, Chunnu and other persons of the village came there.Quamaruddin alias Bhole, Khalifuddin alias Chunnu, Aminuddin alias Munne and Raisul Hasan also sustained injuries.The investigation of the case was taken up by PW10 Devendra Singh Tyagi.He was present at the police station when the F.I.R. was lodged.He recorded the statements of complainant Ibne Hasan and Chowkidar Aziz at the police station itself.He proceeded to the place of occurrence.He reached there at 4.10 a.m. in the morning.He found the petromax on the spot, which was glowing.He prepared the site plan and recorded the statement of the witness Shabbir.However, the factum of enmity and litigation between the parties was admitted.In support of its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses in all.PW 1 Khalifuddin alias Chunnu was one of the injured.Other eyewitnesses were PW6 Ibne Hasan complainant, PW 5 Ghissu and PW 7 Qamaruddin.He, too, was injured.PW 2 Dr. D.S. Chaudhary, Medical Officer, Incharge Nangal Dispensary, Bijnor examined and injuries of all the injured.Sabbar, Ali, Javed, Achachan, Tashreef Ahmad, Munna, Sabir Husain, Jamaluddin @ Sajjan, Badluddin @ Achchan, Ismail and Ayub were present.A petromax was glowing.Sahvan and Badaluddin @ Achchan asked them to withdraw the cases pending in the court.He and others from his side then told them to do likewise.The altercation turned in heated arguments.Then, Master Tashreff Ahmad went to the house of Sahvan Ali situate in the vicinity and brought Lathis, Ballams Tobal etc. and exhorted his companions to teach them lesson of litigation.The accused persons fled away towards western side.Sakir Hussain died on the spot.The petromax was found by him in working order Blood stained and simple earth was also collected by him from the spot.He inspected the dead body of the deceased and instructed Sub-Inspector Raghubir Singh to prepare Panchayatnama etc. The dead body was then sealed and sent for post mortem.The post mortem examination was conducted by PW 3 Dr. R.K. Nigam on 1.9.79 at 4.45 P.M. He found that the deceased was aged about 30 years and a day had passed since he died.He found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of Shakir Hussain, deceased.Lacerated wound 7 cm x 1 bone on the right side of head 11 cm above the right ear.On exposing, clotted blood was present in the scale and the underlying right parietal bone was fractured.The meninges and brain substance were lacerated and the clotted blood was present on them.The right middle cranial fossa was fractured.Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 1/2 cm x bone in the middle of occipital region of the head.On exposing, clotted blood was present on the meninges and brain substance.Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on the back of right elbow.Contusion 3 cm x 3 cm on the back of left elbow.Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm below the right eye.Contusion 4 cm x 2- 1/2 cm on the right hip bone on lateral aspect 2 cm below iliace crest.Abrasion 1 1/2 cm x 1 1/2 cm in the middle of back in lumbar region in middle.The doctor opined that the death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage.PW 2 Dr. D.S. Chaudhary examined the injuries of Raisul Hasan, Qamaruddin @ Bhole, Khalifuddin @ Chunnu and Aminuddin.The details are given below:Raisul Hasan (examined on 1.9.1979 at 8 A.M.)Lacerated wound 2"" X 1/12"" on head front right side, 3"" from right eyebrow.Swelling 3"" X 1"" on right thigh lateral side 10' above from right knee.The doctor was of the opinion that both the injuries were simple and caused by blunt weapon.Qamaruddin @ Bhole (examined on 1.9.1979 at 8.10 A.M.) 1 Lacerated wound 3/4"" x 1/2"" on head left side, 4"" above from left ear (upper part).2 Swelling on right forearm frontally upto elbow joint 5 1/2"" x 3/4"".3 Swelling 2"" x 3/4"" on right wrist joint upto the base of right thumb.4 Swelling 3"" x 1"" on left thumb.5 Swelling 4"" x 1"" on front of left thing, 9"" above from left knee joint.6 Swelling 4"" x 1"" on right knee.7 Swelling 4"" x 1"" on front of right thigh, 4"" above from right knee.All injuries were simple and caused by blunt object.Khalifuddin @ Chunnu (examined on 1.9.1979 at 8.20 A.M.) 1 Lacerated wound 3/4"" x 2/12"" on forehead, 2"" above from left eyebrow.2 Lacerated wound 3/4"" x 1/2"" on left laterally, 5"" above from left ear.3 Lacerated wound 1"" x 1/2"" on head centrally, 4"" above from right eyebrow.4 Abrasion 3"" x 1/2"" on upper arm, 6"" below from right shoulder.5 Abrasion 1 1/2"" x 1/2"" on front of right elbow joint.6 Abrasion 1 1/2"" x 1/2"" on front of right elbow joint.7 Lacerated wound 1"" x 1/2"" on right thumb.The doctor was of the opinion that all injuries were simple and caused by blunt weapon.Aminuddin (examined on 1.9.1979 at 8.30 A.M.)Lacerated wound 2"" x 1/2"" on head left laterally, 3"" above from left ear.Swelling 2"" x 1"" on left thumb.Both the injuries were simple and caused by blunt weapon.The accused appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution story and further sated that they had been falsely implicated in the case.PW 3 Dr. R.K. Nigam conducted the post mortem of the deceased.All other witnesses produced at the trial were formal in nature.The trial court found the case set up against the accused appellants to be truthful and convicted and sentenced them as above.Broad features of the evidence may be noted for proper appreciation.PW 1, Khalifuddin deposed that before the incident, criminal cases were pending between the complainant party and the accused persons.A Panchayat was decided to be held at the Chaupal of Sakir Hussain for compromising the matters.He, Aminuddin, Qamaruddin @ Bhole, Ibne Hasan, Raisul Hasan, Shakir Hussain, Sabbar, Fareed Mistri and Tafsil were present there.From the other side.Sahvan Ali took up the Tabal and other accused took Lathis.Tashreef Ahmad had Ballam in his hand.Seeing the accused armed with weapons they started crying.The accused rounded them and prevented them from escaping.He saw that Sahvan Ali gave a blow of Tabal from reverse side on the head of the Sakir Ali, deceased.Sakir Hussain also sustained a Lathi blow on his head.He also sustained injuries on hands and legs.He fell down on the ground.Tashreef Ahamand attacked Ibne Hasan with Ballam.But, Ibne Hasan caught hold of the Ballam.When Sakir Hussain fell on the ground, Tashreef Ahmad fled taking Ballam.He further deposed that the Panchayat had gone smoothly for about 15-20 minutes.Other accused assaulted him, Aminuddin, Qamarudding @ Bhole and Raisul Hasan.Ghissu, Chunnu and many other had arrived at the spot and challenged th eaccused.Then the accused persons fled towards the west.He denied the suggestion that petromax was not glowing at the time of the incident.He specifically deposed that Sahavan Ali attacked Sakir Hussain on his head from reverse side of Tabal.PW 5 Ghissu deposed that it was about 9.10 p.m. when he was returning after easing himself.He heard the cries coming from the Chaupal of Sakir.He ran towards the Chaupal.The petromax was glowing at the Chaupal of Sakir.A bulb was glowing on the mosque and it was moonlit night.So explaining his presence, this witness has supported PW1 Khalifudding in material particulars by his testimony.PW 6 Ibne Hasan is the complainant and brother of the deceased.He deposed that there were two factions in the village, one of the accused persons and the other of the complainant party.Criminal cases were pending between both the factions and to settle the mater, the members of the both parties were sitting on the Chupal of Sakir.The discussion for compromising the matter was going on.He substantially repeated the story as given in the F.I.R. and in the deposition of PW 1 Khalifuddin.He deposed that Tashreef gave him a Ballam blow but he caught the Ballam.He further deposed that Sahvan assaulted Sakir Hussain with Tabal from the reverse side and the other accused made assault with Lathis.PW 7 Qamaruddin is also an injured and he supported the version as given by the other eyewitnesses.We should also observe here that by order dated 8.7.04, the appeal of appellants No. 5, 7, 8 and 9, namely, Badruddin alias Achchan, Ayub, Ismail and Achchan, son of Abrarul Hasan abated because of their death.We have heard Sri P.N. Misra, counsel for the appellants assisted by Sri S.A. Shah and Sri I.M. Khan and Sri S.S. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State.In the case in hand, it has come in the evidence of all the eyewitnesses that a Panchayat in a peaceful atmosphere was being held for compromising the matters between the parties.The conversation turned into heated arguments and Master Tashreef Ahmad went to the house of Sahvan Ali situate in the vicinity and brought Lathis, Ballam, Tabal etc. and exhorted his companions to teach them lesson of litigation.Upon this, the accused persons assaulted the complainant party with Lathis, Ballam and Tabal.It is not in dispute that criminal cases were being fought between the parties and for compromising the matter, a Panchayat was decided to be held.PW 1 Khalifuddin admitted in his deposition before the court that the Panchayat continued smoothly for 15-20 minutes and thereafter heated arguments took place between the parties and the incident occurred as alleged above.From the above, it cannot be inferred that the accused formed an unlawful assembly.Criminal cases were being fought between the parties and they assembled in the Baithak of Sakir Hussain to find out a peaceful solution of the dispute.Therefore, we have to decide the culpability of each accused separately.Learned counsel for the appellants then submitted that the Sahvan Ali gave a Tabal blow to Sakir Hussain from reverse side and, therefore, an intention to cause death cannot be imputed to him.Sakir Hussain also received injuries in his hands, legs etc caused by other accused by Lathis.During the course of deliberations in the Panchayat, after heated arguments took place between the parties, he hurriedly went to the house of Sahvan situate nearby and instantaneously returned with Lathis Ballam and Tabal.He himself plied Ballam targeting Inbe Hasan, though he could not succeed because of the Ballam having been caught by the intended victim.It was the Tabal brought by him which Sahvan took and where with he assaulted the deceased Sakir Hussain.It was also this accused Tashreef Ahmad who had exhorted the other accused and had given a call to teach those on the prosecution side a lesson.Considering all the attending circumstances, it is obvious that he and Sahvan Ali (who gave fatal blow to the deceased Sakir Hussain with Tabal) shared common intention to do the act, i.e., of striking Sakir Hussain with Tabal with such knowledge that it was likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death.Such common intention between the two developed at the spur of moment when he brought the arms from the house of Sahvan Ali and the latter, using the Tabal brought by the former, gave the blow to Sakir Hussain from the reverse side which caused the fatal damage on the head of the victim.In the result, we allow the appeal partly in the following manner:Accused Badruddin alias Achhan, Ayub, Ismail and Achhan son of Abrarul Hasan have died and as such the appeal has abated respecting them.The conviction of the accused appellant Sahvan Ali is converted to Section 304 Part two I.P.C. and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.The conviction of the accused appellant Tashreef Ahmad is also converted to Section 304 Part two I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. He is also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.The conviction of the remaining four accused appellants, namely, Javed Alam, Munna Sajjan and Sabir is converted to Section 323 I.P.C. Each of them shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.The accused appellants Sahvan Ali, Tashreef Ahmad, Javad Alam, Munna, Sajjan and Sabir are on bail.Chief Judicial magistrate, Bijnor shall cause them to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the respective sentenced passed against them.Judgment be certified to the court below for reporting compliance within two months.","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed o n behalf of the applicant.The applicant is in jail in connection with Crime No.653/2019 registered at Police Station Chourai, District Chhindwara for commission of offences punishable under Section 376(1), 376(2) (n), 376 (2)(f), 506 of the IPC and Section 4, 5 (j) (ii), 5(l) and 6 of POCSO Act.The case of the prosecution against the applicant is that the prosecutrix aged about 18 year went to visit to her relative along with the applicant who is the uncle of the prosecutrix.When they were returning to home the applicant brought the prosecutrix in a forest and committed rape with her and threaten her that if she disclose this fact with anyone he will kill her.Due to commission of rape the prosecutrix became pregnant and delivered a prematured child.Thereafter the prosecutrix lodged a report against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.Statement of the prosecutrix have been recorded during trial in which she stated that the prosecutrix and the applicant want to marry with each other and she was major at the time of incident .Conclusion of the trial will take considerable time, therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the application and prays for dismissal of this application for bail.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant-Bhura Vishwakarma, stands allowed.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE kundan Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA Date: 19/03/2020 15:19:45","['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on admission.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State; as such, no further notice is required.Let record of the Court below be requisitioned.Heard on IA.No.23548/2016 under section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that appellant Bhupendra Goswami stands convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 354-A and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.He has been sentenced to undergo effective RI for a period of 2 years and fine in the sum of Rs.2000/-.In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 months.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, and the short duration of sentence imposed upon the appellant, in the opinion of this Court, the appellant deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, I.A. No. 23548/2016 is allowed .It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 04-05-2017 and all other subsequent dates fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall stand suspended and he shall be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE",['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
"2.The respondent herein has filed a charge sheet against the appellant, who was working as Senior Assistant and promoted as Assistant Administrative Officer, United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai Division, committed criminal misconduct and cheated United India Insurance Company Limited/Oriental Insurance Company by dishonestly submitting three medical claims in the name of his mother G.Vadivambal during the year 1991, 1995, 1997 and 1999 to 2001 knowing fully well that his mother was getting a family pension from Southern Railway, Madras and as such she was not a dependent.So she is not an eligible person as a dependant to claim mediclaim.The appellant herein had fraudulently shown his mother as dependent and claimed mediclaim and induced United India Insurance Company/Oriental Insurance Company to pay the following sum of Rs.44,938/-, Rs.88,031/-, Rs.1,60,220/- and Rs.18,616/- towards three claims by abusing and misusing his official position illegally and got corresponding pecuniary advantage to himself.3.P.W.17-Inspector of Police, filed a charge sheet against the appellant/accused stating that while the appellant/accused was working in United India Insurance Company, the said company has launched Employees Group Medi-Claim Scheme in the year 1990, wherein the scheme implemented medical expenses for its office employees.The Group Insurance Scheme of United India Insurance Company is insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the premium is properly paid by the company.In respect of employees, 3/4th of the premium amount was paid by the United India Insurance Company and <th of the premium amount paid by the concerned employee for the coverage amount as per the Rules.In respect of Officers, the United India Insurance Company paid 2/3rd of the premium amount and 1/3rd of the premium amount paid by the officers.The mediclaim was restricted to the staff, wife and two children.Subsequently, in view of the amendment, the parents and the other dependants were also allowed to be included in the scheme.But whereas the appellant herein has shown her as a dependent and he paid the premium amount and claimed medical reimbursement for his mother.To prove the same, P.W.3-Chamundeeswari, Section Officer, Southern Railway, Chennai, was examined and through her, Exs.P11 and P12 were marked to show that the family pension of the mother was Rs.773/- per month and as on 31.12.2001, her family pension was Rs.1,849/-.The Appellant admitted his mother in Trinity Acute Care hospital and presented the medical documents Exs.P3 to P10 for reimbursement and that has been marked through P.W.2-Radhakrishnan, Administrative Officer.Vadivambal was also admitted in some other hospitals and the Doctors, who treated her were examined as P.W.8-Dr.C.B.Krishnakumar, P.W.9-Dr.A.Krishnasamy, P.W.12-Dr.J.Jayaprasad and P.W.15-Dr.P1-Schedule-B, the amended schedule of authorities.In Ex.C.B.Krishnakumar, P.W.9-Dr.A.Krishnasamy, P.W.12-Dr.J.Jayaprasad, P.W.13-S.Viswanathan and P.W.15-Dr.C.Anbarasu has clearly proved that the mother of the appellant was suffering some ailments and admitted in the hospital and got treatment and the hospital issued medical bills.Till his death, he received pension.After his death, his wife Vadivambal, who is the mother of the appellant, received family pension.P.W.3-Chamundeeswari, Section Officer, Southern Railway, Chennai, was examined and through her, Exs.P11 and P12 were marked.From 01.06.1991 to 30.06.1991, pension of Vadivambal was Rs.773/-.Now it has been decided to raise this limit to Rs.500/- per month.Accordingly, the family members of the employee who are not having income more than Rs.500/- per month shall be considered as dependent family members and covered under the Group Mediclaim Scheme.""From 29.05.1990 onwards, the income limit of the dependent has been raised to Rs.500/- per month.Subsequently, as per Ex.P17-Circular, dated 20.01.1998, the income limit has been increased from Rs.500/- per month to Rs.1,500/- per month.(in all Crl.Appeals) Prayer:Criminal Appeals filed under Sections 374(2) CrPC.read with 27 of the P.C. Act against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 19.12.2007 made in C.C.Nos.8 to 11 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai.C.Anbarasu and through them some of the medical documents have been marked.P.W.6-G.Sundararaman, P.W.7-Thathachari, P.W.10-Rengarajan, Deputy manager and P.W.18-Vedachalam, Deputy manager of United India Insurance Company had received application from the appellant for reimbursement of mediclaim and they perused the documents and passed an order.Since P.W.17 has received some reliable information and on that basis only, he made an enquiry and came to know that the appellant/accused fraudulently and dishonestly including his mother as a dependent and enjoyed the premium concession and obtained a wrongful gain by way of mediclaim, which leads to wrongful loss to the United India Insurance Company.Then, P.W.17-Inspector of Police obtained sanction order Ex.P2 from P.W.1 and after completing his investigation, filed a charge sheet against the accused.6.The learned Special Judge after following the procedure, framed necessary charges against the accused.The accused pleaded not guilty.The Special Court examined the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.18 & marked the documentary evidence Exs.P1 to P72 and placed the incriminating evidence before the Accused and considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Special Court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above and acquitted the accused for an offence under Sections 468, 468 read with 471 IPC, against which, four appeals have been preferred by the appellant herein.P.W.1 has not applied his mind while according sanction for prosecuting the accused.Further, he submitted that Exs.P14 and P22 would prove the mother is a dependent and that there is no document to show that the mother was drawing Rs.1,500/- per month during the relevant period.Even though P.W.3-Section Officer of Southern Railway stated that Vadivambal, mother of the appellant has got family pension more than Rs.1,500/-, there is no evidence to prove the same during the relevant period.P12 was marked to prove the same.For officers, the Company has paid 2/3 premium amount and the concerned officer has to pay 1/3 of the premium amount.The coverage amount under the scheme differs as per the basic salary of the individual.P1, for the posts in the cadre of Assistant Managers, A.Os., A.A.Os.Assistant General Manager is having right to appoint and remove the Assistant Administrative Officer of the Company.While perusing Ex.P2-sanction order, P.W.1-Mr.M.Siddique, who was working as Assistant General Manager accorded sanction for prosecuting the accused.So as per Ex.P1, the Assistant General Manager is a competent person to appoint and remove the Assistant Administrative Officer.I did not call for his service register and perused it.My Vigilance Department has briefed me regarding any pending disciplinary proceedings against the accused and whether he was punished in any departmental enquiry etc. I did not mention about the briefing by my vigilance department regarding the above in my Ex.P2 sanction order.Myself and the Vigilance Department together have drafted Ex.That medical bills have been submitted for reimbursement and the same has been considered by P.W.6-G.Sundararaman, who was working as Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, P.W.7-Thathachari & P.W.10-Rengarajan, who were working as Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Company.P.W.13-S.Viswanathan, who was working as Administrative Officer, after processing the papers under Exs.In her chief-examination itself, she stated that as on 31.12.2001, Vadivambal was drawing pension and D.A. amounting to Rs.1,849/-.In the year 1991, her pension was Rs.773/- per month.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider Ex.P15-Circular, dated 29.05.1990, in which, it was specifically stated as follows:""As you are aware, under the existing provision for coverage under Group Mediclaim Scheme, 'Family Members' mean, spouse, not more than 2 legitimate children (and additional children and parents to be covered on payment of full premium by the employee).At present any of these 'Family Members' is considered dependent on the employee provided such family member is not having an income more than Rs.100/- per month.18.In Ex.P14, it was specifically mentioned in 'B' Terms of coverage, in clauses-iv and v, which reads as follows:""iv.The employee's spouse/children becoming eligible for coverage after the employee's entry into the Mediclaim Scheme, may be granted cover from the first day of the month following the submission of enrolment from in respect of them.Hence, as and when any new dependant family members of the insured is to be included, the same may be done, subject to exclusion of pre-existing diseases.v. Coverage of dependant parents and additional dependant children shall be subject to the condition that the Company shall not bear any portion of the premium for such dependant as in the case of eligible members of the family. ""In the definition of 'Family' and 'Dependants', clause(g) reads as follows:As per clause-(g), since the mother has received family pension below Rs.1,500/- per month, she is eligible for group medi-claim.So the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the mother of the appellant is not a dependent as per Ex.19.It is also pertinent to note the document under Ex.P22-a list of persons proposed for insurance, dated 25.03.1997, wherein the appellant herein has mentioned his family members to be covered with an insurance viz., himself, Vadivambal (mother), Kalaivani (wife), his two sons namely, Gowtham Ganesh and Gowshik Ganesh.In Ex.P22, it was stated as follows:Age limitNo.of persons Employees contributionCompany's contributionTotalUpto 45 years43204804400856 to 65 years11645Total48498045653In such circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the appellant herein has abused his position and cheated the United India Insurance Company and Oriental Insurance Company dishonestly and fraudulently and induced the United India Insurance Company to pay the portion of the premium to his mother.20.Admittedly, no complaint has been given by United India Insurance Company.As already discussed above that as per Ex.P14, mother is a dependent.The evidence of P.W.3-Chamundeeswari, Section Officer, has proved during the relevant period, the monthly family pension of the mother was Rs.773/- and it was below Rs.1,500/-.As per Ex.P22, the entire premium for the mother has been paid by the appellant herein.The evidence of Officers of the United India Insurance Company and the Doctors has proved that Vadivambal has suffered ailments and admitted in the hospital and thereafter, medical reimbursement has been claimed and after perusal of the document, the concerned authority from the United India Insurance Company has ordered for medical reimbursement.So the appellant/accused has no dishonest or fraudulent intention to cheat the Company.Hence the ingredients of Section 420 IPC has not been made out beyond reasonable doubt.21.Since sanction accorded by P.W.1 is not in accordance with law as per the finding made in para-14 of this Judgement, the prosecution itself fails.Moreover, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for an offence under Section 420 IPC and since the ingredients of Section 420 IPC has not been made out, the ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, which deals with a public servant abused his financial power and obtained gain for himself or for any other person, does not arise.Hence, the ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) has also not been proved.But the learned Special Judge has failed to consider this aspect, convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 420 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act.So the Special Court is erred in convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 420 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act.Therefore, I am of the view, the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Court is liable to be set aside and hence, they are hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him.22.In fine, The Criminal Appeals are allowed.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.The Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 19.12.2007, made in C.C.Nos.8 to 11 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai, is hereby set aside.The bail bond executed by the appellant, if any, shall stand cancelled.The fine amount paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.06.02.2012Index:YesInternet:YeskjR.MALA,J.1.Principal Special Court for CBI Cases Chennai.3.The Special Public Prosecutor (for C.B.I. Cases) High Court, Madras.4.The Record Keeper Criminal Section High Court, Madras.Pre-delivery Judgment made inCrl.A.Nos.19 to 22 of 200806.02.2012",['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The applicant is an innocent person, who has no criminal antecedents alleged against him and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.Name of the applicant neither find place in the FIR nor in the 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.as per rules.(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Durgekar* Digitally signed by SANJAY N.DURGEKAR Date: 2018.05.18 15:29:42 +05'30'Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Gohad, District Bhind in connection with Crime No. 81/2018 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/S. 188, 147, 148, 149 of IPC.As per prosecution, short facts of the case are that the District Magistrate, District Bhind vide order dated 02/04/2018 has imposed section 144 of Cr.P.C. in that area.On 03/04/2018, the SDM, Gohad along with his team were on duty.At that time, at about 1 'O' Clock in the afternoon various persons numbering more than 200 gathered together along with Lathis/Dandas in their hand and violated the order passed under section 144 of Cr.P.C. by raising slogans and adopted recourse to violence.On the basis of aforesaid, the applicant has been implicated in the present case.The offence alleged are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class.The maximum punishment under section 188 of IPC is one month or Rs. 2,00/- fine.The applicant is in jail since 04/04/2018 and early conclusion of trial is bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty.Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.After hearing aforesaid arguments and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 16620/2018",['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned Counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.The trial Court has imposed maximum sentence to suffer rigorous ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 03:43:58 ::: Order 0611apeal439.20 2 imprisonment for 6 years and to pay total fine amount of Rs.1,26,000/-.::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 03:43:58 :::3. Admit.Call for R & P.Learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of respondent State.The convicted appellant/applicant-accused urged for exercise of discretion in terms of Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to suspend execution of sentence till disposal of the appeal.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has manifestly erred in convicting the appellant, who was not at all involved in the monetary transaction which was indulged by her husband (co-accused).True at paragraph no.37 there is reference ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 03:43:58 ::: Order 0611apeal439.20 3 about the admission given by the Investigating Officer that the witnesses did not spoke against the appellant/ applicant.The appellant was on bail during the trial which is evidence from paragraph no.9 of the final order.The appeal will take its own time for disposal.If the appellant/applicant succeeds, then irreversible position would occur in case of rejection of this application.Further the appellant/applicant is awarded with fixed term of sentence.There are no special or compelling reasons to reject this application.Moreover, the applicant is a lady.Having regard to all these facts, following order is passed.::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 03:43:58 :::(i) The execution and implementation of the substantive sentence imposed by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nagpur in MPID Case No.5/2016 vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2020 is suspended during the pendency of the appeal on condition that the appellant / applicant shall deposit entire fine amount of Rs.1,26,000/- with the trial Court.::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 03:43:58 :::bail on her furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount.This order shall be executed only on confirmation of deposit of the find amount.Criminal Application is accordingly disposed of.This order be communicated to the counsel appearing for the parties, either on the e-mail address or on WhatsApp or by such other mode, as is permissible in law.JUDGE Rgd.::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 03:43:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2020 03:43:58 :::",['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The facts leading to conviction are as follows:a) The appellants/A1 and A2 and other accused (A3 to A6) belong to Scheduled Caste Community.The deceased Sakthipandian, an auto driver, belongs to Thevar Community.P.W.6 Ganesan is the brother-in-law of the deceased.P.W.7 Marithai is the wife of the deceased.b) One year prior to the date of occurrence, the accused No. 1 Muruganandam engaged the auto of the deceased, but did not pay the hire charges.On that reason, there was a quarrel between them.Sometimes later, the deceased Sakthipandian on the eve of Thevar Guru Pooja, fitted mike set in a van and displayed songs praising Thevar in public place and on noticing this, the accused 1 to 6, who belong to Scheduled Caste raised objection.Due to this also there was a quarrel between these two groups.c) Some days prior to the date of occurrence, one Shanmugiah Pandian, the Vice President of Thevar Youth Forum was arrested by the police.Opposing this arrest, the deceased Sakthipandian arranged to get posters raising objection slogans against the police and pasted the same in public places.Due to this also, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased.d) On 24.12.1997 at about 3.00 p.m., A1 to A3 came to the auto stand and requested the deceased to take them to Lanthai to hand over the TV which got repaired, to the Panchayat Union.Accordingly, A1 to A3 were taken and after handing over the TV to the Panchayat Union, they came back.Near the place of occurrence, other accused were waiting.A1 by pulling the shirt of the deceased, the driver of the auto, asked him to stop the vehicle.The deceased stopped the auto and thereafter, the deceased was forcibly taken from the auto to the place of occurrence, where he was stabbed to death by all the accused.e) On hearing of the news that a dead body was found lying near the auto, P.W.6, the brother-in-law of the deceased went and informed P.W.7 and came to the spot.In the meantime, P.W.1 Chelliah, Village Assistant saw the dead body in the evening with multiple injuries and identified the dead body as that of Sakthipandian.He then went to Bazaar Police Station and gave Ex.P.8 is the printed First Information Report.f) P.W.14 Kumar, Inspector of Police, in charge of the police station, came to the scene at 6.45 p.m. He received the copy of the F.I.R. He prepared Ex.P.2 observation mahazar and drew Ex.P.3 rough sketch.He recovered M.O.1 bloodstained earth, M.O.2 sample earth and other things available in the scene of occurrence.He also recovered M.O.5 auto.On the requisition given by P.W.14, P.W.17 Finger Print Expert came and taken the finger prints available in the auto.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Murugesan (A1) and Sankar (A2) were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.P.7 complaint to P.W.11 Sub inspector of Police, who registered a case in Crime No. 334/1997 under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.He also took the finger prints of the deceased.P.11 is the inquest report.The body of the deceased was sent to Government Hospital to conduct post-mortem.g) P.W.10 Dr. Rathinam conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased on 25.12.1997 at 11.30 a.m., and he noticed that the deceased had sustained 24 stab injuries of various dimensions.He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to injury to lung, trachea and bleeding due to multiple injuries.P.6 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him.h) During the course of inquest, P.W.14 came to know about the involvement of A1 to A6 in the case.Therefore, he took steps to arrest the accused.On his confession, he recovered M.O.9 aruval.After arrest, finger-prints were taken from the accused and the same were sent to P.W.17 Finger Print Expert to compare the finger prints taken from the auto.P.W.15 took up further investigation on 31.12.1997 and examined witnesses.i) P.W.16 another Inspector of Police took up further investigation and after obtaining opinion from the Public Prosecutor, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 342, 302 and 149 I.P.C.j) After framing appropriate charges, the trial Court went on with the trial.During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 17 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.29 were filed and M.Os.1 to 12 were marked.Through P.W.17, the reports of the Finger Print Expert viz., Ex.k) When the appellants/accused 1 and 2 were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied their complicity in the crime.l) After considering the materials on record,though the trial Court acquitted A3 to A6 in respect of all the charges, convicted A1 and A2, the appellants herein only for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. and sentenced them each to undergo life imprisonment.With reference to the infirmities pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, we have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor at length.We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also gone through the records.On perusal of the entire records, it is seen that most of the witnesses turned hostile.Since no other evidence available with reference to the actual occurrence and also in regard to the overt acts attributed to each of the accused, the trial Court was constrained to acquit all the accused in respect of the main charge under Section 302 I.P.C. However, the trial Court, merely on the basis of the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.17, convicted A1 and A2 alone for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C.On analysing the materials available on record, we are to conclude that the evidence of P.W.6, who had last seen the deceased in the company of the accused 1 to 3 is not credible and as such, the same cannot be acted upon to connect the appellants with the crime in question.The reasons for the above conclusion are the following.It is the specific case of the prosecution that earlier, there were quarrels between the accused and the deceased on so many occasions.According to P.W.6, A1 engaged the same auto for some other purpose, but did not make payment of hire charges.With reference to that, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased.It is further stated by P.W.6 that on the eve of Thevar Guru Pooja, the deceased fitted the mike set in the van and displayed songs in praise of Thevar and this was objected to by all the accused and due to this also, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased.Apart from that, when Shanmugiah Pandian, the Vice-President of Thevar Youth Forum was arrested by the police, the deceased pasted posters, opposing the act of the police in arresting Shanmugiah Pandian and in protest, the accused came and picked up quarrel with the deceased.In the light of the the materials with reference to enmity between these two groups, the evidence of P.W.6 that A1 to A3 came on that day at about 3.00 p.m. and engaged the auto of the deceased to go to Lanthai, which is situate 12 kms away from the auto stand, is not believable.When there was enmity between the deceased and the accused, with reference to the non payment of hire charges, it is quite artificial to say that the deceased readily agreed to take the accused 1 to 3 to go to Lanthai to hand over the TV to the Panchayat Union.However, he had not chosen to inform P.W.7 that at about 3.00 p.m. accused 1 to 3 engaged the deceased auto to go to Lanthai and thereafter, the deceased did not turn up.His evidence can be analysed from yet another angle.According to P.W.7, one Pandian was present at the scene of occurrence, when she went to the spot.She also specifically stated that he was examined by the police.On a perusal of Exs.P.11 inquest report, it is noticed that it has been specifically written in Col. No. 4 that the last person who saw the deceased alive is one Pandian.Despite this reference about Pandian, P.W.14 would state that Pandian was not examined during the course of inquest.Unfortunately, P.W.6 has not stated anything about the presence of Pandian in his evidence.When P.W.7 would specifically admit that the said Pandian, who had last seen the deceased alive, was available at the scene and he was examined by the police, it is not known as to why P.W.14 had failed to state that Pandian was not available and so, he was not examined.Only thereafter, the Finger Print Expert was examined as P.W.17, through whom all these documents viz., Exs.P.24 to P.29 were marked.It is the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they were compelled to give their finger prints.Though it is stated by P.W.17 that he went to the spot on 24.12.1997 itself and took the chance finger prints found on the auto, there is no reason as to why he had not sent the final reports such as Exs.P.24 to P.29 immediately either to the Court or to the Police Officer.As a matter of fact, all these documents have been prepared even according to P.W.17 only after getting the summons from the Court.It is the specific evidence of P.W.17 that even on 24.12.1997, he was present at the scene of occurrence.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Briefly the facts are that the complainant one Suresh Chand had lodged a report at P.S. Preet Vihar, Delhi at about 1100 p.m. on 17/11/94 where this report was registered as DD No. 20A. He has alleged that he along with his two co-villagers Satbir and Rakesh travelled in a bus after visiting the then Agriculture Minister, and alighted from the bus at Shakarpur Chowk and while going to ALT Ghaziabad Bus stop near Coffee Home to catch a bus to Ghaziabad for going to river Ganges, a girl named Aarti Hejmadi hit him from behind with an iron rod, two other persons accompanying her also gave beating to him with iron rods.When his two companions came to resuce him, she had fired at him but the bullet passed over his head.Due to fear of shooting, his two companions went away.It was also alleged that at that time Aarti had told him that ""he had slapped me in the bus, to take revenge she would kill him and had also abused him.In the crowded bus Arti Hejmadi d/o P. Hejmadi who was claiming herself to be from Lady Hardinge Medical College.She was standing in the crowded bus and was holding the overhead rod and she said that you, (Suresh Chand) had put your hand on her hand by which she was holding the rod.ORDER J.B. Goel, J.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code') and Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks for setting aside of summoning order dated 17.2.1996 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma and for quashing of FIR No. 72/95 registered at P.S. Preet Vihar, Delhi under Sections 307/323/34 IPC.Some motorists came there and then the said girl went away on a motorcycle along with her two accomplices.After registration of the DD a copy of it was entrusted to ASI Sompal Singh who made inquiries and recorded statements of several persons from the neighbourhood area, but he did not find any truth or substance in the report and case was not registered.However, it appears that the complainant pursued the matter further with higher police officers and then on 6.4.1995 a case FIR No. 72/95 under Sections 307/323/34 IPC was registered.During investigation some more statements from neighbouring area and also of the alleged two companions of the complainant were recorded.The petitioner had also given a written reply dated 28.5.1995 that she was on duty at Safdarjung Hospital at the relevant time supported by the certificate from the doctor Incharge of her Department.The prior incident in which complainant had misbehaved with the petitioner in a bus and in which he was arrested was also taken notice of and a report was submitted to the Magistrate suggesting that there was no truth in the complaint, it was false and bogus and recommending to close the matter.The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the aforesaid proceedings, being misconceived and mala fide.The proceedings before the trial court have been stayed by this Court.The complainant was imp leaded as respondent No. 2 in these proceedings.Notice was served upon him but he did not put in appearance.I have heard Shri Mohit Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Seema Gulati for the State.Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the police had investigated the case, collected the relevant material and on the basis of such material had recommended that the complaint was false and no case is made out but the learned M.M. has acted illegally and with material irregularity in taking cognizance and summoning the petitioner.He has relied on the material collected by the IO, the background to the case and also certain case law.Whereas learned counsel for the State has contended that the petitioner should have approached the Court concerned before coming to this Court and if she feels that no case is made out she could urge the same before the Trial court instead of coming to this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of this Court.It has a previous history as noticed hereinafter.Report lodged by the complainant at 11.00 p.m. on 17.11.1994 on which DD No. 20A was recorded (Annexure-B is its English translation filed with the Petition) reads as under :-""At 11.00 p.m. registered and the person mentioned in column No. 2 has made his statement that on 9.6.93 I was travelling in a D.T.C. Bus.At this she punched her elbow into my stomach on which I told that girl to be a misbehaved person.She slapped me, on which I also slapped her.She got the case reported at the Police Station Parliament Street under Section 506 IPC and I was taken into custody.I was acquitted from the case by the Magistrate at the Patiala House Courts.On 19.3.94 that girl had fired on me at the Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg for which I had lodged an FIR at P.S. Mandir Marg, in that case the police officials did not do anything and instead hushed up the case.Today I along with two farmers of my village namely Satbir s/o Jouhari and Rakesh s/o Shiv Charan went to meet Agricultural Minister Sh.Balram Jakhar in relation to the paved passages for the fields of the farmers.Later on return I was going along with these two persons for a dip at the Ganges.After alighting from the bus at Shakarpur Chowk, I was going towards Coffee Home ALT Bus stop to catch a bus to go to ALT Ghaziabad.A girl hit me by the iron rod on my back, and two other persons who were accompanying this girl also beat me with iron rod.When the two persons who were accompanying me tried to rescue me, Arti Hejmadi fired at me from behind, the bullet passed over my head.Out of fear from the shooting, my companions left the spot in order to save their lives.After that Arti told me ""You had slapped me in the bus, I will take my revenge by taking your life"" and further added ""I will kill you today"", and abused me.After that when 2-4 motorists came towards us, this girl left the spot on the motorcycle alongwith the two boys.Even after waiting for a long time when the police did not reach, I have come to the police station to lodge the report.SI Sompal Singh had made inquiries in the matter.He has recorded the statements of several persons from neighbouring area on 18.11.1994 and 22.11.1994 who had stated that no such incident had at all taken place at the aforesaid time and place.The complainant was also medically examined at SDM Hospital, Shahdara on 17.11.1994 vide MLC No. 4830/94 (C-72043) and the Doctor had noticed the following injuries :.ls1 ""1 Contusion injury (L) Middle of leg2. Lacerated Injury overC/o loosening of cipper (L) med.incisor tooth.However, clinically no signs of bleeding locally.No fracture clinically.The injuries were opined to be simple.If there was pre-planned attack with iron rods by three persons and firearm was actually used, the nature and extent of injuries perhaps would have been more serious.These injuries are not such which could not have been self inflicted or manipulated to create false evidence.After the FIR was registered on 6.4.1995 statements of two companions of the complainant Satbir and Rakesh were recorded who have not supported the complainant in material respects and have made statements at variance to his statement.Statement of some more persons from the neighbouring areas were also recorded who have also denied that any such occurrence had taken place.The matter is to be seen in the light of this legal position.The petitioner had alleged that at the time of occurrence his two co-villagers Satbir and Rakesh were with him.""About 4-5 months back I alongwith Suresh and Satbir who are my co-villagers had gone to meet the Agriculture Minister, Shri Balram Jakhar but the Minister did not meet and his P.A. has met at about 3.00 p.m. and after meeting him we got a bus at about 3.05 p.m. and got down from the bus at about 3.15 p.m. at Shakarpur Chowk and proceeded to catch a bus for going to Ghaziabad and at about 3.20 p.m. when we reached near Coffee Home two persons and a girl came on a motor cycle.All the three were armed with Iron rods and all the three gave blows with series on Suresh Chand.I and Satbir tried to rescue him but the said girl fired a shot and I and Satbir ran away and I do not know what happened thereafter and I alongwith Satbir went to Ghaziabad and then reached Anup Shahr at about 8.00 p.m. and Suresh had met us 15/20 days thereafter in the village.""Satbir in his statement recorded on 18.4.95 has stated as follows, so far is relevant (English translation) :-""I am agriculturist and in November 1994 I alongwith Suresh Chand Sharma and another person whose name he did not know had gone to meet the Agriculture Minister and took a DTC bus in which we reached at about 5.00 p.m. at Shakarpur Chowk.We had gone some distance when two boys alongwith a girl came on a motorcycle.One of the two boys got down from his motorcycle and started giving beatings to Suresh Chand with saria when I and my companion tried to rescue him the other boy fired a shot and on this shooting we separated from Suresh who had fallen down.The two boys alongwith that girl went away.We brought Suresh to Jagatpuri, Shahdara at the house of one Balbir Dahiya in a bus upto Shahdara and then in a cycle rickshaw.Suresh was left there and I and Rakesh went to Anup Shahr to take a dip in the Ganga and reached there at about 9.00 p.m. The girl who was accompanying the aforesaid two boys did nothing nor she had uttered any words.I could not recognise that girl but I can identify the two boys"".Both these witnesses have not supported the complainant on material aspects including the time of occurrence.According to Rakesh they had got down from the bus at Shakarpur Chowk at about 3.15 p.m. and obviously the occurrence according to him would have taken place at about that time.Satbir on the other hand had stated that they had reached there at about 5.00 p.m. In the complaint the time of occurrence is not mentioned but in subsequent statement under Section 161 of the Code of the complainant, the time of occurrence stated is 8.00 p.m. On his report DD No. 20A was recorded at 11.00 p.m. There is great variance in these three statements about the time of occurrence.Rakesh in his statement has stated that the girl and her two companions were armed with iron rods (saria) and all the three had given saria blows to Suresh Sharma and the said girl had fired a shot at Suresh.Satbir has stated that one of the two boys had given saria blows to Suresh Sharma while the other boy had fired.He does not assign any overt act to the petitioner and does not support the other two.He has further stated that he, Rakesh and Suresh had gone to the house of one Balbir in Jagatpuri, Shahdara and left Suresh there.Both Suresh and Rakesh do not corroborate him that they had gone to the house of Balbir Dahiya in Jagatpuri.These are not minor variations but major contradictions which make their statements untruthful and untrustworthy.Complainant Suresh Chand in his statement under Section 161 dated 11.4.1995 has admitted that at the complaint of Arti Hejmadi, a FIR No. 206/93 under Section 509 was registered at P.S. Parliament Street regarding his alleged behaviour while both were travelling in a bus and in that case he remained in jail for over two months, at that time he had written letters to Arti Hejmadi from jail requesting her to withdraw her complaint and to get him released to enable him to attend the marriage of his sister which she did not agree.He had earlier also lodged a complaint against her on 19.3.94 at P.S. Mandir Marg against her about shooting by her.That complaint was also found baseless and the matter was dropped.The learned M.M. has given the following reasons while taking cognizance:""A notice was issued to the complainant who appeared in person and has opposed the request for cancellation of the case.I have heard the complainant, Ld. APP and the IO and have gone through the record.The learned Magistrate has not only misread the statements of the complainant and his two witnesses, he has completely ignored the material contradictions.The circumstances appearing on the record show that the complaint is wholly misconceived, for oblique motives, maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for wrecking the vengeance on the petitioner and with a view to spite her due to personal grudge and mala fides and the same ought not to have been allowed to perpetuate the injustice on the petitioner.","['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Savita d/o Narhari Jaware is the resident of village Antri.She has a maternal aunt by name Sou.Police Patil of the said village is PW-7 Ganpat Devman Mahajan.On the day of incident i.e. on 12-11-1987, prosecutrix Ku.Savita, was asked to go to the field of her father at Antri to protect the crops.At that time she was aged about 16 years.The time was about 7 a.m. Her father had gone to village Motala.Her mother had gone to the other field.Prosecutrix went to the said field known as ""Ambewali"" field with a dog.When she reached to the field, it was at about 7.30 a.m. She tied her dog to Beri tree and she sat below the Bel tree.She started reading 'Gajanan Stotra', as it was her fast day.There was standing crop of cotton in the field.It is alleged that accused No. 1 i.e. respondent No. 1 - Rameshwar Shridhar Jaware, who was aged about 22 years, came in the field.He asked her whether there was anybody in the field.She told that she was alone.Thereafter accused No. 2 i.e. Respondent No. 2 - Eknath Onkar Jaware, aged about 21 years also came to the field.He told that his bullocks had entered in the standing crops of cotton in her field, so he was going to catch the bullocks.All of a sudden, respondent No. 1 caught hold her hands and dragged her towards the standing crops of cotton.She was crying and questioning him as to why she was being dragged.At that time Respondent No. 2 came running there.They both, then, dragged her despite her resistance.They took her to the crops of cotton.They made her to lie down forcibly.Respondent No. 2 by his both hands pressed her mouth and put his leg on her neck.He pressed her breast.Respondent No. 1 removed her inner pant by lifting Maxi.Respondent No. 1 also removed his inner pant and he committed forcible intercourse with her, She suffered severe pain.Respondent No. 1 threatened her for not telling about the incident to anybody, He also threatened her saying that if she tells about the incident to anybody, it would not be good.There was bleeding.According to her, respondent No. 1 had committed rape on her by penetrating his penis into her vagina.Because of this, she had suffered severe pain.It is alleged that there were stains of blood and semen on her Maxi & inner pant.She went to her house weeping along with her dog.Her elder sister Manda, PW-8 was there.She narrated the incident to her on her questioning as to why she was weeping.Thereafter her mother who had gone to 'Tikkewali' field and her father who had gone to Motala, were called.It is alleged that, at the relevant time i.e. while committing the offence, respondent No. 1 was wearing Manila, full-pant and inner pant and respondent No. 2 was wearing full-shirt and trou-ser.Her aunt Sou.Kasturabai PW-6 came there.The incident was narrated to her also.After reaching of the father of the prosecutrix PW-5 Ku.Savita, they went to Police Patil PW-7 Ganpat Mahajan.He was apprised about the incident and thereafter they i.e. prosecutrix Ku.Savita, her father, her aunt Sou.Kasturabai and Police Patil started going to police Station.On the way, Police Patil PW-7"" Ganpat Mahajan asked PW-6 Kasturabai to verify the fact of rape and whether there were any signs of rape on the person or on the clothes of the prosecutrix Ku.They went in the field by name 'Mala'.PW-6 Kasutrabai verified that her inner pant & Maxi had blood stains and white semen stains.Then they went to Police Station Borakhedi.3. Prosecutrix PW-5 Ku.The offence under Sections 376, 354 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the respondents.PW-10 PSI Bhimrao Wankhede conducted the investigation.The prosecutrix was referred for medical examination.He had also collected the samples of vaginal smear, pubic hairs.He also seized the clothes of the prosecutrix.Upon x-ray examination, he had issued the certificate to the Investigating Officer, Exh. 23, opining that the age of the prosecutrix at the relevant time was 16-18 years 13 years.It may be stated that during the course of investigation, after arrest, both the respondents were also referred for medical examination.No semen stains noted.No foreign body seen on hairs or in private part.Vulva and Vag.orifis stained with blood & hairs around vulva matted.On P/S, no injuries seen over cervix vaginal walls, blood oozing through OS' + P/v at AV AF NS Ex clear chetle intact, hymens ruptured.No recent sign.Rupture of hymen, blood present in vagina & around the vulval orifis.(6) Pubic hairs matted with blood & stains trimned are collected for chemical analysis.(7) Swab from labia minora and vagina with post Fx taken on glassed slides, fixed & sealed for Chemical analysis (8) Blood sample taken for grouping & Ph. typing and sealed.(9) Pieces of clothes from Parkar & underpant are taken in bottle, sealed for Chemical analysis.He also stated that she was wearing Manila and blouse of white colour.JUDGMENT S.R. Dongaonkar, J.Challenge of the appellant State in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Buldana, in Criminal Appeal No. 9/1990, by which he allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents who were held guilty by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Buldana, for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 354 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, each of them being sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default R.I. for 6 months, in Sessions Case No. 61/1988, and acquitted them of the charge.The prosecution case in nutshell is that, prosecutrix PW-5 Ku.The clothes of the prosecutrix Ku.Savita were also seized as per Seizure Panchnama Exh. 34 in his presence.After due investigation and on receipt of C.A. Report Exh. 24, the respondents were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences.The respondents pleaded not guilty.The prosecution has examined the aforesaid witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused/respondents, besides PW-3 Headmaster, Maroti Ingle, who had produced the school leaving certificate of the prosecutrix to prove her date of birth as per Exh. 30 and PW-4, HC Rane, who had carried out some part of investigation.The respondents abjured the guilt and examined 4 witnesses in defence.Their defence mainly is that in the said village there is habit of lodging false reports of ""rape"".Police Patil is also facing a case of rape and he is instrumental to lodge some such false reports.It is also their defence that due to inimical terms between the prosecution witnesses and the respondents & their relatives, a false case has been reported against the respondents.DW-1 Prakash Khiste has been examined to prove the blood group of Respondent- No. 1 Rameshwar.DW-2 Watsalabai Bundhe has been examined to show that she had also filed a criminal case against Raghunath Suradkar and Pundlik Mandar about the rape and that was a false case.DW-3 Ramdas Haramkar has been examined to show the bad terms between the prosecution witnesses and the respondents' relatives.DW-4 Retd.ASI Keshaorao Patil has been examined to prove the report lodged by the prosecutrix Ku.Savita, mainly to prove that he had written the report as per her say.The learned trial Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that prosecutrix Ku.Savita has led trustworthy evidence and she is an artless village woman whose testimony inspires confidence and she cannot make out a false charge of rape against the respondents.He, therefore, held respondents guilty of the offences charged and convicted & sentenced them, however, he did not award any separate sentence against the respondents for the offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code.The respondents challenged this judgment of conviction and sentence in the Court of Sessions Judge, Buldana.He also considered the fact that there was total discrepant version as regards Maxi, Parkar (Petticoat) and the uniform of the prosecutrix.There was clear doubt as to which clothes she was wearing at the time of incident.Accordingly, he allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondents.In fact, the Police Patil PW-7 Ganpat Mahajan is himself facing a rape charge and therefore, the evidence of prosecutrix Ku.Savita should not be considered as trustworthy, more so because it is riddled with so many improbabilities and also because the medical evidence is contrary to what she has stated about the incident.DW-2 Watsalabai had also deposed about the habit of lodging false report and in fact she stated that Police Patil informed her to make a false allegations against Raghunath Suradkar and Pundlik Mandar about committing rape on her.She has also stated that her husband had advised her that they are required to reside in the village, therefore, she had filed false rape case against them.What is more she has stated is that Police Patil had informed her to break her bangles and a lantern and thereafter her saree was taken away and brought the same after containing some stains of semen and thereafter she, Police Patil and other villagers had gone to the police station and she was required to put thumb print on her complaint, if such is the evidence led by a woman of the village, it is rather must to find out whether the prosecutrix Savita is reliable or not and whether her evidence is corroborated from some independent source.This takes us to consider the medical evidence on record.(10) X-ray of wris St. AP both hands, elbow are advised for conformation of age.Report regarding age of Pt.will be given after examination.It is rather surprising and shocking that in the said certificate he has not mentioned as to whether there were signs of any recent intercourse.But the fact remains that the injuries stated by him are abrasion on dorsal aspect of the hands.He has specifically stated that there were no injuries or scratches seen on thigh, breast, back and private parts.The case of the prosecution is that she was dragged first by Respondent No. 1 Rameshwar and then by both respondents in the field of cotton crops.She was made to lie down, respondent No. 2 pressed her mouth and respondent No. 1 committed forcible intercourse with her after removing her inner wear and also his own and all the time she was resisting.She is a girl of about 16 to 18 years.She is from village.It is difficult to believe that had she resisted, she would have suffered only two small injuries that too of a very little dimensions on the dorsal sides of her arms.Savita, there was complete sexual intercourse with emission.But then the CAs Report does not show the existence of semen in the vaginal smear and the clothes.It is clear that had there been complete intercourse as alleged by the prosecutrix Ku.Savita, some semen & spermatozoa would have been found on these slides.Therefore, the medical evidence as well as the report of C.A. runs contrary to the evidence of the prosecutrix.The learned appellate Judge has pointed out several discrepancies in the evidence of prosecutrix Ku.Savita and other witnesses including Police Patil.It is rather difficult to say that all these observations made by him are incorrect or perverse, though to some of them we are unable to concur.But fact remains that this is not a case of 'no corroboration' to the evidence of the prosecutrix, but it is a case of medical evidence being contrary to her story.The learned A.P.P. is unable to explain as to how such evidence can be reconciled with the theory of the prosecutrix that there was forcible complete intercourse despite her resistance in a field of cotton crops without resulting into any injuries on her rest of the body.In the instant case, we had called for the clothes of the prosecutrix Ku.There is lot of difference between the clothes; Maxi and the petticoat.Savita in her evidence has stated that at the time of incident, she had a Maxi on her person and there were stains of blood & semen on her Maxi and the inner pant.It is also pertinent to note that the clothes on her person were taken by the Medical Officer, PW-1 Dr. Dilip Kulkarni.He has stated that she was wearing petticoat.He also stated that she was wearing inner pant of greenish colour with strip, which was soaked with blood stains and other stains, the same was preserved for analysis.Savita, on the contrary that evidence tend to cast doubt on the prosecution version.","['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(A) The deceased Vandana was daughter of oneIndrabai w/o Baburao Misal resident of Bhakarwadi, Tq.Badnapur, District Jalna who is residing in Milindnagar,Osmanpura, Peer Bazar at Aurangabad since long.Deceasedwas married to one Balu Gajile of Nipani about 6 yearsback.She begot a son from said Balu.Said Balu marriedanother woman and deceased continued to live with hermother.Allthe accused were residing jointly in the house in theiragriculture land at village Waregaon.Accused were doingthe business brick kiln at the time of incident.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::accused No.1 and residing in the joint family of theaccused on 17/11/2007 at about 6.00 a.m. in the abovesaid house of accused she sustained 86% burn injuries.One Sominath Ramchandra Shejwal (husband of the defencewitness No.1 Meena) and accused No. 3 immediatelyadmitted the deceased in injured condition in the Ghatihospital at Aurangabad in the ward No. 22/23 of theburnt patients.The information of admitting thedeceased in the injured condition in the hospital wasgiven to the Police station, Phulambri, DistrictAurangabad on the same day i.e. on 17/11/2007 at 8.15p.m.and accordingly MLC No. 42 of 2007 was registered.Then Police Inspector Alsatwar (PW-8) of the said PoliceStation directed API Bagul (PW-10) to visit the spot ofincident and to prepare panchanama.Accordingly APIBagul visited the spot of incident i.e. house of theaccused and prepared panchanama of spot with map as perExhibit 75 and some articles like burnt pieces ofclothes, match stick and drops of kerosene etc. were ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 5 ) criappl221.14.odtseized from the spot of incident under the samepanchnama.So also, stick was seized from the house ofaccused.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::(C) On the same day i.e. on 17/11/2007 PHC Pise(PW-3) went to Ghati hospital with letter Exhibit 37addressed to the Medical Officer of the said hospital,informing the Medical Officer that he has to recordstatement of deceased and requested the Medical Officerto examine the deceased who was admitted in injuredcondition and to state whether she was in a position togive statement.Thereupon, PHC Pise recorded dyingdeclaration Exhibit 38 after 1.45 p.m. on 17/11/2007stating that the deceased performed Gandharva marriage ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 6 ) criappl221.14.odtprior to one and half months of the incident with theaccused No. 1 and since the marriage all the accusedwere harassing her and saying her to bring Rs.10,000/-from her parents for brick kiln.Thereupon the deceasedwas saying them that her parents are poor and from wherethey would bring such amount and she was convincingthem.But all the accused were harassing her byassaulting her.When she was going to her parents at thetime of festival she used to tell them about saidharassment to her by the accused.But her parents weresending her to her in-laws house after convincing her.It is stated that on 16/11/2007 in the night all theaccused beat her by fist and kick blows and stick sayingher that she did not bring money for brick kiln.On17/11/2007 at about 6.00 a.m. her father-in-law andmother-in-law caught hold her and her husband pouredkerosene on her person and set her on fire by lightingthe match stick and thus attempted to commit her murder.It is stated that she sustained burns to her hands,stomach and face and her entire body is burnt.It is ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 7 ) criappl221.14.odtstated that her mother-in-law and one Sominath Shejwalhave admitted her in the hospital and that action betaken against all the accused.The said dyingdeclaration Exhibit 38 was sent to Police Station,Phulambri and crime No. 148 of 2007 was registered on17/11/2007 against the accused for the offencespunishable under Sections 307, 498-A and 323 read withSection 34 of the IPC and the PHC Pise gave letterExhibit 39 to Tahasildar, Aurangabad to record dyingdeclaration of the deceased.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::(D) After receiving the letter Exhibit 39Tahasildar, Aurangabad asked Naib Tahasildar Nikam (PW-(D) After receiving the letter Exhibit 394) from Phulambri to record dying declaration of thedeceased.Naib Tahasildar Nikam accordingly went toGhati hospital, Aurangabad at about 4.00 p.m. on17/11/2007 and no doctor was present.He recorded dyingdeclaration Exhibit 43 of the deceased between 4.25 p.m.to 5.20 p.m. stating that she performed second Gandharvamarriage with accused No.1 in the fifth month.She hadno menstruation and therefore, her husband suspected ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 8 ) criappl221.14.odther.All the accused said her to bring Rs. 10,000/- fromher parental house, she said that her parents could notgive that amount as they are doing soil work.Therefore,they started harassing her.On 16/11/2007 she wasassaulted in the night.On 17/11/2007 in the morning hermother-in-law and father-in-law caught hold her handsand legs and her husband poured kerosene on her personand then lighted the match stick and therefore, shesustained burns.She made shouts as she was burnt, butnobody came to her help as their house is isolated.However one Sominath who was labour on brick kiln pouredwater on her person and her mother-in-law admitted herin Ghati hospital at about 8.00 a.m.(E) While the deceased was admitted in Ghatihospital on 17/11/2007 her brother Charandas (PW-1), hersister Tulsabai Gautam Shejwal (PW-2) and Gautam SampatShejwal (PW-5) husband of PW-2 went in the Ghatihospital after knowing that the deceased suffered burnsand that she is admitted in the hospital, they met herand the deceased disclosed to them about involvement of ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 9 ) criappl221.14.odtthe accused in sustaining burns to her as alleged by theprosecution.Their statements were recorded duringinvestigation by PI Alsatwar (PW-8).He was informed at about 9.00 a.m. by a boyfrom their lane that deceased got burnt.Therefore, hewent to Ghati Hospital at Aurangabad.""498-A.....Explanation- For the purpose of this section, ""cruelty"" means-(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 58 ) criappl221.14.odt failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.""::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::The evidence of PW-1 brotherof the deceased is that deceased resided at the house ofaccused for about one month after marriage and thenaccused No. 1 reached her to their house for Nagpanchamifestival.Accused No. 1 did not come back to take thedeceased.Accused No. 2 father-in-law of deceasedwent to Jategaon and took the deceased with him to hishouse before two days of the incident.PW-1 has furtherdeposed that on the day of incident when the deceasedwas admitted in injured condition in the hospital shedisclosed to him that accused No.1 was denying that shewas pregnant from him as she had no menstruation andthat an amount of Rs.10,000/- was demanded by the ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 59 ) criappl221.14.odtaccused for brick kiln.In the cross-examination hedenied that the deceased did not disclose to him asabove.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::The evidence of PW-2 Tulsabai who is admittedlysister of the deceased is that after marriage deceasedresided at her house for about one month.After aboutthree months of marriage of deceased, marriage of herdaughter (daughter of witness) was performed at Jategaonand at that time deceased and her mother came toJategaon to attend said marriage.After 15 days of thesaid marriage accused No.2 came to her house to take thedeceased.Deceased had informed her that accused No.1used to beat to her.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::referred to as the accused Nos. 1 to 3 have challengedthe judgment and order dated 20/03/2014 passed by theSessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 82 of2008 thereby convicting and sentencing each of them tosuffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay afine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorousimprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishableunder Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) andfurther convicting and sentencing each of them to sufferimprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, indefault to suffer simple imprisonment for one month forthe offence punishable under Section 302 read withSection 34 of the IPC.The sentences of imprisonmentwere directed to run concurrently.Muddemal propertybeing valueless was ordered to be destroyed after theappeal period is over.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::( 3 ) criappl221.14.odt3. Facts leading to this appeal as revealed fromthe case papers are as under:-While the deceasedwas taking treatment in the hospital she scummed toinjuries on 23/11/2007 in the night.Accordingly, PIAlsatwar prepared inquest panchanama.After her deathoffence under Section 302 of the IPC was added in thecrime registered against the accused.All accused werearrested on 17/11/2007 immediately after the crime wasregistered against them and they were released on bail.The investigating officer recorded statements of otherwitnesses.He also sent articles seized from the spot ofincident to the Chemical Analyzer and collected reportof the Chemical Analyzer.After completion of theinvestigation charge-sheet was submitted in the Court ofJMFC, Phulambri, who committed the case to the SessionsCourt at Aurangabad for trial.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::(F) The learned Additional Sessions Judge,Aurangabad framed charge against the accused for theoffences punishable under Section 302 and 498-A read ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 10 ) criappl221.14.odtwith Section 34 of the IPC.Accused pleaded not guiltyto the charge and claimed to be tried.Their defence isthat death of the deceased is accidental.Theprosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses.Accusedhave examined one witness Meena Shejul (DW-1) indefence.After considering the evidence adduced by theprosecution and the defence the learned Sessions Judgeheld all the accused guilty for the offences punishableunder Sections 302 and 498-A read with Section 34 of theIPC and accordingly sentenced them for the said offencesas said earlier by the impugned judgment and order andtherefore this appeal.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::(G) Accused No. 1 is in jail and accused No. 3 anddeceased accused No. 2 were released on bail.Mr. Kulkarni, learned advocate for theappellants/accused Nos. 1 and 3 submitted that tosupport the conviction of the accused the prosecutionhas relied upon two written dying declarations i.e.Exhibit 38 recorded by PHC Pise (PW-3) in presence of ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 11 ) criappl221.14.odtthe Medical Officer Bhushan Ubhale (PW-9) on 17/11/2007and Exhibit 43 recorded by Naib Tahasildar Subhash Nikam(PW-4) on the same day between 4.25 p.m. to 5.20 p.m.There was no endorsement on both the dying declarationsthat the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make thestatement at the time of recording both the dyingdeclarations.Admittedly Exhibit 43 dying declarationwas not recorded in presence of any doctor.Therefore,according to learned advocate when both these dyingdeclarations were recorded the deceased was not in aposition to make statement due to 86% burns suffered byher as admitted by Dr. Sharad Kuchewar (PW-7) and 90%burns as stated by Medical officer Bhushan Ubhale (PW-::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::9).State ofMaharashtra, 2008(4), Mh.L.J. (Cri.)474, in the saidcase as observed in paragraph No. 7 following twoquestions arose for determination and they are as under:::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::""(i) Whether presumption under section 80 of Indian Evidence Act can be drawn in respect of a dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate without proof as to the cause of death of the dying person or as to in all the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death and particularly in respect of the name or description of/and act of the accused/offender in committing the offence of murder?declaration to depose before the trial Court about the name and act of the accused which resulted into the murder, in the words spoken up by the dying man?""::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Having gone through the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution has relied upon only one piece of evidence to prove the charge against the appellants and the same is dying declaration (Exh.23) of deceased Sunita Bhanse.There is no other evidence relied on by the prosecution in support of its case.In his substantive evidence before the Court, Wasudeo (P.W.4) deposed that after getting deceased Sunita examined from the medical officer he was satisfied that she was physically and mentally fit to give the statement, he recorded her dying declaration.Thereafter he read over the said dying declaration to the patient who admitted the same to be correctly written as per her say.Accordingly he made an endorsement and again requested the medical officer to examine the patient about her mental and physical condition.It is noteworthy that in his substantive evidence before the Court he did not depose a single word as to who were the offenders who had poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire and in what manner.The witness is blissfully silent about the same and the prosecution preferred to rely upon the document of dying declaration which was exhibited.We have held by answering both the questions in this judgment, that the document of ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 14 ) criappl221.14.odt dying declaration cannot be presumed to be correct under section 80 of Evidence Act, unless proved according to law.This is particularly so because no presumption under section 80 is available in respect of the dying declaration.Since Wasudeo (P.W.4) did not depose a word about the name and the role of the appellants as told to him by the deceased Sunita, in view of the statement of law recorded by us in the foregoing part of the judgment, we hold that the prosecution failed to prove its case and did not discharge the initial burden of proof required to be discharged in a criminal case.For this reason therefore we reject the sole piece of evidence in the form of dying declaration (Ex.23) relied upon by the prosecution.There is no other evidence and consequently the finding of the trial Court about conviction on the basis of dying declaration will have to be reversed.Thus Criminal Appeal No. 103/03 will have to be allowed.""::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::The above said decision dated 30/06/2008 waschallenged before the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.Mr. Kulkarni, learned advocate for the accusedfurther submitted that there is no endorsement on dyingdeclaration Exhibit 43 that the said dying declaration ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 15 ) criappl221.14.odtwas read over to the deceased by PW-4 and that sheadmitted the same to be correct and therefore, accordingto learned advocate the said dying declaration cannot besaid to be voluntary statement of the deceased.State of Maharashtra, 2002(2) Mh.L.J.3, wherein it was held that prosecution has to bring onrecord that the deceased had heard the statementrecorded by the Executive Magistrate and she admitted itto be correct.This is not a mere formality but anessential part while recording the dying declaration.A dyingdeclaration cannot be rejected merely because same isnot read over to declarant who admitted that same hasbeen correctly recorded.However, it can be one of the ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 16 ) criappl221.14.odtfactors if it assumes significance in facts andcircumstances of case.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Mr. Kulkarni, learned advocate for the accusedsubmitted that the contents of both written dyingdeclarations Exhibit 38 and 43 were not put to theaccused in their statements under Section 313 of theCriminal Procedure Code and therefore, as theincriminating material/circumstances in both the writtendying declarations were not put to the accused in theexamination under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Codea serious prejudice has been caused to the accused andno opportunity was given to them to explain theincriminating circumstances appearing against them inthese two written dying declarations and hence both thedying declarations cannot be taken into consideration toconvict the accused.The State of Maharashtra, 2011 ALL MR (Cri)3536 (F.B.) the learned advocate submitted that if theaccused succeeds in showing prejudice caused to him dueto omission to put any particular circumstances toaccused under Section 313, the appellate Court canafford an opportunity to the prosecution to make up thelapse and avoid miscarriage of justice.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Mr. Kulkarni, learned advocate for the accusedsubmitted that dying declarations Exhibit 38 and 43 arenot consistent.Therefore, in all the abovecircumstances they are not voluntary statements of thedeceased and they are not truthful and therefore they ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 18 ) criappl221.14.odtcannot be considered to convict the accused and theyhave to be excluded from consideration.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Mr. Kulkarni, learned advocate submitted thatallegedly while the deceased was admitted in injuredcondition in the Ghati hospital on 17/11/2007 she madeoral dying declarations to her brother (PW-1), hersister (PW-2) and PW-5 her brother-in-law and husband ofPW-2 regarding involvement of all the accused.Accordingto learned advocate there is no material to show thatwhen the deceased made oral dying declaration to thesewitnesses and there is no material to show that at therelevant time deceased was in a fit state of mind tomake statement to these witnesses.Therefore and asthere is no consistency in the evidence of these threewitnesses regarding oral dying declaration made to themby the deceased, according to learned advocate theevidence of these interested witnesses is not believableand therefore, oral dying declarations made to thesethree witnesses who are close relatives of the deceasedcannot be made basis to convict the accused when there ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 19 ) criappl221.14.odtis no evidence to show presence of the accused at thespot of incident and when the prosecution has notexamined Sominath Shejwal who had put off the fire ofdeceased by pouring water on her person and admitted herin the hospital.It is submitted that the accused havebrought on record the possibility of accidental death ofthe deceased through the evidence of DW-1 Meena who iswife of Sominath Shejwal.Thus, learned advocate has prayed to setaside the impugned conviction and sentence recordedagainst the appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 3 by allowingthe appeal.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::( 20 ) criappl221.14.odtMrs. Choudhary, learned APP, on the other handsubmitted that prosecution case is based on two writtendying declarations Exhibits 38 and 43 and oral dyingdeclarations made to PWs-1, 2 and 5 and there is noreason to reject written as well as oral dyingdeclarations.State by ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 21 ) criappl221.14.odtInspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, 2005 AIR(SC) 1473 ,learned APP submitted that there is no material to showthat dying declarations are result of product ofimagination, tutoring or prompting.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Learned APP further submitted that questionNos. 14, 15, 24, 25, 26, 39, 40, 41 were put to theaccused about oral dying declarations made to PWs 1, 2and 5, question Nos.43 to 48 about written dyingdeclaration Exhibit 38 and question Nos. 57 to 62regarding dying declaration Exhibit 43 were put to theaccused at the time of their examination under Section313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore, noprejudice has been caused to the accused as submitted bythe learned advocate appearing for the accused.It issubmitted that therefore, decisions relied upon by thelearned advocate appearing for the accused are notapplicable to the present case.Learned APP thussubmitting that conviction and sentence recorded againstthe accused is proper claimed to dismiss the appeal.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::( 22 ) criappl221.14.odtWe have carefully considered the submissionsmade by the learned advocate appearing for theappellants/accused and learned APP for therespondent/State.With their assistance we have perusedthe evidence adduced by the prosecution and the accusedand we have gone through the impugned judgment andorder.There is no dispute that the deceased Vandanaperformed Gandharva marriage with accused No.1 fivemonths before the incident on 17/11/2007 and on the saiddate at 6.00 a.m. in the house of accused she sustained86% burn injuries.Thereafter, Sominath Shejwal andaccused No. 3 admitted her in Ghati hospital atAurangabad at about 8.15 a.m. and while taking treatmentshe scummed to injuries on 23/11/007 at 14.45 hours inthe hospital.As per evidence of Dr. Sharad Kuchewar(PW-7) who conducted postmortem examination and issuedpostmortem report Exhibit 63 cause of the death of thedeceased was, ""Septicemic Shock due to Burns"".Thus, it ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 23 ) criappl221.14.odtis clear that death of the deceased is not natural.Therefore, looking to the defence of the accused andcase of the prosecution it is to be seen whether deathof the deceased is homicidal, suicidal or accidental andif the death of the deceased is homicidal whether theaccused are responsible for causing burns to thedeceased and to her death.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::For proving that death of the deceased ishomicidal, the accused are responsible to cause burns toher and responsible to her death the prosecution hasrelied upon the following circumstances/ evidence:(i) Written dying declaration Exhibit 38 recordedby PHC Pise (PW-3) in presence of Medical OfficerBhushan Ubhale (PW-9).(ii) Written dying declaration Exhibit 43 recordedby Naib Tahasildar- Subhash Nikam (PW-4).::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Phulambri Police Station, in presence of Bhushan Ubhale(PW-9), on 17/11/2007 after 12 noon.According to PHCPise on the said date MLC report about deceased Vandanawas received in police station.Entry of that report wastaken and he was asked to enquire into that matter.Hestated that he went to Ghati Hospital at Aurangabad onthat day and gave letter Exhibit 37 to the MedicalOfficer to opine whether injured Vandana was in aposition to give statement.The Medical Officer examinedher and gave endorsement on Exhibit 37-letter that shewas in a fit condition to give statement.Thereafter, healso enquired with her and she was able to speak.Further he deposed that he asked her as to how she got ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 25 ) criappl221.14.odtburnt.She gave the details of the incident in which shewas burnt.He reduced the same into writing.He readover the contents thereof to her.In thecross-examination he denied that Vandana was not in aposition to speak as she was given medicines through IV.He also denied that Medical Officer gave endorsementabout condition of deceased on letter Exhibit 37 in hiscabin without examining the deceased.Further he deniedthat he prepared dying declaration/statement Exhibit 38as per narration of sister of deceased and that he isdeposing false.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::He went to burnt patient Vandanaat 1.15 to 1.45 p.m. He checked pulse, blood pressure ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 26 ) criappl221.14.odtand consciousness level of burnt patient Vandana andfound that she was in a fit state of mind to givestatement and accordingly he gave endorsement Exhibit 73on letter Exhibit 37 addressed to the Medical Officer ofthe hospital.He also stated that he was present tillthe completion of recording of statement of Vandana.Inthe cross-examination he has denied that deceasedVandana was not in a fit state of mind to give statementas she had 90% burns and that he is deposing false.Headmitted that there is no endorsement on dyingdeclaration Exhibit 38 that he was present at the timeof recording the said dying declaration.Thus, nothingis found in favour of the accused in the cross-examination of Medical Officer Bhushan Ubhale.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::On the basis of evidence of PHC Pise (PW 3) andBhushan Ubhale (PW 9) an inference can be drawn thatwhen PHC Pise recorded dying declaration Exhibit 38deceased was in a position to make statement.This factis also clear from Exhibit 73 endorsement made onExhibit 37 letter addressed to the Medical Officer, ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 27 ) criappl221.14.odtGhati Hospital.Of course, there is no endorsement madeon dying declaration Exhibit 38 that deceased Vanandawas in a fit state of mind to give statement, but whensuch endorsement is made on letter Exhibit 37 and whenboth Pws-3 and 9 have stated that the deceased was in afit state of mind to make statement at the time of dyingdeclaration Exhibit 38 mere absence of endorsement ondying declaration Exhibit 38 of the Medical Officerabout the condition of the deceased is not sufficient tostate that she was not in a fit condition to makestatement.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::The second dying declaration is Exhibit 43recorded by Naib Tahasildar Subhash Nikam (PW-4) on17/11/2007 between 4.25 p.m. to 5.20 p.m. He has statedthat on 17/11/2007 he was working as a Naib Tahasildarin Tahasil office of Phulambri.Police had given letterExhibit 42 to the Tahasildar, Phulambri on 17/11/2007 torecord dying declaration of deceased who was admitted inGhati Hospital at Aurangabad.After receiving said ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 28 ) criappl221.14.odtletter he went to said government hospital on the sameday at about 4.00 p.m. and went to the ward of burntpatient where deceased Vandana was admitted.The doctorwas not present there.He waited for doctor for about 10to 15 minutes, however doctor did not come.He askedquestions to deceased Vandana with reference to her nameand address.She gave answers to those questions.Heensured himself that she was in a condition to givestatement.Then he asked her how she was burnt and shegave details of incident in which she was burnt.Hereduced that narration into writing.He read overcontents thereof to her.She admitted correctnessthereof.He obtained her right hand thumb impression onthe statement and he also counter singed the saidstatement.Said statement/dying declaration Exhibit 43is as per her narration.He stated that ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 29 ) criappl221.14.odtdeceased Vandana was extensionally burnt, but deniedthat she was not in a position to speak.He also deniedthat he prepared dying declaration Exhibit 43 as per thenarration of relatives of deceased and that he isdeposing false.The second dying declaration is Exhibit 43::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::There appears no dispute that dying declarationExhibit 43 as per the case of the prosecution wasrecorded between 4.25 p.m. to 5.20 p.m. on 17/11/2007.From the above referred evidence of PW-4 Naib TahasildarNikam it is clear that when he recorded dyingdeclaration the deceased was not examined by the Medicalofficer to know about the condition of the deceased tomake statement.According to Naib Tahasildar Nikam toensure that deceased was in a condition to givestatement.He asked some questions to deceased withreference to her name and address and she answered tothose questions.But he has not stated about the exactquestions asked by him to the deceased and about theanswers given by the deceased to those questions.In ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 30 ) criappl221.14.odtfact, he should have stated about all those questionsand the answers given by the deceased.There is nodispute that the deceased sustained 86% burns in themorning on 17/11/2007 at about 6.00 a.m. at the house ofaccused and then she was admitted in the Ghati Hospitalat Aurangabad which is about 25 k.m. from Phulambri.Considering the percentage and nature of burns sustainedby the deceased in the morning on 17/11/2007 and thefact that the second dying declaration was recordedbetween 4.25 to 5.20 p.m. on that day it was necessaryfor Naib Tahasildar Nikam to seek opinion of doctorabout the condition of the deceased at the time ofrecording said dying declaration.So also, theprosecution should have produced on record the casepapers showing the nature of treatment which was beinggiven to the deceased on that day and her condition atthe time of recording second dying declaration, but theprosecution has not produced case papers about thetreatment of the deceased.It is true that as referredearlier Naib Tahasildar Nikam asked some questions to ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 31 ) criappl221.14.odtensure that the deceased was in a condition to givestatement, but as mentioned earlier he has not statedabout the questions asked to her and the answers givenby her.The process of bloodpoisoning may start within five minutes or within onehour once the patient sustained 90% burn injuries.Soalso, he stated that blood poisoning may start withinone hour in case of 90% burns and normal understandingof 90% burnt patient may disappear.So also, he hasstated that within 1 or 2 hours mental condition of 90%burnt patient may change.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Now it is to be seen whether the prosecutionhas proved the contents of written dying declarationsExhibits 38 and 43 and that these dying declarations arevoluntary, truthful and reliable.As referred earlierPHC Pise (PW-3) who recorded dying declaration Exhibit38 and Naib Tahasildar Nikam (PW-4) who recorded dyingdeclaration Exhibit 43 have simply stated that thedeceased had given the details of incident in which shewas burnt and they had reduced those details intowriting.They have further stated that these dyingdeclarations were read over to the deceased and sheadmitted that the contents thereof were correct.Butboth PWs-3 and 4 have not stated about the contents ofdying declarations Exhibits 38 and 43 respectivelyrecorded by them.In fact, they should have stated about ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 33 ) criappl221.14.odtthe contents of respective dying declarations recordedby them.In the case of Deorao s/o Sonbaji Bhalerao andanother (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court hasheld that mere production of dying declaration and thestatement that its contents are correct, would not provedying declaration and the witness who has recorded thedying declaration has to depose as to the contents ofdying declaration.Admittedly this has not been done inthe present case.Therefore, both the dying declarationsExhibits 38 and 43 have not been proved in accordancewith the law laid down by this Court in Deorao's case(Supra) which decision has been confirmed by the Hon'bleApex Court as per order dated 01/09/2015 in CriminalAppeal No(s).126/2011 as the appeal against decision inDeorao's case was dismissed, and therefore, dyingdeclarations Exhibits 38 and 43 have to be excluded fromconsideration.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::On perusal of the statements under Section313 of the Criminal Procedure Code of all the accused itappears that question Nos. 46, 47 and 48 who were askedto the accused on the dying declaration Exhibit 38recorded by PHC Pise (PW-3) and question No. 62 wasasked to the accused on dying declaration Exhibit 43recorded by Naib Tahasildar Nikam (PW-4).Thequestion Nos. 46, 47, 48, 62 and 79 with answers are asunder:-::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::""Q.46 It has further come in his evidence that he made inquiry with Vandana and she was able to speak and he recorded statement of Vandana.What you have to say about it?::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::he asked Vandana about burn injuries and she gave details of incident as to how she sustained burn injuries.What you have to say about it?Vandana into writing and thereafter read over the contents thereof to Vandana and she admitted correctness of the said statement and thereafter he obtained her right hand thumb mark on the said statement and also put his own signature on the said statement and said statement is at Exh. 38 and contents of the said statement are true and correct as stated by Vandana.What you have to say about it?he asked Vandana as to how she sustained burn injuries and she gave details of the incident in which she sustained burn injuries and said information was reduced into writing and it was read over to Vandana and she admitted correctness thereof and thereafter he obtained right hand thumb mark of Vandana on the said statement and also his own signature and the said statement is at Exh. 43 and it was recorded correctly as per the say of Vandana.What you have to say about it?::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::What you have to say about it?From the perusal of the above referred questionNos. 46, 47, 48, 62 and 79 and answers given by theaccused to the said questions it is clear that theaccused have stated that the dying declarations Exhibits38 and 43 are false.Thus,it is clear from question Nos. 48 and 62 referred toabove that contents of dying declarations Exhibits 38and 43 were not specifically put to the accused in thestatement under Section 313 of the Criminal ProcedureCode and as such no opportunity was given to the accusedto explain the circumstances appearing against them inboth these dying declarations.However, the learnedSessions Judge has used the contents of both the dyingdeclarations Exhibits 38 and 43 against the accused forholding the accused guilty for the offences alleged ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 37 ) criappl221.14.odtagainst them as observed in paragraph Nos. 21, 22, 23and 24 of the judgment.But when the contents of dyingdeclarations Exhibits 38 and 43 and the circumstancesappearing in the said dying declarations against theaccused were not put to them to give explanation boththese dying declarations cannot be taken intoconsideration in view of the law laid down by the ApexCourt in the case of Raj Kumar Singh alias Raju AliasBatya (Supra).Therefore, we hold that both the dyingdeclarations cannot be used against the accused and theyhave to be excluded from consideration.As a result, wehold that the prosecution has not proved that both thedying declarations are voluntary, reliable andtrustworthy statements of the deceased.Therefore, thedying declarations Exhibits 38 and 43 are of no help tothe prosecution to connect the accused with the offencesalleged against them.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Now coming to the oral dying declarations,allegedly made by the deceased to PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5,the evidence of Charandas Baburao Misal (PW-1) brother ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 38 ) criappl221.14.odtof the deceased about oral dying declaration is that onthe day of incident he was on his work at Chhawani,Aurangabad.He reached in theburns ward at about 10.00 a.m. He saw that Vandana hadgot burnt.He asked her how she got burnt.She informedhim that accused Nos. 2 and 3 tied her hands and legs,while accused No.1 poured kerosene on her person and sether on fire.Vandana was pregnant at that time.She alsoinformed that accused No. 1 was denying that she waspregnant from him as she had no menstruation.Shefurther informed that the amount of Rs.10,000/- wasdemanded by the accused for brick kiln.In the cross-examination he had denied that he was not allowed to goinside the burns ward after he went to Ghati Hospital at10.00 a.m. He also denied that deceased Vandana was notin a position to talk at all.He denied that deceasedVandana did not at all inform him that on the day ofincident accused Nos. 2 and 3 tied her hands and legs ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 39 ) criappl221.14.odtand accused No.1 poured kerosene on her person and sether on fire.So also, he denied that Vandana did nottell him that the accused were demanding Rs.10,000/- andthat accused No. 1 was denying the paternity of thefeatus in her womb.So also, he deposed that, he statedbefore police that deceased had told him that accusedNos.2 and 3 tied her hands and legs and that she waspregnant on the day of incident and accused No. 1 deniedsaid pregnancy from him.These omissions in hisstatement before police have been proved by PW-8 PIAlsatwar the Investigating Officer.Therefore, theseomissions being material omissions in the statementbefore police of PW-1 and as PW-1 is brother of thedeceased his evidence that the deceased informed himthat accused Nos. 2 and 3 tied her hands and legs, thedeceased told him that she was pregnant at the time ofincident and accused No. 1 denied that said pregnancyfrom him is not believable and therefore, it is doubtfulwhether accused Nos. 2 and 3 were really involved in theincident and they had played role as deposed by this ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 40 ) criappl221.14.odtwitness in causing burns to the deceased.However,considering the evidence of PW-1 that he went tohospital at 10.00 a.m. and denial of the suggestion byhim that the deceased was not in a position to talk atall an inference can be drawn on the basis of evidenceof PW-1 that the deceased was in a position to talk whenhe met her and she disclosed to him in the hospital thataccused No. 1 poured kerosene on her person and set heron fire.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::The second witness to whom oral dyingdeclaration was made by the deceased is Tulsabai GautamShejwal (PW-2) married sister of the deceased.Herevidence on oral dying declaration is that after about 3days of the departure of Vandana from her house, herbrother-in-law informed on phone that Vandana wasadmitted in Ghati hospital at Aurangabad.She thereforewent to Ghati hospital at Aurangabad.Vandana wasadmitted there.She had sustained burns.On being askedby her Vandana told that accused Nos. 2 and 3 caughthold of her hands and legs, while accused No. 1 poured ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 41 ) criappl221.14.odtkerosene on her person and set her on fire.According toher Vandana informed that accused were taking suspicionagainst her.In the cross-examination she denied she wasnot allowed to go to meet Vandana in the ward in whichshe was admitted.She denied that the deceased Vandanawas not in a position to talk.She admitted that it wasnot possible to understand as to what she was talking.She has denied that Vandanda did not tell her thataccused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold of her hands and legs,while accused No. 1 poured kerosene on her person andset her on fire.She denied that deceased Vandana caughtfire accidentally when she was cooking and that she isdeposing false to harass the accused on the say of herbrother.This witness has not specifically stated as towhen she went to Ghati hospital i.e. either in themorning or in the evening.It has come in the evidenceof PW-1 brother of this witness that this witness (PW-2)and her husband (PW-5) had come to the Ghati hospital onthe day of incident in the evening.Thus, it appearsthat this witness went to Ghati hospital in the evening.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::( 42 ) criappl221.14.odtAs observed earlier she denied that deceased Vandana wasnot in a position to talk.However, she admitted that itwas not possible to understand as to what she wastalking.As mentioned earlier case papers regardingtreatment of the deceased on 17/11/2007 and showing hercondition in the evening are not produced byprosecution.In fact, the said papers were required tobe produced by the prosecution to show that the deceasedwas in a position to talk.In the absence of said paperswhen this witness (PW-2) had admitted that it was notpossible to understand as to what she (deceased) wastalking, shows that the deceased was not in a positionto talk.So also, as referred earlier it has come in theevidence of PW-4 Naib Tahasildar who recorded dyingdeclaration Exhibit 43 on 17/11/2007 between 4.25 to5.20 p.m. that there was no doctor in the hospital.Therefore and when PW-2 has not specifically stated thatdeceased was in a condition to speak and stated that itwas difficult to understand what deceased was talking itis doubtful whether deceased was in a position to make ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 43 ) criappl221.14.odtstatement to this witness.Therefore, and as there isinconsistency in the evidence of oral dying declarationmade to this witness and her brother (PW-1) as regardsthe role played by accused Nos. 2 and 3 because PW-1states that deceased had informed him that accused Nos.2 and 3 tied her hands and legs whereas this witnesssays that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had caught hold her handsand legs the evidence of this witness is not sufficientto infer that really deceased made oral dyingdeclaration to this witness about the role played by theaccused referred to above.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::According to himdeceased was his sister-in-law.As regards the oraldying declaration in paragraph No. 3 of his depositionhe deposed that the mother of deceased Vandana, hisfather, his wife and he went to Ghati hospital,Aurangabad to see Vandana.She was admitted in the burnsward.On being asked by them, Vandana informed them thataccused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold of her person while ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 44 ) criappl221.14.odtaccused No.1 set her on fire.She further informed thatthe accused were raising suspicion against her as shedid not get menstruation.In the cross-examination hehas denied that deceased Vanadna did not inform themthat she was caught hold by accused Nos. 2 and 3 and wasset on fire by accused No.1 and further denied that shedid not inform them that the accused were raisingsuspicion against her as she had no menstruation.Hehas denied that deceased Vandana was not able to speakdue to burn injuries.As referred earlier PW-2 wife ofthis witness with whom this witness had gone in theCivil Hospital admitted that it was not possible tounderstand as to what she (deceased) was talking.When therewas no doctor as deposed by PW-4 Naib Tahasildar andwhen admittedly no papers regarding treatment of thedeceased at the relevant time are produced and when theevidence of this witness regarding role attributed to ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 45 ) criappl221.14.odtaccused Nos. 2 and 3 is not consistent with the evidenceof PWs-1 and 2 and when he has not stated consistentlywith the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 that the deceased toldhim that the accused No.1 poured kerosene and then sether on fire his evidence about oral dying declarationmade to him by the deceased is not sufficient to statethat really at the relevant time deceased was in aposition to make statement and she disclosed to him thataccused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold the deceased andaccused No. 1 set her on fire.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Ithas referred the inconsistencies referred earlierbetween the oral dying declarations made to PWs-1, 2 andSo also, the learned Sessions Judge has referredomissions the statement before police of PWs 1, 2 and 5.But according to learned Sessions Judge due to saidinconsistencies at the most it can be said that theabove witnesses have deposed for the first time before ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 46 ) criappl221.14.odtthe Court about the omissions and their evidence cannotbe totally discarded and disbelieved only for thereasons that they have deposed in the Court some factswhich they did not state to the police.The learned SessionsJudge has not considered the aspect as to when thedeceased made oral dying declarations to these witnessesand whether the deceased was in a fit condition to makestatement them, and in fact the said aspect was requiredto be considered.It appears that PW-1 brother of thedeceased went in the hospital in the morning at about 10a.m. and PWs 2 and 5 went in the hospital in the eveningto meet the deceased and as referred earlier PW-2admitted in her cross-examination that it was notpossible to understand as to what she (deceased) was ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 47 ) criappl221.14.odttalking.All these inconsistencies in theevidence of PWs 1, 2 and 5 assume importance as they areclose relatives of the deceased.Therefore, onconsidering all these inconsistencies in their evidence ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 48 ) criappl221.14.odtit is doubtful whether the deceased made oral dyingdeclaration to these three witnesses implicating all theaccused and that the oral dying declarations made tothese witnesses are truthful and reliable.At the mostas observed earlier oral dying declaration made by thedeceased to her brother PW-1 attributing role to accusedNo.1 that he poured kerosene on her person and set heron fire is believable.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Now coming to the circumstantial evidence, asregards the spot panchnama Exhibit 75 PW-10 API Bagulhas proved this panchanama.As per his evidence thehouse of the accused consists of four rooms, ota andchapper.Chapper is admeasuring 26½ x 8', one of therooms is admeasuring 13 x 14', two rooms are admeasuring13 x 9' each and they are adjacent to each other.Seenof offence is inside the chapper which is to thesouthern side.His evidence further shows that there aretwo rooms between chapper and western side room.Therewere two fire places (chool) in the said chapper.He ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 49 ) criappl221.14.odtalso admitted that plastic can was in the western sidefirst room of the farm house.It has come in hisevidence that they found kerosene spots in the easternside room.Thus,on considering the evidence of the Investigating OfficerAPI Bagul and the contents of panchnama with map Exhibit75 it is clear that behind the four rooms of house ofaccused there was a chapper of size mentioned earlierand in the said chapper the incident took place.Thepanchnama shows that at the time of panchnama theInvestigating Officer and panchas found red and pinkcolour designs saree in burnt condition and they weresticked to each other.So also, they found nylon sareein burnt condition in the chapper and said sarees weresmelling of kerosene.They also found that faint pinkcolour, petticoat sticked to the said sarees.They hadalso seen burnt pieces of red colour blouse and brokenneckless of black beads and said articles were seized ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 50 ) criappl221.14.odtunder said panchnama.All these circumstances noticed bythe Investigating Officer and the panchas in the chappershow that the incident took place in the chapper andkerosene was found on the above mentioned clothes of thedeceased.These circumstances thus corroborate theevidence of PW-1 that the deceased disclosed to him whenshe was admitted in the hospital, that on the date ofincident accused No. 1 poured kerosene on her person andset her on fire.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::The above referred clothes found on the spot ofincident i.e. in the chapper where the incident tookplace were seized by API Bagul (PW-10) and they weresent to the Chemical Analyzer with letter Exhibit 67 tothe Chemical Analyzer for analysis as deposed by PW-8 PIAlsatwar, for analysis and report.This letter Exhibit67 shows that above referred seized burnt clothes wereon the person of the complainant/deceased.Exhibit 68report of the Chemical Analyzer shows that the ChemicalAnalyzer in his analysis of Exhibit 1 partially burnt ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 51 ) criappl221.14.odtpink coloured petticoat, Exhibit 2 partially burntreddish and pink coloured saree sticked to each other,Exhibit 3 partially burnt reddish clothes pieces statedto be of blouse, Exhibit 4 a stained cotton swab andExhibit 5 an empty blue coloured plastic can of kerosenethe tests for the detection of kerosene residues on thesaid five Exhibits are positive.Therefore, it can besaid on the basis of report of Chemical Analyzer thatkerosene residues were found on all above five Exhibits/articles which were seized from the spot of incidenti.e. chapper behind the house of the accused where theincident had taken place.The finding of the keroseneresidues on clothes shows that kerosene was poured onthe person of the deceased when said clothes were on herperson.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::( 52 ) criappl221.14.odtAs referred earlier learned advocate for theaccused has submitted that the prosecution has notexamined Sominath Shejwal who had come to the spot ofincident immediately and put off the fire of thedeceased and admitted her in the hospital and therefore,as the prosecution has suppressed evidence of saidmaterial witness the evidence adduced by the prosecutionin the form of written and oral dying declarations isnot believable.Exhibit 66-MLC report which was given bythe hospital to the Phulambri Police Station immediatelyafter the deceased was admitted in injured condition inthe hospital on 17/11/2007 shows that Sominath Shejwaland accused No.3 mother-in-law of deceased had admittedthe deceased in injured condition in the hospital.Inthe said MLC the deceased alleged that all the accusedcaused burn injuries to her by pouring kerosene on herperson.So, it is not the case in the MLC that noallegation is made against the accused by deceased.Therefore, merely because the prosecution has notexamined Sominath Shejwal it cannot be said that the ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 53 ) criappl221.14.odtentire prosecution case is false or that it is notbelievable as argued by the learned advocate for theaccused.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::Defence of the accused is that death of thedeceased is accidental.They have examined MeenaSominath Shejul.Her evidence is that since 7 yearsprior to the incident she and her husband were workingin the brick kiln of the accused.They were residing atsome distance from the house of accused.Deceased wasstaying at Jategaon.She had come to house of accused 6days prior to the incident.About the incident shedeposed that incident took place at 6.00 a.m. Deceasedwas cooking food on fire place.She caught fire and cameto her.She proceeded alongwith her children to herhusband.Her husband poured water on the person ofdeceased.They removed saree on the person of thedeceased and put blanket on her person and she wasbrought in the hospital by auto rickshaw.She was in thehospital upto 6.00 p.m. Relatives of deceased came.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::( 54 ) criappl221.14.odtDeceased did not talk to anybody.She then went to herhouse at 6.00 p.m. In the cross-examination she admittedthat once she came outside the house after hearing hueand cry, all the accused were present there and shefurther admitted that her husband took the injured inthe hospital.She further admitted that father-in-lawand husband of the injured had not come to the hospitalwith them.She denied that she deposed false as per thesay of accused.There is nothing on record to show thatthis witness accompanied the deceased when the deceasedwas brought in hospital.MLC Exhibit 66 also shows thatonly husband of this witness and accused No. 3 mother-in-law the deceased had brought the deceased in thehospital.There is no suggestion to the witnessesexamined on behalf of the prosecution that they had seenthis witness in the hospital on 17/11/2007 with thedeceased.As observed earlier kerosene residues werefound on the burnt clothes of the deceased.So also,this witness was not in the house or chapper of theaccused when the incident took place and this witness ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 55 ) criappl221.14.odtclaims that after the deceased caught fire deceased cameto her.If thedeceased would have caught fire accidentally no kerosenewould have found on the clothes on her person.So also,the husband and father-in-law of the deceased who werepresent when allegedly this witness had gone to thehouse of the accused, would have accompanied thedeceased to admit her in the hospital, but they did notcome to the hospital with the deceased and only accusedNo.3 and husband of the defence witness had brought thedeceased in the hospital.From the evidence of this witness presence of accused atthe house at the material time is proved.The trialCourt has rightly not accepted the evidence of defencewitness.Thus, we do not accept the defence of theaccused.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::( 56 ) criappl221.14.odtFor the reasons discussed above on the basis ofevidence of PW-1 brother of the deceased to whom thedeceased made oral dying declaration on 17/11/2007 at 10a.m. in the Ghati Hospital immediately after theincident and circumstantial evidence i.e. panchnama ofspot Exhibit 75 and report of the Chemical AnalyzerExhibit 68 an inference can be drawn that the accusedNo.1 husband of the deceased poured kerosene on herperson and set her on fire and therefore, she sustained86% burns and as a result she died on 23/11/2007 at14.45 hours.Therefore, accused No.1 is responsible forcausing burn injuries to the deceased and ultimately tocause her death and his act of pouring kerosene on theperson of the deceased and setting her on fire amountsto culpable homicide amounting to murder.But theevidence adduced by the prosecution and referred toabove is not sufficient to state that accused in-laws ofthe deceased participated in the incident of sustainingburns to the deceased as alleged by the prosecution.Thus, we hold that death of the deceased is homicidal ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 57 ) criappl221.14.odtand accused No. 1 is responsible for her death.Therefore, the finding of the trial Court that theprosecution has proved offence under Section 302 of theIPC against accused Nos. 2 and 3 father-in-law andmother-in-law of deceased is not correct andsustainable.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::As regards the offence under Section 498-A ofthe IPC the prosecution has to prove that the accused infurtherance of their common intention caused crueltywithin the meaning of cruelty given under explanation Aand B of Section 498-A of the IPC which is as under:-Accused No. 2 informed them thatdeceased would be treated properly.She further deposed aboutoral dying declaration made to her by the deceased.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::The evidence of PW-5 Gautam Sampat Shejwal whois husband of PW-2 is that deceased resided at the houseof accused about one month after marriage.Thereafter,she resided at her maternal home for about 15 days.Thereafter she came to his house as there was marriageof his daughter, namely, Rekha.She resided at his housefor about 8 days after the marriage of Rekha.Thereafter, she went to her maternal home.Then afterabout 2-3 days deceased and her mother came to hishouse.The mother of the deceased informed him that theyshould go to the house of accused to reach deceased.Accordingly, he went to the house of accused withdeceased and her mother.Accused No. 1 refused to allowdeceased to reside at his house.He asked them toperform operation of deceased for appendix and thenbring her back to his house.They wanted to go to PoliceStation, Phulambri to lodge report against accused.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::( 61 ) criappl221.14.odtHowever, on the way the brother of the accused No.1,namely, Bhausaheb met them and requested them not to goto the police station.Therefore, they went to theirvillage.He also stated that alongwith his wife and hisfather he went to hospital where deceased was admittedafter the incident and deceased disclosed him thataccused were raising suspicion against her as she had nomenstruation.The omissions inhis statement before police in respect of the fact thataccused No. 2 had come to his house to take deceased,that the deceased was telling them that accused No. 1used to beat her and that the accused No.2 assured themthat the deceased would not be beaten and therefore,they sent deceased with him are proved by theInvestigating Officer PW-8 Police Inspector Alsatwar.Therefore, the evidence of this witness that the accusedNo.2 had come to his house to take deceased, that thedeceased was telling that accused No.1 used to beat herand that the accused No.2 assured that the deceased ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 62 ) criappl221.14.odtwould not be beaten is improvement while deposing beforethe Court and amounts to material omission in hisstatement before police and therefore said evidence isnot believable.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::On careful consideration of above referredevidence of PWs-1, 2 and 5, PWs 2 and 5 have not statedregarding demand of Rs.10,000/- by the accused from thedeceased for brick kiln.Their evidence regarding stayof deceased at her parental house and at the house ofPWs 2 and 5 for some days is not at all sufficient toinfer that they caused cruelty to the deceased in anymanner.As mentioned above there are material omissionsin the statements before police of PWs 2 and 5 that thedeceased told them that accused No. 1 beat her and thatthe accused No. 2 had taken the deceased with him at thehouse of accused on giving assurance that she would notbe beaten.Therefore, the above referred evidence of PWs1, 2 and 5 is not at all sufficient to infer that theaccused in furtherance of their common intention caused ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 63 ) criappl221.14.odtcruelty to the deceased punishable under Section 498-Aread with Section 34 of the IPC.Thus, we hold that thefinding recorded by the trial Court that the prosecutionhas proved offence under Section 498-A read with Section34 of the IPC against the accused is not correct andsustainable.We therefore, hold that prosecution hasfailed to prove said offence against the accused.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::For the foregoing reasons, we hold that theprosecution has proved offence under Section 302 of theIPC only against accused No. 1 and it has failed toprove said offence against accused No. 3 and offenceunder Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPCagainst all the accused.Therefore, conviction andsentence recorded against accused No. 3 for the offenceunder Section 302 read Section 34 of the IPC and againstaccused Nos. 1 and 3 for offence under Section 498-Aread with Section 34 of the IPC are liable to be setaside and they are entitled to be acquitted of the saidoffences by allowing the appeal partly.Thus, conviction ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 ::: ( 64 ) criappl221.14.odtand sentence recorded against the appellant/accused No.1for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC needs to beconfirmed.Therefore, in the result following order ispassed.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::(i) Appeal is partly allowed.(ii) The conviction and sentence recorded against theaccused No. 1 Dadarao Shripat Thorat for the offencepunishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 ofthe IPC and against accused No. 3 Yamunabai ShripatThorat for the offences punishable under Sections 498-Aand 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC as per thejudgment and order dated 20/03/2014 passed by theSessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 82/2008are hereby quashed and set aside.(iii) Accused No. 1 Dadaro Thorat is acquitted of theoffence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of theIPC and accused No. 3 Yamunabai is acquitted of theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 readwith Section 34 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::( 65 ) criappl221.14.odt(iv) Fine, if paid, by accused Nos. 1 and 3 for theaforesaid offences as per the impugned judgment shall berefunded to them.Accused No. 3 Yamunabai shall furnishpersonal bond and surety bond of Rs.15,000/- before theSessions Judge as per Section 437-A of the CriminalProcedure Code within two weeks from today.(ix) Record and proceedings with copy of judgment besent to the trial Court for necessary compliance.[S.M. GAVHANE, J.] [T. V. NALAWADE, J.]ssp/Dec.19/criappl221.14.odt ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2020 09:54:04 :::","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"By this petition the petitioner, a M.C.D. contractor, who is one of the accused in Sessions Case No. 75/97, FIR No. 340/96, P.S.Okhla Industri-al Area, under sections 364/302/201/216/411/120B/ 34, IPC seeks bail.The accusation against the petitioner is that he along with his associates, namely, Kamal Singh @ Shaily, Vibhor Singh @ Lovi, Vijay Mohan Sharma @ Minto, Dr. Hemant Kalra, Viney Kumar @ Vinu, Ravi Prakash @ Ravi @ Shard Gupta/Agarwal, Kamal Kumar @ Pinki and Jaindender Kumar Tyagi @ JK, were involved in the macabre crime in which three persons were murdered.The victims were Dr. Sunil Kaul, proprietor of Personal Point, and his two employees Sujata Saha and Deepa Sharma.As per information gathered during the investigation, several criminal cases are pending against him.Prosecution has also brought to the fore the accusation of alleged ill will between Vijay Prakash and one Zile Singh contractor.There was a murderous attack on him for which case F.I.R. No. 298/95 was registered.The involvement of Ravi Prakash and petitioner Subhash Gupta was suspected in the incident.Subhash Gupta in the year 1995 joined Personal Point and was allegedly attracted towards Sujata Saha.Sujata Saha spurned the advances of Subhash Gupta.Subhash Gupta suspected Sujata Saha to be involved with Dr. Kaul and this, according to the counsel for respondent, led to the showing of the seeds of conspiracy resulting in the murders.In the evening of June 6, Dr. Sunil Kaul, Sujata Saha and Deepa Sharma visited the office of accused Subhash Gupta, located at M.C.D. Office, Okhla, as Dr. Kaul wanted to expand his business and for this purpose was expecting loan from him.It is from this place that three of them were kidnapped by the accused and before doing that they were drugged which is indicated by the recovery of empty ampoules of calmpose injections from the office of the petitioner and the statement of one Madan Lal recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure according to which three of them while coming out of the office of the petitioner and walking towards the cars were being supported by the accused.There was a third car, Maruti 800, which had a U.P. number.In the BMW car, driven by Subhash Gupta, besides him and the above said two ladies, accused Vijay Mohan Sharma @ Minto and Kamal Kumar @ Pinki were also seated.Maruti 1000 was driven by accused No. 2 Kamal Singh @ shaily, and besides him and Dr. Kaul, accused Ravi Prakash and accused Dr. Hemant Kalra were also seated, Maruti 800 was driven by accused Vibhor Singh @ Lovi.All the three cars left the office of the petitioner one after the other.On the night intervening 6th and 7th June 1996, Nitin Gupta, son of the petitioner Subhash Gupta, lodged an F.I.R. No. 340 of 1996 under section 365 I.P.C. at P.S. Okhla as the latter had not returned home.He along with the F.I.R. produced a driving licence of Dr. Kaul which was found by him in the office of Subhash Gupta.The police registered the FIR and visited the office of Subhash Gupta where torn cheques of Rs. 6 lacs each were seized along with the broken ampoules of calmpose and torn pieces of ransom note in the handwriting of Subhash Gupta were found.The ransom note was pieced together which conveyed that the petitioner had been kidnapped and the kidnappers were demanding a ransom of Rs. 50 lacs.On 7th June 1996 the car of Dr. Kaul was found abandoned at Hodal.On the same day at about 3.30 P.M. dead body of Dr. Kaul was found in a field at Hodal.The body bore two bullet injuries.On 9th June 1996 dead bodies of Sujata Saha and Deepa Sharma were recovered in a highly decomposed state at Bhind, Moraha M.P. On 10th June 1996 a call was received at the house of Subhash Gupta that he was in Bombay in Hotel Leela.On receipt of this information, a police party under the charge of Inspector Balwinder Singh was sent to Bombay.The petitioner and his BMW car were found by the police party at the above said hotel.The BMW car of the petitioner was inspected at Bombay.As per the report of the CFSL expert at Bombay, blood stains on the mat of the car were found.""If you not become mine I murdered you and same time I made to suicide myself.""As per the opinion of the hand writing expert the diary is written in the handwriting of the petitioner.It was allegedly written by the petitioner during the time Sujata Saha had gone to South India on tour along with her parents.The obsession of the petitioner for Sujata Saha is evident from the fact that he along with his younger brother Anil Gupta and Arvind Malik, a Junior Engineer in the M.C.D., followed her to South India in his Toyota Car.In April 1996 Sujata Saha along with a friend and her husband Ajay Nagpal, whose statements were recorded by the Investigating Agency under section 161 Cr.P.C., went to Shirdi for pilgrimage.Subhash Gupta sent accused Ravi Prakash and Dr. Hemant Kalra to Bombay by air.The duo from Bombay proceeded to Shirdi by car and stayed at Hotels Sharan and Guraia under assumed names.The hotel records were seized by the Investigating Agency.The apathy of Sujata Saha towards the petitioner is apparent from the fact that the petitioner had presented air tickets to her and her family for undertaking the trip to the South India but the same were not utilised by her and on the contrary the tickets were torn to pieces which were recovered from her drawer during investigation.From 2nd May 1996 to 4th May 1996, accused Ravi Prakash, Pinky, Shaily were staying in Mohan Hotel, Ashok Vihar Delhi.Thereafter they shifted to Centaur Hotel, Delhi, where they were joined by accused Deepak Das and witness Saurav Bhatt.As per the respondent the record of the cellular phone of the petitioner, which was seized, shows that during this period the petitioner was in touch with the above said accused persons.Statement of one Balbir Singh, contractor, was recorder under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. in which it has come that huge money was handed over by the petitioner to Shaily during this period.Besides, he is also stated to have seen the arrival of Dr. Kaul, Sujata Saha and Deepa Gupta to the office of Subhash Gupta.Even mithlesh was sent to Lajpat Nagar to get apples and packets of fruit juice.When he returned he was again sent to run another errand.This time he was asked to get bottles of Bisleri.On his return he found the office to be empty.Mithlesh also speaks about the fact that earlier Subhash Gupta had given him instructions not to let Gyan Bir enter his office after he brings sweets from Haldiram.According to him he acted on the instructions of Subhash Gupta and took the sweets from Gyan Bir had brought the sweets and left the office for his house, Mithlesh was sent to Lajpat Nagar.ORDER Anil Dev Singh, J.The expert opined that the stains found in the car were of human blood.From the dicky of the car, fibres were recovered and as per the report of the CFSL at Bombay the fibres were from the bed sheet in which Sujata Saha's body was wrapped.The investigation mounted by the Investigating Agency culminated in the filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner and nine others accused, namely, Kamal Singh @ Shaily, Vibhor Singh @ Lovi, Vijay Mohan Sharma @ Minto, Dr. Hemant Kalra, Viney Kumar @ Vinu, Ravi Prakash @ Ravi @ shard Gupta/Agarwal, Kamal Kumar @ Pinki and Jaindender Kumar Tyagi @ JK.All the accused are standing their trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.It may be pointed out that this application was filed on the ground that he was suffering from depression and his condition warranted his release from jail.Having failed to secure the bail from the trial court the petitioner has moved the instant petition seeking bail.Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his bail application argued that the petitioner himself was victim of kidnapping by Ravi Prakash and his associates and was not in any manner involved in the murders.It was pointed out that pieces of ransom note and two torn cheques of Rs. 6 lacs each were found from the office of Subhash Gupta by the police.He further submitted that the kidnapping of the petitioner along with the three deceased is also proved from the fact that when he was examined on 11th June 1996 at Bombay he was having the following injuries:-Radish Blue bruise with swelling measuring 8 cm x 3 cm on the back of chest situated on centre.2. Radish blue bruises with swelling and pain measuring 8 cm x 3 cm on the back of the right chest - present vertically.3. Injection prick mark present over both elbows.He submitted that as per the opinion of the doctor the injuries were of a duration of more than 48 hours and hat the injuries 1 and 2 were caused with blunt force and injury No. 3 was caused by an injection prick.Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner was in love with Sujata Saha and there was no reason for him to kill her.He further pointed out that he had already advanced money to Dr. Kaul for which he was getting good return and this being so, there was no reason to get rid of Dr. Kaul.He further canvassed that torn pieces of ransom note were deliberately left by the petitioner to give evidence to his story that he was also kidnapped along with the deceased persons.Learned counsel invited my attention to the material on record to support the prosecution story.It has also been revealed during investigation that on May 1, 1996 the petitioner withdrew a sum of Rs. 5 lacs in cash from Oriental Bank of Commerce at Paharganj.Investigation shows that on 5/6th June 1996 accused Ravi Prakash, Shaily and Pinki stayed in Mohan Hotel, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi, for the second time.According to Ashok Maniktala, whose statement was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., the boy was 6' 3"" and on the information given by the petitioner was studying for his I.A.S. He also stated that on enquiry he came to know that the boy was related to some officer in the M.C.D. The prosecution claims that reference in the above statements is obviously to Ravi Prakash.Maniktala has also stated that he will be able to recognise the person who was staying in the house of the petitioner.Statement of one Gyan Bir, who was employed as Beldar by the petitioner, was recorded by the Investigating Agency during investigation.Gyan Bir, in his statement under section 161 if Cr.P.C., alluded to the fact that on the evening of 6th June 1996 he was asked by the petitioner to bring sweets from the shop of Haldiram located at Badarpur even though he had suggested to the petitioner that he could get the sweets from nereby Chawla Sweets.As per the suggestion of the prosocution, Gyan Bir was sent to the far off shop of Haldiram so that he does not see as to what was taking place at the petitioner's office between the accused on the one hand and Dr. Kaul, Sujata Saha and Deepa Gupta on the other.The respondent suggests that the conduct of Subhash Gupta a shows that he did not want his chowkidar and Beldar to be witnesses to what was taking place in his office between the accused persons and the deceased.One Madan Lal, Kabari, who was passing by the office of Subhash Gupta and another person.He stated that the two ladies were made to sit in a grey coloured car.He also saw that similarly another person was brought out from the office of Subhash Gupta with the help and assistance of two persons and was made to sit in the back seat of a white coloured Maruti car.He also refers to the fact that the cars left on after the other.As per him the grey car was being driven by Subhash Gupta.A strong submission was made on behalf of the respondent that the theory that Subhash Gupta was also kidnaped with Dr. Kaul, Sujata Saha and Deepa Sharma as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner during arguments is totally discounted by the statement of Madan Lal.According to Ashwini Saini, he is known to Ravi Prakash who had told him that he was a sales tax inspector in Delhi.On arrival, Ravi Prakash Introduced Subhash Gupta at his officer to Saini and one of the ladies who was in jeans as the wife of Subhash Gupta: Saini was told that one of their cars had broken down and that they would rest in his house by the time their car was repaired.As per Saini, he left his house for his work and told Ravi Prakash that in case he was not back by the time they left, the key of the house should be given to the neighbour.Saini is stated to have returned at 7.30 in the evening and found that Ravi Prakash and his associates were ready to leave.He, however, did not find the two ladies and enquired about them.He was told by Ravi Prakash that they had already left in the other car and that the accused would be meeting them at the petrol pump.Saini also stated that after a few days he read about the murder of the two ladies and also saw their photographs in a newspaper.He also read the news relating to the murder of Dr. Kaul.In order to find out the details he is stated to have gone to Baroda and met accused Deepak Das, who was known to him and also to Ravi Prakash.Deepak Das gave the address of Ravi Prakash, Kamal Kumar and two other associates who were staying in Hotel Sweet Dream.Saini refers to the fact that Ravi Prakash on seeing him felt ashamed for having betrayed his confidence and stated that he had murdered the two ladies at the behest of the petitioner.Blood stains were found in the BMW car of the petitioner and as per the opinion of the expert of the C.F.S.L. Bombay, the mats of the car were stained with human blood.Some fibres were also found from the boot of the car and as per the report of the C.F.S.L. the fibres were from the same bad sheet in which Sujata Saha's body was wrapped.Saini in his statement confirmed that after the accused left he found one bed sheet to be missing.The torn pieces of the bed sheet in which Sujata Saha's body was found was identified by Saini as the one found missing from his house.As Per the prosecution, another clinching factor which proves the complicity of the petitioner in the crime is that he had employed one Vikram Singh, Managing Director of a detective agency, to tail Sujata Saha.Vikram Singh in his statement has pointed out that the petitioner had specifically told him on 5th June 1996 as she was to remain in her office till 6 P.M. on that day and was to meet him thereafter.Learned counsel for the respondent made a strong plea that calling off the surveillance for 6th June 1996 when the deceased were kidnapped is crucial.In case the surveillance was not called of it would have been difficult to implement the plan.Having regard to the above material, ex facie the petitioner cannot claim that he along with the deceased was kidnapped by the other accused persons and was not privy to the crime.",['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']
"A.No.02/16 by which conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court in Case FIR No.890/2015 registered under Section 356/379/411 IPC at Police Station Saket were upheld.The petitioner was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three years for commission of offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and Simple Imprisonment for one year under Section 356 IPC.Both the sentences were directed to run consecutively i.e. one after the other.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.The incident of mobile snatching took place on 27.7.2015 at around 11.00 p.m. The Investigating Officer on receipt of the complaint Crl.Rev.318/2016 Page 1 of 3 (Ex.PW-1/A) lodged the FIR on the same day.In the complaint, the complainant Shilpi Singh disclosed that while she was crossing the road at Select City Walk Mall, her mobile phone was snatched by the petitioner.On her raising alarm, he was arrested near the spot and the mobile was recovered from his possession.Instant Revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner to impugn a judgment dated 29.2.2016 of learned District and Sessions Judge in Crl.During investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for commission of the aforesaid offences.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses.In his 313 statement, the petitioner denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication.The trial resulted in conviction, as aforesaid.The appeal preferred by the petitioner resulted in its dismissal.Rev.318/2016 Page 1 of 3In her court statement as PW-1, the complainant proved the version given to the police at first instance without major variations.She identified the petitioner to be the assailant who had snatched the mobile phone on 27.7.2015 at around 11.00 p.m., when she had come out of Select City Mall and was crossing the road.The petitioner was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.PW-1/D).P1 is the mobile snatched from her.She was cross- examined at length.However, despite searching cross-examination, nothing material could be extracted to disbelieve her statement.No ulterior motive was assigned to the complainant for implicating the petitioner in a false case.The complainant was not acquainted with the petitioner prior to the incident.She had no ill-will or animosity to falsely rope him in the case.The complainant being a victim must be interested to bring the real culprit to book.In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the petitioner admitted his apprehension at the spot.He also admitted that the mobile was recovered from his Crl.Rev.318/2016 Page 2 of 3 possession.However, he took the defence that someone else has snatched the mobile phone and had thrown it on the ground.When it was lifted by him innocently, he was falsely implicated in this case.This defence does not inspire confidence; it deserves outright rejection.The defence pleaded is contrary to the suggestions put to the complainant in the cross-examination.As per PW-3's (ASI Lav Kumar) testimony, the mobile was recovered from the petitioner's pocket.Rev.318/2016 Page 2 of 3The petitioner, however, cannot be held guilty under two offences i.e. one under Section 379 IPC and the other under Section 356 IPC simultaneously.The offence proved would fall either under Section 379 IPC or 356 IPC.For a single transaction i.e. snatching of mobile from the complainant, the petitioner cannot be held liable for two distinct offences.He cannot be awarded different sentences in both the offences and that too to run consecutively i.e. one after the other.The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with copy of the order.Intimation be sent to Superintendent Jail.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE APRIL 21, 2017/sa Crl.Rev.318/2016 Page 3 of 3Rev.318/2016 Page 3 of 3","['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']"
5 12:31:51 +05'30',['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan,J.) Present two Appeals; Appeal No.5054 of 2005 (Shakeel Ahmad Vs.State of U.P.) and Appeal No. 146 of 2006 (Jamil Ahmad Vs.State of U.P.) have been filed against same judgement and order, therefore, both Appeals are taken up together and decided by this common judgement.According to F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 in brief, version of prosecution is that on 10.5.1998 at about 9.30 P.M. in night complainant Nasim Anwar and his father Abdul Gani were going back to their house from their hata situated in Mohalla Pura Rani alongwith Abu Talha son of Mohd Sami resident of Pura Rani and Anwar Ahmad son of Amanatullah resident of Hyderabad.. Abdul Gani father of complainant was talking with Abu Talha and Anwar Ahmad.Complainant Nasim Anwar was going behind them, when they reached near hata of Hazi Masood and house of Abdul Salam, accused appellantds Jamil Ahmad and Shakeel Ahmad who are resident of same mohalla of complainant, came suddenly from west side and accused appellant Shakeel Ahmad exhorted accused appellant Jamil Ahmad, whereupon accused appellant Jamil Ahmad fired at the back of Abdul Gani; father of complainant Nasim Anwar with close point.Having received injury Abdul Gani father of complainant Nasim Anwar fell down.Complainant Nasim Anwar and above persons accompanying father of complainant raised alarm and tried to catch accused appellant Jamil.Whereupon accused appellant Shakeel pointed out katta towards complainant and persons accompanying him and threatened that if anyone come forward he shall also be killed.Complainant Nasim Anwar and above persons accompanying him could not chase accused for a long distance due to fear.Both the accused appellants ran towards east intimidating complainant and persons accompanying him.According to F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 complainant Nasim Anwar and above persons accompanying him saw the occurrence in the light of torch and electricity and identified accused appellants Jamil and Shakeel very well.According to F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 when complainant Nasim Anwar after having chased accused appellants for a short distance came back to his father, his father succumbed to injuries on spot.According to F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 a quarrel had taken place between Abdul Gani father of complainant and accused appellant Jamil regarding fish and tenant of ahata of complainant Nasim Anwar about a week earlier to present occurrence and at that time accused Jamil had threatened to see the father of complainant very soon.According to F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 leaving the dead body of his father on spot complainant went to his house and get report Ext.Ka.-1 written by Nausad and presented the same in P.S. Mubarakpur with his signature.P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh has stated in his statement on oath that on 11.5.1998 at 3.45 p.m. he conducted post mortem of deceased Haji Abdul Gani son of Rahmatulla resident of Mohalla Pura Rani P.S. Mubarakpur.The dead body was brought in sealed cover by Constable No.CP 458 Patru Ram and Constable No.C.P. Amit Kumar Misra and was identified by said two constables.P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh has proved post mortem report of deceased Haji Abdul Gani Ext.He has stated that the death of deceased Abdul Gani may occur on 10.5.1998 at 9.30 to 10.00 P.m.. He has further stated in his statement that the ante mortem injury found on the dead body of deceased Abdul Gani was sufficient to cause death immediately.P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh has stated in his statement that the ante mortem injury found on the dead body of deceased may be caused by katta also.P.W.-6 S.I. Omkar Singh is the Investigating Officer.He has stated in his statement that on 10.5.1998 he was posted in P.S. Mubarakpur.On that day at 22.30 P.M. Crime No.295 of 1998 under Section 302.504,506 I.P.C. was registered in his presence at P.S. Mubarakpur.He took investigation into his hands and made copy of chik F.I.R. and G.D. relating to registration of crime in case diary.Thereafter, on 11.5.1998 he recorded statement of complainant Nasim Anwar under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and inspected torch of complainant Nasim Anwar in the light of which he has seen occurrence.Thereafter he entrusted the torch in his supurdagi.P.W.-6 S.I. Omkar Singh has proved Memo of torch Ext.He has stated in his statement that he made inspection of spot at the pointing out of complainant.He took blood stained earth and plain earth from the place of occurrence and prepared memo.He has further stated that he recovered bullet (frontal part of bullet) also from the place of occurrence and prepared recovery memo.P.W.-6 S.I. Omkar Singh has proved in his statement Memo of blood stained earth and plain earth Ext.Ka.-7, recovery memo of bullet Ext.Ka-8 and site plan Ext.Ka.-9 in accordance with law.P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla has stated in his statement that on 10.5.1998 he was posted as Sub-inspector in police chauki Mubarakpur.On that day murder of Haji Abdul Gani was committed in town Mubarakpur for which crime was registered in P.S. Mubarakpur.Having received information he went to spot.In his statement he has proved inquest report Ext.Ka.-10, letter to R.I. for post mortem Ext.Ka-11, letter to C.M.S. for post mortem Ext.Ka.-12, photo nash Ext.Ka.-13 and challan nash Ext.He has stated in cross examination made by defence on page 5 (page 47 of paper book) that section 504, 506 I.P.C. escaped from writing on Ext.Ka-10, Ext.Ka-11 and Ext.Ka-12, report to C.M.S. Ext.Ka-11, report to R.I. Ext.Ka-10, , photo nash Ext.Ka-13 and challan nash Ext.Ka-14 and section 504 and 506 I.P.C. were subsequently added in report to C.M.S. Ext.Ka-11, report to R.I. Ext.Ka-10, photo nash Ext.Ka-13 and challan nash Ext.Thus, it is apparent that complainant had old enmity with said Imtiyaz and his family members but complainant has not named said Imtiyaz or his family members in the murder of his father.Therefore, false implication of accused appellants due to animosity is not acceptable.P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in his statement on oath that when they reached near house of Abdul Salam both accused appellants came from gali of west and accused Jamil fired at his father from his back.In F.I.R. Ext.Out of which injury No.1 is wound of entry and the injury no.2 is wound of exit.Said wound of entry is on left side of back, 15 cm.below shoulder border and 2 cm.left from midline.Tattooing and blackening were found on this injury.Thus, post mortem report Ext.Time of death is also corroborated by post mortem report Ext.Above two appeals have been filed by accused Shakeel Ahmad and Jamil Ahmad respectively under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against judgement and order dated 11.11.2005 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.5, Azamgarh in Session Trial No. 76 of 1999, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh has convicted accused appellant Jamil Ahmad for offences punishable under Sections 302 I.P.C. and 506(2) I.P.C. and accused appellant Shakeel Ahmad for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and 506(2) I.P.C..Learned Additional Session Judge has sentenced vide his impugned judgement and order dated 11.11.2005 to accused appellant Jamil Ahmad for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. to imprisonment for life and fine of Rupees one thousand and for offence punishable under Section 506(2) I.P.C. to imprisonment for six months and to accused appellant Shakeel Ahmad for offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. to imprisonment for life and fine of Rupees one thousand and for offence punishable under Section 506(2) I.P.C. to imprisonment for six months.Learned Additional Session Judge has ordered each accused appellants to undergo imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine.Learned Additional Session Judge further ordered that all sentences awarded to each appellants accused shall run concurrently.Sri Rajesh Pratap Singh, Advocate and Sri Rajul Bhargava, Advocate, learned counsel appeared for accused appellants and Sri Narendra Kumar Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. appeared for State respondent.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused records.On the basis of above First Information Report Ext.Ka-1 Crime No.295 of 1998 under Sections 302,504,506 I.P.C. was registered in P.S. Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh against accused appellants Jamil Ahmad and Shakeel Ahmad and investigation was started by police.Inquest report of deceased Abdul Gani was prepared by police and after having completed necessary formalities dead body of Abdul Gani, father of complainant was sent for post mortem in sealed cover.During investigation at the pointing out of accused appellant Jamil recovery of 303 bore katta allegedly used in the murder of deceased Abdul Gani is reported to have been made alongwith one fired cartridge and three live cartridge and recovery memo Ext.Ka.-15 has been prepared.Thereafter, investigation has been completed by police in accordance with law and after having completed investigation police submitted charge sheet against accused appellants Jamil Ahmad and Shakeel Ahmad under Sections 302,504 and 506 I.P.C., whereupon concerned Magistrate took cognizance and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of session for trial of both accused appellants.Thereafter, Session Trial No. 76 of 1999, State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.Jamil and another under Sections 302,504,506 I.P.C. was registered in the Session court of district Azamgarh.Later on, said Session trial was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Azamgarh who framed charges against accused Jamil Ahmand for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506(2) I.P.C. and against accused Shakeel Ahmad for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 506 (2)( I.P.C.. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Prosecution examined P.W.-1 Abu Talha, P.W.-2 Anwar Ahmad, P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar, P.W.-4 Head Moharrir Uday Pratap Pandey, P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh, P.W.-6 S.I. Omkar Singh, Investigating Officer, P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla and P.W.-8 S.S.I. Ramakant Pandey, Investigating Officer.After evidence of prosecution statements of both accused appellants were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. Both of them stated that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity.D.W.-1 Jagdamba Prasad Dubey, Junior Engineer, Electricity department was examined on behalf of accused appellants in defence.Learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.5, Azamgarh heard the arguments of both the parties and passed impugned judgement and order, whereby he has convicted and sentenced accused appellants as mentioned above.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that accused appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that F.I.R. is anti time and prosecution case is false and concocted.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that prosecution has examined three witnesses of occurrence.Out of which P.W.-1 Abu Talha and P.W.-2 Anwar Ahmad have not supported version of prosecution and they have been declared hostile.Only P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has supported version of prosecution but Nasim Anwar is neither injured nor blood stains were found on his body or cloths.Therefore, there is no guarantee of his presence at the time of occurrence.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar is full of contradiction also and it is quite unsafe to place reliance upon his solitary statement.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that prosecution has failed to prove the source of light.He further contended that I.O. has not shown electric bulb in site plan and D.W.-1 Jagdamba Prasad Dubey, Junior Engineer has stated on oath that at the time of occurrence there was no supply of electricity.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that prosecution has failed to prove motive of occurrence also.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that investigation is defective.I.O. has not shown in site plan place of witnesses from where they have seen occurrence.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in cross examination that police took the dead body of his father to police station in the night of occurrence at about 11 or 11.30 P.M., while the inquest report Ext. Ka-12 shows that it has been prepared on spot on 11.5.1998 between 5.15 A.M. to 6.30 A.M.. This also leads to adverse inference against truthfulness of prosecution version.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that occurrence has taken place in dark night by unknown person and the accused appellants have been falsely implicated due to enmity.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that in view of above contentions, the evidence on record is not sufficient to convict accused appellants, therefore, the conviction recorded by trial court is against evidence as well as law.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended that accused appellant Jamil was juvenile at the time of occurrence.Therefore, whole trial is vitiated.Learned counsel for accused appellants prayed that both the appeals should be allowed and both accused appellants should be acquitted.Learned counsel for accused appellants placed reliance on following pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court:-1- Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) Vs.2- Marudanal Augusti Vs.Learned A.G.A. contended that F.I.R. is prompt and P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar is the son of deceased and is a natural witness.His solitary statement is sufficient to convict accused appellants.Learned A.G.A. contended that the statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar is corroborated by medical evidence as well as statement of I.O. and site plan.Learned A.G.A. contended that accused appellant Jamil has not pressed plea of juvenility before trial court.Learned A.G.A. contended that the conviction recorded by trial court is in accordance with law and sentences awarded by trial court are not excessive, therefore, there is no sufficient ground for interference in the impugned judgement and order.Learned A.G.A. prayed that the appeal should be dismissed.We have considered the submissions made by the parties.Out of 8 witnesses examined by prosecution P.W.-1 Abu Talha, P.W.-2 Anwar Ahmad and P.W.-3 Nasim Anwar are witnesses of fact and occurrence but P.W.-1 Abu Talha and P.W.-2 Anwar Ahmad have turned hostile and they have not supported version of prosecution in their statements.He has stated in his statement on oath that after occurrence he came to his house and got written F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 by his cousin brother Naushad Ahmad and signed it.Thereafter, he went to police station with this report and presented the same in police station.P.W.-4 Head Moharrir Uday Pratap Pandey has stated in his statement that on 10.5.1998 he was posted in police station Mubarakpur on the post of Head Moharrir.He made entry of registration of the crime at the same time in G.D at Rapat No.32.. He has proved the said chik report Ext.Ka-2 and G.D. relating to registration of crime Ext.P.W.-4 Head Moharrir Uday Pratap Pandey has stated that on the same day on 10.5.1998 he sent special report of crime at 23.30 P.M. through Constable Ram Belash to higher officer.Copy of which he is filing.Trial court has markted Ext.Ka-4 on said copy.P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla has stated in his statement that the dead body was kept in sealed cover and specimen seal was prepared by him.P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla has stated in his statement that on 17.5.1998 accused Shakeel and Jamil were arrested at 4.00 A.M. in the morning.P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla has further stated in his statement that on the pointing out of accused Jamil Ahmad one country made katta of 303 bore one fired cartridge and three live cartridges of 303 bore were recovered from the bush situated in Saiyadwara.He has proved recovery memo of katta and said cartridges Ext.Ka-15 in his statement.P.W.-8 S.S.I. Ramakant Pandey is the Investigating Officer.He has stated in his statement that on 14.5.1998 he was posted as S.O. at police station Mubarakpur and took over investigation of this crime.He has stated in his statement that on 17.5.1998 he arrested accused Shakeel and Jamil at 4.00 A.M. in the morning.He has stated that on the pointing out of accused Jamil Ahmad one country made katta of 303 bore, one fired cartridge and three live cartridges of 303 bore were recovered from the bush.He has stated that the recovery memo of said katta and cartridges were prepared by S.I. Swami Nath Shukla P.W.-7 on spot.He has also proved recovery memo of said katta and cartridges Ext.He has stated that he also signed said recovery memo of katta and cartridges Ext.P.W.-8 S.S.I. Ramakant Pandey has stated in his statement that he has sent one fired cartridge and three live cartridges to Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, Lucknow.P.W.-8 S.S.I. Ramakant Pandey has stated that site plan of place of recovery was prepared by S.I. Swami Nath Shukla P.W.-7 on his direction which is Ext.He has proved charge sheet Ext.Ka-17 by identifying writing and signature of S.I. Umesh Chand Jaiswal.D.W.-1 Jagdamba Prasad Dubey, Junior Engineer, Electricity department has been examined on behalf of accused in defence.D.W.-1 Jagdamba Prasad Dubey has stated that in intervening night of 10/11-5-1998 supply of electricity was curtailed from 19.15 p.m. to 22.15 p.m.. He has proved in his statement copy of log book Ext.Kha-1 also.We have examined the evidence adduced by the parties carefully.First and most important point for determination in this appeal is as to whether F.I.R. is anti time.Learned counsel for accused appellants has tried to show that F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 is anti time on following grounds:-1- That in inquest report Ext.Ka-12 Crime no.295 of 1998 under section 302 I.P.C. has been written while said Crime no. 295 of 1998 has been registered in P.S. Mubarakpur under section 302,504,506 I.P.C..2- That the papers prepared at the time of inquest report i.e. report to R.I. Ext.Ka-10, report to C.M.S. Ext.Ka-11, photo nash Ext.Ka-13 and challan nash Ext.Ka-14 show that in these papers also Crime no.295 of 1998 under section 302 I.P.C. was written initially and later on section 504 and 506 have been added.3- That neither section 157 Cr.P.C. nor clause 101 or 101-A of Police Regulation regarding special report has been complied with.Ka-12, report to C.M.S. Ext.Ka-11, report to R.I. Ext.Ka-10, photo nash Ext.Ka-13 and challan nash Ext.Learned counsel for accused appellants has contended that delay in dispatch of F.I.R. to Magistrate as well as special report also shows that F.I.R. was not in existence at the time alleged by prosecution.P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in his statement on oath that after occurrence he came to his house and dictated First Information Report to his cousin brother Nausad, who wrote report Ext.Thereafter, he signed said report and went to police station with First Information Report Ext.P.W.-4 Head Moharrir Uday Pratap Pandey has stated in his statement on oath that on 10.5.1998 at 22.30 P.M. he registered Crime no. 295 of 1998 under Section 302,504,506 I.P.C. on the basis of written report of complainant and chik F.I.R. Ext.Ka-2 was written by him at the same time.He has further stated that at the same time he made entry of registration of crime in G.D.. He has proved said G.D. Ext.Ka.-3 also.Ka-3 which have been prepared by P.W.-4 Head Moharrir Uday Pratap Pandey in discharge of his official duty have been regularly prepared.P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla has stated in his statement on oath that inquest report Ext.Ka-12, report to C.M.S. Ext.Ka-11, report to R.I. Ext.Ka-10, photo nash Ext.Ka-13 and challan nash Ext.Ka-14 have been written by him.Ka-14, it shall not be presumed that F.I.R. was not in existence at the time of preparation of these papers.P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in cross examination by defence on page 7 and 8 ( page 27 and 28 of paper book) that police of Chauki came on spot within 15 minutes after occurrence.He has stated that 3 or 4 Constables and Darogaji came and at the same time Darogaji prepared inquest report.P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in his cross examination on page 11 (page 31 of paper book) that perhaps police took away dead body of his father in the same night at 11-11.30 P.M. He has further stated in continuation of his above statement that firstly dead body was carried to police station on cot, thereafter next day in the morning at 6-7 A.M. dead body was sent to Azamgarh.They reached Azamgarh at 8.00 A.M..P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla has stated in cross examination at page 5 (page 47 of paper book) that date 10.5.1998 and time 23.50 mentioned in inquest report is the date and time of his arrival on the place of occurrence.The inquest report was prepared by him on 11.5.1998 after 5.00 A.M..P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla has stated in cross examination at page 4 (page 46 of paper book) that the police chauki on which he was posted at the time of occurrence is situated at a distance of 250 Meters from the place of occurrence.He has stated that on place of occurrence he reached after two hours of occurrence.At the time of occurrence he was not present at the chauki.In Column-I of inquest report Ext.Ka-12 following entries have been made:-10.5.98 - 22.30 10.5.98 - 23.50 eksgYyk iqjk jkuh izkjEHk iapk;rukek 11.5.98 - 5.15 A.M.The above statement of P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla, who has prepared inquest report Ext.Ka-12 shows that on 10.5.1998, 23.50 P.M. mentioned in the inquest report is the time of his arrival at the place of occurrence.Thus, it is apparent from the statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar as well as P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla that police reached on spot in night, therefore, the statement made by P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar that police took away the dead body of his father to police station on cot at about 11-11.30 P.M. in the same night is truth and it shows that how police acts in dealing with even heinous crimes. ""10.5.1998, 23.50"" written in inquest report Ext.Ka-12 shows that the preparation of inquest report was started at 23.50 P.M. in night but was not completed at that time.It shows laxity on the part of S.I. Swami Nath Shukla and it shall not cause adverse effect on prosecution case.In view of above, we are of the view that non-mentioning of section 504 and 506 I.P.C. on inquest report Ext.Ka-12, report to C.M.S. Ext.Ka-11, report to R.I. Ext.Ka-10, phot nash Ext.Ka-13, challan nash Ext.Ka-14 and addition of section 504 and 506 subsequently on said Exhibits Ka-10, Ka-11, Ka-13 and Ka-14 is the result of casual slip or mistake as well as laxity of P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla and no adverse presumption should be drawn against prosecution on this ground.P.W.-4 Head Moharrir Uday Pratap Pandey has stated in his statement on oath that on 10.5.1998 at 23.30 P.M. he sent special report of this crime to superior officers through Constable Bilal.In his statement on oath he has proved special report Ext.Thus, it is apparent from statement of P.W.-4 Head Moharrir Uday Pratap Pandey that special report was sent to superior officers in compliance of Clause 101 of Police Regulation.Learned counsel for accused appellants contended before us that special report has not been produced and proved before court.Ka-4 is copy of G.D. relating to dispatch of special report.Perusal of Ext.Ka-4 shows that it is copy of G.D. relating to special report.Copy of special report is not on record.But perusal of statement of P.W.-4 Head Moharrir Uday Pratap Pandey shows that defence has not cross-examined him about ext.Ka-4 and has not drawn his attention to the fact that document produced by him as Ext.Ka-4 is not special report but G.D. of special report.Defence has not challenged the sending of special report or contents of special report in cross-examination of P.W.-4 Head Moharrir Uday Pratap Pandey.Thus, it is apparent that defence has not challenged sending of special report by police.In view of above, we are of view that contention of learned counsel for accused appellants is not acceptable regarding special report.P.W.-4 Head Moharrir Uday Pratap Pandey has stated in his cross examination made by defence on page 2(page 34 of paper book) that he sent the chik F.I.R. next day by dock.Thus, it is apparent that Section 157 Cr.P.C. has also been complied with.Perusal of inquest report Ext.Ka-12 shows that copy of chik F.I.R. Ext.Ka-2 had been annexed with it.Post mortem report of deceased Haji Abdul Gani Ext.Ka-5 as well as statement of P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh, shows that post mortem of deceased Abdul Gani was conducted on 11.5.1998 at 3.45 P.M. by P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh.Post mortem report Ext.Ka-5 shows that seven enclosures were returned after post mortem.Defence has not cross examined P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh as to whether copy of chik F.I.R. was received to him alongwith inquest report or not.In view of discussions made above, we are of the view that the trial court has rightly held that there is no sufficient ground to believe that F.I.R. is anti time.Now we shall examine source of light.In F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 complainant Nasim Anwar has mentioned that he and witnesses named in F.I.R. saw accused appellants Jamil and Shakeel in the light of torch and electricity and identified them very well.P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in his statement on oath that he saw the accused appellants in the light of torch and bulb and identified them very well.In site plan Ext.Ka-7, I.O. has not shown the place where bulb was lighting.P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in cross examination at Page-7 (Page-27 of paper book) that only one bulb was lighting under railing of house of Abdul Salam.In site plan Ext.Ka-7 house of Abdul Salam has been shown by I.O. adjacent to place of occurrence, therefore, light of bulb fixed under the railing of house of Abdul Salam may easily reach to the place of occurrence.Defence has examined D.W.-1 Jagdamba Prasad Dubey, Junior Engineer of Electricity department who has proved log book Ext.Kha-1 and has stated that at the time of occurrence there was no electric supply in the locality of place of occurrence.Defence has not suggested in cross examination to P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar that there was no bulb in the house of Abdul Salam.Contrary to it, defence has tried to prove that there was no electric supply at the time of occurrence.In such circumstances, we are of the view that there is no ground to disbelieve the statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar regarding bulb at the house of Abdul Salam.I.O. has not shown bulb in site plan, merely on this ground statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar in this respect may not be disbelieved.It is relevant to mention that now-a-days bulbs are used to light with aid of Inverter and Battery as well as electricity produced by Generator during break down period of electricity..P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has mentioned in F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 as well as in his statement on oath that he had torch also.He has proved Memo of torch Ext.Ka-6 in his statement.P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in his statement on oath that in the light of torch and bulb, he has identified accused appellants very well.P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has produced his torch before trial court at the time of his statement.Having considered the statements of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar and P.W.-6 S.I. Omkar Singh as well as Memo of torch Ext.Ka-6 and torch material Ext.-1, we are of the view that source of light has been proved at the time of occurrence.In absence of electric supply, bulb may be lighted with Battery and Inverter or electricity product by generator and there is nothing on record to show that the house in which bulb is alleged to have lighting, had no Inverter or Battery or generator at the time of occurrence.Now we shall examine motive of occurrence.In F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 complainant Nasim Anwar has mentioned that about one week earlier to occurrence there had taken place a quarrel between Abdul Gani father of complainant and accused appellant Jamil regarding fish and tenant of ahata of complainant Nasim Anwar.Complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in his statement on oath also that before this occurrence there had taken place a quarrel between accused appellants and tenant of hata in which father of complainant forbade accused appellants to quarrel in his ahata.Because of this accused appellants felt annoyed with his father also.Cause/motive of occurrence alleged in F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 has been proved by P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar.P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in cross examination at Page-4(Page-24 of paper book) that in presence of him, there did never take place any quarrel between his father and accused appellants.This statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar shows that the quarrel between father of complainant and accused appellants alleged in F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 as well as in statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar did not take place in presence of complainant and complainant has only hearsay knowledge about said quarrel.In view of hearsay evidence of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar, the alleged quarrel between father of complainant and accused appellants cannot be said to have been proved in the eyes of law but in the case of Brahm Swaroop and another Vs.State of U.P. A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 280, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that,"" If the evidence of eyes witnesses is trustworthy and believed by the court, the question of motive becomes totally irrelevant.""In site plan Ext.Ka-7 I.O. has not shown place from where witnesses have seen the occurrence.On this ground learned counsel for accused appellants has contended that investigation is defective.In similar situation different persons show different behavior.In sad demise of dear and near some people weep, some people keep mum.Some people do not dare to see deceased.Therefore, considering variation of human conduct it is not necessary that every son shall fell down on his deceased or seriously injured father.In view of above, blood stains on clothes or body is not a criteria to judge presence of witness.Therefore, presence of P.W.-3 Nasim Anwar may not be denied on the ground that no blood stain was found on his clothes or body.According to F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 at the time of occurrence complainant Nasim Anwar and his father Haji Abdul Gani were going from their ahata to their house alongwith P.W.-1 Abu Talha and P.W.-2 Anwar Ahmad.The place of occurrence lies in between ahata and house of complainant.There is no reasonable ground to disbelieve that deceased and his son complainant Nasim Anwar were not going together.It appears natural that in night for taking meal, they shall go to their house from their hata.Therefore, presence of complainant Nasim Anwar alongwith his father deceased Abdul Gani at the time of occurrence may not be said to be unnatural and unreliable.As discussed above, time of occurrence is 9.30 P.M. and F.I.R. has been lodged in police station Mubarakpur at 22.30 P.M. on the same day within one hour of occurrence; and conclusion drawn above shows that there is no sufficient ground to presume F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 anti time.Thus, there is sufficient ground to believe that F.I.R. is prompt.Certainly promptness of F.I.R. adds reliability to prosecution version and removes chance of concoction.Ka-1 he has mentioned that accused Jamil fired at back of his father with close range.Statement of P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh as well as post mortem report of deceased Abdul Gani Ext.Ka-5 shows that deceased Abdul Gani have two fire arm injuries.Ka-5 as well as statement of P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh corroborates the fact that deceased Abdul Gani has been caused injury by fire arm from the back side and with close range.Ka-1 as well as statement of P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh.Thus, we find that statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar is corroborated by medical evidence i.e. statement of P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh and post mortem report Ext.P.W.-6 S.I. Omkar Singh has stated in his statement that he recovered a bullet from the place of occurrence and prepared Fard of it Ext.Memo of bullet Ext.Ka-9 also shows that a fired bullet has been found on the spot.Site plan Ext.Ka-7 shows that in the wall of hata of Haji Masood a whole of bullet was also found by Investigating Officer P.W.-6 S.I. Omkar Singh which has been shown by him in site plan with letter 'B'.Blood was also found on the place of occurrence by P.W.-6 S.I. Omkar Singh.He has taken blood stained earth and plain earth from the place of occurrence and has prepared Memo of blood stained earth and plain earth Ext.Thus, place of occurrence alleged in F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 as well as in statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar is fully corroborated by site plan and I.O. P.W.-6 S.I. Omkar Singh.Complainant Nasim Anwar is the son of deceased Abdul Gani, therefore, he shall not spare real culprit and falsely implicate accused persons.As concluded above, there is no reason also for false implication.Learned counsel for accused appellants drawn our attention to the fact that P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has stated in his statement that accused Shakeel and Jamil came from west side and ran away towards east but according to site plan Ext.Ka-7, the gali on which occurrence took place is south to north and there is no passage or gali leading to east or west.We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant.Perusal of site plan shows that near place of occurrence there is open land in west of the passage through which complainant and his father was going ahata to their house.Site plan Ext.Ka-7 also shows that from the place of occurrence easily one may go towards east as there are space between houses.We have gone through entire statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar.His statement is fully in consonance with F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 and there is no contradiction in his statement.Learned counsel for accused appellants has drawn our attention to the statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar made in cross-examination by defence on Page-5 (Page 25 of Paper book) and contended that P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar has shifted place of occurrence by this statement.We have given our anxious thought to the submission of learned counsel for accused appellants.In aforesaid statement P.W.-3 Nasim Anwar has stated that this occurrence took place towards south from house of Ram Nath Koyri.Firing was done from south before reaching house of Ram Nath Koyri.At that time his father was towards south from house of Faizul Hasan.In site plan Ext.Ka-7 I.O. has shown house of Faizul Hasan and place of occurrence has been shown towards south from his house.There is no contradiction in statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar and site plan Ext.Ka-7 regarding place of occurrence.Statements of P.W.-7 S.I. Swami Nath Shukla, P.W.-8 S.I. Ramakant Pandey as well as recovery memo of katta and cartridges Ext.Ka-15 shows that on 17.5.1998 on the pointing out of accused Jamil one country made katta of 303 bore, one fired cartridge of 303 bore and three live cartridges of 303 bore were recovered on the pointing out of accused Jamil but bullet recovered from the place of occurrence has not been sent alongwith katta recovered on the pointing out of accused Jamil for ballistic expert opinion and in absence of ballistic expert opinion it cannot be said that the katta allegedly recovered on the pointing out of accused appellant Jamil was used in the murder of deceased Abdul Gani.But report of ballistic expert regarding bullet recovered from spot has only effect of corroborative evidence.Prosecution story as well as statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar may not be discarded merely on the ground of failure of I.O. to send bullet for ballistic examination.In the case of Brahm Swaroop and another Vs.Ka-5 and statement of P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh as well as by site plan Ext.Ka-7 and statement of P.W.-6 S.I. Omkar Singh.Thereafter learned trial court proceeded further in accordance with law.Since accused appellant Jamil did not press aforesaid application 62-B and relinquished claim of juvenility, therefore no enquiry regarding juvenility of accused appellant was required by trial court.Learned trial court has recorded finding that accused appellant Jamil Ahmad was not juvenile at the time of occurrence.Accused appellant Jamil Ahmad has again moved application before this court claiming him to be juvenile on the date of occurrence alongwith affidavit.Copies of family register and birth register have been annexed with affidavit as proof of age of accused appellant Jamil.The copy of birth register shows that date of birth of accused appellant Jamil has been entered 17.6.1982 in birth register vide order dated 4.3.2010 passed by Up Ziladhikari.The copy of family register relates to the year 2010 and age of accused appellant Jamil has been shown in pursuance of birth certificate in which his date of birth has been written vide order dated 4.3.2010 passed by Up Ziladhikari.Therefore, this date of birth of accused appellant Jamil is not acceptable.At present accused appellant Jamil is above thirty years.Now it is difficult to ascertain his age at the time of occurrence on the basis of ossification test.In view of above, we are of the view that there is no material on record to show that accused appellant Jamil was juvenile at the time of occurrence.Accused appellant Jamil himself has not pressed his application regarding claim of juvenility before trial court, therefore, raising plea of juvenility again before this Court is barred by principle of res judicata as well as principle of stoppel also.In view of above, we are of the view that learned trial court has not committed error in passing impugned judgement and order.In view of conclusion drawn above, it is apparent that solitary evidence of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar is sufficient to convict accused appellant Jamil.According to F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 as well as statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar, accused appellants Jamil and Shakeel came together at the place of occurrence and each of them were armed with kattas.According to F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 as well as statement of P.W.-3 complainant Nasim Anwar, accused appellant Shakeel gave exhortation, whereupon accused appellant Jamil fired at the father of complainant.It is apparent from F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 as well as statement of P.W.-3 Nasim Anwar that when complainant and persons present with him tried to catch accused appellant Jamil Ahmad, accused Shakeel Ahmad pointed out katta at them and thereafter both accused appellants ran away together.Post mortem report Ext.Ka-5 as well as statement of P.W.-5 Dr. R.A. Singh shows that ante mortem injury found on the dead body of deceased Haji Abdul Gani was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course at once.After having gone through entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as whole evidence on record, we are of the view that the evidence on record is sufficient to hold accused appellant Jamil guilty for offences punishable under section 302 and 506(2) I.P.C. and to accused appellant Shakeel for offences punishable under section 302/34 and 506(2)Perusal of impugned judgement and order shows that learned trial court has gone through entire evidence on record as well as facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial court has considered all relevant points in its impugned judgement.The findings recorded by trial court is based on judicious analysis of evidence as well as law.In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that the trial court has rightly convicted accused appellant Jamil for offences punishable under section 302 and 506(2) I.P.C. and accused appellant Shakeel for offences punishable under section 302/34 and 506(2)Sentences awarded by trial court are not excessive and no appeal has been filed by State of U.P. for enhancement of sentence.Therefore, we are of the view that there is no sufficient ground for interference in the impugned judgement and order passed by learned trial court.In view of above, we are of the view that both appeals have no merit and are liable to be dismissed.Both appeals are dismissed accordingly.Accused appellant Shakeel Ahmad is on bail.He shall surrender before trial court within 30 days from the date of this judgement for serving sentence awarded to him, failing which trial court shall ensure his arrest and shall send him to jail for serving sentence.Accused appellant Jamil is in jail.Learned trial court shall prepare conviction warrant in accordance with law.Let a copy of this judgement be sent to trial court for securing compliance.Send back records of trial court immediately.Order Date :-24.09.2014 LJ/-","['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard, Case-diary perused.This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.443/2017, registered at Police Station Tejaji Nagar, Indore, District Indore, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(K) and 354-D of IPC and under Section 67-A of I.T. Act.As per prosecution case, the prosecutrix lodged a report on 16.12.2017 at Police Station Tejaji Nagar, Indore, District Indore alleging that she works in Ashiba Foos Private Limited.During working days she came in contact with co-accused Satish, who also works with her in the same company as House Keeping Supervisor.Two years back, co-accused Satish asked her to meet at Rajwada and from there on the pretext of some conversation prosecutrix was taken to Krishna Avenue, Limbodi where co-accused Satish committed rape upon her and also prepared a video.Prosecutrix asked him to delete the said video but he has not deleted the same and she was left at Rajwada.Before HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.2329/2018 (Madhur V/s.State of M.P.) 3 nine months of lodging the FIR, applicant came to her and told that he has a video wherein she had physical relationship with Satish and also asked her to talk to him else her video will be viral.It is also alleged that applicant forwarded her video to one Lakhan and thereafter prosecutrix disclosed the whole incident to her brother, family members and police also.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence.There is no allegation against the applicant regarding rape.Police neither seized the mobile phone of Lakhan nor recorded his statement, therefore, no evidence is available against the applicant to connect him with the present crime.Conclusion of trial will take time, therefore, the applicant be released on bail.Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed.The HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.2329/2018 (Madhur V/s.(S.K.Awasthi) Judge ns Neeraj Sarvate 2018.01.25 13:39:31 +05'30'",['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code']
"Heard on admission.On perusal of the statement of witnesses, this appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.Thereafter, this period has been further extended by this Court.He has never misused the liberty.List the matter for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge pnm Digitally signed by POONAM LONDHE Date: 2019.09.24 10:49:44 +05'30'","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Case diary perused.This is first application under section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with the Crime no.253/2017 registered at police station - Rajgarh, Dist - Dhar for commission of the offence punishable under sections 376(1), 450, 506-II of IPC.As per the prosecution story, on 08/12/2017 at about 15.00 pm the applicant came to the house of the prosecutrix and caused beating with the prosecutrix.After that, he committed rape upon the prosecutrix.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present matter due to election rivalry.From the statement of the prosecutrix, it appears that there was some altercation between the applicant and the prosecutrix, in which, she sustained some injuries.To prove grave offence, the prosecutrix made false allegation of committing rape against the applicant.The applicant is in custody since 09/12/2017 without any specific reason.Investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed.Conclusion of the trial will take time.In these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Page no 2 On the other hand, learned public prosecutor for the respondent / State submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Thousand ) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. AWASTHI) JUDGE AMOL N MAHANAG 2018.01.10 15:39:46 +05'30'",['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code']
"In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 11.9.2013 in connection with Chapra P.S. Case No. 422 of 2013 dated 14.7.2013 under Sections 341/325/379/50634 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Ayub Biswas & Ors.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) (Tofique Uddin, J.)","['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The applicants have filed first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants are apprehending their arrest in the case bearing Criminal Complaint No.429/13 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia under Sections 294, 341, 323, 506-B of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of S.C.S.T.(Prevention of Atrocities)Heard the arguments of both the parties.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on the basis of false and fabricated facts a private complaint was filed before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia whereby the cognizance under Sections 294, 323, 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of S.C.S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was taken vide order dated 16.4.13 and order for warrant of arrest for securing the presence of the applicants was passed against them.Learned counsel further Suraj Singh Yadav vs. State of M.P. and anr.2 M.Cr.State of M.P., 2012(1)MPHT, 237 has submitted that as alleged by the complainant in the complaint mere saying Chamra, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of S.C.S.T. Act is not made out.Learned counsel further pleads that on the aforesaid allegations a report was lodged to the police station Pandokhar and the case was registered against the applicants as well as two other co-accused Mahendra and Jaswant.After investigation final report(Khatma Report) was filed against the applicants No. 1 and 2 However, the charge sheet was filed against the remaining co-accused and they were acquitted vide judgment dated 21.12.12 which indicates that allegations made against the applicants are totally baseless.Learned counsel further contends that there was no need to issue warrant of arrest against the applicants by the trial court whereas the cognizance was not taken under the heinous offences on the basis of private complaint filed by the Suraj Singh Yadav vs. State of M.P. and anr.3 M.Cr.On these grounds learned counsel has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the submissions and prayed for rejection of the bail application.During the course of argument, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted that Special Case S.T.No.88/11 instituted against co-accused Mahendra and Jaswant has already been decided vide judgment dated 21.12.12 and the co-accused of this alleged incident have already been acquitted.","['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"A.A.Naik, Adv.It appears that the applicant is facing Criminal Complaint instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.The facts, briefly stated, are as under :The respondent (Original complainant) was in need of money and hence, he wanted to sell the immovable property i.e. Block No.1 of House No.595/17, City Survey No.2066/11, Sheet No.32 at Jaripatka, Nagpur.The accused had expressed his wish to purchase the property.The complainant was ready ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 ::: 3 to sell the said property for a consideration of Rs.9,50,000/-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 :::plus the amount of capital gains tax which the complainant would be liable to pay after registration of sale deed.In the meanwhile, it is alleged that the accused had, without consent of the complainant, got the city survey record altered with ulterior motive.The complainant, therefore, was not ready to execute sale deed in favour of the accused.Thus, the dispute arose between the complainant and the accused.One Mr.N.K.Ghagarkar had mediated in the dispute.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 :::1. Heard Shri.for the Applicant, Shri.Pankaj Navlani, Adv.for Respondent No.1 and Shri.D.B.Yengal, A.P.P.By this application u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for to quash and set aside the order issuing process against the applicant dated 21st December, 2009 and for dismissal of Summary Criminal Complaint Case No.16576/09 pending on the file of 22nd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur.There was an agreement between the complainant and the accused dt.29.6.1996 whereby the accused was to pay consideration within the stipulated period and to get the sale deed registered on payment of full consideration within the stipulated time.The accused had agreed that if he fails to pay the full consideration within the agreed period and to get the sale deed executed, he shall pay an interest @ 18 % p.a.for the delay.The accused failed to pay the consideration as agreed and to get the sale deed executed from the complainant.After about nine years gap, the accused asked the complainant for execution and registration of sale deed in his favour.Thus, the accused agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,76,000/- and insisted for execution of sale deed.The complainant wanted ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 ::: 4 immediate payment, but the accused expressed his inability to pay immediate cash.The accused, however, agreed to give an undertaking and acknowledged his liability to the extent of Rs.2,76,000/- on the Stamp paper and gave two Cheques bearing Cheque No.101442, dt.31.3.2009 of Rs.1,56,000/- and another bearing Cheque No.101443, dt.30.6.2009 of Rs.1,20,000/-.Both the cheques were drawn in favour of Mr.According to the complainant, Mr.Ghagarkar was to return those Cheques when the accused pay cash amount in lieu of those Cheques.The Cheques were drawn upon Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. by Mr.Ghagarkar on behalf of the complainant and if the cheques are dishonored, the complainant was to exercise legal right against the accused.Thus, after delivery of those two Cheques, the complainant requested the accused to pay the cash amount in lieu of those cheques and to take back the Cheques from Mr. Ghagarkar.But the accused, though promised to make payment in cash, had no bona fide intention ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 ::: 5 to pay the amount.However, with mala fide intention and fradulent motive, he got the sale deed registered in his favour.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 :::It is the case of the complainant that, under instructions from Mr.Ghagarkar, he deposited the two Cheques in the Central Bank of India, Main Branch, S.P.Patel Marg, Nagpur on 29.9.2009; but the Cheque No.101443, dt.30.6.2009 for Rs.1,20,000/- was dishonored and returned unpaid on account of the remark ""payment stopped by the drawer/insufficient funds"", while in respect of Cheque no.101442, which was dt.,31.3.2009 for a sum of Rs.1,56,000/-, the said Cheque was dishonored for the reason the ""Cheque was outdated"".Thus, the complainant alleged that the accused did not pay any heed for to clear his liability towards the complainant.The accused had approached the complainant and instructed him to redeposit the Cheque No.101443, dt. 30.6.2009 for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- assuring payment, but same was returned with remarks ""stop payment/insufficient funds"".Thus, the complaint was filed for an offence punishable u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act r/w.Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 :::The learned 22nd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur, who perused the complaint, documents and after hearing the learned Advocate for the complainant, was pleased to issue process u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Issuance of process was challenged by the accused by filing Criminal Revision Application No.523 of 2010 which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 30.11.2010 by judgment and order in the said case.The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that, in the averments in the complaint, the complainant has stated indicating that the cheques in question were issued in favour of Mr.Ghagarkar by way of security for payment of cash amount assured by the accused.But Mr.Ghagarkar is not the complainant before the Court.According to him, the complainant in this case cannot be considered as a holder in due course since, according to the definition of the term ""Holder in due course"" u/s. 9 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, ""Holder in due course"" means any person who for consideration became the possessor of a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque if payable to bearer, or the payee or endorsee thereof, if payable to order, before the amount mentioned in it became payable and without having sufficient cause to believe that any defect existed in the title of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 ::: 7 person from whom he derived his title.. Thus, it is necessary for a person to be a holder of due course that he is in possession of the negotiable instrument.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 :::and Ors.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 :::JUDGE jaiswal ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:36:51 :::",['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
"This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.105/2016 registered by Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506/34 of IPC as well as the Criminal Case No.2396/2016 pending before the Court of JMFC, Gwalior.During the pendency of this application, an application under Section 320 (1) & (2) of CrPC has been filed on the ground that the parties have compromised their dispute, therefore, the criminal case may be quashed.","['Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"1 .6.2019 p.b.CRR 3340 of 2018 CRAN 3210 of 2018 In re: Manju Devi Agarwal @ Manju Agarwal & Ors.Mr. Saurav Chatterjee, Mr. Soumya Nag......for the petitioner.Mr. Arijit Bhushan Bagchi......for the O.P.In this revisional application, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceeding being G.R. Case No.907 of 2005 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipurduar arising out of Jaigaon Police Station Case No.85 of 2005 dated 29th November, 2005 under Sections 147/148/149/447/379/325/506 /120B of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner no.1 was married to Suresh Kumar Agarwal who is the brother of the opposite party no.2 of the instant case.However, on some matrimonial misunderstandings, the deceased father of the petitioner no.1 had instituted a case being Jaigaon Police Station Case No.69 of 2005 dated 29th September, 2005 under Sections 498A/325/34 of the IPC against the opposite party no.2 and others.The Investigating Agency has submitted a charge sheet being Charge Sheet No.4 of 2006 dated 25th January, 2006 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.It is submitted that on the intervention of friends, associates and well wishers, the disputes and discord by and between the petitioner no.1 and the brother of the opposite party no.2 have been resolved amicably and a compromise has been arrived at by and between the parties.As a 2 result, both the parties have resolved their differences once and for all and both the parties have decided to withdraw and/or amicably settle the disputes as well as other criminal proceedings.I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.(Shivakant Prasad, J.)","['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 21/08/2019 in connection with Sabang P.S. Case No. 327 of 2019 dated 29/07/2019 under Sections 448/325/307/354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Shyamal Sasmal ....petitioner.Mr. M. Chatterjee, Mr. B. Hutait ...for the petitioner.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Jay Sengupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Subsequently, an application was moved by informant with this contention that assailants gave indiscriminate firing over brother of informant and one of them was identified to be Pravendra @ Rahul, others may be identified if produced before informant and as there was previous enmity, hence, whole family was implicated by the informant.In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.The order reads thus:""Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release.""Order Date :- 9.7.2020 S.K.","['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Rejected md.CRM No. 5713 of 2016 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19.7.2016 in connection with Panchla Police Station Case No.197/2015 dated 05.06.2015 under Sections 448 / 427 /325 /326/ 307/354B /380 /379/436/120B of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:-Therefore, this application is rejected and dismissed.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.(Patherya,J.) (Debi Prosad Dey,J.) 2","['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Challenge is to an order dated 19.09.2018 passed by Special Judge, Gwalior (M.P.); whereby, charges under Sections 420, 467 and 406 of IPC are levelled against the petitioner on the allegation that while not holding the post as the President of the Society, the petitioner posing himself to be a President inducted 19 members in the society and executed sale-deeds between the period from 24.01.2003 to 17.11.2004 in favour of these 19 persons and embezzled Rs.2,88,500/-.To substantiate the contention, the petitioner led us through the documents filed along with the charge-sheet.On these contentions, petitioner seeks quashment of FIR.The respondents, on their turn, have repelled the contentions.","['Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"By this revision, the revision applicant questions legality, propriety and correctness of the Judgment and order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Akola in Criminal Appeal no 18 of 2009 dismissing the appeal which arose from the conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code in Summary Criminal Case No. 9602 of 2006 decided by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola.The facts, stated in brief, are as under :-That the first informant Ku.Swati Mhaisne lodged a report on 14.02.2006 at about 9 a.m. that she had gone to Shivam General Stores at Vardhman Nagar Kaulkhed, Akola to buy refill for the Pen.The applicant who was the shopkeeper was present in the shop.She gave Rs. 1/- to the applicant and asked for the refill.The applicant asked her name and called her inside and outraged her modesty by putting his hand on her cheek and also put his hand inside her petticoat, touching her ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:38:46 ::: 3 private part.The girl frightened by the incident went to her house and narrated the incident to her aunt and to her uncle.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:38:46 :::The prosecution had examined five witnesses.The applicant, in defence, examined himself and one witness.The trial Magistrate found the applicant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs300/- and in default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.I have heard the submissions canvassed by the learned Advocates for the respective parties at length and perused the record and proceedings.In the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:38:46 ::: 4 present case, the learned Advocate for the Applicant submitted that there was delay of about two days to lodge FIR and it is not explained by the prosecution.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:38:46 :::According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the evidence of the PW 1, 3 and 4 was of hearsay nature and could not have been relied upon by the Courts below as corroborating evidence.The learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for leniency and supporting the impugned Judgments delivered by the courts below, submitted that the conviction ought to be confirmed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:38:46 :::A careful approach has to be adopted by the court while dealing with a case alleging outrage of modesty.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:38:46 :::The revision application lacks merits and stands dismissed.",['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
"(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE tarunShri K.K Verma, learned counsel for the Objector.","['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"2 Cri.The prosecution's story, in short, is that on 23.9.1994 at about 12 O'clock in the night the complainant Jamni Bai (PW-1) was sleeping in her house situated at Village Bandharwar (Police Station Badamalhara District Chhattarpur).While sleeping she heard a sound of firing, and therefore she woke up.She saw the appellants standing in front of her.They had already entered into the house of the complainant.The appellant Chhotelal gave a cartridge to the appellant Jivanlal and directed him to fire.On firing by the appellant Jivanlal, Darua (PW-3) husband of the complainant sustained some injuries.Thereafter the appellant Chhotelal loaded the gun and fired upon the complainant Jamni Bai due to which she sustained a gun shot injury in her right thigh.Thereafter one more fire was done by the appellant Jivanlal.Two persons were standing in front of the house.They shouted for the appellants to come back and thereafter the appellants ran away.The complainant Jamni Bai lodged an FIR Ex.P-1 at Police Station Badamalhara in the same night at about 4:35 AM.The injured persons were sent for their medico legal examination and treatment.Dr. P.K.Jain (PW-10) at the Primary Health Centre, Badamalhara examined the victim Jamni Bai and gave his report Ex.He found three injuries to the victim Jamni Bai over her right parietal 3 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 region, near the left eye and right thigh caused by pellets.Those injuries were found simple in nature.Similarly, he examined the victim Darua and gave his report Ex.So many wounds of pin type pellets were found at four places of his body.Such wounds were found on the left shoulder, back of the right shoulder, near the left ear and left side of the head.The katta and cartridge which were alleged to be seized were not sent to the Reserved Inspector for their examination.Jamni Bai (PW-1) and Darua (PW-3) have stated that some persons entered into their house.Initially Jamni Bai heard a sound of fire and she sustained no injury from first fire.Thereafter she woke up and saw the appellants.6 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 Both the appellants had firearms of 12 bore.One more person was present with the appellants having a katta with him.The appellant Chhotelal assaulted by firing from a katta on the head of the victim Jamni Bai.He also assaulted by firing from katta to the victim Darua causing him injury on his left scapular region.(Delivered on the 21st day of December, 2012) This criminal appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10/9/1996 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur in ST No.1/1995, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:-He referred the victim Darua for his X-ray examination.In the X-ray, no bony injury was found.The police arrested the appellants and on interrogation the appellant Jivanlal gave an intimation about two cartridges and those two cartridges were recovered from his field.Similarly, the appellant Chhotelal gave an intimation about the handmade pistol and the handmade pistol of 12 bore was recovered from him.After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the JMFC Bijawar, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Chhattarpur and ultimately it was transferred to the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur.3 Cri.The appellants-accused abjured their guilt.They took a specific plea that they were falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity.In defence, Jhallu Raja (DW-1) and Balmukund Tiwari (DW-2) were examined.The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted the appellants for commission of offence punishable under 4 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 Sections 458, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and sentenced as mentioned above.4 Cri.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.That property was sent to the FSL, but no FSL report was submitted in the trial, and therefore it was not proved that the appellants had any firearm with them or they used such firearm.The appellants could not be convicted for any offence including the offence under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. In the alternate, it is submitted that the appellants remained in the custody for more than three months and they have faced the trial and 5 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 appeal for last 17 years, and therefore they may not be sent to the jail again.5 Cri.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that the conviction as well as the sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be correct and there is no basis by which any interference may be done in the appeal.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be considered as to whether the appeal of the appellants can be accepted? And whether the sentence directed by the trial Court against the appellants can be reduced?So far as the offence under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act is concerned, the appellants could be convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, if it is established that they had firearm at the time of the incident and they used the same.Whereas the appellants could be convicted for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, if they had firearm with them at the time of the incident or any firearm or ammunition was recovered from them.First of all the factual position relating to the incident may be considered.On shouting of the victims, some persons came to the spot, who saved the victims.The complainant Jamni Bai lodged an FIR Ex.P-1 at Police Station Badamalhara after 4 hours, whereas the police station was 12 kms away from the spot.The FIR lodged by the victim Jamni Bai was lodged with a delay of at least two hours.The victims were injured and after the incident they were taken to the Police Station.6 Cri.In the present case, the most important fact was that the victim Jamni Bai and her husband Darua identified the culprits in a dark night.It is established in the statements of the complainant Jamni Bai and her husband Darua that they had an enmity with the appellants.The enmity is a double edged weapon, that means due to enmity the appellants could assault the victims or due to that enmity the appellants could be falsely implicated by the victims, if the victims could not know about the actual culprits.In the present case a spot map Ex.P-2 was produced by the police, which was prepared by the Inspector M.K.Pathak (PW-9).In that spot map Inspector M.K. Pathak could not give any description relating to the 7 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 source of light.Also the complainant Jamni Bai and her husband Darua did not say anything about the source of light.Darua (PW-3) has admitted that Jhallu Raja was the first person, who came to his house and participated in taking the victims to the police station by a jeep.Jhallu Raja (DW-1) was not examined by the prosecution, but he was examined by the defence.He has stated that neither Jamni Bai nor Darua could identify the actual culprits and they were talking with each other that they could lodge the report against the enemies on the basis of suspicion.7 Cri.The appellants examined two defence witnesses Jhallu Raja (DW-1) because of the fact that a real story was told by the victims to Jhallu Raja (DW-1) soon after the incident and one Balmukund Tiwari (DW-2) was examined to prove the alibi of the appellant Jivanlal that at the time of incident, Jivanlal was working in a Panchayat held at Village Bandhawar.So far as the testimony of Balmukund Tiwari (DW-2) is concerned, it is strange that a meeting of the Panchayat took place at 2:00 AM in the night.No proceeding of such meeting was produced by the witness Balmukund Tiwari (DW-2) at the time of his statement, and therefore the testimony of Balmukund Tiwari cannot be relied upon.Therefore, the alibi relating to the appellant Jivanlal is not established.It is true that Jhallu Raja (DW-1) was the person, who took the victims to the police station, and therefore his testimony can be believed.But there is a 8 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 possibility that he was won over by the accused persons, and hence by his statement, the entire prosecution evidence cannot be thrown.But it is also possible that he was telling a truth before the trial Court.Under such a situation, the evidence given by the victim Jamni Bai (PW-1) and her husband Darua (PW-3) should be examined with great caution.8 Cri.In support of the evidence given by the victims Jamni Bai and her husband Darua, the FIR can be read as a corroborative piece of evidence which was lodged by the complainant Jamni Bai after 4 hours of the incident.Similarly, the testimony of the various doctors like Dr. Mahendra Khare (PW-2) and Dr. P.K.Jain (PW-10) may be considered.It is proved beyond doubt that both the victims sustained various injuries due to gun shot.Hence it is proved beyond doubt that someone assaulted the victims by firing from a gun, and therefore the offence under Sections 307, 458 of IPC was done by the culprits.But the entire testimony of the complainant and her husband is to be considered for the identification of the culprits.As discussed above, the complainant and her husband could not prove any source of light at the time of the incident.Evidently, they were sleeping in their house and nobody chased the culprits.No independent witness saw the actual culprit soon after the incident when they were running from the spot.Jhallu Raja and other witnesses 9 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 came very late so that they could not see the culprits on their own.The prosecution has examined Narayan (PW-5) son of the victims to say that he was an eye-witness in the case and he could identify the culprits.However, looking to his case diary statement, it would be apparent that he did not claim before the police that he could identify the culprits; therefore it appears that Narayan (PW-5) was sleeping at the time of incident and he could not see the culprits of the incident.No reason has been shown about the delay in recording the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the victim Darua.Therefore, it appears that a false case is created against the appellants on the basis of suspicion.9 Cri.There is a lot of contradiction between the statements given by the victims Jamni Bai (PW-1) and Darua (PW-3) with the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the victim Jamni Bai.In the FIR the victim Jamni Bai has clearly stated that there was only one firearm amongst all the four culprits and initially it was fired by the appellant Jivanlal, then appellant Chhotelal provided a cartridge to the Jivanlal and again he fired.Thereafter appellant Chhotelal took that katta from the appellant Jivanlal and he fired from the katta.Looking at the entire story mentioned in the FIR, it is duly 10 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 established that there was only one katta amongst the culprits, and therefore the police seized only katta in the case.But the victims Jamni Bai and Darua have stated before the trial Court that the appellants Chhotelal and Jivanlal had separate firearms with them and one more person had a firearm.This is a material contradiction between the statements of the victims and the version mentioned in the FIR.There is a lot of contradiction between the statements given by the victims Jamni Bai and Darua about the various fires done by the appellants Jivanlal or Chhotelal.Jamni Bai (PW-1) states that first fire was done while they were sleeping and thereafter appellant Chhotelal fired from a gun causing injury on the left shoulder of the victim Jamni Bai, whereas Jivanlal fired from the gun causing an injury in her thigh.Again Chhotelal fired three times causing injury on her head, whereas Jivanlal fired upon her husband causing injury on the shoulder of her husband, whereas Darua has stated that he sustained injury on his left shoulder caused by Chhotelal by firing.This is a material contradiction between the evidence given by the complainant Jamni Bai and her husband Darua.Jamni Bai says that it was Jivanlal who fired upon the victim Darua whereas Darua says that it was Chhotelal who fired upon him on his left scapular region.Such type of contradiction can arise if the victims could not see the actual culprits.The victims could not tell about the source 11 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 of light, and therefore there was no possibility that they could see the actual culprits.If there was a source of light available, then the culprits could fire upon the victims on their vital parts and both the victims could sustain some injuries on the chest or on some vital part of the body.Looking at the injuries of the victims, it appears that there was no source of light, and therefore the culprits could not have aimed upon the vital part of the body of these two victims.Under such circumstances, the testimony of the witness Jhallu Raja can be accepted that the victims could not see the actual culprits, and therefore they decided to allege the entire incident against the appellants due to enmity.10 Cri.11 Cri.It is true that the evidence of witness Jhallu Raja cannot be accepted beyond doubt, as he has created a doubt that there was no source of light at the spot and the victim could not see the actual culprits.In this connection the statement of one Harcharan Yadav (PW-4) may also be considered, who was examined as a prosecution witness.He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was also present when the victims were taken to the police station.They were injured and they were taken to the police station Badamalhara.He has also accepted that the victim Darua had told him that he had an enmity with the appellant Chhotelal, and therefore it would be proper to mention the name of Chhotelal and he had shown his suspicion against 12 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 the appellants to the witness Harcharan Yadav (PW-4).Though Harcharan Yadav was examined as a prosecution witness, but he was not declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor, and therefore being a prosecution witness, his testimony is binding on the prosecution.Under such circumstances, looking at the testimony of the witness Harcharan Yadav, it is proved beyond doubt that the victims Darua and Jamni Bai could not see the actual culprits and they named the appellants in the FIR on the basis of enmity.Looking at the statement of Harcharan Yadav, a strong doubt is created in the prosecution story and if a doubt is created, then benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused persons.It is not proved beyond doubt that the appellants were the persons who assaulted the victims by firing from various firearms or they entered into the house of the victims.Then the appellants could not be convicted for the offence under Sections 458 and 307 of IPC either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC.Similarly, the appellants could not be convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.12 Cri.They could not be convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act for that period.Inspector Pathak (PW-9) has stated that on interrogation the 13 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 appellant Jivanlal told about the cartridge which was recovered from him and the appellant Chhotelal told about handmade pistol and it was recovered.Out of these witnesses, Ramsanjivan (PW-7) was examined and he turned hostile, whereas the witness Narayandas was not examined.Looking at the evidence of witness Ramsanjivan, it appears that he was not an independent witness of the locality.He was resident of village Bamni, which was 25 kms away from Village Bandha, and therefore it would be clear that the Inspector Shri Pathak took a patent witness in the case and still those witnesses turned hostile.Therefore, the testimony of the Inspector Pathak cannot be believed beyond doubt and it is not proved beyond doubt that any cartridge was seized from the appellant Jivanlal or any handmade pistol was seized from the appellant Chhotelal.13 Cri.It is very strange that neither the firearm nor the cartridge was not sent for its examination to the Reserved Inspector so that such articles could be examined by the competent Armer.No such report has been filed with the charge sheet.Such article was sent to the FSL but no FSL report is ever exhibited in the case, and therefore it is not proved beyond doubt that the seized property was either a firearm or ammunition.Under such circumstances, the 14 Cri.P-17 given by the then DM Shri Julaniya does not appear to be given according to the law.In the order Ex.P-17, the entire discussion and opinion relating to the sanction was already mentioned in a cyclostyle format.Name of the accused persons with the seized property were filled up in cyclostyle manner in the format prepared in general, and therefore it cannot be said that Shri Julariya exercised his judicial discretion in grant of prosecution sanction, and therefore it was not a valid prosecution sanction in the eye of law.In absence of valid prosecution sanction, the appellants could not be tried or convicted for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellants were the culprits who assaulted the victims by firing from a gun or they had any firearm or ammunition.The appellants cannot be convicted for any offence though they were convicted by the trial Court.Hence the appeal filed by the appellants can be accepted.The 15 Cri.A. No.1579/1996 appellants are acquitted from all the charges appended against them by giving the benefit of doubt.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"When they had reached near the house of the appellant, the appellant who was sleeping outside his house woke up on the barking of a dog.Perhaps, he was irritated by this and consequently, snatched the vidnu (pointed instrument for tapping toddy) from Somla.Thereafter, he and the acquitted accused Pravin Dhodi caught Somla and the appellant pierced the vidnu on the left side of his stomach, as a consequence of which Somla fell down.Thereafter, the appellant and Pravin Dhodi ran away.JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.Through the appeal the appellant challenges the Judgment and order dated 7.9.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji camping at Daman, in Sessions Case No. 89 of 1987 convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for an offence under Section 302 of IPC.In short, the prosecution case runs as under:On 2.8.87, at about 1 p.m. the informant Bhula Bhagwan P.W. 1 Pemla Chagan and Magan Barsa were on their way to tap toddy.Immediately, behind the informant was Somla.The informant went to the house of Dhiru Sarpanch, P.W. 5 and informed him about the incident and when he returned to the place, of the incident thereafter, he found that Somla was dead.The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by the informant Bhula Bhagwan P.W. 1 on 2.8.87 at about 2 p.m. at police station Daman.On its basis, PSI E.J. Rassrio P.W. 10 registered an offence under Section 302 of IPC.The autopay on the corpse of Somla was conducted on 3.8.87' between 1 and 1.15 p.m. by Dr. Jog Atmararn P.W. 6 who found that the deceased had sustained a penetrating clear cut wound 1.5 cm on left 6th inter costal space which was accompanied by a penetrating injury to the left lung and heart.In the opinion of Dr. Atmaram the said injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and could be caused by the vidnu which was shown to him during his deposition.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner.There the appellant and co-accused Pravin Dhodi were charged for an offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.During the trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses.and Magan Barsa P.W. 3 were examined as eye witnesses.In defence, no witness was examined.The learned trial Judge believed the evidence vis-a-vis the appellant and convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated in para 1 but, acquitted the co-accused Pravin Dhodi whose acquittal has not being impugned by the State of Maharashtra.Although the appeal has been on the final hearing board since long, the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ramdas Sabban is absent.We feel that the evidence of two eye-witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant namely the informant Bhula Bhagwan P.W. 1 and Magan Barsa P.W. 3 inspires implicit confidence.The said witnesses have explained their presence on the place of the incident by alleging that on 2.8.87 at about 1 p.m. they had reached the house of the appellant along with the deceased Somla, while on way for tapping toddy.According to them, as a consequence of the barking of a dog, the appellant who was sleeping outside his house, woke up.Thereafter, he snatched the vidnu which Somla was carrying and caught him along with the acquitted co-accused Pravin Dhodi.Thereafter, the appellant inflicted a solitary vidnu blow on left side of the stomach (just below the ribs) of Somla.The said account furnished by these witnesses receives corroboration by the medical evidence.Dr. Atmaram P.W. 6 who performed the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased found that he had sustained a penetrating clear cut wound on the left 6th inter costal space which was accompanied by a penetrating injury to the left lung.In his opinion, the said injury could be caused by the vidnu shown to him.It is pertinent to point out that both these eye witnesses are independent witnesses having no axe to grind against the appellant.In our view, unless the appellant had fatally assaulted the deceased in the manner deposed to by them, they would not have falsely implicated him.Criminal Courts attach great significance to the prompt lodging of an F.I.R. because the same substantially eliminates chances of embellishment in the prosecution story, and that of false implication of the accused named thereunder.For the said reasons, we feel that the learned trial Judge acted correctly in finding the involvement of the appellant in the incident having been established beyond the place of doubt.This leaves us with the question of offence.Although the prosecution alleged motive against the appellant namely there was some enmity between him and the deceased Somla but that motive has not been accepted by the learned trial Judge for plausible reasons.It appears that the appellant who at the time of the incident was sleeping and was woken up by the barking of dog felt irritated and consequently snatched the vidnu which the deceased Somla was carrying and inflicted a solitary blow with the same on Somla's person.On these facts, bearing in mind that the appellant was initially unarmed, his act of inflicting a solitary vidnu injury on the person of Somla on the spur of moment would not fall within any of the four clauses of Section 300 of IPC the breach of which is punishable under Section 302 of IPC but instead would fall within that of the first part of Section 304 of IPC.In the result, this appeal is partly allowed.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Item No. 58And In the matter of: Sudhangshu Biswas & Anr.- versus -The State of West Bengal .Opposite Party Mr. Dwipanjan Chatterjee Mr. Apalak Basu For the Petitioners Mr. Bidyut Kumar Roy For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Hanskhali Police Station Case No.478 of 2011 dated 16.09.2011 under sections 448/379/427/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. 1 2 (Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J.) 2","['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw the present application of applicants No.1 Sittal Patel and applicant No.3 Hiralal Patel.Prayer is allowed.The application of applicants No.1 and 3 is dismissed being withdrawn.No common intention of the applicant can be presumed with the co-accused persons.No offence under Section 326 or 324 of IPC is made out against the present applicant either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC.Under such circumstances, she prays for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari","['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"It would appear that both the complainant and the petitioner were friends belonging to reasonably affluent families, and in the aftermath of a Crl.M.C. No.3290/2014 Page 1 of 7 get-together at the house of the complainant, the complainant had lodged the said FIR alleging theft of money and certain articles from his house by the petitioner / accused.M.C. No.3290/2014 Page 1 of 7The Investigating Officer is present in Court.The matter is stated to be under investigation and the charge sheet is yet to be filed.M.C. No.3290/2014 Page 7 of 7This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.237/2014 dated 15.06.2014, registered under Sections 380 IPC at police station Greater Kailash, at the instance of second respondent, Sh.The said Settlement Deed has also been annexed to this petition.Issue notice.The petitioner undertakes to this Court to deposit the aforesaid costs within the time granted and file the proof of the same.He has been explained the consequences of breach of this undertaking by his counsel.The petition stands disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA Judge JULY 31, 2014 dr Crl.M.C. No.3290/2014 Page 7 of 7","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"1. Heard Mr. Atul Kumar Shahi learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State.This second application for bail has been filed by applicant-Smt Mumtaj.seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 378 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Mainpuri, during the pendency of trial.The first Bail application of applicant was rejected vide order dated 19.11.2018, which reads as under:-""Heard Mr. Atul Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.This bail application has been filed by the applicant Smt. Mumtaj, seeking her enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 378 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri during the pendency of the trial.After the expiry of a period of one year from the date of marriage of the son of the applicant, an unfortunate incident occurred on 27.3.2018, in which the daughter-in-law of the applicant died.The inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 27.3.2018 itself not on the information of the applicant or any of her family members but on the information given by Shamshad Ali the father of the deceased.In the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the cause of death of the deceased was characterized as homicidal.The F.I.R. in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 27.3.2018 by the father of the deceased, which was registered as Case Crime No. 378 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri.In the aforesaid F.I.R., four persons namely, Arif (husband), Anwar (father-in-law), Mumtaz (mother-in-law), Asif (dewar) were nominated as the accused.The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of strangulation.A ligature mark in the size of 11 cm on the neck of the body of the deceased was found.The Police upon completion of the statutory investigation of the aforesaid case crime number submitted a charge-sheet dated 3.4.2018 against all the named accused.What has happened subsequent to the submission of the charge sheet dated 3.4.2018, has not been detailed in the affidavit accompanying the bail application nor the same could be disclosed at the time of hearing of the bail application by the learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased.The applicant is a lady and is in jail since 28.3.2018, having no criminal antecedents to her credit except the present one.On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that the applicant being a lady is liable to be enlarged on bail.Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.He submits that the deceased had died just after one year of marriage on account of asphyxia as a result of strangulation.The applicant is a charge sheeted accused.Per contra, the learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.","['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The petitioner is in custody for 177 days.The claim of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his client is standing on the same footing with one of the co-accused, who has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in connection with CRM No. 616 of 2017 on 13.02.2017 and the same has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the State.Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands allowed on parity.Let the petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kandi, Murshidabad upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, one of whom must be local and on further 2 condition that after release he shall report to the investigating officer of the case thrice in every week until further orders.The application for bail is thus disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey, J.)",['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Through: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Inspector Veer Singh, SHO, & Sub-Inspector Ombir, Police Station Nand Nagri, Delhi CORAM:The facts giving rise to the present appeal are within that on 25.01.1997 at about 11 AM one Maheshwari, sister of complainant Shishpal was returning alongwith her friend Dulari from School.The accused teased her, to which the complainant objected whereupon the accused slapped the complainant.The complainant alongwith his elder brother Kalyan Singh approached the accused.Complainant slapped the accused and asked him not to repeat his act.Thereafter, at about 1.45 PM, complainant and his brother were unloading wooden phattas from trolly in front of their house.The accused who used to give coaching and resided in their neighborhood came alongwith 10/12 boys.Accused and one other boy climbed the trolly.Accused had a knife in his hand and the other man had a khukri.It is further alleged that the other man started hitting the complainant with khukri but complainant could save himself.On this the accused uttered that complainant had slapped him, defamed him and he would kill the complainant on that day.By saying so, he attacked on the left side of the chest of the complainant.The complainant took a turn and the knife hit on the left armpit of the complainant.Accused again hit on the back side of the left thigh and left hip.Brother of the complainant came to save him.On careful scrutiny of his deposition before the court, it reveals that he stated that on 25.01.1997 at about 10.30 AM his sister Maheshwari came to his house and told that the appellant had given her a slap when she alongwith her friend Dulari were coming back from her Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 6 of 16 school and on the way, some students of appellant used filthy language against them and they complained about the same to the appellant.Thereafter, he alongwith his brother Kalyan Singh went to the accused and asked the accused as to why he had given a slap to his sister, on which he used hot words against them and thereupon he slapped him.He further deposed that at that time, accused extended threat that he would see him and left the place.It is further deposed that at about 1 PM when he alongwith his brother Kalyan were unloading the phattas from tractor trolley, accused Kamal alongwith 10/12 boys came there, some were armed with open khukhri and some were having open knives in their hands.When he was on trolley, he was caught hold of by one boy and accused Kamal started stabbing him.When his brother tried to save him, one another boy stopped him on the point of knife.He sustained injury in his armpit and on his left thigh and one stab injury on his left hip.He also sustained two stab injuries on left side below abdomen.It is further deposed that all the injuries were inflicted by the accused.The accused had also said that he would teach him a lesson for his insult.According to the witness, at the time of stabbing incident public persons had gathered, blood oozed out from his wounds and accused Kamal alongwith his associates ran away from the spot after extending threat that today he had escaped from him but he would kill him in the future.He was taken to hospital by police gypsy and got medically examined.According to witness, his statement was recorded in the hospital on the same day after 15/20 minutes of reach in the hospital.In his cross-examination he reiterated that he had received stab injuries twice in the tractor trolley and one Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 7 of 16 stab injury on ground.On the trolly one associate of Kamal had caught hold of him and other associates of Kamal were standing on the ground near trolly.He was grappeled by other 10/12 associates and when he jumped from the trolley, accused also jumped behind him.Thereafter he entered through the door of the other's house which was at a distance of one and a half meter from the trolly.He remained in the said house for about 6/7 minutes and blood fell down in the said house.His clothes were also blood smeared.In his cross-examination, he further deposed that after stitching his wounds doctor allowed his family members to meet him and at the time of recording his statement, he was wearing his blood stained clothes.He had stated before court that on the date of incident i.e. on 25.01.1997 at about 11.30 AM when his sister Maheshwari went to take his daughter Jyoti from her school, on the way accused Kamal slapped his sister.When his sister Maheshwari made complaint to him and his younger brother Shashi, they went near the school and asked the accused why he gave slap to his sister.He further deposed that the accused gave reply in hot words whereupon his brother Shashi slapped him.Appellant - Kamal went away from there after extending threat that he would see his brother after a while.At about 2 PM, when Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 8 of 16 they were unloading phattas from the tractor trolly, appellant - Kamal alongwith 10/12 of his associates came there.At that time his brother Shishpal was on trolly and he was caught hold of by two boys on ground.The accused alongwith his associates gave beatings to his brother on the trolly.He tried to free himself from those boys and to intervene and save his brother, whereupon one boy having khukhri stopped him on the point of khukhri.He further deposed that he himself saw his brother being stabbed by the accused Kamal and his associates.Thereafter, his brother jumped from the trolly and entered in the house of neighbours to save himself from the clutches of accused and his associates.He further deposed that the accused extended threat that today he had escaped from them but he would kill him in the future and ran away from the spot.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, JAggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 04.10.2001 thereby finding the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 307/506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and order on sentence of the same date, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two month, further the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 506 Part II of IPC the appellant has preferred the present Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 1 of 16 appeal.A. No. 770/2001 Page 1 of 16The other man with khukri stopped brother of the complainant.In the meantime crowd gathered there and the accused alongwith his associate ran away and while running, the accused left a threat that complainant survived on that day but would be killed on some other day.Thereafter, the injured was taken to GTB Hospital by Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 2 of 16 PCR van.MLC of the injured was collected and statement of injured was recorded whereupon the present case was registered against the accused.During investigation, the accused was arrested and made his disclosure statement.Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence under Section 307/506 of IPC was registered against the accused, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.A. No. 770/2001 Page 2 of 16To prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses.They are; Dr. B.D. Singh, (PW-1); Head Constable Ashwani Kumar (PW-2); Head Constable Ombir (PW-3); Kumari Maheshwari (PW-4); Dulari (PW-5); Kalyan Singh (PW-6); Shishpal (PW-7); Constable Sevinder Kumar (PW-8), Sub-Inspector Amar Singh (PW-9); Radhey Shyam (PW-10); Sub-Inspector Yogesh Malhotra (PW-11) and Constable Mahinder Singh (PW-12).Upon considering the facts, evidence led and the material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty for offence punishable under Sections 307 of IPC by impugned judgment dated 04.10.2001, and vide order on sentence of the same date the appellant was sentenced as indicated above.Hence, the appellant has filed the instant appeal against the judgment and order on sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge.Learned counsel for the appellant while arguing the case of the Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 3 of 16 appellant, contended that as per FIR the appellant Kamal climbed the trolly having phattas in it and inflicted knife injuries but subsequently in the court, the witnesses changed the total substratum of the case stating that Sheeshpal was caught hold of by one of the associates of the appellant and then the appellant inflicted injuries at his persons.It is further contended that Dulari (PW-5) stated before police that the appellant had passed sarcastic remarks against her and when the matter was reported to her brothers, they went to the place of the appellant and slapped him but in her statement before court, she had deposed that the students of the institution of the appellant passed certain remarks and the appellant was approached by Dulari and the appellant had not taken any action in the matter and in this way bother Dulari and Kumari Maheshwari had failed to established the incident of the day.With regard to the injuries suffered by the injured, it is contended that as per prosecution case, there was blood on the spot, clothes of Sheeshpal (PW-7) and on the wearing apparels of Kalyan Singh (PW-6) but the testimony has been opposed by the Complainant.Savender Kumar (PW-9) and Yogesh Malhotra (PW-11) Investigating Officer of the case, who had categorically deposed that there was no blood on the spot/either in the trolly or on the roof of the neighbours.Therefore, it is clear that the incident had not taken place at the alleged place and in fact Sheeshpal was stealing the phattas of someone and the incident had taken place and being unknown to the owner, he falsely implicated the appellant because of the morning incident.Attention is also drawn to the deposition of PW-7 where he deposed before Sub-Inspector Yogesh Malhotra that his blood stained Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 4 of 16 clothes with cut marks of the knife were lying at his residence but subsequently before the court, he deposed that the clothes had been stolen from the hospital.There is non-production of clothes with blood stain and cut marks, which clearly indicates that the clothes were destroyed and were not produced before the court.It is further urged that Sheeshpal (PW-7) disclosed in his statement that after the incident he had run to the house of a neighbour and the door was bolted by the neighbour and he had a fall on the roof but the prosecution neither examined nor produced the neighbour during the trial.Even the prosecution failed to show in the sketch, the trail of blood from the venue of incident i.e. trolly up to the house of the neighbour and even in the stair case or had seen any blood of the neighbours.So far as the injuries suffered by the injured are concerned, Dr. B.D.Singh (PW-1) had opined the nature of injury as being simple in nature and that too without mentioning the length, depth and breadth of the injury.Therefore, in such a situation the offence under Section 307 of IPC cannot be made out.It is further urged that Sheeshpal (PW-7) has belied his statement whereby he had stated that there were two stabbed injuries on the left side below stomach, but in the MLC, no such injury was found on his person.On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant urged for setting aside of the impugned judgment and order on sentence.A. No. 770/2001 Page 3 of 16A. No. 770/2001 Page 4 of 16A. No. 770/2001 Page 5 of 16Per contra, argument advanced by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State is that the accused/appellant was rightly held guilty under Section 307 of the IPC inasmuch as the complainant remained consistent on his statement regarding narration of the incident before the police as well as before the court and for convicting the accused for the offence under Section 307, the testimony of injured witness is sufficient.Therefore, the prosecution has successfully proven the offence of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and in such circumstances, the impugned judgment and order on sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge do not call for any interference and the same are liable to be upheld.The nominal roll of the appellant has been called for which reflects that the appellant had remained behind bars only for 7 days.I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the State and gone through the petition, impugned judgment and order on sentence and the material available on record.This court finds that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had held the appellant guilty on account of the injured witness, eye-witness.However, the said clothes were stolen from the hospital.A. No. 770/2001 Page 6 of 16A. No. 770/2001 Page 7 of 16From the deposition of the injured witness, it is revealed that at the time of incident, his brother Kalyan Singh (PW-6) was also accompanying him.Let the extracts of his deposition before court be scrutinized to find out any corroboration with the deposition of the injured witness.In his cross-examination he deposed that due to the stab injury the blood was oozing out and his clothes were also blood stained.Police did not take into possession his blood stained clothes and his brother's blood stained clothes were missing from the hospital.A. No. 770/2001 Page 8 of 16The other crucial witness in such cases is the deposition of the doctor and his opinion to know the nature of injuries.Dr. B.D. Singh (PW-1) CMO, GTB Hospital, deposed before court that on 25.01.1997 he had conducted medical examination of the injured Shishpal who was brought in emergency by ASI Lachman Singh vide MLC No. B- 217/97 (Ex. PW-1/A).He deposed that at the time of examination of the injured, the following injuries were found on the person of injured:CLW half inch left axial.A. No. 770/2001 Page 9 of 16CLW one inch on left hip with active bleeding.CLW one inch on left ey with active bleeding.This court has further perused the MLC of the injured, in which the doctor had opined the injuries caused on the victim to be of simple in nature.Another relevant witness for the purpose of proving guilt of the accused is Yogesh Malhotra (PW-11), who was Investigating Officer of the case.He had deposed before the court that on the date of incident he had received information regarding quarrel and when he reached the spot, HC Ombir and Ct.Shivender were already present.The injured was already removed to GTB Hospital by PCR Van.He went to the hospital and collected the MLC of injured Shishpal and also recorded his statement.He also recorded the statement of injured's brother, Kalyan Singh in the hospital.In his cross-examination he had deposed that no person was present at the spot only 10-15 persons were present but he did not inspect the site before going to the hospital.He also did not see the khukri cover at the place of incident before going to the hospital.He had also not inspected the trolly before going to the hospital.He had also not seen any blood lying on the ground before going to the hospital.He further deposed that when he recorded the statement of injured in hospital, he had already changed his clothes.He further deposed that he had not mentioned the place where the empty cover of the khukri was lying in the site plan Ex. PW-11/B.Perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 10 of 16 Additional Sessions Judge reveals that the appellant has been convicted for 307 read with section 506 of IPC on the basis of statement of injured and eye-witness.He further deposed that the appellant threatened him while leaving the spot that though he was saved on that day but he would not leave him.Not only this, Kalyan Singh (PW-6), the brother of the complainant/injured also corroborated the statement of the injured and has deposed that though he tried to save his brother but some other boy stopped him on the point of Khukhri and he himself had seen the appellant inflicting the stabbed injuries to the complainant/injured.A. No. 770/2001 Page 12 of 16A. No. 770/2001 Page 13 of 16 strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.""A. No. 770/2001 Page 13 of 16More so, the prosecution has not taken the blood stained clothes of the injured and could not send the same for FSL analysis.What is clear from the facts of the present case are that the injured had suffered injuries, appellant had caused injuries with some sharp object, which is not recovered by the prosecution and the injuries were opined by the doctor to be of simple in nature.Identity of the appellant is also established by the complainant as well as his brother Kalyan Singh (PW-6).This court also finds from the evidence and the material placed on record that the presence of the appellant at the spot on the date of incident; recovery of cover of khukhri at the place of incident; and identity of the appellant have been established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts.Accordingly, in the light of the evidence produced on record, as discussed above, this court finds that the Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 14 of 16 impugned judgment dated 04.10.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 307/506 of IPC, needs to be modified to the extent that the appellant is held guilty for the offence under Section 324 of IPC.It is ordered accordingly.A. No. 770/2001 Page 14 of 16Now on the quantum of sentence, this court observes that the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order on sentence dated 04.10.2001 has awarded a sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 307 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 506 of IPC.In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, considering the fact that the incident is of the year 1997 and the appellant has faced the agony of trial for the last more than 20 years, this court is of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be met if the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period of two years.It is ordered accordingly.Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed thereby converting the offence committed by the appellant from Section 307 IPC to Section 324 of IPC and modifying the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.However, the amount of fine shall remain the same and in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months.The appellant is directed to surrender before the trial court concerned within a period of 15 days to serve the remainder of Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 15 of 16 sentence of imprisonment.A. No. 770/2001 Page 15 of 16A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court for information and necessary steps.With aforesaid directions, the present appeal is disposed of.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE JULY 04, 2017 pkb Crl.A. No. 770/2001 Page 16 of 16A. No. 770/2001 Page 16 of 16","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In the complaint it was stated that on 14.9.2001 Saroj, daughter of complainant Nihal Singh died.When his nephew Mangal Singh went to meet Saroj he learnt that she had been killed by her husband Ishwar Singh, brother in law-Bhim Singh and father in law-Lok Ram.Kerosene oil was poured on her and then she was set on fire.Police registered a case relating to offences punishable under Section 304(B) and 498 (A) read with Section 34 IPC.On the basis of the aforesaid report an investigation was started.Stand of the appellant, Lok Ram was that he was serving at a school at the alleged time of incident.J U D G M E N T(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1204 of 2004)ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Leave granted.Appellant who has been directed to be impleaded as an accused in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') challenges the order passed by learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur.Background facts are as under:Respondent No.1-Nihal Singh's daughters Saroj and Kanta were married to Ishwar Singh and Bhim Singh, both sons of Appellant, Lok Ram.On 2.9.2001, respondent Nihal Singh filed a complaint at the Police Station, Fatehabad (Haryana), alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and moved an application for seizure of articles purported to have been given as dowry.Statements of various persons were recorded.During trial, complainant Nihal Singh moved an application under Section 319 of the Code.By order dated 6.9.2002 learned Sessions Judge rejected the application.On 4.12.2002, trial court convicted Ishwar Singh, Bhim Singh and their mother for commission of offences punishable under Section 304 (B) IPC and each was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.Against the order dated 6.9.2002 a revision petition was filed.The High Court by the impugned judgment directed the trial court to proceed against the appellant by summoning him.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the true scope and ambit of Section 319 of the Code has not been kept in view.The trial had continued to a considerable extent.However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Item No. 68And In the matter of: Jahur Khan & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Kasishwar Ghoshal For the Petitioners Mrs. Sujata Das For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Jhalda Police Station Case No. 05 of 2013 dated 19.1.2013 under sections 376/201/212/313/315/120B of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have also considered the case diary, the statement of the victim as well as the medical reports.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)","['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The facts relevant to the decision of this petition succinctly are that Zamir Ahmed, deceased husband of the petitioner, was a motor mechanic and was having his place of work near Inter-State Bus Terminal, Delhi.He used to repair shock absorbers and do other auto jobs in the repairs of motor vehicles etc. and he had kept his goods including shock absorbers, tools and implements in a box at the place of his work.He died on 7th March 1983 under mysterious circumstances as bodies of both Zamir Ahmed and his son Anis Ahmed aged about 19 years were found floating in river Yamuna.On 20th December, 1983, the petitioner lodged a report with the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sadar Circle, Delhi that the respondent, who is younger brother of her deceased husband, had stolen all the articles viz. shock absorbers, tools and implements etc. of her deceased husband by removing the box containing the same from the place of work of the deceased of his own house at 1074, First Floor, Kishanganj (Teliwara).As a result of the house search of the respondent, 170 big sized shock absorbers, 30 small sized shock absorbers, some tools and implements and the box containing the goods etc. were recovered and seized by the Police.The respondent moved an application dt. 26th September 1984 for return of the seized goods to him contending that he was rightful owner thereof and the same had no connection whatsoever with the alleged theft.He also pointed out that there was likelihood of the said goods being damaged in the event of the trial protracting over a long period and he would suffer irreparable loss on that account.The said request was opposed by the complainant-petitioner, who asserted that the goods in question belonged to her deceased husband Zamir Ahmed and had been stolen by the respondent from the place of his work taking advantage of her helplessness.The learned Magistrate vide order dt. 28th November, 1984 rejected the application of the respondent and directed that the articles be released to the complainant - Smt. Anisa Begum on her furnishing Super digamma in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-.Feeling aggrieved the respondent went in revision in the Court of Session.It was heard by an Additional Sessions Judge who vide impugned order dt. 8th February, 1985 set aside the aforesaid order of the Metropolitan Magistrate and directed that the seized articles be returned to the respondent - Masoom Ali.Hence, this revision petition by the complainant - petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Additional Sessions Judge.The controversy between the parties lies in a narrow compass, the crucial question for determination being whether the custody of the seized articles be entrusted to the complainant-petitioner or the accused-respondent pending conclusion of the trial.Revision allowed.","['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"ThisFIR shows that the police station was situated very close to the place ofoccurrence, i.e. about 300 yards on the west.PW-8 examined the injuries of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-6 on November 16, 1991 atBihia Block Hospital between 12:30 pm to 1:15 pm.He found all the injuries simple in nature but injuryNo.2 and 3 were penetrating wounds on chest, right side of back and lowerpart of right arm above elbow joint.On PW-3, he found two injuries, onewas incised wound over front portion of head 3” x ½” skin deep and theother was penetrating wound on the right side of abdomen ½” x ¼” x ¾”.Theinjuries were found to be simple.On PW-6, the informant, he found threeinjuries.One was a lacerated wound on the left side of head ¼” x ¼”xscalp deep upto bone, the second injury was also lacerated wound on leftside near middle of head 1” x ¼” x 1/6”.The third injury was a swelling3” x 2” on left buttock.A.K. SIKRI, J.Five appellants, who were tried for offence under Section302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted by thetrial court, have approached this Court after their conviction was upheldby the High Court as well vide impugned judgment dated September 28, 2007.During the pendency of this appeal, one of the accused persons, namelyHiralal Yadav, expired and the appeal qua him stood abated.The validityof the judgment of the High Court in respect of the remaining fourappellants is the subject matter of this appeal.To trace out the prosecution case in brief, it may be mentioned that onNovember 16, 1991, at about 9:00 am, Ajodhaya Yadav, armed with a lathi,and other four appellants armed with bhala, were ploughing a fieldbelonging to the informant while Kashinath Yadav exhorted others to killthe informant Ramji Yadav.Hiralal Yadav caused a bleeding injury on thehead of the informant with a bhala.The informant in order to save hislife shouted on which his uncle Ramayan Yadav (deceased), his fatherDharichhan Yadav (PW-1) and his brother Bir Bahadur Yadav (PW-3), came inorder to save him.Hiralal Yadav then caused a bhala injury on the chestand abdomen of the deceased who fell down and became unconscious.PW-1also fell down as he was assaulted with bhala by Kashinath Yadav and KamtaYadav causing injuries on his abdomen, back of the body and hand.PW-3 wasalso assaulted by Ajodhaya Yadav with lathi and also by Bhim Yadav withbhala on head causing bleeding injury.On the shouts raised by theinformant and his party, Dudhnath Yadav (PW-2) and Jagdish Yadav came andsaved them.Other persons from the village also came and thereafter theaccused persons stopped assaulting and fled away.The reason for theoccurrence was said to be a dispute over the land and litigation in thepast which had resulted in filing of a court case also.The Investigating Officer inspected theplace of occurrence; prepared Inquest Report (Exhibit – 3); sent the bodyfor postmortem examination and obtained postmortem report; recorded thestatement of witnesses, including further statement of the informant; andsubmitted charge-sheet for the offence under Section 302 and otherprovisions of the IPC.After taking cognizance, the Magistrate committedthe case to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed for variousoffences, including Section 302 IPC.The appellants pleaded 'Not Guilty'to the charges.After the trial, accused persons were found guilty by thetrial court for offence under Section 302 IPC and were awarded imprisonmentfor life.The judgments of the Courts below reflect that the prosecution, in order toprove its case, examined nine witnesses.PW-1, Dharichhan Yadav, is thefather of the informant.He also sustained injuries and claimed to be aneye witness to the occurrence, as mentioned in the FIR itself.He hasfully supported the prosecution case.PW-2, Dudhnath Yadav, is the brotherof PW-1, who came on the shouts raised, and has claimed to have seen theoccurrence.PW-3, Bir Bahadur Yadav, is the son of the deceased RamayanYadav.Like PW-1, he is also an injured eye witness to the incident.Hehas fully supported the prosecution case.Sonia Devi (PW-4) and MunesariDevi (PW-5) are mother and wife respectively of the informant.PW-4 hasclaimed to have gone to the place of occurrence on hearing the shouts andalso claimed to have seen the occurrence, whereas PW-5 stated that she wason the roof of her house and from there she saw the entire occurrence asthe place of incident was close to her house.Ramji Yadav (PW-6) is theinformant, who also suffered injuries and as claimed by him in thefardbayan as well as in his deposition in the Court, he saw the entireoccurrence from beginning till end.Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh (PW-7) held theautopsy on the dead body of the deceased.According to him, the postmortemexamination was held on November 17, 1991 at 8:00 am.He found thefollowing eight injuries on the dead body of the deceased:“(i) Incised wound with clean cut edges 1” x 2/10”x whole thickness of thepina of right ear.(ii) Incised wound 1½” x ½” x 2/10” on the upper portion of the right arm.(iii) Incised wound 1” x 2/10” x 2/10” on the back of the scalp left side.(iv) Incised wound 1/10” x 1/10” x 1/10” on the front of right shoulder.(v) Incised wound 1” x 1/2”x abdominal cavity deep on the right side ofabdomen upper portion.(vi) Swelling 2” x 2” on the left side of back of scalp.(vii) Penetrating wound with cut edges 1” x ½x chest cavity deep on theright side of chest.2½” away from midline almost in the middle.(viii) Incised wound ¾” x 1/10”x skin deep on the middle finger of righthand.” In his opinion, all the injuries were ante mortem caused by sharpcutting pointed instruments and the time elapsed since death was within 36hours of postmortem examination.He found the cause of death to be injuryNo.(vii), a penetrating wound 1” x ½” chest cavity deep on the right sideof chest.He has further opined that the injuries could be caused bybhala.However, injury No. (vi) could be caused by lathi also.Thestomach of the deceased contained undigested food material and the bladderwas empty.The injuries were simple.Some of the injurieson PW-1 and PW-3 were by sharp weapons like bhala, but in case of PW-6, thedoctor opined that the injuries were by hard and blunt substance likelathi.The age of injuries in respect of all the three injured was foundto be within six hours.The injury reports of the three injured wereproved by PW-8 as Exhibits – 2, 2/1 and 2/2 respectively.The investigation was done by Surajdeo Ram (PW-9), Investigating Officer,as pointed out earlier.During inspection, he found the place ofoccurrence to be a field belongiong to the informant in which potato crophad already been planted.He found that potato crop marks of three roundsof ploughing were visible.He also seized blood stained earth from theplace of occurrence.He has stated in his cross-examination that report ofthe occurrence was first received by him from Chowkidar and on that basis aStation Diary Entry was made but he did not record the statement ofChowkidar.He has admitted that he has written the Case Diary in asystematic manner, as the events unfolded, and the fardbayan is mentionedin paragraph 1 of the Case Diary.He has also stated that after thefardbayan, further statement of the informant was recorded and the place ofoccurrence was inspected and only thereafter formal FIR was instituted.According to his statement in the cross-examination, in respect of theearlier statements made by PWs 1, 2 and 3 under Section 161 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973, there was virtually no difference in what theyhad stated regarding the occurrence in Court.As far as PW-4 is concerned,she has deposed that she had not told him in clear terms, in her earlierstatement, as to which of the accused persons were having bhala and who wasploughing and that Hiralal had assaulted on head with bhala and thedeceased had received injury on head with bhala.She had also not statedon what part her husband (PW-1) had received injuries by bhala and that theaccused persons fled away on arrival of Jagdish and Dudhnath Yadav.Various contentions were raised before the High Court with an endeavour tofind loopholes in the judgment of the trial court regarding conviction ofthe appellants.It was argued that the time of offence had not been provedby the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt because the Doctor had opined,while conducting the postmortem examination on November 17, 1991 at 8:00am, that the death of the deceased appeared within 36 hours, whereasaccording to the prosecution case, death had taken place within 23 hours.It was also argued that the nature of injuries found on the deceased andinjured persons did not support the prosecution case.Another submissionwas that though the Investigating Officer (PW-9) had admitted in his cross-examination that information of the occurrence was first given by aChowkidar, which was incorporated in his Station Diary Entry as well, FIRwas not registered on the basis of said information and that Chowkidar wasnot even produced as a prosecution witness.All the aforesaid arguments have been rejected by the High Court as withoutany substance.It is not necessary to reproduce the discussion of the HighCourt on these arguments as before us the learned counsel pressed only lastof the aforesaid arguments, in addition to couple of other submissions.In the first instance, the learned counsel drew our attention to the FIRand referred to the following column regarding the place of incident:It was submitted that when the place of incident was 300 sq. yds.away, it was impossible for the witnesses to see the occurrence clearly andidentify the accused persons.fromthe Police Station in West direction.It is nowhere stated that those whowere eye witnesses to the incident had seen the occurrence from a distanceof 300 sq. yds.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Shortly stated, the prosecution story is as under:-- The accused Natarajan is a resident of South Karasery where he was living with his family.About six months prior to 4-3-1995, his mother-in-law Gomathiammal was residing with the accused.Adjacent to the house of the accused in the village, is the house of PW-1 Madathiammal, who was running a petty shop in the said house and her mother Shanmughavadivu and her daughter Mariammal also were residing in the said house.It is the prosecution's case that the accused had strained relationship with his mother-in-law as his mother-in-law used to nag the accused.There often used to be quarrels between the accused and his mother-in-law as the mother-in-law used to insist the accused for working and earning something for the family.It is the prosecution case that on 4-3-1995 at about 6 O' Clock in the evening, when she was standing in the front side of the house in her petty shop, when her mother Shanmughavadivu and her daughter Mariammal were standing in the courtyard of the back side of the house, she saw the accused chasing his mother-in-law, who was running.The accused was armed with a sickle.Gomathiammal jumped over the mud-wall in between the house of PW-1 Madathiammal and the accused and fell on her face near the courtyard of the house of the witneSections At that time, the accused dealt with sickle blows on his mother-in-law on her back.Seeing this, Shanmughavadivu shouted as to why he was assaulting the mother-in-law.The accused is said to have then assaulted Shanmughavadivu and dealt with sickle blows on her shoulder, below her chest and on her chest.Seeing this, PW-2 Mariammal also shouted as to why the accused was cutting her grand-mother.The accused thereafter came running and dealt with sickle, blows on Mariammal also on her left shoulder, neck, right shoulder and nape.Seeing this, when PW-1 Madathiammal asked the accused as to why he was assaulting her daughter, the accused dealt with sickle blows on Madathiammal on her neck, right shoulder and left forearm.Thereafter, the accused ran away with the sickle.The two ladies viz., Gomathi Ammal and Shanmughavadivu died on the spot.A car was hired by one Lakshmiammal and Arumughathammal and the two injured witnesses viz., Madathiammal and Mariammal were taken to Palayamkottai High Ground Hospital for treatment.On receiving information, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Seithunganallur Police Station came there and recorded a statement of Madathiammal, in which she narrated the whole story.This statement is treated by the prosecution as the First Information Report.The investigation was started on the basis of this First Information Report by the Police.It seems that the Investigating Officer Chinnaiah, who was then on duty as Inspector of Police, Law and Order, in the Central Police Station, Tuticorin, had received this information.He, therefore, came to Seithunganallur Police Station at 11.45 p.m. and after receiving the copy of the First Information Report, which was recorded by PW-14 Thiru, Kandasamy, first went to the Hospital and after interrogating the two injured witnessees and recording their statements, he then proceeded to the spot of occurrence in the same night.The inquest was conducted over the dead bodies of Gomathiammal and Shanmughavadivu.The bodies were then sent for autopsy to the Government Hospital, Srivaikuntam through Constable Sivakumar.The Investigating Offices then recorded the statements of other witnesses.The accused was arrested on 6-3-1995 at about 8.30 a.m. near Kalvoi Road.He was arrested in the presence of Chlthiraj and Ganesan.On his being asked, he agreed to discover the sickle used in committing the crime.The accused then took the Investigating Officer and discovered the sickle which was kept hidden at the western side wall of the terraced roof of Muppidathi Amman koil which is situated on the western side of Karunkulam-Moolakaraipatti road.JUDGMENT V.S. Sirpurkar, J.Referred Trial No. 1 of 1999 is a reference by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, for confirmation under Section 366 of Criminal Procedure Code of the death sentence passed against the accused Natarajan.He has been awarded the sentence of death as the Sessions Judge, Tuticorin has found him guilty of the offences under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code on two counts as also under Section 307, I.P.C. on two counts.Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 1999 has been filed by the accused against the finding of the conviction.The accused was then remanded to the judicial custody.The Investigating Officer later on seized the blood-stained clothes of the eye-witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 and sent all the materials to the Court.He gave a requisition to the Court for sending M.O. 1 to M.O. 18 and 21 to 24 for chemical examination.On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused.Charge was framed against the accused firstly, for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. for having committed the murder of Gomathiammal and on second count, again for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. for having committed the murder of Shanmughavadivu, so also under Section 307, I.P.C. on two counts for having attempted to commit murder of Madathiammal and Mariammal.The accused abjured guilt.Prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of the eye-witnesses, PW-1 Madathiammal, PW-2 Mariammal and PW-3 Sappanimuthu, out of whom PW-3 Sappanimuthu turned hostile, while the other two supported the prosecution PW-4 Lakshmi Ammal is a person, who took the injured in a Car to the Hospital.PW-5 Pechimuthu and PW-6 Chithiraj are the Panchayatdar witnesses on mahazar as well as on the discovery statements.PW-6 Chithiraj has turned hostile.PW-7 Jayakumar and PW-8 Ramasamy are the Doctors.Dr. Jayakumar conducted the postmortem examination on the body of Shanmughavadivu and found four injuries on her person which was ante-mortem injuries, while the body of Gomathiammal had as many as eight incised injuries.The Doctor described the injuries to be sufficient in the ordinary course of time to cause death and also pin-pointed the said injuries.Dr. Ramasamy has proved the Injury Certificates, which he had issued after he had treated PW-1 Madathiammal and PW-2 Mariammal.He found as many as three incised injuries on the person of Madathiammal PW-1 out of which he described Injury No. 1 to be the grievous injury as per X-Ray photographs.He also found four incised injuries on the person of Mariammal and he issued the Injury Certificate where wound Nos. 2 and 3 were grievous in nature as per the X-Ray.Prosecution also relied on the evidence of Dr. Duraipandian, PW-9 who examined the X-Ray photographs to prove the fractures on the persons of Mariammal and Madathiammal.PW-12 Mr. Mayandi, who was formerly Head Clerk in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Srivaikuntam, sent Exm. M. 1 to M. 18 and 21 to 24 for chemical analysis along with Ex. P-20, which was a requisition letter.Ex. P-21 is the report of the Chemical Analyst, while Ex. P-22 is the Serologist's report, PW-14 Kandasamy proved the First Information Report, while PW-15 Chinnayya deposed about the Investigation.The defence of the accused was extremely faulty.It was tried to be suggested that there was some altercation among the Villagers and there was an incident of stone throwing because of which, the two ladies were injured and lost their lives and the two other ladies were injured.The accused went on, however, to accept the guilt at the stage of examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of the eye-witnesses.He held that their presence at the spot to be absolutely natural.He also held that there was absolutely no reason for the two witnesses PW-1 Madathiammal and PW-2 Mariammal to depose falsely.He also accepted the medical evidence and the other incriminating evidence like the bloodstained articles and convicted the accused treating this to be the rarest of rare case.He has also chosen to award death sentence against the accused.On this factual backdrop, it has to be seen as to whether firstly, the accused can be held guilty for the offences charged with and secondly, whether this is a case where the death sentence awarded to the accused can be confirmed under Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code.There can be no dispute in this case that the death of Gomathiammal and Shanmughavadivu was homicidal.The presence of fatal injuries on the persons of both and the evidence of Dr. Jayakumar (PW-7) would be sufficient to hold that the two ladies, who did not have any injuries prior to the incident, died due to homicidal violence because of the injuries.The death of the two ladies, therefore, can be safely inferred to be homicidal death.The evidence in this case is both ocular and circumstantial in nature.In so far as the evidence of PW-1 Madathiammal and PW-2 Mariammal are concerned, both the witnesses have specifically stated about the active role played by the accused in bringing about the death of the two unfortunate ladies as also in assaulting themselves.The presence of both the witnesses was most natural at the spot as the incident had taken place in the courtyard of their house itself.There is absolutely no cross-examination to any of the witnesses more particularly to these two eye-witnesses as also the Investigating Officer regarding the topography of the scene.Considering the fact that the incident took place at 6 O' Clock in the evening would also go to show that their presence in the house would be natural.Both these witnesses have given a graphic description of the incident.According to both the witnesses, there used to be quarrels between the accused Natarajan and his mother-in-law, who had come to live with the accused since about six months prior to the incident.PW-1 Madathiammal then goes to describe the whole incident to the effect that the accused was quarrelling with his mother-in-law and then the mother-in-law was chased by the accused.At that time, the mother-in-law tried to jump over the small mud-wall, but tripped over the fire-wood and fell down on her face, when accused Natarajan started dealing blows with the sickle on her back.When we see the injuries on the person of Gomathiammal, there is enough corroboration to this version as the injuries on the person of Gomathiammal are mainly on the back side ""f her body.Barring these three injuries, all the other five injuries are on the back side of the body.The other injuries are on the left shoulder, left side neck and left forearm.This gives a corroboration to the version of Madathiammal PW-1 as also Mariammal PW-2, PW-2 had also stated that the deceased Gomathiammal fell on her face and the accused dealt with the sickle blows on her back.In fact, there is practically no discrepancy in the evidence of the two eyewitnesses.They have also given a clear account of the assault on the mother of PW-1 Shanmughavadivu and thereafter, the assault firstly on Mariammal (PW-2) and secondly on Madathiammal (PW-1).Both the witnesses have suffered the injuries which have been amply proved by PW-8 Dr. Ramasamy, Considering the depth and nature of all the injuries, which were incised wounds, they were possible by use of sickle.The medical opinion expressed about the same.There can be no doubt that the two eye-witnesses were not only present on the spot, but they had seen the whole incident and their evidence is corroborated by each other as also by the injuries suffered by them.The cross-examination of these two witnesses is absolutely purposeleSections In fact, some portion of the cross-examination is irrelevant and we wonder as to why the learned Sessions Judge allowed such irrelevant questions to be put.It was tried to be established by the defence that one Pechimuthu had come along with the injured persons to the Hospital and the witness PW-1 has accepted this.It is also suggested that the said Pechimuthu, Lakshmi Ammal and Arumughathammal were with the injured persons in the Hospital till 6.00 p.m. in the evening on the next day.One fails to understand any relevancy of this cross-examination.It is tried to be suggested to PW-1 Madathiammal that she and the brother of the accused were competitors in the busineSections Some irrelevant questions regarding the witness and her mother were put to PW-1 which have absolutely no bearing on the present prosecution.A wild suggestion was thrown at her that her brother used to bring illicit liquor and sell the same in the village.Another wild suggestion was thrown at the witness that there was a riot in which the shop and the bench were broken and in that, stones and sticks were thrown and it is because of that, the witness PW-1 and her daughter were injured.In short, nothing could be elucidated from PW-1 in the cross-examination and her evidence remained unshaken.She has graphically supported the version of her mother.In cross-examination also, there is nothing worth the name.The learned Counsel pointed out that while PW-1 stated that she was taken to the Hospital in a Car, this witness had admitted that she went to the Hospital in the Police Jeep.The same theory of riot was suggested by even this witness which was denied by the witness (PW-1).In short, the evidence of this witness also remained totally unshaken.The third witness, who sought to be examined as the eye-witness, is.PW-3 Sappanimuthu.He has turned hostile and, therefore, his evidence cannot be considered.Thus, the evidence of the two eyewitnesses have remained unshaken and their evidence can be safely accepted.As if the evidence of the eye-witnesses is insufficient, there is also the other corroborating evidence which has already been referred to above.The fact that both the witness have also stated that the accused was shouting at her mother-in-law and saying that only if she was finished, there will be tranquillity in his house has also not been demolished.In the cross-examination, which would amply go to prove the intention on the part of the accused and his complicity in the evidence.It was tried to be suggested that PW-1 could not have been seen the occurrence when she was standing in the shop.However, even that cannot be accepted for the simple reason that according to PW-1, she was standing in front of her shop.Again it is not established by cross-examination of any witness that a person who is standing in the shop cannot see the incident in the back courtyard of the house.Some advantage was tried to be taken by the learned Counsel by suggesting that there were some contradictions.However, the said contradictions have not even been proved in the evidence and they are extremely insignificant.The contradiction in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 about the vehicle in which they went to the hospital is also, to say the least, insignificant, because that pertains what happened after the incident.It cannot be again forgotten that in this case, while the incident has taken place at 6 O'Clock in the evening, the First Information Report has been made almost immediately.PW-1, after being injured, was taken to the Hospital and it was there that she gave her statement.Therefore, there is no question of any belated First Information Report.In the First Information Report also, she has given a complete description of the incident.Her evidence is, therefore, corroborated by the First Information Report.The most important factor to be appreciated in respect of the evidence of these two witnesses is that they are the injured witnesses and that they suffered the injuries at the hands of the accused in broad day light.Last but not the least that these two witnesses had no reason whatsoever to speak against the accused.The defence has not been able to establish any enmity between the accused and the witnesses.Though faintly it was suggested that there was business rivalry between the brother of the accused and PW- 1 Madathiammal, it is really not necessary for the witnesses to speak falsely regarding their injuries at the hands of the accused as also the injuries of the mother-in-law and the injuries of Shanmughavadivu.In short, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 alone is sufficient to fix the guilt on the accused for offences punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.the said two ladies have suffered extensive wounds.Both the ladies have suffered grievous wounds as per the evidence of Dr. Ramasamy (PW-8).In his evidence, the Doctor Ramasamy has deposed that the injuries were grievous.They were also placed on the vital parts of the body.There would be, therefore, no question of any other intention in the mind of the accused except to cause the death of the two witnesses.It seems, it is only their providence which saved the two witnesses apart from the fact that they have got immediate medical help.The placement of injuries, the manner in which the injuries were dealt with, the nature of the weapon, would amply go to suggest that the accused had intended the death of the two witnesses also.Under such circumstances, the conviction of the accused for offences under Section 307, I.P.C. would also be suggesting.In short, nothing could be said as against the conviction of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. on two counts and under Section 307, I.P.C. on two counts.The learned Sessions Judge has not bothered to probe into the whole case, the psychology of the accused in the attending circumstances and the other mitigating circumstances while branding this case as the rarest of rare case.The treatment given to this subject is extremely sketchy.The learned Counsel for the appellant brought to our notice that this cannot be said to be a rarest of rare case even if there have been two murders and attempt to murder the two witnesses who were eyer witnesses.It seems from the evidence of these two witnesses that there used to be often quarrels between the mother-in-law who, probably, was an unwanted guest for more than six months in the house of the accused.It is in the evidence of PW-1 that there used to be often quarrels between the mother-in-law and the accused, as the mother-in-law created a hindrance in getting food.Both the witnesses have specifically referred to the prior quarrel between the accused and the deceased Gomathiammal on that day.It has not come on record as to whether the accused refused to go for work on his own.A possibility of not being able to get the work could also not be ruled out.If the accused, who was already burdened with his mother-in-law, found that in his own house, he was being insulted and food being refused to him at the instance of the mother-in-law, it is obvious that the rebukes given by his mother-in-law added insult to injury.He had ample opportunity to finish off his mother-in-law, who was the resident in the same house.When he was on bail, he attacked the family members of the victim in the earlier case.He was armed with axe and his brother was armed with dagger.There should have been more consideration shown to this aspect in his judgment.The sentence passed for the offences under Section 307, I.P.C. on two counts and other directions regarding the same would remain undisturbed.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Certified copy, as per Rules.Lokayukta has argued before this Court that there is sufficient material against the applicants.He has read out the statement available in the case diary and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.They are attending the Office everyday and recently they have been implicated in the crime.","['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"DATED :- 29.01.2019 ORAL JUDGMENTBy the present appeal, appellant is challenging judgment and order of conviction dated 22.11.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Akola in Sessions Trial No.114/2016, whereby appellant was found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and under Section 376 (2) (i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).Appellant is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for committing offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and also directed to::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 ::: 2 apeal230.18.odt pay fine amount of Rs.3,000/-, with default clause.Though the appellant was found to be guilty for the offence under Section 376 (2)(i) of the IPC, no separate sentence is awarded for said offence.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::I have heard Mr.In order to buttress his submissions, he relied on various reported cases of this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court.He submitted that conduct of the victim shows that she was a consenting party for sexual relations and if the prosecution fails to prove her age beyond reasonable doubt, benefit of doubt must be extended in favour of appellant.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::prosecution has proved date of birth of victim as 01.07.2001 and therefore on the day of incident, she was a ""Child"" within the meaning of POCSO Act. He also submitted that there cannot be any doubt about sexual relations in between appellant and victim girl in view of Exh.-66, DNA report which shows that appellant is biological father of baby delivered by victim girl.He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.The prosecution has examined in all 8 witnesses.Saptafula (PW1), mother of victim has lodged oral report Exh.-25 on 21.03.2016 on the basis of which crime was registered at Police Station, Balapur initially for an offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A of the IPC.Dr. Dinesh Naitam (PW4) is a Dentist, who proved the age certificate, Exh.- 34, Dr. Subhash Gujarkar (PW5) examined the victim, Dr.Kanchan Bhuibhar (PW6) has done Sonography and gave Sonography::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 ::: 4 apeal230.18.odt report Exh.-40, Dr. Amol Ravankar (PW7) has examined accused and extracted his blood sample for DNA and Manisha Raut (PW8) is the investigating officer.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::Learned Judge of Court below acquitted the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 363 and 363-A of the IPC.In the present case, in view of DNA report Exh.-66, there cannot be any second opinion about establishment of sexual relations by appellant with victim girl since the victim girl, after full grown pregnancy, delivered a baby and appellant was found to be biological father of the said baby.Appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. This Court in Ravi Anandrao Gurpude .vs.State of Maharashtra, thr.PSO P.S. Bhisi (Coram: B.R. Gavai & V.M. Deshpande, JJ.) reported in 2017 All.M.R.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::5 apeal230.18.odt (Cri.) 1509, found that prosecution is under bounden duty to prove that victim is ""Child"" and unless the prosecution successfully establishes that the victim is child within the meaning of section 2(d) of the POCOS Act, accused cannot be convicted for the offence.In paragraph 9 of said judgment, this Court recorded its opinion that provisions of the POCSO Act are stringent in nature.It is lodged by Saptafula (PW1), mother of the victim.The oral report is silent about date of birth.Even from witness box, the mother is conspicuously silent regarding date of birth of the victim.Victim (PW2) has stated her date of birth in her examination-in-chief as 01.07.2001, which is seriously challenged in her cross-examination.In addition to that, in her prior statement, the victim does not disclose what is her date of birth.So for the first time from the witness box, the date of birth, which is seriously challenged by the defence was disclosed.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::The prosecution has examined Ravindrakumar Masne (PW3).This witness from 18.03.2017 is working as Head Master at Dr. Babasaheb Chincholkar Vidyalaya, Wadegaon and before his appointment, Ku.Rajeshwari Deshmukh was Head Mistress of the said school.The victim was student of this school.Her evidence would corroborate that she was student of this school.Head Master Masne (PW3) brought with him original school record at the time of his evidence.In the school register, at Sr.In his examination in chief itself, the Head Master has admitted that entry of birth is taken on the basis of the previous transfer certificate of the concerned student and the entry was certified by the previous Head Mistress.According to school record, victim left the school in 9 th standard.Similarly, Head Master Masne (PW3) has proved Exh.-It is the certificate given by this prosecution witness himself in which he has certified that as per entry No.1949 in the admission register, date of birth of the victim is 01.07.2001.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::From the evidence of Head Master Masne (PW3), it is clear that date of birth was noted in the admission register of the school on the basis of transfer certificate issued by the previous school.Anand Purohit;In this authoritative pronouncement, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::Manisha Raut (PW8), the investigating officer, in her evidence has admitted that she has not obtained birth certificate of the victim from the office of Gram Panchayat, Wadegaon nor she personally checked the gram panchayat record.Explanation for that is offered by Manisha (PW8) that mother of the victim did not confirm place of birth of the victim, which is contrary to the evidence of victim (PW1), who in clear terms, has stated that the victim was born at Wadegaon.Exh.-34 is age certificate proved by Dr. Dinesh Naitam (PW4).His::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 ::: 9 apeal230.18.odt evidence would show that he is a Dentist and since all 4 wisdom teeth of the victim were missing, he found that she was less than 18 years.However, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that it was necessary for determination of accurate age to have radiological investigation.He also admitted that in the case at hand, the said radiological investigation was not followed.Thus, Ossification Test was not conducted for determining the age of the victim.Further, by catena of decisions, this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that there is a possibility of error of 1 or 2 years on both sides even if Ossification test is conducted.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::In the present case, since primary document, on the basis of which entry was taken in admission register Exh.-31 and 32, is not placed on record, entry made in Exhs.-31 and 32 cannot be held to be conclusive one and, therefore, in my view, the prosecution has not proved the age of the girl and/or date of birth of the girl conclusively.Conduct and evidence of the victim girl is suggestive that she voluntarily had relations with the appellant.Since the age is not proved, in my view, the prosecution has brought its case::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 ::: 10 apeal230.18.odt under the cloud of doubts and therefore benefit of doubt has to be granted in favour of the appellant.Consequently, I pass the following order.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::(i) Criminal Appeal No.230/2018 is allowed.(ii) Judgment and order of conviction dated 22.11.2017 in Sessions Trial No.114/2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Akola convicting appellant- Pradip Devidas Dongare, for an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and Section 376 (2) (i) the Indian Penal Code, is set aside.He shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other crime.JUDGE kahale::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 01:57:36 :::","['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"P.D.DINAKARAN,J.I  Prologue Seldom, criminal trials bring before us persons, who are accused of acts of quivering barbarity.One such act is the offence of rape, which was more in tune with tribal society, and is in existence even now and calls for stringent punishment.This case is even more dreadful as the offence of rape was committed by the accused on his own sister-in-law, and the situation became much more worse, as the sister-in-law of the accused as well as her tiny tot, a thirteen months old girl baby were charred.II  ChargeIII  The case of the prosecutionThe prosecution case, as unfolded from the evidence, runs thus:3.1. P.W.1, Chandrabose is the brother of the deceased.He deposed that the deceased was married to one Thiruselvam and she was living with her in-laws and brother-in-law as a joint family; after one year, the deceased gave birth to a female child; she was tortured to bring money from her parents to take care of her baby; after five/six months, she was tortured to bring money to redeem her jewels which were kept by them for the house expenses and therefore, she went to another brother's house at Yercaud and stayed there for 15 days; the father-in-law took her back assuring that it would not happen in future; two months prior to the date of occurrence, she called him over phone and stated that she was asked by her husband to bring Rs.10,000/- to live separately; she was repeatedly asking for the money since he could not arrange it immediately; on the date of occurrence, at about 2 pm, she called him over phone and enquired about him and asked him to bring money immediately; since she disconnected the phone immediately, he tried to contact her, but he could not; at once, he tried his elder brother and spoke to his sister-in-law P.W.3; he informed P.W.3 about the call by the deceased and asked P.W.3 to visit the place of the deceased and to inform him; at about 3.30 pm, his elder brother called him and informed that the deceased and her baby died due to burn injuries; he went to Yercaud at about 7 pm; he went and lodged a complaint Ex.3.2. P.W.2, Selvi, Noon Meal Assistant, is a neighbour of the deceased.According to her, on the date of occurrence, she returned from the school at about 1.15 pm and was having lunch; around 1.30 pm, the accused called her and asked for little kerosene to clean the machine; since she was having lunch, she gave a 10 litres can containing 6/7 litres of kerosene; after ten minutes, the accused, who was standing at the back side of his house, called her; thinking that he would be returning the kerosene can, she went to his house; she was called inside the house where she noticed the deceased and her child were lying unconscious in the kitchen; when she asked the accused, he informed her that when he embraced the deceased, she did not accept and therefore, he hit on her head with conventional roti roller (for brevity, ""poori kattai""), M.O.11 and hence, she fell unconscious and thereafter, he quenched his thirst by having intercourse with her; he wanted to create a scene as if the deceased committed suicide; then, he fisted the child, who was playing, on her face; he laid down the child near her mother; he caught hold of her neck and threatened her not to reveal to anybody, otherwise he would do away with her; he asked her to make call to P.W.1 and to talk like the deceased; he dialled the number and asked her to put her saree pallu on the mouth piece of the receiver; as tutored by the accused, she spoke to P.W.1 like the deceased and enquired him; she stated that she had been tortured for money and asked him to come within one hour, otherwise she would die; thereafter, she immediately disconnected the call; she was again threatened by the accused not to reveal the occurrence to anybody or otherwise, she would be done away in the same manner and her children would become orphans and asked her to leave the place; later, she left the place and returned to the house of the accused around 4pm, when she noticed the deceased and her child burnt and lying in the hall; she was shocked on seeing the deceased and the child burnt by the accused using the kerosene given by her; she was fearing that she may also be done to death in the same manner, she did not reveal anything about the occurrence to Revenue Divisional Officer, P.W.17; however, on 17.8.2003, when P.W.30 enquired, she informed everything; she also informed P.W.31 about the occurrence on 19.8.2003; she gave a statement, Ex.As per the deposition of Mariyayee, P.W.3, sister-in-law of the deceased, there was a dowry demand by the family members of the deceased; after the deceased gave birth to a female child, she was tortured to bring money from her parents to take care of her baby; after five/six months, she was tortured to bring money to redeem her jewels which were kept by them for the house expenses and therefore, she went to another brother's house at Yercaud and stayed there for 15 days; the father-in-law took her back assuring that it would not happen in future; three months thereafter, she came to her house and stated that she was asked by her husband to bring Rs.10,000/- to live separately; the deceased was sent stating that they would arrange money after sometime; 15 days prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased came to her house and informed about the ill-behaviour of the accused towards her and asked her not to reveal the same to her brother; on the date of occurrence, at about 2.30 pm, P.W.1 called from Mettupalayam and informed her that the deceased called him and her family members were torturing her to bring money and asked him to bring money within one hour, otherwise, she would die along with her child; P.W.1 asked her to go to the place of the deceased and to bring her; when she tried the telephone number of the deceased, she was informed that the deceased and her child were dead; immediately on arrival of her husband, she informed him, who, in turn informed P.W.1; P.W.1 informed his brother not to take any action till his arrival; P.W.1 arrived at about 7 pm and thereafter, a complaint was lodged on the file of Yercaud Police Station; two weeks after the date of occurrence, she came to know from the newspaper that the deceased had not committed suicide, but it was a murder; two months thereafter, when she was enquired, she had stated all the details, including the ill-behaviour of the accused with the deceased; at that time only, she informed about the conduct of the accused towards the deceased to the members of the family; she was slapped by her husband for not telling the same earlier, who stated that he would have saved the deceased; that time, P.W.1 raised a doubt as to the voice of the deceased when she called on the date of occurrence.He deposed that he went to the house of the accused at about 1/1.15 pm and asked him to lay the pipeline, which the accused refused stating he had some other work.He then went to Block Development Office and on his return on the next day, he heard the death news of the deceased and her child.Jayaprakash, a building contractor, examined as P.W.5, deposed that on 15.8.2003, at about 2/2.10 pm, when he went along with his brother Dhanapal for ordering Jalli, he saw the accused opening the gate and coming out of his house.3.6. P.W.6, Sathish, who was running Coffee Works at Yercaud, stated that on the date of occurrence, at about 2.10 pm, the accused came to his shop and asked him to drop him at Electrical shop to purchase electrical goods.Accordingly, he dropped the accused at Krishna Electricals.After purchasing some goods, the accused asked him to drop him at Sister Convent.While going, the accused asked him to drive fast.When he enquired as to the urgency, the accused told him that he committed a small mistake and he would tell the same later and he got down at Sister Convent.He was working at Krishna Electricals.He stated that on the date of occurrence, the accused, along with another person, came in a motor cycle between 1.15 and 2.30 pm and purchased three electrical goods for Rs.608/- on credit and left immediately.The carbon copy of the bill with regard to the electrical goods purchased by the accused is marked as Ex.Later he came to know that the accused had murdered his sister-in-law and her child.3.8. P.W.8, Vigneshwaran, was working as Supervisor in St. Annis Convent.On the date of occurrence, at about 9.30 am, both the accused and Thiruselvam came to work.At about 12.45 pm, he asked another Supervisor that he required some electrical goods and left the School.Later, the accused came around 2.45/3.00 pm with electrical goods.After some time, four people came in two wheeler and asked him to send the accused and Thiruselvam.P.W.9, Banumathi, Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Department, Chennai deposed that as per the requisition made by the Court, Ex.P4, she examined M.Os.1 and 4 to 9 and it was detected that the said M.Os. contained Kerosene.The report of the Scientific Officer is Ex.P.W.10, Sivakumar, Scientific Officer issued a report Ex.P6, stating that M.O.10, Kerosene Pump Stove, was not in usable condition.As per Ex.P7, requisition sent by the Court, P.W.11, Kamalatchi Krishnamoorthy, Scientific Officer, examined M.O.15, brief, and detected semen in it as per Ex.P8, Chemical Report and sent the sample blood and salavai to Serological Department.P9 is the Serologist's Report stating that the sample sent was of human origin.P.W.12, Ravi, an LIC Agent, deposed that when he returned home on 15.8.2003, the wife of one Sekar asked him to inform about the death of the deceased and her child to Thiruselvam.As he does not know as to where Thiruselvam was working, he enquired P.W.6 and thereafter went to Annis Convent and brought Thiruselvam and the accused, around 3/3.30 pm.P.W.13 Selvam, a resident of North Street, Periyapudhur, deposed that he, along with one Palanisamy, was present at the time when the accused was giving confession statement to P.W.31, Superintendent of Police to the effect that he would hand over the poori kattai, brief and telephone note book to the police and the admissible portion of his confession statement is Ex.As requested by the Judicial Magistrate V, Salem, in Ex.P13 is the computerised bill for the telephone No.222612 of Yercaud Telephone Exchange.P.W.16, Ettiyappan, Scientific Officer, has deposed that he inspected the scene of occurrence on 16.8.2003 at 7 am.He saw the burnt bodies of the deceased and her child in the hall.P.W.17, Revenue Divisional Officer, on receipt of FIR, conducted inquest over the dead bodies and submitted his report Ex.He sent the body for post mortem through P.W.25, Head Constable.He also sent a report, Ex.P16 to the Judicial Magistrate stating that the death of the deceased and her child was not due to dowry harassment and for further action.The Village Administrative Officer, P.W.18, on hearing that the house of Krishnan caught fire, at about 2.15 pm, went along with one Duraisamy, Village Assistant to the place of occurrence.He peeped inside through the glass window, which seems to be broken due to the heat, and saw the room with full smoke.When he touched the front side door to go inside the house, it opened immediately since it was not latched inside.In the middle portion of the house, he saw two dead bodies in burnt condition and he smelt kerosene odour through out the house.He informed about the occurrence to his higher officials.In his presence, P.W.30, Deputy Superintendent of Police, prepared observation mahazar, rough sketch and recovery mahazar and he had attested his signature in those documents.He also issued Ex.P21 Nativity Certificate with regard to the deceased family.P.W.19, Dr.Ravi Shankar, attached to Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, Salem deposed that he examined the hyoid bone of the deceased and found no fracture.Vallinayagam, attached to Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, examined the accused, found a lacerated injury on the left collar bone 0.5 cm and issued Ex.P25, wound certificate.In his evidence, he deposed that the said injury might be caused due to finger nail scratch.As per requisition Ex.P.W.21, Magisterial Clerk, speaks about the receipt of material objects and sending the same for chemical analysis.P27 is the covering letter of the Court and Ex.P28 is the chemical analysis report.As per the requisition Ex.P30 made by P.W.31 through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, P.W.23, Judicial Magistrate VI, Salem recorded statements of P.Ws.3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and others under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Exs.P31 to P43 are the said statements.The Doctor, P.W.24, on receipt of requisitions, Exs.P44 and P45, by P.W.17 for post mortem of the bodies of the deceased and her child, conducted post mortem and issued certificates Exs.P46 and P47 opining that the deceased appears to have died of shock following head injury and shock following burns and her child appears to have died of burns shock.P.W.25, Head Constable, deposed that he took the bodies for post mortem to Government Hospital, Yercaud and entrusted the bodies to their relatives after autopsy.As directed by P.W.31, P.W.26, Photographer, took photos at the scene of occurrence.P48 series are photos and Ex.P49 series are their negatives.P.W.27, Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of information, went to the place of occurrence at 3 pm.P57 is Ex.P.W.30, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, deposed that on receipt of Ex.P50, F.I.R, he went to the place of occurrence, along with Scientific Officer, P.W.16 and obtained his opinion.He prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.P18 and a Rough Sketch, Ex.He caused photographs of the dead bodies, Ex.P55 series, through P.W.26, photographer.He recovered M.Os.1, 4 to 10 under Mahazar, Ex.P19, in the presence of P.W.18, Village Administrative Officer and his menial.He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.After getting opinion from the doctors who conducted autopsy, he altered the charges under Section 302 and 376, IPC and sent the altered FIR, Ex.P60, to the Judicial Magistrate.P.W.31, the Superintendent of Police, Salem, in his evidence, narrated the investigation undertook by him.According to him, he went to the scene of occurrence and examined P.Ws.2 and 4 and the relatives of the deceased orally.He recorded the confession statement given by the accused in the presence of Sellam and Palanisamy in writing and through P.W.29, Police Videographer.On 21.8.2003, at 7.00 a.m. he recovered the wood used for preparing rotis along with poori kattai, M.O.11, full hand white colour shirt, pant and brief on being produced by the accused from kitchen in the presence of witnesses.He also seized indane gas cylinder, regulator, gas tube and double door in the presence of Selvam and Palanisamy.He remanded the accused to police custody.On 22.8.2003, he examined Sukumar, Inspector and recorded his statement.On 23.8.2003, he examined P.W.3 and recorded her statement.On 24.8.2003, he examined P.Ws.6,7, 8 and 12 and others and recorded their statements.On 25.8.2003, he examined the prisoners viz., Krishnan @ Venkatachalam, Sellammal and Thiruselvam, who are father, mother and brother of the accused respectively, and recorded their confession statements.He examined P.W.18 and got residential proof of the deceased family.He examined father, mother and brother of P.W.3 Selvi and recorded their statements.He also examined P.W.2 and recorded her statement through video.On 1.9.2003, he sent the accused to judicial custody.On 2.9.2003, he examined P.W.22, Judicial Magistrate and recorded his statement.On 10.9.2003, he examined P.W.20, Dr.Vallinayagam and recorded his statement.He sent M.O.15 brief to the Court for chemical examination through Ex.P.61 requisition.Thereafter, he sent Ex.P30 requisition for recording statements of the witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On 18.9.2003, he sent the material objects to the Court for subjecting the same to chemical analysis.On 16.10.2003, he examined post-mortem doctors and recorded their statements.He also examined P.W.1, Thangavel, brother of P.W.1 and P.W.3 and recorded their statements.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 is in one voice qua the conduct of the accused towards the deceased to quench the thirst of lust is concerned.In fact, the deceased herself had shared her worries about the ill-behaviour of the accused towards her to P.W.3, during her last visit to the residence of P.W.3, and also requested P.W.3 not to inform to her brother, viz. husband of P.W.3, fearing future consequences.To quench the thirst of lust, the accused had chosen the time when the deceased was alone at the residence, left the school as spoken to by P.W.8, viz., the accused was absent from the School from 12.45 pm to 2.45/3 pm.Apart from proving his absence in the School, the prosecution has also substantiated the presence of the accused in the place of occurrence through the evidence of P.W.4, Councillor of Yercaud Town Panchayat who saw the accused in his house between 1 and 1.15 pm.The next question that arises is whether the prosecution has proved or not the links between the next chain of circumstances, viz. fisting the child on her face and on her becoming unconscious, laying her near the deceased and thereafter, murdering them and threatening P.W.2 with dire consequences and making her to speak to P.W.1 impersonating the deceased in order to make the death of the deceased and her child as a suicide, to substantiate the offence under Section 302, IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?According to P.W.2, the accused asked her some kerosene to clean the machine.Since P.W.2 was having lunch, she has given 10 litres capacity can containing around 6/7 litres of kerosene to the accused.As soon as P.W.2 entered the house, she found the deceased and her child were lying unconscious in the kitchen.When she enquired the accused, he stated that when he embraced the deceased, she did not accept and therefore, he hit on her head with poori kattai, M.O.11 and when she fell unconscious, he quenched the thirst of lust by committing the offence under Section 376, IPC and since he wanted to simulate the occurrence as if the deceased committed suicide, he fisted the child, who was playing, on her face and laid her near her mother.Thereafter, P.W.2, made call to P.W.1 impersonating the deceased, being threatened by the accused that he would do away with her in the same manner like the deceased if she tells to anybody about the occurrence, and later left the scene of occurrence.Around 4 pm, when she came to know that the deceased and her child were burnt, she went to the house of the deceased and witnessed the burnt bodies of the deceased and her child in the kitchen.Further, P.W.24, Doctor, who conducted post mortem had deposed that the back side of the body, crown of the head and the soles were not burnt and therefore, there is no possibility of committing suicide.What is left to be decided is whether the prosecution has proved the link between the chain of circumstances with regard to the screening of the offence by pouring kerosene on the deceased and her child.The accused, in his extra judicial confession made to P.W.2, had stated that he had committed the offence under Section 376, IPC and to make it as a suicide, he asked P.W.2 to give kerosene and thereafter, he poured the kerosene on the unconscious deceased and her child and set them on fire and screened the offence under Section 376, IPC.The above statement would make it clear that the accused had the intention to screen the offence under Section 376, IPC.That apart, as per Ex.P46, post mortem certificate, the symptoms for the commission of offence under Section 376, IPC could not be traced due to the extensive second degree burns over the front on all the parts of the body of the deceased.P57 is the video cassette and Ex.While proceeding with the investigation, on 18.08.2003, after getting the opinion of the Doctor by preparing medico legal questionnaire and recording the statements of witnesses, he altered the provisions of offence as the ones under Sections 302 and 376 IPC.and sent the altered report Ex.P-60 to the Judicial Magistrate.On 19.08.2003, he handed over the investigation to PW-31 the Superintendent of Police, Salem, and was assisting him in further investigating the matter.On 23.08.2003 at 7 A.M., PW-30 arrested the parents of the accused.xxviii) PW-31 is the Chief Investigating Officer/Superintendent of Police, who after taking over the investigation from PW-30, proceeded further.On 19.08.2003, he went to the scene of occurrence and recorded the statement of PW-2 and that of other witnesses.The absconding accused was produced before him by the Inspector of Police on 20.08.2003 at 1.30 P.M. He sent him to the Hospital for obtaining medical opinion.After complying with the legal formalities, he recorded the statement of the accused.He produced the accused with a report before the D.R.O., Salem, to record his statement in writing and through video.The Station House Officers, amongst various other assignments, also entrusted with the job of investigation of crimes.Unless an officer is hand and foot assigned for conducting investigation of a case in a full-fledged manner and pursuing the same in a court of law, it would be impossible to occlude the resultant failures in the administration of criminal justice, leading to wrong acquittals.In such circumstances, suggestion is made to the Government to establish a separate ""Crime Investigation Wing"" exclusively for investigation, prosecution and to take necessary follow-up action, as found in the developed countries in order to attain the avowed objectives of the criminal justice and administration system.Registry is directed to communicate copy of this Judgement to the Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, and the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu.The Chief Secretary to Govt., Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai.The above-said ghastly incident was said to have taken place on 15.8.2003 within the jurisdiction of Yercaud Police Station.This horrifying issue, stimulated the Superintendent of Police, Salem District, P.W.31 to undertake investigation by himself and to register an FIR in Crime No.350 of 2003, initially for an offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC, which was subsequently altered, pursuant to which the appellant was tried and thereafter, convicted and sentenced to undergo (i) seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, on year rigorous imprisonment for having committed the offence of rape on the deceased mother under Section 376, IPC; (ii) life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, one year rigorous imprisonment for having murdered the deceased mother and 13 months old girl baby under Section 302 (2 counts) IPC; (iii) two years imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, one month rigorous imprisonment for having poured kerosene on the mother and 13 months old baby and set them on fire in order to screen the offence under Section 302 read with 201 (2 counts), IPC; and (iv) seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, one year rigorous imprisonment for having caused criminal intimidation to P.W.2 under Section 506(2), IPC.As per requisition Ex.P23 made by P.W.31, P.W.20, Dr.He saw the burnt bodies of the deceased and her child, surrounded by lot of people.Around 8 pm, P.W.1 gave a written complaint, Ex.P1 and registered the FIR, Ex.P50, in Crime No.350 of 2003 for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC.F.I.R. was sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer, P.W.17, as well as to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.W.30, for further action, since the occurrence took place within two years from the date of marriage of the deceased.As per Ex.P51, requisition made by P.W.31, P.W.28, District Revenue Officer, examined the accused and recorded Ex.P52 confession statement in video through P.W.29 Police Videographer.P57 is the video cassette.The Videographer, who was examined as P.W.29, deposed that on instructions from P.W.31, he took video at the time of enquiry and took photo of the accused, before recording the video.P55 is the photo of the accused.Print of Ex.He also examined P.W.7 Shanmugam in respect of the electrical goods sold to the accused and seized the credit bill and recorded his statement.After completing the investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 506(i), 376 and 302 read with 201 (2 counts) IPC and also filed a separate charge sheet against Thiruselvam, accused, Krishnan @ Venkatachalam and Selvam under Section 498(A)The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charges were framed and since the accused denied his complicity in the offence, the case was taken up for trial.On completion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. on the incriminating materials for which the accused denied any complicity in the offence committed and claimed innocence.On the side of defence, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.D1 to D11 were filed.3.35. D.W.2, sister of the accused, deposed that the deceased called her on 13.3.2008 and stated that when she went to her brother's house for asking Rs.10,000/-, her brother and her sister-in-law refused to give money and sent her out of their house forcibly.She further stated that at about 9 am on the date of occurrence, the deceased called her over phone and stated that she does not like to live due to the distress caused by the scolding of her brother and sister-in-law.3.35. D.W.3, Manger of Indian Bank, Mechery Branch, deposed that the accused came to the bank on 20.8.2003, the accused came to the Bank between 10 am to 2pm and redeemed the jewels pledged in the Bank.3.36. D.W.4, who was working as the Sub Divisional Engineer (Legal), BSNL, deposed that no outgoing STD call was made from telephone No.222032 in August, 2003, as per the magnetic tape maintained by the Exchange for registering all the STD outgoing.The Court examined one Francis as C.W.1, who deposed that on hearing noise from the house of the deceased, he saw the smoke emanating from the house of the deceased.He went to the house of the deceased and saw the window glass broken due to the heat and since some people were standing in front of the house, he climbed up the roof of the house and removed the tiles in order to enter into the house and saw the bodies of the deceased and her child in the hall.The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, upon appreciation of the evidence and hearing both sides, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned.Hence, the above appeal.V  Contentions of the appellantMr.K.V.Sreedharan, learned counsel for the appellant, challenges the order of conviction and sentence as follows:(b) The case of the prosecution rests upon the complaint Ex.In the said complaint, P.W.1 had not uttered anything about the conduct of the accused towards the deceased.(d) Further, P.Ws.4 to 8, who spoke about the movement of the accused on the date of occurrence, are not reliable witnesses, as they were examined after a period of 10/15 days.(e) The carbon particles found deposited more in the kitchen, than in the hall, would prove that the deceased had committed suicide along with her child, as it is supported with the fact that the tiles in the kitchen alone were removed and also by the evidence of P.W.1 who had stated that the deceased called him and stated that she would commit suicide if he did not reach her place within one hour with money.Therefore, there is a possibility that the people who entered the house, after gaining the entry, would have removed the body to the hall, and accordingly, the deceased had committed suicide only and the offence under Section 302, IPC is not made out.(f) From the statement of D.W.2, sister of the accused, that two days prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased called her over phone and informed that her brother refused to give money and scolded her and on the morning of the date of occurrence, she informed that she was very much dejected and she did not want to live, it can be clearly elucidated that the deceased had only committed suicide.(g) Alternatively, since the death of the deceased and her child was due to burn injuries and the accused has no motive to commit the murder of the deceased and her child, it can be assumed that the accused wanted only to screen the offence.Therefore, the offence under Section 302, IPC is not made out.(h) Finally, the offence under Sections 376, 302 (2 counts) and 302 read with 201, IPC has not been proved with medical evidence and beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore, conviction and sentence have to be set aside.Therefore, the same would not make her evidence unreliable, as she is the only witness who saw the deceased and her child in the kitchen before they were burnt and in the hall after they were burnt.P1 itself.Further, since he received a call at about 2.00 pm on the date of occurrence from P.W.2, who impersonated as the deceased, P.W.1 had the suspicion that she would have committed suicide due to dowry harassment.After coming to know about the conduct of the accused, P.W.1 stated the same to P.W.31, Superintendent of Police.Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be stated as untrustworthy.(c) P.W.3 was of the opinion that the death of the deceased and her child was due to dowry harassment and she had no doubt that it was homicide.On seeing the article in the newspaper that the death was homicide, she recalled about the statement made by the deceased with regard to the conduct of the accused 15 days prior to the date of the occurrence.The same, however, would not render the evidence of P.W.3 undependable on the ground that it was given after two months.(d) P.Ws.4 to 8 speak about the movement of the accused just prior to the occurrence and immediately after the occurrence and at the place of the occurrence.The delay in obtaining their evidence was due to the fact that the case was initially registered for the offence under Section 304-B and 498-A, IPC and only later, it was registered for the offence under Sections 376, 302, 302 read with 201, IPC.Moreover, they are not eye witnesses to the occurrence.Further, the Investigation Officer was not cross examined with respect to the delay in examining those witnesses.Therefore, the delay in examining P.Ws.4 to 8 would not make their evidence unbelievable.(e) As per the evidence of C.W.1, who removed the tiles of the house of the deceased, the bodies of the deceased and her child were found in the hall only.This is strengthened with the statement of P.W.2, who witnessed the bodies in the kitchen before they were burnt and in the hall, after they were burnt.Even though the carbon particles were found deposited in the kitchen, the same would not change the nature of offence, because, P.W.16, Scientific Officer and P.W.24, Doctor, who conducted autopsy, were of the opinion that it was not suicide since the hair in the crown and back of the head, back side of the body and soles were not burnt.(f) If the statement of D.W.2 is true that the deceased informed her that she was very much depressed on the morning of 15.8.2003, viz. date of occurrence and therefore, she did not want to live, naturally D.W.2 should have informed the same to her brother and parents.Failure to do the same would make it clear that D.W.2 would have also joined along with her brother in demanding money and therefore, the contention that the deceased had committed suicide has to be rejected.(g) P.W.2 had deposed about the extra judicial confession made by the accused that he had an eye over the accused and since the deceased refused to heed his wish, he hit the deceased on her head and when the deceased fell unconscious, the accused committed the offence under Section 376, IPC.P.W.2 also witnessed the deceased and her child lying in the kitchen before being burnt and in the hall after they were burnt.This would prove the motive of the accused and clearly establishes the offence under Section 302, IPC.We have also perused the entire materials on record.Before proceeding further, it is apt to refer the law laid down and the tests to be adopted for placing reliance on the extra judicial confession and the circumstantial evidence.The prosecution mainly depends on the extra judicial confession of the accused made to by P.W.2, neighbour and P.W.28, District Revenue Officer.While P.Ws.1 to 3 speak about the motive, P.Ws.4 and 5 speak about the movement of the accused near the scene of occurrence and P.Ws.6 to 8 speak about the absence of the accused in the school where he was working, at the relevant time.The chain and the links, which constitute the circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused, are as under:(i) the accused had an ill-intention to commit rape on the deceased;(ii) he had chosen the time when the deceased was alone in the residence and left the school and came to the residence;(iii) he hit the deceased with poori kattai, M.O.11 and when the deceased fell unconscious, he committed the offence under Section 376, IPC;(iv) he fisted the child on her face and on her becoming unconscious, laid her near the deceased;(v) he threatened P.W.2 with dire consequences and made her to speak to P.W.1, impersonating the deceased, in order to make the death of the deceased and her child as a suicide;(viii) his leaving the scene of occurrence by opening the gate of his house, around 2/2.10 pm, was witnessed by P.W.5 and his brother;(ix) at about 2.10 pm, after purchasing electrical goods, he had stated to P.W.6 that he had committed a small mistake and would tell the same later and thereafter, went to Sister Convent;P.W.2 spoke to P.W.1, as tutored by the accused, that she had been tortured for money and asked him to come within one hour, or otherwise she would commit suicide.Since the accused threatened her, fearing danger to her life, P.W.2 would not have informed P.W.17 on the earlier day.Further, in his evidence, P.W.1 had stated that the deceased called him and asked him to come with money within one hour, otherwise, she would commit suicide.Immediately, P.W.1 called his brother's residence and spoke to his sister-in-law, P.W.3 about the telecon by the deceased and asked her to visit the place of the deceased and to inform him.P.W.3 also, in her evidence, stated that P.W.1 called her and stated about the telecon of the deceased.In the extra judicial confession made by the accused to P.W.2, he had stated that when he embraced the deceased, she did not accept and therefore, he hit on her head with poori kattai, M.O.11 and when she fell unconscious, he quenched his thirst by committing the offence under Section 376, IPC.The above statement is corroborated by the wound certificate Ex.P25 certifying that there was a simple injury and opining that it might be due to a finger nail scratch.The possibility that finger nail mark on the left clavicular region would have been caused on the accused by the deceased only when the deceased tried to resist the accused from committing the offence under Section 376, IPC cannot be ruled out.Substantiating the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 4, P.W.5, building contractor, deposed that he saw the accused opening the gate and coming out of his house around 2/2.10 pm.Thereafter, the accused was found at the shop of P.W.7, who deposed that the accused came along with P.W.6 to purchase electrical goods, which is strengthened with the copy of the bill, Ex.P.W.6 deposed that the accused, after purchasing electrical goods from the shop of P.W.7, stated that he committed a small mistake.If the accused left the School at 12.45 pm only to purchase electrical goods, he would have straight away gone to the shop of P.W.7 and returned to the School, immediately after his purchase and in which event, P.Ws.4 and 5 would not have seen the accused at the place of occurrence at about 1/1.15 pm and 2/2.10 pm respectively, nor P.W.6 would have taken him to the shop of P.W.7, to whom the accused had stated that he committed a small mistake.The prosecution has, therefore, rightly proved the links between the chain of circumstances that the accused had ill intention towards the deceased and chosen the convenient time for the commission of offence under Section 376, IPC and accordingly, left the School at 12.45 pm, went to the residence and since the deceased did not heed to his desire, he hit on her head with poori kattai, M.O.11 and when she fell unconscious, he committed the offence, left the house by opening the gate, which was seen by P.W.5 and went to the shop of P.W.7 along with P.W.6 and thereafter, returned to the School.From the above, it can be elucidated that the accused had poured kerosene on the deceased and her child, who were unconscious and set them on fire.Accordingly, the accused had committed the offence under Section 302, IPC.12.3. P.W.2 is the only witness who saw the deceased and her child lying in the kitchen, when she was called by the accused and thereafter, found the burnt bodies of the deceased and her child in the hall.The said portion of her evidence derives strength from the evidence of C.W.1 who deposed that he removed the tiles of the house of the deceased and thereafter, when he entered the house after the public gained entry, he saw the bodies of the deceased and her child in the hall only.Therefore, the contention that the deceased had only committed suicide and thereafter, the people who entered inside the house would have brought the bodies to the hall, cannot be sustained, as the stove, gas cylinder and other things in the kitchen were found intact.Moreover, the doors of the house were found to be unlocked.Thus, after committing the offence under Section 376, IPC the accused would have brought the deceased and her child to the hall and would have poured kerosene and set them on fire.Hence, the contention that the carbon particles were found deposited more in the kitchen than in the hall also cannot be accepted, because, the house of the deceased was very small and therefore, there is possibility for the deposit of carbon particles in the kitchen.However, the deposit of carbon particles in the kitchen would not change the nature of offence.That apart, as per the statement of P.W.6, at about 2.10 pm on the date of occurrence, the accused, who came to his shop, asked him to drop him at Electrical shop to purchase electrical goods and after purchasing some goods, the accused asked him to drop him at Sister Convent.While going, since the accused asked him to drive fast, he enquired as to the urgency, and at that time, the accused told him that he committed a small mistake and he would tell the same later and he got down at Sister Convent.The above statement supports the evidence of P.W.2 to conclude that the accused has committed the offence under Section 302, IPC.As per Ex.P46, Post Mortem Certificate, extensive second degree burns were found over the front on all the parts except over the back of the head, middle of the back, most of the buttocks and both soles.Assuming the deceased had committed suicide, naturally she would have poured kerosene on her head which would have spread on all over her body and on setting fire, all parts of the body would have got burnt.But, as per the post mortem certificate, back of the head, middle of the back, most of the buttocks and both soles were not burnt.Further, after setting fire on her and on her child, she would have moved here and there and raised alarm, but would not have laid down as if she wanted to sleep.Moreover, if the deceased had committed suicide, after pouring kerosene, she would have thrown the can containing kerosene in the house itself, but not outside the house.This would establish that the deceased had not committed suicide and she was done to death.Even though an argument was raised on behalf of the appellant that as per the evidence of D.W.2, the deceased would have only committed suicide, we are unable to appreciate the same, since D.W.2, who is the sister of the accused, on being informed by the deceased about her frustration to live due to the scolding of her brother and refusal to give money, is normally expected to inform the same to her brother, husband of the deceased and tried to convince her.But, the action of D.W.2 in not informing the same to her brother creates a doubt as to the veracity of her evidence.Therefore, the same is liable to be rejected.We have already rendered our finding as to the trustworthiness of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 and as to the discharge of burden by the prosecution to prove the links between the chain of circumstances.We are, therefore, of the considered opinion, that at the time of occurrence, the accused had the knowledge that he had committed the main offence and caused disappearance of evidence with regard to the main offence, and had the intention to screen the offence, by burning the body of the deceased and her child and consequently, the ingredients with respect to the screening of offence had been satisfied.Accordingly, the offence under Section 302 read with 201, IPC has also been made out.Thus, the prosecution has satisfactorily discharged their onus of proving the link between the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused qua the screening of offence is concerned.VIII  FindingIn view of the above discussion, our appraisal and analysis of the evidence on record, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has successfully established all the circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused by clear, cogent and reliable evidence and the chain of the established circumstances cumulatively lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime.IX  EncomiumX - UPSHOT This appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem.kplNote to Registry:The deceased was made unconscious by him with a severe blow on her head with a dough-roller (poorikattai) so that he could deflower her without any fray or resistance.The little drops of humanness which conjointly make humanity a cherished desire of mankind had seemingly dried up, when he gave a deadly punch on the tender face of his niece, a baby of just 13 months old, to make her inert so as to comfortably burn her along with her mother, who was already made unconscious by his brutal acts.Insolently, he invited a neighbour PW-2, showed her as to what he has committed, intimidated and threatened her not to divulge his acts and by squeezing her neck, forced her, who was already under the grip of fear, to talk to the relatives of the first deceased over phone as if the deceased herself was talking in order to make them believe that the first deceased was alive at that time.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.came to be framed.When the accused was initially questioned, he pleaded innocence and therefore, trial of the case was taken up.The prosecution, in its endeavour to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined PWs-1 to 31, marked Exs.On the side of the defence, four witnesses were examined as DWs-1 to 4 and Exs.D1 to D11 were marked.i) PW-1 is the brother of D-1 and he speaks about the dowry demand and the phone call received by him from her sister's residence at 2 P.M. on the fateful day.Since the phone call was cut off on the side of his sister, he immediately tried to contact her but in vain and therefore, he contacted his brother over phone in that regard.By 3.30 P.M., he received a telephonic message from his brother to the effect that their sister/D1 and her child/D2 were no more.He started immediately, reached the scene house at 7 P.M. and thereafter lodged a written complaint Ex.P1 with the police and Ex.P2 is the Telephone Bill.ii) PW-2 is a neighbour of the accused.According to her, on 15.08.2003 at 1.30 P.M., the accused asked for kerosene to clean a machine and, as she was having food at that time, she gave him the Can containing about 6 to 7 litres of kerosene.When PW-2 came out of her residence, the accused signalled her to come to his residence and thinking that he called her to return back the kerosene Can, she went there and at the kitchen room found both the deceased lying inert on the floor.By threatening PW-2 that she would also be finished off if she does not act on his words, the accused asked her to talk over phone to the brother of D1 posing herself as D1 and state that unless they bring money within an hour, herself and D2 would not be seen alive.Accordingly, after stating so, she immediately cut the line even without answering the reply from the other end.It is her specific evidence that she was under the grip of panic and fear and was not able to do her works on that day.Her evidence is that earlier, D-1 told her about the misbehaviour of the accused and requested her not to reveal the same to his brother.According to PW-3, she did not inform the said fact immediately after the occurrence as they came to know that it was a case of murder only later on.iv) PW-4 deposed that he saw the accused at his residence at about 1.15 p.m. and called him to attend a plumbing job, for which, he declined stating that he had some other work.He speaks to the presence of the accused at the vicinity of the occurrence place at the relevant point of time.v) PW-5, a building contractor, who knows the accused as a plumber, while going in a motorcycle along with his brother, saw the accused coming out of his residence/scene place between 2 and 2.10 p.m.vi) PW-6 states that at about 2.10 pm., the accused came to his shop and requested him to drop him at the electrical shop and his specific statement is that while travelling so, the accused asked him to drive fast and when questioned as to what happened, he replied that he had committed a mistake.PW-6 further states that only after knowing about the incident, he could understand the meaning of what has been stated by the accused as mistake.His evidence is that he saw the accused unusually disturbed and in a state of hurry.Copy of the counterfoil of bill for the purchase of electrical goods by the accused is marked as Ex.viii) PW-8 was working as a Supervisor at St.Anne's Convent, where the accused and his brother viz., the husband of D1, were engaged for electrical works.His evidence is that on 15.08.2003, the accused left the working place by 12.45 P.M. to purchase some electrical goods, however, he returned back only by 3 P.M.ix) PW-9 is the Scientific Officer, who, on receipt of Ex.P4, letter sent by the Court along with materials recovered at the scene of occurrence viz., empty cylinder, plastic can, piece of burnt mat with stain, wire bag , stove etc., conducted chemical examination and the report submitted in that regard is Ex.PW-10 is the scientific officer who issued Ex.PW-11 is the Scientific Officer, who on receipt of Ex.P7/letter from the court of the Magistrate, subjected the underwear of the accused and the semen found therein to chemical analysis and also sent sample blood and salvai to the Government Hospital for examination.P8 is the Chemical Report and Ex.P9 is the Serologist's Report.x) PW-12, on coming to know about the incident, went in search of the husband of D-1 so as to inform him about the death of his wife and child.At about 3.30 P.M., he found both the accused and the husband of D1 at a bungalow.He took the husband of D1 along with him in his motorcycle without informing him of the incident.He saw the accused leaving that place in another vehicle.xi) PW-13 was summoned to the police station for enquiry and in his presence, the accused made a confession statement and the admissible portion thereof is Ex.xii) PW-14 is the Sub Divisional Engineer of BSNL, Yercaud, and he has been examined to speak about the working condition of the telephone viz., Telephone connection No.222612, in the house where the offence was committed.xiii) PW-15 is the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statement of PW-2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 25.08.2003 and the said statement is marked as Ex.xiv) PW-16 is the Scientific Officer.After making observation and examination of the scene of occurrence, the articles available therein, and the posture and location of the burnt bodies, he forwarded his report under Ex.xv) PW-17 is the Revenue Divisional Officer.As the death of D-1 was within three years of marriage, he conducted enquiry and in that course, held inquest over the bodies of the deceased and the inquest report is Ex.His enquiry report is marked as Ex.P16, wherein, it is concluded that the death was not a result of dowry harassment and that it is a suspicious death.xvi) PW-18 is the village Administrative Officer.On information, he along with his Assistant reached the scene of occurrence and found the front door unbolted from inside and it got opened just by placing hands thereon.PW-16 and his Assistant attested Ex.P18/Observation mahazar, prepared by the Investigating Officer.xvii) PW-19 is the Medical Officer, who has issued the Certificate under Ex.xviii) PW-20 is the Doctor, who, on receipt of Ex.P23 requisition from the Investigating Officer and Ex.P24 from the court, examined the accused for the injury found at his neck and for virility.As regards the abrasion found on the neck of the accused, he opined that such injury is possible due to a finger-nail scratch.P25 is the wound certificate and Ex.P-26 is the virility certificate.xix) PW-21 is the court clerk who forwarded the material objects to the forensic lab for chemical examination.xx) PW-22 is the Judicial Magistrate, who passed remand order Ex.P29 against the accused.He has stated that the police did not file any petition to record the confession of the accused and that the accused voluntarily stated that he committed the offence, however, he did not record the same in the remand order.xxi) PW-23 is the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses including PW3 and those statements have been marked as Ex.xxii) PW-24 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies on receipt of Exs.P44 and 45 requisition from the police.As regards D-1, he issued post mortem certificate under Ex.P46, wherein, the following has been noticed:-"" External Appearances: Face : Hair burnt on the front of scalp upto the back of the parietal bones, both eye lids burnt on both sides and closed.Blood present on the nostrils.Tongue protruded and clenched between the teeth.1) Extensive 2 (degree) burns over the front on all the parts and over the back on all parts except over the back of the head, middle of the back most of the buttocks and both sole of feet.The extent of the total burnt area is 85% and the unburnt area is 15% approximately.2) There is a depression on the 4 side of the head 4"" above the left ear.Internal Examination:- .....Skull: Depressed fracture on the parietal bone 4"" above the left ear measuring about 2"" x 1"" x = cm. size.No blood in the calvarium.Brain tissue immediately below the fractured area is lacerated measuring 2"" x 1"" x ="" cm. size.Neck: Hyoid bone normal. .....""As to the cause of death, it is opined that D-1 would appear to have died of shock due to head injury and burn injuries.P47 is the post mortem certificate issued in respect of D2 and in the said certificate, it is opined that D-2 would appear to have died of shock due to burn injuries.By referring to his noting in the post-mortem certificate that tongue was protruding and teeth clenched, the Doctor, while deposing before court, stated that the deceased would have been alive at the time when the accused lighted them.xxiii) PW-25 is the Head Constable, who took the dead bodies to the hospital for the purpose of autopsy.PW-26 is the Police Photographer who took photographs of the scene of occurrence in 11 angles.P48 series are the photographs and Ex.P49 series are the negatives thereof.xxiv) PW-27 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who on receipt of the complaint from PW-1, registered a case in Crime No.350/03, prepared FIR under Ex.P50 and forwarded copies thereof to his superior officers.xxvi) PW-29 is the police photographer who photographed and videographed the crime scene and the statement of the accused.P55 is the photo of the accused, Ex.The accused took him to the scene of occurrence and produced the dough-roller, shirt, pant and underwear from the kitchen and also a phone register and the same were seized under mahazar in the presence of witnesses.He examined the witnesses on different dates and the statement of PW-2 Selvi as regards the occurrence was recorded through video.On 01.9.2003, he sent the accused to judicial custody.Between 19.08.2003 and 14.11.2003, he examined 56 witnesses including Doctors, R.D.O. & V.A.O., and recorded their statements.After collecting all materials, he laid charge sheet against the accused before the Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 506 (1), 376 and 302 read with 201 (2 counts) IPC.He also laid a separate charge sheet against the husband of D1 and other relatives for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating materials put forth against him by the prosecution, he denied his complicity in the commission of the offence and filed a statement, wherein, he has stated that D-1 was agonised on account of the attitude of her brothers, who were not helping her; that on 15.08.2003, he went to work along with his brother and only at 3.30 P.M., through PW-12 Ravi, they came to know that D-1 self-immolated her along with the child; that the Investigating Officer tortured him to give a confession statement to the effect that he had murdered D1 after committing rape on her and torched her along with D2; that he is an innocent; that he never produced any material object as alleged by the police; that the confession before the D.R.O. was also obtained under coercion and threat and that a false case has been foisted against him.DW-2, the sister of the accused, has deposed that on 13.3.2008, D1 phoned her stating that her brother and his wife have forcibly sent her out of their house when she went to them, asking for a loan of Rs.10,000/- and that on 15.08.2003 at 9 A.M., she again received a phone call from D1 stating that she was very upset as her brother and his wife have scolded her and therefore, she does not like to live.DW-3 is the Branch Manger of Indian Bank, Mechery Branch, and he has stated that on 20.08.2003, the accused came to the Bank and redeemed the jewel pledged with the Bank between 10 A.M. and 2 P.M.DW4 is the Sub Divisional Engineer (Legal), BSNL.During re-examination, he has stated that billing facility is available only for outgoing calls and not for incoming calls.As referred to earlier, Exs.D1 to D11, viz., photo of one Dhanapal, carbon copy of the bill dated 15.02.2004, statements given by witnesses during inquest, telegram, jewel loan register and the signature of the accused found therein, have been marked as defence side documents.5-B. CW-1 is the court witness and he is residing adjacent to the house of the accused.According to him, while having lunch, he heard noise and on coming out, he found smoke emanating from the house of the accused and few persons standing there and further, he climbed up and went to the roof top and removed four or five tiles and by that time, persons standing outside the house entered and found both the deceased dead with burn injuries.5-C. The trial court, after exhaustive consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides and of the arguments advanced on either side, found the appellant/accused guilty of all the charges and passed the order of conviction and sentence as aforementioned.The said order is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant elaborately argued the matter, raising several grounds, in his endeavour to assail the order passed by the trial court.At the foremost, he submits that the emphatic case of the defence is that D1, who was very upset and felt dejected as she was abandoned by her brothers and not helped by them while her family was in adversity, took the extreme decision of self-immolating herself along with her child.He further clarified that such burn injuries would be possible if the deceased were burnt after being laid in a state of unconsciousness.He has specifically stated that he could not find carbon stains on the oesophagus.According to him, if it is a case of self-immolation, definitely, the deceased would have run here and there and the burn injuries would be quite different from the ones noticed by him.He further suggested that she would have been burnt after made to lie on floor unconscious.He also withstood the rigour of cross-examination and emphatically stated that it is a case of murder.It would not be possible for a person who has sustained deadly head injury, as could be seen from the medical evidence, to self-immolate herself and her child.Now, the incriminating circumstances available against the accused may be dealt with.All of them are independent witnesses and of course, PW-6 seems to be a person known well to the accused and was friendly towards him.PW-4 has stated that he met the accused on the occurrence day at his residence between 1 and 1.15 p.m. for the purpose of laying a pipe line, and the accused refused therefor stating that he has some domestic works to do.PW-5 has stated that on the same day at about 2 or 2.10 p.m., while proceeding along with his brother, he saw the accused coming out from his residence.PW-6, who seems to be a friend of the accused, was approached by the accused at 2.10 P.M. with a request to drop him at the electrical shop, whereupon, he took him in his motor-cycle.He has specifically stated that while travelling in the motor-cycle, the accused asked him to drive fast and therefore, he asked him as to what happened, for which, the accused answered that he had done a mistake.According to PW-6, he could understand the meaning of what was said by the accused as 'mistake' only after seeing the newspapers.He has stated that at about 2.30 pm.the accused came and purchased electrical goods from the shop and at that time, he was seen disturbed.PW-8 is the Supervisor at the school where the accused and his brother were working on the occurrence day.His emphatic evidence is that the accused left the working place for purchase of electrical goods by 12.45 p.m. and returned back at 3 P.M. The time gap at which each of the witnesses saw the accused at various places and the sequence arising therefrom, is quite natural and fortifies the case of prosecution that it was the accused, who alone was present at the scene house while D-1 and D-2 were alone there, and indulged in the heinous crime.As pointed out earlier, PW-2, in her statement made before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and while deposing before court, consistently stated that the accused had been waiting for a right opportunity to have sex with her sister-in-law and on the occurrence, he used the loneliness prevalent in the residence to satiate his vicious desire.Further, incriminating materials were seized at his instance.In fact, the altered F.I.R reached the court on the same day without any delay.Similarly, referring to the evidence of DW-3, it is argued that inasmuch as the accused was present in the Bank on 20.08.2003 for redeeming the jewel pledged, the prosecution version that he was arrested on the same day is unbelievable.The obscure evidence of DW-3 that the accused came to the Bank between 10 A.M. and 2 P.M. seems to be strange and does not infuse confidence.On the face of the same, if one looks at the evidence of the Investigating Officer that the accused was arrested on that day at 1.30 P.M., it would be clear that the prosecution version in that regard is quite acceptable.From the foregoing discussion, the incriminating circumstances and materials made available by the prosecution to connect the appellant with the crime can be categorised as follows:-The motive assumes great significance inasmuch as its existence is an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning.(iv) The accused procured kerosene from PW-2 and utilised the same for torching the bodies.(v) He subdued and silenced PW-2 under threat and, with her help, created a make-believe story that it was a case of suicide.(vi) It is the brother of D-1/PW-1, who set the law in motion by preferring a written complaint with the police and the allegation was that the husband of D-1 along with his family members demanded dowry and ill-treated her, due to which, she committed suicide.Scientific investigation should substitute the conventional ones.Arduous efforts should be made to improve the system in order to increase the certainty of conviction and punishment for the most serious offenders and repeaters.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu.I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem.","['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The case of the petitioner/ complainant is that the prospective accused No.2, Mr. K.N. Shukla is one of the directors of accused No.1 company, namely Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. and is Page 1 of 14 responsible for day to day affairs and business of the said company.Prospective accused No.3 Mr. Vishesh Rastogi is the Manager and authorised signatory of the said company.Mr. Vijay Taneja, Sachin Bidhuri, Vinod Chopra, Sharad Taneja, Ramesh Arora and Rajiv Arora are well known to the complainant as they are doing the business of real estate.They approached the petitioner and told him that they are having very good relations with Mr. K.N. Shukla and Vishesh Rastogi of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd., who owns a very prime piece of land of more than 200 acres at G.T. Road, Amritsar, Punjab.Page 1 of 14The complainant initially refused any dealing with them.Mr. Vijay Taneja and the director of M/s SVS Infra Build Pvt. Ltd. proposed to become partner with the complainant in purchasing the land.On persuasion, the petitioner/complainant along with Mr. Harish Kumar came to Delhi.The prospective accused persons namely Vijay Taneja, Mr. Sachin Bidhuri, Mr. Vinod Chopra and Mr. Sharad Taneja took them to the office of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.The complainant was sent outside for taking lunch.When the complainant along with Mr. Harish Kumar came back, accused perons namely Vijay, Sharad, Sachin and Vinod took Mr. K.N. Shukla and Mr. Vishesh Rastogi in a separate room where they had some personal meeting.The accused persons told the complainant and Harish Kumar that they have finalised the deal and decided to purchase 160 acres of land at the rate of Rs.1.20 crores per acre.The complainant objected by saying that they should have been consulted before finalisation of the deal.Vijay Taneja, Sachin Bidhuri, Sharad Taneja and Vinod Chopra Page 2 of 14 told the complainant that they were partners in purchase of the said land and the complainant has to believe them.On their representation Mr. Harish Kumar, partner of the complainant paid Rs.25 lakhs through cheque No.065835 dated 16.6.2011 drawn on Central Bank of India in favour of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.20.00 lakhs in cash.Similarly the complainant also paid Rs.25.00 lakhs by way of cheque No.057822 dated 16.6.2011 drawn on Union Bank of India in favour of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.20.00 lakhs in cash.All the prospective accused persons directed the complainant to pay Rs.2.00 crores within two days in addition to Rs.1 crore which was to be paid by Mr.Vijay Taneja as his share.Page 2 of 14Mr. Vijay, Sharad, Sachin and Vinod in furtherance of their conspiracy, in presence of the complainant issued cheque No.019801 dated 17.6.2011 amounting to Rs. 1 crore (Rupees one crore) and told the complainant that this cheque was in lieu of the said cheque and has been issued in lieu of one-third share of the total amount of Rs.3.00 crores (Rupees three crores).The complainant paid amount on different dates as per receipts issued by Mr.Vishesh Rustogi, authorised signatory of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. The cheque bearing No.057822 dated 16.6.2011 for Rs.25.00 lakhs issued by complainant was not encashed on account of difference in signatures and in lieu thereof the complainant/petitioner transferred the said amount by way of RTGS in favour of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. Later on, the complainant came to know that the cheque for Rs.1.00 crore which was issued by SVS Infra Build Pvt. Ltd. was never produced for Page 3 of 14 encashment by accused No.1 company.The complainant also alleged that all the accused persons assured the complainant that after receipt of the total amount of Rs.3.00 crores (Rupees three crores), they will execute an agreement to sell and GPA in favour of the complainant and thereafter, further amount shall be paid after 30 days of the signing of the agreement.After 24.6.2011 the complainant asked the proposed accused Vijay, Vinod, Sachin, Sharad to get the agreement executed in his favour and they assured that the agreement would be executed very soon.In the first week of November, 2011 the complainant came to know through Mr. Ramesh Arora, Gurjit Aujla and Rajeev Kumar, who are partners/directors of M/s New Hope Developers that they have already executed an agreement to sell dated 28.6.2011 with M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. in favour of their company M/s New Hope Developers.The directors warned the complainant that they have agreement with accused No.1 company and if the complainant would take any action against the directors and authorised signatories of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. or partners of M/s SVS Infra Build Pvt. Ltd., the complainant has to face serious consequences.Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi called the status report.The petitioner placed on record a `settlement agreement' dated 29.5.2012 to show that M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. obtained approximately Rs.1,23,52,07,364/- from M/s Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as M/s. Gold Developers Pvt. Ltd.) against development consideration of 206.37 acres of land, out of which the petitioner was induced to purchase 160 acres.Vide order dated 11.7.2013, after considering the ATR, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed to change the Investigating Officer under the close supervision of SHO concerned.Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was again forced to settle the matter with the accused persons.The petitioner made various representations with the senior officials but to no avail.Page 13 of 14By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C.') the petitioner seeks quashing of final report dated 15.2.2012 submitted by the investigating agency in case FIR No.20/2012 under Section 420/120B IPC registered at P.S. Baramkhamba Road, New Delhi.In nutshell the facts of the case are that the petitioner lodged a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. seeking directions to the police for registration of FIR.The Metropolitan Magistrate directed the SHO, P.S. Barakhamba Road to file Action Taken Report.On 15.2.2012 FIR under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC was registered.The complainant has also alleged that on 5.11.2011, the complainant came to know through public notice in Tribune that land of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. of which deal was conducted has already been mortgaged by the accused persons to Gold Developers Pvt. Ltd. (GDPL) and Gold Developers International Pvt. Ltd. (GDIPL) and both of these companies have their offices in New Delhi.Page 3 of 14The complainant has also alleged that all the proposed accused persons with dishonest intention fraudulently allured the Page 4 of 14 complainant to grab the amount of Rs.2.00 crores (Rupees two crores) and they have in furtherance of their conspiracy cheated the complainant.Page 4 of 14Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that after registration of FIR, the investigating agency started pressurising the petitioner/complainant to settle the matter with the accused persons and withdraw the complaint.Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. deals with the information to the police and their power to investigate.On an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner vide order dated 11.7.2013, the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi observed that the investigation has been passive and no sufficient progress has been made despite registration of FIR.The Magistrate directed the ACP concerned to change the Investigating Officer, who do not seem to be proceeding on correct lines and with the expediency the case requires and mark this case to an investigating officer of the rank of Inspector at the same police station.It was also directed that all the efforts be made for completing the investigation within two months.According to the status report filed on behalf of the State, since there is no written agreement between the complainant and Page 12 of 14 the alleged accused person/company and there was time stipulation to materialise any sale deed and title of the property in question remained with the alleged firm M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. which later on entered into fresh agreement with M/s New Hope Developers which was also not materialised.Page 12 of 14The receipt dated 16.6.2011 clearly depicts that the said amount was paid by the complainant (purchaser) towards advance to the seller in respect of land admeasuring 160 acres at the rate of Rs.1.20 crores.Similarly the receipts dated 17.6.2011, 18.6.2011 and 24.6.2011 clearly show that the amounts mentioned in the receipts were paid in respect of the 160 acres of land at Amritsar and the detailed agreement was to be executed within one week.The same fulfils requirement of an agreement.The agreement to sell executed on 28.6.2011 between M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s New Hope Developers is on record.Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a public notice published in the newspaper `Tribune' Chandigarh Edn.It is not clear that if the land in question of M/S Vishnurupa Devlopers Pvt. Ltd. situated at Amristar was freezed, as to how M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. managed to sell the part of the same land and what action was taken by the I.O. against the erring officials.In the light of the aforesaid discussion, without doubting the fairness of investigation carried out by the investigating officer, it would be fair and in justice of both the parties and the public that the investigation is done by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police.Accordingly, further investigation of FIR No.12/2012 dated 15.2.2012 registered at P.S. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi shall be carried by an officer not below the rank of Inspector in the crime branch of Delhi Police.The investigation shall be supervised by the officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police.Since FIR was registered in 2012, the investigation shall be completed expeditiously.With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"CRM No. 793 of 2011 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20.1.2011 in connection with Sutahata P.S. Case No. 278/2010 dated 18.10.2010 under Sections 147/148/149/186/353/332/ 333/379/325/326/307/427 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and 9(b) of the Indian ExclusiveAnd In the matter of : Shyamal Das - petitioner Mr. Asish Dey ... for the petitioner The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on instruction he is not pressing this application.The application stands dismissed for want of prosecution.(J. N. Patel, Chief Justice.) (Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)","['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"On 27.01.2020, a counter affidavit is filed by learned counsel Sri Kazim Ibrahim sworn by Sri Vinay Kumar Chaturvedi, Inspector, C.B.I, Special Crime Branch Office Complex.The bail application was listed severally but the same could not be heard, meanwhile due to Pandemic of Covid-19, the State of U.P. including District Lucknow gone under complete lockdown and physical hearing in the courts was suspended.The urgent hearing after sometime was permitted through video conferencing and at that stage on the ground, the applicant is suffering from Chronic Hapatitis-B, mention was made before Hon'ble the Senior Judge on 06.05.2020 through e-mail on the prescribed website of the Court, the case was then nominated by Hon'ble the Senior Judge vide order dated 11.05.2020 to this Court.Heard learned counsel Sri Pranjal Krishna, Advocate assisting his Senior designated Sri Nandit Srivastav, Advocate and learned A.S.G. Senior designated Sri S.B. Pandey, Advocate assisted by Sri Kazim Ibrahim, perused the record.From the perusal of record as contended by learned counsels the matter appears to have initiated on the basis of two public complaints which were received one from Manoj Srivastav and another from Vinod Jain, to the effect that huge amount has been misappropriated in 27 Savings Accounts standing at Lalitpur Head Post Office under the Jhansi Postal Division in U.P. Circle.During the preliminary enquiry, it was found that one account was written twice, 26 accounts were found initially and an amount of Rs.16,15,600/- has been found defrauded.On the basis of report of said preliminary enquiry into complaints, an F.I.R. was lodged and the investigation proceeded.In investigation, it was found that the applicant is a Postal Assistant and he was found in conspiracy with other co-accused though being a public servant they committed criminal breach of trust and thus withdrawn by way of forgery, manipulation and falsification, thereby made a loss to the State to the tune of Rs.3,11,75,845/- and reciprocally obtained themselves illegal gain.They did so by modifying the data entries fed in computer and thereafter by deleting the same.As such in conspiracy with each other they destroyed the evidences of electronic documents also.The applicant has made Annexure -1, the certified copy of the F.I.R. in Criminal Case No. 1426 of 2017 under Sections 120-B I.P.C. read with 201, 204, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477(A) I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) & (d) P.C. Act, Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 Police Station- C.B.I./SCB/Lucknow, District- Lucknow.In the aforesaid F.I.R. details of known/suspected accused with full particulars is given.From perusal of which it appears that including accused applicant total six accused are named who are respectively (1) Sri Indra Jeet Tiwari, Postal Assistant, Account Branch, Lalitpur Head Post Office.(2) Sri Shailesh Khare, Postal Assistant, Saving Bank Control Organization Branch, Lalitpur Head Post Office, Lalitpur.(3) Sri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Postal Assistant, Counter Clerk, Lalitpur Head Post Office (Present applicant).(4) Sri Sunil Tiwari, Agent.(5) Sri Anil Jain @ Anil Kumar Jain, National Savings Agent, Lalitpur Head Post Office.(6) Sri Manoj Singhal, National Savings Agent, Lalitpur Head Post Office, Lalitpur, U.P.The said F.I.R. against the accused-applicant is registered on the complaint in writing made by Sri Mahendra Kumar Srivastav, Senior Superintendent of P.H.O., Jhansi Division, Jhansi addressed to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I./S.C.B., Lucknow on 20.08.2014 with regard to the alleged fraud case of Lalitpur Head Office of Jhansi Division in U.P. Circle.The complainant has informed the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I./S.C.B., Lucknow that pursuant to the two public complaints namely of Sri Manoj Shivhare R/o Nai Basti, Lalitpur and Sri Vinod Jain R/o Ghanta Ghar, Lalitpur with regard to misappropriation of huge amount in 26 Savings Bank Account (particulars are given in the written complaint) standing at Latlitpur Head Post Office under Jhansi Postal Division in U.P. Circle, a preliminary enquiry was done.He further informed that in that preliminary enquiry it comes out that an amount of Rs.16,59,600/- has been defrauded.He further informed that the aforesaid two public complaints have disclosed that through data entry module, the entries of deposit were modified, therefore, all the available informations present in computers i.e. backup, was preserved during preliminary enquiry.The present bail application is of Vinod Kumar Chaudhary who is a co-accused in Criminal Case No.1426 of 2017 [C.B.I. Vs.Indrajeet Tiwari & Ors], Crime No.RC0532014A0006 of P.S. C.B.I./SCB/Lucknow under Sections 120-B read with 201, 204, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477(A) I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) & (d) P.C. Act, Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Court No.6, Lucknow.This first bail application is moved on 14.01.2020 by learned counsel Sri Pranjal Krishna, Advocate who is in assistance with learned Senior Designated Sri Nandit Srivastav, Advocate.Copy of the bail application has already been provided in the office of Additional Solicitor General pursuant thereto learned A.S.G, Senior Designated Sri S.B. Pandey, Advocate in assistance with learned counsel for the Central Government Sri Kazim Ibrahim, Advocate has put in appearance to protest the bail plea.In this connection the preliminary enquiry further revealed that the account numbers mentioned in the aforesaid public complaints were checked in Sanchay Post (A programme of departmental Saving Bank).Out of 26 accounts, Pass books for only 5 S.B. accounts were found available in the Sanchay post and remaining 21 S.B. accounts mentioned in the complaint were shown in computer as ""invalid accounts"".It was found that the said 21 accounts were deleted from the system after withdrawal of amounts.The said preliminary enquiry report on the basis of which the F.I.R. was registered further discloses that the allegation made in said two public complaints and also in the report of preliminary enquiry, it is prima facie found that there is a gang operating in Lalitpur Head Post Office comprising Sri Indrajeet Tiwari, Postal Assistant, Account Branch, Lalitpur Head Post Office, Sri Shailesh Khare, Postal Assistant, Saving Bank Control Organisation Branch, Lalitpur Head Post Office, Sri Vinod Kr.Chaudhary, Postal Assistant, Counter Clerk, Lalitpur Head Post Office, Sri Sunil Tiwari, Agent, Sri Anil Jain and Sri Manoj Singhal, National Savings Agent, Lalitpur Head Post Office.The mode and manner by which the aforesaid gang of accused persons defrauded the huge amount of public money is described in the complaint and the report of preliminary enquiry that they installed Data Entry Module in there respective systems in Account Branch and then Sri Indrajeet Tiwari and Sri Shailesh Khare used the computer of account branch to modify the deposit amount in the Data Entry Module in the Post Office computer record.Thereafter, they use to sent someone at the counter to withdraw money.At the counter, Sri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Postal Assistant use to help them in taking withdrawal in huge amount.In order to put a smoke screen over these fraudulent withdrawals, this gang used to take witness of above mentioned National Savings Agent on the withdrawal vouchers.On the basis of forged witness done by National Savings Agent, Sri Anil Kumar Jain and Sri Manoj Singhal huge amount of money was misappropriated.It is further complained that in this way they committed fraud in more than six thousand entries and crores of rupees have been defrauded by their gang.In the course of checking other accounts as per ledger entries it was found that from the backup data dated 08.06.2013 in respect of accounts fraudulent entries were made by the gang using Data Entry Module which were actually opened in the name of various different account holders mentioned against them.The amounts were withdrawn by fake/imposter persons with this modus operandi and huge some of money were misappropriated, though the actual depositor have not withdrawn their amount.Their amount was fraudulently withdrawn by the gang.It is further mentioned that it is prima facie responsibility of the counter Postal Assistant and Assistant Post Master (A.P.M.) to check and verify the name and identity of correct account holder which was not done by the officials namely Sri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary and Anil Kumar Jain.The amount of aforesaid 32 accounts is Rs.27,47,200/-, the enquiry report as mentioned in the complaint further discloses that National Savings Agent were also involved in this fraud as it is evident from the fact that amount of Rs.16,59,600/- were credited into the Government account by them namely, Sri Anil Kumar Jain and Sri Manoj Singhal as per report of the Post Master Lalitpur, Head Post Office.The complainant further reveals that the departmental enquiry reached at conclusions, the irregularity in Savings Bank Accounts has been detected with involvement of defrauded amount of Rs.44,01,800/- by the aforesaid modus operandi.It is pertinent to note here that the applicant challenged his prosecution in criminal case no. 1426 of 2017 (C.B.I. Vs.Indrajeet Tiwari and Ors.) detailed hereinabove U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.8428 of 2018 moving Criminal Misc.It was requested by learned counsel for the petitioner that the grievance of the petitioner would be sufficiently met in case bail application of the petitioner is considered expeditiously in accordance with law.The Court ordered ""In view thereof, it is provided that if the petitioner surrenders before the Court below within three weeks from today and applies for bail, the court below will consider the same, in accordance with law in view of the observation made in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Vs.State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 328 (Supreme Court).For a period of three weeks, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.""The present bail applicant failed to move the bail application within the aforesaid prescribed time before Special Judge, C.B.I. concerned pursuant to order dated 10.01.2019 and he again moved to the High Court U/S 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that applicant is seriously ill and is suffering from Chronic Hepatitis-B and acute Jaundice, therefore, could not moved the bail application within the aforesaid prescribed time.He further prayed for some more time.The relevant portion whereof is being quoted hereunder:-""Time is extended by one week only.In case petitioner surrenders before the Court below within one week from today and applies for bail, the Court below will consider the same in accordance with law in view of the observation made in the case of Lal Kamlendra 2009 (3) ADJ 328 (Supreme Court)"".Pursuant thereto the applicant moved the application for grant of bail before the Special Court, C.B.I., Lucknow.In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application it is stated that pursuant to the F.I.R. dated 28.08.2014 wherein the applicant is accused along with the other co-accused investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed therein on 30.06.2017 against him along with the other co-accused for committing the offence of criminal conspiracy through breach of trust, cheating, forgery of valuable documents, using forged documents as genuine and falsification of accounts by the abuse of official position etc., thereby causing an undue loss of approximately 44,01,800/- to the government exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves under the relevant Sections of I.P.C.It is argued by learned counsel that a circle level enquiry of this fraud was conducted by Director Postal Services, the report of the enquiry dated 08.05.2015 states the role of Mr. Mahendra Kumar Srivastava (the complainant in present case), the then Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Jhansi Division, Jhansi.It is alleged in this report that Mr. Mahendra Kumar Srivastav (the complainant) is one of the principle offenders of this fraud and was having effective in departmental rules of transfer and posting of employees or officials and also manipulation of records.He was placed under suspension by the Postal Department.The written complaint dated 20.08.2014 made by Sri Mahendra Kumar Srivastav, whereupon on 28.08.2014 the present F.I.R. is registered was submitted on preliminary enquiry done by him on two private complaints dated 04.03.2014 by Mr. Vinod Jain and 05.03.2014 by Mr. Manoj Shivhare.Learned counsel for the bail applicant further drew the attention towards the contents of aforesaid public complaints that they were apparently against Mr. Mahendra Kumar Srivastav himself along with the other three accused.Even then he was entrusted with the preliminary enquiry which he did almost in five years and thus save his skin, he fabricated the things towards the accused applicant.Some of the co-accused who are National Savings Agent were also shown in the commission of offence under conspiracy.As such each of the accused in the present case shown equally involved in the offence apparently have similar role as alleged in the prosecution case.The role of the applicant in the F.I.R as alleged is merely on speculation, the evidence with regard thereto is neither mentioned in the preliminary enquiry report, FIR nor in the charge sheet, therefore, prima facie the role, complicity and involvement of the accused in the alleged conspiracy is not established.Learned counsel further argued that so far as allegation as to the offence of forgery of valuable security and that of cheating, dishonesty, inducing delivery of property is concerned, the applicant has neither forged nor destroyed any valuable security, nor it is the case of prosecution also, moreover, the bare perusal of the charge sheet sufficiently shows that no act of applicant can make him liable within the scope of the above mentioned offences.Learned counsel further argued the applicant had ever been co-operative with the Investigating Officer, he has completed about four years service honestly and with full dedication to the Postal Department, he has to live life, which is expected to be considerably long, therefore, his application for release on bail should be considered on the aforesaid reasons.Learned counsel further submitted that as prima facie no offence is made out against the applicant and in aforesaid offences, the Special Court, C.B.I. has released on bail the co-accused Shailesh Khare vide order dated 24.01.2018 and Kalu Ram vide order dated 14.05.2019 (Annexure No.9).Later on the co-accused Anil Kumar Jain, Manoj Kumar Singhal were also granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2019 (Annexure No.10), therefore, he should also be released on bail so that he may be able to put his defence properly when the trial begins.Learned counsel further argued that despite the submission of charge sheet on 30.06.2017 still the trial has not begin, the accused is in Jail since 07.01.2020, though he is suffering from serious ailment, the Chronic Hepatitis-B and he is suffering a lot in incarceration.Learned counsel has made Annexure No.11 to the bail application, the medical prescription and treatment with that regard.During the entire period he had never been arrested but he never absconded from the process of the investigation, he has no criminal history.Learned counsel concluded his argument with a prayer to release the accused-applicant on bail.On the other hand, learned A.S.G. has opposed the bail plea of the accused-applicant on the ground that accused-applicant is participant in criminal conspiracy for withdrawing fraudulently from the National Savings Bank account of the depositors in Post Office which is public money.The accused applicant along with other co-accused has drained out a huge amount of public money.Learned A.S.G. further argued that it is clear and evident that National Savings Agents were also involved by the accused applicant and his companions in the conspiracy to commit the fraud.From the fact that the aforesaid agents arraigned in the present crime case have deposited Rs. 16,59,600/- and the same have been credited in the relevant account.The said National Savings Agent are Sri Anil Kumar Jain and Sri Manoj Singhal who are co-accused with the present applicant and other co-accused.Learned A.S.G. drew the attention towards the role of the present applicant that he is Postal Assistant and Counter Clerk, he has duty to verify the person seeking withdrawal of amount and present before him on the counter by documents like K.Y.C., Aadhar, etc. The applicant illegally omitted to discharge his duties acting under under the conspiracy and let the withdrawal done on the forged documents by imposters.He further submitted that during investigation it is implicated that the accused applicant working as counter clerk intentionally without identifying the real account holders done the process of withdrawal therefrom on the basis of forged identity presented by imposters.Learned A.S.G. argued that this was role of accused participant in the conspiracy and as such the applicant forged more than 400 Savings Account and withdrew amount from more than 100 accounts in aforesaid manner.Thereafter the original data entry and accounts were modified and deleted.According to prosecution the fraudulent withdrawal of amount was done from more than 169 National Savings Account with the complicity and involvement of the accused-applicant, causing the loss of Rs.1,31,35,200/-, this is a huge amount.He further submitted that the applicant as it is revealed from the record, was absconding and when on 21.03.2018 an N.B.W was issued, after a considerable delay, when process was issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 02.12.2019 of the Special Court and enforced, he put appearance before the Court.As such the argument of learned counsel for the bail applicant is not true that accused-applicant co-operated during the investigation and he will ensure his attendance during trial, as it is doubtful from the conduct of the accused, therefore, he should not be released on bail so as to ensure the trial to proceed further.This is also the case of prosecution that the officials of the post office namely Indrajeet Tiwari, Shailesh Khare and the present accused-applicant, Vinod Kumar Chaudhary were in collusive concert and conspiracy with the co-accused Sri Sunil Tiwari (Agent), Sri Anil Jain, Sri Manoj Singhal, National Savings Agent and thus had developed a modus operandi, wherein the amount deposited in National Savings Account in post office by public was used to have been withdrawn on forwarding of other co-accused, putting forth fictitious and imposter depositors in place of real depositors.For withdrawal they used forged documents and the applicant as Counter Clerk used to accept the forged identity of the imposters without any verification with the original entries fed in the computer.Thus he permitted the withdrawal.Thereafter the three co-accused, the officials of a Bank used to modify the entries accordingly and thereafter delete the same.Their roles cannot be assessed as lesser or heavier as they have committed the offence in concert with each other with a common object to give effect to the dishonest and illegal withdrawals.If all these are proved by evidences in trial, the punishment would be severe, they cannot be placed at this stage at different pedestals, even the National Savings Agent, co-accused in the present case are also liable to be placed on the same pedestal along with the other co-accused.From the order of this Court dated 10.01.2019 in Criminal Misc.Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. bearing no.8428 of 2018, it reflects that stay of arrest was sought on the ground of applicant's suffering from Chronic Hepatitis-B whereupon for the interim period arrest was stayed prescribing time to appear before the Special Court for moving application for bail.The medical prescriptions of the applicant along with the medical prescription of his wife, have already been annexed along with the bail application [Annexure-11 of the bail application]""Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In Crl.A.No.582 of 2013:-For Appellant :Mr.P.G.Perumal Priyan For Respondent :Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor In Crl.A.No.619 of 2013:-For Appellant :Mr.M.L.Ramesh For Respondent :Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor In Crl.A.No.385 of 2013:-For Appellant :Mr.G.Ramkumar For Respondent :Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor In Crl.A.No.371 of 2013:-The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Vimala.P.W.1 is her husband.P.W.1 was working as a Salesman in a private concern.The deceased was doing cloth business at her house itself.P.W.1 was assisting her in the said business.It was the practice of P.W.1 to leave the house for his work in the morning at 9.00 am and to return to his house around 6.30 pm.On 20.01.2012, in the usual course, P.W.1 had left the house for his work leaving the deceased alone at his house.3.Thereafter, around 12.45 pm on the same day, the deceased called him over phone and informed that A.3 who was already known to the deceased and P.W.1 had come to their house for the purpose of purchasing clothes in connection with a function at his house.Then within a short while, the deceased again called P.W.1 over phone and informed that A.3 had taken only two shirts promising to visit again to purchase rest of the clothes.P.W.1 instructed the deceased to sell the clothes to A.3 only after receiving the cost.4.Around 4.00 pm on the same day, P.W.1 tried to contact the deceased through her cell phone.But, the cell phone of the deceased was in a switched off mode.Then, at around 6.30 to 7.00 pm, as usual, P.W.1 returned to his house.He was in possession of one of the keys for the outer gate of the house.With that key, he opened the lock of the outer gate and entered into the premises but, the main door of the house was found locked.P.W.2 immediately rushed to the house of P.W.1 at about 9.45 pm.When they enquired at the house of a neighbour as to whether the deceased had given a key of the main door of the house, they told in the negative.Therefore, P.Ws.1 & 2 got perplexed.By using a hammer then they broke open the lock of the main door of the house.When they entered into the house, they found that there were blood stains on the floor.The bureau was found opened and the wife of P.W.1 was not however seen.When P.W.1 searched for her, he found the deceased lying dead underneath the cot, in a pool of blood.The clothes and other materials kept in the bureau were found lying outside.He proceeded to the place of occurrence, after leaving a request to the Finger Print Expert to come to the place of occurrence.At 1.00 am on 21.01.2012, on reaching the place of occurrence, P.W.18 prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness.The Finger Print Expert who had already arrived, made a thorough search in the place of occurrence and lifted two chance finger prints from the bureau of the house.The Police Photographer arranged by P.W.18 came to the place of occurrence and took photographs from various angles at the place of occurrence.But, the same turned futile, as it could not get any clue for the investigation.P.W.18 recovered blood stained cement plasters and the ordinary cement plasters from the place of occurrence under a mahazar.P.24 is the post mortem certificate.P.W.16 gave opinion that the death was due to strangulation and also due to the head injuries.He further opined that the death would have occurred 24 hours prior to the post mortem.6.P.W.18 recovered the blood stained clothes from the body of the deceased.When the investigation was in progress, on 24.01.2012 at about 5.30 pm, it is alleged that A.3 and A.4 appeared before P.W.8 who was the then Village Administrative Officer of Virudhachalam.According to him, A.3 & A.4, were already known to him.On such appearance, A.3 & A.4 told him that along with A.1 and A.2 they had killed the deceased and in connection with the same, they wanted to give confession.TN 20 AK 4105 and jewels and the other material objects.In pursuance of the same, he took P.W.18 and the another witness to South of his house and produced a gold bangle weighing 3 soverigns (M.O.2) and the other material objects viz., sarees and shirts.P.W.18 recovered the same under a mahazar.On returning to the police station, he forwarded A.3 and A.4 to Court for judicial remand and also handed over the Material Objects to Court.7.On 26.01.2012, at 2.00 am, at Erumanur Village, when P.W.18 was on vehicle check up, the Tata Sumo bearing registration No.TN 49 H 1666 was found moving.P.W.18 intercepted the same.A.1, A.2 & A.5 were in the Car.There were blood stains found on the knife.The cutting portion of the knife was slightly bent.A.1 further produced a key punch with two keys (M.O.16); yet another key punch with 5 keys (M.O.17); one Nokia cell phone (M.O.32) and yet another cell-Samsung cell phone (M.O.33).Then he produced the jewels viz., three row chain (M.O.3); a bracelet (M.O.14); a three stone nose pin and two nose pins (M.O.4 series) three rings (M.O.5 series) a thali (M.O.12); a thali chain (M.O.13).P.W.18 recovered all these Material Objects under a mahazar and the original sale deed (M.O.15) pertaining to the house of P.W.1 and the deceased.Then P.W.18 altered the case into one under Sections 392, 302, 376 and 414 I.P.C., and submitted an alteration report to the Court.8.P.W.18 forwarded A.1 for medical examination.P.W.15  Dr.Saravanan, conducted medical examination on A.1 and certified that he was capable of performing penile sex with a woman.P.W.12, in turn, informed that he had pledged those jewels at Muthoot Finance, Veeraganur Village.In pursuance of the same, on 02.04.2012, at 11.00 am, P.W.18 recovered the jewels (M.Os.6,7,8,9,10,11) under a mahazar.He examined the officials of the Muthoot Finance and recorded their statements.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, as many as 18 witnesses were examined and 28 documents were exhibited besides 33 Material Objects.10.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 has stated that on the day of occurrence, he left the house in the morning to his work spot.He has further stated by around 12.45 pm, the deceased told over phone and informed him that A.3 had come to purchase clothes.Again after some time, according to P.W.1, the deceased spoke to him and told him that A.3 had taken only two shirts and promised her to come again to purchase rest of the items.He has further stated that at 4.00 pm, when he tried to contact the deceased over cell phone, her cell phone was in a switched off mode.He has further stated that between 6.30 and 7.00 pm, he returned home and the house was found locked.For Appellant :Mr.S.Prabhakaran For Respondent :Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor In Crl.A.No.350 of 2013:-For Appellant :Mr.Prasanna Venkates For Respondent :Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor COMMON JUDGMENT(Common Judgement of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu.J) The appellant in Crl.A.No.582 of 2013 is A.1; the appellant in Crl.A.No.619 of 2013 is A.2; the appellant in Crl.A.No.385 of 2013 is A.3; the appellant in Crl.A.No.371 of 2013 is A.4 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.350 of 2013 is A.5 in S.C.No.130 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai.The trial Court framed as many as six charges as detailed below:-ChargesAccusedSection of lawCharge No.lAccused 1 to 4120(B) I.P.C.,Charge No.2A.1376 I.P.C.,Charge No.3A.1302 I.P.C.,Charge No.4A.1 to A.4392 r/w 397 I.P.C.,Charge No.5A.2 to A.4302 r/w 34 I.P.C.,Charge No.6A.5414 I.P.C., By judgment dated 22.04.2013, the trial Court convicted all the accused under all the charges and sentenced them as detailed below:-Accused Section of lawSentenceA.1120(B) I.P.C.,392 r/w 397 I.P.C.,Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one yearA.2 to A.4120(B) I.P.C.,302 r/w 34 I.P.C.,392 r/w 397 I.P.C.,Rigorous imprisonment for two years Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two yearsRigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one yearA.5414 I.P.C.,Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.The trial Court has ordered the sentences to run concurrently.Through the outside electricity switch, he put on the lights outside and went to the nearby Tea Shop, believing that the deceased had gone elsewhere in connection with some work.Even after, he returned from the Tea shop for a long time, the deceased did not return.P.W.1 therefore, informed P.W.2, a friend of him about the same.The jewels kept in the bureau, the keys of the house and the keys of the bureau were found missing.There was a long cut injury on the neck of the deceased.5.P.W.17, the then Sub Inspector of Police on receipt of such complaint, registered a case in Crime No.51/2012 for offence under Sections 392 & 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.25 is F.I.R. He forwarded both the complaint (Ex.Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.27, Inquest Report.Then, he forwarded the body for post mortem.P.W.16 conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 21.01.2012 at 1.30 pm.He found the following injuries:-External injuries noted:- 1.All finger nails cyanosed.2.Right eye  upper eye lid contused  size 4cm x 1cm x 0.5 cm with conjunctional haemorrhage.3.Laceration of abrasions  (a) 0.5 cm  upper part of front of neck  1cm below the chin.4.Curved abrasions (a) 0.5 cm long 1 cm below the middle of right lower jaw.(b) 1.5 cm long  centre of neck  4 cm above the suprasternal notch (c)1cm long  left side of neck  8 cm from angle of left mandible (d) 1 cm long  left side of neck  7cm from angle of mandible.5.Contusion of size 2cm x 1cm x 0.5 cm over right mandible6.Lower lip contused right side  2cm x 1cm x 0.5 cm.Tip of tongue 0.5cm protrauding between the teeth7.Contusion of size 9cmx2cmx1cm over middle and right side of forehead.8.Contusion of left chest  upper part  2 in number 8cm x 1cm x0.5 cm 16cm x 6xm x 0.5 cm one below the other.9.Contusion of size 8cm x 2cm x0.5 cm lower part of left chest.10.Contusion of size 11 cm x 2cmx0.5 cm over left chest  lower part and upper abdominal wall  lateral aspect.11.Contusion of size 4cm x 1cm x0.5 cm over medial aspect of left upper thigh.Ex.A.3 further told that if, he went to the Police Station to surrender, they would assault him and therefore, he had come to P.W.8 to surrender.After these long conversation, P.W.8 allowed A.3 to confess.When P.W.18 interrogated, A.1 on his own, volunteered to give a confession.P.W.18 recorded the said confession in the presence of P.W.11 and another witness.P.W.18 recovered the said Car (M.O.24) under a mahazar.A.1 produced a knife from the said Car.At his request, the material objects were sent for chemical examination.On completing investigation, P.W.18 laid charge sheet against all the five accused.9.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.He opened the main compound gate of the house with the key in his possession.Till 9.45 pm, the deceased did not come.He informed P.W.2 and on his arrival, both of them broke open the main door of the house and they found the deceased underneath the cot lying in a pool of blood and there were injuries on the body of the deceased.P.W.1 has further stated about the missing of articles viz., M.Os.1 to 17 from the house.He had identified the said Material Objects as stolen properties.P.W.2 a family friend of P.W.1 has stated that on receiving message from P.W.1, he rushed to the house of P.W.1 and by using a hammer, they broke open the lock of the main door and they found the deceased underneath the cot lying in a pool of blood with injuries.P.W.2 has further stated about the complaint made by P.W.1 to Police. P.W.3 who is the brother of P.W.1 has stated that at or about the occurrence, he found A.1 to A.3 moving towards the house of the deceased.When he enquired them, they told that they are going to the house of the deceased to purchase clothes.He has stated that he heard about the occurrence and then came to the place of occurrence and he has stated on the basis of only hearsay information.P.W.5 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.6 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and the rough sketch, in the place of occurrence and the recovery of material objects from the place of occurrence.P.W.7 is the Scientific Expert who examined the material objects sent to him.He has stated that he found human blood stains in all the material objects including the knife recovered from A.1 (M.O.25).P.W.8 has further stated about the fact that A.3 gave a voluntary confession which he reduced into writing.The said confession is Ex.He has further stated that he has produced A.3 & A.4 to P.W.18 and he has also stated about the disclosure statements made by A.3 & A.4 to P.W.18 and the consequential recoveries of the material objects at their instances.12.P.W.9 is the Finger Print Expert.He has stated that on the request made by P.W.18, he rushed to the place of occurrence and thoroughly examined the entire house for chance finger print at last, he found two chance finger prints on the left side door of the bureau in the bed room of the house where the deceased was lying dead.He marked the same as Exs.He took photographs of the same.However, they did not tally.Thereafter, when he compared the same the chance finger prints with the finger prints of the culprits available in the Finger Print Bureau, he found the finger print of A.1 tallied with the chance finger print (Ex.M.2) The said finger print of A.1 had been taken and preserved in connection with the case in Crime No.19/2011 under Sections 302 & 379 I.P.C., on the file of the Edaikal Police Station.In this connection, he submitted a report to P.W.18 under Ex.After the arrest of A.2, according to him, the finger print taken from A.2 was compared by him which tallied with the chance finger print (Ex.M.1) taken from the place of occurrence.In this regard, he submitted yet another report under Ex.13.P.W.10 is a Mechanic by profession working at Virudhachalam.He has stated that on 20.01.2012, A.3 had left his motor cycle to him for repair and then, he took it back on the same day evening.Thus, the evidence of P.W.10 is in no way help the case of the prosecution.The confession made by them and the recoveries of material objects.14.P.W.12 is the vital witness for the prosecution.He has stated that on 21.01.2012, A.1 came to him and gave him some of the stolen articles for the purpose of pledging.Accordingly, in order to help A.1, P.W.12, pledged the said jewels at Muthoot Finance, Veeraganur Village and gave him Rs.14,200/-.P.W.12 has further stated that some more jewels were pledged by him at Manapuram Gold, Veeraganur Village.On the arrest of A.1 and on the disclosure statement made by him, P.W.12 has identified P.Ws.13 & 14, the branch Managers of Muthoot Finance and Manapuram Gold.According to them, the stolen articles were recovered by P.W.18 under Exs.P.20 and 21 mahazar.P.W.15 is the Doctor who examined A.1 has given an opinion that A.1 was capable of performing penal sexual intercourse with a woman.P.W.16 has spoken about the post mortem conducted on the body of the deceased and her final opinion regarding the cause of the death.P.Ws.17 & 18 have spoken about the investigation done in this case and the final report filed.15.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, they denied the same as false.On the side of A.3, Mr.Ramadoss was examined as D.W.1; Mr.Manikandan @ Kalaimani (A.3) was examined as D.W.2 and four documents were exhibited as Exs.D.1 is the report of a local vernacular news paper dated 22.01.2012; Ex.D.2 is a copy of the voters identity card of A.2; Ex.16.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted all the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.Challenging the same, the appellants/accused 1 to 5 are before this Court with these Criminal Appeals.17.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.18.This is a case based on circumstantial evidence.It is needless to point out that, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove the circumstances projected by it, beyond reasonable doubts and all such proved circumstances, should form a complete chain, without any break, so as to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and there should not be any other hypothesis which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused.Keeping this broad principle in mind, let us go into the circumstances projected by the prosecution in the present case.19.The first and foremost circumstance projected by the prosecution is that on 20.01.2012, at about 9.00 am, when P.W.1 left for his company concerned, where he was working, he left the deceased alone at his house.Thus, from the evidence of P.W.1, it is crystal clear that the deceased was lastly seen alive at 9.00 am on the day of occurrence.20.The next circumstance projected by the prosecution is that according to P.W.1 at about 12.45 pm, the deceased spoke to him over cell phone and informed him that A.3 who was already known to their family had come to purchase certain cloth items in connection with a function at his house.He had selected certain cloth items to purchase.Within a short while thereafter, the deceased again called him and informed him that A.3 had taken only two shirts and had assured to come again to purchase the rest of the clothes.P.W.1 instructed her to collect the price and then to sell the clothes in the event A.3 came.This was the last call received from the deceased.We do not find any reason to reject this part of evidence.21.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the call details regarding the above phone calls between the deceased and P.W.1 have not been collected by the prosecution from the cell phone service providers.Ofcourse, it is a flaw.Had the call details been collected by the Police that would have given added strength to the case of the prosecution.In our considered view, the failure to collect those call details from the cell phone service providers has not in any manner caused any dent in the case of the prosecution, as P.W.1 had no axe to grind against these accused.22.It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that at 4.00 pm, he tried to contact the deceased over phone.The cell phone of the deceased was in a switch off mode.This would only indicate that the deceased was either dead and was not in a position to attend the call.It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that as per the usual course, he returned to his house around 6.30 and 7.00 pm on the day of occurrence.He found the main door of the house locked from outside.He had one key of the compound gate.Hence, he opened the compound gate, went inside the compound, switched on the outer lights.Since, he had no key of the main door of the house, he went to the nearby tea shop.After returning from the tea shop, he found the deceased had not returned.He waited for some time.Thereafter, he called P.W.2 over phone.At 9.45 pm, they broke open the main door of the house and they found the deceased dead and lying in a pool of blood with injuries inside the house.They also came to know that some of the properties had been stolen away.23.The deceased was found lying in a pool of blood and there were also injuries.The Doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased had opined that the deceased would have died due to strangulation as well as due to the other injuries found on the body of the deceased.24.P.W.1 has stated that M.Os.1 to 14 were found missing from the house of P.W.1 which includes the key punch with keys relating to the main door of the house and the key punch with keys relating to the bureau of P.W.1 & the deceased and also certain title deeds relating to property.These facts have been mentioned at the earliest point of time even in Ex.The assailants were not known.Therefore, it cannot be argued that the details of the stolen properties had been mentioned only for the purpose of the case.It is crystal clear that at the very first instance, P.W.1 had mentioned about the missing of M.Os.1 to 14 in Ex.P.1 itself which duly corroborates his oral evidence.Thus, the prosecution has established that M.Os.1 to 14 had been stolen away in the same occurrence in which, the deceased was done to death.Thus, it is presumable that the person or persons who committed murder of the deceased had committed robbery of the jewels viz., M.Os.1 to 14 also.25.Now, the next important question is as to who committed the above crime.26.So far as A.5 is concerned, in order to prove that he was one of the assailants/culprits who committed the crime, the prosecution relies only on the extra judicial confession said to have been given by A.3 to P.W.8 on 24.01.2012 at 5.30 pm.There is no other evidence against him.27.Now, turning to the case against A.4, according to the case of the prosecution, on 24.01.2012 at 5.30 pm, he appeared before P.W.8 along with A.3 and told him that he also wanted to surrender to the Police in connection with the above crime.P.W.8 admitted during cross examination that A.3 alone gave confession and he reduced the same into writing.It is his further evidence that A.4 did not give any confession.P.W.18 arrested him and on such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, in which, certain Material Objects were marked one of the material objects is the Tata Sumo bearing registration No.TN 20 4105 (M.O.20).The other material objects recovered from A.4 have also not been connected to the crime.M.Os.1 to 14 have been marked as stolen properties.Out of the properties recovered on the disclosure statement made by A.4, there was only one gold item which is a gold bangle with the inscription of 916 hallmark weighing 3 soverigns.P.W.1 has identified M.O.2 bangle as one of the stolen properties.28.Now, turning to the case against A.1 to A.3, P.W.3 Mr.Veeramani has stated that on 20.01.2012, he found all these accused viz., A.1 to A.3 moving towards the house of the deceased.When he enquired them, they told that they were going to the house of the deceased to purchase clothes.From this evidence, the prosecution, to some extent, has proved that A.1 to A.3 were together moving towards the house of the deceased at or about the time of occurrence.We do not find any reason to reject the evidence of P.W.3 which is very convincing.29.The learned counsel for the appellants would however, submit that there was no test identification parade conducted for these three accused.But, a perusal of the evidence of P.W.3 would go to show that he has stated that all these three accused were already known to him and therefore, the argument that there should have been prior test identification parade, deserves only to be rejected.30.Then, comes the vital evidence of chance finger prints found at the place of occurrence.P.W.9, the finger print expert has stated that on the request made by P.W.18, he visited the place of occurrence and searched for chance finger print and at last, he found two chance finger prints, on the left side door of the bureau in the bed room of the deceased where the deceased was lying dead.Since, the properties were stolen away from the bureau the culprits had occasion to handle the door of the bureau.31.P.W.9 has further stated that he lifted those two chance finger prints and marked the same as Exs.He has further stated that when he compared the same with the finger prints of the inmates of the house namely P.W.1 and the deceased and also that of P.W.2, they did not tally with the same.He preserved the same.He has further stated that he compared the said chance finger prints with the admitted finger prints of the accused involved in various cases which were preserved by the Finger Print Bureau.He found on comparison that the finger print of the first accused herein preserved in connection with the case in Crime No.19/2011 under Sections 302 & 379 I.P.C., on the file of the Edaikal Police Station, tallied with the chance finger print marked as Ex.Thus, from this evidence, the prosecution has clearly proved that A.1 had gone into the house of the deceased and that is how his finger print had come into being on the left side door of the bureau of the house.Similarly, after the arrest of A.2, the sample finger print taken from him was compared and the same was tallied with the sample finger print marked as Ex.32.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the photograph of the chance finger prints taken have not been marked in evidence.Therefore, we hold that the said chance finger prints belonging to A.1 and A.2 found at the bureau at the house of the deceased is a very strong circumstance to prove that A.1 & A.2 had gone to the house of the deceased at or about the time of occurrence and handled the bureau.33.The next circumstance is the arrest of A.1, A.2 & A.5 on 26.01.2012 at 2.00 am.During routine vehicle check up by P.W.18, he intercepted the vehicle bearing registration No.TN 49 H 1666 and on such interception, A.1 gave a voluntary confession out of which, some of the stolen properties were recovered and from out of the disclosure statement made by A.2, some more stolen properties were recovered.The details of the stolen properties so recovered on their disclosure statements have already been dealt with herein above elaborately.34.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that P.W.1 has admitted during cross examination that A.1 was brought to the place of occurrence by about 1.00 am on the next day of the occurrence itself.From out of this, the learned counsel would submit that the story propounded by the prosecution that A.1, A.2 & A.5 were arrested only on 21.06.2012 at 2.00 am cannot be true.Ofcourse, he has stated that on the next day of the occurrence, at 1.00 am, A.1 was brought to the place of occurrence by the Police.But, we are not prepared to give much weightage for this part of evidence of P.W.1 because, due to fading memory, P.W.1 would have stated so.Therefore, much weightage cannot be given for that part of evidence.35.P.W.11 is an independent witness.A.1 & A.2 have got no explanation regarding the possession of stolen articles including the key punch of the main door as well as the key punch of the bureau which have been mentioned in the F.I.R., itself.In the absence of any such explanation by A.1 and A.2 for the possession of the above stated stolen articles, we have no option but, to presume as provided in Section 114 Indian Evidence Act that these two accused had also committed the crime in question.36.The evidences of P.Ws.12, 13 & 14 also lend assurance to the fact that on 21.01.2012, A.1 was found in possession of some of the stolen properties which were given to P.W.12 by him and P.W.12 in turn, produced the same to P.Ws.13 & 14 for the purpose of pledging.The evidences of P.Ws.12 to 14 also further lend assurance to the above conclusion which we have arrived at.So far as A.3 is concerned, undoubtedly, his confession to P.W.8 is a substantive evidence against him.From these circumstances, the prosecution in our considered view, has clearly established that A.1 to A.3 had gone to the house of the deceased under the guise of purchasing clothes and committed murder of the deceased and also stolen away the valuable articles as detailed herein above.Thus, so far as A.1 to A.3 are concerned, we hold that the prosecution has clearly proved their guilt and therefore, the appeals filed by A.1 to A.3 are liable to be dismissed.38.Now, turning to the quantum of punishment imposed on A.1 to A.3, the trial Court has imposed only a minimum punishment which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.Thus, we do not find any merit in the appeals filed by A.1 to A.3 viz., Crl.39.In the result, Crl.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This Petition is for quashing and setting aside the FIRregistered against the Petitioners at Kalwa Police Station being C.R.No.I-197 of 2018 for a offence punishable under sections 326, 506of IPC.The Respondent No.2 - original complainant as well asthe aggrieved person viz. Ashad Zakir Hussain Mullaji have filedseparate affidavit dated 26th July 2018 thereby giving no objection toset aside the crime bearing C.R. No.On specific querymade by us, she submitted that she has made the said affidavit onher own free will, without there being any pressure or undueinfluence.She has further confirmed that she has no objection forquashing the subject FIR initiated by her against the Petitioners.We have carefully gone through the FIR on the basis ofwhich offence has been registered against the present Applicantsunder sections 326, 504 of IPC.Perusal of the complaint wouldreveal a verbal altercation took place between the complainant onone hand and the accused persons and this altercation culminatedinto an assault with the aid of wooden bamboo which was lying at thespot.The two rival parties have amicably settled the disputesbetween themselves and buried the hatchet.Not only this, they saythat since they are neighbours, they want to live like good neighboursand that was the reason for restoring friendly ties.","['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The facts of the case are that Plots No.14 and 16 situated at Scheme No.54, Mechanic Nagar Extension, Indore were allotted to Smt. Sunanda Gupta and Smt. Vandana Gupta vide lease-deed dated 25.08.2005 for a period of twenty years.Later on, the lease hold rights were transferred by the aforesaid lessee to one MP Real Estate & Developers vide sale-deed dated 01.11.2006, whereby the lease hold rights were transferred by Smt. Sunanda Gupta and Smt. Vandana Gupta.On 04.11.2008, the applicantThe facts of the case are that Plots No.14 and 16- M/s. SCS Builders & Developers (P) Limited purchased the lease hold rights and moved an application on 09.01.2009 for mutation, but the mutation has not taken place in spite of number of reminders given to the respondents.It is submitted that order dated 14.07.2015 was never served on the applicant and only on 31.10.2015, the respondents sent copy of the same to the applicant.He has also drawn my attention to the order passed in the writ petition and writ appeal and submitted that by the aforesaid order, the prayer for mutation on the ground that the original record is with Economic Offence Wing; and secondly, the original lay out plan has been changed, and rejected the application.Relevant part of the order 4 dated 14.07.2015, which is at page No.4 of the order, reads as under: -""izdj.k ds laca/k esa mDr leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f""Vxr j[krs gq, iz'uk/khu Hkw[kaMksa ds laca/k esa fLFkfr fuEukuqlkj gS%& 1- e-iz- jkT; vkfFkZd vijk/k vUos""k.k C;wjksa e-iz- Hkksiky@bankSj }kjk tkap izdj.k dz-8@2008 ds i'pkr vijk/k dz- 11@2008 /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471] 120&ch Hkk-n-fo- ,oa 13 1 Mh] 13 2 Hkz""V vkpj.k fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1988 ds varxZr iathc) fd;k tkdj iz'uk/khu Hkw[kaMksa dh O;fDrxr ufLr;ka tIr dh tk pqdh gSaA 2- iz'uk/khu Hkw[kaMksa dh fLFkfr ,oa {ks=Qy esa la'kksf/kr ys vkmV vuqlkj ifjorZu fd;k x;k Fkk ftlds laca/k esa fo'ks""k U;k;ky; esa izdj.k 9@09 ntZ gksdj yafcr gSA izdj.k esa la'kksf/kr ys&vkmV vuqlkj ifjorZu ij fu.kZ; gksuk gSaA vr% iz'uk/khu Hkw[kaM dzekad 14 ,oa 16 ds varj.k ds vkosnu mijksDr vk/kkj ij fujLr fd;s tkrs gSaA mDr U;k;ky;hu izdj.ksa ds fujkdj.k ds i'pkr vkosnd ls uohu vkosnu izkIr gksus ij U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds ifjizs{; esa dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsxhA""As per record, the aforesaid crime has been registered by the State Economic Offence Bureau against the original allottee i.e. against Smt. Sunanda Gupta and Smt. Vandana Gupta and certain Officers of the IDA, and therefore, record pertaining to the aforesaid plots has been seized by them.The complete set of documents could not be made available to the 5 respondents, and therefore, order dated 14.07.2015 has been passed by the respondent - IDA.Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that the same stand was taken in the writ petition and once the aforesaid objection was turned down and the learned Writ Court directed to pass an appropriate order regarding mutation, then the respondents could have passed the order of mutation in-stead of rejecting the application on the pretext that the original records are not available with them.Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed and the charges framed against the petitioner in Special Case No.09/2009 vide impugned order dated 06.04.2016 are hereby quashed.""From the aforesaid, it is not in dispute that land of Plots No.14 and 16, Scheme No.54, Mechanic Nagar Extension, Indore were allotted on lease for a period of 25 years, i.e. up to 2030, as per the terms and conditions of lease-deed dated 21.10.2005 registered on 28.08.2005, transfer / alienation is permissible.","['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"[a] The accused 1 and 2 are brothers.They are residents of Lakshimayur Village in Omalur Taluk.The first accused had a son by name Selvam and another son by name Venkatesan.The first accused was living with his family members, including his sons.Mr.Selvam (since deceased) was involving in petty thefts.Despite the warning and advice given by the first accused, he had not stopped the same.It is further alleged that because of the said bad conduct of the deceased Selvam, the first accused decided to do away with him.[b] On 24.10.2010 at about 10.00 p.m. the first accused had gone to Thuvaraikadu and he was waiting there.He had asked his another son Venkatesan to bring Selvam to Thuvaraikadu.Accordingly, Venkatesan [juvenile accused] took the deceased to Thuvaraikadu.By about 12 midnight, the first accused pushed the deceased down and Venkatesan killed him.Then, the first accused cut the deceased with koduval on his head.The deceased succumbed to the injuries instantaneously.Then, the accused 1 and 2 returned to their house.After concealing the koduval at his house, the first accused met his brother the second accused and informed him about the same.Then the accused 1 and 2 decided to cause disappearance of the body.Therefore, together they went to Thuvaraikadu with a gunny bag, put the dead body into the gunny bag, hid the same with stones and pushed it into a well.This occurrence was not noticed by anyone.[c] On 25.10.2010, at about 8.00 a.m., the first accused went to P.W.1, the then Village Administrative Officer of Taramangalam and wanted to confess about the above occurrence.P.W.1 agreed to record the same.The first accused then gave a voluntary confession narrating the above events and admitting his guilt as well as the guilt of his son Venkatesan and the second accused.The first accused subscribed his Left Thumb Impression to the same.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.213 of 2012 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem.He stood charged for offences under Sections 364 r/w 34, 302 and 201 IPC.Including the appellant, there were two accused.By judgment dated 27.03.2013, the trial Court convicted both the accused.The trial Court, however, acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 364 r/w 34 IPC.So far as the first accused/appellant is concerned, he was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and for the offence under Section 201 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused/appellant is before this Court with this appeal.He took the first accused along with Exs.P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police on receipt of Exs.P1 and P2, registered a case in Cr.No.460 of 2010 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against all the three accused, including the juvenile.P16 is the FIR.Then, he forwarded Exs.P.W.15 arrested the first accused in the presence of P.W.1 and another witness.On such arrest, at 10.00 a.m., he made a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had thrown the dead body of the deceased.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the well and identified the same.P.W.15 prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch showing the place of occurrence [Exs.P25 and 26] in the presence of the same witnesses.Then he gave intimation to the Fire and Rescue Service for help.When his men climbed down the well, they found a gunny bag immersed in water.They brought it out.When it was opened, the dead body of the deceased was found inside.P.W.15 then conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for post-mortem.[e] P.W.5 conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased on 26.10.2010 at 1.00 p.m. He found the following injuries:""An oblique wide open chopped injury involving front and right side of neck M- 20 x 10 x bone deep with exposing of trachea and oesophagus with underlying pre and para vertebral muscle contused.O/D Underlying blood vessels, soft tissue, nerves, right side carotid, vertebral artery, external and internal jugular vein severed, with sternomastoid muscle severed.The cut fracture of cervical spine C2 with severance of underlying spinal cord served.This injury is situated at the level of 8 cms above supra sternal notch and 5 cms below mid chin on right side.""He opined that the death of the deceased was due to effects of shock and haemorrhage due to neck injury.According to him, the death would have occurred 36 hours prior to the autopsy.[f] P.W.15 continued the investigation.On the disclosure statement made by the first accused, he produced a blood stained shirt and a blood stained pant from his house.At 6.15 p.m., on 25.10.2010, P.W.15 recovered the same.On the same day, at 5.00 p.m., he arrested the juvenile accused Venkatesan and the second accused Raja.On such arrest, the juvenile accused Venkatesan gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden M.Os.4 and 5 [multiple colour full hand shirt and grey colour pant].On returning to the police station, P.W.15 forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand and handed over all the material objects to the Court, with a request to send the same for chemical examination.The Chemical Analysis Report reveals that these material objects, including the aruval which was recovered at the instance of the first accused contained human blood.On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.[g] Since Mr.Venkatesan was found to be a juvenile in conflict of law, he was proceeded against before the appropriate Juvenile Justice Board.These two accused alone faced the trial before the trial Court.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the above charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 29 documents were exhibited, besides 11 material objects.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 has spoken about the extra judicial confession given by the first accused.P.Ws.2, 6, 7 and 8 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.3 is the owner of the well.He has stated that the gunny bag was found in the well.P.W.4 also has stated that the dead body was taken from the well.P.W.5 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted and the Final Report regarding the cause of death.P.W.9 - Fire service man has stated that he lifted the dead body from the well with the help of his men.P.W.10 has spoken about the photographs taken at the place of occurrence.P.W.11 has spoken about the registration of the case.P.W.12 has stated that he handed over the FIR registered by the Sub Inspector of Police on 25.10.2010 at about 10.00 a.m., to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Omalur.He has not stated anything about the time at which he handed over.He has also not stated as to the mode of his transport.P.W.13 has stated that he took the dead body from the place of occurrence to the hospital and handed over the blood stained cloth found on the body of the deceased to the Inspector of Police.P.W.14 the Head Clerk of the Magistrate Court has stated that he forwarded the material objects for chemical analysis on the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate.P.W.15 has spoken about the investigation done and his Final Report.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor he did marked any documents in his favour.His defence was a total denial.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.This is a case based on circumstantial evidence.The prosecution relies only on the extra-judicial confession said to have been given by the appellant to P.W.1 and consequential recovery of the dead body from the well.He would further submit that the appellant is an illiterate person and the Inspector of Police, using his authority, had obtained the thumb impression of the appellant in Ex.P1 and forwarded the same to the Court.The learned counsel would further submit that there is absolutely no explanation as to why the FIR along with Ex.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would however, oppose the appeal.According to him, the appellant, for his own reason had gone to P.W.1 to confess.P.W.12 - the Constable who took the FIR from the Sub Inspector of Police and has handed over the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate has not offered any explanation for the delay.P1 a doubtful document.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"323/341/506/387/500/34 IPC read with Section 25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar, Delhi vide detailed order of 30th August, 2012, trial court had summoned respondents herein for the offence under Section 323/341/506/34 IPC.Above-said order was challenged by way of a revision petition by the respondents herein.Revisional court vide impugned order of 17th January, 2013 has upset the above-said trial court's order and has discharged respondents herein by holding that allegations made by petitioner-complainant appear to be improbable and motivated.The initial version given in petitioner's complaint of 10th Crl.M.C.No.1198/2013 Page 1 September, 2007 to the concerned DCP reads as under:-The persons named Rajpal, Kamla, Sukhbir are known to the applicant.All of them wrongfully at 2.00 p.m. restrained the applicant in a way near 13-Block Trilok Puri which falls within area of PS Mayur Vihar and made illegal demand of Rs.3 lacs.After refusal by the same they used filthy languages and started beatings.Rajpal and Sukhbir showed knife and all of them threatened either withdraw the case and fulfill their demands of Rs.3 lacs otherwise they will kill the applicant and his family.They also threatened to falsely implicate the applicant and his family in any case.Public persons collecting there saved the applicant.","['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan, J.) The petitioner is the detenu herein.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:Police Station & Crime No.Section of LawThe ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 16.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Thally Police Station in Crime No.283/2013 for offence under Section 392 IPC.Amidst several grounds raised to assail the impugned order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that as per Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as soon as the arrest is made, it must be communicated to the relatives of the person arrested.",['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
"This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.11.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Court No. 2, Etawah rejecting the bail application of appellants, in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 2256 of 2019 (Bhola @ Rohit Kumar and another Vs.State) arising out of Case Crime No. 192 of 2019, under Sections- 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Basrehar, District -Etawah.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case.As per FIR version, no specific role has been assigned and only presence of appellants is shown on the spot.The main role of assault has been assigned to one Vipin Prakash and the same fact is also getting support by the statements of injured witnesses.On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said fact.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application.The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.11.2019 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.Let the appellants Bhole @ Rohit Kumar and Abhishek involved in Case Crime No. 192 of 2019, under Sections- 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Basrehar, District -Etawah be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.This bail order would be subject to the fulfilment of following conditions:-The appellants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.The appellants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.The appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel.","['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on the night intervening 18/19.10.2006, PW-26 Ins.Ravinder Singhw was patrolling in the area of PS Sultan Puri and while patrolling, he was informed by the duty officer that DD No.7-B dated 19.10.2006 had been registered regarding apprehension of one thief at P-II Sultan Puri.Accordingly, PW-26 Ins.Ravinder Singh reached there and found PW-10 ASI Ranbir, PW-12 Ct. Biri Singh and accused Krishan present there and came to know that accused Krishan along with his other co-associate had inflicted injuries on the person of one lady namely Pinky and that accused Krishan had been apprehended at the spot and that the injured lady had already been removed to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi by her husband/PW-3 Deepak Kumar.PW-26 Ins.Ravinder Singh went to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi, along with his staff and accused Krishan, leaving PW-21 Ct.Joginder at the spot.The PW-8 HC Raj Kumar and PW-13 Ct.Ravinder were also called to the hospital and accused Krishan was handed over to them with directions to get his medical examination conducted.The PW-26 Ins.Ravinder Singh also met PW-3 Deepak, husband of injured Pinky in the hospital, however, he did not give any statement then as he was busy Crl.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 2 of 12 in treatment of his wife.At about 3:15/3:20 A.M. the concerned doctor declared Smt. Pinky dead.Thereafter, Ex.PW-3/A i.e. statement of PW-3 Deepak Kumar was recorded, wherein he stated that he was residing with his family in rented accommodation at P-II/1484, Sultan Puri, Delhi and was working in a factory.He had married Pinki (since deceased), two years prior to the incident.On the night of the incident, complainant was watching film on television along with his parents, sister Sadhana and cousin (maternal brother) Vijay in the room, while his wife was sleeping on a bed on the roof of the room.At about 12.30/12.45 mid night, the complainant heard his wife screaming and he came out of the room and saw that two boys had climbed roof of the house.Present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the judgment dated 12.7.2013 and order on sentence dated 16.7.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in case FIR No.1674/06 registered under Sections 302/397/34 IPC at Police Station Sultan Puri, by which the appellant has been convicted to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months.The appellant was further directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for the period of seven years with fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for Crl.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 1 of 12 three months.It was directed that both the sentences would run concurrently and benefit of section 428 was given to the appellant.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 1 of 12The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial court in its judgment dated 12.7.2013, is as under:As the complainant was liming the ladder, kept for going to the roof, to save his wife, both the boys started coming down from the said ladder.The first boy pushed complainant backwards and managed to escape by climbing down the ladder, however, complainant managed to apprehend the other boy, who had given blow with a brick on his wife's head, while he was attempting to escape.In the meantime, public persons also collected at the spot and gave beatings to accused Krishan, as his name was revealed later on.Complainant took his wife to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and while doing so, he observed that the artificial Crl.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 3 of 12 ear-rings, which his wife had been wearing, were missing.The complainant further started that accused Krishan told that name of his co-accused was Parveen.The complainant prayed that necessary action be taken against the accused persons.The PW-26 Ins.Ravinder Singh prepared rukka Ex. PW-26/A on the basis of the said complaint and sent it to PS for registration of the case through PW-12 Ct. Biri Singh.""Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 2 of 12Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 3 of 12At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to contest the conviction of the appellant under Section 397/34 of the Indian Penal Code.It is further contended that the act was committed without premeditation, in the heat of the moment and only one blow was inflicted, and the appellant did not act in a cruel manner.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the trial court record, the evidence and the judgment passed by the trial court.PW-3, Deepak Kumar, who is the husband of the deceased, has supported the case of the prosecution and has given details as to how on hearing the noise of his wife he immediately came out of the room with Vijay, his cousin brother, and saw two boys were present on the roof.He further testified that one of the boys had gagged his wife's mouth while the other was holding a brick in his hand, which he hit on her wife's head.The person, who had hit the wife of PW-3 with a brick, was apprehended.He was given beatings by the neighbours.He disclosed his name as Krishan, Crl.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 4 of 12 appellant herein.PW-3 identified the appellant in Court.It is further testified by PW-3 that at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital her wife was declared dead.PW-3 also testified that the appellant had disclosed the name of the other boy as Praveen.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 4 of 12Based on the testimony of the eye-witnesses, PW-3 Deepak Kumar and PW-6 Vijay Kumar, PW-5, Harpal Singh, and having regard to the fact that the appellant was apprehended at the spot, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant.The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the present case would fall under the Section 304, Part-I, of the Indian Penal Code.It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that the appellant has already undergone the sentence of more than eight years.Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, reads as under:Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.--Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.""In Rajendra Singh Vs.""In order to bring the case within Exception 4 to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code all the following conditions have to be Crl.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 5 of 12 fulfilled, namely, (1) The act must be committed without pre- meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion; (2) when there was a sudden quarrel; (3) without the offender taking undue advantage; (4) and the accused had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner.Therefore, there must be a mutual conduct or exchanging of blows on each other.When the deceased was armed and did not cause any injury to the accused even following a sudden quarrel and the accused has inflicted fatal blows on the deceased, Exception 4 is not attracted"" - In Kikar Singh Vs.State of Rajasthan AIR 1993 SC 2426, it was held that :Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 5 of 12""If the accused used deadly weapons against the unarmed man and struck a blow on the head it must be held that giving the blows with the knowledge that they were likely to cause death, he had taken undue advantage.The court took into account based on the testimony of the witnesses that the accused persons did not intend to cause death and also when the persons reached the place the accused persons ran away.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 6 of 12Even more important aspect is that while they were beating the deceased the witnesses reached the place and shouted whereupon the accused persons immediately ran away instead of inflicting more injuries with intent to kill the deceased.vs. State of Punjab, (1987) 2 SCC 14, this Court came across a similar type of incident, where the prosecution case was that one Maya Bai had two sons and two brothers.The deceased was one Kishore Singh.The accused suspected that Mayabai had illicit relations with the deceased.Hence one day when the deceased was returning from village and when he reached the field of Kashmiri Lal, the accused came out of the wheat field.The first appellant had a kirpan and the second appellant had kappa.It was alleged that the four accused took deceased on wheat field and threw him on the ground.There was an alarm created by Lachhman Singh, PW-3, which had attracted PW-4 and Mohinder Singh.When they reached the spot, the accused ran away with their weapons.The deceased had seven injuries on his body.Injury No.7 was fatal according to the doctor, who examined him.It was argued that the prosecution had not come forward with true case as to how the incident happened.The trial Judge found two accused Jit Singh and Teja Singh not guilty, since the case against them was not proved beyond the reasonable doubt.The appellants were convicted because they had weapons with them unlike the acquitted accused.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 7 of 12The trial Judge was not wholly justified in observing that there was no evidence about the so-called illicit relationship between Maya Bai and Kishore Singh, the deceased.The materials available create considerable doubt in our mind as to whether the appellants really intended to kill Kishore Singh or whether his misconduct pushed them to wreak revenge against the deceased and in this pursuit attacked him.But we are not fully satisfied that the appellants intended to kill the deceased.The correct approach on the evidence and other circumstances in this case, would according to us, be to find the accused guilty under Section 304 Part I, and to sentence them under that section.""After analyzing the entire evidence, it is evidently clear that the occurrence took place suddenly and there was no premeditation on the part of the appellants.There is no evidence that the appellants made special preparation for assaulting the deceased with the intent to kill him.There is no dispute that the appellants assaulted deceased in such a manner that the deceased suffered grievous injuries which was sufficient to cause death, but we are convinced that the injury was not intended by the appellants to kill the deceased.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 8 of 12Concededly, there was no enmity between the parties and there is no allegation of the prosecution that before the occurrence, the appellant had pre-meditated the crime of murder.We are inclined to think that having faced some sort of hostile attitude from the family of the deceased over the cable connection, a sudden quarrel took place between the appellant and the son of the deceased, on account of heat of passion, the appellant went home; took out his father s revolver and started firing indiscriminately, and unfortunately one of the bullets hit the deceased on her chin.At the most, it can be said that he had the knowledge that the use of revolver was likely to cause death and, as such, the present case would fall within the third clause of Section 299 IPC.Thus, in our opinion, the offence committed by the appellant was only ""culpable homicide not amounting to murder.Under these circumstances, we are inclined to bring down the offence from first degree ""murder"" to ""culpable homicide not amounting to murder"", punishable under the second part of Section 304 IPC.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.In our considered view, when the bricks were thrown on the vital parts of the body of the deceased who was an old man of 78 years, in that event, knowledge to commit murder can definitely be attributed to the appellant.In this case, the deceased died instantaneously after receiving the brick injuries.On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would be met if the conviction of the appellant under sections 302/149 IPC is set aside and the appellant is convicted under sections 304 Part- II/149 IPC and sentenced to five years imprisonment.""In the case of Gudu Ram Vs.State of Himachal Pradesh reported at 2013 Crl.L.J. 481, the accused had hit the deceased on the head by a wooden bat.The next question to be considered is whether the appellant had the intention to kill Dalip Singh.Here we have some difficulty in accepting the understanding of the events as narrated by the Trial Court and the High Court.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 10 of 12However, the nature and number of injuries and their location (the skull) as well as the ""weapon"" used (a small wooden cricket bat) lead us to conclude that to a reasonable person, an attack of the nature launched by the appellant on Dalip Singh could cause his death.While it may be difficult to delve into the mind of the attacker to decode his intentions, knowledge of the consequences of his actions can certainly be attributed to him.Under the circumstances, we partly allow this appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant for the murder of Dalip Singh but convict him of an offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC.It is also not the case of the prosecution that the appellant had carried brick to hit the deceased on her head.Thus, it can be said that when the deceased made a noise the brick was used to silence her.The post mortem report would show that only one blow was given and thus it cannot be said that Crl.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 11 of 12 the appellant had acted in cruel or undue manner or took undue advantage of the deceased.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.We are of the view that in the present case the appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC and not under section 302 IPC, having regard to the above factors and more importantly that a brick was used at the spur of moment and only one blow was inflicted.Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 11 of 12Appeal No. 1080/2013 Page 12 of 12","['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"AMITAVA ROY, J.The subject matter of scrutiny is the judgment and order dated01.10.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh inCriminal Appeal No. 378-DB of 2004 concurring with the verdict of the TrialCourt in convicting the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and307 IPC while acquitting the co-accused Harpartap Singh, his son.Following his conviction, the appellant had been awarded sentence of lifeimprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence under Section 302IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- withdefault sentence under Section 307 IPC.Both the sentences have beenordered to run concurrently.The High Court has concurred with thesentence as well.We have heard Mr. Yatindra Singh, Senior Advocate, learned AmicusCuriae for the appellant and Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, learned counsel forthe respondent.The incident witnessing the death of Jatinder Singh and the injuriessustained by Lakhwinder has the genesis in a trifle.On a statementrendered with regard thereto by Gurdial Singh(PW1), the First InformationReport was registered against the appellant and his son Harpartap.It wasalleged that over a lingering land dispute between the informant and theappellant, who are brothers, on 06.07.2002, while Jugraj, the son of theinformant was in his fields, the appellant had hurled abuses to him.Jugraj having felt humiliated and anguished, on returning home, complainedabout the same to his father Gurdial, the informant.The houses of thebrothers were adjacent to each other.When the appellant returned homefrom his fields, the informant went to the terrace of the roof of his houseand summoned the former to that of his.The appellant and his sonHarpartap responded to the call whereafter informant enquired of Gurpal asto why he had abused his son.This enraged the appellant and whilearrogantly proclaiming that he was not only justified to do so but that hewould continue to conduct himself as done, rushed downstairs of his houseand brought his DBBL gun.His son Harpartap, the acquitted co-accused wasalso with him.It is alleged by the prosecution that on the exhortation ofHarpartap, the appellant opened fire, which hit the informant on the sideof his head.Meanwhile drawn by the commotion, Paramjit Kaur, the wife ofthe informant, Jatinder Singh and Lakhwinder Singh, friends of Jugrajrushed to the terrace.On seeing them, the appellant fired from his guntowards them, which hit Paramjit and Jatinder on their abdomen andLakhwinder on his mouth and head.On hue and cry being raised, theappellant and the accused fled the scene.The injured were rushed to the Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsarwhere they were treated.However, Jatinder succumbed to the injuriessustained.After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was laidagainst both the accused persons under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.The accused persons denied the charge and, therefore were tried.Theprosecution examined several witnesses including the informant, theinjured and the doctor who had performed the post-mortem examination andhad attended the injuries of others involved.The accused persons wereexamined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the completion of the trial, theTrial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 307 IPC butacquitted the co-accused Harpartap.To reiterate, the High Court hasaffirmed the conviction and the sentence recorded by the Trial Court.The learned Amicus Curiae has persuasively argued that theprosecution has utterly failed to prove the charge against the appellantwhich is patently deducible amongst others from the exoneration of the co-accused Harpartap, who allegedly had instigated the former to open fire onthe deceased and the injured.We have examined the evidence pertaining to the incident as availableon records.The eye-witnesses including the informant have offered aconsistent, coherent and convincing narration thereof which does not admitof any doubt of their trustworthiness.The plea of their familyrelationship to discredit them does not commend for acceptance in theattendant facts and circumstances.Noticeably, in course of theinvestigation, amongst others, the 12 bore DBBL gun loaded with two livecartridges used for the offence had been recovered from the appellant.Thesite plan prepared by the investigating officer also pins the place ofoccurrence as deposed by the witnesses.Further four cartridge shells havealso been recovered from the said spot.The medical evidence reveals injuries on the deceased and the injuredcompatible with the weapon used.The charges levelled against theappellant thus have been proved beyond doubt.We order accordingly.Ex-consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"At that time, the accused 1 and 2 came in TATA Sumo Car bearing Registration No.TN29AA5497 and asked the petitioner to take his Motor Cycle on the road to pave free way for their TATA Sumo Car.After completion of the investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No-I, Dharmapuri.The learned Judicial Magistrate No-I, Dharmapuri, taken the case on file in P.R.C.No.19 of 2011, thereafter the learned Judicial Magistrate No-I, Dharmapuri, has committed the case to the learned Principal Sessions Court, Dharmapuri.The learned Principal Sessions Judge taken the case on file in S.C.No.96 of 2011 and made over the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri, for disposal in accordance with law.Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri, after completing the formalities, framed the charges against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 448, 307 and 506(ii) IPC.http://www.judis.nic.in 3 3 Before the trial Court, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.10 were examined and 9 documents were marked besides material objects M.O.1 to M.O.3 were produced.After completing the prosecution evidences, when the incriminating circumstances culled out from the prosecution witnesses were put before the respondents 2 to 5, the respondents 2 to 5 denied as false.On the side of defence Ex.D1 was marked but, no oral evidence was examined.3 After completing the trial and also hearing the arguments on either side, considering the materials place before the trial Court, the trial Court has found that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.4 Challenging the said judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri, in S.C.No.96 of 2011, the defacto complainant has filed the present revision case before this Court.5 The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that P.W.1 sustained injury and admitted in the hospital.Accident Register and the evidence of Doctor/P.W.2 and eyewitness in this case corroborated the same.P2 A.R.Copy and acquitted the accused persons, which warrants interference of this Court.6 The learned counsel appearing for the respondents two to five submitted that in this case, A1 also sustained injury and admitted in the hospital and copy of the Accident Register was marked Ex.P.W.1 also admitted that during cross examination, A1 also sustained injury and admitted in the hospital.Whereas, the Investigating Officer has stated that he arrested the accused at 08.45p.m, it is not possible, when A1 sustained injury and also admitted in the hospital, the Investigating Officer could arrested him.The trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence that the arrest of A1 was suspicious.The prosecution has not registered the case against the petitioner and they have not conducted the fair investigation.It is well settled law that, if two views are possible the view in favour of the accused should be extended and when the accused also sustained injury, it is for the prosecution to establish as to how the injury was sustained by the accused.The dispute arose between the petitioner and accused 1 and 2 with regard to moving of Motor Cycle on the road.Then A1 and A2 called the accused A3 and A4 to the above dispute place through their mobile phone.On 08.05.2010 at about 06.00p.m., all the accused entered into the house of petitioner and committed the offence.Due to the above dispute all the accused have voluntarily entered into the house of petitioner and A2 has voluntarily attacked the petitioner on the left cheek with small knife and A1 has voluntarily attacked the petitioner on the left jaw with blade and A3 has voluntarily attacked the petitioner of the chest with stone and A4 has voluntarily attacked the petitioner on his back with iron rod and all the accused threatened the petitioner by showing knife and iron rod andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 all the accused caused injuries to the petitioner with an intention and knowledge and under such circumstances, if the above act of the accused caused the death of petitioner the accused would be guilty of murder and thereby all the accused appears to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 448, 307 r/w 120(b) IPC.9 In order to prove the case of the prosecution, as many as 10 witnesses were examined, out of which 10 witnesses PW.1 is the injured witness.On careful reading of the evidence of P.W.1 during cross examination, he admitted that A1 also sustained injury and he was also admitted in the hospital and getting treatment.The prosecution has not explained as to how A1 sustained injury.On the side of the defence Accident Register copy/Ex.The Doctor who made entry in the Accident Register was not examined.P.W.2 himself admitted that during cross examination A1 was brought to the hospital at about 06.25p.m., and also this was not denied or properly explained by the prosecution.Therefore, once P.W.2 has stated that P.W1 was admitted in the hospital and P.W.1 was brought to the hospital at about 06.30 p.m., it is relevant to note that A1 was admitted in the hospital at 06.25 p.m., itself.As per the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.1 was admitted at 06.30 p.m., on 08.05.2010, A1 was admitted on the same day at 06.25 p.m, itself.http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Whereas, the Investigation Officer has stated that A1 was arrested at 08.45p.m, near by the four road.P.W.9 Sub-Inspector of Police deposed that he arrested the A1 on 08.05.2010 at 08.45p.m near four road.10 From the careful reading of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.9, it transpires that if at all the A1 was admitted in the hospital at 06.25p.m., P.W.9 could not have arrested A1 at 08.45 p.m, and the same creates suspicion.Further, P.W.1 himself admitted that A1 also sustained injury and also admitted in the hospital and taking treatment.When A1 also sustained injury, the prosecution has not explained as to how A1 sustained injury and without registering the case against P.W.1, it is stated that P.W.1 was assaulted by two known persons and two unknown persons.The police should have recorded the statement from P.W.2 the very same Officer had recorded the statement from P.W.1 when he was admitted in the hospital.Further there is no compelled circumstances to take different view.Under these circumstances, this Court finds that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and there is no merit in the revision case.12 In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.05.07.2019 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no sbn To The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri.http://www.judis.nic.in 9 P.VELMURUGAN.J, sbn Crl.RC.No.466 of 2012http://www.judis.nic.in 10","['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The facts giving rise to the present case, in brief, are thus--The accused is the resident of Karad.He had married to one Malan who died because of burn injuries previously, therefore, he solemnized his second marriage with deceased Sanjivani.He was living with his children and wife.He always used to quarrel with her after drinking liquor.On the date of the incident i.e., on 18.4.1999 he was in drunken condition and picked up quarrel with his wife at 5.00 p.m. At that time, daughter Rupali (P.W. 2) was playing outside the house.She was sent to call her maternal uncle Shiva (P.W. 3).He arrived at the spot of the incident and saw that the accused had been quarrelling with his wife and he had poured kerosene on her person.The accused then took match-box and lighted match-stick and threw it on the person of his wife and consequently she sustained burn injuries.The accused and Shiva took her to the Cottage Hospital, Karad, for medical treatment at about 7.05 p.m. Dr. Chivate (P.W. 6), medical officer on duty, started medical treatment.He also recorded the history of the incident as given by Sanjivani who disclosed that it was her husband who had set her on fire.JUDGMENT P.V. Kakade, J.The medical officer informed the police.Police Head Constable Tukaram (P.W. 8) visited the Cottage Hospital at about 11.05 p.m. and recorded the F.I.R. wherein deceased Sanjivani also disclosed him that it was her husband who set her on fire by pouring kerosene upon her.On the basis of the F.I.R., offence was registered at C.R. No. 94 of 1999 punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. at City Police Station, Karad.Sanjivani was then transferred to Civil Hospital, Satara for the purpose of medical treatment where she succumbed to her injury.Dr. Marulkar (P.W. 9) had effected the autopsy on the dead body and post-mortem report was duly submitted to the police.According to the report, Sanjivani sustained 85% burn injuries and she died as a result of those burn injuries.Doctor also opined that burn injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.He also recorded the death as homicidal on the case paper.The offence was converted into 302 of the I.P.C. against the accused.The investigating officer visited the spot of incident and drew spot panchnama.Inquest panchnama was held and the body was sent for post-mortem examination whose report is part of the record.Statements of witnesses were recorded and incriminating articles seized in the course of title investigation were sent to C.A. for examination whose report was received and is part of the record.On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was sent to the Court of law.The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions.The learned Sessions Judge, Satara framed charge against the accused for the impugned offence to which he pleaded not guilty.Defence of the accused is that of total denial of any criminal liability.According to the Sessions Judge, it was a homicidal death suffered by Sanjivani.Prosecution led its evidence at length on which basis the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the evidence on record is sufficient to bring home the guilt and accordingly recorded the order of the conviction and severe sentence against the accused in aforesaid manner.Hence the appeal.We have heard Mr. A.P. Mundargi for the appellant and Mrs. Kejariwal, learned A.P.P. for the State.We have also perused the entire evidence on record.As can be seen from the evidence on record, it is the case based on two dying declarations besides evidence of various witnesses providing corroboration to the dying declarations.The evidence of Dr. Chiyate, medical officer of Cottage Hospital, Karad, shows that on 19.4.1999 he was on duty.At about 7.15 p.m. on 18.4.1999 patient Sanjivani Patne was admitted in the hospital with burn injuries.He examined her and found that there were burn injuries all over her body to the extent of 72%.Accordingly he prepared case paper.The patient also gave history stating that burn injuries were caused by her husband by pouring kerosene over her person at about 7.15 p.m. at Mangalwar Peth, Karad.At the time of recording history, as per Dr. Chivate's evidence, Sanjivani was conscious and well oriented.She was responding to verbal commands.There was smell of kerosene.Even her hair were wet due to kerosene.The medical treatment was given to her and the patient was transferred to Krishna Hospital at Karad at about 8.30 p.m. but was again brought by the relatives to the Cottage Hospital at 10.30 p.m. At 10.45 p.m. he informed his superiors to arrange for recording dying declaration of Sanjivani and, therefore, police were informed to record dying declaration.At 12.30 a.m. during the night, the patient was transferred to Civil Hospital, Satara, for further treatment.According to Dr. Chivate, Sanjivani was also in a position to talk and give statement during the period from 10.30 p.m. to 12.30 a.m. during the night.This version of Dr. Chivate is corroborated by case history record Exh. 30 wherein it is clearly stated that patient had given history of homicidal burn by her husband by pouring kerosene upon her at 7.00 p.m. at Karad, Mangalwar Peth.It was observed that patient was conscious and well oriented and cooperative and was responding to verbal commands.The second dying declaration comes in the form of F.I.R. P.W. 8 Tukaram, Police Head Constable attached to Karad Police Station had stated that Head Constable Ankushe directed him to record dying declaration of Sanjivani on receipt of the information.Perusal of Exh. 31 shows that Sanjivani had stated that it was accused--her husband who had poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire.According to her, she was subjected to such treatment by accused because he suspected her chastity.This dying declaration was recorded in the presence of Dr. Chivate as he has testified to.Moreover, P.W. 8 has also categorically stated that while he recorded the statement Exh. 32, Dr. Chivate was present throughout the time and after recording the statement he obtained thumb mark of Sanjivani below it and then obtained signature of the medical officer upon the same.P.W. 2 Rupali, 10 years old daughter of deceased Sanjivani was examined as a witness along with P.W. 3 Shivaji who was supposed to be the eye-witness to the incident.They did not support the prosecution case, however, their evidence in the present status also is sufficient to support the prosecution version.Rupali, the other eye-witness has stated that she was playing outside the house of her own and at which time quarrel was going on between Sanjivani and the accused in the house.At that time, she found that her mother was in burnt condition.Similarly, P.W. 3 Shivaji has admitted the fact that he was called by witness Rupali and when he went there at the house of the accused, he saw accused and Sanjivani were quarrelling.In the course of the said quarrel, accused asked her wife to go to her parents' home as he was suspecting her chastity.However Sanjivani refused to go to her parents' home and then she went inside the room.The accused also followed her.While they went inside, the witness smelt of kerosene and hence went inside the room and saw that kerosene was poured on the person of Sanjivani.She was wearing saree and blouse and thereafter the witness came out and Sanjivani shouted loudly that she should be saved.At that time, she was on fire.No doubt, this witness has however turned hostile and stated that he did not see as to how she was set on fire.In spite of this denial, the evidence of witness Rupali and Shivaji has categorically established the fact that accused and Sanjivani were quarrelling inside the house of the accused when accused was insisting that she should go to her parental home and Sanjivani was refusing to do so, at which time Shivaji went inside and saw that kerosene was on the person of Sanjivani.Thereafter she went to the bathroom shouting that she should be saved and at which time she was found in flames.This scenario testified by witness Rupali and Shivaji, in our view, is sufficient to lend support to the evidence of dying declarations on record and further provides corroboration to that evidence.In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT P.N. Sinha, J.This revisional application under Section 482 of Cr.PC has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing complaint case No. C-661 of 2002 under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) now pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (in short CJM), Barasat and the order dated 16.9.02 passed by the learned CJM issuing process against the petitioners and another accused.The aforesaid complaint case was started on the basis of complaint lodged by O.P. No. 2 as complainant in the Court of the learned CJM against these petitioners and another accused.It was the allegation of complainant that on the basis of an advertisement in 'Bartaman' Bengali daily newspaper dated 21.2.99 a marriage negotiation between Pranabesh Bagchi, son of complainant and petitioner No. 2 Mohua Bagchi nee Mukherjee was made and in the newspaper the advertisement was published as 'quick marriage, East Bengal Mukherjee, 20/5'1"" class X standard, really beautiful, expert in household works, father Central Government employee, no objection in business'.During negotiation the petitioner No. 1, father of the bride told that his daughter is Xth standard pass.On the night of 'fulsajya' complainant's son discovered that he has been deceived by the father of the bride who has suppressed about old mental aliment of his daughter which is incurable.After the marriage, it was noticed that accused petitioner No. 2 used to leave her wearing apparels in front of other persons without caring for privacy and she uttered irrelevant talks.During her stay in the matrimonial home the complainant's son tried to have co-habitation with his wife, the accused No. 2, but the attempt failed as right hand of accused No. 2 started trembling abnormally.Accused No. 2 disclosed to the son of complainant that it was due to the result of some kind of disease and doctor advised her that, if she takes regular medicine throughout her life, the disease .would remain under control but would not be cured.Thereafter, the complainant made appointment with Dr. Braja Ghosh, a neurologist for treatment of accused No. 2 and Dr. Ghosh referred the case to a reputed neorophysicist Dr. Narayan Chakraborty.Dr. Chakraborty after examining accused No. 2 declared that she was suffering from mental ailment since her birth.Subsequently, accused No. 2 filed an application under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Alipore.In the matrimonial suit she stated that she read upto class IX standard and she was not class X standard pass.The complainant accordingly lodged the complaint against the accused petitioners and another for the offence of cheating.It appears that the learned CJM by order dated 16.9.02 issued process under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC against the petitioners and another.Thereafter, the petitioners have moved this Court for quashing the proceeding and also for quashing the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process against them.Mr. Joymalya Bagchi, learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that a plain reading of the petition of complaint without adding or subtracting anything to it would clearly indicate that there is no element of offence under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC.The complaint discloses that there was no inducement and there was no delivery of property and there was no wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to the accused persons.There are several inconsistencies in different paragraphs of the complaint.The petitioner No. 2, the daughter-in-law of complainant started a case under Section 498A of IPC against her husband and other in-laws, and thereafter, as a counter blast the complainant instituted the present proceeding.There cannot be any misrepresentation if the bride read upto class IX and not class X. It does not attract any element of cheating.Matter would have been different if the bride i.e. petitioner No. 2 was totally illiterate.The mental incapacity of bride since birth cannot be regarded as suppression and concealment of incurable disease amounting to cheating.The husband, son of complainant has instituted a suit for divorce against petitioner No. 2 on the ground of desertion.If the husband files the suit against the wife on the ground of desertion, the allegation by the husband or her mother regarding cheating, inducement, deception etc. does not arise at all.Before the learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court at Alipore evidence was recorded over the application filed by petitioner No. 2 claiming alimony pendente life and in the said Court the petitioner No. 2 was examined as a witness.If she was suffering from mental disorder and mental incapacity of high degree, the learned Additional District Judge would have noted it in the order sheet or in the deposition sheet.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In the complaint furnished by the complaint Shri R.N. Sharma, he had clearly mentioned about an offence against Deepak Misra, Police, in the formal FIR recorded, has not mentioned in the column No. 3 the offence committed by him, nor his name is mentioned in Column No. 5, which shows the name and address of the criminal.ORDER R.S. Sodhi, J.The petitioner by this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order No. 14036/15/94/- UTS dated 8th April, 1997, passed by the respondent refusing sanction for prosecution of Mr. Deepak Misra, DCP, for offence under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order on the ground that the same was passed without considering material facts on record, is non-speaking, arbitrary, unreasonable, mechanical, passed in total non-application of mind and is a fraud of power/colorable exercise of power/abuse of power and has been made with the obvious intention of shielding a senior IPS officer.The facts leading to the case are that Aditya Naraian succumbed to his injuries on 14th October, 1990, on receiving a fire arm injury at the hands of SI.D.P. Singh of Delhi Police in the incident of 25th September, 1990, when residents of Sarojini Nagar were demonstrating against the implementa- tion of the Mandal Commission report.On 1st October, 1990, the petitioner filed a complaint with SHO, Vinay Nagar Police Station to investigate the incident of shooting in Sarojini Nagar area which had caused death of his son.It is the case of the petitioner that the newspaper reported the filing of a public interest petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 3393 of 1990 (P.V. Kapur and another Vs.Union of India) in the Delhi High Court for adjudication upon action of police firing in INA Market and Sarojini Nagar.The petitioner, therefore, with leave of the court, filed an affidavit narrating the incident which took place on 25th September, 1990, at Sarojini Nagar and sought various reliefs from the court including that criminal proceedings be initiated against those police officers found responsible for the death of his son.In the meantime, however,the petitioner sought an appointment with the commissioner, Delhi police, to look into the matter, upon which, the com- missioner directed Mr. Deepak Misra, the then Additional DCP (south) to conduct a formal investigation into the incident of shooting that took place at Sarojini Nagar on 25th September, 1990, and to submit a report.Deepak Misra examined various witnesses during the course of his inquiry and identified the police officer who fired the shot but was of the opinion that :""However, it is a sheer tragedy and most unfortunate that this bullet which was fired presumably in the air and in which no mala fide happened to have taken place, the bullet took an awry trajectory and had hit Aditya Narayan who was very much present at the inter-face of police and violent mob...""""..Hence, to sum up, the immediate cause of death of Aditya Narain was due to the infection which was contracted by him during post-operation period.This infection contracted by him was in itself an effect caused by the bullet shot by SI D.P. Singh from his service revolver and SI.D.P. Singh had to resort to open fire from his service revolver to disperse an unlawful assembly... SI.D.P. Singh had, to the best of his judgment, opened fire in the air but, as ill-luck would have been, the bullet in its dying moments happened to graze through skull of Aditya Narain who was a part of unlawful assembly near the over- turned water tanker at Navyug School crossing.""This inquiry report became subject matter of Civil Writ Petition No. 3393 of 1990 wherein the High Court by judgment and order dated 6th Septem- ber, 1990, held that ""The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.""The petitioner filed a complaint dated 7th June, 1992, with the SHO, Vinay Nagar Police Station requesting for registration of an FIR under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against SI D.P. Singh and under Sec- tion 218 of the Indian Penal Code against DCP, Deepak Misra.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.4 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Sakaldeeha, District-Chandauli is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that highly belated FIR delayed by two months was got registered by mother of the girl and that too after recovery of the girl against the applicant and five other persons.On 04.01.2019, the girl was returned back and on the same day, this FIR came into existence.There is no whisper in the FIR regarding sexual assault upon her.Though, the victim was present at the time.The FIR was registered under Section 363 and 366 IPC.The allegation made in the FIR is that she went along with the applicant and remained there for considerable period of time.During this period, she has never tried to come out from the clutches of the applicant or raise any alarm.The conduct of the girl clearly shows that she was in consensual relationship with the applicant.The age of the girl is 17+ years.She is a major girl.Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail.The submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.Let the applicant-Harinarayan, involved in case crime no.4 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Sakaldeeha, District-Chandauli be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(iii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.","['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Dayan Krishnan, ASC, for the State along with Sh.A. Menon.The present order will dispose of four appeals - Crl.A. 229/2011 - Tariq Mehmood & Anr.All the appellants - Tariq Mehmood and Ishaq Ahmed (in Crl. A. 229/2011), Arshad Khan; Mufti Mohd. Asrar and Ghulam Mohd. Dar were tried together with several other accused.By common judgment and order dated 24.12.2010 and 15.01.2011 of Ms. Pinki, learned ASJ/Designated Court, Saket, New Delhi (which have been challenged in the present appeals), these accused/appellants were convicted for committing various offences.These appeals were heard on several dates.During the course of hearing, the appellant's counsel submitted that having regard to the nature of evidence and the fact that the principal accused Abdul Majeed was held guilty and awarded 10 years sentence for the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, (which was the maximum punishment to him), was reduced to 8 years Rigorous Imprisonment by this Court, in a previous order and that the same was to run concurrently with the sentences for the other offences, it was urged that having regard to the allegations leveled against these appellants, Tariq Mehmood and Ishaq Ahmed (in Crl.A. 229/2011), Arshad Khan; Mufti Mohd. Asrar and Ghulam Mohd. Dar, and the findings of the Trial Court, they would not be contesting or pressing for setting-aside of the conviction.The appellants were also present; they were present pursuant to production warrants issued by the Court.They concurred with the statements made on their behalf by the counsel.The prosecution case was that the principal accused Abdul Majeed, in conspiracy with several others, had plotted committing various subversive and terrorist acts in India.These included possibility of kidnapping several Crl.A. 229/2011 , Crl. A. 281/2011 , Crl. A. 307/2011 & Crl.A. 986/2011 Page 2 highly-placed individuals, and also getting some terrorists, who were lodged in Indian jails, released in bargain.The role attributed to Abdul Majeed was a prominent one; he is alleged to have purchased a plot with a view to stay in India to provide hideout to the others, some of whom were from Pakistan and also to mastermind operations and provide logistic support.Although the present appellants and the other accused, i.e. Abdul Majeed, Mohd. Amran and Mohd. Ashraf were named in the same First Information Report (FIR), and also arraigned (charged) along with these appellants, in view of the fact that some of them pleaded guilty, the order of conviction and sentence was passed much earlier.These orders were made by the learned Designated Judge (POTA).The relevant sentences awarded by the learned Designated Judge(POTA) on 15.10.2003 were noticed by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment, in the form of a chart.C.8(c) Vide order dated 18.01.2010 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kait, Judges, Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 775/03, the order on sentence in respect of accused Abdul Majeed was modified.C. 8(d) The sentences awarded vide order dated 15.10.2003 passed by Sh.S.N. Dhingra, learned Designated Crl.A. 229/2011 , Crl. A. 281/2011 , Crl. A. 307/2011 & Crl.A. 229/2011 , Crl. A. 281/2011 , Crl. A. 307/2011 & Crl.The appeal stands disposed of modifying the order of sentence dated 15.10.2003, but limited to the sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC.We direct that for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and pay a fine in sum of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine would undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.The appeal stands disposed of as aforesaid.................A. 229/2011 , Crl. A. 281/2011 , Crl. A. 307/2011 & Crl.No other allegations were leveled or proved against him.",['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
"(2) The prosecution case is that Maya Devi, who was aged about 19 at the time of the present occurrence, was the daughter of Raj Kumari (Public Witness 1) who was aged about 45 years.Both the mother and daughter had taken to the profession of dancing and singing, and used to live in an apartment on G. B. Road, Delhi.The accused used to visit Maya Devi and had illicit connections with her.(3) On August 14, 1967 at about 6 a. m., it is stated, Maya Devi was lying on a cot along with her son, aged about one month.Raj Kumari was at that time lying on another cot in the room.Babu alias Amar Deep, an employee of Raj Kumari, was sitting in a room near the staircase.Raj Kumari's maternal uncle, Kishori Lal, her cousin.Rattan and Ashok, and her mother, Radha (also known as Tara or Ilaichi) were in the verandah.The accused then came there holding jug P. 1 and bottle P. 2 The accused gave Re 1.00 to Babu for bringing tea whereupon Babu left.The accused then poured acid out of the jug on Maya Devi, her son and Raj Kumari.He also remarked that they would be disfigured.Raj Kumari and Maya Devi felt burning sensation and they all started crying.The accused then threw the jug on the cot and placed the bottle on the ground and ran away.Kishori Lal, who saw the incident, as well as Radha then came inside the room and took Maya Devi, her mother and son towards the City Clinic.While going down they met Babu and told him about the occurrence.Raj Kumari, Maya Devi and her son Along with others arrived at the City Clinic, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, a private hospital, at about 6 -30 a. m. They were examined by Dr. V. K. Jain.The doctor found that there were a few streaks and patches of acid burns on the person of Raj Kumari on the right arm and forearm.He dressed the burns and discharged her with the direction to attend for dressing as an outdoor patient.Acid burns were also found by the doctor on the scalp of the infant child of Maya Devi.Maya Devi had extensive injuries on her person.She was given Morphia and her burns were dressed, and intravenous drip was started.Maya Devi remained in the City Clinic up to August 21, 1967, on which day she was transferred to Safdarjang Hospital.Maya Devi was then not in a position to give a statement.The Assistant Sub-Inspector then went to the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of witnesses.He also prepared the site plan and got the place of occurrence photographed.Various articles lying there, including jug P.I and bottle P.2 which was half full of acid, were taken into possession by the Assistant Sub-Inspector, and put into sealed parcels.After that, the Assistant Sub-Inspector went to the City Clinic and made an application P. F. F. on which Dr. Jain made an endorsement that Maya Devi was not fit to make a statement.This was not liked by him.He wanted to take me forcibly to his house.JUDGMENT H.R. Khanna, C.J.(1) This is an appeal by Sudershan Kumar alias Darshan, aged 25, who has been convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, f causing the death of Maya Devi by pouring acid on her and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.The accused has also been convicted under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, for causing injuries to Public Witness Raj Kumari and the infant son of Maya Devi by throwing acid on them, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.The accused wanted Maya Devi to marry him but she declined to do so as the accused was already married to another woman.On account of the above refusal of Maya Devi, the accused used to quarrel with her.A few days before the present occurrence, the accused took Maya Devi along with him.She stayed with him for about 10 or 12 days and thereafter was brought back by the accused to her mother's apartment.The accused on that occasion again asked Maya Devi to marry him but she refused to do so.The accused then threatened Maya Devi that if she did not want to marry him she should either leave Delhi or he would kill her in such a manner that she would have a lingering death.The Assistant Sub-Inspector then searched for the accused but could not trace him.The accused was arrested by Asi Rattan Chand Kalia on August 15, 1967, from the zoo on Mathura Road.The offence for which the accused was arrested at that time was under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, and he was bailed out.(5) On August 16, 1967, Asi Surjit Singh went to the City Clinic and made an application P. F/2 for recording the statement of Maya Devi.Dr. V. K. Jain then made an endorsement on that application permitting the recording of Maya Devi's statement.The Assistant Sub-Inspector then recorded statement P. G. of Maya Devi wherein she named the accused as the person who has thrown acid on her, her mother and son on 14th morning.The statement was recorded in the presence of Dr. Jain.Accordingly, on August 21, 1967, Maya Devi was got admitted in the Safdarjang Hospital at about 9 p.m. Maya Devi was attended to in that hospital by Dr. K. S. Raj Kumar (Public Witness 6), House Surgeon, and Dr. (Miss) Nirmala Lakshmi Naranan (Public Witness 7), Registrar.On August 23, 1967, Shri V. N. Chaturvedi, Sub-divisional Magistrate, Hauz Qazi, on an application having been made to him by Asi Surjit Singh for the purpose, went to Safdarjang Hospital and recorded the statement P. C. C. of Maya Devi.The statement was read over to her.She admitted it to be correct and thumb-marked the statement as well as signed it in English.Asi Surjit Singh, on receipt of the information about the death of Maya Devi, went to Safdarjang Hospital and prepared inquest report P. D. The dead body was then sent to the mortuary.Post-mortem examination on the dead body of Maya Devi was performed by Dr. S. S. Kaushal (Public Witness ll) on August 26, 1967, at 6 p.m. Sealed parcels of the different articles taken into possession by the police were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, where they were examined by Shri Sirinivas Rampal (Public Witness 16).Shri Rampal found that bottle P.2 contained nitric acid.The clothes of the deceased were also found stained with nitric acid.The presence of the acid in jug P.I could not be detected.The provision of law, under which the case had been registered against the accused, was changed from Section 326 to 304, Indian Penal Code, on August 26, 1967, and Section 302, Indian Penal Code, on September 4, 1967, after the case had been checked by the Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police.(8) The accused in his statement under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, admitted that Maya Devi was daughter of Raj Kumari and that he used to visit her.The accused, however, denied that he wanted to marry Maya Devi and that she was not agreeable to that.According to the accused, Maya Devi was living with him as his wife without formal marriage and the question of marriage did not arise at all.The accused admitted that he was married to another women.It was denied by the accused that there had been any quarrel between him and Maya Devi on account of her alleged refusal to marry him.The accused denied that he ever threatened Maya Devi that he would kill her in such a manner that she would have to die in agony.The prosecution allegations about the accused having gone to the house of Maya Devi on the morning of August 14, 1967, with a jug and bottle of acid, and about his having asked Babu alias Amar Deep to bring tea or about his having poured nitric acid on Maya Devi her mother and child, were all denied.The accused also denied having purchased any acid.As regards his arrest, the accused stated that he himself went to police-station Kamla Market on August 15, 1967, when he was put under arrest.According further to the accused, the prosecution witnesses were interested and were deposing against him at the instance of the police.The accused further stated:""I have been falsely implicated.Maya Devi was an educated lady.I am also educated up to Prep.Maya Devi liked me and she did not like to embrace the profession of singing and dancing and her mother used to compel her and wanted her to enter that profession.Maya Devi did not like this.Therefore, her mother was against her.Maya Devi was living with me since January, 1967 and I had been getting her treated in the hospital.She gave birth to a son at my place.Three days before the occurrence she came to see her mother when acid was thrown on her.So far I have come to know her mother threw acid.""(9) In defense one witness, Rajinder Kumar, was examined.According to Rajinder Kumar, he used to visit the house of Raj Kumari to listen to her songs.Maya Devi did not sing or dance in spite of having been asked by Raj Kumari and used to sit in an adjoining room.The witness added that he went to City Clinic on the morning of August 14, 1967, after coming to know of the present occurrence.Maya Devi then told the witness that her mother had thrown acid on her.The witness also identified the handwriting of Maya Devi on letter D. G. According to that letter, Maya Devi had left her mother's house because she was in love with the accused and his visits used to result in quarrel between her mother and the accused.It was also added that Maya Devi did not like the life of a singing girl and whatever she had written in that letter was of her own free-will and not under pressure of the accused.(10) Learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case about the accused having caused the death of Maya Devi by throwing acid on her and about his having caused injuries to Maya Devi's mother and son.The defense evidence of Rajinder Kumar was disbelieved.As regards letter D. G. it was held that it had not come from proper custody and was a fabricated document.The accused was, accordingly, convicted and sentenced as above.(11) There can be no manner of doubt that Maya Devi died on August 26, 1967, in Safdarjang Hospital.This fact is also admitted by the accused in his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.According to the prosecution case, the accused poured acid on Maya Devi and her mother and child on the morning of August 14, 1967 as a result of which Maya Devi died and her mother and child received injuries.The accused has denied this allegation.It has also been argued on behalf of the accused that even if it be held to be proved that he poured acid on Maya Devi, the said act of the accused cannot be held to be the proximate cause of her death.The dying declaration reads as under:-""I and my mother do the profession of singing and dancing at G. B. Road.Shri Sudershan Kumar alias Darshan had illicit relations with me.He used to take me outside.For some days past, I and my mother had stopped him from taking me outside.On 14th August, 1967, in the morning when I got up I saw Shri Sudershan Kumar holding a jug in his hand and a bottle of acid in his other hand.Jug had acid in it.He threw it on my face and body.The acid also fell on my mother who was lying in the adjoining charpoy.A drop of it also fell on my son.The reason why Darshan has thrown acid on me is that I was not prepared to go with him as desired by him.He used to threaten me quite often, that either I (Maya Devi) should leave Delhi or I should marry him, other wise he would disfigure me and would throw acid on me.But I did not lodge the report considering that he was talking noneense just that way.This acid has fallen on my chest, back arms.This instance has been seen by my mother, servant Amar, Ashok Kumar, Rattan and Kishori Lal and other women.Shri Sudarshan ran away after throwing the acid.I am making this complaint against Sudarshan Kumar"".(13) The evidence of Dr. V. K. Jain shows that Maya Devi was in a fit condition to make a statement at that time and that the above statement was recorded in his presence.According to the doctor, the statement was then read over to Maya Devi.She admitted it to be correct.To similar effect is the evidence of Asi Surjit Singh.According to Asi Surjit Singh, Maya Devi, after making the statement, signed it in English.Dr. Jain also then made an endorsement P.G./1 about the statement having been made by Maya Devi in his presence and about her having signed it after it was read over to her.There appears to be no cogent ground whatsoever to disbelieve the evidence of Dr. V. K. Jain and Asi Surjit Singh in this respect.(14) Apart from the dying declaration P. G. of Maya Devi, which was recorded by Asi Surjit Singh, we have on record the evidence of Shri V. N. Chaturvedi, Sub-divisional Magistrate (Public Witness 17), that he recorded the statement P.C.C. of Maya Devi on August 23, 1967 at 5 .20 p.m. in Safdarjang Hospital.The statement reads as under:-""I and my mother are doing the profession of dancing and singing at G. B. Road.Darshan Kumar had illicit relations with me.For some days past my mother had stopped him.This was not liked by him.On 14th August, 1967, I got up in the morning at about 6.00 a. m. I saw Darshan holding a jug in his hand and in the other a bottle.The jug had acid in it.He threw it on my face and the body.This also fell on my mother who was lying on the adjoining charpoy.A drop also fell on my son.This occurrence has been seen by my mother, servant Amar, Ashok Kumar, Kishori Lal and other women.""(15) Shri Chaturvedi has deposed that Maya Devi was in a fit condition to make the statement.The statement was read over to her.She admitted it to be correct and thumb-marked the same.In addition to the thumb-impression of Maya Devi, the witness also obtained her signatures on the statement.There is no sufficient reason to disbelieve the above statement of Shri Chaturvedi.The fact that he did not get the signatures of any doctor on the statement P.C.C. would not detract from his testimony.Shri Chaturvedi had no animus against the accused and we fail to understand as to why he should have recorded the statement P. C. C. if in fact it was not made to him by Maya Devi.(16) According to the version of the accused, it was Raj Kumari who threw acid on Maya Devi.It is, in our opinion, extremely difficult to believe that Maya Devi would spare her real assailant and falsely mention the name of the accused as the person who had thrown acid on her.It also does not appeal to reason that Raj Kumari would throw acid on Maya Devi, who was her own daughter, especially when the throwing of acid was bound to result in disfiguring of Maya Devi and thus rendering her unfit for the profession of dancing and singing.It is also difficult to believe that Raj Kumari would have taken Maya Devi to the hospital for her treatment and thereafter lodged a report about the present occurrence at the police-station, if she herself had thrown acid on her.(17) The dying declarations of Maya Devi about the accused having thrown acid on her, her mother and child are corroborated by the evidence of Raj Kumari (Public Witness 1).There can be no manner of doubt regarding Raj Kumari's presence at the scene of occurrence, because she was herself injured as a result of the acid poured by the accused.According to Raj Kumari, it was the accused who poured acid on Maya Devi and also caused injuries thereby to Raj Kumari and the infant child of Maya Devi.There seems to be no cogent ground to disbelieve Raj Kumari in this respect.Raj Kumari also lodged first information report P.A. about the occurrence soon after her dressing and in it the name of the accused as the person who had caused injuries by pouring acid to Maya Devi and others was mentioned.First information report P.A. also lends corroboration to the statement of Raj Kumari.In addition to the above, we have the evidence of Kishori Lal (PW12) who has deposed evidence about the accused having thrown acid on Raj Kumari, Maya Devi and the child and about his having thereafter run away.Nothing cogent has been brought to our notice as might discredit the statement of Kishori Lal.(18) The prosecution has also examined Babu alias Amar Deep (PW2).After this witness had been cross-examined by the defense counsel, this witness was declared hostile by the trial Court and questions in the nature of cross-examination were allowed to be put to him by the Public Prosecutor.The defense counsel then made a request that he might be allowed to further cross-examine the witness.This request was disallowed by the trial Court.As we were of the opinion that the defense counsel should have been granted an opportunity to further cross-examine the witness, we recalled the witness so that further questions may be put to him by the defense counsel.In this respect we find that according to the testimony of Dr. V. K. Jain, he found the following injuries on Maya Devi when he examined her at 6 -30 a.m. on August 14, 1967:-""1.She was a well-built woman.Her pulse was 100 per minute.There were burns on the face; the whole face with lips and conjunctive Cornea of both the eyes was opaque.Both ears were burnt.Otherwise, she could not see, because cornea of both eyes was opaque.Neck : Complete neck burns on both interior and posterior aspects.Thorax : Burns up to the breasts.Breasts were involved.Trickle of fluid on to the abdomen and chest as well, causing burns in streaks.That trickle of fluid was there but I cannot say if it was acid.It could be acid.Back : Burns approximately up to T-4 level.That means the burns were up to the forth vertebra of the back and then lower down two to three streaks of burns as if caused by liquid trickling down.That liquid could be acid.Limbs : (Upper limbs).Both upper limbs burnt in patches and streaks up to the fingers and palms.(Lower limb) Isolated burns on the knee and thigh, in streaks only.""(21) The duration of the above injuries was fresh, within one to two hours.The injuries could have been caused by acid.According to Dr. Jain, the injuries suffered by Maya Devi were sufficient collectively in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.(22) Dr. K. S. Raj Kumar, House Surgeon of Safdarjang Hospital, examined Maya Devi when she was admitted in that hospital and found her condition as under:-""1.Her both eyes were open and cornea was hazy and opaque.She was of average built and nutrition.Her general condition was poor, the tongue was thickly coated and dried.She was drowsy, and was responding to the surroundings poorly.There was no anaemia, cyanosis and glands.Local examination showed that there was 35% burnt area over her face, neck, back, arms and chest, and they were badly infected.Foul smell was present.The dressing was soaked with pus.""(23) The systematic examination revealed no abnormality.Dr. Kumar added that if the burns are to the extent of 30% or above, the same are dangerous to life and that the injuries of Maya Devi were dangerous to life.(24) Dr. (Miss) Nirmala Lakshmi Naranan (Public Witness 7) has deposed that the dressing of Maya Devi was changed on August 23,1967 and that at that time the doctor removed the loose slough from her body.(25) Dr. S. S. Kaushal, who performed post-mortem examination, made the following observations on the dead body:-""SUPERFICIAL ulceration with seropurulent discharge and pus all over face, front of the chest, back and both upper limbs.Skin on the forehead was blackened.Scalp hair cut short.No smell of kerosene oil.Both lungs were edematous and exude froth on section.Liver was congested.Both kidneys showed cloudy swelling.Stomach empty.Mucus membrane congested.Stomach contained 2 ounces of medicine like fluid.Uterus was empty, normal but deeply congested.Other parts including skull brain were normal.""As stated above, the medical evidence shows that 35% of the body surface of Maya Devi was burnt as a result of injuries received by her.According to observations on page 196 of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Modi, Sixteenth Edition, the involvement of one-third to one-half of the superficial surface of the body is likely to end fatally.It is also significant that the injuries received by Maya Devi as a result of the assault on her were on most vital parts of her body like the face, neck and breast.(27) Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the statement of Dr. (Miss) Nirmala Lakshmi Naranan wherein she has deposed that the cause of death of Maya Devi was malaena and respiratory failures.In the present case, as stated above, according to Dr. Jain, the injuries caused to Maya Devi were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.To similar effect is the statement of Dr. Raj Kumar.It is further corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Kaushal.There is nothing in the statement of Dr. Naranan that the injuries suffered by Maya Devi were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.On the contrary her evidence shows that general condition of Maya Devi was very poor.The material on the record shows that Maya Devi was at first treated in the City Clinic and as there was not much improvement in her condition she had to be removed to the Burns Unit of the Safdarjang Hospital.There is nothing cogent to warrant a finding that Maya Devi did not have proper treatment.Apart from the above, we are of the opinion that the Explanation 2 to Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code affords an answer to the above contention.The Explanation reads as under:-The burns were of a simple nature.The medical evidence on death was contradictory.In this respect we find that the evidence of Raj Kumari shows that the accused had earlier threatened Maya Devi that if she did not marry him or leave Delhi, he would kill her in such a manner that she would have a lingering death.According to the dying declaration P.C.C. of Maya Devi the accused had threatened to kill or disfigure her with acid.Bottle P.2 taken into possession by the police, was half full of acid and it appears that the accused had poured the remaining half of the acid on Maya Devi.","['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"However, the complainant's case was that certain examination was to be held for recruitment of some categories of employees for the bank and the two accused persons settled with him that they would get his nephew appointed provided he paid them Rs. 10,000/- of which Rs. 2,000/- were paid by way of first instalment.The examination was held.The revision, fails.A large number of candidates were called for interview and after a long time first 19 persons were appointed as managers and then 42 others on some other posts but the complainant's nephew did not figure in the lists.It was further alleged that the accused persons had tampered with the papers, mark-sheets and other examination records in fur- therance of their conspiracy to earn money from the candidates.","['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The criminal application is allowed.The substantive jail sentence imposed upon the applicant by the the learned Special Judge-4 under the POCSO Act, Amravati in Special (POCSO) Case No. 256/2016 on 15.11.2018 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 11 punishable under section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Sections 354-D(I) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal.The applicant to mark his presence at Police Station, Warud, Dist.The applicant shall remain personally present before this Court at the time of final hearing of this appeal.With this, the criminal application is allowed and disposed of.JUDGEDiwale ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 02:56:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 02:56:11 :::",['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
"sdas allowed C.R.M. No. 5634 of 2019 In Re.: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 02.07.2019 in connection with Uttarpara Police Station Case No. 893 of 2018 dated 11.12.2018 under Sections 417/376/406/504/506/323/354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re: Suman Samaddar ..... petitioner Mr. Sarayati Datta ...for the petitioner Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Mainak Gupta .... for the State It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that he is not the principal accused who is presently in custody.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that he shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a period of fortnight from date.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"He also called his companions Dhanraj, Hansraj and Dilip, who came with a stick & metal pipe.Dilip wielded the metal pipe on the head of Ratanlal, Shailendra and Lokesh tried to rescue him but Kunj Bihari, Hansraj and Tufan started beating them by kicks and fists.Dhanraj gave a blow of stick on the head and right wrist of Lokesh, while Dilip kicked him in the waist.The complainant tried to escape from the spot to take injured Ratanlal to the hospital by their jeep but the offenders chased them and broke the rear shield glass of the jeep.Crime No. Under Section Police Station 183/20 307, 294, 323, 506, 427, Bhanpura, 34 of IPC MandsaurAs declared by learned counsel for the petitioner, this is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The case of the petitioner is more or less the same to the case of co-accused Hansraj and Tufan, who have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28/08/2020 passed in MCRC No.28498/2020, therefore, the petitioner has claimed parity with the said accused.The order passed in favour of Hansraj and Tufan reads thus:-This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.183/2020 registered at Police Station - Bhanpura, Mandsaur under Section 307, 294, 323, 506, 427, 34 of IPC.It is a dispute between 2 farmer families, who are neighbours.On 03/06/2020 at about 10:30 in the night, complainant Mohanlal along with Ratanlal, Devraj, Lokesh, Shailendra and Shasank was cleaning and leveling a passage.Their neighbour Satyanarayan, Kunj ihari, Tufan protested the same 2HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.32761 of 2020 Kunj Bihari @ Parmanand Vs.State of M.P.and asked them to do whatever they wanted at their own side and not on the side of the objectors.Satyanarayan also started abusing them.Ratanlal and Shailendra requested them not to do so, but Kunj Bihari slapped Ratanlal.Mohanlal, Devraj, Madhosingh intervened and rescued them.The matter was reported to the police by Mohanlal on the same day at 22:30 pm.The case was registered.Injured were sent to the CHC, Bhanpura.Doctor found lacerated wounds and swellings etc. as caused by a hard and blunt object.Ratanlal was referred for District Hospital and thereafter he was taken to Pasupati Nath Diagnostic Center for further treatment, where in CT scan, fracture of right nasal bone, right frontal bone extending up to temporal bone and left high parietal bone with overlying scalp haematoma along with multiple hemorrhagic contusions with surrounding edema in bilateral frontal lobe were detected.On a query raised by the police, the doctor of District Hospital, Mandsaur opined that the injury of Ratanlal was grievous in nature and was ""dangerous to life if left untreated"".It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that initially case was registered under Sections 294, 323, 506, 427, 34 of IPC, but later under political pressure the police has added Section 307 of IPC.In this case, actually the complainant and his companions were offenders.They caused grievous injuries to the family members of the petitioners.Dilip sustained serious injuries on the 3HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.32761 of 2020 Kunj Bihari @ Parmanand Vs.State of M.P.head, which required 10 stitches.His condition is still serious.Cross-case bearing Crime No.184/20 under Section 323, 294, 506, 427, 34 of IPC has been registered against the complainants.The allegations against the petitioners are that they caused injuries to Shailendra and Lokesh by kicks and fists.There is no allegation against them to cause injury to Ratanlal.Investigation is over, charge-sheet has been filed.Trial is likely to take time, therefore, they be granted bail.The Prosecution has opposed the bail application.It is directed that the petitioners Hansraj S/o Ramkalyan Aahir and Tufan S/o Nandlal Gurjar be released from custody on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) each with separate solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before the Trial Court as and when required further subject to the following conditions:(i) The petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend the trial Court during the trial;(ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly allure or make any inducement, threat or promise to the prosecution witnesses, so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts of the Court;(iii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or involve in any criminal activities;(iv) In case, involvement in any other criminal activity is found, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled.""Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the bail application, but has admitted the parity as claimed by the petitioner.","['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"According to the petitioners, they had entered into a Contract with A. A. Nayeem - Bidi Contractor who purchases Tendu Leaves and supplies it to other Bidi Factories.Out of the said amount of Rs. 8 lacs, a sum of Rs. 5.5 lacs was seized by the Police at Ballarshah on 28-5-2002 from the Vehicle parked in front of Hotel Arjun.At the time of seizure, the driver of the vehicle was present but the petitioners were away.According to the petitioners, the names of the petitioners do not figure anywhere in the F.I.R. lodged by Bapu Reddy.The petitioners had, therefore, sought a writ of Habeas Corpus as also for quashing and setting aside the prosecution of the petitioners for the offence under Sections 366, 367 of the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act and under the provisions of POTA.The prayer for Habeas Corpus has not been pressed.In Criminal.Writ Petition No. 255/2002, the petitioner has referred the contents of the F.I.R. in various paragraphs of the petition.According to the petitioner, he is not, in any manner, involved in the matter and the petitioner is at the most a victim of the crime and can never be associated in the crime.According to the petitioner, there are no allegations whatsoever for even the remotest possible involvement; that a sum of Rs. 8 lacs was advanced by the petitioner to the Unit Contractors viz. Khawaja Moiddin and Kamlakar (petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 247/02), it was a business transaction between two contractors and at any rate other than what has been scribed in the receipt ""Annexure C"" the petitioner is not aware for what purpose the amount was borrowed by the said Unit Contractors; that assuming but without admitting that the money was allegedly passed on to Bakanna Naxalite gang by the Unit Contractors viz. M/s Khawaja Moiddin and Kamlakar, the same cannot amount to voluntary contribution or assistance rendered by the petitioner when there is nothing on record to infer that he had any knowledge that M/s Bapu Reddy and Narendra Reddy were kidnapped by the gang of Naxalites.It is also urged by the petitioner that the Government is not able to control the Naxalite activities and if at all somebody is required to part with money in order to protect himself and submits to extortion by the Naxalites, same cannot be construed as abetting the activities of the Naxalites and, therefore, no offence under Section 3(3) of POTA is made out.The petitioner, therefore, prays for quashing of registration of Crime No. 27/02 of Police Station, Sironcha, District : Gadchiroli.In the Return filed by the State, it is stated that on 2-6-2002 Bapu Reddy gave a written report in Telgu language stating that he was abducted on 19-5-2002 along with Narendra Reddy by the members of Bakkanna gang from Kaleshwar Unit to forest of Nandigaon.Bapu Reddy was threatened by Bakkanna to bring party fund of Rs. 9.84 lacs from his Unit contractor and he was compelled to write one chit.Narendra Reddy was sent with the said chit to his Contractor and after Narendra Reddy left, Bapu Reddy inquired from Bakkanna what he would do with such huge amount.Bakkanna replied that same would be required to fight against the Government and to procure arms and ammunition to sustain naxal activities to overthrow the Government and to sustain and secure their cadre.According to Bapu Reddy he managed to escape from the clutches of the gang under the pretext of ill health.He also disclosed that Adi Reddy was in their captivity when he escaped from the clutches of Bakkanna.""I Bappu Reddy s/o Kachraya, R/o Chennu Aged 30 years at Kaleshwar Firm at Pusukpalli on 19-5-2002 was Kidnapped by members of Naxalite gang of Bakanna under threat of Fire Arms.They took me and one Narendra Reddy who was already kidnapped by the above Naxalite gang from they took us from Pentayal to forests of Nandiyal, Bakanna and the members of his gang has installed tents for living there.The abovesaid members of Naxalite gang threatened me to collect the sum of Rs. 9,84,000/- only from my unit Contractor for their party fund.They scribed a chit and handed over the same to Narendra Reddy to be delivered to our Unit Contractor.They sent Narendra Reddy.I, thereafter, enquired with them what they would do with such a huge amount? Bakanna replied that the same would be used by them for purchase of Fire arms and ammunition to fight the Government and the Police force, for the purpose of saving ourselves and for further establishing their party.Thereafter sometime I feigned illness and escaped from the clutches of the Naxalites I reached Nandi and Laxmipur from there I came to Chennur.This is my report and I pray for the Registration of the Offence.Note : The above ""Dalam"" gang had kidnapped me.Prior to my kidnapping Reddy was already Kidnapped and in their custody.sd/-Yours.""On 28-5-2002 the petitioner A. A. Nayeem was called and inquiries were made with him about the abduction of his men from Geda Unit near Ittapali.According to Police, petitioner A. A. Nayeem denied any such abduction or receipt of any demand or party fund or ransom from Naxalites.JUDGMENT R.K. Batta, J.These petitions arise out of the same F.I.R. which is a subject matter of challenge in both the petitions and as such the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by common order.We shall first refer briefly to the facts in these petitions.In Criminal Writ Petition No. 247/02, the petitioners case is that the F.I.R. does not disclose any offence against them and that there is no material to show that they are involved in any sort of terrorist activities and as such they seek quashing of the prosecution of the petitioners under Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as POTA).According to the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 is an investing partner and petitioner No. 2 has working knowledge of business of Tendu leaves.Both the petitioners are Tendu Leave Contractors.Petitioner No. 1 is also a Registered P.W.D. Contractor.Petitioner No. 1 had applied to the Government for permission to collect Tendu Leaves and after complying with the necessary formalities entered into an Agreement with the Forest Department of State of Maharashtra for collection of Tendu Leaves.Prior to that on 25-5-2002 two trucks of Tendu Leaves belonging to Satyanarayan Reddy and his associates were burnt by Naxalite Bakkanna and his associates near Mahadeopur and Police has registered a Crime No. 34/2002 at Mahadeopur and another Crime No. 51/02 at Kataram under Sections 143, 364(A), 121-A read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 25 of the Arms Act. In those crime, petitioner No. 1 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 247/02 and one Kalimuddin (brother-in-law of Khwaja) were made accused in this connection, A. A. Nayeem was called by respondent No. 2 on 28-5-2002 and inquiry was made about abduction of his men from Geda Unit near Etapalli.Said A. A. Nayeem, however, denied of such abduction or receipt of any demand for party fund or ransom from Naxalites.On 28-5-2002 a night raid was conducted after receiving a clue that petitioner Kamlakar was hiding at Ballarsha and in the said raid the Police recovered Rs. 5.5 lacs cash from the Jeep used by the petitioner Kamlakar but said Kamlakar managed to escape.Subsequently, the Police raided a room where father of the petitioner No. 2 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 247/02 was found in possession of Rs. 1 lac which was seized by the Police.On 4-6-2002, the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 247/02 had surrendered before respondent No. 2 but despite interrogation they have not given any information.On 6th July, 2002 the petitioners disclosed certain facts on the basis of which Section 3(3) of POTA was added in Crime No. 27/02 and the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 247/02 were arrested.Respondents further contended that in Crime No. 15/01 of Sub Police Station Permili Police, certain documents have been seized from the Naxalities which proves that A. A. Nayeem paid a sum of Rs. 11.90 lacs as well as several other goods for the same purpose.In additional affidavit which is on record of Criminal Writ Petition No. 247/02 at pages 43 to 53, it is submitted that the investigation has revealed that petitioner No. 3 (reference to A. A. Nayeem) had not paid money under duress because the abducted person was released by Naxalites much before the time of actual payment.It is also stated therein that said A. A. Nayeem did not disclose in his statement on 28-5-2002 that any such payment was made.Learned advocates for the petitioners as also learned A.P. P. were heard in the matter at length.Shri V. R. Manohar, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 255/02 has basically and substantially made the following submissions before us.Bhajan Lal, it is submitted that there is absolutely no evidence as against the petitioners except for the confession recorded by the Police under Section 32 of POTA.It is also contended by him that petitioner No. 1 has entered into Tendu Leaves Business for the first time and that he has absolutely no nexus with the Naxalites.He also placed reliance on some authorities to which reference shall be made at the appropriate stage later.In the light of rival contentions, we shall now examine the material on record as also the material collected during investigation.On 2-6-2002, P.S.O. Sironcha had registered Crime No. 27/02 on a complaint given to him by Bapu Reddy.The complaint was given in Telgu and English translation of the same has been filed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 255/02 which reads as under :On 28-5-2002, Police recovered a sum of Rs. 5.5 lacs from the Jeep alleged to have been used by the petitioner Kamlakar on 28th night but said petitioner Kamlakar is alleged to have escaped.Police have then recovered a sum of Rs. 1 lac from the possession of the father of petitioner No. 2 Kamlakar.The petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 247/02 had surrendered on 4th July, 2002 and after their interrogation on 6th July, 2002 their confessional statements were recorded, on the basis of which an offence under Section 3(3) of POTA was registered on 12-6-2002 and petitioner A. A. Nayeem was arrested.","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"They were having lathies, stone and iron patti (Dau).Both the parties heard.This is first application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime Number 111/2018 registered at Police Station Nalchha, District Dhar for an offence punishable under Section 294, 323, 506 (2), 324, 326 and 34 of IPC and 25-B of Arms Act.Learned counsel for the applicants argued before this court that the complainant Rajaram has lodged a report on 28-06-2018 at about 05:30 PM that the applicants came to his house and have assaulted the complainant.On the basis of the report lodged by Rajaram a criminal case was registered at Crime No.111/18 for an offence under Section 294, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC.The applicants were released on bail as all the offences were bailable.Later on, Section 326 has been added and now the applicants are apprehending their arrest.It has been argued that injuries are minor in nature and based upon the opinion of the District Prosecution Office as well as medical report section 326 has been added and they are apprehending their arrest.It has been stated fight took place between the two parties and the present applicants 2 MCRC No.1774/2019 have also lodged a report against the complainant and the same is registered as Crime No. 112/2018, which was also lodged on the same day with the same police station.","['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(2) The case of the prosecution was as follows :- On 23rd January, 1966, a girl, Smt. Shanta, daughter of Shaligram, aged about 12 years, was grazing cattle in a field in Katoch Kiar all alone.Her mtoher.Smt. Ranpati, was working in a field at a distance of about 150 feet.The accused, Shiam Singh, it was alleged, finding Shanta all alone, went to her from the side to which she had her beck, took her into his lap, carried her some distance to the side of a stone wall, united the string of her pyjama and stripped the same up to her knees.He then took off his own pyjama also up to his knees, made Shanta lie flat beside the stone wall, and put his sexual organ into the sexual organ of the girl.Smt. Shanta raised an alarm, and her shouts were heard by two persons, Shawala Nand and Keshru, who were also grazing their cattle in two separate fields which were at a distance of about 200 feet from the place of occurrence, and when they challenged the accused and ran towards him in order to catch hold of him.the accused rose up from the body of Shanta and ran away.The said Shawala Nand and Keshru chased the accused for some distance to catch him, but could nto succeed.In the meantime, Ranpati, the mtoher of Shanta came to the place of occurrance and found Shanta in a lying position with her pyjama pulled down up to her knees.Ranpati helped Shanta to stand up, tied the string of her pyjama, and then took her to their Dohgri, which was nearby.In the evening, keeping Shanta in the Dohgri, the mtoher, Ranpati, went to her home in village Tikkri to inform her husband, Shaligram, about the occurrence.Shaligram had Just returned home after putting out some fire in a jungle which was nearby on that day.On learning about the occurrence, Shaligram went to his Dohgri, took the girl Shanta from there and proceeded towards Rohru to lodge the First Information Report in the police station at Rohru.Shaligram lodged the First Information Report in the police station.The girl, Shanta, was also medically examined.JUDGMENT T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) This appeal was filed by the accused-appellant under section 408(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order of conviction passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahasu District, dated 31st May, 1967, whereby the appellant was convicted for an alleged, offence under section 376, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay of a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 and in default of the payment thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.A case under section 376, Indian Penal Code, was registered against the accused, Shiam Singh.The police commenced the investigation, and arrested the accused.The accused was, however, released on bail later on.After the completion of the investigation, the accused was charged with the offence of rape under section 376, I. P. C., and he was committed to the court of Sessions for trial.(3) At the commencement of the trial in 'the Sessions Court, the, accused pleaded nto guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in proof of the charge against the accused.On a consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahasu and Kinnaur Districts, by his judgment, dated 31st May, 1967, held the accused, Shiam Singh, guilty of committing rape on Shanta, under section 376,I.P.C., convicted him for the said offence, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 and in default of the payment thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.Hence, the present appeal by the accused.(4) Before dealing with the contentions of the appellant and the evidence in the case, reference has to be made to sections 375 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.Explanation.-Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.Exception.-Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife nto being under 15 years of age, is nto rape.""The present case, according to the prosecution, falls under the Fifth circumstance mentioned above.Section 376 (I' als with the punishment for rape and it is nto necessary to set out the section.Reading the first part of section 375, the Fifth circumstance and the Explanation together, it is clear that it has to be seen whether, in the present case, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing- (I)that the girl, Shanta, was under 16 years of age ; (ii) that the appellant had sexual intercourse with the girl, Shanta; and (iii)that there was ""penetration"" within the meaning of the section.THEwitnesses examined by the -prosecution were :- P.W.1.-Shanta.the prosecutorix ; P.W. 2.-Shaligram.the father of Shanta ; P.W. 3.- Dr. M Kaushal, who medically examined Shanta with a view to determine her ; P.W. 4.- Shawala Nand, an eye witness ; P.W. 5-Keshru, antoher eye witness ; P.W. 6.-Ranpati, the mtoher of Shanta ; P.W. 7.-Kewal Ram, Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Tikkri, who produced a copy of an entry in the family register maintained by the said Panchayat regarding the date of birth of Shanta ; P.W 8-Dr.-Dr M. L. Ahuja, Radiologist, who gave his opinion regarding the age of the girl ; P. W. 10.-Shri Sohan Singh, who partly investigated the case ; and PW.11.-Shri Daulat Ram, Station House Officer, who investigated the case.(5) The first question for determination is as to whether Shanta was under 16 years of age at the time of the incident as alleged by the prosecution.She deposed to the same effect in her evidence.P. W. 9, Dr. M. L. Ahuja, the Radiologist at Snowdown, took various X-Ray phtoographs of Shanta and gave his certificate.On a consideration of the variours X-Ray Phtoographs and his radiological findings set out in the said certificate, he stated his conclusion in the said certificate that, in his opinion, the skeletal age of Shanta was about 12 years.He deposed to the same effect in his evidence.P. W. 8, Dr. N. C. Jain, who examined Shanta on 24th January, 1966, the day following the day of the occurrence, issued a certificate Exhibit P.F. He stated in the said certificate, inter alia, that, in his opinion, the age of Shanta, was between 13 and 15 years.Relying on the above evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge held that Shanta, was below 16 years of age at the time of the occurrence.I may point out that P. W. 7, Kewal Ram, who was Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Tikkri, since 1956, produced Exhibit P. E., a copy of an entry in the family register of the said Panchayat.The said entry was the date of birth of Shanta, which was shown as 12-4-2008 Bk.In his cross-examination, he stated that the family register maintained by the Panchayat previously gto burnt when the Panchayatghar (office) was destroyed by fire in 1959, and that the present register was prepared thereafter.He further stated in crossexamination that the entry in question was made by him in his own hand at the instance of Shaligram, the father of Shanta, that no horoscope was produced before him when the entry was made, but that her date of birth was orally conveyed to him by her fathar, Shaligram, from his memory.In view of the circumstance that the original regist' r maintained by the Panchayat was destroyed by fire, and the circumstance that the date of birth was subsequently entered in the new register on the information given by Shaligram from his memory, it is safer to exclude this entry in considering the question as to the age of Shanta.As already stated above, the toher evidence regarding her age shows, in my opinion, that she was under 16 years of age at the time of the occurrence.(6) On the above finding, the next question for determination is as to whether the appellant herein had sexual intercourse with Shanta with or without her consent, and whether there was ""penetration"" sufficient to constitute sexual intercourse within the meaning of section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.P. W. 1, Shanta, stated in her evidence that about one year and 4 months prior to the date of her deposition, she was grazing her cattle in Katoch Kiar, that she was alone at that time, that the accused, Shiam Singh. came from behind her, caught hold of her and put her on his lap, and carried her to some distance to a wall of stone, and that there he took off her trousers and also removed his own trousers, put her on the ground, and put his male organ into her sexual organ.She further stated that she raised hue and cry when the accused did that to her, that Public Witness 4, Shawala Nand, on hearing her cry, shouted as to what the accused was doing, and thereupon the accused ranaway, and that, in the meanwhile, her mtoher also came to the scene of occurrence, and took her to their Dohgri by holding her arm.It had to be ntoed here that Shanta could nto identify the accused in an identification parade, but purported to identify the accused in the court at the time of her giving evidence.(7) In cross-examination, she stated that she saw P. W. 4, Shawala Nand, and P. W. 5, Keshru, only at the time when she was crying for help and nto prior to that, that her mtoher was the first person to go to her after the incident, that Shawala Nand and Keshru at that time ran after the accased, that when the said Shawala Nand and Keshru were chasing the accused, her mtoher had pulled her up from the ground where the accused raped her, that When her mtoher came on the spto she was still without the pyjama, which she put on with the help of her mtoher, and that when Shawala Nand and, Keshru came back to the place, she had already put on her pyjama.She further stated in her cross-examination that she saw Shawala Nand when he shouted at the accused, that Shawala.Nand was at about 50 feet from the place of occurrence when he shouted at the accused, that at that time her mtoher was working in a field nearby, that Keshru did nto shout at the time when the incident took place and she did nto see Keshru until he came to the place of occurrence, that when Shawala Nand shouted at the accused, the accused Was lying; upon her body, that when.the accused was upon her body, her feet were towards the side from which Shawala Nand was coming, that she did nto see the sexual organ of the accused when he inserted it into her sexual organ as he hid put his body upon her before he inserted his sexual organ into her private part, that When the nurse at Chirgaob examined her, she (the nurse) did nto touch her sexaal organ at all nor did she apply any medicine to it, that she did nto tell the nurse at that time that she was feeling pain in her sexual orgin as a result of the rape, that the medical officer at Rohru had inserted his finger into her sexual organ when he examined her, that she felt pain when the medical officer at Rohru inserted his finger into her sexual organ and she was nto feeling any pain in her sexual organ up to the time the medical officer at Rohru inserted his finger, thathe accused raped her for a very little while, and that she had been married to one Inder Sain, son of Sunder Singh, resident of Tikkri, prior to the date of the incident.P. W. 2, Shaligram, the father of Shanta, stated in his evidence that on the date of the incident he had gone to extinguish fire in the jungle and returned home in the evening, that his wife told him that Shanta had been raped, that on further enquiry his wife told him that the accused present in the Court had raped her, that his daughter was at that time at his Dohgri, that he thereafter went to his Dohgri and enquired from Shanta as to what had happened, that Shanta told him that she had been raped while grazing cattle by a person nto known to her, and that he thereafter took her to Rohru where she was medically examined.In cross-examination, he stated that while coming to Rohru he and Shanta had stayed at Chirgaon for the night, and he gto Shanta examined by a nurse at Chirgaon on that night, and that Shawala Nand was present at his Dohgri when he went there, and before he left for Rohru with Shanta, he was told by Shawala Nand at his Dohgri that it was the accused who committed rape upon Shanta.P. W. 4, Shawala Nand, stated in his evidence that one year and 4 months prior to the date of his evidence he was grazing cattle in Katoch Kiar, that it was just afternoon when he heard hue and cry of Shanta and ran towards her, that when he went near her he saw that Shanta was lying on the ground near a stone wall and the accused was lying upon her body, that he shouted at the accused as to who he was who was spoiling the girl, that when the girl, Shanta, was lying on the ground and the accused was lying on her, the pyjamas of buth had been stripped down, that upon hearing his shouts, tl:e accused left the body of the girl, Shanta, and ran away, that he chased the accused and caught hold of him while he Was running away, that the accused, however, gto himself freed and gave him a push as a result of which he fell down on the ground, that I e had known the accused since his childhood as the accused belonged to his panchayat circle, that at that time Keshru was also grazing his cattle near there and he also saw the accused running away from the scene of occurrence, that when he came back to the place of occurrence after chasing the accused, Shanta had already been helped to stand up by her mtoher, Ranpati, who had in the meanwhile come on the scene of occurrence, that he had told Ranpati and Keshru that it was tl.e accused who raped Shanta, that he did nto tell anybody else tl at accused Shiam Singh, was tl e culprit, and that the girl Shanta was at that time crying end was senseless.In cross-examination, he stated that Shanta was distantly related to him as grand-daughter, that he knew that the accused, Shiam Singh, was at one time an employee in the Police Department, that he saw the accused and Shanta in a lying position as soon as he heard the hue and cry of Shanta, that when he heard the cries of Shanta, he was at a distance of about 200 feet from the place of occurrence, that he had come running half the distance towards Shanta when the accused bolted away, that the accused remained on the body of Shanta for a lesser time than what would take to smoke out one cigarette, that when he heard the cries of Shanta he says that the accused was lying upon the body of Shanta as a result of which the accused had covered her whole body, that the legs of Shanta were also at that time under the body of the accused, and that the knees of the accused at that time were upon the ground and the legs of Shanta were in between the legs of the accused.He further stated in cross-examination that when he was chasing the accused, Keshru also was running behind him and asking him to catch hold of the accused, that Keshru was about 30 feet behind him, that when he gave up the chase and came back, Keshru also came back with him, that after giving up the chase, he and Keshru did nto go to Shanta and Ranpati who were standing at the wall, but that he went to his own cattle while Keshru went to his sheep, and that he told Ranpati at that time from a distance of about 20 feet that it was the accused who raped the girl Shanta.P. W. 5, Keshru, stated in his evidence that one year and 4 months prior to the date of his deposition, he was grazing his sheep at Katoch Kiar, that at about 3 p. m., he heard hue and cry of a girl, that at that time he was with his sheep upon a hillock, and from there he saw that the girl who was crying was lying underneath the body of a male that he knew the girl Shanta, and the accused, who were- buth present in the Court, that on hearing the hue and cry he started running down the hillock towards the scene of occurrence and also shouted at the accused while running down as to who he was, that he had run down for about 30 feet when he saw that the accused left the body of Shanta and started running, that he also saw at that time that Shawla Nand was also chasing the accused, that Shawala Nand, while chasing the accused, caught hold of him by the sholder, but the accused, however, gto himself freed and give a push to Shawala Nand as a result of which Shawala.Nand fell on the ground while the accused made good his escape, that he and Shawala Nand still chased the accused for some distance, but in vain, that they buth gave up the chase and went back to the place of occurrence, that in the meantime the mtoher of Shanta had Come to the place of occurrence, carried Shanta upon her back, and took her to their Dohgri, and that Shawala Nand than went to his cattle and he went to his sheep.In cross-examination, he stated that on their return after the chase, neither he nor Shawala Nand had any talk with Ranpati as she was crying while Shanta was senseless, that he did nto recognise the accused at the time when he starts coming down the hill to catch hold of the accased, but that he, however, recognised the accused when he came near the accused, as he and the accused belonged to the same panchayat circle, that Shawala Nand also told him the nameof the accused at that time, that he saw for the first timeShanta and the accused in a lying position from a distance of about 200 feet, that he recognised Shanta as soon as he heard her cries, but he could nto see Shanta when she was shouting as she was entirely covered by the body of the accased and was under his chest, but could only see her feet, that he could nto say as to what the accused was doing to Shanta when he was lying upon her body, and that as he shouted from the hillock, the accused look towards him while lying up in the body of Shanta.P. W. 6, Ranpati, the mtoher of Shanta.. stated in her evidence that one year 4 months prior to the date of her deposition, her husband had gone to put off some fire in a jungle near their village, that her daughter.Shanta had gone to graze cattle in the Katoch Kiar, that it was in the afternoon that she heard the cries of Shanta when-she (Ranpati) was working in her field, that she ran towards Shanta, that when she reached the scene of occurrence she found that her daughter was lying beside a stone wall, her pyjama had been stripped down to her knees, while the front part of her shirt had been folded upwards, and she was weepping.that she (Ranpati) also saw that Shawala Nand was chasing a man, that Shanta told her that the man who was being chased by Shawala Nand had raped her, that she tied the string of the pyjama of Shanta, helped her to stand up, and then took her to their Dohgri by holding Shanta's arm while Shanta was walking on foto, that after leaving Shanta at their Dohgri, she went to her house in the village Tikkri, where she met her husband, Shaligram, and conveyed to him the incident as narrated to her by her daughter, and that thereafter her husband.Shaligram, went to their Dohgri.In cross-examination, she stated that Shanta had been married to one Inder Sain, prior to the incident, that she was working in her field at a distance of 150 feet from the place of occurrence when she heard the cries of Shanta, that she did nto know the accused prior to the date of the incident, and that it was Shawala Nand who told her the name of the accused at the time of the incident as the culprit of the offence, (8) Thus, according to the evidence of the witnesses mentioned above, the scene of occurrence was ""Katoch Kiar"", the girl Shanta was grazing her cattle in that place all alone, Shawala Nand was at that time grazing his cattle up the hill at a distance of about 200 feet, while the girl's mtoher, Ranpiti, was working in a field about 150 feet away, and Keshru was also grazing his sheep on a hillock nearby about 200 feet from the place of the alleged incident.Shawala Nand and Keshru heard the shouts of the girl, Shanta.and they saw that the girl was shouting from underneath the body of the accused that Shanta was lying upon.her back by the side of a wall while the accused was lying upon her, and that his body had covered the entire body of Shanta, and only her feet were visible from underneath the body of the accused, and were in between the legs of the accused.The pyjamas of buth the appellant and the girl were stripped down to their respective khees.Shawala Nand shouted at the accused, and the acceased then left the body of Shanta put on his pyjama which he had stripped down to his knees and ran away.Shawala Nand and Keshru started chasing the accused, and they saw Shanta lying near the wall with her pyjama stripped down to her knees, the mtoher, Ranoati, also saw Shanta in that situation when she came there after hearing her daughter's cries.The mtoher then helped Shanta to stand up and tie the string of her pyjama.According to the said evidence, the girl told her mtoher that she had been raped by the person who was being chased by Shawala Nand and Keshru, but who was nto known to her at that time.The girl also gave the same version to her father, when he met her at their Dohgri.(9) In his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant stated that he did nto know anything about the alleged grazing of her cattle in Katoch Kiar by Shanta about one year and 4 months prior to the date of his statement, that he did nto know of any Katoch Kiar near Tikkri village, and that he did nto know Shanta at that time.He denied the entire prosecution case, and stated that he did nto know anything about the alleged rape upon Shanti, and that he neither raped her nor knew the age of the girl.He, however, stated that Shawala Nand and Keshru were known to him one year and 4 months prior to the date of his' statement as the said Shawala Nand and Keshru and himself belonged to villages which were at a distance of 2 miles from each toher.To a question put by the court as to whether he had anything to say as to why the prosecution witnesses were deposing against him, he answered as follows :- ""THEvillagers of Tikkri including P. Ws.Shawala Nand, Shalig- ram, Kes'hru, Smt. Ranpati are inimical to me on account of the fact that during the communal ritos 1947 the villagers of Tikkri had killed the brtoher of one Gicha Shaikh and his family consisting of Ii members and thereafter had misappropriated his property.I was at that time serving in the Police as Constable posted in the Rohru Police Station and had accompanied the S.H.O. Rohru to village Tikkri at that time for investigation during which the whole of the property of the Gujjar was recovered from the villagers of Tikkri.""(11) On the question as to whether the appellant herein had sexual intercourse with Shanta with or without her consent, and whether there was ""penetration"" sufficient to constitute sexual intercourse within the meaning of section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.So far as the evidence of the prose- cuterix, Shanta, is concerned, it can be accepts d only to the extent to which it is corroborated by the toher evidence in the case.Shri Thakur pointed out firstly that Shanta admitted in her evidence that she did nto know the appellant at the time of the occurrence, and she could nto identify the appellant in the identification parade.As regards the identification of the appellant, the evidence was only that of P. W. 4, Shawala Nand and P. W. 5, Keshru.Shri Thakur submitted that the evidence of the said two witnesses should nto be believed in view of the enemity between them and the appellant which was mentioned by the appellant in his examination under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code.It is true that the appellant stated that Shawala Nand, Shaligram, Keshru and Smt. Ranpati were inimical to him on account of the circumstance that during the communal ritos in 1947, the villagers ol Tilkii had killed the brtoher of one Gicha Shaikh and his family and had also misappropriated his property, that at that time the appellant was posted as police Constable in the Rohru Police Station and had accompanied the Station House Officer, Rohru, to the village Tikkri at that time for investigation, and that during the said investigation the whole of the' property of the Gujjar (the brtoher of Gicha Shaikh) was recovered from the villagers of Tikkri.But, the said suggestion by the appellant is, in my opinion, a far fetchtd one.The alleged investigation and recovery was nearly 19 years prior to the occurrence in question.It is difficult to believe that after such a lapse of time, the 4 persons mentioned above, viz. Shawala Nand, Shaligram, Keshru and Smt. Ranpati, took it into their minds to take a revenge upon the accused for the first time in 1966 and gave false evidence against him.No such suggestion was made to Shaligram, Smt. Ranpati or Keshrn in their cross-examination.The said suggestion was made to Shawala Nand in cross-examination, but he denied the same slating that he was nto arrested in 1947 on account of Hindu-Muslim ritos or for murdering Gujjars, and that his property was nto confiscated at that time by the police.In the circumstances, the statement of the appellant that Shawala Nand and Keshru were inimically disposed towards him cannto be accepted.It is also true that the appellant stated that the case was foisted upon him at the instance of one Nehar Singh, who, according to the appellant, was having a grouse against him on account of the acceptance of the appellant's bid in an auction in respect of a land as against the bid of the said Nehar Singh.The appellant, however, did nto state as to whether the witnesses in question were under the influence of Nehar Singh.No such suggestion was even made to the said witnesses, Shawala Nand and Keshru, in their cross-examination.t cannto therefore, be said that the evidence of Shawala Nand and Keshru should nto be believed for the aforesaid reasons, buth Shawala Nand and Keshru deposed that it was the appellant who committed the offence in question upon Shanta on the relevant date.It has, therefore to be held that the identity of the appellant is established hy the evidence of Shawala Nand and Keshru.(12) Shri Thakur referred to the following discrepancies in the evidence of Shawala Nand and Keshru, and submitted that their evidence should nto be believed in view of the said discrepancies.The discrepancies in the evidence of P. W. 4, Shawala Nand, according to him, are :-(A)Shawala Nand stated in his evidence that when he came back to the place of occurrence after chasing the accused (appellant), he had told Smt. Ranpati and Keshru that it was the accused who raped Shanta, and that he did nto tell anybody else that Shiam Singh, accused, was the culprit.On the toher hand, according to P. W. 2, Shaligram, he also was told by Shawala Nand at the Dohgn of Shaligram that it was the accused (appellant herein) who committed rape upon Shanta.(B)In the Chief Examination, Shawala Nand stated that he heard the hue and cry of Smt. Shanta, that he ran towards her, that when he went near her, he saw that Shanta was lying on the ground and the accused was lying upon her body, and that when the gii I was lying on the ground and the accused was lying on her, the pyjamas of buth had been stripped down, while in his cross-examination, he stated :- ""It is correct that I saw Shanta only after I came back on the scene of occuerence after chasing the accused and nto before.""(C)Shawala Nand stated in his cross-examination that the feet of Shanta were towards the direction from which he was coming while her head was towards the stone wall at the time of the incident.He then corrected himself and stated that the head of Shanta at the time of the incident was nto towards the stone wall, but that she was made to lie by the side of the wall lengthwise.On the toher hand, P. W. I, Shanta, stated in her cross-examination that when the accused was upon her body, her feet were towards the side from which Shawala Nand was coming.(D)Shawala Nand stated that Shanta had a shirt on and did nto have any chopken or gachi at the time of the incident, while P. W. I, Shanta, stated that she was at that time putting on a woollen chopken (long coat) and gachi (a string round the chopken) at the time of the incident.(E)Shawala Nand stated in his Chief Examination that when he came back to the place of occurrence after chasing the accused, Shanta had already been helped to stand up by her mtoher Ranpati who had in the meanwhile come.on the scene of occurrence.In his cross-examination, he stated that he and Keshru did nto go to Shanta and Ranpati when they were standing at the wall after giving up the chasing of the accused, that he went to his own cattle while Keshru went to his sheep, and that he told Ranpati that it was the accused who raped the girl, Shanta, at that time from a distance of about 20 feet.P. W. 6, Ranpati, on the toher hand, stated in her cross-examination that when Shawala Nand and Keshru came back after chasing the accused, they sat near her and Shanta at the place of the occurrence.(13) The above statements can hardly be said to be discrepancies, and any case, they are very trivial and nto material discrepancies at all.(14) The discrepancies pointed out by Shri Thakur in the evidence of P. W. 5, Keshru, aie the following :- (A)Keshru stated in cross-examination that the girl, Shanta, vas senseless when he and Shawala Nand returned after chasing the appellant.No toher witness stated that she was senseless.(b) He stated in Chief Examination that the mtoher, Ranpati, carried the girl Shanta upon her back and took her to their Dohgri, while according to Ranapati, she took the girl to their Dohgri by holding the girl's arm while the girl was walking.(e) Keshru stat( din cross-examination that the appellant and Shawala Nand were running towards opposite directions at the time of the chasing of the accused, and that when Shawala Nand caught the accused by the shoulder, they were facing each toher.The counsel suggested that this was improbable as the appellant would be running away from Ranpati and nto towards him.(d) He stated in Chief Examination that at the time of the alleged incident he was with his sheep upon a hillock and from there he saw that the girl who was crying was lying underneath the body of a male, that he knew the girl Shanta and the accused (appellant) who were buth present in the court, and that when he had run down the hillock for about 30 feet, he saw that the accused (appellant) left the body of Shanta and started runing.In cross-examination also he stated that when he shouted from the hillock the accused looked towards him while the accused was lying upon the body of Shanta, and that he did nto know what the accused did to Shanta when he was lying upon her body, and he was nto told by anybody as to what the accused did to the girl.These statements of the said witnesses corroborate each toher.Thus, it is clear from the .evidence of the said witnesses that the appellant with his pyjama stripped down up to his kness lay upon the body of Shanta, whose pyjama also was stripped down up to her knees.(17) The question then is as to whether the appellant committed sexual intercourse with the girl.P. W. 4, stated that the accused remained on the body of Shanta for a lesser time than what one would take to smoke out one cigarette.The girl, Shanta, told her mtoher immediately after the incident that she was raped by the person who was being chased by Shawala Nand she also told the same to her father, Shaligram, when he came to their Dobgri in the evening.P. W. 8, Dr. N. C. Jain, Civil Hospital, Nahan, conducted the medical examination of the girl Shanta, on 24th January, 1966, and issued a certificate, Exhibit P. F. He stated in his Chief Examination as follow? :- ""EITHERon the back of pyjama or on the front there is nto any kind of blood stain.No hairs on the private part.","['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This revision is not likely to come up for hearing in near future.As regards I.A. No. 2875/2017 awaiting admission an application under Section 397 (1) Cr.P.C, it is directed that jail sentence of petitioner will remain under suspension on the petitioner furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of CJM Shivpuri, for his appearance before CJM concerned on 31st of August, 2017 and all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the CJM in this regard.",['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
"P No.762/2014 Page 1 of 14The petitioner had lodged a written complaint on 17.12.2012 alleging that his neighbours Suresh Chand @ Mast Ram and Daya Nand Aggarwal insisted upon him for purchasing an agricultural land situated in a village at Haryana, which land stood in the name of Smt. Bina (Respondent no.2), who was stated to be the sister-in-law of Suresh Chand.The petitioner agreed for purchasing the plot of land in question and in order to fix the deal, issued one cheque of Rs.20 lacs and two cheques of Rs.10 lacs each dated 15.06.2010 drawn on HDFC Bank, Gopi Nath Market, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi.The aforesaid cheques were issued in the name of Narender and Surender as Bina (Respondent no.2) was not having any bank account.Two more cheques of Rs.15 lacs each were also issued by the petitioner.Believing the assertions of the accused persons, the petitioner paid Rs.35 lacs in cash to Respondent no.2 and Suresh Chand at his residence in the presence of Daya Nand Aggarwal and others.Later, the petitioner learnt that the property which was agreed upon to be purchased by him and against which the petitioner had made payment of Rs.45 lacs to Respondent no.2 and Suresh Chand, did not belong to them and they were not the rightful owners of the said property.P No.762/2014 Page 3 of 14On detection of such fraud, and on being confronted, a promise was made by the accused persons that the amount accepted by them would be returned in three installments.The petitioner had no option but to acquiesce.Later Respondent no.2 entered in the scene and executed an agreement to sell the property for a large sum of money as consideration.The Crl.Babu Lal Aggarwal, the informant of FIR No.58/2013 (PS Palam Vihar) challenges the order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, in Criminal Revision Petition No.89/2014 whereby the charges framed against Respondent no.2 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, on 26.02.2014 has been set aside and Respondent no.2 has been discharged.After the completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted on 07.05.2013, sending up Respondent no.2 for trial.A supplementary chargesheet was also filed.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"...for the petitioners.Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, PP Mr. Mainak Gupta, Adv....for the State.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Dum Dum Police Station Case No. 123 of 2018 dated 21.02.2018 under Sections 366A/370/370B/109/120B of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 3/4/5/6/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and under Sections 4/17/21 of the POCSO Act.The State opposes the prayer and says that the petitioners are the owners of the hotel where minor girls would be taken and abused.The petitioners claim that the hotel was under the control and custody of a designated manager and the petitioners could not have known of the illegal activity conducted thereat by the manager.The petitioners say that none of the victims has named the petitioners.Considering the material and the gravity of the offence, it may not be fair to excuse the petitioners from custodial interrogation notwithstanding the charge- sheet being filed.If necessary, the investigating officer can file a supplementary charge-sheet.Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail is rejected.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)","['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(1) Being dissatisfied with the investigation carried on by the Delhi Police in Case Fir No. 127/95 dated 26th April, 1995 registered at Ps Kotla Mubarak pur, New Delhi under Sections 302/ 120B/IPC, the petitioner has filed this petition for transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other independent agency.(2) One Praveen Malhotra was the son of the petitioner and was residing on the first floor of House No. A-lll, defense Colony, New Delhi.The petitioner and his wife i.e. the parents of Praveen Malhotra were residing on the ground floor of the same house.In the night intervening 19/20th December, 1994 Praveen Malhotra was found dead in suspicious circumstances in room No. 2 of South Delhi Guest House, NDSE-I, New Delhi.The petitioner made a complaint to D.C.P.(South) on 20th December, 1994 staling inter alia that he suspected foul play in the death of his son at the hands of certain persons whose names had been mentioned in the petition.(4) That on 19th December, 1994 at about 8.30 p.m. a driver came at the guest house in a red Maruti Gypsy and told the man at the reception that the room of Praveen Malhotra had not been cleaned.At this, the receptionist told him that the room had been cleaned 2-3 times in the day.Certain instances of the said persons having got blank papers signed from Praveen Malhotra and having tried to grab the properties have also been given in the petition.On the complaint of the petitioner and after some investigation which was entrusted to Special Investigation Unit, South District and on receipt of the post mortem report, a case under Sections 302/102-B Indian Penal Code was registered at Ps Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.However, after obtaining a second opinion on the postmortem report, it was stated that in view of the investigations carried out so far, it appeared to be a case of accidental death due to the head of the deceased having impacted in the plastic dustbin which resulted into asphyxia.It was further stated that the matter was still under investigation.(3) Being dissatisfied with the investigation carried out by the police, this petition was filed for transfer of investigation of the case to Central Bureau of Investigation or to any other independent agency.Some of the facts which are relevant for purposes of deciding this petition and which are admitted by the State are:Further, the driver told him that he was coming from the room and Praveen Malhotra appeared to have fallen down; there appeared to be some injury in his mouth and blood was coming out of his mouth to the floor of the room and the receptionist should have the same cleaned.10 or 15 minutes thereafter the receptionist went into the room of Praveen Malhotra and found his head leaning out of the bed and his left hand was totally smeared with blood and he was trying to clean the blood from his mouth with the right hand.The receptionist asked him as to what had happened on which Praveen Malhotra tried to speak but failed in his efforts.The receptionist came back at the reception and telephoned the driver to inform him that the condition of Praveen Malhotra was very bad.After about 7-8 minutes, the driver reached the Guest House and the receptionist along with the driver went to the room of Praveen Malhotra where they cleaned his mouth with a towel.After opening the mouth, the driver told the receptionist that it appeared that the tongue of Praveen Malhotra had been cut as a result of which the blood was coming out.When the driver wanted to take Praveen Malhotra to Golf Links to the Doctor, he was told by Praveen Malhotra that he was all right and he wanted a peg of whisky to be given to him.A bottle of whisky was lying in the room and the driver made a peg from out of that and the receptionist came back at the reception.After about 20-25 minutes, the driver came at the reception where he told the waiter Anand Singh to take care of Praveen Malhotra.At about 10.30/10.45 p.m. some lady telephoned at the guest house and asked the receptionist to call the person from room No. 2 where Praveen Malhotra was staying.However, nobody responded to the phone in room No. 2 whereupon the lady asked him to go to the room and find out as to why nobody was responding.When the receptionist went in the room he found that Mr.Malhotra was vomiting blood.The receptionist immediately informed that lady on the phone about the same.After about 8-10 minutes, the driver came at the guest house and he was taken to the room and they found that Praveen Malhotra was already dead and while the lower portion of the body was on the bed, the upper portion was leaning from the bed and his head was in the plastic dustbin.Thereafter, the receptionist telephoned at the same number where he had spoken to the driver earlier and informed the person who had picked up the receiver about Praveen Malhotra.As nobody came at the guest house in spite of the information having been given on telephone, nor the driver came back, police was called at the guest house and was informed about the incident.(6) About the second post-mortem report which had been obtained by the police, the case of the State is that as the statement of witnesses did not tally, a request was made for constitution of a Medical Board for giving opinion on the postmortem report.(7) On a perusal of the material before me, I find that certain aspects of the matter appear to have not been investigated by the police inasmuch as while the receptionist at the guest house states that the driver when he came at about 11.00 p.m., was taken to the room of Praveen Malhotra and he was found already dead, the driver left the guest house immediately thereafter to come back shortly, however, he did not come back.Thereafter the information of the death was also given on telephone number available with the guest house from where a lady had earlier telephoned to enquire about the deceased, however, nobody came at the guest house.As to why the driver did not return and why did he leave immediately for Allahabad is a matter which requires investigation.Even a matter of urgent nature could wait the departure of the driver to Allahabad when he had already seen the dead body of the person to whom he was attending upon daily and to whom he had spoken only two hours earlier.The persons who had booked the room for Praveen Malhotra in the guest house having been informed about the death at about 11.00 p.m. did not bother to visit the guest house and it appears that the police had not investigated that angle.Though it has been stated by the driver that the deceased before his death was drinking alcohol, the post-mortem report suggests that there was nothing to ""suggest intoxication or influence of alcohol/phenytoin /any other common poisons"".There is nothing in the report to show as to why the deceased was vomiting blood as there was a pool of blood on the floor.(8) Be that as it may, on a cumulative reading of the statements recorded by the police and the material placed before me, I feel that the investigation so far carried out was not satisfactory and certain vital aspects of the case have not been investigated.Mr. Aggarwal has no objection if the matter is transferred to the Crime Branch, Delhi Police for further investigation.(9) For the foregoing, I transfer investigation of the case to the Crime Branch, Delhi Police which will carry out further investigation without in any manner being influenced by the investigation carried out earlier.With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.",['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
"After marriage complainant had problems with the family members of her husband.She wished to live separately and she shifted to a rental accommodation along with her husband and daughter.However, the marriage perhaps did not click and she took away her daughter and other articles except bulky one and went to USA.Her allegations were that since her marriage, she was subjected to unwarranted remarks in the garb of jokes about standard of her family and every accused person stated that she had not brought sufficient dowry.They among themselves used to speak of ""physically handling"" her.On one occasion, her in laws verbally abused her parents.Her saas (mother-in-law) and nanad (sister-in-law) Crl.MC No.162/2010 Page 2 of 3 assaulted her when she resented abuses to her parents.The allegations were very vague.No occasion, date, month or year of demand of Rs. 50 lac was stated by complainant.MC No.162/2010 Page 3 of 3MM would show that the Ld. MM considered the material available on record, gave the details of the fact and came to the conclusion that no charge under Section 498A IPC or 406 IPC was made against the accused persons and discharged the accused.In revision, the Ld.MC No.162/2010 Page 1 of 3MC No.162/2010 Page 1 of 3In a revision against charge, if an accused has been discharged, the revision Court cannot brush aside the order of the Trial Court in a casual and mechanical manner as has been done by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this case.A charge is liable to be framed against an accused by the Court if the material placed before the Trial Court is such that if entire admissible evidence collected by the police was considered true, commission of offence was made out.Her saas demanded Rs. 50 lac.The other complaint of complainant was about her husband taking to drinking and smoking and in insulting her in presence of others whenever she tried to check his habits.She alleged that heavy drinking and smoking of her husband created havoc in the peaceful living of her married life - to such an extent, that she thought of committing suicide.In respect of these allegations, the Trial Court observed that heavy drinking and smoking of her husband would not fall under Section 498A IPC.The Trial Court found that all her allegations about other facts were so vague that no case was made out under Section 498A and 406 IPC.I consider that the Trial Court rightly judged the material available on record in order to find out whether the charge should be framed against the accused person or not.The Ld.Additional Sessions Judge did not appreciate that even if all allegations made by the complainant were considered true, no case under Section 498A or 406 could have been made out.This petition is allowed.The order dated 16th November, 2009 of Ld.Additional Sessions judge is set aside.The order dated 11th March, 2008 of Ld. MM is restored.","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"On a close scrutiny of the entire evidence of P.W. 4, we have no hesitation in affirming the finding of the learned trial Judge that P.W. 4 and the first accused were on inimical terms for sometime prior to the occurrence, although, they were distantly related to each other.On the date of the occurrence 16th April, 1970 at about 4 P.M. P.W. 4 Palaniandi Servai and one Kandaswamy (not examined) were returning from Kottampatti to their village, Chinnakottampatti.The distance is stated to be about one mile.Malaichamy, the first accused, accused P.W. 4 on the road.He kicked him (P.W. 4) down and attempted to spear him with a vel kambu.P.W. 1 and the deceased Subbiah went to the field house of P.W. 4 to enquire about this incident and on the way Subbiah (P.W. 3) son of Karuppiah was taken along by them.P.Ws. 1 and 3 and the deceased Subbiah found P.W. 4 weeping and after hearing about the details of the assault, the deceased Subbiah told P.W. 4 that he should make a complaint to the Police about the assault.P.W. 4 agreed.P.W. 3, Kannusamy, and deceased Subbiah accompanied P.W. 4 to the Police Station of Kottampatti.They got a complaint (Exhibit P-5) prepared by a local petition-writer at Kottampatti and P.W. 4 presented it at the Police Station before P.W. 10 the Station-Writer of the Police Station, since the SuB-1nspector was not available.They had some coffee at Kottampatti later; they were returning to their village, Chinnakottampatti, at about 2-30 P.M, along the Trichy main road.There is a diversion road branching off from the main road to the village of Chinnakottampatti, and P.W. 4 and Kannusamy parted company from the deceased Subbiah and P.Ws. 1 and 3, who were proceeding on the branch road to their village.This was at about 9 P.M. and there was undoubtedly bright moonlight at that time.It emerges from the recorded evidence that all the five accused as well as.P.Ws. 1 and 3 (the two eye-witnesses) and also P.W. 4 and the deceased Subbiah belong to the same village of Chinnakottampatti.JUDGMENT K.N. Mudaliyar, J.After killing the deceased Subbiah, the five accused returned to the road.P.Ws. 1 and 3 saw them and quietly hastened towards their village.P.W. 1 asked P.W. 3 to go to the village and inform the family of the deceased about the occurrence.P.W. 1 himself left the place to give a report to the Village Munsif, residing at Kottampatti.On the information given by P.W. 3 to the relations of the deceased, they all came crying to the scene of crime, which is about one and a half furlongs away from their house.After recording the said complaint, Exhibit P-1,' P.W. 6 accompanied by P.W. 1 and the Village Vettian, got a petromax light and reached the scene of occurrence.He saw the dead body of the deceased with multiple injuries in the garden of Kaliappan.P.W. 6 prepared the routine reports to the Police and the Magistrate and despatched them through his Vettian at 11 P.M. which were received by P.W. 10 at about 11-50 P.M. Naturally P.W. 6 continued to stay at the scene of occurrence till the arrival of the SuB-1nspector of Police (P.W. 13) on 17th April, 1970 at 10 A.M.P.W. 13 the SuB-1nspector of Police of Kottampatti Police Station was on special bandobust duty at Maduraiin connection with the visit of the Vice-President of India.P.W. 13 received from P.W. 12 an express tapal regarding the crime at about 6 A.M. on 17th April, 1970, when he Was on duty near St. Mary's High School.Dr. Abdul Gafoor Adamsa (P.W. 2) conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased Subbiah on 18th April, 1970 at 10-45 A.M. It is unnecessary for us to elaborately describe the multiple injuries found on the body of the deceased as paragraph 6 of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge contains all the details.Suffice it for us to observe that the deceased had received at least eight injuries which were necessarily fatal.The head was virtually severed from the body except a portion of the skin :over the right side sticking to the body.According to the doctor, death Would have been instantaneous on receipt of the injuries.The plea of the accused was one of denial.The learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence adduced by the prosecution that the First Information Report was given within one hour after the occurrence and that Exhibit P. 1. contained the names of all the appellants.The learned Judge further found that the motive was quite sufficient for the accused to commit the offence in question.The learned Judge, while accepting the testimony of P.W. 1, found that his evidence marked under Section 288 of the Criminal Procedure Code, taken along with the evidence of P.Ws. 3: and 6, clearly established that all the five accused committed the offences charged against them and that they murdered the deceased Subbiah in cold blood.He even admits that Exhibit P-1 was read over to him.He admits further that all the recitals in Exhibit P-1 are true.He admits that he was examined in the committal Court.He further admits that Exhibit P-2 is his deposition The learned Sessions Judge records as-follows :Public Prosecutor requests the Court to mark it under Section 288, Criminal Procedure Code.Marked as requested.Exhibit P-2 was read over to the witnesses.Accused informed.P.W. 1 further stated that prior to his deposition in the committal Court he gave a statement under Section 164,, Criminal Procedure Code, in the Court of the Sub-Magistrate, Madurai.He further states that the SuB-1nspector held the inquest on the morning of the next day.P.W. 3 stated that there was bright moonlight, that all the five accused intercepted the deceased and that the second accused instigated the first accused to murder the deceased Subbiah, since the latter was supporting P.W. 4 Palaniandi as against the first accused.P.W. 3 swears that immediately the first accused dealt a cut with his aruval on the deceased, but the deceased tried to obstruct the cut and received it on his left hand.After receiving the cut the deceased Subbiah must have run for his life into the neighbouring field of Kaliappan.All the five accused chased him into the field and cut him indiscriminately as a result of which Subbiah died instantaneously.P.W. 3 was with the deceased Subbiah when the first cut was delivered by the first accused.He was standing on the side of the road near the fence and when the accused came he ran towards the village to inform the near relations of the deceased about the occurrence.No motive has been suggested against P.W. 3 as to why he should implicate the five accused-appellants.Some attempt has been made at suggesting some misunderstanding between P.W. 3 and the first accused in regard to their engagement as tope kavalkars.At any rate we find a total absence of any suggestion to P.W. 3 as to why he did implicate falsely accused 2 to 5 at all.",['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
"On 17.03.95 at about 10.00 p.m. appellant/ accused Balakram entered into her house and committed rape on her.According to prosecutrix, she tried to shout but the appellant threatened her and said that if she disclose this incident to any one then he will desert her from the house.It is, further alleged that after half an hour of this incident, appellant/accused further committed rape on her and when she resisted, she was assaulted by the appellant.Therefore she received the injuries on different part of her body.It is further, alleged that due to the threat given by the appellant/accused she did not disclose this fact to any one for next two days.The prosecutrix was sent to medical examination.She was examined by lady doctor and examination 3 report(Ex.P-9) was prepared.Appellant/accused was arrested.He was also medically examined.As per G.S. Solanki,J.:The Sessions Judge, Betul passed the impugned judgment dated 20.09.95 in S.T. No. 85/95 by which the appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years.Being aggrieved the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.It is undisputed that prosecutrix Suganti bai (P.W.-1) is a sister-in-law(bhabhi) of appellant/accused 2 Balakram and witness Bhure (P.W.3) is a brother-in- law(jeth) of prosecutrix.The prosecution case in short is that husband of prosecutrix(P.W.1) was in Bhopal Jail therefore she was living separately along with her 4 years child in village Gyaraspur.After usual investigation appellant/accused was charge-sheeted.Learned Session Judge framed the charges against the appellant under Sections 451,506 Part- II,376,323 of I.P.C.The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded that he is falsely implicated and further pleaded that prosecutrix is having illicit relation with one Ramadhar, being a near relative of prosecutrix appellant/accused objected and beaten her therefore, he was falsely implicated.After completing trial, on appraisal of evidence of record Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant/ accused under Sections 451,506 Part-II,323 of I.P.C. but convicted him under Section 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced as mentioned above.Hence, this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and committed error in passing the impugned judgment.On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer supported the impugned judgment and finding of the trial Court.I have perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other materials on record.Prosecutrix(P.W.1) deposed that on the fateful night she was sleeping, after closing the door of her house.At about 10-11 p.m. in the night appellant/accused entered in her house after broken the door of house and caught hold her.She tried to ran away, then appellant/accused assaulted her by stick and then committed the rape on her.She further deposed that witness Bhure(P.W.3) came over there on her hue and cry and he saved her.She further deposed that she narrated the incident to Sarpanch Ramsingh and on the very same night Sarpanch sent him to Kotwar, but Kotwar was not available therefore, she lodged the report after 2-3 days.Later on she added that her brother-in-law(jeth) Bhure and father-in-law threatened her not to report the matter, therefore, she reported the matter belatedly.But this fact not found place in F.I.R., therefore explanation for delayed F.I.R. can not be said to be reliable.Soorat lal(P.W.2) is a village Kotwar.He did not support the prosecutrix therefore, he was declared hostile by the prosecution.Further, he deposed that prosecutrix came to him in the fateful night and told 5 him that appellant/accused beaten her.Bhure(P.W.3) is a brother-in-law of prosecutrix also not supported her and was also declared hostile by the prosecution.In these circumstances, only statement of prosecutrix remains on record.No doubt if statement of prosecutrix found to be truthful and there exist no circumstances which cast on shadow of doubt on her veracity, conviction can be based on single testimony of prosecutrix.Keeping in mind aforementioned principle of appreciation when I carefully peruse the cross- examination of prosecutrix, I am of the view that single testimony of prosecutrix can not be said to be reliable because prosecutrix herself stated in her examination- in-chief that at the time of incident witness Bhure(brother of appellant/accused) came over due to hue and cry made by her and he saved her.In her cross-examination, para 9, she categorically admitted that as soon as appellant entered in her house and assaulted her, she made hue and cry, therefore his brother-in-law Bhure(P.W.3) came over there and he saved her.She further deposed that immediately appellant/accused went from her house, she immediately rushed to the Sarpanch Ramsingh to 6 narrate the incident.There is material omission brought on her cross- examination from her police statement(Ex. D-1) in regard to the fact that appellant/accused entered the house after broken the door of the house.Trial Court also not believed her in regard to broken of door,therefore appellant was acquitted to the charge under Section 451 of I.P.C.On perusal of FIR(Ex. P-10) it reveals that according to prosecutrix she narrated the incident to witness Bhure, brother-in-law(jeth) of the prosecutrix after two days of the incident but in the statement before Court she deposed that Bhure came over there at the time of incident and saved her.In these circumstances, defence of the appellant/ accused appears to be probable that prosecutrix was entangle with one Ramadhar by taking the advantage of absence of her husband who was in jail.Being a near relative appellant had assaulted her and according to prosecutrix on the same night Bhure(P.W.3) brother-in-law(jeth) of the prosecutrix also saved her.This fact is also precepeted from her cross- examination, para 9 that as soon as appellant accused entered in her house he beaten her, she made hue and 7 cry and Bhure(P.W.3) came over there and saved her.In these circumstances, single testimony of prosecutrix can not be said to be reliable.Because her statement is not corroborated by medical evidence and FIR.F.I.R. appears to be product of after thought.In these circumstances, prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. against the appellant/accused and trial Court has committed error in not appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective.Thus appeal succeed.(G.S. Solanki) JUDGE 24 /01/2011 Ba 8",['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
"[Order of the Court was made by P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J] The petitioner is the father of the detenu, viz., I.T. @ RamKumar, S/o.Thangaraj, aged about 22 years.The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.167/BCDFGISSSV/2015 dated 27.11.2015, holding him to be a ""Goonda"", as contemplated under Section 2(f)of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, taking note of the ground case in Crime No.888of 2015 on the file of E2 Madhichiam Police Station registered for allegedoffences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code@ 147, 148, 341, 392, 506(ii) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code r/w 34 and 397of the Indian Penal Code.The Detaining Authority, expressing subjective satisfactionthat the detenu conformed to the definition of the ""Goonda"" and that hispresence at large would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order andalso expressing subjective satisfaction that it was very likely that thedetenu would come out on bail in the ground case, passed the impugned detention order.The said order is challenged in the present Habeas CorpusPetition.The submissions made by the learned Additional PublicProsecutor in reply to the above said contentions raised by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner are also heard.In Paragraph No.4 of the grounds of detention, the DetainingAuthority, expressing his subjective satisfaction regarding the possibilityof the detenu coming out on bail, made the following observation:""I am aware that Thiru.Thangaraj is in remand inthe ground case in E.2 Madhichiam P.S. Cr.No.888/2015 for the offences undersection 147, 148, 302 IPC @ Sec.147, 148, 341, 392, 506(ii) & 302 IPC r/w 34and 397 IPC at the Central Prison, Madurai; and I am also aware that his bailapplication filed in the above said ground case was dismissed by theJ.M.No.II, Madurai in Crl.I am also awarethat Thiru.M.P.No.3084/2015 dated 03.09.2015 to an accused Thiru.Pandi @ Kamma Pandi s/o Sakkarai Thevar concerned in C2 Subramaniapuram P.S. Cr.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and thisCourt sets aside the order of detention dated 27.11.2015, made inNo.167/BCDFGISSSV/2015, by the second respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai and directs therelease of the detenu by name I.T. @ Ram Kumar, S/o.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..","['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The case of the prosecution is that the first accused is the husband of the deceased Mookkayee; the accused 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1st accused.Prior to one year from 19.11.2003, the first accused has married the deceased Mookkayee and after the marriage, both of them has lived as husband and wife in the house of the accused.All the accused have joined together and demanded dowry from the deceased in the form of jewels, cow and other articles.Since the deceased Mukkayee has not been able to brook the demand made by all the accused, she committed suicide.The complaint given by P.W.12 has been marked as Ex.On receipt of Ex.Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the convictions and sentences dated 20.12.2006 passed in Sessions Case No.47/2006 by the District and Sessions Court, Mahila Court, Perambalur.The Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, after considering the facts that the offences alleged to have been committed by all the accused are triable by sessions court, has committed the case to the court of sessions, Perambalur Division and taken on file in Sessions Case No.47/2006 and subsequently, made out to the trial court.The trial court, after hearing both sides and upon perusing relevant records has framed a 1st charge against all the accused under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC); second charge against all the accused under Section 306 of the IPC and the same has been read over and explained to them.The accused have denied the charge and claimed to be tried.On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 16 have been examined, Exhibits P.1 to P.12 and Material Object 1 have been marked.When the accused have been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crime.No oral and documentary evidence have been let in on the side of the accused.The trial court, after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing relevant material on record has found all the accused not guilty under Section 306 of the IPC and ultimately acquitted them.Likewise, accused 2 and 3 are not found guilty under Section 498-A of the IPC and subsequently, acquitted them.The trial court has found the first accused guilty under Section 498-A and sentenced him to undergo 25 months rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default clause.Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the present criminal appeal has been preferred at the instance of the 1st accused as appellant.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/1st accused has contended vehemently to the effect that the specific charge framed against the appellant/1st accused is that he and remaining accused have used to torture the deceased by way of demanding gold jewels, cow and other articles, by means of dowry and since she has not been able to meet out their demand, she committed suicide, but for the purpose of proving the said aspect, there is no evidence on the side of the prosecution and the trial court, without considering the lack of evidence on the side of the prosecution, has erroneously found the appellant/1st accused guilty under Section 498-A of the IPC and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is liable to be interfered with.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that in the instant case, the parents of the deceased have been examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and apart from their evidence, one Karuppaiah has been examined as P.W.16 and all of them has spoken about the torture made by all the accused and the trial court has rightly found the first accused guilty under Section 498-A of the IPC and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court do not warrant interference.In fact, this court has perused the entire evidence given by P.W.3, mother of the deceased and she has not spoken about the demand of dowry, whereas P.W.3, father of the deceased, in his chief examination stated to the effect that the first accused has demanded dowry.But during the course of cross examination, he has given evidence to the effect that he does not know anything and his wife alone knows everything.Therefore, the evidence given by P.Ws.2 and 3 does not support the version of the prosecution.The prosecution has examined P.W.16, after examination of the Investigating Officer.The specific evidence given by P.W.16 is that prior to occurrence, he met the deceased and other accused and effected Panchayat in connection with the alleged harassment and that itself would not be sufficient for coming to a conclusion that the appellant/1st accused has tortured her in connection with dowry demand.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the first accused has been examined by the Revenue Divisional Officer, where, he deposed that prior to occurrence, he attacked his wife and only due to that, she might have committed suicide.In fact, the entire statement given by 1st accused has been scanned by this court and he merely stated that prior to occurrence he simply attacked his wife and further he opined, that may be the cause for committing suicide and that itself would not be sufficient for coming to a conclusion that only due to dowry torture, the deceased committed suicide.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/1st accused, virtually on the side of the prosecution, no evidence is available so as to attract penal provision of 498-A of the IPC.The trial court, without considering the lack of evidence on the side of the prosecution has erroneously convicted the 1st accused/appellant under the said section.In view of the discussion made earlier, considering the subsisting force in the contention made on the side of the appellant/1st accused, this criminal appeal is liable to be allowed.Fine amount paid by him is ordered to be refunded forthwith.07.09.2015Index:Yes/nonvsri To1.The Deputy Superintendent of PolicePerambalur DivisionPerambalur District(Kaikalathur Police StationCr.2.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.Crl.A.No.35 of 2007","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Cbi Office, Cgo Complex, New Delhi, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.He was.He is an influential person of the area and is capable of organising huge rallies with a view to prevent the concerned persona not to be witnesses in the case.One of the eyewitness has in fact been threatened or serious consequences in case he attempted to depose against the petitioner.(7) In order to appreciate the submission- of the learned counsel for the respondent, one has to keep in mind the circumstances leading to the registration of the present case.The assassination of late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on 31-10-84, was an unfortunate incident, but still more unfortunate were the events which took place thereafter, as a result of which a large number of anti-social elements came out of their houses in anger and indulged in incidents of rioting, looting, arson, assault and killing of innocent persons and burning their property throughout India.On first of November, 1984, such like incidents also took place in the locality of Sultanpuri, Delhi.Information of this incident was received at the Police station at about 2.10 p.m. It was recorded in the D.D. Register at serial No. 11-A and the same was handed over to Si Sukhbir Singh for immediate action.Sukhbir Singh went to the spot and made preliminary enquiries.Later on, he sent a Ruqa to the police station for the registration of a case uss 147, 148, 149, 395, 196 Indian Penal Code .Then he recorded the statements of various witnesses who were the target of looting, arson and' assault.The Si collected the MLCs from the hospital and in view of the medical reports, further recommended the inclusion of Sections 307, 324 and 302 Indian Penal Code .(8) On the demand of the victims that competent, responsible and experienced police officers be deputed to investigate these cases, the Government of India transferred the investigation to the Vigilance Department of the Delhi Police.Si Raj Singh was deputed to thoroughly investigate the case.In this petition, affidavits of number of persons were filed who in fact were the sufferers of the riots.This Cwp was finally dismissed.(10) However, keeping in view the persistent demand of the so called voluntary organisation, the Government of India on 26th April, 1985, appointed Mr. Justice Ranganath Misra, sitting Judge of the Supreme Court to thoroughly investigate the happening after the death of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, and to find out, as to whether there was any organized mob violence at the behest of Congress workers and if there was, then suggest ways and means to punish the guilty.The short span of time that intervened would not have permitted scope for any organising to be done.The gloom that had spread and affected the Congressmen in particular would not have permitted any such organisation to be handled.The reaction appears to have come as a flutter and sparked everywhere in a similar pattern.""(11) The Commission further concluded that no responsible person in authority of Congress-1 hatched any conspiracy or organized large scale rioting, looting, killing, etc. in various parts of Delhi.In fact, the anti-social elements had taken the lead.The treatment meted out to the officer, of the Cbi who had gone to the residence of the petitioner for search and his arrest on 11-9-90 by Itself is an example of his influence.(2) The investigation of this case where the accused is alleged to have organized a mob in targeted them to murder and burn the houses of a particular community is, at a crucial stage and the petitioner being at large, will certainly hamper the investigation.(3) Most of the witnesses in this case are either widows, destitutes or uprooted persona and they are under the constant threat of the petitioner and his associates.Because of this terror, they are not coming forward to make the statements even though have been shifted to safer places.(4) The Poti-Rosha Committee having found a prima facie case against the petitioner, has recommended the registration and investigation of the case by the Cbi and keeping in view the nature of the offence and the persons involved, anticipatory bail should not have been granted.(5) The prosecution has still to take into possession 6 swords which were found in the house of the petitioner and were not allowed to be taken into custody.During this search, the petitioner has also been found in possession of the documents which in the ordinary course should not have been there; (6) In this case, this court has granted the petitioner a blanket order of bail which is not in accordance with law and is liable to be cancelled.(3) In order to demonstrate the seriousness of the offence, learned Additional Solicitor General referred to the affidavit and the statement of Aawar Kaur which formed the basis of the registration of the case uss 147, 148, 149, 247, 430/34 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and 5 others at police station Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi In brief, her case is that at the time of the assassination of the late Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi, the petitioner Along with her husband Shri Navin Singh, and children was living in her house No. A-4, Sultanpuri, Delhi.On 1-11-84, while she Along with her other family members was present in her house, she saw thousands of people of the area armed with lathis, dandas, iron-rods and knives, looting the house of Sardars end setting them on tire.This mob was being led by Mp Sajjan Kumar who was instigating them that all male folks be burnt to death and their property be looted.Under that instigation, her husband was dragged out and attacked with a sharp-edged weapon and burnt to death after pouring kerosene oil on him.Thereafter, her house was also burnt.She took refuge in the house of her daughter Film Kaur, who was residing in D-Block Sultanpuri.Late at night, some people came there and removed the burnt dead body of her husband, which till date i not tracesble.Superintendent of Police, Cbi, the search of the house concluded at 8.45 Am, but in the meantime, the petitioner managed to organise a huge crowd, which made it impossible for the officers to leave the premises of the petitioner.During the course of search, the respondent officers have seized few documents and six swords but they could' not be removed on account of the law and order problem created by the petitioner outside his house.By the time the search was concluded, the mob outside the house inflamed, and was raising slogans against the Cbi and in favor of the petitioner.The mob in fact had barred the exit gate which made difficult for them to leave the premises.With the lapse of time, the mob continued to swell and provocative slogans were chanted through a loudspeaker system installed by the mob.The mob then became violent and smashed and damaged the Maruti Jipsi and Ambassador car of the CBI.The search party tried their best to call for reinforcement from the local police but it could not be arranged.In fact the information conveyed to the search party by the high police officials was that it was impossible for the police to come to their rescue without inflicting heavy casualities, which in turn, may also endanger the safety of the search parly.Uutimately, the search party could only be allowed to leave the premises after the anticipatory bail order from the High Court was received and conveyed to the persons waiting outside, on makeshift public address system by the petitioner.(6) The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner is politically a powerful and influential person who can directly or indirectly interfere in the course of investigation.During the investigation he associated responsible persons of the public with a view to enthuse confidence in the mind of the persons who have been subjected to and were the victims of this incident.Statements of large number of witnesses were recorded.As a consequence thereof a large number of persons were arrested.For that demand the representatives of People's Union turn Civil Liberties (hereinafter referred to as PUCL) filed a writ petition in this court.During the commission proceedings, Justice Misra accorded recognition to the Pucl and the Citizens Justice Committee.The members of the said two committees personally went to places of incidents, to the camps where the inmates had been shifted and to various other places where many inmates had taken refuge.They collected many affidavits of the eye-witnesses and of the victims of assault including the next door neighbours of Anwar Kaur.On thorough examination of the affidavits, and other material placed on record, the commission came to the conclusion :- ""The news shows in clearest terms that rioting in proper sense had started in a very big way in several parts.of the city on 31st evening and except for killing which came into process from 1st November, 1984, every other form of attack on Sikhs had begun.The massive scale on which the operation had started so soon after the fact of death was circulated is clearly indicative of the fact that it was the spontaneous reaction of the people at large.The Commission recommended new committee be appointed to go through the individual cases of omission of non-registration of cases by the local police.(12) Pursuant to the report of the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission, Delhi Administration by notification of February 21, 1987 constituted a Committee comprising of M. L. Jain.201, and 211 of the Indian Penal Code .The Committee consequently by letter dated 14-10-1987, wrote to the Delhi Administration proposing that the Fir in this regard maybe registered and investigated in accordance with law.While issuing notice, the court restrained the registration of cases upon the direction of the Jain-Banerjee Committee.After hearing the parties at length.This court vide judgment and order dated October 4, 1989 allowed the writ petition.(14) On March 22, 1990, the Delhi Administration appointed another Committee comprising Mr. Justice P. S. Poti, former Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court and Shri P. A. Rosha, a retired officer of the Delhi Police service for the same purpose.The Administrator after due consideration accepted the recommendation and directed the Cbt vide his letter dated 5-9-90, to take further action in accordance with law.Upon the receipt of the said letter, the Cbi on September 7, 1990, registered the Fir in question against 6 accused persons, including the petitioner.Immediately thereafter, the respondent-CBI recorded the statements of three so-called eye-witnesses of the occurrence and on 11th September, 1990, organized a raiding party to search the house of the petitioner and arrest him.(15) In this background, let us examine the.contentions of the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent CBI.(16) The detailed narration of facts' has been given with a view to how that even though the killing of Navin Singh the husband of Anwar Kaur had taken place on 1-11-84, she did not make any report to the police.Before that, she had an ample opportunity to approach not only the police station Sultan Puri for registration of the case involving the petitioner, as is now sought to be made out, but also making a grievance before Ranganath Misra Commission that in spite of her complaint, the local police has not registered the case.Instead on 17-12-84, she had approached the Sho of the police station and moved an application only for the grant of compensation for the loss which she had suffered due to the burning of her house.(17) Thereafter, very respectable, responsible and public Spirited members of the Pucl and Citizens Justice Committee, including Mr. Justice S. M. Sikri, a retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. V. M. Tarkunde.a former Judge of the Bombay High Court, Mi.Soli J. Sorabji, Sr.At that point of time Anwar Kaur was admittedly living in the camp.Even though the statements of neighbours of Anwar Kaur, namely, Dhoan Kaur resident of A-4175, Sultanpuri, Padmini Kaur, A-41164, Ram Kaur of A-41162, and Sumer Singh resident of A-4/129, were recorded but she did not come forward to make any statement.Smt. Anwar Kaur did not make any complaint before the police or before the Ranganath Misra Commission, against the petitioner responsible for the killing of her husband.Even her immediate neighbours who claim to be, the eye-witnesses of the killing on 1st Nov., 1984, in the area of Sultanpuri, and whose statements were recorded at the earliest point of time, did not name the petitioner responsible for holding any meeting or instigating them to kill or burn the houses of Sardars.He was not an unknown person of the area.Witnesses could not have omitted his name, if in fact be was there.This statement does not bear her signature or thumb mark.It has an endorsement of one Shri Atma Singh in whose presence the said statement of Anwar Kaur was recorded.We do not know nor it has been made clear by the Cbi as to who, when.where and whether in fact this supplementary statement was ever recorded.Whatever may be the explanation in my opinion, the delay of 3 years in the filing of the affidavit and the recording of her statement at least is a circumstance for which the benefit must go to the petitioner for the confirmation of his anticipatory bail.No doubt the petitioner was the Member of the Lok Sabha on the date of the alleged incident and has a following.They had an ample opportunity to straightway arrest the petitioner and bring him to the police station.In the meantime, well wishers of the petitioner started collecting at his house, in the normal course as he used to receive the persons of his constituency from 7 A.M. onwards.(24) At this stage, we may note that immediately thereafter the officers of the Cbi filed two FIRs at the local police station.In none of these two FIRs, the petitioner is accused of organizing the mob or making any inflamatory slogans or instigated the crowd to take revenge against the CBI.(25) As regards the recovery of the six swords, from the house of the petitioner, the respondent intentionally did not take them, to avoid any confrontation with the mob.It is stated at the bar that the said six swords have since been handed over to the officers of the CBI.These swords appeared to have been presented to the petitioner as Saropas by the Sikh community in recognition of his services for organising blood donation and rehabilitation camps for the victims of 1984 riots.It is only for that reason that the respondents have not so far registered any case against the petitioner for the illegal custody of the swords.(26) The Cbi raised a lot of hue and cry for the recovery of certain documents alleged to have been found from the house of the petitioner.Those documents in fact formed pan: of the file of the writ petition in Gupta's case.These very documents were the basis of the challenge in the writ petition.Its copies were duly supplied by the State to the counsel for the parties.(28) Against this order of bail, admittedly, the Cbi has not filed an appeal or revision for the cancellation of the bail order.The present petitioner is similarly situated as those of his coaccused.The blanker order of anticipatory bail thus is bound to cause serious interference with the right and duty or the police, to arrest the applicant even if he commits another offence.(30) The argument has only to be mentioned and rejected summarily.The investigating officer then recorded the statement of i'.2 wi'nesses on 8-9-90 and immediately thereafter on 11-9-90, set ovt to arrest the accused persons.As observed earlier, there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner who has a status in the society, and enjoys good reputation, love and affection from the persons at large, is likely to repeat the offence, abuse the trust placed in him by the court, or avoid the trial.Even otherwise, the CBl does not appear to be serious in interrogating the petitioner.On 27-9-90, when the case was taken up, learned counsel fur the respondent frankly conceded that from the day when the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail, he has not been summoned for interrogation.It was only thereafter that the petitioner was summoned once on 28-9-90, and thereafter no attempt has been made to further interrogative him.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Ex. PW7/A records that a dead body was found in a park near Palam Railway Station.As per the post mortem, the dead body had external and internal injuries.Ligature mark was present all around the neck and horizontally placed below the thyroid cartilage, measuring whole circumference of the neck with ill-A. 187/2012 Page 1 of 19defined margins, with contused underneath tissue of the neck, with collection of scattered blood clots into the soft tissue of the neck.PW-13, his neighbour, had friendly relations with the deceased and he used to sit with him.On 26th April, 2009 at 7.30 PM, he was sitting with deceased at his shop in Raj Nagar when the deceased received a missed call on his mobile phone and went out of the shop to talk.He did not know about the contents of the conversation.Deceased came back and gave him the key to his office and instructed him to shut down the shop because he had to go somewhere on personal business.He closed the shop at about 7.45 PM and as instructed gave the key at the residence of Giriraj.In cross- examination, he admitted that he was a Constable in Delhi Police and was posted in Vikas Puri, Delhi.He had reached the shop of the deceased at 7.00 PM and in his presence only one missed call was received by the deceased.PW-13 did not know the appellant though he accepted and stated that he knew the deceased and his family.He did not know where the deceased had gone and what was the reason why the deceased asked him to close the shop and take the key home?Amit (PW-6) has stated that on 26th April, 2009, the appellant had taken his phone and made a missed call.He had come to know the appellant only 4/5 days prior to the incident, as the accused appellant also used to ply rickshaw outside Metro Station, Sector 9, Dwarka.He did not know with whom Pramod had talked and what the conversation was about.A. 187/2012 Page 6 of 19Vijay Singh (PW-10), son of the deceased, had stated that on 26 th April, 2009 at about 9.30 PM, he had made a call on his father's mobile phone but the phone was switched off.He went to sleep.At about 3.30 AM, he was woken up by his mother who told him that his father had not returned.He informed his neighbours, cousin and brother-in- law Raja Ram.He called up relatives but without any success.Next morning at 10.30 AM, they went to Police Station, Palam and met ASI Radha Kishan and the SHO.They called back on the said number and came to know that this phone number belonged to one Amit who plied rickshaw at the Metro Station.Amit told them that the appellant, another rickshaw puller, had made the call.Amit had stated that Pramod was introduced to him by one Jai Bhagwan, who was a sweeper at the Metro Station and who knew him.They met Jai Bhagwan and Pramod at 7.30 AM, on 28th April, 2009, along with several persons.Pramod confessed to Vijay Singh (PW-10) that he had murdered Vijay's father.No police officer was with them.Appellant volunteered to take them to the dead body of Vijay's father and took them to the park at Sector 20, Dwarka, opp.CNG filling station where he showed them the dead body.Appellant, Amit and Jai Bhagwan were beaten up by the public persons present there.Thereafter, police officers came.From the spot, police seized one spectacle, pieces of broken glass bottle and one pair of black colour leather slippers lying near the dead body.PW12 has stated that the appellant Pramod had told them that his father was murdered pursuant to a plan hatched by him with Amit and Jai Bhagwan.All three of them were arrested by the police.However, on 30th April, 2009, appellant Pramod gave another statement PW10/H, Crl.A. 187/2012 Page 7 of 19 stating that he had falsely implicated Jai Bhagwan and Amit so that they would save him, as they were local residents of the area.On the basis of the said disclosure statement, the appellant voluntarily led them to the pit in the same park and from the right side of the spot, he took out one black coloured purse which had Rs.2500/-, driving Licence of the deceased, one note of foreign currency and one slip of State Bank of India of Rs.40, 000/- marked Ex. PW10/K. On 5th June, 2009, a NOKIA mobile was recovered from Vinod Kumar and he identified that it belonged to his father.Kishan, a sweeper at the school, had sold him a mobile phone for Rs.500/-.He did not give any bill or phone charger.19. PW-18, SI Amar Pal had stated that he was on day emergency duty from 8.00 AM to 8.00 PM, at P.S. Dwarka.On receipt of DD entry No. 13B, he along with Constable Bajrang Lal reached the spot i.e. Sector 20 Park opp.CNG filling station, Dwarka where one male dead body was lying.Public persons had gathered there.On verification, the name of the deceased was disclosed as Giriraj.One spectacle, one pair of lakhani leather slippers, broken pieces of glass liquor bottle and one plastic bottle were lying.Crime team and other officers reached at the spot.The said articles were seized and lifted.Post mortem was conducted.Appellant was arrested at about 11.45 AM.He was at the park.In his cross-examination, he admitted that appellant Pramod and Jai Bhagwan were at the spot but he could not tell whether Amit was also present.PW-17, Constable Bajrang Lal had stated the ASI Amar Pal had received DD Entry No. 13B and he along with ASI Amarpal reached Sector 20 Park, Dwarka where huge crowd had gathered.A dead body of a male was found in a pit.There were injuries on the dead body.Police officers and crime team reached there.Two persons, namely appellant and Jai Bhagwan were held by the crowd gathered there.Jai Bhagwan and appellant were interrogated.In the cross-examination, he admitted that both of them had been beaten by the public and were only Crl.A. 187/2012 Page 10 of 19 wearing underwear on their bodies.Narender Singh (PW-19) had stated that after DD No. 13B was recorded, they reached the spot at about 8.20 AM.Constable Bajrang and SI Amar Singh were also present there.One decomposed male dead body was lying in the park.Two boys, i.e. appellant and Jai Bhagwan, who had been beaten by the public, were produced before the police.But he did not remember whether the appellant and Jai Bhagwan were only in underwear or not, as they were busy controlling the public.Surprisingly, no further details regarding this recovered SIM were filed/produced before this Court.The call was made by some unknown person.He was not aware of the address of Pramod but stated the Pramod used to come to Jai Bhagwan who was working at Sector-9 Metro Station, Dwarka.He along with Vijay Singh and some relatives went to the Metro Station and met Jai Bhagwan and made enquiries about Pramod.Jai Bhagwan had stated that he did not know Pramod's address but would help them in tracing Pramod.Next day he came to know that dead body of Giriraj was found.A. 187/2012 Page 13 of 19Moreover Amit (PW-6) had stated that he was a rickshaw puller and Jai Bhagwan was working as a sweeper in the Metro.The charge sheet to his extent is contrary to the statements of PW-10, PW-12 and PW6 as it states that Jai Bhagwan was the rickshaw puller and Amit PW6 was working in the metro.It appears that the family of the deceased was well connected and knew several persons in the police force.(PW-13) Satish Lamba was constable in Delhi Police and was well known to the deceased.As per PW-12, police officers were with them when he, along with Vijay Singh (PW-10), had gone to the house of the appellant Pramod.PW-10 has also stated that somebody had informed local police station about the dead body in the park.By order of sentence dated 16th May, 2011, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.12,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.Further, the sub scalp haematoma of size 5x4 cms was present at occipital region of the head, with cherry red coloured blood clot, with fracture of occipital bone of skull.The body was highly decomposed, swelled up, bloated, emitting foul smell, with peeling of skin.The mouth was partially open with protruded tongue.White colour pyjama was encircled around the neck with two fold in situ.The cause of death was stated to be asphyxia caused by ligature strangulation using the block present in situ.The real question is whether the prosecution has been able to show and establish that the said injuries or the ""act"" was caused and done by the appellant Pramod? The prosecution version is that the deceased had received a missed call from mobile No. 9958293716 belonging to (PW-6) Amit.The deceased thereupon spoke to the appellant Pramod on the said telephone number, and thereafter met Pramod, the rickshaw puller, and was with him in his rickshaw.The appellant rickshaw puller purchased liquor from the liquor shop and both of them, i.e. the appellant and the deceased, drank liquor together in the park.Thereafter, the appellant killed the deceased.There are no eye-witnesses.The prosecution's case is based purely upon circumstantial evidence.It is primarily based on circumstances of last seen, extra judicial confession and recovery.To establish the evidence of last seen, the prosecution heavily relies upon statement of PW-12, Gajanand.He went to the house of Giriraj, met his son, and informed him that he had seen Giriraj on 26th April, 2009, near the liquor shop in Sector 20, Marble Market, on a rickshaw and that ""........... I had also seen the rikshaw puller purchasing some liquor and a water bottle and handing over the same to Giriraj and further that I had asked Giriraj as to where was he going on which he had told me that he was going to attend a party and thereafter Giriraj had gone towards CNG filling station in the same rikshaw, after which I had returned to my house after purchase some usable articles for my house.A. 187/2012 Page 2 of 19On this information being given to me by Vijay, I along with Vijay, his cousin Kamal and his relative Raja Ram went to PS Palam where one Satish Lamba, friend of the deceased was already present.He told us that on 26.4.2009 Giriraj had received a missed call on his mobile phone at about 7.30 PM and after receiving the said missed call he had gone out of his shop.................""Is PW-12 a chance witness or a planted witness, who had last seen the appellant with the deceased? PW-12 has been disbelieved by the trial court and in our opinion rightly.The said witness has not stated that he knew the rickshaw puller from before or that Giriraj and rickshaw puller were going to drink liquor together.As discussed below, PW-12 was very close to family of the deceased.This creates a grave doubt on the statement of PW-12 that he had seen deceased Giriraj with the appellant rickshaw puller.It is difficult to perceive and believe that Giriraj, a property dealer and a man of means, would like to have liquor with a rickshaw puller in a park.PW-12 seems to be a planted witness to this extent.There is a grave suspicion that the Crl.A. 187/2012 Page 3 of 19 aforesaid statement has been made to plug in the gaps in the prosecution version.It is difficult for us to place reliance on PW-12 Giriraj's aforesaid statement to implicate the accused appellant.A. 187/2012 Page 3 of 19This number belongs to Vijay Singh (PW-10), son of the deceased.PW-10 in his examination in chief had stated that on 27th April, 2009, he had made a call on number 100 and also called the police station.The DD entry records that the caller from the said number had stated that some people had abducted his father Giriraj ""uthakar le gaye"".PW-12's statement that he had an occasion and had seen the deceased with the appellant and had also spoken to PW10 on 27th April, 2009 is not supported and is contrary to what PW-10 had informed on telephone and was recorded in DD No. 44 B. PW-12's statement that he had seen a rickshaw puller purchasing liquor and water bottle etc. does not aspire confidence and is not believable.As per PW-12, Giriraj had remarked that he was going to a party and thereafter he had gone towards CNG filling station in a rickshaw.In case Giriraj had gone or was going to a party, then the evidence of last seen viz. the appellant has to be disbelieved.The deceased could have gone to the party and his death may be subsequent.These and other gaps, contradictions and improbabilities in the prosecution version and statements have been discussed below.In the cross-examination, Vijay Singh (PW10) had first stated that the mobile phone of his father was recovered from the accused Pramod, in his presence.He, however, immediately changed the statement and stated that the purse was recovered from possession of Pramod but not the mobile phone.This is contrary to what PW10 had stated in examination in chief that on 5 th June, 2009 he was called to the Police Station where one Vinod was present, from whom mobile phone was recovered.A. 187/2012 Page 7 of 19Vinod Kumar appeared as PW14 and had stated that he was working as a teacher in a school, at Delhi Cantt.He had used his Idea SIM card No. 9812170312 on the said phone.On 5th June, 2009, he received a call from his brother-in-law Naveen inquiring if he had purchased a mobile phone and/or had used his SIM card in some-one's mobile phone.In the cross-examination, PW-14 had stated that he did not know that the value of the new Nokia mobile phone in question Crl.A. 187/2012 Page 8 of 19 was Rs.5000/-.He also accepted that his brother in law was working as a Constable in Delhi Police.A. 187/2012 Page 8 of 19He had stated that on 29 th April, 2009, he received a call from mobile No. 9812170312, which belonged to his brother-in-law Vinod Kumar.2-3 days later, police officials from PS Dwarka came to him and made enquiries about the said call.He immediately called Vinod who confirmed having purchased the said mobile phone.He along with Vinod Kumar had gone to the police station Dwarka, with one Kishan.Kishan was, however, not produced and his statement in the court was not recorded.As per order sheet dated 9th July, 2010, Kishan had reportedly left the given address.Order dated 20th September, 2010, again states that Kishan was not available and had left the given address.By order dated 25th October, 2010, prosecution evidence was closed recording that several opportunities had been granted.It was also recorded that Kishan was unserved on the ground that his latest address was not known.By order dated 9th November, 2010, application moved by the prosecution for summoning of Kishan at his permanent address was allowed giving one last opportunity.Kishan Kumar could not be served and on 27th November, 2010, the trial court denied further opportunity for summoning Kishan Kumar.The call details of mobile number 9812170312 were not produced and filed.PW-9 was not Crl.A. 187/2012 Page 9 of 19 asked and called to file the same.The Investigating Officer did not collect the said details and place them on record, inspite of the prosecution version that they reached PW-15 and then PW-14 through the call details.There is no explanation and reason why these were not produced and filed in court.This creates doubt about the recovery of the phone of the deceased.This aspect has been also referred to below.A. 187/2012 Page 9 of 19A. 187/2012 Page 10 of 19A. 187/2012 Page 11 of 19It is not very clear how ASI Radha Krishnan (PW-1) got the call details of the telephone number of the deceased.There is no evidence or material to show that any application was made to the service provider, i.e. Bharti Airtel for providing the said details.No evidence or material has been produced on record to show that Bharti Airtel had informed and given the said details.As per the prosecution case, mobile phone of the deceased was not with Vijay Singh (PW-10).ASI Radha Krishna (PW-1) has stated that the number was an unknown number.This causes grave suspicion and doubt regarding the prosecution version about how they reached Amit and then Jai Bhagwan and the appellant Promod.PW-12 had stated that ASI Radha Krishan (PW-1) had got the call details of mobile phone of Giriraj, the deceased, from ACP's office.This is not stated by PW-1, ASI Radha Krishan.The call details placed on record for 9971551348 (Exhibit PW-11/A) for 26th April 2009 was generated, as per the printout from the system on 28th April 2010 at 4:35:44 PM.After the phone call to telephone no. 9958293716, there were two more phone calls.Prosecution has not placed names and details of the person to/from whom these calls were made and received.What was the conversation between the deceased and the said person is not stated.If the call details were obtained on 27th April, 2009, then the same should have been placed on record.This was relevant and important in the present case keeping in view the nature, type, character and quality of evidence relied and collected by the prosecution.When the prosecution states that part material and details have been selectively brought on record or Crl.A. 187/2012 Page 12 of 19 investigated, it takes a risk when there is a substantial degree of doubt on quality and credibility of the said evidence.In such cases, the failure to place material/evidence or fully investigate and collect evidence can result in the accused getting benefit of doubt.On the same ground, four other aspects were noticed:-A. 187/2012 Page 12 of 19(a) The appellant is an illiterate person and a rickshaw puller.He did not even have a mobile phone.How did he come to know about the telephone number of the deceased is not stated or indicated? The application form and the subscriber details of the telephone number 9958293716 have not been produced and brought on record by the prosecution.We do not know who the recorded subscriber of this telephone number is.(b) Photographs of the deceased marked Exhibit PW8 A7 and PW8 A8 show wound on the back side of the head and substantial blood had oozed out.On the said aspect there is no investigation.(c) As noticed and considered above, PW-12's statement u/s 161 was recorded on 28-4-2009 after the dead body had been recovered and not before recovery of the dead body and arrest of the appellant.(d) The charge sheet filled before the trial court states that, Jai Bhagwan and Amit, alleged accused persons were thoroughly interrogated in front of the complainant and his relatives but they were let off as Amit was Crl.A. 187/2012 Page 13 of 19 working and Jai Bhagwan was present in his house.The charge sheet records that Amit was working as a sweeper at Sec-9 Metro Station up to 10 PM that day.Charge sheet further goes on to state that his presence in CCTV footage was seen.The prosecution did not put forth these footages for the Court to examine.If accused Pramod had approached Amit, to borrow a phone, CCTV recording of Amit's movement on the said day at the relevant time was material and crucial evidence.CCTV recording of Amit, it is apparent, was seen but either not taken on record or filed/produced before the Court.In these circumstances, it is not understandable, why and for what reasons, police officers have denied and have stated that they did not go in search of appellant Pramod after they were able to speak to Amit (PW-6) and had been able to locate Jai Bhagwan at the said metro station.PW-12 Gajanand who was with the police throughout and Vijay Singh (PW-10) on 27 and 28th April, 2009, has stated as under:-""After that I along with ASI Radha Krishan, Vijay, Raja Ram, Kamal and some other public persons went to Sector- 9, metro station Dwarka.Amit met us in the parking of Crl.A. 187/2012 Page 14 of 19 Metro Station.He was interrogated by ASI Radha Krishan who told us that accused Pramod was introduced to him by one Jai Bhagwan and with his assistance Jai Bhagwan, an employee in Metro Station Sector-9, Dwarka was located.On interrogation, Jai Bhagwan disclosed that he had arranged a rickshaw for accused Pramod on hire basis and he was residing somewhere in Pochanpur village.A. 187/2012 Page 14 of 19Next day with the help of Amit and Jai Bhagwan, we along with police officials reached house of accused Pramod present in court today (currently identified by witness) who was found present at his room.On interrogation, accused Pramod gave his disclosure statement already Ex-PW10/F bearing signature at point B. Then accused led us to the place where dead body of Giriraj was lying in an open park Sector-20, Dwarka, opposite CNG Filling station.In the meantime, someone informed local police at PS Dwarka about the dead body lying in the park on which local police also reached there.Statement of Vijay was recorded by SI Narender and got the case registered against accused Pramod.""This creates a doubt about discovery of the dead body pursuant the alleged statement of the appellant.Examination of site plan Ex. PW5/A shows that the recovery of the dead body was made from the park adjacent to the main road having a foot path.The body had decomposed.A foul smell was there.Body was found after one and a half day on 28th April, 2009 morning.It is difficult to accept and believe that no one had noticed the said body during this period and for over 24 hours in a park and when there was a foul smell.A. 187/2012 Page 15 of 1925. PW-12 has stated that on 28th April,2009, they with the help of Jai Bhagwan, Amit and the Police Officers went and arrested Pramod.As per Vijay Singh (PW-10), he along with Raja Ram, Kamal, Gajanand and other neighbours had gone and apprehended Pramod and no police officer was present.Police officials have denied their presence but the statement of PW-12 is clear and categorical.He was not declared hostile and cross examined on the said statement on this vital aspect.In case a police officer was present at the time when the appellant was apprehended from his home in the morning on 28th April, 2009, then the extra judicial confession is not admissible except to the extent permitted by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Thus the alleged extra judicial confession by Pramod to Vijay Singh (PW-10) and Gajanand (PW-12), that he had murdered his father, is not admissible.There is evidence on record that the appellant Pramod and Jai Bhagwan were badly beaten up.As per the statement of Amar Pal Singh (PW-18), they were not wearing any clothes except underwear when they were arrested/detained on 28 th April, 2009 in the morning.PW10/F and PW10/H. In the disclosure statement PW10/F, dated 28th Crl.A. 187/2012 Page 17 of 19 April, 2009, as per the prosecution, the appellant had stated that he along with Jai Bhagwan and Amit, had hatched the plan and killed Giriraj.This part of the disclosure statement is not admissible but PW-10 had stated that the three of them were arrested by the police.Further on the basis of the second disclosure statement dated 30 th April, 2009 ExPW10/H vide seizure memo PW10/I dated 1st May, 2009, one purse, Rs.2500/-,driving licence and one bank receipt of the deceased it is alleged were recovered from the park and seized.In this purported statement dated 30th April, 2009 ExPW10/H, the appellant, as per the prosecution version, had confessed that he was the only one who had committed the crime and Amit or Jai Bhagwan were not involved.Recoveries were made only after the names of Amit and Jai Bhagwan were deleted and they were not suspected.Another reason to suspect the said recovery is that there was no reason for the appellant, a rickshaw puller, to leave behind Rs.2500/- in the purse in the park.As per the prosecution case PW-14 had purchased the said mobile phone of the deceased from Kishan, father in law of the appellant on 29th April, 2009 for merely Rs 500/- without the phone charger.PW-14 in cross-examination had stated he did not know that the market price of the said model was Rs 5,000/-.However, one day earlier, on 28th April, 2009, the appellant had been arrested and had made a disclosure statement.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"By the order of sentence dated 06.03.2012, the appellant has been directed to suffer imprisonment for life, fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, undergo simple imprisonment of 2 months for the offence under Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 1 of 29 section 302/34 of the IPC.He has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for 5 years, fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months for offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.Additionally, the appellant has been directed to suffer simple imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.A No.730/2012 Page 1 of 29It is relevant here to mention that the appellant was made accused along with S (name withheld), a juvenile, Pappu and Raja @ Rakesh, who have been declared proclaimed offenders.Only the appellant was tried for the offence.The prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence to connect the appellant with the crime as there was no eye witness to the occurrence.The circumstances relied against the appellant are that he was last seen with the deceased; the dead bodies of Tej Ram Saini and Hans Raj (the two deceased persons) were recovered at the instance of Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 2 of 29 the appellant; the truck bearing registration number HR 55 B 7572 (which the accused person had robbed) was recovered on the disclosure of the appellant; the knife, the weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of the appellant and the homicidal death of the aforesaid two persons.A No.730/2012 Page 2 of 29To trace the brief facts it is necessary to set out as to what happened in sequence.On 26.8.2008 at about 12-12:30 PM, Head Constable Kirpal Singh (PW.7), whilst on patrolling duty, noticed foul smell emanating from somewhere nearby.On inspecting, he found two dead bodies, wrapped in quilts lying amongst bushes nearby at Majnu Ka Tila, opposite metro yard near DDA park.He forwarded this information to Head Constable Rakesh Kumar (PW.6) who was posted as a duty constable at P.S. Timarpur.PW.6 recorded the said information vide DD No.17A (Exhibit PW.6/B) at 12:45 PM.The said DD entry was Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 3 of 29 marked to SI Sahab Singh (PW.13) who reached the spot.Inspector K.S. Rawat PW.23, (IO) also reached the spot along with Constable Anil Kumar (PW.11) and other police officials.A No.730/2012 Page 3 of 29After reaching the spot, the quilts were removed from the dead bodies.It was found that the dead bodies were of two adult males.Upon examining, words of ""Tej Ram Singh"" was found tattooed on the right arm of one of the deceased.The shirt that the deceased was wearing had the label of Kotputli (a place in Rajasthan).These clues and evidence as noticed below were the starting points and became crucial material which has helped the police trace and solve the case.The mobile crime team was requisitioned.A report was prepared by the crime team (exhibit PW.12/A).Blood stained earth, earth control and hair of the deceased persons were lifted.From where the second dead body was lying, dry blood from footpath was lifted.The above items were seized vide seizure memo exhibit PW.13/A. Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 4 of 29 Blood stained quilts, trousers, shirt, gamcha and a piece of dhoti were also lifted from the spot and seized vide seizure memo exhibit PW.13/B. One nylon rope was also seized (exhibit PW.13/C).A No.730/2012 Page 4 of 29On 27.08.2008, police officials including PW.23 (Inspector K.S. Rawat), PW.13 (SI Sahab Singh) went to Kotputli, Rajasthan, for investigation as also for ascertaining the identity of the deceased.IO had taken photographs of the deceased persons who were later identified by the relatives to be of Tej Ram Saini and Hans Raj.A No.730/2012 Page 5 of 29 we dwell on the said aspect, we would like to affirm the identifies further and refer to the medical opinion on the cause of death.A No.730/2012 Page 5 of 29On 28.08.2008, the relatives of the deceased persons came to Delhi and identified the dead bodies.Dead body of Tej Ram Saini was identified by Hanuman, younger brother (PW.3) and Nav Ratan, a cousin (PW.4).The dead body of Hans Raj was identified by Mohan Lal, Uncle (PW.1) and Munna Lal, Uncle (PW.2).Thereafter, the investigating officer made an application for conducting the post mortem of the deceased persons.After the post mortem was conducted the clothes, viscera, blood etc. were seized in packets and were sent to the malkhana.Left Zygomatic arch was fractured.Effusion of blood was present beneath the ligature mark.left lamina of the thyroid cartilage showed outwards fracture with effusion of blood.With respect to the injuries on the person of Hans Raj, it was opined that he died due to asphyxia because of ligature strangulation.Timing of death of Hans Raj also was opined as about 3 to 4 days prior to the post mortem report.From the deposition of PW.22 it is further revealed that on 7.10.2008, he had received a request for examining the weapon of Crl.As has been noted earlier there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the prosecution has rested its case on the testimonies of PW. 24 (Pramod Pandey), PW.9 (C.P. Sharma), PW.5 (Ram Vilas), PW.8 (Sushil Vilas), PW.10 (Pradeep Kumar), PW.17 (Prashant Sharma) and PW. 15 (Ram Karan), to establish that the appellant was last seen with the deceased persons.A No.730/2012 Page 9 of 29A No.730/2012 Page 9 of 2924 Pramod Pandey stated before the Court that he was looking after Jai Mata Enterprises godown.On 24.08.2008, a truck loaded with stone powder arrived at the godown along with its driver and helper/cleaner.He deposed that as labour was not available it being Janamastmi, it was not possible to unload the consignment.24 came back to the godown at about 5 PM when he found the driver and cleaner present at the godown.After about half an hour two workers namely Raja (proclaimed offender) and S (juvenile) came there.24 told them to unload the consignment.They suggested that more workers were needed and could be arranged from the nearby godowns.PW.24 thereafter went to attend Janamastmi celebrations and returned at 12 midnight.At that time the driver and the cleaner were present.On enquiry, he was made to understand that they would leave after unloading the consignment or in the morning.Thereafter, PW.24 went to his house located nearby.At about 4:30 AM in the next morning, i.e. on dated 25.08.2008, PW.24 claims that he had only seen Sanjeev at the godown.The Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 10 of 29 consignment had been unloaded and the truck driver and the cleaner were not there.The material was sold by one Prashant (PW.17) and the consignment had to come from Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan.A No.730/2012 Page 10 of 29C.P. Sharma, (PW.9), owner of the godown, has deposed that Pramod Pandey (PW. 24) was looking after his godown on the relevant day.In the intervening night of 23rd and 24th August, 2008, a truck loaded with mineral powder had come from Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan at his godown.He had telephonically informed PW. 24 to get the material unloaded with the help of workers.He was informed by PW.24 that only two workers were available and that he had asked Raja @ Rakesh to arrange for some more persons for unloading the consignment.Next morning, when he reached the godown, the driver, cleaner, truck or the workers were not present.Prashant Sharma, (PW. 17) affirmed having placed an order for consignment of Feldspar powder to be delivered at his godown from the supplier namely Pradeep Kumar (PW.10) of Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan.PW.17 was telephonically informed by the consignee that the Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 11 of 29 truck had arrived at the godown but the consignment could not be unloaded at that time because of non-availability of the labour/loaders.A No.730/2012 Page 11 of 29The aforesaid witnesses have testified that they had employed Tej Ram Saini as the driver and Hans Raj as helper in the said truck and that they had been working with them for about two years.It was further stated by both the witnesses that on 22.8.2008 the said truck was loaded with consignment from Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan for the delivery to be made at Sonia Vihar, Shahdara, Delhi.Since the vehicle belonged to PW.5, the driver Tej Ram Saini (one of the deceased persons) on reaching Delhi on 24.8.2008 in the morning had called him on telephone at about 8 AM and apprised him that because of non-availability of labour at the godown, it was not possible to unload the consignment and the same would be done only when the labour would be arranged.Thereafter nothing was heard from the driver and the cleaner.It was argued that the deceased Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 13 of 29 persons were last seen with the appellant on 24.8.2008 at about 12 in the midnight whereas the post mortem of the dead bodies, which was conducted on 28.8.2008 at 11 to 11:30 PM, set the time of death as 3-4 days prior to the post mortem.A No.730/2012 Page 14 of 29 PW.9 and the appellant was seen with the deceased persons, the driver and the cleaner of the truck.The appellant Khalid along with others (who, it is alleged, are also involved), had unloaded the consignment.Thereafter, the truck, the driver and cleaner went missing.Two unidentified dead bodies were recovered on 26.8.2008 and on 27.8.2008 identified it to be of Tej Ram Saini and Hans Raj.A No.730/2012 Page 14 of 29We have noticed that the recovery of the dead bodies was fortuitous.On 26.8.2008, PW.7, on sensing a foul smell, found dead bodies wrapped in quilts.As has been narrated earlier police officials reached the spot and some clues with respect to the identity of one of the deceased persons could be collected.The truck could not be recovered and was untraceable.The appellant Khalid was absconding.On 29.8.2008, Head Constable Rakesh Kumar, (PW.6) while on duty along with PW. 23 (Inspector K.S. Rawat) and PW. 13 (SI Sahab Singh), received secret information as to the whereabouts of the appellant.The appellant Khalid was apprehended by the police party and he was taken to the Jai Mata Godown, Sonia Vihar.On the question of recovery of the truck, we would begin with the statement of the police officers.Head Constable Rakesh Kumar Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 15 of 29 (PW-6) has deposed that the appellant-Khalid was arrested on 29th August, 2008 and disclosure statement Exhibit PW-13/F, which was signed by PW-6 at point 'B' was recorded.On 1st September, 2008, appellant-Khalid was produced in court and police remand was taken.The truck owner Ram Vilas (PW-5) had joined them in Tis Hazari Courts and thereafter the appellant-Khalid took them to an isolated place in Faridabad where truck No. HR55B 7572 was found parked and seized vide seizure memo Exhibit PW-5/B, which was signed by PW-6 at point 'C'.In his cross-examination, PW-6 deposed that the appellant-Khalid was arrested on 29th August, 2008 between 7 to 8 P.M. The appellant- Khalid was produced in the court on 30th August, 2008 sometime during afternoon and was sent to judicial custody.Further, they had gone in a private vehicle to Faridabad and the police team comprised of Inspector K.S. Rawat (PW-23) and SI Sahab Singh (PW-13) and the truck owner.No intimation was given to the local police about the visit to Faridabad.The truck was found in an isolated place ahead of Faridabad chowk.It was parked on a kachcha on the left of the main road.Inspector K.S. Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 16 of 29 Rawat (PW-23) had physically checked the truck and had informed that he had seen blood stained clothes lying at the top.However, PW- 6 did not remember whether the said clothes were seized.The truck was towed to the Police Station Timarpur by using a crane.A No.730/2012 Page 15 of 29A No.730/2012 Page 16 of 29SI Sahab Singh (PW-13) has deposed that on 26th August, 2008, two unidentified dead bodies were found and that on 27th August, 2008, he along with other police officers had gone to Kotputli, Rajasthan, with the photographs of the deceased, who were identified as Tej Ram Singh and Hansraj.One Ram Niwas, owner of the truck confirmed that they were working in his truck No. HR 55 B 7572 as driver and helper, respectively.On 28th August, 2008, he again joined investigation and had taken the relatives of Tej Ram Singh and Hansraj to the mortuary where the bodies were identified by them and post-mortem was conducted.The bodies were thereafter handed over to the relatives.On 29th August, 2008, the appellant-Khalid was apprehended and arrested vide arrest memo Exhibit PW-13/G-1, which was signed by PW-13 at point 'A'.Khalid made a disclosure statement regarding the fact that the truck was abandoned at a distance of two kilometres in the right side of Faridabad chowk.The appellant- Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 17 of 29 Khalid was produced before Metropolitan Magistrate on 30th August, 2008 and has been remanded to judicial custody.Ram Niwas, the truck owner joined the investigation and the truck was found abandoned at a distance of about two kilometres from Faridabad chowk.The truck HR 55 B 7572 was identified by the owner and was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PW-25/C. The truck was brought to the police station Timarpur driven by a private driver.PW- 13 clarified that on 27th August, 2008 from Kotputli they had not made any telephone call at No. 100, Control Room, Wireless Telegraph, National Crime Record Bureau, State Crime Record Bureau, Central Record Bureau and State Transport Authority about the vehicle in question.He denied the suggestion that they, i.e. the police, were aware about the whereabouts of the truck in question after they had come to know about the registration number and the recovery of the truck is deliberately attributed at the instance of appellant-Khalid.A No.730/2012 Page 18 of 29A No.730/2012 Page 17 of 29A No.730/2012 Page 18 of 29Inspector K.S. Rawat, the Investigating Officer, who has deposed as PW-23, has encapsulated the visit to Kotputli on 27 th August, 2008 and how they were able to identify the dead bodies.Thereafter, on 8th August, 2008, inquest proceedings, post-mortem was conducted and the dead bodies handed over to the relatives.On the said date, they had also gone to Sonia Vihar where the truck was unloaded and inquiries were made from Pramod Pandey (PW-24) and C.P. Sharma (PW-9).On 29th August, 2008, appellant-Khalid was arrested and had made a disclosure statement Exhibit PW-13/F, which was signed by PW-23 at point 'C'.However, on 1st September, 2008, police custody remand was taken for three days and the appellant was interrogated when he made a further disclosure statement Exhibit PW-5/D. Thereupon, the police team proceeded to Palwal-Faridabad road and the truck HR 55 B 7572 was found by the side of the road ahead of Faridabad chowk.The same was seized vide seizure memo Exhibit PW-15/C. In his cross- examination, PW-23 has deposed in some detail what had transpired at Crl.The truck owner Ram Vilas had met them at 10 P.M. The recovery memo was prepared at Faridabad.The truck was in a running condition and they had engaged a private driver to bring the truck to Delhi.The keys of the truck were in the truck itself and he volunteered that duplicate keys were with the owner.A No.730/2012 Page 19 of 29At this stage, we would like to deal with the testimony of Ram Vilas (PW-5), the owner of the truck.A No.730/2012 Page 20 of 29Ram Vilas (PW-5) in his deposition recorded on 20th May, 2010 has stated that they were called to Police Station Kotputli on 26 th August, 2008 and officers from Police Station Timarpur were present and he was shown photographs.They came to Delhi on 26 th August, 2008 and reached at about 11 P.M. On the way to Delhi, they were informed that one of the offenders had been apprehended.They met the police team near Ashram Chowk, Delhi and the offender was with the police team.Thereafter, they went to Faridabad and found one truck, which was identified by him.The truck was released to PW-5 on superdari after about fifteen days vide Exhibit PW-5/A. He was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor.In his cross-examination, PW-5 accepted that he had visited the Police Station at Kotputli on 27th August, 2008 and photographs of the deceased person were Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 21 of 29 shown to him for identification by the police from Police Station Timarpur.He had earlier given the date 26th August, 2008 due to some confusion.He had joined investigation on a few occasions.He could not remember whether the truck was in fact recovered on 1 st September, 2008, since he did not remember the date.Towards the end of his cross-examination by the public prosecutor, it is apparent that PW-5 again got confused, as he had deposed that after 26th August, 2008, he had stayed in Delhi as he was associated with the investigation.In his cross- examination, PW-5 accepted that appellant-Khalid had pointed out the place of recovery of the truck and a pointing out memo of the spot was Crl.In his cross-examination by the counsel for the accused, PW-5 asserted that he had visited Police Station Kotputli on 27th August, 2008 with some friends and had met police officers from Police Station Timarpur.He was shown photographs of Tej Ram Singh and Hansraj, and not photographs of his truck.He accepted as correct that he had come to Delhi with the police officers and had reached Police Station Timarpur on same day.However, he saw the offender, who had been caught by the police.On 30th August, 2008 and he had returned to Kotputli with the dead bodies.He had come to Delhi with a driver on 1st September, 2008 and was taken to Faridabad, where they reached the spot ahead of Faridabad chowk and the truck was found at the instance of the appellant-Khalid.Someone had driven the truck back to the Police Station, but the said person was not his driver.However, he claimed that no documentation was done by the police in his presence at the spot.A No.730/2012 Page 23 of 29Rakesh Kumar (PW-6), SI Sahab Singh (PW-13) and Inspector K.S. Rawat (PW-23).They had not located the truck before the recovery was made.There is no ground or reason whatsoever to hold to the contrary.A No.730/2012 Page 29 of 29Appellant Khalid stands convicted by judgment dated 02.03.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge II (North) Delhi in sessions case no. 62/2011 (FIR No. 423/2008 P.S. Timarpur) for the offence under section 302/201/392 with the aid of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 ('IPC' for short).Rukka (Exhibit PW23/A) was prepared by the IO and was sent through PW.7 for recording the FIR.Thereafter, FIR bearing No. 423/2008 was registered under Sections 302/201 IPC.The Statements of the aforesaid witnesses namely Ram Vilas (PW-5) and Sushil Vilas (PW-8) support and affirm the prosecution case on this aspect.Having identified the dead bodies, on the basis of further clues, investigation returned to Delhi to identify and nab the culprits.Before Crl.The dead bodies were thereafter handed over to the relatives for performing the last rites.On the same day the police officials went to Sonia Vihar where the godown of C.P Sharma (PW.9), consignee was located.Statements of Pramod Pandey (PW.24) and C.P. Sharma (PW.9) were recorded.We shall be referring to their statements later.PW.22, Dr. Vijay Dhankar, conducted the post mortem on the body of Tej Ram Saini and found the following injuries:i. Incised wound 2x0.5cm present over left side of front root of neck.A No.730/2012 Page 6 of 29Incised wound 2x0.5cm present over right side of front root of neck.Stab wound 1x0.5 cm present over right lateral portion of lower part of neck.Stab wound 4x1.5 cm present over back of root of neck on the right side.Stab wound 3x1 cm present over back of root of neck on the right side lateral to injury no.5 vii.Stab wound 3x0.8 cm present over right side of upper part of back of chest.stab wound 3x1 cm present over right side of upper part of back of chest below and lateral to injury no.7 ix.Stab wound 3x1 cm present over right side of upper part of back of chest below and lateral to injury no.8 x. Stab wound 4x1.5 cm present over right side of upper part of back of chest lateral to injury no.9 xi.Stab wound 2x1 cm present over right side of upper part of back of chest below injury no.9 xii.Stab wound 2x0.6 cm present over right side of upper part of back of chest below injury no.11 xiii.Stab wound 1.5x1.5 cm present over right side of upper part of back of chest below injury no.12 xiv.Abrasion 13x8 cm present over back of right arm xv.Multiple abrasion in a area of 6x3 cm over the right side of back if abdomenIn the opinion of PW.22, the death was due to hemorrhage and shock consequent upon penetrating injury to the neck and chest.All the injuries were found to be ante mortem and the nature of injuries No.1 to 13 were such that they could have been caused by one side sharp edged weapon.Injuries Nos. 14 - 15 were found to have been Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 7 of 29 caused by blunt force.PW.22 opined that the injury No.1 independently as well as injuries nos. 2 to 13 cumulatively were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.The time fixed for death was about 3 to 4 days.A No.730/2012 Page 7 of 29On the same day, PW.22 conducted the post mortem of Hans Raj and found the following injuries:i. An abraded ligature mark was present over the front and sides of neck, 9 cm below the chin in the midline and 6cm from the left and right angles of jaw on either side.The mark was 2-3 cm in width and 16 cm long.Total circumference of neck was 42 cm.The mark was interrupted and horizontally placed at the level of thyroid cartilage.Abrasion 18x6 cm was present over outer aspect of left hand.On internal examination effusion of blood was present over left parietal region of the head.A No.730/2012 Page 8 of 29 offence and opine regarding the injuries found on the dead bodies.A blood stained steel knife was received by him and he prepared the sketch of the same.After examining the knife, PW.22 opined that injuries nos. 1 to 13 on the body of Tej Ram could have been caused by the knife which he had examined.A Blood stained nylon rope was also sent to him for examination and report about the injuries on the person of Hans Raj.After examining the rope, PW.22 opined that the ligature strangulation on the body of the deceased Hans Raj could have been caused by the rope.A No.730/2012 Page 8 of 29Thus it is apparent that Tej Ram and Hans Raj died a homicidal death.Tej Ram Saini was killed by means of a knife, whereas deceased Hans Raj was throttled to death.On 27.8.2008, PW.5 received a call Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 12 of 29 from the police station Kotputli where he reached along with 3-4 of his relatives and met the police officials from PS Timarpur, Delhi.The later part of his deposition would be referred to by us later when we deal with the recovery of the truck in question.A No.730/2012 Page 12 of 29Pradeep Kumar (PW.10) confirmed that Prashant Sharma (PW.17) had asked for the mineral powder.From the deposition of the aforementioned witnesses, it is apparent that the truck of which the deceased persons were the driver and the helper/cleaner, was brought to the godown of PW.9 and the consignment was unloaded at night.The testimonies of PW.24, read in conjunction with that of PWs.5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17 make it very obvious that the appellant Khalid was at the godown along with others to unload the consignment and thereafter the deceased persons as well as the appellant were not seen.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the evidence with respect to the appellant being last seen with the deceased could not be treated as material as there was a large time gap between the appellants having been seen with the deceased persons and the approximate time of death.A No.730/2012 Page 13 of 29Such a contention does not have any force as the dead bodies were kept in Subzi mandi mortuary for nobody came forward from 24.8.2008 till 28.8.2008 for their identification.Subsequently the bodies were identified.The other contention of the appellant that in the absence of any documentation with respect to the employment of PW.24 at the godown, he cannot be believed and be treated as a reliable witness with respect to his having last seen the appellant with the deceased, also has no force.It is a matter of common knowledge that under a private employment such formalities are not adhered to and executed and it would be too much for PW.24 to have produced any document suggesting that he was under the employment of PW.9, the owner of the godown.Oral depositions on these aspects should be accepted.Thus there is no reason to disbelieve or doubt the aforesaid witnesses with respect to the vehicle having come to the godown of Crl.The application for police remand had remained pending.On 31 st August, 2008, police custody of appellant-Khalid was taken for three days but on the said date the appellant did not cooperate.On 1 st September, 2008, the appellant-Khalid was taken from the police lock up.A No.730/2012 Page 19 of 29 Kotputli on 27th August, 2008 and that on 29th August, 2008 they kept on looking for the accused, including those, who have not been arrested.On 30th August, 2008, they had produced appellant-Khalid in the court.Khalid was sent to judicial custody.On 1st September, 2008 at about 4 to 4.30 P.M. the court granted police custody of the appellant-Khalid, and thereupon the appellant-Khalid was interrogated before being taken to Faridabad in a private car.A No.730/2012 Page 21 of 29A No.730/2012 Page 22 of 29A No.730/2012 Page 23 of 29What is clear to us from the testimony of Ram Vilas (PW-5) that the said witness got confused about the dates, apparently because of passage of time and also because of the fact that he came to Delhi on several occasions.In case the stolen vehicle had been recovered or found by any police team, it would have been flashed and uploaded on the police network.Faridabad police, had they taken the truck in their custody, would have necessarily made and recorded entries in the police diary.Intimation or inquiries would have been made from the State Transport Authority.The truck was examined by Sh.V. Shankaranarayanan (PW.21) and Sh.PW.21 in his report, which is exhibit PW21/A, has stated that blood was detected on the rooftop of the drivers cabin, truck cover, rope and towel.The said blood stains were lifted and sent for chemical examination.However no conclusive blood grouping could be recovered from the aforementioned samples.The biological report is exhibit PW26/A and serological report exhibit PW26/A No.730/2012 Page 24 of 29Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is in the nature of partial removal of ban placed on the reception of confessional statement under section 25 of the Evidence Act. It lays down that where any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of Crl.A No.730/2012 Page 25 of 29 information received from a person accused of an offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of the information, whether it amounts to confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.We have noticed that the truck was parked at a lonely/desolate place and in presence of PW.5, the same was recovered at the instance of the appellant.A No.730/2012 Page 25 of 29The other incriminating evidence sought to be relied upon against the appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crime, is the recovery of knife, the weapon of assault, used by the appellant.The appellant took the police officials at a place near Chandi Ram Amhara towards ISBT, and on his pointing out a knife was recovered.PW.6, PW.20 and PW.23 have testified with respect to recovery of knife.The recovery has been challenged on the ground that no public witness at the time of recovery joined the investigation, despite the place of recovery being a crowded one and that the recovery memo discloses the knife to be blood smeared, whereas FSL report (Exhibit PW26/A) is to the contrary and it says that no blood could be detected on the knife.A No.730/2012 Page 26 of 29A No.730/2012 Page 26 of 29There is no reason for us to doubt that the disclosure leading to the recovery of the truck, was not voluntary.A No.730/2012 Page 28 of 29Once the evidence of the appellant having been last seen with the deceased and the recovery of the truck is found to be true and proved, the appellant loses his right to be set free.TCR be returned forthwith.A No.730/2012 Page 29 of 29","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"a) Appellant - Kasim is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years for the offence under Section 307 of IPC with fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 1 of 14 imprisonment for three months;A. No. 536/2001 Page 1 of 14All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The facts as emerging from the impugned judgment are that on 06.08.1998 at about 11.10 AM near red light, Constable Ripu Daman who was on beat patrolling duty in E. F, G, H Block, Shastri Park, Kaithwara, found that the accused Yunus was beating one rickshaw puller - Shakeel Ahmed.Ripu Daman intervened, whereupon accused Yunus started pulling out a country made pistol from his armpit.Ripu Daman gave him a danda blow.Thereafter, accused Kasim who was standing at a distance, shot a fire from another country made pistol held by him which hit against the back of Ripu Daman.When Ripu Daman turned back and found that Kishan Lal was trying to apprehend accused Kasim.Accused Yunus came there running and shot a fire at Kishan Lal but it did not strike him.Thereafter, Yunus Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 2 of 14 gave a blow with the butt of his country made pistol on the head of Kishan Lal.In the meantime, other public persons and vehicle of PCR arrived at the spot and accused Kasim was overpowered by Kishan Lal alongwith one country made pistol, eight live cartridges, one empty cartridge, besides one dagger.Inspector Maharaj Singh, of PCR apprehended the accused Yunus alongwith country made pistol, one cartridge, one fired cartridge.The officials of PCR took Ripu Daman to GTB Hospital.In the meantime, Inspector Tej Pal Singh, SHO of Police Station Seelampur arrived at the spot.Both the accused were arrested and challened for offences under Section 307/308/186/353/34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The facts as emerging from the impugned judgment are that at about 11.10 AM near red light, Constable Ripu Daman who was on beat patrolling duty in E. F, G, H Block, Shastri Park, Kaithwara, found that the accused Yunus was beating one rickshaw puller - Shakeel Ahmed.Ripu Daman intervened, whereupon accused Yunus started pulling out a country made pistol from his armpit.Ripu Daman gave him a danda blow.Thereafter, accused Kasim who was standing at a distance, shot a fire from another country made pistol held by him which hit against the back of Ripu Daman.When Ripu Daman turned back and found that Kishan Lal was trying to apprehend accused Kasim.Accused Yunus came there running and shot a fire at Kishan Lal but it did not strike him.Thereafter, Yunus gave a blow with the butt of his country made pistol on the head of Kishan Lal.In the meantime, other public persons and vehicle of PCR arrived at the spot and accused Kasim was overpowered by Kishan Lal alongwith one country made pistol, eight Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 3 of 14 live cartridges, one empty cartridge, besides one dagger.Inspector Maharaj Singh, of PCR apprehended the accused Yunus alongwith country made pistol, one cartridge, one fired cartridge.The officials of PCR took Ripu Daman to GTB Hospital.A. No. 536/2001 Page 3 of 14The appellant - Kasim before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. deposed that he had been lifted from his brother's house situated at Seelampur and the alleged recoveries were planted upon him.On the other hand, Appellant - Yunus explained that he had come to Seelampur for playing, where a quarrel took place and he received injuries.He went to his uncle's house wherefrom he was lifted by the police.They are; Head Constable Jabar singh (PW-1); Constable Charan Lal (PW-2); Dr. B.Narain, CMO GTB Hospital, Delhi (PW-3); Kishan Lal (PW-4); Head Constable Dinesh (PW-5); Constable Mohar Singh (PW-6); Constable Inderjeet Singh (PW-7); Rajiv Jain, LDC (PW-8), Constable Ripudaman (PW-9); Inspector Maharaj Singh, (PW-10); ASI Samander Singh (PW-11); Constable Rishi Pal (PW-12); Constable Karamvir Singh (PW-13); Inspector Tej Pal Singh (PW-14); Dr. R. Dayal, CMO, GTB Hospital, Delhi (PW-When he looked to the boy who had fired at him, he saw one other person trying to apprehend the assailant.At the same time, the boy whom he had seen beating another boy - fired a shot on the person who was trying to apprehend the second assailant (who had fired on him) but the fire shot did not hit that man.Thereafter, that boy hit the katta butt (handle) on the head of that person.The crowd gathered there succeeded in holding him down.The other assailant had already been apprehended by the person who had earlier been hit with butt of the katta.Thereafter, PCR van came and removed him to GTB Hospital.Through: Mr. Pannal Lal Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Inspector Ram Avtar Tyagi, SHO, with Sub-Inspector Manoj Tomar, Police Station Seelampur, Delhi.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, JBy this appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr. P.C., the appellants seek to challenge the impugned judgment dated 21.05.2001, passed in SC No.164/1999 in a case registered as FIR No. 548/1998 under Section 307/308/186/353/34 of IPC read with Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, at Police Station Seelampur, Delhi.The appellant also seeks to challenge the order on sentence dated 24.05.2001, whereby they have been sentenced as follows:b) Appellant - Yunus is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years for the offence under Section 308 of IPC and payment of fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each; andc) Appellants - Kasim and Yunus were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each for offences under Section 186/353/34 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act.In the meantime, Inspector Tej Pal singh, SHO of Police Station Seelampur arrived at the spot.Both the accused were arrested and challened for offences under Section 307/308/186/353/34 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.A. No. 536/2001 Page 2 of 14However, both the appellants did not lead any defence evidence in their support.To prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses.A. No. 536/2001 Page 4 of 1415); Shakeel (PW-16); Sh.A.R. Arora (PW-17); Dr. Satish Mishra, Surgery Sr.Resident, GTB, (PW-18); and Dr. S.D. Bisht, Sushrut Trauma Centre, LNJP Hospital (PW-19).Upon considering the facts, evidence led and the material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant - Kasim guilty for offence punishable under Sections 307 of IPC read with Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act and appellant - Yunus guilty for the offence under Section 308 IPC read with Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, by impugned judgment dated 21.05.2001, and vide order on sentence dated 24.05.2001 and the appellants were sentenced as indicated above.Hence, the appellants have filed the instant appeal against the impugned judgment and order on sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge.The main grounds of challenge are that there are contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.Even the prosecution witness Shakeel (PW-16) who was allegedly being beaten by the appellant has been declared hostile; Constable Ripu Daman (PW-9) in his cross-examination deposed that he could not see the faces of the appellants and on the other hand he deposed that he had seen Yunus first time in the hospital.Even the star witness Kishan Lal (PW-4) has denied having made any statement before the police and in his cross-examination stated that he had caught the accused Kasim at a Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 5 of 14 distance of 15 minutes running.It is further contended that as per the prosecution case the appellants were arrested at the spot, but the DD No.11A states that an information was received from wireless Operator through intercom that somebody had fired a shot on a police constable, he was taken to the hospital and the assailants had run away.It is further contended that the Head Constable Dinesh (PW-5) who belongs to PCR and arrived at the spot first of all and deposed that one public witness had told him that one constable had been fired.He stated that they found the constable at the spot lying and removed him to the hospital, but he nowhere stated that accused were arrested on the spot.It is further argued that PW-6 Constable Mohar Singh who was accompanying with Inspector Maharaj Singh (PW-10) to the spot, did not state a word regarding the arrest of the appellants on the spot.It is further argued that no documentary evidence was produced to show that constable Ripudaman was on duty at the place of incident.Regarding medical evidence, it is argued that Dr. R. Dahal (PW-15) and Dr. S.D. Bisht (PW-19) who medically examined and gave their opinion regarding Constable Ripudaman in his cross- examination, Dr. R. Dayal admitted that he had not removed the Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 6 of 14 pellets, rather he admitted that there would be blackening and tattooing on the body if the short is fired from a short distance.The X- ray taken is also not on record.Similarly, Dr. S.D. Bisht in his cross- examination deposed that he could not remember the length and breadth of the injuries received by the patient and without going through the records, he could not give an opinion about the nature of the injuries as the same were made simple or grievous.He further deposed that without record, he could not tell the distance of firing.Therefore from the deposition of the doctors, it is clear that the prosecution is of a simple hurt, which falls at best within the purview of Section 323 of IPC.Therefore, in such a situation, the appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and they be given the benefit of doubt.A. No. 536/2001 Page 5 of 14A. No. 536/2001 Page 6 of 14Per contra, argument advanced by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State is that the accused/appellants were rightly held guilty, the appellant - Kasim under Section 307 of the IPC inasmuch as he had inflicted a gun shot at the complainant and the appellant - Yunus for the offence under Section 308 of IPC as he had given a blow with the butt of his country made pistol on the head of Kishan Lal.More so, there is recovery of pistol, eight live cartridges, one empty cartridge, one dagger at the instance of the appellants.Therefore, the prosecution has successfully proven the offence of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and in such circumstances, the impugned judgment and order on sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge do not call for any interference and the same are liable to be upheld.A. No. 536/2001 Page 7 of 14I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the State and gone through the petition, impugned judgment and order on sentence and the material available on record.Constable Ripudaman (PW-9) had deposed in his statement that on the date of incident i.e. 6.8.1998 at about 11.40 am, he was present near Red light, Shastri Park and while on patrolling duty, he saw a boy being beaten by another boy.He tried to separate them and rescue the boy, but the boy who was bearing the other one, took out a desi katta from one side of his body.He immediately gave a danda blow to him.Another boy who was standing near by, had fired at him from a desi katta of which the bullet hit him on his back.It was subsequently revealed that the person who had been hit on his head was Kishan and the boy who was beating that boy was Yunus.During his deposition, he identified both the assailants in the hospital, who fired a shot on Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 8 of 14 him and had hit Kishan on his head and beaten another boy.A. No. 536/2001 Page 8 of 14Kishan Lal (PW-4) who was the eye-witness to the incident had deposed in his statement before court that on 6.8.1998 at about 11/11.30 AM, he was standing outside his house and heard a sound of DHAMAKA.He looked to the right side of the road and saw one constable falling.He went there and enquired as to what had happened.He was told that two boys had run after firing a shot on the constable.He further deposed that one of the accused was having katta in his hand and pointed out towards the appellant - Kasim.He deposed that he held Kasim and snatched the katta from his hand.When he was snatching the katta, he shouted and told the other accused - Yunus to kill him whereupon the witness pointed out towards the appellant - Yunus.He deposed that the appellant - Yunus took out a katta and fired a shot aiming at him but he fell down and was saved from the shot and thereafter Yunus hit the butt of the katta on his head.He further deposed that he handed over accused Kasim to the SHO as well as the katta.It has further come in his deposition that from the search of appellant - Kasim, eight live cartridges from his pocket were recovered.Apart from this, appellant - Kasim was having one chhura kept in his leg with the help of his socks.He deposed that he had sustained injury on his head on being hit with the katta butt by accused Yunus.He alongwith two accused where taken to GTB hosital and he was medically examined by the police.Dr. B.Narain, CMO GTB Hospital, Delhi (PW-3) deposed in his statement that he had examined Kishan Lal and prepared his MLC Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 9 of 14 (Ex. PW-3/A).Resident Surgery, he had given the opinion on the MLC (Ex. PW- 15/A and Ex. PW-18/A) as being grievous.A. No. 536/2001 Page 9 of 14This court also perused the MLC of Krishan (Ex.PW-3/A) and according to that, injured had swelling and tenderness in occeptal area of scull and the injury was opinied by the doctor to be of simple in nature with blunt object.Another MLC of Constable Ripu Daman (Ex.PW-15/A) was also perused by this court, which shows that the patient was having injury of gun shot with multiple pellets, one and half inch diameter at lower back; no blackening and tatowing of area.The doctor has opined the injury to have been caused by gun shot.Perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge reveals that the appellant - Kasim has been convicted for 307 IPC on the basis of statement of injured and eye- witness as well as of independent witness Kishan Lal and on the basis of the MLC of the injured upon which the doctor has opined the injuries being inflicted through gun shot.For ready reference, Section 307 of the IPC which reads as follows is provided hereunder:""Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be Crl.The determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not the Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 11 of 14 nature of injury.A. No. 536/2001 Page 11 of 14Likewise, vide Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 12 of 14 impugned judgment the appellant - Yunus has been held guilty for the offence under Section 308 IPC and Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act on the premise of the statement of Kishan Lal who in his deposition speicifcally stated that appellant - Yunus gave a blow with a butt of his country made pistol on the head.Now on the quantum of sentence, this court observes that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has awarded the sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment to the appellant - Kasim for the offence under Section 307 IPC and 5 years rigorous imprisonment to the appellant - Yunus for the offence under Section 308 of IPC.Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, and the fact that the incident in question is of the year 1998 and the appellants have faced the agony of trial for the last more than 19 years, this court is of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be met if the sentence imposed upon the appellant - Kasim is reduced to the period of 5 years for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and the sentence Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 13 of 14 imposed upon the appellant - Yunus is reduced to the period of 3 years for the offence under Section 308 of IPC years.However, the sentence under Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act awarded to both the appellants shall remain the same with direction of running all the sentences concurrently.It is ordered accordingly.A. No. 536/2001 Page 13 of 14Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed thereby upholding the impugned judgment dated 21.05.2001 and modifying the order on sentence dated 24.05.2001 to the extent indicated above.The appellants are on bail.They are directed to surrender before the trial court concerned within a period of 15 days to serve the remainder of the sentence of imprisonment.A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court for information and necessary steps.With aforesaid directions, the present appeal is disposed of.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE JULY 04, 2017 pkb Crl.A. No. 536/2001 Page 14 of 14A. No. 536/2001 Page 14 of 14","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"They have challenged their conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard learned counsel for the applicants.We have also heard learned counsel appearing in the above two applications on behalf of the State.The sum and substance of the allegation on the basis of which the trial proceeded was that on 10.02.2016 at about 10.45 p.m. the victim requested for a lift in a Scorpio vehicle from Ultadanga Hudco more to Ruby and that the victim was permitted to enter the car on his agreeing to pay Rs.20/- for the lift; that thereafter, accused nos. 1, 2 and 3, of whom one was driving the vehicle, stopped the vehicle at a distant place en-route to Ruby and thereafter threatened the victim and also assaulted him by punching with hand and the victim was also threatened of harm using a screw driver; all intended to extract out of the victim his personal belongings including money and ATM cards.According to the prosecution appropos the threat, the wallet of the victim was taken by the three persons and they stopped in an ATM to draw money from the account of the victim.Though the victim did not share the ATM PIN, it was for the purpose of non-disclosure of ATM PIN that the accused persons further threatened the victim.It appears that in the T.I. Parade and in Court the victim identified the accused persons.The recovery evidenced by the search and seizure lists tends to indicate that the same material was recovered from the three accused persons.The possibility of the case in hand being one squarely falling under Sections 394 or 397 of the Indian Penal Code or one which could be tapered down to lower counts are matters that deserve to be examined.The applications being CRAN 4068 of 2019 and CRAN 4172 of 2019 are, thus, disposed of.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertakings.[Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, C.J] [Arijit Banerjee, J.]","['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT D.J. Moharir, J.The appellants here are the original accused Nos. 1 to 5 who were, alongwith seven others tried for commission under sections 147, 148, 307 read with section 149 of I.P.C. as also under section 37(i), (iii) read with section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. While accused Nos. 6 to 12 were all acquitted of the above stated charges as also the charge under 201 of the I.P.C. For the offence under section 307 read with section 149 of I.P.C., each of these appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 5 was sentenced to suffer R.I. For four years and a fine of Rs. 250/- i/d of each to undergo further R.I. for 6 months.For the offence under section 148 of the I.P.C., each of them was sentenced to R.I. for 6 months and no separate sentence was awarded for the offence under section 147 of the I.P.C. The substantive sentence were directed to run concurrently.The five appellants and seven others who were acquitted all came to be prosecuted of the following as case put forth by the prosecution:The accused No. 1 Rajabhau Rasal had an elder brother by name Sudhir.In the year 1980 Sudhir was murdered by Manohar Vir who is the victim of the attempt to commit murder in this case.Manohar Vir was tried by the Session Court at Solapur, for the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C., who apparently came to be convicted under section 304(ii) of the I.P.C. He was sentenced to R.I. for 5 years.The fact that Manohar Vir was lay off lightly for the murder of his brother, was not taken lightly by the accused No. 1 Rajabhau Rasal.The desire to wreck vengence upon him and punish him life for life, to crowd in the mind of the accused No. 1, when Manohar Vir was thus lay off lightly as considered by him.With revenge overwhelming him, he was on the look out to punish Manohar Vir appropriately i.e. by doing his murder also.It was with that object that the accused Nos. 1 to 9 all friends and associates of the accused No. 1, formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons.The accused No. 1 and 2 armed with swords, the accused No. 3 with a hockey stick, the accused No. 4 with iron bar, and the accused No. 5 with a hollow iron pipe, started on 9-10-1985 at about 12 noon, looking out for Manohar Vir.They went about in two autorickshaws of which the accused No. 10 and 11 were the drivers.They found Manohar Vir standing infront of the Bhagwat Petrol Pump and on citing him, the two autorickshaws stopped.The accused persons rushed out of the vehicles.The accused No. 1 in the lead armed with the sword, first struck a blow to Manohar on the head.Frightened at the suddenness of this attack on him, Manohar Vir, ran in the direction of the residence of the Police Inspector Atmaram Yadao.At a distance of about 1 k.m.He is a cousin of Manohar Vir.The accused Nos. 1 and 2 riding together in the third autorickshaw, passed by the restaurant of Madhukar Satarkar, while the two other autorickshaws carrying the accused persons sped away towards Latur.Slowing down the autorickshaw briefly, the accused No. 2 delivered a threat to Madhukar Satarkar also saying one is already finished and they will now burn down his hotel also.When Manohar Vir was attacked near the Bhagwat Petrol Pump and ran in the direction of the Police Inspector's bungalow, the accused persons while chasing him, raised shouts ""catch him, beat him, kill him"".The commotion thus caused a noise and the shoutings fell on the ears of Madan Bobde P.W. 9, who is the maternal uncle of Manohar Vir and an employee of the Municipal Council, Barsi, in the Boiler Department.His house is on the Latur Kurduwadi road in Shivaji Akhada area.At a short distance from where the incident of the attack on Manohar Vir at the Bhagwant Petrol Pump occurred, he, therefore, came out of the house all the while still taking his meal.He went upto the railway line which passes nearby and watched from there.He saw Manohar Vir running into the compound of the Police Inspector's bungalow and then the accused persons in not chased catching up with him, attacking him with swords and other weapons and then leaving him, considering him to be dead and speeding away in the autorickshaws.Like Madan Bobde P.W. 9, the occurrence was eye witnessed by Shivaji Parse P.W. 6 also.However, he had witnessed the entire occurrence starting with first attack on Manohar Vir at the Bhagwat Petrol Pump.He went on foot after the assailants, in the direction of the Police Inspector's bungalow and witnessed the entire incident including the accused persons leaving the place in the autorickshaws.Similarly Vishnu Vidhate P.W. 7, also saw the incident while he was returning to his Radio Repairing Shop, situated opposite the Police Inspector's bungalow, after taking his mid day meal at his house which is on the back side of the Bhagwat Petrol Pump.Madan Bobde, Shivaji Parse and two others by name Appa-Pappa Kandalkar and Bapu Raut then carried the injured and unconscious Manohar Vir to the Municipal Council Jawaharlal Hospital, Barsi.The Medical Officer Dr. Gaekwad P.W. 8, was no duty.He examined Manohar Vir in his unconscious condition, noted the several injuries, all incised wounds on his person and having regard to the critical condition advised that Manohar be taken to the Barsi Maternity and General Co-operative Hospital, where Dr. Hiremath P.W. 1 was the Chief Medical Officer.It was between 12-15 and 12-30 noon that the incident took place and it was by about 1-15 p.m. that Manohar Vir was finally admitted in the hospital of Dr. Hiremath.The Chief Medical Officer noted the critical condition and opined that immediate surgery was necessary.The necessary consent for surgery having been obtained on the case papers of the patient, Manohar Vir was operated upon successfully.The offence was registered against all these accused persons and wireless messages were immediately sent out as the culprit were reported to have sped away in the direction of Latur in autorickshaws.One of the message was also sent to the Pangari Police Station.P.S.I. Dange P.W. 18 having received the message, took steps to apprehend the accused persons.He first went to the village Kuslumb with his staff and learnt that autorickshaws and gone towards Yermala and, therefore, he want to Yermala also but there again he learnt that the rickshaws had gone towards a city of Bid.He requisitioned the services of motor truck for the pursuit.They were apprehended and the autorickshaws also seized and attached and sent to the Pangari Police Station.He further went ahead in search of the other accused persons upto Kunthalgiri and saw one Matador.The driver of the matador informed him that the he had taken some of the accused persons to the village Bhum in the said matador.He went to Bhum also and searched for the accused persons but they could not be traced.At Barsi the town Police Inspector Atmaram Yadao was out of station.He had gone to Pune in connection with the investigation of some other offence.He sent a Yadi to the Special Executive Magistrate for recording the statement of Manohar Vir.However, Manohar Vir apparently regained consciousness only on the 10th October 985 i.e. the next day in the morning.It was only then that his statement was recorded.P.S.I. Patil also drawn a panchanama of the scene of the offence, the spot at the Bhagwant Petrol Pump, and the premises of the Police Inspector's residence.At the spot near the Bhagwat Petrol Pump, he found one single chappal of the left foot and seized it.In the compound of the Police Inspector's bungalow, apart from observing the pool of blood, by the injuries received by Manohar Vir, he also found an iron bar (article No. 10) and the broken sword handle.These were also seized by him.By 10-30 p.m. Police Inspector Yadao, having received wireless message about the present incident, returned to Barsi from Pune.He then took over the investigation.On 10-10-1985 under the orders of Police Inspector Yadao, P.S.I. Patil seized the blood stained articles of clothing on the person of Manohar Vir under the panchanama Exh. 29 at Dr. Hiremath's Hospital (article Nos. 25 to 28).Obviously his object was to enter in the residence of the Police Inspector and seek protection against the accused persons who were after his life.To his misfortune the house was found locked.The accused persons, some of them through the gate of the compound, and some others through the wire fencing rushed at Manohar Vir and blows were struck to him, first by the accused No. 3 Somnath with the hockey stick, whereupon he fell down.He was then struck with the sword on the neck and else where on the body and lay bleeding and became unconscious.With victory thus achieved some one from these group of assailants loudly said, ""he is dead, let us go now"".So same the accused persons got into the autorickshaws and sped away in the direction of Latur.He also obtained a copy of Manohar Vir's statement recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate and handed over the same to the Police Inspector.Again under the orders of the Police Inspector Yadao, he also carried out the search of the accused Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 but nothing incriminating was found.The accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were all arrested on 16-10-1985 when they appeared at the Police Station which was after their application dated 12-10-1985 for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected on 15-10-1985 by the Sessions Judge.Police Custody remand of these accused persons had been obtained and during such police custody remand, following a statement duly recorded under section 27, the sword (article No. 7) was also recovered.The autorickshaw which has been used by the accused Nos. 1 to 4 for their escape was also attached and the accused No. 12 Gafar Saudagar as the driver thereof was also arrested.He visited Yermala to record the statement of the witnesses also.When the accused No. 1 was arrested, upon his surrendering himself at the Police Station at 2.45 p.m., he had found that the (accused No. 1) had injuries on the middle finger and the palm of the left hand.He, therefore, sent the accused No. 1 for medical examination and injury report to Dr. Gaekwad at the Municipal Council Jawaharlal Hospital.The chappal which had been found near the Bhagwat Petrol Pump, was found to fit on the left foot of the accused No. 2 Nagnath.During the interrogation all the accused persons, other a second sword, hockey stick and sticks etc. also came to be recovered following the statement of discovery of certain other accused persons.Eventually upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was presented against all the 12 accused persons as stated above.To the charge as framed at Exh. 2, all these 12 accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Their defence was of a total denial.Denying the truth of every so far as piece of evidence which came to be led against them, they also filed separate written statements to spell out their further defence.On arrival at Barsi, they learnt about this incident of the attack on Manohar Vir and feeling that since the accused No. 1 was the brother of Sudhir, who had been murdered by Manohar Vir, they would be suspected of having taken revenge upon Manohar Vir, and since they also learnt that complaint had been actually accordingly lodged against them, and further that the Police were in search of them, they decided to leave Barsi, using the motorcycle they went upto tourist hotel on the Latur road.They left the motorcycle there with instructions to the proprietor of the hotel that it be returned to Kanta Shalu.They then returned to Barsi, took their clothes in the bag and went to Solapur, where they met the accused Nos. 3 and 4 also.During the period between 12th and 15th October 1985, they submitted that Police Inspector Yadao had actually met them on some occasions.According to them, they had absolutely no concern whatsoever in the incident of the attack on Manohar Vir.No complicity therein could be attributed to them.The accused No. 1 also gave an explanation for the two cut injuries on his left hand, as caused while doing some household work.When they learnt about this incident, of the attack on Manohar Vir, they suspected that the accused No. 1 would be suspected and held responsible.They apprehended that being his friends, they would also come in trouble.Then they proceeded to Solapur deciding to apply for anticipatory bail.They denied like the accused Nos. 1 and 2 that they were still wearing any blood stained articles of clothing when they surrendered at the Police Station Barsi on 16-10-1985 or that such blood stained articles of clothing were attached from their person.Their contention was that on 9-10-1985 Wednesday, was the Bazar day at village Vasi, Taluka Bhoom.Live stock is sold in that market.Because of the severe drought conditions, cattle owners had been selling away their live stock.They had learnt that cows of jearsy breed which yield good milk in quantity were also being sold cheaply.Desiring to purchase that breed of cows, they had, therefore, decided to go to Vasi.They had intended to catch S.T. bus at 12 noon from Barsi.By the time they reached the Bus Station, bus for Vasi had already left.Apprehending that they would thus mis-unattending the cattle market, they engaged two autorickshaws driven by the accused Nos. 10 and 11 and proceeded towards Vasi from Barsi.On the way, between village Yermala and Vasi, their autorickshaws had tried to over take a bus at a road junction.In the attempt to over take, one of the two autorickshaws turned turtle.It was then that the Police Sub-Inspector Patil also came there and apprehended all of them and took them to Barsi.Their plea is that they have, therefore, been falsely implicated only because they were the friends of accused No. 1 Rajabhau Rasal.Even after taking into consideration the criticism levelled against each of these three eye witnesses, he found their evidence cogent and reliable, more particularly the evidence of the witness Vishnu Vidhate P.W. 7 was also found to be that of totally disinterested witness.It was upon such corroboration which the testimony of the victim Manohar Vir, P.W. 10, thus received that the learned Judge found the accused Nos. 1 to 5 has fully and inexplicably implicated.This was apart from the fact that the evidence from two medical witnesses Dr. Gaekwad and Dr. Hiremath also supported the eye witnesses.In his very detailed judgment exhaustively considering all evidence, the learned Judge observed that the first information report Exh. 53 came from Madan Bobde P.W. 9 as himself an eye witness to the incident.He noted that the incident had been witnessed by Shivaji Parse P.W. 6 right from the beginning i.e. when attack on Manohar Vir is started near the Bhagwat Petrol Pump and when thereafter he ran into the compound of the Police Inspector's bungalow, hotly chased by the accused persons.He had that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 had used swords, the accused No. 3 a hockey stick and the accused No. 5 a hollow iron pipe for attacking Manohar Vir, when they caught up with him in the courtyard of the Police Inspector's residence.He also found that there was no person present in the bungalow of the Police Inspector Atmaram Yadao as the latter had gone to Pune for investigational work.He also noted that when Manohar Vir was taken to the Municipal Council Jawaharlal Hospital in the first instance, the Medical Officer Dr. Gaekwad there had immediately sent information to the Police Inspector at Barsi Police Station.It was received there at about 1 p.m. He also noted that Manohar Vir could not be properly treated there and was, therefore, on the advice of Dr. Gaekwad taken to and treated at the Barsi Maternity and General Co-operative Hospital headed by Dr. Hiremath, for appropriate urgent and special treatment.The learned Additional Sessions Judge dealt with the submission of the defence Counsel that the accused persons had come to be charged only a suspicion.The submission being founded on the fact though Manohar Vir's compliant Exh. 53 had come to be lodged only by 2 p.m. or before that, the message to the Pangari Police Station for catching specifically named suspects had already gone at 1.30 p.m. That submission though accepted by him as quite ingenious was not, however, tenable in his own.He also dealt with the submission only to reject it that Manohar Vir must have been quite conscious by the time a decision to operate upon him came to be taken for the reason that the consent to such surgery had been given by Manohar Vir himself.The argument was that even Manohar Vir was in a condition to understand the risk involved in a surgery and could yet give his consent to such surgery, then it was his complaint, that should and ought to have been recorded and not of Madan Bobde P.W. 9, for taking cognizance of offence if any.The evidence pertaining to the statements of discovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act made by the various accused persons, leading to the seizure of several weapon of offence, such as two swords, sticks iron bar and pipe etc. was unworthy to credit no doubt but the fact remained all the same a true one that the report of the Chemical Analyser at Exh. 31 established the presence of human blood of group 'B' on it, that being also the blood group for victim Manohar Vir.He also rejected as entirely artificial the prosecution evidence that the accused Nos. 1 to 4 had appeared at the Barsi Police Station on 16-10-1985 with blood stained articles clothing still on their person, so as to make use of the blood stained conditions of the clothes as providing a clue to the participation of the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the commission of the offence.He rejected the accused No. 1's explanation as to the injuries on his middle finger and the palm of his left hand.He also noted that the evidence of P.S.I. Dange of the Pangari Police Station read even in the light of the written statements of the accused persons, established that they had been in a guilty flight after the incident.Thus the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion upon his detailed assumption of all the prosecution evidence that it unmistakably established the accused Nos. 1 to 5 as the persons who alongwith others also formed an unlawful assembly with the object of seeking revenge upon Manohar Vir for his committing the murder of Sudhir Rasal, indulged in a ferocious and concerted attack upon the defenceless Manohar Vir and had attempted to commit his murder.While against the accused Nos. 6 to 12, the evidence was unsatisfactory, while the participation of the accused Nos. 10, 11 and 12 as the autorickshaw drivers was a very negligible part, unaccompanied by their seeing of any such common object, the complicity of the accused Nos. 6 to 9 was also a fact which had remained far from established.It is, therefore, that the accused Nos. 6 to 12 came to be acquitted and their acquittal has not been, as stated at the bar by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, challenged either by an appeal against such acquittal.The accused Nos. 1 to 5 had, however, came to be convicted and sentenced as stated above and they have taken exception both to their conviction and the sentences as awarded to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.Both the learned Counsel Shri Patil for these appellants and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State have taken me in almost a minute detail through the entire prosecution evidence.The finding of their guilt under section 147 and 148 as also under section 307 read section 149 of the I.P.C. is challenged by Shri Patil upon a variety of contentions and submissions.These may be briefly emnurated, before considering them in detail as under:Thirdly the evidence of the so called eye witnesses Vishnu Vidhate, Shivaji Parse and Mandan Bobde provided an indication that many persons had gathered infront of the Police Inspector's bungalow when the incident occurred and yet only interested and antagonistic persons had come to be examined as prosecution eye witnesses.These witnesses, it was also pointed out, atleast some of them were relatives of the injured Manohar Vir.It was next submitted that Manohar Vir must have been quite conscious on being taken to Dr. Hiremath's Hospital.The fact that the he gave consent to surgical operation, established that fact.Therefore, the complaint as lodged by Madan Bobde P.W. 9 was of doubtful merit as the first information report for implicating the accused.It was rather upon the suspicion which Madan Bobde must have had that the complaint was founded.It was also contended that the version of Manda Bobde P.W. 9 and Shivaji Parse P.W. 6 as to who reached first near the injured Manohar Vir in the courtyard of the Police Inspector's bungalow must lead to the disbelief of both of them as eye witnesses.It was next submitted that no specific overt act on the part of the accused No. 4 had been proved by any prosecution witness.The evidence as to the statement of discovery made by the accused persons and following such statements the recovery of any things and articles such as weapons was of a concoction.It was also contended that the injury to the middle finger and the palm of the accused No. 1 had been well explained by him but erroneously rejected by the Trial Court and lastly the incident of the murder of Sudhir Rasal having taken place as far back as in the year 1980, Manohar Vir having undergone the sentence of imprisonment thereafter and even a period of about 11/2 years or more having passed after Manohar Vir's release from imprisonment, no proximate cause for the attack on Manohar Vir could be attributed either by Manohar Vir or the other prosecution witnesses.It is upon these contentions the appellants claimed that the erroneous conclusions and findings of their guilt arrived at by the Trial Court, should deserve to be set aside to acquit them.Manohar Vir P.W. 10 as the victim of the murderous attack on him deposed that at about 12 noon on 9-10-1985 he was standing infront of the Bhagwat Petrol Pump when the accused No. 1 Rajabhau Rasal, accused No. 2 Nagnath, No. 3 Somnath and accused No. 4 Chandrakant alongwith four or five others suddenly came in two autorickshaws.The accused No. 1 armed with a sword struck him on the head from his front side, causing a bleeding injury.Manohar Vir stated that with this first blow struck with the sword and, therefore, quite terrified, more so because the number of assailants who were against him and remembering that the Police Inspector's bungalow admittedly at only a short distance from the Bhagwat Petrol Pump, he ran in that direction.He wanted to run into the Police Inspector's residence to beseech him from protection.He has specifically stated that at the time when he saw the accused persons first at the spot infront of the bhagwant Petrol Pump, he had seen the accused No. 2 Nagnath also armed with a sword and the others with sticks and iron bars.He ran into the compound of the Inspector's bungalow through the gate and to his consternation as also disappointment found that the bungalow was locked and no one present inside.It is not in the evidence that the Police Inspector Atmaram Yadao's family was residing with him at that time.So far as the Police Inspector Atmaram Yadao P.W. 17 is concerned, his unchallenged and uncontroverted version is that on 9-10-1985 he was at Pune in connection with some investigation and, therefore, away from Barsi.These, therefore, explained so to why Manohar Vir found the bungalow locked.For it is also the evidence of Police Inspector Yadao that it was only when he received a wireless message at Pune about the present incident, that he decided to return to Barsi immediately and accordingly caught the bus to reach to Barsi by 10.30 p.m. This part of the version of Manohar Vir is thus duly corroborated.He states that the accused persons eventually caught up with him and attacked him and the accused No. 2 struck him with the sword on the head while others dealt blows with sticks and iron bars.He thereupon fell unconscious and did not know what happened.It was only on the next day in the morning that the found himself in Dr. Hiremath's Hospital.It was then on 10-10-1985 that his statement came to be recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate.I find that a reference to what this statement was, has come to be made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in his judgment.Specifically he appears to have omitted to have mentioned the accused No. 2 Nagnath as dealt any blow to him on the head as such.He stated that he was frightened no doubt but denied the suggestion that on account of that terrified condition as such, he could not see and remember as to who his assailants were or that he had named the accused-assailants upon any tuloring by Madan Bobde.There appears no reason to doubt the prosecution evidence that Manohar Vir's statement was first recorded only by the Special Executive Magistrate and this was on 10-10-1985 by which time Madan Bobde's complaint Exh. 53 has already been recorded a day before and secondly there is so evidence to indicate that prior to the Special Executive Magistrate's recording Manohar Vir's statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. there had been any contact or conversation between Manohar Vir and Madan Bobde, That suggestion was, therefore, quite futile one. ""Shivaji Parse P.W. 6 is an eye witness.He also admits that Manohar Vir had been convicted for the murder of Sudhir Rasal.Thus accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 also admit that Shivaji Parse knows them.He stated that at about 12 noon while going on his bicycle, he saw Manohar Vir near the Bhagwat Petrol Pump and the accused Nos. 1 to 2 armed with swords, accused No. 3 with a hockey stick and accused No. 5 with a iron pipe.There were five more persons with them who were also, according to him armed only with sticks though.What is to be noted here is, therefore, be significant absence of mentioning the name and presence of the accused No. 4 Chandrakant.At no stage of his evidence further also, Shivaji Parse would appear to speak about the presence of accused No. 4 Chandrakant.Shivaji Parse states that near the Bhagwat Petrol Pump he saw the accused No. 1 striking Manohar Vir on the head with a sword and the latter then starting running away in the direction of the Police Inspector's bungalow and entering the compound.He also saw the assailants then pursuing him.He saw the accused Nos. 1 to 3 entering the compound through the fencing.According to Madan Bobde P.W. 9 these person had entered, however, through the gate.He saw the first blow in the courtyard being delivered by the accused No. 3 with his hockey stick whereupon Manohar Vir fell down and saw the attack by the accused No. 1 and 2 with their swords and by the accused No. 5 with an iron pipe.When they apparently realised that Manohar Vir had become motionless, they left and escaped in two autorickshaws towards the Latur Road.It was after the assailants fled that he himself, Madan Bobde, Bapu Raut and Appapappa Kandalkar went near Manohar Vir and took him to the Municipal Council Jawaharlal Hospital and thereafter to the Hospital of Dr. Hiremath.Now reflecting to the contention that Manohar Vir if attacked from the front with a sword in the hands of the accused No. 1, could not have received the blow on the back side of his head, it is again asserted by this witness also that the sword blow by the accused No. 1 near the Bhagwat Petrol Pump had landed on the back side of Manohar Vir's head, which is confirmed by the injury certificate and case papers at Exh. 57 of Dr. Gaekwad and Exh. 33 of Dr. Hiremath.The hockey stick blow on Manohar Vir, while he was facing the bungalow of the Police Inspector, in the courtyard, was also given by him from his back side, had fallen down and had not thereafter got up again.While Shivaji Parse stated that it was he who had first reached near Manohar Vir, madan Shivaji Parse had asserted as such, that it was he who reached near Manohar Vir and that Shivaji Parse had come after him.According to Madan Bobde he had watched the incident near the passing from the bungalow of the Inspector, Shivaji Parse had followed these assailants upto the gate and had seen the incident from there and both Madan Bobde and Shivaji Parse had gone near the fallen Manohar Vir almost at the same time.The greater criticism of Shivaji Parse's is, however, that he must be considered to be a enemical witness.While he denied any knowledge of the fact that his brother Bhima alongwith Madan Bobde P.W. 9 was facing prosecution for an assault on the accused No. 4 Chandrakant, Madan Bobde has quite clearly admitted that fact.He stated that Shivaji Parse's brother Bhima was a co-accused in that criminal case alongwith him and certain other persons.Now the argument that Shivaji Parse cannot be relied upon as a disinterested witness for the reason that his brother Bhima under prosecution for an assault on the accused No. 4 Chandrakant becomes entirely hollow, when as observed earlier, Shivaji Parse has not implicated the accused No. 4 at all.Otherwise it is as observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, a case of Shivaji Parse became quite natural a witness, Madan Bobde P. W. 9 is employed with the Boiler Department with the Municipal Council Barsi.The incident occurred on Wednesday which was a working day.It is, therefore, contended in the first instance that in the absence of any specific evidence that he was on leave on that day he would have to be accepted as being on duty and, therefore, could not also have been present at his house to hear about the commotion and then to witness this incident.Madan's evidence that he had been to his house for taking meal which has rightly observed by the trial Court is the usual meals time when one may be during working hours also taken a short recess for meal.His house is on the Latur Kurduwadi road at the Shivaji Akhada area.The said road is to the west of that road on which the bungalow of the Police Inspector abuts and his house is just adjoining to this road and the railway line.His house is a part of City Survey No. 3805 which is comprised of as many as 50 house including his own.He had heard the shouting from the side of the bungalow which comes to be on the back side of his house.He was taking his meal and had, therefore, immediately got up and went near the railway line to stand there and saw the incident happened.All of them entered through the gate.He did not mention accused No. 6 though the latter has been implicated in the first information report, Exh. 53 which he had given.Manohar Vir had falled down and accused No. 1 and 2 had then struck him with their swords, the other with a stick, bars and iron pipes to hit him.Manohar Vir had bled very profusely.The accused had then all left fleeting from the spot.It was then that he went near Manohar Vir.Bapu Raut and Appa Kandalkar also came there and then Manohar Vir to the Municipal Hospital, Dr. Gaekwad had advised taking him to the Dr. Hiremath's hospital and that was also done.That report was quite correct and stands to corroborate him substantially and it is also to be noted that as between this F.I.R. and the testimony given in the Court, no variance whatsoever has been pointed out.As noted earlier Madan has admitted that though an assault on accused No. 4 Chandrakant may be relevant so far as the complicity of the accused No. 4 is concerned, but not others also.The suggestion made to Madan Bobde was that Wednesday being a working day, he was at his place of work, that 'somebody' had met him there to inform him of the incident and that he had then gone to the scene of offence.This suggestion was flatly denied by the witness.F.I.R. Exh. 53 of Madan Bobde mentions that he is a maternal uncle of Manohar Vir.However, it has not been suggested with reference to this relationship, anywhere during his cross-examination that it is for the reason of this relationship that he is falsely implicating the accused persons.Madan Bobde it will thus be seen, is the only witness so far who implicates all the five appellants here as present and participated in the attack on Manohar Vir himself does not mention the accused No. 5 whom he yet knows.His Radio Repairing shop is situated opposite the S.T. Bus Stop.His residence is behind Bhagwat Petrol Pump.The Police Inspector's bunglow is on the Solapur road facing the east while his radio repairing shop on the same road faces the west.He says that he had been to his house for his mid day meal and was on way back to his shop at about 12.30 noon when he heard the shouts and cries of Raja, ""catch him, kill him"" and saw Manohar Vir running towards the bungalow of Police Inspector.Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were armed with the swords, accused No. 3 with hockey stick, accused No. 5 with iron pipe and while others had sticks.Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were the first ones to enter the compound of the Police Inspector's bungalow.The accused No 3 wielded Manohar Vir on the head with a hockey stick from the back side whereupon he fell down and the others then attacked him with their swords, iron pipes.When Manohar Vir become motionless bleeding profusely, they said ""he is dead, let us go"".They had then left in the autorickshaws.However, the witness on cross-examination had stated that he had made the note on some piece of paper in which the names of the assailants and the particular weapons wieded by them were mentioned.He stated that he had referred to this note when his statement was recorded during the investigation.He has admitted that he had not handed over this note to the Investigating Officer.The Investigating Officer himself does not appear to have questioned on this part of Vishnu's statement.If anything this much only be construed as being embellishment on the part of the witness, a display of over enthusiasm in the matter but o more.For it is admitted by all the accused persons that and also stated so at the bar by their learned Counsel for the appellants that this witness harbours no enmity against them and they have no axe to grind against him.In the circumstances, it is rightly observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that Vishnu of all the witnesses is the most disinterested and independent witness, who duly corroborates the victim and also established the fact as to who were the assailants when after Manohar Vir fell down under the hockey stick blow of accused No. 3, the assailants in the attack.Thus from the oral evidence, that of the victim, Manohar himself and the eye witnesses Shivaji Parse P.W. 6, Vishnu Vidhate P.W. 7 and Madan Bobde P.W. 9, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 must be found to have been definitely and fully implicated as the assailants not so however, the accused Nos. 4 and 5 inasmuch as accused No. 4 is not mentioned by the complainant himself as even present when he first saw the group of assailants near the Bhagwat Petrol Pump or hereafter.Then again Shivaji Parse P.W. 6 has also mentioned that the hockey stick was wielded by accused No. 5 though according to P.W. 7 Vishnu Vidhate it was accused No. 3 Somnath who had wielded the hockey stick.Thus any specific over act by the accused No. 4 is not proved and the participation on the part of the accused No. 5 as such comes into doubt with the omission to implicate him on the part of the victim himself.There is more in the medical evidence which in my opinion brings into doubt any participation on the part of the accused Nos. 4 and 5 as such.Dr. Gaekwad who was the first one to examine the injured Manohar Vir only hurriedly has mentioned all only for injuries in the nature of wounds which further appeared to him to be incised in nature.It was Dr. Hiremath at the Barsi Maternity and General Co-operative Hospital, who dealt with a patient to the point of performing surgery also.Dr. Hiremath P.W. 1 found as many as 12 injuries on the body of Manohar Vir.of these each of the injuries as Sr. No. 1 to 11 was incised wound and only the injury No. 12 was a superficial abrassion on the right big toe.If the use of any such sharp edged weapon as a sword is attributed only to the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and if the injury No. 12 is only in the nature of abrassion on the right big toe of the right foot, then evidence of all these witnesses including the victim Manohar Vir about the use of an iron pipe by the accused No. 5 and stick by the accused No. 4 Chandrakant must come into doubt.For hitting either with an iron pipe or a stick, would certainly not cause injuries of a incised nature.The use of these weapons would at best cause contusion or swelling on the body.It might further at best cause injuries in the nature of laceration, particularly if an iron pipes were used with roughened ends.But no such injury was observed by Dr. Hiremath also and that is what in my opinion, brings into doubt the story about any overt act as such on the part of these accused.It has to be conceded by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that consistently with the evidence that accused No. 4 wielding a stick and accused No. 5 wielding an iron pipe no injury correspondently can be said to have been caused to Manohar Vir.This is as seen therefore, frequently brings the case of conviction of these two appellants into some doubt to the benefit of which they would have to be found entitled.As per the prosecution evidence about the seizure of blood stained articles on the person of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 or the accused No. 4 for that matter, is concerned, one must concur with the learned Judge of the trial Court that this evidence of such nature that the tending of it would be only at the peril of acceptance of even that prosecution evidence which would be otherwise considered genuine, truthful and reliable.One could not be deal more on this aspect of the evidence.It is, however, also pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the evidence of absconding on the part of these accused persons must deserve due consideration.In support plea of alibi no evidence was raised.It is their case that on 11-10-1985 they went to Barsi from Solapur.That means they were at Barsi on 9th and 10th of October 1985 and quite for some time on the 11th also.If their contention is that they have come to be implicated only on the suspicion that accused No. 1 was wanted to take revenge for the murder of his brother Sudhir, committed by Manohar Vir or for the reason that the accused No. 2 was accused No. 1's friend, then, it was quite open to them immediately approach the Police and establish their plea of alibi.They did not do so.They proceeded to Solapur for anticipatory bail, obviously to avoid arrest.It is difficult to appreciate their contention that their names have been taken only on suspicion, to falsely Implicate them.It is almost a well settled law that a injured person would not falsely implicate others instead of the real culprit.That apart Manohar Vir's testimony corroborated by Shivaji Parse, Vishnu Vidhate and Madan Bobde.The accused Nos. 3 and 4 have offered an explanation which like the learned Judge of the trial Court, 1 must also consider entirely unsatisfactory.They did learn about the attack on Manohar Vir in the evening that day and also that the assailants had then fled and disappeared.It is their say that accused No. 1 Rajabhau Rasal was their friend and as Manohar Vir committed the murder of Rajabhau's brother Sudhir, they suspected that they would be involved in the crime alongwith him.They got wind of the likehood of being so implicated by general talk amongst the members of the public.Therefore, they say that they remained hiding in their houses till 11-10-1985 and then went to Solapur to apply for anticipatory bail.The reasons for not considering the offences brought home to the accused No. 4 Chandrakant apart so far as the accused No. 3 is concerned, this explanation is entirely unsatisfactory.The incriminating testimony of circumstantial importance against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 also comes from two other witnesses Nagesh P.W. 11 and Madhukar Satarkar P.W. 12 Madhukar Satarkar is the owner of the Sital Restaurant on the Barsi-Latur road about a Kilometer away from the town proper.He is a cousin of Manohar Vir and knows all the accused.It is his evidence and that of Nagesh P.W. 11 that on 9-10-1985 at about 12-30 noon both of them were sitting in the open space in front of the restaurant taking tea.The Barsi Latur road adjoins this open space in front of the restaurant.Nagesh P.W. 11 has stated that at that time authorickshaws were halted near the restaurant and the accused No. 2 Nagnath had delivered a threat to Madhujar Satarkar P.W. 2 that his hotel would be set on fire.Accused No. 2 had delivered this threat while sitting in the authorickshaw.The accused No. 2 had said 'we have finished with one and we return to burn his hotel'.The first two authorickshaws, he stated that gone towards Latur in high speed and it was the third authorickshaw which came about 5 minutes later which had slowed down near him and the accused No. 2 sitting in it had given threats to him.This evidence of a guilty flight on the part of the accused Nos. 1 to 3, apart threats delivered by them, has been, however, disbelieved by the learned Judge of the Trial Court by observing that Madhukar Satarkar had thereafter remained complacent, he had not reported the threats to the police, when he went back to then town and came to know about the incident, he had gone to hiremath Hospital to see the injured Manohar Vir.He admitted that he disclosed this only to the Police Inspector when his statement was recorded that night.The silence about the guilty flight of the assailants of Manohar Vir in three authorickshaws and the threats given by accused No. 3, the learned Judge of the Trial Court observed so feeling enough to doubt the story given by this witness.In my opinion, however, when Madhukar Satarkar, is considered as one of the persons who was related to Manohar Vir, and had some connection with the murder of Sudhir, then the deliverance of such threat is not entirely improbable.The evidence that accused No. 3 remarked that one person had already been done away that becomes relevant when one appreciates that according to Vishnu Vidhate P.W. 7, the assailants after belabouring Manohar Vir in the courtyard of the Police Inspector's bungalow had remarked ""he is dead"" and had then gone away.It was on their way, fleeing from Barsi towards Latur that Madhukar Satarkar's restaurant is located and such an utterance by the accused No. 3 revelling in victory over the attack on Manohar Vir, prompts such an utterance.As noted earlier one of the contentions advanced in regard to the identification of the accused as the assailants, made by P.W. 10 Manohar Vir, victim, was that the suddenness of the appearances of the assailants, the suddenness of the sword blow delivered to him and the terror created thereby in his mind would all attribute to his being oblivious of the identity of the assailants.This contention is unacceptable because the incident occurred in broad day light, the assailants were all persons quire well known to Manohar Vir, and thirdly he must be assumed to have reminding away all the time by his doing murder of Sudhir Rasal, he had created a life long enemy in the accused No. 1 Rajabhau Rasal and his friends.The next argument was that the prosecution had chosen only interested witnesses as to give evidence against the accused.I have already dealt with this later aspect namely that Shivaji Parse has still not implicated accused No. 4 even considering the relationship between Manohar Vir and Madan Bobde the account as given by him, and subjected to close cross-examination stands substantially unshaken.What is of the highest importance is that there is atleast one witness who is totally disinterested and independently namely Vishnu Vidhate P.W. 7, notwithstanding that the embellishment which he has at one time admitted.The contention that Manohar Vir must have been conscious or must have regained consciousness upon being taken to Dr. Hiremath's Hospital is founded on the endorsement on the case papers of the said hospital.The endorsement is ""I am prepared, on my responsibility to get my patient operated upon.In this respect I have no objection for such operation under any kind of An-aesthesia.""Now it will be appreciated that Madan Bobde P.W. 9 must also to be found to have lodged his complaint very promptly, without loosing any time in deliberation and premediation (as to whom to implicate) because it is also stated by Dr. Hiremath that Madan bobde was not present at the time when he first examined Manohar Vir Madan Bobde had, immediately after reaching Manohar Vir to the Dr. Hiremath's hospital with the assistance of others, gone to the Police and lodged this complaint to implicate these appellants.Therefore, the plea the first information report.Apart from that the evidence shows that one of the tow swords on which as per the report Exh. 31 of the Chemical Analyser, human blood stains of Group B were found, was found to have dishandled in a broken condition and it is, therefore, more than probable that even in that broken condition the sword had been tried to be used by the accused No. 1 and, therefore, these injuries had been caused to him.The broken handle separated from the blade of the sword was found at the spot by the P.S.I. Patil, and seized and even on this handle the blood of Group B which is the blood group of Manohar Vir had been detected.Even alternatively, it has to be appreciated that Manohar Vir has stated that he had made some attempt to struggle with his assailants when he was attacked with the sword and it is that attempt that accused No. 1 could have sustained these injuries.For all these reasons, therefore, it must be held that so far as the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, they being members of an unlawful assembly which indulged in rioting and their attack on Manohar Vir was clearly with the intention of committing his murder, is more than well established.The very number of the incised injuries, as many as 11, all over the body bears testimony to such intention on their part.Having regard to the context of Manohar Vir being a person who was convicted and sentenced for causing the death of accused No. 1's brother Sudhir Rasal and the dissatisfaction experienced by the accused No. 1 at Manohar Vir's being lay off lightly and, therefore, his desire on his own to revengefully further punish Manohar Vir's a probably adequate sentence of imprisonment to him as also to the accused Nos. 1 to 3 who participated in the attack alongwith him, is in my opinion unavoidable in the interest of justice.Having regard to this and all other circumstances, the sentence would have to be modified as follows :The appeal so far as the appellants Nos. 4 and 5 are concerned, is hereby allowed.Their conviction for the offence under section 147, 148, 307 read with section 149 of the I.P.C. is hereby set aside and they shall stand acquitted of the said charge.Accordingly their bail bonds shall also stand cancelled.The appeal so far as the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, is hereby partly allowed.Their conviction for the offence under section 147, 148 and 307 read with section 149 of the I.P.C. is upheld and confirmed.The sentence of R.i.for four years awarded to each of them is, however, reduced to two years R.I. and the fine of Rs. 250/- imposed upon each of them is increased to Rs. 1000/-.The appellants have been on bail during the period of this appeal.They shall now surrender to their bail.At the request of their Counsel, they are granted one month's time to so surrender to their bail.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Shri Rahul Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.Dr. (Smt) Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor for the State.Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The petitioner has filed this first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C.The petitioner has been arrested on 13/11/2015 by Police Station Dharnabada, District Guna (M.P.) in connection with Crime No. 354/07 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 303, 506-B, 325, 307, 147, 148 and 149 of I.P.C.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.Charge-sheet has been filed where allegation of attempt to murder is made.The petitioner appears to be the main accused who has assaulted the injured on the head with the sharp-cutting object.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR which discloses his name as Kalia.The State counsel by perusing 2 Mcrc.13906/15 Hari Singh Vs.State of M.P.the case-diary informs that the petitioner is also known by the name of Kalia, Kelash and Hari Singh.Apart from the above, the petitioner has large number of criminal cases as criminal antecedents.In view of above, no case for grant of bail is made out.The application stands rejected.","['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"PW 1 is a local resident and the de facto complainant in the instant case.He deposed that there is a stone quarry of Arun Babu by the side of the village.He works in the said stone quarry.All the villagers used the said well for collecting water.On 26.10.1990 he along with others was working in the said quarry.When they had gone to collect drinking water from the said well they found the appellant Jahangir Sk.throwing boulder in the said well.They raised protest and asked him why he was throwing boulders.He stated that he was throwing boulders to catch fish.They became suspicious and found a bloodstained boulder in the well.They asked the appellant to pull out the boulders.He refused to do so.He was detained and the villagers dried the well and found the dead body of the victim, Chabi Murmu.They informed the chowkidar who later informed the police.Upon questioning, the appellant stated that he along with Meherun Bibi murdered Chabi Murmu with a hensua in the bamboo grove and threw the dead body in the well.He stated that Chabi had a love affair with Farad, who is the husband of Meherun Bibi.The appellant thereafter stated that he along with Meherun Bibi and one Salam Sk.took the dead body from the nearby field and threw it in the well.The appellant was throwing boulders in order to conceal the dead body.The Police thereafter arrived at the spot.He wrote a written complaint which was signed by him (Exbt.1/1).The dead body was taken out from the well.PW 2 is another local villager.He signed on the seizure list (Exbt. 2/2).In cross-examination, he stated that he is also working in the said stone quarry.The well was full of water at that time.PW 3 and PW 5 were also working in the said stone quarry.PW 4 was tendered for cross-examination.PW 6 is a local villager who used to work in the said stone quarry.He deposed that the appellant was throwing boulders in the well and on questioning he refused to divulge anything.They drained out the well and found the dead body of Chabi Murmu.Appellant stated that to prevent floating of the dead body he had thrown boulders into the well.He stated that mother of Chabi was searching for her deceased daughter for the last two days.In cross-examination, he stated that 40/60 persons worked in the stone quarry.The water of the well was drained out within 3 to 4 hours.Several local villagers assembled there.Daroga babu arrived when they were draining the water.Daroga babu managed to extricate the dead body with the help of the appellant.They were present at the side of the well.The appellant did not state anything when they began to drain out the water.Chabi's village is one mile from their village.PW 7 was declared hostile and cross examined.PW 8 deposed that he knew Chabi.She had illicit relationship with Faraz, husband of Meherun.PW 9 also deposed that on the fateful day the appellant was found throwing boulders in the well.The appellant stated to him that he was throwing boulder to catch fish.PW 10 is the mother of Chabi.She stated that on 24.10.1990 Chabi went to Dolkata ghat at about 2.30 p.m. She was wearing a saya, sari, gamcha and blouse and had gold ornaments like ear ring, gold neckless, nakchabi on her person.She never returned.They searched everywhere.On Friday afternoon some people of Dolkata village informed her that her daughter might have been found in a well near the stone quarry of Arun babu.She proceeded to Dolkata and reached near the stone quarry of Arun babu.At that time daroga babu was also present.The dead body was lying by the side of the well.She identified the dead body of her daughter.The ornaments of the victim were not found on her person.She stated that her son-in-law is dead and her daughter used to work as a daily labourer in different places.She went with some boys while going for work.She did not inform the police about the missing of her daughter.PW 11 is a resident of Dolkata village.He stated that on 26.10.90 he found Jahangir was surrounded by various people and saw that the local people were draining out the water from the well and a dead body was found in the well.The appellant admitted that he killed Chabi along with Meher and Salem.Local chowkidar was also informed.Police turned up in the evening.Mother of Chabi identified the dead body.Daroga babu questioned Jahangir about the murder weapon and he led them to the residence of Jahangir and picked out the hensua from his thatched roof.Daroga babu seized the same and prepared seizure list (Exbt.4/2).In cross-examination, he stated that Jahangir is not related by blood either to Meherun or to her husband.PW 12 stated that there was a village salish over the illicit relation of Chabi and Faraz.Faraz accepted to desist from such association.In cross- examination, he stated that he never saw in the house of Faraz.PW 13 is the owner of stone quarry where the appellant and the other witnesses worked.He stated that there is a well near the stone quarry which was used for collecting drinking water.He had no knowledge whether the PW 1 was working there.5/1).He along with S.I. Avas Nandi (PW 15) went to the village.PW 1 lodged the written complaint.He reached the village at 19.35 hrs.He sent the FIR to police station through his driver Sannyasi Pal for starting PS case and upon his return he endorsed the case to S.I. A. Nandy.He kept A.S.I Ramapada Ghosh there and left.In cross- examination, he stated that he cannot say the name of the Chowkidar which is also not noted in the General Diary.The case was endorsed to him for investigation.PW 1 identified the place of occurrence.He prepared the sketch map with index (Exbt.6 and 6/1).The dead body was taken out of the well in his presence by some villagers.He prepared the inquest report in presence of the witnesses (Exbt.2).He collected bloodstained earth and controlled earth from bamboo groove (Exbt.3/2).He arrested the appellant and Meherun.The appellant made statement under Section 161 CrPC (Exbt.7).He recovered a Hensua from the residence of the appellant under a seizure list (exbt.4).He examined the witnesses.He seized wearing apparels of the deceased under a seizure list (Exbt.8).He made the seizure in the Thana.The accused was produced in Court and he sent the dead body for postmortem examination.On his transfer he handed over the charge to Officer-in-Charge.In cross-examination, he stated that he did not examine the chowkidar in the case.There is nothing in the case diary regarding whether the accused persons were present in the place of occurrence.Hensua was not sent for FSL examination.He could not say whether the appellant was a resident under Sikaripara P.S. PW 16 Sannyasi Ch.Paul, was a driver constable attached to Md. Bazar P.S. He took the written complaint from PW 14 to the thana and ASI Ramapati recorded the formal FIR.PW 17, A.S.I Ramapati Ghosh deposed that on receipt of written complaint from the Officer-in-Charge Chandan Babu he drew up the formal FIR.Thereafter he sent the FIR to Chandan Babu once again through the driver Sannyasi Paul.He entered the General Diary No.702 (Exbt.10).PW 18 was the second investigating officer who concluded the investigation and filed charge sheet.PW 19 is the Autopsy Surgeon who found the following injuries:-1) The body was in highly decomposed condition.IPC and in conclusion of investigation a charge-sheet was filed under the aforesaid sections against the appellant and the two other accused persons.The case was committed to the court of sessions and transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Second Court, Suri, Birbhum for trial and disposal.As Salem Sk absconded, charges were framed under Sections 302/34 IPC and Sections 201/34 IPC against the appellant and Mehrun Bibi.They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.19 and exhibited a number of documents.The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication.It was his specific defence that nobody has seen him with the victim prior to her death.There was no enmity between the appellant and the victim.There is also no evidence to show that the appellant had met the co-accused persons, namely, Mehrun Bibi and Salem Sk.The extra judicial confession relied upon in the instant case is highly dubious and the recovery of the hensua was not at his behest.However, in conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by the impugned judgement and order dated 15th July, 1997 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.By the self-same judgment and order, Mehrun Bibi, however, was acquitted from the charges leveled against her.Nobody appeared for the appellant.The extra judicial confession was procured under coercion after the appellant was detained by local villagers in the presence of a Chowkider and even the Officer-in-Charge, P.W. 14 was present in or about the time of recording of such confession.Hence, it cannot be said that the appellant was a free agent and have voluntarily made such confession.There was also no reliable evidence led by the prosecution to establish that there was an illicit affair between the victim and Faraz, the husband of acquitted accused, Mehrun Bibi, which is touted as the motive of crime.Recovery of hensua from the residence of the appellant is also not an incriminating circumstance as the said instrument was not sent for FSL examination.He accordingly prayed for acquittal.Ms. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the conduct of the appellant in throwing boulders into the well from where the villagers used to collect drinking water was most suspicious.Accordingly, the villagers asked the appellant to remove the boulders which he refused to do and upon draining the water the villagers found a dead body.On interrogation, the appellant made an extra judicial confession admitting his guilt which in the aforesaid circumstances is most natural and, therefore, was rightly relied upon by the trial court.Soon thereafter, on his leading statement the weapon of offence, namely, hensua was recovered.Medical evidence has also supported the aforesaid circumstances.Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.An analysis of the evidence on record would show that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence.The prosecution has essentially relied on the following circumstances to bring upon the guilt of the appellant:a) On 26-10-1990 in the morning, the appellant was found throwing boulders into a well from where the local villagers used to collect drinking water;b) The local villagers who had assembled to collect drinking water opposed the appellant in fouling the water by throwing boulders and asked him to remove the bounders;c) The appellant refused to do so and thereupon he was detained;d) The local people drained the water and found the dead body of a lady.e) This fact was informed to the local Chowkider who in turn intimated the local police station over the incident.f) In the meantime, the appellant made an extra judicial confession stating that he along with Mehrun Bibi (acquitted accused) had killed Chabi with a hensua in a bamboo grove over the issue of illicit relation between Faraz, the husband of Mehrun Bibi and the victim.Thereafter, the dead body was put into the well by the aforesaid accused persons and Salem Sk.and he was throwing boulders to conceal the body.g) The police arrived at the spot and the body of the victim was brought out from the well.The dead body was identified as that of Chabi.h) Police recorded the confessional statement of the appellant and pursuant to his statement a hensua was seized from his house.Mother of Chabi, her brother and sister identified the dead body.Police held inquest over the dead body.He signed on the inquest report (Exbt.2/1).Daroga Babu took all of them to the bamboo grove, seized bloodstained earth and controlled earth (Exbt.3/1).Police arrested Jahangir and Meher Bibi and took them into custody.Next morning at about 10/10.30 a.m. police arrived at the village with Jahangir and recovered one Hensua from the house of one Salam Sk.He identified the Hensua (Mat Exbt.4/1) and put his signature on the seizure list (Exbt.4/1).In cross-examination, he stated that he never saw Chabi roaming with Jahangir on earlier occasions.He accompanied the police since the recovery of dead body.They began to drain out the water of the well.After draining out the water they found the dead body of Chabi.On repeated questioning the appellant admitted his guilt.In cross-examination, he stated that Daroga babu arrived in the afternoon.PW 14 was the officer-in-charge of Suri Police Station at the material point of time.On the date of occurrence at 5.15 P.M., Chowkider of Dolkata village informed him about a dead body at Dolkata village.He diarised the information as General Diary Entry No.699 dated 26.10.1990 (Exbt.PW 15 Abhas Nandi was attached to Md. Bazar P.S. as SI of Police.PW 14 Chandan Mukherjee was officer-in-charge of Md. Bazar P.S. On receipt of information they proceeded to Dolkata village by jeep.On reaching Dolkata village PW 1 lodged a written complaint and the complaint was sent to the police for starting a PS case.2) He found one incised injury in the mid-region of the neck measuring 4""X3""X4"".No other injuries were found.3) Larynx and trachea were cut off.He stated that the injuries were caused by Hensua.From the aforesaid evidence it appears that on 26.10.1996 PWs.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 found the appellant throwing boulders into the well when they arrived at the same spot to collect drinking water.All of them claimed that they were working in the stone quarry of PW 13 immediately prior to assembling at the well for collecting water.This dichotomy throws doubt as to their simultaneous presence at the place and time of occurrence.However, all of them have said in unison that they were present there for collecting drinking water and had enquired the appellant as to why he was throwing boulders into the well.The appellant replied that he wanted to catch fish.The witnesses became suspicious and asked him to remove the boulders.When he refused to do so they detained the appellant and started draining the water and ultimately found a dead body in the well.They informed the chowkidar whose identity has neither been established nor has he been examined in the instant case.It is claimed that the said chowkidar, informed Md. Bazar Police Station and such information was diarized as GDE 699 dated 16.10.1990 (Exbt.5).Pursuant thereto PW 14, Officer-in-Charge of the police station and the PW 15, first investigating officer of the case, came to the place of occurrence.It appears from the evidence of PW 6 as well as the Officer-in-Charge (PW 14) that the latter arrived at the spot while the water was being drained out from the well.Thereafter the dead body of the victim was brought out.In the meantime it is claimed that the appellant had made a confessional statement that he along with Meherun Bibi had killed Chabi Murmu with a hensua in the bamboo grove.Thereafter, he along with Meherun Bibi and Salem Sk. had thrown the dead body of the victim in the well and he was throwing boulders in the well in order to conceal the dead body.Prosecution has essentially relied on this piece of evidence, namely, extra-judicial confession of the appellant to establish his guilt.It is, therefore, necessary to see whether the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant is voluntary and truthful so as to form the basis of his conviction.It appears from the evidence of all the witnesses that after discovery of the dead body in the pond they had detained the appellant.Hence, one can safely conclude that the appellant was not a free agent at the time when he made the extra-judicial confession casting serious doubt as to its voluntariness.Apart from that, it appears that the local chowkidar had been informed who intimated the discovery of dead body in the well to the police station.The identity of the chowkidar has not been established.He has also not been examined in the instant case.The examination of chowkidar in the instant case is most vital in order to ascertain as to whether he was present at the spot when the victim made the so-called extra-judicial confessional statement to the villagers.Evidence of PW 6 shows that police arrived there while they were draining water from the well.Under such circumstances, possibility of presence of the police personnel at the time when the so-called extra-judicial confession was made by the appellant cannot be wholly ruled out.The appellant was detained by an agitated mob while they drained water from the well for 3-4 hours.The village chowkidar was present and the police from the local police station who had been informed also arrived at the spot while the water was being drained out of the well.The appellant was, therefore, not a free agent when he purportedly made the confession.The witnesses who had detained him were most hostile and it is possible due to coercion and out of fear he was forced to admit his guilt.Presence of police personnel at the time of making such confession and the fear of immediate reprisal from persons in authority cannot be wholly ruled out in the aforesaid factual matrix.The genesis of the prosecution case shows that the said extra-judicial confession is claimed to have been made after the discovery of the dead body in the well.Soon thereafter, the appellant had been detained by the agitated local people and, in all probability, the extra-judicial confession had been procured under pressure in presence of persons in authority like the chowkidar and local police personnel of the police station who had arrived at the spot while water was being drained out from the well.In Sasanka Sekhar Kar vs. State of West Bengal, 1990 Cr.L.J. (NOC) 168 (CAL)], a Division bench of this court held that an extra judicial confession made by an accused when surrounded by a large mob cannot be said to be voluntarily.Coming to the corroborative evidence of recovery of hensua, it appears that such recovery had not been made in that night but on the next morning.PW 15 claimed that he had immediately recorded the confessional statement in writing of the appellant.There was no explanation offered as to why after recording the statement (exbt. 7) of the appellant at the place of occurrence, P.W. 15 took the appellant back to the police station and affected the recovery of the hensua purportedly pursuant to his statement only on the next day.This gap in time and the manner of recovery of hensua throws serious doubt as to whether the said recovery was, in fact, pursuant to the statement of the appellant as claimed by the police.It is also important to note that the hensua had not been sent for forensic examination so as to determine the presence of human blood on the weapon so as to connect it with the alleged crime.Hence, this piece of evidence is highly artificial and does not inspire confidence.Finally, coming to the issue of motive, I find that there is absolutely no involvement of the appellant in the so-called illicit relationship between Faraz, the husband of the acquitted accused Meherun Bibi and the victim Chabi.In the conspectus of the aforesaid evidence on record particularly, in view of the suspicious circumstances attending the purported extra-judicial confession which was procured from the appellant while he was in detention and where the possibility of presence of police personnel at the spot cannot be wholly ruled out, I am afraid that conviction of the appellant primarily on such piece of evidence is not justified.It is apposite to note that mere vague suspicion cannot take the place of proof and when the prosecution has not been able to show that the appellant had voluntarily made the extra-judicial confession free from any influence or coercion, I am of the opinion that conviction of the appellant essentially founded on such weak piece of witness is liable to be set aside.Accordingly, I set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(C) The house in which the dead body of Hatimtai @ Hakim Khan is said to have been found, was not occupied by the appellant alone and there were other inmates also.(D) There is no evidence to prove that the appellant gave a beating by a lathi and, therefore, there was no justification to hold him guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.(E) The charges have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and at the most the appellant could have been punished under Section 323 of the IPC.The short facts of the prosecution story are that on 28-8-2002 at about 10-11 P.M., some quarrel had taken place between the deceased Hatimtai @ Hakim Khan and the appellant and at that time, the appellant's wife Gulab Bai was also present.The appellant and his wife brought the deceased Hatimtai to their house.At about 1.00 A.M. on 29-8-2002, Suresh Mali and Gulab Bai came to the house of P.W. 5 Tejram who was chowkidar of Village Rupi Paretiya and informed him that Hatimtai is abusing Babloo in their house.On receiving this information, P.W. 5 Tejram went to the house of appellant and found that Hatimtai was tied with a pole with the help of rope.On his instruction, the appellant untied the rope but by that time Hatimtai had died.Thereafter, the chowkidar informed the villagers about this incident and after that he went to Police Station Harda and lodged Ex. P-6 merg intimation and Ex. P-7 FIR.After receiving this information, the Investigating Officer of Police Station Harda commenced the investigation and prepared Ex. P-3 inquest report after issuance of Ex. P-2 notice.He also prepared Ex. P-4 site plan.A plank and two pieces of nylon rope were seized from the possession of appellant upon his information and Ex. P-9 memorandum and Ex. P-9-A seizure memo were prepared.JUDGMENT A.K. Saxena, J.Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 30-4-2005 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in Sessions Trial No. 446/02, the appellant Babloo @ Ganesh has preferred this appeal against his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC whereby he is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default six months rigorous imprisonment.The appellant Babloo @ Ganesh has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the following grounds:-(A) There is no evidence on record to suggest that the appellant gave a beating to the deceased Hatimtai @ Hakim Khan resulting his death.(B) The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence properly.The dead body of Hatimtai @ Hakim Khan was sent to the hospital for post-mortem where P.W. 13 Dr. S.K. Sengar conducted the autopsy.After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against appellant/accused.The Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 342 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the present appellant and against co-accused Gulab Bai, who died during the trial.The learned Trial Court found that the offence under Section 342 of the IPC could not be proved beyond shadow of doubt and the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 342 of IPC but, he was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove.On perusal of the record of Trial Court, it is apparent that there is no eye witness to prove as to what had happened in the house of appellant.The whole prosecution story is based on circumstantial evidence.As per prosecution story, initially, some quarrel had taken place between the appellant and the deceased near the temple where few witnesses were present and at that time both these persons were dragging each other in their presence.Thereafter, the appellant and his wife brought the deceased Hatimtai to their house and when P.W. 5 Tejram, Chowkidar went to the house of appellant upon receiving the information from Suresh Mali and Gulab Bai, he found that Hatimtai had already died.There is overwhelming evidence on the point of quarrel which had taken place near the temple and P.W. 2 Shankarlal, P.W. 6 Sakharam, P.W. 9 Hari Prasad, P.W. 10 Suresh, P.W. 11 Nanhelal and P.W. 12 Golu @ Omprakash have categorically stated that the appellant and Hatimtai were dragging each other near the temple.On this point, surprisingly, there was no cross-examination on behalf of appellant/accused on P.W. 9 Hari Prasad, P.W. 10 Suresh and P.W. 12 Golu @ Omprakash.The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt this circumstance that at the initial stage, some scuffle had taken place between the appellant and the deceased and then they went towards the house of appellant.There is sufficient evidence to prove that the deceased Hatimtai @ Hakim Khan was found dead in the veranda of the house of appellant and at that time the appellant was also present in his house.On this point, the statement of P.W. 5 Tejram is fully trustworthy.The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the dead body of Hatimtai was found at an open place where anybody can come and commit this offence, therefore, the learned Trial Court committed an error in holding that the appellant had committed this offence.We are not inclined to accept this argument because the statement of P.W. 5 Tejram, who is an independent witness, is totally trustworthy.He had no inimical terms with the appellant.Ex. P-4 site plan also shows that there is a veranda attached to the rooms belonging to the appellant where the dead body was found and this fact is also noteworthy that the appellant was present in his house at that time.Now, it becomes the duty of the appellant to explain as to how the dead body of Hatimtai was found tied with the pole.A heavy burden lies on the appellant to explain the above situation but he failed to explain it, which goes against him.The prosecution has also proved that two pieces of nylon rope were seized from the possession of appellant upon his information and Ex. P-9 memorandum and Ex. P-9-A seizure memo were prepared by the investigating officer P.W. 14 S.S. Udawat in presence of P.W. 5 Tejram.For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that prosecution has completed the chain of circumstances which leads to this conclusion that some quarrel near the temple and some kind of incident in the house of the appellant had taken place between him and the deceased and thereafter, the deceased was found dead in the house of appellant.Now most crucial point arises for our consideration as to whether the appellant had committed murder of the deceased Hatimtai @ Hakim Khan and can he be convicted under Section 302, IPC ? The leaned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no direct evidence to show that the appellant had any intention to commit the murder of Hatimtai @ Hakim Khan.There is no eye witness to prove that the appellant gave a beating to the deceased in his house.The appellant and the deceased were found in a drunken condition.In Mangu's case (supra), the story was that there was some altercation between the accused and his wife and accused caused some injuries to his wife and brought her to their house and after that the wife of the accused was found dead.No doubt, similar facts and circumstances are also prevailing in the present case.There is no evidence in this case also to show that the appellant gave a beating to Hatimtai by a plank though, a plank was recovered from the possession of appellant but, it is not a material evidence in this case as the plank can be found in anybody's house.Therefore, the fact that the plank was recovered from the house of appellant, is not sufficient to hold that the appellant caused any injury to Hatimtai by using this plank.To arrive on any conclusion on this point as to whether there was any justification to hold the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, the statement of P.W. 13 Dr. S.K. Sengar and Ex. P-14 post-mortem report should be considered.P.W. 13 Dr. S.K. Sengar as per his statement and post-mortem report, while conducting the autopsy, found the following external injuries on the body of the deceased :-(1) Contusion cum ligature like marks starting from Thyroid Cartilage along the root of neck, below right side of chin up to right side of ear.(2) Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm below mid post of left chin.(3) Contusion on right side of neck from mid part of sterno mestoid extending up to back of neck at C2 level.(4) Contusion on back, left side in line of inferior angle of left scapula 7th I.C.S. to 9th I.C.S. 4"" x 3"".(5) Contusion from 10th I.C.S. on left side of scapula to left Iliac crest 5"" x 3"".(6) Abrasion 3"" x 1"" on left side below No. 6 obliquely lateral to mediul.(7) Contusion below left angle of scapula longitudinally 4"" x 1/2""(8) Abrasion just below chin right side 3 cm x 1 cm.(9) Contusion from right Iliac crest to right side of nose.(10) Contusion 3"" x 1"" at the centre of injury No. 9 as shown in picture.(11) Multiple contusions four in number intermingled to each other 4""-5"" x 6""-7"" on the right thigh.The autopsy surgeon has also found that there was a fracture of 9th rib and the liver was ruptured and there was an internal injury 3"" x 1/2"" x 2"" of size on the post surface of the liver.He opined that the cause of death is shock due to multiple injuries and injury to liver.P.W. 13 Dr. S.K. Sengar had admitted in his cross- examination that if a person fell down with force, rapture of liver is quite possible.He found that there was an abrasion on left side above the stomach on the person of Hakim Khan.Apart from that, Dr. S.K. Sengar had not opined that the deceased Hatimtai had died because of asphyxia due to pressure on his neck, though, the doctor found the ligature like mark at the root of the neck.There was some scuffle between the appellant and the deceased and at that time, they were in drunken condition.The Senior Scientist and Chemical Examiner of F.S.L. vide Ex. P-17 report also found the presence of alcohol in the viscera of Hatimtai @ Hakim Khan.All these facts and circumstances show that the appellant was not having any intention to commit murder of Hatimtai @ Hakim Khan.After considering abovementioned facts and circumstances, we are inclined to hold that the appellant had not committed either the murder of deceased or the offence of causing homicidal death not amounting to murder.At the most, his act falls under Section 325, IPC for causing grievous hurt to the deceased.There is no evidence to convict this appellant under Section 302 or 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC, but he can very well be convicted under Section 325 of the IPC for having caused grievous injury to the deceased.The learned Trial Court has totally failed to appreciate all the aspects of the case while holding the appellant./accused guilty of committing murder of the deceased.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"J U D G M E N TRAJU, J.These two appeals are at the instance of twelve accused, who remained convicted throughout after acquittal at different stages of the remaining accused out of the total number of 25 who stood charged before the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta, for offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code [for short `IPC'].The necessary facts for appreciating the grievance of the appellants are that the case had its origin initially with a G.D. Entry No.115 on 3.8.1989 registered at Barpeta Police Station at 6.30 P.M. on verbal information followed by a formal written FIR that was lodged by one Rupchan Mia, on the same day at 7.00 P.M. As per the version in the FIR, on the fateful day, i.e., 3.8.1989, at about 4.00 P.M. when three persons viz., Tara Mia, Saket Ali and Owaz Kha were fishing in the Dhaneswari Beel, the accused armed with sticks, spears and other deadly weapons attacked those persons inflicting serious injuries resulting in their death and thereafter dragged the dead bodies and threw them in the Pahumara River.At the time of occurrence, hue and cry was also said to have been raised attracting crowd, which included witnesses Manowara Begum and Hussain Mia and the accused were said to have attacked the above two and also caused injuries on their person as well.In the FIR, reference was said to have been made to 24 persons by name and others generally, as the accused responsible for the incident and after completing the investigation, charge was laid on them viz about 26 under the provisions noticed above to face trial before the Trial Court.During the trial, the prosecution examined about 11 PWs to substantiate the charge of whom PW.1, PW.2, PW.8 and PW.9 claimed to be the eyewitnesses for the occurrence and PW.5 and PW.6 were the Medical Officers, who conducted the post mortem examination.It appears that despite serious efforts, during the course of investigation, only the bodies of Saket Ali and Owaz Kha alone could be recovered from the Nakhanda river, but that of Tara Mia, could not at all be retrieved.The learned Trial Judge, after considering the materials on record, by his judgment dated 10.2.1999 in Sessions Case No.13 of 1994 found that the prosecution established its case against 16 enumerated accused and acquitted about 9 of the accused on the view that the evidence could not establish and prove the charges against them beyond reasonable doubt.The convicted persons were each sentenced to life imprisonment with a further fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment to further suffer six months R.I. under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC.For the conviction under Section 201 read with Section 149, IPC, they were sentenced to five years R.I. along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and three months R.I. in default of payment of the same.The convicted accused filed two separate appeals viz., a group of 10 - Crl.Appeal No.57 of 1999 and the remaining 6 - Crl.A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court by a common judgment dated 9.1.2002 chose to confirm the conviction and sentence in respect of 12 accused, who are appellants before this Court, acquitting four more by giving them benefit of doubt in addition to those acquitted by the Trial Court.Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent-State.Common object could develop eo instanti and being a question of fact it can always be inferred and deduced from the facts and circumstances of a case projected and proved in a given case.The evidence on record, in our view, sufficiently established that there was some prior animosity and there were faction-ridden groups in existence apparently over the exercise of right to fish in the area.From the nature of the weapons like lathi, dagger, spear like iron rods, which seem to have been liberally used by the appellants, the chasing of the victims who ran for their lives and killing the three of them by merciless attack and throwing their dead-bodies in the running river rendering it almost difficult to retrieve immediately their bodies and some of them absconding from the locality for nearly about twelve days, would go to inevitably prove that by their joint armed attack, the common object to murder the victims was obvious and stood proved by convincing and cogent evidence.","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"By virtue of this Petition, the Petitioner who was the complainant before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) seeks setting aside of the order dated 04.02.2013 whereby the Petitioner's complaint for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was dismissed for non appearance of the Petitioner (the Complainant) and the accused was acquitted.The short ground submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner for setting aside of the impugned order is that the Petitioner's absence on the date the complaint was dismissed was not intentional and thus the learned ACMM erred in dismissing the complaint and acquitting the Respondents.After recording pre-summoning evidence, the Respondents were Crl.The learned ACMM noticed that the complainant absented on large number of hearings compelling the learned ACMM to dismiss the complaint in terms of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by the impugned order.The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:-LP 179/2013 Page 1 of 5""As per the record, the complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant on 06.06.2006 and after completion of pre summoning evidence, vide order dt. 25.08.2008, cognizance of the offence u/s. 500 IPC was taken by Ld. Predecessor.Accursed Jai Karan Singh and Smt. Munesh were summoned.Both the accused persons appeared before the court and thereafter, vide order dt. 13.01.2010, notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C. qua commission of offence u/s 500 IPC was given to both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The matter was accordingly adjourned to 03.03.2010 for Complainant Evidence.Again on 22.05.2010, the complainant was absent and counsel for the complainant moved an exemption application on his behalf which was allowed.On 21.08.2010, nobody was present however, no adverse order was passed and the case was adjourned to 10.11.2010 for Complainant Evidence.Further perusal of the ordersheet reveals that despite sufficient opportunities, the complainant has not led any evidence so far and last & final opportunities were also given to the complainant on two occasions.Today also the complainant is not present and the counsel for complainant has moved an application on his behalf seeking exemption stating inter alia that the complainant cannot attend the court as he has gone to Hastinapur, U.P. to attend a marriage.LP 179/2013 Page 2 of 5Counsel Sh.Nitin Garg is present on his behalf who has no Vakalatnama in his favour.In the entire facts and circumstances, I do not find any justifiable ground to grant exemption to the complainant.The application is dismissed.Since the complainant is absent without justifiable ground, I deem it fit to dismiss the present complaint case u/s 256 Cr.PC due to non appearance of the complainant.",['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
"They were stated to have suffered custodial violence, torture and inhuman treatment.A2 obtained regular bail.Now A1 seeks anticipatory bail.He is an Head Constable.This petition is for anticipatory bail, in other words, issuance of a direction in the event of his arrest to release him on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.2. Offences alleged are under Sections 323, 330, 355 and 506 (ii) IPC and Sections 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act read with Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Petitioner is A1 in this case.This is his fourth petition for anticipatory bail.It all started with the missing of a cellphone from a woman.Case of theft has been registered by R1 Mambalam Police in Crime Nos.1895 and 1896 of 2014 under Section 379 IPC.In connection with the said theft case, certain juveniles, who were alleged to have contravened law (Juvenile in conflict with Law) have been taken to R1 Mambalam Police Station.It has become a hell for them.Even if they get bail, they continue to remain there because of their inability to produce sureties.There was outcry from various quarters to check the police power of arrest envisaged in Section 41 Cr.P.C.He has not responded to their notice.In view of the foregoings, I do not find any perceptible change of circumstances since the dismissal of his earlier anticipatory bail petition.O.P.No.30438 of 201529.02.2016",['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Totally there are three accused.One Mrs.Jayalakshmi is Accused No.1 in the said case.The above said land was originally owned by their father Thomas Nadar.He died intestate leaving his three sons, the 2nd respondent herein and Sri.T.Shanmuga Sundaram and Sri.Therefore, both A1 and the 2nd respondent decided to enter into an agreement with the petitioners/A2 and A3 to develop the property.On the same day, The 2nd respondent has also executed two different general power of attorney deed one in favour of the petitioners and the other in favour of A1 to deal with the property in question.According to the 2nd respondent, A1 and the petitioners/A2 and A3 failed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.70,00,000/- within the time stipulated under the tripartite agreement and have sold out few flats to different persons.It is further alleged in the complaint by the 2nd respondent that despite cancellation of general power of attorney deeds and fact that the same was intimated to A1 to A3, still, they sold few more left out plots to Sri.B.Venkataraman and another and Sri.N.M.Sathish and others.Y.Jayashankar (A3) has been shown as Party of the Third Part and the parties have agreed upon as follows:""Whereas the sale could not be completed within the time frame stipulated in the Agreement dated 20.02.1997 and due to personal reason could not put up the said complex of flats and therefore approached the party of the third party, who are builders, for putting up construction in order to complete the agreement of sale by the party of the second part with the party of the First part.It is not in dispute that the petitioners were not parties to the earliest sale agreement.A perusal of the tripartite would go to show that A1 agreed to pay the balance sale consideration to the 2nd respondent.The petitioners are Accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.6264 of 2011 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.A1 and the petitioners herein are said to have committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 418 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC.The learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 29.03.2012 framed charges against A1 and the petitioners for above said offences.Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this court with this criminal revision.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and also the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent/State.I have also perused the records carefully.When the 2nd respondent approached A1 to A3 for balance sale consideration, it is alleged that they threatened him with dire consequences.Hence, the complaint.Based on the above said complaint, a case in Crime No. 40 of 2008 came to be registered by the 1st respondent police for offence under Sections 406, 418 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC.When the contract could not get concluded, on 10.12.1998, the de facto complainant and A1 and the petitioners entered into the tripartite agreement for the purpose of putting up construction in the land in question wherein the 2nd respondent has been shown as Part of the First Part, M/s.Mega Construction, a registered Partnership Firm, represented by one of its partner namely Mrs.Vijayalakshmi (A1) has been shown as Party of the Second Part and that M/s.The extract from the tripartite agreement with regard to payment clause reads thus:""(2) The Party of the Second Part shall pay the remain sale consideration i.e., Rs.1,10,25,000/- to the Party of the First Part as to the time schedule that follows:-(i) on the date of execution of this agreement a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs only).(ii) A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) on or before one month from the date of this Agreement.(iii) A sum of Rs.78,25,000/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Lakhs and Twenty Fine Thousand only) within a period of 12 months from the date of this Agreement.""As a matter of fact, the petitioners who are developers under the tripartite agreement agreed to place security deposit of a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- by way of different banker's cheques.It has been further agreed under the tripartite agreement as follows:-The party of the second part agreed to pay the above mentioned Rs.78,25,000/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only) as per Clause 2(iii) to Party of the First Part in stages whenever the sale deeds are being executed / registered in favour of the nominees of the Party of the Second Part, however, the balance consideration of Rs.78,25,000/- is to be paid before 12 months period from the date of this Agreement.With regard to entrustment of the property, it has been agreed under the tripartite agreement as follows:The Party of the First Part has handed over possession of the scheduled mentioned property to the Party of the Second Part on the date of this agreement and it shall be open to the Party of the Second Part to develop the property as to their choice or may enter into any agreement with third party for such development.For the reasons best known to them, the contract could not get completed in time.Therefore, both A1 and the de facto complainant have mutually agreed to develop the property and to entrust the construction work to a third party.Only thereafter, A1 and the de facto complainant and the petitioners entered into a tripartite agreement for the purpose of putting up construction in the vacant land in question.Even as per the Tripartite agreement only A1 has agreed to pay the remaining sale consideration and these petitioners agreed to pay security deposit of Rs.60,00,000/- in favour of A1 and absolutely there is no connection or agreement between the petitioners and A1 in the money transaction.After completion of construction, it was only A1 who sold some of the plots.The property was entrusted as per the tripartite agreement only to A1, who, in turn, as per the very same tripartite agreement, entrusted only the construction work to the petitioner.The petitioners are being developers, they have no way connected with any money transaction with the 2nd respondent.Neither there is allegation against the petitioners that the property in question was entrusted to them and that they dishonestly misappropriated it for their own use.In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed and the case in C.C.No.6264 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, is hereby quashed insofar as it relates to A2 and A3, the petitioners herein.It is made clear that whatever the observations made hereinabove were only for the purpose of deciding the case against the petitioners/A2 and A3 and that the trial court shall not influence by such observations.The trial court shall proceed with further as against A1 in accordance with law.Since the matter has been pending for a long time, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.10..01..2017 kmk/vsi21.The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.R.C.No.588 of 201210..01..2017","['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Case is listed today for admission.Case diary is available.With the consent of the parties, heard finally.C. No. 3552/2015 has been arrested on 05.03.2015 and sent to jail by order dated 06.04.2015 of the Trial Court.Learned counsel for the applicant / accused submit that the applicant is a labour and he had gone to labour work at Bhopal, and due to the illiteracy, he was not aware of the arrest warrant issued against him.It is further submit that in trial total 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined, only prosecutrix is to be examined.He further submitted that applicant was not involved in the offences and only on this ground he was released on bail by order dated 17.01.2005 in M.Cr.Therefore, prayed for bail.Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has opposed the application and prayed for dismissal of the same.Although the applicant was remained absent since last 9 (Raju Khan Vs.",['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Brief facts of the case are that on 22.04.2017 at about 12.20 PM, victim (PW-1) lodged a report at Police Station, Machalpur, District Rajgarh Biaora (MP) that she appeared in examination of Class-X. On the date of incident i.e. on 21.04.2017 at about 06.30 PM, when the victim went to attend a call of nature along with her mother (PW-2), at that time, respondent / accused came 2 there and caught hold her right hand with intent to outrage her modesty and forced her to come with him.She refused to give company to the accused and called her mother.When her mother rushed for help and asked to leave her daughter, then the respondent / accused pressed her breast and pulled her to come with him.When her mother shouted on accused and saved her daughter, then respondent / accused fled away from the spot, threatening that if she will narrate the incident to any one, then he will kill them.It is also alleged that earlier the respondent / accused follow her when she go to school.The matter was reported to the Police Station Machalpur, District Rajgarh (MP).On the basis of which, offence bearing Crime No.106/2017 for offence punishable under Section 354 (A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 was registered against the respondent / accused.During the investigation, Police obtained scholar register of the victim to verify her date of birth, according to which, she was minor at the time of incident.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.The trial Court framed charges against the accused / respondent.Being aggrieved by which, the prosecution / State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this petition for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal.Learned Panel Lawyer for the petitioner / State of Madhya Pradesh has submitted that from the statement of the victim, the alleged offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt, which has also found support from the statement of mother of the victim, who had seen the incident, but the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and wrongly disbelieved the statement of the prosecution witnesses and acquitted the respondent / accused for the aforesaid offences.Therefore, he prays for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal.I have heard learned Panel Lawyer for the petitioner / State of Madhya Pradesh and perused the impugned judgment as well as record of the case.After perusal of the statement of the victim (PW-1), her mother (PW-2) and the findings given by the trial Court, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case in which permission for leave to appeal can be granted against respondent / accused Mohanlal s/o Rai Singh Verma; meaning thereby, the matter has to be admitted for final hearing.Accordingly, the petitioner filed by the petitioner / State of Madhya Pradesh under Section 378 (3) of 4 Criminal Procedure Code, 1860 is allowed and permission for grant of leave to appeal is granted against respondent / accused Mohanlal s/o Rai Singh Verma.Appeal filed, as a consequence of this order, be registered and proceeded to as per rules, as admitted.Office is directed to issue bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) against respondent / accused Mohanlal s/o Rai Singh Verma to secure his presence before the Registry of this Court.He is also directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate / trial Court, for his regular appearance before the Registry of this Court on 04.11.2019 and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard.Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.43146/2018 stands disposed of accordingly.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.09.23 16:20:57 +05'30'",['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
"On refusal to vacate the house by Bhajan Singh, the accused assaulted him with axe, resulting into injuries on his head, left eye and face.(29.07.2020) This criminal appeal u/s 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.04.1998 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Session Trial No. 544/1995 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- also with default stipulation.Thereafter, on intervention of Bedi Lal (PW-6), Milan Singh (PW-5) and Gopal, the accused ran away from the spot.An FIR was registered on the same day for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.Medical Examination of the injured/complainant Bhajan Lal was also conducted by the police 2 Cr.A. No. 1308/1998 and performed by Dr. Girish Bajpai (PW-2).After completing all other formalities, the police filed the charge-sheet.The learned trial Court has framed the charge of Section 307 IPC against the appellant.The appellant abjured his guilt, hence, the Court proceeded with trial.The learned trial Court did not find the appellant guilty for the offence of Section 307 IPC but found sufficient evidence to convict him in lesser offence i.e. Section 324 IPC and passed the sentence as aforesaid.Learned amicus curiae for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court erred in passing the judgment of conviction whereas the appellant did not commit any offence and also there is no evidence available on record against him.The learned trial Court overlooked the fact that the evidence of the complainant Bhajan Lal (PW4) is unreliable and contrary to the FIR, police statement as well as medical evidence.Furthermore, his evidence is also not corroborated with the evidence of any other independent witness.The injury was sustained to Bhajan Lal due to falling down.He further submits that while recording the conviction against the present appellant, the learned trial Court did not consider the evidence in proper manner.There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses, therefore, it prima facie appears that the appellant was falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant with malafide intention.The prosecution has also failed to produce the seized axe before the Court which was alleged to be 3 Cr.A. No. 1308/1998 seized from the possession of appellant.Apart from that, the learned Court also erred in not giving the benefit of probation to the appellant as per Section 360 of Cr.P.C being first offender.In this regard, he also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilbag Singh Vs.With the aforesaid submissions, learned amicus curiae prays for allowing this appeal.With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for dismissal of this appeal.5. Heard both the parties and perused the record.On perusal of MLC report of complainant as well as statement of Dr. Girish Bajpai (PW-2), there were four injuries found which were 4 Cr.A. No. 1308/1998 simple in nature.The relevant paras of statement of Dr. Girish Bajpai (PW-2) are also quoted as under: -1- ^^&& eSus mldk ijh{k.k fd;k Fkk rFkk eSus ijh{k.k esa fuEufyf[kr pksVsa ikbZ %& 1- ,d dVk gqvk ?kko] lh/kh vka[k ds mij 2 ls-eh- x vk/kk ls-eh- lkbZt dk Fkk ftlls [kwu cg jgk Fkk] 2- ,d dVk gqvk ?kko] tks fd nkfgus xky ij 2 ls-eh- x 1 x 1 vkdkj dk Fkk A 3- ,d dVk gqvk ?kko] tks fd ck;sa vksj gksaB ij Fkk tks vanj ls ckgj dh vksj fudy jgk Fkk A mldk vkdkj 4 x 2 peM+h rd xgjk vFkkZr xky rd fudy x;k Fkk xky dh mij lrg ls fupyh lrg rd fudy x;k Fkk A vkj ikj 4- ,d dVk gqvk pksV tks fd ck;ha vka[k ds mij 2 x ls-eh- 2 x 2 lsa-eh- vkdkj dh Fkh A 2- ;g lHkh pksVas fdlh l[r ,oa /kkj/kkj oLrq ls igqpkbZ xbZ Fkh pksVsa mipkj ds 2 ls 4 ?kaVs dh vof/k ds vanj igqp a kbZ gS izxfr lHkh pksVa sa lk/kkj.k Fkh----------AFurther, in his cross examination, Dr. Girish Bajpai ( PW-2) specifically stated as under :-mijksDr pksVsa mipkj ds pkj ?kaVs iwoZ dh ugha gks ldrh A u'ks dh gkyr es ckj ckj uqdhyh oLrq ij ckj ckj fxjus ls ;g pksVas vk ldrh gS----------AIt is true, doctor Girish Bajpai has opined that due to intoxication and fallen down upon some pointed article, said injuries could be sustained but in the cross examination of complainant (Bhajan Lal), the appellant/accused did not give any suggestion in this regard so it can not be said that victim was fallen down in some pointed article and sustained injuries or at the time of incident he was intoxicated.Therefore, it is apparent that the injuries found on the person of the complainant were caused with hard and sharp object, however same were simple in nature.Cr.A. No. 1308/1998Now the next question for consideration is whether the appellant/accused inflicted injury to victim Bhajan Lal (PW-4) ?During trial, the learned trial Court has recorded the statement of six prosecution witnesses so also of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In examination in chief, the complainant- Bhajan Lal (P.W.-4) stated that when he was in the house of elder brother of his father (Bade Pita Ji), the accused was telling to the son of his father's elder brother to vacate the house.Then, the complainant requested the accused not to ask to vacate the house in rainy season.Thereafter, the accused assaulted him with axe.He further stated that after first assault, he became unconscious for three hours.Thereafter, he along with Bedi Lal, Milan Singh and Gopal Singh went to the police station to register the FIR.He also stated that he was sent to Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur, and thereafter was referred to Medical College, Jabalpur, where he was admitted for 7-8 days, The FIR was lodged promptly.In his cross examination, he admitted his relation of being maternal uncle of the accused.He narrated a different version than that of his chief examination saying that the accused was telling to his elder mother (Badi Maa) to vacate the house.He also admitted that the disputed house is in the name of mother of accused.Thus, some discrepancies are found in his statement and also on the point of his relation with the accused but it is well settled principle of law that it is difficult for witness to depose exact version of incident revealing every minute detail of incident.Cr.A. No. 1308/1998 The complainant is found stable on the point that the accused assaulted him with axe on the dispute arose from vacating the house.Further, according to the complainant, when the quarrel was going on, Milan Singh, Bedi Lal and Gopal Singh intervened and saved his life.Milan Singh was examined as PW-5 but he has turned hostile.He stated that he saw the complainant in injured condition in front of the house of Bedi Lal.He stated that when they reached Police Station, the accused was already there.In cross examination, Milan Singh has denied the fact that the accused assaulted the complainant with an axe in his presence.He has also denied the fact of intervention with Bedi Lal as well as seizure of axe from the possession of accused.He has also turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.He has denied all the facts put forth by the prosecution.Gopal Singh who was also said to have seen the incident, has not been examined by the prosecution.Such a witness comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone.the accused did not challenge his presence on the spot and the statement of the complainant and Milan Singh show that some quarrel took place between the complainant and accused due to dispute of house which belongs to mother of accused.The complainant did not want to vacate the same in rainy season.There is some family relation between the accused and complainant, hence, it can be presumed that the quarrel had taken place for the house and the accused hurt the complainant.","['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"ORDER Subba Rao, J.One Desappa was murdered and Certain persons were prosecuted under Section 302, Penal Code, in connection with that murder, The petitioners gave statements in that case under Section 161, Criminal P. C, in connection with the death of Desappa before the Taluk Magistrate, Dharmavaram.They stated to the effect that they had actually witnessed the assault which eventually resulted in the death of Desappa and some of them bad been asked to watch over the injured persons.Later on, in the preliminary enquiry they denied the earlier story and stated that they made the statements before the Taluk Magistrate as the police threatened them and that the statements were really made at the dictation of the police.Subsequently these witnesses were given up in the Sessions Court.The accused were tried and acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Anantapur.The learned Sessions Judge held on a consideration of the evidence that the prosecution failed to prove the case set up by them.The application was filed before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Dharmavaram, in the latter part of the year 1946, Both the Sub-Magistrate and the District Magistrate held that in the interests of justice a complaint should be filed against the petitioners under Section 193, Penal Code.It is no doubt true that either the statement made before the taluk Magistrate under Section 161, Criminal P. C., Cr the evidence given in p. e, o. no, l of 1946 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Dharmavaram, is false and false to the knowledge of the petitioners.","['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In default of payment of fine, they have to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.On the aspect that the two deceased had suffered a homicidal death as a result of strangulation, we accept and believe the testimony of Dr. K.L. Sharma (PW-4), who had conducted post-mortem on the dead bodies of Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Rekha.The post-mortem reports of the deceased have been marked as Ex.PW-4/A (Rekha) and Ex.But, she has not supported the prosecution case and had stated that she was married, had children and used to reside at Sarojini Nagar.She was on friendly terms with the deceased Raju and he had been frequenting their house for about 1 years prior to the incident.She asserted that nothing as the regards the alleged offence happened in her presence and she did not remember anything.She was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor.During the course of her cross- examination, she resolutely stood by and remained committed to her earlier deposition.In view of the aforesaid factual position, the prosecution sought to build its case upon circumstantial evidence.In this regard, the prosecution primarily relies upon statements of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12), father and brother, respectively, of the deceased-Shiv Pratap @ Raju.Head Constable Reshampal Singh (PW-3) had deposed about DD entry No.33A (Ex.PW-3/E) recording that an injured person was lying in the area of Police Station Vikas Puri.This DD entry was marked to Constable Manraj (PW-18) and ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19).They have deposed about the visit to the site but nothing abnormal was noticed.We shall be referring to his MLC (Ex.PW-21/A) subsequently.It is evident from the testimony of Constable Manraj (PW-18) that appellant-Ram was injured.ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19) had testified that at 3.35 A.M., the appellant-Ram came to the police station in an injured condition and told him about his quarrel with Raju, i.e. Shiv Pratap.He, i.e. ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19), went to the house No.K-1C/161, Mohan Garden, Delhi.In the cross- examination, ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19) accepted that he had not recorded any DD entry on or after arrival of the appellant-Ram to the police station.He accepted that Ram did not have any link with the DD entry No.33A. In other words, as per PW-19, he came to know about a quarrel for the first time from appellant-Ram at about 3.35 AM on 11th December, 1997 and had left for the spot in question within 4-5 minutes.However, the appellant-Ram was sent to the hospital.CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 1 of 12This common judgment will dispose of the present set of appeals, which arise out of charge sheet filed in FIR No.759/1997, Police Station Vikas Puri under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short).The impugned judgment dated 9 th December, 1999 convicts the four appellants for the charge of murder of Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Rekha in the intervening night of 10th/11th December, 1997 at House No.K-1C/161, Mohan Garden, Delhi.By the impugned order of sentence dated 10th December, 1999, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC.PW-4/B (Shiv Pratap @ Raju).As per the post-mortem reports, the cause of death of both persons was asphyxia caused due to repeated ligature strangulations causing mechanical obstruction of airways.The ligature material was something CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 2 of 12 hard and flexible like a belt.The aforesaid ligature strangulations were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death rapidly.CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 2 of 12Learned counsels for the appellants have submitted before us the testimonies of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) are on two aspects.Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) had last seen the appellants with the deceased in the evening before the intervening night of the occurrence and that in the morning of 11th December, 1997, after they had seen the dead bodies of Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Rekha, they had heard the appellants accept their involvement in the offence.The appellants have contested the testimonies of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) as being make-belief, tainted on the ground that they are propped up witnesses.It is submitted that their statements cannot be and should not be CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 3 of 12 relied upon as the basis for convicting the appellants.CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 3 of 12Having perused the testimonies of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5), Satpal (PW-12), as well as those of Constable Manraj (PW-18) and ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19), we believe that two versions emerge regarding how and when the police and the said family members came to know about the occurrence.Upon returning to the police station, one of the appellants, namely, Ram came in an injured condition, who as per Constable Manraj (PW-18) informed them about the quarrel, which had taken place in premises No.K- 1C/161, Mohan Garden, Delhi.Ram, as per the police version and deposition of Constable Manraj (PW-18) and ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19), was not taken to the site of crime but was taken for medical examination and treatment to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital.As per PW-19, the place of incident was hardly 2.5 or 3 kilometres from the police station.PW-19 deposed that he had gone there on his scooter but it took him time, i.e. around one hour and thirty minutes, to trace the place of incident.He blamed that the colony did not have proper roads and water had accumulated due to rains.CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 4 of 12It is noticeable that the MLC of appellant-Ram (Ex.Thus, on one hand, we have testimonies of Constable Manraj (PW-18) and ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19) that they came to know about an occurrence at house No.It has also come on record that the place of occurrence was not far from the police station and was at a distance of hardly 3 kilometres.We have referred to the aforesaid facts as we have some doubts and reservation regarding how and when Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12), the father and brother, respectively, of the deceased Shiv Pratap @ Raju came to know about the occurrence.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has in this connection primarily relied upon CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 5 of 12 the testimony of Satpal (PW-12), who had deposed that on 10th December, 1997, Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Savitri along with the appellants had gone to the house of Savitri at K-1C/161, Mohan Garden.His brother Shiv Pratap @ Raju thereafter did not return and about 6/6.15 A.M. they had gone to the said house and had seen that the house was open and dead bodies of Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Rekha were lying there.In his cross- examination, Satpal (PW-12) had asserted that his brother, i.e. Shiv Pratap @ Raju had informed them on telephone at 9.30/10 P.M. that he was coming, i.e. returning.Satpal (PW-12) had further testified that Shiv Pratap @ Raju occasionally used to stay in the house of Savitri.In other words, the assertion made by Satpal (PW-12) was that deceased Shiv Pratap @ Raju used to reside with Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) at their common residence.However, Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) in his court deposition had asserted and testified differently, virtually accepting that the deceased Shiv Pratap @ Raju used to reside at Mohan Garden.He in his cross examination on behalf of Shiv Prakash on 20th November, 1998, deposed:-CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 5 of 12""My deceased son resided with me as well as [at] Mohan Garden.My son stayed at night at Mohan Garden and day time he came to me.He came to me after 1/2 days.""In his cross examination on behalf of Than Singh and Brij Mohan @ Toni, on 14th January, 1999, he testified:-""Savitri her sister Rekha, my son Shiv Pratap Singh resided in the house where the incident took place. ... My deceased son was having relation with Savitri for 2/3 years before the incident.My deceased son also came to us during that period off and on. ... My deceased son continued this practice by staying 2 or 3 days at Mohan Garden and then coming to us during 2/3 years.""Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) had claimed that Savitri was a woman of loose character and his deceased son was allured by her, which was the reason CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 6 of 12 why the deceased used to reside with Savitri.CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 6 of 12We have referred to the deposition of Satpal (PW-12) and then the deposition of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) on the aforesaid aspect in some detail as both of them have deposed on the aspect of last seen together story.However, we have grave reservations on accepting the testimony of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) on the said aspect.The reason being, that in case the deceased Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Savitri used to reside and live in house No.K-1C/161, Mohan Garden, Delhi, there was no reason or cause for the appellants to visit the residence of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and thereupon ask the deceased Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Savitri (PW-2) to proceed to House No.K-1C/161, Mohan Garden, Delhi.PW-5s assertion that Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Savitri used to stay with them at day-time, i.e. during working hours, is unbelievable and not acceptable.Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) had also stated that the deceased Shiv Pratap @ Raju used to come after one/two days.Thus, the assertion by Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) to the effect that the appellants had come to their residence on 10th December, 1997 at about 6/6.15 P.M. in the evening and, thereafter, all of them had left for house No.K-1C/161, Mohan Garden, Delhi along with Savitri (PW-2), is questionable and lacks credibility.It is clear and lucid as accepted by Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) that he knew the appellants since some time prior to the incident.Raghav Ram Singhs (PW-5) testimony was recorded first.He accepted that his deceased son, Shiv Pratap @ Raju used to reside with Savitri.The latter was described by him as a woman who had lured his son.The statement of PW-12, Satpal on the later date, has to be read and understood with caution and care.This makes the evidence of last seen rather weak and tenuous.We are conscious and aware of the fact that the evidence of last seen is also mentioned in Ex.PW-5/A, i.e. the statement CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 7 of 12 made by Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) to ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19), which became subject matter or content of the FIR (Ex.PW-3/B).However, in spite of the aforesaid position, we are not inclined to unconditionally and unreservedly accept the version of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) on the question of last seen as deposed to by them.CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 7 of 12Also, it is not comprehensible as to why on a cold December morning at about 6/6.15 A.M., Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) decided to visit the premises where the deceased Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Savitri (PW-2) used to reside.It is logical and apparent that they had information and knew about the unfortunate event.What is apparent is that Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) from the very beginning suspected involvement of the three appellants, namely, Brij Mohan @ Toni, Shiv Prakash and Than Singh.Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) had deposed that after coming back from house No.K-1C/161, Mohan Garden, Delhi, he went to the house of Shiv Prakash located opposite Bharat Properties at Vikas Nagar and there he had heard the aforesaid three appellants speaking with Savitri (PW-2).His description that he over- heard and learnt that the three and Ram had killed Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Rekha is rather stodgy and tedious.He has deposed to the effect that Savitri (PW-2) was also present there and had cried that these people had murdered Rekha and Raju.At the spot, he claimed that he had caught hold of Brij Mohan @ Toni and Satpal (PW-12) had apprehended Shiv Prakash.Police was called later on.The aforesaid assertion has been deposed in a CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 8 of 12 similar manner by Satpal (PW-12).However, the said version of over- hearing conversations at the house and candid confession and outspokenness does not inspire confidence and appears to be implausible.However, we accept that Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) may have looked around and searched for the possible suspects Brij Mohan @ Toni and Shiv Prakash and others, who were thereafter detained and arrested by the police, but the suggestion that the accused divulged and acknowledged the involvement in the crime is contrived and constructed.Thus, we are inclined to discard and disbelieve the version given by Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) that they had heard the conversations revealing the truth taking place inside the house in the morning.Mere arrest would not prove anything unless the involvement of the said two persons is proved by acceptable and cogent evidence on record.CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 8 of 12As per the testimony of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12), Than Singh had managed to run away from the spot.Conviction against him would also fail for the same reason, as his involvement also has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.In the testimony of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) it has come that the deceased Rekha was sister of Savitri (PW-2).This appears to be correct and it is also apparent that Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) knew and recognised Rekha, the second deceased.This is apparent when we read Ex.PW-5/A, which was the first complaint and became the basis of the FIR (Ex.PW-3/B).Name of Rekha, i.e. the second deceased, has been specifically stated by Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5).The second deceased, i.e., Rekha was also identified by Satpal (PW-12).CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 9 of 12This brings us to the case against the appellant-Ram, which is different and initially appeared to be unimpaired and sound.As per the police version deposed to by Constable Manraj (PW-18) and ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19), appellant-Ram had come to the police station at about 3.35 A.M. on 11th December, 1997 and reported about his quarrel in which he had suffered injuries.As per ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19), he had named Shiv Pratap @ Raju and had also given the house number where the quarrel had taken place, i.e. K-1C/161, Mohan Garden, Delhi.Constable Manraj (PW-18), as noticed above, had somewhat contradicted ASI Mahinder Singh (PW-19).He was also cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor but had affirmed that the appellant-Ram had not specifically informed him that he had received injuries from Shiv Pratap @ Raju.Apart from the aforesaid contradiction, which may not be fully material, we observe two circumstances which create serious and grave doubts about the actual involvement of appellant-Ram as the perpetrator who killed Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Rekha.The first circumstance is the conduct of appellant-Ram himself, in coming to the police station on his own.It was certainly not to confess the murders or out of repentance.It appears that he had suffered injuries, which are apparent from the MLC of appellant-Ram (Ex.PW-21/A).It records wounds on the parietal region, occipital region, forehead, mandible, etc. It is further recorded that the patient, i.e., appellant-Ram had consumed alcohol but was not under its influence.X- ray of the skull as well as left mandible was suggested but details are not available.What creates further doubt and suspicion on the appellant- Rams involvement is the second aspect, a written complaint which was made by Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) to the office of the Chief Minister CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 10 of 12 dated 20th December, 1997, marked as Ex.PW-5/DB.In the said complaint, Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) had expressed his apprehension that appellant-Ram has been wrongly implicated and Savitri along with other appellants, namely, Shiv Prakash, Brij Mohan @ Toni and Than Singh were involved.This complaint also records that at about 5.45 A.M. on 11 th December, 1997 appellant-Ram came to his house along with relatives and police men and informed them about the incident, i.e. the occurrence.It was claimed that Ram in fact was a prime eye witness and not a culprit.The aforesaid complaint when shown to Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) in his cross-examination was accepted.Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) admitted his signatures at point A. PW-5 also accepted that the aforesaid complaint was typed on his directions and then he had given the application to the office of the Chief Minister.This Exhibit, Ex.PW-5/DB is a document, which dents the allegations against the appellant-Ram.Thus, there is a doubt whether the appellant Ram was a perpetrator or was one of the victims of the violence by others, like the deceased, even if we accept that the appellant Ram was present in the House No.K-1C/161 at Mohan Garden, Delhi.CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 10 of 12This was a case of double murder in which two young persons had lost their lives, but the prosecution has not been able to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants herein.The primary reason, it appears, is that Savitri (PW-2) whose sister Rekha had also died in the said occurrence, did not support the prosecution case.PW-5/DB, in fact, raises suspicion about involvement of Savitri (PW-2) in the crime.The said doubt was expressed by none other than the father of the deceased Shiv Pratap @ Raju.Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) accepted that he had given the said complaint (Ex.PW-5/DB) which was neither contradicted nor explained by either Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) or by way of re-CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 11 of 12examination of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) by the Additional Public Prosecutor.This could have thrown some light in case the complaint (Ex.PW-5/DB) had been made under a wrong impression or under a threat or coercion.Moreover, as noticed above, as per the prosecution case, Savitri (PW-2) was not involved in the actual offence, but her presence at the time of occurrence as an eye witness is asserted.It is not the prosecutions case that Savitri (PW-2) had suffered any injuries though her sister Rekha had died in the said occurrence.In view of the aforesaid discussion and factual position, we are inclined to grant benefit of the doubt to the appellants and their appeals are accordingly allowed.The LCR be sent back to the trial court.SANJIV KHANNA, J.ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.FEBRUARY 12, 2015 VKR CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 12 of 12CRL.A. 6/2000+ connected appeals Page 12 of 12","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Two cartons of Sunlight Soap marked Exts.II and III containing the cakes in waxed paper bearing label ""Sunlight Soap -- Lever Bros. (India) Ltd."" were recovered.At the time of the search there was an Expert from Lever Bros. to help test whether the cakes were genuine or not.JUDGMENT Debabrata Mookerjee, J.The appellant was tried by a Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta upon two charges under Sections 420 and 486, Penal Code.He was acquitted of the charge of cheating under Section 420, but was convicted under Section 486 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.The facts briefly stated are that on 6-7-1954 the appellant's shop at Raja Katra styled Sinha Bros. was searched in the presence of witnesses.It appears the cakes were later sent for chemical examination and report was received in due course which revealed that they were not genuine Sunlight cakes it having been considered that they were inferior stuff and attempted to be passed oft as genuine Sunlight Soap of Lever Bros. Ltd.The appellant pleaded not guilty to the. charges and the defence was that there was no intention to cheat; furthermore on the evidence in the case the elements of an offence under Section 486 had not been established.No defence witnesses were examined.The learned Magistrate, however, believed the evidence produced by the prosecution and while acquitting the appellant of the charge of cheating convicted him of an offence under Section 486, Penal Code.The other witnesses from Lever Bros. proved how the spurious soaps were different from the real ones in colour, weight and smell.He deposed that the Magistrate's order made on 7-2-1955 discharging the appellant was made on the ground of absence of the complainant.",['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
"a)P.W.1 is the wife and P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased Krishnan.He sold his landed properties to the third parties.Even after the sale, the accused made trespass into the said property and laid stones.The husband of P.W.1 removed the said stones and thus, all the accused along with one Mari, who was originally shown as the second accused in the F.I.R. and pending case died, were on inimical terms with the deceased Krishnan.b)On the date of occurrence, namely on 23.7.2000 at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased along with the family members, including his wife P.W.1 and sister P.W.2 and the other children, was witnessing T.V. and thereafter, they went for dinner and he took dinner early, while the others were taking.He went nearby betel shop to purchase betel.Within a short span of time, P.Ws.1 and 2 heard the distressing cry of Krishnan and they came outside.At that time, A-1 to A-6 and the other accused, namely A-1 to A-6 armed with vethukathi and the last accused with wooden log, were attacking him indiscriminately.On hearing the noise raised, all the accused fled away from the place of occurrence.c)P.W.1 immediately took the deceased in an auto to Tambaram Police station, where she was advised to take the severely injured Krishnan to Chromepet Government Hospital.Accordingly, P.W.1 took him to Chrompet Government Hospital, where she was advised to take him to the Government General Hospital, Chennai, since his condition was so serious.Accordingly, she took him to the Government General Hospital, Chennai, where the severely injured Krishnan was admitted by P.W.12, the Doctor at 10.35 p.m. and Ex.P.32, accident register in this regard was also marked.An intimation was given to Tambaram Police station.d)On receiving the intimation, P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, proceeded to the Government General Hospital, Chennai and recorded the statement of the injured Krishnan, which was marked as Ex.P.27, on the strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.658 of 2000 under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 IPC.P.29, the FIR was despatched to the Court.Then, P.W.11 proceeded to the spot and made an inspection at 00.45 hours in the presence of the witnesses.He prepared Ex.P.30, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.31, the rough sketch.e)Then, P.W.13, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation.On receipt of the said intimation, the case was altered to Section 302 IPC and Ex.P.33, the alteration report was sent to the court.P.W.13 examined all the witnesses and recorded their statements.He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.34, the inquest report.Then, the dead body was sent for the purpose of autopsy.f)P.W.9, the Doctor attached to the Chennai Medical College, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.17, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.A-1 came forward to give confessional statement voluntarily, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.Pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.1, knife, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar.The confessional statement of the deceased accused Mari was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of which was marked as Ex.Following the same, M.O.2 knife was recovered under a cover of mahazar.A-3 also gave confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.Pursuant to the same, M.O.3, knife was recovered.A-5 also gave confessional statement, the admissible part of which was marked as Ex.Following the same, M.O.4, knife was recovered.Pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.5, knife which was recovered under a cover of mahazar.For Appellants : Mr.V.Gopinath, SC for Mr.L.Mahendran in CA.No.1013/2007 for Mr.G.Mohanakrishnan in C.A.No.1126 of 2007 For Respondent : Mr.P.Kumaresan, APP- - - -These appeals challenge the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu made in S.C.No.466 of 2005, whereby the appelants 6 in number stood charged under Sections 148 and 302 r/w S.149 IPC, tried and found guilty as per the charges and awarded one year R.I. each under Section 148 IPC and life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one month S.I. under Section 302 r/w S.149 IPC and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.3.The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated thus:The accused were sent for judicial remand.On 19.8.2000, A-2, A-6 and A-4 were arrested.A-2 came forward to give confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.The confessional statement of A-6 was recorded, the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P.45, pursuant to which he produced M.O.7 wooden log, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. A-4 also gave confessional statement and admissible part of which was marked as Ex.P.47, pursuant to the same, he produced M.O.6 knife, wich was recovered under a cover of mahazar.These accused were sent for judicial remand.All the material objects recovered were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department, which resulted in Ex.P.24, the Biological Report and Ex.P.25, the Serological Report.On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report.4.The case was committed to the court of sessions and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and also relied on 48 exhibits and 11 M.Os.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.The trial court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and looking into the materials available, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found A-1 to A-6 guilty as stated above and awarded punishments as referred to above.Hence these appeals at the instance of the appellants.5.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Senior Counsel has made the following submissions:P.27, which according to the prosecution has come into existence at 10.45 p.m. on 23.7.2000, could not have come into existence as alleged by the prosecution; that according to P.W.1, the occurrence has taken place at about 9.00 p.m. and immediately, she took him to Tambaram Police station, but no statement was recorded and she was advised to go to the hospital and hence she went to Chrompet Government Hospital, but she was advised to take him to the Government General Hospital, Chennai and accordingly, she took him to the Government General Hospital and the severely injured was treated by P.W.12, the Doctor; that P.W.12 has categorically stated that he gave first aid to Krishnan at about 10.35 p.m. and noted the injuries in Ex.P.32, the accident register; that it is an admitted fact that the distance between the Government General Hospital and the Tambaram Police station is 25 Kms.; that according to P.W.12, he gave intimation immediately; that if P.W.11, the Inspector of Police has reached the Government Hospital only after receiving the intimation given by P.W.12, he could not have arrived at the Government General Hospital and recorded the statement at 10.45 p.m., i.e. within 10 minutes interval and that Ex.P.27 could not have come into existence as put forth by the prosecution.b)The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that Ex.P.27, the statement could not be believed for the simple reason that according to P.W.12, he has seen number of cut injuries and cut injuries also found on the leg; that the injuries were so much that he would have been unconscious stage and hence he could not have given any statement at all; that it is highly unnatural that he gave statement as found in Ex.P.27 and hence Ex.P.27 could not be given any credence at all; that the scene of occurrence is also highly doubtful; that according to P.W.1, she was actually inside the house; that immediately on hearing the distressing cry, she came out to see the occurrence and thus, from her evidence, it could be seen that the place of occurrence is outside the house of the deceased; that it is also seen from the evidence of P.W.12, the Doctor, who gave initial treatment and also from the post-mortem certificate that there were 29 injuries external injuries found; that if to be so, blood would have been coming out, but when the Investigating Officer has prepared observation mahazar and the rough sketch, nowhere the bloodstains found on the ground was noted; that the bloodstained earth was not recovered and thus, it would be quite clear that it is doubtful that the place of occurrence was in front of the house of the deceased as put forth by the prosecution.c)Added further the learned Senior counsel that P.W.2 could not have seen the occurrence at all; that her house is situated two streets away from the house of the deceased; that according to her, she came over there on the date of occurrence; that the reasons adduced by her is not convincing; that had P.Ws.1 and 2 been present at the time of occurrence, certainly, the deceased, who has come for treatment, would have referred about their presence, but he has not done so; that it would be quite clear that neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 could have seen the occurrence at all; that the learned Senior counsel assailed the case of the prosecution by stating that the occurrence has taken place at 9.00 p.m. on 23.7.2000, but the F.I.R. reached the court at about 12.40 p.m. on 25.7.2000 and thus, there was an inordinate delay, which was never explained by the prosecution and that all would go to show that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case.d)The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that originally, when the deceased has given statement under Ex.P.27, he has referred the names of A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 and the elder brother of Murugan and also a few others; that it was alleged by the prosecution that the elder brother of Murugan was A-2, but no evidence was adduced in this regard and hence so far as A-2 was concerned, identity was not fixed by the prosecution; that even in the F.I.R., the names of A-2 and A-6 were not shown; that P.W.1 would claim in her evidence that she knew all the seven accused; that if to be so, even at the earliest statement given by her, she has referred only A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 and a few others and hence it would be quite clear that there was discrepancy and she has also made an attempt to develop her evidence before the court from the statement what was originally given; that all would be pointing to the falsity of the prosecution case.e)Added further the learned Senior Counsel that according to P.W.2, within half an hour from the time of occurrence, the police came there and recorded her statement; that if the prosecution case is viewed from this angle also, so much falsity was given entry and that the lower court has not considered any one of these aspects, but has found the accused guilty as per the charges and awarded punishments and hence in view of all the above circumstances, it would be quite clear that the prosecution has not brought home the guilt of the accused and therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal in the hands of this court.6.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.Though the case was originally registered under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder and other provisions, on his death, it was altered to Section 302 IPC for murder.Following the inquest made by the Investigating Officer, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.9, the Doctor, who has given his categorical opinion that the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage due to 29 external injuries sustained by him.Thus, the prosecution has proved that the deceased died out of homicidal violence.This fact was never questioned by the appellants before the trial court or before this court and hence without any impediment, it has got to be factually recorded so.It is true, P.W.1 is the wife and P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased.It is a well settled proposition of law that merely because the eyewitnesses happened to be the close relatives of the deceased, their evidence need not be discarded, but it must be subjected to careful scrutiny test.Even after applying the careful scrutiny test, as done by the trial court, the court is thoroughly satisfied that their evidence has inspired the confidence of the court P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased.According to P.W.1, she along with Krishnan and other family members was taking food and Krishnan took food early and he went outside to purchase betel leaves and within a short span of time, she heard the distressing cry and came outside the house to see that the accused persons armed with deadly weapons were attacking the deceased.Merely because the deceased has not mentioned the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 at the time when he gave statement to the police, it cannot be a reason to reject their testimony.Further, the court must also take into consideration the anxiety with which he has given statement to P.W.11, who has recorded the same.Hence on that ground, the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 witnessing the occurrence cannot be rejected.9.So far as P.W.2 was concerned, it is true, she was residing in a house situated two streets away from the house of the deceased.She has categorically deposed that one and half month before she gave birth to a child and hence she was staying in her brother's house and on the date of occurrence, she was also taking food along with the family members.Therefore, this explanation given by her would clearly indicate that she was actually available at the time and place of occurrence.Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence.P.Ws.1 and 2 as eyewitnesses have spoken to the fact.At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the case was registered by P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, Tambaram Police Station on the strength of Ex.P.27, statement recorded by him when the deceased was at hospital at about 10.45 p.m. Much comment was made by the learned Senior Counsel that P.W.12 has medically examined the severely injured Krishnan at 10.35 p.m. as could be seen in Ex.P.32, the accident register copy.P.W.11 would claim that he recorded the statement of the deceased Krishnan at 10.45 p.m., which was marked as Ex.If really P.W.11 on intimation from the hospital, which is situated 25 Kms.away from the Tambaram Police station, went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased, he could not have reached the hospital and recorded the statement of severely injured Krishnan at 10.45 p.m. This contention cannot be accepted for more reasons than one.According to P.W.12, he treated the deceased Krishnan at 10.35 p.m. According to him, he was conscious and was speaking to him and it was he who stated that he was attacked in front of his house by known persons.At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the place of occurrence at the earliest was mentioned by Krishnan.P.W.12, the Doctor has also recorded the same in Ex.P.32, the accident register copy and the place of occurrence has been mentioned that it was in front of his house.Hence so far as the scene of occurrence was concerned, no doubt would arise.10.It is true, P.W.11 has not recovered bloodstained earth from the place of occurrence, namely in front of the house of the deceased.11.It remains to be stated that immediately after the occurrence, P.W.1 took the severely injured to Tambaram Police station, where she was advised to take him directly to Chrompet Government Hospital, where not even treatment was given, but she was again advised to take him to the Government General Hospital, Chennai immediately in view of the serious condition of the injured Krishnan.Thus, it has got to be pointed out at this juncture that P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, who came to know about the same and advised P.W.1 to go to Chrompet Government Hospital, has directly proceeded to the Government General Hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased.Hence P.W.11 has proceeded from the police station to the Government General Hospital not on the intimation of the Doctor, but even prior to that, since P.W.1 has taken the injured directly to the police station after the occurrence.Therefore, the contention in this regard cannot be accepted at all.P.W.12, the Doctor, who was on duty at the Government General Hospital, has examined the severely injured Krishnan and found him to be conscious and according to his evidence, it was he who noted the contents in Ex.P.32, the accident register.Hence Ex.P.32 is the earliest document where the deceased has mentioned that known persons have attacked him with knives in front of his house and in the considered opinion of the court, it seems to be a vital document in the instant case.It was the case originally registered under Section 307 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.It cannot be disputed that there was delay in sending the F.I.R. to the court.The case was subsequently altered to Section 302 IPC.The court is of the considered opinion that the delay that was noticed by the court by itself will not in any way affect the prosecution case, since the court is able to see necessary evidence to find out the assailants guilty.13.Originally, the statement was given by the deceased himself, which was marked as Ex.In that statement, he has stated that he was attacked by A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 and elder brother of Murugan and a few others.The prosecution urged before the trial court that the elder brother of Murugan was A-2 and the lower court has also accepted the same.At this juncture, it has got to be mentioned that the identity of A-2 was not at all fixed and there was no evidence at all that the elder brother of Murugan was A-2 and hence the finding of the lower court in respect of A-2 cannot be sustained.Even from the version given by the deceased under Ex.P.27, it is stated that he was cut by A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5 and a few persons, but he has not mentioned their names.Though P.W.1 has claimed at the time of evidence that all the six persons were available at the place of occurrence, the earliest statement was only for four persons, namely A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 and hence all the three persons have been subsequently added.Apart from that, even the deceased himself has mentioned in Ex.P.27 the names of four persons, namely A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 and a few others, but who are those few persons and the prosecution has fixed them without any evidence.14.The Investigator has recovered the material objects on arrest and on confession and they were all subjected to chemical analysis.The prosecution came with the case that the accused persons have acted with common object.Though the prosecution was able to bring evidence in respect of A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 and a few others were also available, but they cannot be fixed.However, it could be found that A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 along with others were present and had a common object of murdering the deceased and that in furtherance of the common object, they have acted so.Hence from the available evidence, the prosecution was able to show evidence for A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 and for others, evidence was not available.It is to be noted that the names of A-2 and A-6 were not found in the F.I.R. and pending same one died.As could be seen, A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 have got to be found guilty under Section 148 IPC and also Section 302 r/w S.149 IPC.Hence the judgment of the trial court in respect of A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 have got to be sustained.So far as A-2 and A-6 are concerned, they are entitled for acquittal.15.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 by the trial court are confirmed.The conviction and sentence imposed on A-2 and A-6 are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. A-2 and A-6 are directed to be released forthwith unless their presence is required in connection with any other case.The fine amount if any paid by A-2 and A-6 shall be refunded to them.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu2.The Inspector of Police, Tambaram Police Station.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT K.L. Shrivastava, J.This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30-9-82 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.Dhar in Criminal Case No. 499 of 1982 holding that for want of sanction under Section 197(1)(b) of the CrP.C, 1973 (for short 'the Code') cognisance of offences cannot be taken against the non-applicant Harbans Singh Chhabra, Tahsildar Badnawar, District Dhar.The circumstances giving rise to the petition are these.The applicant filed a criminal complaint against the non-applicant Harbans Singh and three others for action under the Code in respect of offences under Sections 448,219,219/109, 506 and 427/34,I.P.C. on the ground that the said Harbans Singh in collusion with the other co-accused persons unauthorisedly issued a notice to him to close the ventilator of his residence and despite being told that under the M.P.L.R. Code, 1959, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, got the said ventilator closed.","['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Shri Pradip Katare, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri RBS Tomar, learned Government Advocate for the non- applicant/ State.In view of availability of case diary, we do not find fit to adjourn the matter because the petition is yet to be considered and decided on the basis of case diary.Hence, the counsel present are directed to make the submission in the matter on merits.On behalf of the applicant, this petition is preferred under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No.254/2011, registered at police station Gole Ka Mandir, Gwalior for the offences of Sections 420, 120-B of IPC, Section 3(1)(2)(4) of Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam as well as Sections 45S and 58B(5-A) of RBI Act.Before giving conclusion and finding by the Court, at this stage applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not pressed.Considering the aforesaid prayer, this petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn as well as not pressed, without extending any further liberty to revive the prayer under Section 438 of CrPC.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 26.8.2020 Arun/-","['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE APRIL 26, 2018 mamta W.P.(Crl.) No.2771/2017 Page 4 of 4W.P.(Crl.) No.2771/2017 Page 4 of 4By the present petition, the petitioner seeks the following prayers:-Such other or further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.""W.P.(Crl.) No.2771/2017 Page 1 of 4However, this W.P.(Crl.) No.2771/2017 Page 3 of 4 provision is required to be used sparingly to meet the situation where due to the consequent running of the sentences, the imprisonment becomes unduly harsh.As noted above, in the present case, appellant has been convicted in two cases for 397 IPC and the total sentence for the two offences is 7 years + 10 years is 17 years rigorous imprisonment with the petitioner entitled to all the other benefits of remissions etc.W.P.(Crl.) No.2771/2017 Page 3 of 4Considering the nature of allegations and that the term of imprisonment required to be undergone is for the nature of offences committed, this Court finds no round to direct that the sentences awarded to the appellant in the two FIRs i.e. FIR No. 535/2009 under Sections 392/397 IPC and FIR No. 270/2010 under Sections 392/397/34 IPC should run concurrently.","['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard Sri Shivaji Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant No.1 is married to the son of opp.party No.2 namely Raju and she has initiated proceedings under Section 498-A I.P.C. etc against opp.party No.2 and his son in which they are facing criminal prosecution,hence, the present complaint for malicious prosecution of the wife and her family members by opp.Notice on behalf of opp.Smt. Aneeta and others), under Section 380 I.P.C., Police Station C.B. Ganj, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIth, Bareilly shall remain stayed against the applicants.Order Date :- 2.7.2013 NS","['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(a) P.W.1 Kannammal is the sister of the deceased Mallika.They wereresiding at Bagawathiamman Temple Street at Kottaimedu, Thottiyam.P.Ws.2, 3, 4and 5 are also the residents of the same street and are also the relatives ofthe deceased.Heused to often quarrel with Mallika in a drunken mood.Mallika was unmarried.On 3.1.2007 at about 6.30 a.m., when the deceased went out to attend nature'scall, the accused restrained her and asked to come to his house that night.Then, P.W.1 questioned the conduct of the accused.On the same day, P.W.1 went to the ration shop in front of Venkateswara CinemaTheatre at Thottiyam for receiving the token to get free saree.At about 11.00a.m., when the deceased also went over there, the accused quarreled with her andthreatened her that he would kill her. P.W.3 also witnessed the same.At about12 Noon, when P.W.1 was in her house, P.W.5 informed her that the accused wasquarrelling with Mallika in the public road.Immediately, P.W.1 went to theplace.At about 1.15 p.m., the deceased was comingin front of the house of one Periyakkal.At the street junction, the accusedwaylaid Mallika, stabbed with a knife on her hip, thigh and again on stomach.When she fell down, he sat on her and gave number of blows.P.W.4 has alsowitnessed the occurrence.P.Ws.1 to 4 tried to go near Mallika; but, theaccused threatened them with dire consequences.Immediately, the accused fledaway from the place of occurrence.The said Mallika met her death.ImmediatelyP.W.1 went to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P1, the report.(b) P.W.8, the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent policestation, on receipt of Ex.P1, the complaint, given by P.W.1, registered a casein Crime No.5/2007 under Sec.302 of IPC, at 2.00 p.m. The express FIR Ex.P12,was sent to the Court.(c) P.W.9, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FIR,took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and preparedEx.P6, the observation mahazar, and Ex.P13, the rough sketch.Then, herecovered the material objects from the place of occurrence.He conductedinquest on the dead body of Mallika in the presence of witnesses andpanchayatdars and prepared Ex.P14, the inquest report.Then, he enquired thewitnesses and recorded their statements.The dead body was sent to theGovernment Hospital for the purpose of postmortem along with Ex.P10, therequisition.The accused volunteered togive a confessional statement which was recorded in the presence of witnesses.The admissible part is marked as Ex.P8, pursuant to which he produced M.O.1,knife, which was recovered under a cover of Ex.P9, the mahazar.He was sent forjudicial remand.(g) P.Ws.1 to 4 were taken to the Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, andtheir statements were recorded under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C., which were marked asExs.P2 to P5 respectively.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This criminal appeal has arisen from the judgment of the SessionsDivision, Tiruchirappalli, made in S.C.No.144 of 2007 whereby the soleaccused/appellant stood charged under Sections 341, 302 and 506(ii) of IPC andon trial, he was found guilty as per the charges and awarded life imprisonmentalong with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence under Sec.302 IPC and fiveyears Rigorous Imprisonment under Sec.506(ii) IPC.No separate sentence wasgiven under Sec.341 IPC.2.Necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:(d) P.W.7, the Senior Assistant Surgeon, attached to the GovernmentHospital, Musiri, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on thedead body of Mallika and has given Ex.P11, the postmortem certificate, whereinhe opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhagedue to injuries to the vital organs about 20 to 24 hours prior to autopsy.(e) On 5.1.2007, P.W.9, the Investigator, came to know that the accusedsurrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirappalli.(f) P.W.10, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation.Hefiled an application for police custody, which was ordered.All the material objects recovered from the place ofoccurrence and from the dead body, and also M.O.1, knife, recovered from theaccused, were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Departmentwhich resulted in two reports namely Ex.P22, the Chemical Analyst's report, andEx.P25, the Serologist's report.On completion of investigation, theInvestigating Officer filed the final report.3.The case was committed to Court of Sessions, and necessary charges wereframed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 10witnesses and also relied on 25 exhibits and 7 material objects.On completionof the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned underSec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidenceof the prosecution witnesses.He denied them as false.No defence witness wasexamined.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced, and took the view thatthe prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, and hence, itentered a judgment of conviction and sentence which is the subject matter ofchallenge before this Court.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, Mr.T.Senthilkumar,learned Counsel would submit that according to the prosecution, the occurrencehas taken place on 3.1.2007 at about 1.15 p.m. in a public place; that P.Ws.1 to5, who, according to the prosecution, were occurrence witnesses, were allclosely related to the deceased and also to P.W.1, her sister; that it would bequite clear that they were all interested and partisan witnesses; that accordingto the prosecution, there was a quarrel between both the deceased and theaccused even by 6.30 a.m. on that day, and it continued till the time ofoccurrence; that as far as the other part of the quarrel is concerned, all thewitnesses have given inconsistent versions; that according to P.W.6, the V.A.O.,he immediately received the information and went to the spot, and at about 1.30p.m., he was available there; but, the police did not come, and it was he whogave information to the police; that under the circumstances, the claim of theprosecution that P.W.1 went over to the police station and gave a complaint asfound under Ex.P1, was not correct, and it was rather false; that further,according to P.W.1, she was in her house, and it was P.W.5 who informed that theaccused was quarrelling with the deceased, and only on that information, sheproceeded towards the nearby ration shop; but, P.W.5 would claim that P.W.1 wasin the house, and he accompanied P.W.1, and hence, the claim of P.W.1 that shewas informed by P.W.5 was nothing but false; and that under the circumstances,both these witnesses could not have been in the place of occurrence at all.5.Added further the learned Counsel that according to the prosecution,P.Ws.3 and 4 went over to the ration shop and on their way back, they saw theoccurrence; that as far as P.W.3 was concerned, she did not go to the rationshop at all; but, her husband P.W.4 went; that contrarily, P.W.4 has deposedthat it was not he who went to the ration shop; but, it was his wife P.W.3, andthus, it is highly doubtful whether P.Ws.3 and 4 have gone to the ration shop atall on that day and witnessed the occurrence, and that part of the evidencecannot be believed; that according to the witnesses, number of occasions, theaccused attacked her with knife; but only a few injuries are noticed, and thus,the eyewitnesses could not give correct account for the injuries sustained; thatall would indicate that these witnesses could not have seen the occurrence atall; that apart from that, the medical opinion canvassed, was not in favour ofthe prosecution, and hence, the prosecution has not proved the case beyondreasonable doubt.6.The learned Counsel would further submit that in the instant case, therewas a quarrel as spoken to by the witnesses, at about 1.15 p.m. at the place ofoccurrence; that due to the quarrel, the accused has lost his control and hasacted so; that even if the fact that he has stabbed the deceased to death istaken to be proved, that would not attract the penal provision of murder; thatit is only culpable homicide not amounting to murder; and that this legal aspecthas got to be considered by this Court.7.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all theabove contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.8.It is not in controversy that one Mallika, the sister of P.W.1, was doneto death in an incident that took place at about 1.15 p.m. on 3.1.2007, at theplace of occurrence as put forth by the prosecution.Following the inquest madeby P.W.9, the Investigator, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.7,the Doctor, who has categorically opined and also deposed before the Court thatshe died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.The factthat Mallika died out of homicidal violence was never questioned by theappellant/accused, and hence, without any impediment it could be factuallyrecorded so.9.In order to substantiate the charge that it was the accused who stabbedher to death, and when the eyewitnesses intervened, he criminally intimidatedthem, the prosecution had examined five witnesses as occurrence witnesses.Itis true that all these witnesses were related to the deceased and P.W.1, hersister.At the same time, it is to be pointed out that they were all closelyrelated to the accused also.Under such circumstances, the first comment madethat the witnesses are closely related and thus, they were interested in thedeceased, and they have come forward to give such evidence cannot becountenanced.All these eyewitnesses have clearly spoken in one voice that theywere all present at the place of occurrence.According to P.W.1, she was in thehouse, and on information by P.W.5, she rushed over to see the quarrel.As far as P.Ws.3 and 4 areconcerned, they were all near the ration shop.The fact that on that day,tokens for free saree were issued in the village was not in dispute.Thus, allthe witnesses have claimed that they went over to the ration shop only for thepurpose of getting the free token on that day.The occurrence has taken placeat 1.15 p.m. in a public place nearby the ration shop.All the witnesses hadoccasion to see the same.Now, the contention put forth by the learned Counselfor the appellant that according to P.W.1, she was in the house, and she wasinformed by P.W.5 about the quarrel; but, according to P.W.5, she was in thehouse, and he accompanied P.W.1 need not be given much importance for the simplereason that from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 it would be quite clear that theyrushed to the spot.Who gave information is not the material fact.Whetherthey went to the place of occurrence and whether the occurrence has taken placeare material.Now all the witnesses have spoken in one voice.10.Apart from the above, the evidence of these witnesses stood fullycorroborated by the medical evidence canvassed.The postmortem certificate hasalso been issued.In the case on hand, the occurrence has taken place at about1.15 p.m. The FIR has come into existence at 2.00 p.m., and the case has beenregistered, and it has also been sent to the Court within a reasonable time.Theinquest has been made by the Investigator within a short span of time, and thewitnesses have also been examined, and their statements have been sent to theCourt on the next day.All put together would be pointing to the truth of theprosecution case.Hence, the prosecution has sufficient evidence pointing tothe complicity of the assailant namely the appellant before this Court.From the evidence available, it is quiteclear that the accused was 37 years; but the said Mallika was 45 years, and shewas unmarried.There was no proposal by him to marry her.On the contrary, hewas making a demand to share bed, which was thoroughly reflection of his immoralattitude.It was against the individual freedom and social order.According tothe evidence, it was he who often quarrelled with her in drunken mood, callingher to his house.There was nothing to provoke him.Naturally, one wouldexpect her to refuse the same, and nothing else could be expected, but, only arepulsive answer from the lady.Accordingly, she did.Thus, nothing was thereto provoke him.He armed with a weapon namely knife, stabbed herindiscriminately and caused her death instantaneously.The same was rightly done by the lower Court.12.In the result, this criminal appeal must fail and fails, and the sameis dismissed.1.The Principal Sessions Judge Tiruchirappalli2.The Inspector of Police Thottiyam Police Station Trichy District (Cr.No.5/2007)3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court","['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This petition has been filed to quash the FIR No.343 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police as against the petitioners.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 17242 of 2018The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners did not commit any offences as alleged in the impugned FIR.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case as against the petitioner in Crime No. 343 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 427 and 448 of IPC.Hence they prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.Perused the materials available on record.5.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioners, which has to be investigated.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 17242 of 2018A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents.The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of Four Weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate.21.11.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order ksa ToThe Inspector of Police, Golden Rock Police Station, Tiruchirapalli District.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 17242 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J., ksa Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 17242 of 2018 21.11.2019","['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Certified copy as per rules.Heard on I.A. No.5355 of 2018, an application for suspension of jail sentence of appellant--Gajraj, who has been convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (2) ()/109 of IPC and Sections 5(L)/6 read with Section 17 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo 4 years, 5 years and 15 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively, with default stipulations.As per the statement of prosecutrix, no allegation of rape has been made against the present appellant.The only allegation against the him regarding his presence at the time of occurrence.Considering the aforesaid so also on the ground of parity with Sitaram and Biharilal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, (I.A. No.5355 of 2018) is allowed.The substantive jail sentence of the appellant- Gajraj is suspended subject to his depositing the fine amount and furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.40,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 19th November, 2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.",['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The complainant's case was as follows: He was a student of Class VII of Samshi Secondary School in the district of Malda.The petitioner was the Head Master of the School.On August 12, 1961, during school hours one other student named Hiran lost one of his books while in the School.The complainant was found to have stolen that book.The petitioner thereupon treat him with a cane and also gave him fists and blow.ORDER R.N. Dutt, J.This revisional application is directed against an order of conviction and sentence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner was on this allegation tried tinder Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.He pleaded not guilty.The learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 15/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three days.The complainant, a boy of very tender age, was found to have stolen a book of another student in the school.There were some strokes with a cane and there were some fists and blows too; from the medical evidence it appears that there were 5 ecchymosis but all of them were of minor nature.One tooth was found loose and that could have been caused by some blow.The motive for the beating is very relevant for determining if it was in good faith.",['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The second respondent is the Administrative Officer (Estate).However, till date, this scheme has not been implemented.The petitioners and similarly situated persons forwarded several representations/ letters to the respondents, but the respondents are declining to implement their own scheme.This petition is founded on the basis that though the ex- employees and who have been allotted quarters and accommodations, styled as ""staff quarters"", ordinarily have no right, title and interest in the same, yet, going by the representation to these persons that their tenements would be converted into ownership or permanent tenancy that they have a Page 5 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc right to apply and for being considered along with similarly placed municipal employees or ex-employees of the Municipal Corporation.That is how they claim a vested or pre-existing legal right, enabling them to apply for a writ of mandamus.In para 4 of this petition, it is stated that the petitioners have formed a proposed co-operative housing society of the occupants of municipal tenements.The petitioners proceed to annex lists of the municipal employees and the two lists that are annexed contain the names of original employees or their nominees.This circular states that the Municipal Commissioner has passed an order.That order pertains to Deonar, Govandi, Barvenagar (Ghatkopar), Mithanagar (Goregaon) and Parksite (Vikhroli).Page 10 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc These colonies contain structures.These are chawl type structures and single storeyed.These have been occupied by retired employees of the Municipal Corporation.For all these reasons and to Page 12 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc discourage the tendency as noted in the circular, the Municipal Corporation formulated a policy, whereunder, they directed all the authorities that from 1st October, 2010, this policy and this circular should be implemented strictly.The penal rent is determined in terms of this circular.The petitioners are relying upon some communications and which have been addressed to the occupants in Ghatla village, informing that eviction proceedings would be commenced for failure of that occupant to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the tenement.Therefore, the expectation is that similar benefit will be extended to these occupants as well.The employees in this waiting list are awaiting allotment of staff quarters.On account of shortage of staff quarters, it is not possible to allot these quarters to the employees, who are working in emergency municipal duties.These are retired employees/ex-employees of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.They have been residing in the ground floor structures of the Municipal Corporation situate at municipal colonies in the suburbs, namely, Mithanagar (Goregaon), Barvenagar (Ghatkopar), Parksite (Vikhroli), Malvani (Malad) and Deonar.The petitioner association has 600 serving and/or Page 19 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc retired municipal employees.This association has been registered as Charitable Trust under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 (earlier Bombay Public Trust Act).By this petition, the petitioners are claiming enforcement or implementation of resolution dated 1st September, 1989 of the Municipal Corporation on the subject of conversion of these ground floor structures/accommodations from leave and licence basis to ownership/lease basis to the co-operative housing society.The petitioners have set out the very checkered history of how the Mithanagar and Deonar land came to be acquired by the Municipal Corporation and how the tenements were constructed.It is claimed that respondent no. 1 constructed 368 tenements at Goregaon for the purpose of housing dis-housed persons and allotting the surplus tenements to municipal employees.Though the scheme was floated, there was no response to accept the allotment and therefore, as an incentive, respondent no. 1 offered ownership rights of semi-permanent structures at the concessional and consolidated price of Rs.4,680/-, if the occupants form a co-operative housing society.They could not even afford and arrange the payment of Rs.4680/- Page 20 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc at that time.That is how they were accommodated and on sympathetic grounds.It is clear from the record, according to the petitioners that Deonar land was dumping ground.Some portion of the land was utilised for housing the municipal employees and the Municipal Corporation constructed about 582 semi- permanent structures.Most of them were granted on leave and licence basis.By circular dated 31st January, 1968, the Municipal Corporation offered ""Cheap Tenements"" at Malvani Municipal Colony, Malad (West) to the full time municipal employees on ownership basis.A copy of this circular is annexed as Exhibit 'B' to the petition.Despite concession, there was no response and Class III and Class IV municipal employees preferred to take the allotments on leave and licence basis.The members of the petitioner association/sangh are Class III and Class IV employees.Thus, such an allotment cannot be termed as allotment of staff quarter/service quarter much less a service tenancy.This is a leave and licence agreement simplicitor.It is stated that 1211 tenements were constructed at S. G. Barve Nagar, Ghatkopar (West) in the year 1959-60 for project affected persons and allotting the surplus 200 tenements to the municipal employees on leave and licence basis.In the year 1966, the tenements were converted into permanent tenancy basis subject to payment of the standard rent and furnishing fresh agreements.Thus, the tenements of the members of the petitioner sangh were also liable to be converted into permanent tenancy basis.A copy of the said letter is annexed as Exhibit 'D'.It is in these circumstances that the Municipal Tenants' Association represented to the Improvement Committee of the Municipal Corporation to grant/allot the tenements in such Page 22 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc colonies on ownership basis.After continuous persuasion, the second respondent to the petition accepted these proposals.The Municipal Commissioner, thereafter, disclosed his intention to grant the tenements at Parksite (Vikhroli), Barvenagar (Ghatkopar), Mithanagar (Goregaon) and Deonar on ownership basis.The original Marathi resolution and a translated copy thereof in English are annexed as Exhibits 'E' and 'E-1' respectively.Page 22 of 80They are not the dis-housed occupants of municipal premises because such premises have become unfit for human inhabitation by passage of time.These are ex-municipal servicemen or employees, who have retired from municipal services.During their tenure, they were allowed to occupy the municipal premises on account of the specific orders of allotment.The terms and conditions of this allotment are clear.Rather, they are the rules of allotment.It is the entitlement of employees, who have put in 10 years service and their eligibility for allotment of the staff quarters, which is placed in the forefront, but the allotment is conditional.The allotment will be on the basis of seniority in service, taking into account the date of joining the service.The allottee should execute a leave and licence agreement.The licence fees have to be paid by him.He would render himself liable to departmental action under the Municipal Service (Conduct and Discipline) Rules for violation of Page 45 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc the conditions of allotment.The allotment is of a residential tenement.It is for residence of the employee and his/her family members.What we have noted from these circulars is that when such authorities are empowered to take a harsh decision, then, all the more allowing the petitioners to retain the tenements, despite ceasing to be in service and retiring decades back would, as rightly contended before us by the Corporation, be putting a premium on their wrongful and illegal acts.No premium attaches Page 47 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc to such patent illegality.He has, in his detailed letter addressed to the Government, pointed out that all these persons while entering the municipal service have undertaken to vacate the municipal tenements on ceasing to be in municipal services.Such undertakings and agreements are in force.What he has highlighted is that even if there are Improvement Committee and General Body recommendations from the year 1989, there is huge wait list of the municipal employees awaiting allotment of municipal accommodation.If the existing premises are handed over on permanent tenancy/ occupancy, then, this wait listed Page 49 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc employees can never be provided any municipal premises.Thereafter, he highlights as to how municipal governance is the primary duty and responsibility of the Municipal Corporation.(4) For the purpose of computing the gratuity payable to an employee who is employed, after his disablement, on reduced wages, his wages for the period preceding his disablement shall be taken to be the wages received by him during that period, and his wages for the period subsequent to his disablement shall be taken to be the wages as so reduced.Page 63 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc (5) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer.That was a case where the death-cum-retirement gratuity was claimed by a Government servant, who worked and retired as Director General of Income Tax.While working, he occupied a pooled Central Government accommodation.The licence fee was fixed at a certain amount.He had to pay the increased licence fee.Thereafter, he was transferred to Delhi.However, he continued to retain the Government premises.We would, therefore, direct the Municipal Corporation not to take into consideration the pendency of these petitions and the period during which the interim order was in force, so as to deduct and adjust the municipal dues in the aforesaid manner.To that extent, the Municipal Corporation stands restrained from enforcing its circulars and decisions withholding or seeking to adjust the retiral dues.DATED :- JANUARY 6, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT:- (Per S. C. Dharmadhikari, J.)The Writ Petition No. 957 of 2013 was directed to be heard along with other writ petitions on board.Those petitions, which have been already admitted, are tagged along with this petition and by consent of all counsel, we have heard these petitions together.Respondents waive service.Since all the pleadings are complete, this petition and others are heard finally.In Writ Petition No. 957 of 2013, the 83 petitioners have impleaded the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, established and incorporated under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as ""the MMC Act""), as the first respondent.Page 3 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.docPage 3 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::It is the case of these petitioners that they are ex-municipal employees.They have retired from the services of the Municipal Corporation on attaining the age of superannuation.It is stated that in or about 1989, the Municipal Corporation decided to allot residential accommodation in its possession to its employees and the claim is that they were to be allotted on permanent tenancy/ ownership basis.The petitioners were informed to form an association of such persons.Though the petitioners claim to be ex-employees, a statement is made in the petition in para 2 that they are either ex-employees or slum dwellers, who are photo-pass document holders.We must, at once, clarify that we are dealing with the claims of ex-employees of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, who have approached this court on the footing that there is a representation from the Municipal Corporation to them that their occupancy would be converted on permanent tenancy/ownership basis and in terms of certain decisions taken by the Municipal Corporation.It is relying on these decisions that the ex- employees are claiming a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, Page 4 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc directing the Municipal Corporation not to make applicable a circular dated 7th October, 2010 Annexure 'E' to the petition and that the respondents should release their retiral benefits/dues with effect from the date of their retirement, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from that date till payment.The petitioners are also claiming a direction to the respondents not to evict them from their respective tenements.Page 4 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::The petition proceeds on the footing that the tenements, which are occupied by the present petitioners, were included by the Municipal Corporation in the scheme of permanent housing accommodation in the year 1992 and on 25th April, 1992, the Municipal Corporation issued a letter to that effect.In the year 1975, the first respondent/ Municipal Corporation acquired lands at Ghatla village, Chembur, Mumbai for development of the scheme for housing dis-housed persons.The said land was marshy land and was being used as dumping ground for garbage collected in Mumbai.Considering the situation and topography of the land, the Municipal Corporation decided to construct semi-permanent ground floor structures for housing dis-housed persons as well as its employees.The first respondent constructed 56 colonies comprising of 478 tenements, each admeasuring about 140 square feet for the purpose of housing the dis-housed and allotting the surplus tenements to the municipal employees.After a lapse of time, the municipal tenants' association represented to the Improvement Committee of the first respondent and requested that these tenements be converted into permanent tenancies or granted on ownership basis.After great persuasion, the first respondent accepted these proposals.By a decision, the Page 6 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc Municipal Corporation made its intention clear that the land of the tenements at Parksite (Vikhroli), Barvenagar (Ghatkopar), Mithanagar (Goregaon West) and Deonar would be granted on ownership basis.The Municipal Corporation passed a Resolution dated 1st September, 1989 bearing number 343 to this effect.It was also clarified that these tenements were not staff quarters.They were not given to the employees as service tenements, but were allotted on leave and licence or rental basis.The tenements were not related to the service conditions.Page 5 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 6 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::The petitioners state that 313 tenements, out of 478 are occupied by the municipal employees.These persons were assured as above.Therefore, they were told to form a co- operative housing society.There are 165 project affected persons, to whom the first respondent has allotted tenements on ownership basis.It is claimed that the petitioners are members of societies included in the scheme of conversion of municipal tenements into ownership basis.Then, there is a reference made to various meetings with the Municipal Corporation and proposals exchanged therein.It is submitted that the proposals have been accepted.They were recommended for the sanction of the Municipal Corporation, but are still pending.The petitioners, therefore, complain that though the proposals have not been Page 7 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc finalised, yet, the eviction proceedings have been initiated against some of the retired employees of the Municipal Corporation.They have approached this court by challenging the proceedings on the ground of arbitrariness and discrimination.They argue that some of the similarly placed persons have been allotted tenements on permanent basis or there is a conversion effected.Therefore, those against whom eviction proceedings are initiated, are entitled to be treated on par and similarly.Then, there is a reference made to a conversion of 'H' Block of the Deonar Colony in favour of the municipal employees into ownership basis.Then, some tenements in 'B' Block of Mithanagar were converted into ownership basis and the occupants were permitted to form a co- operative housing society.Then, the argument is that the Municipal Corporation issued a circular on 16th October, 2008, whereunder, the retired employees were allowed to retain their accommodations by making payment of normal rent till the finalization of the court proceedings.It is also alleged that 10% of the gratuity amount was withheld and from out of remaining 90%, accommodation rent would be recovered.A copy of this circular is annexed as Annexure 'A' to the petition.By this circular, the Municipal Corporation decided to impose and recover penal rent at three times the present rent from the occupants of the tenements in question.As to how this circular works to the prejudice of the present petitioners and similarly placed occupants is then explained and copy of the circular is annexed as Annexure 'E'.It is then complained that despite specific directions issued by the court not to evict the employees who are occupying the staff quarters and not to take coercive action, the Municipal Corporation is issuing eviction notices to the retired employees.The Municipal Corporation has not taken a decision on the proposals and recommendations, which have emanated from several statutory authorities.That is how the petitioners have approached this court.Page 7 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 8 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Their second grievance pertains to withholding of their retiral dues.According to the petitioners, these dues have not been released because they refused to handover possession of the tenements in their possession.This act is completely contrary to the mandate of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.It is claimed that terminal benefits and particularly gratuity and pension are not a bounty, but a right.That has co-relation with the services rendered.These services have been rendered to the Page 9 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc complete satisfaction of the municipal authorities.None of these employees had been visited with penalties or other punishments, which would enable withholding their terminal benefits.The terminal benefits are withheld only because of their alleged wrongful possession of the municipal tenements.It is complained that withholding of these terminal dues works as double jeopardy in the sense that the petitioners cannot afford a housing accommodation in Mumbai.Secondly, the rentals being, as they are, even they cannot be paid in the absence of the terminal benefits being released and in the form of money.Thirdly, some of these persons, who are old and incapacitated, cannot support themselves in the absence of these terminal benefits, some of which are admissible monthly.In these circumstances that the petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have been filed.Page 9 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Together with this, the eviction proceedings should be commenced.A communication follows that order.There also an ad-interim order has been passed directing the Municipal Corporation not to evict the members of the petitioner association from the present accommodations.Then, there is a reference made to a further ad-interim order in Writ Petition No. 1797 of 2009, which is more or less on similar lines.Page 10 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Then follows a circular dated 7th October, 2010, which is challenged.A perusal of this circular would reveal as to how the Page 11 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc policy of the Municipal Corporation has been that in the event a municipal employee does not vacate and handover the premises styled as municipal staff quarters, to the Municipal Corporation, post his/her retirement, then, for next three months he can be granted permission to occupy the same on payment of prevailing market rent plus service charges.If any employee dies while in municipal service or is unable to vacate the premises on account of illness and medical treatment, then, the heirs/employee are allowed to occupy the premises for six months on similar lines.Thereafter, penal rent be charged and recovered from such employees.However, despite such directions and policy, there is a growing tendency of not handing over the municipal premises.The municipal premises are retained unlawfully and illegally, thereby, depriving those in-service and awaiting staff quarter allotment.This has inconvenienced those in-service employees and has also affected the municipal affairs.Therefore, what the Municipal Corporation has decided is that some tenements have to be allotted as a special case to the municipal employees on permanent tenancy basis.Therefore, the others, who are in- service or those who have retired, are expecting a package of this nature being extended to them.Page 11 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 12 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Thereafter, Brihanmumbai Mahapalika Upnagar Baithi Chawl Rahiwashi Sangh addressed a representation dated 29th April, 2009 to the Municipal Commissioner inviting his attention to allotment of certain tenements in Deonar on permanent tenancy/ownership basis as special case.The petitioners have filed an affidavit in rejoinder, dealing with the affidavit in reply dated 13th June, 2014 filed in this court by the Municipal Corporation.We were unable to obtain even a copy of this reply, though it is stated to have been filed in the record of this court.Neither this court's staff or the registry was able to trace out the original Page 13 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc affidavit in reply nor have they obtained a copy of the same from any of the advocates appearing for the parties.The tenor of this affidavit will have to be gathered from the affidavit in rejoinder.Page 13 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::The affidavit in reply proceeds to state that the tenements are constructed by the respondents by making budgetary provisions.The said quarters are allotted to the employees during service tenure and are required to be vacated on retirement from the municipal services.The quarters so constructed under any budget cannot be given on ownership basis.Certain premises are treated as service quarters and allotted to the municipal employees because they are undertaking particular work and where the presence of the said employees is required all the time, namely, Fire Brigade, Hospitals, Water Works etc. The service quarters are allotted free of charge and except the employees and their family members, no one else is allowed to occupy the same.It is stated that if these service quarters are allotted on ownership basis, the functioning of these departments will be seriously affected.The tenements are constructed for allotment to the municipal employees and according to the service seniority, these allotments are made to those employees who have put in more than 10 years service and to those who have more than three years to retire from the Page 14 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc service.In special cases, an employee should have put in service of more than one year and should have about three years to retire.The tenements are allotted to the municipal employees on leave and licence basis and such allottee has to execute a leave and licence agreement as well as undertaking to vacate the municipal tenement within three months of his/her ceasing to be in municipal service.The rules prescribe that these respondents will not entertain any proposal for alternative accommodation to any municipal employee on his ceasing to be in service.It is stated that in Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika, approximately 1,30,000 employees are working.In comparison to the number of employees, the staff quarters are totally insufficient and inadequate.There is a very long waiting list.The tenements are allotted to the municipal employees as staff quarters and to the project affected persons on tenancy basis and not on ownership basis.As far as the challenge to the circular is concerned, the affidavit explains as to how the Municipal Page 15 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc Commissioner was required to step in and issue this circular.Page 14 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 15 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 16 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::It is to such an affidavit that the petitioners have responded and by contending that the same is silent on the policy of the Municipal Corporation to extend the benefits, which are referred to in the petition.Therefore, once a promise is given to the municipal employees, who may have retired from the services, that the quarters allotted to them would be granted on permanent tenancy basis or ownership basis, then, that assurance or Page 17 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc promise has to be fulfilled.The Municipal Corporation cannot back out of the same.Page 17 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::It is on these materials that we have heard these petitions.The Municipal Corporation has tendered a compilation containing the policies, circulars, resolutions and judgments of this court, whererunder, similar challenge was negatived.Finally, the Municipal Corporation relies upon the correspondence on the subject.No tenement can be allotted out of turn or as a special case save and except in accordance with law, settled policy and rule of law.Therefore, the retired employees have no right in the property and they cannot claim that they must be granted the tenements on permanent ownership basis or permanent tenancy basis.None of the decisions and relied upon by the petitioners' counsel can be said to be binding, inasmuch as the law does not permit the petitioners to rely upon certain Page 18 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc resolutions and recommendations.Eventually, everything has to be placed before the General Body of the Municipal Corporation.The General Body has yet not passed any resolution conferring any right.Therefore, the policy decision not to grant the conversion nor to permit retention of the quarters on the above basis binds the Municipal Corporation.Page 18 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Then, there are other petitions, which have also been argued.The principal among them is a petition challenging similar action and enforcement of a promise and assurance.Writ Petition No. 1457 of 2010 pertains to New Khardeo Nagar Co-operative Housing Society.Mr. Rupawate appearing in Writ Petition No. 1797 of 2009 would submit that the said petition has been filed by an association of the retired employees or their heirs and legal representatives.There was another option for allotment on leave and licence basis.Rupawate submitted, during the course of arguments, that the members of the Sangh belong to the poorest strata of the society.They were allotted the ground floor structures in the municipal colonies on leave and licence basis.One of the members, namely, Tanaji Ramji Pawar was employed as 'Jamadar'.The allotment was on leave and licence basis.The municipal fees was Rs.38.01 per month.The security deposit of Rs.76.02 and agreement fee of Rs.1/- was recovered from him after execution of Page 21 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc the leave and licence agreement.The possession of the tenement was handed over to him.No House Rent Allowance was deducted from the salary and therefore, similarly placed employees can claim the benefit and in terms of the Municipal Corporation resolution.Page 19 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 20 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 21 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Thus, the conversion was to be effected in terms of this resolution.However, despite the preliminary work of formation of a co-operative housing society was completed, the Additional Municipal Commissioner informed one of the promoters that some information be provided in terms of his queries raised in the order dated 30th April, 1988, copy of which is at Exhibit 'F'.Thereafter, by another letter dated 27 th January, 1990, addressed by the Ward Officer (Estates) of the Municipal Corporation, the General Secretary of the proposed co-operative housing society was informed that their request to convert the tenements will be considered on compliance of certain requirements.A copy of the said letter dated 27th January, 1990 is annexed as Exhibit 'G'.Then, the Senior Ward Officer (Estates) sought approval of his superiors in December, 1991, so that the conversion can be given effect to.The 20 identical tenements at Malvani Municipal Colony were converted into ownership from leave and licence basis in pursuance of the municipal decision and contained in the resolution noted above.The petitioners rely upon an office note in that behalf.Once the Malvani Colony was identically placed, then, there is no reason not to consider the request of the petitioners, made from the year 1990 and pursued throughout.Page 23 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::The petitioners do not dispute that there are budgetary provisions, under which the staff quarters and other tenements were constructed.Equally, they are aware of the mandate of section 64 of the MMC Act. However, there is a provision enabling grant of lease, sale or creating rights in respect of municipal properties and there is a special power conferred in the Municipal Commissioner, who can act in accordance with the sanction of the Municipal Corporation.It is in these circumstances that the petitioners rely upon their representations, the outcome of several meetings, the prior decisions and equally the steps taken with regard to some of the Page 24 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc tenements in other municipal colonies.The petitioners place reliance on their representations and the assurance given to them on 20th October, 1989 by the Municipal Corporation.As required, an offer was submitted by the petitioners.The petitioners complied with the requisitions and other terms in the letters of the Municipal Corporation.It is in these circumstances that the petitioners submit that they were hopeful of the benefits being granted.They were also hoping that till the outcome of the proceedings pending in this court, no coercive measures would be initiated.The petitioners also relied upon certain correspondence with their architect.It is in these circumstances that the petitioners concede that their earlier petition could not be proceeded for want of registration in favour of their association.The fresh petition now filed is not barred and they only seek enforcement of the Resolution No. 343 dated 1 st September, 1989 and every consequence flowing therefrom.Page 24 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::To such a petition, there is an affidavit in reply filed by one Narayan Venkatesh Pai, Assistant Municipal Commissioner (Estate), in-charge in the employment of the Municipal Corporation.After reiterating the contents of the similar affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 957 of 2013 and the 2010 petition, what has been stated is that there was waiting list of Page 25 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc 10113 employees.They are awaiting regular allotment and 35 employees are awaiting allotment as special cases.The affidavit explains as to how even the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation was informed that it will not be possible to consider the request of the petitioners.The proposals and which were discussed, never gained any finality.There may be recommendations and proposals, but there are no firm decisions.It is not as if the resolution relied upon by the petitioners can be said to be a decision in itself.That resolution of the Municipal Corporation has to be considered in the backdrop of the legal provisions and the powers vesting in the Municipal Commissioner/Corporation.The Municipal Corporation passed a resolution thereby requesting the Commissioner to regularise the tenancy and that is how the subject Resolution No. 343 dated 1st September, 1989 reads.It cannot create any right in favour of the petitioners by itself.Rather, the Municipal Commissioner has passed an order on 1 st November, 2007 directing retention of 10% amount of the gratuity of the retired municipal employees and recover the rent Page 26 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc from the remaining 90% amount.Further, he has decided to initiate proceedings for their eviction.Page 25 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 26 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::The other petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 2165 of 2009 is also claiming the same reliefs and which is filed by certain individuals, who are members of the Brihanmumbai Mahapalika Upnagar Baithi Chawl Rahiwashi Sangh.In terms of identical pleadings, these petitioners also claim same reliefs.Though we have not been shown any affidavit in reply specifically filed in this petition, we can safely say that the stand of the Municipal Corporation is adequately disclosed in the affidavits filed in reply to the other petitions.Mr. Rupawate appearing in these two petitions for the petitioners submits that this is a case where the Municipal Corporation has itself initiated the proposals.Though the budgetary provision may be claimed to have been made, but the construction of the premises is not from the municipal budget.Going by the pleadings of the petitioners, the Page 27 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc premises cannot be termed as staff quarters.Mr. Rupawate has invited our attention to the record of pages 62-63 of Writ Petition No. 1797 of 2009 to submit that the resolution of the Improvement Committee is not quashed or set aside.It remains on the record of the Municipal Corporation.The Corporation may place its interpretation on such resolution, but if the MMC Act is perused, it is evident that the Improvement Committee is one of the important committees, through which the municipal administration and municipal functions are discharged.This committee is empowered to deal with the municipal estates.Mr. Rupawate would submit that the Commissioner may write to the Government in the year 2007 and may seek to resile from this resolution, but in terms of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 64 of the MMC Act, so long as a decision is not taken by the State Government, all the resolutions of the Municipal Corporation are binding on the respondents.The State Government has not taken any decision on the Municipal Commissioner's proposal.The Municipal Commissioner as well has not followed up the matter.Once the State Government has not replied to the Municipal Commissioner's letter, then, it is not possible for the Municipal Corporation to assume that Resolution No.343 is a mere proposal or recommendation.Our attention is invited to the fact that the record would indicate that throughout the Municipal Corporation Page 28 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc was seeking to rely on its own decision and grant the request of the parties.In that regard, Mr.Rupawate relies upon the documents at pages 84 to 86 and pages 92 to 96 of the paper book.He would submit that the record of the petitions from pages 59 to 70 would reveal as to how the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika has taken a decision to enforce the proposals of the Improvement Committee.Thus, it is not a mere recommendation or proposal of the Improvement Committee, but a final binding decision of the Municipal Corporation, which is sought to be enforced in this petition.Therefore, the requirement that the petitioners must possess a pre-existing legal right so as to seek a writ of mandamus is satisfied.He would submit that the writ petitions must succeed.Page 27 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 28 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::On the other hand, Mr. Sakhare, learned senior counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation in these petitions would submit that the writ petitions have no merit.They must be Page 29 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc dismissed for they are not founded on any legal right.The petitioners are not project affected persons or those municipal tenants whose homes or structures were dilapidated and therefore, they had to move out for being accommodated by the Municipal Corporation in distinct or other buildings.The petitions are filed by ex-employees in the sense they have served the Municipal Corporation and obtained a service accommodation during their tenure.These persons, on retirement, have refused to vacate and handover their tenements to the Corporation.The Estates Department, therefore, feels acute shortage of housing accommodation and to house the existing in-service employees.It is in these circumstances that Mr. Sakhare would submit that it is immaterial whether the premises are handed over on deduction of House Rent Allowance or on leave and licence basis.Looked at from any angle, they are municipal premises/staff quarters and none can claim a vested right to occupy them.The right to occupy emanates from the employment with the Municipal Corporation.Even the allotment is not as of right.It is based on availability of accommodation and fulfillment of the eligibility criteria.Having fulfilled that, the municipal employee becomes entitled to occupy the municipal property.Therefore, he occupies it as a part of the services, whether as licencee or otherwise, yet, the property retains its character as ""municipal property"".Page 30 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.docPage 29 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 30 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::There can be at best a recommendation or proposal for sympathetic consideration of the petitioners' plight, particularly on retirement.The grievance that on retirement such people, who have served the Municipal Corporation, would be rendered homeless, has resulted in the proposals being mooted.They cannot bind the Municipal Corporation.They remain as recommendations and proposals.No finality is attached to them for in terms thereof, a decision has to be taken by the competent authority under the MMC Act. That decision has not been placed on file.In the circumstances, Mr. Sakhare would submit that there is no right in the petitioners and the petitions ought to be dismissed.Even on the second point, Mr. Sakhare would submit that bearing in mind the conduct of the petitioners, particularly of not vacating or wrongfully retaining the municipal properties and premises, the action of withholding their terminal dues has rightly been taken.They cannot insist on the terminal dues being released even though their wrongful conduct has caused loss to the Corporation.That has adversely affected the budgetary proposals.The payment of pension and gratuity is from public funds.Therefore, in larger public interest, the Municipal Corporation has discretion to withhold the terminal benefits.The argument that under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, no such Page 31 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc power is conferred in the authority and therefore gratuity and pension cannot be withheld, would not apply here.In the present case, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai has its own regulations and rules, governing pension and conditions of service.Therefore, these conditions of service, which prescribe terminal benefits do not envisage the releasing of the same if there is a loss caused to the Municipal Corporation.In the present case, there are municipal dues, which are outstanding.These petitioners are not entitled to occupy the premises, after their cessation from municipal services, at a concessional or lower rate.These petitioners would have to pay the prevailing market rent.The differential rent has to be recovered and that can be recovered and adjusted against the terminal benefits.Therefore, wrongful retention of the Corporation's property must visit them with such consequences.There is nothing wrongful and illegal about the act of the Municipal Corporation.The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is inapplicable to this case.The right to obtain pension also flows from the Municipal Rules.It is thus, both benefits, namely, pension and gratuity, can be obtained only under the Rules of the Municipal Corporation.These rules enable the Municipal Corporation to effect deductions or make appropriate adjustments.For all these reasons, he would submit that the second contention also has no merit.Page 32 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.docPage 31 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:07 :::Page 32 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::That jurisdiction cannot be utilised to grant any benefits or reliefs to a wrongdoer or a law breaker.This court's jurisdiction is used and utilised by such persons and even if they cannot obtain substantive relief, they would walk away with a monetary gain.In such circumstances, he would submit that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked.They are not entitled for any relief.The writ petitions be dismissed.Mr. Sakhare has relied upon the compilations, which have been tendered on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of documents and judgments.This court should, therefore, not grant any relief in favour of the petitioners.Their petitions be dismissed.Page 33 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.docPage 33 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::The arguments of Mr. Rupawate and Mr. Sakhare respectively are adopted by Mr. Nayak and Mr. Pakale.Nayak, in addition, has tendered a compilation of judgments to submit that the pensionary benefits are obtained for services rendered.In law, there is no warrant for such action.Mr. Nayak would, therefore, submit that going by the law of the land, this action cannot be sustained and the petitions to that extent deserve to be allowed.As far as the substantive reliefs are concerned, just like any other municipal property occupants, even the petitioners are relying on the assurances and promises given to them by the Municipal Corporation.The Municipal Corporation cannot pick and choose occupants for granting benefits.If they have granted certain benefits and to a particular class of occupants, who also enters the municipal premises initially with some authority and Page 34 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc later on refuses to handover the same, then, there cannot be a different treatment to the petitioners.They cannot be picked and chosen for eviction or recovery by coercive means.Hence, the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is violated.Page 34 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Mr. Pakale has invited our attention to the pension regulations, copy of which has been handed over to us.Pakale would submit that the Pension Rules, 1953 have been framed by the Municipal Corporation.Rule 2 clarifies that these rules apply to all municipal servants who hold a lien on a permanent post or would hold a lien on such a post had their lien not been suspended under the Municipal Service Regulations.Mr. Pakale has referred to section 81(2) of the MMC Act to submit that these rules have a statutory force.The word ""pension"" is defined in these rules and according to Mr. Pakale, in a comprehensive and wide sense.That includes gratuity.Mr. Pakale would adopt the arguments of Mr.Sakhare on this point.Additionally, he would submit that as far as the municipal servants are concerned, they are in a peculiar position.The State Government/Municipal Corporation has provided composite monetary/retirement benefits as a civil security measure to their employees.The employee, who is covered under the said rules, on his retirement, obtains substantial amount credited to the GPF Account and pensionary benefits.The employee makes no monetary contribution towards the pensionary benefits.::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Mr. Sakhare and Mr. Pakale have relied upon the following judgments in support of their above contentions:-(i) Secretary, ONGC Ltd. and Anr.Page 36 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.docPage 36 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::(ii) U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and Ors.For properly appreciating the rival contentions, we must first clear the factual background.We must clarify at once that this is not a case of those persons who are in occupation of municipal properties and premises because they are displaced by a public project and therefore, styled as project affected persons.Even if the allotment of Page 37 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc municipal premises in favour of the employees is on leave and licence basis or in lieu of the Housing Rent Allowance, still, the nature of occupancy remains the same.This occupancy does not create any right, title or interest in the municipal property, which is a public property.Page 37 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Equal protection of the law postulates that those not entitled to any relief based on a right cannot continue to insist on the same.Once a leave and licence arrangement in law does not confer any right, title and interest in the property, much less of tenancy, then, we do not see how the Municipal property, coming in the petitioners' possession during the course of their services, places Page 38 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc them in a different class.They are comparable with those municipal servants to whom municipal premises are allotted in lieu of payment of House Rent Allowance.The House Rent Allowance is paid because those occupying their own or rented premises should be in a position to bear the monetary liability.In some cases, the salary is not enough to meet these expenses and therefore, such schemes, namely, payment of House Rent Allowance or grant of housing accommodation in lieu thereof, are proposed and implemented.These schemes are implemented so as to assist the municipal employees and public servants and in return, it is expected that they render efficient and prompt services.The municipal services are rendered to fulfill the mandate of the constitution of India and Sections 61 and 63 of the MMC Act. We need not highlight as to what are the duties of the Municipal Corporation and its functions.There is enough indication in that regard in the MMC Act itself.That contains both, the obligatory and discretionary duties.Eventually, all municipal services are rendered for the welfare and benefit of the residents of the city.The Municipal Corporations themselves occupy a constitutional status.The Constitution envisages establishment and incorporation of a Municipal Corporation so as to ensure better and quality municipal governance.No provision has been brought to our notice in the MMC Act, which obliges the Municipal Corporation to make a provision for housing its retired employees.Page 38 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 39 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::The right that has been claimed and sought to be enforced is based on a decision of the Improvement Committee.The Improvement Committee is stated to have considered and sympathetically the request of certain types of occupants of Municipal Properties.We have been shown several documents in that regard and from the paper book.It has been pointed out that though the allotment is made on a specific condition that the allottee is in municipal service and therefore, he would be Page 40 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc required to comply with certain conditions, including executing an agreement and undertaking to handover the premises.Yet, in 1966, some association was informed by the then Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Improvements) that the request of the employees, to continue in occupation as tenants on their retirement, can be accepted.Reliance is placed on the letter dated 24th June, 1966, whereunder, one administrative officer (Estates) has informed the Secretary of the municipal employees' association that this Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Improvement) has approved their request subject to condition that they pay standard rent and furnish fresh agreement if they desire to continue to remain in occupation of their tenements.That letter refers to the plight of the municipal servants, who have been rendered homeless because of certain developments.That specifically refers to the condition of the municipal tenements as well.Therefore, Barvenagar (Ghatkopar), Mithanagar (Goregaon) and Deonar Municipal Colonies and Parksite (Vikhroli) contain Page 41 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc structures and singly storeyed.They were granted on leave and licence basis.However, there is a conversion proposed by the Municipal Commissioner and on ownership basis.Therefore, the recommendation of the Municipal Commissioner was placed before the Municipal Corporation's General Body and that General Body resolved that these proposals/recommendations of the Municipal Commissioner can be temporarily approved provided the co-operative housing society of such occupants presents a concrete proposal for consideration of the Commissioner and thereafter the Commissioner forwards it for approval of the Municipal Corporation.Thus, this is a proposal which has to be initiated from the Municipal Commissioner.The General Body has considered them and resolved to accept them provided fulfillment of certain terms and conditions and satisfaction of the same by the Municipal Commissioner.In that event, the House may consider approving the same.Beyond this, Page 42 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc we do not read anything, much less a vested right, which can be claimed by the petitioners to continue in occupation and possession.Once they understand this as only a request made by them to the Municipal Corporation for consideration of their cases sympathetically, then, all the more we do not see how moved by their plight alone, the municipal properties can be handed over to them permanently.Further, if this court were to allow such a request and issue the writ as prayed, that would be a mockery of the rule of law.This court's orders and writ cannot be contrary to the MMC Act. The municipal property can be disposed off only in accordance with section 92 of the MMC Act. The petitioners ought to be aware of this settled legal position and as annunciated in the MMC Act. No public property can be disposed off even by a public body except as authorised by law.If we agree to the request of the petitioner, none would ever vacate staff or service quarters, but retain them even after their retirement.Those in public service and fulfilling the criteria of a public servant would then have to wait for allotment of premises in the event they require them.We cannot direct a Municipal Corporation and particularly the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, which has a work force of more than one lakh employees, to grant the permanent occupancies and in the form requested.There is no dispute that it becomes difficult for the Municipal Corporation to house even the staff members who render emergency services.Thus, those working and serving in the Firebrigade, Water Works and hospitals, whose presence is required by the establishment 24/7 have to be housed at distant accommodations.In that event, their availability is a huge question mark and not assured.Therefore, when their presence is required to meet an emergency, then, all the more such request as made by the petitioners cannot be granted.Once the municipal premises have not been allotted to them independent of their identity as municipal servants, then, all the more such reliefs as are claimed in these petitions cannot be granted.Page 40 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 41 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 42 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 43 of 80Mr. Rupawate placed reliance on a letter, which has been addressed by the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai to the Government.We have carefully perused that letter.That letter highlights what we have Page 44 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc been shown from the records of the present petitions.The Municipal Corporation has placed before us the entire compilation of documents, based on which we must consider these cases.There are as many as five compilations placed before us by the counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation.These compilations contain policies and relevant circulars.We have carefully considered a policy and which has been stated to be in force, which is for allotment of staff/service quarters.The circulars empower the Municipal Commissioner and higher authorities therefore to withhold the retrial benefits of those retirees who are continuing to occupy the tenements even after the permissible period.We would advert to this aspect a little later.It had not passed a firm resolution nor has taken any final and binding decision.It, as noted above, only directed that the Municipal Commissioner should forward the necessary proposal specifying the terms and conditions for allotment for due consideration and specific approval of the Municipal Corporation.There are further representations and correspondence, which would indicate as to how this whole proposal was not found to be feasible.It was not possible to pick up some tenements in occupation of retired persons and conferring on them alone the benefit of permanent Page 48 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc occupancy or tenancy.These agreements have certain sanctity and a legal efficacy.The Municipal Corporation is right in insisting that they abide by their undertakings and voluntarily surrender the premises in their possession to the Municipal Corporation.Thus, his case was that by accepting all the terms and conditions, the benefit is obtained in the form of allotment of staff quarters and municipal premises.The Municipal Commissioner points out that in the last five decades or more, new premises could not be constructed by the Municipal Corporation.It is not possible to obtain any vacant land or property for construction of new houses.The Municipal Corporation serves the residents and members of the public.The Municipal Corporation is a public body.Those joining the services of the Corporation and later on retiring from the services would never surrender or handover the municipal premises in their occupation.That would set a bad precedent.The State Government is neither accepting the stand of the Municipal Commissioner set out in his letter dated 20th December, 2007 nor has rejected it.Page 50 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc Mr. Rupawate has invited our attention to Section 64 of the MMC Act. That appears under sub heading ""Respective Functions of the several Municipal Authorities"".Section 64 reads as under:-Page 44 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 45 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 46 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 47 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 48 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 49 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::(a) perform all the duties and exercise all the powers specifically imposed or conferred upon him by this Act;Page 51 of 80J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-(c) above, as if there has been a failure by the General Manager to perform his duties or exercise his powers:Provided that, the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Committee may by a resolution passed by a majority of not less than three-fourths of the total number of its members restrain the General-Manager from carrying out any such directive or directives received by him from the Commissioner; and in the case of such a restraint, the General Manager shall not be deemed to have failed in carrying out any such directive.(e) be responsible for implementing the decision of the Corporation, the Standing Page 52 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc committee, the Improvements Committee, the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Committee and the Education Committee:Page 52 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 53 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc (4) Subject whenever expressly so directed in this Act to the approval of the corporation or the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Committee and subject also to all other restrictions, limitations and conditions imposed by this Act, the entire executive power for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of Chapter XVIA of this Act, vests in the General Manager who shall also--Page 53 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::(a) perform all the duties and exercise all the powers specifically imposed or conferred upon him by this Act and perform such other duties in connection with the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking as may be required of him by the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Committee;(b) prescribe the duties of, and exercise supervision and control over the-acts and proceedings of all municipal officers and servants appointed under Chapter XVIA and subject to the regulations for the time being in force under section 460V, dispose of all questions relating to the service of the said officers and servants and their pay, privileges and allowances;Page 54 of 80J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::As held above, there is no decision or order of the Municipal Corporation accepting the petitioners' request to convert staff quarters in their occupation and possession into permanent occupancies.Similarly, as is clear from Section 92 of the MMC Act, a municipal property, with respect to its disposal, is governed by the same.Page 55 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::After clause (d) appears clause (dd).Page 56 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.docPage 56 of 80Page 62 of 80Page 63 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::(a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused.(b) the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeitedDuring the period of his occupation, proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were initiated.The Estate Officer levied damages.Then, against that, an appeal was filed before the District Judge.The further proceedings are also referred in the judgment and order of the tribunal, from which, the appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court arose.Page 64 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::"".....The Tribunal on a consideration of the above held that death-cum-retirement gratuity (hereinafter referred to as 'D. C. R. G.') could not be withheld merely because the employee has not vacated the 4 1994(69) FLR 1137 Page 65 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc allotted premises during the course of his employment.Inasmuch as the appellant continued to retain the allotted residence even after retirement, interest at the rate of 10% could be paid to the appellant.Page 65 of 80The respondent has not entered appearance.C. R. G. cannot be withheld merely because the claim for damages for unauthorised occupation is pending, should in our considered opinion, have granted interest at the rate of 18% since right to gratuity is not dependent upon the appellant vacating the official accommodation.Having regard to these circumstances, we feel that it is a fit case in which the award of 18% is warranted and it is so ordered.The D. C. R. G. due to the appellant will carry interest at Page 66 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc the rate of 18% per annum from 1-6-1986 till the date of payment.Of course this shall be without prejudice to the right of the respondent to recover damages under Fundamental Rule 48-A. Thus, the civil appeal is allowed.However, there shall be no order as to costs.""Page 66 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::That was a decision rendered against the Secretary, Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), Dehradun and another by this court.The ONGC was aggrieved and dissatisfied with this decision and carried the matter in appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.In the instant case, however, it is the specific case of the Commission that the Commission is having a statutory status.In exercise of statutory powers under Section 32(1) of the Act, regulations known as the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (Death, Retirement and Terminal Gratuity) Regulations, 1969 have been framed by the Commission.In Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi [1975] 1 SCC 421 the Constitution Bench of this Court held that regulations framed by the Commission under Section 32 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission 5 2003(3) Mh. L. J. 168 6 (2005) 5 SCC 245 Page 67 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc Act, 1959 are statutory in nature and they are enforceable in a court of law.They provide for eligibility of grant of gratuity, extent of gratuity, etc. Regulation 5 deals with recovery of dues of the Commission and reads thus :- The appointing authority, or any other authority empowered by the Commission in this behalf shall have the right to make recovery of Commission's dues before the payment of the death- cum retirement gratuity due in respect of an officer even without obtaining his consent or without obtaining the consent of the members of his family in the case of the deceased officer, as the case may be.""The above regulation leaves no room of doubt that the Commission has right to effect recovery of its dues from any officer without his consent from gratuity.According to the Commission, he could be allowed four months' time to occupy the quarter which was granted to him.Page 68 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::We have to strike a balance.Page 71 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 72 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 73 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::We, therefore, direct that if such of the petitioners, who surrender and handover peaceful possession of their premises (municipal premises in their possession) within three months from today, the Municipal Corporation shall not make any further deductions, but release all the balance sums due and payable with proportionate interest to such employees.In the event the Page 74 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc petitioners do not handover the premises within this period and continue to retain them, then, all consequences in law shall follow.Meaning thereby, the Municipal Corporation can proceed with its action under section 105B and other provisions of the MMC Act and recover penal rent/damages/compensation as well.That can be recovered by attaching movable and immovable properties of the occupants.Page 74 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::However, we have seen a very peculiar feature of this case, Some of the petitioners have retired long time back.Some of these petitions have been filed and are pending in this court for more than five years.We have also found that some assurance, which cannot be termed as a promise enforceable and within the meaning of Page 75 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was extended from time to time.At least those occupancies from 1960 onwards were taken into account for consideration and extension of genuine benefits.These are municipal structures, which have been now in occupation of these persons for more than four decades.They have not made any provision for housing in Mumbai, either for themselves or their family members.In the event the municipal Corporation decides to develop these properties, particularly at Parksite (Vikhroli), Deonar (Chembur), Barvenagar (Ghatkopar), Mithanagar (Goregaon), Malvani (Malad) etc. and in the event any private party/developer or builder is engaged for development of these municipal properties/land, then, dependent upon the agreements that such developers and builders are ready and willing to execute with the petitioners and take over the entire responsibility of their re-housing/re-accommodating, then, the Municipal Corporation shall not, in any manner, prevent the petitioners from obtaining the benefits under such private arrangement of their rehabilitation.Even if these persons desire relocation to other municipal lands, which are developed/redeveloped, then, even to that course, the Municipal Corporation shall have no objection nor should prevent them from obtaining the benefits in terms of the agreement with the developers.Once they assume this character, then, the petitioners cannot retain them and endlessly.The above advantage or benefit can be availed by the petitioners only after the municipal premises are handed over to the Municipal Corporation.This order and direction, therefore, to the Municipal Corporation is independent of its powers and its position in law.Page 75 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 76 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 77 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.docPage 77 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::To support the view that we have taken, it is necessary to refer to other judgments relied upon by Mr. Sakhare.Sakhare emphasises that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. D. Bandi vs. Divisional Traffic Officer, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.7 observed that there are rules like Rule 7 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, whereunder, action can be taken for continuing to remain in occupation of Government premises unauthorisedly.Thus, apart from initiating proceedings for eviction against serving Government servant, action by invoking this rule can also be taken against those who have ceased to be in service.Even with regard to criminal prosecution, the attention of the Government of India and the State Government was invited to Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as amended by the Orissa Legislature vide the Penal Code (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1986 and it was emphasised that this provision enables the Government to prosecute the offenders for the offence of criminal trespass and even under Section 447 of the IPC.Though the provision in the IPC was recommended to be amended, most of the State Governments did not evince any interest and therefore, 7 (2011) 15 SCC 718 Page 78 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc that proposal was not pursued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.It is in these circumstances that we are of the opinion that it is too late in the day to complain that no adjustments can be made or that even if adjustments or recoveries are permissible, they should not be made in the subject case.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has commented upon the increasing tendency to hold on to the Government property and termed that there is a mushroom growth of unauthorised occupation of Government premises in almost all parts of the country in flagrant violation of the rules prevailing in the civilised society, which is detrimental to the interest of a large number of Government servants, who have been waiting for years together for allotment of Government premises.Page 78 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::We have found that his reliance on a Single Judge Bench judgment of this court in the case of Ramchandra Keshavrao Paralikar and Anr.vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay8 is apposite.From the discussion above, it is apparent that the law has not undergone any change.The learned Single Judge's view on the aspect and point noted above still holds the field.We respectfully concur with the same.8 Writ Petition No. 118 of 1983 Page 79 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 ::: Judgment-WP.957.20133+.doc8 Writ Petition No. 118 of 1983Page 79 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Our order and directions, particularly in relation to the consideration of the petitioners' request would have to be dealt with by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Improvements) and subject to the approvals of the further higher authorities.(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) Page 80 of 80 J.V.Salunke,PA::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::Page 80 of 80::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:08 :::",['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code']
"It is also alleged that the applicant is not calling the meeting of company and have kept the agenda book and resolution book of the company in his possession with a view to gain control over the company.He without calling any meeting of the 2 board of Director of company prepared forge resignation letter of complainant Deepak and accepted his resignation on 18.12.2014 whereas he has never given the resignation.( 27 /06/2019) The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by XII Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Session Trial No.1091/2015 whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.(2).Brief facts of the case are that complainant Deepak Kumar Mandwani has given a written complaint to the police alleging that he and applicant Sunil are Director of the M/s Varadmurti Agro Tech Private Limited.The said company is owned 44 square feet diverted land situated at survey No. 193, 203, 204 of Village Tejpur Gadwadi, Tehsil and District Indore.The rate of the aforesaid land has been increased, therefore, the applicant Sunil Kumar illegally take over the aforesaid land.He also inducted his real brother applicant No.2 as director of company with intent to grab land of company.Thereafter, the applicant filed the aforesaid viz. appointment of applicant No.2 as director and removal of complainant Deepak Mandwani as director on the website of Registrar of Companies.On the basis of aforesaid complaint FIR bearing crime No.56/2015 was registered at police Station Juni Indore against the applicants for the offence under Section 420,467,468,471/34 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial.(3).Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"He has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of being husband of the deceased who died five years after her marriage due to poising.He further submits that the applicant and deceased are husband and wife and have two issues.They were living peacefully.There was no demand of dowry.The deceased was a short tempered lady on account of some dispute she had taken poison.According to him there are only general allegation against the applicant.There was no earlier complaint of any matrimonial dispute.It was the applicant who informed about the death of the deceased to the informant.He is a family man.Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant, Sanni, who is involved in Case Crime No.117 of 2014, under Sections 323, 498-A, 304-B I.P.C and section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Delhi Gate, District, Aligarh.Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that applicant is innocent.The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.","['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on August 10, 2016 in connection with Mandermoni Coastal Police Station Case no.24 of 2016 dated 20.04.2016 under Section 147/148/149/353/332/333 /186/323 /325 /341/307/506 of the Indian Penal Code;And In the matter of: Lakshmikanta Jana and others....petitioners....for the petitioners....for the State.The petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Mandermoni Coastal Police Station Case no.24 of 2016 dated 20.04.2016 under Section 147/148/149/353/332/333/186/323 /325/341/307/506 of the Indian Penal Code, have approached this Court for anticipatory bail.Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail stands rejected.(Asim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)","['Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on I.A. No.3162/2016, which is second application under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant- Ashok S/o Govind Parihar.The present appellant suffered conviction and the jail sentence as follows :Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that first application was allowed and appellant was released temporarily on bail for 10 days on the ground of marriage of daughter of the appellant.He has not misused the liberty granted to him and surrendered before the trial court on the date fixed by this court.He further submits that he has already suffered a jail sentence for one year and seven months out of five years total sentence awarded to him and he also challenged the inference drawn by the trial court regarding age of the prosecutrix which was assessed as 12 years on the basis of her school record.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the ground that the prosecutrix belonged to the Scheduled Caste and she was only 12 years of age when the incident took place.Present appellant has tried to outrage her modesty which might have left an indelible mark on psychic of the prosecutrix.He further submits that even during the trial he remained under custody.It is directed that on production of personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on payment of fine, the appellant shall be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22.02.2017, and thereafter, on each subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this behalf.C.C. as per rules.",['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
"One of the voice out of these miscreants was that of Rahul.Thereafter 15-20 gun shots were fired causing damage to window panes and office furniture when staff working at toll plaza saved themselves by hiding here and there.Guards performing duty at toll plaza had also fired gun shots in their self defence.It is also alleged that a SUV, which was standing at the toll plaza, was also damaged.Otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations......""No.1, 2, 3 and 6/State.Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No.7/CBI.This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner, who is a practicing lawyer, claiming handing over of investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in regard to Crime No.109/2019 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Morena for its independent and effective investigation.Brief facts leading to present petition are that on 24.02.2019 a report was lodged by one S.S. Sikarwar working as Senior Toll Plaza Manager at Chhoda Toll Plaza, to the effect that at 10.33 pm on 23.02.2019 he had received a call on his mobile phone from one Rahul Kansana S/o respondent No.5- Endal Singh Kansana, a former Minster and a sitting MLA and such call was attended by his Deputy Toll Manager, Hotam Singh, as complainant S.S. Sikarwar had left his mobile and had gone to attend call of nature 2 W.P. No.4473/2019(PIL) when Rahul Kansana abused Deputy Toll Manager Hotam Singh and threatened that he will see to it that toll plaza becomes in- operational.At about 00.50 am 15-20 persons armed with weapons came to toll plaza and shouted on the employees of toll plaza threatening them to kill.It is further mentioned that though miscreants had come in 4-5 vehicles but registration numbers of two Scorpio vehicles have been mentioned in the FIR registering Crime No.109/2019 with further request that such incident has been recorded in the CCTV cameras available at toll plaza and this incident was given effect to by Rahul Kansana so to permit free passage of his vehicles without payment of toll tax.It is submitted that when aforesaid report was lodged at Police Station, then there was lot of pressure on the Superintendent of Police, namely; respondent No.4- Shri Riyaz Iqbal, who was transferred to Morena only on 11 th January, 2019 vide Annexure P/4 but soon after the incident he was transferred from Morena to Bhopal vide order dated 26 th February, 2019 (Annexure P/5), which 3 W.P. No.4473/2019(PIL) is indicative of extraordinary clout wielded by respondent No.5- Endal Singh Kansana on the authorities of the State and therefore, petitioner is not hopeful of any independent investigation in the matter and therefore, has prayed for transferring the case to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).In that case facts were that one member of 7 W.P. No.4473/2019(PIL) Parliament had written a letter to the Chief Minister and on said letter, Chief Minister had directed that investigation be conducted by Criminal Investigation Department (CID).Allegation was levelled by the Counsel for the petitioner that parallel inquiry or re- investigation by Criminal Investigation Department (CID) is demoralizing the police force and the alleged accused have been released without any trial.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Appellants, Yadu Nandan Mandal and Diwakar Mandal were tried alongwith Ganesh Mandal and Shyamdeo Jha for offences under Sections 364/34, 302/34,201/34 and 379/34 of Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') on the allegations of havingabducted and murdered Gauri Kant Jha and Aditya Nath Jha, disposed of their deadbodies and committed theft of their bicycles.The trial Court acquitted Shyamdeo Jhabut convicted the remaining persons under Section 364 read with Section 34 IPC andsentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.However, all the accused wereacquitted of the charges under Sections 304/35, 201/34 and 379/34 IPC.All theconvicts preferred appeal against the judgment of the trial Court.During thependency of the appeal, accused, Ganesh Mandal died and, on that account, appealfiled by him abated.So far as the remaining two appellants are concerned, the HighCourt confirmed their conviction and sentence.Hence, this appeal by special leave.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has pressed thisappeal on the question of sentence and made a prayer that the sentence ofimprisonment awarded against the appellants be reduced to the period alreadyundergone as appellant No.1 - Yadu Nandan Mandal has remained in custody for aperiod of more than five years and appellant No.2 - Diwakar Mandal has remained incustody for a period of more than seven years.Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties andtaking into consideration the totality of circumstances, we are of the view that ends ofjustice would be met in case the sentence of imprisonment awarded against theappellants is reduced to the period already undergone.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in-part and while upholding theconviction of the appellants, the sentence of imprisonment awarded against them isreduced to the period already undergone.The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of bailbonds.[B.N. AGRAWAL] ......................","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"ORDER S.K. Agarwal, J.This revision has been filed against the appellate order passed by the Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2000, arising from the order dated 17-10-2000 passed by the Juvenile Judge.Gorakhpur in Crime Case No. 277 of 2000 (State v. Vikrant alias Sonu) under Section 377/511, I.P.C. Police Station Badhalganj, District Gorakhpur.On 7-8-2000 a report was lodged against the applicant for an offence under Section 377/511, I.P.C. PS Badhalganj.The case was registered as Crime No. 277/2000/-.When the charge sheet was submitted in court the applicant claimed himself to be a juvenile and sought the benefit of Juvenile Justice Act thereby desired to be tried by a Juvenile Judge.The informant opposite party No. 2 strongly contested the claim of his being a juvenile in revision and advanced the submission that he appeared in High School examination in 1998 from National Inter College Badhalganj.The said school has not issued a certificate to him on his demand.It is demanding an appropriate order from the Court for issuing the same to him.He made an application before Juvenile Judge for giving him necessary order in this regard.An order was given but despite that the copy of school leaving certificate was not issued to him.Despite that the court rejected his plea on the ground that no power is available to it under the law to force the Principal of National Inter College, Badhalganj to send a copy of the same or to direct him to appear in this court along with the necessary documents.The applicant was subjected to medical examination also.The medical examination report shows that he was about 17 years at the time of his medical examination.The complainant-informant had also filed a copy of extract of Parivar Register.This had been challenged by the father of the accused by filing an affidavit wherein it has been averred that in the copy filed by the informant the date of birth was wrongly shown.Apart from it the date shown therein is that of his eldest son and not of this applicant.No counter-affidavit was filed by the informant to the affidavit filed by the father of this applicant.In these circumstances the Juvenile Court preferred to accept the High School Certificate produced by the father of the applicant as admissible in evidence.Placing the reliance on the documents he declared the applicant a Juvenile.In the impugned appeal the above order was disturbed.It was seriously contended by the complainant informant opposite party No. 2 that the trial Judge has erred in not making a serious endeavour to call for the record from the National Inter College.Badhalganj from where this applicant had appeared in High School examination and failed.It would have furnished substantive evidence.The trial Court had failed to appreciated it.But there is a very important circumstance which goes in favour of the applicant that his father had filed an affidavit challenging the date of birth shown in the extract of Parivar Register filed by opposite party No. 2 before the Juvenile Court and adverted certain facts in order to prove the applicant a juvenile.As no counter-affidavit was filed to the affidavit by the opposite party No. 2 alleging that the entries of extract are fake and were procured to deny the applicant benefit of being a Juvenile.In these circumstances the trial Court thought it better to place reliance on the High School Certificate produced by the applicant.The most crucial fact, which may have impressed the formation of the opinion, is that failure to file any response to an affidavit disputing entries of extract of Parivar Register filed by him.It makes it clear that the informant opposite party No. 2 had been manipulating the evidence against the applicant.I am not inclined in view of the fact and circumstances discussed above in favour the applicant that he in all likelihood was a Juvenile when he committed the offence or even when he made his application for such a declaration before the court.In these circumstances adverted to above I find force in the submissions.This revision deserves to be allowed.The order dated 17-10-2000 is hereby restored.The applicant is declared a juvenile.",['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
"M.C. 68/2015 Page 1 of 7 Delhi in Complaint Case No.25/2014 titled SEBI v. Timberworld Resorts & Plantations India Ltd. & Ors.M.C. 68/2015 Page 1 of 7The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the ""Cr.P.C."") has been filed by the petitioner seeking striking off/expunction of para 8 of the order dated 29.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Crl.A criminal complaint was filed by the SEBI against Timberworld Resorts & Plantations India Ltd. and its directors before the Court for violation of Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act and Regulation Nos.5(1) read with 68(1), 68(2), 73 and 74 of the SEBI Rgulations, 1999 constituting offence punishable under Section 24(1) read with Section 27 of the SEBI Act. In the complaint, it was alleged that the accused company raised an amount of about Rs.22 crores from general public in violation of the provisions contained in Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act. Despite the Collective Investment Schemes (CIS) Regulations and public notice dated 18.12.1997, the accused pesons had failed to get the CIS registered with SEBI or to wind up the said schemes or repay the amount collected from the investors.Cognizance on the complaint was taken by the learned ACMM on 15.10.2001 and the accused persons were summoned under Section 204 Cr.P.C. On 08.12.2011, accused Rajesh Sud and A.V. Mahindra were declared proclaimed offenders.M.C. 68/2015 Page 2 of 7",['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.3124 of 2013 has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of F.R. No.70 of 2013 (State vs. Ismeet Singh and others) arising out of case crime no.692-A of 2012, under Sections 419, 420, 504, 506, 465, 467 and 468 I.P.C. relating to P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki as well as impugned summoning order dated 03.06.2013 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no.12, Barabanki.The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 3267 of 2016 has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.18 Barabanki in Criminal Case No.418 of 2013 (Sudhir Kumar vs. Ismeet Singh) arising out of case crime no.692 of 2012 under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 504, 506 IPC, P. S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barbanki.Since both the petitions arising out of the same incident, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order.On 15.03.2012 one Sri Sudhir Kumar through opposite party no.2 Sri Nand Kishore Srivastava, who is the agent of the said company, had applied for insurance of his Truck bearing its registration no.An incident took place by the Truck of Sri Sudhir Kumar and his truck was seized by the police and later on the said truck was released by the court concerned in favour of the vehicle owner on the release application moved by him.After the release of the vehicle, the owner of vehicle came to the petitioner's company and started pressurizing him to pay the compensation, which was refused by the petitioner.On denial of the compensation, two First Information Reports have been lodged - one by Sri Sudhir Kumar, the truck owner as Case Crime No. 692 of 2012 and another by Sri Nand Kishore as Case Crime no.692-A of 2012, who is an agent of the Company.Both the petitions are dismissed accordingly.","['Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(2).The facts of the case are that in the year 2008-09 the Government of India authorized the firm Amit Kumar Atul Kumar Gautampura to buy wheat for FCI.On 29.04.2008 Mr. Amit Kumar and Ashish purchased 340 sacks of wheat from the farmers and it was loaded in a Truck bearing registration No.MP-09-K-1799 for sending it to Laxmibai Central Warehouse Indore.The truck was driven by Prakash and one Nilesh was cleaner of the vehicle.When at about 12:30 am the truck reached between Agra and Ushapura, one white Maruti van without having any registration number came from behind and stood in the middle of the road, this forced the driver to stop his truck.Thereafter 5-7 persons came out of the Maruti Van and 2 they entered into the truck from both the sides.One of them pulled the driver out and he started driving the truck.They also threatened to kill the driver Prakash.When the truck reached Khajuriya then culprits shifted the driver and cleaner into Maruti Van and they took the Maruti van towards Aerodrum.They took the driver and cleaner to the field and tied them with a rope and left from there threatening to kill them.Thereafter Prakash and Nilesh opened the rope and reached Lebad where they informed the incident to Yashpal through public telephone.Then they reported the matter to the police station Depalpur and lodged FIR (Ex-14).(14/01/2020) The applicant has preferred this appeal under Section 454 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 01.03.2017 passed by Third Additional Session Judge, Indore in MJC No.9114/2017 whereby the application filed by the applicants under Section 451 & 452 of Cr.p.C. has been rejected by which they prayed for interim custody of seized property (340 sacks of wheat).(3).During the investigation police arrested the applicants and on the basis of their memorandum recorded under Section 27 of Evidence Act, recovered 200 sacks of wheat from Vasudev, 100 sacks from Baliram and 7 sacks from Rajesh.Thereafter police apprehended the Lakhan, Liladhar and Gabbar and on the basis of information given by Liladhar 10 sacks of wheat was seized from him.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused person before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Depalpur.The learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Session and after completion of trial applicants and other co-accused persons were acquitted from the charge under Section 395, 365, 506-B and 412 of I.P.C. vide judgment dated 29.09.2016 3 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.However, the trial court directed to hand over the seized wheat to its owner.Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the applicants preferred this appeal under Section 454 of Cr.P.C.(4).This order was challenged by the complainant in revision petition No.351/2008 filed before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.The said revision petition was allowed vide order dated 24.05.2008 and complainant was directed to file fresh application before the trial court for getting interim custody of the wheat.Revisional court also ordered that any objection raised by the present applicants in relation to the application will be considered by the trial court.But complainant did not complied with the said order then the applicants moved an application before the trial court on 24.08.2009 for interim custody of seized property but it was not decided and kept pending.The trial court vide judgment dated 29.09.2016 directed that the seized property will remain in the custody of the complainant which already given to the complainant in interim custody.It is further submitted that from very beginning of the investigation and trial the applicants were claiming seized property stating that they are the owner of the said property.But the trial court did not consider the facts and even without deciding the pending application of the applicants pass a final judgment and orders to return the seized property to the complainant.Hence, learned counsel for the applicants prays for setting aside the impugned order and prayed that seized property (340 sacks) be handed over to the applicants.(5).Learned Public Prosecutor supported the finding given by the trial court regarding the custody of seized property and prays for dismissal of the petition.(6).From perusal of the record of the trial court, it 5 appears that the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Depalpur vide its order dated 30.06.2008 allowed the application filed by the complainant for taking the seized wheat in interim custody and direct the police to hand over 50 quintal of seized wheat to complainant M/s Amit Kumar Atul Kumar and in compliance of the aforesaid order the wheat was given to Vijay Kumar Jhajri on supurdginama.Thus, it is clear that the wheat was already handed over to the complainant party on supurdginama by the trial court and revisional court has not recall its interim order dated 24.05.08 regarding interim custody of wheat, therefore, the complainant party has not filed fresh application for getting of the seized wheat on Supurdginama.(7).Although the applicants moved an application before the Court of Third Additional Session Judge, Indore for granting interim custody of the wheat but this application has not been decided by the trial court and the order-sheet does not disclose that any point of time the counsel for the applicants had prayed for hearing the aforesaid application.After completion of the trial though accused persons were acquitted however seized property (wheat) was directed to 6 return to the complainant party.(8).From the perusal of the record of the trial court it does not reflect that applicants/accused did not make any claim in their examination recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that they are the owner of the seized wheat, to contrary they have denied the seizure of the wheat from their possession.They also not filed any documents to establish that they are the owner of the seized property.The applicants and other co-accused have been acquitted by the trial court only on the basis that the prosecution has failed to establish that the wheat has been recovered from the possession of the accused persons on the basis of their memorandum recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, merely on the ground that during, the trial applicants have filed an application for interim custody of the seized wheat, it cannot be said that they are entitled to get seized property after completion of the trial.Hence, the present appeal filed by the applicants is hereby dismissed.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge praveen PRAVEEN Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK DN: c=IN, o=DISTRICT AND SESSION KUMAR COURT INDOR, postalCode=452005, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=e98f729464903facdd39c4547 15d6eccc5a350c9111fb019b34dace6d NAYAK 05b8fd5, cn=PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2020.01.31 13:44:10 -12'00'","['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"S. P. Verma for the appellant.C. P. Lal for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byBOSE J.-Twenty-four persons, among them the two appellants,were tried for offences under sections 148, 307/149 and302/149, Indian Penal Code.Sixteen were acquitted and theremainmg eight were convicted.On appeal to the High Courtfive more were acquitted and the only ones whose convictionswere upheld were the two appellants, Nar Singh and RoshanSingh, and one Nanhu Singh.By a curious misreading of the evidence this Nanhu Singh wasmixed up with Bechan Singh.What the High Court reallymeant to do was to convict Bechan Singh and acquit NanhuSingh.Instead of that they acquitted Bechan Singh andconvicted Nanhu Singh.As soon as the learned High CourtJudges realised their mistake they communicated with theState Government and an order was thereupon passed by thatGovernment remitting the sentence mistakenly Passed on Nanhuand directing that he be released.This occasioned an application under article 134(1) (c) ofthe Constitution by Nanhu Singh and the two appellants NarSingh and Roshan Singh for a certificate.They are quite clear as to whatthey would have done if, in their judgment, the law had leftthem scope for the exercise of any discretion, for they say-"" Ordinarily no certificate can be granted to them as thereis nothing of an exceptional nature in their cases.""We hold therefore that the certificate was wrongly grantedto the appellants and will treat their case as one underarticle 136(1) for special leave.The High Court gives a clear finding thatthere were more than five persons and believes the eye-witnesses who identify the two appellants.A numberof persons joined in an attack at two in the morning onhelpless persons who were asleep in bed.At least one ofthe assailants was armed either with a gun or a pistol.","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"She had given to the examining doctor the history of injury to be ""fall"".She was referred to the surgery department.There was history of pain in the abdomen and vomiting.There is nothing in the MLC which could indicate that she was unconscious at any stage.In due course, the parental family had also come to the hospital.Soon thereafter, there was a change of story.The parents and the complainant insisted that MLC be recorded.In the same context, it may be mentioned that PW-7, the father of the complainant, in the course of his evidence would claim that when he had arrived at the hospital none of the members of the Crl.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 4 of 10The complainant, in the course of her testimony (as PW-2) spoke about she having lost consciousness.The matter was then being followed up by Head Constable Hari Prakash (PW-9), who would confirm that he had gone to the hospital and met the complainant and her relatives.He would do so regularly.Thus, the first version that was offered by the complainant was after a gap of about ten days of the accident wherein she had suffered ruptured liver, it being a dangerous injury on which account she had to be shifted to the hospital.In the statement (Ex.PW-1/A) which formed the basis of endorsement by PW-12 Crl.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 5 of 10 leading to registration of the FIR (Ex.As noted earlier, no such incident had taken place on 22.04.1998 since later testimony would relate to what had happened on 23.04.1998, her father (PW-7) even having spoken about the visit to the matrimonial home on 23.04.1998 to handover Rs.20,000/- in cash.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 5 of 10She alleged that she had visited her father's house to arrange for the demand to be fulfilled, she being accompanied by her husband (A1), her father having given her cash of Rs.5,000/- stating that he was unable to make any further arrangement.She further alleged that after a few days she was physically assaulted, at about 12 o'clock in midnight, by the appellants herein and the two sisters-in-law (Kavita and Varsha) and turned out of the house, she being asked to go back to her father's house and arrange for a plot of land from him.She stated that against the said backdrop she had remained at her parental home for about 8-10 months and that, after a panchyat had been held, assurances having been held out, she was taken back by the appellants to their house.While lodging complaint (on 04.05.1998), she spoke about another incident that had occurred eighteen days prior thereto in which a Maruti car had been demanded and when she had declined to acceded to such demand, she was asked to bring Rs.20,000/- and the documents of the house of her father in lal dora, and also arrange for Crl.By judgment dated 29.07.2002 in Sessions Case No.87/1998, the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) held the appellants guilty and convicted on charge for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).The trial had been held on the basis of charges for offences punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC, Section 498-A/34 IPC and Section 406/34 IPC, the case also involving two others, namely, Kavita and Varsha as accused.By the aforementioned judgment, the trial court held that charges under Section 307/34 IPC and sections 406/34 IPC had not been proved.It was also held that the prosecution had failed to prove the complicity of Kavita and Varsha, Crl.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 1 of 10 who were thus, acquitted.By order dated 30.07.2002, the trial Judge awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each as sentence for offence under Section 498-A IPC against the appellants herein directing that in default of payment of fine they would undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, extending to them the benefit of set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 1 of 10Feeling aggrieved by the conviction for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and by the order on sentence passed in its wake, the present appeal was filed, the prime contention being that it is a motivated case set up on false accusations.The acquittal of the appellants on the charge for offence under section 307 and 406 read with section 34 IPC or, for that matter, the acquittal of Kavita and Varsha on all the charges, on which they were put on trial, has not been challenged by the State by any appeal or petition.The said decision of the trial court, thus, has attained finality.This appeal was presented in August, 2002 and the sentences were suspended by order dated 05.08.2002 whereby the appeal was entertained.The turn of the appeal to be taken up for final hearing has come up from the list of regulars after more than sixteen years.Submissions of both sides have been heard at length and the record has been perused.The second appellant Om Prakash (A2) is the father of Crl.Kavita (A4) and Varsha (A5), who were also tried, were unmarried sisters of A1, role having been attributed to each of them in the various episodes that were narrated as the basis of accusations of cruelty being meted out to the complainant [Sunita (PW-2)].The prosecution case primarily depended on the evidence of PW-2 and her parents, viz., Savitri (PW-5) and Kartar Singh (PW-7).Appeal No.587/2002 Page 2 of 10Prosecution had also referred to the evidence of Naresh (PW-8), maternal uncle of the complainant.But then, the procedure adopted for taking on board his version is unknown to law.He was not examined by the prosecution, but simply tendered for cross- examination at the hands of the defence counsel.His version, therefore, is not available.Interestingly, in the present case the statement of the complainant was also recorded by Mr. B.S. Jaglan (PW-12) sub- divisional magistrate (SDM), during the time she was assumably under treatment in the hospital for certain injury, even though there is nothing on record indicating any reason to believe that the complainant was under risk of losing her life on account of such injury.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 3 of 10The sequence of events leading to the registration of the first information report (FIR) No.242/1998 in the Police Station Paschim Vihar on 04.05.1998 need to be noted at the outset.This is recorded in the MLC (Ex.The document makes an interesting reading, its author PW-6 confirming the contents to the effect that when the victim was brought to the casualty of the said hospital, she was accompanied by her husband (A1).Appeal No.587/2002 Page 4 of 10 matrimonial family of the complainant, i.e., appellants herein, were present there.This apparently cannot be believed because there is substantive evidence to show that it was the husband (A1) who had taken the wife (the complainant) first to a private nursing home and from there, upon reference, to DDU hospital, the complainant having remained hospitalized there for a long time.During the course of treatment, the complainant underwent surgery, her liver having been found to be ruptured, it being an internal injury.There is also evidence brought on record, primarily through the defence witness, and the trial court believed the same, to accept the defence version that the husband (A1) and one of his friend Rajinder had donated blood for aiding and assisting the successful surgical procedure for the complainant.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 6 of 10 surety for loan to be taken for a car.She alleged that when she had refused to accept all these demands, she was physically assaulted by the appellants and the said two sisters-in-law with legs and fists, this having resulted in she suffering injuries and losing consciousness.The entire story narrated in the FIR cannot be believed per se inasmuch as the MLC in contrast would show that she had been brought to DDU hospital one day prior to what she would project to be the date on which she was taken there, her statement in the court confirming that she was taken from the nursing home directly to the said hospital.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 6 of 10She stated that at about 6:00 a.m. when she was feeding her daughter, the parents-in-law, accompanied by the two sisters-in-law, had come and had brought up the subject of the house in lal-dora area and a cash of Rs.50,000/- in cash.She stated that when she had refused to go to the parental home to make such arrangements, the mother-in-law and the two sisters-in-law tried to strangulate her with hands.She also stated that the husband had come on the scene at that stage and with the assistance of his mother, father and two sisters he had beaten her rendering her unconscious.She spoke about visit to the house by a Crl.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 7 of 10 private doctor on whose advice she was taken to a private nursing home and from there to the other hospital.On further questioning, she also spoke about certain demands made in the past, this leading to cash of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.17,000/- having been given on two different occasions.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 7 of 10The statement forming the basis of FIR does not match with statement before SDM.Statement more or less on the above lines given by PW-2 during the court deposition consists of lot of improvements.The contradictions arising out of such improvements were brought out by extensive cross-examination.Her parents (PW-5 and PW-7) also deposed similarly, their respective cross-examination also bringing out many an improvement on material aspects.Similar is the case of the cash of Rs.50,000/- being demanded.The trial court examined the evidence which had been led and found it difficult to believe that there had been any attempt on the life of the complainant.Taking note of the first version to the medical officer (before whom the complainant had been brought) on 24.04.1998 indicating the history of injury to be a ""fall"", the trial Judge refused to believe the complainant in her allegations that she had been subjected to intentional assault by fists and legs at the hands of the husband or any of the members of his family.The trial Judge refused to believe that the sisters-in-law (Kavita and Varsha) had any Crl.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 8 of 10 role to play in any harassment - physical or mental - meted out to the complainant in the matrimonial home.Even which rejecting the evidence to such effect, the version of the complainant and the word of her parents has been accepted to return finding of guilty against the appellants for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.This, in the considered opinion of this court was inherently contradictory and most unfair.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 8 of 10Upon appreciation of evidence, it is indeed difficult to believe the allegations against Kavita and Varsha.But, while rejecting the case against said two persons that very evidence attributing similar role concerning the appellants on same set of incidents has been accepted on its face value.In view of the somersault as to the history of the serious injuries with which the complainant had been brought to the hospital on 24.04.1998, the theory of fall as the cause of injury having been accepted, the version of the complainant as to the intentional assaults by the appellants is rendered in very poor light this seriously affecting her credibility.As noted earlier, despite opportunity, and the approach by the police official on regular basis, even while she was in hospital, the complainant consciously avoided giving any version.The MLC itself shows that the change of the version from the original one of ""fall"" (which has been accepted by the trial court) was at the instance of the parents.The fact that the statement alleging history of harassment for dowry was lodged after a period of ten days renders it a case possibly of an afterthought, such delay, in the facts and circumstances, having remained unexplained.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 9 of 10Doubts arise as to the purity and wholesomeness of the version forming its basis.In above view, this court concludes that the word of PW-2, as indeed that of her parents, cannot be accepted on its face value.The appellants deserve the benefit of such doubts.Thus, the appeal is allowed.The impugned judgment and order on sentence are set aside.Trial court record be sent back forthwith.R.K.GAUBA, J.APRIL 03, 2019 vk Crl.Appeal No.587/2002 Page 10 of 10Appeal No.587/2002 Page 10 of 10","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"It is alleged that Accused No. 1 was arrested on the same night and that the Police thereafter went in search of original Accused Nos. 2 to 5, who are the present Appellants, at their respective villages.The prosecution alleges that the four Accused came to be arrested in quick succession and that a relatively large amount of property in the form of gold, jewellery and currency notes, etc., was either discovered at their instance or recovered by the Police in the course of the investigations.JUDGMENT Saldanha, J.It was alleged that the present Appellants, along with original Accused No. 1, had committed an act of dacoity with murder on 7-10-1984 at flat No. 18, 8/2 situate on the 18th floor of Woodlands building, Peddar Road, Bombay.It was alleged by the Prosecution that the five Accused were instrumental in tying up, gagging and ultimately committing the murder of a sole inmate of the flat one Veerchand Dhanji Tajani at about 4 p.m. on the afternoon on that day.It was further alleged that after committing the aforesaid murder, the Accused had ransacked the flat and that Accused Nos. 2 to 5 had hurriedly left the building; whereas Accused No. 1 was found in a tied condition near the entrance of the flat.According to the Prosecution, one Dr. Shroff, who is a neighbour, had noticed original Accused No. 1, who was a servant employed by Tajani, in a tied condition near the entrance of the flat and that he had informed the liftman, Suresh Mohite (P.W. 4), to bring this fact to the notice of the Security Officer.When Suresh Mohite informed the Security Officer, Bali (P.W. 1), he immediately came up and on entering the flat of Veerchand Tajani found him in a tied condition on the bed.Since Veerchand Tajani was already dead, Bali lodged a complaint with the Police, who immediately came there and commenced their investigations.The Prosecution further alleges that the sister-in-law of the deceased and her son were shown the property that was recovered from Accused Nos. 2 to 5 and that a greater part of this property, which was in the form of jewellery, has been identified by them.Ultimately, on completion of the investigations, Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were put on trial.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, at the conclusion of the trial was of the view that there was no evidence against Accused No. 1 and, consequently, acquitted him.As far as Accused Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, they were convicted of the offence of robbery punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.Accused Nos. 2 to 5 were further convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, the respective sentences to run concurrently.As regards the alternative charge under Section 411 of the Indian penal Code against Accused Nos. 2 to 5, in view of the aforesaid conviction, the learned Trial Judge dropped this particular charge.The evidence adduced by the Prosecution falls under certain broad heads, the first of them being the evidence of certain witnesses on the basis of which the Prosecution seeks to establish the presence of the present Accused at the scene of offence.Thereafter there is the evidence relating to the discovery, recovery and seizure of the property by the Police and the simultaneous arrest of Accused Nos. 2 to 5 from their respective native places, all of which has taken place in quick succession in the immediate days following the incident.Thereafter the Prosecution has sought to rely also on the fingerprint evidence, particularly that of one of the fingerprints which is attributed to Accused No. 2 and which, according to the Prosecution, was found on a bottle in the flat of the deceased.The next head of evidence on which the Prosecution relies is the identity of the jewellery and the property by the sister-in-law of the deceased, Mrs. Tajani, her son and one Zhavari (P.W. 24), who is an approved valuer.Lastly, there is the evidence of the respective police officers who have recounted the manner in which the investigation was conducted, the manner in which the Accused were traced and arrested.They have deposed about the manner in which the property was retrieved and the other supportive evidence was gathered.It will be essential in the present case, in keeping with the well set law relating to circumstantial evidence, that this Court will have to examine each of the circumstances alleged against the Accused and will have to come to the conclusion that the chain of circumstances, which consists of several links, indicates that every link has been properly established and that the chain of circumstances lead to only one irresistible conclusion which points to the guilt of the Accused and to nothing else.This is all the more necessary because the Accused in their defence have neither admitted their presence nor have they admitted any recovery of property at their instance.They have taken up a defence of total denial.In this view of the matter, the Prosecution case will have to be established on its independent footing in so far as the Accused have admitted nothing.As far as the first head of evidence is concerned, the liftman, Suresh Mohite (P.W. 4) has deposed about what had happened on that afternoon.He states that the car lights of a vehicle belonging to one Mr. Apte, who resides on the 24th floor of that building, were found to be on and he was instructed to go up to the flat on the 24th floor and to inform Mr. Apte of this fact.He gives the time as 4 p.m. in the afternoon and states that he had gone to the flat at the instance of Bali (P.W. 1), the Security Officer, and that he conveyed the message at Mr. Apte's flat on the 24th floor.Thereafter he pressed the lift button and got into the lift when it came to the 24th floor.He states that on the way down, the lift automatically stopped at the 19th floor and four young persons boarded the lift, out of whom one was carrying a bag.Another incident occurred immediately thereafter, namely, that when the liftman came to the 18th floor, Dr. Shroff told Suresh Mohite (P.W. 4) that the servant of Mr. Tajani was lying in a tied condition outside the flat and that he should call the Security Officer.This was something unusual and out of the ordinary pattern and it is in all probability this circumstance of what transpired thereafter which made Suresh Mohite recall the fact that he had seen the four persons boarding the lift and leaving the building at that time and, furthermore, that their faces had got registered in his memory because of the fact that they appeared to be frightened.Suresh Mohite (P.W. 4) thereafter informed Bali (P.W. 1) who, in turn, came to the flat and discovered the inmate of the flat, Mr. Tejani in a dead condition.Obviously news must have spread all around the building particularly when the Police were immediately called in and the most pertinent question which the liftman and th security staff must have been asked by everybody, including the Police, was with regard to who were the persons seen entering and leaving the building around that time.Unfortunately, the matter does not rest there because, as pointed out earlier, Suresh Mohite has identified the four Accused on the 19th October 1984 when his statement was recorded by the Police and when these Accused, along with other persons, were in the Police Station.He has also identified the Accused in the Court.It is true that there is a minor discrepancy in his evidence in so far as he has stated that it was Accused No. 4 who was carrying the bag in the course of his evidence; whereas the defence has brought it on record that he had told the Police that Accused No. 3 was the person carrying the bag.The incident has taken place in the day time.The Accused had boarded the lift on the 19th floor that was closeby to the place where the incident took place and an unusual incident had also occurred immediately thereafter when Suresh Mohite (P.W. 4) was informed about Accused No. 1 being in a tied condition.A cumulative effect of these factors does lead us to believe that if the memory of this witness were such that he could point out the four Accused not only to the Police but also in the course of the trial that his evidence on the point of identification and on the all important aspect of establishing the presence of the Accused in the building at that time will have to be accepted.The Prosecution has also relied on the evidence of one maid servant Jayashree Gawade (P.W. 3), who knows Accused No. 3 personally.It appears that initially this witness had turned hostile obviously because she did not want to give evidence against Accused No. 3 whereupon she was cross-examined and material portions of her Police Statement were brought on record in the course of the cross-examination which, in turn, have been proved through the Investigating Officer.Jayashree has stated that Accused No. 3 hurriedly came to the adjoining Shanti Building and that he had told her that he had been removed from service, that he hurriedly handed over an amount of Rs. 450/- to her with a message that Rs. 200/- should be given to his brother Yeshwant and that he also informed her that there was a taxi waiting downstairs as he was leaving for his native place.The evidence of this witness will at the highest indicate that Accused No. 3 on that afternoon had suddenly come into possession of a certain amount of money and that he was in a hurry to leave for his native place.By themselves, these circumstances may appear to be innocuous, but in the light of the fact that this Accused No. 3 was one of the persons who had taken part in the incident which culminated in the death of Mr. Tejani and the ransacking of his flat and that he immediately thereafter came with a certain amount of currency and hurriedly left to his native place would have to be regarded as incriminating circumstances against him in the light of the connection with the earlier incident.The Prosecution has examined Krishnabai More (P.W. 7), who is a maid servant working in the adjoining building by the name Sheth Minar on Peddar Road.This witness has deposed to the fact that Accused No. 3 collected his salary on the afternoon of that day from the person with whom he was working on the pretext that he had to leave for his native place urgently and further that Accused No. 2 had also accompanied him at that time.Again, the fact that Accused No. 3 wanted to collect his salary and go away to his native place or the fact that he was accompanied by Accused No. 2 may, in themselves, appear to be innocuous circumstances, but this Court will have to take note of two factors of some significance, the first of them being that Accused No. 3 was in a desperate hurry to collect his salary for which he waited for some time, that he was accompanied by Accused No. 2 and that he had also stated that he was leaving for his native place urgently without disclosing any special reason for this visit.The urgency and the hurry displayed by Accused No. 3 on that afternoon is a circumstance that would go heavily against him in the light of the fact that his presence at the scene of offence a short time earlier was established and it was, therefore, clear that Accused No. 3 in the company of Accused No. 2 had decided to leave the city immediately which is consistent more with his guilt than with his innocence having regard to his connection with the offence.The Prosecution has also examined Yeshwant Kamble (P.W. 8), who is a Security Supervisor of the Sheth Minar Building on Peddar Road.He has deposed about two facts, the first of them being the friendship between Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the fact that on the date of the incident at about 4-30 p.m. he had seen Accused Nos. 2 and 3 visiting the building and that he had also seen them leaving, one of them carrying a bag and the second one carrying some other item.It is true that this witness is a security supervisor of the adjoining building.Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants have vigorously attacked the evidence of this witness and the earlier two in so far as they have pointed out that there is no doubt whatsoever of the fact that the Police have just picked these persons up and recorded vague statements with the sole object of trying to establish the presence of the Accused at or near the place of the incident.Learned Counsel have also contended that even the evidence taken at its face value would at the highest show that Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were around the said Sheth Minar Building on that day and that they left in the afternoon, but this would not establish their presence at the Woodlands Building.It is necessary to bear in mind that in the light of the earlier evidence of Suresh Mohite (P.W. 4) and the Security Supervisor Bali (P.W. 1) and the fact that the incident had just taken place in the Woodlands Building, the presence of these two Accused in the adjoining building and their hurried departure from that place are circumstances of some consequence and are circumstances that fully fit in with and establish the Prosecution theory.The cumulative effect of the evidence of these witnesses will, undisputedly, indicate that the Prosecution has brought on record sufficient evidence to establish the presence of Accused Nos. 2 to 5 at and around the scene of offence on the date of the incident and the manner in which they have left therefrom.Before dealing with the strongest circumstance against the present Accused, namely, the recovery of a substantial amount of property, it is necessary for us to refer to the evidence relating to the finger prints.Bhimrao Shinde (P.W. 13), who is a Finger Print Expert, has been examined as also Dattatraya Kathe (P.W. 14), who is a Police Photographer.It is alleged that the Police discovered chance finger prints which were sent to the expert for comparison with the admitted finger prints of the four Accused.The defence Counsel have seriously challenged this finding before the Trial Court and a reading of the very detailed cross-examination will indicate that the challenge put forward was a very substantial one.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has supported his conclusion with detailed reasoning.It has been argued on behalf of the defence that there is nothing unusual or incriminating about the Accused wanting to go to their home town.One factor needs to be borne in mind, namely, that the four Accused leaving Bombay at the same time and not being able to put forward any special reason for their wanting to leave Bombay, where all of them were working, in such a hurry, and going to their native places is a circumstance that is more against the Accused than one that can be regarded as being in their favour.The Police have brought on record the most incriminating evidence in this case, namely, the fact that immediately on the night of 7-10-1984 itself the investigating authorities came to know the names and addresses of all the four assailants.The Police have immediately swung into action and significantly in more than one of the cases the Police reached the native place even before the concerned Accused got there.The Prosecution has examined the respective Police Constables and the Investigating Officers who had gone to these places, traced out the Accused and arrested them and brought them to Bombay.For the purposes of setting at rest this controversy, it would be both necessary and useful to refer to the evidence of Hemlata Manilal Tejani (P.W. 17), the sister-in-law of the deceased, and her son Amrish Manilal Tejani (P.W. 19), nephew of the deceased.These two witnesses are close relations of the deceased and it has come on record that they used to visit his flat and they were familiar with his possessions.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Ms. Nandy, learned advocate for the State submits, on instructions received from the said officer-in-charge, that the complaint, sent by post, was received on 4th April, 2016 and on the following day Joynagar Police Station FIR No.426 under sections 447/323/354A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter the said FIR) has been registered and that investigation is in progress.Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the fact of registration of the FIR was not communicated to the petitioner; had it been so communicated, the petitioner could have been spared the tribulations of approaching this Court.It appears from the FIR produced by Ms. Nandy that the said officer-in- charge did not obtain either the thumb impression or the signature of the complainant.Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the Officer-in-Charge, Joynagar Police Station (hereafter the said officer-in-charge) to register an FIR on the basis of her complaint dated 1st April, 2016, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.This is not only in derogation of the statutory rules but also amounts to disobedience of lawful orders of superiors viz. instruction issued by the Director General of Police to officers-in-charge of all police stations under his jurisdiction to ensure that the complainant is made aware of registration of an FIR immediately after the same is registered.I express hope and trust that the Director General of Police shall take appropriate steps in the matter.There shall be no order for costs.ice Office is directed to communicate this order to the Director General of Police for necessary action.Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously., (Dipankar Datta, J.)","['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"1 42 20.11.2018 Sandip Court No.34 Allowed CRM 8565 of 2018 In the matter of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure affirmed on 20.09.2018 in connection with Raiganj Police Station Case No. 338 of 2018 dated 18.06.2018 under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re: Kalam Md. @ Kalam Hossain & Anr.Mr. Mirza Firoj Ahmmed Begg ... For the Petitioners.Mr. Madhusudan Sur, APP, Mr. Dipankar Pramanik ... For the State.It appears that the second petitioner had an affair with the victim but upon the second petitioner apparently rejecting the victim, the victim committed suicide.The first petitioner is the brother of the second petitioner.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to the compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J,)","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT P.D. Mulye, J.This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, against the order dated August 10, 1983, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, in Criminal Case No. 1075 of 1980, whereby the respondent has been discharged.In the alternative it is also prayed that if the impugned order is treated to be an acquittal, then the petitioner be granted leave under Section 378, Criminal Procedure Code, to prefer an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent.The facts giving rise to this petition may be stated, in brief, thus : The petitioner, who is an Income-tax Officer, in the capacity of a public servant, after obtaining the necessary sanction, filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the respondent, who is an income-tax assessee, for an offence under Section 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 277 of the Income-tax Act on the ground that for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, the respondent had submitted false returns by concealing certain income which was assessable to tax.Therefore, for income escaping assessment, action was taken against the respondent by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act. Thus, the respondent had submitted false returns with an intent to deceive and defraud the Income-tax Department and to secure a favourable order of assessment.The case was adjourned from time to time for recording evidence before charge but despite obtaining several opportunities, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence in support of the complaint.On August 10, 1983, also, the complainant was absent.The respondent submitted an application under Section 245(2), Criminal Procedure Code, along with a certified copy of the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Ex. D-1) to point out that the fact of concealment of income for the years complained of was held as disproved.The learned trial court, therefore, discharged the respondent on the ground that there is no evidence which if unrebutted would warrant a conviction of the accused.Hence, this petition.The learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the fact that the learned trial court had given several opportunities to the petitioner to lead evidence before charge but no evidence was led.",['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The case of the prosecution is as follows:-PW1 is the son of one Mayavu, the deceased.The first accused is the son of deceased Mayavu's wife's sister.A2 is the co-brother of the deceased.Three months prior to the occurrence, PW1 conducted panchayat and performed the marriage between A1 and the person whom A1 loved by name Rani But that marriage was conducted without the consent of A2 and therefore, there was enmity between the family of the accused and the family of the deceased.On 2.6.1994 at about 8.30 pm, while PW1 and his father were sitting in front of their house, the first accused came with MO1 Bamboo stick and A2 with MO2 stick.On seeing them PW1, PW2 and the deceased tried to enter into their house in order to avoid the attack by the accused.But the accused prevented them from going into their house.Immediately, A1 hit the deceased with MO1 Bamboo stick on the head of the deceased, who immediately fell down.When PW1 tried to lift his father, A2 beat him with MO2 stick and also beat on the leg of the deceased; PW1's mother and wife had fled away from the scene of occurrence.Thereafter the accused ran away from the scene.Immediately PW1 went to the Thuvakkudi Police Station along with the deceased, and gave Ex.P1 report; The Police gave a memo around 9 pm on the same date; They remained in the Police Station till 5 am and thereafter, they went to the hospital.The injured was not conscious.On examination, PW9 did not find any external injury.He prepared Ex.P1 is the FIR.Immediately thereafter PW12 went to the place of occurrence at 9.30 pm and prepared observation Mahazar Ex.P2 and sketch Ex.JUDGMENT A.K. Rajan, J.1. Appeal against the conviction.The first accused has been charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the second accused has been charged for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 and 323 IPC.The trial Court after trial acquitted A1 of the offence under Section 302 and A2 for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC but convicted A1 for the offence under Section 304 Part II and imposed a sentence of five years R.I and A2 for the offence under Section 323 IPC and imposed a sentence of fine of Rs.500/-P7 the Accident Register.Thereafter the case was altered into one for the offence under Section 302 IPC.He searched for the accused, but he could not find them.When the death was known on 5.6.1994, PW12 altered the FIR into one for the offence under Section 302 and sent Ex.P11 express report.After the receipt of Ex.P-11 Express report, PW13 Inspector attached to BHEL Police Station took up the investigation.He went to the hospital and conducted inquest and prepared inquest report, examined Pws1 to 4 and other witnesses.He sent the dead body through constable for autopsy.PW10, Doctor who conducted autopsy stated that he did not find any external injury but on opening the skull, he found injury on the head to an extent of 12 c.m., and there was a blood clot found between the skull and membrance.He also found fracture on the ribs.There was no other injury.PW10, Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury was necessarily fatal.When the accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C, he denied the accusation.The trial Court acquitted the first accused under Section 302 IPC and the second accused under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC but convicted A1 for the offence under Section 304 part II and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and convicted A2 for the offence under Section 323 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.500 against which the present appeal has been filed.9. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the offence committed by the accused would fall under Section 324, because there was no intention of committing murder and also without knowledge that such injury would cause death of the deceased.Considering the fact that there was no serious motive for the offence and the only motive is that the deceased performed marriage between A2 and the girl whom he loved.Further the counsel for the appellants submitted that, had the injured been taken to the hospital immediately after the occurrence, he could have been saved from death.But in this case, the injured was kept in the police station till 5 am next day; Therefore there was a delay of 14 hours before the injured was taken to the hospital.But for the delay, the injured would not have died.This argument of the learned counsel for the appellants, though appealing, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that in the Post Mortem Certificate, it is found that the injury on the head was to an extent of 12 cm and the skull was found fractured.From the evidence on record, it can be held that he did not have the intention to murder the deceased but since they were armed with dangerous weapons, namely bamboo stick and the fact that by using the sticks the deceased was hit on the head would go to show that there was an intention to cause such injury.When the accused caused the injury, the knowledge that it was likely to cause the death can be imputed against him.Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the first accused committed the offence under Section 304 part II.This conclusion of the Sessions Judge cannot be said to be illegal and hence the conviction under Section 304 part II against the first accused is confirmed.The conviction of A2 under Section 323 IPC is confirmed.Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the first accused was aged about 25 years and he was just married at that time.With the above modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on the question of admission.Appeal being arguable is admitted for hearing.Let record of the trial court be called for.Heard on I.A. No.269/2020, first application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellants.This Criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 30.12.2019 passed in Case No.SC.DOCT/300001/2015 by Special Judge, MPDVPK, Sheopur (M.P.) whereby the appellants have been convicted as under with default stipulation:-Hearing of appeal shall take some time.Even otherwise, appellants have strong case on merits also.Hence, he prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.345/2020 (RIZWANA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) the prayer made by counsel for the appellants and has prayed for dismissal of the application.Considering the submissions of the counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the jail sentence of appellants have already been suspended for one month, application for suspension of sentence is allowed.It is directed jail sentence of appellants will remain under suspension on their furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for their appearance before Office of this Court on 23.10.2020 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishal Mishra) Judge vpn VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI 2020.01.14 17:58:47 +05'30'",['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The facts are briefly these.P. W. 6, the elder brother of Reddanna, got suspicious about the disappearance of Reddanna and he went and gave a complaint to the police on 14-4-1949 about his disappearance and his suspicions that he might have been murdered.The police began vigorous investigation.Owing to the great stink in Yedurlagunta valley people came to know that some corpse might have been buried there and P. W. 15 the Circle Inspector of Police went on 17th with P. W. 10, the Sub-Magistrate, and big men and dug up the spot and recovered the skin of the palm and sole of the foot of a decomposed corpse, and not the other portions.JUDGMENT Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.These are two appeals by Venkata Reddi and Vebulu, accused 3 and 4 in S. C. No. 42 of 1949 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Cuddappah.They have been convicted under Sections 302 and 34, Penal-Code, and sentenced to transportation for life, and also under Section 201, Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years to run concurrently with the sentences under Section 302, Penal Code.One Reddanna was living in Poanellavandlapalli in Rayachoti taluk in Guddappah district.Though he was married he was not on good terms with his wife for sometime before this murder and he was carrying on with a woman called Chinna Ammani of Ragatiguntapalli, an adjoining village.Accused 2 was also carrying on with the same Chinna Ammani Reddanna wanted to have this Chinna Ammani exclusively for himself, by marrying her, and accused 1 and 2 went and told him on 8-4-1949, that they would get him married to Ammani that midnight.So, taking some jewels of his and borrowing some jewels as a loan from a barber P. W. 1, Reddanna set out with accused 1 and accused 2 on the night of 8-4-1949 with intent to get the marriage performed that midnight.Accused 1 and 2 who are closely related, took the help of accused 3 and 4, two persons alleged to be hired assassins, and all the four are said to have murdered Reddana that night while sleeping and waiting for the girl Amman who was said to be on her way, by accused 2 pressing his throat with terrific force and the remaining accused holding his arms and legs, near Marrimani Bhavi in a jungle and buried his corpse there.Thereafter, fearing that the corpse might give out a stink which would be noticed by people in the neighbourhood frequenting that place, they are said to have removed the corpse to Yedurlakunta valley in the jungle and buried it in a pit there.There also they seemed to have feared later on that the body would be discovered by its stink and so removed it and put it in a gunny bag in order to transport it to a more unfrequented place.But small portions of the decomposed corpse, like the skin of the palm of the left band and the sole of the right foot, got left behind in the Yedulakunta valley.The rest of the corpse was put in a gunny bag and taken to Devarthi Bhavi, a disused well, a mile away, and shoved into it.The scar of a cut wound on the skin of the thumb corresponded to such a wound on the thumb of Reddenna.Accused 4 was arrested on suspicion on the night of 21-4-1949 and he offered to show the main corpse of Reddanna.He took the Circle Inspector of Police and the Sub-Magistrate and the big men to Devarathi Bhavi and pointed out the gunny bag containing the remaining portion of Reddanna's corpse.According to the medical evidence of P. W. 9, that corpse could be identified by the heir, teeth etc., by persons who knew the man and the witnesses who were related to Reddanna or knew him well identified the corpse, by the curly hair, coated teeth, jutting forehead bone and other signs and features and also a key of Beddanna (M. O. 1) found with the remains.In the present case, some persons had been suspected in the first instance of this murder and 8 persons were actually charge-sheeted of whom four were committed to the sessions and two finally acquitted.Accused 4 when taken be fore the District Magistrate for recording his statement in order to be tendered a pardon and taken on as an approver refused to make a statement and said that he knew nothing about the murder.It is obvious that the confessions of accused 3 and 4, which are the main pieces of evidence against them regarding the conviction under Section 302, Penal Code are of no value in the circumstances.Nor were these retracted confessions corroborated in any material particulars regarding the murder itself.He was the first to give information about the corpse of Reddanna thrown into the Davarathi Bhavi.","['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Record of the Court below in Special Case no. 79/2015 has been received.Heard on the point of admission.Perused the statement of the prosecutrix as well as witnesses.As per the prosecutrix she was below the age of 18 years.Applicant committed intercourse with the prosecutrix for more than one occasion for which she conceived.When the child grown up in the womb of the prosecutrix her abdomen got enlarged.When this fact was asked by other women she narrated the story.Considering the statement of prosecutrix and other witnesses, this appeal is having arguable point, therefore it is admitted for final hearing.Also heard on I.A.No.18802/2018, an application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of custodial sentence.T h e appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation.Counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was more than 18 years.This Court perused the statement of all witnesses.Different versions come in the statement of witnesses about the age of prosecution.Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Date: 13/03/2019 10:50:24 2 CRA-8326-2018 Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application.The age of the prosecutrix is to be decided in this appeal.She has not narrated the incident to any one.When his abdomen got enlarged and when asked by other women about that then she narrated the whole story and the incident.Certified copy as per rules (VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE vivek Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Date: 13/03/2019 10:50:24",['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Since both the applications are related to one crime, therefore both the applications are heard simultaneously and decided by common order.Applicant Vinod Kumar is in custody since 29.4.2014, whereas applicant Arun Kumar Pandey is in custody since 30.4.2015 in connection with Crime No.87/2015 registered at Police Station Laur, District Rewa for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 377, 376, 511 of IPC and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant Vinod Kumar is a youth of age group of 24 years of age and applicant Arun Kumar Pandey is an old person of 58 years of age.There is no criminal past alleged against them.Initially the prosecutrix had stated that the applicants inserted penis in her mouth, however the prosecutrix (PW-2) and her mother Kavita (PW-1) have been examined before the trial Court and the prosecutrix did not allege that any of the applicant has done as alleged by her in the past.On the contrary, she has stated that the applicants inserted finger in her mouth.No offence under Section 366, 377 or 376 of IPC is made out against the applicants.Similarly, no offence under Section 7/8 of POCSO Act is made out against the applicants.The remaining offences are not so grave.The applicants are in custody without any sufficient reason.Under these circumstances, they pray for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.It is directed that present applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) each with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)","['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"They set her on fire by using kerosene and matchstick.3] The facts, that are required to be stated for the purpose of this judgment, are as under.She was residing with her minor children at her father's house since prior to two years because she had lost her husband.On 7.2.2011 Nakusha was taken to hospital in injured condition.5] PW 7-Noor Mohammad stated that on 7.2.2011 from 8.00 p.m. he was on duty of Civil Hospital and that Dr. Pathak, the treating doctor, informed him at about 6.00 a.m. on the next morning that victim was admitted to hospital in burnt condition.He then intimated this fact to Shri Bhaskar Bhos, Special Judicial Magistrate by making a phone call at 7.00 a.m. Shri Bhos assured him that he would come to hospital by about 9.00 a.m. As a formality he even sent a letter in writing to Shri Bhos.He stated that Shri Bhos came to hospital but the treating doctor informed him in writing that the patient was unconscious.He stated that Shri Bhos informed him about it.Shri Bhos assured him that he would visit the patient in the evening.7] PW 10-Shri Bhos then stated that in the evening he received one more letter from the police.So he went to Civil Hospital.He went to burn ward where he met Smt. Dr. Sardesai.He stated that Smt.Sardesai made a remark that the patient was conscious.He stated that he then told to the relatives of the patient to go outside, disclosed his identity to the patient and purpsoe of the visit.He stated that he then recorded Nakusha's statement as per her say.He stated that he read over the statement to the patient and she approved the same.He further stated that Nakusha informed him that her husband was murdered and since then she was residing at victim's house.She further informed him that her sister, sister's husband, sister's mother-in-law and sister's father-in-law who were residing adjoining to her house were harassing and beating her.Nakusha then disclosed that it was her sister accused no.2 who ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 ::: 5 cra336.12 poured kerosene on her person and accused no.3 set her on fire with the help of matchstick.Nakusha also further stated that her sister's father-in-law was present there with a stone in his hand and was instigating the other accused.This witness also disclosed that Nakusha told him that at the time of incident, juvenile accused in conflict with law-Ram- had held her by her hair.th DATED : 12 January, 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT [Per A.V.Nirgude, J.] 1] This appeal challenges judgment and order, dated 21.4.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No. 109 of 2011 convicting ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 ::: 2 cra336.12 accused nos. 1 to 3 for offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them for imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- with a default clause.The learned Judge also convicted all accused nos. 1 to 3 for offence punishable under Section 452 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.200/- with a default clause.The learned Judge made the sentences to run concurrently.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 :::2] Accused nos. 1 to 3 are the appellants here.Accused no.1-Umaji is husband of accused no.2-Kavita.Accused no.3-Sindhubai is mother of accused no.2-Kavita.It was alleged that they on 7.2.2011 at 10.00 p.m. entered the victim's house and then assaulted her.At about 6.00 a.m. the treating doctor informed the Police Head Constable Noor Mohammad who was on duty in the hospital that the patient was admitted to hospital in injured condition.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 :::He stated that in the evening time on that day Shri Bhos recorded victim's statement and handed over the same in an envelope to him.6] PW 10-Shri Bhos stated that as per the request of the police he went to burn ward on 8.2.2011 for recording ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 ::: 4 cra336.12 statement of victim Nakusha.He stated that doctor examined the patient and opined that she was unconscious and was unable to make a statement.He stated that he also got the fact verified and sent a report about it.This report is on record and it shows that the treating doctor Shri Dr. Pathak certified that Nakusha was not in a condition to make statement and was unconscious.This report was made at 9.00 a.m. on that day.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 :::He even stated that Medical Officer also made a remark on the written statement about condition of the patient.The dying declaration is also on record and more or less supports what the Prosecution Witness No.10 stated.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 :::8] Soon after recording of dying declaration, offence was registered initially for offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and investigation was started.9] The police recorded statements of witnesses.The police also recorded scene of offence panchanama.On 13.2.2011 Nakusha died and therefore, offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code replaced the earlier offence.The body of the deceased was sent for postmortem and other formalities were completed.Charge sheet was sent against the accused as well as juvenile accused in conflict with law Ram.Entire case of the prosecution depended on the dying declaration.So we would closely look at the credibility of the dying declaration.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 :::witnesses were examined as Prosecution Witnesses.Vilas Kale is panch who witnesses scene of offence panchanama.Though this panch turned hostile, the investigating officer could prove the panchanama properly.This panchanama indicates that the scene of offence is a room having 10 ft.x 12 ft. measurement.There was an iron cot.In one corner of the room there was an iron showcase where TV was placed.In one corner police noticed a kerosene stove.The police also noticed one five litre plastic can placed in the middle of the room.The can was open and it contained kerosene.The floor of the room was earthen paved and bore burn marks at few places.A piece of saree in burnt condition was also found.It is pertinent to note here that there were no marks of struggle on the spot.Even the can containing kerosene was found in standing position.The scene of offence panchanama, in our view, does not corroborate the dying declaration which is narrated above.Had there been an attempt to catch the arms and then set the victim on fire, there would have been some struggle between the assailants and the victim and in struggle the things in the room would have been disturbed.The kerosene can could not have remained in tact in standing position.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 :::and 5-Kisan are neighbours and the relatives of the victim who stated that during that night on hearing commotion they went to the victim's house and found her in burnt condition.They even stated that they extinguished the fire.None amongst them stated as to who took Nakusha to hospital, but all of them stated that Nakusha was 'taken' to Mirajgaon Government Dispensary and thereafter she was taken to Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar.These witnesses did not disclose as to who took Nakusha to hospital and who got her admitted to hospital.It was the duty of the prosecution to bring on record evidence to indicate as to how Nakusha was taken to medical dispensary at Mirajgaon and from there how she was taken to Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar.In this regard the investigating officer PW 9-Dhonde also admitted that he did not receive any information of homicidal attack prior to receiving the dying declaration.12] The prosecution was also under obligation to bring evidence on record to prove as to who treated Nakusha at both these hospitals.When a patient is taken to hospital in such a condition the Medical Officers generally record history of the patient, they maintain the case papers, such case papers are written at the relevant time and become very important piece of evidence.It has come on record.As indicated above, that at about 2.00 a.m. or so Nakusha was ultimately admitted to Civil ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 ::: 8 cra336.12 Hospital.The prosecution did not examine the medical officer who got her admitted, prepared case papers and started medication to her.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:23 :::13] When a patient in serious condition was brought to Civil Hospital, it was certainly a Medico Legal Case and yet PW 7 Noor Mohammad who was present in the hospital during night did not learn about it.He learnt about it only at 6.00 a.m. It was, therefore, necessary for the prosecution to record deposition of the treating doctor who attended Nakusha at the inception.He could have been an important witness to explain as to whether any history of the patient was recorded; though this was a Medico Legal Case why the constable on duty was not immediately informed about it, etc. He could have also informed the Court as to what medication was administered to the patient.This was necessary because at about 9.00 a.m. in the morning the patient was still unconscious.This witness was necessary also to bring on record as to why no action was taken by police till the dying declaration was recorded rather belatedly at 7.35 p.m. This Witness's deposition was also relevant to bring on record as to what happened between 2.00 a.m. till 7.00 p.m. It has come on record in the deposition of PW 10-Bhos that before recording the dying declaration he was required to remove various relatives from the room.No one comes to Court to depose that he was one such relative who ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:24 ::: 9 cra336.12 attended the patient during that day.What is rather surprising in this case is the fact that till the offence was registered no one spoke of assault on Nakusha.It is for the first time the victim made a statement that she was subjected to a murderous attack.Had this been such a grave incident, from the time of incident at least some one who attended Nakusha soon after the incident would have reported its ghastly nature to the authorities.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:24 :::14] The circumstances prior to recording of dying declaration are brought on record through depositions of PW 12-Dr.Vijaya Sardesai and PW 10-Bhaskar Bhos who recorded it.Having regard to the circumstances narrated above, we would rather discard the dying declaration.There is one more reason why we are not giving importance to the dying declaration.Had there been any dispute between these two sisters, the victim would have stated the cause for such dispute.The cause for such dispute would have been equally serious in nature to prompt the assailants committing murder.No attempt is made to bring on record as to what was the cause for alleged dispute between these two sisters.It is an admitted fact that accused no.2 is married and is residing in the same village.The evidence also indicates that she was probably residing in neighbourhood.The father of the victim PW 6-Roopchand did not bring on record as ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:24 ::: 10 cra336.12 to whether there was any dispute between his two daughters.The deposition of this witness was relevant for that purpose at least.This witness did not support prosecution case.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:24 :::15] We therefore, hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.We are, therefore, inclined to allow the appeal.16] In the result, we pass the following order.iii] The accused/appellant Nos. 1-Umaji s/o Sukhadeo Zambare, 2-Kavita @ Kaushalya w/o Umaji Zambare and 3-Sindhubai Sukhadeo Zambare are held not guilty of charge for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 452 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are acquitted of the said charge and they shall be released forthwith, if they are not wanted in any case.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:49:24 :::","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"On the complaint lodged by Nithya Pricila (defacto complainant), therespondent police registered a case in Crime No.12 of 2015 and aftercompleting the investigation, has filed a final report in C.C.No.121 of 2016before the learned Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Trichy, foroffences under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 406, 495 of the Indian Penal Code andSection 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against Mohaideen Quadir Ali and fiveothers including Niranjani (A-6), for quashing which, Niranjani (A-6) isbefore this Court.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned GovernmentAdvocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent and the learnedcounsel appearing for the second respondent.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if theentire complaint given by the defacto complainant, her 161 statement and thecharge sheet is read, there is no allegation against Niranjani (A-6) that shehad committed any of the offences enumerated in the charge sheet.Per contra, the learned counsel for the defacto complainantsubmitted that the trial had begun in this case on 04.04.2017 and the defactocomplainant has been examined as P.W.1 and, therefore, this Court should notinterfere.Under normal circumstances, when once the trial begins, this Courtwill be loath to interfere to stifle the prosecution.However, in this case,the allegation of the defacto complainant is that she got married toMohaideen Quadir Ali (A-1) on 15.09.2007 and that her husband was working as Liaison Officer in Annamalai University, where Niranjani (A-6) was alsoemployed.She has further alleged that her husband had developed illicitintimacy with the said Niranjani (A-6), pursuant to which, she was ill-treating her.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant took this Courtthrough 161 statement of the defacto complainant.On a perusal of the same,it is seen that except saying that her husband has been talking to Niranjaniover phone very frequently and that he was having illicit intimacy with her,there is absolutely no shred of evidence against Niranjani for havingperpetrated any act directly against the defacto complainant.The allegedaffair of A-1 with Niranjani (A-6) may be a ground for causing mental crueltyto the defacto complainant, for which, A-1 alone can be held responsible andnot Niranjani (A-6).Niranjani (A-6) does not fall within the meaning of theword ""relatives"" under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.As regardsthe contention against 495 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not the case ofthe defacto complainant that A-1 had married her.It is her only case that hehas been talking to her continuously over mobile phone and that she suspectsher husband's fidelity.Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that theprosecution against Niranjani (A-6) is indeed an abuse of process of law andhas been predicated on surmises and suspicion of the defacto complainant.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and theproceedings against Niranjani (A-6) in C.C.No.121 of 2016 on the file of theJudicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Trichy, is quashed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.1.The Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Trichy.2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruverumbur, Trichy District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..","['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(iii) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2020 04:58:04 :::",['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The facts of the case in brief are that one Niyamat Ullaha Khan was running his business of Tobacco and Khaini under the trademark in the name and style of ""Nawab Dulha Khan Khaini"" and when he died in 1992 his sons started the said business adding some additional words in the said trademark.The respondent-plaintiffs started their business of Tobacco with the trademark in the name and style of ""Ped Chhap Nawab Dulha Khan Khaini"" w.e.f. 1993, whereas the appellant-defendant started his business with the trademark in the name and style of ""Chand Khajoor Chhap Anwar Dulha Khan"" with emblem of Rais Dulha Khan, Bareilly depicting Central Excise Registration Certificate No. 8/R-1 BLY/93 on the wrappers.JUDGMENT V.C. Misra, J.Heard Sri S.K. Verma, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddarth Verma & Sri Pulak Ganguli, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- defendant and Sri M.A.Qadeer & Mr. D.S. Misra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2-plaintiffs.The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant challenging the order dated 29.7.2005 passed by the District Judge, Bareilly in Original Suit No. 6 of 2005 allowing interim injunction application of the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2 moved under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the defendant-appellant from manufacturing, marketing and trading the Khaini and Tobacco with the name and style of ""Bargad Fed Chhap Asali Nawab Dulha Khan"".The respondents-plaintiffs filed Original Suit No. 6 of 2005 seeking injunction on the ground that the appellant-defendant changed his trademark and caption and started his business with effect from February, 2005 in the name and style of ""Bargad Ped Chhap Asli Nawab Dulha Khan Khaini"" on the wrappers in which the words 'Bargad' and 'Asli' were written in very small letters and was in very much resemblance with the trademark of respondents-plaintiffs causing deception, misguiding the customers which resulted in damaging and affecting their business.In the plaint it has been stated that the trade mark ""Ped Chhap Nawab Dulha Khan"" of the plaintiffs- respondents was registered at number 611689 (subsequently corrected as 611389) under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and the Copyright Act, 1957 and the plaintiff No. 1- respondent Taj Mohammad Khan assigned the said trade mark and Copyright ""Ped Chhap Nawab Dulha Khan"" to plaintiff No. 2-respondent Mohd. Imran Khan by means of assignment deed dated 15th December, 2003 and since then Mohd. Imran Khan plaintiff No. 2 has been running his business as a assignee of Taj Mohammad Khan (plaintiff No. 1 -respondent).It has also been stated that the plaintiffs have a large volume of sales of their product under the registered trade mark ""Ped Chhap Nawab Dulha Khan"" which was carved, designed, coloured and written in a distinctive style on the wrappers for many years and their customers as well as the traders have identified and recognized the goods as such being the exclusive merchandise of the plaintiffs and none else.The plaintiffs are the creator and the author of the artistic work, design, style and colours of lettering of the said trade mark and are the legal owners, proprietors and user of the same and they have been continuous user thereof and have thus acquired exclusive right to use its registered trade mark under the Copyright Act in respect with their goods.In the plaint it has also been alleged that the appellant-defendant by using identical and or deceptively similar mark or artistic work as referred to above started his business from February, 2005 which is bound to cause confusion and deception in the mind of unwary class of customers amounting to falsification of plaintiffs' registered trade mark and to cause heavy financial losses to the plaintiffs-respondents to which the appellant-defendant was not entitled to under law.It has also been asserted that purchasers of Khaini and tobacco are mainly illiterate public who are being confused, misled and deceived by purchasing the inferior quality of Khaini and Tobacco manufactured by appellant-defendant knowingly and willingly and without consent of the plaintiffs-respondents and thus the appellant-defendant violated the plaintiffs copyrights in the artistic work, lettering and colouring etc in the registered trade mark and has committed offences punishable under Section 78 and 79 of the Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act No. 43 of 1985') and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and under Sections 420, 485, 486, 487 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellant-defendant did not accede to the request of the plaintiffs-respondents and did not refrain from manufacturing, marketing and trading their products of Khaini and Tobacco with falsified mark ""Ped Chhap Nawab Dulha Khan"" which was causing irreparable loss and injury whereas on the other hand it did not affect the appellant-defendant at all in any manner.The plaintiffs-respondents alongwith plaint had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure supported with an affidavit seeking temporary injunction upon which an exparte interim order was granted.The appellant-defendant No. 1 in rebuttal to the said injunction application filed his objections/counter affidavit before the trial court.In para 1 it is stated that the alleged trademark 'Ped Chhap Dulha Khan' was not registered in the Trade Mark Office by the respondent-plaintiffs and the number mentioned as 611389 was only application number and not the registration number.It was also asserted that the appellant-defendant No. 1 had moved an application for registration before the trademark office for registration of his trademark in the name and style of 'Asli Nawab Dulha Khan Ped Chhap'.After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the record the trial court passed an order restraining the appellant-defendant from using the trade mark 'Bargad Ped Chhap Asali Nawab Dulha Khan Khaini Tambakoo Choona Sahit' for the purpose of manufacturing marketing and trading the Khaini and Tobacco till the pendency of the suit.Thus, the suit itself was barred by Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1999').In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.No order as to costs.",['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
"(a) P.W.1 was living with his wife Pappathi @ Pargavi.P.W.2 is his brother-in-law.They were all residing in Door No.128/17, Vijaya Nilayam, Thomas Church Road, Udhagamandalam.He was carrying on a chicken stall near Kavitha Hotel in which the accused was employed.He was also having video player in his house which was rented out.P.W.8, who is the friend of the accused, came to the shop on 28.7.2004 for taking the CD player on rent.P.W.1 asked his servant namely the accused, to go to his house and bring the CD player.On the same day at about 11.30 A.M., P.W.5 Logammal saw the deceased Pappathi and was conversing with her.The deceased Pappathi at about 11.30 A.M. was conversing with another lady.At about 1.15 P.M. P.W.9 was actually in the godown with his two servants.He saw at about 12.45 P.M., the accused coming out of the house of the deceased.He heard the cry of the deceased.Immediately the servants and P.W.9 rushed to the house of P.W.1 and found the deceased in a pool of blood.(b) P.W.1 received a phone call between 12.45 and 1.00 P.M. Immediately, he proceeded to his residence, where he found the deceased in a pool of blood.Then, he informed to P.W.2, who also rushed over there.At that time, the accused was standing at the door step with the child of the deceased.P.W.1 along with the accused proceeded to Vijaya Hospital, Udhagamandalam, and on seeing the injuries on the body, the Doctor advised them to take her to the Government Hospital.Accordingly, they took the deceased to the Government Hospital.P.W.11, the Doctor, who was on duty at about 1.30 P.M., medically verified and also declared her dead.P7 is the accident register copy wherein all the injuries which were found on the body, were noted.(c) P.W.20, the Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police station, at about 2.30 P.M., on receipt of the information from P.W.17, the Sub Inspector of Police, proceeded to the Government Hospital and found the dead body of Pargavi, and immediately he also made a request to P.W.11, the Doctor, to collect the hair found in the hands of the deceased.Accordingly, P.W.11, the Doctor, collected the same.(d) In the meanwhile P.W.1 went to B1 Police Station and lodged a complaint, Ex.P1, at about 3.00 P.M., on the strength of which P.W.17, the Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.465 of 2004 under Sec.302 of IPC.The printed FIR Ex.P28, was despatched to the Court.(e) P.W.20, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation.He called the finger print expert to the place of occurrence, and finger prints were actually collected.He also prepared Ex.P2, the observation mahazar, and Ex.P39, the rough sketch.The occurrence place and also the dead body were caused to be photographed through P.W.10, the Photographer.The photographs and the negatives are marked as Exs.P4 and P5 respectively.(f) P.W.14, the Scientific Officer, also made a visit and collected the hair from P.W.11, the Doctor.The admissible part is marked as Ex.Following the same, he produced M.O.3, bloodstained keys, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to a judgment of the Sessions Division, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, in S.C.No.4 of 2006 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 342, 376 read with 511, 302 and 201 of IPC.On trial, he was found guilty under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and default sentence under Sec.302 of IPC.No separate sentence was given under Sec.201 of IPC, while he was acquitted of the other two charges.On 28.7.2004, the Investigating Officer recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence.Then, he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared, Ex.P40, the inquest report.(g) P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, attached to the Finger Print Bureau, was called, and he also took the finger prints from the available materials there and has taken them for the purpose of verification.(h) P.W.12, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Udhagamandalam, on receipt of the requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Pappathi and found 23 injuries.She has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.She gave her final opinion under Ex.P12 that the death was due to shock and profuse haemorrhage.(i) The Finger Print Expert after verification and also the analysis, has given his opinion in Ex.P22, the report, that the finger prints which were taken would be tallying with that of the accused.He came forward to give a confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of P.W.19 and one Jayaprakash.Thereafter, he took the Investigator and produced M.O.4, screw driver, M.O.5, gas regulator, M.O.6, bloodstained pant, M.O.7, bloodstained shirt, and also M.O.8, knife, which were all recovered under independent mahazars.Then, he was sent for judicial remand.All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis.P32 to P34 are the serologist's reports and Exs.P48 and P49 are the Chemical Analyst's reports.The Investigator, after completion of the investigation, filed the final report.3.The case was committed to Court of Session and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses and also relied upon 49 exhibits and 12 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined; but, only one document was marked as Ex.After hearing the arguments on either side, the trial Court took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the charge of murder and also screening the evidence and hence found them guilty under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and awarded the punishment as referred to above while it made an order of acquittal in respect of other two charges.Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellant.P1, the report, on the strength of which a case came to be registered; that the Sub Inspector of Police who was examined as P.W.17, has also claimed so; that P.W.20, the Inspector of Police, has deposed that on hearing the information from the hospital, he proceeded to the hospital, and there he found the dead body in the mortuary and also made a request to the Doctor P.W.11, to collect the hair in the hands of the dead body, and only thereafter, the FIR has come into existence; that as regards Ex.P1, the report, inconsistent versions were given, and thus it would cast a reasonable doubt in the report, Ex.P1, coming into existence.5.Added further the learned Counsel that the prosecution has proceeded only on surmises; that it rested its case on the circumstantial evidence since it had no direct evidence to offer; that according to the prosecution, it was P.W.9 who saw the accused coming out of the house immediately; that P.W.9 would claim that he was also present when P.W.1 also came there; that if to be so, P.W.9 immediately would have informed to P.W.1 that the accused was present at the time of occurrence, but not done; that the same was informed only after eight days; that till the time, he was keeping mum; that it would be indicative of the fact that P.W.9 could not have seen the accused in the place of occurrence at all; that the prosecution was unable to explain under what necessity the accused was to attack the deceased with the two weapons namely screw driver and knife; that the prosecution would come forward to state that the deceased also died out of strangulation; that in the instant case, the hair which was collected immediately from the dead body, according to the Investigator, was sent to the Court after a period of one month, and a request was given after a period of five months; that all would go to show that the investigation was not in the proper direction; and that it is pertinent to point out that even after the occurrence, the accused was actually kept under the service of P.W.1 for long months i.e., for a period of few months.6.Added further the learned Counsel that in Ex.P1, the report, it was mentioned that death was caused by an unknown person; that even P.W.1 had not even the suspicion against him; that the prosecution much relied on the arrest, confession and recovery of M.Os.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8; that the only witness examined by the prosecution was P.W.19; that P.W.19 was the Ward Councilor; that he has given evidence in some other case registered by the very same Police Station, and thus it would be quite clear that he was a stock witness; that the evidence which was projected through him should have been rejected by the Court; that under the circumstances, the prosecution had no evidence; that it is a fit case where the prosecution could not bring home the guilt of the accused; that only on surmises and presumptions, the prosecution has tried to project its case, but could not do so; that apart from that, the lower Court has not appreciated the contentions put forth on the defence side, and hence, he is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.7.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and considered the same.Following the inquest made by P.W.20, the Investigator, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.12, the Doctor, and she has issued the postmortem certificate, Ex.The Doctor has opined under Ex.P12 that the deceased died out of shock and profuse haemorrhage.Thus, the prosecution was able to show that she died out of homicidal violence.This fact was never disputed by the appellant, and hence it has got to be recorded so.9.True it is, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer, but it has relied on the circumstantial evidence.The Court is not unmindful of the caution made by the settled principles of law and also by the decisions of the Apex Court that the Court must thoroughly be satisfied that the prosecution has placed necessary facts and circumstances and also proved the same pointing to the guilt of the accused without leaving any doubt in the mind of the Court and also pointing to the hypothesis except the accused no one could have committed the offence.In the instant case, even if this test is applied, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused.The Court has noticed all the following circumstances which are pointing to the guilt of the accused.On the date of occurrence, P.W.8 came to the shop for getting the CD player on rental basis.Immediately, P.W.1 sent the servant namely the accused, to his house to take the CD player.It is also an admitted fact that the accused went over to the house of the deceased namely the wife of P.W.1, during the relevant time.Even according to the prosecution, the accused was actually in the house of the deceased at or about the time of occurrence.That apart, from the evidence of all the witnesses, it would be quite clear that the accused was available in the house of the deceased at that time.According to P.W.1, when he went to the house, he found the accused standing on the door step of his house, and thus, the accused was actually present at the time and P.Ws.5 and 9 have seen the deceased lady at about 11.30 A.M. When P.W.1 went to the house at about 1.00 P.M., he found the dead body.Therefore, the occurrence should have taken place in the short interval, and at that time, the person who visited the house was the accused.P.W.9 has also deposed to the effect that the accused was coming out of the house.When P.W.1 went to the house, the accused was standing at the door step and holding his child; but, he did not tender any explanation how the occurrence has happened.Out of this, two are weapons of crime.One is the screw driver and the other is the knife.According to P.W.12, the Doctor, the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased, are all on the front side, and they could have been caused by these two weapons.When this recovery has been made from the accused, pursuant to the confessional statement, he has also produced a pant and shirt marked as M.Os.6 and 7 respectively.All these material objects were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department on a requisition made by the Investigator through the concerned Court, along with the clothes of the deceased lady and of the accused.It is pertinent to point out that all these material objects which were clothes worn by the lady and also the clothes worn by the accused, apart from the weapons of crime contained the same blood group, and thus, the prosecution was able to prove the nexus between the crime and the accused not only by the recovery of the weapons of crime pursuant to the confessional statement made by the accused, but also by the scientific evidence which was pointing to the guilt of the accused.Further, it can be well stated that except the accused, no one was found in the place of occurrence at or about the time, and the presence of the accused is an admitted fact.12.Now, the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the report, Ex.P1, and the FIR have not come into existence as put forth by the prosecution cannot be accepted for the simple reason that on hearing the information about the same, an intimation was given to the Inspector of Police who rushed over to the hospital.But, at the same time, P.W.1 on ascertaining the fact that his wife is actually dead, proceeded to the Police Station and gave the complaint, Ex.P1, pursuant to which the case came to be registered by P.W.17 under Sec.302 of IPC.Only thereafter, at the time of investigation, it was revealed that it was the accused who was involved in the case.That apart, mere delay in sending the hair, which was collected from the hands of the deceased, to the Court or the requisition for examining the same by itself cannot be a reason to doubt the prosecution case.It is pertinent to point out that when the hair was actually put to scientific analysis, it was found to be inconclusive, and hence the prosecution did not make out a point out of the same.15.Above all, at the time of the investigation, the finger print expert was called, and finger prints were actually taken from the materials available.They were also compared with the finger prints of the accused and were found to be tallying.Thus, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.But at the same time, it was within his knowledge, and he has suppressed the entire information.1.The Sessions Judge Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam2.The Inspector of Police B1, Police Station Udhagamandalam3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"On 28-4-1985 at about 12 Noon, while she was waiting at the bus stop of Janki Devi College for going to her house at Sardar Patel Marg, Dhaula Kuan Delhi the accused Ram Bahadur, as per the prosecution evidence, approached her and told her that the maternal uncle of Laxmi is unwell.Laxmi agreed to accompany him to inquire about the health of her uncle.The accused then took her in a three wheeler Scooter to the Railway Station and made her sit in a train scheduled for going to Moradabad.On that very evening they reached Moradabad.On enquiry as to where is her maternal uncle, the accused is alleged to have threatened her to keep quite.It is the further case of the prosecution that on the morning of 30th April, 1985 Laxmi was taken to a bathroom at the Railway Station.The accused also followed her.In the bathroom, the accused asked Laxmi to undress herself.She felt nervous and raised alarm.She came running out of the bathroom.After covering some distance she met Vijay Raj, Mumtaz, Narain Singh and Jagdish, who were working as labourers at the Railway Station.Statement of Mumtaz was recorded and case registered.As the accused and Laxmi had come from Delhi and the offence of kidnapping had taken place there, the case was transferred to Delhi, for further investigation.On 3.5.1985, Laxmi was brought to Chankaya Puri Police Station where her statement Ex. PW-3/A was recorded.The case was then referred to Police station RajinderNagar.There also her statement Ex. PW-2/DA was recorded.JUDGMENT M.K. Chawla, J.These persons apprehended and secured the accused who was chasing Laxmi.Both of them were produced before the Moharrar at Police Station Moradabad.She was not sent for medical examination.He refused to join the same.On the basis of the facts disclosed in the report under Section 173 Cr. P.C., a prima facie case under Sections 363, 366, 354, and 506 I.P.C. was found to have been made out.The charges were accordingly framed.The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.(3) The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses out of which the statement of the prosecutrix and her mother are important.The evidence of the remaining witnesses is of formal nature.(4) In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied his involvement of kidnapping, intimidating or outraging the modesty of Laxmi.He even denied his arrest at the Railway Station Moradabad.He, however, did not produce any evidence in defense.(5) The learned Addl.Sessions Judge on consideration of the material on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to bring any material to justify the conviction of the accused under Sections 366, 354 or 506 Indian Penal Code .He, however, held him guilty of the offence under Section 363 Indian Penal Code .and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs. 100.00 .In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.","['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(INDORE):Shri Tarun Kushwah, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Virendra Khadav, learned counsel for the State.Heard on admission.Also heard on IA No.8542/18, which is an application for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant Ghanshyam.Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 02.11.2018 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Jhabua in Special Sessions Trial No.09/2017 whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under sections 363/34, 366/34, 354-A of the IPC and u/s 3(2)(v)(a) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/, RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/- RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- and RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/- respectivelywith further default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn Court's attention towards the contradictions in the evidence of -2- Parvatibai which have been reflected in paras-21 & 22 of the impugned judgment.The contradictions are mainly in respect of the fact that Parvatibai states in para-9 that on the date of the incident she remained in the house through out the day and in para-10 she states that the accused left her behind Seelkhodari and were apprehended from village Para whereas as per prosecution case she was rescued from the clutches of accused from the motorcycle in which she was being taken.Heard learned counsel for the State as well.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, the application is allowed and the jail sentence passed against the appellant shall remain suspended and the appellant is directed to be released on bail subject to his depositing the fine amount (if already not deposited) and upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 26.03.2019 and on such further dates as may be fixed -3- in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal.C.c as per rules.(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair Date: 2019.01.31 18:05:01 +05'30' hk/","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::The prosecution case in short compass is that on 08-05- 2019, complainant - Adikabai Angad Ughade, resident of Kasari, Taluka Dharur, District Beed approached to the Police of Dindrud Police Station, District Beed, and ventilated the grievance that she is residing along with sons, daughter-in-law and eking livelihood by doing labour work.It has been alleged that in the previous year the complainant had obtained advance amount of Rs. 10,000/- from Bhagwat Pandurang Bade.The person Pappu Bade had taken the guarantee of repayment of amount.Accordingly, she refunded the entire amount.The complainant further grumbled that on 08-05- 2019, at about 7.00 a.m. when the complainant and her sons were present in the house, the appellant came and hurled abuses to the complainant and her son.He was saying that why they did not settle the previous dispute.The appellant assaulted the complainant with the help of wooden log and caused bleeding injury to her.Thereafter one Sushila, Ramprabhu Bhagwat, Satwashila and daughter in law of Pandurang Bade came there and assaulted the complainant.They threatened to kill her.They all hurled casteist abuses to the complainant with intention to insult and humiliate them on her caste within a public view.1. Heard.The matter is taken up for its finality on merit with the consent of both sides.This appeal is directed against the impugned Order of rebuffing the relief of pre-arrest bail to the appellant in Crime No. 87 of 2019 registered with Dindrud Police Station, Dindrud District Beed, under Sections 143, 147, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 ::: 2 921-CriAl-927-19 Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter, referred to as ""Act of 1989"", for the sake of brevity).Therefore, she filed the report.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::3 921-CriAl-927-19Pursuant to FIR, the Police of Dindurd Police Station registered the Crime bearing No. 87 of 2019 and set the penal law in motion.The appellant, apprehending his arrest, filed Misc.Criminal Application bearing No. 199 of 2019 under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the circumstances on record and rejected the application of the appellant on the ground that there are allegations sufficient to make out the offence under the Act of 1989 and in view of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, the appellant is not entitled for relief of anticipatory bail in this case.The impugned order of rejection of application for anticipatory bail of the appellant is the subject-matter of present appeal.The learned counsel for appellant vehemently submits that the appellant is innocent of the charges pitted against him.He has not committed any crime, but he has been falsely implicated in this case to wreak vengeance on account of earlier dispute.According to learned counsel, on the report of one Anita W/o Ramprabhu an offence bearing Crime No. 88 of 2019 is registered against present complainant, her husband and three sons in said Police Station.However, with an intention to give counter blow to the said crime, the present FIR came to be lodged by the present complainant.Therefore, statutory bar under Section 18 and 18-A of the Act of 1989 would not be made applicable to preclude the appellant for::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 ::: 4 921-CriAl-927-19 availing benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in this case.Therefore, there is no any impediment to entertain the application for relief of pre-arrest bail filed on behalf of appellant.The learned counsel further submitted that there is no any recovery nor custodial interrogation of the appellant is required for the sake of investigation.Therefore, impugned order rejecting application for bail by learned trial Court be set aside and appeal be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::6. Learned APP and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 raised, the objection and submitted that the Section 18-A of the Act of 1989 put embargo on the Court for exercise of discretion under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.. The first informant and his family members are from SC/ST community.It has also been observed that the application for anticipatory bail could be entertained only on the ground of inapplicability of provisions of Act of 1989 and it would be ascertained only on the basis of recitals of the FIR or complaint and not embarking upon an roving enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegation made in the FIR.Paragraphs No. 13 and 15 of aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::When the Court is held competent to enter into scrutiny of the allegations to determine whether the person can be treated as accused of commission of offence under the Act of 1989, then question would arise as to what extent the Court would be justified to examine material to determine the prima facie case against him.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::unequivocally pointer to the inference that the application for anticipatory bail can be entertained only on the ground of inapplicability of the provisions of Act of 1989 and it would be ascertainable only on perusal of recitals of the FIR or complaint and not beyond that, because once it is gathered from the FIR that the applicant is accused of committing the offence prescribed under section 3 of the Act of 1989, a bar under section 18 of the Act of 1989 would instantly operate against him.Therefore, the Courts are not permitted to enter into roving enquiry in regard to sustainability of accusation nurtured on behalf of complainant.Moreover, further scrutiny by summoning the case diary or other material to test veracity of the allegations made in the FIR also not permissible under the law.""In the present appeal, the prosecution applied the provisions of sections 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989 against the present appellant which reads as under:Punishments for ofennes of atronities :-(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Snheduled Caste or a Snheduled Tribe :-[(va) nommits any ofenne spenifed in the Snhedule, against a person or property, knowing that sunh person is a member of a Snheduled Caste or a Snheduled Tribe or sunh property belongs to sunh member, shall be punishable with sunh punishment as spenifed under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for sunh ofennes and shall also be liable to fne.]After perusal of FIR lodged against the present appellant, prima facie, it reveals that the ingredients of aforesaid penal provisions do not match with factual score of the present case.It means that there must be prima facie affirmation or say in the FIR/ complaint that the accused is not the member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.In the present complaint, absolutely there is no averment to the effect that appellant-applicant is belonging to higher caste or atleast that he is not a member of Scheduled Caste.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::In the matter-in-hand, averments in regard to appellant that he is not the member of SC or ST community or he is belonging from higher caste, is totally absent in the alleged FIR.Moreover, there are no allegations attributed to the appellant that he had an participation in the act to hurl casteist abuses to the complainant.It would also fallacious to draw inference that the appellant had an knowledge about the caste of complainant.There was no any whisper about all these factual aspects in the FIR.Therefore, statutory bar under::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 ::: 8 921-CriAl-927-19 Section 18 of the Act, 1989, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::Taking into consideration all the circumstances discussed above, there is no impediment to conclude that in spite of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, for invocation of powers under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. it is still open to this Court to find out by looking to the recitals of FIR of the case itself, as to whether prima facie case is made out by the first informant against present appellants.As referred supra, the scrutiny of factual score reveals that there are no sufficient material available on record prima facie to arrive at the conclusion that the allegations nurtured on behalf of prosecution constitute offence under the Act of 1989 against appellant.Therefore, there is no impediment to entertain the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for relief of pre-arrest bail on behalf of appellant.According to prosecution, the alleged incident was occurred at the house of complainant.It has not alleged that the appellant-accused after assault taken away the weapon-wooden log with him.Therefore, no question arises about recovery of weapon at the behest of appellant-accused.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::9 921-CriAl-927-19 However, the appellant has shown inclination to co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.In such circumstances, it would justifiable to allow the bail application filed before learned trial Court on behalf of the appellant.In sequel, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed.The impugned order dated 10-07-2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, in Misc.Criminal Application No. 199 of 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside.The application of the appellant filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for his pre-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Court is hereby granted.The present appellant be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 87 of 2019 registered with Dindrud Police Station, Dindrud, District Beed for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) with one solvent surety of like amount each.It is stipulated that appellant-applicant shall not indulged, directly or indirectly, in any kind of activities of tampering with the evidence of the prosecution witness.The appellant- applicant shall attend the Dindrud Police Station, Dindrud, District Beed, on every Sunday in between 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. till filing of the charge-sheet and co-operate the Investigating Officer for the sake of investigation into the crime.Inform the concerned Investigating Officer accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::10 921-CriAl-927-19Fees of the learned Advocate Mr. Somani appointed on behalf of respondent No. 2 is quantified at Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), which would be payable by the High Court Legal Services Authority, Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.The present Criminal Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.No order as to costs.[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE MTK.::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 22:40:45 :::","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the appellant was giving tuition to the prosecutrix Geeta Kumari and her sister at their residence.It is stated that on 30th April, 1989 at about 7 PM the appellant came to their house and in the presence of the family members told Geeta Kumari P.W.1 that he won't be giving tuition on that day and went away.Immediately, thereafter, it is stated that PW-1 left the house telling the members of the family that she was going to grand-father's house to watch television.It is further stated that on the way she met by the appellant and he on the pretext of taking her to a movie took her in his motor cycle towards Muzaffarpur.From Muzaffarpur, he took her in a train to Jasidih from where he took her to Devghar.The prosecution further states that there he forced PW-1 to marry him and made her sign certain papers.JUDGMENT Santosh Hegde, J.The appellant herein was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 182/89 for offences punishable under Section 366A and 376 of the IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years on each of those counts but the sentences were directed to run concurrently.On appeal, the High court of Patna has confirmed the said sentence.On 10.5.89, PW-1 was recovered from the house of the appellant by the police.After investigation, a case was registered against the appellant and he was charged as stated above and having been found guilty by the two courts below the appellant has filed this appeal.The factum of the recovery of PW-1 from the house of the appellant is not in dispute.While it is the case of prosecution that it is the appellant who either by inducement or threat took away PW-1 from her house, the defence case is that PW-1 had eloped with somebody and her love affair having failed with the person with whom she eloped and she being scared to get back to the house had come to the house of the appellant who the had informed PW-6, the father of the girl about PW-1 coming to his house.The defence further states that after being annoyed and having found none else to blame her father has foisted a false case against the appellant.As noticed above, one of the charges of which the appellant has been found guilty is under Section 366A which refers to procreations of a minor girl.To establish this charge, the prosecution has to prove that PW-1 was a minor on the date when she was taken away from her house.In regard to this fact, the prosecution relies on the evidence of PW-1 the girl herself, PW-6, her father and PW-10 the Doctor who examined her.So far as PW-1's evidence is concerned it is prima facie not acceptable when she says that she was only 14 years on the date when she was taken way from her father's house.This evidence runs counter to all other material on record to which we shall refer presently.4. PW-6 the father of the girl in his evidence has stated that he was married in the year 1952 and he had two daughters.If that be the year of birth of PW-1 then the incidence in question being in the year 1989, PW1 ought to be 19 years on that day.This witness further says that PW1 had appeared for her Board examination in the year 1988 and had failed.This also gives an indication that it is likely that the age of PW-1 on the date of incidence was around 19 years.5. PW-10 the doctor in his evidence has stated that PW1's X-ray photograph showed partial epiphyte seal fusion of iliac crest.In her opinion, PW1 appeared to be 17 years old which opinion of the Dr. is from the very language used by her shows it to be approximate.The physique of PW-1 as explained by PW-10 also indicates the probability of PW-1 being above the age of 18 years.In this background if we examine the evidence of PWs.6 and 10 it is clear that evidence of PW-1 is wholly unreliable when she states that she was only about 14 years old.Even though PW-10 Dr. stated that PW-1 appeared to be 17 years old cannot be held that this evidence is conclusive enough to come to the conclusion that PW-1 was really below 18 years on the date of incidence, in view of positive statements made by PW-6 the father.We have already referred to the evidence of the father, according to whose evidence PW-1 was 19 years of age when she left the house of the father.In such situation, we think it not safe to come the conclusion that PW-1 was less than 18 years of age on the date when she left the house of her father.While discussing this part of the prosecution case, the Trial court in its judgment has not considered the evidence of PW-6 the father at all.It merely relied upon evidence of PW-10 accepting the same on its face value, without discussing the other material that was available on record.Even the High Court in this regard in its judgment merely stated ""Dr. who examined the prosecutrix found her age to be 17 years....."" the High Court has not independently given any finding either accepting this evidence or not.In this background for the reasons already stated hereinabove we think that the prosecution has failed to establish that PW-1 was less than 18 years of age as on the date of incidence.If that be so, charge under 366A of which the appellant was found guilty by both the courts below shall fail.The leaned counsel for the State, however, contended that if the charge under Section 366A should fail then, the appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 366 for kidnapping, abducting or inducing a woman to compel her to marry.He has referred to the evidence of PW-1 in this regard and contends that even though there is no specific charge under Section 366 still on the material available on record a conviction under Section 366 could be based and no prejudice would be caused to the appellant.But then, we will have to notice that even to establish the charge under Section 366 IPC, there should be acceptable evidence to show that either PW-1 was compelled to marry the appellant against her will and/or was forced to or induced to intercourse against her will.This would therefore, require the prosecution to prove that there was some such undue force on the PW-1 either to marry the appellant or to have intercourse with him.Therefore, both for the purpose of 366 and for the purpose of Section 376 IPC, there should be material to establish that either the alleged marriage or the intercourse has taken place without the consent of PW-1 if she is above the age of 18 years or 16 years as the case may be.In this regard, if we examine the evidence of PW-1, it is clear that on the date of incidence when the appellant came to her house and told her that he will not be taking tuition class as on that day, she decided to go to her grand father's house to watch TV.She says on the way she was met by the appellant who took her on his motorcycle promising her of taking her to a movie at Sitamarhi.She found on the way that he was not going to Sitamarhi but was going to Muzaffarpur Railway Station.According to her, she protested but she was threatened.She alleges that the appellant forced her to sign some papers to marry him.In our opinion, it is extremely difficult to accept her evidence when she states that she was taken by the appellant without her consent.if we see sequence of events starting from 30th April 1989 to 10 of May 1989 it is clear that she has accompanied the appellant willingly.The evidence of PW-1 indicates that there was a prior planning by her with the appellant together to elope, and it is because of that, the appellant came to PW's house on 30.04.1989 and told her that he will not be taking tuition on that day and immediately thereafter PW-1 left her house on the pretext of going to her grand father's house to see Television.It is not her case that when she was accosted by the appellant on his motorcycle, she went with him under a threat.On the contrary, the evidence shows that she willingly went with him on his motorcycle to see a movie at Sitamarhi.She says she was threatened only when she protested as against she being taken to Muzaffarpur.On the contrary, we notice she was with him from 30th of April to 10th of May, during which period she had travelled by train, temp and stayed with the appellant without there being any evidence of her having protested or having made any effort to seek help from others or even trying to run away.Apart from that from the record, it is seen that PW-6 in the FIR had stated that ""I got information from my wife in the house that Geeta went away by taking clothes and a gold chain and she took Rs. 500/- in cash in total amounting to Rs. 8500/-.This evidence though subsequently resiled by PW-6 indicates that PW-1 had planned her departure from the house in advance and had willingly gone away with the appellant which also indicates that there was no threat or inducement either in regard to her leaving the house or in regard to accompanying the appellant.In such situation in the absence of any other material to show to the contrary it will be difficult to accept the prosecution case that either there was a forcible marriage or rape as contended by the prosecution to find the appellant guilty under Section 366 or 376 IPC.Since the courts below proceeded on the basis that PW-1 was a girl below the age of 18 on the date she left the house they have not properly appreciated the evidence in regard to her consent which is a mandatory requirement before finding a person guilty under Section 366 or 376 IPC.There is no doubt that the appellant who was a tuition teacher of PW-1 has misused the trust reposed in him by the PW-1's family but then since the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that PW-1 was below the age of 18 and the evidence on record indicates that PW-1 had willingly gone away with the appellant and in the absence of any threat, coercion or inducement, having been established by the prosecution we think it not possible to rely on the prosecution case to come to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the charges framed against him under Section 366A and 376 IPC or even 366 as contended by the learned counsel for the State.For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds.","['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.P.GARG SANJIV KHANNA, J:He has been sentenced to Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10, 000/-.In default of payment of fine, he will undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.It is not disputed that Sansarwati was the wife of the appellant and they have five children.They were married for thirteen years.In the present case, there is no eye witness and the case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence of dying declaration, seizures made from the spot of the occurrence, i.e., house of the appellant and Sansarwati at D-17/42, Shahabad Dairy, Delhi, motive and conduct of the appellant.5. PW-2 has stated that Sansarwati, his sister used to complain that the appellant gave her beatings and did not pay for household expenses.His sister's brother-in-law, Sunil and his wife Sunita used to reside in the same locality, i.e., after two-three houses and they used to give beatings to her occasionally.On 29th September, 2004 at about 2.30 p.m., PW-2 was taking lunch at his residence when he was informed by one lady, who was a relative and resided in the same neighbourhood, that his sister was burnt.He rushed to the house of his sister and found her on the ground floor of the house in a burnt condition.Another person Prem Sagar (sic.Prem Kumar) PW-5 had made a telephone call to the police and PCR officials arrived at the spot/residence.Sansarwati was put in the gypsy, and thereafter in the ambulance at G.T. Karnal Road bye pass, and was taken to JPN Hospital.The deceased was conscious, when PW-2 had reached the residence and remained conscious till she was taken and admitted in JPN Hospital.Sansarwati told him that her husband had poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire with a match stick.He reached the residence of his sister within two-three minutes and it must be between 2.30 to 3 PM.G.T. Karnal Road was at a distance of five kilometres.His statement was recorded on 28th September, 2004 before the death of his sister.His sister expired on 1st October, 2004 at 5.30AM.PW-2 is the brother of the deceased.He was residing very near to the house/residence of the deceased.PW-2, when cross-examined had stated that his house was 2-3 houses away from the residence of his sister, i.e., deceased.His presence at the spot immediately after the occurrence is also proved from the testimonies of the PCR police officers PW6 SI Pradeep Rana and PW20 Head Constable Omender Kumar.The said bottle is clearly visible in the photographs, which were taken by PW-7, Manish, resident of B-688, Shahabad Dairy, Delhi, who was carrying on business in the name of Sonu Photo Studio.He had taken photographs at 8 p.m. The bottle of kerosene oil was seized from the first floor.He had seen the smoke at a distance of about twenty meters.We may note here that the appellant and PW-2 were working in a gas agency and were responsible for supplying gas to customers.She had stated that first at about 2 to 2.30 p.m. she had heard cries ""aag lag gayi aag lag gayi"" coming from the house of Murari Lal and Sansarwati had received burnt injuries.All five children were crying.Somebody called the police.After some time, accused Murari Lal along with his brother Hari Prasad came there.A. No. 541/2012 Page 12 of 19 date of occurrence at 10 A.M. and she had also come to see him off as he had left for his village.He accepted that the appellant had purchased a plot in the name of his daughter and had rented a shop to a doctor.The prosecution, in support of their case, had examined twenty witnesses.On the question of dying declaration, statement of PW-2, Soudan Singh, brother of the deceased, PW-13, Dr. Ritu Saxena, who CRL.A. No. 541/2012 Page 1 of 19 had recorded the Medico Legal Report (MLC), and SI Praveen Kumar, PW-18 are relevant.We may notice that the trial court has disregarded the dying declaration recorded by PW-18, SI Praveen Kumar, and Exhibit PW-18/A. This aspect has been examined in the paragraphs below.A. No. 541/2012 Page 1 of 19The police officials had also recorded her statement in JPN Hospital.On being cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he corrected himself and stated that the date of occurrence was 27 th September, 2004 and not 29th September, 2004, which was stated by him by mistake.When cross-examined by the counsel for the appellant, PW-2 had stated that his bhabi had come and informed him that his sister was CRL.A. No. 541/2012 Page 2 of 19 burnt.He had met his sister on 30th September, 2004 and at that time his sister was unconscious.His sister had given her statement to the police and then told him about the incident.Statement was given to the police on the spot in the presence of the other persons, but his sister had not put any thumb or foot impression on the statement.His sister was married before him and when she was married PW-2 was residing in Bullandshair.A. No. 541/2012 Page 2 of 19He was with Sansarwati when she was admitted in the hospital.PW-13, Dr. Ritu Saxena, CMO, Casualty, LNJP Hospital had admitted and recorded the MLC.The MLC Exhibit PW-13/A records that Soudan Singh, brother of the deceased Sansarwati, had brought her to the hospital in a CATS ambulance.The MLC further records that the patient was conscious and her pulse was 80 per minute, though she had burns all over the body to the extent of 98%.The MLC Ex. PW13/A also records that CRL.A. No. 541/2012 Page 3 of 19 the patient had given alleged history of burns due to pouring of kerosene oil by her husband at her house, in Shahbad Dairy at 2.50PM.It was recorded that this was stated by the patient herself, i.e., Sansarwati, the deceased.A. No. 541/2012 Page 3 of 19There was no reason and cause for the deceased to falsely and wrongly state that the appellant was guilty and responsible for the burns and that he had poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire, a grave and serious charge against her husband, who was married to her for thirteen years.There was no reason for PW-13 to wrongly record the said statement immediately on the admission of the deceased in the hospital in the MLC Exhibit PW-13/A. It is also clear from the MLC that the deceased despite severe burns the deceased was conscious and oriented.As noted before, her pulse was 80 per minute.There is evidence and material to suggest and show that the relationship between the appellant and the brothers of the deceased were not cordial but this does not mean that PW2 would have falsely implicated the appellant and would have wrongly attributed her injuries/death to the appellant.The statement made by the deceased to the PW2, as already recorded and noted above, was again reiterated to PW13, a doctor.It was also recorded in the MLC.A. No. 541/2012 Page 4 of 199. PW-13, Dr. Ritu Saxena in her cross-examination had stated that when she examined the patient, i.e., the deceased, she was conscious.The deceased was admitted there and till he left, she was speaking.PW-2 was extensively cross-examined by the accused on 11th April, 2005 but he withstood the said cross-examination and remained steadfast on his statement implicating the appellant.He had also stated that he had not seen the appellant accused at the spot as he was busy looking after the deceased sister.In the cross-examination, on the said date, he wanted to substantially change his statement and had stated that his deceased sister was crying ""jala diya jala diya"" but had not named any person, who had burnt her.He stated that the deceased had not made any statement to the police in his presence.However, when re-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he accepted that the statement made on 11th April, 2005 was his correct statement and the deceased sister had told him that her husband had poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire.He reiterated that the police officers also reached the hospital and had recorded the statement of his sister.His statement dated 11th April, 2005 was correct.11. PW-18, SI Praveen Kumar, who was also the Investigating Officer, had recorded the statement of the deceased Sansarwati, which is Exhibit PW-18/A. The same forms a part of the rukka resulting in registration of the FIR.Initially, Section 307 IPC was invoked, which CRL.A. No. 541/2012 Page 5 of 19 was converted on the death of Sansarwati into Section 302 IPC.The said endorsement was proved by the prosecution through PW-17, Dr. Arun Goel.He had stated that Dr. Ajay Sagar had left the hospital and his present whereabouts were not known.He identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Ajay Sagar and had stated that the endorsement at point B on Exhibit PW-13/A was in his handwriting and duly signed by him.PW-17 was, however, not present in the ward at 6.10 p.m. In his cross-examination, he had stated that the patient had not cried or resisted when she had received 98% burn injuries.It would have been certainly better and wiser if PW-18 had ensured that the dying declaration was recorded by a doctor or Magistrate.This would have assured greater credibility and taken care of any question or contention.It is an additional factor and ground to hold that the two dying declarations should be accepted as true and trustworthy.The dying declarations are identical and implicate the appellant as the person, who had poured kerosene oil and then ignited the fire burning Sansarwati, the deceased, his wife.This aspect has been elucidated from paragraph 17 onwards.A. No. 541/2012 Page 5 of 19It was a plastic bottle, which still had some oil in it.Burnt cloth and match stick was also seized vide memo Exhibit PW-14/A. This is proved from the testimony of PW-14, ASI, Shiv Narain and PW-18, SI Praveen Kumar.The presence of kerosene in the bottle is established by PW-15, Ms. Veena Amba Pd., Junior Scientific Officer, CFSL Laboratory, Hyderabad.The plastic bottle, as per the CFSL report, (Exhibit PW-15/A) had blue coloured liquid which was kerosene.However, kerosene could not be detected in the match box or the burnt clothes.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, as per Exhibit PW-19/C, the first report recorded by Police Control Room was that ""a wife had caught fire because of gas cylinder"".The said information was possibly given by PW-5, Prem Kumar.PW-5 had stated that he saw smoke from the house in question between 2-3 p.m. Public persons were saying that the house of the appellant had caught fire.He came to his house and informed the PCR from his mobile.Naturally and normally, it can be expected that they would be using gas cylinder at home, which is a convenient method of cooking, rather than using kerosene oil stove for the purpose of cooking.PW-14 and PW-18 were not cross- examined and it was not put to them that any kerosene gas stove was available or found in the house.No question was put to them regarding whether the kitchen was damaged or was there anything which indicated that the deceased had got burnt accidently while cooking in the kitchen.A. No. 541/2012 Page 7 of 19Referring to the statement of PW-5, it was submitted that five children of the accused appellant were present in the house but they were not questioned.PW-5 in his cross-examination had stated that children of the accused later came down from the house and were questioned by the firemen.Police did not interrogate the children of the accused appellant.There is no evidence or material to show that firemen had come to the house.PW-2 in his cross-examination had stated that the accused and his sister had five children.The eldest daughter was physically challenged and aged about fourteen years.The second eldest was a boy aged about eight years.The three children used to go to school and two children used to remain in the house.Obviously the said two children were small.The eldest daughter Pavitra had appeared as DW-1 and in her statement, recorded on 29th May, 2006, she had stated that her mother was perhaps pouring CRL.A. No. 541/2012 Page 8 of 19 kerosene in the stove or trying to ignite the stove when she caught fire and started crying.She was sitting in her room and her mother completely got burnt when the police came to their house.Her father Murari Lal was not in the house and telephone call was made by one Lalti Devi informing the police.In the cross-examination, DW-1 had stated that she does not know how to read and write and was an illiterate.She denied the suggestion that her father had poured kerosene oil on her mother and set her on fire and killed her.DW-1 is the daughter of the deceased and the appellant.PW-2 had stated that the children were residing with the grandmother in the village.Her belated statement appearing as defence witness on 29th May, 2006 has to be carefully scrutinized before it is accepted.She was about 13/14 years old at the time of her statement.We have already commented upon the existence and the use of kerosene stove in the house for cooking, by the deceased.Surprisingly, PW-2 was never cross- examined on the said lines and on the basis of statement made by DW-A. No. 541/2012 Page 8 of 19Having lost their mother, DW-1's desire and wish to help and protect their father, the appellant herein, is understandable.Both of them were not cross-examined and questioned as to why and for what reason statements of DW-1 or other children, of the appellant and the deceased, were not recorded.DW-1, Pavitra had stated that she was illiterate and did not know how to read and write because she had not been to any school.This statement was made to justify her presence at home.However, she had signed her statement in Hindi and also written the date.She had also given a wrong time of occurrence.She had stated that the occurrence had taken place at 12 noon/1 P.M. whereas the occurrence had actually taken place around 2.30 to 2.45 P.M. PW- 2 had clearly stated that the three elder children use to go to school.A. No. 541/2012 Page 9 of 19It may be also interesting to note that the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded on 8th December, 2005 had stated that he was not present at the spot and his daughter had told him that this was a mishap or may be a suicide.The daughter, DW-1 did not state or claim that it was a case of suicide.Relying upon the statements of DW-2 Lalti Devi, DW-3, Mohd. Yakub, DW-4, Hari Prasad and DW-5, Girish Kumar it was submitted that the appellant was not responsible for the said occurrence and had not thrown kerosene oil or ignited the fire.In fact, he was not present in the house at the time of the occurrence.PW-2 had also not seen the appellant.It is correct that PW-2 had not seen the appellant but the appellant's presence is indicated and mentioned in the dying declarations of the deceased Sansarwati.In the cross- examination, she admitted that she had not told the said story or her version to any authority, either police or the court.She was aware that the appellant had been apprehended on the same day on the charge of murdering his wife and she had come to know about the same on the very day.She was not able to give any reason as to why she did not tell to any person and authority, prior to her making the statement in the court that the appellant was not at home and had not been named by the deceased.A. No. 541/2012 Page 10 of 19DW-3, Mohd, Yakub is a beldar, who claimed that he was working with the appellant for the same gas agency.He had stated that (DW-2) Lalti Devi had called him on his mobile and informed the appellant about the said incident, when the appellant was sitting at a tea shop across the road.When cross-examined, DW-3 stated that he had informed the police about his version when police had come to the spot after three days but he could not tell the name or rank of the policeman.Thereafter, he never told the story to any court or police or wrote to any senior officer.More importantly, DW-3 could not explain how (DW-2) Lalti Devi could imagine or know that the appellant and he were together at the date and time of the occurrence.DW-4, Hari Prasad is the brother of the deceased Sansarwati.He had stated that at 2/2-30 P.M. a phone call was received by DW-4 from a lady that there was a fire in the house of the appellant and his wife had received burn injuries.After hearing the message, Murari Lal and he went to the house.He had stated that relationship between the appellant and his wife was cordial and his sister had never complained about her husband or his behaviour.He had spoken to his sister.She never complained against the appellant.His father had come to Delhi after the occurrence to meet the deceased.Statement of DW-4 has to be examined with caution and care before being disregarded as he is the brother of the deceased and has supported the appellant.In his cross-examination, he admitted that he came to know about the arrest of the appellant in the murder case of his sister, after about 2 to 3 days of the incident, but he did not tell the story to the police or any other authority even after the appellant-accused was arrested.He volunteered that he did not know that this could be done.He did not forbid his father or PW-2, Soudan Singh from deposing against the CRL.A. No. 541/2012 Page 11 of 19 appellant.In the cross-examination he tried to resile from his earlier statement recorded on 11th April, 2005 but when he was re-examined by the Public Prosecutor, he accepted that his earlier statement recorded on 11th April, 2005 was correct.We do not think the statement made by DW-4 is credible and truthful.DW4 has not stated what he and Murari Lal did after coming to the spot of occurrence, on the said day.Murari Lal could not be seen at the spot by PW2 Soudan Singh.PW5 did not also see Murari Lal at the spot when they reached, after the deceased was injured and burnt.This apart there is contradiction between the statements made by (DW3) Mohd. Yakub and (DW4) Hari Prasad.DW3 had stated that appellant was with him whereas DW4 had stated that he along with the appellant went to the house of the deceased i.e. the house of Murari Lal.Why and how Murari Lal came to him is not indicated or explained.He had suddenly sprung up and decided to support the appellant, probably keeping in mind the interest of the children.DW-4's statement that he came to know about the arrest of the appellant 2/3 days after the incident is not believable and cannot be accepted.In his statement, he had stated that his daughter deceased used to tell him that the accused used to favour his brother and sister-in-law and was not providing proper food or properly maintaining her.His daughter used to tell her grievances.He used to advise her daughter to reside peacefully as it was a family matter.He had met his daughter on the CRL.His daughter was unhappy on account of some dispute, which had arisen 4-5 months prior to the incident between his two sons and son-in-law, i.e., appellant, who had worked together.He was not, however, aware about the cause of the dispute.His sons were not having ill feeling towards the accused but they were not on visiting terms.It was suggested to him that the deceased had committed suicide.The suggestion was denied.A. No. 541/2012 Page 11 of 19A. No. 541/2012 Page 12 of 19DW-5, Girish Kumar had stated that he was residing in the neighbourhood and on 27th September, 2004, at 2.30 P.M. he heard noise of ""bachao bachao"" and went to the house of the sister of Soudan Singh, who was shouting and was standing in a gali in a burnt condition.Soudan Singh had put a blanket on her and she was completely burnt.Pavitra met them and told them that her mother had got burnt while preparing tea on the stove and one neighbour had called 100 number.He claimed that he had travelled with Soudan Singh and was with the deceased when she was admitted in the emergency in JPN Hospital, and was treated by a lady doctor.Deceased had not made any statement to the lady doctor.On being cross-examined, he denied that he had not accompanied the deceased to the hospital in the PCR van as well as in the CAT ambulance.His presence was not put to PW-2, Soudan Singh, when he was cross-examined.PW-6, SI Pradeep Rana, Jr. Ambulance Officer, CAT Ambulance Service had stated that there was one attendant.He was not cross-examined that DW-5 was also present.A. No. 541/2012 Page 13 of 19In the said case, the police had failed to examine witnesses essential for unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution case was based.Some of the eye witnesses to the occurrence named in the FIR, who were important witnesses were not examined and kept back.This, it was indicated, was a special significance given the discrepancy between the FIR and the version of the occurrence given by the prosecution in the Court.20. PW-20, Head Constable Omender Kumar, in his statement had stated that he was posted as Head Constable in PCR, North-West Zone and had received a call that one lady had received burn injuries in Shahabad Dairy.He reached the house and noticed that one lady with burn injuries was lying at the gate of the house and Soudan Singh was present there.She was oriented and speaking.She was taken in the PCR van and then in the CAT van, which was parked at G.T. Karnal bye pass.The lady had given her name as Sansarwati, wife of Murari Lal.In the examination-in-chief, he had stated that the injured lady did not tell anything else to him or his staff.However, when cross-A. No. 541/2012 Page 14 of 19examined by the Public Prosecutor, PW-20 had stated that she had named her husband Murari Lal as the person, who had poured kerosene upon her and set her on fire.This fact was recorded in the Exhibit PW- 19/C, the PCR form, a form in which communication made is recorded.Her husband was not there.He had forgotten the said facts in his examination-in-chief.PW-20 had, therefore, initially denied whether the deceased had said anything to him or his staff, but later on when confronted with Ex. PW19/C PCR form, he had stated that the deceased named Murari Lal as the person who had poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire.Statement of PW-20 has been relied upon to the limited extent and purpose i.e. that when he had transported the deceased in the PCR van, Soudan Singh was with them and the deceased was oriented and speaking.He had denied that (DW5) Girish Kumar had accompanied them in the PCR van.A. No. 541/2012 Page 15 of 19","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Arguments heard upon the appeal filed under Section 14-A of theS.C./S.T. (Prevention o f Atrocities) A c t on 18/10/2018 o n behalf of appellants viz. Golu Yadav, Halkebhai and Rajkumar.This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 16/10/2019 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Damoh.Case diary of Crime No. 254/2019 registered under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(V-A) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act registered at Police Station Tendukheda District Damoh also perused.Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction, the appeal stands disposed of.","['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Form No.J(1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Present:The Hon'ble Justice Madhumati Mitra C.R.R. 614 of 2019 With CRAN 1613 of 2019 Pramod Kumar Jhunjhunwala Anr.The petitioners have approached before this Court for quashing of the criminal proceedings being C.S.Case No.6173/2018 under Sections 120B/420/406/364/364A/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kolkata.Before dealing with the rival submissions of the parties, it would be appropriate to set out the facts briefly.The petitioners are husband and wife and they are the accused of the criminal proceeding pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kolkata.Petitioners have stated in their application that they were the owner of a piece of land with an incomplete super structure of (G+2).The petitioners formed a company and became its directors and holders of the entire shares of the said company viz M/s. Precious Plastic Pvt. Ltd. The present opposite party proposed the petitioners to take over the said company and develop the project.There was an agreement between the present petitioners and the opposite party who was the director of three companies to take over the company of the petitioners.It was settled that the opposite party was to pay a sum of Rs. 4 crores at the beginning.After completion of the entire construction, a sum of Rs.5 crores would be paid to the petitioners along with 1st floor of the building with car parking space.Opposite party neither paid Rs.5 crores after completion of the building nor handed over the 1st floor of the building as agreed upon.However, the parties came to an understanding.During the course of that understanding the signatures of the petitioners were obtained on several documents.Petitioners came to know that those signatures were converted into some valuable documents.Present opposite party filed protest petition opposing the prayer of investigating officer to discharge the petitioner.The said protest petitioner was rejected by the Learned Magistrate and accused was discharged.Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate after taking cognizance transferred the same to the file of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 11th Court for enquiry and disposal in accordance with law.On 05.04.2018, Learned Magistrate examined the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the officer in charge of Hare Street Police Station to take necessary steps for causing an inquiry over the allegations made in the complaint as per the provision contained in Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials placed on record, it appears to me that the short question that arises for consideration in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is whether the Learned Magistrate was justified in issuing process against the petitioners.The order of issuance of the process has been strongly challenged by the petitioners mainly on three grounds:The 1st ground is that previously the opposite party lodged an FIR in respect of the self-same allegations and police submitted final report after completion of investigation.Opposite party filed protest petition challenging the said final report and that protest petition was rejected.The order of rejection of protest petition has not been challenged.Thereafter, the opposite party instead of challenging the said order filed the present complaint on same facts.It is the specific claim of the petitioners that the present complaint being second complaint is totally barred in the eye of law.Now, I have to deal with the points raised by the petitioners one by one.From the copy of the order dated 05.01.2018 passed in G.R.Case No.2298 of 2015, it transpires that after completion of investigation final report was submitted in connection with Hare Street Police Station Case No. 594 of 2015 and the present opposite party filed protest petition.That order of rejection of protest application had not been challenged by the opposite party.Opposite party filed a second complainant on the same facts.""Cognizance taken.Register the case.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 20.01.2016 relating to Crime No.6/2016 registered at Police Station Dheerpura District Datia for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 341, 294 and 436 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.It is alleged against the accused Hardayal that he assaulted the deceased Thakurdas on his head with a sharp cutting weapon and the deceased Thakurdas died due to head injury.There is no allegation against the applicant either he assaulted the deceased Thakurdas or other victim.No common intention of the applicant can be presumed with the co- accused persons for offence under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC, hence, no such offence is made out against the applicant either directly or with help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC.Similarly it is not mentioned against the applicant that he set fire on any house.No offence under Section 436 of IPC is made out against him.He is in custody without any substantial reason.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the bail application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the 2 M.Cr.C. No. 4552/2016 case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted.2 M.Cr.C. No. 4552/2016Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge Abhi","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(H.P. SINGH) JUDGE VK V/ -Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2018.02.07 17:52:20 +05'30'This is first anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Crime No.325/2017 registered at Police Station Pawai, District Panna (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 341, 294 and 506-B of the IPC.There is old enmity due to litigation about the agricultural land between both the parties.The applicant has no criminal antecedents.It is directed that the applicant will surrender himself before Investigating Officer, within ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and then in the event of arrest the applicant, namely, Kishunlal Choudhary, shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand), with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.","['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for the Objector.This application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, namely, Bharat and Hallebhai@ Dhanprasad who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.520/2016 for offences under sections 323, 324, 341, 307, 294 and 506-B of IPC registered at Police Station-Pathariya, District-Damoh.According to the case of the prosecution, the applicant no.1 is stated to have attacked the complainant with a spade causing an injury on the head.As regards the applicant no.2, he is stated to have attacked the complainant with a lathi, causing contusion over his eye and on the waist.As regards the applicant no.1-Bharat, learned counsel for the applicants has sought the withdrawal of the application.Under the circumstances, the application of the applicant no.1 stands dismissed as withdrawn.As regards the applicant no.2, the injury report depicts that the injuries caused by him are simple in nature and are contusions.The said offences according to learned counsel for the applicant would only constitute the offence under sections 323, 324 of IPC.He further states that he did not share any common intention along with the applicant no.1 of causing any kind of injury that would be grievous to life.C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE rk.","['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for State in all Appeals.[Crl.A.28, 65, 66/10 & 131/11] Page 1The case of the prosecution is that on 08.10.2001 at about 07:30 PM, DD No. 26 was recorded regarding information received from HC Jagdish about a stabbing incident at Shahabad Kankarkhera.Again DD No.29 was recorded regarding admission of one Vijender to Bhagawan Mahavir Hospital with the history of stabbing.Thereafter at about 08:15 PM DD No.32 was recorded on receipt of the information from Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital regarding death of injured Vijender.On receipt of this, SI Umed Singh (PW-17) with Ct.Bhim Singh (PW-6) went to the hospital and collected the MLC of deceased Vijender.PW-17 Umed Singh recorded the statement of the brother of the deceased, Ravinder Singh (PW-1), whom he met at the hospital.According to PW-1, in the morning a quarrel had taken place between the deceased, Ravi, Soni, Bonny and Amar Singh.It was resolved then due to intervention of some people around.Ravi had threatened the deceased at that time.In the evening when PW-1 and his brother, Shailender were going towards Kankarkhera drain, to ease themselves, they heard cries for help; they both rushed to the spot and saw that Vicky and Neeraj had caught hold of Vijender and Ravi was stabbing him with a knife; Soni was shouting ""maro saale ko isme bahut akad hai"".PW-1 further stated that he and PW-3 managed to overpower Neeraj and Vicky, however Ravi and Soni managed to escape.On the basis of PW-1s statement, a rukka (Ex.PW-17/A) was prepared and FIR No. 378 of 2001 was registered with PS Bawana.The investigation was handed over to the SHO.The SHO got the spot photographed and on the pointing out of PW-1 got the site plan prepared.The blood stained earth and earth control were seized.The SHO interrogated the accused Neeraj and Vicky and recorded their disclosure statements; the accused were arrested on 09.10.2001 at about 05:30AM by arrest memos Ex.PW-17/C and Ex.The quarrel was settled with the intervention of neighbours and others around.However, according to the account of PW-1, Ravi swore to look out for the deceased.PW-1 deposed that on 08.10.2001 at about 08:00 AM a quarrel took place between the deceased (Vijender) and Ravi, Soni, Bobby and Amar Singh; the matter was settled due to the intervention of local people but Ravi threatened the deceased that he will ""see"" him later.Thereafter in the evening at about 07:00PM the witness and his brother Shailender (PW-3) were going towards Kankarkhera drain to urinate when they heard the deceased shouting bachao bachao.PW-1 further stated to the police that he and PW-3 managed to overpower Neeraj and Vicky however Ravi and Soni managed to escape.He further stated that his uncle Jagdish (PW-5) was passing from there and on hearing the noise, he too came to the spot and he (PW-5) and PW-3 took the accused Neeraj and Vicky to the police station.PW-1 further stated that he took his injured brother to Nanaks (PW-13s) house in the village from where Nanak informed the police and they took Vijender to Shahbad on a motorcycle.From Shahbad they hired a Maruti Van and took Vijender to Bhagwan [Crl.A.28, 65, 66/10 & 131/11] Page 6 Mahavir Hospital where Vijender was declared brought dead.On the basis of PW- 1s statement, the rukka (Ex.PW-17/A) was prepared and an FIR bearing no. 378/ 2001 was registered with PS Bawana.The investigation was handed over to the SHO.The SHO got the spot photographed and on the pointing out of PW-1 got the site plan prepared.The blood stained earth and earth control were seized.The SHO interrogated the accused Neeraj and Vicky and recorded their disclosure statements; the accused were arrested on 09.10.2001 at about 05:30AM by arrest memos Ex.PW-17/C and Ex.PW-17/B.Further on 10.10.2001, PW-1 met the SHO on Kankarkhera Road and informed him that accused Soni was present in the village.He further stated that he took the deceased to Nanaks house; it took 10-15 minutes.He further stated that he had instructed PW-3 and PW-5 to take the accused persons to the police post.In his further cross-examination, he denied that his brother Vijender was lying injured in the field and the accused Vicky and Neeraj brought injured Vijender to his (PW-1s) house.He denied that his mother informed the police by telephone at that time and that all the family members took Vijender to the hospital.He further denied that accused Vicky and Neeraj had been implicated in this case on mere suspicion.He stated that they raised an alarm when they were [Crl.A.28, 65, 66/10 & 131/11] Page 8 running towards Vijender; they were at a distance of about 7 to 8 paces from Vijender when they saw him being stabbed.He further stated that he took Vijender to Nanaks house in the chowk and not to his own house.The appellants appeal against a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 2-12-2009 in SC No. 41/01 whereby they were convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, with other sentences.PW-17/B. Ravi and Soni were arrested subsequently, the next day.The police conducted the investigation, after [Crl.A.28, 65, 66/10 & 131/11] Page 2 which, on the basis of the report, the accused were charged with committing the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC.They denied guilt, and claimed trial.The prosecution in support of its case examined 19 witnesses and relied on several exhibits such as post mortem report, FSL report etc. The defense also examined two witnesses.After considering all these and the submissions of the parties, the Trial Court held the appellants guilty.The Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the case against them beyond reasonable doubt and that this Court should acquit them of all charges.The Counsel submitted that in DDs No.26, 29 and 32 the information was only regarding a stabbing incident and the names of the accused were not mentioned.The Counsel submitted that had there actually been eye-witnesses then the name of the accused persons would have appeared in the DDs.Furthermore the MLC, Ex.However the name of only one accused Ravi is mentioned; the other accused are not mentioned.It was also pointed out that the person whose Maruti Van was hired to take the deceased to the hospital was not examined.The Appellants Counsel argued that PW-1 and PW-3 have contradicted each other on material aspects which go to the root of the case and therefore their testimony should be discarded.He submitted that PW-1 and PW-3 contradicted each other as to whether PW-1 was wearing a T-shirt or a vest.Further PW-1 stated that his statement was recorded on the bench whereas PW-3 stated that PW- 1s statement was recorded on the scooter.The Ld. Counsel further submitted that both the witnesses admitted that there was no electricity at the spot and therefore it would not have been possible for them to see the deceased being stabbed.Further [Crl.A.28, 65, 66/10 & 131/11] Page 3 there was full grown Jawar crop in the field and therefore it is highly unlikely that they would have seen the incident taking place.It was submitted that the accused, Neeraj and Vicky in their statements under Section 313 Cr.PC stated that they were going home from their work-place when they found deceased lying in an injured condition in the field; they (Neeraj and Vicky) brought him to the village chowk and informed his family members.The mother of the deceased dialed 100 number and at about 08:30 PM, the police came to the house of Neeraj and Vicky and took them to the police station.To support their story, they have examined two defense witnesses.DW-1, Baljeet deposed that he knew accused Neeraj and Vicky as well the deceased and his family as they were his neighbours.He deposed that about 6-7 days after 2nd October at about 7/7:30 PM, he heard some noise and came out of his house and saw accused Neeraj and Vicky bringing deceased Vijender to the village chowk.He further deposed that immediately the mother of the deceased, his brothers Ravinder and Shailender and uncle Jagdish also reached the chowk.Nanak (PW-13) took the deceased along with Ravinder (PW-1) on his motorcycle to the hospital.He further deposed that after about an hour and a half, the police came to the village and took Neeraj and Vicky away.He further stated that on inquiry, he came to know from Neeraj and Vicky that he was brought from a field where he was lying in an injured condition.He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the accused.Counsel submitted that DW-2 Om Narain deposed that on 08.10.2001 he had gone to the shop of Bhure Lal for getting his scooter painted and at about 8 PM a gypsy with 3 police officials came there.He further deposed that accused Ravi was painting his scooter at that time and accused Soni was carrying out painting work [Crl.A.28, 65, 66/10 & 131/11] Page 4 on a four wheeler.He further deposed that the police officials took the accused persons away after getting their clothes changed.He denied the suggestion that he had cooked up the story.The Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the deposition of the two defense witnesses proves that the accused have been falsely implicated in this case and that they have been arrested on mere suspicion.These circumstances, coupled with the fact that the names of the attackers were identified at the earliest point, ruled out the possibility of false implication.However they spotted a boy coming on foot about a half kilometer before the village and on the pointing out of PW-1 accused Soni was apprehended.Accused Soni upon interrogation disclosed that co-accused Ravi was hiding in Parhladpur.Thereafter, the accused Ravi made a disclosure statement and got the weapon of offence i.e. a knife recovered from the bushes; the knife was seized and a sketch of the knife was prepared.The police also seized the blood stained clothes accused Ravi was wearing at the time of the commission of the offence.In cross-examination PW-1 stated that they had no enmity with the accused persons.He also stated that his house was ""pucca"" but there was no toilet due to which all the family members used to go outside to ease themselves.He further stated that he spotted Vijender from a distance of about 40-50 paces when he along with Shailender (PW-3) was easing himself; they were sitting before the pulliya in the agricultural field and no crop [Crl.A.28, 65, 66/10 & 131/11] Page 7 had come up at that time.He stated that he heard the noises when he was about to sit.He further stated that the faces of the accused were towards them (PW-1 and PW-3) and they saw Vicky and Neeraj holding Vijender.He further stated that he saw accused Ravi attacking Vijender with a knife when he (PW-1) was running towards the deceased.He stated that when he reached the spot, the deceased was about to fall however he supported him and also caught hold of accused Neeraj; he pulled the collar of Neeraj from behind.He further stated that PW-3 caught hold of accused Vicky; the other two accused ran away.He admitted that as per his visibility, the deceased was stabbed four times.He further admitted that there was no electricity on the road but as it was dawn some natural light was available.He admitted that he alongwith Nanak (PW-13) went to Shahbad on Nanaks motorcycle and from Shahbad they took a van belonging to Shyam Sunder and reached the hospital; the police arrived at the hospital after about half an hour.He stated that the police recorded his statement and from the hospital he alongwith the SHO and the police staff went to the spot in the police car; from the spot they went to the PS where he saw accused Neeraj and Vicky.He further stated that they had left his house at about 06:45 PM and the incident took place at about 7 PM; it took him 15 minutes to reach the chowk from the spot.On reaching the chowk Nanak (PW-13) took out his motorcycle.Blood had fallen on the way to the chowk.He admitted that they reached the hospital at about 8 PM.From the hospital he went to the police post and from the police post he went to the spot.In his further cross-examination he stated that when he reached the spot, accused Ravi and Soni were running away as they heard his cries.He further stated that he informed the police about accused Sonis presence in the village on 10.10.2001 and he was apprehended at about 8/8:30 AM.The accused Soni disclosed about accused Ravis whereabouts and Ravi was apprehended from village Pralhad.He admitted that at the time of the incident Jawar crop was fully grown.He further admitted that after the incident his brother was not able to speak to him due to the injuries and Vijender was not able to tell who had caused the injures.18. PW-3 Shailender who is an eye-witness to the incident has fully corroborated PW-1s version.Both the witnesses were cross-examined at length but the defense was not able to shake their account.Both the witnesses clearly saw accused Neeraj and Vicky holding the deceased and Ravi stabbing the deceased while accused Soni was shouting maar saale ko'.The MLC, Ex.PW-14/A also records the name of accused Ravi.Even PW-5 has deposed that when he reached the spot he saw injured Vijender in a serious condition and accused Neeraj and Vicky were in his custody.The Ld. APP submitted that they have proved the [Crl.A.28, 65, 66/10 & 131/11] Page 9 accused persons guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the Trial Courts decision should not be interfered with.19. PW-10 Dr. RK Punia, the doctor who conducted the post mortem of Vijender and prepared the post mortem report Ex.PW-10 /A has deposed that in his opinion the injuries were caused by a sharp edged weapon and the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of stab injury to the heart.He further deposed that on 08.11.2001 he received a request from the SHO along with a parcel of a weapon.He gave an opinion Ex.PW-10/D that the injuries mentioned in the post mortem could have been caused by the knife examined by him.Therefore, PW-10s deposition also corroborates with the eye-witness account.The injured Vijeder was taken to the hospital, at 8:30 PM (Ex PW-14/A).The rukka was recorded at 11-20 PM (Ex PW-17/A), the FIR registered at 12:20 AM (Ex. PW-2/A).These circumstances, coupled with the fact that the names of the attackers were identified at the earliest point, in the rukka, recorded at 11-20 PM, improbibilizes false implication of the accused.[Crl.A.28, 65, 66/10 & 131/11] Page 10The testimony of witnesses is corroborated by the post mortem report, which says that the deceased had been inflicted four sharp edged injuries; two on the face, and two on the chest.One of the chest injuries was deep enough to penetrate to the heart.The post mortem report and the testimony of PW-10 proved that the knife injury which penetrated the heart was the cause of death.PW-17/B and Ex. PW-17/C are arrest memos in respect of Vicky and Neeraj, who were nabbed at the spot; the police showed their arrest at 5-30 AM.This fact, together with the timing of the FIR and the rukka, in the opinion of the Court, provide external corroboration to the prosecution witnesses version.He clearly was waiting for an opportunity to get even with him.The knife, wielded by him, and the nature of injuries inflicted on a vital part of the body, i.e the chest, which was deep enough to cause the fatality, rule out the applicability of explanation to Section 300 fourth exception, IPC.The intention here was to clearly kill Vijender, and the appellant Ravi succeeded in doing it.The other three accused were unarmed.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Petitioners are facing prosecution for offences u/s 120B read with Sections 420/468/471 IPC, and u/s 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, on a complaint filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports.The offences, alleged against the petitioners, though duly investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation in accordance with the provisions of the Code did not, however, culminate in a report u/s 173 of the Code, as an investigation by the Police would normally do, because cognizance of an offence u/s 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act could not be taken by any court except on a complaint by the competent authority by virtue of Section 6 of the Act. The complainant, respondent herein, is the competent authority for the purpose.In the course of investigation, large number of documents were seized by the Police and a number of persons were examined u/s 161 of the Code.The application was opposed on behalf of the complainant."" The trial Court, however, negatived the claim of the accused to copies being supplied before the commencement of the trial, as in a trial on a police report.","['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT S.K. Chawla, J.Appellant Mohammad Salam challenges his conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life inflicted thereunder.The prosecution case was that on 8-11-1983 at about 11.15 p.m., deceased Kallu Lal Jain, a Cloth Merchant of Jabalpur, went along with his brother Mulayamchand Jain (P.W.-9) to the house of one Islam for dunning for credit money of Rs. 35/-, being the unpaid price of cloth due from Islam.Two brothers of Islam named Jannu and Salam (appellant herein) were found standing at the door of the house.When the deceased asked them about whereabouts of Islam, appellant Salam replied that he was sleeping inside the house.The deceased insisted upon Islam being woken up because he urgently wanted money from Islam.At that stage Islam showed himself up and stood behind appellant Salam.While the conversation was going on, appellant Salam got down from the doorsill, of his house and reaching up to the place where the deceased was standing on the road, plunged a dagger into the abdomen of the deceased.After inflicting that injury, the appellant took to his heels.Deceased Kallu Lal succumbed to his injury on 16-11-1983 in Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur.The said evidence satisfactorily proved the prosecution case.It was a case of abdominal stab wound which was viscera deep.The death had taken place due to gangrene and paralysis of the intestines resulting from the abdominal wound.It was held that the supervening cause of death being the result of the wound, the offender was responsible for causing the death.The only point seriously urged by Shri Rajendra Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant, was that the only offence brought home to the appellant was the reduced offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304, I.P.C. and not the offence of murder under Section 302, I.P.C. of which the appellant was convicted by the learned trial Judge.The nature of the injury sustained by the deceased was described by Dr. S. K. Nema (P.W. 6), who had assisted Senior Doctor Shri Shrivastava (P.W. 16) in performing operation on the injury.Dr. Nema deposed that the stab injury was situated over the lower part of the sternum and went downwards in the abdominal cavity.Exploratory leprotomy was done for operation.There were two perforations measuring 1/2 cm.x 1/4 cm.each through and through over the pyloric part of the stomach, which were repaired by operation.The deceased however developed peritonitis and septicaemia which resulted in his death.Dr. R. D. Sharma (P.W. 16) deposed that the injury sustained by the deceased was likely to cause death.The learned trial Judge found that the appellant had time, however little, for meditation when the deceased was engaged in conversation with him and his brother; that the appellant had thereafter purposely got down from the door-still of his house and after reaching up to the place where the deceased was standing, had plunged a dangerous weapon like the dagger in question into the abdomen of the deceased which was a vital part of the body.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case was one Mr.Selvam.P.W.1 is his wife andP.W.2 is his mother.They were all residing at Varalotti Village inVirudhunagar District.The wife of the first accused is one Mrs.Rajathi.The deceased had developed illicit intimacy with Mrs.Rajaji.Therefore, thefirst accused had developed grudges against the deceased.This is stated tobe the motive for the occurrence.On 19.07.2009, at about 11.00 p.m., the deceased had returned fromVirudhunagar and after taking food, he was sleeping on the pial of the house.P.Ws.1 and 2 were also sleeping on the same pial by the side of the deceased.At about, 11.30 p.m., all the three accused emerged there.The first accusedhad aruval in his hands and the accused 2 and 3 were unarmed.The accused 2 and 3 held the deceased and the first accused mounted repeated attacks witharuval on his body.The deceased cried for help.P.Ws.1 and 2 also raisedalarm.The first accused intimidated P.W.1 by brandishing aruval.Then, allthe three accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.The deceased was lying in a pool of blood.He made arrangement for 108 ambulance.They shifted the deceased to the hospital.Accordingly, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospitalat Virudhunagar.P9 is the accident Register.After first aid treatment, the Doctor referred him to theGovernment Rajaji Hospital at Madurai for further treatment.At about 4.00a.m., he was admitted as in-patient.Intimation was sent by the hospitalauthorities both to the police as well as to the learned Magistrate inrespect of the same.P.W.10 the then Judicial Magistrate No.3, Madurai, rushed to theGovernment Rajaji Hospital, at 4.30 a.m., and recorded the dying declarationof the deceased.P.W.10 reduced the same into writing.At 1.00 p.m., on 20.07.2009, he prepared an observationmahazar and a rough sketch showing the place of occurrence, in the presenceof P.W.6 and another witness.He examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and few more witnesses on the spot.He also recovered the bloodstained earth and sample earth fromthe place of occurrence.On the same day, he arrested the 2nd accused in thepresence of P.W.7 and another witness.Then, on the same day at 4.00 p.m., he arrested the accused 1 and 3 in the presence of P.W.9 and another witness.Onsuch arrest, the first accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, hedisclosed the place, where he had hidden the aruval.(Judgment of the Court was delivered byS.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellants are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.3 of 2010 on the fileof the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Virudhunagar.The first accused stood charged for the offences under Section 302 IPC andthe accused 2 and 3 stood charged for offences under Sections 342, 302 readwith 34 IPC.By judgment dated 17.06.2010, the trial Court convicted thefirst accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorousimprisonment for six months and convicted the accused 2 and 3 under Section 342, 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 342 IPC and sentenced them toundergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, toundergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section302 r/w 34 IPC.To the Doctor (P.W.11), at the Government Hospital, Virudhunagar,the deceased told that he was attacked by three known persons.P.W.11, noticed the following injuries:A large cut injury over the left side of cheek extend from leftborder of sternum upto the top the left shoulder.Another cut injury over the left arm 10 cm x 8 cm x 5 cm.Cut injury over the nose (the projection part of nose bringseparate) Elevation part of the nose absent.Another cut injury over the right side of upper lip with missing oflittle muscle.Another cut injury over the cheek curve shape size 5 cm x 2 cm x 1cm.Another cut injury over the forehead on the scalp 8 cm x 2 cm x 2cm.A lacerated cut injury over the right side of back near center ofback internal organ seen (nc) the injury exposing of lung seen through theinjury.Another cut injury over right palm size 5 x 2 x 1 cm.Another cut injury over little, index, finger with ?fracture ofmiddle phalanx.Another cut injury over the right thumb near the middle of thefinger with bleeding 2 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm.One Dr.Thirumalaimurugan, who was attending on thedeceased, gave opinion that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to makedying declaration.On his part, P.W.10 also satisfied about the mentalfitness of the deceased.Then, he recorded the dying declaration.P8 isthe said dying declaration.P.W.16 the then Head Constable attached to the Mallanginaru policestation rushed to the hospital at 11.30 a.m., on 20.07.2009 and recorded thestatement of P.W.1, as the deceased was taken to the operation theatre.Onreturning to the police station, he registered a case in Crime No.127 of 2009under Sections 342, 324 and 307 IPC at 11.30 a.m. Ex.P14 is the FIR.Heforwarded Ex.P1 and Ex.P14 to the Court and handed over the case diary to theInspector of Police for investigation.P.W.20, took up the case for investigation and proceeded to theplace of occurrence.In pursuance of thesaid statement, the first accused took P.W.20 and the witnesses to VaralottiBus Stop and produced an aruval (M.O.1) from the hide out.The same was recovered.The deceased, who had undergone surgery, was shifted from the ICU ward to the regular ward and after 28 days, due to the complications, hedied.P.W.20 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased on 16.08.2009 between 8.00 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem.2.8. P.W.12 ? Dr.Alaudeen conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 16.08.2009 at 12.30 p.m. He found the following injuries:-1.Partly healed infected cut wound on left shoulder extending to leftanterior chest wall 20 cms x 1.5 cm x bone deep.2.Partly healed infected cut wound on nose extending to lips & chin 10cms x 2 cms x bone deep.3.Partly healed infected cut wound on left arm 6 cms x 2 cms x bonedeep.On dissection, the proximal humerus is found repaired surginally.4.Partly healed infected cut wound on right postero lateral aspect ofchest wall 15 cms x 2 cms x muscle deep.5.Partly healed laparotomy wound in front of the abdomen.6.Intercostal drainage wound on both lateral chest wall.P10 is the postmortem certificate.He gave opinion that the deceasedwould appear to have died of multiple cut injuries and the complicationsthereof.Continuing the investigation, P.W.20 forwarded the materialobjects to the Court and made a request to the Court for forwarding the samefor chemical examination.P12 is the chemical examination report andEx.P13 is the serology report.According to these reports, there was humanblood of 'A' origin found on the aruval, lungi as well as on the bill hook.On completing the investigation, P.W.20 laid charge sheet against theaccused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges asdetailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.The accused denied thesame.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, 20witnesses were examined, 24 documents and 4 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased.P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased, who have vividly spoken about theoccurrence as eye witnesses.P.W.3 is the neighbour of the deceased, who has stated that at the time of occurrence, he heard a hue and cry from the houseof the deceased.When he went there, he found the deceased was in a seriouscondition in a pool of blood.Then, he arranged for ambulance to take thedeceased to the hospital.P.W.4 has turned hostile and he has not supportedthe case of the prosecution.He has statedthat on receiving information about the occurrence, he rushed to the place ofoccurrence, arranged for ambulance and took the deceased to the hospital.P.W.6 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar, the roughsketch and the recovery of the bloodstained earth and sample earth from theplace of occurrence.P.W.7 has turned hostile and he has not supported thecase of the prosecution.P.W.8 has also not stated anything incriminatingagainst the accused.P.W.9 has spoken about the arrest of the accused 1 and3, the confession made by the first accused and the consequential discoveryof the aruval.P.W.10 is the learned Judicial Magistrate recorded the dyingdeclaration.He has vividly spoken about the same.4.1. P.W.11 ? Dr.Samiappan has stated that at Virudhunagar Hospital atabout 12.30 a.m. on 20.07.2009, the deceased was brought in 108 ambulance service by his wife for treatment and after first aid treatment, he referredthe deceased to the Government Rajaji Hospital.P.W.12 is the Doctor, whoconducted autopsy on the body of the deceased.He has spoken about the same and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.13 is the Head Clerkof the Magistrate Court, who forwarded the material objects for chemicalexamination.P.W.14 the Head Constable attached to Mallanginaru Police station has stated that he gave intimation to the police that the deceasedwas admitted in the hospital.P.W.15 is the Constable, who carried the bodyfor postmortem.P.W.16 is the Head Constable, who registered the case.P.W.17 has stated that he accompany P.Ws.1 and 2 to take the deceased to the hospital.P.Ws.18 and 19 have turned hostile and they have not supported thecase of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.20 is the Inspector of Police hasspoken about the entire investigation done by him and final report filed.When the incriminating materials were put to the accused underSection 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, on their side,they did not choose to examine any witness nor marked any documents.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial Courtconvicted all the three accused.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and we have also perused therecords carefully.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there arelot of flaws in the case of the prosecution, which would create doubts in thecase and accordingly the appellants are entitled for acquittal.He wouldsubmit that though it is stated that from the Virudhunagar Hospital at about4.30 a.m., the deceased was taken to the Government Rajaji Hospital, theDoctor, who admitted him has not been examined.Thus, according to him, theearliest information passed on to the Doctor had not been produced.He wouldfurther submit that whether the deceased was in a fit state of mind, at thetime, when he was admitted or not has been suppressed, because of the non production of the Accident Register as well as subsequent treatment recordsmaintained in the hospital.The learned counsel would submit that P.Ws.1 and2 would not have been present at all at the time of occurrence.He wouldfurther submit that there was no motive at all for these accused to committhe murder of the deceased.In the alternative, the learned counsel wouldsubmit that at the most, so far as the first accused is concerned, theoffences would fall only under Section 304(i) IPC and the others areconcerned, absolutely, there is no evidence, he has contended.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently opposethis appeal.According to him, there are no reasons to reject the evidencesof P.Ws.1 and 2, whose evidences are highly convincing and cogent.He would further submit that the dying declaration recorded by the learned JudicialMagistrate cannot be discorded for any reason, wherein the deceased hadcategorically stated that these three accused attacked him.He would furthersubmit that at the earliest point of time, when the deceased was taken to theGovernment Hospital, Virudhunagar, the deceased told him that he was attacked by three known persons.Thus, the medical evidence also corroborates the eyewitness account.Thus, according to the learned Additional PublicProsecutor, the prosecution has clearly proved the involvement of theseaccused.Thus, the conviction and sentence do not require any interference atthe hands of this Court.We have considered the above submissions.The alleged occurrence had taken place at the house of thedeceased, i.e. on the pial.In our considered view,they can be believed though not fully but partly.P.Ws.1 and 2 have statedthat the accused 2 and 3 held the deceased tightly so as to facilitate thefirst accused to cut the deceased.If we look into the postmortemcertificate, it would go to show that there are number of injuries on thebody of the deceased.In our considered view, when two persons are holdingthe deceased so tightly, it would not have been possible for so many numberof injuries on so many parts on the body of the deceased.After the occurrence, P.Ws.1 and 2, had taken the deceased to thehospital.In Ex.P8, the deceased had stated that three accusedcame, out of whom, one was having a stick and he did not notice as to whatwas the weapon held by the other two persons.He has further stated thatwithin a fraction of time, the occurrence had taken place.He has made avery general statement that out of suspicion he was attacked.He has not atall stated that the accused 2 and 3 held the deceased.He has also notstated that the first accused cut him.The death was also not due to shock and hemorrhage due to theseinjuries.The first accused has got no history of anybad antecedents.Subsequent to the occurrence also, he has not committed any crime.Having regard to these mitigating as well as aggravatingcircumstances, we are of the view that sentencing the first accused toundergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine ofRs.10,000/- would meet the ends of justice.In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed in thefollowing terms:(i) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants 2 and3/accused 2 and 3 are set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges.The fine amount, if any paid by them, shall be refunded to them.(ii) The conviction and sentence imposed on the first appellant/firstaccused under Section 302 IPC is set aside and instead, he is convicted underSection 304(i) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for sevenyears and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), indefault, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.(iii) The trial Court shall take steps to secure the firstaccused/first appellant to commit him in prison to serve out the remainingperiod of sentence.2.The Inspector of Police Aruppukottai Taluk Police Station Mallanginaru, Virudhunagar District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. .","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Though said Bapurao used to demand partition of the residential house, yet appellant No. 2 - Laxman was not effecting the same.There used to be frequent quarrels between the two families on account of such demand for partition.The prosecution case is that in the relevantevening, said Bapurao had gone to attend recitation of a religious book (Pothi) at Maroti temple whereas, his two sons had gone to a nearby house of one Ashroba.The deceased was, therefore, alone in the house at about 7.30 p.m. The appellant No. 2 - Laxman then came in front of house of the deceased.He was in drunken condition.He addressed obscenities to her, saying that she had kept illicit relations with all the inhabitants of village Hatkarwadi.She was engulfed by flames of fire and started shouting.The appellants fled away from the house when she started shouting.Her son - Namdeo rushed there on hearing the shouts.He extinguished the fire.Lateron her husband and the son took her to Civil Hospital at Parbhani.In the same night, her dying declarations and Police statement were recorded at the hospital.She narrated to her son as to how she was set ablaze by the appellants.The Police carried out certain investigation into the crime registered on basis of dying declaration given by Muktabai.The dead body was subjected to post mortem examination.The topographical account of the house in question can be gathered from recitals of the spot panchnama (Exh. 29).The residential house is of six feet height.There were eight corrugated zinc sheets on the roof.The spot panchnama (Exh.29) reveals that two corrugated zinc sheets of front side and two of rear side were pushed aside.The surface of the zinc sheets was blackened.A plastic canister containing small quantity of kerosene and a match stick were found in the house.His version reveals that he obtained medical opinion to the effect that Sou.Muktabai was fit to give her statement.He further noticed that she had suffered 86% burn injuries and was unable to sign the statement.He claims that her statement was reduced into writing as per her narration.Muktabai, it may be mentioned that it was recorded by PW7-P.S.I. Babu Pitale.His version reveals that he was attached to Police outpost at Civil Hospital, Parbhani, in the relevant night.He received information at about 23.50 Hrs on 19.2.2004 to the effect that Sou.Muktabai had received 83% burn injuries.He states that he obtained medical opinion regarding physical and mental condition of injured Sou.Muktabai after visiting the Burns Ward.The first dying declaration (Exh. 45) reveals that deceased Muktabai narrated as to how appellant No. 2 -Laxman used to trouble her family members.Her narration shows that appellant No. 2 - Laxman used to regularly trouble herself and used to beat her sons under inebriated condition.His version reveals that in the relevant evening, he and his brother had gone to a neighbouring house whereas, his father had gone to attend recitation of a book (Pothi).His version reveals that he heard voice of his mother and went to the house.Moreover, she immediately gave oral information to him implicating the appellants as authors of the crime.The testimony of PW-4 Munjaji reveals that spot panchnama (Exh. 29) was drawn by the Police at house of the deceased.According to PW-8 Madhav, Muktabai gave oral dying declaration to him when he met her at the Civil Hospital.He is brother of deceased Muktabai.JUDGMENT V.R. Kingaonkar, J.By the impugned Judgment, appellants are convicted for offences punishable under Section 304II read with 34 of the I.P.C. and under Section 457 read with 34 of the I.P.C. They have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ (Rs. Two thousand) each in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One thousand) each in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months, respectively, for the above offences.Both the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.The incident giving rise to the prosecution occurred in the evening of 19th February 2004 at residential house of deceased Muktabai.Her husband -Bapurao and appellant No. 2 - Laxman are brothers inter se.Appellant No. 1 is the wife of appellant No. 2 and appellant No. 3 is their son.Said Bapurao and appellant No. 2 were residing separately but there were disputes on account of demand for complete partition of the residential house.So, Muktabai closed the door of her house.The appellants thereafter entered the house by removing corrugated zinc sheets of the roof.The appellant No. 2 -Laxman poured kerosene on her person, appellant No. 1 - Sarubai instigated the other two appellants to do away with her life saying "" remove this thorn !"".Immediately appellant No. 3 Dnyaneshwar set her ablaze by lighting a match stick.The post mortem examination revealed that Muktabai died as a result of cardio respiratory failure due to septicemia, which was result of 100% burn injuries sustained by her.On basis of material gathered during investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 457 read with 34 of the I.P.C.The appellants denied truth into the accusations.They pleaded not guilty to the charge (Exh. 14).They did not raise any specific defence.It is suggested that they have been falsely implicated due to the dispute over demand of partition of the house property.At the trial, the prosecution examined in all 9 (nine) witnesses in support of its case.The defence examined DW-1 Laxman, the village Police Patil, in order to disprove oral dying declaration given by deceased Muktabai to her son.The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case on basis of the two written dying declarations as well as oral dying declaration of the deceased.The learned Sessions Judge held that the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, committed house trespass in the residential house of deceased Muktabai in the relevant night in order to commit cognizable offence and they set fire to her person in furtherance of their common intention.Hence, they were convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the outset.Mr. Chatterji, learned Advocate, would submit that dying declarations of deceased Muktabai cannot be safely relied upon.He argued that recording of the dying declarations is not free from doubt.He further argued that versions of the deceased in the two dying declarations are different from one another.He contended that the appellants could not be convicted when the dying declarations are inconsistent with each other and are unreliable.As against this, learned A.P.P. Mr. Adhav supports the impugned Judgment.The prosecution case hinges upon the two written dying declarations of Sou.So also, oral dying declaration given by her to the son and also certain attending circumstances.A half burnt quilt was also found there.The spot panchnama was drawn on 20.2.2004, i.e. next day of the incident.House of the appellants is situated in Northern side of the residential premises of deceased Muktabai.The testimony of PW-1 Vaijnath Jadhav reveals that he was working as Naib Tahsildar at Parbhani and was assigned duty, being Executive Magistrate, of recording the dying declarations.His version purports to show that in the night between 19th and 20th February 2004, around 12.20 Hrs., he received a request letter from Nanalpeth Police Station for recording dying declaration of injured Muktabai.He visited Civil Hospital, Parbhani at about 12.30 a.m. and contacted the Medical Officer.He corroborates the dying declaration (Exh. 27).He took her thumb impression at bottom of the statement.The cross-examination of PW-Vaijnath shows that he had not received any training for appropriate recording of dying declaration.He did not endorse the dying declaration to show that it was read over to injured Sou.Muktabai and that she admitted the contents as correct one.He also did not affix any official seal on the dying declaration.His evidence reveals that some of the relatives of injured Sou.Muktabai were in her proximity but he further adds that they were asked to go outside.His version reveals that while recording the dying declaration (Exh. 27), except himself and injured patient (Sou.Muktabai), no other person was present at the place.He admits that he did not mention the time of completing the recording of dying declaration (Exh. 27) but says that he had forgotten to mention it.He further admits that the thumb impression on the dying declaration is not complete impression of the thumb of Sou.Her dying declaration reveals that at about 9.00 p.m., she had locked the house from inside and was sleeping.The appellants knocked the door but she did not open it.They removed the zinc sheets of the roof and thereafter appellant Nos.2 and 3 entered the house and opened the door.Thereafter, appellant No. 1 -Sarubai entered the house.She narrated to the Executive Magistrate that appellant No. 2 - Laxman doused her with kerosene stored in her house and appellant No. 3 - Dnyaneshwar set fire by means of a burning match stick.She raised hue and cry.She further narrated that her sons came there from outside and extinguished the fire by pouring water on her person.The dying declaration shows that since many days appellant No. 2 - Laxman used to pick up quarrels with herself and her husband.The dying declaration also shows that many a times, the appellant No. 2 - Laxman used to come to house in inebriated condition and used to quarrel with her.Coming to another written dying declaration of Sou.He recorded the statement of injured Sou.Muktabai as per her narration.He corroborates recitals of the dying declaration (Exh. 45).He obtained thumb mark of her right hand and endorsed the dying declaration.The recitals of the dying declaration (Exh. 45) would show that deceased Muktabai narrated to the Police Officer, the genesis of the ghastly incident.The endorsement on the dying declaration shows that Crime No. 17/2004 was registered for offences, punishable under Section 307 and 448 read with 34 of the I.P.C. in the same night at about 12.15 Hrs. by the Police.Obviously, that is the first dying declaration recorded after Sou.Muktabai was admitted in the Civil Hospital.She gave details of genesis of the incident.Her dying declaration shows that in the relevant evening, at about 9.00 p.m., the appellant No. 2 -Laxman came under inebriated condition and started giving abuses to her.He gave abuses saying that she was of loose character and had sexual relations with inhabitants of village Hatkarwadi.She further narrated that she got closed the door of her house.She further narrated that the appellants entered the house by pushing aside the corrugated zinc sheets of the roof.Her dying declaration shows that appellant No. 2 - Laxman poured kerosene on her person, appellant No. 1 -Sarubai instigated the other appellants to kill her, saying that her thorn shall be removed ( ).The appellant No. 3 - Dnyaneshwar thereafter lighted a match stick and set her ablaze.She narrated before the Police Officer that she raised cry and her sons came from outside and extinguished the fire.The dying declaration bears partial thumb mark of right hand of deceased Muktabai.It also bears the endorsements made by the Medical Officer (Exh. 34 and 35) at the beginning and at the bottom thereof.Credibility of the written dying declarations must be examined from the core of the recitals and the manner, in which the recording was done.The dying declaration recorded by PW-7 P.S.I. Pitale is at the first available opportunity.According to him, the Medical Officer examined the patient and opined that she would be able to give her statement.After taking such endorsement on top of the paper, he commenced recording of the statement of injured Muktabai.His version categorically shows that after the statement was written down, it was read over to injured Muktabai.Thereafter, thumb impression of her right hand was obtained at the bottom.The version of PW-P.S.I. Pitale reveals that on 24.2.2004, said Muktabai died.He prepared inquest panchnama in presence of two panchas.The inquest panchnama (Exh.24) is corroborated by him.True, there is inconsistency between the dying declaration (Exh. 45) and the dying declaration (Exh. 27) in so far as manner, in which the appellants entered the house.In the first dying declaration (Exh.45), Muktabai narrated that after pushing aside the corrugated zinc sheets of the roof, all the three appellants made entry to the house.She also narrated that the appellant No. 1 - Sarubai instigated the other two appellants to eliminate her.The second dying declaration shows that the appellant Nos.2 and 3 entered the house by pushing aside the corrugated zinc sheets of the roof and thereafter they opened the door.It was thereafter that appellant No. 1 - Sarubai entered the house.She narrated to PW-P.S.I. Pitale that the appellant No. 2 -Laxman poured kerosene on her person and appellant No. 3 - Dnyeshwar lighted a match stick and set her ablaze.Same is her version in the subsequent written dying declaration (Exh. 27).The Apex Court came across two dying declarations, which were inconsistent with each other.It may be true that the court while considering the credibility of such dying declarations may seek corroboration.PW-8 in her evidence categorically stated that the deceased had stated that it was the appellant who had poured kerosene.The deceased was seen in flames by her.Accused was seen running away from this place.Considering the tenor of the two written dying declarations available in the present case, I am of the opinion that the only inconsistency appearing in both these dying declarations is regarding role played by the appellant No. 1 - Sarubai.Otherwise, both the dying declarations are consistent and would reveal that the appellant No. 2 -Laxman poured kerosene on Muktabai and appellant No. 3 - Dnyandeo @ Dnyaneshwar lighted a match stick and set her ablaze.He saw the mother-Muktabai in burning condition.He extinguished the fire after pouring water on her person, covered her person with a gunny bag and called his father.His version purports to show that the appellants were standing outside the house.The injured told him that the appellant No. 2 - Laxman had poured kerosene on her person, appellant No. 1 Sarubai instigated and, therefore, the appellant No. 3 -Dnyaneshwar set fire to her person by a match stick.It is admitted by PW-Namdeo that when injured was rushed to hospital in an auto rickshaw, his father and Police Patil - Laxman Jorwar had also accompanied them.His evidence reveals that he did not disclose the incident to the Medical Officer at the Civil Hospital.Though PW-Namdeo is not eye witness to the incident, yet his version shows presence of the appellants outside house immediately after his mother was found in burning condition.His version shows that Muktabai was in serious condition at the relevant time.His version shows that Muktabai narrated to him that appellant No. 2 - Laxman poured kerosene and appellant No. 3 -Dnyaneshwar set fire to her person whereas, appellant No. 1 -Sarubai was saying that she be killed.The version of PW-9 A.P.I. Anwarkhan would show the steps taken during the course of investigation.He admits that the Police statement of DW-1 Laxman Jorwar, Police Patil, revealed that deceased Muktabai was not able to talk in the hospital.DW-1 Laxman Jorwar is the Police Patil of the village.His version reveals that he accompanied injured Muktabai and her husband during the journey to Civil Hospital.They went to Civil Hospital in an auto rickshaw.His version only shows that Muktabai had no talk with him.That does not, however, mean her inability to speak at the relevant time.It only shows that she did not confide in him and did not narrate to him as to how she received the burn injuries.Considering the material placed on record, it must be said that medical endorsements on both the dying declarations are duly corroborated by PW-Dr.Narendra Warma.The deceased was conscious and fit to give her statement when the dying declarations (Exh. 45 and Exh. 27) were recorded.Having regard to inconsistency about alleged instigation by the appellant No. 1 - Sarubai, the inconsistency about her entry in the house and also about her immediate presence outside the house with other two accused, she deserves benefit of doubt.Still, however, the appellant Nos.2 and 3 cannot get any benefit out of the minor inconsistency or discrepancy appearing in the two dying declarations.Both the dying declarations are quite truth bearing and acceptable.I am of the opinion that conviction of the appellant Nos.2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Section 304II read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 457 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. is, therefore, legal and proper.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.The impugned order of conviction and sentence against the appellant No. 1 - Sarubai is set aside.The amount of fine, if deposited, be refunded to her.The appeal to the extent it relates to the appellant Nos.2 and 3, is dismissed.The impugned order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 is maintained.","['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"1 In The High Court At Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:-The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas.and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri.The State of West Bengal Mr. Abir Ranjan Neogi ... for the petitioner.Mr. A.A.Siddiqui ... for the State.The court below has refused bail on September 13,2013 saying that the offence is under s.302 IPC.Advocate for the State not disputing the correctness of this submission has produced the case diary and submitted that a knife was recovered from the petitioner, the son of Tamuruddin.The case diary materials reveal the following facts.The deceased had an illicit relationship with the petitioner's mother.The petitioner and 2 his father (Tamuruddin) detected the deceased in Tamuruddin's bedroom with Tamuruddin's wife.Getting enraged they together started beating the deceased.The charge-sheet has been submitted.For these reasons, we allow the CRM and direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail on a Rs.20,000 bond with two sureties ( one local) of Rs.10,000 each - all to the satisfaction of ACJM, Alipurduar.Certified xerox.(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) sh ( Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri,J)","['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
The only allegation against the applicant is that he caught hold of the victim.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 22/01/2019 17:53:54,['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
"TN-63-1066, plying between Mudukulathur and Sayalkudi.The duty time was between 5.00 hours to 13.00 hours.After completing the duty, he handed overthe cash and key to the successor.By that time, it was 14.00 hours.Due to the death of three members of Thevar community on 30.10.2012 in Paramakudi area, the vehicle movement were completed suspended including the Government Transport buses.The preventive measures were not effective and genuine.The youthbelonging to Thevar Community were allowed to run their show.The youth werewearing banians in yellow-mixed green colour with the figures of the casteleaders such as Thevar and Maruthupandiar and travelled in a vehicle with acaste flag tied on the vehicle.The villagers felt that the youth wererushing the vehicle only to attack them and their property.It is not knownas to how the driver of the said vehicle died leaving others to escapeunhurt.The petitioner was suggesting the people who were innocent and hisname has been included only to terrorise the members of the weaker section ofParamakudi.On behalf of them, the petitioner was assisting in Court asLawyer.The petitioner has no role in the alleged conspiracy.(1)The confessional statement of Shanmugam (A-5), Arumugasamy (A-6), Bala @ Parambai Bala (A-7) and (2)The statements of P.W.7 Pandidurai, P.W.8-Muthukrishnan, P.W.9- Sethuraman, P.W.20-Thangadurai and P.W.21 Thirumurugan.14.They have detailed the participation of petitioners 1 and 2 in thecommunity meeting held on 28.10.2012 at Pambuvilunthan Village, wherein they were alleged to have provoked Adi Dravida Community men to indulge incriminal acts against the Thevar Community.Fifteen Thevar Community men of Melaperunkarai, who were on their way to Pasumpon Village in a Mahindra Van, were waylaid, chased and attacked by Adi Dravida youth near Pambuvilunthan Tank on 30.10.2012 at 11.15 hours.The occupants escaped unhurt and the van driver Sivakumar was beaten to death on the spot and the van was damaged.This is the incident in respect of which acase in Emaneswaram Police Station in Cr.No.147 of 2012 was registered against 31 Adi Dravida Community men.16.Same day occurrence:On the same day, at 14.00 hours, two Thevar youth who came across Ponnaiahpuram in a motorcycle, were waylaid by Adi Dravida youth and were beaten to death on the spot besides causing damage to the motorcycle.17.Another case in Paramakudi Town Police Station in Crime No.449 of 2012 was registered against 65 Adi Dravida Community men.19.Completion of Investigation:He belonged to Scheduled Caste Community.At the time of Thevar Guru Pooja held on 28th, 29th and 30thOctober 2012, he was working as a Conductor in the bus, bearing RegistrationNo.Therefore, the petitioner along with othershave to stay back in the depot itself.On 05.11.2012, he was pickedup by the Police.When he was produced before the Magistrate, the Magistratedid not ask him anything and mechanically passed the order of remand.Afterfinal enquiry, the police have added the petitioner as Accused No.42 inCr.In the bail order, the observation runs as follows:?The petitioner is in custody for the past 46 days.The petitioner/accused is working at some other place at the time of occurrence and to provethe same, certificate from the competent authority is produced.Materialwitnesses have been examined.?The Investigating Agency had removed the names of fivemen at the time of filing of the charge sheet.Despite the production of thecertificate showing that the petitioner was on duty at the time of allegedoccurrence on 30.10.2012, the Investigating Agency has deliberately includedhim as accused.Therefore, the charges must be quashed.6.In the supporting affidavit of Chandra Bose, it is stated that inrespect of innocent murder that took place on 30.10.2012, the petitioner hasbeen added as accused unnecessarily.7.The Investigating Agency has preferred five persons belonging todominant community and made them as eye witnesses to the alleged conspiracy.They are the stock witnesses.The allegedconspiracy is stated to have taken place on 28.10.2012 at 6.30 p.m. Thisdelay will expose both the author of the statement as well as theInvestigating Agency.Then they participated in the marriage of Mr.Periyasamy, anAdvocate at Madurai.It was at about 7.00p.m.The petitioner had no occasion to go to Paramakudi in the evening at6.30 p.m. Therefore, the charges are vague and it must be quashed.Out of40,000 people in and around Paramakudi, about 30,000 people belonged to Thevar Community.This Taluk is known for the caste clashes which are mostlyinitiated by the dominant community due to its economic and social strength.The members of the Scheduled Caste are at the receiving end.9.As the ruling party is controlled by the dominant community, therewas a police firing on 11.09.2011 and seven persons belonging to ScheduledCaste died in that firing.The CBI is investigating the crime pertaining tofiring and it is almost over.10.On 30.10.2012, the State sponsored celebration of Thevar Jayanthiwas organised in Pasumpon Village in Kamuthi Taluk in Ramanathapuram District.Thepetitioner's name has been included on account of the statement recorded on01.02.2013 stated to have been given by Pandidurai, Muthukrishnan,Sethuraman, Thangadurai and Thirumurugan (list of witnesses 12 to 16) who allbelonged to Thevar community.11.The petitioner was assisting the officers of CBI who wereinvestigating the death of seven dalits due to police firing on 11.09.2011.The petitioner had given 18 documents to the said Agency.This co-operationto the CBI has been treated by the State Police as if he is working againstthe interest of the State Police.The petitioner's name has beenincluded as if he was a party to the alleged conspiracy.13.The sixth respondent has filed the counter affidavit alleging thedetails of the statement of witnesses who have implicated the accusedpersons, as follows:(1)2004 MLJ (Crl.) 360 (Ms.Arokia Mary Lucia v. The State of TamilNadu, wherein it has been held as follows:?29.In the above circumstances, there is no myth in examining thosewitnesses, who are all the accused in the petitioner's earlier complaint withwhom the police have joined hands with, in order to register a false caseagainst the petitioner, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate andthe witnesses also, like the parrots, have repeated distorted and inventedthe inconsistent facts of the case artificially recorded under Section 161Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in a mechanical and unbelievable manner andthis Court cannot be carried away by such artificially made up case failingto resort to the rescue of persons like the petitioner, which would onlyamount to encouraging such false cases deliberately foisted to cheat thesystem which, if not quashed, would only give the way for dishonest andunreasonable officers maligning and marring the authority of law and thejudicial convictions.30.Therefore, with the given opportunity, such falsely registered casesput down with the iron hand would serve the purpose not only to rescue thosevictims of such cases such as the petitioner from the clutches of those, whoregister the cases crossing the barriers and norms of law but also wouldserve as a deterrent measure for such authorities from taking advantage ofthe loopholes to foist the cases against innocent and service minded persons,who are wedded to the social and right causes, like the petitioner.No doubt, the employermight have given the certificate stating that the petitioner was elsewhere.Thesegrounds may be good grounds for the plea of acquittal, if the plea isestablished during trial and it is not a ground for quashing the proceedings,when there is no supporting material.28.The fact remains that already final report has been filed before theCourt.The very plea taken by the petitioners coupled with the counteraffidavit filed detailing the materials which implicate the petitionersherein would go to show that it is not a case for discharge.The plea takenby the accused persons herein no doubt requires careful scrutiny, detailedexamination and evaluation and if it is established by clinching evidencethat it is true, then they can place the plea for acquittal before the TrialCourt.30.In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.4.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.5.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.6.The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town Police Station, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.7.The Inspector of Police, Emaneswaram Police Station, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.8.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. .","['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Needles to mention, that these additional condition are imposed to cope up with the emergent condition:-Let the applicant- Salman Murgi, who is involved in Case Crime No. 140 of 2019, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, P.S. Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.Since the bail application has been decided under extra ordinary circumstance, thus in the interest of justice, following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicants to be released on bail forthwith.","['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"No.1/State.None for the complainant.It is submitted by the counsel for the State that the complainant has been informed about the pendency of this appeal as required under Section 15-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short, ""Special Act"") This appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Special Act being aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Special Judge, Shivpuri rejecting the bail application.The appellant has been arrested on 18.12.2017 in connection with Crime No.357/2017 registered by Police Station Khaniyadhana District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 436, 435, 427, 323, 147, 148, 149, 294 and 506-B of IPC and Section 3(2)(iii), 3(2)(iv), 3(2)","['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased and P.W.3 is his wife.The deceased wasresiding at Thazhakudy Village in Kanyakumari District.Theyalso belong to the same village.Admittedly, there was ill feeling betweenthe two families, which culminated into a motive.It is alleged that on 03.12.2004, P.W.2 was proceeding towardsThazhakudy Amman Temple.At that time, it is alleged that the accused 1 and2 came there and scolded him in filthy language.In course of the saidquarrel, it is alleged that the first accused attacked P.W.2 with an iron rodon the right thumb of P.W.2, which resulted in an injury.The second accusedattacked him with iron rod on the left side of the ear and forehead, whichresulted in injuries.A3 also joined hands with them and he was physicallypresent sharing the common intention.When the accused 1 and 2 were mounting attack on P.W.2, the deceased, who was sitting inside his shop, questionedthe same.Immediately, the accused 1 and 2 armed with weapons, trespassed into the shop and started attacking the deceased also.The first accusedattacked the deceased with iron rod on the left side of the head resulting ina bleeding injury.The 2nd accused attacked him with knife on the left wristof the deceased.The deceased fell down sustaining the above injuries.Then,all the three accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.ThereafterP.W.2 and the deceased were taken to the Government Medical College Hospital at Asaripallam.At 12.30 p.m., P.W.6 ? Dr.Lysander, examined the deceased.He was told that the deceased had sustained injuries at 8.30 a.m. at03.12.2004 due to the attack by a mob of persons.He admitted her also as inpatient.P6 is the Accident Register relatingto the deceased and Ex.On getting intimation from the hospital, P.W.9 the then HeadConstable attached to Aralvaimozhi Police Station, proceeded to the hospitalat 12.11 hours, he recorded the statement of P.W.1, since the deceased was inan unconscious state.He forwarded these documents to theCourt and handed over the case diary for investigation to the Inspector ofPolice.P.W.14, the then Inspector of Police attached to AralvaimozhiPolice Station took up the case for investigation, proceeded to the place ofoccurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in thepresence of P.W.5 and another witness.He also prepared an observationmahazar showing the place, where the deceased was attacked inside his shop in the presence of the same witnesses.Then, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and recorded their statements.While so, on 04.12.2004, the deceased, who wasundergoing treatment in the hospital, succumbed to the injuries.On gettingintimation from the hospital regarding the death of the deceased, P.W.14altered the case into one under Sections 341, 324, 452, 427 and 302 IPC andprepared an alteration report.P17 is the alteration report.(Judgment of the Court was delivered byS.NAGAMUTHU, J.) There are three appellants in this appeal, who are the accused 1 to 3in S.C.No.24 of 2006 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge,Kanyakumari atNagercoil.The trial Court framed as many as eight charges against theaccused as follows:Charge Accused Penal Provisions1A1, A2 and A3 341 IPC 2A1 & A2 324 IPC 3A3 324 r/w 34 IPC4A1 & A2 449 IPC 5A3 449 r/w 34 IPC6A1 & A2 302 IPC 7A3 302 r/w 34 IPC8A1, A2 & A3 427 IPCBy judgment dated 27.08.2010, the trial Court found the accusedguilty under all the charges and accordingly, punished them as detailedhereunder:Accused Conviction under SectionSentence imposed A1 341 IPC one month simple imprisonment 324 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment447 IPC Three months rigorous imprisonment 427 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default,to undergo simple imprisonment for two months 302 IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo threemonths simple imprisonment A2 341 IPC one month simple imprisonment 324 IPC Three years rigorous imprisonment447 IPC Three months rigorous imprisonment 427 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default,to undergo simple imprisonment for two months 302 r/w 34 IPCImprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo threemonths simple imprisonment A3 341 IPC one month simple imprisonment 447 IPC Three months rigorous imprisonment 427 IPC Two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default,to undergo simple imprisonment for two months 302 r/w 34 IPCImprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo threemonths simple imprisonment Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come upwith this appeal.It is brought to our notice that during the pendency of this appeal,the third appellant/third accused passed away.He was also told that oneof the assailants used a knife.When P.W.6 examined him, he found as many as two external injuries on the deceased.The first injury was a laceratedinjury with contusion measuring 5 x 5 cm.on the head.There was anoverlapping injury measuring 4 x 1 x 1 cm.The 2ndinjury was a cut injury measuring 4 x 1 x + cm on the left elbow.P.W.6admitted the deceased as inpatient in his hospital.P.W.2 told him that on the same day, at 8.30 a.m., she was attacked with an iron rod.When P.W.6 examined her, he noticed three external injuries as follows:(1) A lacerated injury measuring 2 + x 1 x + cm on the right hand.(2) a lacerated injury measuring 1 + x , , cm on the left ear.(3) an abrasion extending 2 cm on the forehead.P.W.14proceeded to the hospital conducted inquest on the body of the deceased inthe presence of Panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P18 the inquest report.Then,he forwarded the body for postmortem.4.5. P.W.13 ? Dr.V.Paramasivam conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased on 04.12.2004 at 03.50 p.m. at the Government Medical College Hospital at Tirunelveli.During the postmortem, he noticed the followingexternal injuries:(1) a sutured injury measuring 6 x 1 cm x muscle depth and anotheroverlapping injury measuring 3 x 1 x muscle depth on the head.(2) an irregular abrasion measuring 5 x 3 c.m. on the right side of theback of chest.(3) a sutured cut injury measuring 6 x 2 cm on the left parietal regionof the head.Opening the body,he found the blood clot on all sides of brain.There was no fracture on theskull.On opening the thorax, he found fluid blood measuring 100 ml in theThorax cavity.Finally, he gave opinionthat the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the cumulative effectof all the injuries.P14 is the Postmortem Certificate.Continuing the investigation, P.W.14 arrested the accused.Heforwarded the dress materials found on the dead body and the bloodstainedearth recovered from the place of occurrence for chemical examination.P22 is the chemical examination report and Ex.P23 is the Serology Report.According to the said report, human blood was noticed on the dhoti and banianworn by the deceased.P.W.14 examined the Doctors, collected the medical records and finally laid charge sheet against all the three accused.Basedon the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in thefirst paragraph of the judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, asmany as 14 witnesses were examined, 25 documents were exhibited and 9 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.2 is the injuredeye witness.He has vividly spoken about the attack made on him by theaccused 1 and 2 and he has also spoken about the presence of the accused No.3 at the time of occurrence.P.W.1 is the sister of P.W.2, who has stated thatshe followed P.W.2, when he proceeded to the Temple.At that time, accordingto her, she witnessed the entire occurrence.She has also vividly spokenabout the attack made by the accused 1 and 2 on P.W.2 as well as on the deceased.P.W.3 is the wife of the deceased.According to her, she was inher house at the time of occurrence along with the deceased.The house ofthe deceased and the shop are in the same hut.P.W.4, though not a resident of thatarea, claimed to have come to the place of occurrence to have tea in theshop.P.W.5 has spoken about the observationmahazar prepared by P.W.14 at the place of occurrence both outside thehouse and inside the house.P.W.6 ? Dr.Lysander has spoken about the treatment given by him to P.W.2 and the deceased and the admission made as inpatients.P.W.7 the Head Constable has spoken about the death intimationgiven by the hospital, which, he duly forwarded to the Aralvaimozhi PoliceStation.P.W.8 Mr.Chandran, the Police Constable attached to Aralvaimozhihas spoken about the fact that he carried the alteration report to the Courtand handed over the same to the Court on time.P.W.10 is theDoctor, who declared the deceased dead and who, in turn, intimated the sameto the police.P.W.11 is the Head Constable was the one, who carried thedead body to the hospital after the inquest was over for conductingpostmortem.P.W.12 - Sub Inspector of Police attached to the same policestation has spoken about the earlier case against the accused, which isstated to be the motive for the present occurrence.P.W.13 has spoken aboutthe postmortem conducted by him and his opinion that the death was due toshock and hemorrhage due to the cumulative effect of all the injuries foundon the deceased.P.W.14 has spoken about the investigation done.When the incriminating materials were put to the accused underSection 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.On their side, theymarked as many as five documents as defence documents.D1 is the carbon copy of the Accident Register of the deceased.D4 is theAccident Register copy of A1 and Ex.D5 is the treatment records of the firstaccused.The defence of the accused was that the deceased party were theaggressors.Armed with dangerous weapons, they attacked the accused 1 and 2, in which, the accused 1 and 2 sustained serious injuries, in which, one ofthe injury sustained by the first accused was a fracture.In respect of thesaid occurrence, there was a case registered in Crime No.674 of 2004 underSections 341 and 324 IPC as against the deceased party.It is the furthercase of the defence that the said counter case was not investigated properly.Having considered all the above, the trial Court found the accusedguilty and accordingly punished them as detailed in the first paragraph ofthis judgment.That is how, they are before this Court with this appeal.We have heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellants, thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and we have also perusedthe records carefully.The learned Senior counsel would mainly focus his arguments on theground that the prosecution has not come forward with the true version of theoccurrence.According to the learned senior counsel, admittedly, there was acounter case in Crime No.674 of 2004 on the complaint of the first accused.But the same was not investigated properly.The learned seniorcounsel would next contend that though the accused 1 and 2 sustained seriousinjuries, more particularly, the first accused had suffered a fracture, theinjuries have not been explained away by any of the witnesses.The learnedsenior counsel would further point out that though it is the legal obligationof the prosecution to be fair to produce all the materials collected duringthe course of investigation of the counter case, more particularly, the woundcertificates and the treatment of records of the accused, the prosecution hasdeliberately suppressed the same.The learned senior counsel would furtherpoint out that these documents were, however, proved by way of defencedocument.The learned senior counsel would take us through the evidence ofP.Ws.1 to 4, who are eye witnesses including P.W.2, who is the injured eyewitness.The learned counsel would point out that none of the witnesses haveexplained away anything about either the presence of the injuries or aboutthe cause for these injuries.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, opposethese appeals stoutly.According to him, it is true that Crime No.674 of2004 and Crime No.675 of 2004 are cases in counter.But he would point outthat there was proper investigation done in respect of Crime No.674 of 2004and since it was found that the accused herein were the aggressors, the saidcase in Crime No.674 of 2004 was referred as 'Mistake of Fact'.Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,the prosecution has not suppressed any materials.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit thatthough it is true that P.Ws.1 to 4 have not spoken anything about the injurysustained by the accused 1 and 2, on that score, the accused are not entitledfor acquittal, because their evidences are otherwise cogent and convincing.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that from theevidences of P.Ws.1 to 4, it has been clearly proved by the prosecution thatthe accused party were the aggressors.The eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 to 4 have not even spokenabout the injuries on the accused.Immediately, after the occurrence, theaccused 1 and 2 were also taken to the hospital.Itshows that there were as many as two injuries, which are as follows:(1) Abrasion 3 c.m x + cm left forearm.(2) Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm left leg.These injuries were noticed by P.W.6 ? Dr.He was told that theywere attacked by four known persons.But absolutely, there is no explanationeither regarding the presence of these injuries and cause for these injuriesby any of the eye witnesses.Applying the above dictum laid down to the facts of the presentcase, if we look into the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 4, undoubtedly, they are allinterested witnesses and they are closely related to the deceased.There isalso enmity between these two families.It isalso the law that during the trial of the case, all the materials collectedin the counter case should be placed and proved in evidence.But in thiscase, unfortunately, except marking the xerox copy of the FIR and the finalreport, no other materials have been proved in evidence.But the prosecution has not chosen to examine anyindependent witness from that locality.Had any independent witness beenexamined from that locality, truth would have come out and in which case, itwould have been possible to find out whether the accused party were theaggressors or the deceased party were the aggressors.Thus, in our considered view, the fact that theaccused are the aggressors has not been duly established by the prosecution.In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the prosecutionhas not come forward with the true version of the occurrence and thus, theprosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts.Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the trialCourt is liable to the set aside.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed; the conviction andsentence imposed on the appellants are set aside and the appellants areacquitted.2.The Inspector of Police, Aralvaimozhy Police Station, Kanyakumari District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. .","['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 339 of 2019 on the file of first respondent police for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 447, 427, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act as against these petitioners.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.339 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 447, 427, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage.He would also submit that the respondent police has deleted the name of the first and second petitioner from the First Information Report and they are ready with the charge sheet and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17639 of 20194.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.However the first respondent police is directed to file final report within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as against the other accused persons.28.11.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no aav ToThe Sub Inspector of Police Surandai Police Station Tirunelveli2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17639 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.","['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The Respondent No.2 further stated that on 28 th January, 2016 the Applicant left the house on the pretext of attending marriage of his friend at Khajurao, Madhya Pradesh.He he did not return and started avoiding her phone calls.She later learnt that the Applicant had left the job at Kandivali, Mumbai.RESERVED ON : 17th MARCH, 2017 PRONOUNCED ON : 17th APRIL, 2017 JUDGMENT (PER ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.).1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.By consent of parties taken for hearing.This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR No. 93 of 2016 registered with Mulund Police Station for offences punishable under Section 376, 420, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 :::The Respondent No.2 had lodged the aforesaid FIR alleging that the applicant had sexual relations with her from September, 2014 against her will and under the false promise of marriage.She had alleged that the she was compelled to terminate the pregnancy as the Applicant had avoided to take responsibility of the child.She had further claimed that the applicant had got married to her and subsequently left her alleging that he had performed the marriage ceremony only to avoid the prosecution.Mr. Dubash, the learned Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the Respondent no.2 is a major.The relations between the Applicant and the Respondent No.2 were consensual.He has further submitted that the allegations made in the First Information Report, even taken at its face value do not make out ingredients of the offence under Section 376 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code.He has submitted that the continuation of these proceedings would be nothing but abuse of process of law.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 :::Mr. Bodke, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 has opposed the application on the ground that the applicant had physical relationship with the Respondent No.2 against her will and without her consent.He has submitted that the applicant induced the Respondent No.2 to have physical relationship with her on false promise of marriage.He submits that the allegations leveled against the Applicant constitute offence under Section 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.He has relied upon the following decisions:-Bharat Devdas Salvi & Ors.Mohammed Faizan Amir Khan vs. The State of Maharashtra, dated 5th July, 2016 in Cri.Writ Petition No.1721 of 2016Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS and Anr.2006 DGLS (SC) 646Prashant Bharti vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2013 DGLS (SC)Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors 2006(2) Bom.1 Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.2 Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Sec.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Sec.155(2) of the Code.3 Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.Reverting to the facts of the present case, the Respondent No.2 had lodged a report dated 7th March, 2016 wherein she had alleged that she had developed friendship with the Applicant.She had stated that she was not willing to have physical relationship with the applicant without entering into marital ties.However, the Applicant had physical relationship with her several times, by convincing her that their relationship was as good as husband-wife relationship.She has further stated that she had terminated the pregnancy as the Applicant was ready to take the responsibility of the child.She has stated that the Applicant maintained goods relationship with her for about one month after termination of the pregnancy, but latter started avoiding her.The Respondent No.2 further stated that the family of the pps 6 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 ::: cri apl 847-16.doc applicant, particularly his sister, were not supportive and they abused her and told her that the Applicant would not marry her.Hence she went to the Mulund Police Station to lodge a complaint.The police called the Applicant and his sister and thereafter the Applicant told her that he was ready to marry her.She resided at her parental house for about one week and thereafter started living with the Applicant in a rental premises.She has stated that the applicant behaved normally for a few days, but thereafter started demanding unnatural sex and also subjected her to physical and mental cruelty.The applicant, subsequently claimed that the marriage was not valid and that he had married her only to prevent her from lodging complaint against him.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 :::He also sent an email to the pps 7 of 10 ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 ::: cri apl 847-16.doc Respondent No.2 asking her to arrange a resident for herself.In these circumstances, she lodged FIR against the Applicant for having physical relations with her since July 2014 under the false promise of marriage.Based on the said FIR, C.R.No. 93/2016 was registered against the Applicant for the offences under Section 376, 420, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 :::The first informant is admittedly a major.The FIR does not indicate that the Respondent No.2 / First Informant had consented to have physical relationship with the Applicant under fear or misconception of facts.On the contrary, the contents of the FIR reveal that the relationship between the Applicant and the respondent No.2 was totally consensual.The Applicant and the Respondent No.2 thereafter got married and continued to maintain physical relationship as husband and wife.In the light of these facts the decision in State of UP vs. Naushad and Karthi @ Karthik (supra) are distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts of the present case.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 :::The FIR reveals that the initial physical relationship between the Applicant and the Respondent No.2 was consensual.Subsequently they married each other and continued having physical relationship as husband and wife.The relationship between the husband and wife or the consensual relationship between the parties without any deceit or inducement would not constitute the offence of rape and cheating within the meaning of Sections 375 and 415 of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 :::A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that the Respondent No.2 has made the imputations of rape and cheating only because the Applicant had walked out of the marriage.The allegations leveled in the FIR even if taken at its face value do not disclose essential ingredients of ""rape"" and ""cheating"" as defined under sections 375 and 415 of the Indian Penal Code and made punishable under sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.Under the circumstances, and in view of the discussion above, the application is allowed.The FIR No. 93 of 2016 registered with Mulund Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:39:04 :::","['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"CRL.L.P. 15/2013 Page 1 of 8""Police machinery was set into motion by DD No. 22A lodged at PS Vivek Vihar at 1816 hours dated 2.7.10 regarding presence of a dead body near Railway Line, Ambedkar Camp, Vivek Vihar, This DD was assigned to ASI Desh Raj who reached at the spot.Thereafter IO PW18 Inspector Sanjay Drall reached at the spot i.e. behind ITI, Vivek Vihar, near Railway Line.The dead body was of a female and her neck was found cut.Crime team and photographer were called by IO, who photographed the scene of crime.IO prepared rukka Ex. PW18/A and gave it to HC Sarfuddin for taking it to PS for registration of the FIR.IO prepared site plan and picked samples of blood and earth control from the spot.The dead body was sent to mortuary.The mobile phone make virgin of chocolate colour was recovered from the possession of dead body.The deceased was identified as Mukarrabi by the family of the deceased in the mortuary.IO conducted the inquest proceedings.After post-mortem dead body was handed over to her relatives.The brothers of the deceased showed their suspicion on accused Hasnain, who is husband of the deceased Call details of deceased and accused Hasnain were analyzed and it disclosed that on the day of incident they had talked with each other number of times.Accused Shah Nawaj, who is nephew of accused Hasnain had also talked with accused Hasnain eleven times on the day of incident.Location of both accused and deceased as per their mobile phones were found to be at Vivek Vihar, Jhilmil Industrial Area and Dilshad Garden.The facts and circumstances which gave rise to the registration of the case against the accused person, as per prosecution, are that: CRL.L.P. 15/2013 Page 1 of 8On 27.7.10 accused Hasnain was arrested on the basis of secret information.During interrogation he made disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime.On 6.8.10 accused Shah Nawaj was also arrested.After investigation police filed chargesheet against both the accused under Section 302/120B IPC.""CRL.L.P. 15/2013 Page 2 of 8Addressing arguments in support of the present criminal leave to appeal, Mr.K.S Singh, Counsel for the State submits that the learned Trial Court erred in ignoring the vital pieces of evidence, which emerged during the course of trial but were not properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court.Counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, who are the daughter and the son of the deceased respectively and who had specifically stated in their testimonies that respondent No.1, their father used to beat the deceased and used to torture the deceased and they started living with their mother in the house of PW-15, their uncle.Counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court has also failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent No.1 had called 11 times to respondent No.2 on his mobile number 9716758181, which belong to PW-9 Raj Kumar and after the incident both the mobile phones were CRL.L.P. 15/2013 Page 3 of 8 switched off.Counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court had also failed to appreciate the fact that from the testimonies of PW-2, PW- 3, PW-4 and PW-5, the motive of respondent No. 1 to commit murder was very clear as he was suspicious about the character of the deceased.Based on these submissions counsel for the petitioner prayed for the grant of criminal leave to appeal to challenge the said judgment on acquittal.CRL.L.P. 15/2013 Page 3 of 8We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by him.We have also gone through the impugned judgment and other material placed on record.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"A case has been registered against the petitioner and three other persons in Cr.No.92 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 304(A), 338, 337 r/w 109 and 34 of I.P.C. by the respondent police.The first accused in the case was a contractor, who has taken contract for construction of a a ground level water tank in the Arunthathiyar Colony in Mittapatti Village in which the petitioner/second accused is an engineer, was assigned duty to supervise the day to day construction work.The third accused is the Extension Officer, fourth accused is the Block Development Officer.On 13.3.2004, the water tank busted causing death of two persons, grievous hurt to four persons besides simple injuries to 11 persons.It is also pointed out by the learned Senior counsel that the Block Development Officer, who succeeded the second petitioner has categorically stated in his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the effect that only A-1 and A-2 are the persons solely responsible for the irregular construction and acting in a negligent manner while constructing the ground level water tank which resulted in the occurrence and the Block Development Officer has not whispered a word about these petitioners.The leanred Senior Counsel further pointed out that there is absolutely no materials available on record through the statements recorded from the witnesses implicating the accused for the alleged offence under Sections 304-A, 338, 337 r/w 109 and 34 I.P.C.""As far as A3 and A4 are concerned they are not at all directly involved and only they were present to see the mixing of cement and sand of construction work.In the above circumstance, the petition is liable for dismissal.",['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
"It was alleged in the complaint that respondents are of criminal nature and they have terror in the locality.On 8/11/2012 when the complainant/applicant was on his tube-well, at that time the respondents came there alongwith stick, axe etc. and started abusing him and also called him by his caste's name and assaulted him.The non-applicant Jasrath had pulled his father from his hairs and threat to life was extended.offence under Sections 323, 294, 451, 506-B, 147, 148 of IPC and Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act (in short ""the Act"").He has even not stated that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community.Furthermore, even the caste certificate was not filed before the trial court and the applicant has not given any plausible explanation for not filing the copy of the caste certificate before the trial court, therefore, the trial court as well as the Revisional Court did not commit any mistake in not taking cognizance for offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act.Heard learned counsel for the parties.So far as filing of the caste certificate before the Revisional Court or before this Court is concerned, the applicant has not given any explanation as to why the said document was not filed before the trial court.Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court did not commit any mistake in not taking cognizance for offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. Accordingly, the order dated 28/3/2017 passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal Revision No.1500171/2016 as well as the order dated 26/8/2016 passed by the JMFC, Bhind in Criminal Case No.2401080/2016 are affirmed.The M.Cr.G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Arun","['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Presently, the petitioners have no access to the records and documents of the hotel under reference.(Debasish Kar Gupta, J.) (Md.Mumtaz Khan, J.)","['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(2) The prosecution story reveals that the deceased Amru along with the complainant Babu Adiwasi (PW-1), Ramesh (PW-3) and Paatiram (PW-2) on 26.09.2007 while coming back from the village market met the appellants near the agricultural field where soyabeen was sown.That appellant Balveer was 2 Cr.A. No. 603/08 & 898/08 carrying lathi whereas Harnam alias Harinarayan Sahu was carrying ""sariya"" (iron rod).That Amru asked for the wages on behalf of his wife, who had worked in Balveer's field, whereon Balveer got infuriated and inflicted blows with lathi.That when Babu (PW-1), Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3) interfered, they were also given beating with lathi and saria by both the appellants.As a result whereof, Amru succumbed to the injuries whereas Babu (PW-1), Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3) who sustained injuries.While running away from the place fell on their way.The complaint lodged by Babu (PW-1) was registered as Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/24) on the basis whereof FIR (Ex. P/25) was registered.Police party was deployed.Investigation was set in motion.Spot maps and inquest were prepared (Ex. P/12, P- 13, P/14).(23.09.2017) Per Justice Sanjay Yadav:These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 31.07.2008 passed in Special Case No. 14/2008, whereby the appellants having been found guilty of the offences under Sections 302, 326/34 of IPC were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for causing murder of Amru and five years sentence for causing grievous injuries to Ramesh (PW-3) and Paatiram (PW-2).The body of Amru was sent for postmortem.The postmortem was conducted by Dr. S.K. Shainde (PW-9), who gave the report Ex. P/11, wherein following injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased:-2 Cr.A. No. 603/08 & 898/08External Injury - Lacerated wound 4x2x1 cm left temporal region.Lacerated wound 2x2x1 cm above upper lib with and compound fracture of upper jaw with loose of incise and canine tooth.Lacerated wound above left eyebrow with compound fracture of left orbite and laceration of left eye wall.(2x2x1 cm size).""(3) As per doctor's opinion, the cause of death was coma due to head injury.(4) The injuries on Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3) were examined by Dr. S.K. Shainde (PW-9).As per Ex. P/8 following injuries were found on the body of Paatiram (PW-2):-""1. incise wound 4x2x1 cm right side chin.2. incise wound 2x1x1 cm right side 3 Cr.A. No. 603/08 & 898/08 mouth3 Cr.A. No. 603/08 & 898/083. incise wound 2x1x1 cm lateral to right eye.4. incise wound 3x2x1 cm right side vertexincise wound 2x1x1 cm let side chin6. incise wound 1x1/2x1/2 cm lateral to left eye.""And vide Ex. P/9, Ramesh (PW-3) was found having sustained following injuries:-""1. incise wound 1x1/2x1/2 cm above right eyebrow.2. incise wound 2x1x1/2 cm above left eyebrow.3. incise wound 1x1/2x1/2 cm upper lib.4. incise wound 2x1x1/2 cm back of head.swelling and contusion on doram of left hand.""(5) The accused were arrested.After necessary investigation charge-sheet was filed.The case was committed for trial.Appellants abjured their guilt and stated that they are falsely implicated.(6) Prosecution examined 12 witnesses, out of these Babu (PW-1), Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3) were examined as the eyewitnesses, the doctor who conducted the postmortem and examined the injured victims was examined as Dr. S.K. Shainde (PW-9).(7) The defence that as the incident is of night and the police has not seized the articles said to have been purchased by the victims from the market, therefore, there was the possibility that victims were looted by unknown persons and the accused are falsely implicated was discarded by the trial Court on the findings that the assailants, i.e., accused persons and the victims were the residents of same village and were known to each other.And the eyewitness's count corroborated with the 4 Cr.A. No. 603/08 & 898/08 medical evidence cannot be discarded merely because the police had not seized the articles said to have been purchased by the victims from the market.4 Cr.A. No. 603/08 & 898/08(8) The trial Court also discarded the contention of sudden fight and that the incident could be brought within exception four of Section 300 of IPC by taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased.The trial Court found that both the accused were sharing common object, therefore, the accused Harinarayan does not get any benefit of having not inflicted any injury to the deceased Amru.(10) Consequently, the trial Court held both the accused persons guilty of causing murder of Amru and grievous and simple injuries to Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3) and convicted and sentenced them for life and 5 years' and one year's respectively with fine of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.1,500/- and Rs.500/- each.(11) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.(12) It is first contended on behalf of the appellants that non-seizure of any article of food or vegetable said to be purchased by the victims by the police from the spot from where they collected the blood stained earth creates a doubt to the entire story by the police.Babu (PW-1) who is the complainant in his cross-examination in paragraph 5 stated that the ""Potli"" in which they were carrying the vegetable and grocery fell at the place of occurrence of crime.He stated that:-^^5- ------eSa vkSj ve: nksuksa gh viuk [kjhnk x;k lkeku vius&vius lkFk iksVyh esa cka/kdj yk jgs FksA ve:5 Cr.A. No. 603/08 & 898/08But with the demand raised, the appellants got infuriated and inflicted multiple blows on the deceased and the persons accompanying him, viz Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3).","['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"He along with other accused is standing trial in the court of the Fifth Additional Special Judge, Madras City on four charges namely:1. 328thly, that you Accused 78 between November 1971 and November 1973 at Madras, in furtherance of the said agreement and conspiracy and in the course of the same transaction accepted or obtained from Approver Kannappan gratification to the tune of Rs. 26,000/- as a motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means the public servants, to wit, the officials of the Electrical Department, Central Accounts Department Cash Section, Revenue Department of the Corporation of Madras to do or forbear from doing official acts, to wit, prepare, process, negotiate and encash for disbursements bogus muster rolls relating to the employment of temporary labourers in the Electrical Department of the Corporation of Madras and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 162 of the Indian Penal Code.2. 329thly that you Accused-78 between August 1972 and November 1973, at Madras in furtherance of the said agreement and conspiracy and in the course of the same transaction abetted Accused 1 to 74 by corrupt or illegal means or other wise abusing their official position as public servants to obtain pecuniary advantage for yourselves and others to the tune of Rs. 6,35,855-25 as set out in the Annexure to Charge No. 326 supra and that you thereby committed an offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Central Act-II) 1947, read with Section 109, I.P.C., and within my cognizance.3. 330thly, that you Accused-78 between November 1971 and November 1973, at the said place, in furtherance of the said agreement and conspiracy and in the course of the same transaction abetted Accused 1 to 74 by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing their official position as public servants to obtain pecuniary advantage for yourselves and others to the tune of Rs. 6,35,855-25 as set out in the annexure to charge No. 326 supra and that you thereby committed an offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Central Act II) 1947 read with Section 109, Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.Hence this appeal.It requires evidence for its determination.","['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']"
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.,['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The appellant was employed in the Cooper Alien Mills at Kanpur and he was occupying one of the quarters in a settlement meant for the labouring classes known as the Allenganj Settlement.On 25-4-1957 when most of the menfolk residing there had gone away to the Mills to attend to their duties the appellant, it is said, came out of his quarters at about 7 A.M. armed with a Gandasa.It is said that Sarju Prasad P.W. 2 who was living with his brother in the Allenganj Settlement was sitting on his bed in front of his house when Rustam Ali came and struck him from behind with the Gandasa.Sarju Prasad tried to struggle for his safety but he was given several blows with the Gandasa in the meantime.Rustam Ali then ran away towards the north leaving Sarju Prasad there.It is further said that Om Prakash the son of Dhani Ram who was sitting on a cot in front of quarter No. 40/15 of his father was given Gandasa blow by Rustam Ali who thereafter ran away further north.During the process of arrest, and subsequently as well, injuries had been inflicted on Rustam Ali by the persons who had assembled there out of natural revolt engendered by the enormity of the crime committed by him.The emergency squad of the police was in the meantime informed by some one.Rustam Ali was handed over to the police and was taken to the hospital where he was attended to for his injuries.JUDGMENT D.N. Roy, J.This is an appeal by Rustam Ali who has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. for the murder of Om Prakash, son of Dhani Ram, aged about"" four years, and sentenced to death; and who has also been convicted under Section 307 for a brutal attack onSarju Prasad with the intention of killing him and has been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment.The report of the occurrence was made at the police station by Mustaq Ali at 7-35 A.M. Mus-taq Ali is also employed in the Cooper Alien Mills and he had rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing the alarm of the people who had taken part in overpowering the accused.After the report was made the investigation of the case was taken up by Sub-Inspector Mohammad Sultan, the Second Officer of police station Nawabganj at the instance of Sub-Inspector Chandrapal Singh the Station Officer of that place.Sarju Prasad and Om Prakash were both hurried to the hospital soon after their receiving the injuries, Sarju Prasad's injuries were examined by Dr. D. S. Kapoor, P.W. 19, and the following injuries were found on his person :Incised would 4 1/2"" by 1 3/4"" muscle deep, On the posterior lateral aspect of the middle 1/3 of the left thigh, directed obliquely and internally and posteriorly.Incised wound, 1"" by 1/2"", muscle deep, on the left calf, posterior aspect, 5"" below the knee.Incised wound 1/4"" by 1/3"", skin deep, over the knuckle of right index finger.Incised wound 3"" by 1"", bone deep, over the posterior aspect of head, transversely placed, slightly curved, lower flap sliced down.Incised wound, 2 1/4"" by 1"", muscle deep, and muscle cut on the left side of the neck 3"" below the car of left side passing backwards.The injuries of Om Prakash son of Dhani Ram were examined by Dr. Sharda Prasad (P.W. 18).An incised wound 3 1/2"" x 1/2"" x 1 1/2"" deep, below the occiput, on the back portion of the neck2"" to the right and 1 1/2"" to the left of the mid-line of the neck, was found.In spite of medical aid Om Prakash did not survive and he died at the hospital on the same date at 12-30 P.M. His body was sent for post mortem examination, which was conducted on that very day at the mortuary at 5-30 p.m. The post mortem examination revealed an incised wound 3 1/2"" x 1"" bone deep on the back of the neck, middle third, cutting the fourth cervical vertebra and injuring the spinal cord partially.Dr. D. P. Gupta was of opinion that death was' caused by shock due to the injury to the spinal cord in the cervical region.When the first information report was lodged by Mustaq Ali P.W. 1 at the police station, the gandasa recovered from the accused, namely, Ex. 1, was handed over there.At the police station it was sealed up by the Head Constable after the recovery memo, had been prepared.This gandasa was sent to the Chemical Examiner and to the Serologist to Government, and it was found to contain human blood.The accused denied the allegations made against him.He denied that he attacked Sarju Prasad and Om Prakash, son of Dhani Ram.He denied that the gandasa Ex. I belonged to him, or that it was taken away from him when he was overpowered.He did not state anything as to how he was arrested and by whom.It may be stated here that on an earlier occasion when the case came up before the learned Sessions Judge for trial, it was contended on behalf of the accused that he was of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence.An inquiry was therefore conducted in respect of that allegation.The Superintendent of that Hospital later on certified in December 1958 that Rustam Ali was then in a fit condition to stand his trial.He was thereafter transferred to Kanpur Jail and the trial was held.The defence that was taken by the accused in the Court of Sessions was that by reason of unsoundness of mind at the time of the alleged commission of the offence he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act and that what he was doing was contrary to law and, therefore, his act was protected under Section 84, I.P.C. To support that plea it was contended on behalf of Rustam Ali that he used to beat his wife and also used to lock her up inside the quarters when he used to go out for works; that he was of an eccentric type; that off and on he raised objections in the factory where he was employed about the quantity of work that was given to him; and that the very fact that he attacked a number of persons just about the timewhen Sarju Prasad and Om Prakash had been assaulted, affords proof of the circumstance that his mind was unhinged.The fact that Sarju Prasad P.W. 2 and Om Prakash son of Dhani Ham had been attacked by the appellant with the gandasa Ext. 1 on the morning of 25-4-1957 at the respective places stated above and that Om Prakash son of Dhani Ram died as a result of the injury received by him on the same date at the hospital at 12-50 p.m. admits of no doubt whatsoever.That was conclusively proved by the medical evidence referred to above and by the eye-witnesses.The first incident relating to Sarju Prasad was testified to not only be Sarju Prasad who was the victim of the assault, but by two other witnesses, Smt. Sunder P.W. 4 and Smt. Rabia P.W. 7, Smt. Sunder is the wife of Sarju Prasad's brother, who had gone out to work.Sunder was inside the house and she came out when she heard Sarju Prasad and Rabia shouting for help.She deposed that she saw Rustam All striking Sarju Prasad with the gandasa.Smt. Rabia resides in one of the neighbouring quarters.She stated that she saw Rustam Ali passing by her quarters.She inquired from him as to why he had not gone to his work, and Rustam Ali told her that he had taken leave for the day.Rustam Ali then took an onward course and Smt. Rabia applied herself to her own work.She then heard the cries of Sarju and, when she raised her head, she found Rustam.She also raised cries.Sarju fell down and became unconscious.The two ladies lifted up Sarju who was sent to the hospital.The statements of these three witnesses fully established the fact that it was Rustam Ali who attacked Sarju Prasad.There was nothing on the record to suggest or to show that these three witnesses had any motive to implicate the accused falsely.With respect to the second incident we have the statement of three witnesses, Lakshmi (P.W. 10), Ram Pyari (P.W. 11) and Dhani Ram (P.W. 16).Ram Pyari and Dhani Ram are the parents of Om Prakash; and Smt. Lakshmi is the wife of one Hem Nath who was residing in the adjoining quarters.All the three witnesses were inside their respective quarters.Smt. Lakshmi heard some noise outside and she came out to see what the matter was and she saw that Rustam Ali was running with a Gandasa in his hand from the side of Sarju Prasad's quarters.At that time Om Prakash the son of Dhani Ram was sitting over the cot in front of his quarter.Om Prakash was getting into the house when he was alerted and asked by his parents to do so, but before he could get inside the house, Rustam Ali struck him with the Gandasa.Om Prakash was rushed to the hospital and in spite of medical aid he expired at the hospital on the same day at about 12-50 P.M. There was nothing on the record to raise any semblance of doubt about the truth of the matter deposed to by these two witnesses.We have already said that in the process of apprehension, and immediately afterwards, those who apprehended him and those who had gathered at the spot made an attack at Rustam Ali obviously on account of the enormity of the offence and the reckless way in which the accused had attacked innocent persons.Mushtaq Ali (P.W. 1) who was one of the persons who had arrested the accused was quite an independent witness.He showed great couragein apprehending the accused.Rustam Ali had no explanation to give as to how he was arrested and when.From what we have said above there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence relating to the two incidents.That evidence fully established that it was Rustam Ali who made a murderous attack on Om Prakash with the Gandasa' Ex. 1 which resulted in the death of Om Prakash and he also made a murderous attack on Sarju Prasad witness but Sarju Prasad luckily escaped death.The plea raised by the accused, that he is entitled to the protection under Section 84, I.P.C., was, in our opinion, rightly rejected by the learned Sessions Judge.There was no doubt the evidence of Smt. Sunder (P.W. 4) that Rustam Ali used to lock up his wife and children inside his house when housed to go out for work.There was the further evidence of Smt. Ram Pyari (P. W. 11) who stated that Rustam Ali used to quarrel with his wife and to beat her.The attack on Om Prakash son of Dhani Ram was unprovoked; so was the attack on Sarju Prasad.","['Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.4.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in S.T. No. 172/93 convicting the appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 4 years and fine of Rs. 1,000 in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment of 6 months, the appellant has knocked the door of this Court by preferring this appeal.In brief the case of prosecution is that on 10.5.1993 Kalibai (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) who was living in the house of her parents, ablazed herself.She was sent to the Hospital where a dying declaration of her was recorded.The investigating agency investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet in the competent Court which on its turn committed the case to the Court of Session and from where it was received by the Trial Court for the trial.The learned Trial Judge on going through the charge sheet framed charge punishable under Section 306 of the I.P.C. against the appellant.Needless to emphasis the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence.His defence is of maladroit implication.In order to bring home the charge the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and placed certain documents on record.The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence placed on record came to hold that appellant did commit the offence for which he was charged and eventually convicted him and passed the sentence which I have mentioned hereinabove.Hence, this appeal.","['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In Re : An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 13.9.2018 in connection with Asansol (North) P.S case no. 153 of 2018 dated 2.6.2018 under sections 498A/302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act added secton 406 of the Indian Penal Code And Allowed In Re : Nikhit @ Nikhat Perween @ Rani ...... petitioner Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya Mr. Kunal Ganguly ...... for the petitioner Mr. Partha Pratim Das ...... for the State Heard the learned advocates appearing for the petitioner and the State.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for bail.Accordingly, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the learned 2 CJM, Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman on condition that the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing until further orders and shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.In the event she fails to appear before the trial court without justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel her bail automatically without reference to this court.The application being CRM 7845 of 2018 is disposed of.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"He further undertakes that in case he is given bail he be abide by all the terms and conditions of guidance, circulars and directions issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration regarding measures in respect of COVID-19 Pandemic and maintain hygiene in the vicinity while keeping physical distancing.3 Cr.A. No.3201/2020In view of COVID-19 pandemic, the jail authorities are directed that before releasing the appellant, his preliminary Corona Virus test shall be conducted and if he is found negative, then the concerned local administration shall make necessary arrangements for sending the appellant to his house, and if he is found positive then the appellant shall be immediately sent to concerned hospital for his treatment as per medical norms.Matter is heard through Video Conferencing.The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 21/5/2020 passed by trial Court; whereby, application of appellant preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.He further undertakes to to cooperate in trial and not to be a source of harassment or embarrassment to the complainant party in any manner.Further looking to the situation of pandemic, he intends to serve the Nation by contributing his part by installing Arogya Setu App and contributing in Army Central Welfare Fund.2 Cr.A. No.3201/2020Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the criminal appeal.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them.State of M.P. ) Thousands only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.If the appellant is fit for release and if he is in a position to make his personal arrangements, then he shall be released only after taking due travel permission from local administration.If it is found that the appellant has violated any of the instructions (whether general or specific) issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration, then this order shall automatically lose its effect, and the Local Administration/Police Authorities shall immediately take him in custody and would sent him to the same jail from where he was released.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellants :-THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 Cr.A. No.3201/2020 (Gajendra Vs.State of M.P. )4 Cr.A. No.3201/20201.The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;The appellant shall deposit Rs. 5,000/- in favour of Army Central Welfare Fund having A/C No.520101236373338 of Corporation Bank, Chandani Chowk Delhi within one month..The appellant will inform the SHO of concerned police station about his residential address in the said area and it would be THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 Cr.A. No.3201/2020 (Gajendra Vs.State of M.P. ) the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information.5 Cr.A. No.3201/2020Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible for the office of this Court.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.(Anand Pathak) Judge jps/-Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA JAI PRAKASH PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya SOLANKI Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179c ec865c7633f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2020.07.24 10:51:38 +05'30'","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In view of the nature of allegations made by the two victim girls in the two cases, the case of the prosecution in its entirety mentioned in both these cases need to be mentioned for better appreciation of the facts and also to understand the plight of the two victim girls.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 :::4) The two victim girls PW-1 and PW-2 were friends.They were residents of Partur, District Jalna.At the relevant time they had not crossed age of 16 years.Mother of PW-1 was working as maid servant to earn livelihood and she was required to maintain not only the prosecutrix but also other issues as her husband is dead.The parents of PW-2, other prosecutrix, hail from Hiwarkheda.The parents of PW-2 are very poor and as they could not afford to maintain PW-2, they had kept PW-::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 :::8 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 2 in the house of sister of mother of PW-2 in Partur.PW-2 was not happy due to poverty and also due to bad treatment which she was receiving in the house of her aunt on maternal side.5) On 3-7-1994, PW-2 had some dispute with her maternal aunt.As she was being starved she met PW-1 and expressed that she wanted to work to earn for her livelihood.PW-1 has a relative by name Sham Agrawal and he was running a shop in Parbhani city, District Parbhani.PW-1 expressed that Sham Agrawal can help them in giving job in Parbhani.Due to these circumstances on 3-7- 1994 PW-1 and PW-2 left Partur for Parbhani without informing anything to anybody from Partur.On 4-7-1994 early in the morning they went to Osmanpur railway::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 ::: 9 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 station on foot and there they boarded a train proceeding to Parbhani.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 :::These boys were also proceeding to Parbhani as they were doing some diploma course in Parbhani.During talk, PW-1 and PW-2 disclosed to these boys that they were going to Parbhani in search of job.These boys advised the victim girls not to go to Parbhani and return to home.They informed that it was not safe for them to go to Parbhani.PW-1 and PW-2 and the two boys alighted at Parbhani from train.As the boys were advising the girls to return home but as there was no train up to 3 p.m. the boys gave tea and food to these girls in a hotel.As there was time upto 3 p.m., the boys took these two girls to Talreja Talkies to see a movie.It was a matinée show and after seeing the movie the girls were expected to return by train to home.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 :::(accused Nos.1 to 3 from Sessions Case No.121/1994) occupied the seats by the side of the two girls.They opened talk with the two girls and during talk the three accused realised that these two girls wanted to go to Sham Agrawal.Accused Nos.1 to 3 from Sessions Case No.121/1994 falsely represented to these girls that they knew Sham Agrawal and Sham Agrawal was their friend.They gave false promise to the victim girls that they would take them to Sham Agrawal.After arrival of accused Nos.1 to 3 from Sessions Case No.121/1994 in the theatre, the aforesaid two boys viz Raju and Abhay left the theatre.9) Accused Nos.1 to 3 from Sessions Case No. 121 of 1994 took the two girls in an auto-rickshaw first to the house of a friend where they provided meals to the girls.From this house accused Nos.1 to 3 from Sessions Case No.121/1994 took the girls to a banana garden situated at the outskirts of Parbhani city.In the banana garden, accused No.1 of Sessions Case No.121/1994 took PW-1 to::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 ::: 11 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 one side and then he committed rape on her.After that accused No.1 to 3 from that case took PW-1 and PW-2 towards side of a brook known as Pingad-Gad-Nala.There was water in the brook.PW-1 and PW-2 could not resist as threats were given to them.From there, accused Nos.1 to 4 of Sessions Case No.121/1994 took PW-1 and PW-2 to a lodge of Parbhani by name Visawa Lodge.They reached there at about 10.00 p.m. There accused Nos.1 to 4 of Sessions Case No.121/1994 informed to PW-1 and PW-2 that two Sahibs, accused Nos.6 and 7 of Sessions Case No.121/1994, were to come to the lodge and they would::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 ::: 12 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 help PW-1 and PW-2 for getting work.After some time accused Nos.6 and 7 of that case namely Nitin Dudhgaonkar and Kalyan Renge came to the lodge.They gave threats not to disclose the incident to anybody.Accused Nos.8 and 9 of Sessions Case No.121/1994 were managing the lodge and they kept watch to see that there was no interference or there was no help to the victim girls.When accused Nos.6 and 7 left the lodge, accused Nos.1 to 4 of Sessions Case No.121/1994 took PW-1 and PW-2 to campus of Shanti Niketan school.There accused Nos.1 to 4 consumed liquor.Accused Nos.2,3 and 4 then left the campus of the school.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 :::11) From the campus of the school, accused No.1 took the two victim girls to other place which is called as Wada, big house, where accused No.5 Tukaram Kharat of Sessions Case No.121/1994 was present.Tukaram gave::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 ::: 13 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 threats to PW-1 and PW-2 to facilitate rape which accused No.1 wanted to commit.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 :::12) From the last place accused No.1 took the two victim girls to Parbhani Railway Station and there he left them.While leaving, he again gave threats to them not to disclose the incident to anybody.Under the pretext that he would help PW-1 and PW-2 he took these two girls to retiring room situated at railway platform.Abbas Baig then called accused No.2 Ashok, who was working as Police Head Constable and accused No.3 Tabuka, who was working as Railway ticket booking clerk to the room.One more person also came with them.The retiring place had many rooms.Accused No.3 Tabuka and the other person took PW-1 to one room and there they raped her.After committing the rape these persons allowed the victim girls to leave the retiring room.The victim girls were very::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 15 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 much frightened and in that condition they went to the bridge of the railway and from there in search of water they went towards railway quarters situated by the side of the railway station.It was day time.There, accused No.4 Bhansing Bundele, who was occupying a railway quarters as he was employee of railway, promised them to help and took them to his residential quarters.In his quarters, accused No.5 Raju was already present and one young boy aged about 12 years was also present.accused No.4 supplied water to the victim girls and then he left the railway quarters by informing to accused No.5 that he would return after some time (after attending the duty).::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::15) At about 2.30 p.m. of 5-7-1994 accused No.4 of the present matter returned to the railway quarters.He had brought with him a bottle of liquor and some food items.He gave the food items to the victim girls and asked the aforesaid young boy to leave the quarters.When the young boy left the quarters, accused No.5 took PW-1::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 16 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 to one room and there he raped her.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::16) Accused Nos.4 and 5 of the present matter virtually used PW-1 and PW-2 upto 4.00 p.m. of 5-7-1994 and then they called accused No.6 Munna @ Ravindra Singh and accused No.7 Mahesh to the railway quarters.From the railway quarters PW-1 and PW-2 were taken by accused Nos.4 and 5 in an auto-rickshaw to other place by name Shakti Bungalow from Parbhani.Accused No.6 and 7 had come on their motor cycle and they followed auto rickshaw to that place on their motor cycle.This incident was going on upto early hours of 6-7-1994 (upto 3 A.M.).PW-1 somehow saved her by giving information regarding her menstruation period.On::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 17 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 the night between 5-7-1994 and 6-7-1994 the two victim girls were present in Shakti Bungalow.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::17) On 6-7-1994, in the morning when PW-2 woke up from sleep, she noticed that PW-1 was not there.Accused No.5 Rameshwar from the present matter was present in Shakti Bungalow and he informed that PW-1 had already left the building.PW-2 searched for some time to find PW-1 and then she went to Parbhani Railway Station as she intended to return to home by railway.In the meantime PW-1 had gone to other station viz. Purna and from there a lady police constable took her in railway to Parbhani Railway Station.At Parbhani Railway Station PW-1 pointed PW-2 to the lady constable and due to that the lady constable took PW-2 to Railway Police Chowki and PW-2 was asked to stay there.18) The lady police constable Giribai reached PW-1 to Partur by train.After returning from Partur, Giribai took PW-2 to Purna Railway Police Station.There, the FIR of PW-2 came to be recorded and the crime came to be::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 18 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 registered.PW-2 was taken to Parbhani for medical examination on 7-4-1994 and she was medically examined.During course of investigation her clothes were taken over.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::19) On 9-7-1994 PW-2 was taken to New Mondha Police Station Parbhani where another FIR came to be recorded and another crime came to be registered.Sessions Case No.121/1994 is filed in the crime registered at New Mondha Police Station Parbhani in respect of the incidents which took place in banana garden, near Pingad- Gad-Nala, Visawa Lodge, Shanti Niketan school and one Wada.She has deposed that first, accused No.6 raped her against her will by removing her clothes.Bleeding through cervical os seen.The vaginal mucosa is contested.57) On 20-8-1994 Jadhav (PW-17) held T.I. parade in which opportunity was given to PW-1 and PW-2 to identify accused Nos.6 and 7 of the present matter.On this occasion he used six dummy persons.accused No.6 also gave statement to him and he prepared memorandum of his statement.73) Sahebrao Vyavahare (PW-23) was working as Police Inspector in CID and he made remaining investigation of the case.He has deposed that, he took over the investigation of CR No.29/1994 registered in Purna Railway Police Station by PSI Khan and he also took over the investigation of CR No.82/1994 registered with New Mondha Police Station which was with Chalak.1) All the appeals are filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No.139/1994 which was pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge,::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 ::: 6 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 Parbhani.The learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced accused Nos.4 to 7 for offence punishable under section 366 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and for offence punishable under section 376(2)(g) of Indian Penal Code.Accused Nos.4 and 5 are convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under section 342 read with section 34 of IPC also.The convicted accused persons have filed the first four appeals.The State has filed Criminal Appeal No.306/1999 as the trial Court has given jail sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment to accused Nos.4 to 7 and the State wants to see that they get imprisonment for life.Both the sides are heard.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 :::2) In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeals can be stated as follows :--3) Two minor village girls were ravished in Parbhani city and at the outskirts of Parbhani city by different persons.In respect of these incidents two separate charge-sheets were filed and two cases were tried separately against those persons in respect of::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 ::: 7 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 different incidents.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 :::9) Accused Nos.1 to 3 from Sessions Case No. 121::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:02 :::committed rape on PW-2 and accused Nos.2 and 310) From the side of the brook accused No.1 to 3 of Sessions Case No.121/1994 took PW-1 and PW-2 towards the side of road.There they met accused No.4 of that case namely Rameshwar.In respect of the aforesaid five incidents of rape separate charge sheet was filed and Sessions Case No.121/1994 was tried against the aforesaid 9 accused persons.In that case accused Nos.1 to 4 and accused Nos.6 and 7 are convicted and sentenced for offence of gang rape.Accused Nos.1 to 3 are also convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 366 read with 34 of IPC.These accused are convicted for different incidents mentioned above.13) The second part of the prosecution case starts from the incident which took place at Parbhani Railway Station.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::On 7-7-1994 police from Kotwali Police Station Parbhani went to Partur and they brought PW-1 to Kotwali Police Station.PW-1 was then sent to New Mondha Police Station and in the crime registered there, her statement came to be recorded.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::place in retiring room of the railways station, railway quarters and Shakti Bungalow came to be recorded as per the narration made by PW-2 and Sessions Case No. 139 of 1994, present matter, was filed after making investigation of that crime.During course of investigation statements of PW-1 and PW-2 came to be recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.PW-2 took police to various places where the offence was committed against them.Accused persons came to be arrested.Some incriminating articles like clothes, carpets came to be recovered on the basis of statements given by accused persons.Blood samples of the accused persons came to be sent to CA office along with blood samples of the two victim girls along with vaginal swabs collected by medical officer.Charge sheet came to be filed in the present matter in Crime No.29/1994 registered in Purna Railway Police Station and Crime No.82/1994 registered in New Mondha Police Station Parbhani.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::22) Charge was framed against accused separately in accordance with the allegations made against him by the two victim girls and the material collected against accused.All the accused pleaded not guilty.Prosecution examined 23 witnesses who include the two victim girls.All the accused took the defence of total denial.No defence evidence is given.23) The prosecution relied on both, direct and the circumstantial evidence.The trial Court has believed both the victim girls so far as the evidence given by them as against accused Nos.4 to 7 is concerned.The evidence given as against accused Nos.1 to 3 is not believed by the trial Court.The trial Court has held that there is circumstantial check to the evidence given as against::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 21 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 accused Nos.4 to 7 and the evidence as against these accused given by the two victim girls is consistent with each other.In view of these circumstances the evidence of prosecution given as against accused Nos.4 to 7 only and with regard to the incidents in which they were involved need to be considered and appreciated.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::24) Both the victim girls have given evidence in respect of the incidents which took place between 4-7- 1994 till early hours of 5-7-1994 and that evidence shows that prior to the incidents in which accused Nos.4 to 7 were involved both the victim girls were ravished by other persons at various places like banana garden, near brook, in a lodge, in the campus of a school, in Wada and also in the retiring room of Parbhani Railway Station.It needs to be mentioned here that the Court has not believed the victim girls in respect of the incidents of rape took place in the retiring room in which accused Nos.1 to 3 and one unknown person were involved.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::No.1"") has given evidence that when the incident which took place in retiring room was over, she and PW-2 (victim girl No.2) came out of the retiring room, went to the stairs of the bridge and stayed there for some time.She has deposed that they wanted to have drinking water and so they started to proceed towards railway quarters of the railway employees situated by the side of the railway station.She has given evidence that on the way one man who was known, accused No.4, Bhansing, met them.This accused is identified by both the victim girls in the Court.She has given evidence that accused No.4 took them to his railway quarters by promising to give them drinking water.She has given evidence that one boy aged about 12 to 13 years was also present in this residential quarters.She has given evidence that accused No.4 gave water to them and then said that there was train for Partur at 3.00 p.m. and he would arrange to send them by train to Partur.She has given evidence that by saying so::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 23 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 he left the quarters but while leaving, he closed the entrance door of the quarters and put a lock on it from outside.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::She has deposed that accused No.4 had brought liquor bottle with him.She has given evidence that accused No.4 supplied food to both of them and then accused Nos.4 and 5 consumed liquor.food to both of them and then accused Nos.4 and 527) PW-1 has given evidence that accused No.4 then took PW-2 to a room of the quarters and closed the door of the room from inside.She has given evidence that accused No.5 then raped her by removing her clothes.She::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 24 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 has described the incident of rape in her evidence.She has given evidence that after some time PW-2 came out of the aforesaid room and she informed that accused No.4 had raped her.She has given evidence that accused No.5 gave threats to finish them by braking glass and so they could not resist and they stayed inside of the quarters.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::She has given specific evidence as against accused No.4 that in the noon time, when accused No.4 returned to the railway quarters, accused No.4 raped her.She has given evidence that the act was against her will.She has given particulars of the incident of rape.She has given evidence that during the incident the lace of her Salwar got broken and so accused No.4 gave lace of his shoe for using it as lace of her Salwar and she used that lace for her Salwar.She has identified accused Nos.4 and 5 in the Court and she has also identified her Salwar having lace of the shoe which was produced by her during course of investigation before police.She has given evidence that when accused No.4::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 25 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 was committing the offence, accused No.5 had done the same thing against PW-1 and that incident was disclosed by PW-1 to her.The evidence given by PW-1 and PW-2 as against accused No.4 and 5 on the incident of rape which took place in the railway quarters of accused No.4 is consistent with each other.There is also circumstantial check and those circumstances are being discussed at other place.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::PW-2 has given similar evidence as against accused Nos.6 and 7 and their evidence leads to inference that it is accused No.4 who had called accused No.6 and 7 to his railway quarters.PW-2 has identified::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 26 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 accused Nos.6 and 7 in the Court and she gave their description also.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::30) PW-1 has given evidence that from the railway quarters of accused No.4 she and PW-2 were taken in an auto-rickshaw by accused Nos.4 and 5 to one bungalow viz. Shakti Bungalow.She has given evidence that accused Nos.4 and 5 were sitting on the two sides of PW-1 and PW-PW-1 has given description of this bungalow and the substantive evidence which is being discussed shows that only due to information given by PW-2, police could trace both, the railway quarters of accused No.4 and Shakti bungalow.Some articles were also recovered in connection with the crime by police at the instance of one accused and on the basis of statement given under section 27 of the Evidence Act.She has given evidence that she was not raped because she was in menses.She has deposed that after coming from the room where rape was committed, PW-2 narrated the incident to her by saying that all the four accused (accused Nos.4,5,6 and 7) had raped her.She has deposed that PW-2 was weeping, she was feeling tired and she was having pains.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::She has specifically pointed accused No.6 in that regard.She has given evidence against accused No.4 that he had raped her in Shakti bungalow against her will.She has given evidence that accused No.7 then committed rape on her and at the end accused No.5 committed rape on her.She has identified these four accused persons in the Court as the persons who had raped her in Shakti::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 28 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 bungalow.She has given evidence that she was ravished for long time by these four persons, till early hours of the next day.She has given evidence that she was having pains, she could not walk and she was frightened and as she was not able understand what to do, she slept in Shakti bungalow on that night for the remaining period.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::33) The remaining evidence given by PW-1 and PW- 2 is with regard to their subsequent conduct.The evidence shows that after the incident of rape which took place in Shakti bungalow they were allowed to leave Shakti bungalow.Their evidence shows that first PW-1 left the Shakti bungalow, she went to Purna station where a lady constable made inquiry with her and by way of precaution the lady constable took PW-1 with her.Evidence of PW-2 shows that after searching for PW-1 for some time, she went to Parbhani Railway Station as she wanted to return to::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 29 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 Partur and there the aforesaid lady constable came to her and then she was taken to railway police Chowki by the said lady constable.The evidence of PW-1 shows that from Purna Railway Station she was taken to Partur to her residential place by the lady constable and she was reached to her house.The evidence of PW-1 shows that when train reached Parbhani, she showed PW-2 to the lady constable and so the lady constable took aforesaid step.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::The evidence of PW-2 shows that in the Parbhani Railway Police Station one PSI Khan made inquiry with her and he recorded her statement.PW-2 has tried to say that her entire version was not recorded by Khan and only the portion which he felt necessary was recorded by him.On that statement her signature was obtained by Khan.She has given evidence that on 7-7-1994 she was taken to Parbhani from Purna::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 30 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 for her medical examination and there she was medically examined.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::35) PW-2 has given evidence that on 8-7-1994 her clothes were taken over by police which were Salwar and Kurta and they were the clothes which were on her person when she was raped in railway residential quarters of accused No.4 and in Shakti Bungalow.She has identified articles 9,10 and 11 as her clothes which were produced before police by her.She has deposed that her signature was obtained on the seizure panchanama (Exhibit 28) when the clothes were taken over by police.She has given evidence that on 8-7-1994 P.S.I. Yeshwant took over inner wear, nicker, which is article 6 and separate panchanama in that regard was prepared.36) PW-2 has given evidence that on 10-7-1994 she showed the places where the incidents narrated by her had taken place.The places were the railway quarters of accused No.4 and the Shakti Building.The evidence as regards the other place viz. retiring room of railway::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 31 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 station need not be considered as that matter is not before this Court.PW-2 has deposed that panchanama of the incidents in which she showed the places was prepared in her presence.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::37) PW-2 has given evidence that during investigation, she was given opportunity to identify the accused persons.She has deposed that in the test identification parade dated 2-8-1994 she identified accused No.4 Bhansing and accused No.5 Raju.This witness has identified accused Nos.4 and 5 during the deposition in the Court also.PW-2 has given evidence on test identification parade dated 20-8-1994 in which she identified accused No.6 Ravindra @ Munna and accused No.7 Mahesh.PW-2 identified accused Nos.6 and 7 during deposition in the Court also.38) PW-2 has given evidence that the Judicial Magistrate recorded her statement (under section 164 of the Cr.P.C.) during the course of investigation.It is brought on the record in her evidence that the term used::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 32 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 in Marathi by her viz. ""Angawar Haat Takla"" (v ax koj gkr Vkdyk ) means the commission of rape.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::39) PW-1 has given evidence that on 7-7-1994 PSI Yeshwant took her from her residential place from Partur to Parbhani Police Station and then her report was recorded.PW-1 has given evidence that PSI Khan recorded her statement in Parbhani on 8-7-1994 but that statement was not recorded as per the version given by her.PW-1 has deposed that her clothes viz. article Nos.4 and 5 (shown to be seized in Sessions Case No.121/1994) were taken over during investigation and she was wearing these clothes viz. Salwar and Kurta at the time of the incidents in question.40) PW-1 has given evidence that opportunity was given to her to identify accused persons in test identification parades.She has deposed that in the test identification parade dated 2-8-1994 she identified accused No.4 Bhansing and on that occasion she was::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 ::: 33 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 asked to identify associate of the accused who raped her.PW-1 has deposed that on 20-8-1994 in other test identification parade she identified accused No.6 Munna and accused No.7 Mahesh.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::41) PW-1 has given evidence that her statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate (under section 164 of the Cr.P.C.) but she could not give the narration of the incidents correctly when the statement was recorded as she was still in shock.She has given evidence that she was referred for medical examination and she was medically examined.42) The prosecution has given other circumstantial evidence.His evidence shows that PW-1 produced Salwar and Kurta and they came to be seized.Panchanama of seizure of the clothes of PW-2 is also proved in his evidence as Exhibit 37and there were blood stains on the underwear of PW 2.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::dated 17-7-1994 in which he stated that he would show the places of the incidents like residential quarters of the railway and Shakti bungalow.No recovery or seizure of articles took place on the basis of the statement.However, there is circumstance that only after showing the places of the incidents by PW-2 and after arrest of accused No.4, accused Nos.6 and 7 were traced and arrested.They were not known to PW-2 prior to the date of incident.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::35 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999Panchanama of seizure of underwear and 'T' shirt of accused No.6 is proved at Exhibit 48 and the clothes were recovered on the basis of statement mentioned in Exhibit47.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::The evidence on record shows that this motor cycle is not identified by the two victim girls.44) Vaijnath (PW-12) is another panch who has given evidence on the seizure of clothes of accused No.4 Bhansing and on his arrest panchanama.His evidence shows that PW-2 was with police and panchas when they visited the quarters.One underwear having stains of blood was also taken over.A pair of shoes was taken over and to one shoe there was no lace.Here only it needs to be again mentioned that it is the case of PW-2 that she was given lace of this shoe by Bhansing as the lace of her Salwar got broken during the incident.Another document at Exhibit 77 is proved in the evidence this witness.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::46) Dr. Jaishri Deshpande (PW-14) is examined by prosecution to give medical evidence.She examined PW-2 on 7-7-1994 at about 4.p.m.On local examination she noted following things in respect of PW-2 :-Matting of pubic hair was seen.Blood stains on clothes and genitals.No evidence of external injuries over genitals.Hymen - torn, congested+ oozing through tear present.P.S. : Speculum could be passed with difficulty tenderness i.e. severe tenderness.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:03 :::38 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 On PV examination she found following things :Vagina admits one finger with pains i.e. severe tenderness.Bleeding through cervical was present.This document is consistent with the oral evidence of the witness.47) Dr. Jaishri (PW-14) examined PW-1 on 8-7-1994 at 9.00 p.m. She has deposed that on local examination she found following things :-Matting of pubic hair not seenBlood stains on the clothes and genitals were seenPosterior fourchette congested and redness.Lebia minora was slightly congested.Hymen torn (old tear), no oozing bleeding through vagina was present.No evidence of injury over the external genitals.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::""Medium size speculum passed with a minimum tenderness means pains.Vagina admits two fingers with tenderness.Uterus - normal size, retroverted bleeding through cervical seen.No living or dead spermatozoa. ""48) The evidence of Dr. Jaishri Deshpande shows that on microscopic examination no living or dead spermatozoa were revealed.Her evidence, however, shows that living spermatozoa can be seen within 2 to 3 hours after sexual intercourse and dead spermatozoa can be seen within 24 hours of sexual intercourse.The evidence on the record shows that both the victim girls were examined after 24 hours of the last incident of rape.49) Dr. Jaishri (PW-14) has given evidence on the examination done by her of both the victim girls to ascertain their age.Her evidence shows that she had taken X-rays and she had done clinical examination also.In respect of PW-2 she has deposed that iliac crest had appeared but not fused.The process of fusion of lower end was not yet started but the head of radius was found::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 ::: 40 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 fused.The X-ray plates are produced in the Court.On the basis of the clinical and radiological examination she gave opinion about the age of PW-2 as age between 14 and 16 years which include margin of error which is 1 to 2 years.She has given specific opinion that the age of PW-2 was less than 16 years.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::She has given evidence that the age of PW-1 was between 14 and 16 years which include margin of error.She has given specific evidence that the age of PW-1 was not more than 16 years on the date of examination.X-ray plate of this victim girl was also produced.This record is consistent with the oral evidence of Dr. Jaishri.Specific opinion was obtained by police from this doctor by putting some queries and that opinion is given at Exhibit 81 which is proved in her evidence.At Exhibit 82 there is the record with regard to radiological examination.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::birth also in respect of two victim girls.Krishnarao Choudhari (PW-15) is working as Clerk in Dhapibai Maternity Home Amarawati.He has given evidence that as per the record one Kirandevi Mor was admitted in this hospital for delivery on 12-3-1979 and on the same day she delivered a female child at 1.30 p.m. According to him, as per the record, it was second female child to Kirandevi.He has given evidence that after the delivery, information was given to local body, Municipal Corporation by this hospital.Challenge with regard to the surname of the mother mentioned in the register is being discussed at later place.Original record was brought to the Court and Exhibit 84 is consistent with the original record.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::medical officer in the Department of Registration of Births and death of Municipal Corporation Amarawati is examined by the prosecution to prove the registration of birth of PW-1 on the basis of information give by Dhapibai Maternity Home, mentioned above.Entry was made at Sr.No.2131 in the register in respect of PW-1 and he has given evidence that it is in respect of female child name of whose father was Rameshwar Gangabhishan Mor and the name of the mother of the child was Kiran.The date of birth is recorded as 12-3-1979 and the girl was born in Dhapibai Maternity Home Amarawati.It was the second female child to this couple.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::Bahadur Shastri High School Partur is examined by the prosecution to prove the date of birth of PW-2 on the basis of her school record.The transfer certificate issued by C.P.S. is proved in Sessions Case No.121/1994 as Exhibit 229 and its copy is produced in the present matter.He has given evidence that as per original transfer certificate which was received by his school, the PW-2 was admitted on 10-7-1981 and accordingly the date of birth was recorded by his school.Copy of the transfer certificate is taken on the record at Exhibit 175 in the present matter.In the school register entry of the admission was taken and the original school record was also brought to the Court.Thus, there is medical evidence and also the evidence given on the basis of school record by the prosecution to show that the age of PW-2 was not more than 16 years at the relevant time.The dates of birth of both the victim girls show that their age was less than 16 years at the relevant time.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::54) Namdeo Jadhav (PW-17), Executive Magistrate, has given evidence on test identification parades (hereinafter referred to as ""T.I. Parade"") held by him in the campus of Parbhani Jail.He has given evidence that after receipt of letter of police, he collected information about the case and then he arranged for conducting T.I. parade.The evidence of T.I. parade was seriously challenged before the trial Court.Though the learned Senior Counsel for the present appellants-accused submitted that the trial Court has discarded the evidence of T.I. parade, the::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 ::: 45 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 judgment does not show that there is such specific finding.The trial Court has held that two victim girls were in the position to identify the accused, who were identified by them in the Court and identification in Court is sufficient.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::55) Namdeo Jadhav (PW-17) has given evidence that in the T.I. parade held on 2-8-1994 PW-2 identified accused Nos.4 and 5 of the present matter.The evidence of Jadhav shows that he used 7 dummy persons for T.I. parade dated 2-8-1994 and they were resembling to the accused persons in appearance, in age and in height.He has given evidence that opportunity was given separately to PW-1 and PW-2 to identify accused Nos.4 and 5 though accused Nos.4 and 5 were standing in the same group of aforesaid 7 dummy persons.He has given evidence that PW-1 and PW-2 were asked to identify the accused persons who had raped them and also the persons who had acted as associates in the incidents.He has given evidence that PW-1 identified accused No.4 Bhansing as an associate.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::This record is consistent with the evidence of Jadhav and also the substantive evidence given by PW-1 and PW-2 on T.I. parade.Evidence of Jadhav shows that in the T.I. parade dated 20-8-1994 the position of accused Nos.6 and 7 was changed and second opportunity was given to both PW-1 and PW-2 to identify these two persons.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::investigating officers also.Khan (PW-18) is the first investigating officer and he was attached to Purna Railway Police Station as Police Sub Inspector.He was in charge of Parbhani Railway Police Station also.According to him, the railway quarters of the employees of the railway like accused No.4 is not within his local jurisdiction.This circumstance needs to be kept in mind as some incidents are omitted in the report recorded by Khan (PW-18).He took over the clothes of PW- 2 which were on her person like Salwar, Odhani and Kurta (articles Nos.9,10 and 11) under Exhibit 28 in CR No.29/1994 registered by him in Purna Railway Police Station.According to him, during investigation he::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 ::: 48 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 collected record of Lal Bahadur Shastri High School in respect of PW-2 to ascertain the date of her birth.He has given evidence that he had sent PW-1 and PW-2 to the Judicial Magistrate First class for recording their statements under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. He has given evidence that he had sent articles which were seized by him to C.A. office on 14-7-1994 with covering letter.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::60) Khan (PW-18) was cross-examined by learned Special Public Prosecutor.The evidence of both the victim girls shows that they had the grievance against PW-18 that their versions were not completely and correctly recorded by PW-18 Khan.It is suggested to him that he did not record the incidents which took place near brook, the incident of rape which took place in Visawa Lodge and the incident of rape which took place in the campus of a::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 ::: 49 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 school even when they were disclosed.These incidents are not involved in the present matter but due to these circumstances, Khan was cross-examined by the learned Special Public Prosecutor.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::61) In the examination-in-chief itself Khan (PW-18) has deposed that PW-2 was appearing weak and she was not able to speak and so he had obtained the information by putting some questions to her.This evidence also needs to be kept in mind as some incidents were not recorded by him.62) Here only it needs to be observed that the mental condition of these two girls needs to be kept in mind at the time of the appreciation of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and at the time of consideration of absence of some incidents in the first disclosures made by them to police.They had left the shelter of their parents/::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 ::: 50 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 guardians, they were minor and were afraid of some action against them.It also needs to be kept in mind that their evidence shows that their guardians/parents preferred to stay away from them and they did not opt for the custody of these two minors and the minors were required to be kept in Remand Home.These victims girls must have felt that they were responsible for everything including the incidents that had taken place against them.The circumstance that PW-1 had given her age as 18 years at the relevant time also needs to be kept in mind.However, PW-2 had given her age as 14 years.It can be said on the basis of evidence of PW-1 that she was little more mature than PW-2 at the relevant time.Even when their evidence was being recorded, they were kept in Female Reformatory school.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::63) Chandrabhan (PW-19) was attached to Kotwali Police Station Parbhani as Police Sub Inspector.He has deposed that he recorded statement of PW-1 and then sent her to New Mondha Police Station Parbhani.He registered crime at CR No.73/1994 in Kotwali Police::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 ::: 51 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 Station on the basis of report recorded by him.His evidence shows that this record was used in Sessions Case No.121/1994 which was in respect of the incidents which took place in Banana garden, near brook, in the lodge, in the campus of the school and then in one Wada.On the basis of the evidence of Chandrabhan it can be said that only after recording of the statement by Chandrabhan of PW-1, he realised that some more incidents had taken place and then PW-1 was referred to other Police Station, New Mondha Police Station as other incidents had taken place within local jurisdiction of New Mondha Police Station.Police realised that in the disclosure recorded on 7-7-1994 of PW-2 by Khan (PW-18) many incidents were not recorded.He recorded the age of PW-1 as::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 ::: 52 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 16 years and the age of PW-2 as 14 years when he recorded their statements.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::64) Shaikh Mujib (PW-20) is other investigating officer who was working as Assistant Police Inspector in New Mondha Police Station.He has deposed that on 9-7- 1994 he recorded statement of PW-2 and in that statement she narrated all the incidents including the incidents of retiring room of Railway Station Parbhani.This statement of PW-2 is given Exhibit 29 and on that basis crime at CR No.82/1994 was registered in New Mondha Police Station Parbhani.Shakti bungalow where one incident took place is within local jurisdiction of New Mondha Police Station.According to PW-20 he recorded two separate F.I.Rs (after realising the aforesaid things).PW-20 has given evidence that the first F.I.R. was recorded by him in respect of the incidents of Banana garden, brook, Visawa Lodge, school campus and one Wada (Munde Wada) and these places were situated within the local jurisdiction of Kotwali Police Station.He has deposed that Circle Police Inspector Chalak was having jurisdiction over both New Mondha::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 ::: 53 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 Police Station and Kotwali Police Station.Thus, Chalak could have made investigation of all the incidents of rape.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:04 :::65) Chalak (PW-21), Circle Police Inspector, has given evidence that aforesaid two police stations were under his jurisdiction he had power to make investigation of all the incidents.However, he has given evidence that he took over the investigation of CR No.82/1994 registered in New Mondha Police Station from Shaikh Mujib (PW-20).He has given evidence that he arrested accused No.4 Bhansing on 9-7-1994 and during his arrest he took over the clothes of Bhansing (articles, 9,10 and66) Chalak (PW-21) has given evidence that on 10- 7-1994 PW-2 showed to him the places where the incidents of rape had taken place.He has deposed that the railway quarters of Bhansing, accused No.4 was also shown by PW-2 and during that incident he took over the articles like a pair of shoes in which one shoe was not having lace under panchanama at Exhibit 77.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::He has given evidence that he had requested the learned Executive Magistrate to hold T.I. parade.He has given evidence that he collected blood samples of these persons and sent them to CA office along with covering letter which is at Exhibit::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 55 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::He has given evidence that he had sent PW-1 and PW-2 to the learned Judicial Magistrate for recording statements under section 164 of the Cr.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::He has deposed that he took over investigation of CR Nos. 73/1994 and 81/1994 which were registered in Kotwali Police Station from P.S.I. Yeshwant and P.S.I. Jagadale.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::He has given evidence that he had sent a lace of the shoe which was recovered from the house of accused No.4 in the present case along with lace of PW-2 to CA office for comparison purpose along with covering letter at Exhibit75) The record of investigation and the aforesaid evidence show that blood samples of all the accused were collected and the samples of blood of the two victim girls were collected.Similarly, vaginal swab collected by the medical officer along with pubic hair so also the clothes of the accused mentioned above and the mattresses used at the time of rape in the lodge, in railway quarters of accused No.4 and in the Shakti bungalow were sent to C.A. office.The CA reports in respect of these articles are produced before the Court.The trial Court has considered all the aforesaid evidence for giving conviction against the appellants in the present appeals.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::PW-2 is at Exhibit 189, the articles like clothes Salwar, Odhani, Kurta.Covering letter dated 12-7-1994 is there.On the article Salwar, blood mixed with semen stains was found.Group of the blood of PW-2 is ""A"" and the stains gave reaction for both ""A"" and ""B"" groups.C.A. report at Exhibit 194 is in respect of carpet shown to be recovered on the basis of statement given by accused No.6 and blood group ""B"" was found on it.Similarly, on the clothes of PW-1 like Salwar, Kurta, jangiya human blood was found.Though it is true that she was observing menses, as per CA report, on other article like Kurta blood was found and this fact needs to be kept in mind.The blood group of PW-2 is ""B"".::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::it transpired that accused Nos.6 and 7 were involved in the incident of rape which took place in Shakti bungalow, they were not available and they came to be arrested after about one month.78) Challenges of the accused to the aforesaid evidence of the prosecution and other contentions of the accused made during arguments of these matters are as under :(i) Both the victim girls did not disclose the incidents immediately even when they had opportunity to disclose the incidents to the persons in the vicinity and even to the parents.They disclosed the incidents only when police specifically made inquiry with them.(ii) Both the victim girls gave different versions when different police officers recorded the reports.Both the victim girls did not narrate some of the incidents of rape::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 60 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 when they made first disclosure and then did not disclose some incidents even when their statements were recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under section 164 of the Cr.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::(iii) The victim girls had left the shelter of their guardians/parents on their own and so no offence of kidnapping or abduction was committed by any of the accused.(iv) The evidence given by the prosecution on age is not that convincing and the victim girls had probably crossed the age of 16 years at the relevant time.(vii) The evidence of T.I. parade cannot be relied upon as the procedure laid down in Criminal Manual of this High Court was not followed.The Executive Magistrate did not::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 61 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 act fairly and he arranged even second T.I. parade for giving one more opportunity to the victim girls.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::(viii) The evidence of the investigating officers shows that the State was required to change the officers many times.Their evidence creates probability that they were not fair during conducting the investigation.79) This Court is considering the aforesaid challenges one by one.The first challenge regarding the age of the victim girls needs to be considered first.AGE OF THE VICTIM GIRLS.80) The evidence of the prosecution on the age of the victim girls needs to be considered first.The finding on the age of the victim girls will help in deciding the other points like the possibility of consideration of defence of consent.Finding on the age of the victim girls will also help in appreciating the evidence of the two girls in entirety as the conduct and reaction of minor is ordinarily different than the conduct and approach of an adult.The evidence on the record shows that these two girls were in::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 62 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 distress as the financial condition of their parents/ guardians was not that good and they were feeling that they had no prospects with their guardians/parents.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::81) For proving the age of PW-1 the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW-1, the evidence of entry in the birth register, the entry in the hospital where PW-1 was born, the evidence of opinion of doctor about age which is on the basis of clinical and radiological examination.82) Learned Single Judge of this Court (one of us) had occasion to consider the evidence which can be available for proving the date of birth, the age of a person and the importance of various kinds of evidence which can be available for proving the date of birth or the age.In the case reported as 2014(2) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 353 (Mahesh vs. State of Maharashtra) this Court has made following observations on the basis of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case reported as AIR 1982 SC 1297, Jaya Mala vs. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir and others).::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::63 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 ""13. 'Age' as ingredient of both the aforesaid offences is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.This 'proved' under section 3 of Evidence Act need to be proved like any other fact in criminal case.Oral evidence as to the age may always be available in such a case.Corroboration need not be only of expert evidence.Corroboration may be of circumstances which may differ for each case.The opinion of doctor on clinical or radiological examination cannot be accepted straight way as a legal proof.The margin of error is of two years on either side even when the age is ascertained on the basis of radiological examination.(Reliance placed on AIR 1982 SC 1297, Jaya Mala vs. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir and ors.].It is only medical opinion and other evidence including oral evidence cannot be discarded only because the medical evidence is in conflict with the oral evidence.Further, the medical evidence cannot stand against entries made in birth register, which are properly authenticated.Entry made in birth register has presumptive value in view of section 17(2) of Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969 and this position of law needs to be kept in mind, when there is conflict between medical evidence and the other evidence.In view of section 35 of Evidence Act, the entry made in school register about the date of birth also needs to be treated as relevant.Such register is kept in regular discharge of duty by school and it is required to be kept as per the Rules made by the State Government.When such entry was made before starting of dispute, many years prior to the commission of offence and when entry is proved by giving oral evidence of the concerned, due weight needs to be given to such entry.Such entries need to be treated as relevant and admissible in evidence, though such entry cannot form sole clinching factor for determining the age.It has no presumptive value like::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 64 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 in the case of entry made in birth register as already observed.""::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::83) PW-1 has given evidence that she was born at Amarawati on 12-3-1979 but she received education in Partur upto 5th standard.She has given evidence that one Gangabhishan Mor was her grand father of parental side.She has given name of her father as Rameshwar.She has given evidence that her mother had informed to her the date of birth.In the cross-examination of PW-1 it is brought on record that Rekha is her elder sister and Rekha was given in marriage about 1 and half years prior to the date of incident.Her evidence shows that she was daughter No.2 to her parents.84) It is brought on record in the cross-examination of PW-1 that she received eduction upto 4th standard in Ganj school Partur and then she was admitted to other school.It is brought on the record that when her::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 65 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 statement was recorded by police, she had not informed the date of birth to police.It is already observed that the mind set of such girls needs to be kept in mind at the time of considering the discrepancies which can be there in the disclosures made by them and the record which is available.Further the record in respect of date of birth in such cases has the precedence.It appears that PW-2 had given age more than 16 years on different occasions to police.Her evidence shows that she was frightened and she did not want to inform the incident even to her mother.The evidence on the record also shows that when she was reached to Partur by a lady constable she did not disclose the incident to her mother and she disclosed the incident only when the report of PW-2 was recorded and she was brought to Parbhani from Partur for the purpose of investigation.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::85) In the cross-examination, PW-1 has specifically deposed that at the time of the incident her age was 15 years.In the cross-examination some questions were to put to her in respect of her two sisters.Even if the::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 66 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 answers given by PW-1 to those questions are accepted as they are, those answers have not created probability that she had crossed the age of 16 years at the relevant time.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::86) In the record of birth register initially the surname of her parents was recorded as ""Mor"" and the surname ""Agrawal"" was shown as other surname.PW-1 is cross-examined at length to test as to whether she was knowing the particulars of the family of her grandfather from paternal side, Gangabhishan Mor @ Agrawal.She successfully faced the test of cross-examination and she gave the particulars of the family of Gangabhishan.Father of PW-1 is dead though mother is alive.The record shows that evidence of PW-1 is on the basis of information supplied by mother and it can be said that it is also on the basis of the record of her birth.She has received eduction::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 67 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 at least for some time and so it can be said that she can give evidence about the birth date also.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::87) Evidence of Krishnarao Choudhari (PW-15), one employee of the hospital where PW-1 was born, is on the basis of record of the hospital.If the evidence of PW-1 is compared with the description of the parents given in the register of the hospital, the description tallies.In view of this check and the manner in which the record was maintained, this Court has no hesitation to observe that there was no possibility of interpolation.There is only suggestion from defence that surname Agrawal was added subsequently in the register.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::This register was also regularly maintained.Names of father and mother mentioned in the register of the issue tally with the names given in the present matter.The entry was made on the basis of information supplied by Dhapibai Maternity Home.In the cross-examination of this witness it is brought on record that in the original register there is one correction and name of the hospital which was initially mentioned as ""Ji.Ru."" was changed to make it as Dhapibai Maternity Home.This change was not only for the present entry but it was for many entries.The present entry is shown at Sr.Thus, the correction was made in respect of many entries viz. 2125 to 2131 and it does not look probable that for the present matter any manipulation was done by the local body.Thus, at the relevant time, in July 1994, the age of PW-1 was below 16 years.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::She has given evidence that she received education in Lal Bahadur Shastri High School Partur till 6th Standard.Her evidence shows that she was kept in Partur by her parents who are residents of Hiwarkheda and so she was admitted in this school by her uncle living there.Her evidence shows that prior to her admission in Lal Bahadur Shastri High School she was receiving education in Ganj school Partur.Even before police she had given her age as 14 years.Her cross-examination shows that when she was a kid, she was shifted to Partur.She does not know even the particulars about her brother and sister, what they are doing.Her evidence shows that her parents visited Partur only twice after sending her to Partur from Hiwarkheda.These circumstances show that whatever happened to her was due to her poverty and absence of care and protection of the parents.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::Lal Bahadur Shastri High School Partur shows that it is on the basis of the original admission form in respect of PW-His evidence shows that Ganj school had given transfer certificate and on that basis PW-2 was admitted in Lal Bahadur Shastri High School.Original register was brought to the Court and it was found to be regularly maintained.Though Kukde (PW22) could not say as to who had admitted PW-2 in the school on the basis of the signature, there is evidence of PW-2 that her uncle/guardian at Partur had admitted her in the school.In view of nature of evidence and the record there was no possibility of interpolation or manipulation.This record is very old and it is relevant in view of provision of section 35 of the Evidence91) In the evidence, Dr. Jaishri (PW-14) has given approximate age of PW-2 as already quoted.There is no reason for not accepting the opinion given by Dr. Jaishri in::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 71 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 view of the aforesaid record and the substantive evidence.No other probability is created during cross-examination of this witness.It is not even suggested to PW-2 that she was studying in any other institution.At the cost of repetition this Court feels it necessary to mention here that due to the incidents in question, the parents and guardians of PW-1 and PW-2 disowned them, they did not even turn up to give evidence for the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::92) The provisions of Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969 quoted already, and the provision of section 35 of the Evidence Act show that even without examining the official, certified copy of entry made in the birth register is admissible in evidence.Further, when there is such record giving specific date of birth, such record needs to be given precedence over the school record if there is inconsistency between the two records.Similarly, the opinion given by doctor on age if it is inconsistent, ordinarily precedence needs to be given to the record of::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 72 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 birth date prepared under the aforesaid Act. In the present matter, the medical evidence is also consistent with this record and no probability is created in this matter that age of PW-1 was more than 16 years at the relevant time.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::It was also argued that Dr. Jaishri used a chart given by civil hospital for ascertaining the age in which tests/data were given.There is no force in both the challenges.Evidence of Dr. Jaishri shows that under her instructions and supervision the X-rays were taken by the technician.She has completed post graduate course after completing MBBS.This Court holds that the age of both the victims was below 16 years at the relevant time.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::94) Both the sides placed reliance on some reported cases.There was no record of birth register.Mother's evidence on factual aspect was not found convincing and the Court held that the opinion of the Radiologist was necessary, which was not available.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::95) In the case reported as (2010)1 SCC 742 (Sunil v. State of Haryana) on which reliance was placed by the counsel for the accused, the facts were different.The prosecutrix was not certain about her age and there was no record on the basis of which she had given age.In that case the doctor had clinically examined the prosecutrix and had sent the prosecutrix to Dental Surgeon/ Radiologist for verification but such verification was not done.Thus, the doctor who had done clinical examination was also not sure about the opinion which was possible on::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 75 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 the basis of clinical examination.In view of these circumstances, the Apex Court held that the age of the prosecutrix was not below 16 years.However, the Apex Court made it clear that there is no rule as such that such examination needs to be done in every case.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::96) In the case reported as 2010 Cri.There cannot be dispute over this proposition.Evidence on wrongful confinement and abduction:::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::residential quarters under pretext that he will supply drinking water is consistent with each other.It can be said that there could have been charge against accused No.4 for this incident also.There was intention of accused No.4 right from the beginning to commit the offence of rape by exploiting the situation in which PW-1 and PW-2 were found.The evidence shows that accused No.5 did not allow them to leave from the quarters when the key was with him.In the noon time, accused No.4 returned to the quarters and even after that they did not allow the two victim girls to leave the railway quarters.Both the victim girls were kept in the railway quarters and from there they were taken to Shakti Bungalow by accused Nos.4 to 7 in the evening time.This evidence is sufficient to prove that there was wrongful confinement from accused Nos.4 and 5 of PW-1 and PW-2 and they committed offence punishable under section 342 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::PW-1 has given evidence that accused No.5 committed rape on her.PW-2 has given evidence that accused No.4 committed rape on her.The trial Court has considered some omissions in the first disclosure made by the girls in respect of this incident and that point is being discussed at later place.It can be said that accused Nos.4 and 5 both wanted to commit offence as both the victim girls were available.Considering the intention of accused Nos.4 and 5 and the fact that both girls were kept in the railway quarters with that intention, this Court holds that the act amounts to gang rape.99) The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 given on rape committed on PW-2 in Shakti Bungalow is consistent with each other.The evidence of these two girls shows that after every incident they used to disclose about the incident to each other as they had no other option.The::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 78 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 evidence shows that to Shakti Bungalow PW-1 and PW-2 were taken by accused Nos.4 and 5 in a vehicle and accused Nos.6 and 7 had followed that vehicle up to Shakti Bungalow.The evidence on the record shows that accused Nos.6 and 7 were using that premises, Shakti Bungalow.The very nature of the evidence given by PW-1 and PW-2 shows that it is accused Nos.4 and 5 who had contacted accused No.6 and 7 and it was informed to accused No.6 and 7 that these two victim girls were available for commission of rape.The evidence of PW-2 shows that accused Nos.4 to 7 raped her one by one by many hours on that night, till 3.00 a.m. Thus there is specific evidence from PW-2 that in Shakti Bungalow accused Nos.4 to 7 raped her one after other and they committed offence of gang rape.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::100) The record which is referred during cross- examination of PW-1 and PW-2 by the defence counsels for proving the inconsistencies in the versions of the PW-1 and PW-2, the omissions and the contradictions show that the relevant portions were confronted to the witnesses::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 79 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 and on proof, the relevant portions are exhibited.Much was argued on this circumstance by the learned Senior Counsel and other counsels for the appellants.At the time of considering these inconsistencies or omissions, it is necessary to keep in mind in a case like the present one that many police officers have recorded the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 and many supplementary statements were recorded by them.Even statements under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded many times.PW-1 and PW-2 have made allegations against investigating officer Khan (PW-18) that their versions were not correctly and completely recorded by him.It needs to be kept in mind that two girls are from very poor families and there was no support of anybody to them at the relevant time.Some accused persons from the two cases were employees in Railway and some were involved in politics.It can be said that only the officer of C.I.D., who ultimately took over the investigation, made an attempt to record the statements in detail and those statements cover all the incidents.Police officers acted as per their notions.Even, the learned Judicial Magistrate did not record the statements in respect of all the incidents and it can be said that the learned Judicial Magistrate had not gone through the record of the investigation already made by police before recording the statements.When statement is being recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., it is the duty of the learned Judicial Magistrate to ascertain the nature of allegations, disclosures already made by the witnesses and then elicit the information from the witness by putting questions if they are missing something while disclosing the incidents before him.It can be said that most casual approach was used by the Judicial Magistrates while recording statements under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. What is important in a criminal case like the present one is the substantive evidence given by the victim girls.Due to the existence of the circumstances like::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 81 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 above, the Court can look for corroboration but the Court cannot discard the substantive evidence only due to the existence of such circumstances.The circumstance that the two victim girls did not know the accused and only on the basis of disclosures made by them the accused were traced and police went to the various places where the incidents took place need to be kept in mind while considering the defence of the aforesaid nature of the accused.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::There was contention that due to something which was::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 ::: 82 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 done against her (when she was under intoxication) she had suffered pains in the private part.While ascertaining the exact omissions in the evidence of the victim girl, narrations of the victim girl before police in entirety need to be considered and then the nature and extent of the omission needs to be ascertained by the Courts.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:05 :::102) PW-2 has given evidence on the rape committed on her by accused Nos.4 to 7 in Shakti Bungalow.In that regard also some omission is brought on record in the previous statement about the actual act.In the previous statement, PW-2 had stated before police that she was feeling drowsy due to liquor but she was feeling that these persons were doing something against her and she could see that.What is said above, needs to be applied in respect of this omission also.In the subsequent disclosure made to police they had specifically contended that accused No.4 had raped PW-2 and accused No.5 had raped PW-1 in the railway quarters.PW-2 had disclosed that she and PW-1 both were raped in Shakti bungalow one by one by accused Nos.4 to 7 and it can be said that::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 ::: 83 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 to some extent there is inconsistency and even contradiction in the evidence of PW-2 in relation to such previous statement.PW-1 has deposed that as she was observing menstruation period and that disclosed by her to the accused, she was not raped in Shakti Bungalow.While considering such inconsistencies, omissions and contradictions the evidence as a whole needs to be considered and the evidence as a whole shows that they had named accused Nos.4 to 7 as the persons who had exploited the situation, who had raped them at two places.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::103) In the statements recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. of PW-2 there are some omissions and also inconsistencies.If the evidence of PW-2 is compared with the disclosures made to Judicial Magistrate on 29-7-1994 it can be said that in the statement dated 29-7-1994 these witnesses did not disclose the incidents of Shakti Bungalow.Necessary observations in respect of this omissions are already made by this Court.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::PW-2 had recent tear of hymen.There were other signs showing that there was sexual intercourse with these two minor girls.Dr. Jaishri was extensively cross- examined by the defence counsel on the opinion given by her on the basis of her observations but she stood to the test of the cross-examination.Such things were there as from the railway quarters itself on 7-7-1994 PW-2 was picked up and she was referred by police for medical examination.PW-14 Jaishri noticed bleeding through cervical OS.On PV examination, speculum tenderness and vagina admitted one finger with pains.The record of the examination of PW-2 is at Exhibit 79 and it is consistent with the oral evidence of the doctor.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::noticed posterior fourchette congested and redness and she noticed that hymen was congested.She found that vagina was admitting one finger with minimum pains, bleeding through cervical was present.The record of the examination is at Exhibit 79 and it is consistent with the oral evidence.107) Many persons had raped these two victim girls.Though it is possible for the accused from the present case to say that these two victim girls were raped already in other incidents which had already taken place and so the medical evidence cannot be used for the purpose of corroboration in the present matter, that proposition could not have been accepted by the trial Court.These persons exploited the situation in which PW-1 and PW-2 had found themselves and there are specific allegations against the accused from the present matter.As the acts against PW- 2 were continued till 3.0 a.m. of 7-7-1994, there were aforesaid signs of rape.Only due to the period expired, living spermatozoa could not be noticed by the doctor.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::108) While considering the challenge to the prosecution evidence on the ground of delay caused in giving F.I.R. and on that ground it is very difficult to ascertain as to which was the first statement given in respect of the incident by PW 2, this Court holds that whatever is said in respect of approach and conduct of PW-1 and PW-2 already is applicable as explanation to the delay caused in making the disclosure.To add few more circumstances it can be said that these girls were new in the city and they must have been shocked due to the behavior of the accused persons with them and the things which were done to them by many persons who included some influential persons and some persons holding posts in Government departments.Further, PW-1 has given specific evidence that she did not want to disclose the incident out of fear to anybody including to her mother.They had left the shelter of their guardians without::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 ::: 87 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 informing anything to anybody and they must have guilty feeling that they were responsible for whatever had happened to them.If police had not intervened, the girls would not have even approached police on their own.Due to these circumstances, this Court holds that not much can be made out due to delay caused in disclosing the incidents to police.In such cases due to delay caused in making disclosures, the Court can scrutinize the evidence minutely but only on that ground the Court cannot discard the substantive evidence.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::109) In respect of the challenge to the evidence given on T.I. parade it can be said that there is substance in the contentions that there was no strict compliance of the guidelines given in Criminal Manual in paragraph 16 of Chapter I by this Court.Number of dummies used by Jadhav at the time of conducting T.I. parade were less than the number expected in the guidelines.There is no record to support the evidence of Jadhav that the dummy::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 ::: 88 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 persons had appearance which was similar to the accused persons.However, the evidence of Jadhav shows that he was satisfied about the identification of the accused persons made by the two victim girls during T.I. parade.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::110) Accused No.4 was identified by PW-1 though as associate.PW-2 identified all the remaining accused in T.I. parade.These two girls were together.Evidence of PW-1 shows that accused No.4 had not raped her.Thus, the evidence of PW-2 on identification given as against accused No.5 can be used in the present matter.111) The trial Court has considered the CA reports in respect of incriminating articles recovered during investigation by police.Different police officers had taken::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 ::: 89 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 over different articles.Some stains of blood were found on those articles as per the CA reports.Similarly, some stains of blood were found on the clothes of some accused persons.Accused Nos.6 and 7 came to be arrested after many days though accused Nos.4 and 5 were arrested immediately.Due to the circumstances of the present matter even if this circumstantial evidence is ignored, there is more than sufficient evidence against accused Nos.4 to 7 to hold them guilty for the offences for which they were charged and tried.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::112) The prosecution has proved that both the victim girls had not crossed the age of 16 years at the relevant time.Thus the defence of consent is not available to any of the accused from the present appeals.The tenor of the cross-examination made by learned counsels of the accused show that indirectly it was suggested that the prosecutrix was the consenting party.It was also suggested that the prosecutrix did not resist or did not raise hue an cry when the offence was taking place.It is already observed that the accused persons were not known to both PW-1 and PW-2 though by referring to previous statement of PW-2 the defence tried to show that::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 ::: 91 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 probably PW-1 had initial talk with accused No.4 before going to his railway quarters.The circumstance that PW-1 had disclosed that she had girl friend at that place or probability that she knew accused No.4 cannot make difference in the present matter.Admittedly PW-2 was not acquainted with any of the accused and it is due to the information supplied by her the police traced accused persons.Further, the evidence of the investigating officer does not show that at any time they treated PW-1 as an accused person.The evidence given by her is already discussed and it shows that she was also raped.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::113) Some argument was advanced by the counsels for the accused on the circumstance that Sham Agrawal, a person from Parbhani who is relative of PW-1 was not::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 ::: 92 Appeals 144, 151 158, 216, 306 of 1999 traced.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceeding.There may, however, be exceptions to this general rule, when for example, the court is impressed by a particular witness, on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration.The identification parades belong to the investigation stage.They are generally held during the course of investigation with the primary object of enabling the witnesses to identify persons concerned in the offence, who were not previously known to them.This serves to satisfy the investigating officers of the bona fides of the prosecution witnesses and also to furnish evidence to corroborate their testimony in court.Identification proceedings in their legal effect amount simply to this: that certain persons are brought to jail or some other place and make statements either express or implied that certain individuals whom they point out are persons whom they recognise as having been concerned in the crime.They do not constitute substantive evidence.These parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code.""::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::It was case filed for offences punishable under sections 302, 392, 120-B, 34 etc. of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::The provision of section 376(2)(g) which was applicable at the relevant time is as under:::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed.The appellants-accused to surrender to bail bonds for undergoing sentence.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:09:06 :::","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Even since the marriage, the petitioner C and his family members had been harassing and persecuting h the victim in connection with their demand for a Mahindra ig car, Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and gold and silver ornaments in H dowry.The petitioner started to harass the victim sexually.He would have oral and anal intercourse with her.He would insert wooden pieces in her private part and anus.He had relations with other women and he has been keeping one girl namely Kavita Pal as his concubine.hy Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under ad section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf M of petitioner Premlal Dhurve in Crime No. No.524/2016 registered by P.S.- Pandurna, District-Chhindwara under of Sections 498-A read with section 34, 377 and 506 of the rt Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a constable in police department.Originally only offence under section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner.The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge.However, later the victim moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, Chhindwara.sh On his direction, offence under section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was also added.The petitioner did not hy misuse the liberty granted to him under section 438 of the ad Code of Criminal Procedure earlier.Now, he is apprehending arrest due to addition of section 377 of the Indian Penal Code M in the case after lapse of about one year.If he is arrested, he of stands to lose his Government job.Therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be granted the benefit of rt anticipatory bail.ou Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on C the other hand has opposed the application mainly on the ground that the victim had made allegations regarding h ig unnatural sexual conduct in the written report given by her.H However, since, the petitioner was a constable, the police did not register offence under section 377 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner at the first instance.The allegations made against the petitioner are grave in nature.Therefore, he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts that : (1) though there is a mention of unnatural sexual conduct in elaborate written report lodged by the victim, she had failed to support those allegations in her statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;sh (2) no corroborating medical evidence is available; (3) the petitioner was earlier released on anticipatory bail and e ad has not misused his liberty; (4) the offence under section 377 has been added after filing of charge sheet in the case, Pr a-in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner deserves the hy benefit of anticipatory bail.ad Consequently, this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf M of petitioner Premlal Dhurve, is allowed.of It is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the rt sum of Rs.40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same ou amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his C appearance before the trial Court on all dates fixed in the h case and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub ig section (2) of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.H Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE BIJU b BABY 2017.11.07 21:36:59","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Respondent Nandlal is the brother of respondent Dnyaneshwar.Respondent Chudman is the father of Dnyaneshwar.The accused areresidents of Khamkheda.The parents of deceased hail fromPungaon, Tahsil Chopda.3) The deceased was given in marriage to accusedDnyaneshwar two years prior to the date of incident.There wassome dispute in family and due to that, accused persons hadreached the deceased to the house of mediator Baburao Koli,resident of Jalod.She stayed there for about one and half months.4) The accused persons were not happy with her due to herreturn to matrimonial house, they became angry.They started givingbeating to her every day.Ultimately, on 22.7.1999, the day ofincident, at about 2.00 to 2.30 p.m. all the accused started givingbeating to her and then in the incident, mother in law of deceasedSumanbai poured kerosene which on her person and kerosene waspresent in one bottle and lantern was used.The brother of thehusband held the deceased.The wife of brother of husband Kalpanastarted giving instigations to others to finish the deceased.Similarinstigation was given by father in law.Then husband of the deceasedused match stick and set fire to the deceased.When she was set onfire, she ran out of the house and she extinguished the fire herselfby lying on the ground.The persons like Shravan and Omkar fromthat locality rushed to the spot and they shifted her to ShirpurGovernment Hospital and accused like husband, mother in law alsowent with them to the hospital.5) On the same day, at about 6.05 p.m. the statement ofthe deceased was recorded by police in presence of Medical Officerand on that basis, the crime at C.R. No. 163/1999 came to beregistered for the offences punishable under sections 307, 498-A, 34etc.of IPC in Shirpur Police Station.Police gave requisition to theExecutive Magistrate for recording dying declaration and on the ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 384/2000 4same day, at about 5.40 p.m., dying declaration of the deceasedcame to be recorded.She gave similar account in the dyingdeclaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate.Post mortom wasconducted on the dead body and doctor gave opinion that the deathhad taken place due to cardiorespiratory failure due to hypothalamicand septicemic shock and that was due to 75% burns.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::6) Statements of neighbours of the accused came to berecorded.Statements of parent and relatives of deceased fromparents side also came to be recorded.This document shows that it was prepared in presence ofpanch witnesses on 22.7.1999 between 19.40 hours and 20.45hours.The spot panchanama shows that the incident in questiontook place in the house of accused.The house consist of three roomsand there is separate bathroom.The ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 384/2000 2respondents are acquitted of the offences punishable under sections302, 498-A r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as'IPC' for short).Both the sides are heard.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::2) In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appealcan be stated as follows :-Deceased Ratnabai was the wife of respondentDnyaneshwar.Respondent Sumanbai is the mother of Dnyaneshwar.As the accused persons did not show interest to take her back tomatrimonial house, on her own she returned to the matrimonialhouse and that was happened prior to five days from the date ofincident.She has left behind daughter.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::Appeal No. 384/2000 3The chargesheet came to befiled for aforesaid offences and the charge was also framed foraforesaid offences.There was charge for offence under section 109of IPC also as against the father in law and wife of brother in law.Prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses.Accused took the defenceof total denial.Dnyaneshwar gave written submission when hisstatement was recorded under section 313 of Criminal ProcedureCode (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short).He contendedthat the deceased did not want to cohabit with him and so, she hadleft the matrimonial house.He contended that they had fear in themind that she would do something with her life, if she wascompelled to cohabit with him.He contended that even after suchbehaviour of the deceased, the deceased was left forcibly against her ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 384/2000 5will to the matrimonial house by the husband of her sister and dueto that, she probably set fire to herself.He contended that on thatday, he was not present in the house at the relevant time and hehad gone to bank for withdrawing the cash amount of cheque givento him by his society.He contended that when he learnt in the bankat about 3.00 p.m. about the incident, he rushed to the house andthen he went to hospital.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::7) It is not disputed that the death took place due to 75%burn injuries.Inquest panchanama at Exh. 16 is also not disputed bythe accused persons.It needs to be ascertained as to whether theaccused set fire to the deceased.8) The spot panchanama at Exh. 19 is also admitted by thedefence.Kitchen was situated in theseparate room.In the kitchen, the articles like kerosene lantern andglass bottle in which kerosene was kept were noticed.The spotpanchanama was shown by Pandharinath and he had also shown onequilt which was used for extinguishing the fire.It was found in the ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 384/2000 6front room of the house.Pieces of partly burnt clothes of thedeceased were found inside of the house.Pandharinath then showedanother spot to the police which was at the distance of 40 feet fromthe house of accused.His house is adjacent to the house of accused.In the courtyard of the house of Pandharinath, the pieces of burntclothes of the deceased were lying.The houses of Pralhad Koli andChudaman Koli were adjacent to this house.Similarly, in the vicinityof the said house, there were houses of Tukaram Koli andChandrabhaga.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::9) C.A report at Exh. 21 shows that in the empty lanternand kerosene bottle, which were taken over from the aforesaid spot,kerosene residues were detected.Similarly, on partially burnt clothesof the deceased and on the quilt, which were taken over from thespot, kerosene was detected.No kerosene was detected on matchbox.10) The aforesaid circumstances show that the deceasedcaught fire inside of the house, but she ran outside and probably thefire was extinguished outside of the house.In the dying declarations,she had mentioned the names of two persons like Shravan andOmkar, who had taken her to the hospital, but she had notmentioned the name of the person who had extinguished the fire.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::Appeal No. 384/2000 7She had disclosed to police and Executive Magistrate that she herselfhad extinguished the fire.The dying declaration given beforeExecutive Magistrate is proved by examining the ExecutiveMagistrate Arun (PW 1).His evidence shows that after obtaining theopinion of doctor regarding condition of the patient, the dyingdeclaration was recorded.There is endorsement which is also provedas patient was conscious to give the statement.He had also obtained opinion ofthe Medical Officer regarding fitness of the deceased beforerecording the dying declaration.The contents of this dyingdeclaration are almost similar to the contents of other dyingdeclaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate.11) Dr. Purushottam (PW 11) has given evidence that atabout 4.55 p.m. Executive Magistrate had requested him to giveopinion regarding fitness of the deceased to make the declarationand accordingly, he gave opinion that she was physically fit andmentally conscious to make the statement.He has deposed that thisopinion was given in writing after examining the patient.In the crossexamination, he has given evidence that he remained present by theside of deceased when Executive Magistrate was recording the dying ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 384/2000 8declaration.He could not say as to whether the contents recorded inthe dying declaration were read over to the deceased beforeobtaining her thumb impression on it.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::12) There is record of two dying declarations made by thedeceased.But there are also other circumstances showing that shewas not ready to disclose as to who had extinguished the fire.Onone hand, she disclosed that the relatives of the husband had shiftedher to hospital, but on the other hand, she also disclosed that somepersons whose names were not known to her were also there fortaking her to Government Hospital.Her disclosure that she had livedin the house of Baburao Koli for about one and half month prior tothe date of incident and she had returned to matrimonial house onher own needs to be checked to ascertain as to whether the standtaken by the husband is true or the disclosure made was true.TheTrial Court has disbelieved the dying declarations on other counts.But, in view of the allegations made against many persons and thecircumstances that the deceased could run out of the house whenshe caught fire and people learnt about the incident as she wasshouting, the evidence of neighbours needs to be considered toascertain the truth.If there was the intention to finish her by settingfire to her, persons setting fire would not have kept the door open toallow her to run out of the house.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::Appeal No. 384/2000 913) Shravan (PW 3), whose name is mentioned in dyingdeclaration is examined by the prosecution.His house is situated atthe distance of around 50 ft.from the house of accused.He hasdeposed that he was sleeping in the house, he heard the shoutingand due to that he came out and he noticed that the deceased hadcome out of the house of accused and there was fire on her clothes.He has given evidence that he himself tried to extinguish the fireand then he took her back to the house of accused.He has givenevidence that she was shifted to hospital in tractor.In the TrialCourt, he was declared as hostile witness as on so called allegeddisclosures made by the deceased to him, he had not givenevidence.The fact remains that his name was taken by the deceasedin dying declaration and due to that, entire evidence of Shravancannot be thrown away only because learned APP preferred to crossexamine him.In dying declaration itself, she had not disclosed thatshe had narrated the incident to two persons whose names arementioned in the dying declaration.14) Pandharinath (PW 4), whose name appears in the spotpanchanama, has given evidence that after hearing shouting of thedeceased, he came out and then by using quilt, he extinguished thefire.His evidence is similar to the evidence of Shravan (PW 3).::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::Appeal No. 384/2000 10Pandharinath was also declared as hostile witness by the prosecutionas he has not given expected evidence on the so called disclosuresmade by the deceased to him.It needs to be mentioned here thatname of Pandharinath is not there in both the dying declarations andso, not much weight could have been given to his evidence even ifhe had given evidence on oral dying declarations.As police believethat he was involved in extinguishing fire to some extent, hisevidence needs to be believed and inference can be drawn that heand others were involved in extinguishing the fire.The evidence ofthese witnesses further shows that they had not seen the husbandand his relatives in the house at the relevant time.Similar evidenceis given by Omkar (PW 5), but he is not declared as hostile.Hisevidence shows that mother in law of deceased was available in thehouse and she had come to the hospital when they had shifted thedeceased to the hospital.There is the evidence of other neighbourTirinabai (PW 6), but that is of no help to the prosecution and she isalso declared as hostile.15) Prosecution has examined Vaijayantabai (PW 7), motherof the deceased.Her evidence shows that during the visits of thedeceased to the parents' house, she was disclosing that there wasilltreatment to her.Accused No. 1 - Dnyaneshwar was alreadymarried.Her evidence shows that after the death of father, the ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 384/2000 11deceased had expressed desire to return to the matrimonial house.Thus, she admits that she was living with her parents for the periodwhich was not normal.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::16) Vaijayantabai (PW 7) has given evidence that she learntabout the incident after three days and then she went to the cottagehospital after three days of the incident and there oral disclosurewas made by the deceased to her against the accused of theaforesaid incident.It needs to be mentioned that there is no medicalevidence like bed head ticket of the deceased to ascertain as towhether on that day, she was conscious or not conscious.Further,the evidence of so called disclosure given by this lady is notconsistent with particulars mentioned in the recorded dyingdeclaration.17) Vaijayantabai (PW 7) has given evidence that the fact ofprevious marriage of accused No. 1 - Dnyaneshwar was not knownto the deceased.She admits that even when it was the first deliveryof the deceased, the delivery had taken place in the house ofaccused.She has given evidence that there was suspicion about hercharacter to accused No. 1 and due to that there was illtreatment.In recorded dying declaration deceased had not ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 384/2000 12disclosed that accused had suspicion about her character.Thus, theevidence of mother of the deceased shows that deceased had nointention to resume cohabitation and this circumstance is notconsistent with the contents of the recorded dying declaration.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::18) Apparently, there was no reason for which accused couldhave given illtreatment to the deceased.Such reason is also notmentioned in the recorded dying declaration.Evidence is also givenby Dinkar (PW 8), brother of the deceased.His evidence is vague onthe illtreatment and also on disclosure was made by the deceased tohim.His evidence is similar to the evidence of mother of deceasedabout the so called disclosures made by the deceased three daysafter the incident.His evidence is also not that convincing.19) Bhaskar (PW 9) is the mediator, whose name ismentioned in dying declaration, has given evidence that about onemonth prior to the date of incident, accused had reached thedeceased to his house.He has given evidence that accused used tosuspect about her character and they used to give beating to her.Hisevidence shows that they were questioning about the first marriageof the deceased.Thus, it appears that it was also second marriage ofthe deceased.He has given more evidence by saying that accusedwere asking divorce from the deceased and they were ready to give ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 384/2000 13Rs.60,000/- to the deceased.He has given evidence that deceasedhad refused to do so.In the statement given to police, he had statedthat he had reached the deceased to the matrimonial houseimmediately on the next day when she was reached to his house byaccused.This circumstance is admitted by him.He admitted that hehad not stated before police that accused were asking the deceasedas to why her first marriage was broken.The mother of thedeceased has not supported the version of this witness as she hasnot given evidence that accused were asking divorce from thedeceased and there was such talk.His evidence is not consistentwith the evidence of mother of deceased as mother has admittedthat the deceased had no desire to return to matrimonial house.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::20) Prosecution has examined one Joharlal (PW 10) to showthat the husband was asking for divorce from deceased and he wasready to pay Rs.60,000/-.He has deposed that he was taken by thehusband of deceased with him when he had gone to the deceased togive such proposal.His evidence does not show as to whether heknew that the deceased had stayed in the house of Bhaskar Koli formore than one month.He is not relative of the accused or thedeceased.21) The aforesaid evidence shows that the evidence of third ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 ::: Cri.Appeal No. 384/2000 14persons is not consistent with the evidence of close relatives of thedeceased.It was second marriage for both accused No. 1 and thedeceased.There was apparently some dispute between accused No.1 and the deceased.But, on the basis of aforesaid evidence, itcannot be inferred that there was illtreatment to the deceased fromthe accused as mentioned in section 498-A of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::22) There was some dispute and the evidence shows thatthird persons, not the husband and father of the husband, shiftedthe deceased to the hospital.It was noon time.Though accused No.1 has tried to take the defence of alibi, the initial burden was on theprosecution to prove that all the accused were present in the houseat the relevant time.There can be many reasons fora lady to set fire to herself.There is no circumstance to show thatthe accused had the intention to finish her and with that intention,they had used force against her and then set fire to her.Due tothese circumstances, this Court holds that it is difficult to believethat the accused persons had set fired to the deceased and theincident had taken place as narrated in the recorded dyingdeclarations.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::Appeal No. 384/2000 1523) The learned counsel for accused placed reliance on theobservations made by the Apex Court in the case reported as AIR1987 SC 1083 [Tota Singh Vs.State of Punjab] and submittedthat the probability which is accepted by the Trial Court was thereand so, it is not possible to interfere in the decision given by the TrialCourt.The learned counsel submitted that the evidence is properlyappreciated by the Trial Court and there are reasons for not relyingupon the recorded dying declarations.The learned counsel placedreliance on other case reported as 1999 (Supp.1) Bom.C.R. 215(Bombay High Court) [Manohar Dadarao Landge Vs.Therecannot be dispute over this proposition.This Court holds that in viewof the reasons given by the Trial Court and the material discussed bythis Court, it is not possible to interfere in the decision of acquittalgiven by the Trial Court.In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:31:52 :::","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Sh/40 C.R.M. 5113 of 2013 In Re: Mahidur Rahaman ...Petitioner.Re: An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 8 th April, 2013 in connection with Ratua Police Station Case No.734/2012 dated 03-11-2012 under Sections 498A/313/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Kazi Mokhlasur Rahaman....For the petitioner.Within a year of marriage the victim was constrained to leave her matrimonial home.According to her, she was tortured for dowry of Rs.10,000/- physically and mentally.The petitioner and/or his family members allegedly caused her to miscarry.The de facto complainant has been rendered destitute.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.(Indira Banerjee, J.) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J.)","['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Prior to marriage the complainant and her family members were told by Shyamji Mehrotra and his elder brother Ramji Mehrotra who is appellant No.2 herein and their mother Smt. Kamla Mehrotra and her sister Geeta Mehrotra who is appellant No.1 herein that Shyamji is employed as a Team Leader in a top I.T. Company in Chennai and is getting salary of Rs.45,000/- per month.After negotiation between the parents of the complainant and the accused parties, the marriage of the complainant Shipra Seth (later Shipra Mehrotra) and Shyamji Mehrotra was performed after which the respondent-complainant left for the house of her in- laws.It was stated that the atmosphere in the house was peaceful for sometime but soon after the wedding, when all the relatives left, the maid who cooked meals was first of all paid-off by the aforesaid four persons who then told the complainant that from now onwards, the complainant will have to prepare food for the family.In addition, the above mentioned people started taunting and scolding her on trivial issues.The complainant also came to know that Shyamji was not employed anywhere and always stayed in the house.Shyamji gradually took away all the money which the complainant had with her and then told her that her father had not given dowry properly, therefore, she should get Rupees five lakhs from her father in order to enable him to start business, because he was not getting any job.When the complainant clearly declined and stated that she will not ask her parents for money, Shyamji, on instigation of other accused-family members, started beating her occasionally.Ramji Mehrotra often provoked the other three family members to torture and often used to make the complainant feel sad by making inappropriate statements about the complainant and her parents.Her husband Shyamji also took away the salary from the complainant.But, it is alleged that there was no change in his behaviour even after going to Chennai.The complainant often called him on phone to talk to him but he always did irrelevant conversation.At last, when the complainant realized that even her life was in danger, she was compelled to tell everything to her father on phone who was very upset on hearing her woes.On 15.7.2003 complainant heard some conversation of her mother-in-law and sister-in-law from which it appeared to her that they want to kill the complainant in the night only.Thereupon the complainant apprised her father of the situation on phone to which her father replied that he will call back her father-in-law and she should go with him immediately and he will come in the morning.The father-in-law Satish Dhawan and his wife who were living in NOIDA thereafter came in the night and somehow took the complainant to their home who also came to know of everything.On seeing her father and brother, Kamla Mehrotra and Geeta Mehrotra started speaking loudly and started saying that Shyamji would be coming by the evening and so he should come in the evening for talking to them.GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.This appeal by special leave in which we granted leave has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 6.9.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl.Miscellaneous Application No.22714/2007 whereby the High Court had been pleased to dispose of the application moved by the appellants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance against the appellants under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with an observation that the question of territorial jurisdiction cannot be properly decided by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for want of adequate facts.It was, therefore, left open to the appellants to move the trial court for dropping the proceedings on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.The High Court however granted interim protection to the appellants by directing the authorities not to issue coercive process against the appellants until disposal of the application filed by the appellants with a further direction to the trial court to dispose of the application if moved by the appellants, within a period of two months from the date of moving the application.The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was thus disposed of by the High Court.The appellants in spite of the liberty granted to them to move the trial court, have filed this appeal for quashing the proceedings which had been initiated on the basis of a case lodged by the respondent No.2 Smt. Shipra Mehrotra (earlier known as Shipra Seth) against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law.The case emerges out of the first information report lodged by respondent No.2 Smt. Shipra Mehrotra under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act bearing F.I.R.No.The F.I.R. was registered at Mahila Thana Daraganj, Allahabad wherein the complainant alleged that she was married to Shyamji Mehrotra s/o Balbir Saran who was living at Eros Garden, Charmswood Village, Faridabad, Suraj Kund Road at Faridabad Haryana as per the Hindu marriage rites and customs.To escape every day torture and financial status of the family, the complainant took up a job in a Call Centre at Convergys on 17.2.2003 where the complainant had to do night shifts due to which she used to come back home at around 3 a.m. in the morning.Just on her return from work, the household people started playing bhajan cassettes after which she had to getup at 7’o clock in the morning to prepare and serve food to all the members in the family.Often on falling asleep in the morning, Shyamji, Kamla Devi and Geeta Mehrotra tortured the complainant every day mentally and physically.He never spoke properly with the complainant whenever he visited home and often used to hurl filthy abuses.The complainant states that she often wept and tolerated the tortures of the accused persons for a long time but did not complain to her family members, as that would have made them feel sad.Her father and brother then went away from there.That very day, her husband Shyamji and brother-in-law Ramji also reached home.On reaching there, Shyamji abused her on phone and told her to send her father.When father and brother of the complainant went home in the evening, they were also insulted by all the four and video camera and tape were played and in the end they were told that they should leave from here.Insulted, they came back from there and then came back to Allahabad with the complainant.For many days the complainant and her family members hoped that the situation would improve if the matter was resolved.Many times other people tried to persuade the in – laws but to no avail.Her brother went to their house to talk to her in – laws but it came to his knowledge that the in – laws had changed their house.After much effort, they came to know that the father-in- law and mother-in-law started living at B-39, Brahma cooperative group housing society, block 7, sector-7, Dwarka, Delhi.On 19.09.04 evening, her father talked to Kamla Mehrotra and Geeta Mehrotra regarding the complainant using bad words and it was said that if her daughter came there she will be kicked out.After some time Shyamji rang up at complainant’s home but on hearing the complainant’s voice, he told her abusively that now she should not come his way and she should tell her father not to phone him in future.At approximately 10:30 pm in the night Ramji’s phone came to the complainant’s home.He used bad words while talking to her father and in the end said that he had got papers prepared in his defence and he may do whatever he could but if he could afford to give Rs.10 lakhs then it should be conveyed after which he will reconsider the matter.If the girl was sent to his place without money, then even her dead body will not be found.On hearing these talks of the accused, the complainant believed that her in-laws will not let the complainant enter their home without taking ten lakhs and if the complainant went there on her own, she will not be safe.Hence, she lodged the report wherein she prayed that the SHO Daraganj should be ordered to do the needful after registering the case against the accused Shyam Mehrotra, Ramji Mehrotra, Kamla Mehrotra and Geeta Mehrotra.Thus, in substance, the complainant related the bickering at her matrimonial home which made her life miserable in several ways and compelled her to leave her in- law’s place in order to live with her father where she lodged a police case as stated hereinbefore.On the basis of the complaint, the investigating authorities at P.S. Daraganj, Allahabad started investigation of the case and thereafter the police submitted chargesheet against the appellants and other family members of the complainant’s husband.Hence, the appellants who are sister and brother of the complainant’s husband filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the chargesheet and the entire proceedings pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.IV, Allahabad, inter- alia, on the ground that FIR has been lodged with mala fide intentions to harass the appellants and that no case was made out against the appellants as well as other family members.But the principal ground of challenge to the FIR was that the incident although was alleged to have taken place at Faridabad and the investigation should have been done there only, the complainant with mala fide intention in connivance with the father of the complainant, got the investigating officer to record the statements by visiting Ghaziabad which was beyond his territorial jurisdiction and cannot be construed as legal and proper investigation.It was also alleged that the father of the complainant got the arrest warrant issued through George Town Police Station, Allahabad, in spite of the cause of action having arisen at Allahabad.This appeal has been preferred by Kumari Geeta Mehrotra i.e. the sister of the complainant’s husband and Ramji Mehrotra i.e. the elder brother of the complainant’s husband assailing the order of the High Court and it was submitted that the Hon’ble High Court ought to have appreciated that the complainant who had already obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce, is pursuing the present case through her father with the sole purpose to unnecessarily harass the appellants to extract money from them as all efforts of mediation had failed.The relevant documents/parcha diary for deciding the territorial jurisdiction had been overlooked as the FIR has been lodged at Allahabad although the cause of action of the entire incident is alleged to have taken place at Faridabad (Haryana).It was, therefore, submitted that the investigating authorities of the Allahabad have traversed beyond the territorial limits which is clearly an abuse of the process of law and the High Court has failed to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the facts and circumstances of this case and allowed the proceedings to go on before the trial court although it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the same.","['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP.The prosecution allegations are that on 27.09.2005, ASI Satish Chand (PW-13) and Constable Komal, (posted at police post IGNOU, P.S. Mehrauli) reached Khasra No. 174/2, Village Neb Sarai on receipt of information (DD No. 24) that blood was coming out from the room occupied by the tenant of Baljit Singh (PW-1).On reaching the spot, it was discovered CRL.A. 90/2011, CRL.M. (BAIL) 110/2011 AND CRL.M.A. 900/2011 Page 1 that blood was actually coming out from under the door of a room which seemed to be locked but in fact the lock (of which) was simply hanging.Upon opening the door, a dead body was found lying on the floor.It bore injury marks on the head and there was bleeding from the right ear.PW-13 informed SI Suresh Chand, (PW-5) about recovery of the body.SHO C.K. Sharma (PW-19) reached the spot, inspected the scene of occurrence and collected exhibits from the spot.He seized a piece of blood stained floor in a plastic box, earth control, one blood stained blue coloured slippers, two empty glasses and half a bottle of liquor, a mosquito net with 4 bamboos, a blood stained pajama, a blood stained blanket, a jute bag, a dori and pillow lying on the cot and a blood stained kurta from the rehri outside the room.The dead body was identified by the sons of the deceased, Satbir i.e (PW-11), and Udaivir (PW-12).The dead body of Raghubir was sent for post mortem to AIIMS Hospital.The post mortem was conducted on 28.09.2005 by Dr. Arvind Kumar (PW-6); the report is at Ex. PW-12/A. On 29.09.2005, PW-11 went to P.S. Mehrauli and recorded a statement to the effect that he suspected accused Rahisa (a resident of the room adjoining Raghubir's room), for the murder of his father.On 29.09.2005, PW-19 along with other police officials went to accused's residence and arrested him; the arrest memo is at Ex.PW-15/A. The accused made a disclosure statement, pointed out the spot of occurrence, and got an iron rod allegedly used for the commission of the offence recovered (Ex.PW-15/C, Ex.The prosecution further urged that Blood group ""A"" was present on the blood stained pajamas, woolen blanket, pillow, dari and kurta.A. 90/2011, Crl.PW-5 reached the spot and made inquires which revealed that the dead body was of Raghubir, PW- 1's tenant.PW-5 sent a Rukka with Constable Anil, on the basis of which FIR No. 573/05 was registered with P.S. Mehrauli.PW-15/D & Ex.PW-15/E).After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed in the Court and the case was committed for trial to the Sessions Court.The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The Trial Court after hearing the matter and going through the evidence held the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC.The Trial Court in convicting the appellant relied on:The Trial Court considered the last seen evidence given by PW-11 along with the evidence about the time of death of deceased.PW-11 had last seen the appellant and the deceased on 25.09.2005 at about 8:00 PM and then again saw appellant near the room of the deceased with an iron rod at about 12:00 AM.As per the post mortem report, time since death was about 3-4 days.The Trial Court held that if the post mortem report is read along with the statement of PW-11, then it can be safely inferred that the deceased had died sometime on 25.09.2005, the day on which PW-11 had seen the accused and deceased together at 8:00 PM and later had found accused present near the room of the deceased at about 12:00 AM.The Trial Court observed that the conduct of a person is an important piece of evidence as the guilt of the person and the state of his mind is often reflected by his conduct.PW-11 had deposed that when he saw the accused near the room of the deceased, the accused was nervous and on seeing him (PW-11) he jumped over the boundary wall on the left side into another plot.Therefore it was observed that the conduct of accused was a reflection of his state of mind and hence is a supporting evidence in favour of the prosecution.The Trial Court has also relied on the recovery of the iron rod (weapon of offence) for the purpose of conviction of appellant.It was observed that by way of accused's disclosure statement Ex.PW-15/C, an iron pipe/rod was recovered with blood stains on it Ex.PW-1/E. The blood stains on the iron rod were of blood group ""A"" same as that of deceased and hence it connected the iron rod to the commission of offence.It was further observed that recovery of iron rod cannot be doubted simply because there was no public witness engaged during the recovery.Ms. Charu Verma, learned amicus appointed by the court to appear in the case, since the accused expressed his inability, due to financial constraints, to engage a lawyer, urged that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.It was submitted that the Trial Court committed several errors in appreciating the prosecution, which if seen in their proper perspective, cannot lead to the appellant's conviction.It was urged that the mainstay of the prosecution story was the testimony of PW-11, who claimed to have ""last seen"" the deceased in the company of the appellant.It was submitted that the entire case being premised on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution was under a duty to prove each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, with the further obligation to ensure that all the links in the chain were CRL.A. 90/2011, CRL.M. (BAIL) 110/2011 AND CRL.M.A. 900/2011 Page 3 likewise proved, and also show to the court that the conclusion could point only to the hypothesis of the accused's guilt, ruling out every possibility of his innocence.It was submitted that PW-11 is an untrustworthy witness, who in his earlier statement on 28.09.2005, while identifying his father, clearly stated that he did not suspect anyone for the murder.Yet, he stated a full day later that on 25.09.2005, at about 8:00 PM while on a visit to his father (with whom he and other members of the family were not in good terms, and who used to stay away from his family) he saw a quarrel between the deceased and appellant, when they were abusing each other.He claims to have intervened and calmed his father and thereafter gone home.He informed his mother about the quarrel; she asked him to return to the deceased's premises.He reached the deceased's room at about 12:00 AM (midnight) and saw that the door was locked.He says that while entering the plot (where his father's room was located), he saw accused Rahisa coming from the side of his father's room with a rod in his hand.He says that after seeing him (PW-11), the appellant jumped over a boundary wall and left.PW-11 observed that, the appellant was looking nervous.As the door of the deceased's room was locked, PW-11 returned home.He says that he inquired about his father on the next day and was told that the deceased had gone to attend some marriage.He says that on 27.09.2005, he came to know about the murder of his father from the police officials.It was submitted that this entire story was unbelievable, as it is plainly against normal human conduct.Had in fact PW-11's statement been true regarding 25.09.2005 then the first thing he would have done, on learning about his father's murder, or at least, on identifying his body, would have been to inform the police about the identity of the suspect, since there was hardly any time lag between the so called quarrel, and the discovery of death.PW-11's utter silence in that regard, and his disclosing these facts on 29.09.2005, falsifies the entire story, as it was the result of fabrication and afterthought.In that case, there was an irreconcilable conflict between the medical and ocular version, because the time of death indicated by the doctor was 3 days before the postmortem.However, PW-11's version showed the ""last seen"" part to be less than 3 days before the time indicated in the postmortem report.This, says the counsel, points to the improbability of the prosecution version.CRL.A. 90/2011, CRL. M. (BAIL) 110/2011 AND CRL.The prosecution had urged that the accused had rented a cycle rickshaw from the deceased and as he (accused) was unable to pay the rent, the deceased had scolded and abused him.As the accused felt insulted, he killed the deceased.The prosecution failed to prove this motive as the IO was unable to obtain sufficient evidence as to there being strained relations between accused and deceased for non-payment of rent.It was submitted that the IO did not record the statement of any witness in support of the allegation that the accused had in fact rented a cycle rickshaw from deceased and was having trouble paying the rent.On the contrary, submitted the learned counsel, the deposition of PW- 11 falsified the entire story, since he testified that besides the rehri used by the deceased, he did not have any other side business.It was argued by the amicus that the finger prints on the two glasses and bottles, recovered from the deceased's house, were not taken.Similarly, the prosecution made no attempt to connect the blood stained kurta allegedly recovered from near the premises, with the crime.It was submitted that such recovery was highly suspect, because the location of such a kurta, in a public place, and its remaining there for more than 3 days, would have aroused suspicion.It was submitted that there are several other discrepancies and lacunae in the prosecution story, which should have led the Trial Court to acquit the appellant.Further, no attempt was made to record the testimony of any witness, since the room rented from PW- 1 by the deceased was adjacent to several other tenements.By the prosecution accounts, they were inhabited.Nothing prevented the prosecution from recording the statements of other tenants or occupants.Their depositions would have fortified the prosecution version, if true.It was next pointed out that the improbability of the appellant's arrest pursuant to PW- 11's statement is writ large on the record, because the said witness, according to the IO, is supposed to have disclosed at 7:00 AM on 29th September, 2005 about the involvement of the appellant.It was urged that no reason for such urgency, or the unusual manner in which the statement was recorded, has been indicated.Contrary to this fact, the appellant was in fact picked up from his house, and formally arrested later.The second aspect to this, it was urged, was the prosecution's failure to have the article tested for finger prints.CRL.A. 90/2011, CRL. M. (BAIL) 110/2011 AND CRL.M.A. 900/2011 Page 5The iron rod too was stained with ""A"" group blood.It was urged by the prosecution that since the blood on the seized articles matched that of the deceased, it connected the iron rod with the commission of the offence.Unless the appellant had special knowledge about the presence of the iron rod, he could not have, assisted in their discovery and being brought on record, as Ex.PW-15/E. It was also submitted that since the prosecution had established its initial burden, and proved the CRL.A. 90/2011, CRL.M. (BAIL) 110/2011 AND CRL.M.A. 900/2011 Page 6 involvement of the appellant, the onus of proving that he did not commit the crime, was upon the appellant; he did not do so.For these reasons, the Trial Court's judgment needs to be affirmed.The case of the prosecution is mostly based on the testimony of PW-11 Satbir, son of deceased.He deposed that his father (deceased) had rented a room and was staying on his own at Neb Sarai as he and his mother did not get along.He stated that on 25.09.2005, at about 8:00 PM he had gone to visit his father and on reaching there he saw a quarrel between the deceased and accused.They were abusing each other.He says that he intervened and calmed his father and took him inside the room and thereafter he (PW-11) went home.On reaching home he informed his mother about the quarrel that had taken place between the deceased and the accused.His mother asked him to go back to the deceased's premises.He reached the room of the deceased at about 12:00 AM (midnight) and saw that the door was locked.He says that when he was entering the plot where his father's room was located, he saw accused Rahisa coming from the side of his father's room and he was having a rod in his hand.He says that after seeing him (PW-11), accused jumped over a boundary wall and left.PW-11 observed that, accused was looking nervous.As the door of the deceased's room was locked, PW-11 returned home.He says that he inquired about his father on the next day and was told that the deceased had gone to attend some marriage.He says that on 27.09.2005, he came to know about the murder of his father from the police officials.He says that he later recollected the incident of 25.09.2005 and made a statement to IO.While it is true that this witness did identify the deceased's body, at the same time, he mentioned that the name of the murderer or suspected murderer was unknown.M. (BAIL) 110/2011 AND CRL.The post mortem was conducted on 28.09.2005 at about 2:55 PM.The iron rod was also having blood stains of ""A"" group.The prosecution failed to prove the motive as the IO was not able to obtain sufficient evidence as to there being strained relations between accused and deceased for nonpayment of rent.",['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The petitioner made a complaint to the police alleging that, on the day of the incident, his son Mandeep had gone to his school at about 6:45 am but he did not come back CRL.REV.P. 246/2019 Page 1 of 8 home.Thereafter, the petitioner made inquiries from the friends of the deceased Mandeep regarding his whereabouts and one of the friends informed the petitioner, that he had seen Mandeep going on foot along with two other boys towards a nala.Subsequently, the petitioner reached the school of the deceased, wherein he found the police staff of PS: Chhawla, Delhi.The police showed the photograph of the deceased to the petitioner whom he identified as his son Mandeep, and he was further informed by the police about Mandeeps murder.The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.5.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board- II (JJB- II) and impugned judgment dated 23.1.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, Dwarka Courts, Delhi (Appellate Court) in Crl.Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 01.05.2017 an FIR No. 153/2017 was registered at Police Station: Chhawala, South West Delhi under Sections 363, 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as a consequence of a statement made by the complainant, Pradeep Kumar (petitioner, herein) who is the father of the deceased, Mandeep in this case.Thereafter, statement of the petitioner was recorded in the police station and the afore-said FIR was registered.Subsequently, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and investigation was conducted and on 14.5.2018, after going through the material on record including the preliminary assessment reports as prepared by the experts, the charge-sheet and the annexed documents, the learned JJB- II passed an order, to treat the CCLs R and N as children and further held that the CCLs be tried before the JJB-II itself, as children.CRL.REV.P. 246/2019 Page 1 of 8The relevant para of the said impugned order dated 14.5.2018 is reproduced hereunder:Therefore, we decide the question of preliminary assessment in favour of CCLs R and N and against the prosecution.Let the CCLs be tried as children before this Board.However, we make it clear CRL.REV.P. 246/2019 Page 2 of 8 that nothing expressed therein, shall tantamount to any expression on the merits of the case.""P.C and the findings of fact arrived at by the Trial Court on the basis of material on record, which are further upheld by the Appellate Court, I do not find any merit in the present petition.The pending applications are also dismissed.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In such order, it has been observed that the petitioners have been able to show their prima facie title and possession over the suit tank.However, learned advocate representing the private respondents submits that without obtaining conversion of the status of the tank, the petitioners are attempting to raise construction thereon.-: 2 : -Ms. Nandy, learned advocate representing the official respondents submits that the second petitioner had previously submitted a written complaint against the private respondents on 30th June, 2013, whereupon Basirhat P. S. Case No. 909 dated 30th June, 2013 under Sections 447/323/379/354/427/504/506/34, Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation thereof has culminated in filing of charge-sheet on 4th January, 2014 against the private respondents under the aforesaid provisions of law.It has further been submitted by her that on 21st November, 2013, the second petitioner lodged a further complaint and in course of a probe into the allegations that were levelled, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Basirhat P.S. found that there was possibility of serious breach of peace in the locality and accordingly, prosecution vide Basirhat P. S. NCR No. 12069 dated 24th December, 2013 under Section 107, Cr.P.C. has been submitted against the respondents.A recent complaint of the first petitioner received on 2nd January, 2014, she submits, revealed a non-cognizable offence and, therefore, a prayer has been submitted before the Court of the learned A.C.J.M., Basirhat for necessary permission to investigate under Section 145 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.According to her, the allegation of police inaction is without any basis.Having regard to the aforesaid factual narrative, I do not see reason to hold that the police has been remiss in discharging its-: 3 : -However, since possibility of breach of peace has been found and the civil court at the interlocutory stage has ruled against the private respondents in respect of their prima facie title and possession over the suit tank, the police authorities shall ensure that so long the civil suit is not disposed of and the order of injunction subsists, the private respondents do not interfere with the petitioners' possession of the suit tank.The writ petition stands disposed of.There shall, however, be no order for costs.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.(Dipankar Datta, J.)",['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
"(Delivered on 17.5.2018) As per S.K. Gangele, J:Appellant was prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 and 307 of IPC.Prosecution story in brief is that the deceased had given his T. V. and V. C. D. Player to the appellant fifteen days before from the date of the incident.Appellant did not return back T. V. and V. C. D. Player.On the date of the incident the deceased and P. W. 1 both had gone to the house of the appellant on a motorbike, they 2 entered in the house.The deceased told the appellant to return back T. V. and V. C. D. Player because family members were demanding the same.Appellant told the deceased that he had no money, hence, he had given T. V. and V. C. D. Player in the marriage of sister-in-law, on that account the deceased abused the appellant.The deceased told him that T. V. and V. C. D. Player were given for watching and not for giving the same in dowry.Appellant and deceased both were abusing each other.Appellant told the deceased that he would return T. V. and V. C. D. Player after purchasing the same on receiving salary.On this count appellant had taken out an Axe and inflicted blow on the head of the deceased.P. W. 1 tried to save the deceased, on which the appellant had inflicted blow of Axe on P. W.1 also.P. W.1 went to his house and narrated the incident to his family members.They reached at the house of appellant Vaman, he did not open the door.He deposed that the deceased was my friend.Appellant was working as Peon in Government School.He was living in a Government Quarter.The deceased had given T. V. and V. C. D. Player to the appellant.The deceased told me that we would go to the house of the appellant to take back T. V. and V. C. D. Player because appellant did not return back the same since last four months.We went on a motorbike at the residence of the appellant, we entered in the house.Thereafter, the deceased told the appellant to return back T. V. and V. C. D. Player because his family members were 4 demanding the same.Appellant did not return back T. V. and V. C. D. Player, he told the deceased that I had given T. V. and V. C. D. Player in dowry in the marriage of my sister-in-law because I had no money, on that account the deceased was shouting and abusing.He told the deceased that he would return T. V. and V. C. D. Player after purchasing the same on receiving salary in the next month.The deceased and the appellant both were abusing to each other.Thereafter, appellant went in side of the house and taken out an Axe and inflicted blow of Axe on the deceased.He fell down, I cried on which the appellant also inflicted a blow on my head and told me to keep mum.Thereafter, he also inflicted some blows at the deceased.I ran away and went to my house.I told the incident to my family members.They went at the house of the appellant.I was referred to Government hospital.Toga P. W.2 admitted that he signed Ex.P.6, Ex.P.7, and Ex.P.8, sezures of plain & red earth and sleepers.Jhamlo Bai P. W.3 deposed that I went to the house of the appellant, which was locked from in side, house was not opened.Subsequently, house was opened.9. D. S. Kanwar P. W.4 is Naib Tahsildar, who prepared dead body Panchnama Ex.Matan P. W.5 is the father of the deceased.He went to the 5 spot after the incident.Prabhakar Rao P. W.6 is Patwari, who prepared the spot map Ex.Phundulal P. W.8 is the witness of seizure.He deposed that an Axe and T. V. were seized.Thereafter, appellant came and opened the door, the deceased was found dead.P. W.1 was admitted at the hospital and appellant was arrested.Police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet.During trial appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence.However, trial court held appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 and 307 of IPC and awarded sentence as mentioned above.Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of P. W.1, who lodged FIR.According to FIR, there was a quarrel and scuffle between the appellant and the deceased.Both had beaten 3 to each other by fists and kicks, in that event the appellant had inflicted injuries.Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the appellant had given repeated blows of Axe.He had also given one blow of Axe to P. W.1, which was serious in nature.He had used deadly weapon.Hence, trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for commission of offence of murder.I was admitted in the hospital for ten days.Villagers lodged the report at the police station.I signed Ex.P.1, which is merg intimation, Ex.P.2, which is FIR and my T-shirt was seized by Ex.Axe was seized by seizure memo Ex.I signed both the documents.Other witnesses had narrated the incidents.Manish Balde P. W.17 is the Doctor, who performed postmortem of the deceased.He deposed that on 19.5.2007, I was posted as Assistant Medical Officer at Community Health Center, Athner District Betul and performed postmortem of the deceased.I noticed following injuries on the body of the person of the deceased:(1) Sharp cut incised wound situated on right laterally on parietal region on head.Size 3 x 3 x 1 cm.(2) Sharp cut incised wound situated on leftt laterally on parietal region on head.Size 2 x 3 x 1 cm.(3) Sharp cut incised wound situated on central occipital region on head.Size 3 x 2 x 1 cm.(4) Sharp cut incised wound situated on right laterally on occipital region on head.Size 3 x 1 x 1 cm.(5) Sharp cut incised wound situated on left laterally on occipital region on head.Size 2 x 1 x 1 cm.On internal examination, I noticed sharp cut incised wound on the head.Injuries were antemortem in nature.The deceased was died due to injuries suffered by him.I replied quarry of the 6 police that the injuries suffered by the deceased could be caused by Axe, which was seized from the appellant.I also examined injured witnesses P. W.1 and noticed one incised injury on his head.16. D. K. Sakalle P. W. 15 is Investigation Officer.He deposed that I prepared spot map and signed the same.I seized plain and red earth from the spot vide Ex.P.8 and I signed the same.I also recorded statements of Balakram, Mamta, Sabulal, Munna, Malan, Amlobai, Mathura, Birjobai, Chintu @ Rajkumar, Panchhibai and Madhukar.On his memorandum an Axe and clothes were seized.Axe was seized by Ex.T-shirt which wearing the appellant was seized by seizure memo Ex.Seized articles were sent to FSL for examination.In the present case, P. W.1 is the injured eyewitness.He was present on the spot.He lodged named FIR.The Apex Court in the matter of Abdul Sayeed Vs.State of M. P. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 259 has held as under in regard to testimony of injured eyewitness :""The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court.Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone.""Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness"".(Vide Ramlagan Singh & Ors.State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 2593; Malkhan Singh & Anr.Axe was seized on memorandum of the appellant.Clothes which appellant was wearing at the time of incident were also seized and as per FSL report Ex.P.28 on both articles blood stains were found.FIR was lodged immediately after the incident.Hence, trial court has rightly held the appellant guilty for murder of the deceased.Learned counsel for the State has strongly argued that the appellant had given repeated blows of Axe on the deceased.He had given one blow of Axe to P. W.1 also.Hence, trial Court has 8 rightly convicted the appellant for commission of offence of murder and awarded proper sentence.In support of his contentions learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the following judgments of the Apex Court; (1) Ghanshya Vs.State of U. P. reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 611, and (2) Munfait Vs.Contrary to this, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is difference in the version of FIR, which was lodged by the P. W.1 immediately after the incident and his court statement.As per FIR the deceased went to the house of the appellant, he was abusing to him.Thereafter, there was a scuffle between the deceased and the appellant.Both had beaten by fists and kicks to each other and in that event the appellant had taken out Axe from the house and inflicted blow at the deceased.Hence, the act of the appellant would fall under Section 304-I of IPC.Appellant examined his wife asD.W.1 in his defence.She deposed that the deceased was trying to outrage her modesty.He entered in the house, at that time the appellant came there and when I prevented the appellant from aforesaid act, both had beaten to each other.There is slight difference in the evidence of P. W. 1 deposed by him before the court and the incident narrated by him in FIR.In the Merg Ex.P.1 and FIR Ex.P.2, it is mentioned that the deceased and P. W.1 went to the house of the appellant to take back T. V. and V. C. D. Player because the deceased had given 9 aforesaid T. V. and V. C. D. Player to the appellant.Thereafter, the deceased called the appellant and told him to return back T. V. and V. C. D. Player, the deceased told him that he had no money, hence, he had given T. V. and V. C. D. Player in dowry to his sister-in-law and he would return back after receipt of salary and there was vad-vivad ""eknj pksn Vh-oh- ns eSaus rsjs dks ns[kus ds fy, fn;k Fkk] ngst nsus ds fy, ugha fn;k Fkk"" Both the appellant and the deceased abused filthy language and told that he would take T. V. and V. C. D. Player and in that event both were beating to each other by fists and kicks, in the event of beating both had entered in side of the room and the appellant had taken out Axe and inflicted blow on the head of the deceased.Thereafter, the deceased fell down.It is mentioned by P. W.1 in FIR that I had tried to save the deceased then appellant had inflicted a blow of Axe on my head.Thereafter, I ran away from the spot.In court statement P. W. 1 did not mention the fact that there was scuffle between the appellant and the deceased and both were beating to each other by fists and kicks in that event the appellant had taken out Axe, which was kept in the room and inflicted blow of Axe on the head of the deceased.She further admitted that 10 before incident the deceased and the appellant used to visit houses of each other.We order accordingly.""Hon'ble the Apex court in the matter of Arjun Vs.P. W.1 received head injury, which was caused by hard and sharp object.He was admitted in the hospital 15 for seven days.","['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Case diary perused.This first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.56/2019 registered at P.S. Rehli District Sagar (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 286, 338 of the IPC and Section 5 of the Explosive Act.As per the case of the prosecution, on 30/12/2018 at about 2.00 pm, in the field of applicant Badan, situated at village Baleh under the jurisdiction of Police Station Rehli, Deepu aged about 10 years has found an object looking like sweet item (laddu) which he has taken in his hand which was exploded, by which Deepu was injured badly, his four fingers have been detached from the palm of the hand.On receiving such information, complainant, father of injured Deepu, reached on the spot and lodged the report.During the course of investigation, statements of injured Deepu and other villagers have been recorded.Injured Deepu has remained admitted in the hospital at Sagar and Bhopal.He further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 04/02/2019 and trial will take long time for its decision.In view of the aforesaid, it has been prayed that the applicant be released on bail.On perusal of the case diary, it seems that incidence alleged to be happened in the filed of applicant Badan.It is alleged that round shaped article i.e. laddu was a bomb, which is usually made for the purpose of killing wild boar, was explode in the hand of injured Deepu, as to how inured Deepu has reached there is not clear from the evidence available on record.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the fact as pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant and the period of custody of the applicant, in the opinion of this Court, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE manju Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 20/02/2019 21:59:13",['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Shorn of unnecessary details, the factual backdrop leading to the filing of the present petition, is that in the year 1967 the petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in Border Security Force and earned promotions to the rank of Sub-Inspector in course of time.In the year 1981 the petitioner was attached to the BSF Subsidiary Training Centre, Ranidanga, Silliguri (hereinafter referred to as the 'STC Ranidanga').On June 29, 1987 a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner in which four charges were laid against him as under:At the trial, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses; viz. HC Rahmat Subba PW-1, HC Basudev Bhat PW-2, HC B.B.Chhetri PW-3, W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 2 of 34 Assistant Commandant S.D.Chaudhuri PW-4, Subedar Amrik Singh PW- 5, SI Ajit Kumar PW-6, SI Harbans Singh PW-7, HC Tanu Babu Singh PW-8, Dr.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 2 of 34HC Rahmat Subba PW-1, deposed that since August 25, 1980 he was attached to STC Ranidanga.During month of December, 1981 the petitioner was undergoing Junior Leader Course at STC Ranidanga.On December 06, 1981 at about 08.00 P.M. he learnt that the petitioner was sitting near a washerman's shop with a revolver and was having a few rounds of ammunitions and thus he left for said shop.On reaching the shop he saw the petitioner sitting on a bench in a room adjacent to the shop.He saw a few rounds lying on a table in front of the bench where the petitioner was sitting.The petitioner told him that the rounds belonged to him.The room where the petitioner was sitting was out of bounds for BSF personnel for the reason liquor used to be sold illegally from there.During his conversation with the petitioner it appeared to him that the petitioner had consumed liquor.He persuaded the petitioner to accompany him to STC Ranidanga since it was getting late.At about 08.30 P.M. when they reached the gate of STC Ranidanga he requested the petitioner to deposit his revolver in the Kote but the petitioner refused in spite of being told of the standing orders, stating that the revolver was his personal property.At that the petitioner pushed him due to which he fell on the ground.The petitioner hurled abuses at him and proceeded towards the tent where the students/personnel undergoing Junior Leaders Course were staying.As he stood up, he saw the petitioner approach him.The petitioner was hurling abuses at him and branding him a thief.He again requested the petitioner to deposit the revolver in the Kote W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 3 of 34 whereupon the petitioner gave a blow on his right shoulder as a result whereof he again fell on the ground.Thereafter the petitioner took out the pistol from his jacket and pointed the same towards him and said that he would shoot him.On sensing danger he immediately stood up from the ground and ran towards the parade ground.While running he heard the sound of a bullet wiz passed his head.On reaching the office he rang up Adjutant STC Anil Kamboj and informed him about the incident.After sometime along with Adjutant Anil Kamboj and some other officers he went to STC Ranidanga where he saw the petitioner and Subedar Amrik Singh, in-charge of Junior Leaders Course, present there.The witness explains that it was correct that he had made a statement before the Recording Officer on 22nd December, 1981 and had also signed the same in token of its correctness.On being shown he also points out and identifies his signature, at the end of his statement.He further explains that it is correct that he had made the aforesaid statement before the Recording Officer, on the date indicated above, since he was not sure at that time whether the sound could be that of a shot of Sten or Pistol.I had seen the accused, while turning my neck towards him.However, I did feel some pain over my shoulder where I was hit...I did not make any hue and cry when I was being fired upon by the accused.Since I apprehended that the accused may not fire upon me, after taking cue, from sound.When the accused abused me on the night of 6th December, 1981, his pitch was high.I did not notice any sentry close-by, rushing to the place of incident, after having heard the abuses as well as the sound of the fire shot."" (Emphasis Supplied)HC Basudev Bhat PW-2, deposed that in the month of December, 1981 he was performing the duties of a Kote under officer in the Bn HQ Kote at Kadamtala.On December 21, 1981 he was instructed by his superior officers to deposit one revolver belonging to one SI Gurbachan Singh (petitioner) in the Bn HQ Kote at Kadamtala.When he had received said revolver the same was not sealed.HC B.B.Chhetri PW-3, deposed that in the month of December, 1981 he was attached to STC Ranidanga as an Instructor was residing in a barrack inside the premises of STC Ranidanga.On December 06, 1981 at about 10.00 A.M. there was a weapon cleaning parade in which weapons were taken out from the Kote for cleaning.On said day the petitioner came to him and asked for his personal revolver which he had deposited in the Kote stating that he wanted to clean the same.He handed over the revolver to the petitioner.On December 06, 1981 at about 08.30 P.M. he W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 5 of 34 was standing near the verandah of his barrack when he saw the petitioner, accompanied by HC Rahmat Subba, coming towards the barrack.He could hear the petitioner talking, at times in low pitch and at times in high pitch.The gait of the petitioner was not normal.When the petitioner and HC Rahmat Subba passed in front of him he immediately went to SI Ram Lal Dogra who was sitting near SO's Mess and informed him that the petitioner had come inside the premises of STC Ranidanga and was behaving in an abnormal fashion.When he left from SO's Mess he heard the sound of firing of a shot.After sometime HC Tanu Babu and Subedar Amrik Singh who were senior students of Junior Leaders Course came to him and handed over a revolver to him and told him that the same belonged to the petitioner.On receiving the said revolver he checked the same and found it to be empty.Thereafter he deposited said revolver in Kote as per the instructions of his superior officers.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 5 of 34I could hear the accused talking to HC Ramat Subba but I did not know, as to, about what they were talking.As a matter of fact what I am stating to-day is correct and there is no falsehood in the same.QUESTIONED BY THE COURT W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 6 of 34 I did not ask the accused on the night of 6 th December, 1981, when I saw him for the first time in the STC, about the revolver Exhibit-N, not been deposited by him, since the accused appeared to me to be behaving an abnormal fashion.""W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 6 of 34Assistant Commandant S.D.Chaudhuri PW-4, deposed that on December 30, 1981 he was handed over a box containing two empty fired cartridges of .38 caliber, twenty live cartridges of 12 bore, eighteen live ammunition of .38 caliber, one live ammunition of .45 caliber and one empty fired care of .38 caliber belonging to the petitioner.Subedar Amrik Singh PW-5, deposed that in the month of December, 1981, the petitioner, eighteen other officers and he were undergoing Junior Leader's Course at STC Ranidanga and staying in a tent pitched in STC premises.On December 06, 1981 at about 05.30 P.M. the petitioner was absent in the roll call of the students attending Junior Leader's Course.Being senior student of said course, he informed HC Tanu Babu, Senior Course Instructor, about the absence of petitioner in the roll call.At about 08.45 P.M. while he was present in the tent he heard the sound of firing of a shot whereupon he came out of the tent and saw the petitioner entering the tent.The petitioner was carrying a revolver in his hand at that time.He asked the petitioner as to why he fired a shot but he did not give any reply to him.Thereafter he went out of the tent for a while.When he returned to the tent he saw the petitioner cleaning his revolver with a cleaning rod.He asked the petitioner that either he should deposit his revolver himself or give the same to him at which the petitioner handed over his revolver to him.He went to HC Tanu Babu and handed over the revolver to him who in turn handed over the same to HC B.B. Chetri.After sometime he along with HC Tanu Babu returned to the tent.The petitioner who was standing outside the tent shouted at him W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 7 of 34 and enquired about his revolver.He informed him that his revolver has been deposited in Kote whereupon the petitioner started hurling abuses at him.When he admonished him for abusing him the petitioner rushed towards him and held him by his throat.The petitioner had assaulted him in the presence of HC Tanu Banu and SI Ajit Kumar.Thereafter the petitioner insisted for seeing his revolver whereupon the petitioner, HC Tanu Babu and he proceeded towards Kote.When they reached near the staff barrack he saw Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj and some other officers getting down from a vehicle.He heard Anil Kamboj chiding the petitioner for some wrong committed by him.After sometime he and the petitioner returned to the tent where the petitioner again assaulted him for having complained against him.Thereafter he left the tent and informed Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj that the petitioner has again assaulted him.Accompanied by Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj and Subedar U.P.Rai he came to the tent and saw that the petitioner was lying on a tent.Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj repeatedly ordered the petitioner to get up and come outside the tent but he refused to obey his orders.After sometime Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj and Subedar U.P. Rai left from there.Soon thereafter he saw the belongings of petitioner being shifted from the tent to the canteen.When the belongings of petitioner were being shifted he saw the petitioner going out of the tent.After sometime he heard that the petitioner has been apprehended.At about 11.30 P.M. he accompanied the petitioner to BSF Base Hospital, Kadamtala for his medical examination.On the next day i.e. December 7, 1981 he was instructed by superior officers to prepare a seizure list of belongings of the petitioner.Live and empty cartridges were recovered from the belongings of the petitioner and the same were seized.Being W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 8 of 34 relevant, we note following portion of the cross-examination of the witness:-W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 7 of 34W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 8 of 34The accused had picked up a quarrel with a constable of STC, during the training for the Junior Leader's Course.It is wrong to suggest that I took away the revolver from the accused by force and had also caused injuries on his person, since he had refused to part with the same.It is wrong to say that I had beaten the accused and that was why I did not ask for any help.As a matter of fact the accused had beaten me and I had tried to separate myself from him. ...QUESTIONED BY THE COURT ....When the accused had come to the tent, on 6 th December, 1981 at 1930 hrs alongwith other three BSF personnel, from his talk, it appeared as if he had taken liquor.""SI Ajit Kumar PW-6, deposed that in the month of December, 1981 he was undergoing Junior Leader's Course at STC Ranidanga and was staying along with the petitioner and Subedar Amrik Singh in a tent at STC Ranidanga.On December 06, 1981 at about 07.30 P.M. a heavy vehicle halted near the tent where he was staying.Three BSF personnel and the petitioner got down from the said vehicle and came inside the tent.He heard the petitioner telling the three personnel that he would shoot Subedar Amrik Singh.After sometime the three BSF personnel left the tent.At about 08.45 P.M. he heard the W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 9 of 34 petitioner saying that today the people would come to know whether he possessed a revolver or not.After sometime the petitioner went out of the tent.After few seconds he heard the sound of firing of a shot.He saw Subedar Amrik Singh going out of the tent.Immediately thereafter he saw the petitioner entering the tent with a revolver in his hand.After sometime he saw the petitioner cleaning his revolver.Few seconds thereafter he saw Subedar Amrik Singh coming inside the tent and petitioner handing over his revolver to him.Few minutes thereafter Subedar Amrik Singh left the tent carrying revolver of petitioner in his hand.At about 09.30 P.M. he saw the petitioner, Subedar Amrik Singh and HC Tanu Babu standing outside the tent.The petitioner was repeatedly asking Subedar Amrik Singh to return his revolver to him.After sometime he saw the petitioner assaulting Subedar Amrik Singh whereupon he with the help of HC Tanu Babu rescued Subedar Amrik Singh from the clutches of petitioner.At about 10.00 P.M. the petitioner returned to the tent.Ten minutes thereafter Subedar Amrik Singh also returned to the tent.Sometime thereafter he heard the petitioner abusing Subedar Amrik Singh for having deposited his revolver.He then saw the petitioner again assaulting Subedar Amrik Singh.Thereafter he shouted for help whereupon SI Harbans Singh came there and helped him in rescuing Subedar Amrik Singh.Thereafter Subedar Amrik Singh left the tent and the petitioner rested on his cot.At about 10.15 P.M. Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj came in the tent and repeatedly ordered the petitioner to get up and come outside the tent but he refused to obey his orders.After sometime Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj left.I have stated the said fact since I had heard the same on the night of 6th December, 1981."" (Emphasis Supplied)SI Harbans Singh PW-7, deposed that in the month of December 1981, he was undergoing Junior Leader's Course at STC, Ranidanga and staying along with the petitioner and Subedar Amrik Singh, Senior Course Student, in a tent pitched in STC.On December 06, 1981 at about 05.30 P.M. a roll call of students undergoing Junior Leader's Course was held and the petitioner was absent from said roll call.At about 07.30 P.M. the petitioner along with three BSF personnel came to the tent in a heavy vehicle.After sometime the three BSF personnel left from there.After few minutes of departure of three BSF personnel from the tent the petitioner also left from tent.At about 08.45 P.M. the petitioner returned W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 12 of 34 to the tent and came near his cot.Immediately thereafter he again left the tent.At that time the petitioner was saying that today the people would come to know that he possessed a revolver.After a couple of minutes he heard the sound of firing of a shot.It appeared that the shot was fired from a pistol or revolver or sten.Thereafter he saw Subedar Amrik Singh going out of the tent.After a few minutes he saw the petitioner entering the tent with a revolver in his hand.He saw the petitioner cleaning his revolver with a cleaning rod which he had taken out from his pillow.When the petitioner was cleaning the revolver he went out of the tent for urinating.After sometime the petitioner also went out of the tent.I had not mentioned his fact, earlier, in my statement before the Recording Officer and have mentioned to- day before this Court, since I forgot to mention about the same, on the date when my statement was recorded....."" (Emphasis Supplied)HC Tanu Babu PW-8, deposed that in the month of December, 1981 he was attached to STC Ranidanga for performing instructional duties in Junior Leader's Course.On December 06, 1981 he was informed by Subedar Amrik Singh, Senior Course Student, that the W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 14 of 34 petitioner was absent from the roll call of the students held at about 05.30 P.M. At about 07.00 P.M. he went to the tent where the students undergoing Junior Leader's Course were staying to see whether the petitioner is present in the tent.On seeing that the petitioner is not present in the tent he returned to his barrack.At about 09.00 P.M. Subedar Amrik Singh came to the staff barrack where he was staying and handed him a revolver and informed him that said revolver belongs to the petitioner and a shot has been recently fired from said revolver.He inspected the barrel of said revolver and smell of gun powder was coming from the barrel.Thereafter he handed over said revolver to HC B.B.Chhetri who in turn deposited the same in Kote.He asked HC B.B.Chetri to check whether the said revolver belongs to the petitioner.After checking the registration number and other details of the revolver HC B.B.Chhetri informed him that said revolver belongs to the petitioner.At about 09.15 P.M. along with Subedar Amrik Singh he came to the tent and the petitioner was present inside the tent at that time.He heard the petitioner shouting at Subedar Amrik Singh and making enquiries about his revolver.Subedar Amrik and he informed the petitioner that his revolver has been safely deposited in Kote and that he should not worry about the same.Thereafter the petitioner started hurling abuses at Subedar Amrik Singh and beating him.With the help of SI Ajit Kumar he rescued Subedar Amrik Singh from the clutches of the petitioner.Thereafter Subedar Amrik Singh, petitioner and he started proceeding towards Kote to satisfy the petitioner that his revolver has been safely deposited in the Kote.On their way to Kote they met by Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj and Subedar U.P.Rai.Thereafter Subedar Amrik Singh and petitioner went back to their tent while he went to his barrack.It is not correct to say that only based on chemical test one can give opinion that a person is intoxicated or otherwise.Even by clinical test, one can give opinion.The witness after having refreshed his memory from the records says that on the night of 6/7 December, 1981, the accused had multiple bruises over his face and one bruise over his left thigh.Since these were very superficial injuries (bruises), I did not think it appropriate to record the description of the same.There might have been about 5/6 bruises on the face of the accused.Such bruises could have been given by blows (fists).The multiple bruises on the face of the accused would be due to fall on any hard object.Such bruises would also be due to W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 17 of 34 friction against some hard object.The fall, could also cause bruises.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 17 of 34RE-EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTOR The bruises, which I have described above, can also be due to a fall or friction on any hard object like tree, bamboo or stone."" (Emphasis Supplied)Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj PW-10, deposed that in the month of December, 1981 he was performing the duties of Adjutant and Quarter Master at STC Ranidanga.On December 06, 1981 he received a telephone call from HC Ramat Subba that the petitioner has been roaming in the STC premises with a loaded revolver in his hands.He i.e. HC Ramat Subba further informed him that the petitioner had fired a shot at him and beaten him.He gave a report about the incident to Commandant, STC Ranidanga.After sometime accompanied by Subedar U.P.Rai, HC Ramat Subba he left for STC Ranidanga.When they reached near STC they met the petitioner.He enquired from the petitioner about the complaint against him by HC Ramat Subba whereupon the petitioner rudely replied that nothing happened.When he told the petitioner that he had learnt that he has fired a shot from his revolver, the petitioner again rudely replied that he can do whatever he wants from his revolver.Smell of liquor was coming from the mouth of the petitioner when he was talking to him.Thereafter he inspected the revolver of the petitioner and noted that smell of gun powder coming from its barrel.At about 10.05 P.M. he met Subedar Amrik Singh who informed him that today i.e. December 06, 1981 he was beaten by the petitioner on two occasions.Thereafter he went to the tent where the petitioner was lying on a cot and repeatedly ordered him to come out of the tent but the petitioner flatly refused to obey his orders.Thereafter he along with Subedar U.P. Rai left W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 18 of 34 the tent and came to Kadamtala and reported the matter to the Commandant.Thereafter he returned to tent and shifted the belongings of the petitioner from the tent to a nearby canteen.After sometime he learnt that the petitioner has run away whereupon he instructed Subedar U.P.Rai to apprehend the petitioner.Subedar U.P.Rai managed to apprehend the petitioner.Even after being apprehended the petitioner was creating ruckus by shouting at the top of his voice.When he admonished him for creating a nuisance the petitioner rudely asked him to shut up and made aggressive gestures towards him.Being relevant, we note following portion of the cross-examination of the witness:-W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 18 of 34On reaching STC, after having got the information from HC Ramat Subba, I did not ask about the incident from the students in the tent, where the accused used to stay. ....As far as I remember I had submitted a detailed report about the incident of 6th December, 1981 to Commandant STC.I do not remember as to whether the accused was produced before the Commandant, following the said incident.I did not ask about the said incident on the night of 6th December, 1981 from the other inmates of the tent, where the accused used to stay.I had only enquired about this incident from Subedar Amrik Singh, HC B B Chhetri and the accused....."" (Emphasis Suppplied)Subedar U.P.Rai PW-14, deposed that in the month of December, 1981 he was attached to STC Ranidanga for performing instructional duties.On December 06, 1981 at about 09.15 P.M. HC Ramat Subba came to his residence and informed him that the petitioner had fired a shot at him and that Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj was calling him W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 19 of 34 to his residence.On reaching the residence of Anil Kamboj, he along with Anil Kamboj and HC Ramat Subba left for STC Ranidanga.When they reached near STC they met the petitioner.Anil Kamboj made enquiry from the petitioner about the complaint against him by HC Ramat Subba whereupon the petitioner rudely replied that nothing happened.When Anil Kamboj told the petitioner that he had learnt that he has fired a shot from his revolver the petitioner again rudely replied that he can do whatever he wants from his revolver.Thereafter Anil Kamboj inspected the revolver of the petitioner.At about 10.00 P.M. he and Anil Kamboj met Subedar Amrik Singh who informed them that today i.e. December 06, 1981 he was beaten by the petitioner on two occasions.Thereafter he and Anil Kamboj went to the tent where the petitioner was lying on a cot and Anil Kamboj repeatedly ordered him to come out of the tent but the petitioner flatly refused to obey his orders.Thereafter they left the tent for Kadamtala.After sometime he returned to tent and shifted the belongings of the petitioner from the tent to a nearby canteen as per the instructions of Anil Kamboj.After sometime it was learnt that the petitioner has run away.He started to look for the petitioner and managed to apprehend him with the help of Subedar U.P.Rai.Even after being apprehended the petitioner was creating ruckus by shouting at the top of his voice.When Anil Kamboj admonished him for creating a nuisance the petitioner rudely asked him to shut up and made aggressive gestures towards him.On the next day i.e. December 07, 1981 he participated in the seizure of the personal belongings of the petitioner.Amongst other articles the personal articles of the petitioner included live/fired ammunitions.The petitioner submitted an application under Rule 92 of the BSF Rules, 1969 to the GFSC stating that prosecution has failed to establish a prima-facie case for him to answer anything and thus he should not be called upon to make his defence for the charges framed against him.In response to the aforesaid application submitted by the petitioner the prosecution submitted a reply, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:-The allegation of the Defence Counsel that Shri Anil Kamboj, PW-10 did not investigated about the incident nor did he enquired from the accused after 6 DEC 81 is baseless and unfounded.In fact he had investigated about the incident on 7 DEC 81 from concerned persons including the accused and had submitted the report to the Commandant, STC regarding the happenings.The investigation into the incident of the night of 6 DEC 81 revealed that the accused had indulged in indiscipline and therefore, the matter was referred to the higher Hqrs by the Commandant, STC.Since the accused was in the processes of attachment to 87 Bn BSF no action could be initiated as per Rule 44 of BSF Rules nor was he tried/punished for the aforesaid offences.Briefly noted, the petitioner stated that in the month of December, 1981 he was undergoing Junior Leader's Course at STC Ranidanga.On December 06, 1981 he took out his revolver .38 calibre from Kote to clean the same.On said day i.e. December 06 some officers from his Battalion i.e. 84 Battalion had come to Kadamtala.Thereafter he went to Kadamtala and met the officers from his Battalion who allowed him to accompany them to 84 Battalion.He sat down with said officers and shared three-four bottles of rum with them.Sometime thereafter he and the officers of his Battalion went to the tent where he was staying at STC Ranidanga.At that time Inspector Amrik Singh was present in the tent but he did not tell him anything about his absence from roll call.In the instant case, the petitioner was not handed over the copy of Abstract of Evidence W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 26 of 34 before he was called upon to make his statement at the time of preparation of Record of Evidence, which greatly prejudiced the petitioner while making his statement in the Record of Evidence.V Rule 60(iii) of the BSF Rules, 1969 disqualifies a person who had taken part in the investigation of the case from serving on the Court.On December 06, 1981, the petitioner was absent from the roll call of persons attending Junior Leader's Course held at 05.30 P.M. Being Senior Course Student, Subedar Amrik Singh reported the absence of the petitioner from roll call to HC Tanu Babu, Senior Course Instructor.At about 08.00 P.M. HC Rahmat Subba PW-1, learnt that petitioner is sitting in a washer man's shop and carrying a revolver in his hand whereupon HC Rahmat Subba went to the said shop.On reaching there, he saw that the petitioner was sitting in a room adjacent to said shop with a revolver in his hand.The petitioner was under the influence of liquor at that time.Thereafter the petitioner and HC Rahmat Subba started proceeding towards the tent at STC premises.On their way, the petitioner got angry with HC Rahmat Subba for his asking him to hand over his revolver to him.The petitioner assaulted HC Rahmat Subba and few seconds thereafter fired a shot at HC Rahmat Subba.At that stage Subedar Amrik Singh, SI Harbans Singh and SI Ajit Lal, who have deposed to have heard the sound of firing of a shot intervened in the incident.They all saw the petitioner enter the tent W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 31 of 34 with a revolver in his hand.The petitioner gives his revolver to Subedar Amrik Singh who deposits the same in Kote.On learning that Subedar Amrik Singh has deposited his revolver in Kote the petitioner got angry and assaulted Subedar Amrik Singh, which assault was witnessed by SI Harbans Singh and SI Ajit Lal.After sometime the petitioner again assaulted Subedar Amrik Singh in the presence of SI Harbans Lal and SI Ajit Lal.Subedar Amrik Singh then complained to Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj.The petitioner misbehaved with Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj.The belongings of the petitioner were removed from the tent.The petitioner tried to flee from STC premises but was apprehended.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 1 of 34On July 08, 1982 Inspector General, BSF, West Bengal directed that a General Security Force Court (hereinafter referred to as the 'GFSC') be convened to conduct a trial in respect of the charges framed against the petitioner.He remained in STC Ranidanga for few minutes and thereafter left for his house.Being relevant, we note following portion of the cross-examination of the witness:-W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 3 of 34""I did not ask or shout for any help, at the time when I was pushed as well as abused by the accused...The Defence Counsel confronts the witness with the portion of his statements at page 8 of the manuscript copy of the Record of Evidence.The same is side lined with red ink.""after about 20 second or so I heard the sound of a fire behind me as though from a Sten or a pistol""Whereas the witness to-day before the Court, has said that he heard the sound of a shot having been fired from a revolver.He further adds that whatever he had stated on 22nd W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 4 of 34 December, 1981 before the Recording Officer as well as now before this Court, are absolutely correct.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 4 of 34To-day I used the word revolver since I had seen the accused in possession of the same, on the night of 6th December, 1981... Questioned by the Court I did see the accused firing at me, while I was running.Being relevant, we note following portion of the cross-examination of the witness:-Soon thereafter he saw the belongings of petitioner being removed from the tent.After sometime he saw the petitioner going out of the tent.Being W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 10 of 34 relevant, it would be relevant to note the following portion of the cross- examination of the witness:-W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 9 of 34W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 10 of 34I had seen the accused beating Subedar Amrik Singh outside the tent from a distance of 10 yds or so.I did not hear Subedar Amrik Singh raising any hue and cry, at the time when he was being beaten, by the accused outside the tent.Subedar Amrik Singh was under such a pressure by the accused that he was not in a position to make any hue and cry.Excepting one bruise on the forehead, over the left eye, I cannot say as to whether Subedar Amrik Singh sustained any other injuries, due to the beating, given by the accused.I did not see the accused giving blows to the Subedar.I only saw him pulling him down with force.I had seen the accused mounting on Subedar Singh inside the tent for about ten minutes.It is wrong to say that Subedar Amrik Singh had taken the revolver from the accused without his permission.As a matter of fact the accused had handed over the said revolver to the said subedar.It is incorrect to suggest that since the accused did not hand over the revolver to Subedar, Subedar Amrik Singh got annoyed over him and being a senior course student he beat the accused, thereby causing injuries on his person. ....The Defence Counsel confronts the witness with the portion of his statement at page 20 of the manuscript copy which reads as under:-""Inspector Amrik Singh came to the tent and took the revolver from SI Gurbachan Singh on the pretext that he would be cleaning.SI Gurbachan Singh got busied in his other works and Inspector Amrik Singh took the opportunity to go out of the W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 11 of 34 tent with the revolver which I later learnt he had given to deposit.""W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 11 of 34The said portion has been side lined in red ink in the manuscript copy of R.O.E.Whereas to-day before this Court, the witness has stated that the accused had handed over the revolver to Subedar Amrik Singh.The witness explains that whatever he has stated to-day is correct.He does not know as to how the aforesaid portion, conveys the meaning other than what he has stated today.When he was lying on his cot he heard the petitioner hurling abuses at Subedar Amrik Singh.The petitioner was accusing Subedar Amrik Singh of having deposited his revolver in Kote with a view to falsely implicate him in a case.Subedar Amrik Singh was denying aforesaid accusation and informing the petitioner that it was HC Ramat Subba who had lodged a complaint against him for having fired a shot at him and beating him.Thereafter he saw the petitioner push Subedar Amrik Singh to the ground and was mounting on him.With the help of SI Ajit Singh he rescued Subedar Amrik Singh from the clutches of the petitioner.He advised Subedar Amrik Singh to go from the tent to avoid any further altercations whereupon Subedar Amrik Singh went out of the tent.The petitioner went to his cot and he could hear him i.e. the petitioner abusing Subedar Amrik Singh.At about 10.00 P.M. Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj accompanied by Subedar U.P. Rai and some other officers came in the tent and repeatedly ordered the petitioner to get up and come outside the tent but he refused to obey his orders.After sometime Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj left from there.Soon thereafter he saw the belongings of petitioner being removed from the tent.After sometime he W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 13 of 34 saw the petitioner going out of the tent.At about 11.15 P.M. he saw the petitioner returning to the tent.After sometime the petitioner again left the tent.The petitioner was abusing at that time.He does not know what happened thereafter.Being relevant, it would be relevant to note the following portion of the cross-examination of the witness:-W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 12 of 34W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 13 of 34At about 1815 hrs I had gone to take my meals.I am not aware whether he took permission from Subedar Amrik Singh that since he (accused) was not well, he would not be able to attend roll call.As a matter of fact I did not see the accused, in the evening roll call.I had seen the accused holding Subedar Amrik Singh by his hair.Subedar Amrik Singh was also struggling to extricate himself from the accused.At about 11.30 P.M. he took the petitioner to Base Hospital, Kadamtala for medical examination.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 14 of 34W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 15 of 34On the next day i.e. December 7, 1981 he participated in the seizure of the personal belongings of the petitioner.Amongst other articles the personal articles of the petitioner included live/fired ammunitions.....At the time when I had shouted for help I found SI Ajit Kumar.I did not see anybody else around there.....I did not see any injury whatsoever on the person of the accused on the night of 6th December, 1981. ....It is absolutely wrong to say that I alongwith Subedar Amrik Singh, HC Ramat Subba, HC B B Chhetri fabricated a false case against the accused, with a view to involve him....""(Emphasis Supplied)Doctor Md.Azimuddin PW-9, deposed that in the month of December, 1981 he was posted at BSF Base Hospital, Kadamtala.In the intervening night of December 06/07, 1981 he received a telephonic call informing that one patient from STC Ranidanga is to be medically examined whereupon he reached Base Hospital.On reaching there the petitioner, Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj and some other officers were present there.Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj requested him to conduct the medical examination of the petitioner.At the first instance he examined the gait of the petitioner and noticed that petitioner was trembling while walking.Smell of liquor was coming from the mouth of the deceased.The speech of petitioner was slurring.The petitioner was not able to walk straight and his co-ordination was disoriented.On carrying out finger to nose test on the petitioner he found that the finger of the petitioner was not correctly touching his nose.The pupils of the W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 16 of 34 petitioner were dilated and reacting to light.After medically examining the petitioner he concluded that the petitioner was moderately intoxicated.Although the petitioner was under the influence of liquor he was conscious of his actions as he was responding to his instructions.As per his opinion, the petitioner was in a position to use physical force against any other person.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 16 of 34It is wrong to say that Shri Anil Kamboj, AC at the outset told me that the accused was under a state of intoxication.As a matter of fact he had said that the accused had consumed liquor.It is wrong to say that I had been influenced by others to issue a certificate as well as to give a opinion that the accused was under the influence of liquor.Deputy Commandant S.S. Chahar PW-12, deposed that in the month of December, 1981 he was detailed to prepare Record of Evidence in respect of the petitioner.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 20 of 34However, the provisions of BSF Rules 44 and 45 were complied with when the accused was attached with 87 Bn BSF for disciplinary purposes.Your Honour, the learned Defence Counsel instead of appreciating the attachment of the accused with 87 Bn BSF for fair play and justice had harped on delay in charge sheeting the accused which is bound to take place owing to procedural formalities."" (Emphasis Supplied)The Court rejected the application under Rule 92 of the BSF Rules, 1969 submitted by the petitioner and proceeded to record the evidence of witnesses of defence.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 21 of 34After bidding goodbye to officers from his Battalion he went to Kote to deposit his revolver but Kote under officer was not present there.He went to the washer man's shop to collect his uniform and thereafter had dinner in the mess of STC.After having dinner he returned to his tent and started cleaning his revolver.Inspector Amrik Singh took his revolver from him by saying that he would clean and deposit it in the Kote and went out of the tent with his revolver.Ten fifteen minutes thereafter Inspector Amrik W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 22 of 34 Singh returned to the tent and informed him that he has not deposited his revolver in the Kote but handed over the same to HC Tanu Babu.He chided Inspector Amrik Singh for not having deposited his revolver in Kote and instead handing over the same HC Tanu Babu.He told Inspector Amrik Singh that in case HC Tanu Babu would commit any wrong act with his revolver he would be blamed for it as the revolver was licensed in his name.He asked Amrik Singh to go with him to HC Tanu Babu for collecting his revolver but he refused to do so and said that he has committed no mistake by handing his revolver to HC Tanu Babu.When he i.e. petitioner kept insisting that he should go with him to HC Tanu Babu Amrik Singh pushed him and said that he should go to sleep and he has done no mistake in handing his revolver to HC Tanu Babu.In the meantime SI Harbans Singh and SI Ajit Kumar came there and three of them (Amrik Singh, Harbans Singh and Ajit Kumar) started beating him.He received bruises on his face on account of being beaten by the said three persons.Amrik Singh, 4 SI Harbans Singh, SI Ajit Kumar, HC Ramat Subba, Assistant Commandant Anil Kamboj, HC B.B. Chhetri and Subedar U.P. Rai have falsely implicated in the present case.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 22 of 34After considering the evidence led by the prosecution and written statement submitted by the petitioner, the opening and closing address of the prosecutor and the defending officer and summing up of the law officer, vide order dated August 9, 1982 the GFSC held that the petitioner is guilty of second, third and fourth charges framed against him.With respect to first charge, the GFSC held that the petitioner is not guilty of offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 IPC but guilty of offence of attempt to commit culpable homicide punishable W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 23 of 34 under Section 308 IPC.The GFSC awarded a sentence of dismissal from service to the petitioner.Vide order dated April 5, 1983 the High Court dismissed aforesaid petition on the ground that he has not exhausted alternative remedy available to him under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act, 1968 to assail the legality of finding and sentence of GFSC before invoking the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file petition under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act, 1968 to the confirming authority.Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Vide order dated July 16, 1992 this Court dismissed the aforesaid petition on the ground that on an earlier occasion the petitioner had approached the High Court of Calcutta to assail the finding and sentence of the GFSC.The petitioner challenged the order dated July 16, 1992 passed by this Court by way of filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.Vide order dated August 3, 1993 the Supreme Court set aside the order dated July 16, 1992 passed by this Court and directed this Court to dispose of the matter on merits.On January 02, 2014, arguments were heard in the matter and same was reserved for judgment.Written submissions filed by the petitioner were taken on record.The submissions advanced by the petitioner can be broadly categorized into following two heads:-Such being the position, the Commandant of STC Ranidanga had the disciplinary powers of Commandant of petitioner on the date of incident(s) i.e. December 06, 1981 inasmuch as the petitioner was undergoing a course at STC Ranidanga on said day.Further, Rule 45 prescribes that a charge leveled against an accused shall be heard by his Commandant.In the instant case, S.S.Chahar who prepared the Record of Evidence in case of petitioner served as prosecutor in the GSFC.Under the second head (perversity of the finding(s) of the GFSC), following submissions were advanced by the petitioner:-Furthermore, HC Rahmat Subba PW-1, deposed that he did not raise any alarm or hue or cry when he was being beaten by the petitioner or when the petitioner fired a shot at him.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 27 of 34The conduct of HC Rahmat Subba of remaining silent at the time of the incident and not making a cry for help is most unnatural and raises a big question mark on the veracity of said witness.Lastly, various contradictions were pointed out in the deposition of HC Rahmat Subba PW-1, in order to demonstrate that HC Rahmat Subba PW-1, is not a reliable witness.(ii) The testimony of Doctor Md.(iii) SI Ajit Kumar PW-6, admitted in his statement before the GFSC that he had stated before the Recording Officer that Subedar Amrik Singh had taken the revolver of the petitioner from him on the pretext of cleaning the same.It was argued that aforesaid statement made by Ajit Kumar before the Recording Officer establishes the defence of the petitioner that Subedar Amrik Singh had taken the revolver from the petitioner on the pretext of cleaning and depositing the same in Kote.Instead of depositing it in Kote Subedar Amrik Singh handed over the revolver of the petitioner to HC Tanu Babu.When petitioner chided Subedar Amrik Singh for handing over his revolver to HC Tanu Babu he fought with him.(iv) The alleged manhandling of Subedar Amrik Singh by the petitioner happened in the tent pitched in STC Ranidanga where the officers undergoing Junior Leader's Course were staying.Meaning thereby, many W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 28 of 34 other students/officers must have been present in the tent when the petitioner allegedly manhandled the petitioner.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 31 of 34The witnesses of the prosecution have been extensively cross- examined by the petitioner but nothing tangible could be extracted therefrom.The witnesses have withstood the test of cross-examination and corroborated each other in material particulars.As per the petitioner, save and except Deputy Commandant S.S.Chehar PW-11, the Recording Officer, all other ten witnesses of the prosecution are lying and have colluded with each other to falsely implicate the petitioner.It is difficult to believe that as many as ten persons have ganged up against the petitioner, particularly when except Subedar Amrik Singh the petitioner has not alleged animus against any other witness of the prosecution.Furthermore, the incident relating to manhandling of Subedar Amrik Singh by the petitioner happened in the tent where as many as 20 persons undergoing Junior Leader's Course were staying.Meaning thereby, many persons would have witnessed the happening of incident in question.But no one from the tent came out in favour of the petitioner.Two persons from the tent viz. SI Harbans Singh and SI Ajit Lal spoke in favor of W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 32 of 34 Subedar Amrik Singh.This shows that in all probability it is Subedar Amrik Singh who was speaking the truth.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 32 of 34Furthermore, a chink has appeared in the defence taken by the petitioner.Whereas the petitioner has stated in the written statement submitted by him to GSFC that he did not attend evening roll-call on December 06, 1981 as he had gone to Kadamtala to meet the officers from his Battalion he has cross-examined SI Harbans Singh PW-7 to the effect that he did not attend evening roll-call on December 06, 1981 as he was unwell.The submissions advanced by the petitioner under second head requires this court to re-evaluate the evidence led by the prosecution.In view of facts that the witnesses of prosecution has withstood the test of cross-examination and corroborated each other in material particulars; the petitioner has not led any evidence in defence despite the fact that incident relating to manhandling of Subedar Amrik Singh had happened in presence of many persons and a chink has appeared in the defence of the petitioner; the finding(s) of the GFSC cannot be faulted.Considering the seriousness of the charges proved against the petitioner, the GFSC was justified in awarding the sentence of dismissal from service to the petitioner.W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 33 of 34In view of above discussion, the present petition is hereby dismissed but without any orders as to costs.(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (JAYANT NATH) JUDGE JANUARY 23, 2014 mamta W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 34 of 34W.P.(C) No.3838/1999 Page 34 of 34","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"M.A. 16549-50/2021 (Exemptions)Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.a. On 24.04.1992, Odisha Mineral Development Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as OMDC) and Usha Rectifier Corporation India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as URCIL) later changed as UIL to form the Joint Venture Company (JVC) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as MoU) for the purpose of setting up a crushing and screening plan including mining, processing and marketing of iron ore in order to meet the growing demand of processed ore for Steel Industry.Accordingly, a Joint Venture Company in the name of East India Minerals Limited (hereinafter referred to as EIML) was formed on 18.08.1992 with URCIL and OMDC being its co-promoters.b. On 25.02.2005 Mr. Ashok Kumar Agarwala, petitioner no.1 herein became the Director of M/s Selehium Trading Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as STPL) (petitioner no. 2 herein).M.C.2348/2020 Page 2 of 30 c. On 24.03.2005, Usha India Ltd ('UIL') one of the promoters of the Joint Venture Company (EIML) holding 23,99,940 shares in EIML had transferred these shares to STPL.M.C.2348/2020 Page 2 of 30e. The OMDC in its own 'Annual Report and Accounts' for the year ended on 31.03.2010 (Financial Year 2009-10) notified that it was converted to a Government Company effective from 19.03.2010 under Section 617 of the Companies Act pursuant to the restructuring scheme duly approved by the Ministry and Union Cabinet.It is further notified that the Ministry of Steel, Government of India vide its letter No. 8(14)2007-RMII Crl.M.C.2348/2020 Page 3 of 30 (Pt.File) (Vol III) dated 30.09.2009 communicated that the Union Cabinet in its meeting held on 10.09.2009 had approved the 'Restructuring Scheme' of Bird Group of Companies including the OMDC.The said Restructuring Scheme had also received the approval of the Board as well as shareholders.M.C.2348/2020 Page 3 of 30g. The Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Steel, Government of India vide its Office Memorandum No.1(86)/2010-RM II dated Crl.M.C.2348/2020 Page 4 of 30h. On 30.07.2014, a complaint was made by Shri Umesh Chandra the then Director, RINL holding additional charge of MD, OMDC to the CBI.i. The Ministry of Steel, Government of India published its Annual Report for 2015-16 and uploaded on its official website (steel.gov.in).M.C.2348/2020 Page 5 of 30l. The Ministry of Steel, Government of India published its Annual Report for 2016-17 and uploaded on its official website (steel.gov.in).In the said Annual Report, it has been Crl.M.C.2348/2020 Page 6 of 30m. The Petitioner No. 1 and another co-accused (Mr. Vinay Rai) filed an application dated 25.09.2017 seeking dropping of charges under the provisions of PC Act. The learned CBI Court vide Order dated 25.09.2017 issued notice in the said application to the Respondent CBI and vide order dated 07.02.2018 directed that the application dated 25.09.2017 of the Petitioner No. 1 for dropping of charges shall be taken into consideration while hearing arguments on charge.n. The Ministry of Steel, Government of India published its Annual Report for 2017-18 and uploaded on its official website (steel.gov.in).M.C.2348/2020 Page 7 of 30 o. The Under Secretary to Ministry of Steel, GoI had intimated under RTI reply vide its letter No. 8(4)/2019-BGC dated 06.08.2019 addressed to the co-accused (Mr. Champak Banerjee) that 'subsequent to the Cabinet approval in 2009, EIL become a Government Company and a majority shareholder in OMDC.M.C.2348/2020 Page 7 of 30The said application dated 19.10.2019 sought consideration of the certified copies of the following documents:i) Memorandum and Articles of Association of OMDC;ii) The Bird and Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings and other Properties) Act, 1890; Crl.M.C.2348/2020 Page 8 of 30M.C.2348/2020 Page 8 of 30iii) The RTI reply from GoI, Ministry of Steel vide communication dated 17.8.2010, the communication of Ministry of Heavy Industries and & Public Enterprises dated 22.8.2019 and Annual Report of the Ministry of Steel, Government of India for the year 2015-16;iv) The RoC documents of the year 2005 upto 2009;v) The RoC record along with the 92nd Annual Report and Accounts.Accordingly, the learned CBI Court vide Order dated 19.10.2019 issued notice of the said Application to Respondent State and directed that the reply be filed within 10 days.r. Thereafter, the Respondent CBI did not advance any arguments on the said Application dated 19.10.2019 despite availing several opportunities on 21.12.2019, 17.01.2020 and Crl.M.C.2348/2020 Page 9 of 30On being challenged, this Court vide order dated 17.02.2020 in appeal directed the Respondent CBI to supply copies of said documents to the Petitioners herein.t. On 12.03.2020, the Respondent CBI through its IO denied all the documents filed by the Petitioner No. 1 vide his Application dated 19.10.2019 without any reason.The said documents being denied by the Respondent CBI are public documents of impeccable quality and most of them have been issued by the Government of India itself, being the original author and creator of the said documents.i) The Annual Returns of OMDC duly certified by the ROC;ii) The relevant pages of the Balance Sheet / Annual Report of OMDC;iii) The letter No. OMDC/HO/PERS/RTI/2020-07(3) dated 06.07.2020 issued by OMDC;iv) The Office Memorandum dated 17.08.2010 issued by Ministry of Steel, Government of India, New Delhi;M.C.2348/2020 Page 12 of 30M.C.2348/2020 Page 12 of 30v) The Office Memorandum dated 13.04.2011 issued by Ministry of Steel, Government of India, New Delhi;vi) The letter No. 8(4)/2019-BGC dated 06.08.2019 issued by Ministry of Steel, Government of India, New Delhi;vii) The relevant pages of the three years' Annual Reports of the Ministry of Steel, Government of India.M.C.2348/2020 Page 15 of 30 shares on 24.03.2005 was committed at Kolkata as the concerned meeting of the Board of Directors of EIML was held at Kolkata on the said date.The MoU which was signed at New Delhi gave the right to first refusal to the promoters with regard to the safe of shares in EIML as well as stipulated the need for prior consent of other promoters before sale.On 24.03.2005 UIL sold 23.99 lakh shares in EIML to the petitioner no.2 company of which Petitioner No. 1 was for Rs.52 lakhs through fraudulent means without offering it to OMDC and without prior consent of the OMDC.The said sale was approved in board meeting dated 23.05.2005 which was attended by the officials of OMDC who have been arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the present case.As the officers of OMDC neither objected to the persons nor protected the interest of OMDC.Applications are disposed of.M.C. 2348/2020 & Crl.M.C.2348/2020 Page 1 of 30M.C.2348/2020 Page 1 of 30Given the limited nature of the present petition impugning an interim order, the relevant and brief facts of the case, as narrated in the present petition, are given hereunder:j. On 21.11.2016, the Respondent CBI filed Final Report/ Charge Crl.M.C.2348/2020 Page 5 of 30 Sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the learned CBI Court allegedly disclosing the commission of offence under Section 120-B IPC r/w 406/409/420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act').The Respondent CBI along with the Charge-sheet filed a long list of documents but deliberately did not file the aforesaid documents which categorically prove beyond doubt that the learned CBI Court is devoid of the jurisdiction to entertain the present case since the OMDC was admittedly not a Government Company on the date of alleged offence.p. On 19.10.2019, the Petitioner No.1 had filed an Application under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. before the learned CBI Court seeking to consideration of certain documents at the stage of charge which are necessary for determining the preliminary question of jurisdiction of the learned CBI Court.However, the learned CBI Court vide its order 12.3.2020 directed the IO/HIO to comply with the Order dated 17.02.2020 of this Court and supply the documents to the Petitioners/Accused Persons within two weeks.M.C.2348/2020 Page 10 of 30u. From March, 2020 onwards, in light of the current pandemic COVID-19, all the cases listed before the Courts were adjourned en-bloc.v. The General Manager of OMDC vide its Letter dated 06.07.2020 addressed to the co-accused (Mr. Champak Banerjee) communicated the Order passed in Appeal No. 3/2020 by the Managing Director of OMDC (being 1st Appellate Authority under RTI Act).The said Order has very categorically clarified the status of OMDC at para number (C)(iv) of the Order sheet in very clear terms which is quoted below:""However, for the sake of clarity, it is clarified that OMDC was an 'Indian non-Government Company' upto 19.03.2010 and became a 'Government Company' w.e.f. 19.03.2010.""M.C.2348/2020 Page 11 of 30M.C.2348/2020 Page 11 of 30w. In light of denial of the public documents by the Respondent CBI and the subsequent discovery of additional public documents, the Petitioners filed an Application dated 09.11.2020 (registered as IANo.7/2020) (annexed as Annexure P21) before the learned CBI Court seeking exercise of its powers under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to summon the relevant officials for the production of the certain documents necessary for determining the preliminary question of jurisdiction of the learned CBI Court to entertain the present case.The said Application sought production of the following documents:However, the learned CBI Court vide its Order dated 11.11.2020 in IA No. 7/2020 dismissed the said Application of the Petitioners and directed them to positively address arguments on charge on the next date of hearing.Accordingly, present petition deserves to be allowed.M.C.2348/2020 Page 14 of 30M.C.2348/2020 Page 15 of 30The respondent CBI has filed reply to the present petition whereby submitted that the present petition is filed assailing the order dated 11.11.2020 of the ld.CBI Court whereby the application under section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for summoning of documents came to be dismissed with a finding that the said application was made with a view to delay the framing of charge.The court further held that most of the documents that were sought to be summoned were already on record and that documents which would constitute the defence of the accused should not be seen at the stage of charge.The gist of the prosecution case is that on the basis of a complaint filed by one Umesh Chandra on 30.07.2014, an FIR came to be filed on 08.03.2016 against the petitioners and other accused persons.As per the judgement in order for a document to be summoned the following criteria have to be satisfied:M.C.2348/2020 Page 22 of 30Thus in light of the above, it can be seen that the section 91, petition is an obvious attempt on the part of the petitioner to delay the proceedings without any basis and thereby delay justice being served.The objection of the CBI is not an issue of prejudice to the petitioner but rather a question of stage at which the purported defence of the accused can be raised and section 91 has been interpreted consistently not on the test of prejudice but only on the test of right.Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"1 Form No. J (1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy C.R.R. No. 2208 of 2007 Suvadip Mukherjee versus The State of West Bengal & Anr.Seeking quashing of order of framing charge under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with BGR Case No. 2472/06 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas, the petitioner invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court moved the instant criminal revisional application.The affidavit of service is already on record.However, Mr. Sekhar Basu, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. Rabi Shankar Chatterjee, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State are present in Court.He further submitted that the impugned order of framing charge without recording reason clearly demonstrate that such an order was passed by the Learned Magistrate mechanically and without any application of mind.Mr. Sekhar Basu, vehemently urged before this Court the impugned order of framing charge is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction.Mr. Basu further submitted that from the evidentiary materials collected by the police during the course of investigation, on the face of the same does not make out any prima facie case for which the impugned charge has been framed.He thus prays for quashing of the impugned order of framing charge.(ii) Krishan Lal & Ors.Union of India & Ors., reported in 1994 Cri.(iii) Kanti Bhadra Saha & Anr.(iv) Mattulal Vs.(vi) The State of U.P. Vs.(vii) Sardar Singh Vs.(viii) Bharwad Bhikha Natha & Ors.(IX) Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs.The relevant allegations made in the FIR is quoted below; ""On July 25, 2006 I compelled to leave my matrimonial home but subsequently I tried to resile the issues with my husband and his family members but my husband got infuriated and refused to compromise the matter.He threatened me with dire consequences and further assaulted and threatened me and my family members with danger to our life and limbs.","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Case diary perused.This is a first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.195/2019 registered at P.S. Kohefiza District Bhopal (MP) for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 294, 506, 323/34 of the IPC.The allegation of prosecution is that on 22/03/2019 at about 9.30 pm, in front of Akhtar Apartment Khanugaon, Bhopal under Police Station Khohefiza, Bhopal the present applicant alongwith co-accused persons have reached on the spot and assaulted complainant Shoeb Mazhar because of some old rivalry.Co-accused Akbar has inflicted injury to complainant Shoeb Mazhar with a knife due to which he sustained injuries on his chest.At that time, co-accused Shahid has also inflicted injury to Shazeb on the left side of his back.The trial will take long time for its final disposal.It is further Digitally signed by REENA H SHARMA Date: 07/05/2019 13:59:37 2 MCRC-15252-2019 submitted that there is no criminal antecedents of the applicant.The applicant is a permanent resident of District Bhopal and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.There is no allegation against the present applicant that he has inflicted any injury to the complainant.He is in custody since 26/3/2019/. The applicant is a young boy of 24 years and there is no criminal antecedents against him.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail.Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, application of the present applicant seems to be acceptable.It is directed that applicant Shadab Ali shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE rv Digitally signed by REENA H SHARMA Date: 07/05/2019 13:59:37","['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Shortly stated, the prosecution case runs as under :The informant Siddeshwar Singh (PW-1) is a resident of Payagpur, district Bahraich.Sometimes before the incident, two incidents of beating took place inside Chitrashala Cinema in district Bahraich.In one of them, which took place in January/February, 1978, at 3-4 p.m., Chhutkan alias Shailesh Kumar, appellant Ramesh and unknown associates of theirs assaulted some persons within the premises of Chitrasala Cinema.In connection with the incident, the police arrested accused Chhutkan.At that time, deceased Gayasuddin and Balaram Singh were present.When the police was arresting Chhuktan, he gave a threat that after being released on bail, he would kill Gayasuddin and Balaram Singh.On the date and time of the incident i.e. on 12-6-1978, at 3.00 a.m.. the informant was employed as an Assistant Manager in Chitrashala Talkies, district Bahraich.At the said time, appellant Ramesh Kumar along with co-accused Chhutkan alias Shailesh and Munnan, all armed with knives, with a view to kill Balaram Singh, Manager of Chitrashala Talkies and Gayasuddin entered inside the quarter of the latter.At that time, Balarm Singh was not there.They started assaulting Gayasuddin with knives.Hearing the cries, the informant, Om Prakash, Jitendra Singh, Arun Kumar Singh (P.W. 2) and Nizam P.W. 3 who were sleeping in the premises of Chitrashala talkies came.Thereupon, the appellant and others also belaboured them with knives.The appellant, after being given some beating, was apprehended on the spot with a knife, while Chhutkan alias Shailendra and Munnan ran away.This incident was seen by the informant and others in electric light.Thereafter, the informant sent Om Prakash and Gayasuddin (both of them were precariously injured) along with Jitendra Singh, Nizam and Arun Kumar, who were also injured, through Rajendra Kumar to District Hospital, Bahraich and he along with Hirdai Ram, Arjun Singh and the appellant, along with the knife, which he had seized from the appellant, proceeded to police station Kotwali-Nagar, district Bahraich to lodge the FIR.Ye Sab Log Chitrashala Cinema Ke Nazdeek Ke Hi Rehne Wale Hai.Is Marpeet Mein Ham Logon Ne Milkar Ramesh Ko Pakad Liya Hai.""In English, it would read thus :--""Om Prakash, S/o Ram Badan Singh, R/o Chitrashala Cinema, Bahraich stated on oath that at about 3,00 a.m., the previous night, when he was sleeping outside the cinema hall, three dacoits came and started assaulting them with knives.They said that handover whatever money you have otherwise you would be killed.I have recognized all three of them and they are Chhutkan, Munnan and Ramesh.I have no enmity with them.They had only come to loot cash.They reside in the vicinity of Chitrashala Talkies.from umbilicus.Pus seen.""On internal examination, he found peritoneum stitched.In the opinion of Dr. Ahmad, the deceased died on account of septicemia as a result of the wound.The investigation was conducted in the usual manner by S. I. Laik Ahmad (P.W. 7) of police station Kotwali-Nagar, Bahraich.His evidence shows that:--The FIR was lodged in his presence.He immediately took over the investigation.Thereafter he recorded the statement of the informant and inspected the knife, which had been used by the appellant Ramesh in the incident.JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.1.Though this appeal, appellant Ramesh challenges the judgment and order dated 23-7-1980 passed by the I-Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich in Sessions Trial No. 128 of 1978, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter :--(i) under Section 302/34, IPC to imprisonment for life; and(ii) under Section 324/34, IPC to imprisonment for two year's R. I.The sentences of the appellant on both the counts were ordered to run concurrently.The evidence of Head Constable Gaya Prasad Tripathi (P.W. 10) shows that on 12-6-1978, at 4.30 a.m. Sidheshwar Singh came to police station Kotwali-Nagar and lodged his written FIR.A perusal of the chik FIR shows that on the basis of the FIR, a case under Section 352/307, IPC was registered against the appellant, Chhutkan and Munnan.The evidence of Head Constable Gaya Prasad Tripathi shows that the informant had brought along with him appellant Ramesh and a blood stained knife, which he had used in the incident.His evidence further shows that he seized the knife under, a recovery memo and arrested the appellant Ramesh.The injuries of Om Prakash Singh, Gayasuddin, Jitendra Singh, Arun Kumar Singh and Nizam were medically examined on 12-6-1978 at 4.15 a.m., 4.30 a.m., 4.45 a.m., 5.00 a.m. and 5.15 a.m. respectively by Dr. V. K. Chopra (P.W. 9), at District Hospital, Bahraich, who found on their person the injuries enumerated hereinafter :--Om Prakash Singh :-- One incised wound;Gayasuddin :-- three incised wounds;Jitendra Singh :-- two incised wounds;Arun Kumar:-- One incised wound; and Nizam :-- two contusions and three incised wounds.It is pertinent to mention that since the condition of Om Prakash and Gayasuddin was critical, it was decided to have their dying declaration recorded.The evidence of Dr. R. K. Srivastava (P.W.13) shows that on 12-6-1978, he was posted as Medical Officer, at District Hospital Bahraich.On the said date, the Magistrate recorded the dying declarations of Gayasuddin and Om Prakash, at 7.00 a.m. and 7.27 a.m. respectively in his presence.His evidence shows that prior to the declarations being recorded, he examined them and certified that they were mentally fit to make declaration.It is pertinent to mention that Ext. ka-27 is the certificate of fitness in relation to Gayasuddin and Ext. ka-28 is that in relation to Om Prakash.Since the said declarations are crucial pieces of evidence, we propose extracting them in entirety.The dying declaration of Gayasuddin reads thus :--"".... .Mein Ki Gayasuddin Putra Jalaluddin Aayu 33 Varsh Nivashi Chitrashala Cinema Bahraich Bahlak Bayan Kiya Ki Teen Dakait Dinank 11-6-1978 Ki Raat Ko Teen Baje Sinema Ke Andar Dakatti Ke Maksad Se Aaye Aur Ham Logon Par Hamla Kiya Aur Chaku Se Jagha Vah Jagha Mara.Ye Log Sinema Ghar Mein Daka Dalne Aaye The.In English, it would read thus :--""I, Gayasuddin, S/o Jalaluddin, aged 35 years, resident of Chitrashala Cinema, Bahraich state on oath that three dacoits on 11-6-1978, at 3.00 a.m., entered into the cinema with a view to commit dacoity and attacked us with knives on different parts of body.Out of them, Ramesh was caught and I can recognize him but I cannot recognize the other two.Ramesh inflicted, a number of knife blows on me.There was no enmity between me and Ramesh prior to the incident.""7-A. The dying declaration of Om Prakash reads thus :--"".....Shri Om Prakash Putra Ram Badan Singh, Sakin Chitrashala Cinema, Bahraich Ne Shapathpurvak Bayan Kiya Ki Kabreeb Teen Baje Pichli Raat Mein Haal Ke Bahar So Raha Tha Tab Daku Jitki Tadat Teen Thi Aaye Aur Ham Logon Par Chakuon Se Hamla Kama Sum Kar Diya Aur Kaha Ki Jo Paise Ho Dedo Varna Ham Jan Se Mar Denge.Maine Sabhi Ko Pehchana Hai.Unke Naam Chhutkan, Munnan Va Ramesh Hai.Hamri Koi Ranjish Unse Nahi Thi Sirf Paisa Loothne Aaye The.After giving some beating, we apprehended Ramesh on the spot.""It is pertinent to mention that after the recording of their dying declarations, Gayasuddin and Om Prakash succumbed to their injuries.Consequently, the case was converted from Sections 452/307, IPC to one under Section 452/302 IPC.8-A. The autopsy on the corpse of the deceased Gyasuddin and Om Prakash was conducted on 15-6-1978 at 4.00 P. M. by Dr. Nirankar Singh (P.W. 4) and Dr. Z. U. Ahmad (P.W. 5) respectively.On the person of Gyasuddin, Dr. Nirankar Singh found the following injuries :--(i) Incised wound (stitched) 3 cm.x 1/2 cm.x muscle deep placed transversely over sic chest upper part and shoulder;(ii) Incised wound (stitched) 3 cm.x 1/2 cm.x skin deep front part of right shoulder just above injury No. 1 obliquely placed; and(iii) Incised punctured wound (stitched) 2 cm.x 1 cm.x chest cavity deep front of chest sic.5 cm.below left nipple placed transversely at 9th costal space.In the opinion of Dr. Singh, the deceased died as a result of injury to lung.On the person of Om Prakash Dr. Ahmad found the ante-mortem injuries enumerated hereinafter :""One operated gaping septic wound with visible stitch marks 10 cm.x 6 cm.x cavity deep on both side of flank 18 cm.from axxila and 13 cm.He recorded the statement of appellant Ramesh at 8.30 a.m. He reached District Hospital Bahraich, where he recorded the statements of Gayasuddin, Om Prakash, Jitendra Singh, Nizam and Arun Kumar, At 11.00 a.m. he reached the place of incident, where he recorded the statement of Hirday Ram alias Motu and prepared the site plan on the pointing out of the informant and others.He seized from the place of incident plain and blood stained earth in separate containers under a recovery memo.He did some other investigation also, but since in our view a reference, to it is not necessary for disposal of this appeal, we are not adverting to it.On 8-7-1978, he submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant Ramesh and Chhutkan.The case was committed to the Court of Session in the usual manner, where the appellant and co-accused Chhutkan were charged for offences punishable under Section 302/34, IPC and 324/34, IPC, to which charges they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.During the trial, in all, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses.Out of them, three, namely Sidheshwar Singh, Arun Kumar and Nizam P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 respectively were examined as eye-witnesses.In defence three witnesses, namely, Dr. S. Prasad, Dr. S. K. Srivastava and Ratnakar Prasad D. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 respectively were examined; the first who was posted as Superintendent, District Hospital, Bahraich to prove the injuries of the appellant; the second to prove that he had admitted the appellant in the Surgical Ward of District Hospital Bahraich; and the third to prove that the appellant was not arrested in the manner furnished by the prosecution but at about 4.00 a.m., on the date of the incident, two constables took him from the shop of Bindu Kumar, where he was lying down.It is pertinent to mention that Chhutkan died during the pendency of the appeal and, therefore, his appeal was ordered to abate in terms of Section 394, Cr. P. C.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record and are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in this appeal.In the instant case, to fix the involvement of the appellant in the crime there is not only the testimony of three eye-witnesses, two out of whom, namely, Arun Kumar (P. W. 2) and Nizam (P.W. 3) are injured witnesses but also there is evidence under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act in the form of dying declarations of Gayasuddin and Om Prakash.In our judgment, the evidence of both these categories inspires confidence.We, now propose furnishing our reasons for reaching the aforesaid conclusion.We would first like to begin with the ocular account furnished by Sidheshwar (P.W. 1), Arun Kumar (P.W. 2) and Nizam (P.W. 3).Their evidence shows :-- On the date and time of the incident i.e. 12-6-1978, at about 3.00 a.m., they were sleeping in the premises of Chitrashala Talkies in District Bahraich.At that time, the appellant, co-accused Chhutkan and co-accused Munnan, armed with knives came.They entered inside the quarter of the deceased Gyasuddin and started assaulting him.Hearing the cries, they along with Jitendra Singh and Om Prakash, who were also sleeping in the premises of Chitrashala Talkies, rushed to the place of the incident, whereupon, two out of them, namely, Arun Kumar and Nizam as also Om Prakash and Jitendra Singh were assaulted by the appellant, co-accused Chhutkan and co-accused Munnan with knives.After precariously injuring, Gayasuddin and Om Prakash and injuring three others, namely, Arun Kumar, Nizam and Jitendra Singh, Chhutkan and Munnan ran away but appellant-Ramesh was apprehended on the spot along with a blood stained knife after being given some beating.This incident was seen in electric light.14-A. We have gone through the statement of the aforesaid three eye-witnesses and make no bones in observing that we find their evidence to be credible.In the first place, they have explained their presence at the place of the incident.Sidheshwar Singh has stated that at the time of the incident, he was employed as Assistant Manager in Chitrashala Cinema, Bahraich and was sleeping in the premises of the said Cinema and Arun Kumar and Nizam have also stated that at the time of the incident they were sleeping in the premises of the said Cinema.Secondly, the manner of assault furnished by them is corroborated by the medical evidence.They stated that the appellant and the other two co-accused persons belaboured the victims with knives and as we have earlier seen all the victims sustained incised wounds.It is significant to point out that although they were extensively examined but nothing could be extracted therefrom which could create even an iota of doubt in our mind regarding their presence at the place of incident.Assurance to the claim of the said eye-witnesses of having seen the incident is lent by the circumstance that Sidheshwar (P.W. 1) within one and a half hour of the incident taking place, lodged the FIR (We have seen that the incident took place on 11-6-1978, at 3.00 a.m. and Sidheshwar lodged the FIR same morning at 4.30 a.m.).It is pertinent to mention that there is a categorical mention in the F, I. R. that not only he (Sidheshwar) but also Arun Kumar and Nizam saw the incident and also therein all the essential features of the prosecution case including the spot of arrest of the appellant Ramesh have been mentioned.In our view, the ocular account of Sidheshwar, Arun Kumar and Nizam is both individually and cumulatively sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant.However, we are fortunate in this case in also having evidence under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act against the appellant.This evidence is in the form of dying declarations of Gayasuddin and Om Prakash, which we have extracted in entirety earlier.Their perusal makes it manifest that both of them have categorically stated that appellant Ramesh along with others assaulted them with knives and he was apprehended on the spot.It is pertinent to mention that the said dying declarations were recorded by Tehsildar Magistrate, Salig Ram Nigam (P.W. 14), who prior to recording them, got the certificate of fitness from Dr. R. K. Srivastava (P. W. 13), who found them in a mentally fit condition to give the declarations.It is also pertinent to mention that neither Dr. Srivastava nor the Tehsildar Magistrate had any animus of grudge against the appellant and in the absence of the same, the former would not have given a false certificate in terms that the deceased persons were fit to make the declarations and the latter would not have recorded them.17-A. For the said reasons, we feel that these dying declarations also inspire confidence and are both individually and cumulatively sufficient to fix the involvement of the appellant in the incident.We make no bones in observing that the evidence of D. W. 3 (Ratnakar Prasad Sharma) does not inspire any confidence.His evidence shows that :-- His house is situated to the south of Chitrashala Talkies.at about 2-2.30 a.m., he heard cries coming from Chitrashala Talkies in terms chor-chor (thief thief).Fifteen to twenty minutes later, he went inside the premises of the talkies and found Gayasuddin, Om Prakash, Jitendra, Nizam and one other whose name he did not remember in an injured condition.A rickshaw came, on which the said persons were taken to hospital.After some time, he returned home.At about 4.00 a.m. two constables came and took Ramesh (appellant), who was lying in front of Bindu's shop.We have gone through the evidence of Ratnakar Prasad Sharma and find him to be a untrustworthy witness.In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not inform any officer that two constables had taken away Ramesh (appellant) in his presence.It appears that for the first time in the trial Court he has come out with this story.That apart, his cross-examination shows that while he was standing on the roof of his house, in torch light he saw the constables taking away Ramesh.In our judgment, It is extremely improbable that at about 4.00 a.m. instead of sleeping he would have been standing on his roof.For the said reasons, his evidence does not inspire any confidence.We would be failing in our fairness if before proceeding to the operative part of the judgment we do not advert to the two principal submissions canvassed by Mr. Prem Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.He firstly contended that appellant Ramesh was medically examined by Dr. S. Prasad (P. W. 1) at District Hospital, Bahraich on 1-7-1978 at 12.10 p.m. and was found to have suffered 17 injuries, which have not been explained by the prosecution.These injuries are :--(i) Soft scab 2 cm x 0.5 c.m.on the back top of the head;x 0.5 cm.on the outer surface right arm upper half;(iii) soft skin 1 cm.x 0.2 cm.on the right upper lip;(iv) Almost healed up incised wound 2 cm.x 1 cm.on the back and inner surface right forearm middle with bandage over it 2 meter dressing;(v) Depigmented area 4 cm.x 0.3 cm.on the back surface right forearm lower part;(vi) Depigmented area 4.5 cm.x 0.5 cm.on the back surface right forearm 4 cm.above the injury No. 5;(vii) Multiple depigmented area of various sizes on the back surface right wrist in an area of 4 cm.x 3 cm.;(viii) soft skin 1 cm.x 0.4 cm.on the back surface right hand surrounded by depigmented area of various sizes in an area of 3 cm.x 2 cm.;(ix) Almost healed up around 3 cm.x 1 cm.on the web in between the index finger and thumb left hand;(x) Two circular depigmented area of sizes 2 cm.x 2 cm.and 1 cm x 1 cm.on the back centre surface left elbow at a distance of 1.5 cm.from each other;(xi) Multiple contusion under surface of the left lower part elbow and left forearm and some swelling lower half of forearm tenderness over the swelling;(xii) Depigmented area of zigzag type and shape fine in no of varying size 1.5 cm.to 2.5 cm.over left side back below the scapula in an area of 15 cm.x 3 cm.;(xiii) Soft skin 1.5 cm.x 1 cm.on the right side back 3 cm.behind the post auxiliary fold at the same level;(xiv) Multiple fading contusions of various sizes on the over surface right thigh middle over aspect 8 cm.x 2 cm.(xv) Multiple fading contusions of various sizes on outer aspect right leg in an area of 5 cm.x 4 cm.;(xvi) Multiple fading contusions of various sizes on the outer and front aspect left thigh lower half in an area of 8 cm.x 2 cm; and (xvii) Diffusal swelling tenderness at the end of the index finger left hand.We have reflected over the submission of Mr. Prem Singh and are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in it.We find that in the instant case the injuries suffered by the appellant have been explained by the prosecution.It is pertinent to mention that in his dying declaration, Om Prakash has categorically mentioned that appellant Ramesh was apprehended after some beating was given to him.We also find that the said injuries have been explained by Sidheshwar (P. W. 1) in his statement in the trial Court.During the course of his cross-examination (in paragraph-23) he stated that appellant had received injuries on his hands and legs, which were caused to him while he was being apprehended.It is pertinent to mention that in his examination-in-chief, Dr. S. Prasad (D. W. 1), who medically examined the injuries of the appellant on 1-7-1978, at 12.10 p.m., stated that they were about three weeks old.Since the incident took place on 12-6-1978, at about 3.00 a.m., It appears that these injuries were caused to the appellant-Ramesh during the course of his arrest as is the prosecution case.For the said reasons, this submission fails.Secondly, Mr. Prem Singh urged that even if the prosecution story is accepted on its face value, no offence under Section 303/ 34, IPC would be made out against the appellant and only one under Section 304(II)/ 34, IPC would be made out against him.He urged that there is no evidence to show as to which of the three persons, including the appellant, were responsible for the solitary incised wound suffered by the deceased Om Prakash and injury No. 3 suffered by deceased Gyasuddin underneath, which autopsy surgeon found left pleura punctured and left lower lobe of left lung punctured and which proved to be fatal.We have reflected over the said submission and find no merit in it.It is true that neither the ocular account nor dying declarations make it manifest that as to who amongst the three assailants was responsible for the fatal injuries of the deceased persons but in our view in this case this would make no difference because there is sufficient evidence to show that the murder of Gyasuddin was committed by appellant Ramesh along with his two associates in furtherance of their common intention.The evidence is that accused persons nursed ill-will against Gyasuddin.On the night of 12-6-1978, at 3.00 a.m., they entered into the quarter of Gyasuddin and launched concerted assault with knife on his person; causing him three incised wounds, one of which, injury No. 3 proved fatal.It is true that Dr. Nirankar Singh (P.W. 4), who performed the autopsy on the corpse of Gyasuddin, in his examination-in-chief, did not state that the injuries suffered by Gyasuddin were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but in our view this would make no difference because the Supreme Court in the oft-quoted case of Brij Bhukhan v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1957 SC 474 : 1957 Cri LJ 591, in para 6 has laid down the ratio that if a bare perusal of the injuries makes it manifest that they are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then the absence of the medical evidence to the said effect would be no impediment in the way of Court in recording a conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. In our judgement, a perusal of injury No. 3 suffered by Gyasuddin, coupled with the internal damage beneath it, makes it manifest that it was sufficient to cause his death in ordinary course of nature.Since the said injury was caused by appellant-Ramesh and his two associates in furtherance of their intention, an offence punishable under S. 302/ 34, IPC would be made out against them.For the aforesaid reasons, we confirm the conviction of the appellant Ramesh on both the counts namely, under Sections 302/34, IPC and 324/34, IPC and the sentences of imprisonment for life on the former count and two years' R. I. on the latter count awarded to him and dismiss this appeal.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"of the case, in short, are that one co- accused Dev Prakash @ Devu had given a complaint on 28.04.2010 to Station House Officer, Kampoo, District Gwalior (M.P.) that he along with the deceased Santosh Sharma were going to meet their friends.Near Nehru Park, Kampoo, Gwalior, some friends met Santosh Sharma and Dev Prakash @ Devu and therefore they started talking with them.Santosh found that some persons were quarrelling with his friends and therefore Santosh took the gun of co- accused Dev Prakash @ Devu and started assaulting the persons quarrelling with the base of the gun.It was also mentioned in the application that in the meantime a fire took place and Santosh himself sustained injuries and 2 CRR.779.2010 Pankaj Singh Rajput Vs State of Madhya Pradesh ultimately he died.Investigation was done and the charge-sheet was filed after recording the evidence of various persons.The police had filed the charge-sheet for the offence under Section 304 or 304/34 of IPC whereas the trial court has framed the charges of the offence under Section 302 or 302/34 of IPC.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it cannot be said that since there was no previous enmity of applicant Pankaj Singh Rajput he did not intend to kill the victim Santosh.It cannot be said that he did not intent to kill the victim Santosh.Intention of an accused may be developed at the time of incident.Trial Court has found his intention on two reasons.Consequently, the present revision filed by the applicant Pankaj Singh Rajput is hereby dismissed at motion stage.A copy of the order be sent to the court below for information.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are:(a) P.W. 4 Shankari the young victim aged about 14 years, the daughter of P.W. 1 Ekambaram and P.W. 15 Parimala was doing her VIII Standard in S. S.K.V. School, Kancheepuram during the relevant period.On 11.2.98 at about 9.00 A.M., A-1 with an intention of marrying her, went to the School in M.O. 1 auto and informed her that her mother P.W. 15 was admitted in the hospital.She immediately informed her Class Teacher examined as P.W. 5 Rajeswari and proceeded with A-1 in the auto.She was brought to Kamatchiamman Temple by A-1 in the said auto and made her wait for 15 minutes.Thereafter, A-1 accompanied by A-2 took her on 11.2.98 at 1.00 P.M. to the house of A-2's grandmother P.W. 7 Logammal, which is situate at Kaliampoondi.P.W. 4 when questioned the same, both of them threatened him.Till the morning of 12.2.98, A-1, A-2 and P.W. 4 stayed in P.W. 7's house.On 12th morning A-3 came there and joined the other accused.Then, they took P.W. 4 to Vellore, and from there, A-1 and A-3 took P.W. 4 to Bangalore leaving A-2 at Vellore.On 13th, A-1, A-3 and P.W. 4 reached Bangalore and took her to the house of A-3's sister P.W. 9 Rajeswari situate at Pudhuvijayaraghavapuram.P.W. 4 was kept from 13.2.98 till 24.2.98 in P.W. 9's house.During the said period A-1 had forcible sexual intercourse on P.W. 4 on number of occasions.(b) At about 2 P.M. on 12.2.98, P.W. 1 lodged a complaint under Ex.P.W. 16 Kandan, Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station, on the strength of Ex.P. 1 complaint, registered a case in Crime No. 209/98 under 'girl missing'.P. 5 printed F.I.R. was sent to the concerned Judicial Magistrate's Court.P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and their statements were recorded.Subsequently, the case was altered to S. 366 of I.P.C. The alteration report was also sent to the concerned Court.On 24.3.98, P.W. 19, Pugazhendhi, Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station took up investigation.He received the information that A-1 and P.W. 4 were produced before the Court.P.W. 19 proceeded to the Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kancheepuram and made a request for sending A-1 and P.W. 4 for medical examination.On 25.3.98 P.W. 18 Dr. Parasakthi examined P.W. 4 victim girl and issued a medical certificate under Ex.On examination, the Doctor found the sexual offences committed.On 26.3.98 P.W. 20 Dr. Gururaj examined the accused and issued Exs.P. 14 and P15 certificates.He also examined P.W. 4 and issued Ex.P. 16 age certificate.On the basis of the statement of the victim, the case was altered to Ss 366(A) and 376 of I.P.C. On 14.4.98 P.W. 19 seized M.O. 1 auto under Ex.P. 11 mahazar in front of two witnesses.On the same day on information he arrested A-2 and A-3 and recorded their confessional statements in front of the witnesses.At about 7.45 P.M., M.Os. 2 and 3 (series), dresses and notebooks were recovered from A-2's tailoring shop under Ex.P. 12 mahazar.On the same day at about 8.00 P.M., on the basis of A-3's confessional statement, M.Os. 4 and 5 letters were recovered from A-3 under Ex.P. 13 mahazar.On 15.4.98 A-2 and A-3 were sent for remand.On 30.4.98, the case was handed over to P.W. 14 Sudarsan, Sub Inspector of Police, Siva Kanchi Police Station on the point of jurisdiction.P.W. 14 on 26.5.98 registered a transferred case in Crime No. 486/98 under Ss 366 and 376 IPC and prepared Ex.P. 4 printed F.I.R. and placed before P.W. 21 Rajkumar, Inspector of Police for investigation.P.W. 12 conducted further investigation, examined P.Ws. 5, 6 and 11 and recorded their statements.On 2.4.99 he examined P.Ws. 8 and 16 and recorded their statements.He examined further witnesses and P.Ws. 18 and 20 Doctors and other witnesses also and recorded their statements.P.W. 4, a young girl of 14 years, who was studying VIII Standard in S. S.K.V. School at Kancheepuram, was kidnapped from her School on 11.2.98 at 9.00 A.M. on the misrepresentation made by A-1 that her mother was not doing well.She was taken in an auto to Kamatchiamman Temple where A-2 joined with them.She was then taken to Kaliampoondi, the place where the house of the grandmother of A-2 was situate.JUDGMENT M. Chockalingam, J.The appellants, who stood charged and tried for the offences under Ss 366 and 376 of I.P.C. in respect of A-1 and Ss 366, 366 r/w 109 and 376 r/w 109 of I.P.C. in respect of A-2 and A-3 have brought forth these two appeals against the conviction and sentence imposed on them by the lower Court.On completion of the investigation, the succeeding Officer of P.W. 21 filed a charge sheet against the accused under Ss 366 and 376 of I.P.C.In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and marked 17 exhibits and 5 material objects.On completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under S. 313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.On the side of the defence, one Suresh, a photographer was examined as D.W. 1 and 3 exhibits were marked.After hearing the rival submissions and scrutiny of the materials, the trial Court found A-1 guilty under Ss 363 and 376(1) of I.P.C., while it found A-2 and A-3 guilty under S. 363 read with 109 of I.P.C. and sentenced A-1 to undergo 3 years R.I. under S. 363 IPC and 7 years R.I. under S. 376(1) IPC and A-2 and A-3 to undergo 3 years R.I. under S. 363 r/w 109 IPC.Thus, these two appeals have arisen.The learned Counsel advancing his arguments for the appellants in both the appeals interalia made the following submissions.P.W. 4 has not spoken anything regarding the marriage or the intention of the first accused to marry P.W. 4 against her will.The prosecution has not proved that the first accused informed the accused that her mother was admitted in the hospital or the victim was taken out from the School.The evidence of P.W. 20 Doctor and Ex.P. 16 age certificate would disclose that the age of the victim was more than 18 years, and thus, she was not a minor.A reading of Ex.D1 a letter, which was written by P.W. 4 to the Police Officers in respect of her age difference and the wrong entries in the school certificates would clearly reveal that it was one out of her own accord, and in that regard, no one of the accused had any role to play.The prosecution relied on a birth certificate wherein the name of the victim was not given, and they have also relied on a School Certificate.It is nowhere found in the evidence, who was the author of the school certificate and the age given therein, and hence, the age of the victim could not be decided from those documents adduced.As per the evidence of P.W. 18 Doctor who examined the victim and gave Ex.P. 10 wound certificate, there is nothing to indicate that she either sustained any injury in her body or in her private part.P.W. 4 has disclosed that the accused were known to her already.P.W. 19 was not empowered to investigate the case, which was out of his jurisdiction.All the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution have turned hostile, and thus, what is available for the prosecution was the testimonies of the interested witnesses.It is pertinent to note that the F.I.R. was lodged belatedly, but, the same was not explained by the prosecution in any manner.From the available evidence, it would be clear that P.W. 4 out of love affair left from her house and not by compulsion of anybody.Under such circumstances, the lower Court should have outrightly rejected the case of the prosecution and acquitted them, and hence, in view of the submissions made, the appellants/accused are entitled for an acquittal in the hands of this Court.They stayed there till next day morning namely 12.2.98, where A-3 also joined with them.From there A-1 and A-3 took her to Bangalore, leaving A-2, and all of them stayed in the house of P.W. 9, the sister of A-3 till 24.2.98, and the sexual assault was committed by A-1 on her on number of occasions.P.W. 1 has categorically given evidence in respect of all the above facts.Despite the cross examination in full, her evidence remained unshaken.P.W. 5, the Class Teacher of P.W. 4 has been examined as to the fact that P.W. 4 got permission from her to leave from the class room on the reason that her mother was suddenly hospitalised.Near Kamatchiamman Temple, she was made to wait for sometime, where A-2 has also joined.From that place, they have taken her to P.W. 7's house at Kaliampoondi.Admittedly, P.W. 7 was the grandmother of A-2, and hence, no one could expect her to speak anything about her grandson.P.W. 7 has turned hostile.From the evidence of P.W. 4, it would be clear that on 11.2.98 from 1.00 P.M. till next morning, they were staying in P.W. 7's house.On 12.2.98 A-3 has joined them and A-1 to A-3 have taken P.W. 4 to Vellore.From Vellore, A-1 and A-3 have taken her to Bangalore by Bus, leaving A-2 at Vellore.Her evidence as spoken to above would clearly reveal that A-1 with the full assistance and abetment of A-2 and A-3 have kidnapped her from the lawful guardianship and had taken her to different places.It is pertinent to note that on 12.2.98 itself, a complaint was lodged at 2.00 P.M. by P.W. 1, on the strength of which, a case was registered by P.W. 16 Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station as one for girl missing.The printed F.I.R. was immediately despatched to the concerned Magistrate's Court.Then, the statements of witnesses were recorded.Subsequently the case was altered to S. 366 of I.P.C. After A-1 and P.W. 4 surrendered before the Court, they were subjected to medical examination.P.W. 18 Doctor Parasakthi examined P.W. 4, the victim girl and has issued Ex.P. 10 medical certificate opining that her vagina admitted two fingers without pain and the hymen was absent.On 26.3.98 P.W. 20 Dr. Gururaj examined the accused and issued Exs.P14 and P15 certificates.The medical evidence adduced through the Doctors and the medical certificates would clearly corroborate the evidence of P.W. 4, the victim.The contention of the appellants' side that all the independent witnesses have turned hostile is of no consequence, since the evidence of the young victim is trustworthy and the same inspires the confidence of the Court, and apart from that, it is fully supported by the other evidence narrated above.The main contention that was raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants was that in order to prove the age of the victim, the lower Court has relied on three documents namely Exs.P. 3 is the school certificate, while Ex.Added further the learned Counsel that P.W. 20 Doctor has given Ex.P. 16 certificate and has found through radiology test that she was 18 years old, and hence, she was not a minor.This contention has got to be thoroughly discountenanced.In the instant case, the school certificate of the victim has been filed along with the birth certificate.In the school certificate, the name of the girl along with the date of birth is given.P.W. 1 the father and P.W. 15 the mother of P.W. 4 both have been examined.There is no material available to indicate that A-1 at the time of kidnapping her committed the offences with an intention of marrying her, and hence, the lower court has found A-1 guilty under S. 376(1) of I.P.C. and rightly too.The lower Court was also right in finding A-1 guilty under S. 363 of IPC and A-2 and A-3 guilty under S. 363 read with 109 of IPC.The Court does not find nothing to interfere in the conviction recorded by the lower Court.Coming to the question of punishment, the trial Court has awarded 3 years R.I. to A-1 under S. 363 of I.P.C. and 7 years R.I. under S. 376(1) of I.P.C. The Court is unable to find anything to interfere in the sentence imposed on the first accused.So far as the sentence imposed on A-2 and A-3 is concerned, the lower Court has awarded 3 years R.I. under S. 363 read with 109 IPC.With the above modification, the criminal appeal in C.A. No. 986/02 is dismissed.","['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The facts giving rise to the present case, in short, are thus -One Vilas Mahadeo Patil - the complainant, is the resident of village Nerle.His daughter Aparna - the deceased was studying in 10th Standard.Accused No. 1 was earlier married but had no child from his first wife and hence he and his parents intended to perform his second marriage and, therefore, proposal of marriage to Aparna was accepted and accused No. 1 was married to deceased Aparna.After the marriage, they were living together at their home happily till Diwali.Thereafter when the complainant and his brother used to visit the house of the accused, they noticed that Aparna was not living with proper manner but was not ready to talk anything.Four months prior to the incident, when Aparna had gone to her parental home, she complained that all accused are giving ill-treatment to her, such as beating and abusing due to the reason that first wife of accused No. 1 had delivered a child.Aparna also informed her parents that accused was telling her that she was no more required.Even on the occasion of second Diwali when deceased Aparna was taken to her parents home, she complained that the accused was not allowing her to eat food at proper time and abusing her.On 5.12.1997 at 9.30 p.m. Ashok Patil told the complainant that he received a message through someone from Tasgaon that Aparna suffered an attack.Thereafter jeep was called by the complainant and in that jeep the complainant, his wife, his brother, Ashok Patil, other relatives and neighbour went to the house of the accused at about 11.30 p.m. to 12.00 midnight.All the accused persons were present in the house.On enquiry, they informed that Aparna had died and cremation had taken place.when accused were asked as to why the complainant and the relatives were not informed, they were told that persons were sent with messages but they could not contact them and therefore they could not attend the funeral.The complainant and others returned to their village.Thereafter, after consulting the relatives, the complainant went to Kasegaon Police Station for lodging the complaint, however, as the incident had taken place at Tasgaon, the complainant went to Tasgaon police station and at least the complaint was lodged against the accused persons on 7.12.1997 and crime was registered at Crime No. 279 of 1997 under Section 498-A, 302, 201 read with 34 of the I.P.C. on 7.12.1997 at 6.00 a.m. On 7.12.1997 investigation commenced in which course panchnama of the spot i.e. house of the accused was prepared.Statements of witnesses were recorded and accused persons were put under arrest.JUDGMENT Kakade, J.Originally, all the 5 accused persons were prosecuted for commission of the offence punishable under Section 498-A, Section 302 read with 34 and Section 201 read with 34 of the I.P.C. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 were found guilty of commission of the offence under Section 498-A, Section 302 read with Section 201 read with 34 of the I.P.C., whereas accused Nos. 3, 4 & 5 were acquitted of the charges under Section 302 and Section 201 read with 34 of the I.P.C. but were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 were convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 15,000/- each in default to suffer R.I. for one year for offence of murder, whereas they were sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default to suffer R.I. for six months for offence under Section 201 of I.P.C. and they were sentenced to surfer R.I. for one year ad to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default to suffer R.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. Accused Nos. 3, 4 & 5 were sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and in default to suffer R.I. for one month for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and, therefore, accused Nos. 1 & 2 have filed one appeal, whereas remaining accused persons have filed separate appeal who have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 498-A with 34 of the I.P.C.Clothes of the accused No. 1 were also seized under panchnama.Bones from the spot of cremation were sent to the Expert and on completion of the investigation chargesheet came to be filed against the accused under law.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused for the impugned offences to which they pleaded not guilty.Defence of the accused is that of total denial of any criminal liability.Prosecution led its evidence at length on which basis the learned Judge came to the conclusion that accused Nos. 1 & 2 were guilty of commission of the offence under Section 498-A, 302, 201 read with 34 of the I.P.C., whereas the accused Nos. 3, 4 & 5 were guilty only of commission of the offence under Section 498-A read with 34 and proceeded to pass order of sentence against them in aforesaid manner.Hence the appeal.We have heard Mr. Sudatta Patil, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Kantharia, learned A.P.P. for the State at length.We have also perused the entire evidence on record.At the outset, it must be noted that prosecution has relied upon the testimony of 14 witnesses, out of which two are police personnel.The remaining witnesses are either panch witnesses or neighbours of accused persons who are examined either on the point of harassment of Aparna or on the point of their attendance of funeral of Aparna when they came to know about her death on the fateful day.Apart from this evidence, the evidence of PW-11 Vilas Patil - the complainant and father of Aparna, PW-12 Prabhawati Patil is worthy to note which is relied upon by the learned Trial Judge.At this Juncture itself, we must note that all the material witnesses except parents of Aparna have chosen not to support the prosecution case and, therefore, they were declared hostile by the learned Trial Judge in the course of the trial.The learned Trial Judge, as can be seen from the judgment, has thought it fit to rely upon the testimonies of hostile witnesses in order to come to the conclusion that guilt of the accused persons for the impugned offence is established, especially when it is corroborated by the testimonies of parents of deceased Aparna, duly supported by circumstantial evidence.Therefore, we thought it fit to critically peruse the testimonies of 10 hostile witnesses.Panch witnesses are declared hostile and, therefore, the panchnama remained unproved though referred to by the investigating officer.So far as other hostile witnesses are concerned, it is seen that majority of those are examined by the prosecution to propound its theory that Aparna was under harassment from the accused persons and she died on the fateful day under the suspicious circumstances to the knowledge of those witnesses who also attended her cremation rites.However, it is to be noted that perusal of the testimony does not support the prosecution case about the alleged harassment or circumstances giving rise to the suspicion against the accused when it is alleged that accused persons killed her during the night.We have critically perused the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge and must not that he has relied more on surmises and conjectures than on hard proof of facts, which cannot be allowed in law.In the result, we have no option but to set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Judge.For the reasons recorded above, we hold that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused appellants for offences with which they were charged and, therefore, they are entitled to benefit of doubt.In the result, both appeals are hereby allowed.The impugned order dated 10.6.1999 passed by the 4th Addl.Sessions Judge, Sangli passed in Sessions Case No. 58 of 1998 is hereby set aside.","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"P.W.-3 is a Doctor.P.W.- 7 is the sister of victim's mother.She came to the saloon of Lalan for getting the hairs of Arifa being cut but she was told to go back.The accused further said to P.W.- 7 that he will keep Arifa after hair cutting of her to house.After half an hour Arifa came back home crying and on being asked Arifa told about the commission of offence.She found Arifa was naked and holding the Jangia in her hand.According to her statement, Arifa told her ""Khala, Lalan tar Sona diye amar prosraber dware, paikhanar dware gunto ganta merechhe"".P.W.- 8 also found on examination of the vagina of Arifa that it had become reddish.She successfully answered the cross-examination.P.W.- 9 is another Doctor.P.W.- 13 is an A.S.I. of Police.P.W.- 14 is another Medical Officer.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRA No. 745 of 2008 Lalan Seikh --Appellant/AccusedThis appeal arose out of the judgment and order dated 18.11.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nadia, in Sessions Trial No. 4 of August, 2008 arising out of Sessions Case No. 55 of August, 2008, convicting the appellant under section 354 of IPC and sentencing him accordingly.In the background of this appeal, the fact in a nutshell is as follows : A FIR was lodged to the effect that complainant's daughter Arifa Khatun, aged about 9 years and a student of class-V came to the house of her maternal uncle in village Patharghata within P.S. Tehatta in summer vacation.During her stay at the matrimonial home, she had been to the wayside saloon of accused Lalan Sheikh on 15.5.2008 at about 2-00 p.m. for cutting her hair.At that time accused Lalan Sheikh forcibly raped her.She raised hue and cry.Neighbouring people assembled there and then the accused fled away from the spot.The victim girl felt ill.The victim girl was first taken to Tehatta Sub-divisional Hospital and therefrom she was referred to District Hospital at Shaktinagar.After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet.Police got the statement of the victim girl recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C. Further allegation was that the accused inserted some cut hair into her vagina and pushed his finger into the vagina on the pretext of taking out the cut hair therefrom.It was further alleged that the accused tried to insert his penis into her rectum but failed.It was further alleged that the accused tried to insert his penis into her vagina but failed.After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused person under sections 376/377 of the Indian Penal Code.After hearing of both sides, the learned Trial Court framed charge under sections 376(2)(f)/511 and also 377/511 of IPC against the accused.The contents of the charges were read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.To contest this case the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses while none was examined on the side of the accused.However, the accused person was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence case as it appeared from the trend of cross-examination and the replies given by the accused person at the time of cross- examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. is denial of offence with a plea of innocence.On trial the learned Trial Court convicted the present appellant by the impugned judgment.- Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.- Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section""Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.-- Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with [imprisonment for life] or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with [imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one- half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence], or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.""Amongst others learned Counsel for the appellant argued mainly on the following points :P.W.-1 scribed the complaint as per the instruction of Lalan Sheikh.He examined on 15.5.2008 one Arifa Khatun, aged about 10 years.The girl complained of severe pain in her private parts.According to the version, the Doctor recorded the history of ""physical assault and sexual abuse"".He did not examine the private parts of the child.She was referred to Saktinagar District Hospital at Krishnagar.P.W.-4 is the father of victim.He proved the Birth Certificate of his daughter showing that she was 10 (ten) years old.He learned from his sisters-in-law Alekjan, Bulbuli and Selena that his daughter was sent to the saloon of one Lalan Sheikh, but there she was subjected to rape.She took her daughter to the Hospital and then at Saktinagar on referral.He lodged the complaint to the police.It was suggested to him that they are supporters of CPI(M) party while the accused is the supporter of BJP and that is why out of political rivalry he was falsely implicated.P.W.- 5 is a teenager girl.She was examined but knows nothing about incident.P.W.- 6 was declared hostile.He examined the victim.He found her hymen was ruptured but there was no injury in her private part.He stated that such rupture of hymen may be caused if the index finger is forcefully introduced into the vagina.He also examined the accused Lalan Sheikh and opined that he was capable of sexual intercourse.P.W.- 10 is the mother of the victim.After getting information she went to Patharghata.She enquired everything from her daughter and learnt the incident.She accompanied her daughter at Krishnagar Sadar Hospital.P.W.- 11 is another sister of victim's mother.The victim girl after returning from saloon of Lalan Sheikh reported everything to all of them.P.W.- 12 is a Home Guard who escorted the victim girl to the S.D. Hospital there.He examined the victim.He found no injury in the vulva and vagina.Vulva and vagina were found intact.Because of strain of the patient her digital examination into the internal parts could not be made.Further he stated that comment regarding rupture of hymen was not possible because the patient refused her vagina examination.No injury also could be detected over anal orifice.P.W.- 15 is the I/O. After investigation, he submitted charge-sheet.The accused was asked pinpointed questions over the incriminating material available in evidence against him but he simply denied all the questions.The translated version of the 164 statement is reproduced below.""On last Thursday I had been to the wayside saloon at Patharghata for cutting my hairs.I was accompanied by my aunt (Masi).My Masi came back home after dropping me in the saloon.Thereafter when my cutting of hair was over, barber Lalan Sk. asked me to lie.I did not agree.Then Barber Lalan Sk. asked me to daub oil in the hairs of my head.I again came back to the saloon of Lalan Sk.after daubing oil in the hairs of my head.Then Lalan asked me to be nude.Then Lalan put cut hairs on my vagina.Lalan moved his finger inside my vagina.Then Lalan was going to push his penis into my rectum.But despite such attempt, Lalan failed to do it.Lalan removed my panty.He forcibly closed the gate of the shop.Afterwards Lalan of his own opened the gate.Then Lalan was going to insert his Sona (penis) into my vagina (the urinating private organ) but failed.The record does not show that de facto complainant cherished any grudge or animosity against the present appellant.Rather he used to call accused 'Mite'.Doctors' evidence more or less support the story of attempt of rape.The victim suffered enormous pain in her private parts.This fact points towards the possibility of commission of attempt to rape by the accused person.The other relation witness more or less supported the prosecution story.The evidence of the prosecutrix has to be sifted to separate the grain from the chaff because the theory of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' is not applicable.The elegance of the evidence of the victim girl inspires confidence.Rather consistency of her version makes her sterling witness.The accused was known to the father of the victim girl.So, too the victim.The accused was aged about 26 years whereas the victim was 10 years.","['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Allegation against the applicant in short is that the applicant along with the other co-accused caught hold the hand of the prosecutrix with bad intention and quarreled with the brother of the prosecutrix.This led in filing of FIR against the applicant and other co-accused.Heard both the parties.It is directed that applicant-Salman shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for the sum o f Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for securing his presence before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-Section (3) of Section 437 of the Cr.P.C.C.C. as per rules.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE loretta Digitally signed by LORETTA RAJ Date: 25/07/2019 16:30:54","['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT D.D. Sinha, J.Rule returnable forthwith.Heard finally by consent of Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, Shri Shrivstava, learned Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, and Mrs. Khade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, submitted that petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the owners of plot No. 64 situated at Mount Road Extension, Nagpur.In the said premises, husband of petitioner No. 3 late Shri Vimal Chandra Grover established a hotel, which is known as 'Hotel Upvan'.At that time, petitioner No. 4 was residing in U.S.A. Hence, petitioner No. 3 decided to permit petitioner No. 1 to run the said hotel.The petitioner No. 2 is the husband of petitioner No. 1, who helped petitioner No. 1 in running the hotel business.3. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar further submitted that in the year 2007, a dispute arose between petitioners in relation to running of the said hotel business.It was submitted that on 23-1-2007, petitioner No. 1 filed Regular Civil Suit bearing No. 36/2007 against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 in the Small Cause Court, Nagpur for declaration and permanent injunction.The petitioner No. 1 also obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction for protecting her possession of the property.Learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar further submitted that looking to the nature of disputes and unnecessarily lodging of reports/complaints against each other by the petitioners, family friends and well wishers of the petitioners persuaded the petitioners to settle their disputes.Accordingly a compromise petition was prepared and filed in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Nagpur.Shri Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, adopted the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar and made the same request of quashing of criminal proceedings since petitioners have amicably settled disputes amongst themselves and want to have good and cordial relations in future.Mrs. Khade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, contended that crimes registered against the petitioners on the basis of complaints lodged by them against each other are non-compound-able and, therefore, in view of bar of Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer made by the petitioners does not deserve to be granted.We have given our anxious thought to the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties.","['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail on behalf of the applicant.As per prosecution story, the applicant followed the prosecutrix repeatedly with a clear indication of his interest/ liking her and on the alleged date of incident 22.01.2018, the applicant riding the Activa two wheeler hit on her leg while she was walking, due to which, she had suffered swelling on her feet and wrist.Accordingly, the case has been registered against the applicant.The family of the applicant and other neighbours had suffered many times, due to nuisance caused by him, which having adverse effect amongst the ladies and children of the area.Therefore, the FIR was lodged against him at Police Station- Chimanganj Mandi THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State supported the order impugned and opposed the bail application.Having perused the case-diary, submission advanced, but without commenting on merits of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Rohit Arya) Judge Kafeel Digitally signed by Kafeel Ahmed Ansari Date: 2018.04.13 17:49:33 +05'30'","['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the false allegations made in the FIR dated 11.10.2013 lodged by opposite party no. 2 with the allegation that the applicant tried to outrage the modesty of her and her sister who were in the way.The applicant has also beaten both the sisters and snatched the gold chain and ear-rings and also threatened them of dire consequences.It is further stated that a criminal case (Case Crime No. 143 of 2013) under sections 147, 148, 148, 325, 504, 427 IPC is already pending against the applicant and his family members on the basis of an FIR lodged by the father of opposite party no. 2 and as such the applicant cannot think to commit another offence against opposite party no. 2 and her sister.","['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"ORDER Dipak Misra, J.Extinction of one's Liberty amounts to crucifixion of one's soul.Because of this feeling a noble soul had demanded ""Give me liberty or give me death"".It is a cherished ideal that echoes the inner desire of every human soul.No one would like to barter it for the entire wealth of the world.The cause of liberty is treated as the cause of the creator.One's freedom, may be that of an accused or a convict can be curtailed in accordance with the terms of procedure established by 'law' but how long that curtailment should continue as far as an accused is concerned is the seminal question that arises for consideration in this application for obtaining concession of bail - third attempt by the petitioner who has been arraigned as an accused in Crime No. 21/97 instituted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 147 and 148/149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC').The singular contention is that the delay in disposal of the trial in S. T. No. 86/97 entitles the petitioner to be enlarged on bail, more so, when this Court had issued directions for disposal of the trial by specified period and had granted him leave to renew the prayer for bail in case the trial is not completed within the stipulated time.The essential facts:The petitioner along with 7 others has been arraigned as accused in respect of offences punishable as mentioned above and is facing trial in S. T No. 86/97 pending in the Court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Satna.The petitioner had approached this Court in Misc.This Court while declining to admit the petitioner to bail passed a direction to the learned trial Judge to expedite the trial.This Court also recorded the assurance of the learned Government Advocate who had stated that the prosecution would produce the witnesses on the dates fixed for hearing and would not seek unnecessary adjournments.As the date was fixed beyond the time stipulated by this Court, the petitioner had approached this Court for being released on bail on the ground there has not been progress in the trial.It is relevant to state here though in the petition certain other grounds have been taken with regard to the merit of the case, the main thrust of submission relates to delay in trial.The petitioner at that stage filed an application for clubbing of his case with the counter case.Resultantly, the application for bail stands rejected.","['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The core facts in which the aggrieved parties had moved the HighCourt may now be noticed:The appellants – Shantibhai J. Vaghela and Prafulbhai J. Vaghela, whoare related to each other, are the fathers of one Dipesh (born 1998) andAbhishek (born 1999).The aforesaid two children were admitted in Class VIand V respectively in a Gurukul located in an Ashram of Sant ShreeAsharamji situated at Motela.They were residing in the Gurukul of theAshram.On 03.07.2008 both the children had gone to the dining hall of theGurukul at about 8.00 PM to have their dinner.At the time of taking theattendance of the students after dinner, the watchman, one Shri NareshDangar, could not find the children and therefore had informed the saidfact to Gruhapati Shri Pankajbhai Saksena.On receipt of the saidinformation the aforesaid person, i.e. Pankajbhai Saksena contacted theappellant – Prafulhai J. Vaghela on telephone to convey the informationthat the children were not to be found in the Gurukul.Both the appellants– Shantibhai B. Vaghela and Prafulbhai J. Vaghela immediately came to theGurukul and after meeting Pankajbhai Saksena and some other persons workingin the Gurukul, the appellants went in search of the missing children.However, they could not be recovered till about 12.30 AM.At thesuggestion of Shri Pankajbhai Saksena that the children may have gone tosleep in some other place the search for the children was abandoned andresumed at about 6.00 AM of the following morning, i.e., 04.07.2008.Though the search had continued throughout the day the children could notbe located.The appellants insisted that the Ashram should inform thepolice about the disappearance of the two children.On 05.07.2008 at about 6.30 PM the dead bodiesof the children were found from the bed of the river Sabarmati which waslocated by the side of the Ashram.The dead bodies were promptly sent forpost-mortem examination and, thereafter, were handed over to the respectivefamilies for cremation.Rest of the skin of face || |available part of front of neck, || |lower part of thighs and legs are || |discoloured brownish black while || |available part of back of scalp || |neck chest abdomen gluteal region || |and upper part of front and back || |of thighs are less discolored.|| |Marbeling is present on both the || |lower limbs specially on anterior || |aspects.Skin is easily peeled off|| |at places, scalp, hair easily || |peeled off maggots of size 0.2 to || |0.5 cms.crowling all over the || |body.External genetelia distended|| |due to decomposition.Chest and || |abdominal cavity are exposed, both|| |sides of ribs and vertebral column|| |are seen externally.Sternum, both|| |clavicles and costal cartilages || |found missing.Mass of tissue line|| |attached with neck contain || |trachea, oesophagus part of both || |lungs heart covered with peri || |cardium and part of stomach.Rest || |of abdominal organs are missing.|| |Both the upper limbs are missing || |with scapulae.Skin and soft || |tissue in lower part of right leg || |missing under line bones exposed.|| |Distal part of right foot || |including toes missing, || |metatarsals are exposed.No discharge || |noted from ear, nose and mouth.|| |Both the ears are eaten up in || |pinna region, margins irregular, || |pale and without vital reaction.|| | ||(14) Condition of skin – blood |Nibbling due to animals found in ||stain etc. If probability of |both pinna right lower limbs, both||drowning then imprints of biting |feet chest abdomen.Marbelling is || |present on chest shoulder and || |thighs more on anterior aspects.|| |Maggots of size 0.2 to 0.5 cms.|| |Crawling all over the body at || |places.Abdomen and external || |genetalia distended due to || |decomposition gases.Anal canal || |rectum part of sigmoid colon is || |prolapsed out of anus due to || |decompositions toes of right foot || |except greater toe are missing || |degloving of skin of both hands || |found present due to || |decomposition.|| | ||(13) Appearance of dead body- |Facial features are blotted and ||normal or swollen, condition of |distorted.Eyes open eye ball ||eyes, condition of tongue, face, |soften decomposed and protruded ||type of discharges from ears or |out from its sockets.|semi-opened, tongue protruded out || |from oral cavity.White frothy || |fluid is coming from nose and || |mouth.Both the ears are eaten in || |pinna region by animals.|| | ||(14) Condition of skin – blood |Both ears in pinna region and toes||stain etc. If probability of |of right foot except greater toe ||drowning then imprints of biting |eaten by animals.||by aquatic animal (cutis Anserina)| ||if any, record be made regarding | ||wrinkles on skin.|| | ||.................... | | (3) Internal examination|. . . . .| ||(20) .. . . | ||(c) Larynx, trachea and thyroid |c) No injury found in soft tissue||bone |and muscles of neck.Hyoid bone || |and thyroid cartilage intact few || |food particles and mud appreciated|| |in trechia |At times the drowning medium (water) may not contain any diatoms.Food particles and mud were found in trachea of both the deceased.Animal bites were present on the bodies of both the deceased particularly in the region of the ears and toes in the case of deceased Abhishek and additionally in the feet, chest and abdomen of deceased Dipesh.No shaving of scalp hairs was found in either case and also no injuries over the neck to draw blood were detected.The disappearance of organs from the body of the deceased - Dipesh may have been due to wild animals pulling or carrying the same away.“When drowning takes place, diatoms enter into the lung cavity of a person through the aspirated water and this water exerts a pressure on lung cavity and rupturing of the lung alveoli takes place.Through these entrances diatoms can enter into heart, liver, kidney, brain and bone marrow............Analysis of diatoms present in the lungs, liver, spleen, blood and bone marrow has for many years been undertaken as a confirmatory test in possible drowning cases.However, the diatom test has been controversial since numerous cases of false negative and false positive results have been documented..........”With CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1806-1807 of 2012(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 4453-4454 of 2011) J U D G M E N TRANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted.The present appeals seek to challenge a judgment dated 10.01.2011passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad allowing CriminalMiscellaneous Application No. 13519 of 2009 filed by the accused(respondents herein) seeking quashing of the criminal case registeredagainst them under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.By its aforesaidorder the High Court has also dismissed Special Criminal Application No.770 of 2009 filed by the appellants, Shantibhai J. Vaghela and PrafulbhaiJ. Vaghela, seeking investigation of the aforesaid case against the accusedby the Central Bureau of Investigation.It appears that there was a public out cry over the incident and theState Government by Notification dated 21.07.2008 appointed a Commission ofInquiry consisting of a retired Judge of the High Court of Gujarat.Itappears that an elaborate inquiry/investigation of the incident was carriedout, initially, by the Sabarmati Police Station of Ahmedabad city and,thereafter, by the CID Crime Branch under the direct supervision of DeputyInspector General of Police.In the course of the inquiry, statements ofthe several inmates of the Ashram were recorded.In the course of the aforesaid inquiry/investigation summonsunder Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were issued toJournalists of different newspapers as well as the electronic media togather information with regard to the incident in question.Similarly, apress note was also issued in the newspapers asking for information inrespect of the incident.However, there was no response to the summonsissued or the press note published by the investigating agency.While theaforesaid inquiry/investigation was continuing, the appellants -Shantibhai J. Vagehla and Prafulbhai J. Vaghela instituted Special CriminalApplication No.770 of 2009 in the High Court.In the said applicationdetails of the incident, as noticed above, were mentioned by the appellantswho had sought an order directing the Superintendent of Police, CBI,Gandhinagar (impleaded as respondent No.2) to register the criminaloffence(s) as may be disclosed by the statements made in the applicationfiled before the High Court and for further directions to carry out aproper investigation in respect of the incident of the mysterious death ofthe two children.During the pendency of the aforesaid Special Criminal ApplicationNo.770 of 2009, FIR dated 07.11.2009 was formally lodged by one Shri H.B.Rajput, Inspector, CID Crime, Gandhinagar in the Gandhinagar Police Stationin respect of the incident alleging commission of offences under Section304/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection) Act. Seven inmates of the Ashram were named as theaccused who were suspected to be involved with the offences alleged.The FIR lodged against the seven inmates of the Ashram, in so far asthe offence under Section 304 IPC is concerned, came to be challengedbefore the High Court by the accused named therein.Criminal MiscellaneousApplication No. 13519 of 2009 filed by the aforesaid accused was heardalong with Special Criminal Application No. 770 of 2009 filed by appellants– Shantibhai J. Vaghela and Prafulbhai J. Vaghela.Both the applicationswere disposed of by the High Court by the impugned order dated 10.01.2011.As already noticed, the High Court, on the basis of the conclusion that nooffence against the accused under Section 304 IPC was made out, has quashedthe FIR in so far as the aforesaid provision of the Penal Code isconcerned.The High Courtby the aforementioned order also disposed of Special Criminal ApplicationNo.770 of 2009 filed by the two appellants as having become infructuous.Aggrieved by the said aforesaid order dated 10.01.2011 the State of Gujaratand the parents of the deceased children – Shantibhai J. Vaghela andPrafulbhai J. Vaghela have instituted the present appeals.The skin and soft ||blackening of some parts after |tissue are missing at lower part ||death if any) if swelling of any |of frontal neck front and sides of||part then examination of fluid in |chest and abdomen, lower part of ||it & condition of the skin.|right leg, distal part of both the|| |feet.Distal || |part of left foot including toes || |missing metatarsals exposed the || |missing tissues of the body is || |attached with the changes of post || |mortem phenomena.Margins of || |missing tissues are pale, || |irregular without vital reactions || |and nibbling due to animals || |appreciated.|| | ||(13) Appearance of dead body- |Facial features are bloated and ||normal or swollen, condition of |distorted.Eyes open, eye balls ||eyes, condition of tongue, face, |softened decomposed and protruded.||type of discharges from ears or |Mouth is open tongue protruded ||nostrils (if any).|outside oral cavity.Margins are ||by aquatic animal (cutis Anserina)|pale, irregular and without vital ||if any, record be made regarding |reactions.Foul smelling gas ||body & thighs or some growth, |coming from the body brown black ||blackening of some parts after |discoloration of skin found on ||death if any) if swelling of any |face, chest, abdomen, both upper ||part then examination of fluid in |limbs and lower part of both the ||it & condition of the skin.|thighs and both legs while upper || |part of thighs back of chest, || |gluteal region is less || |discolouration.Skin is early || |peeled off at places scalp hair || |early peeled off.The aforesaid FIR was filedafter more than one year of the incident and after holding of a detailedinquiry/investigation into the incident.","['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Then both mother and son duo lunged forward to attack Jaikunwarbai but she fled from her house and then both the assailants also went away.The information of the incident was given to Mohan, brother of Jaikunwarbai who was working in the field.This witness in her cross-examination states that she is married and her husband's village is Khoria - Ema and she had come to her parental house on the occasion of Diwali.She states that after arriving at her parental house, she used to stay for about 8 days.(Delivered at Indore on this 7th day of July, 2020) Per Shailendra Shukla, J.The present appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgement of conviction and sentence pronounced by the Sessions Judge, Shajapur in S.T. No.10/2006 vide judgement dated 28.12.2006, whereby each of the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :-The prosecution story in short was that on 27.11.2005, Sub- Inspector A. K. Singh (PW-11) of Police Station Barodia, District Shajapur received a telephonic message from Kumer Singh, Sarpanch of Village Lasudiya-Jagmal that a murder had been committed in the village.A. K. Singh (PW-11) arrived at the spot.The witness Jaikunwarbai (PW-9), who is daughter of the deceased Tejubai and who was a married lady, narrated the incident to him and as per her statements on the morning of 27.11.2005, appellant Shaitanbai who lives in neighbourhood and who is aunt of Jaikunwarbai came rushing to the house of Jaikunwarbai who was sitting with her mother Tejubai.Shaitanbai started abusing Tejubai saying that son of Tejubai namely, Mohan had quarrelled with Radheshyam, son of Shaitanbai.At that moment, Jagdish, another son of Shaitanbai also came and started using filthy and abusive language.Tejubai told them not to abuse but Shaitanbai wielding sharp edged weapon daranta and Jagdish wielding a knife entered the house of Tejubai.Shaitanbai inflicted daranta blow on the chest of Tejubai, who started bleeding and fell on the floor.Babitabai, daughter of Tejuabai then came to rescue but Jagdish stabbed Babitabai with knife and Babitabai also fell upon Tejubai.Mohan came to spot and immediately went to inform Kumer Singh, Sarpanch who in turn made 3 telephone call to Sub-Inspector A. K. Singh.The Sub-Inspector, after recording Dehati Nalishi, drew Panchnama, spot-map and recorded statements of the witnesses and arrested both the assailants/appellants and on the basis of their memorandum, seized daranta from Shaitanbai and a knife from Jagdish.The blood stained soil was collected from the spot and blood stained clothes of the appellants were also seized.Both these items were sent to FSL.However, FSL report could not be obtained till the conclusion of the trial and pronouncement of judgement.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the Trial Court read over the charges under Sections 302/34 and 450/34 of IPC to the appellants.Both of them abjured their guilt and have stated that they have been falsely implicated due to prior enmity.Learned Trial Court went on to examine prosecution witnesses and in all, 11 witnesses were examined and no defence evidence was led and after conclusion of trial, both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as aforementioned.In the appeal, it has been mentioned that due to prior enmity, the appellants have been falsely implicated, that independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution story.The statements of witnesses are self-contradictory and there are many important omissions and contradictions which have been overlooked, that medical report also does not corroborate statements of witnesses, that compliance of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. has not been made and the prosecution was unable to prove spot of the incident and on these grounds, acquittal has been sought.The question for consideration before this Court is whether in view of the grounds taken by the appellants, conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants is liable to be set aside and the appellants deserve to be acquitted?The prosecution has examined eye-witnesses namely, Smt. Jaikunwarbai (PW-9), Dulesingh (PW-2), Shankarlal (PW-3), Sitaram (PW-4) and Smt. Ghisibai (PW-6).However, barring Jaikunwarbai (PW-9), all other eye-witnesses have turned hostile.Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) being the daughter of deceased Tejubai is the interested witness.Hence, her statements need to be appreciated with circumspection.This witness states that about 2 months prior to her deposition at about 8.00 AM in the morning, the witness was at her home and at that time her mother Tejubai, sister-in-law Babitabai, Sandeep, Rachna and Deepak were all present.She states that about a month back her brother Mohan had a quarrel with Radheysham (s/o accused Shaitanbai).She states that Shaitanbai who is her Badi Maa (wife of elder brother of witness's father) came to her house and started abusing Tejubai.At that point of time, Jagdish, son of Shaitanbai also came wielding knife whereas Shaitanbai was wielding daranta.She states that Shaitanbai inserted daranta in the stomach of Tejubai, the witness's mother, then Jagdish also stabbed Babitabai on her chest.Both of them fell down and then her brother Mohan came to the spot and went away to inform Sarpanch.She further states that police came and drew spot map, police seized blood stained soil and ordinary soil and exhibited documents on which she appended her thumb impression.She reiterates that incident occurred due to previous incident of assault.Between Mohan, son of deceased Tejubai and Radheshyam.In her cross- examination, she has been asked question relating to the earlier incident.She states that at the time of earlier incident, also she was in 5 her parental house and the dispute occurred because the irrigation pipe going to her parental agriculture field was severed.Reverting back to the incident which culminated in death of her mother and sister-in-law, she states in para-9 that incident of stabbing took place inside the house.She states that for quite sometime Shaitanbai, wielding daranta in her hand was shouting and abusing Tejubai and due to such shouts the neighbours had gathered and that the incident of stabbing happened when Shaitanbai and Jagdish both entered the house.At first her mother was dealt daranta blow and on hearing her cries, Babitabai came rushing but she was stabbed by Jagdish and when this incident occurred the witness was nearby at a distance not more than one hand.The witness states that there are 3 rooms in house and the incident happened in the first room.Dulesingh (PW-2), Shankarlal (PW-3), Sitaram (PW-4) and Ghisibai (PW-6) have turned hostile.However, they have supported the prosecution story in as much as they stated that they had heard and seen the quarrel taking place.Dulesingh (PW-2) states that while he was going from his house to the tube well and passed by the house of the deceased he heard children crying and then he asked a villager namely, Narayan as to what has happened then Narayan told him that Tejubai has been done to death by Jagdish.He states that Jaikunwarbai told this witness to send Jaikunwarbai uncle from agriculture field.This witness has been declared hostile and denies that he himself had seen stabbing incident.However, this witness admits that quarrel between two families had taken place about 8 to 10 days earlier.Thus, this witness has stated to have heard shouts at the time of incident.Shankarlal (PW-3) also states that he had seen quarrel between the two ladies and that Shaitanbai was having a daranta in her hand and Jagdish was having a knife and both of them have entered the house of the deceased.He is also the witness of Exhibit-P/3 Safina form Exhibit- P/3 as also Exhibit-P/4 and Exhibit-P/6 both Naksha Panchnama of Tejubai and Babitabai.However, in para-11 he admits the suggestion that he had not seen both women quarreling and that when he arrived the incident had already taken place.Thus, there is variations in the cross-examination of this witness from that of examination in chief.Sitaram (PW-4) states that he had seen Shaitanbai abusing wife of Dungaji when he was going to fetch water.However, he denies to have seen the act of stabbing.He is declared hostile but only supports the prosecution story to the extent that Shaitanbai was abusing Tejubai and Babitabai and when he came back he saw Tejubai and Babitabai dead.These statements have not been challenged by the prosecution.Ghisibai (PW-6) has also stated that she saw both the ladies talking with each other when the witnesses had gone out to tie her goat at the well.She further states that when she came back she saw Tejubai and Babitabai both dead near the door of their house and Jaikunwarbai was telling that her mother and sister-in-law have been killed.She has been declared hostile but she denies to have seen the whole incident herself.In her cross-examination, she admits that she did not hear the abuses.However, in her statements she has stated that she had seen both the ladies talking to each other and then Babitabai and Tejubai lying dead has not been challenged in the cross-examination.Thus, it emerges that Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) is the only witness who states that the whole incident occurred between her own eyes.Other eye witnesses support the prosecution story only to the extent that they have seen them quarreling and further that they had seen two ladies namely; Tejubai and Babitabai lying dead but they do not state 7 that they saw the incident of stab injury.Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) has been tried to be shown as unreliable.She in para-14 admits that walls of the room where the incident took place were splattered with human blood due to the incident.However, in the spot map Exhibit-P/25, there is no mention of any blood on the walls.This discrepancy has been properly dealt with by the Trial Court in para-14 of its judgment.It has been mentioned that although the blood may not have been found on the walls but there was blood lying on the floor of the room which was collected by Investigating Officer and the same has been supported by other witnesses which shows that the incident occurred in the room of the house.It is quite clear that the witnesses referred to earlier have stated that they saw both the ladies inside the room.In Exhibit-P/25, which is spot map, spot 'A' has been shown as the place where the body of Tejubai was lying and spot 'B' is the place where the body of Babita was lying and both the places have been shown to be inside the room.The second aspect on which Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) has been challenged is that in para-6 she states that on the day of incident no food was cooked but Dr. Z. Iqbal (PW-7) who conducted the post- mortem has stated in his examination-in-chief that he had found semi- digested food in the small intestines of both the ladies which shows that they had taken meals sometimes earlier.Regarding this discrepancy, it emerges that the incident occurred between 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM which means that both the ladies may have eaten their breakfast sometimes earlier and when the incident occurred the menfolk of the house had gone to their agricultural field.In the villages people generally tend to consume breakfast early 8 because the menfolk have to go to their agricultural fields early in the morning.It may be that both the ladies partook of their breakfast which may have been the previous night's left over meal.If the prosecution wanted to implant the witnesses, it could very well have implanted Mohan the son of Tejubai as an eye-witness.However, Mohan (PW-1) has stated that at the time of incident he was in his agricultural field and at that time Dulesingh came and apprised him about the incident.This witness states that he came running to his house and found his wife Babitabai and mother Tejubai soaked in blood and both had died.His sister Jaikunwarbai was present in the house and other villagers as well who had assembled.Jaikunwarbai told him that at first Shaitanbai struck daranta blow on Tejubai and when Babitabai came to rescue, accused Jagdish inflicted knife injury on her chest.The witness states that he then rushed to inform Sarpanch Kumer Singh and told him to intimate the police station.Regarding the cause of the incident, this witness states that about 15 days before the incident, there was a quarrel between the witness and Radheshyam, who is cousin of the witness and elder brother of accused Jadgish and the quarrel was regarding irrigating the agricultural field.Radheshyam had lodged a report against the witness and the witness has been released on bail.This witness has been asked as to whether he saw accused Shaitanbai and Jagdish himself.He replies in affirmative that he had seen both the accused fleeing from the spot of the incident and Shaitanbai was wielding daranta in her hand and Jadgish was wielding a knife.Although, Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) also states in para-9 that 9 Mohan had arrived at the scene when Shaitanbai was abusing.However, immediately thereafter, she makes a statement that Mohan arrived at the scene when the whole incident had occurred and then she had narrated the incident to Mohan.Thus, there appears an attempt on the part of Mohan to be an eye-witness who at first is supported by Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) also but she immediately makes a statement to the effect that Mohan came after the incident.It has been found that Mohan (PW-1) has earlier stated in examination-in- chief that Dulesingh had informed him that his wife and mother had already been attacked by accused persons.The witness Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) has also stated in her statement that Mohan came after the incident.From the evidence of Mohan (PW-1), it becomes clear that reason for Shaitanbai to quarrel with Tejubai was because of the previous fight between her son Radheshyam and witness Mohan in which Radheshyam lodged a report against him.Regarding proximity of both houses of Shaitanbai and the witness, the has witness stated in cross-examination that there is only one wall which exists between two houses.He has been asked as to whether Jaikunwarbai comes to her parents house very often.This witness in para-9 makes exaggerated statement that he knew that murder is going to take place and therefore, he had brought her sister.However, such exaggerated statements can simply be ignored as overzealous person's statement.The parts of the statements of this witness which are reliable are that there was a earlier quarrel between him and Radheshyam, brother of Jadgish and son of Shaitanbai and on the date of the incident, on receiving information, he rushed to the spot, saw his wife and mother already dead and 10 Jaikunwarbai narrated the sequence of events to him and then he rushed to inform Kumer Singh, Sarpanch.Statement of Mohan that Jaikunwarbai told him that both the ladies were done to death by Shaitanbai and Jadgish are relevant statements under Section 7 of the Evidence Act and would be read against both the accused persons.Kumer Singh (PW-5) states that Mohan came to his house in the morning of 27.11.2005 and told him that her mother and wife had been murdered by Jagdish and her mother Shaitanbai.He has also told him that Shaitanbai was wielding daranta and Jadgish was wielding knife.This witness states that he immediately rushed to the spot with Mohan and saw both the ladies lying there dead thereafter, he went to his house and called up police at Dupada Chowki and also called at police station Mohan Barodia and told that two murders have taken place.Thus, as per this witness, the information was not only narrated to the police chowki but also to police station at Mohan Barodia.As per this witness, at first, police from Dupada Chowki had arrived at the spot and 45 minutes later, police from Mohan Barodia came.He was asked as to why he did not immediately inform the police station even before arriving at the spot.This witness states that he considered it appropriate to inform the police only after arriving at the spot.In his police statement (Exhibit-D/2), there is no mention of this witness being told by Mohan that Shaitanbai was wielding daranta and Jagdish a knife.The reliable part of the evidence of this witness is that Mohan informed him in person about the incident and then this witness came to the spot and from the spot, he called up at police chowki and also at police station.However, what we see in this case is that lodging of report, initiation of investigation was also done by police at police station Mohan Barodia.Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) in para-13 11 has stated that at first police from police chowki had arrived at but no incident was narrated to them however, she denies that incident was not narrated as it was being considered at that time name of which accused should be taken.Despite the fact that there are some minor inconsistencies in the statement of Jaikunwarbai (PW-9), she is a reliable eye-witness, who was present in the house when the incident occurred.It is found proved that Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) was in the house when the incident had taken place and incident occurred before her own eyes.Her presence at the time of the incident has been affirmed by other witnesses namely, Ghisibai (PW-6), Dulesingh (PW-2) and Sitaram (PW-4).Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) has stated that after witnessing the incident, as accused lunged towards her, she rushed out of the house and hence was saved.It has already been found proved that Tejubai and Babitabai were killed inside their house.It has further been found proved from the statements of other witnesses and her neighbours that Shaitanbai was seen talking/quarreling with Tejubai prior to the incident.The onus was upon the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain how both the ladies were killed.The Investigating Officer A. K. Singh (PW-11) states that on the basis of memorandum of Jagdish, a knife was recovered from Jagdish and on the basis of memorandum of Shaitanbai (Exhibit- P/10), a daranta was recovered from her.However, these weapons have not been produced before the Court.These articles and the FSL report have not even been produced from the FSL and thus, very vital piece of evidence has been missing in this matter.Learned Trial Court has put the whole blame on the 12 Investigating Officer and has even suggested departmental action against him.However, perusal of order-sheets does not show any endeavour on the part of the Presiding Officer directing availability of FSL report and the articles.The Presiding Officer very well knew that he was dealing with a very serious case involving double murder.However, order-sheets did not display any concern on the part of the Presiding Officer regarding non-availability of FSL report.Such indifference and apathy on the part of the Presiding Officer is reprehensible and the Presiding Officer deserves to account for such lapse.Although, vital piece of evidence, which is FSL report is not available, it has been found proved that Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) is a reliable eye-witness and also that Shaitanbai had come to the house of Tejubai and was quarreling with her.It has further been found proved that bodies of both ladies were found in the house of Tejubai.This proves that the assailants had attacked Tejubai and Babitabai.There are no injuries on the person of both the accused.The fact that incident occurred inside the house of Tejubai does away with defence of provocation given to the assailants by the deceased ladies.Thus, assailants could not claim the benefit of first Exception of Section 300 of IPC.They have not discharged the onus on them under Section 106 of the EvidenceFrom the evidence of Dr. Z. Iqbal (PW-7), it is clear that only one injury on each of the deceased was found.The witness states that in the post-mortem report of Tejubai, there was only one incised wound on her chest, size - 1 x x 6 cms on the left side between 5 th and 6th ribs.The death had occurred due to excessive bleeding resulting stoppage of breathing.Regarding Babitabai, this witness 13 states that he had found one injury on the right side of her chest, sizeThe witness states that both the injuries could have been caused by a knife.In the cross- examination, this witness states that injuries caused were not of such nature which could have caused immediate death and if both had been given treatment, their death could have been prevented.Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed that the death had occurred due to non-availability of medical treatment and the doctor himself states that the injuries were of such nature as would have not caused instant death.A comment needs to be made regarding the submissions of Dr. Z. Iqbal (PW-7) when he says that timely medical intervention would have prevented death.It is seen that after the incident of stabbing occurred, death had taken place within a span of half an hour.By the time, Mohan rushed to the spot, both ladies were already dead.The incident had occurred at about 7.30 AM.Mohan (PW-1) in para-14 of his cross-examination states that he had come out of his house at 7.00 AM and was sitting in his field (goha) for 10 to 15 minutes when he received the information and as he reached the spot, both ladies were dead.Jaikunwarbai (PW-9) also states that immediately on being attacked, both ladies had fallen down at the spot only.This also shows that blow was also severe that the deceased ladies could not even make an attempt to run.The State had gone in appeal seeking enhancement.The order-sheets do not display endeavour on the part of the Presiding Officer directing availability of FSL report and the seized articles.Held, such indifference and apathy on the part of the Presiding Officer is reprehensible and the Presiding Officer deserves to account for such lapse.","['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"DATE OF RESERVING: 21.11.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27/11/2018ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, J.)1. Rule.Rule, returnable forthwith.With the consent of ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2018 02:09:49 ::: APL.802.17 2learned counsel for respective parties, the Application is taken up forfinal hearing, at the stage of admission itself.::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2018 02:09:49 :::By means of this Application filed under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, the applicant seeks quashing of the FirstInformation Report in Crime No.144/2017 dated 05.10.2017 registeredat the instance of non-applicant no. 2 with Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur PoliceStation, for the offence punishable u/s.376 of the IPC.3. Learned counsel for the respective parties submitted thatduring the pendency of investigation, the parties have amicably settledtheir differences amongst themselves by way of mutual understandingand pursuant to the same, they requested that the instant Applicationfor quashing of FIR, be allowed.The non-applicant no.2, who is the original complainant,has filed an affidavit dated 1 st November 2018, stating that during thependency of the Application, she has discussed the matter with herfamily members and has decided to withdraw the allegations and FIR,in order to settle the matter amicably with the applicant, considering ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2018 02:09:49 ::: APL.802.17 3the age, image of family, career and life.It is further stated that shewould withdraw all the allegations made in the FIR which was anoutcome of anger and emotions so also statements recorded by thepolice and the written submissions filed by her before this Court againstthe applicant.According to non-applicant no.2 the said affidavit hasbeen made by her on her freewill and without any duress or undueinfluence.Thus, the non-applicant no.2 has requested to quash theaforementioned FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2018 02:09:49 :::The applicant as well as non-applicant no.2 were personallypresent before this Court.The non-applicant no.2 had filed the FIRalleging that the applicant had established physical relationship withher under the pretext of promising to marry.We have found that in certain cases, the High Courts have accepted the compromise between the parties when the matter in appeal was pending before the ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2018 02:09:49 ::: APL.802.17 4 High Court against the conviction recorded by the trial court.Obviously, such cases are those where the accused persons have been found guilty by the trial court, which means the serious charge of Section 307 IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt at the level of the trial court.There would not be any question of accepting compromise and acquitting the accused persons simply because the private parties have buried the hatchet.::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2018 02:09:49 :::Paragraph Nos. 29.2 and 29.6 are couched in the following terms :""29.2 When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:(i) ends of justice, or::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2018 02:09:49 :::Keeping in mind the above-referred guidelines issued bythe Hon'ble Apex Court, and in view of the fact that the matter issettled amicably between the parties, pursuing the proceedings againstthe applicant would be an abuse of process of law and no fruitfulpurpose would be served by continuing with the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2018 02:09:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2018 02:09:49 :::In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab(2008) 4 SCC 582, it is held that no purpose would be served bykeeping the FIR alive.In order to secure the ends of justice, it would bejust and proper to allow the application herein.The Application isallowed by quashing FIR No.144/2017 dated 5.10.2017 registered atBajaj Nagar Police Station, Nagpur for offence punishable u/s. 376 ofIPC.However, in our considered opinion, as the police and courtmachinery was used by the parties to settle their private dispute, as acorrollary of differences of opinion, it would be appropriate to saddlethe applicant with the costs of Rs.25,000/-.(rupees twenty fivethousand) which shall be paid to an old-Age home i.e. ""Matru SevaSangh Panchvati Vriddhashram"" Umred Road, Bada Tajbagh Road, TajBagh, Nagpur.The applicant shall pay the said costs and produce thereceipt within a period of four weeks from today, failing which theApplication shall stand dismissed automatically without furtherreference to the Court and the order of quashing of FIR and furtherproceedings arising therefrom shall be treated as non-est.With the above directions, the Application stands disposedof.Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.",['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
"JUDGMENT Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th December, 1993 passed by Mr. M.S. Rohilla, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi where through the convict/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant for the sake of convenience) was found guilty under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 .In case of his failure to clear the fine he was further sentences to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a year.(2) Brief facts which led to the present appeal are as under : that Public Witness -7 Ram Bharose alongwith Public Witness 9 Ram Vilas went to their hut (jhuggi) situated in Block No. 11 near a dirty drain in Tilak Nagar, New Delhi on 22nd July, 1989 at 4:30 P.M. to collect there from fruits in a rickshaw belonging to one Public Witness 8 Arun Paswan.Public Witness 8 Arun Paswan stopped his rickshaw at a distance of 15-16 paces away from the above said hut.Whereafter injured Public Witness 7 Ram Bharose and Public Witness 8 Ram Vilas covered that distance on foot.The appellant at that time was lying on a cot opposite to the entrance of the hut of the complainant Ram Vilas whereby he virtually blocked the passage leading to the said hut, complainant Ram Bharose requested the appellant to remove his cot in order to enable him to take out the fruits from his hut.The appellant however, did not accede to the request of the complainant Ram Bharose and instead started abusing him.Whereupon Public Witness 7 Ram Bharose requested him not to do so.It led to a flaming row.The appellant took out a dagger and stabbed the injured Ram Bharose on the left side of his abdomen.The injured bled as a corollary whereof.Ram Vilas Public Witness 9 came to his rescue.He raised an alarm.He took the injured to the hospital in a three wheeler rickshaw.The appellant after having caused afore-mentioned injury fled from the spot alongwith the dagger.(3) The appellant was arrested by the police on 23rd July, 1989 in a case Fir 424/89 under section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant made a disclosure statement in the said Fir that the dagger which was recovered from his possession was also used by him in causing injury to Public Witness 7 Ram Bharose.(4) PW9 Ram Vilas informed the police with regard to the above said incident.A copy whereof was handed over to Asi Shanti Prasad.He alongwith Constable Jag Saran arrived at the place of occurrence.They came to know that the injured had already been removed to the hospital.Shri Shanti Prasad thereafter left for the Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital.However, he recorded the statement of Sh.After completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant.(5) Learned lower court after the appraisal of the evidence oral as well as documentary, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt.Thus the appellant was convicted under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 alluded to above.(6) Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order the appellant has approached this court through the present appeal.No blood was found on the dagger.",['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent person and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.531 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506 (1) of IPC, as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.However, considering the crime is of the year 2016, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.531 of 2016 and file a final report within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, ifhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 CRL.O.P.No.26990 of 2016 not already filed.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.03.03.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order tta To1.The Inspector of Police, Arcot Police Station, Vellore District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 CRL.O.P.No.26990 of 2016 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.tta Crl.O.P.No.26990 of 2016 03.03.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7","['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Criminal revision is, thus, disposed of.","['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"P.C filed by t he applicant.The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.384/2020 registered at Police Station Bhikangaon, District Khargone for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498- A/34 of IPC.As per prosecution story on 24.06.2020 deceased Laxmi Bai had committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance.On the basis of the information Merg No.53/2020 was registered at Police Station Bhikangaon.During investigation statement of relatives were recorded and it was revealed that deceased was married to co-accused Praveen four years ago and out of the wedlock, two children were born.It is alleged that the applicant was having an affair with co-accused Praveen and they used to harass the deceased due to which she committed suicide.In such circumstances, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection.Case diary perused.",['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Allowed md.CRM No. 5914 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 8.8.2018 in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No.246/2018 dated 11.07.2018 under Sections 448/195A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Nur Islam Sk.and others ... Petitioners Mr. Amanul Islam, Advocate .. for the petitioners Ms. Sukanya Bhattacharya, Advocate Ms. Sujata Das, Advocate ..for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No.246/2018 dated 11.07.2018 under Sections 448/195A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners say that upon the petitioners obtaining bail in connection with another complaint, a false allegation has been levelled that the petitioners attempted to intimidate some witnesses of the victims.The petitioners say that only vague allegations have been made without any particulars.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2","['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Shri Shishir Saxena, Advocate for the complainant.This Criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 03.05.2016 passed in S.T. No. 73/2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, Distt.Vidisha whereby the appellants have been convicted u/S.307/34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer 7 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and convicted u/S 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.I.A. No. 4187/16, an application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of both the appellant is taken up and considered.It is seen from the record that the appellant no.1 Randheer Singh appears to be the main accused who had given pharsa blow on the head of the injured Samandar Singh.By stroke of luck, the injured took evasive action which led to the said blow causing injury on the shoulder instead of head.Fracture was discovered on the shoulder as per the MLC report and therefore the blow was strong enough to break the bone.Thus, appellant no.1 Randheer Singh is not entitled to suspension of sentence.So far as appellant no.2 Ramnath is concerned, it is found by the trial Court that he has given pharsa blow which has led to injury in the hand of injured Yashwant.No grievous injury was found and the appellant no.2 has been implicated with the aid of Section 34 of IPC.Appellant no. 2 has suffered 2 months of imprisonment including the pre conviction period.A.466/2016 has been deposited, on the appellant no.2 furnishing bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (RUPEES ONE LAC ONLY) with two solvent sureties of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of trial Court Sironj , for his appearance before concerned Court first on 27th of August, 2016 and all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the concerned trial Court in this regard.In case, the appellant is found absent on any date fixed by the concerned trial Court then the said Court shall be free to issue and execute warrant of arrest for securing his presence without first referring the matter to this Court, provided the Registry of this Court is kept informed.So far as I.A. No. 5162/16, an application for compromise is concerned,it is seen from the record that the entire assault executed by both the appellants was unprovoked.An altercation took place initially between the rival parties , but could not flared up at that point of time and both the parties went home.Later, in the evening, appellants came armed with deadly weapons and assaulted the injured.The offence of attempt to murder where deadly weapons were used in unprovoked manner renders the offence to be an offence against the society and not against an individual and therefore no case for compromise is made out.Accordingly, I.A. No. 5162/16 and I.A. No. 5163/16 stands rejected.",['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Shri Amit Pandey, Government Advocate for respondent no.5-State.Heard on admission.This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ""the Code"") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 10/5/11 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.296/10, whereby respondent nos. 1 and 2 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code (""IPC"" for short), and respondent nos. 3 and 4 have been acquitted of the offence under Section 420 of the IPC.Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17/3/09, respondent no.1 Dhanveer Singh, dishonestly induced complainant Deewan Singh Rajput to deliver his Indo Farm Tractor on rental of Rs.12000/- per month to respondent no.2 Israel personating him to be Mohan and respondent no.2 Israel, obtained the said Tractor and they handed over the same to respondent nos.3 and 4 viz. Mausam and Aslam, who in turn sold it to one Haji Ayub.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have gone through the impugned judgment and evidence on record.The Tractor in dispute bearing Registration No. MP-04- LA-9663, Engine No.241064C and Chasis No. E-M-S-35001094EP, was in the ownership of complainant Diwan Singh.Diwan Singh had deposed that the Tractor was given on rent to one Mohan before his wife, who knew him, but his wife has not been examined to corroborate the allegation of impersonation.Signatures of respondent no.2 as Mohan Singh on rent note (Ex.P/5, were not proved by the prosecution.Registration number of Tractor, Engine and Chasis Numbers, as mentioned in the rent note /agreement, were altogether different from those of tractor in dispute.Vishal Singh (PW3) deposed in his evidence that the factum of impersonation had come into the knowledge of complainant within a month from the date of incident, but even then First Information Report, was not lodged and the same was lodged after 7 to 8 months without any explanation for delay.It was also admitted by the complainant that he was not able to regularly pay the installments of loan given by the Bank for purchasing the said Tractor and was under an impression that the same was seized by the Bank and had also contacted the Bank for verifying the same.On the aforesaid premises, the trial Court discarded the case of the prosecution.The appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"CRM 5066 of 2017 Court No.8 Item No. 144 (ALLOWED) In Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 30.05.2017 in connection with New snandy & akdas Barrackpore P.S. Case No. 40 of 2017 dated 05.03.2017 (Sessions Special POCSO Act Case No. 58 of 2017) for committing offence punishable under Sections 354B/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8/12 of POCSO Act.Item No. 144And In the matter of : Surojit Mahanta @ Buro & Ors.......Petitioners Mr. Debasis Kar, Advocate ....For the Petitioner Mrs. Manasi Ray, Advocate .......For the State The petitioners are seeking bail in connection with a case relating to offences punishable under Sections 354B/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8/12 of POCSO Act.Learned Counsel for the State produced the case diary and opposed the prayer for bail.Joy Majumdar, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court under POCSO Act, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas, subject to condition that the said petitioners shall appear before the trial court on every day of hearing and in the event they fail to appear before the trial court as aforesaid, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel 2 their order of bail automatically without reference to this court and they shall not intimidate witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.The application for bail, thus, stands allowed.(Shivakant Prasad, J) (Joymalya Bagchi, J)","['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on this first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.The applicant is in jail since 08/11/2019 in connection with Crime No.798/2019, registered at Police Station-Chola Mandir, District- Bhopal for the offence under Sections 342, 376(2)(n), 376(2)(1) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC The case of the prosecution, in short, is that prosecutrix studied in Class X. On 21.10.2019 at about 2:00 p.m. when she was alone in her house, the applicant came there and caught hold of her hand and took her at his house and committed rape upon her.On 07.11.2019 the prosecutrix narrated the whole story to her mother.The prosecutrix is a mentally retarded and she is suffering from 90% disability.Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case.The applicant and and his family members lived adjacent to the house of the prosecutrix and they had inimical relations and quarrels on various occasions therefore the family of the prosecutrix had enmity against the applicant and his family.Therefore, parents of the prosecutrix lodged a false report and on that basis the applicant has been implicated in the case.Learned senior counsel also pointed out so many discrepancies in the investigation.Therefore, it has been prayed to enlarge the applicant on bail.2 MCRC-53219-2019 On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has opposed the bail application and submits that as per the document available on record the prosecutrix is suffering from 90% severe profound mental retardation and there are strong evidence available against the applicant which leads to dismissal of the application.Having heard learned counsel for the parties.On perusal of the the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. in which she categorically stated about the act of the applicant and that the prosecutrix is suffering from 90% disability, this Court does not find it to enlarge the applicant on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant BHAGWAT S INGH RAGHUVANS HI, is dismissed.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE b Digitally signed by BIJU Date: 2020.06.17 16:46:46 +05'30'","['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.12.2019 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, Allahabad dismissing Criminal Appeal No.93 of 2019 (Ramesh Pal vs State of UP) filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ''the Act') and affirming the order 16.7.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case No.42 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.0825 of 2018 under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC, Section 3 /4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police station Jhunsi District Prayagraj.Heard Sri Kunjesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.The prosecution case, as per the version of the FIR, is that on 10.11.2018 when the daughter of the informant namely Km.Arti aged about 14 years went to the shop, she was enticed away by the revisionist.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case.It is further submitted that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim has clearly stated that the revisionist established relations with her with her consent and she was in love with the revisionist and wanted to marry with him.However, subsequently under the influence of her parents she has changed her version in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC making allegation of rape against the revisionist.From the perusal of the statement of the victim under Section 161 CrPC it appears that the victim is a consenting party.As per medical report, age of the victim has been ascertained between 16 to 18 years and and she has refused to get herself medically examined.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is juvenile and there is no apprehension of reasoned ground for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him in association with any known criminals or expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.He further submits that except this the revisionist has no previous criminal history.The father of the revisionist is giving his undertaking that after release of the revisionist on bail, he will keep him under his custody and look after him properly.Further, the revisionist undertakes that he will not tamper the evidence and he will always cooperate the trial proceedings.There was no report regarding any previous antecedents of family or background of the revisionist.There is no chance of revisionist's re-indulgence to bring him into association with known criminals.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that it is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile as he already been declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj.The revisionist was a juvenile aged 14 years, 2 months and 18 days on the date of occurrence.He was, thus, clearly below 15 years of age.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that thereafter the revisionist applied for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj upon which a report from the District Probation Officer was called for.Hence the present criminal revision has been filed before this Hon'ble Court mainly on the following amongst other grounds:(i) That the bail application of the revisionist was rejected by the court below in a very cursory and arbitrary manner.(iv) That the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned courts below are apparently illegal, contrary to law and based on erroneous assumption of facts and law.(v) That there was absolutely no material on record to hold that the release of the Juvenile would likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice, yet the courts below have illegally, arbitrary and on surmises refused the bail of juvenile.(vi) That the courts have erred in law in not considering the true import of Section 12 of the Act, 2015 and thus, the impugned orders passed by the courts below suffer from manifest error of law apparent on the face of record.(vii) That the courts below have acted quite illegally and with material irregularity in not properly considering the case of juvenile in proper and correct perspective which makes the impugned orders passed by the courts below non est and bad in law.(viii) That bare perusal of the impugned orders demonstrate that the same have been passed on flimsy grounds which have occasioned gross miscarriage of justice.Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the revisionist have also been placed forth before the Court.In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad.""The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending.Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year.After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order.There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court.In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore.The appeal is disposed of accordingly."", this Court is of the view that the present criminal revision may be allowed and the revisionist may be released on bail.In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed.The impugned judgment and order dated 6.12.2019 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.93 of 2019 (Ramesh Pal vs State of UP) and the order 16.7.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case No.42 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.0825 of 2018 under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC, Section 3 /4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police station Jhunsi District Prayagraj, are hereby set aside and reversed.The bail application of the revisionist stands allowed.Let the revisionist, Ramesh Pal through his natural guardian Ramraj Pal be released on bail in Case Crime No.0825 of 2018 under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC, Section 3 /4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police station Jhunsi District Prayagraj upon his natural guardian furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj subject to the following conditions:(i) That the natural guardian of the revisionist will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the natural guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.(ii) The revisionist and his natural guardian will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of every calendar month commencing with the first Wednesday of December 2020 and if during any calendar month the first Wednesday falls on a holiday, then on the next following working day.","['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The petitioner is figuring as the 9th accused in PRC No.23 of 2011 onthe file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil.The second respondent herein Mrs.Latha who is the sister in lawof the deceased Peruvilai Mohan is the defacto complainant.The firstrespondent took up investigation and filed final report against as many as 10accused.The petitioner herein is figuring as the 9th accused.As per thefinal report, the petitioner has been charged with the offences underSections 109 and 302, 120 B r/w 34 of IPC.As many as 28 List Witnesses are there.Their statements recorded under Sections 161 of Cr.PC have also beenenclosed in the typed set of papers.The final report was taken on file bythe learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil and the case is stillpending at the stage of committal proceedings.It is stated that the 10thaccused is still absconding and that therefore the committal proceedingscould not be completed.Contending that there is no legally admissibleevidence against him, the 9th accused has filed this Criminal OriginalPetition to quash the impugned proceedings insofar as he is concerned.2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Advocate (Crl.Side) for the prosecution.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that excepting theconfession of the co-accused namely A1 to A3, there is absolutely no othermaterial available against him.This Court posed a direct question to thelearned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) to confirm the veracity of thesubmission made by the petitioner's counsel.In response thereto, theprosecution has filed a written submission.The written submission sets outthe antecedent facts that led to the registration of Crime No.21 of 2010 onthe file of the Vadaseri Police Station.4.It is stated that there was a dispute between the deceased PeruvilaiMohan and the 10th accused with regard to taking action for collecting feesfor car parking at Kanyakumari.Since the 10th accused apprehended that thedeceased was planning to murder him, to preempt him, the 10th accused took the lead and murdered him.It is further stated that the petitioner hereinand the 10th accused are friends and that it was the petitioner whocontacted the first accused and arranged a meeting and also provided all thefacilities for committing the murder.5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the prosecution placedreliance on the statement made by the defacto complainant which has been enclosed at Page No.8 of the typed set of the papers.Accordingly, theimpugned prosecution in in PRC No.23 of 2011 on the file of the learnedJudicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil is quashed insofar as the petitioner isconcerned.It is further directed that the police shall secure theabsconding accused soon so that the committal proceedings get concluded early.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District shall monitor thisaspect.10.This Criminal Original Petition is allowed as indicated above.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.1.The Inspector of Police, Vadaseri Police Station, Kanyakumari District.2.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The case of the prosecution briefly runs as under:P.Ws.1 and 3 are spouses.P.Ws.2 and 4 are their sons.They are residing in Karunguzhi in Cuddalore district.On 25.3.2006, P.Ws.1 and 3 have left Puducherry.There was house-breaking.25 sovereigns of gold jewels and cash Rs.1,25,000/- were missing from the bureau.Inspite of search, they cannot be found.On 29.3.2007, at Vadalur Police station, P.W.1 gave Ex.P1 complaint to P.W.10 S.I. of Police.He registered this case (Ex.P10 F.I.R.).P.W.11 Inspector took up his investigation.He visited the scene house.Prepared Ex.P2 Observation Mahazar in the presence of P.W.6 and another person.Drew Ex.P11 Rough sketch.At a place, near Vadalur, P.W.1 seized gold chain from A-1 based on his confessional statement Ex.It was witnessed to by P.W.7 and one Rajendran.A-1 and A-2 in C.C.No.85 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Cudddalore are the revision petitioners.They were tried for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. before the said Court.To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11, marked Ex.Relying on the said evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced them as under:(i) 457 I.P.C One year R.I. and fine Rs.1000/- each(ii) 380 I.P.C.One year R.I.and fine Rs.1000/- eachBoth sentences were directed to run concurrently.P.W.11 also recorded Ex.P7 confessional statement from A-2 in the presence of P.Ws.8 and 9 and recovered gold jewel under Mahazar in the presence of said witnesses.A-1 and A-2 were produced before the Court.Case properties were also produced before the Court.The trial Court solely relying on Sec.27 Evidence Act recoveries, convicted and sentenced them.Aggrieved, A-1 and A-2 preferred an appeal in C.A.No.73 of 2008 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Cuddalore.8 The learned Appellate Judge confirmed their conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.In the circumstances, they have directed this revision.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the available evidence as against A-1 and A-2 is Section 27 Evidence Act recovery.It is a make-believe affair.No prudent man will believe this artificial recovery.There is inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.Further, the evidence of recovery witnesses would show that they have not actually seen the recoveries.Based on such evidence, a conviction cannot be sustained.In this connection, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners cited Vijayakumar @ Kutty Vs.State through Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti East Police Station, Thoothukudi Dist.(2012(1) MWN (Cr.) 463 (DB) and Chinna Pillai & another Vs.State through the Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri (MANU/TN/1068/2012).On the other hand, the learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that in this case the recovery evidence is clinching.The case properties were recovered based on the confessional statement of the accused.Recovery witnesses P.Ws.7 and 9 have clearly stated about recording of the confession and recovery of the gold items.This evidence is sufficient to convict the accused.In the circumstances, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have rightly convicted and punished them.I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned judgments, entire materials on record and also the decisions cited at the bar.Now, the question is whether the finding of guilty recorded by both the Courts below suffers from legality and propriety.This case is solely based on Sec.27 Evidence Act recovery.The recoveries were stated to have been effected by P.W.11 Investigation officer.M.Os.1 and 2 gold chain belong to P.W.1/defacto complainant who identified them as of his own.The question arose whether both Courts were right in recording finding of guilty solely based on the evidence of P.Ws.7, 9 and 11 and Ex.With respect to recovery from A-1, P.W.7 has been examined.The recoveries stated to have taken place nearly 6 months after the occurrence.In his chief examination, P.W.7 stated that at about 9.30 a.m., near tea stall, in Vadalur, A-1 was having 5-1/2 sovereigns of gold chain M.O.2 in his hand and some policemen were around him.A-1 is stated to be a robberer.Whether he would carry the stolen item/s openly is a million dollar question.No prudent man will believe this.Further, in his cross examination, P.W.7 stated that the police had obtained his signatures in some papers.It indicatesthat P.W.7 has not witnessed the recovery.The same is to be viewed along with the subsequent recovery stated to have been effected based on the confessional statement of A-1 from one Nataraj's land in Karunguzhi.With respect to the recovery from A-2, P.W.9 has been examined.P.W.9 says that at about 9.45 a.m. when he came out of Anandha Bhavan hotel in Vadalur, A-2 was having 2 sovereigns of gold chain in his hand and policemen were also there.He too did not directly witnessed the actual recovery of jewel.The other witness P.W.8 turned hostile.Further, P.W.9 flately stated that he did not know anything about the jewel.This evidence has also been recorded by the trial Court.From Exhibit P-4 confessional statement of the accused, the learned Principal Sessions Judge,Tuticorin, recorded that It means, if he is taken, from the concealed place, he will produce the bill-hook, which was used to kill Madasamy.Evidence recorded by the learned Principal Sessions Judge from the recovery witness P.W.10 Velusamy, V.A.O is also on similar line.The Trial Court had admitted in evidence the culpatory part of the confessional statement of the accused also.It is the duty of the Court to dissect the evidence regarding the confession and to; divide the sentence into its component parts and only admit that part, which led to the discovery of the particularfact, viz., the hidden property.''In this case, both the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have failed to note this important aspect of law and they have not appreciated the said evidence in proper perspective.In the circumstances, the finding of guilty recorded by both the Courts based on such evidence suffers from legality and propriety.In the circumstances, ordered as under:(1) This Criminal revision is allowed.(2) The conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are set aside.(3) The revision petitioners/A-1 and A-2 are acquitted under Section 457 and 380 I.P.C.(4) The fine amount paid shall be refunded to them.10.11.2016Index : Yes Internet : Yes vaanTo1 The Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore2 The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court No.II), Cuddalore3 The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Cuddalore4 The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras5 The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore6 The Inspector of Police, Vadalur Police station.DR.P.DEVADASS, J., vaan Crl.R.C.No.16 of 201110.11.2016http://www.judis.nic.in","['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"None for the parties.(Judgment) (Delivered on 22nd of July , 2014) This Appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.1.1997 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sausar, Chhindwara in Criminal Case No.265/1993 acquitting the respondents hereinafter reffered as 'accused' from the charges punishable under Section 494/109 of IPC.2. To appreciate the say of the appellant, I would like to say that basic case that was placed before the trial Court in nutshell is that marriage of complainant Indirabai was performed with accused Prabhakar as per Hindu rites and rituals 20 years ago.However, as no issue was born, the behavior of the accused and his family was changed and they tortured the 2 Cr.A.No.238 of 1998 complainant and pressurized her to give her consent for second marriage.After threatening to set on fire, under due pressure, they got signature of the complainant and her brother on stamp.The complainant filed a complaint alleging that she was a legally wedded wife of accused Prabhakar and as he performed second marriage and other family members parents of accused, another accused Nos. 3 & 4 Lalano Bai and Hareramjee, both died during pendency of this appeal, gave him assistant, they were liable for the offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109 of IPC.2 Cr.A.No.238 of 1998Learned trial Court framed charge punishable under Section 494/109 the Indian Penal Code against the accused who abjured their guilt; therefore, they were put to trial.The prosecution has examined Indira Bai (PW/1), Maroti (PW/2), Ramji (PW/3) and exhibited one document to prove his case.During the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the evidence put up against them and pleaded their innocence.Defence examined Ramesh (DW/1) and Raghunath (DW/2).Learned trial judge after appreciating the evidence on record, recorded impugned judgment of acquittal, hence, this appeal by the complainant Indira Bai.As per appeal memo, it is submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is illegal, contrary and is erroneous both of facts and in law.It is further mentioned that the learned trial court erred in not appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record 3 Cr.A.No.238 of 1998 which clearly corroborated the prosecution story, hence, judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court be set aside and the accused may be convicted.3 Cr.A.No.238 of 1998","['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"P.C filed by the applicant.The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 342/2019 registered at Police Station- Vijay Nagar, Indore District - Indore for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 46834 of IPC.In such circumstances, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Per contra, learned GA opposes the bail application and submits that no case is made out for grant of bail to the applicant.Case diary perused.Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his/her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his/her appearance before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court and also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.CC as per rules.(Ms. Vandana Kasrekar) Judge Digitally signed by AMOL N MAHANAG Date: 2020.01.30 16:51:48 +05'30'","['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on admission.The applicant has challenged the order dated 1.7.2011 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No.375/11 by which the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 376(1) and 506-II of IPC were framed.No charges of such offences could be framed against the applicant.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.It is possible that due to some relation of the prosecutrix with some other person, child could born but the allegations of rape etc were made by the prosecutrix against the applicant and at present, the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be examined, therefore, order passed by the trial Court seems to be legal.For framing of charges, it would be clear that if the evidence is considered as it is, then conviction must be directed for some offences and if it is so then the charges for such offences shall be framed.Consequently, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed at motion stage.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj","['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"By a common order, M.Cr.C. Nos. 24122/2017 and 27827/2017 sh moved by applicants Smt. Satya Devi and Smt. Rajkumari Kewat for e anticipatory bail and M.Cr.C. No. 21164/2017 moved by principal ad accused Pushpraj Patel for grant of regular bail have been disposed of.Pr The applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to a hy applicants Satya Devi @ Gudiya Patel, Smt. Rajkumari Kewat and Bhairo Prasad Patel herein who are apprehending their arrests in ad connection with Crime No. 294/2017 for the offences punishable M under sections 363, 366, 376, 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at of Police Station-Gadh, District-Rewa and the application under Section rt 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for grant of ou regular bail on behalf of applicant Pushpraj Patel.The allegation against applicant Pushpraj Patel is that he has C abducted and raped the minor daughter of the complainant.h Learned counsel for the State has submitted that age of the ig prosecutrix is about 15 years and 8 months.On 7/09/2017, the mother of the prosecutrix registers an F.I.R. under Sections 363 and 366 of I.P.C. stating that she suspects that her daughter has been kidnapped by applicant Pushpraj Patel.The prosecutrix was recovered on 10/09/2017 and on 11/09/2017, her 161 statement has been recorded.She says that applicants Satya Devi, Rajkumari Kewat and Bhairo Prasad had assisted the main accused Pushpraj Patel in the case.How they have assisted the main accused is not spelt out correctly and the allegation to that effect is omnibus.The M.L.C. is inconclusive and the F.S.L. report shows that there were no human sperm in the vaginal slide taken from the prosecutrix and her clothes.sh The charge-sheet has been filed.e Under the circumstances, the application M.Cr.C. No. ad 21164/2017 filed on behalf of applicant Pushpraj Patel is allowed Pr and he shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court hy and M.Cr.The applicants shall C join investigation as and when called upon to do so by the police.h C.C. as per rules.ig H (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE vy Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR VAIBHAV DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=5d417c5e2cdb0fdfcea7271b91298 YEOLEKAR 9fffd7a8d3dbf63db4ebdc42355e64abf7c, 2.5.4.45=0321007752E925403D6A9CA64C0 AF28688DDCEFD19008152D550BB9E37BE4 DAFFE2DB9, cn=VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2018.01.17 17:23:20 +05'30'","['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This is first bail application filed by the applicants/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 329/2020 registered at Police Station Simariya, District Panna for the offence punishable under Sections, 354, 354 (D), 323, 294, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act.Prosecution case is that the applicant's son made sexual assault on the prosecutrix and thereafter, applicants made quarrel with the parents of the prosecurtix and abused them and beaten and threatened to kill them.If the prosecution story considered as it, against them, hardly an offence under Section 323, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC would be made out which are bailable offence.In the circumstance, there are entitled to get benefit of anticipatory bail.Learned P.L., opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.If they failed to do so, the effect of this order shall be vacated automatically.The applicant/accused are directed to join the investigation immediately and fully co-operate with the investigation.They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(J.P.GUPTA) JUDGE VKV/-Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2020.08.28 03:45:16 -07'00'",['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
"As per prosecution story, M.P. State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ""MPSEDC"") is a body working under State of M.P. Department of Science and Technology.In the year 2012 Government of Madhya Pradesh appointed MPSEDC, as the Nodal Agency for MP e-procurement portal.MPSEDC selected M/s Tata Consultancy Services with Antares Systems Ltd. as the new Implementation Agency for end-to-end e-Procurement solutions.The New Service Providers undertook the Customization, Integration, Implementation and Maintenance of Single, Unitary, Web Based e- Procurement Software (Portal) with the specified modules which also include E-Tendering.Applicant Manohar M.N. was the Vice President of Antares Systems Ltd. and was the project in-charge on behalf of the company.Co-accused Nandkishor Brahme THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.35958/2019 (Manohar M.N. Vs.State of M.P through EOW.) 2 was posted as OSD in MPSEDC from the year 2012 and was assigned the duty as Nodal Officer of E-Tendering Project.In E- Tendering Project, MPSEDC made a platform available to various Government Departments for floating tenders.In the tendering processes the concerned Department which issued the tender uploaded its tender on the portal, on which last date of filing tender and the time of its opening was mentioned.While issuing the tender, the concerned officer also attached the public key of his digital signature.The tenderer after registering himself on MP e- Procurement portal filled the tender and after filing the tender, submitted the tender on the portal after it was encrypted by the public key of the officer concerned attached with the tender.After submission of the tender, no departmental officer, e-tendering company or other person could open the tender before its opening time.On 11th April, 2018 at the time of opening of three tenders Nos. 91, 93 & 94 floated by the Madhya Pradesh Jal Nigam Maryadit (here in after referred as ""MPJNM"") the computer displayed a message that ""the contents of the document had been modified"".On that service provider company Antares Systems Ltd. was directed to submit the report after inquiry.In the first report given by the team of Antares Systems Ltd after examining the system they mentioned that there was no irregularity and only attributed the message to technical defect.However, they also stated that further technical analysis was going on.Thereafter, on 05/05/2019 Antares Systems Ltd. again gave the Root Cause Analysis Report (R.C.A.) mentioning therein that the tenders had been tampered with.On that the then Managing Director of MPSIDC informed MPJNM for canceling these bids and also directed Antares Systems Ltd. to enquire all the tenders, which were floated by the various Government department between 01/01/2018 to 30/04/2018 on E-Portal.On that the team of employees of Antares Systems Ltd.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.35958/2019 (Manohar M.N. Vs.State of M.P through EOW.) 3 again enquired the matter and gave the report to the effect that during the check period six other tenders i.e. tender of MP Road Development Corporation No.786, Public Works Department Tender Nos. 49813, 49982 & 49985 and tender of Water Resources Department Nos. 10030 & 10044 were also manipulated similarly.During the performance test, OSMO was provided with user IDs and Bidder IDs by the Antares Ltd. In the month of June, 2016 OSMO stated that it was not able to conduct a performance test of the whole system and thus could not complete the process of testing.It is further stated that the manipulation was done by one of the user ID and bid IDs.For manipulating the tenders of MPJNM, a demo file was created on MP e-procurement portal.That file was created using ID PT 4, which was given to OSMO IT Solutions at the time of performance testing and they also used digital signature certificate (DSC) of Keshav Rao Uikey.The SIM of this mobile number was registered in the name of co-accused Varun Chaturvedi and was being used by co-accused Vinay Choudhary.State of M.P through EOW.) 5 using bidder ID number 15597 and vendor ID number QK 829 846 pasted the said bids in demo file.Thus, they were able to see the figures/bids submitted by all the bidders in encrypted form.Applicant Manohar M.N. was the Vice President of Antraes Systems Ltd and was the project in-charge of e- Procurement Softwar (Portal) on behalf of the company.Heard with the aid of case diary.The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 25.06.2019 passed in M.Cr.Thereupon, on the direction of Chief Secretary of M.P. Government a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Economic Offence Wing.In the preliminary enquiry it was found that after changing the bid price of tender Nos. 91, 93 & 94 of MPJNM amounting to Rs.1,769 crore the M/s GVPR Engineers Limited Hyderabad for tender No.91, M/s the Hume Pipe Company Limited Mumbai for tender No. 93 and M/s JMC Projects India Limited Mumbai for tender No. 94 were made lowest bidder (L1), likewise by tampering the two tenders of the Public Works Department Tenders Nos.49985 & 49982 amounting to Rs.13.46 crores, M/s Ramkumar Narwani Bhopal, were made lowest bidder, in the Tender no. 4981319 amounting to 15 crores, Sorathiya Velji Ratna and Company Vadodara were made lowest bidder.After tampering the tender of Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation amounting to Rs.7.86 crores M/s Madhav Infra projects Vadodara, Water Resources Department tender Nos.10030 & 10044 total amounting to Rs.1135 Crore, M/s Max Mantena Micro JV Hyderabad and Sorathiya Velji Ratna Baroda were made a lowest bidder (L-1), due to which companies earned illegal profits.On the basis of that preliminary evidences and findings of a probe report of the Computer Emergency Response Team, New Delhi, Crime No.12/2019 was registered at Economic Offences Wing, Bhopal (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 120- B, 420, 468, 471 of the IPC, Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against applicant and other co-accused persons.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.35958/2019 (Manohar M.N. Vs.Thereafter, hackers entered into the database through the staging server, where original tenders were stored and this process was done through virtual private network (VPN), the access of which was only with co-accused Nandkishore Bramhe.After reaching the database server hackers accessed the file where the original tenders were saved.They copied the details of all the bidders, who submitted the bids, which were encrypted.After copying the bids they again came back to the demo tender file created by them earlier and by THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.35958/2019 (Manohar M.N. Vs.After seeing the amount filed by each bidder another demo file was created in the second demo file, the encrypted bids as visible in the first demo file were pasted in the second demo file.Again by using the bidder ID No.15597 having vendor ID number QK29846 they manipulated the bids and made the person they wanted to benefit as the lowest bidder (L-1).After making the change in the second demo file and placing a wrong bidder L-1 hackers copied the encrypted/manipulated bid value and again by using the staging server reached the database server through a VPN, access of which was given to co-accused Nandkishore Bramhe, opened the original tender file and pasted the said encrypted manipulated bid value next to the name of the bidder they wanted to benefit and thus manipulated the bids.Learned counsel of the applicant submitted that the applicant is nowhere involved in that scam.He is the Assistant vice President of the ASL Company.ASL is a company specializing in software management particularly pertaining to the public e-procurement, since the year 1997 and ever since has been working to the satisfaction of the Government Agencies throughout the Country.ASL has continuously been providing the software e-procurement services to the State of Punjab, Goa and certain other States.C. No.35958/2019 (Manohar M.N. Vs.State of M.P through EOW.) 6 and looking to the reputation of the companies and other relevant factors.TCS along with ASL were successful bidders and accordingly a Tri- Party agreement was executed between MPSEDC, ASL and TCS.It is further submitted that they had a pre-defined duty in their respective expertise in managing the aforesaid e- procurement portal.Accordingly, the security of the portal entirely rested with MPSEDC.In this regard applicant is also filed the copy of said Tri-Party agreement.The bids were altered at the user ID level, which had nothing to do with the operations of the software functions, which was being performed by ASL.The applicant has falsely been implicated in the crime.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/EOW opposed the prayer and submitted that the whole responsibility of security of e-procurement portal was with the applicant Manohar M.N. since he was the head of Antares in respect of e-procurement portal at Bhopal.In the latter produced by Suresh Kumar CEO of Antares this fact is mentioned.Applicant Manohar M.N. was hand and gloves with all the co-accused persons and just to benefit them came with the first report dated 17/04/2018 that there was no tempering in the bids.Even prior to that Antares also sent an Email THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.35958/2019 (Manohar M.N. Vs.State of M.P through EOW.) 7 on 11/04/2018 mentioning that no irregularity was found.Later, when the said tempering came to the knowledge of higher officials second finding report was given accepting that the tempering had happened in the whole tendering process, which shows that he was also involved in the conspiracy.No manipulation could have taken place without the knowledge of applicant Manohar M.N. The demo files which were used in the manipulation in the bids were created and made available to OSMO by the applicant Manohar M.N. and by using the bidder ID, bids were changed and manipulated.On the request of co-accused Nandkishore Brahme VPN Access was given to him, which was also used by the Antares from his Bangalore office for maintenance of the eprocurement portal.That VPN was used in the tender manipulation.By assessing the database through the staging server, data had been read from genuine tenders and copied to blank tenders name Demo.The said faulty process was created by applicant Manohar M.N. so that the other co-accused persons could access the main database seamlessly and manipulation could be done.Although earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on merit by this Court vide order dated 25.06.2019 passed in M.Cr.It is alleged that the demo files which were used in the manipulation in the bids were created and made available THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.35958/2019 (Manohar M.N. Vs.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.The applicant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.C.C. on payment of usual charges.","['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT Vaidya, J.The State has filed the above appeals against the orders of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Manmad, on October 28, 1967, in two criminal cases before him, both of which related to an incident which took place at about 7-30 p.m. on October 7, 1966, in Manmad.The first information in one case was given by one Zumbarlal Rajmal Chajed and the first information in the other case was given by one Parasmal Mesulal Jain relating to the said incident.As these two appeals relate to the same incident and involve a common question of law, they can be disposed of by a single judgment.Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 1968 arises out of Criminal case No. 778 of 1966 before the said Magistrate.A chargesheet was filed before him on October 15, 1966, against the seven respondents in that appeal, viz., (1) Bherulal Dagdulal Jain, (2) Kantilal Dagdulal Bardiya, (3) Madanlal Panalal Bardiya, (4) Dharmachand Dagduram Bardiya, (5) Parasmal Bherulal Bardiya, (6) Balu Kondaji Karde and (7) Shridhar Waman Paliwal.It was alleged in the said charge-sheet by the Police Sub-Inspector, Manmad city, that on October 7, 1966, at 7-30 p.m., the seven accused formed an unlawful assembly in an open street of Manmad city inasmuch as, as a result of a meeting of a bank, they entertained a common object of beating the complainant Zumbarlal Rajmal Chajed and witneses Amarchand Babulal Chajed, Manakchand Rajmal Chajed and Motilal Rajmal Chajed and in pursuance of that common object, they voluntarily caused injuries to them with blows and kicks and with wooden pieces and bamboo sticks and also abused them and threatened to kill them and thereby committed offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.Thereafter the case was adjourned from time to time for various reasons till March 17, 1967, when the parties filed an application exh.15 signed by the complainant Zumbarlal, the seven accused persons and the witnesses who were alleged to have been hurt in the course of riot.This application was objected to on behalf of the prosecution on the ground that by law, partial compounding was not allowed and if the parties wanted withdrawal, they should move the District Magistrate in respect of the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet.The Judicial Magistrate, however, passed the following order on that very day:It may be noted here that in the application exh.15 the complainant, the accused and the witnesses referred to above had mentioned that the compromise was arrived at as a result of the efforts of many gentlemen and leaders.It also stated that the signatories to exh.15 belonged to merchant class and respectable families and as a result of this compromise, the relations among them were as they were before the incident and had become very harmonious and peaceful.On April 14, 1967, the accused filed an application exh.17 for adjournment of the case stating that they had applied to the District Magistrate for withdrawing the case and that application was not decided.It is most regrettable that the District Magistrate does not appear to have passed any order with regard to the withdrawal inspite of the waiting by the parties and the Court for more than four months.On August 4, 1967, the Judicial Magistrate who had succeeded the previous Judicial Magistrate framed a charge against the seven accused under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, the material portion of which was as under:That you on or about the 7-10-60 at 7-30 P.M. at Manmad were members of an unlawful assembly and did in prosecution of common object of such assembly, viz., to cause hurt to Zumbarmal Chhajed, committed the offence of rioting and at that time were armed with deadly weapons and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code....The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge.After framing the charge, the case was adjourned from time to time till September 20, 1967, when prosecution witness No. 1 Zumbarlal, the complainant, was examined as a witness.He proved his first information before the police at exh.Immediately after his evidence was recorded, an application was filed by the pleader for the accused submitting as under:The police have chargesheeted the accused under sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 34, I.P.C. Except under Section 147, I.P.C., the offences under other sections are compoundable and are compounded.The complainant has averred that he has compounded the offence under Section 147, I.P.C. also.He does not intend to proceed with the trial.It is therefore requested that the accused may please be acquitted.This application was resisted on behalf of the prosecution on several grounds.The learned Magistrate, however, overruled the objections on behalf of the prosecution and following the decision of the Patna High Court in Ramphal v. State of Bihar (1964) 2 Cr. L. J. 111, came to the conclusion that since the main offences were compounded, there could not be a trial of the offence under Section 148, Indian Penal Code.He also relied on a judgment of the Assistant Judge of Nasik which was cited before him.He concluded that the offence under Section 148, Indian Penal Code must fail as the main offences have been compounded.He, therefore, acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 7 of the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code.In Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 1948 also the charge-sheet was filed on October 15, 1966, against the seven accused, viz., (1) Amarchand Babulal Chajed, (2) Babulal Rajmal Chajed, (3) Zumbarlal Rajmal Chajed, (4) Manakchand Rajmal Chajed, (5) Motilal Rajmal Chajed, (6) Bhaskar Shankar Nagare, (7) Sakharam Gopinath Barde.It may be noted that the accused Zumbarlal was the complainant in the other case.The accused Amarchand, Babulal Manakchand and Motilal were cited as witnesses in the other case.This case also took a parallel course to the other case and an application exh.15 was filed on March 17, 1967, i.e., on the same day on which exh.15 was filed in the other case and with the same contents signed by the complainant, the accused and the injured witnesses who were cited in the charge-sheet.The application was opposed on the same grounds on behalf of the prosecution and the learned Magistrate on the very day passed an order as follows:Thereafter an application was filed on September 20, 1967, which was similar to the application exh.27 in the other case.It is difficult to understand from the report as to how inspite of the composition of the offence under Section 447, there was a conviction under Sections 143 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, which conviction was upheld by Wallace J. It may be that the circumstances in that case showed that the two offences were distinct.No point arose in that ease as to whether the alleged offence under Section 447 was distinct from the offence under Section 143, although Wallace J. has pointed out that on a construction of Section 143 itself an offence under Section 143 was distinct from the criminal offence which the persons agreed and intended to commit.This led to hot words.On the following day at about 8 or 8-30 a.m., Ramphal Gope and others, who were the accused ill that case, came to the house of Ramdeo and demanded the price at once.The accused assaulted Ramdeo.Some of them went to the police.The police filed two charge-sheets against the fourteen accused who are involved in the two cases.In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.","['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The prosecution case in short are as follows;""On February 15, 1985 at about 8.35 P.M. the complainant Marjina and her brother Hossain Sheikh returned house after their days work and Hossain started playing with his son on the courtyard.At that time, Sefali Sheikh, wife of Gofur Sheikh residing in the next house asked him to come to their house as Gofur was calling him.In response to that the brother of the complainant went there.Sometime thereafter around quarter to nine the complainant was attracted by an alarm raised from the house of Gofur ""Chor Chor"".When she rushed there and found his brother Hossain Sheikh inside the room of Gofur Sheikh and accused Gofur Sheikh, Sefali Sheikh, Ikramul Sheikh and Johur Sheikh were assaulting him.As soon as she arrived there the accused persons fled away and she found that blood is oozing out from the abdomen of Hossain Sheikh.Out of the four accused persons one of them has assaulted her brother on his abdomen with a knife.Thereafter, her brother was removed to Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.""Form No. J (1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy C.R.A. No. 467 of 1988 Gofur Sheikh & Ors.Versus The State & Anr.This appeal is directed against an order of conviction under Section 304 Part II, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine and default clause.The appellant in the instant appeal along with another were placed on trial before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Nadia, to answer a charges under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.After trial while the Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Sefali Sheikh @ Bibi, but convicted the present three appellants under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.Upon a FIR being lodged with the aforesaid allegations a First Information Report under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.After completion of investigation police also submitted charge-sheet for the self-same offence.Subsequently, the appellant and another Sefali Sheikh were placed on trial before the Learned Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Nadia to answer a charge under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In the trial while present three appellants were convicted under Section 304 Part II/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the other accused Sefali Sheikh was acquitted.During the trial prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 10 witnesses.Out of them P.W. 1, Marjina Bewa, the sister of the deceased, P.W. 2 Momena Bewa, wife of the deceased, P.W. 3 Selina Bibi, sister of the deceased and P.W. 5 Asrajan Bewa, mother of the deceased claimed to be the eye witnesses of the occurrence.While P.W. 4 Kurban Sheikh is a post occurrence witness.P.W. 6 Dr. Bimalendu Tarafdar is the doctor to whom injured Hossain Sheikh, was brought at Santipur General Hospital.P.W. 8 Dr. Swarup Kundu is the Autopsy Surgeon.P.W. 9 is a Judicial Magistrate.P.W. 7 is a police constable and P.W. 10 is the Investigating Officer of the case.In addition to that prosecution has relied on a retracted confessional statement of accused Gofur Sheikh (Exhibit - 4).Heard Mr. Abhijit Basu, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State.Perused the evidence on record as well as other materials viz. the confessional statement of the accused, First Information Report etc.According to the P.W. 1, the defacto-complainant of the case after arriving at the house of the accused Gofur along with Momena Bewa wife of Hossain and her mother Asrajan, she found that accused Johur was assaulting Hossain with fist and blows, when the accused Sefali, Gofur, Ikramul were present there.She also noticed that blood was oozing out from his abdomen.Thereafter, Hossain was taken to their house and he stated to them that Ikramul hit on his belly by a Kirich.Her allegations that she went to the house of Gofur with Selina, wife of the Hossain Momena and her mother and found accused Johur was assaulting Hossain by fist and blows and Hossain told her that accused Ikramul assaulted him on his abdomen with one Kirich was contradicted during her cross- examination with reference to her allegations made by her in the First Information Report.It appears in the FIR no such allegation was made.According to the P.W. 2 Momena Bewa, the wife of the deceased Hossain when she arrived at the place of occurrence with others she found her husband Hossain Sheikh was standing pressing his abdomen and Ikramul was cleaning a bloodstained knife.In her cross-examination she was contradicted with her allegations that she found Ikramul cleaning a bloodstained knife.It appears from the examination of the Investigating Officer of the case that no such statement was made by her to the police during investigation.The witness has not stated anything about the presence of any of the appellants at the spot except Ikramul.P.W. 3 Selina Bibi stated that as she along with other witnesses reached Gofur's house noticed that Johur was assaulting Hossain with fist and blows catching his collar.She also noticed one injury in the abdomen of Hossain and Hossain told him that wife of Gofur caused such injury.Her allegation that Gofur was assaulting Hossain by fist and blows by catching his collar stand contradicted with reference to her statement before the police.According to the Investigating Officer of the case no such statement was made to him.This witness had not stated about the presence of any other appellants except Johur.P.W. 5 Asrajan Bewa stated in her evidence that having reached the house of Gofur she found that Johur was assaulting Hossain by catching his collar.At the time she noticed that Hossain received a bleeding injury on his abdomen and told her that wife of the Gofur caused such injury.This witness admitted that she was never examined by the police and she not stated anything to the police about the incident as was stated in her chief.This witness also mentioned anything about the presence of Ikramul at the spot.All the witnesses however stated that Hossain went to the house of Gofur on being called by his wife Sefali Sheikh Having carefully perusing the evidence on record I find that the wife of the deceased P.W. 2 Momena Bewa has not made any claim that her husband disclosed who caused the injury.While according to P.W. 1 Marjina Bewa, the deceased Hossain told her that he was assaulted by Ikramul but P.W. 3 Selina Bibi and P.W. 5 Asrajan Bewa both stated that Hossain told them that the injury was caused by Sefali Sheikh, the wife of the Gofur Sheikh.However, Sefali Sheikh has been acquitted in the trial.Since the alleged dying declaration of Hossain Sheikh made to the witnesses as regards to his assailants is contradictory and none of the said witnesses during investigation made disclosure to the police about such dying declaration I am not inclined to act thereupon.It is also to be noted although according to the prosecution case the P.W. 2 Momena Bewa, the wife of the deceased Hossain rushed to the spot together with other witnesses viz. P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 but she was silent about any disclosure by Hossain.It is well settled a confession without corroboration can very well be acted upon to record conviction but as a rule of prudence court must seek other circumstances to corroborate a confession particularly when the same is retracted although each and every circumstances mentioned in the confessional statement is not required to be corroborated separately and independently but the broad fact of the confession must be corroborated.In the instant case, this court already declined to rely on the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence as their statement stands contradicted on very vital and material points.Moreover, the story spelt out by the appellant Gofur Sheikh in his retracted confession has not been corroborated by any evidence.The appellant Gofur in his confession allegedly claimed to be responsible for causing injuries but claimed that he has not caused such injury with the intention to kill the deceased but he did so when he found that deceased was attempting to rape his wife and being apprehended by him was trying to flee away.None of the witnesses implicated accused Gofur for causing injury on the deceased Hossain.For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove its case and thus the impugned order of conviction cannot be sustained.In the result appeal succeeds and stands allowed.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The prosecution case in short was that on or about 8.4.1977 the appellant along with the other accused persons kidnapped a minor girl Parvinnessa from the lawful guardianship of her father Abdul Rahaman-P.W. 1 from his residence at Calcutta.The prosecution examined 8 witnesses of whom P.Ws. 1 and 4 are the father and brother respectively of Parvinnessa.P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the doctor and the radiologist who examined the girl.P.Ws 5 and 6 are the witnesses who were present at the time of the recovery of the girl from the house of the appellant.P.Ws 7 and 8 are police personnel.P.W 7 is the officer who recovered the girl from the house of the appellant, while P.W 8 is the Investigating Officer of this case.The defence is one of total denial.No witnesses were examined by the defence.The fact the girl was a minor at the time when she was recovered has not been disputed in this case.The learned advocate for the state has not been able to point out any evidence or any material in this case relating to the taking or the enticing of the minor in question by the appellant save and except that she was in fact found in the house of the appellant and recovered thereafter.P.W. 1 the father of the girl has stated that she has since been married and has gone on tour with her husband and it is not known when she will return.He has deposed that he does not know her present whereabouts.He has stated that his daughter used to visit her relatives without his permission and that his daughter did not leave with his permission nor did anyway take his permission so far as the present incident is concerned.He has stated that he was not examined by the Investigating Officer.P.W. 4 -the brother of the girl has deposed that on 8.4.1977 on finding his sister missing from home he lodged the missing report on 9.4.1977 at the Narkeldanga Police Station.Thereafter on 10.4.1977 he lodged the F.I.R. in the present case.Later he was present at the time of the recovery by the police of his sister from the house of the appellant.JUDGMENT Jitendra Nath Chaudhuri, J.This appeal arises out of the Sections Trial Case No. XIX of January 1978 held by the learned Sessions Judge, Midnapore.In the said Trial the present appellant Sk.Yusuf was charged alone under Section 368 I.P.C. as well as under Section 366/34 I.P.C. along with four other accused.All the other accused persons were acquitted at the trial and the present appellant was also acquitted of the charge under Section 368 I.P.C. but was convicted alone of the lesser offence under Section 363 I.P.C. on the charge under Section 366/34 I.P.C. and was sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment.He has identified the appellant in court.The evidence of P.Ws 2 and 3 is to the effect that on 11-4-1974 Parvinnessa was under the age of 18 years.In fact P.W. 2 has stated that her age on 11-4-1977 was 15 years and 5 months while P.W. 3 has stated that on 11-4-1977 when he radiologically examined Parvinnessa she was about 16 years of age.P.W.s 2 and 3 were not cross-examined by the defence.P.W.s 5 and 6 have deposed that they were present at the time when Parvinnessa was recovered by the police from the house of the appellant.No cross-examination was directed to these witnesses relating to this factum of recovery.P.W. 7 - the Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police recovered the gril from the house of the appellant.He has deposed that besides the appellant he also arrested three other accused persons in that house at that time (one accused subsequently surrendeded in court).P.W. 7 handed over the victim girl along with the arrested persons to the Officer-in-Charge in the police station.In cross-examination he deposed that there were other occupants in the house of the appellant at the time of recovery.The learned Trial Judge has convicted the accused- appellant under Section 363 I.P.C. having found that the girl in question was minor at the time of the incident (that is to say under 18 years of age) and that she was found in the house of the appellant.From the solitary circumstance that the girl was recovered from the appellant's house he has inferred that the appellant himself has enticed or taken the girl away from the lawful guardianship.In discussing the evidence of P.W. 4 that the girl of her own accord went to the appellant's house, he has held that this witness is not reliable.361 I.P.C. have to be satisfied.Moreover in this case the girl herself has not been called to depose and the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that if called she would not have supported the prosecution case.P.W. 1 has given the explanation as to why he has not to come to depose but the same does not appear to be convincing.","['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"1 12-14 skp lowed) C.R.M. No. 11659 of 2014 In the matter of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 1st September, 2014 in connection with Asansol(W) P.S. Case No. 168/2013 dated 08.10.2013 under Sections 325/354A/120B/397/376/211/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In re : Laltu Dawn & Ors. ... Petitioners.Mr. Himangshu De, Mr. Arup Krishna Das ... for the petitioners.Mr. Subrata Roy ... for the State.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners, namely, (1) Laltu Dawn, (2) Mintu Dawn and (3) Raju Dawn, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 5,000/- each, with one surety of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The application for anticipatory bail is thus disposed of.( Tapan Kumar Dutt, J. ) ( R. K. Bag, J.)","['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE sh Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN Date: 18/07/2019 11:52:57Petitioner convicted u/S 302 r/W 34 of IPC and Section 307 of IPC has been sentenced for life imprisonment by judgment dated 31.03.2005 in S.T. No. 458/1998 by Sessions Judge, Indore.vthou dkjkokl ls naMkfn""V ,asls cafn;ksa dks] tks vthou dkjkokl dh ltk ds vfrfjDr 05 o""kZ rd dh ltk ls nafMr gksa rFkk ftUgksus fopkjk/khu dkykof/k dks lfEefyr djrs gq, 15 o""kZ dk naMkns'k Hkwxr fy;k gks rFkk ifjgkj dks lfEefyr djrs gw, naMkns'k ds 21 o""kZ iw.kZ dj ysus ij eqDr fd;k tk,xkAs Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN Date: 18/07/2019 11:52:57 2 WP-4968-2019 Learned State counsel prays for a day's time to seek instructions.Let a copy of this order be provided to Shri Vijaywarigya for official use and onwards transmission.",['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
"J. C. Dalal, E. E. Jhirad and O. P. Rana, for theappellant.S. C. Patwardhan B. Dutta, J. B. Dadachanjl, O. C. Mathurand Ravinder Narain, for respondent No. 1.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byShah, J. The appellant, Mrs. Menezes, is the owner of a123124house in Bombay, and the wife of the first respondent YusufKhan is a tenant of a part of the first floor in that house.On January 17, 1963 one Robert-a servant of the appellant,called the wife of the first respondent a thief and'Halkat'.On the next day the first respondent slapped theface of Robert.This was followed by a heated exchange ofabusive words between the first respondent and theappellant's husband.The first respondent was annoyed andthrew at the appellant's husband a ""file"" of papers.Thefile did not hit the appellant's husband, but it hit theelbow of the appellant causing a ""scratch"".The appellantlodged information at the Bandra police station complainingthat the first respondent had committed house trespass inorder to the committing of an offence punishable withimprisonment, had thrown a shoe at her, had slapped the faceof her servant Robert, and had also caused her a ""bleedingincised wound on the forearm"".The version of the appellantwas a gross exaggeration of the incident.The Officer incharge of the police station was persuaded to enter upon aninvestigation on this information, which by charging therespondent with the offence of trespass was made to appearas if a cognizable offence was committed.The Sub-Inspectorfound that the appellant had suffered a mere scratch on herelbow.The appellant and Robert declined to go to a publichospital for examination or treatment, and were, it isclaimed, examined by a private medical practitioner, whocertified that the appellant bad suffered a ""bleedingincised wound, skin deep, size 1"" in length on the rightforearm"", and that Robert had ""a swelling about 1 1/2 "" indiameter, roundish, soft and tender"", but no bruises.The offence was petty, but was given undue importance.Thecase was transferred from the Court of the PresidencyMagistrate, Bandra, to the Court of the PresidencyMagistrate VI Court, Mazagaon, Bombay, and was entrusted toa special prosecutor on behalf of the State.The TrialMagistrate held that the story that the first respondent hadtrespassed into the house of the appellant was false and thecharge of trespass was made only with a view to persuade thepolice officer to investigate it as a cognizable offence.The story of the appellant that the first respondent hadhurled a shoe at her was also disbelieved.The TrialMagistrate held that simple injuries were caused to Robertand to the appellant and for causing those injuries heconvicted the first respondent of the offence under S. 323I.P. Code and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 10 on eachof the two counts.Against the order of conviction, arevisional application was preferred to the High Court ofJudicature at Bombay.The appellant was no longer concernedwith the proceedings in the High Court, but since there weresome negotiations for compounding the offence, the appellantwas impleaded as a party to the proceeding before the HighCourt.The High Court was of the view that the appellanthad grossly exaggerated her story, that the evidence of themedical practitioner who claimed to have examined theappellant and Robert and to have 125certified the injuries"" did ""not inspire confidence"", thatthe husband of the appellant had addressed provocative andinsulting abuses, and that in a state of excitement therespondent hurled a ""file of papers"" at the appellant'shusband which missed him and caused a ""scratch"" on theappellant's forearm.At the time of the incident inquestion, the appellant's husband and the first respondentexchanged vulgar abuses.Apparently the respondent wasannoyed and threw a ""file"" of papers which caused a merescratch to the appellant.This court had at the time when special leavewas granted directed that Rs. 1,500 be deposited by theappellant by way of costs of the respondents.Inthe circumstances, we direct that Rs. 750 be paid to thefirst respondent and the balance be returned to theappellant.Appeal dismissed.",['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
"WP.odt 10 of public order in the above localities and adjoining areas.Learned APP invites our attention to the para 5 of the affidavit-in- reply and submits that, there are as many as four offences are registered against the petitioner in Jawaharnagar Police Station, Kranti Chowk Police Station, Satara Police Station and MIDC Waluj Police Station, respectively.He further submits that, the chapter case was also registered against the petitioner in Satara Police Station and preventive action was taken against him.He submits that, in spite of registration of the aforesaid offences, the petitioner has not controlled his alleged activities; on the contrary his illegal and dangerous activities are showing ascending trend.Reserved on : 23.03.2017 Pronounced on : 03.04.2017 ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 2 JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::This Writ Petition is filed with following prayer:Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::District Magistrate & Ors.2, it is necessary that there should be verification made of the in-camera statements and the copies of the verification needs to be furnished to the petitioner detenu.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::2 2013 All.M.R. [Cri.] 16::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 5 It is further submitted that, the dangerous person is defined as per Section 2 (b-1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 [for short 'MPDA Act'].However, in the present case, the Detaining Authority has failed to prove that the petitioner is dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2 [b-1] of the MPDA Act. He further submits that the petitioner belongs to 'Rajput Community', and he understands Hindi language but the copy of the order along with the proposal which was supplied to the petitioner is in English and Marathi, and therefore, the petitioner could not submit his representation properly as he does not understand either Marathi or English.It is submitted that, there was no any verification of the in-camera statements recorded by the authority, and therefore, on ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 6 that ground also, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.The Commissioner of Police Pune and Ors.5, and also the judgment of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad in the case of Deepak Vs.The Commissioner of Police, Pune City and ors.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::It is submitted that, there is no 3 2016 All M.R. [Cri.] 930 4 2000 [2] Mh.L.J. 400 5 2015 All M.R. [Cri.] 4437::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 7 live link or nexus between the crimes registered against the petitioner and definition of the dangerous person as referred in Section 2 [b-1] of the MPDA Act. It is submitted that, it is only the person, who commits offences habitually, can be called as 'dangerous person'.However, in the present case, the authority has relied upon the alleged solitary incident of registration of Crime No.189/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 354 (A) (D), 323, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC r/w.Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, dated 21st April, 2016, against the petitioner, and wrongly treated the petitioner as habitual offender.Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petition deserves to be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for respondent - State relying upon ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 8 the affidavit-in-reply of respondent no.3 made following submissions:::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::That the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the order of detention on the basis of grounds on which the detention has been effected, in view of Section 5-A of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug- offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black- marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981, and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself, and accordingly, it may kindly be dismissed.That sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds of detention cannot be a subject matter on the basis of which the petition could be entertained under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.It is subjective satisfaction of the detaining ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 9 authority that the acts of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and with a view to prevent him from committing such acts, detention is necessary, are the relevant considerations.That the petitioner is a 'Dangerous Person' as defined in the said Act and he has committed serious offences i.e. assault, outraging the modesty of woman, rape, dacoity, criminal intimidation, act of threatening common people, prostitution, etc. He has created reign of terror in the locality of MIDC Waluj and adjoining areas and disturbed the peace over there.Due to his criminal and dangerous activities, the persons residing in the jurisdiction of Police Station MIDC Waluj and adjoining areas remained under constant fear and terror.Therefore, the detaining authority arrived at subjective satisfaction that the petitioner's criminal and dangerous activities are prejudicial to the maintenance ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.Even preventive action taken under the Code of Criminal Procedure failed to curb his prejudicial activities.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::That, after considering the ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 11 seriousness of the above said crimes, the Police Inspector, MIDC Waluj Police Station, Aurangabad, conducted confidential enquiry.In an enquiry, it is revealed that due to petitioner's fear, nobody is willing to give statement openly against him.On an assurance to the witnesses that, their names and identity, and other particulars would be kept secretly, and they will not be called upon to give evidence against the petitioner in any court or any other forum, witnesses agreed to give their statements.The Police Inspector, MIDC Waluj Police Station accordingly recorded the statements of the witnesses 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D', in-camera.After completion of confidential inquiry, the Police Inspector of Police Station MIDC Waluj submitted proposal to the Detaining Authority i.e. respondent no.3, for taking action under Section 3 [1] of the MPDA Act, 1981, through concerned ACP Cantonment Division and DCP ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 12 [Zone-1] at Aurangabad.In the said report, the Deputy Commissioner of Police [Zone01], Aurangabad has mentioned that the facts given in the statements and apprehension expressed by the witnesses 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D', is true and reasonable.After perusing the said report, respondent no.3 was satisfied that, the facts given in the statements and apprehension entertained by the witnesses 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D', is true and reasonable.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::In view of the offences registered against the petitioner and the statements of witnesses the detaining authority is convinced that the petitioner is a 'dangerous person', and the people residing within the jurisdiction of Police Station, referred herein above in para 7, and the residents ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.Therefore, after arriving at subjective satisfaction, respondent no.3 passed the detention order on 4th June, 2016, and as the petitioner was in judicial custody in Police Station MIDC Waluj, Aurangabad in Crime No.189/2016, for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 354 [A], 354 [D], 323, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC and 67 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000, after obtaining prior permission of the concerned Court, the detention order ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 14 was served on the petitioner on the same day.After receipt of the opinion from the Advisory Board, the detention order has been confirmed by the State Government, vide its order No.All the mandatory provisions have been completed in time as stipulated in the said Act.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:01:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::1698.2016 Cri.It is further submitted that, the petitioner is a 'dangerous person' as defined in Section 2 [b-1] of the MPDA Act, 1981, as he has committed serious offences i.e. assault, outraging the modesty of woman, rape, dacoity, criminal intimidation, act of threatening common people, and indulging into encouraging prostitution.As a matter of fact, at the time of passing the detention order, the petitioner was in judicial custody in Police Station MIDC Waluj, Aurangabad, in Crime No. 189/2016 under Sections 376, 354 [A], 354 [D], 323, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC and Section 67 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000, and after obtaining prior permission of ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 16 the concerned Court, the detention order was served on the petitioner on the same day.Thereafter, he has been detained in Central Prison, Aurangabad.It is not correct to say that the order passed under the MPDA Act is unjust, arbitrary and illegal and violate the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.As a matter of fact, the petitioner committed offences under Chapter XVI and XVII of the IPC, and said acts have become a serious threat and source of danger to the lives of law abiding and peace loving citizens and disturbed the public order in the jurisdiction of Police Station MIDC Waluj and adjoining areas.There is strict adherence to relevant legal provisions before passing the order of detention.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::The learned APP appearing for respondent - State also invites our attention ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.He also invites our attention to the further affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent no.3 and submits that on 4th June, 2016, the detention order has been served on the petitioner in Central Prison, Aurangabad, and at that time the statement of the petitioner was recorded before the Police Inspector of Police Station MIDC Waluj, Aurangabad, and Jailor of the Central Prison, Aurangabad.The petitioner stated in his statement that, he has studied upto 10th Standard in Marathi medium at Milind School, Aurangabad, and thereafter, he studied up to 12th Standard in Arts Faculty in Deogiri College at Aurangabad.He also stated that he learnt Marathi, English and Hindi languages during his studies.Therefore, he requested that the grounds of detention and other ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 18 relevant documents should be supplied in Marathi language.Therefore, the grounds of detention and other relevant documents were served on the petitioner along with its Marathi translation on 7th June, 2016 in time.It is further submitted that, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I, Aurangabad, has verified the truthfulness of in-camera statements of witnesses 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D'.The mandate of verification is duly complied in the present case and the same is reflected at the bottom of statements of these witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::Therefore, the learned APP appearing for the respondent - State submits that the petition may be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length.With their able 6 1990 [2] SCC 456::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 20 assistance, we have perused the grounds taken in the Petition, annexures thereto, grounds of detention, the impugned order, affidavit- in-reply of respondent no.1, affidavit-in- reply filed by respondent no.3, further affidavit-in-reply of respondent no.3, and the original record made available for perusal by respondents.So far as first ground raised by the petitioner that the period of detention is not mentioned in the order dated 4th June, 2016 passed by the Detaining Authority, and further no reasons assigned by the State Government to make order operative for one year, and therefore, the order of detention deserves to be quashed is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Devaki [cited supra], after placing reliance upon the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court wherein same issue was involved, has taken a view that, an order of detention is not rendered illegal merely ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 21 because it does not specify the period of detention.Para 13 of the said Judgment reads thus:::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::WP.odt 23 detention.When, no period is mentioned in an order, the implication is that the detention is for the maximum period prescribed under the Act.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::We have carefully perused grounds of the detention.In para 3, there is reference to the Crime No.115/2013 registered with Jawaharnagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC.There is also reference to Crime No.117/2015, registered with Kranti Chowk Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.In all these three cases, the trial is pending.There is another Crime No.189/2016 registered with MIDC Waluj Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 354 [A], 354 [D], 323, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC r/w.Section 67 of the I.T. Act, 2000, which is pending for investigation.In the ground of detention, each of the afore-mentioned crimes have been mentioned.The details in respect of the allegations in the said FIR, and the subsequent orders passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, has also been mentioned.Likewise in respect of other ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 25 crimes also, separate grounds are mentioned, with details about the said crime numbers and subsequent developments happened after registration of that crime.On careful perusal of the allegations in the FIR being Crime No.117/2015 registered with Kranti Chowk Police Station, Crime No.3019/2015 registered with Satara Police Station and Crime No.189/2016 registered with MIDC Waluj Police Station and also chapter case of which proceedings are subsequently dropped, does have nexus with passing of order of detention by the Detaining Authority.Apart from the afore-mentioned three crimes and chapter case, in-camera statements of the witnesses 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' are also recorded.On careful perusal of the original record, we find that, those statements are verified by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I, Aurangabad City and it is mentioned in side margin of every in-camera statements that, ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.Upon perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.1, ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 27 it is clearly mentioned that the State through Department of Home has confirmed the order of detention.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::So far as third ground agitated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Detaining Authority has failed to prove that, the petitioner is dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2 [b-1] of the MPDA Act is concerned; the petitioner is involved in as many as four offences; which are registered by way of separate crime numbers, and also in-camera statements of four witnesses have been recorded, and on the basis of said cogent and sufficient material, the Commissioner of Police arrived at subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is dangerous person and he is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.Therefore, the petitioner's assertion that, he cannot be termed as 'dangerous person', deserves no ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 28 consideration.The material brought on record by the respondents unequivocally indicated about the involvement of the petitioner in habitually committing offences punishable under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::WP.odt 29 that, he studied up to 10th Standard in Marathi medium at Milind School, Aurangabad, and thereafter, he has passed out 12th Standard from Arts Faculty, and he studied in Marathi, English and Hindi languages and he is conversant with all three languages.In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the aforesaid fourth ground agitated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::As already observed, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr. Vasant Pardeshi, has verified the said statements and the Commissioner of Police has also gone through the said statement and subjectively satisfied that the facts given in the statement of the witnesses ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 ::: 1698.2016 Cri.WP.odt 30 and apprehension expressed is true and reasonable.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::In the light of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the considered view that, the order impugned in this Petition needs no interference, hence, the Petition is devoid of any merits, and the same stands rejected.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:00 :::",['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
"IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Present : The Hon'ble Justice Indrajit Chatterjee CRR 2148 of 2014 With CRAN 2861 of 2015 Dr. Amitabha Mukherjee Vs.Indrajit Chatterjee, J:- The report as placed by Mr. Basu, learned counsel representing the State is taken on record.From the said report, it appears that the defacto complainant Tamali Mukherjee could not be traced out at Flat No.Let the report be taken on record.On behalf of the State, Mr. Basu is present.There is no need to keep the matter pending only for appearance of the opposite party No.2 who in spite of best effort of this court could not be traced out.The report of S.I Pradip kumar Sinha of Baguihati P.S dated 27.11.2016 as forwarded by the officer-in-charge of the said police station be taken on record.On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Mukherjee is present.This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceeding of G.R. Case No.2736 of 2012 arising out of Beleghata Police Station Case No.272 dated 28th August, 2012 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, now pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Sealdah, 24 Parganas.Leave is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to amend the cause title of the petition.The case so far relevant for the purpose of assessing this revisional application can be stated in brief, thus: that one FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 wherein she candidly claims that there was no marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party.From 2002, they started residing as husband and wife in a rented house.There are other allegations against the husband.She further stated in the complaint that she and her husband shifted from Baguiati to Beleghata and thereafter she came to know that one Mamata Bhatt who is now merely a chamber attendant of the present petitioner doctor living as husband and wife.",['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
"This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in crime No.304 of 2015 on the file of the 1 st respondent as against the petitioner.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.304 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 120(B), 147, 149, 420, 468, 447 and 471 of I.P.C. as against the petitioner an others.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.However, the petitioner is permitted to submit all the documents executed by her after the registration of the FIR before the 1st respondent and on the receipt of the same, the first respondent is directed to consider the same complete the investigation and file a 5/7http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1867 of 20109 final report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.16.09.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no Arul To1.The Inspector of Police, Siruganoor Police Station, Trichy2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1867 of 20109 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"For the Appellant : Shri Neeraj Ashar, Advocate.For the Respondent/State : Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer.Date of hearing : 28/02/2012 Date of judgment: 28/02/2012 (J U D G M E N T ) Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 6th January, 1999, passed by First Additional Special Judge, Rewa in Special Case No. 11/1995, convicting the appellant under Sections 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, on each count respectively.In short, the prosecution case is that on 18.6.1995 at about 5 O' clock in the morning, appellant went at the house of Dhanai Basore and forcibly carried him to his shop.He confined him there and assaulted saying that his pigs entered his house.Hearing his hue and cry, his son (2) Cr.Police and other persons rescued Dhanai and sent him to Primary Health Centre, Teonthar.Since Dhanai belonged to Scheduled Caste, a case under Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for brevity `the Act') and Sections 323, 506-B and 342 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and the case was committed for trial.After appreciating the evidence of complainant, other eye witnesses and the medical evidence of Dr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra (PW13), learned Special Judge found that the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act was not made out, but it stood proved that appellant confined and assaulted Dhanai.Accordingly, appellant was convicted under Sections 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, appellant has filed this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the finding of conviction of appellant.He, however submitted that in view of the fact that the incident occurred in the year 1995 and about 17 years had elapsed, the sentence of imprisonment of appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him.He submitted that appellant remained in jail for four days.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State (3) Cr.233/1999 contended that the sentence imposed by the Court below was appropriate and adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record.On perusal of record, I find that Dhanai (PW1) categorically stated that appellant assaulted him with fists and kicks and forcibly carried him to his shop and confined him.Hearing his shouts, his wife, son and daughter- in-law came there and rescued him.As a result of assault, he suffered injuries on his head and chest.He stated that appellant had constructed a house in his courtyard, therefore, he created dispute.Appellant wished that he should leave the place vacant for him.He stated that except assaulting and confining him, appellant did not say anything else to him.The evidence of Dhanai (PW1) finds support from the evidence of his wife Gendaua (PW2), Indrakali (PW3), Brijbhan (PW4), Anarkali (PW5), Chhabilal (PW6) and Ramchandra Paul (PW9).Independent witness Radhika Prasad Tiwari (PW12) also stated that Dhanai was rescued from the house of appellant infront of him.Dr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra (PW13) examined the injuries of Dhanai and found following injuries on his body:(i) Lacerated wound 1cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2cm in frontal region of skull on eye brow,(ii) contusion with swelling on the left side of his face & (4) Cr.(iii) contusion with swelling on the left thigh.In the opinion of doctor, these injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.They were simple in nature.Injury report Ex. P/7 was written and singed by him.From the above evidence, it is amply established that Dhanai (PW1) was assaulted by appellant.From the evidence of complainant and other witnesses, it is also established that appellant confined Dhanai in his shop.After perusal of the above evidence, I am satisfied that learned Special Judge committed no error in holding the appellant guilty of the charges under Sections 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.About 17 years have elapsed since then.Appellant is now an elderly person of about 56 years of age.There is nothing on record to indicate that he is a person of bad antecedents or is a previous convict.I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that no useful purpose would be served if appellant is sent back to jail for serving out further jail sentence.In this view of the matter, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of appellant to the period of custody already suffered by him which comes to about four days, however, with enhancement of fine.Accordingly, the jail sentence of appellant on both counts is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.The amount of fine (5) Cr.233/1999 imposed upon the appellant under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is enhanced to Rs. 1000/- and the fine imposed upon him under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code is also enhanced to Rs. 1000/-.The fine amount already deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted in calculating the total amount of fines.In case of failure of the appellant to deposit the fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.The amount of fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within a period of two months.Appeal partly allowed.(RAKESH SAKSENA) JUDGE AD/","['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This order shall decide W.A. No.875 of 2011, W.A. 903 of 2011, W.A. No. 915 of 2011 and R.P. No. 427 of 2011 in which a common question of law is involved for the consideration of this Court.For the convenience facts are taken from W.A.No. 875 of 2011 (Prakash Singh Thakur vs. State of M.P. and others).All the appellants/petitioners are suffering sentence for life under Section 302 IPC alongwith some more provisions under the IPC.It is also not in dispute that these persons have not completed actual sentence of 14 years and before completion of the aforesaid period, they have applied for their premature release under the provisions of M.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ""Act"").The sole contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the Rule 4 of M.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ""the Rules"") have been amended vide notification dated 24.3.2008 while the applicants were convicted prior to it, so the earlier rule as was in statute book prior to 24.3.2008 shall be applicable in the matter of all the appellants and they are entitled to release on probation even without completion of actual sentence of 14 years.W.A.No. 875 of 2011 Prakash Singh Thakur State of M.P. & others.In the cases at hand, the conditions have beenAs petitioner has remained in jail for more than 13 years, Board is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner within a period of two months from today.""The Division Bench had also observed that where prayer for bail has been rejected, the convicts have been released on licence.To appreciate the said submission, we have carefully perusaed both the decisions.",['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
"However, the prosecution and the defence versions about the incident are divergent.It is also not disputed that in spite of both these versions, the genesis is the same, namely on 14-3-1984 there was some wrangling between P. W. 3 Achchelal and Lalta son of appellant Motilai.P.W. 4 Bhajna, aged about 12 years, is son of P.W. 3 Achchelal and he is a grazier-boy.Bhajna had refused to graze the cattle of Lalta and had even complained to his father that the appellant Motilal's son Lalta insists upon grazing their cattle arid Bhajna was even beaten when he refused to graze their cattle.In that context, P.W. 3 Achchelal had rebuked Lalta, s/o appellant Motilai.In the above background, the case for the prosecution is that on Bhajna's refusal to graze cattle, Lalta had beaten Bhajna.On 14-3-1984 at or about 8 p.m., P.W. 3 Achchelal inquired from Lalta as to why he forces Bhajna to graze his cattle and why he beats him when he refuses.That Lalta should desist from forcing Bhajna to take cattle and should also desist from beating him.At that, it is said, Lalta repeatedly said that he would beat Bhajna if he refused to graze cattle.Raghuvar (deceased) also came at the place of incident and tried to pacify Lalta but Lalta was-persistent and gave the same reply.At that Raghuvar said that if he beats Bhajna, he too would be beaten.Lalta got angry, and went away.Soon thereafter all the five appellants arrived.Ram Kinker was armed with a Farsa and other with sticks.Ram Kinker is said to have assaulted Raghuvar with Farsa and the latter fell down.Jageshwar (P.W. 7), Ramjas (P.W. 9), Ishwardin.(P.W. 12) and Kailash (P.W. 13) who were present in the vicinity, intervened and in turn they too were assaulted, by the appellants causing them injuries.Raghuvar died on the spot.The deceased was taken to the police station, Nagod in a DOLI where F.I.R. (Ex.P-8) was lodged by P.W. 7 Jageshwar.The F.LR.JUDGMENT Y.B. Suryavanshi, J.The five appellants, namely, Motilai, Shankar s/o Motilai, Shiv.The convictions and sentences are as follows:It is not in dispute that on 14-3-1984 at village Gunhar, P. S; Nagod, there was some incident with Raghuvar (deceased) and the two appellant Motilai and Ram Kinker, who are respectively father and son.was recorded by P.W. 14 Mishra, S.I. and inquest memo was prepared and the injured were sent for medical examination and the body of Raghuvar was sent for post mortem.During investigation, P.W. 14 Mishra, I.O., is said to have seized weapons from the appellant, but that aspect is not material in this appeal.Ultimately, the five appellants were charge sheeted under various sections, i.e. 147, 148, 302/149, 323 and 325/149, Indian Penal Code.The appellants abjured their guilt.The defence plea of appellants Shankar and Shiv Kumar is that they had gone to a different village to bring their sisters and were not present on the day of the alleged incident at the alleged time (alibi).The defence version .about the incident is that the appellant Motilal along with his son Rani Kinker had gone to the house of P.W. 3 Achchelal just for ULHANA, i.e. scolding, since Achchelal had rebuked Lalta.Prosecution witnesses Ramjas, Harishankar, Jageshwaf, Kailash, Ishwardin and Raghuvar were also sitting there, Raghuvar (deceased) abused Ram Kinker, while the latter was returning to his house and also dealt a blow on the head of Ram Kinker.On hearing the alarm raised by Ram Kinker, Motilal went there, but he too was assaulted by the deceased and the above said witnesses.To save themselves, both the appellants Motilal and Ram Kinker went inside the house of Ramkhilavan Brahmin, who lives near the place of incident.Thus, Motilal and Ram Kinker allegedly acted in self-defence.Furthermore, both of them were assaulted and sustained injuries.They also went to the police station and were sent for medical examination.While denying the prosecution version, stated above, the defence has projected the above version and totally denied the prosecution case about forming any unlawful assembly with common object as alleged by the prosecution.Alternatively, it was also submitted that it is a case of free fight and the appellants Shanker, Shiv Kumar and Lalman have been falsely implicated.Both counsel heard.Record perused.Since injuries sustained by both sides figured at length during arguments, it will be convenient at this stage to consider the extent and nature of injuries sustained on both sides.P.W. 8 Dr. Sharma performed the post mortem examination on the body of Raghuvar and had deposed as follows:(A) Raghuvar External Injury:One incised wound on the posterior aspect of right arm with defused spelling just above the elbow joint, present on the posterior aspect of right arm with clear cut everted margins spertdle in shape oblique in direction, size 2 cm.x 11/2 cm.x 1 cm.There was no evidence of fracture of bone............Two lacerated wounds:- One was placed on left parietal bone region obliquely placed above and downwards direction, size, 2 x 1 cms.There was fracture of left parietal bone fludy blood was coming out from fractured area.Second was a lacerated wound present on left parietal bone region which was 4 x 3 x 1 1/2 cm.Internal examination:On opening the first wound of the skull I found fracture of left parietal bone in the same area and blood was present below, the wound.........The cause of death was due to fracture of parietal bone and injuries to the vital organ, that is brain leading to shock and death.......... The injuries were ante mortem.Injury No. 1, that is on arm was caused by sharp edged weapon and injuries of skull were caused by hard and blunt object.Injuries of skull were grievous and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature (Post mortem Report Ex.P-9).(B) Jageshwar (1) Lacerated wound on the left parietal bone region just near, the mid line with defused swelling and fresh bleeding from the wound.The size 1 x 1/2 x 1 1/2 cm.It was caused by hard and blunt object.Lacerated wound on the right arm just above the elbow joint with defused swelling in 4 x 3 cm.area, size of lacerated wound was 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/3 cm.fresh bleeding from the wound was found and dried clotted blood was present on the wound as well as on the front arm produced by hard and blunt object.(3) Defused swelling bluish in colour in size 3 x 2 cm.marked tenderness on the area situated on the middle 1/3 of the right forearm posterior aspect.It was caused by blunt and hard object.(4) Abrasion on the left knee joint 1/4 x 1/2 cm.in size caused by blunt and hard object, simple in nature.(Injury Report Ex.P-10) (C) Kailash Prasad Defused swelling on the left hand outer aspect in lateral half part, size 4 1/2 x 3 cm.marked tenderness was present and in the centre of the swelling there was dried clotted blood with small lacerated wound of 1/2 x 1/3 x 1/4 cm.According to Dr. M. P. Singh (P.W. 10) there was fracture of second matacarpal bone of left hand.(Injury Report Ex.P-11).(D) Ishwardin (1) Obliquely placed bruise on the left scapular region reddish-bluish in colour and 6 X 1 1/2 cm.in size caused by hard and blunt object, simple in nature, within 1 to 3 hours' duration.Defused swelling on the anterior aspect of left arm redish bluish in colour and 3 x 3 cm.in size, caused by hard and blunt object, simple in nature.(Injury Report Ex.P-12) (E) Girdhari, s/o Sukhdep and Kachi and Parvati, w/o Vishwanath were also examined.They complained of pain but no external injury was found on them.(Injury Reports Exs.P-13 and P-14),Injuries on appellants: P.W 8 Dr. Sharma on the same day examined appellant Ram Kinker and appellant Motilal and found the following injuries:(A) Ram Kinker (1) Lacerated wound on the frontal region on the left side of the head 21/2 x 1/2 x 1/3 cm.(2) Reddish-bluish colour skin on the left scapular region on upper part with defused swelling, size 5 x 1 1/2 cm.in above and downward direction with two parallel lines caused by blunt and hard object, simple in nature and 6 to 8 hours duration.(3) Reddish-bluish skin with swelling on the right shoulder outer aspect, the size 3 x 1 1/2 cm.obliquely above and downward direction, caused by hard and blunt object, simple in nature and within 6 to 8 housr duration.(Injury Report Ex.D-1).(B) Motilal (1) Lacerated wound on the parietal bone region right side 5 cm.above the right ear, obliquely placed size 3 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm.Dried clotted blood in and around the wound.X-ray of skull with suspicion of fracture of right and was caused by blunt and hard object.(2) Lacerated wound on the left parietal region 3 cm.away from the mid line 2 1/2 x 1/4 x 1/4 cm.Dried clotted blood around the wound was present.It was simple in nature caused within 6 to 8 hours duration, caused by hard and blunt object.(3) Defused swelling on the right hand on dorsal aspect and wrist joint right side.Marked tenderness present with bluish colour of skin, advised X-ray of hand wrist with a suspicion of fracture of metacarpal bone.It was caused by hard and blunt object.Caused 6 to 8 hours of duration.(4) Defused swelling on the left hand on the medical aspect 3 1/2 x 3 cm.in size bluish colour of the skin in the centre of swelling within 6 to 8 hours of duration and caused by hard and blunt object.(5) Abrasion on the posterior aspect of forearm right side in the middle part 1 x 1/2 cm.in size, simple in nature within 0 to 8 hours duration caused by hard and blunt object.(6) Abrasion on the right scapular region obliquely placed 4 x 1/2 cm.in size, simple in nature within 6 to 8 hours of duration and caused by hard and blunt object.(7) Reddish-bluish coloured skin on the left shoulder posterior aspect with defused swelling 3 x 2 cm.in size caused by hard and blunt object within 6 to 8 hours duration and simple in nature........ Injury No. 1 of Motilal was not dangerous to life, because it did not cause any injury to the brain.(Injury Report Ex.D-2).For the reason that both sides have sustained injuries, the learned trial Court first posed the question as to which side was the aggressor? The further findings and conclusions are: that the prosecution has proved the genesis of the incident; that for reasons stated in the judgment, the appellants were held aggressors as they had gone to the place of the incident to teach Raghuvar a lesson; that what he has uttered to Lalta, namely, that if you beat Bhajna, you too would meet the same fate; that the presence of eye-witnesses in this case, namely, P.W. 7 Jageshwar, P.W. 9 Ramjas, P.W. 12 Ishwardin and P.W. 13 Kailash could not be disputed because even in the defence version their presence in admitted and, moreover, they are the injured persons whose presence is guaranteed at the time of the incident; that the oral evidence about the assault by the appellants is well-established; that the oral evidence is further corroborated by the F.I.R., which was lodged promptly and there was no time for deliberations and concoction; that there is no inconsistency between the oral and medical evidence; that the defence, for which D.W. 2 Betalal has been examined is false; that the injuries on the two accused are not grievous and merely for the absence of any explanation about these injuries, the prosecution evidence could not be discarded; that the appellants had constituted unlawful assembly and were armed with weapons alleged and in furtherance of the common object the incident occurred.Thus, the prosecution version was relied and the defence version was disbelieved.Accordingly the appellants have been convicted as stated earlier.Genesis of the incident: This furnishes a satisfactory clue to the incident.On a perusal of the statements of P.W. 3 Achchelal and P.W. 4 Bhajna, we find that the appellant Motilal's son Lalta wanted Bhajna to graze his cattle.On his refusal, Lalta had dealt fist blows.Naturally the grazier-boy complained to his father P.W. 3 Achchelal.There is a water-tap at some short distance from the house of Achchelal and when at about 8 p.m. Lalta had gone there for a wash, Achchelal on that occasion inquired as to why-lie had beaten his son (Bhajna).Lalta said that he would be beaten like that and the cattle will be grazed by him.Raghuvar (deceased) was meanwhile returning from the field and was going towards his house.It has come in evidence that the deceased was not related to P.W. 3 Achchelal or P.W. 4 Bhajna, but he intervened saying that Lalta should not beat Bhajna.Lalta obstinately and adamantly retorted saying that he will beat him like that and get their cattle grazed by him.However, Raghuvar is alleged to have told him that if he beats Bhajna he would be paid in the same coin.Lalta angrily left the place.Thus, the directly affected parties were P.W. 3 Achchelal and P.W. 4 Bhajna on the one hand and Lalta on the other and Raghuvar was merely a mediator.Raghuvar's utterances seemed to have pinched Lalta because close on the heels of that incident, the appellants shortly appeared at the scene of occurrence.We find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 3 Achchelal and P.W. 4 Bhajna, who are not at all related to the deceased.In fact, after the alleged talks, P.W. 3 Achchelal and P.W. 4 Bhajna had gone away and had not seen the subsequent incident of assault.The only suggestion in para 3 of the cross-examination of Achchelal is that it is Achchelal and Raghuvar who.had gone to the house of Lalta and hurled abuses.Even P.W. 7 Jageshwar, P.W. 9 Ramjas and P.W. 12 Ishwardin have deposed what P.W. 3 Achchelal and P.W. 4 Bhajna have stated about the conversations between Lalta and Bhajna's father and also between Raghuvar and Lalta.They are not chance witnesses.P.W. 7 Jageshwar, as stated by him, and also others, had his SAAR, i.e. cattle-shed near the place of incident.Me says that the above wrangling took place- near the house of P.W. 3 Achchelal.The other witnesss, i.e., P.W. 9 Ramjas and P.W. 12 Ishwardin had their houses at short distance, but at the relevant time both of them along with Harishankar were sitting on the chabutra of one Dadol and were busy making bidis.Their presence is not disputed even otherwise.Therefore, we are of the view that the findings of the trial Court that the genesis has been established by the prosecution is well merited.Incidentally, as the trial Court had also observed that the crux of the defence version is (so far as Motilal and Ram Kinker are concerned) that they had gone to the house of Achhelal only for U'LHANA, which means to scold him for rebuking Lalta.But there are no such suggestions in the cross-examination of P. W. 3 Achhelal and P. W. 4 Bhajna who were the concerned witnesses.On the other hand, the only solitary question put to P. W. 4 Bhajna is that it is Raghuvar and Achhelal who had gone to Lalta's house.in Velu Pillai Padakalingarn v. Paramandam, AIR 1954 SC 152, it was observed: every cross-examiner should and can if he is careful indicate in cross-exaniination, whichever part of the evidence given in examination-in-chief is challenged and an omission to do so would lead to the inference that the evidence is accepted subject of course to its being assailed as inherently improbable.Again in Sayed Aleem v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1980 SC 1708, it was observed that non-cross examination of prosecution witnesses of certain facts leads to admission of that fact that circumstances could be taken for consideration.Thus, non-cross examination, particularly P. W. 3 Achhelal and P. W. 4 Bhajna, on what is being projected in the defence, has been rightly held by the trial Court as sheer afterthought.It stands to reason that so far as Lalta is concerned, he was rebuked by father of Bhajna, i.e. Achhelal, and nothing more was necessary.It is the utterences of Raghuvar which raised the ire of the other side, since he must have gone and complained what Raghuvar had uttered.Then turning to the evidence of eye-witnesses, we find that according to P.W. 7 Jageshwar, all the five appellants were seen assaulting Raghuvar.He specifically asserts that the appellant Ram Kinker dealt blows with the Farsa on the head of Raghuvar and others assaulted with sticks.Raghuvar had fallen down.Ishwardin, Kailash and Ramjas intervened in the assault and they too sustained injuries which have already been described.The statements of Ramjas, Kailash and Ishwardin are to the same effect.The learned counsel Shri Datt strenously urged that all the four witnesses have spoken about two Farsa blows attributed to the appellant Ram Kinker, but the medical evidence shows that the deceased had only one incised wound which was on the right arm and the two lacerated wounds on the skull were obviously by hard and blunt object.The inconsistencies between the medical and ocular evidence related to the opinion of the doctor that the person who caused injuries to deceased was at a higher level than the deceased and.in view of other circumstances, the eye-witnesses were held not reliable, i.e., they had not seen the incident.The inconsistency in the case before us does not belie the eye-witnesses because the incident occurred during the night, though there is evidence that as electric bulb was on near the house of Achchelal.In the assault in which five appellants participated and many others intervened, there was bound to be some confusion about the movement and though the witnesses have spoken about assault i.e. two blows by Farsa they seem to have mistaken to notice whether the assault was by the sharp side or the blunt side of the Farsa.There was exchange of abuses between the two groups.The altercation soon developed into an usual fight.Both the parties were armed to protect themselves.P.W. 7 Jageshwar had four injuries, Kailash had one fracture of second metacarpel, and Ishwardin had had two simple injuries, as referred in para 6 supra.All injuries on the other side were caused in self-defence.It was also urged that injury No. 1 on appellant Ram Kinker and injuries 1 and 2 on appellant Motilal were intended on vital parts.But then, all these injuries were simple.Thus, the finding that the appellants were the aggressors, who went togethe and mounted a joint attack on Raghuvar and also attacked those who came to intervene, and then went away together after the assault, leads to the inevitable conclusion that they had constituted an unlawful assembly whose common object was to assault Raghuvar.Witnesses do not say that they have caused injuries on the appellants nor do they say that these were in self-defence, and yet, in the totality of circumstances this seems to be a reasonable inference.The prosecution has been fair enough and not one-sided because the injured appellants, when they went to the police station, were sent for medical examination, and were examined by Dr. Sharma.Therefore, on the ground of non-explanation of the injuries, we are not inclined to reject the prosecution case as its substratum has been proved otherwise satisfactorily.For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is partly allowed.Adverting to the convictions and sentences already referred in para 1 of this judgment, the appellants are convicted and sentenced as under:(a) The conviction of appellant Ram Kinker under sections 148 and 325, Indian Penal Code (for causing hurt to Kailash) and the sentences awarded, namely, two years' R.I. and one year's R.I. respectively, are maintained.Instead, they are convicted under section 326 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code.Motilal was released on bail on ground of old age and he was in detention approximately for about a year or so.The ends of justice would meet by awarding R.I. for five years for an offence under section 326/149, Indian Penal Code.But the appellants Shiv Kumar, Lalman and Shankar for convictions under section 326/149, Indian Penal Code are sentenced to R.I. for seven years each;(c) The conviction of all of five appellants under section 323/149, Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to Jageshwar and six months' R.I. each are also maintained.The substantive sentences awarded to the appellants shall be concurrent.In view of section 428, Criminal Procedure Code the period of detention of the appellants in custody shall be set off against the sentences awarded.The bail bonds of appellant Motilal are cancelled.","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(a) First Informant Ashish Chitnis (PW1) was working as a Supervisor as well as a driver of the jeep of Purushartha Petrol pump owned by one Anusuya Padir.PW2 Pravin Darwada was working as an Accountant at the said Petrol pump.PW3 Balkrishna Padir is son of Anusuya Padir, who happens to be owner of the said Petrol pump.They all used to reside at Neral whereas the Petrol pump was situated at Kalamboli.These witnesses used to come to the Petrol pump at Kalamboli by a jeep bearing registration no.MH-46- P-4446 of Mahendra make owned by PW3 Balkrishna Padir.(b) As usual on 26th June 2013 PW1 Ashish Chitnis, PW2 Pravin Darwada and PW3 Balkrishna Padir came to the Petrol pump at Kalamboli in the morning hours.After completing the day's work, they left the Petrol pump in the evening hours for going back to Neral.On the way, then went to avk 3::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 ::: 1-APPEAL-348-2017-J.doc pick up Anusuya Padir, who, at the relevant time, was at the house of her daughter situated at Sector No.4, Nildhara Society, New Panvel.On reaching Nildhara society of New Panvel, the jeep was parked in front of the gate of the society and PW3 Balkrishna Padir went to the house of his sister for taking his mother Anusuya Padir.PW1 Ashish Chitnis and PW2 Pravin Darwada were sitting in the jeep with closed window glasses by putting on the Air conditioner.MH-46-P-4446, there was robbery of valuables including bags.On this aspect, evidence of PW1 Ashish Chitnis, PW2 Pravin Darwada and PW3 Balkrishna Padir, so also that of PW5 Vinaykumar Bhola Singh - panch witness, is material.Congruous and consistent evidence of PW1 Ashish Chitnis, PW2 Pravin Darwada and PW3 Balkrishna Padir shows that on the day of the incident i.e. on 26 th June 2013, they reached to their workplace i.e. Purushartha Petrol pump, Kalamboli, in the morning at about 9 - 9.30 a.m. It is further seen from their evidence that they left the petrol pump at about 4.45 p.m. by jeep bearing registration no.MH-46-P-4446 of Mahendra make for going back to Neral.On the way, they went to Nildhara Society in Sector 4 of New Panvel for picking up Anusuya Padir from the house of her daughter.6 What happened thereafter is disclosed by PW1 Ashish Chitnis and PW2 Pravin Darwada.As per their version, at about 5.30 p.m. of 26th June 2013, when they both were sitting in the vehicle by putting on the Air Conditioner, all of a sudden four persons came and encircled the jeep.These four persons then started breaking the windshield of the vehicle by iron pipes and sickles.They were threatening the inmates of the jeep by uttering that if they attempted to alight, they would be killed.PW1 Ashish Chitnis and PW2 Pravin Darwada further deposed that, then those four persons had broken the windshield of the jeep and took three bags viz., a leather bag, a green coloured bag and a sack which were kept in the jeep.As per version of PW2 Pravin Darwada, out of the articles taken from the jeep, his sack was also looted by the robbers.PW1 Ashish Chitnis and PW2 Pravin Darwada further deposed that when the robbers were taking out the bags from the avk 11::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 ::: 1-APPEAL-348-2017-J.doc jeep, they started shouting.PW3 Balkrishna Padir corroborated their version by stating that on hearing shouts, he rushed to the gate of the society and saw PW1 Ashish Chitnis and PW2 Pravin Darwada alighting from the jeep and shouting ""thief thief"".All these three witnesses deposed that four robbers ran along with the bag and boarded the Maruti Esteem car bearing registration no.10 The Mahendra Jeep bearing registration no.The appellant/accused has communicated to this court that he has completed sentence of more than 6 years of rigorous imprisonment out of total sentence of 7 years imposed on him, avk 1::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 ::: 1-APPEAL-348-2017-J.doc and therefore, his appeal be heard finally.By this appeal, the appellant/accused no.2 is challenging the judgment and order dated 31st March 2017 passed by the learned Special Judge under Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as MCOC Act for the sake of brevity) and Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibaug in Special MCOC Case No.1 of 2014 thereby convicting appellant/accused no.2 of offences punishable under Sections 392 and 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.For the offence punishable under Section 392 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/accused no.2 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.500/- and, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.For the offence punishable under Section 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month apart from payment of fine of Rs.500/- and in default, simple imprisonment for 1 week.Substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently by the learned trial court.avk 2::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::1-APPEAL-348-2017-J.doc 2 Facts in brief, leading to the prosecution of the appellant/accused no.2 along with co-accused, can be summarized thus :::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::(c) At about 5.30 p.m., when PW1 Ashish Chitnis and PW2 Pravin Darwada were waiting for PW3 Balkrishna Padir and his mother by sitting in the jeep, all of a sudden four robbers came there.Those robbers were having weapons like sickles and iron pipes.They started breaking the glasses of the jeep and threatening the inmates of the jeep.By breaking the back windshield of the jeep, the robbers took away three bags from the jeep.First Informant PW1 Ashish Chitnis and PW2 Pravin Darwada started shouting and PW3 Balkrishna avk 4::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 ::: 1-APPEAL-348-2017-J.doc Padir also came out of the house of his sister.They witnessed the robbers running away from the spot by a car of Maruti Esteem model bearing registration no.In this way, according to the prosecution case, the appellant/accused no.2 along with his three associates had committed robbery of three bags containing an amount of Rs.13,000/-, cell phone, ATM cards and other sundry items.::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::(d) Immediately after the incident of robbery, PW1 Ashish Chitnis accompanied by PW2 Pravin Darwada and PW3 Balkrishna Padir started proceeding towards the police station for reporting the matter.On the way to the police station near Khanda Colony, they all witnessed that the Maruti Esteem car in which the robbers fled from the spot, met with an accident and lying at the flyover.They came to know that one of the robbers was caught by police, as the car met with the accident, and he was taken to the MGM Hospital for medical treatment.PW1 Ashish Chitnis then lodged the First Information Report (FIR) Exhibit 27A which avk 5::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 ::: 1-APPEAL-348-2017-J.doc has resulted in registration of Crime No.52 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station Khandeshwar.::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::(e) PW13 Pratap Bhosale, Assistant Police Inspector, conducted investigation.Accused no.1 Anandraj Harijan, who was injured in the accident of the Maruti Esteem car, came to be arrested.His voluntary disclosure statement Exhibit 58 came to be recorded on 27th July 2013 in presence of PW8 Sambhaji Jadhav - panch witness.Arrested accused were put up for identification parade and according to the prosecution case, the appellant/accused no.2 came to be identified by PW2 Pravin Darwada.avk 6::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::1-APPEAL-348-2017-J.docPW15 Sheshrao Suryawanshi, Additional Commissioner of Police, then took up further investigation of the crime in question.After seeking sanction of PW16 Ashok Kumar Sharma, Commissioner of Police, the appellant/accused no.2 as well as the co-accused came to be charge-sheeted.(g) The learned trial court framed Charge for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(2), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act as well as under Sections 395 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 37(1) read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act against the appellant/accused no.2 and the co-accused.They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.avk 7::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::1-APPEAL-348-2017-J.doc(h) In order to bring home the guilt to the appellant/accused no.2 and the co-accused, the prosecution has examined in all seventeen witnesses.Reliance is also placed on the documentary evidence.The defence of the appellant/ accused no.2 was that of total denial.(i) After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial court was pleased to convict the appellant/accused no.2 as well as the co-accused Anandraj Harijan for offences punishable under Sections 392 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.They were acquitted of other offences alleged against them.Co-accused Kannan Tewar came to be acquitted of all offences.Accordingly, the appellant/accused no.2 came to be sentenced, as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.3 I have heard Mr.Nitin Sejpal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused no.2, at sufficient length of time.He had not given specific description of the robbers while recording his statement.As such, belated identification of the appellant/accused no.2, in the identification parade held after few months, is of no consequence.He further argued that recovery of a bag cannot constitute legally admissible evidence against the appellant/accused no.2, as such type of bags are easily available in the market.::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::4 The learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence.1 1994 SCC (Criminal) 292 avk 9::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 ::: 1-APPEAL-348-2017-J.doc 5 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the record and proceedings including the oral as well as documentary evidence.At the outset, let us examine whether the prosecution has established the fact that by smashing the windshield of the jeep bearing registration no.These three witnesses have cogently stated that the jeep was parked in a narrow lane in front avk 10::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 ::: 1-APPEAL-348-2017-J.doc of the gate of Nildhara society and then PW3 Balkrishna Padir went to fetch his mother Anusuya Padir from the house of his sister.::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::MH-04-AX-1755 and fled from the spot.::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::7 As per congruous version of PW1 Ashish Chitnis, PW2 Pravin Darwada and PW3 Balkrishna Padir, then they proceeded to lodge report of the incident to the police station and on the way they had seen that the Maruti Esteem car, in which the robbers fled from the spot, met with an accident near Khanda Colony.The trio then proceeded further and PW1 Ashish Chitnis lodged report Exhibit 27A of the incident to Police Station Khandeshwar.8 At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to evidence of PW6 Gaurav Kumbhkarna, Police Constable attached to Khandeshwar Police Station.On the way, they noticed Maruti Esteem car bearing registration no.MH-04-AX-1755 being driven in rash and negligent manner.In the words of PW6 Gaurav Kumbhkarna, that car had given a cut to the passers-by, and therefore, they chased the said car.During the course of that chase, the car gave dash to the divider of the road and had turned turtle.Four persons alighted from that vehicle.PW6 Gaurav Kumbhkarna deposed that he and his colleague constable caught accused no.1 Anandraj Harijan, who was injured in that accident and had taken him to the MGM Hospital, Kamothe, for medical treatment.::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::9 Evidence of PW5 Vinaykumar Bhola Singh - panch witness shows that on the day of the incident i.e. on 26 th June 2013 itself, he along with the co-panch had visited the spot of the incident where the Maruti Esteem car bearing registration no.MH- 04-AX-1755 met with an accident.As per version of this witness, he along with PW13 Pratap Bhosale, Assistant Police Inspector, avk 13::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 ::: 1-APPEAL-348-2017-J.doc inspected that Maruti Esteem car and accordingly, Panchnama Exhibit 48 came to be prepared.Version of PW5 Vinaykumar Bhola Singh and that of PW13 Pratap Bhosale, Assistant Police Inspector, shows that the Maruti Esteem car was damaged and articles such as green coloured bag, one iron pipe and one sickle were found in that car.Accordingly, Panchnama Exhibit 48 was prepared.There is nothing in cross-examination of both these witnesses to disbelieve their version about witnessing the damaged Maruti Esteem car and seizure of green coloured hand- bag, iron pipe and a sickle from it.Panchnama Exhibit 48 corroborates the version of both these witnesses.This evidence coupled with the fact that accused no.1 Anandraj Harijan was apprehended from the spot of the incident by PW6 Police Constable Gaurav Kumbhkarna corroborates the version of PW1 Ashish Chitnis, PW2 Pravin Darwada and PW3 Balkrishna Padir in respect of the incident of robbery.::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::MH-46-P- 4446 was also inspected by police in presence of panch witnesses.avk 14::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::Perusal of this panchnama shows that all windshields of the Mahendra Jeep bearing registration no.MH-46-P-4446 were found broken.In this regard, material elicited from cross-examination of PW1 Ashish Chitnis is relevant.Cross-examination of this witness reveals that the incident took avk 15::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 ::: 1-APPEAL-348-2017-J.doc place in the crystal clear light of the day.Glasses / windshield of the Mahendra Jeep were transparent and inmates of that jeep namely PW1 Ashish Chitnis and PW2 Pravin Darwada were in a position to see even the robbers running away after the incident.It is also elicited from the cross-examination of PW1 Ashish Chitnis that he had an opportunity to see which of the robbers was driving the Maruti Esteem car while fleeing away from the spot of the incident.His cross-examination further reveals that the actual incident of breaking open the windshields of the Mahendra Jeep and taking away the bags from that vehicle took place in about five minutes and except from the front side, the Mahendra Jeep was attacked from the remaining three sides.The Maruti Esteem car by which the robbers came and subsequently fled from the spot was kept at a distance of about 15 feet from the Mahendra Jeep.This material elicited from the cross-examination of PW1 Ashish Chitnis, as such, shows that he as well as co-passenger PW2 Pravin Darwada had seen the robbers alighting from the Maruti Esteem car, breaking open the windshields of the Mahendra Jeep, taking away the bags and running away from the avk 16::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 ::: 1-APPEAL-348-2017-J.doc spot of the incident by boarding the Maruti Esteem Car in broad daylight.::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::12 Evidence of PW2 Pravin Darwada is categorically clear on the aspect that in all four robbers came around the Mahendra Jeep and had broken the glasses of the vehicle with the help of sickle and iron pipe by giving threats.He has specifically deposed that after breaking open the backside windshield of the Mahendra Jeep, they had taken away the bags.He stated that after alighting from the Mahendra Jeep, they saw robbers sitting in the Maruti Esteem Car bearing registration no.MH-04-AX-1755 and they fled from the spot.His chief-examination reveals that his sack containing ATM card, Election card, Driving license and cash amounting to Rs.1,000/- came to be looted along with other articles from the Mahendra Jeep.On the way to the police station, he saw the very same Maruti Esteem Car lying on the road after having met with an accident.This witness identified the appellant/accused no.2 as the robber who had broken the glasses of Mahendra Jeep by means of a sickle.He identified his sack avk 17::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 ::: 1-APPEAL-348-2017-J.doc which was looted in the incident of robbery.As per his version, the robbers were of light complexion and one of them was having beard.Evidence of this witness regarding identification of the appellant/accused no.2 is sought to be assailed on the ground that he had not given specific description of the assailant who was driving the car and who had given blows of sickle on the windshields of the Mahendra Jeep.In paragraph 5 of his cross- examination PW2 Pravin Darwada has admitted the fact that he had not given specific description of the robbers and has further stated that the incident of robbing had taken place on the backside of seat of the Mahendra Jeep.He admitted that till completion of the entire incident of the robbery, he had not seen backside of the vehicle.This admission is sought to be construed as demonstrating the fact that PW2 Pravin Darwada had not turned his neck to the backside of the car during happening of the robbery.What was put to him is he had not seen backside of the Mahendra Jeep till completion of the entire incident.This witness has given answer in affirmative to this question because as avk 18::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 ::: 1-APPEAL-348-2017-J.doc per his version, he was sitting inside the Mahendra Jeep till the entire episode of robbing was over.There was no question of his getting outside the Mahendra Jeep during happening of the incident of robbery.Therefore, this admission is of no assistance to infer that PW2 Pravin Darwada had not seen the robbers who were smashing the windshields of the Mahendra Jeep during the time span of about five minutes in the crystal clear day light.On the contrary, considering the fact that the entire incident of robbing continued for a fairly long period of five minutes, it needs to be held that this witness had an opportunity to see the robbers, and therefore, identification of the appellant/accused no.2 as one of the robbers deposed to by PW2 Pravin Darwada cannot be doubted.::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::13 Evidence of PW2 Pravin Darwada shows that he had given description of the robbers to police though he admitted that the description was not very specific.There is no material on record to infer that this version of PW2 Pravin Darwada has surfaced by way of omission.::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::His evidence shows that immediately after his arrest, the appellant/accused no.2 had given a confessional statement to the effect that he would show the bag.Evidence of PW8 Sambhaji Jadhav shows that the appellant/accused no.2 had led the panch witness and police party to Village Tembhude and from the bamboo shrubs near the compound of Reliance Company, he took out a black coloured sack which was seized by police.True it is that the recovery was from the open place, but evidence of this panch witness coupled with Memorandum statement of the appellant/accused no.2 goes to show that the appellant/accused no.2 was exactly knowing the place where the bag was kept concealed.At his instance, the same was recovered.avk 20::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::1-APPEAL-348-2017-J.doc 15 PW2 Pravin Darwada has identified the bag/sack recovered at the instance of the appellant/accused no.2, as belonging to him which was looted in the robbery.Thus, by this evidence, the prosecution has established the fact that the appellant/accused no.2 was knowing the place where the looted sack was kept concealed.However, evidence of PW2 Pravin Darwada shows that he was using the sack regularly and as such, he was in a position to identify the same.16 With this evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is established that the appellant/accused no.2 was one of the members of the gang which robbed the valuable articles from the Mahendra Jeep at the time of the incident.No infirmity can be found as such with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and the resultant sentence.Therefore, the order : avk 21::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::1-APPEAL-348-2017-J.doc ORDERi) The appeal is dismissed.ii) In view of disposal of the appeal, Criminal Application No.2049 of 2018 also stands disposed off.(A. M. BADAR, J.) avk 22::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:10:51 :::","['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"1 27.7.2018 39 Allowed md.CRM No. 5226 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19.07.2018 in connection with Lalgola Police Station Case No. 143 of 2018 dated 12.03.2018 under Sections 341/323/307/313/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Corresponding to G.R. case no.779 of 2018).And In Re:-Saheb Sk.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2","['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is as follows:The deceased in this case, namely, Manickam Chettiar was residing with his wife Sigappi Aachi (P.W.5) as a tenant in the ground floor of the building belongs to one Ashok (P.W.1).Manickam Chettiar was running a Pawn-Broker Shop under the name and style of of “O.V.M. Sigappi Aachi Pawn- Broker”.Manickam Chettiar's elder son Narayanan is residing in New Zealand and the younger son Perianan is residing in Coimbatore.Manickam Chettiar and his wife Sigappi Aachi (P.W.5) were having a maidservant Lalitha, who was staying along with them.On 19.08.2010, Sigappi Aachi (P.W.5), along with maidservant Lalitha, went to Thiruapthi for Darshan.On 21.08.2010, at about 11.00 a.m., when the landlord Ashok (P.W.1) noticed that the front doors of the ground floor, where thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 deceased Manickam Chettiar was residing, was open and the inner doors were closed unusually, he called Manikam Chettiar twice, but there was no response and therefore, he proceeded with his work.When he returned after half an hour, even during that time also, the doors were in the same position and therefore, Ashok (P.W.1) went and knocked the door.The doors opened and he saw Manickam Chettiar lying in the floor and a mat (M.O.1) was placed on his face with a grindstone (M.O.2).On suspecting something would have happened, he called the neighbours and along with one Kannan (P.W.2), a neighbour, he entered into the house and found Manickam Chettiar died.They also noticed that the bureaus were open.Therefore, suspecting that somebody would have murdered Manickam Chettiar with an intention to steal the goods, he lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) before B5 South Gate Police Station, on 21.08.2010 at 12.00 noon.On intimation, Nidhikumar (P.W.26) Investigating Officer, went to the place of occurrence at 12.45 p.m., and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P37) in the presence of Suresh (P.W.3) and Swaminathan (not examined).He also conducted inquest from 03.00 p.m., to 05.00 p.m., and prepared Inquest Report (Ex.P38).After completing the inquest, he sent the dead body for postmortem, through Samson Gunaraj (P.W.17), Head Constable, to the Government Rajaji Hospital, where, Dr.Vanitha (P.W.23), on 21.08.2010 at about 06.50 p.m., confirmed the death of Manickam Chettiar and sent the body to mortuary.The Accident Register issued by Dr.On 21.08.2010, at 05.00 p.m., in the presence of Suresh (P.W.3) and Swaminathan (not examined), Nidhikumar (P.W.26), Investigating Officer, recovered a bloodstained tile piece (M.O.5), a tile piece without bloodstain (M.O.6), bloodstained dhoti (M.O.3), bloodstained towel (M.O.4), bloodstained sofa-mat (M.O.1) and bloodstained grindstone (M.O.2) under a cover of mahazar (Ex.P3).On 23.08.2010, at about 09.00 p.m., in the presence of Janardhanan (P.W.6), V.A.O., and his assistants, Raju and Samayan (not examined), the Investigating Officer arrested Raji (A1), in front of Aalavai Lodge, situated at Melaperumal Meisthiri Street, Madurai Town.On his (A1's) confession statement, the Investigating Officer recovered a blue color travel bag (M.O.7), 8996.80 gram gold jewels (M.O.8), 1279.600 gram silver articles (M.O.9), cash of Rs.7,000/- (M.O.10), folding paper 20 in number (M.O.15), under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P6).Thereafter, on 24.08.2010, at 06.00 a.m., Raji (A1) was taken to his house situated at Alagappa Nagar, Madurai, where, in the presence of Janardhanan (P.W.6), V.A.O., and his assistants, Raju and Samayan (not examined), a bloodstained lungi (M.O.12) and a bloodstained fanta colour shirt (M.O.11) were recovered under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P7).At 07.00 a.m. Raji (A1) identified his wife Karthika @ Jayaparvathi (A2) and on his identification, the Investigating Officer arrested Karthika (A2) and in the presence of the same witnesses, he recovered gold jewels weighing about 142.700 gram and cash of Rs.5,000/- (M.O.13 series) under the cover of mahazar (Ex.Raji (A1), in his confession statement, stated that after the occurrence, he stayed in Sivabakya Lodge at Arapalayam, thereafter, shifted to one Vaithiyalinga Lodge at Madurai Town and then, to Aalavai Lodge at Madurai Town.The Investigating Officer (P.W.26) verified the registers of Sivabakya Lodge on 25.08.2010 at 10.00 a.m., in the presence of one Raja, Manager of Sivabakya Lodge (P.W.9) and recovered the registers upto 23.08.2010 (Exs.P14 and P15) under the the cover of mahazar (Ex.P16).He also inspected Vaithiyalinga Lodge on 29.08.2010 at 12.00 noon, and recovered the register for the period from 07.08.2010 till 29.08.2010 (Ex.P10) and the register for the period upto 29.08.2010 (Ex.P11) in the presence of one Mayan (P.W.8), Manager of the Vaithiyalinga Lodge, under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P13).The Investigating Officer (P.W.26) also inspected Alavai Lodge on 30.08.2010 at 10.00 a.m., and recovered the registers (Ex.P17 and P19), in the presence of one Srinivasan (P.W.10) under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P18).Right temporals muscle is bruised.Diffused subdural hamorrhage and subarachnoid haemorrhage noted on both the cerebral hemispheres.Contusion 16 cms x 11 cms noted on the whole of left cheek, extending upto upper part of left side of neck.Left upper two incisor teeth are found missing and their alveolar sockets found contused and contains blood clots.After receiving the Biological Report (Ex.P28), Dr.Natarajan (P.W.21) gave final opinion (Ex.P27) on 08.10.2010 that the deceased appeared to have died of asphyxia due to smothering associated with head injury 30-36 hours prior to postmortem.Natarajan (P.W.21), in his evidence, has stated that the injury No.1 is likely to occur when somebody oppresses his face and the injury Nos.2 to 4 are likely to occur when somebodyhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 scuffles with the deceased and the injury No.5 is likely to occur, when somebody prevents the breath by oppressing the face and he has also stated that injuries found from cheek to neck is likely to occur by attacking grindstone (M.O.2).According to him, the incise wound found in the left upper jaw of the deceased is likely to occur during death.➢ Mayan (P.W.8) is the Manager of Vaithyalinga Lodge.In his presence the registers Ex.P10 and P11 have been recovered.➢ Raja (P.W.9) is the Manager of Sivabakya Lodge, wherein Raji (A1) has stayed for sometime and in his presence, the registers Exs.http://www.judis.nic.in 20 ➢ Parvathavarthini @ Uma (P.W.12) is the owner of the house situated at R.M.S. Colony and according to her, on 21.08.2010, Raji (A1) approached her through Alagarsamy (P.W.11), paid an advance of Rs.15,000/- and obtained the key of the rented portion.On the next day, by making a statement that he lost the key, has taken another key also from her.➢ Sethuraman Chettiar (P.W.13) is the owner of a Jewellary Shop, wherein, Raji (A1) attempted to sell the stolen articles.http://www.judis.nic.in 21 ➢ Arichandran (P.W.18) is the Head Constable, who stated about the seizure of material objects in the occurrence place.➢ Pandi (P.W.19) is Ambulance Driver.➢ Murugaiyan (P.W.20) is the photographer.➢ Natarajan (P.W.21) is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy.➢ Rajesh (P.W.22) is the Scientist from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, who examined the material objects sent to him for analysis.➢ Vanitha (P.W.23) is the Doctor, who received the dead body on 21.08.2010 and issued Accident Register (Ex.P30).➢ Bose (P.W.24) is Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the First Information Report (Ex.P31).➢ Asha Kousalya Santhini (P.W.25) is the Judicial Magistrate No.T, Madurai, who conducted Test Identification Parade.➢ Nidhikumar (P.W.26) is the Investigation Officer, who conducted investigation and filed final report.http://www.judis.nic.in 22Taking note of the guidelines with regard to the circumstantial evidence issued by the Honourable Supreme Court, we have carefully analysed the circumstantial evidence available in this case.On 21.08.2010, Manickam Chettiar was found dead in his house in a suspicious manner.The deceased was a pawnbroker and he was residing in the house of Ashok (P.W.1) in the ground floor.His wife Sigappi Achi (P.W.5), along with her maidservant Lalitha, went to Thirupathi for Darshan and the deceased was alone in the house.Ashok (P.W.1), while moving out of his house, found the inner doors of the ground floor portion locked unusually and the front door was open and proceeded with his work.When he returned back, he noticed the doors in the same position.Therefore, he went and pushed the doors.He found Manickam Chettiar lying in the floor and a mat (M.O.1) with grindstone (M.O.2) was kept on his face.He immediately, informed the police about 12.00 noon.Natarajan (P.W.21), who conducted autopsy, has noted down five injuries in the Post-mortem Certificate (Ex.P26) and has given final opinion that the deceased died due to asphyxia due to smothering associated with head injury.According to him, the injury No.1 is likely to occur when somebody oppresses his face and the injury Nos.2 to 4 are likely to occurhttp://www.judis.nic.in 23 when somebody scuffles with the deceased and the injury No.5 is likely to occur, when somebody prevents the breath by oppressing the face and he has also stated that injuries found from cheek to neck is likely to occur by attacking grindstone (M.O.2).From the evidence of Ashok (P.W.1) and Kannan (P.W.2), it is evident that this is the case of homicide.While entering into the house of Manickam Chettiar (deceased), they found the almirahs were open.After returning from Thirupathi, Sigappi Achi (P.W.5) has noted down and taken stock of the jewels and has stated that around 9 kilograms of gold ornaments and 1.25 kilograms of silver articles along with cash of Rs.16,000/- are found missing.Pappiah (P.W.4), relative of maidservant Lalitha, has found the accused in the deceased's house prior to the occurrence.A receipt (Ex.P4) for pledging the jewels, was also recovered from the house of Raji (A1).On perusal of Ex.P4, it is seen that on 04.02.2010, Raji (A1) has pledged certain jewels with Manickam Chettiar and received a sum of Rs.16,000/-, of which, Raji (A1) has paid a sum of Rs.5,650/- and his signature is also available in Ex.Raji (A1) was arrested in front of Aalavai Lodge on 23.08.2010 in the presence of Janardhanan (P.W.6) and M.Os.7, 8, 9 and 10 have been recovered from him and in the presence of the same witnesses, on 24.08.2010, Karthika (A2) was arrested and M.O.13 series have been recovered from her.B.PUGALENDHI, J., Challenging the conviction and sentence for the offences under Section 302 and 449 I.P.C., imposed by the learned VI Additional District Sessions Judge, Madurai, vide Judgment dated 24.04.2017, in S.C.No.176 of 2011, the first accused has filed this Criminal Appeal.The Investigating Officer (P.W.26) sent the bloodstained articles for chemical analysis on 31.08.2010 with a requisition (Ex.P39) to the Judicial Magistrate and took policehttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 custody of Raji (A1) and Karthika (A2) and also made a requisition (Ex.P40) for conducting test identification parade.Thereafter, the Investigating Officer (P.W.26) took police custody of Raji (A1) on 06.09.2010 and on 07.09.2010, Raji (A1) gave a confession statement and based on his confession statement, a motorcycle (M.O.14) and piece of papers (M.O.15) used by the deceased to fold the jewels, were recovered under the covers of mahazar (Ex.P21 and P22 respectively) in the presence of one Ramanathan (P.W.15) and another.Karthika (A2) was also taken on police custody and from 11.30 a.m., to 5.30 p.m., a confession statement was recorded from her in the presence of the same witnesses and recovered a receipt bearing No.5780 (Ex.P4) for pledging the jewels.On 22.08.2010, at about 11.00 a.m., Dr.Natarajan (P.W.21) conducted autopsy on the dead body and issued the postmortem certificate (Ex.P26), wherein, he has noted the following injuries:-Cresentric nail 2 cms in length noted on the right side of cheek, convexity facing upwards.http://www.judis.nic.in 82. Abrasions each measuring 3c ms x 2 cms noted on the front of both knees.Abrasion 4 cms x 3 cms noted on the outer aspect of upper 3rd of left thigh.Abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm noted on the back of right ring finger.Contusion noted on the inner aspect of both the entire upper and lower lips.On dissection of scalp, skull & Dura:Contusion scalp 4 cms x 3 cms noted on right temporal region.A Test Identification Parade was conducted, on 04.09.2010, at the Central Prison, Madurai, by Asha Kousalya Shanthini (P.W.25), Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai.Raji (A1) was identified by Pappaiah (P.W.4) and Raja (P.W.9), Manager of Sivabakya Lodge.The Report of the Test Identification Parade, in respect of Raji (A1) is marked as Ex.Raji (A1) made an objection for the identification parade that the witnesses Pappaiah (P.W.4) and Raja (P.W.9), Manager of Sivabakya Lodge, saw him in the police station on the previous Tuesday.Pappaiah (P.W.4) identified Karthika (A2)http://www.judis.nic.in 10 during the Test Identification Parade.The Report for the Test Identification Parade, in respect of Karthika (A2) is marked as Ex.The Investigating Officer collected Biological Report (Ex.P28), wherein, it is stated that the blood deducted in M.Os.1, 3, 4, 5, 11 and 12 is that of human “A”.Rajesh (P.W.22), Scientist from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, also gave a Report (Ex.P29) stating that the blood deducted in M.Os.1, 3 , 4, 5, 11 and 12 is that of “Human A”.After examining witnesses and collecting various reports, the Investigating Officer (P.W.26) filed final report, as against Raji (A1) and Karthika (A2) before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai, in P.R.C.No.72 of 2010, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 149, 380 & 302 r/w 34 I.P.C.On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.176 of 2011 and made over to the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, for trial.http://www.judis.nic.in 11The Trial Court framed four charges, as detailed below:When questioned, the accused pleaded ""not guilty"".To prove the case, the prosecution examined 26 witnesses and marked 45 exhibits as well as 17 material objects.No witness was examined nor any document marked on the side of the accused.That apart, 09 documents were marked as court documents.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances against them, they denied the same.By Judgment dated 24.04.2017, the Trial Court acquitted Karthika (A2) of the charge under Sections 120-B, 449 r/w 34 & 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. and acquitted Raji (A1) of the charge under Sections 120-B I.P.C.; however, convicted and sentenced Raji (A1) as detailed below:The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 24.04.2017, Raji (A1) is before this Court.Heard Mr.The learned counsel for the accused further stated that the pledge receipt (Ex.P4) does not have the signature of the deceased and no date has been mentioned in the receipt.This has also been admitted by Sigappi Achi (P.W.5) in her evidence.Further, recovery of M.O.15 is highly artificial and unbelievable, because, after the identification parade on 04.09.2010, the Investigating Officer, who took the police custody of Raji (A1) on 06.09.2010, recorded the second confession statement from A1 and made recovery of M.O.The second confession statement from the accused is unknown to law and the recovery was made after the identification parade.In order to suit their case against the accused, the prosecution made the false recovery, because, Raji (A1) was originally arrested on 23.08.2010 and on his confession M.Os.8http://www.judis.nic.in 14 to 10 were recovered.He, in his evidence, has stated about the lodging of complaint (Ex.P1).➢ One Kannan (P.W.2) is the neighbour of Manickam Chettiar (deceased).Ashok (P.W.1) along with Kannan (P.W.2) firstly noticed the death of Manickam Chettiar and he accompanied with Ashok (P.W.1) for lodging the complaint (Ex.P1).She went to Thirupathi, along with the maidservant Lalitha, for Darshan.P14 and 15 have been recovered.He has also identified Raji (A1) during the test identification parade.➢ Srinivasan (P.W.10) is the Manager of Aalavai Lodge and through him Exs.P.17 and P19 have been marked.➢ Alagarsamy (P.W.11) is a House-Broker, who arranged a house for the accused at R.M.S.Colony for the monthly rent of Rs.2,600/-.But, he turned hostile.➢ Sasikumar (P.W.14), who on the directions of the police, weighed the jewels recovered from Raji (A1).➢ Ramanathan (P.W.15) is the attestor for the recovery of M.O.14, which was recovered during the police custody from Raji (A1).➢ Mohan (P.W.16) is the Head Constable, who handed over the First Information Report (Ex.P31) to the Judicial Magistrate, on 21.08.2010 at 06.00 p.m. ➢ Samsun Gunaraj (P.W.17) is the Head Constable, who took the dead body to the hospital.The Trial Court, by order dated 23.10.2013 in Cr.M.P.No.324 of 2013, appointed an Advocate Commissioner, for the disbursal of the pledged jewels to the respective parties.Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner issued a public notice on 06.11.2013 in Dhinamalar Tamil Newspaper to the general public regarding disbursal of pledged jewels to the pledgers on 25.11.2013 and 26.11.2013 in the District Legal Service Authority, Madurai.In response to the said publication, the general public, who have pledged their jewels in the deceased's pawnbroker shop, have appeared before the District Legal Services Authority, Madurai, on 25.11.2013, 26.11.2013, 16.12.2013, 17.12.2013 and 18.12.2013, contained in 783 receipts have been returned to the respective parties, after receiving principal and interest amount.The receipts of the general public, who have redeemed their pledged jewels from the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Trial Court, have been marked as Court Document Nos.1 to 6 and the Reports of the Advocate Commissioner have been marked as Court Document Nos.7 and 8.http://www.judis.nic.in 25After the commission of offence, the accused though having a house at Alagappa Nagar in Madurai, has stayed in Sivabakya Lodge, Vaithyalinga Lodge and Aalavai Lodge.The registers recovered from Vaithyalinga Lodge have been marked as Exs.The registers recovered from Sivabakya Lodge have been marked as Exs.The registers recovered from Aalavai Lodge have been marked as Exs.The subsequent conduct of Raji (A1) in shifting his house is also elicited through the evidence of Alagarsamy (P.W.11) and Parvadhavardhini (P.W.12).After the occurrence, Raji (A1) in order to shift his house has approached Alagarsamy (P.W.11), housebroker, who arranged a house of Parvadhavardhini (P.W.12) for Raji (A1).By paying a sum of Rs.15,000/- as advance, on 21.08.2010, Raji (A1) obtained key from Parvadhavardhini (P.W.12) and on the next day, by saying that the key, which was already given to him, found missing, he had collected second key also.The evidence of Alagarsamy (P.W.11) and Parvadhavardhini (P.W.12) clearly elicit Raji's (A1's) conduct, which is also one of the circumstances and which draws inference against the accused.The Raji (A1) and Karthika (A2) were lastly seen in the house of Manickam Chettiar (deceased) by Pappaiah (P.W.4), who has also identified the accused during the test identification parade.Raja (P.W.9), Manager of Sivabakya Lodge has also identified Raji (A1) during the test identification parade.Furthermore, since the jewels were recovered from the accused, as per Section 114 of the Evidence Act, presumption shall fall upon the accused that they must be either the persons, who stolen the jewels or receivers of the stolen jewels.We are of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Trial Court.In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and it is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.1.The VI Additional District Sessions Judge, Madurai.2.The Inspector of Police, South Gate Police Station, Madurai City.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Records Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 28 R.SUBBIAH, J.and B.PUGALENDHI, J.krk / myr JUDGMENT IN Crl.A.(MD) No.344 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.8811 of 2017 22.04.2019http://www.judis.nic.in","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The State is the appellant, whereas the accused 1 to 4 are therespondents.The Inspector of Police attached to Papanasam Police Station(Thanjavaur District) had laid a final report on 31.12.2007 on the file ofthe District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Papanasam, as against therespondents 1 to 4 herein alleging that they had committed the offencespunishable under Section 302 and 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C.After the completion of preliminary enquiry, the case wascommitted to the Court of Sessions by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam and after the appearance of therespondents/accused, the learned I Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), ThanjavurSessions Division had framed the following two charges.a. As against the first respondent/A1 under Section 302 of I.P.C.b. As against the respondents/accused 2 to 4 under Section 302r/w 34 of I.P.C.When the ingredients of the charges were explained andquestioned all the four respondents/accused had pleaded innocence and wantedto face the trial and therefore, they were put on trial.In order to substantiate their case, the prosecution hastotally examined 21 witnesses and during the course of their examination,Exs.P.1 to P.16 and the material objects ranging from M.Os.1 to 13 weremarked.The Gravamen of the Prosecution Case:-That on 3.10.2007 at about 11.45 hours when the deceasedMurthy @ Venkatachalam was conversing with his brother Senthil (P.W.1) inthe railway station road at Papanasam, in front of Muniyandi Vilas Hotel, allthe accused came there and due to previous enmity because of taking part inthe Papanasam New Bus Stand cycle stand auction had picked up quarrel withthe deceased and on account of the common object of committing the murderof the deceased, the first respondent/A1 had fisted on his left cheek, whilethe third respondent/A3 had kicked him.When the deceased had fallen onthe road, the fourth respondent had mounted on his chest and fisted on hisleft cheek.When the deceased Murthy @ Venkatachalam was trying to getup after pushing away the fourth respondent, the first respondent/A1 hadcaught hold him and both the first respondent/A1 and the deceased hadrolled over and thereafter, the deceased had managed to get up and proceededtowards South.While so, the second respondent/A2 had pushed him down onthe ground making the deceased to fall on the road in front of Nice Tailorshop.When he had fallen down, the third and fourthrespondents/accused 3 and 4 had caught hold his right and left handsrespectively.The second respondent/A2 had also caught hold of his bothlegs so as to facilitate the first respondent/A1 to kill him with a cementconcrete stone.The first respondent/A1 had lifted the cement concretestone and dropped on the head of the deceased repeatedly, which resulted inhis instantaneous death.When P.W.1 being the brother of the decased and P.Ws.2 and 3being the friends of P.W.1 were tried to rescue the deceased, they werethreatened with dire consequences by the respondents/accused persons andafter the completion of the occurrence, the accused persons had gone away.Then P.W.8 came there and on the narration of P.W.1, P.W.8Kaliamurthy reduced the same into writing and both of them had presentedthat complaint (Ex.He immediately after the receipt of that complaint hadregistered a case in Papanasam Police Station Cr.The State is the appellant, whereas the accused 1 to 4 are therespondents.In order to substantiate their case, the prosecution hastotally examined 21 witnesses and during the course of their examination,Exs.P.1 to P.16 and the material objects ranging from M.Os.1 to 13 weremarked.The Gravamen of the Prosecution Case:-That on 3.10.2007 at about 11.45 hours when the deceasedMurthy @ Venkatachalam was conversing with his brother Senthil (P.W.1) inthe railway station road at Papanasam, in front of Muniyandi Vilas Hotel, allthe accused came there and due to previous enmity because of taking part inthe Papanasam New Bus Stand cycle stand auction had picked up quarrel withthe deceased and on account of the common object of committing the murderof the deceased, the first respondent/A1 had fisted on his left cheek, whilethe third respondent/A3 had kicked him.When the deceased had fallen onthe road, the fourth respondent had mounted on his chest and fisted on hisleft cheek.When the deceased Murthy @ Venkatachalam was trying to getup after pushing away the fourth respondent, the first respondent/A1 hadcaught hold him and both the first respondent/A1 and the deceased hadrolled over and thereafter, the deceased had managed to get up and proceededtowards South.While so, the second respondent/A2 had pushed him down onthe ground making the deceased to fall on the road in front of Nice Tailorshop.When he had fallen down, the third and fourthrespondents/accused 3 and 4 had caught hold his right and left handsrespectively.The second respondent/A2 had also caught hold of his bothlegs so as to facilitate the first respondent/A1 to kill him with a cementconcrete stone.The first respondent/A1 had lifted the cement concretestone and dropped on the head of the deceased repeatedly, which resulted inhis instantaneous death.When P.W.1 being the brother of the decased and P.Ws.2 and 3being the friends of P.W.1 were tried to rescue the deceased, they werethreatened with dire consequences by the respondents/accused persons andafter the completion of the occurrence, the accused persons had gone away.Then P.W.8 came there and on the narration of P.W.1, P.W.8Kaliamurthy reduced the same into writing and both of them had presentedthat complaint (Ex.Further, P.W.1 is none other than the younger brother ofthe deceased, whereas P.Ws.2 and 3 are his friends.According to the caseof prosecution that at about 11.45 p.m. on 3.10.2007 while P.Ws.1 to 3were returning to their home after purchasing the diesel, in front of theMuniyandi Vilas Hotel, P.W.1's brother Murthy @ Venkatachalam, who is thedeceased herein, was standing there and on seeing him, P.W.1 had toldP.Ws.2 and 3 that he wanted to go to see his brother.While so, A1 to A4 came there.The first respondent/A1had asked him ?eP vd;dlh bghpa Msh? while saying so, he had fisted overhis face.While the third respondent had kicked him and on receiving thatblow, the deceased had fallen down.When he was trying to get up the fourthrespondent/A4 sat on the chest of the deceased and slapped on his cheek.The deceased pushed him off away and got up and subsequently, he wastrying to proceed further, but the fourth respondent/A4 had not allowed himto go away.While so, the first respondent/A1 Senthil had caught holdhim and rolled along with the deceased on the ground.Thereafter, thedeceased got up and proceeded towards South.While so, the secondrespondent/A2 had pushed the deceased down in front of the Nice Tailoringshop and on account of this reason, the deceased had fallen on his back,while the other accused persons, viz., A2 to A4 had caught hold of his legsand hands, the first respondent/A1 had lifted M.O.1 Cement Concrete Stone ,which was found lying there and dropped it over his head and on receivingthe head injury, the deceased had died on the spot instantaneously.When the occurrence was taken place all the three witnesseswere simply watching the incident.Neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 or P.W.3 weretrying to rescue the deceased.The conduct of P.Ws.1 to 3 seems to beunusual and therefore, their presence in the place of occurrence is doubtedand further on a combined reading of the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3 along withthe evidence of P.W.8, who is the scribe the complaint, we find a lot ofinfirmities and contradictions between their evidences.As afore stated, including P.W.1 there were three witnesses.In spite of this, P.Ws.1 to 3 havenot properly explained as to why they were not making any attempt to savethe deceased.With regard to the lodging of the complaint, P.W.1 saysthat the police people after lodging of the complaint came to the place ofoccurrence on the next day.No.201 of 2007 underSections 342 and 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C. The printed first information reportwas marked as Ex.Thereafter, the complaint Ex.P.1 and the first informationreport Ex.Subsequently, P.W.21 had been to the place ofoccurrence, inspected the same and prepared an observation mahazar Ex.Then, he had also seized the cement concrete stone M.O.1,which was said to have been used by the first accused to kill the deceasedand other material objects viz., blood stained earth and some unbloodstained earth etc. ranging from M.O.8 to M.O.13 under a seizure mahazarEx.P.W.14 Dr. Rajmohan attached to Papanasam Govt. Hospitalhad conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased.While so, he had found the following external as well as internal injurieson the dead body as under:-1. 5 x 1 x 4 cm laceration just below left eye.2. 8 x 2 x 1 cm lacerated wound in the left forehead.3. 7 x 2 x 1 cm laceration near the 2nd injury.4. 11 x 3 x 2 cm lacerated wound in the right parietal region.Head deformed, crepitation felt over the cranium.Thoax : no rib fracture, heart ? 300 gms.Chambers emply.Bothlungs normal.Hyoid bone intact.Abdomen ? uniform, level of diaphragmnormal.Stomach distended with semi digested food.Liver ? 1600 gms, firmDATED :31.10.2014CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANANCriminal Appeal (MD) No.216 OF 2010State represented byThe Inspector of PolicePapanasam Police StationThanjavur District ... Appellant Vs.3.Prabhu @ Prabhu Gopinath ... RespondentsPrayer : Appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,against the Judgment dated 18.1.2010 and made in S.C.No.73 of 2009 on thefile of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge (Protection of Civil Rights),Thanjavur.The Inspector of Police attached to Papanasam Police Station(Thanjavaur District) had laid a final report on 31.12.2007 on the file ofthe District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Papanasam, as against therespondents 1 to 4 herein alleging that they had committed the offencespunishable under Section 302 and 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C.After the completion of preliminary enquiry, the case wascommitted to the Court of Sessions by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam and after the appearance of therespondents/accused, the learned I Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), ThanjavurSessions Division had framed the following two charges.a. As against the first respondent/A1 under Section 302 of I.P.C.b. As against the respondents/accused 2 to 4 under Section 302r/w 34 of I.P.C.When the ingredients of the charges were explained andquestioned all the four respondents/accused had pleaded innocence and wantedto face the trial and therefore, they were put on trial.He immediately after the receipt of that complaint hadregistered a case in Papanasam Police Station Cr.No.201 of 2007 underSections 342 and 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C. The printed first information reportwas marked as Ex.Thereafter, the complaint Ex.P.1 and the first informationreport Ex.Subsequently, P.W.21 had been to the place ofoccurrence, inspected the same and prepared an observation mahazar Ex.Then, he had also seized the cement concrete stone M.O.1,which was said to have been used by the first accused to kill the deceasedand other material objects viz., blood stained earth and some unbloodstained earth etc. ranging from M.O.8 to M.O.13 under a seizure mahazarEx.P.W.14 Dr. Rajmohan attached to Papanasam Govt. Hospitalhad conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased.While so, he had found the following external as well as internal injurieson the dead body as under:-1. 5 x 1 x 4 cm laceration just below left eye.2. 8 x 2 x 1 cm lacerated wound in the left forehead.3. 7 x 2 x 1 cm laceration near the 2nd injury.4. 11 x 3 x 2 cm lacerated wound in the right parietal region.Head deformed, crepitation felt over the cranium.Thoax : no rib fracture, heart ? 300 gms.Chambers emply.Bothlungs normal.Hyoid bone intact.Abdomen ? uniform, level of diaphragmnormal.Stomach distended with semi digested food.Liver ? 1600 gms, firmspleen 100 gms, firm, kidney ? normal, small intestine normal.Largeintestine distended with gas, bladder empty.Opening of Head:11 x 3 x 2 cm lacerated wound in the right parietal region with(nc) hematoma extending from right frontal to right temporo occipitalregion.Ring fracture of skull extending from frontal temporal andoccipital region.Clotted blood in the dura matter of right parietal region.Laceration 4 x 5 x 2 cm in the right fronto parietal lobe with 5 ml ofclotted blood.15 ml of clotted blood present in the base of skull.Laceration 4 x 2 x 1 cm left temporal lobe.Spinal column intact.After the completion of his examination, he had issued apost mortem certificate Ex.P.13, wherein he has opined that the deceasedwould appear to have died of injury to vital organ such as brain and due tohaemorrhagic shock 11 to 12 hours prior to autopsy.Thereafter, P.W.21 had examined witnesses and recordedtheir statements and after the completion of the investigation he had laid afinal report against the respondents/accused before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Papanasam, as afore stated.When the incriminating circumstances arising out of thetestimonies of the prosecution witnesses were put to the respondents/accusedduring the course of the proceedings under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., theyreplied that they had nothing to do with the allegations levelled againstthem and that this case was foisted against them.Though they had stated that they were going to examine thewitnesses on their part, nobody was examined and no documentary evidencewas also adduced.With the evidence of P.W.21, the prosecution has closedits side.On evaluating the evidences both oral and documentary, thelearned Additional Sessions Judge (PCR) had found the respondents/accused 1to 4 not guilty and therefore, they were acquitted of the charges underSection 302 and 302 r/w34 of I.P.C.Challenging the order of the acquittal, the Staterepresented by the Inspector of Police, Papanasam Police Station haspreferred this present appeal.Heard Mr.C. Mayil Vahana Rajendran, learned Additional PublicProsecutor appearing for the appellant and Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned counselappearing for the respondents/accused.Before we go into the merits of the case , we would like tohighlight that the prosecution witnesses 4 to 7, 9 to 11, 13 and 15 have notsupported the case of the prosecution as they have turned hostile.Barring their evidences, the remaining witnesses P.Ws.1 to3, who claim to be the eye witnesses and P.W.8, who is the scribe of thecomplaint Ex.P.1 and the testimonies of P.W.12 are available.Apart from this, the testimonies of official witnesses,i.e., P.W.14 Post Mortem Dr. Rajmohan and other official witnesses P.W.16and P.W.21 are also available.However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor hasadverted to that the learned trial Judge had failed to weigh theirtestimonies with proper care and caution.He has also submitted that the learned trial Judge has notassigned any reason for disbelieving the first information Ex.P.1 which waslodged before P.W.21 by P.W.1 accompanied by P.W.8 immediately after theoccurrence.He has also submitted that the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3are cogent, convincing and corroborate with each other.However, theirtestimonies were discarded by the learned trial Judge for the reasons bestknown to him.He has maintained that the learned trial Judge has notproperly explained as to how the medical evidence adduced by P.W.14 andthe post mortem report under Ex.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for therespondents/accused has submitted that the learned trial Judge has properlyappreciated and weighed the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and hascome to the correct conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failedto bring home the guilt of the respondents/accused 1 to 4 and therefore, thejudgment of the trial court need not be disturbed as the interference ofthis Court does not require.On perusal of Ex.P.1 complaint, it appears thatit was received by P.W.21 Inspector of Police at 00.15 a.m on 4.10.2007and soon after the receipt of the complaint he had also registered the casein Cr.No.201 of 2007 under Section 302 of I.P.C.The first information report Ex.P.11 also reveals the samefact.However, it appears that these two documents, viz., Ex.P.1 andEx.P.11 were reached the learned Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam, at 4.40a.m.on 4.10.2007 as it is seen from the evidence of P.W.19, who had takenEx.P.1 and Ex.The occurrenceplace is situated just one kilometre away from the police station.He has also stated that at 4.00 a.m. he had been to thehouse of the learned Judicial Magistrate and handed over the Ex.P.1 andEx.43. P.W.8 says that he came to the place of occurrence along withothers and he was asked to write a complaint and therefore, he had writtenthe complaint.He would further state that at about 12.00 midnight he cameto the place of occurrence and thereafter, all the villagers went to thepolice station and they were also enquired by the police people.According to him, when he along with other villagers cameto the place of occurrence, already the police people were present there andthe witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 were also present.But he is not able to say asto how the police people came to the place of occurrence before lodging thecomplaint and as to who had lodged the complaint prior to his lodging ofcomplaint.He would further state that after half-an-hour he went tothe police station along with others.In his cross examination, P.W.21 Inspector of Police hasstated that neither in the complaint Ex.P.1, dated 4.10.2007 nor in theirrespective statements, which were recorded by him under Section 161(3)Cr.P.C., P.Ws.1 to 3 have not told that for what purpose they went toPapanasam.Further, he has also stated that they never had statedthat they were threatened by the respondents.During the course of his investigation, he came to know thatthe deceased had been selling liquor near Papanasam railway gate and onthis score, there was previous enmity with other liquor sellers.In his cross examination, he has also stated that noreference was available in his diary to substantiate the fact that P.W.1came to the police station along with other persons.Apart from this, thearrest of the respondents/A1 to A4 was not satisfactorily proved.Besides this he has also admitted in his cross examinationthat when he had examined P.W.14 Dr. Rajmohan, who had conducted the postmortem examination M.O.1 Cement Concrete Stone was not shown to him.But hehas also not obtained any explanation from P.Ws.1 to 3 during the courseof his investigation as to why they had gone to Papanasam at 12.00midnight.It is significant to note here that P.W.21 being theInspector of Police had received the complaint under Ex.P.1 and alsoregistered the case.Since he being the officer, who had registered thecase, he should not have taken up the investigation.Even if he happens totake up the investigation, with the permission of his higher authorities,investigation should have been handed over to some other competent policeofficer.Hence, the investigation taken up by P.W.21 appears to have beentainted with embellishment.As we have discussed in the opening paragraphs, the presenceof P.Ws.1 to 3 at the time of occurrence has been shrouded with moonshine andsince their presence is doubted, it is incumbent on the part of theprosecution to dispel the doubt.However, the prosecution has notsatisfactorily proved the presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 at the place and at thetime of occurrence.Apart from this, as afore stated, the conduct of P.Ws.1 to3 seems to be unusual.We are in agreement with the conclusion of the trialCourt to the effect that P.Ws.1 to 3 would not have present in the place ofoccurrence and witnessed the occurrence.Further, since the other independent witnesses, viz., P.Ws.4to 7 and seizure mahazar witness P.W.9 and observation mahazar witness P.W.11have turned hostile, the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 are left uncorroboratedand unsupported.The evidence of P.W.12, who has spoken about the previousenmity between the deceased and the respondents has also not been supportedby any other witnesses.Apart from this, since P.W.21 being the Inspectorof Police, attached to Papanasam Police Station, happened to register thecase, he is not supposed to take up the investigation.Keeping in view of all the infirmities and conflictions aswell as the contradictions between the testimonies of prosecution witnesses,we are of the considered view that the learned trial Judge has come to thecorrect conclusion, which resulted in the acquittal of the respondents 1 to4 in respect of the charges under Sections 302 and 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C.Therefore, the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judgedoes not require interference of this Court.Further, wedo not find any reasons to interfere with the judgment of acquittal recordedby the learned trial Judge.In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed confirmingthe judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge.(S.R.,J) (T.M.,J).31.10.2014rnbIndex :Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoToThe I Additional Sessions Judge, (PCR), Thanjavur.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.S.RAJESWARAN,J.ANDT.MATHIVANAN,J.rnbPre-delivery JudgmentCriminal Appeal (MD) No.216 of 2010Delivered on31.10.2014","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Ezhilmathi.She was married to one Mr.Ranganathan, who is the son of the accused herein, eight years before the occurrence.At the time of marriage, gold jewels and other household articles were presented by the parents of the deceased.It is alleged that these two accused who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased demanded more dowry from the deceased and harassed her.It is further alleged that on 23.07.2012, at 8.00 am, at the house of the deceased, both the accused abused the deceased in filthy language and then A.1 poured kerosene and A.2 through a lighted match stick on her.The deceased sustained serious burn injuries on her body.The house of the parents of the deceased is situated just 30 houses away from the house of the deceased.On hearing about the occurrence, P.W.1 - the father, P.W.2 - the mother and P.Ws.3 & 4  the neighbours had rushed to the house of the deceased.They found the deceased with burn injuries.When they enquired the deceased, as to how she sustained burn injuries, she told them that A.1 poured kerosene and A.2 set fire on her.P.W.5 is yet another neighbour who has also stated the same.Thereafter, one Mr.Ilayaraja, the brother of the deceased took the deceased in an Ambulance to the Government Hospital, Virudhachalam.Then she was conscious.She told the Doctor that at 11.45 pm, on 23.07.2012, at her house, her father-in-law poured kerosene and set fire.P.W.9 found 90% burnt injuries on her body.P.W.9 made entry of the said statement, in the accident register and then, gave intimation to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Virudhachalam.P.W.9 certified that the deceased was conscious.P.W.8 was satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make a dying declaration.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu.J) The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.301 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore.They stood charged for offences under Sections 498A, 294(b) & 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. By judgment dated 04.09.2013, the trial Court convicted them for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., alone and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused 1 and 2/appellants are before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.Thereafter, he recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, vide Ex.In the said judicial dying declaration, the deceased told that A.1 poured kerosene and A.2 set fire on her.4.P.W.10, the then Special Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the intimation from the hospital, went to the hospital on 24.07.2012 and recorded the statement of the deceased, in the presence of the Doctor under Ex.On returning to the Police Station, at 6.00 am, on 24.07.2012, he registered a case in Crime No.194/2012 for offences under Sections 294(b), 498A & 307 I.P.C. Ex.5.The case was taken up for investigation by P.W.11, the then Inspector of Police.He went to the place of occurrence at 7.00 am, on 24.07.2012 and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness.Then, he recovered a plastic can; a match box and a half burnt polyster saree (M.Os.1 to 3), under a mahazar, in the presence of same witnesses.Then, he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements.On the same day at 11.00 am, he arrested both the accused, in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness.On such arrest, A.1 gave a voluntary confession.But no discovery of any fact was made out of the same.On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded both the accused to Court, for judicial remand.6.On 29.07.2012, at 9.55 pm, the deceased succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.On receipt of the death intimation, P.W.11 altered the case into one under Sections 294(b), 498A & 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.13 is the alteration report.On the same day, between 1.00 pm and 3.00 pm, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased, in the hospital and forwarded the body for post mortem.Manojkumar Mohandi, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 30.07.2012, at 3.05 pm.He found 90% of burnt injuries, on the body of the deceased.He opined that the death was due to septicemia following burns.P.4 is the post mortem certificate and Ex.P.6 is the final opinion of P.W.7 regarding the cause of death.On completing investigation, P.W.11 laid charge sheet against both the accused.7.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment against these accused.Both the accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses were examined and 14 documents were exhibited, besides 3 material objects.8.Out of the prosecution witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 5 have stated that the deceased told them that A.1 poured kerosene and A.2 set fire to her.P.W.9  Dr.Saminathan, has stated that the deceased told him that her father-in-law poured kerosene and set fire.In the judicial dying declaration, recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the deceased told that A.1 poured kerosene and A.2 set fire on her.In the complaint made to P.W.10 also, the deceased told that A.1 poured kerosene and A.2 set fire on her.9.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.On their side, no witness was examined and no document was marked.Their defence was a total denial.10.Having considered all the above, the trial Court found the accused guilty for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., and accordingly, sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.Aggrieved over the same, the accused/appellants are before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.11.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also perused the records carefully.12.In this case, the prosecution relies on the multiple dying declarations made by the deceased.P.Ws.1 to 5 have stated that when they went to the house of the deceased, they found the deceased with burn injuries and she told them that her father-in-law poured kerosene and mother-in-law set fire on her.P.Ws.1 to 5 told the said fact for the first time after the registration of the case.The deceased was brought to the hospital by her brother, by name, Mr.For the reasons best known to them, the prosecution has not examined the brother of the deceased viz., Mr.Ilayaraja.At the earliest point of time, when the deceased was admitted in the hospital, she told the Doctor that her father-in-law poured kerosene and set fire on her.Subsequently, in the judicial dying declaration, the deceased had told that A.1 poured kerosene and A.2 set fire on her.Thus, there is material contradiction between these two dying declarations.13.Above all, from the time of occurrence, the deceased was accompanied and surrounded by her family members.Admittedly, there was some misunderstanding between the accused and the family members of the deceased.The deceased was taken to the hospital by her brother, by name, Mr.In the first statement made by the deceased to the Doctor, the deceased told that her father-in-law alone poured kerosene and set fire on her.But, in the second statement made to the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, the deceased had told that A.1 poured kerosene and A.2 set fire on her.This material improvement made by the deceased implicating A.2 in the subsequent dying declaration would only go to probablize that she had been tutored by Mr.Ilayaraja, or by the other relatives.Assuming that the said statement made to the Doctor, being the earliest statement, requires weightage, since, it is completely contradicted by the subsequent dying declaration recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, in which, the deceased told that A.1 poured kerosene and A.2 set fire on her.In our considered view, it is not safe to act on the earliest statement made to the Doctor since that statement itself might have been due to tutoring.If the second dying declaration that fire was set only by A.2 is believed then, the first dying declaration made to the Doctor that it was A.1 who poured kerosene and set fire on her becomes false.Thus, these two dying declarations are completely contradicting each other and they make each one as unbelievable.14.It is needless to point out that the trial Court itself has disbelieved the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3, that these accused demanded dowry and harassed the deceased.Similarly, the trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of these witnesses, in respect of the charge under Section 294(b) I.P.C. Thus, the trial Court itself has partly believed the prosecution case.Further, the State has not made any appeal against the acquittal of the appellants for offence under Sections 498A & 294(b)15.In view of all these anamolies and doubts, we find it difficult to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants.(M.J.J) & (S.N.J) 21.04.2016jbmIndex:Yes To1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore.A.No.679 of 201321.04.2016","['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
It appears to be clear that the accused Paromita Chakraborty lodged a case against the present defacto complainant about 7 months prior to lodging of this case against Paromita Chakraborty and others.It further appears to me that the aforesaid case lodged by Paromita Chakraborty is still pending and the defacto complainant is facing the trial.,"['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on the question of admission.This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 19-11-2016 passed by 2nd A.S.J., Jaura, Distt.Morena in S.T. No. 299/2016, by which the charge under Sections 147, 148, 294, 307 of I.P.C. has been framed against applicant no.2 Sunil whereas charge under Sections 147, 148, 294, 307/34 of I.P.C. has been framed against the remaining applicants.The prosecution story in short is that a F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant to the effect that at about 7:30 in the morning, he was going to his fields.When he reached in front of the house of Ramprakash,, then the applicants came there and were armed with Lathi, Farsa etc. The applicant Sunil was having a country-made pistol with him.vs. State of MP reported in ILR (2012) MP 1055 and Anil alias Moni Panda and Anr.Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that it is well settled principle of law that in order to prima facie make out an offence under Section 307 of IPC, the nature of injuries is immaterial.It is submitted that the manner in which the incident is alleged to have taken place and the gunshot injury caused to the complainant clearly show that the applicants had an intention and knowledge to cause death of the complainant and there was an overt act on their part and thus, prima facie offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"By this application applicant/accused who hasbeen convicted for the offence punishable under Section376 (2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced tosuffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of 10 yearsand to pay a fine of Rs.60,000/-, in default of payment, ::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 ::: (2) criapln3725.18to suffer simple imprisonment for year as per thejudgment and order dated 14.06.2018 in Special CaseNo.137/2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,Ahmednagar has prayed to suspend the aforesaidsubstantive sentences pending hearing and final decisionof his appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.560/2018challenging the conviction recorded against him and torelease him on bail and it appears that the appellant hasdeposited fine amount on the same day.::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 :::Case of the prosecution is that the victim girlaged about 23 years is mentally retarded deaf and dumblady.She was residing with her parents.Her parents arelabours and they used to be out from the house in the daytime for labour work.The victim girl used to be alone atthe house.Her grand-mother used to be residing in theadjoining house which is her parental aunt.The applicantwho is resident of the same village is an agriculturist.The house of the victim girl is on the way of theagricultural land of the applicant.It was alleged thatin July, 2016 parental aunt of the victim girl visitedthe house of the victim girl and noticed some change inthe appearance of the victim girl.She pointed out thesaid change in the appearance of the victim girl to theinformant mother of the victim girl.The MedicalOfficer after examining the victim girl opined that shewas pregnant.The informant suspected that somebodycommitted forcible intercourse with the victim girl.During the investigation the informant raisedsuspicion on the appellant/accused, on the father of thevictim girl and on the cousin brother of the victim girl.The victim girl delivered a female child.Blood samplesof the said child, all the suspects including theapplicant and the victim girl were taken and in the DNAtest it was revealed that the applicant is Biologicalfather of the child of the victim girl.::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 :::Mr.Ostwal, learned counsel for the applicantsubmitted that the applicant was arrested on 14.01.2017and he is in jail since the date of his arrest.Panchwitnesses have not supported the prosecution case.Nothing is recovered from the spot of incident.Thevictim girl is not completely mentally retarded as perthe Medical evidence on record and therefore the victimgirl was required to be examined by the prosecution.Consent of the applicant was not obtained while takingsample of blood.The prosecution has not examined theperson/expert who conducted DNA test and still DNA report ::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 ::: (4) criapln3725.18is considered by the trial Court.As such, no opportunityhas been given to the appellant to dispute the DNAreport.His bail application was rejected by thetrial Court and bail application filed in this Court waswithdrawn as the trial was expedited.It is submittedthat in the above circumstances the evidence of PWs-5,6,8,9 and DNA report (Exh.14) relied upon by the trialCourt is not sufficient to sustain the convictionrecorded against the applicant and therefore sentencerecorded against the applicant may be suspended and hemay be released on bail, as final hearing of the appealwould take time, by allowing application.::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 :::Mr.Ostwal, learned counsel for the applicant, tosupport his submissions that the sentence recordedagainst the applicant is of fixed term there are noexceptional circumstance to reject the request ofsuspension of sentence and to release the applicant onbail when it is not possible to take up the appeal of theapplicant for early hearing and that generally courtshould be liberal to suspend the sentence during pendency ::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 ::: (5) criapln3725.18of the appeal challenging the sentence has mainly reliedupon the following decisions :::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 :::The maximum sentence imposed on him was imprisonment for a period of 7 years on the second count.His application for suspension of sentence was rejected by the High Court.It was held that no exceptional reason had been shown in the impugned order for not suspending the sentence.The sentence recorded against the appellant was suspended during pendency of the appeal and he was directed to be released on bail.B] In the Case of Angana and Another Vs State of Rajasthan (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 767 the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the aspect of suspension of sentence pending appeal and release of appellant on bail and further held that when an appeal is preferred against the conviction in the High Court, the High Court has ample power and discretion to suspend the sentence, but that discretion has to be exercised judiciously depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.While considering the suspension of sentence, each case is to be considered on the basis of nature of the offence, manner in which occurrence had taken place, whether in any manner bail granted ::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 ::: (6) criapln3725.18 earlier had been misused.In fact, there is no straitjacket formula which can be applied in exercising the discretion.The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion.While considering the application filed by the convict under Section 389 Cr.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 :::11 Supreme Court Cases 363 the appellant who was nearly 70 years old was convicted for the offence under Sections 342 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.He was in jail for nearly one year and on bail during trial.He was directed to be released on bail on his furnishing the stipulated security and it was clarified that release of appellant No.1 was only directed on considering his age and not on consideration of merits of the case.In the said case the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the IPC and each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.Sentence recorded against the appellants was suspended and they were directed to be released on bail with certain conditions.::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 :::5. Learned APP for the respondent/State on theother hand opposed to grand the application on thegrounds that mental condition of the victim girl isconsidered by the trial Court in paragraph No.29 of thejudgment and she was mentally retarded.The work ofsealing samples is the collective work of Doctor, Nurseand the staff and the said aspect has been considered bythe trial Court in paragraph Nos.35, 36 and 37 of thejudgment.PW-7 who carried samples to the analyzer forconducting DNA test has stated that the samples were insealed condition and therefore, it cannot be said thatthere was no proper sealing of the samples as submittedby the learned counsel for the applicant and even ifprocedural lapses are there it cannot be considered atthis stage when the applicant is Biological father of the ::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 ::: (9) criapln3725.18female child of the victim girl.As such according to thelearned APP as it is proved that the applicant hascommitted rape on mentally retarded victim girl the trialCourt has convicted and sentenced him for the offenceunder Section 376 (2)(l) of the IPC which offence isserious in nature.It is submitted that considering thecircumstance that applicant has committed rape onmentally retarded girl and the fact that the applicantwas not on bail during the trial his request to suspendthe sentence and to release him on bail cannot beconsidered.Thus, learned APP has prayed to reject theapplication.::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 :::I have carefully considered the submissions madeby the learned counsel for the applicant and learned APPand I have gone through the impugned judgment andevidence adduced by the prosecution.The evidence of Indubai Anna Bhingardive (PW-1)the informant/complainant who is mother of the victimgirl is that the victim girl is mentally retarded deafand dumb and that Tarabai (Parental aunt of victim girl) ::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 ::: ( 10 ) criapln3725.18told her to take the victim girl for medical examinationas the victim girl was complaining the stomach ache andthat when the victim girl was taken to Civil Hospital,Ahmednagar, Doctor told that the victim girl waspregnant.She has also stated that the applicant residesin their village.He used to take his cattle for grazingfrom their house.Their house is on the way of hisagricultural land.The applicant used to give signals tothe victim girl whenever he used to pass from their houseby raising and waiving hand.In her cross-examination sheadmitted that the victim girl used to talk with them bysigns.She denied that they have falsely implicated theapplicant.::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 :::The evidence of Dr.Sachin Solat (PW-2) showsthat on 13.08.2016 when he was Chief Medical Officer inCivil Hospital, Ahmednagar, the victim girl who was deafand dumb was examined by him and there was history ofsexual assault on her and he took sample of her blood,nails, pubic hair and vaginal swab and were forwarded tothe Chemical Analyzer.He stated that the victim girl wasreferred to the Gynecologist Dr. Mrs.Tupe and Dr. KaralePsychiatrist.He received reports from both of them andas per report of Gynecologist the patient was pregnant ofmore than 21 weeks and as per report of Psychiatrist the ::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 ::: ( 11 ) criapln3725.18patient was having clinically moderate mentalretardation.In the cross-examination he denied that thepatient was not mentally retarded, but of sound mind andshe was capable of knowing everything.::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 :::The evidence of Dr. Ashok Karale (PW-5) who isPsychiatrist who examined the victim girl shows that herself care activities were poor.She was not speaking.Shewas having difficulty in hearing.Her mile stones in lifewere delayed.That means she started walking very lateand as such mentally she was as good as a child when heexamined her.According to him he found that victim hasmoderate mental retardation.In the cross-examination headmitted that the patient was not completely mentallyretarded i.e. severe or profound mental retardation.Hedenied that the victim girl was not childish and wascapable of giving consent.Thus, from the evidence ofabove witnesses it appears that the victim girl wasmentally retarded.Therefore, prima facie there is nosubstance in the submissions of the learned counsel forthe applicant that she was not mentally retarded andtherefore, she was to be examined as witness by theprosecution.Therefore, there appears no question of herconsent to act alleged against the applicant.::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 :::( 12 )The evidence of API Mandale (PW-6) shows thatafter the victim girl delivered a child he went to Mumbaiand brought six kits for taking necessary samples.On17.10.2016 he called all the three suspects to the CivilHospital, Ahmednagar for sampling purpose and accordinglythe Medical Officer collected samples and those werehanded over to him.In his evidence DNA report (Exh.14)is exhibited.The evidence of PW-8 Dr.Sonawane shows thathe had taken blood samples of all three different personsin the sample kits, and in the cross-examination headmitted that after collecting blood samples work oflabelling and sealing was done by a Sister in hispresence and supervision.The evidence of API Mandale(PW-6) also shows that he collected blood and nailsamples of the victim girl.It has come in the evidenceof ASI Markad (PW-7)that on 01.11.2016 he gone to CivilHospital, Nashik to procure blood samples of the victimlady and her new born baby and he handed over two DNAsample kits to the Medical Officer.At that time, samplesof blood of the victim girl and new born baby were takenby the Medical Officer in his presence and were leabelledand sealed and handed over to him by the concernedDoctor.He carried those samples to Ahmednagar.He deniedthat the samples were not taken in his presence.Thus,from the above evidence samples of blood of all three ::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 ::: ( 13 ) criapln3725.18suspects including the applicant, the victim girl and herfemale child were taken and sealed.::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 :::[S.M. GAVHANE, J.]VishalK/criapln3725.18 ::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2019 07:19:55 :::","['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Satish Rathod, r/o.Andheri(East) Mumbai.2] It has been contended that the first informant Smt. Sushamaw/o.Satish Rathod approached to the Cantonment Police Station on9.10.2015 and ventilated the grievances that her marriage was solemnizedon 7/5/2015 with the applicant Satish Dharmu Rathod, at Kandhar.After themarriage, she joined the company of the husband for cohabitation atmatrimonial home located at Kandhar and thereafter at Mumbai.Thehusband Satish, his parents and brothers all were residing jointly at Mumbai.According to complainant Sushama, while cohabitation at matrimonial home,she was subjected to maltreatment and harassment by the applicant onaccount of demand of money as well as domestic cause.The husband Satishwas unemployed and has a habit of smoking as well as drinking liquor.Theinmates of the matrimonial home maltreated the complainant mentally and ::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2017 01:01:13 ::: {3} crapln 477.16.odtphysically.Eventually, she left the matrimonial home, came to Aurangabadand started residing with her parents.According to theapplicants, allegations made in the FIR are false, malafide and notappreciable at all.The contents of the FIR are all fabricated and after-thought.There was no ill-treatment or harassment to the complainantSushama at matrimonial home but the FIR came to be filed in order to causemental and physical harassment to the applicants.JUDGMENT : ( Per : K.K. Sonawane, J.)1] The applicant moved the present application, invoking the remedyunder Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash and set aside the FIR vide Crime No.338 of 2015, registered at Cantonment Police Station, Aurangabad underSection 498-A and 323, 504 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC.The present complaint isfiled by the first informant Smt. Sushama w/o.Thereafter, she preferred thecomplaint to initiate the proceedings against the applicant for the offence ofcruelty and criminal intimidation etc. Pursuant to the FIR, the police ofCantonment Police Station registered the Crime No. 338 of 2015 and set thecriminal law in motion.The I.O. proceeded to record the statement ofwitnesses acquainted with the facts of the case.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2017 01:01:13 :::3] Meanwhile, the applicants moved the present application underSection 482 of Cr.P.C. and prayed to quash and set aside the impugned FIR,filed by the complainant Smt. Sushama Satish Rathod.The complainant Sushmais not interested to cohabit with the husband Satish.Her character prior tothe marriage was also suspicious and the parents performed her marriageagainst her will.The complainant Sushma given threats of self-immolation tothe applicants.In view of the aggressive demeanour and conduct ofcomplainant Sushma, the applicants approached to the higher authoritiesand police personnel and lodged complaints against the complainant Sushmaand others.Therefore, the impugned complaint, registered against theapplicants is malafide and not sustainable in the eye of law.It has alsobeen alleged that the police of cantonment police station, Aurangabad have ::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2017 01:01:13 ::: {4} crapln 477.16.odtno territorial jurisdiction to investigate into the crime as no part of crime isshown committed within the territorial limits of Cantonment Police Station,Aurangabad.The alleged office of cruelty and criminal intimadation etc. areshown committed at Kandhar and Mumbai.Therefore, the FIR registered atCantonment Police Station, Aurangabad deserves to be quashed and set asidefor lack of jurisdiction to investigate into the crime.4] We have given anxious consideration to the argumentscanvassed on behalf of both sides.We have also delved into the documentsproduced on record.After appreciating the recitals of the FIR, we find thatthere are prima facie circumstances on record, depicting commission ofoffence of cruelty as envisaged under Section 498A of the IPC.There areallegations about the voluntary causing hurt and criminal intimidation ascontemplated under Section 323, 504 and 506 of IPC.The allegationsnurtured in the FIR made out prima facie offences as alleged against theapplicants.The recitals in the FIR, if considered at its face value andaccepted in its entirety, it reflects that the offences, as alleged against theapplicants are made out for investigation into the crime.There areallegations of mental and physical cruelty as well as unlawful demand ofmoney on the part of applicant/accused.The complainant Sushama wassubjected to ill-treatment to meet the unlawful demands.Therefore,considering the nature of allegations nurtured on behalf of complainant, weare not prepared to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. infavour of the applicants to quash and set aside the alleged FIR.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2017 01:01:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2017 01:01:13 :::Hence, we proceed to reject theprayer of the applicant for quashing and setting aside the FIR.7] However, learned counsel for the applicants harped on thecircumstances that the police of cantonment police station have noterritorial jurisdiction to investigate into the crime, as no pat of the cause ofaction arose in Aurangabad.The learned counsel therefore submitted that the alleged FIR isrequired to be quashed and set aside or may be transferred to the concernedpolice station, at Kandhar or Mumbai.According to learned counsel forapplicants, the police of cantonment police station, ought to have registeredthe crime under ""ZERO"" number and same has to be transmitted to theconcerned police station at Mumbai or Kandhar, having territorial jurisdictionto deal with the matter.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2017 01:01:13 :::8] We find no force in the arguments propounded on behalf of thelearned counsel for the applicants to quash the entire investigationconducted by the Cantonment Police Station on the ground of lack ofterritorial jurisdiction.The powers of investigation into cognizable offencesare contained in Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. The Section 154 of the saidChapter deals with the information in cognizable offences, whereas, Section ::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2017 01:01:13 ::: {7} crapln 477.16.odt156, deals with investigation into cognizable offence.These provisions ofCr.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2017 01:01:13 :::10] In view of the settled principles of law mentioned above, weare unable to persuade ourselves to appreciate contentions put forth onbehalf of the learned counsel for the applicants, to cause interference in theinvestigation of the crime by the cantonment police station.At this stage,when investigation is in progress, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed andset aside on the alleged ground that, as no part of offence is committedwithin the territorial jurisdiction of Aurangabad police Station, the I.O. hasno jurisdiction to investigate into it.The law does not permit to cause anyinterference in the investigation by exercising inherent powers under Section482 of Cr.P.C. Section 156(2) of Cr.P.C. contains an embargo that noproceeding of police officer shall be called in question on the ground that hehas no territorial jurisdiction.We reiterate that the material collected bythe I.O. cannot be judicially scrutinized for arriving at the conclusion thatthe police officers of particular police station, would not have territorialjurisdiction.11] In the above premises, we are of the considered opinion thatthe circumstances on record categorically demonstrate that the allegationsmade in the FIR, if taken into consideration at its face value, and acceptedin its entirety, prima facie constitute an offence of cruelty as envisaged ::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2017 01:01:13 ::: {10} crapln 477.16.odtunder Section 498A of I.P.C. against the applicants.The contentionspropounded on behalf of the applicants against first informant Sau.Sushamarequire judicial enquiry to examine the correctness and truthfulness ofaspersions casted on behalf of applicants.Hence, the Criminal Applicationstands dismissed.No orders as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2017 01:01:13 :::At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays forcontinuation of interim relief which was in force till this date.Hence, the prayer stands rejected.","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on point of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.I.A. Nos.11429/2016 and 11431/2016 are dismissed as being rendered infructuous.This is first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellants Neeraj S/o Sohanlal Yadav and Rahul S/o Sohanlal @ Rameshchandra ji.The present appellants suffered conviction and sentence as under:-Learned counsel for the appellants submits that present appellants were on bail during trial and never misused the liberty granted to them.He further submits that in the medical report, doctor opined that injury would be dangerous to life if not treated properly.He further submits that in Cr.A. No.55/2017 accused-Annu @ Anup was granted bail.The present appellants were convicted with aid of Section 34 of IPC, while causing hurt to Vishal by Annu, who was granted bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.After going through the record of the case and without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that if the appellants furnish personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each and a solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and on depositing the fine amount, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of the appellants shall be suspended and they be released on bail for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 26.04.2017, and thereafter, on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.(ALOK VERMA)",['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
"In Mohalla Chah Sheri, Bijnor, there are two political groups, one group headed by Javed Aftab and the other headed by Abdul Malik Beg alias Hithaura Pahalwan.It is alleged that initially there was no difference between the two groups as all of them were working in the political and social fields of the city.The petitioner opposed the candidature of Javed Aftab and supported the rival candidate Chaudhary Nepal Singh Arya.Javed Aftab was successful in the election and after becoming the Chairman of Nagar Palika, Bijnor he started nursing ill will towards the petitioner.On 26-5-1989 one Margoob alias Kale, son of Mahfooz, was murdered within the local limits of Police Station Kotwali, Margoob was an appointee of Javed Aftab in the Nagar Palika.ORDER B.P. Singh, J.Sri Zulfiqar Beg has moved this petition Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 16th January, 1991 passed by the C.J.M. and the order dated 23-1-1991 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Criminal Revision -- Zulfiqar Beg v. State.The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows :Subsequently a dispute arose and the two groups became antagonistic to each other over some election.In October, 1988 elections for the post of Chairman, Municipal Board, Bijnor were held in which Javed Aftab was a candidate against others including one Chaudhary Nepal Singh Arya.Although Margoob was murdered by some unknown person, an FIR was lodged by his father, Mahfooz, and the petitioner was implicated as one of the accused.The petitioner belongs to Janta Dal while Javed Aftab is of the Congress-I party.having come to know about his involvement in the said FIR, the petitioner moved an application to the Chief Minister, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow on 3-6-1989 requesting that the investigation of the case may be transferred to C.B.C.I.D. The petitioner's request was accepted and the investigation of case crime No. 327 of 1989 Under Section 302, I.P.C. P. S. Kotwali was ordered to be handed over to C.B.C.I.D. Thereafter Javed Aftab got an application moved in the name of Mahfooz that the case in question may be investigated by the local police and not by the C.B.C.I.D. On this application the State Government passed an order on 6-7-1989 directing that the case was to be investigated by the local police of Bijnor and not by C.B.C.I.D.Again the petitioner moved an application before the State Government praying that the investigation of the case in question may be handed over to C.B.C.I.D. On this application the Secretary of the Home Department of the Uttar Pradesh Government sought reports from the District Magistrate and S. P. Bijnor.The Home secretary of the Govt. on receipt of the report from the district authorities, directed the District Magistrate and the S. P. Bijnor vide order dated 26-8-1989 that the investigation of the case be handed over to C.B.C.I.D.In pursuance of the order dated 26-8-1989 one inspector of the C.B.C.I.D. i.e. Sri V. M. Sharma applied in the court of C.J.M. Bijnor for the papers of the case.It was also directed by the learned C.J.M. that Inspector V. M. Sharma shall complete investigation within two months and will submit his report.Inspector V. M. Sharma started investigation and recorded statements of the petitioner as well as a few other persons.It appears that having come to know that C.B.C.I.D. was investigating the case, Sri Javed Aftab again approached the State Government and got an order passed by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home, U.P. Lucknow, directing the Inspector General of Police that the investigation of case Crime No. 327 of 1989 may now be taken back from the C.B.C.I.D. and may be given to the Civil Police, Bijnor.This order passed by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of U.P. Lucknow, was communicated to the Inspector C.B.C.I.D. who, thereafter, submitted the papers and the orders of State Government without completing the investigation to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor.At this stage the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and summoned the remaining two accused vide his order dated 28-10-1989, finally Sri Javed Aftab had succeeded in starting proceedings in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor, on the basis of the charge-sheet which was submitted by the Inspector, Civil Police.It was highly irregular on the part of the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home, U.P. Lucknow, to take back the investigation of the case from C.B.C.I.D.As no other alternative was available to the petitioner, he moved this Court through a petition Under Section 482, Cr.The operative portion of the order in Crl.Petition No. 9524 of 1989 runs as follows :However, since after a case is instituted before a competent court, it cannot be withdrawn under any circumstance, save on an application by the Public prosecutor when the court alone can permit withdrawal of the case, the procedure hereafter to be adopted in the case shall be decided by the C.J.M. Bijnor before whom the case is pending.Since the petition is finally disposed of, the interim order is automatically vacated.""A certified copy of the above order was produced by the petitioner before C.J.M. Bijnor on 14-8-1990 and 14-11-1990 was fixed in the case.It was on 20-12-1990 that Inspector C.B.C.I.D. Sri V. M. Sharma again applied to the C.J.M. Bijnor for taking back the relevant papers and also prayed for staying further proceedings in the case.On the same day, learned C.J.M. directed that the case diary excluding the charge-sheet be handed over to the Inspector C.B.C.I.D. No Orders were passed by the C.J.M. on the request of Inspector C.B. C.I.D. regarding stay of further proceedings in the case.On 16-1-1991, the complainant moved an application before the C.J.M. Bijnor for issuing non-bailable warrant against Zulfaiqar Beg alias Baby and on the same day learned Magistrate passed the following order :Stay has been vacated.Issue non-bailable warrant against the accused fixing 24-1-1991 for appearance.The petitioner has thus come to this Court with the present petition with the prayer that the impugned order dated 16-1-1991 passed by the C.J.M. Bijnor and the order dated 23-1-1991 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bijnor may be quashed and further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1717 of 1989 State v. Zulfiqar Beg alias Baby pending in the court of C.J.M. Bijnor may be stayed.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length.",['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records of the first respondent setting aside the order of detention passed on 2.11.06 in No60/BDFGISSV/2006 and produce the detenu by name Purushothaman before this Court and set the detenu at liberty, now detained in Central Prison, Chennai.For Petitioner : Mr. Arasuganesan For Respondents : Mr.M. Babu Muthu Meeran, Addl.Public ProsecutorP.K. MISRA, J The wife of the detenu has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the order of detention dated 2.11.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, under Section 3(1) read with 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act,1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), hereinafter referred to as the Act.The detenu came to the adverse notice of the police in four adverse cases.First adverse case relates to Chunambedu Police Station Cr.No.517/1995 for an offence under Section 324 IPC, which is pending trial, second adverse case is Chunambedu Police Station Cr.No.234/2001 for the offence registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 IPC r/w.149 IPC., third adverse case is Chunambedu Police Station Cr.No.191/2003 for the offence registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 427, 307 IPC r/w.3(1) TNPPD Act and the fourth adverse case is Chunambedu Police Station Cr.No.257/2003 for the offence registered under Sections 147, 148, 326, 307, 302 IPC.In the aforesaid background, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that detenu was a Goonda within the meaning of the Act and it was necessary to detain him to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The detaining authority concluded:If he comes out on bail he will indulge in future activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order.""Similarly in paragraph 5(ii) it was indicated:""5(ii) I am aware that Thiru Purushothaman was arrested on 20.10.2006 by the Inspector of Police, Chunambedu Police Station and he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate upto 04.11.2006 and lodged at Central Prison, Chennai as a remand prisoner.He has not moved any bail petition so far.The District Magistrate & District Collector Kancheepuram Kancheepuram District.The Public Prosecutor High Court Madras.","['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"P.W.1, Nanda Dulal Halder, brother of the victim Dulal Halder deposed in his evidence that on 9th May, 1996 at about 5.30 p.m., 8 when he was inside his house, his elder brother Dulal Halder went to open their grocery shop situated adjoining to their house.Thereafter, he found some people abusing.He instructed his wife to see what was happening outside.He found from a distance that the accused Panchu Halder, Monoranjan Halder, Bikash Halder, Pankaj Halder and Tarun Bhowmick, whom he identified on dock, were assaulting his elder brother Dulal with lathi, iron rod, wooden bar and brick bats.He rushed to rescue of his elder brother when his wife intervened and she proceeded to rescue his elder brother, but the accused Panchu pushed her down.His neighbours Tapan Bhanja and Reba Bhanja came to rescue of his elder brother and tried to prevent the accused persons from assaulting him.He further stated that when his younger brother Sahadeb Halder was returning home, the accused Bikash Halder threw a brickbat, which hit on his head.He fell unconscious and Bikash then snatched the wooden bar from the accused Panchu and attempted to assault but Tapan Bhanja prevented him from assaulting.Dulal was found lying unconscious and Sahadeb was bleeding from his head.The incident took place in presence of Bimal Baidya, Bantul Kayal, Tapan Bhanja and others.They took Dulal and Sahadeb to Nimpith hospital and Mathurapur hospital respectively.At about 9/9.30 p.m. he visited Nimpith hospital when Dulal was declared dead.He then went to Joynagar Police Station and he was advised to inform the matter to Mandirbazar Police Station.He stayed at the house of his cousin brother at Joynagar for that night.During cross-examination P.W.1 stated that he found Bikash first hitting Dulal with wooden bar and he fell by the side of the wall of the house of Bhanjas.Then all the accused persons assaulted Dulal for about one minute.P.W. 5 deposed that all the accused persons being armed with lathi, khil, iron rod assaulted Dulal at random while accusing him as to why he had given evidence in favour of Prafulla Kansari.They also assaulted Sahadeb who tried to rescue Dulal.P.W.6, Balai Halder also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1, 3, 4 and 5 regarding date, place and time of occurrence.He stated that the accused persons assaulted Dulal with the help of iron rod, lathi, wooden bar, piece of brick for which he sustained bleeding injury and fell unconscious.Sahadeb was also injured and the villagers took 11 Dulal to Nimpith hospital and they took Sahadeb to Mathurapur hospital.P.W.7, Sahadeb Halder deposed in his evidence that on 9th May, 1996 at about 5.30 p.m. he was returning home with cycle van.He noticed some disturbance in front of his house and he rushed to the place of occurrence, where he found that the accused persons were assaulting his elder brother, Dulal with lathi, khil and iron rod.As he reached within 2&1/2 cubits from his elder brother, the accused Bikash Halder hurled one piece of brick which hit on his head.He fell unconscious and regained senses 8/10 days thereafter when he found himself lying in P.G. hospital.One abrasion 1""x1/2"" over back of left forearm 2"" below the left elbow joint.One bruise 6""x4"" over left side of the back "" left to midline and 1"" below the inferior angle of left scapula.One bruise 5""x3"" in muscle over left side of the front of chest 1"" left to midline and 1&1/2"" below the medial end of left clavicle.Cominuted fracture of second to 8th ribs on left side over mid clavicular line.One lacerated injury of spleen 2""x1/2"" into spnenic tissue over lateral surface of spleen.Abdominal cavity contained 200 m.l. of clotted and liquid blood.According to him, the death of the victim was caused due to the effect of injuries as described above antemortem in nature.P.W.10, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Mandirbazar Police Station deposed that he drew up the F.I.R. on the basis of written complaint lodged by Nanda Dulal Halder.P.W.11 also deposed that on the relevant date and time the accused persons assaulted Dulal and his brother Sahadeb.He tried to rescue them but could not succeed.He took Sahadeb to Mathurapur hospital but for proper treatment Sahadeb was sent to Diamond Harbour hospital.Thereafter, from Diamond Harbour 13 hospital he took Sahadeb to Bhangore hospital.He identified all the accused persons on dock.P.W.12, Bikash Sardar, Sub-Inspector of Police stated in his evidence that on 10th May, 1996 he remained posted at Mandirbazar Police Station./304/506 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons and charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 302/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The said charges were read over and explained to the accused persons and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.He further submitted that from the evidence of prosecution witnesses it appears that when the victim was taken to Nimpath Rural Hospital at Joynagar, where he was pronounced as brought dead, it is also evident that one private doctor prescribed one injection to the victim.Therefore, it can be presumed that the victim Dulal was alive at the time of incident.He also argued that the inquest report, which was necessary for unnatural death, was not brought on record, though the UD case was registered at Joynagar Police Station.The inquest report was part of the UD case, but it was not exhibited.He further submitted that the incident occurred on the public place in front of many people, but no independent witness was examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged incident.The learned Court below failed to consider in appreciating the prosecution evidence of P.W. 12, who stated that he did not seize any blood stained cloths and did not prepare any sketch map at the time of investigation.The learned Court below failed to consider that Sahadeb Halder, brother of the victim, who was also injured, was not examined by the Investigating Officer and the medical documents regarding his treatment were neither seized nor exhibited.Even the doctors, who examined the injured victim Sahadeb Halder, were not examined.Mr. Manjit Singh, learned advocate for the appellant no.1 support the submissions of Mr. Mukherjee and submits that if one sees the post mortem report, it can be seen that no specific name was stated in U.D. case, as the post mortem examination took place on 11th May, 1996 at about 2.30 p.m., i.e. after 45 hours of death and as the body had already started decomposing, the finding of external injury was medically not possible.Learned counsel for the appellants prayed that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas.Learned advocate for the State submitted that from the evidence of witnesses it appears that a number of miscreants assaulted with lathi, iron rod, brickbat and blows fell at random on various parts of the deceased Dulal and injured Sahadeb.The post mortem report shows the injuries comprised of abrasions, bruises, fracture and one lacerated injury were almost all over the body of the deceased Dulal.Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal by upholding the sentence imposed upon the appellants.Learned advocate for the de facto complainant prayed to be heard.Such prayer was allowed.He further submitted that the inquest report was not a substantive piece of evidence and non-production of the same could not be treated as a fatal blow to the prosecution case.The appellants could not raise any question regarding genuineness of the post mortem report at the time of hearing of the appeal on the ground that at the time of trial, carbon copy of the post mortem report was exhibited, as no question was raised regarding genuineness by the defence in course of trial.It is evident that though P.W.11 wanted to show the police the blood stained apparels in their house, but the police did not want to see the same.From cross-examination of P.W.12 it appears that he did not ask for any blood stained apparels.It is settled principle of law that defective investigation cannot be a ground for washing away the unimpeachable version of the eyewitnesses and other corroborative evidence tendered by the prosecution in course of trial.Lastly, he has submitted that the appellants had a common intention to cause death of the victim by causing bodily injuries knowing that those injuries would cause death of Dulal Halder and therefore, the learned Judge has rightly convicted the appellants under Sections 304 Part II/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the impugned judgement.The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses to prove its case.The accused Panchu had a wooden bar, the accused Tarun possessed iron rod, the accused Monoranjan had a bamboo stick in his hand and the accused Pankaj had a brickbat.P.W.1 stated that all the accused persons assaulted all over the body of Dulal, but he could not give the details of the exact positions on which Dulal was assaulted.P.W. 2 was declared as hostile by the prosecution.P.W.3, Batul Chandra Kayal deposed that on the relevant date when he was proceeding towards the shop of Dulal with a view to purchasing bidi, he found the accused persons whom he identified on dock, were assaulting Dulal Halder with iron rod, lathi, khil and brickbat.Dulal fell unconscious on the ground.The accused Pankaj threw a brickbat, which hit on his head and he suffered bleeding injury.P.W.4, Bharati Halder deposed that she heard from inside the house that the accused Pankaj Halder whom she identified on dock saying to his elder brother-in-law as to why he gave evidence in 10 favour of Prafulla Kansari.When she came out of the house, the accused Panchu Halder, Monoranjan Halder, Bikash Halder and Tarun Bhowmick dragged away her vasur, Dulal from their entrance gate.Her husband tried to rush to the place but she prevented him.She also deposed that the accused persons assaulted Dulal by lathi, wooden bar, iron rod and brickbat and Dulal fell unconscious.At that time, her brother-in-law Sahadeb Halder appeared and Panchu hit him with a piece of brick on his head for which he suffered bleeding injury.Thereafter, in presence of Bantul Kayal, Bimal Baidya, Tapan Bhanja, Reba Bhanja and Balai Halder, Dulal was removed to Nimpith hospital being accompanied by his wife, son, sister and other neighbours and her husband and other neighbours removed Sahadeb to Nimpith hospital and subsequently, she came to know that Dulal died.P.W.5 also corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1, 3 and 4 regarding assault on Dulal and Sahadeb.He heard that his elder brother Dulal had expired.P.W.8, Medical Officer of Nimpith hospital, who examined Dulal Halder and found several injuries, i.e. there was swelling and purring all over the left half of the chest particularly prominent on the lower part; there are multiple abrasions on the lower part of lateral chest wall; there was small abrasion over the right elbow joint.P.W.9, Medical Officer on Training Reserve attached to Forensic and State Medicine, Department Medical College, Calcutta stated that on 11th May, 1996 he held post mortem examination over the dead body of Dulal Chandra Halder and found the following injuries:One abrasion 1&1/2"" x 1"" over back of right elbow joint.One abrasion 2""x1"" over postaro lateral aspect of left elbow joint.The then Officer-in-Charge of Mandirbazar Police Station endorsed him the case no. 27 dated 10th May, 1996 under section 147/148/149/326/304/506 of the Indian Penal Code for investigation.During investigation he visited the place of occurrence and he held raid in the houses of the accused persons.He examined the witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.P.W.13, Sub-Inspector of Police, at present posted at Behala Police Station stated that on 10th May, 1996 he remained in Mandirbazar Police Station as Officer-in-Charge and started investigation.During investigation he arrested the accused Monoranjan Halder and recorded the statement of Sahadeb Halder and collected the post mortem report of Dulal Chandra Halder.He submitted charge sheet against the accused persons.On scrutiny of the evidence on record I find that the accused/appellants assaulted with lathi, wooden bar, iron rod, brickbat and blows fell at random on various parts of the body of the deceased Dulal.The evidence discloses the injuries comprised of abrasions, bruises, fracture etc. The plea of defence was that the fatal blow was due to an accidental fall on the edge of brick built road or on the ground after stumbling against the root of a tree.Such serious injuries negate the plea of accidental fall.I find that the presence of all the appellants being armed with lathi and other weapons has been consistently deposed by the eye witnesses, as I find it difficult to ignore the presence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 at the place of occurrence.The evidence of the above witnesses remained unshaken in cross-examination and there is no conflict between ocular version and medical evidence, as aforesaid in the instant case.In view of the aforesaid facts, reference to Vigender -vs- State of Delhi (supra) and Mohinder Singh -vs- State (supra) is not apposite.It was held in the said judgements that under Section 64 of the Evidence Act document must be proved by primary evidence, that is to say, by producing the document itself except in the cases mentioned in Section 65 thereof.Since the post mortem report being a public document and the carbon copy of which is proved by P.W.9, the post mortem doctor, it falls within the purview of Section 65 of the Evidence Act and was admissible on this score alone.The attending facts and circumstances of this case including the injuries found by the doctor P.W.8 corroborate the manner and course which led to the death of the victim Dulal.In the case of Rebati Baidya (supra) acquittal was recorded for faulty investigation, but in this case there is no conflict between ocular version and medical evidence unlike the cited decision.Hence, the said authority is distinguishable on facts from the instant case.Accordingly, I uphold the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)","['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"On 22.6.2002 at about 6:15 pm, owning to the said dispute, accused Rituraj Singh shot fire on the person of deceased Jagannath as a result of which he died.The first information report of the incident was lodged by Santosh (PW.1) vide Exhibit P/1 on 22.6.2002 at 6:30 pm specifying the name and act of accused Rituraj Singh but thereafter during the statement, it is said that accused Rituraj Singh was driving a motorcycle and Guddu alias Hira Singh was sitting as a pillion rider alongwith a Gun and at the time of incident, Rituraj Singh took the Gun from Guddu alias Hira Singh and shot fire over the person of deceased Jagannath.After lodging the first information report, the police investigation commenced.The autopsy was conducted by Dr.14.12.2017 This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shall be referred to as ''Cr.P.C'') has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and the sentence dated 14.11.2006 passed by the Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Special Case No.98/2002 convicting appellant No.1 Rituraj Singh for the charge of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter shall be referred to as ''I.P.C'') and convicting appellant 2 No.2 Guddu alias Hira Singh for the charge of Section 302/34 of the I.P.C and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each for respective offences and in default to undergo imprisonment for one month each and also convicting the appellant No.1 Rituraj Singh for the charge of Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for one month and convicting appellant No.3 Ompal Singh for the charge of Section 30 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.As alleged, about eight days prior to the date of incident, heated exchange took place between accused Rituraj Singh and deceased Jagannath on account of sowing the water chestnut (Singadha) in the Government Tank known as Luharband.It is said that the field of accused Ompal Singh was adjacent to the said Tank and on account of sowing the water chestnut (Singadha), the dispute arose between accused Rituraj Singh and deceased Jagannath.R.K.Bhardwaj (PW.35) vide Exhibit P/32 and as per the opinion of the 3 doctor, the cause of death was due to hemorrhage as a result of receiving the gun shot injuries to deceased Jagannath.The license of 12 bore gun issued in the name of Ompal Singh has also been seized by the Police.After completion of the investigation, the Challan was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class but as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, it was committed to the Court of Sessions where the charges of Section 302 of the I.P.C, Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act were framed against appellant No.1 Rituraj Singh.The charges of Section 302/34 of the I.P.C and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act were framed against appellant No.2 Guddu alias Hira Singh whereas charge of Section 30 of the Arms Act was framed against appellant No.3 Ompal Singh.The accused persons have abjured their guilt and taken a defence of false implication on account of the previous enmity.The Trial Court relying upon the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and corroborating the same with the medical evidence convicted appellant No.1 Rituraj singh for the charge of Section 302 of the I.P.C and Section 27 of the Arms Act and convicted the appellant No.2 Guddu alias Hira Singh for the charge of Section of 302/34 of the I.P.C and the appellant No.3 Ompal Singh for the charge of Section 30 of the Arms Act and directed them to undergo the sentence as hereinabove described.However, for the charges of Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, the accused persons were acquitted by the Trial Court.Learned counsel representing the appellants has strenuously urged that the conviction of appellant Nos.1 and 2, namely, Rituraj Singh and Guddu alias Hira Singh is solely based on the testimony of eye-witness Santosh (PW.1) although his testimony is of ocular nature, which cannot be relied upon to convict the appellants particularly when he is the brother of deceased Jagannath and is an interested witness.In addition to the aforesaid, it is also urged that if the contents of the first information report are compared with the other evidence then it is apparent that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to prove the charge of Section 302 of the I.P.C against the appellant No.1 Rituraj Singh.It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that against appellant No.2 Guddu alias Hira Singh, it is said that his name has not been mentioned in the first information report and the story as narrated that he came alongwith accused Rituraj Singh on a motorcycle does not find support from the first information report as well as the other evidence, however, to prove the common intention of accused Guddu alias Hira Singh and to commit the murder of deceased Jagannath has also not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the conviction of appellant No.2 Guddu alias Hira Singh for the charge of Section 302/34 of the I.P.C is not based on due appreciation of evidence brought on record by the prosecution.Insofar as the conviction of appellant No.3 Ompal Singh for the charge of Section 30 of the Arms Act is concerned, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that looking to the seizure memo (Exhibit P/16) two guns were seized; one is double barrel muzzle loading riffle and another is 12 bore gun bearing No.180/80; and the license of 12 bore gun bearing No.180/80 in the name of Ompal Singh was seized but the prosecution has not brought any evidence that the 12 bore 5 licensed gun of Ompal Singh was used in commission of the offence.It is also contended that the prosecution has only sent the double barrel muzzle loading riffle for examination to the Ballistic Expert and that the 12 bore gun, which was found in use for commission of the offence, however, nothing is available on record that the 12 bore licensed gun, which was in the name of accused Ompal Singh has been used by appellant No.1 Rituraj Singh in commission of the offence, therefore, appellant No.3 Ompal Singh may not be held guilty for the charge of Section 30 of the Arms Act. In view of the said submission, it is urged that the conviction of appellant No.3 Ompal Singh for the charge of Section 30 of the Arms Act is unsustainable in law.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate representing the respondent/State has contended that looking to the prosecution narration from the stage of the first information report, the involvement of appellant No.1 Rituraj Singh in commission of murder of deceased Jagannath has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the testimony of the eye-witness Santosh (PW.1) coupled with the testimony of Haricharan (PW.15), Harishankar (PW.18), Durga (PW.20) who have seen the accused prior to the incident.In addition to the aforesaid, the report of Ballistic Expert corroborates the use of double barrel muzzle loading riffle and the pallets were found in the person of deceased Jagannath as reveals from the testimony of Dr.R.K.Bhardwaj (PW.35).It is, therefore, contended that the conviction of appellant No.1 Rituraj Singh for the charge of Section 302 of I.P.C and Section 27 of the Arms Act is based on cogent evidence, however, the finding recorded by the Trial Court is just and proper.Insofar as the conviction of appellant No.2 Guddu alias Hira Singh for the charge of Section 302/34 of the I.P.C is concerned, it is contended by learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State that accused Rituraj Singh was driving the motorcycle while co-accused 6 Guddu alias Hira Singh was sitting as a pillion rider armed with gun, which has been used by accused Rituraj Singh in commission of murder of deceased Jagannath, therefore, the conviction of appellant No.2 Guddu alias Hira Singh for the charge of Section 302/34 of the I.P.C showing his common intention has rightly been directed by the Trial Court.It is further contended that the seizure of 12 bore gun bearing No.180/80 alongwith license of Ompal Singh has been made by the Police in the incident.Therefore, the conviction of appellant No.3 Ompal Singh for the charge of Section 30 of the Arms Act has rightly been directed by the Trial Court.It is, therefore, prayed that looking to the findings as recorded by the Trial Court, interference in this appeal is not warranted.After having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the findings as recorded by the Trial Court, the conviction of appellant Nos.1 & 2, namely, Rituraj Singh & Guddu alias Hira Singh is based on the testimony of eye-witness Santosh (PW.1) corroborated by the testimony of Haricharan (PW.15), Harishankar (PW.18), Durga (PW.20) who have seen them prior to the incident on a motorcycle armed with gun.The Trial Court found correlation by their testimony because the double barrel muzzle loading riffle seized by Police, however, used as per the Ballistic Expert Report (Exhibit P/39) proved by the testimony of Sudhir Agrawal (PW.38).In the said report, it is said that prior to eight days of the incident, heated exchange took place between accused Rituraj Singh and deceased Jagannath on account of irrigating the field of accused Ompal Singh (father of accused Rituraj Singh) from Luharband wherein water chestnut (Singadha) of the deceased was sown.Thereafter, on 22.6.2002, accused Rituraj Singh for the said reason shot gun fire on deceased Jagannath as a result of which he died on spot.In the first 7 information report, it is said that one another person was present at the scene of occurrence but the story that accused Rituraj Singh came alongwith accused Guddu alias Hira Singh on a motorcycle has been developed subsequently after the first information report.The said fact find support from the merg intimation report (Exhibit P/2) because the edition with respect to the said allegation is in the original first information report and the merg intimation is visible by naked eyes.In the context of the aforesaid fact, the testimony of eye- witness Santosh (PW.1) as well as the other corroborative evidence considered by the Trial Court is required to be seen.In the testimony of eye-witness Santosh (PW.1), it is said that accused Rituraj Singh driving the motorcycle came alongwith accused Guddu alias Hira Singh, who was armed with a Gun on his shoulder and after going ahead to the deceased Jagannath, accused Rituraj Singh took the said gun from Guddu alias Hira Singh and shot fire on the deceased as a result of which he died.The story that Rituraj singh and Guddu alias Hira Singh came on a motorcycle is edited in the first information report as clearly visible in the original record by the naked eyes.The said story has been developed from the testimony of Haricharan (PW.15), Harishankar (PW.18), Durga (PW.20) though since inception the said story was not in the first information report (Exhibit P/1) or in the merg intimation report (Exhibit P/2) if editing in those documents is accepted.In addition to the aforesaid, if the motive of the accused is seen then it would reveal that about eight days prior to the date of incident, heated exchange and altercation took place between accused Rituraj Singh and deceased Jagannath, therefore, appellant No.2 Guddu alias Hira Singh might not have any motive to participate in commission of the offence.If the testimony of eye-witness Santosh (PW.1) is taken into consideration then it is apparent that except the presence of Guddu alias Hira Singh, no direct act has been shown in his testimony.In 8 our considered opinion, if Guddu alias Hira Singh was going on the motorcycle due to which his presence alone is not enough to gather his intention in commission of the offence.If the testimony of Haricharan (PW.15), Harishankar (PW.18), Durga (PW.20) is taken into consideration wherein against appellant No.2 Guddu alias Hira Singh it is said, when accused Rituraj Singh was driving the motorcycle, he was sitting as a pillion rider armed with the gun.It has come in the testimony of eye- witness Santosh (PW.1) that accused Rituraj Singh took the gun from accused Guddu alias Hira Singh and shot fire on the person of deceased Jagannath, therefore, looking to the said prosecution narration of eye- witness Santosh (PW.1), it is apparent that mere presence of accused Guddu alias Hira Singh itself is not sufficient to convict him for the charge of Section 302/34 of the I.P.C.Under such circumstances, the conviction of appellant No.2 Guddu alias Hira Singh for the charge of Section 302/34 of the I.P.C as directed by the Trial Court merely relying upon the testimony of eye- witness Santosh (PW.1) and also the corroborative testimony of Haricharan (PW.15), Harishankar (PW.18), Durga (PW.20) cannot be upheld and is liable to be set aside.Insofar as the involvement of appellant No.1 Rituraj Singh in commission of the murder of deceased Jagannath is concerned, eye-witness Santosh (PW.1) has specifically said that accused Rituraj Singh took the gun and shot fire on the person of deceased Jagannath.The said allegation of shot fire finds support from the medical evidence and the report of the Ballistic Expert, therefore, the conviction of appellant No.1 Rituraj Singh for the charge of Section 302 of the I.P.C does not warrant any interference in this appeal, therefore, the conviction of appellant No.1 Rituraj Singh as directed by the Trial Court is hereby maintained.Now reverting to the charge of Section 30 of the Arms Act against appellant No.3 Ompal Singh is concerned, it is seen that he has 9 been convicted because his 12 bore licensed gun has been used in commission of the offence.The prosecution has seized two guns vide Exhibit P/16; one is double barrel muzzle loading riffle and another is 12 bore gun bearing No.180/80 alongwith licence.No evidence has been brought on record that the 12 bore gun bearing No.180/80 of which the licence was in the name of Ompal Singh has been used in commission of murder of deceased Jagannath.The prosecution has also sent the double barrel muzzle loading riffle for Ballistic Examination and correlation of the said ballistic report of the use of the said gun has been proved while 12 bore gun was not sent for examination by the ballistic report.Therefore, it is clear that 12 bore gun bearing No.180/80 of which the licence was in the name of Ompal Singh has not been used in commission of the offence.In addition to the aforesaid, if the testimony of eye-witness Santosh (PW.1) and the corroborative piece of evidence of the testimony of Haricharan (PW.15), Harishankar (PW.18), Durga (PW.20) is seen then it is apparent that accused Guddu alias Hira Singh was armed with double barrel riffle which has been used as per the Ballistic Report and it is not 12 bore gun bearing No.180/80 or having two guns, therefore, the conviction of appellant No.3 Ompal Singh for the charge of Section 30 of the Arms Act as directed by the Trial Court with an allegation that his licencee gun has been used by appellant No.1 Rituraj Singh cannot be sustained in law.Hence, the conviction of appellant No.3 Ompal Singh for the charge of Section of Section 30 of the Arms Act deserves to be set aside.But similarly insofar as the charge of Section 27 of the Arms Act is concerned, it is fully proved against appellant No.1 Rituraj Singh because the double barrel muzzle loading riffle has been used in the commission of the offence, therefore, such finding against appellant No.1 Rituraj Singh is in accordance to law.In view of the foregoing discussion, the conviction of appellant No.2 Guddu alias Hira Singh for the charge of Section 302/34 of the I.P.C and the conviction of appellant No.3 Ompal Singh for the charge of Section 30 of the Arms Act stands set aside while the conviction of appellant No.1 Rituraj Singh for the charge of Section 302 of the I.P.C and Section 27 of the Arms Act is hereby maintained upholding the judgment of the Trial Court to such extent.Consequent to setting aside the conviction against appellant No.3 Ompal Singh, the confiscation of 12 bore gun bearing No.180/80 and its licence stands set aside.Accordingly, this appeal is hereby allowed insofar as it relates to appellant No.2 Guddu alias Hira Singh and appellant No.3 Ompal Singh and it is hereby dismissed insofar as it relates to appellant No.1 Rituraj Singh.He be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.At the end, it is our duty to record the words of appreciation in favour of the amicus curiae, who assisted the Court in the disposal of this appeal, which is pending since 2006 and in which appellant No.1 Rituraj Raj and appellant No.2 Guddu alias Hira Singh were in jail for last more than ten years.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Considering the fact that the respondent no. 7 is no longer in this world, the allegations levelled against her by the petitioner are unfortunate.I am also satisfied that the complaint lodged by the petitioner did not disclose any ingredient of robbery and, therefore, the Officer-in-Charge, Beleghata Police Station rightly did not insert Section 392, Indian Penal Code while registering the FIR on the basis of the petitioner's complaint.Having regard to the report that has been filed, I am of the view that there is no need to keep the writ petition pending.-: 2 : -Commissioner of Police shall supervise the investigation that has been initiated in connection with Beleghata Police Station Case No. 190 dated 20th May, 2014 under Sections 448/427/379/114, Indian Penal Code and shall ensure that an appropriate police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed before the Magistrate at an early date.The writ petition stands disposed of.There shall, however, be no order for costs.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.( Dipankar Datta, J. )","['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody since 27.7.2020, in connection with Crime No.208/2020, registered at Police Station Badi, District Raisen (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 325, 326, 506/34 of IPC.As per prosecution story, on 19.7.2020, complainant-Amar Singh S/o Bhurelal was sitting near shop of one Raju.Thereafter, accused/applicant along with other co-accused armed with Axe and stick reached there and assaulted injured-Amar Singh.Allegedly, accused/applicant was armed with Axe.Thereafter, case has been registered against the accused/applicant and other co-accused for the aforesaid offence.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no case is made out under Section 326 or 307 of IPC.Actually, the brother of complainant-Amar Singh took the wife of co-accused Banti, due to this some dispute occurred.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application.The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the applicant by the jail doctor before his release.The applicant shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'.For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.If it is found that the applicant is suffering from 'Corona Vi r u s disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing him in appropriate quarantine facility.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE A.Praj.","['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest in connection with Crime No.308/14 registered at Police Station Dhanoura, District Seoni for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 354-A, 354-B, 323, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizens of the locality.They do not have any criminal past alleged against them.The applicant no.1 belongs to scheduled caste, whereas the applicant no.2 is a news correspondent.On 17.12.2014, the prosecutrix, her husband and her son have threatened the applicants in the Tahsil Court and also assaulted them.He has also filed a complaint to the Tahsildar Seoni on the very same day and therefore Tahsildar, Seoni directed for enquiry.FIR is lodged with the delay of at least ten hours and it is a typed written document, which appears to be prepared by some law knowing person.No explanation of delay in the FIR has been shown by the prosecutrix.According to the story of the prosecutrix, she was going on the motorcycle with her son and then, the applicants detained them and committed such offences.When there was an enmity between the applicants and the prosecutrix, no such offence could be done by the applicant especially, when son of the prosecutrix was present.It would be apparent that a false FIR was lodged against the applicants.No offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the applicants and therefore, no prohibition of Section 18 of that Act would be applicable in the present case.There is no allegation against the applicants that they tried to disrobed the prosecutrix.No offence under Section 354-B of the IPC is made out against the applicants, whereas offence under Section 354-A of the IPC and other remaining offences are bailable.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants for bailable offences on a false FIR.Under these circumstances, the applicants pray for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application.","['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"24.09.13 Item No. 36 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 36And In the matter of: Swapan Bose Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Subhasish Pachhal Mr. Ramashis Mukherjee For the Petitioner Mr. Sandip Kundu For the Complainant Mrs. Zarin N. Khan For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Uttarpara Police Station Case No. 351 of 2013 dated 01.08.2013 under Sections 447/461/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)","['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
It is contended by the learned counsel for non-applicants No.2 to 6 that subsequently non-applicants filed a revision petition against framing of charge and the Revisional Court vide order dated 28.9.2015 altered to Section 325 of IPC in place of 307 of IPC.,['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
"shell are as follows:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRAWhether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?By that order the Ld.ASJ confirmed the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, sentencing the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 279 IPC, with a fine of Rs.500/-; and rigorous imprisonment for one year with Crl.No.163/2008 Page 1 of 9 fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 304-A IPC.The facts in a nut-No.163/2008 Page 1 of 9He injured both the persons riding the scooter, but the pillion rider succumbed to the injuries.PW-8, Bijender Kumar, son of the deceased, who was driving the scooter, was an eye witness to the accident.Considering the entire evidence produced by the prosecution the petitioner was convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate.The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Sessions Court, holding that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court.The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has faced the rigors of trial for nearly twelve years and has already served nearly five months of his sentence.The petitioner was a driver of a commercial vehicle.He was required to be on the wheels almost whole of the day.No.163/2008 Page 8 of 9 court of Sessions has decided against the petitioner.The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.","['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"They also caused disturbance to the normal traffic.Thirumurugan asked his party members to damage the police vehicle and buses and argued with the police personnels.Though some of them including Thirumurugan were secured and kept in a MTC bus bearing Registration No.TN 01 N 7515, they pushed the police personnel and rushed near the step of the bus and damaged glasses of the bus with stick and portraits.[Order of the Court was made by P.KALAIYARASAN, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed seeking to quash the detention order passed by the first respondent dated 28.05.2017 in BCDFGISSSV No.309/2017 against the detenu Dyson, aged about 27 years, s/o.It is averred in the petition that Inspector of Police, Law and Order D5 Marina Police Station as sponsoring authority filed an affidavit before the Detaining Authority alleging that the detenu involved in the following adverse cases i.Coimbatore City R.S.Puram Police Station Crime No.337/2013 registered under Sections 143, 188, 342, 353 and 506 (ii) IPC r/w 34 IPC.E.2 Royapettah Police Station Crime No. 1095/2015 registered under Sections 188, 143 and 285 IPC iii.J.1 Saidapet Police Station Crime No.745/2016 registered under Sections 188 and 143 IPC.E.3 Teynampet Police Station Crime No.1125/2016 registered under Sections 506 (ii) IPC r/w Section 3 of TNPPDL Act.Further, it is averred that D5 Sub-Inspector of Police, Marina Police Station lodged a Special Report wherein it is alleged that marina beach zone area was already not permitted to conduct public meeting, demonstrations and other functions and in spite of elaborate bandhobust arrangement based on the security arrangement on 21.05.2017 at 6 p.m, the detenu and others under the leadership of Thirumurugan, Chief Co-ordinator, May-17 movement wrongfully assembled near Nethaji statue, marina beach and raised slogans in support of srilankan tamils and also banned LTTE movement violating the orders of the police.On the report given by the Sub-Inspector, a case was registered in D5 Marina Police Station in Cr.No.480 of 2017 under Sections 147, 148, 188, 341 and 506 (ii) IPC r/w 7 (1) (a) of CLA Act and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act.","['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"P4 was sent to the Assistant Commissioner of Police.PW.14/Balasubramaniam, who had taken up the investigation, had immediately, on receipt of the F.I.R, visited the place of occurrence and prepared Rough Sketch, which was marked as Ex.Further, on the same day at 9.30 p.m., he had prepared an observation mahazar in the presence of witnesses Viz., Sekar and Siva and recovered a black colour shawl under a mahazar which was marked as Ex.(iii) PW.7 had stated that on 26.03.2007, while he was returning homehttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 after attending his work, he had heard that the deceased/Suriyakala had committed suicide and that the Police prepared an observation mahazar and that he had attested the same.No other materials were recovered from the place.The signature of PW.7 in the observation mahazar, was marked as Ex.Thereafter, PW.14 had examined PW.1/Mugunthan, PW.3/Gopinathan and other witnesses and PW.7/Sekar and recorded their statements.Thereafter, he had sent a requisition to the RDO to conduct an enquiry, since the death of the deceased was within seven years of marriage.(iv) PW.12/Sangeetha, is the RDO, she had based on the requisition and the F.I.R taken up the case for enquiry and conducted inquest and she had examined the witnesses Viz., Asaithambi and Kanniappan (relatives of the deceased) and recorded their statements separately.P.C to underhttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 Sections 304 (B) and 498A of IPC.The alteration report was marked as Ex.Thereafter, the shawl which was used for committing suicide was sent under Form 95 to the Judicial Magistrate's Court.Form 95 was marked as Ex.On 27.03.2007 at 4.00 p.m., PW.14 arrested the 1st respondent/accused and sent him to judicial remand.On 27.04.2007 PW.2 was enquired and recorded his statement.During the examination of PW.2, Exs.D1 to D6 were marked on his admission and during the examination of PW.14, Exs.D7 and D8 were marked.PW.14 had further stated that on 15.05.2007, he examined the witnesses Viz., Meenakshi, Rajalakshmi and further examined Palusami and recorded their statements.Thereafter, he had enquired the Medical Officer, who had conducted the Post mortem.PW.13/Dr.Kuppusamy is the professor of Law Medicine, he had stated that on 27.03.2007, while he was on duty, he had conducted Autopsy of the victim on the requisition of RDO, Ponneri.The requisition letter was marked as Ex.On the same day, he along with Doctor/Udhayasankar had conducted Autopsy and it was completed by at 1.00 p.m., The viscera was sent for analysis.The report of the viscera was marked as Ex.Since there was no evidence of poisoning, he given an opinion stating that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to hanging.The Post Mortem report was marked as Ex.Thereafter, PW.14, had on 02.05.2007, examined the witnesses Viz., Thuraipandiyan, Ramasami Muthuramalingan and recorded their statements and later on receipt of the report of RDO on 20.06.2007, the case was altered to under Sections 498A, and 304(B) of IPC.The further alteration report was marked as Ex.This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the judgement dated 18.08.2009 in S.C.No.9 of 2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Poonamallee, Chennai, acquitting the respondents/accused for the offences under Sections 498 (A), 306 & 304 (B) of IPC.Further the accused had demanded dowry in the form of jewels and cash along with car and further harassed the deceased and her father to get job for A-1 also in a big company and also pressured them to secure a college seat for A-6 in a college nearby Chennai and they have in numerous ways badly treated the deceased due to which the deceased/Suryakala committed suicide by hanging in the matrimonial house itself.The complaint was preferred before the respondent police who registered the case in T-1 Ambattur Police Station Crime No.211/2007 initially under Sec.174 Cr.P.C. During investigation since the witnesses,the relatives of the deceased had stated that there was demand of dowry in the form of cash and jewels and a car and further there was harassment and since the death had happened within seven years of marriage the case was altered and final report was filed for the offences under Sections 498(A), 306 & 304 (B) of IPC .The case was taken on file in S.C.No.9 of 2009, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Poonamallee, Chennai.The respondents/accused had denied the charges and sought for trial.In order to bring home the charges against the respondents/accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.14, marked Exs.P1 to P.15, M.O.1and Exs.D1 to Ex.D8 were marked on the side of the respondents/accused.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 respondents/accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the respondents/accused have come with the version denying certain allegations and explaining certain circumstances leading to the deceased committing suicide and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case.This appeal has been preferred against the order of acquittal.He would submit that PW.2 had spoken about the demand made at the time of the marriage and also the deceased having spoken to him about the demand of dowry made soon before her death.Further, PW.2, the father and PW.8, the mother have deposed that the victim had informed them that the father-in-law and mother-in-law have caused cruelty on her.He would further submit that earlier prior to the occurrence the victim had been sent back to her parental home on account of demand of dowry and on the date of occurrence the victim had spoken to PW.2 and PW.8 about the cruelty committed on her with regard to demand of dowry and when there is ample evidence to prove the offence under Section 304(B) IPC, the trial Court had onhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 wrong appreciation of law and facts had acquitted the respondents/accused.He would further submit that the finding of the trial court is illegal and perverse.The learned counsel appearing for respondents/accused would submit that absolutely there is no evidence that the victim was subjected to cruelty or that there was demand of dowry soon before her death.He would also submit that it is the categoric evidence of PW.5 that the deceased used to come her house to make phone calls and that on the date of occurrence, she had come to the house of PW.5 and that she had stated that she was frightened and afraid and that she wanted to call her husband and that it is the evidence of PW.5 and PW.10 that she had spoken to her husband and other than the oral evidence of PW.2 and PW.8 no evidence has been let in by the prosecution that the victim spoke to them prior to her death regarding demand of dowry.Further PW.2 and PW.8 have not stated that prior to the date of occurrence, the victim had spoken to them and no scientific evidence had been let in by the prosecution to prove that the deceased spoke to PW.2 and PW.8 on the date of occurrence and thereby, the evidence of PW.2 and PW.8 that the deceased spoken to them on the particular day, cannot be believed.He would further submit that it is the admitted case that the other respondents were not residing along with the 1st respondent/accused and the deceased and that they were initially not added as accused during investigation and that only at the time of filing final report they were arrayed as accused.The learned counsel for the respondents/accused would submit that the learned Trial Judge after analyzing the evidence rendered a finding the death of the victim was not due to any harassment due to demand of dowry soon before her death and that the victim had committed suicide due to depression and fear had acquitted the respondents/accused giving benefit of doubt.The learned counsel for the respondents/accused would further submit that in order to bring home the guilt of the respondents/accused for the offence under Section 304 (B) of IPC, the ingredients that have to be proved by the prosecution are that (i) the death of the woman concerned is by any burns or bodily injury or by any cause other than in normal circumstances, (ii) it is within seven years of her marriage and (iii) that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband for, or in connection with, any demand of dowry.He would further submit that the presumption as to dowry death can be activated only upon proof of the fact that the deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or harassment or in connection with any demand of dowry by the accused and that too in the reasonable contiguity of death and that such a proof is thus the Legislatively mandated pre-requisite to invoke the otherwise statutorily ordained presumption of commission of the offence.He would further submit that there should be a live link between the cruelty emanating from a dowry demand and the death of a young married woman should first raise a presumption against the woman.However, before raising the presumption against the accused, the prosecution should prove the foundational facts.However, in this case, the prosecution has not let in evidence to show that there was demand of dowry soon before her death or that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on demand of dowry to soon before her death.Admittedly, the deceased and the respondents/accused are close relatives and that the marriage had happened 2-1/2 years prior to the occurrence and all the averments in the evidence of the father, mother, brother and sister-in-law of the deceased are in respect of things which had happened at the time of marriage and absolutely, no evidence is let in by the prosecution that soon before her death, there was demand of dowry, whereas, it is the categoric evidence of PW.3 and PW.5 who are neighbors and P.W.10 who is colleague of A-1/Udhayashankar, who have specifically spoken having knownhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 about the depression suffered by the deceased due to fear and it is the specific evidence of PW.5 that soon before the alleged occurrence, the deceased had come to her house and informed her that she was afraid and that it had been informed to the 1st respondent/accused through his colleague PW.10 and their evidence is clear that the reason for the death of the deceased is not due to demand of any dowry or cruelty committed on her.Admittedly, the respondents 2, 3 and 4 were living at Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai and that there is no allegation against them that they have demanded any dowry or any amount in the recent past and thereby, the learned Trial Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents/accused.In this case while looking into the evidence, the prosecution witnesses can be classified as follows:-, Asaithambi, Thandiayappan, Kaleeshwaran, Kasthuri, Pappathi and Shobana and altered the case from under Section 174 (3) Cr.Thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 Report of RDO was marked as Ex.P15 (Ex.P15 had been marked as under protest).Thereafter, the 4th respondent/Jawagar was arrested and let out on bail and respondents 2, 3 and 5 were granted anticipatory bail and after obtaining opinion from the Assistant Public Prosecutor, the final report had been filed.Respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 have stated that they were residing at Sivagangh District and that they do not know what transpired at Chennai.Further, they had given a written explanation wherein, the 1 st respondent had stated that the deceased was his first cousin being the daughter of his own aunt, who is the elder sister of their father and that there was no demand of dowry and that since they were all relatives, the marriage expenses were shared between them Further, due to close relationship no dowry was taken and further that the deceased while studying school and college she was in the hostel along with co-students and that since she was alone in the house athttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 Chennai and that since they did not have any issues after marriage she was in depression and thereafter, she had studied Library Science from her father's house and thereafter, she had come back to Chennai and that their respective names were deleted from their family card and transferred to Chennai and that since she was alone at Chennai, she was under the state of depression and fear and that on 26.03.2004, she had gone to the house of the neighbour PW.5/Shobana and informed her and that she was afraid and PW.5/Shobana had called the management staff of PW.10 and that later he consoled the victim to be at home stating that he would come back soon and that when he had come back home, he had seen that the door of the house was locked from inside and that the victim had committed suicide and he had stated that the victim had committed suicide due to depression and since they did not have a child.Whereas, the parents of the victim unable to accept that their daughter had committed suicide due to depression for not having a child had given a false complaint as if there was demand of dowry.The learned Trial Judge, after analyzing the entire evidence and materials on record, has found that there was no demand of dowry soon before the death.The learned Trial Judge, finding that the essential requirements of the charges against the respondents/accused having not been proved had acquitted the respondents/accused.I have carefully analyzed the evidence and materials on record andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 14 the judgment of the Trial Court.As stated above PW.1, PW.3 PW.5 and PW.10 are independent witnesses.It is the admitted evidence of PW.14 that the 1st respondent/accused was working in Chennai and the 5th respondent/accused was studying at Chennai and that respondents 2, 3 and 4 were residing at their native place at Thirupuvanam.Likewise, the parents of the deceased and the relatives of the deceased are also residing at Sivagangah District.Excepting an omnibus allegation made against the respondents in general with regard to demand of dowry, no specific evidence had been let in with regard to the demand of dowry.The independent witnesses who are the neighbours of the deceased and the 1st respondent/accused have categorically deposed that there was no problem between them in the matrimonial home.The Investigating Officer/PW.14 has also confirmed the same.PW.1 in his examination in chief had stated that there was no matrimonial issues or problems between the deceased and the 1st respondent/accused.PW.3 is the neighbour, who has also deposed that when he was examined by the Police, he had stated that there was no matrimonial disputes or issues between the 1 st respondent/accused and the deceased.PW.14 is the Investigation Officer has also corroborated that when hehttp://www.judis.nic.in 15 had examined the witnesses in the neighborhood, they have also stated that there was no dispute between the deceased and the 1st respondent/accused.There is evidence in the case that prior to the occurrence, the deceased was in disturbed state of mind as she was in the grip of fear.The evidence of PW.5 and PW.10 had been corroborated by thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 16 evidence of PW.3, husband of PW.5, who had stated that he was informed by his wife that on the date of occurrence, the victim had come to his house and informed about her fear and that his wife had told him that she had contacted the 1st respondent/accused.Further while analysing the evidence of the relatives of the deceased, the crux of the allegations against the respondents/accused are that the respondents/accused demanded dowry to secure a job for the deceased and that the 1st respondent/accused had an illegal affair with a lady namely Sudha and the respondents demanded to secure admission for the 5 th respondent in an Engineering College.Further, the allegations of the witnesses regarding demand of dowry are vague and bald without even referring to the particular date, period or occasion and the versions of the witnesses which had been stated before the Trial Court seem to be exaggerated versions.Further, the parents of the deceased had stated that they have spoken to their daughter, the deceased on the day of occurrence.It is neither been supported by the evidence of PW.5, the neighbour nor by any scientific evidence.No investigation has been done by the respondent police with regard to such telephonic conversation stated to have been made between the deceased and her parents on the date of occurrence.In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ambattur Range, Chennai (T-1 Ambattur Police Station.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.","['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts from LPA No.886/2010, which arises from the order passed in WP(C) No.2205/2010, shall be exposited for the purpose of adjudication.The appellant, a chartered accountant and a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), was a partner of M/s Price LPA 885-886/2010 Page 2 of 59 Waterhouse (M/s PW), a firm of Chartered Accountants registered with ICAI.In the year 2000, the firm was appointed as the statutory auditors of M/s Satyam Computer Services Ltd. (SCSL).The statutory audits of SCSL for the years 2001 to March, 2007 were conducted and the reports were signed by Mr. Subramani Gopalkrishnan, the appellant in LPA No.885/2010 [the petitioner in WP(C) No.5352/2010].As the factual matrix would further unfurl, on 7th January, 2009, Mr. B. Ramalinga Raju, the then Chairman of SCSL, in a communication send to the Board of Directors, disclosed that the balance sheet of SCSL as on 30th September, 2008 carried inflated (non-existent) cash and bank balances of Rs.5,040 Crores (as against Rs.5361 Crores reflected in the books) and accrued non-existent interest of Rs.376 Crores.LPA 885-886/2010 Page 2 of 59The liability was understated to the extent of of Rs.1230 Crores on account of funds arranged by him and the accounts overstated the debtors position by Rs.490 Crores (as against Rs.2651 crores reflected in the books).Quite LPA 885-886/2010 Page 3 of 59 apart from the above, there were many other disclosures which eventually led to his arrest and a criminal trial which we shall refer to at a later stage.LPA 885-886/2010 Page 3 of 59On 10th January, 2009, the ICAI corresponded with M/s PW, Bangalore, referring to the letters of Mr. Raju, the Chairman of SCSL, that the said firm had failed to carry out necessary checks which were required while undertaking the audit of the financial statements and certifying the quarterly results of the company.The ICAI alleged that the firm had violated the accounting principles while auditing and certifying the accounts/quarterly results of SCSL for the aforementioned years and quarters and did not give a true and fair view of the accounts and further did not exercise due diligence and were negligent in their professional duties as statutory auditors.The ICAI treated the newspaper report as information within the meaning of Section 21(2) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 [as amended by the Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Act, 2006 which came into effect from 17th November, 2006] (for brevity the CA Act).M/s PW was called upon to disclose the name or names of the member or members who was/were answerable to the allegation/s and send a copy of the aforesaid information letter along with LPA 885-886/2010 Page 4 of 59 its enclosures to the said member/members and he/they be requested to send his/their written statement, if any, in triplicate within 21 days from the receipt of the letter.It was also stipulated in the said letter that the member or members who are answerable should also send a declaration duly signed in the enclosed format and in the event the name(s) of the member(s) answerable was not disclosed, all the members who were partners or employees of the firm on the date of occurrence of the alleged misconduct shall be responsible for answering the allegation or allegations contained in the information.After certain correspondences, on 30th January 2009, M/s PW replied to the ICAI stating, inter alia, that the key members were Mr. S. Gopalakrishnana, Mr. S. Talluri, Mr. P. Shiva Prasad and Mr. C.H. Ravindranath.M/s PW informed that Mr. S.LPA 885-886/2010 Page 5 of 59""19.1 The statutory auditors have failed to exercise reasonable care and compliance with various auditing and assurance standards issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India as a generally accepted auditing practice while reporting on the financial statements and the materiality of the misstatements are so huge that it has rendered the financial statements for all these years as untrue and unfair.However, the executive, management and staff have drawn substantial amounts as remunerations, commission, incentives, bonuses, ESOPs.However, all these overstatements and misstatements have reported the EPS at a higher level in the financial reporting annually as well as quarterly which has directly impacted the movement of the share prices in the stock exchanges market in India and abroad.""The allegations are regarding alleged fudging of LPA 885-886/2010 Page 19 of 59 accounts over seven years.The appellant is required to understand the records for which he would be required to consult the papers alongwith the persons who had conducted the audit.their reliance.The turnover of M/s SCSLvii) You did not exercise due in 2006-2007 was Rs.6228 Crores, in LPA 885-886/2010 Page 28 of 59 diligence and were grossly negligent 2007-2008 was Rs.8137 Crores and in the conduct of your professional the respective Audit Fees paid duties as the statutory auditors of were Rs.3.67 Crores and Rs.3.73 the company for all these years.The turnover of M/s Wipro in the year 2006-07 andxi) On account of the knit criminal conspiracy between manipulations/ falsification of the the management of M/s. SCSL i.e. accounts by the Company for all B. Ramalinga Raju, A-1, B. these years, it is apparent that the Ramaraju (A-2) and Shri V. same was not possible without your Srinivas (A-3) and the statutory knowing about the same as the auditors S. Gopalakrishnan (A-4) Statutory auditor of the company.and Srinivas Talluri (A-5).In addition to the above audit fee, the auditors received an amount of Rs.1.24 crores and Rs.1.27 crores for the said years towards rendering other services.These amounts were separately in the accounts though mandated as per the reporting norms.LPA 885-886/2010 Page 29 of 59v) Specific role of the two petitioners has been again narrated as follows:As per the records maintained by The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, Sri S. Gopalakrishnan (A-4), was a partner in the firm M/s Price Water House, Bangalore and not in M/s Price Waterhouse.By affixing his signature on the Audit Reports for and on behalf of Price Waterhouse he deliberately with the knowledge of its implications and consequences violated the requirements of the Auditing & Assurance Standards.In the Agreement entered between M/s SCSL and M/s Price Waterhouse, instead of affixing his signature, he has signed as Price Waterhouse contrary to the established procedure and practice whereby it is incumbent on an individual partner of the firm to affix his signature as a representative of the Auditor firm authenticating the contents of the report.Ramalinga Raju, A-1 and Sri B.Ramaraju (A-2).By virtue of his status as a Statutory Auditor it is incumbent on his part to verify the bank balances and FDRs claimed to be held by M/s SCSL besides other investments, liabilities and sales of the Company before certifying the Statutory Audit Report which forms the basis of Annual Financial Statement of the company.He has knowingly certifies the inflated/forged balance sheets prepared basing on the forged FDRs and other data with regard to the banks and also the status of the sales without making any mandatory independent verifications.The auditors are required to write directly to the banks and obtain confirmation of balances.After obtaining the confirmations they must compare these figures with the figures as appearing in the books of accounts LPA 885-886/2010 Page 31 of 59 of the company.LPA 885-886/2010 Page 31 of 59Gopalakrishnan received the confirmations from the banks which are in great variance with the figures provided by the management and appearing in the books of accounts.He has consciously overlooked the accounting irregularities committed by M/s SCSL for the past 7 years showing his complicity in the commission of the above said offences and he is liable as a co-conspirator.Letters generated on the letter pads of M/s Price Waterhouse were recovered from the computer systems of M/s SCSL.These letters were supposed to be written by the auditors addressed to the banks seeking confirmations about the balances.Sri S. Gopalakrishnan as part of the conspiracy got these letters generated in the computer systems of M/s SCSL for the purpose of creation of the records which depicts his privy and involvement in the conspiracy.He also made M/s SCSL to generate certain letters addressed to the banks directing the banks to directly inform the auditors.In the agreement entered into between M/s. SSCL and M/s. Price Waterhouse contrary to the established procedure and practice whereby it is incumbent on the individual partner of the firm to affix his signature as a representative of the Auditor firm authenticating the contents of the report.Sri Talluri Srinivas (A-5) having been aware of the fact that he never represents M/s. Price Waterhouse designated Statutory Auditors for M/s. SCSL has signed as ""Price Water House"" and thereby cheated the investors in furtherance of the conspiracy with Sri V. Srinivas (A-3), Sri B.Ramalinga Raju (A-1) and Sri B.The auditors are required to write directly to the banks and obtain confirmation of balances.After obtaining the confirmations should compare these figures with the figures as appearing in the books of accounts of the company.There is a discrepancy with regard to the existence of the Price Waterhouse, Hyderabad as Auditors in the registration with the ICAI, a statutory body.The ICAI has confirmed that Sri Talluri Srinivas is a member Price Waterhouse, Bangalore and not Price Waterhouse.As such the certification of Statutory Audit Reports by such non-member LPA 885-886/2010 Page 40 of 59 Audit Firms consequently invalidates the Annual Financial Statement of the Company which is a statutory requirement under law to invite investments from the prospective investors.LPA 885-886/2010 Page 40 of 59Letters generated on the letter pads of M/s Price Waterhouse were recovered from the computer systems of M/s SCSL.These letters were supposed to be written by the auditors addressed to the banks seeking confirmations of balances.Sri Talluri Srinivas as part of the conspiracy, got these letters generated in the computer systems of M/s. SCSL for the purpose of creation of records which depicts his privy and involvement in the conspiracy.He also made M/s SCSL to generate certain letters addressed to the banks directing the banks to directly inform to the auditors.However, these letters were generated merely for the purpose of record which shows the role of Sri Talluri Srinivas in the conspiracy.From the investigation, it is clear that the whole fraud was designed and orchestrated by Shri B.Ramalinga Raju (A-1), Shri B.Ramaraju (A-2) and Shri V.Srinivas (A-3) and they got the same implemented with the active connivance of Shri G. Ramakrishna (A-7), Shri D. Venkatapathi Raju (A-8) and Shri S. Srisailam Chetkuru (A-9).Further Sri G.Gopalakrishnan (A-4) and Shri Talluri Srinivas (A-5) have actively participated in the conspiracy by auditing the fudged balance sheets and certified the same and thereby connived with the other accused.Further Sri.B. Suryanarayana Raju (A-6) has actively participated in the conspiracy by assisting Sri B.Ramalinga Raju (A-1), Sri B.Ramaraju (A-2) in reaping maximum benefit from this fraud and in rotating funds amongst the companies.In view of the above have committed the offences of conspiracy, cheating, cheating by personation, generating forged valuation securities, forging the LPA 885-886/2010 Page 42 of 59 documents for the purpose of cheating and knowingly using these forged documents as genuine.The said list reads as under:""LIST OF WITNESSES IN THE MATTER OF SHRI S. GOPALAKRISHNAN AND SHRI S. TALLURI BY THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEEConcerned official from ICAIShri A.V.Y. Krishna, CBI, HyderabadThe then Investigating Officer of SEBI LPA 885-886/2010 Page 43 of 59LPA 885-886/2010 Page 43 of 59Concerned official from Citi Bank, HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, HSBC Bank, BNP Paribas and Bank of Baroda.The concerned official (Finance Department) of Satyam Computer Services Ltd.The concerned official (Sales Department) of Satyam Computer Services Ltd.Main Partners of Price Waterhouse (FRN)Main Partners of Lovelock & Lewes (FRN)Through Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr.Advocate with Mr. J S Bakshi, Mr. Amitesh S. Bakshi, Mr. Zeyaul Haque, Mr. Rakesh Agarwal and Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, Advocates for ICAI/Respondent No.1 Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC with Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate for UOILPA 886/2010 TALLURI SRINIVAS ..... Appellant Through Mr. T. Andhyarujina, Sr.Advocate with Mr. R. Sudhinder, Mr. Rahul Ravindran and Ms. Prerna Amitabh, Advocates versus INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTNTS OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents LPA 885-886/2010 Page 1 of 59 Through Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr.Advocate with Mr. J S Bakshi, Mr. Amitesh S. Bakshi, Mr. Zeyaul Haque, Mr. Rakesh Agarwal and Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, Advocates for ICAI/Respondent No.1 Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC with Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate for UOI CORAM:LPA 885-886/2010 Page 1 of 59HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNAWhether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the Yes judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ Keeping in view the similitude pertaining to the legal controversy in both the appeals, despite the fact that there is a slight difference in the factual matrix, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.LPA 885-886/2010 Page 4 of 59Gopalakrishnan and Mr.Srinivas had been arrested by the local police and they were out of reach.As is manifest, on 20th February, 2009, the criminal investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and RC No.4(S)/2009 was registered against Mr. S. Gopalakrishnan, Mr. Srinivas and seven other accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 477A, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.One of the conclusions recorded by the said group is to the following effect:As is evincible, on 7th April, 2009, the CBI filed its charge sheet in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) arraigning Gopalakrishnan, Srinivas and seven others as accused persons.LPA 885-886/2010 Page 6 of 59The documents which were relied upon by the CBI was the report of the ICAI Group which was a part of the MDIT.At this juncture, the Director (Discipline) of ICAI placed a prima facie opinion before the disciplinary committee and the committee was of the prima facie view that the said chartered accountants were guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of clauses (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the CA Act. A prima facie opinion was also formed that the said two chartered accountants were guilty of other misconduct within the meaning of Section 22 read with Section 21 of the CA Act. On the basis of the said prima facie opinion, a notice was sent to the chartered accountants enclosing a copy of the prima facie opinion and requiring each of them to send their written statement along with supporting documents and a list of witnesses within 21 days.It is apt to note that at that time, both the appellants herein were in judicial custody and at that juncture, the CBI filed a supplementary charge sheet.On 4th February, 2010, Srinivas was enlarged on bail by virtue of the order passed by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.257/2010 on certain conditions.LPA 885-886/2010 Page 7 of 59As pleaded, on 26th February, 2010, notices were issued by the ICAI to Srinivas with respect to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him as well as Ravindranath.Srinivas replied to the ICAI stating that Ravindranath had been cited as a witness in the criminal case pending before the Special Court, CBI against Srinivas.It was contended by Srinivas that his appearance as a witness in the disciplinary proceedings against Ravindranath would severely prejudice his position in the criminal case pending trial.As regards the disciplinary proceedings against him, he asseverated that he would be dealing with that separately and thereafter, on 26th March, 2010, he stated that the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against him should be deferred since the alleged acts of commission or omission on the basis of which the disciplinary proceedings had commenced not only form the basis of a prima facie opinion but also form the basis of various charges against him in the criminal cases and, hence, any disclosure of his explanation or defences until the final conclusion of the criminal trial pending before the Special Court at Hyderabad would seriously impact his defence in the criminal trial.When the ICAI decided to proceed with the disciplinary LPA 885-886/2010 Page 8 of 59 proceedings, Srinivas filed WP(C) No. 2505/2010 and the learned Single Judge initially directed postponement of the disciplinary proceedings for some time.LPA 885-886/2010 Page 8 of 59As is reflectible, on 25th June, 2010, Gopalakrishnan was granted bail by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh with certain conditions and thereafter, similar proceeding was initiated against him and he also took the same plea.It was urged before the learned Single Judge that the charge sheet in the criminal case and the prima facie opinion formed by the Director (Discipline), ICAI are more or less identical and the list of witnesses in both the proceedings are same and if they are allowed to continue simultaneously, serious prejudice would be caused to the writ petitioners as their defence would be disclosed.A reference was made to the report dated 5th April, 2009 of the ICAI group which formed a part of the MDIT, the conclusion of which formed the basis for the prima facie opinion dated 17th September, 2009 of the Director (Discipline), ICAI and the said report LPA 885-886/2010 Page 9 of 59 formed the basis of the charge sheet and, hence, the allegations are identical.The ICAI charges against the appellant, in turn, relies on the charge sheet filed by the prosecution.The prosecution has also listed the Director (Discipline) of ICAI as a witness who had formed the prima facie opinion against the appellant for the purpose of issuance of the notice to show cause and, this is bound to cause prejudice to the appellant.The LPA 885-886/2010 Page 17 of 59 prosecution has also listed Sh.Similarly, certain witnesses are common and on their examination the appellant would be put in a disadvantageous position.The allegations, inter alia, involve complicated questions of facts pertaining to falsification of LPA 885-886/2010 Page 18 of 59 accounts and fabrication of documents, etc. which make the appellants presence imperative to assist his counsel.The appellant has to necessarily spend close to 10 to 12 hours a day to participate in the proceedings and to defend his life and liberty which is extremely time consuming.Therefore, the appellant will not have any effective opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings as there will be no time left for preparing himself for the disciplinary proceedings.Therefore, the appellant would be severely prejudiced if the disciplinary proceedings are allowed to continue until the completion of the trial.LPA 885-886/2010 Page 18 of 59(b) In view of the conditions imposed by the Court in its order dated 25.06.2010 granting bail, it would be physically impossible for the appellant to defend himself before the ICAI without consulting his team members who had conducted the audit.It was, inter alia, a condition of bail that the appellant shall not tamper with any evidence and shall not influence the prosecution witnesses.The appellants team members have been arrayed as prosecution witnesses.Despite this glaring discrepancy and having both the confirmations i.e. the original confirmations received from the banks and the forged blank confirmations provided by the other accused, Sri S.Gopalakrishnan in furtherance of the conspiracy, has accepted forged bank confirmations provided by the accused, certified the same and incorporated in the final accounts.He has flouted the prescribed Audit and Assurance Standard number 30 of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, thereby facilitated the projection of falsified data in the Annual Financial Statements of the Compare continuously.The presentations made by him to the audit committee about the health of the company were misleading and in fact he gave a very good certification regarding the financial discipline and controls available in the company contrary to the reality.LPA 885-886/2010 Page 32 of 59As a consideration for his acts in accommodating the accused persons, he has received an exorbitant audit fee from M/s SCSL over and above the market rate which reflects a quid pro quo arrangements.Shri Talluri Srinivas (A-5) affixed his signature on the financial statements as a partner of M/s Price Waterhouse the Statutory Auditors for M/s. SCSL for the financial year 2007-2008.. Sri Talluri Srinivas continued the legacy of Sri S. Gopalakrishnan (A-4) and he actively took part in the conspiracy hatched by Sri V.Srinivas (A-3), Sri B. Ramalinga Raju (A-1) and Sri B. Ramaraju (A-In spite of this, Sir S. Gopalakrishnan deliberately did not make any extensive changes in the audit plan which clearly establishes his motives and intentions in allowing the fraudulent practices to continue in M/s SCSL.Sir Talluri Srinivas has also followed the suit in furtherance of the conspiracy allowed the above deficiencies to continue.LPA 885-886/2010 Page 38 of 59Even though as many as 135 control deficiencies were identified in the integrated audit conducted in accordance with the Standards of Public Company Accounting Oversight Board which has severe impact on the internal control and financial accounting.Gopalakrishnan continued the trend and deliberately did not LPA 885-886/2010 Page 39 of 59 bring these control deficiencies to the notice of the Audit Committee and thereby facilitated the continuance of the fraudulent practices unabated.He did not comment on these control deficiencies in his Audit Report even though they are material in nature, thereby his privy and active role in the conspiracy is established.Sri Talluri Srinivas also did not take remedial action and continued the same practices to continue which establishes his role in perpetuating the fraud by the other accused.The above acts of Sri Talluri Srinivas reveal the offences punishable u/s 120B r/w 420, 419, LPA 885-886/2010 Page 41 of 59 467, 471, 477A of the IPC.LPA 885-886/2010 Page 41 of 59Further they have falsified the accounts of the company and also caused disappearance of evidence of the offence to screen themselves from legal punishment.Therefore, all the accused are liable for commission of offences punishable under sections 120B r/w 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and substantive offences thereof.LPA 885-886/2010 Page 42 of 59In the course of hearing, Mr. Ramji Srinivasan has also filed the list of witnesses who would be examined in the disciplinary proceedings against the appellants.Quite apart from the above, it is contended that the appellants cannot take shelter under the umbrella that they have stopped practising inasmuch as the institute has no power to suspend their registration.Additionally, it is urged by learned senior counsel that the charges levelled against them do not involve complex questions of law and fact and, hence, it is not desirable to invite an interdiction in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.LPA 885-886/2010 Page 56 of 59On a perusal of the comparative chart of the charges levelled in the disciplinary proceeding and the chargesheet in the criminal proceeding, the list of witnesses, the nature of enquiry, the purpose of enquiry and arraigning the appellants as accused persons in the criminal case are on a different base.In addition, the charges levelled against the appellants in the departmental proceeding/the proceeding under the Act do not involve grave and complex questions of law.LPA 885-886/2010 Page 57 of 59","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16285 of 2019J, aav Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16285 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.9695 of 2019 12.11.2019This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.46 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16285 of 2019The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petition is innocent he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.46 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 379, 406, 420 and 506(ii) of IPC as against the petitioner.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is the wife of the first accused and she has nothing to do with the crime.He also submitted that even on earlier three occasions, the second respondent lodged a complaint and the same has been closed after enquiry.Thereafter the second respondent filed private complaint and the same has been forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Based on the same, the first respondent registered a case and also during the pendency of the same, she appeared before the first respondent and gave statements along with the entire evidence showing that the petitioner is not involved in any crime as alleged by the first respondent.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere.9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.Further the first respondent is directed to consider the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and to complete the investigation and file final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.12.11.2019 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order aav ToThe Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch Police Station Madurai City2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16285 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The gist of the oral report (Exhibit 36) is that the accused is one of the three brothers of Bhojram Bharre (P.W.1).The ancestral agricultural land is partitioned between the four brothers.However, the well is common.The informant and some other labours were working in the field.P.W.1 fell in the well and the accused lifted the stones near the well and threw them::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2018 02:21:35 ::: 3 apeal282.14 at P.W.1, who shouted for help.P.W.8 and other rushed to rescue P.W.1 and were threatened by the accused with stones.th ORAL JUDGMENT :The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15-4-2014 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial 15/2012, by and under which the appellant- accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of the::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2018 02:21:35 ::: 2 apeal282.14 Indian Penal Code (""IPC"" for short) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-.::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2018 02:21:35 :::Heard Shri R.P. Joshi, learned Counsel for the accused and Shri V.P. Maldhure, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.3. P.W.8 Vimal Bharre lodged oral report at Andhalgaon Police Station on 18-12-2011 to the effect that the accused pushed her husband in the well and assaulted him with stones.P.W.1 started the motor pump installed in the well to water the crops.At 11-30 a.m. the accused arrived at the scene and accused P.W.1 of tampering with the pipe of his motor pump and of having thrown the starter in the well.P.W.1 denied the allegation.A verbal altercation ensued.P.W.1 was peeping in the well when the accused pushed him from behind.Villagers and the labours working in the field rescued P.W.1 from the well.P.W.1 suffered injuries to leg, waist and thighs.::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2018 02:21:35 :::On the basis of the oral report (Exhibit 36) and printed first information report (Exhibit 38) offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC was registered against the accused.Investigation ensued, upon completion of which charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mohadi, who committed the proceedings to the Sessions Court.The learned Sessions Judge framed charge (Exhibit 10).The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried in accordance with law.The defence of the accused is of total denial.It is also suggested to the prosecution witnesses that P.W.1 fell in the well accidentally.The learned Counsel for the accused Shri R.P. Joshi would submit that the prosecution has not excluded the possibility of an accidental fall.He would further submit that even if the evidence of the prosecution is accepted at face value, the ingredients of Section 307 of the IPC are not established.The intention or knowledge is not borne::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2018 02:21:35 ::: 4 apeal282.14 out from the evidence on record, is the submission.He would emphasize that concededly, the water depth in the well was only four feet.The common well was used by all the four brothers.Both, P.W.1 and the accused were well aware of the water depth.The evidence on record does not suggest that P.W.1 was under any threat of drowning.This is not even the prosecution version, is the submission.::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2018 02:21:35 :::In the case at hand, eyewitnesses to the incident, who are believed by the learned Sessions::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2018 02:21:35 ::: 5 apeal282.14 Judge and I do not see any reason to take a contrarian view, rule out the possibility of an accidental fall.::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2018 02:21:35 :::When P.W.1 went near the well to check why the pump was not working and was peeping in the well, the accused pushed him into the well and pelted stones.P.W.1 shouted, he sustained injuries to waist shoulder and thigh and fell unconscious.Maroti, Bandu, Tulshiram, Moreshwar, Bandu, Chudaman and Beniram rescued P.W.1 lowering a cot inside the well on which P.W.1 sat and was pulled out from the well.Before pushing P.W.1 in the well, the accused accused him of throwing the starter of his pump in the well.P.W.1 is subjected to intense cross-examination, a major portion of which is directed to bring on record the inimical relationship between P.W.1 and the accused.Few minor and insignificant omissions are brought on record, which do not dent the core of the testimony.A suggestion is given that P.W.1 fell in the well accidentally, which suggestion is denied.The testimony of P.W.1 is corroborated by Maroti Bharre::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2018 02:21:35 ::: 6 apeal282.14 (P.W.2) who was working in the field as a labour.In the cross- examination, he suggested that he did not witness the incident since he was standing at a distance of 500 feet from the well.The suggestion is denied and P.W.2 volunteers that he was at a distance of hardly 10 feet from the well.::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2018 02:21:35 :::9. P.W.3 Dr. Uday Chaudhary issued injury report (ExhibitP.W.3 states that he noticed the following injuries on the person of P.W.1 :1)two abrasion left buttock size 3 cms x 2 cms and 2 cms x 2 cms respectively.2)lacerated wound over thigh left posterior aspect size 5 cms x 0.5 cms.X 0.05 cms.3)abrasion over left thigh, lateral aspect size 3 cms x 3 cms reddish.4)abrasion over left thigh just above the left popliteal fossa size 4 cms x 2 cms reddish.5)lacerated wound left popliteal fossa of size 1 cm x 0.05 cm x 0.05 cm.6)abrasion over left calf, lateral side of 7 cms.X 2 cms.7)abrasion over right buttock 2 cms x 2 cms.8)contusion over back right and left middle third 5 cms x 4 cms reddish.Patient complaint of pain in low back, but no visible injury.::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2018 02:21:35 :::10. P.W.4 Suresh Misar has proved the spot panchanama (Exhibit 23) which reveals that the depth of the water was four feet.He is an eyewitness.Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination to dent the credibility of witness.The omissions brought on record are duly proved by the defence.13. P.W.7 Dr. Dinesh Kuthe is examined to prove that P.W.1 suffered fracture of L-2 vertebra with 30 percent compression.He has proved injury report (Exhibit 34).Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination to destroy the credibility of the witness.Suggestions are given to bring on record the strained relationship.The witness admits the strained::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2018 02:21:35 ::: 8 apeal282.14 relationship.However, as is well known, strained relationship can either be a motive for the false implication or a motive for the crime.::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2018 02:21:35 :::Having given anxious consideration to the evidence on record, I have no hesitation in recording a finding that the accused pushed P.W.1 in the well.In the teeth of the eyewitness account, the defence of accidental fall in the well is not probablised.However, I find substantial merit in the submission of Shri R.P. Joshi, learned Counsel, that the evidence on record is not sufficient to hold that the accused intended to cause death or that the accused can be attributed with the knowledge that death or an injury leading to death is likely to be caused.It is not in dispute that the depth of the water was hardly four feet.It is not the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 was under any threat of drowning.It was known to both, P.W.1 and the accused that the depth of the water was four feet.It cannot be said with any degree of certainty, that the intention of the accused was to cause death or that he was aware that by pushing P.W.1 in the well, death or injury leading to death would be the likely consequence.The accused must, however, be convicted under Section 326 of the IPC since the prosecution has proved that P.W.1 suffered fracture which is grievous hurt within the meaning of Section 320 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2018 02:21:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2018 02:21:35 :::The conviction of the accused under Section 307 of the IPC is set aside.The accused is entitled to set-off under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.JUDGEadgokar ::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2018 02:21:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2018 02:21:35 :::","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"He not only executed the possession receipt in that behalf but also filled in and filed a declaration form mentioning the names of the members of his family depending upon him.The other members of his family were his wife Parvatibai, his three sons Prakash, Vasant, Nivrutti and his daughter, Mangala.There is no dispute that Block No. 4 allotted to him consists of two rooms and a kitchen and a balcony in addition to the sanitary block.The prosecution case further is that in the year 1976 the Anti-Corruption Bureau received a report regarding the practice of some of the employees in the Government Central Press of sub-letting the Government quarters allotted to them at Bandra as well as Kala Chowky and of profiteering at the Government expense.But all that he had charged to Dr. Mrs. Ranganayaki was the same amount which he was paying to the Government.As mentioned above, the question involves a widespread social evil.Hundreds of them keep waiting for months and years together for their turn to arrive.The significance of this stringent condition will be mentioned presently.It is further mentioned in the order that the allotted residential accommodation could be used by the Government employee only for his own residence and for the residence of the members of his family.In pursuance of the report, investigation was conducted in connection with the various Government quarters.It was on the basis of this F.I.R. that an offence was registered by Sub-inspector Desai on the same date 17th March, 1978 and after duly obtaining the sanction for investigation, the investigation was carried on.During the course of the investigation the statements of Dr. Mrs. Ranganayaki and others were recorded.The trial Court accepted the evidence of Dr. Mrs. Ranaganayaki entirely.The learned Judge turned down the argument that her evidence was not corroborated by pointing out that Dr. Ranganayaki was not a complainant in this case.He negatived the contention based upon the provisions of Government Premises Eviction Act observing that after all the civil and criminal remedies were concurrent remedies and the aims of both of them were entirely different.Before me, at the very outset, Shri Samant, the learned Counsel for the accused, stated specifically and categorically that he was not disputing and was specifically conceding the two factual positions.Secondly, he conceded that her evidence that she was paying Rs. 110/- per month also could not be cavilled at.The learned Counsel specifically proceeded to advance his quite vehement and repeated arguments, made after taking adjournment after adjournment for bringing various authorities on the points, upon the explicit concessions that the findings recorded by the learned Judge about the exclusive possession of Dr. Mrs. Ranganayaki and about the payment of compensation of Rs. 110/- per month to the accused were unimpeachable findings.The concessions, to my mind, were not only justified but unavoidable.I have gone through the entire evidence on record and after going through the evidence of Dr. Mrs. Ranaganayaki as also the other evidence, I find that no room is left for doubt that it is just inconceivable that Dr. Mrs. Ranganayaki would have been living in the premises along with the accused during the relevant period or that she had been allowed to reside in the premises without payment of any monies to the accused.So far as he himself was concerned even if he had received a rupee more than Rs. 110/- from Dr. Ranganayaki, he could possibly, be said to be helping himself with such wrongful gain of a rupee.But in order to cut short the argument.","['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(Delivered on this the 2nd day of August, 2018) This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated 27/11/2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in ST No.121/2015, whereby the present appellant has been convicted under Section 304 (Part-I) of IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default clause.In brief the facts of the case are that on 7.2.2015 at around 9:15 PM in the night complainant 2 Mitesh's elder brother Monu @ Ritesh and co-accused Vijesh had an altercation near Hanuman temple.On hearing the same complainant Mitesh and his father Ram Prasad went to the house of co-accused Vishnu where Monu @ Ritesh was telling that accused Vijesh had assaulted him as he was asking for the consideration which was fetched by selling his motorcycle, at that time other accused Vishnu and Ajesh, the present appellant also came there with sticks in their hands.Complainant Mitesh and his father Ram Prasad were abused and were thrashed by sticks.Ram Prasad got injured in the incident and fell down after receiving the injuries and when other villagers intervened, they were separated.After the incident the injured was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Junnardev and intimation of the crime was given to ASI C.S.Uike, who recorded the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-27).Injured Ram Prasad (deceased) was examined by Dr. Raghuvir Singh (PW-9) vide MLC (Ex.P-14).Similarly, Dr. Raghuvir Singh (PW-9) also examined injured Mitesh, who had injury on his right hand and was advised for x-ray.Ram Prasad succumbed to the injuries at about 1:45 AM in the night on 8.2.2015, hence a Marg intimation was also made and in the post-mortem report 3 prepared by Dr.Manish Gathoriya (PW-10), the following injuries were found on the person of the deceased:- "" "" ""So far as injured Mitesh is concerned, he had fracture of third metacarpal of his right hand vide Ex.P- 12, which has been proved by Dr.Shikar Surana (PW-8).After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the learned Judge of the trial Court after recording the evidence has convicted the appellant as aforesaid, whereas other co-accused persons namely Vishnu and Vijesh were convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to the period one already undergone by them.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has wrongly been convicted by the learned Judge of the trial Court, as the incident has taken place on the spur of moment and there was no intention to cause the death of deceased Ram Prasad.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the appellant and has submitted that the appellant has rightly been convicted by the learned Judge of the trial Court, and hence his appeal may be dismissed.7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.In the post-mortem report, it is clearly mentioned that three injuries which were received by the deceased are lacerated wounds, however it appears that in his deposition before the Court, the injury No.1 has wrongly been typed as incised wound ""kata huwa ghav"", instead of lacerated wound i.e. ""fata huwa ghav"" and the cause of death is also stated to be shock arising out excessive bleeding due to head injury.In this regard the deposition of PW-1 Suresh assumes importance, who happens to be an independent witness and has not been declared hostile.According to him, he came out of his house after hearing the persons quarrelling with each other and saw that Monu @ Ritesh and Mitesh were beating Vishnu, at that time Ajesh and Vijesh also came and in this scuffle an assault was made by Ajesh on the head of Ram Prasad, who fell down.In these circumstances, when this witness has not been declared hostile, the prosecution is bound by his deposition.In this regard Dr. Raghuvir Singh (PW-9) in 6 his cross examination has admitted that on 07.10.2015 he also examined Vishnu Suryavanshi who had received the following injuries:-^^1 duiVh ds ck,a fgLls ij 4x2 bap Ropk dh xgjkbZ rd A 2 ck,a ?kqVus esa fNys dk fu'kku Fkk ftldk vkdkj 1x1 bap Fkk vkSj yky dyj esa Fkk A 3 nk,a ?kqVus esa fNys dk fu'kku Fkk ftldk vkdkj 1x1 bap Fkk vkSj yky dyj esa Fkk A^^ The said injuries were simple in nature.This witness also examined Munnibai wife of Vishnu Suryavanshi who had received minor abrasions.The other witnesses have also deposed more or less on the same lines and all of them have stated that the incident has taken place in front of Vishnu's house.It is also on record that both the parties are closely related to each other and the genesis of the incident is said to be the amount which Monu @ Ritesh was demanding from Vishnu.Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, there appears no intention on the part of the appellant to cause death of Ram Prasad, as apparently the incident took place on the spur of moment in front of accused Ajesh's house whose father Vishnu's was beaten by complainant's side and thus he also intervened in the said 7 fight and caused injuries to Ram Prasad, which cannot be said to be premeditated in any manner and appears to have been so cause on the spur of the moment.Though looking to the injuries received by Ram Prasad, it may be said that while causing such injuries, the appellant must have knowledge that such injury may cause the death of the deceased and his intention to commit the murder does not appear to be present on record.Thus, under the facts and circumstances of the case instead of Section 304-I of IPC, the appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 304-II of IPC.Although in both these sections under Section 304-I and 304-II of IPC, the maximum imprisonment is life, however there is fine distinction between these two provisions and it is of intention and knowledge of causing the death, and the knowledge of death shall definitely be on a lower pedestal than intention to cause death.In the circumstances, instead of conviction under Section 304 Part-I of IPC, the appellant is convicted under Section 304-II of IPC.So far as question of quantum of sentence is concerned, the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant may be 8 sentenced to the period already undergone by him, as he has already undergone three years and six months' RI out of five years' RI, appears to be reasonable.In the result, the criminal appeal stands partly allowed.","['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The restoration application, CRAN 2338 of 2018, is allowed.CRM 1028 of 2018 is allowed.15 md.Mr. P.K. Datta, Sr.Advocate Mr. S. Deb Roy, Advocate .. for the Petitioner Mr. Shibaji Kumar Das, Advocate .. for the State Sufficient grounds have been made out as to why the petitioner was not represented on August 20, 2018 when CRM 1028 of 2018 was dismissed for default.The order dated August 20, 2018 is recalled and CRM 1028 of 2018 is restored to the file.In the matter of:-1 2 In the matter of:-The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Taltala Police Station Case No.126/17 dated 22.09.2017 under Sections 498A/406/419/323/341/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 /4 of D.P. Act.At the outset, the State produces the report from the investigating officer confirming that some SMS messages have been sent by the petitioner to the de facto complainant during the pendency of the present proceedings.The petitioner says that it would not be appropriate to consider such matter while considering the present prayer since no complaint in such regard has been filed.On the basis of the material evident against the petitioner from the case diary, there does not appear to be any impediment to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.However, the petitioner has to provide for the basic maintenance of the wife.In addition, the petitioner will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.Further, if the petitioner sends any threatening or otherwise objectionable message on the wife's phone or puts up any inappropriate post on the social media, the de facto complainant and the State will be entitled to seek cancellation of the petitioner's bail.3 4 A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 4","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Jai Narain, who is the petitioner here, was the informant.A free translation of what he said is as under : 'Iam a resident of village Deendarpur and cultivate land.A civil litigation was going on between my father, Ami Lal, and Fazal.Mohammed in respect of some land.Yet, there can be complexities as is borne out by this petition for revision, which has arisen in the following circumstances.The case against them appears sufficiently from the first information recorded by the police.The land was about 30 or 35 bighas in area.In front of the house of Raghunath and Kanwar Singh, there is some land belonging to the Gaon Sabha on which everyone throws their garbage.Today, when Sarvati, the wife of Chhotu Ram, who is my uncle's son, was throwing garbage there as usual, Zile Singh, Khushi Ram and Fazal Mohammed came there and using foul abuses they scolded her.They forbade her from throwing garbage there.IN the meantime, on hearing the noise, my father and Chhotu Ram, the son of my uncle, came there and told Fazal Mohammed and the others not to use abusive, language.On hearing the loud voices, Raghunath, Mani Ram, Attar Singh, Reham Ali.Kanwar Singh and Rattan Singh also came there.At that time, Fazal Mohammed was holding a ballam (a short spear), Zile Singh a bhala (a large spear), Khushi Ram a jaili (a rake), and the others had lathis (staffs) in their hands.Then Fazal Mohammed attacked my father with the ballam, and my father fell down as he had been hit on the head and face.In order to save him, I and Chhotu Ram lay upon my father, who had fallen to, the ground.Zile then struck me with the bhala and I sustained injuries .on my head arid left leg.Raghunath, Mani Ram, Rattan Singh, Kanwar Singh and Attar Singh caught Chhotu Rain.He, too, has sustained injuries.Ram struck me and my father with both sides of the jaili he was holding and caused injuries.In the course of this, Deen Dayal,.Subey Singh and Jage Ram came to our rescue with lathis, and saved us from their clutches.MY father Ami Lal had become unconscious at the spot.Thereafter, all of us first came to the Najafgarh dispensary.There, my father succumbed to his injuries.All of us who were injured were then brought to Safdarjang Hospital in a vehicle belonging to the hospital.I know Fazal Mohammed, Khushi Ram, Zile Singh, Reham Ali, Raghunath, Mani Ram, Ratt an Singh, Attar Singh and Kanwar Singh from before.(These are the nine respondents).They collected together and wounded me, my father Ami Lal, and Chhotu Ram with the bhala, ballam, jaili and lathis with ' the intention of murdering us.I am lodging this complaint against them.This incident occurred at about 9.30 a.m.' IN the course of in,ves'iigation, the police recorded the statements of a number of persons.(3) On 9th March 1981, the Additional Sessions Judge framed three joint charges against the respondents.In all of them it was alleged that the offence charged had been committed in furtherance of their common intention, and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was recited..The second was under se Section 307 for attempting to murder Ghhota Ram.the third, was under sections 323 and 324 for having voluntarily caused' simple hurt to Jai Narain by means of a sharp edged and blunt weapons'.Before framing these charges, the matter was fully argued and the judge made a reasoned order.On all these scores, Jai Narain is aggrieved and seeks revision of that order.Although the State has not itself applied for revision (I was told that its petition was delayed by administrativ.e procedures but was in the offing), the Additional Public Prosecutor unreservedly supported all the submissions made on behalf of Jai Narain.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The factual background which needs to be noticed is as follows:-""On 9th November, 2005, DD No.30-A (copy Ex.PW5/A) was assigned to Sub Inspector Lal Chand Yadav at Police Station Welcome, Delhi for investigation who alongwith Constable Des Raj went to Prachin Hanuman Mandir, Welcome, Delhi at about 4.00 pm where Sushil Kumar Tiwari met them.Sub Inspector Lal Chand Yadav, Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Sushil Kumar Tiwari and after making endorsement thereon sent the same to police station for registration of this case.Sushil Kumar Tiwari produced appellant as well as dagger and mobile phone, besides a sum of rupees 150/- before the investigating officer.The aforesaid objects were converted into separate parcels and sealed with the seal of LC and were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/A respectively.The Crl.A. No. 397/2006 Page 2 sketch of the dagger was prepared before converting it into a parcel.Appellant was arrested.Sushil Kumar Tiwari was having stab injuries on first finger of his right hand and was sent to Hospital for medical examination.In this appeal, Appellant is challenging impugned judgment of 11th May 2006 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, vide which he has been convicted for committing offences under Section 455/392/394 and 397 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 25 of the Arms Act and order of the trial court of the same day, vide which he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and Crl.A. No. 397/2006 Page 1 to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- separately on two counts, i.e., for the offences under Section 392 and 455 of the Indian Penal Code.In default of payment of fine he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each.Appellant is further sentenced by the trial court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, separately on two counts, i.e., for the offence punishable under Section 394 and 397 of Indian Penal Code.In the event of default of payment of fine, Appellant has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each.The above said substantive sentences have been ordered, by the trial court, to run concurrently.Investigating officer inspected the site and prepared the site plan Ex.PW5/B, recorded the statements of witnesses, got the appellant medically examined and thereafter he was produced before the court concerned.After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence under Section 379/382/506/ 411/394/ 397/393 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act was filed against the accused/appellant.""Since the Appellant/accused had claimed trial in this case, by pleading not guilty to the charges framed against him for the offences punishable under Section 455/392/394/397/506 of Indian Penal Code and for offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, before the trial court, evidence of six witnesses was recorded during the trial in support of the charges framed against the Appellant.Out of them, the main witnesses are the injured/first informant - Sushil Kumar (PW-4); eye witness Dhiraj Shukla (PW-2); Dr. Prabhakar (PW-6), who has proved the MLC - Ex.PW6/A of injured (PW-4) and the Investigating Officer SI Lal Chand, (PW-5).Appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., before the trial court, denied the prosecution case and stated that he was going to Ghazipur Mandi and Constable Desh Raj (PW-1) met him at Welcome turn and told him that he was called by SHO, Police Station Welcome and took him there and framed Crl.A. No. 397/2006 Page 3 him in this case.However, Appellant did not lead any evidence in his defence before the trial court.After the trial, Appellant stands convicted and sentenced as noticed above.Contention advanced by both the sides have been pondered over and the evidence on record has been scrutinised.In short, the prosecution case is that on the night intervening 8th and 9th November 2005, during the night at about 3.30 AM, Appellant/accused alongwith his associate trespassed into Pracheen Kuainwala Mandir at A-1 Block, Welcome, Delhi and removed cash of Rs.150/- and a mobile phone from the pocket of the shirt of Sushil Kumar (PW-4) and the said shirt was hanging on a peg on the wall inside the aforesaid temple.While associate of Appellant / Accused was searching for the goods in the other room of the temple, Dheeraj Shukla (PW-2) woke up to urinate and he noticed the Appellant/accused in the temple and raised alarm of thief-thief.Then, Sushil Kumar (PW-4) also woke up and rushed towards the Appellant/accused, who gave a knife/ dagger blow on the right hand of Sushil Kumar (PW-4).However, Appellant/accused was overpowered by Sushil Kumar (PW-4) and from the possession of the Appellant/accused cash of Rs.150/- and mobile phone of Sushil Kumar (PW-4) and the knife/dagger was recovered.However, trial judge has concluded that the knife/dagger Ex.P-1 was used by accused/appellant, when he attempted to carry away the stolen property and hurt was caused to injured Sushil Kumar (PW-4) while committing robbery.A bare perusal of the testimony of the injured (PW-4) makes it clear that injured (PW-4) got up upon hearing the alarm of 'Thief-Thief"" being raised by eye witness (PW-2) and he had seen that eye witness (PW-2) and accused/appellant were grappling and when injured (PW-4) went to rescue eye witness (PW-2), then appellant/ accused gave knife blow to injured (PW-4) as soon as he reached near the injured.It has also come in Crl.A. No. 397/2006 Page 5 the evidence of injured (PW-4) that he had snatched the knife of the hands of accused/appellant.Possibility of injured (PW-4) sustaining 1/2x1/2 Cm injury on index finger of his right hand, in the process of injured (PW-4) snatching the knife from the hand of accused/appellant, cannot be ruled out.It has not come in the evidence of the injured (PW-4) or the eye witness (PW-2) that accused/appellant had caused hurt to the injured (PW-4) while committing robbery or that accused/appellant had used knife/dagger Ex.P-1 while attempting to carry away the stolen property.Thus, it is evident from the evidence on record that the aforesaid finding of the trial court is factually incorrect.Apparently, there is misreading of the evidence by the trial judge, which renders the conviction of accused/appellant for the offence under Section 392/394/397 of the Indian Penal Code illegal and is hereby set aside.Simply because the injury/lacerated wound on the index finger of the hand has been opined to be blunt/simple in the MLC Ex.P-1 as it has not come in the evidence on record about knife/dagger Ex.P-1 being blunt on one side.In any case, nothing turns on it as the accused/appellant was arrested at the spot and the aforesaid knife/dagger Ex.P-1 was recovered from him at the spot only.The offence made out against accused/appellant falls under Section 379 and 324 of the Crl.A. No. 397/2006 Page 6 Indian Penal Code which is lesser offence than those under Section 392/394/397 of the Indian Penal Code, for which accused/appellant had faced the trial.Appellant be informed of this order through the concerned Jail Superintendent.","['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The prosecution case regarding arrest of these two accused was sought to be established by PW16 Insp.Rajender Gautam who deposed that on 14/6/1996 he along with Insp.Paras Nath, (PW-101) Insp.Suresh Chander, SI Surender Verma etc. joined the investigation of the case.At about 6:20 PM PW-101 got secret information that A3 along with his companion, a Kashmiri youth would be going to Gorakpur in Vaishali express.He organized a team and they all reached New Delhi Railway station.ACP PP Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 134 Singh also joined the police party at New Delhi Railway Station.They all reached Platform no. 4 of New Delhi Railway Station and held a 'nakabandi'.At about 7.30 PM at the pointing out of the informer, A3 and A 4 were apprehended; both were interrogated by Insp.Paras Nath and were arrested.Their personal search memos Ex. PW16/A and 16/B were prepared.The witness was declared hostile, because he did not testify about many particulars.In the cross examination by the prosecution, he said that he had witnessed the arrest of A-6 and A-7 and witnessed the personal search memos (in relation to them) Ex. PW-16/D and PW-16-E; he also claimed - in cross examination by prosecution - to have witnessed the recovery of a Re. 2/- note (seized by Memo Ex. PW-16/F).Similarly, he agreed to the prosecutions suggestion about having witnessed the disclosure statements of A-5 Latif (Ex. PW-16/H) and A-6 Killey (Ex. PW-16/I).He stated further that A-9 Javed and A-6 were arrested in his presence.He agreed with the suggestion that Latif and Killey were arrested in his presence, given by the prosecution.However, he also stated that due to passage of time, he could not identify Killey and Latif.He admitted in prosecutions cross examination that Mirza Hussain had made disclosure statement Ex. PW-16/J, and pointed out Shop No. 3/32 at Bhogal, through memo Ex. PW-16/K, and Killey pointed out to Shop No. C-1/59, Lajpat Nagar (Ex PW-16/B).The witness was cross examined about where the police party was present before moving to New Delhi Railway station, whether other passengers and members of the public were present on the railway platform, whether the entire paperwork was done on the railway station; if so how long it took to complete, etc. The witness was unaware if anyone was arrested from Gorakhpur, nor knew the name of the police station at Gorakhpur from whose jurisdiction any such Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 135 arrest took place, or even the locality from where any such arrest took place; he said it was near the Gorakhpur railway station.149. PW-39 corroborated PW-16 and deposed that he joined in the investigation on 14.6.1996 along with PW-16, other police personnel and PW-101 and went to Jama Masjid near Urdu bazaar where at about 06:20 PM, information was received that Naushad with one other boy would go to Gorakh Pur from New Delhi Railway Station by Vaishali Express and that from there they would proceed to Nepal.PW-101 organized a raiding party and informed ACP P.P. Singh on the phone.All of them reached the Railway Station; P.P. Singh also reached there.On the pointing out of informer at about 07:35 PM, Naushad and Saba were apprehended.In his cross examination by the APP, he admitted that the police had brought two persons with muffled faces and on un-muffling their faces, he had admitted to the police that they had purchased a solder iron and wire from Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 155 his shop.He said that one of these persons may have been Naushad (this after Naushad was pointed out to him by APP); he was not certain of the identity of the other person being Naza.He said that the pointing out memo had been prepared and he had signed on it at point B (Ex. PW-31/K).This memo is dated 19.06.1996, and stated that Naushad and Naza, under police custody, voluntarily with muffled faces pointed out to Imperial Sound and Service and identified Jitender Singh and stated that on 13.05.1996 they had purchased a soldering iron and wire from that shop and that they had used the solder for making the bomb.The omission to cross examine PW-31 and 39 was adversely commented in the findings.Case of the prosecution is that A4 led the police party at BJ24, Shalimar Bagh and from there obtained Rs. 1 lac on the strength of two rupee currency note from Mangal Chand.""In para 243, the Trial Court discussed the sequence of events; the police party had arranged to go to Shalimar Bagh; at that stage, PW-35 was joined in the proceedings.According to his deposition, SI Sanjay Kumar, A-4 as well as another police officer reached the premises at Shalimar Bagh.I however, told the police that one of those two accused persons namely Mirza Nisar Hussain @ Nasa who is present in the court might have purchased from me.It is Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 169 wrong to suggest that I categorically identified accused Mohd. Ali Bhat @ Mohd. Killey as the only person who came at my shop with accused Mira Hussain @ Naza for purchasing battery on 21.5.1996 when police removed the muffled from his face...""In the cross examination PW-60 Rajesh Kumar further stated that; ""..... after picking up from my shop the van was driven to Central Road to Masjid road, where from a man from Vijay Electrical shop was picked up and from there in the same van I was taken to one police station situated in Lodhi road area....""He also stated that:The police witnesses, however, sought to depose that PW-60 had identified A-5 and A-6 as those who had approached him and purchased a battery.The Trial Court discussed the circumstances surrounding the arrest of Javed (A-9) and Asadullah (A-10); it believed that the two accused persons were arrested from Ahmedabad on 01.06.1996 along with Rashid and Juber Bhatt @Maqbool Bhatt from near Rupali Cinema.The Court relied on the testimonies of PW-98, PW-99, and the Judgment of Ld.The Court observed that the stay of the four, including A-9 and A-10 at Anukul Guest house in Ahmedabad on 24.05.1996 was proved by entry made in the hotel register at Serial number Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 183 4310 dated 25.05.1996; it was in the name of Rashid.However their stay at Anukul Hotel and arrest dated 01.06.1996 was believed.The object of the gathering was not proved and the articles recovered from their possession were not able to connect the accused with the crime.The Trial Court held that A-9 was not able to show the purpose of his visit to Ahmedabad and why he alongwith his associates had stayed at Anukul Guest House on 24.05.996; it was also held that the presence of A-9 in a suspicious circumstance in Ahmedabad from 24.05.1996 to 01.06.1996 and his failure to explain the purpose of his visit was an incriminating circumstance against him.As far as A-10 was concerned, the Trial Court held that his mere apprehension on 01.06.1996 and his stay at Anukul Hotel on 24.05.1996 without any further incriminating evidence was not enough to connect him with the commission of offence.The Counsel for the Appellants urged that there was no evidence on record to show where the accused persons were from 25.05.1996 to 01.06.1996 (i.e. after they checked out from Anukul Hotel and till they were arrested).Javed (A-9) in his statement under Section 313 Cr.Even in his confessional statement (Ex.PW-100/A; pg.220 Vol.7), Javed, in reply to Question 1 stated Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 184 that he was arrested from a hotel in Ahmedabad on 24.05.1996 at about 03:00 PM.It would therefore be necessary to analyze the evidence of the two Gujarat Policemen, PW-98 and PW-99 in this regard.PW-98, B.R. Patil, deposed that in May 1996, while he was posted as DSP, ATS Ahmedabad, a TP was received giving information that Asadullah and Rashid would be crossing over the Indo Nepal border and that they would be reaching Gujarat to carry out explosions in Ahmedabad.Rajvanshis (PW-99s) team started searching for these persons in Ahmedabad.He further deposed that on 01.06.1996, PW-99 found 4 persons who disclosed their names as Asadullah (A-10), Rashid Ahmed, Juber Bhatt (Zulfikar) and Javed Khan (A-9).They were interrogated by PW-99 and an FIR 12/1996 was lodged against them u/s 120B, 121, 122 IPC.He further deposed that on 02.06.1996 further investigation of the case was handed over to him; PW-99 had prepared the personal search memos and seizure memos of the accused.PW-98 identified accused Javed (A-9) and pointed to another accused and identifies him as Asadullah (A-10).However the accused said that his name was Abdul Gunny Goni to which the witness stated that Asadullah was one of the aliases of Abdul Gunny Goni.PW-98 further deposed that during the investigation Javed (A-9) made a disclosure statement regarding the bomb blast at Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi before Insp.Rajvanshi (PW-99).PW-99, B.M. Rajvanshi, of Gujarat Police deposed that on 24.08.1995 Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 185 he was posted in the Anti-Terrorist Squad, Ahmedabad, Gujarat and that on 23.05.1996 he was ordered by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, ATS to look into intelligence received regarding two terrorists Asadullah and Rashid entering India from Nepal.The tele-printer message and fax received by the Director General of Gujarat Police stated that these two terrorists would be reaching Ahmedabad via Mumbai from Kathmandu and that they would be renting a house in Ahmedabad and would plan explosions in big markets in Ahmedabad.PW-99 further deposed that SI Wagela informed him about these facts and thereafter he went to the hotel and saw Rashids name in the hotel register.He deposed to searching the four persons and that at around noon they found four suspicious persons near Rupali Cinema and his bringing them to the ATS office.He further deposed that after interrogation it was discovered that the said four persons had come from Kathmandu with the intention to sabotage the city.He further deposed that the 4 persons arrested were Asadullah (A-10), Rashid, Javed Khan (A-9) and Maqbool Butt.An FIR bearing no 12/1996 was lodged against them u/s 120B, 121, 122 IPC.PW-99 further deposed that Asadullah made a disclosure statement in which he gave details about how the conspiracy to cause sabotage in India was hatched in Pakistan.He further deposed that the fact that Asadullah and Javed were involved in the Lajpat Nagar blast was disclosed by both the accused.He further deposed that he prepared both the disclosure statements (Ex.PW-99/A and Ex. PW-99/B).On the basis of Javeds (A-9s) disclosure statement ATS Ahmedabad sent a wireless message Ex.PW-91/A and Ex.PW-91/B on 02.06.1996 to Delhi Police informing them about the possible involvement of A-10, A-9 and Maqbool Butt in the Lajpat Nagar blast.In the wireless message, ATS Ahmedabad also mentioned about delivery of explosives at Wajid Kasais house in Delhi.They used to live in Naya Bazar, Kathmandu.In April 1996, prior to Eid he had seen a bag and an attach (case) in the room they used to reside in.The bag contained gun powder (Barud) and the attach contained a wireless set, detonator, time pencil and remote control.He further stated that Javed Seniors (Javed Kirwas A-15) boss Bilal Beg (A-11), whom he (A-9) had never seen, used to reside in Pakistan.On 29.04.1996, the day of Eid, Julfikar alias Ayub came from Pakistan to Kathmandu and both A-9 and Latif (A-7) went to receive him at the airport (Bilal Beg had told Latif that Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 189 Julfikar had worn a black pant and a yellow colour shirt).A-9 further stated that he asked Zulfikar whether he lives in Pakistan to which Julfikar replied that he is not a citizen of Pakistan and was a resident of Kashmir; he had gone to Pakistan for training.A-9 further stated that he showed Zulfikar the attach and bag and asked him what type of articles were kept in it; Zulfikar replied that they were Time Pencil, Detonator and Remote Control.A-9 knew about the wireless set from before.On 06.05.1996 two more persons came from Pakistan and stayed with them at Kathmandu.Both these persons told Latif (A-7) that nobody should visit their room; A-9 did not know their names.On 08.05.1996 Javed Kirwa (A-15), Mahmood Killey (A-6), Naza (A-5) and Riyaz Moula (A-13) came to Kathmandu (A-9, Latif A-7 and Javed Kirwa A-15) used to work together.In the evening of 08.05.1996 Javed Kirwa (A-15) asked A-9 to accompany him to Delhi alongwith a bag containing gun-powder (barud) and two detonators.On 10.05.1996 Javed Kirwa @ Javed Senior (A-15) had sent Naza (A-5) to Delhi to make arrangements for the blast in Delhi.On the evening of 11.05.1996 A-9, with Javed Kirwa @ Javed Senior (A-15), Mohd. Killey (A-6), Riyaz Maula (A-13) and Javed Soparewala left for Delhi from Kathmandu.In the morning of 12.05.1996 they reached the border.A-9 remained at the border and the rest moved ahead.Javed Kirwa @ Javed Senior (A-15) and Naza (A-5) had asked him (i.e A-9) to leave the bag at Nazas friends house i.e. at Wajid Kasais house (PW-13).The Trial Court, in its impugned judgment, has highlighted - indeed gone into some details - about the prosecutions deficiencies, in examining witnesses, failure to follow leads, and present evidence sufficient to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against all those brought to trial (A-1 to A-10).On an analysis of the evidence, the Trial Court concluded that the materials proved before it were inadequate, as far as four accused were concerned (A-4, A-7, A-8 and A-10).This resulted in their acquittal.So far as A-1 and A-2 were concerned, the Court held that apart from recovery of explosives, there was no material to prove their role as conspirators in the bomb blast; the Court also held that there was no evidence to show that A-1 and A-2 had facilitated, or participated in, movement of materials, resources or in the planning of the crime.The prosecution has miserably failed to justify as to why no TIP of the case property recovered in this case or that of the accused persons arrested in the case conducted from the prosecution witnesses.The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons led the police team at various places during investigation and pointed out various places from where they had arranged articles for preparation of cylinder bomb planted in the maruti car in question.Perusal of the file reveals that number of prosecution witnesses examined by the police during investigation and whose statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution.The police during investigation did not seize relevant record pertaining to the visits/stay of the accused persons in the hotels/guest houses prior to their arrest.Statements of the concerned employees/Managers of the hotels were not recorded.The police did not join the local police at any stage during investigation and did not make any entries of their visits out side Delhi.They were arrested and a personal search was conducted (Ex.PW-16/A and Ex.PW-16/B).Disclosure statement of A-4 was recorded (Ex.PW-16/C) in the Operation Cell.The witness signed it.The Appellant A-3 questioned his arrest, as claimed by the police and submitted that the prosecution did not prove this circumstance.Having regard to this , and the fact that PW- 13 (who is supposed to have been met and been entrusted with explosives, and who in turn disclosed about A-3 to A-9), never supported the prosecution case, the first link in the chain about A-3's involvement in itself is not proved. A-3 therefore argued that his involvement in and further role not having been proved, the prosecution was unable to establish the primary facts as to how he was one of the perpetrators of the crime.Counsel emphasized the fact that this link in the chain of circumstances alleged against A-3 was vital; having snapped it, the prosecution had been dealt with a severe blow at the initial threshold and the Trial Court fell into error in proceeding to hold as it did that he was involved in the bomb blast.It was next argued that one of the reasons for the acquittal of A-4 was based on the ground that the circumstances of his arrest were not proved.In not having done so and having glossed over the fatal infirmities alleged against A-4, which were material and relevant for A-3, the Trial Court fell into error.Although PW-105 deposed about his presence in the railway station, the fact remains that none of the other three witnesses i.e. PW- 16, PW- 39 and PW- 101 mentioned about his appearance during the proceedings at all.The prosecution had alleged that soon after the bomb Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 137 blast, A-3 went missing.However, A-3 was not traceable.In the circumstances, the police kept vigil near his house.There is some other evidence by way of oral testimony of other witnesses to this effect.However, PW- 92 did not support the prosecution.A-3 on the other hand relied upon the testimony of PW- 92 that in fact on 28th of May 1996, he witnessed him (A-3) being taken away by the police.On the basis of this as well as a telegram said to have been sent by a A-3's father, to the National Human rights Commission, it was argued that the arrest in fact never took place on 14-06-996 and was a completely stage-managed affair.The prosecution had almost closed its evidence when an application under Section 311 Cr.PC was moved almost 12 years after the incident, and the testimony of this witness was permitted to be recorded.However, PW-16 did not mention about PW-105's presence.In these circumstances, there is some doubt as to whether PW-105 was present during the arrest and the immediate aftermath.The argument on behalf of A-3 that A-9's confession did not mention him, though attractive, is not relevant, and is inconsequential.A-9s role appears to have been to reach Delhi via Gujarat and hand over the explosives.This seems to be the substance and tenor of his statement made to the Gujarat police immediately after his arrest and in the disclosure statement.Therefore, it was not necessary for him to mention A-3 or his role.For inexplicable reasons, PW- 13 (who was supposed to have been given the explosives, and in turn facilitated the handing over or actually handed them over to the other accused involved in scheming and Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 139 implementing the ghastly crime) was not named as accused.PW- 13 did not support the prosecution story at all during the trial.The court therefore had to deal with this situation.The prosecution had recorded a statement from Wajid during the course of the investigation which mentioned A-3. PW-13 did not support this and he turned hostile during the trial.That would, in this Courts opinion, itself not give a lie to the entire circumstance leading to the possible role of A-9 which may otherwise be independently proved as also the circumstances of his arrest.Recoveries made at the behest of A-3 Naushad from his residence (Circumstance No. 10 - para 181 of the impugned judgment)The Trial Court held that A-3s statement after arrest, i.e. Ex. PW 31/B pursuant to which he led the police team to his residence at P7, First Floor, DDA Flats, Turkman Gate, Delhi from where, he led to the recovery of two RDX bricks (Ex. PW18/64 and 65) in a green polythene bag (Ex. P17); a timer watch (Ex. P8), the iron solder (Ex. P9), a wire Ex.P10, screw driver Ex.P11, pliers Ex. P12, wire cutter Ex. P13, two araldite tubes Ex. P14, electric wire Ex. P15 and one gas cylinder had all been proved.The witnesses who spoke about this circumstance were PW-31, PW-41 and PW-101, who were members of the raiding party.The two RDX slabs were seized pursuant to A-3 leading the police to a room on top of the premises, and pulling it; they were lying under a steel box.Other articles recovered were a timer-watch (Ex. P8), an iron solder (Ex. P9), a wire Ex.P10, screw driver Ex.P11, pliers Ex. P12, wire cutter Ex. P13, two araldite tubes Ex. P14, electric wire Ex. P15 and one gas cylinder.The witnesses mentioned that the raid took place during early hours of 15/6/1996, after A-3s disclosure statement was recorded pursuant to his arrest the previous evening.The prosecution had relied on the testimony of Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 142 PW-92, Abdul Samad, who resiled from the statement recorded during investigation.He also admitted his signatures on the recovery memo.The prosecution version about the circumstances surrounding the recovery of the RDX, in the opinion of the Court, was adequately established.The disclosure statement of A-3 mentioned that those explosives were hidden in his house; he led the police to the place, resulting in the recovery.As far as the testimony of PW-92 goes, undoubtedly he did not support the prosecution.However, he did not deny his signatures on the recovery memo; he also mentioned that A-3 was arrested by the police, but much earlier.Now, even if his testimony were unsupportive of the prosecution, yet two things were not denied by him.These, in the opinion of the Court, lend corroboration to the prosecution witnesses deposition about the recovery of RDX slabs from A-3s premises.Naushads stay at Gorakhpur (Circumstance No. 13 - para 208 of the impugned judgment)The prosecution had sought to prove that A-3 Naushad fled Delhi after the bombing incident, and went to Gorakhpur, where he stayed in Gupta Guest house.The witness recorded the statement of the person from whom he had got the photocopy (Mr Chakarborty).He then went to Gupta Hotel from where he obtained a photocopy of the visitors book (Ex. Pw-40/C which was seized by memo (Ex. PW-40/D) which had the details of Mohd. Naushad.He went back to Gorakhpur on 29.6 1996 with Constable Surinder and seized one original visitors book (Ex. PW-40/1, through recovery memo Ex PW-40/E) from Hotel Gupta (where A3 had stayed) and an original visitors book from Hotel Buddha (where A5 and A6 had allegedly stayed).He recorded the statements of witnesses from where the visitors registers had been seized.He conceded to not having any record of investigations being handed over to him and he could not member if the fact Naushads train reservation was recorded in any document.He said that his statement regarding his investigation in Gorakhpur had not been recorded.He stated that he had obtained only the photocopy of the reservation chart and the witness statement to this effect only stated that that witness had handed over the photocopy to him.He stated that he had not obtained the reservation requisition slip.He said that he had not recorded any reason for not obtaining the original visitors book from the hotel at the first instance.He says that he did not try to verify the handwriting of the accused at Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 144 Gorakhpur; He could not recall the DD of his arrival in Delhi following his trip to Gorakhpur.PW-66 Constable Surinder joined PW-40 on 29.6.1996 in the investigation in Gorakhpur, when they seized the original register which contained Mohd. Naushads name at SI.No. 1283, which contained his name and address, vide seizure memo Ex. PW-66/A. In his cross-examination he admitted that the Serial nos. were not printed, but handwritten.He stated that he could not identify the writing on the register as belonging to Naushad since he was not personally acquainted with the man.The testimonies of PW-82 and PW-83 were also sought to be relied on.PW-82 was the owner of Gupta Hotel and Lodge.His statement pertains to the police having seized the visitors register in which there was an entry with Naushads name in it.PW-83 - Vijay Kumar Gupta the hotel manager of Gupta Hotel, stated that on 27.5.1996 Mohd. Naushad had stayed in the hotel and had made an entry in the Register (SI No. 1285) in his own handwriting.He said that the Police seized the register on 29.6.1996, and that his signature was on the relevant recovery memo (Ex. PW-66/A).The Trial Court, however, did not attach much credence to the alleged handwriting of Naushad on the hotel register, holding that the sample handwritings were not obtained in accordance with established procedure.The interesting feature of this circumstance is that the prosecution did not offer much less prove any departure and arrival memos for investigating Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 145 officers.Despite the fact that over the course of the investigation, the police claimed to have travelled to different parts of the country frequently, in no instance, have records of these been produced as evidence to establish the veracity of their claims.Even in the present circumstance, PW-40 SI Baljit Singh had visited Gorakhpur twice, and PW-66 Const.Surinder traveled there once, they were unable to recall the relevant DD entries recording their movements.Neither was permission sought from the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate to obtain the sample, nor was the sample obtained in the presence of a magistrate, or any public witness.Even if there had been no such irregularities, the expert witness PW-94 was unable to fix the authorship on the basis of comparison between the questioned and test handwritings.This can be gathered from a reading of the opinion, which reads as follows:A.948 to 951/10 Page 146As far as the railway Reservation Chart (Ex. PW40/A) is concerned, the Trial Court held as follows:A 3 has not disputed his name appearing at Serial No.7 in Reservation chart Ex. PW 40/A. No suggestion was put to PW40 SI Baljeet Singh that A3 had not travelled by Shaheed Express on 27/5/1996 from Gorakhpur to Delhi.Genuiness of the chart Ex. PW 40/A was not challenged.""This Court notices that the chart was not proved by any public witness.The railway official from whom the Railway Reservation Chart was taken, (Shri Chakravarthy) was not produced as a witness; even the original chart, or its authenticated or certified copy was not produced; what was placed on record is a photocopy.It would be unsafe to assume that A-3 had in fact undertaken the journey, as alleged by the prosecution.So the railway reservation chart cannot be relied on, since this person has not proved it.PW-82s statement has been believed despite the fact that this witnesss statement pertains only to him having been a witness to the seizure of a photocopy of the visitors book of his hotel, and his statement, as well as the statement of police witnesses PW-40 and 66 seem to have been accepted at face value.PW-83 Vijay Kumar Gupta, a manager at the hotel says that on 27.5.1996 Mohd. Naushad Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 147 had stayed in the hotel and had made an entry in the Register (SI No. 1285) in his own handwriting.However, before this witness can be considered an eyewitness to the stay of A3 in Gorakhpur, it must be kept in mind that despite him having said that he had seen A3 in the hotel on 27.5.1996, he was not, at any point, shown the accused in order to verify his identity, during the trial.The Trial Court however, took the same line here as in the case of PW-40 and PW-66:""Again nothing was suggested to this witness in the cross examination, that A3 had not stayed at Gupta Hotel.A3 did not deny that the writing in the register was not in his hand.""On the basis of the accuseds silence at the time of cross examination, the Trial Court seems to have inferred his guilt.This is a flawed approach, because the question of accuseds silence gaining significance would only arise if the witness who saw them in the hotel, or saw them travel on the train, or some other unimpeachable material, apart from the unverified photocopy of a railway reservation chart, had been produced.It also ignores the failure of the prosecution to match the handwriting of A-3 with the handwriting on the hotel register.The prosecution had alleged that on 19-06-1996, A-3 and A-5 led the police party to a shop M/s. Unique Agencies at 2610, Churiwalan, Delhi from where they had purchased a gas cylinder.This was sought to be proved by PW-31 and PW-36, who both deposed that they went with the accused, who took them to that shop, where the shopkeeper identified them, and a pointing out memo Ex. PW 31/M was prepared, which contained his signatures.The Trial Court first held that the accused did not challenge the two police witnesses testimony, which was an adverse circumstance against them.""334 Prosecution has further examined PW54 Mehmood Kamal as a prosecution witness.In his deposition before the court, the witness admitted that he was running gas agency Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 150 under the name of M/s. Unique Agencies at 2610, Churiwalan, Delhi.The witness further supported the prosecution and deposed that in May, 1996 two persons had come at his shop for purchasing a gas cylinder.The gas cylinder was not available with him on that day.He asked the said two persons to deposit the price of the gas cylinder and to come on the next day to collect the same.Those two persons deposited with him Rs.290/and left on that day.Next date again they came at his shop and he delivered them one empty gas cylinder.This witness further substantiated the police version that on 19/6/1996 some police personnel came at his office and took him at their office at Lodhi Colony.The witness however failed to support the prosecution regarding identification of two persons who had come at his shop and who had purchased the gas cylinders.The witness was got declared hostile by ld.Addl PP for the State and was cross examined.In the cross examination, the witness admitted that his statement was recorded by the police.He further admitted that his signatures appeared on the pointing out memo Ex. PW 31/M at point 'B'.The witness however added that this memo was an already written document.The witness admitted that he had told the names of the said two persons to the police as Mohd. Naushad (A3) and Mirza Nissar Hussain @ Naza (A5).This witness did not allege if he had put his signature under any pressure by the police on the memo Ex.Had these accused persons not taken the police to the shop of PW54 Mehmood Kamal, the police must not have come to know about the names of these two persons as mentioned in the memo Ex. PW 31/M. The name and address of this witness was not known to the police prior to the disclosure statements of these accused persons.The police discovered the factum of this witness running gas agency in the name of M/s. Unique Agencies at 2610, Churiwalan only in pursuance of the disclosure statements made by these accused persons.It, however, stands established that both A3 and A5 in pursuance of their disclosure statements led the police team at the shop of PW 54 Mehmood Kamal.This circumstance also points an accusing finger against A3 and A5 for purchasing gas cylinders from his shop in the absence of any specific purpose.A3 & A5 did not offer any explanation for visiting the shop of PW Mehmood Kamal for purchasing gas cylinder.They did not justify purchase of any such cylinder for any particular purpose.They did not claim their presence on any other place on the day of visit to PW54 Mehmood Kamal.""The Trial Court later concluded that:However, this fact was established by PW31 Insp.Surinder and PW39 Insp.Hari Ram Malik and PW36 Insp.Rajeshwar that it were both A3 and A5 who had taken them to the shop of PW 54 Mehmood Kamal.PW54 Mehmood Kamal in the cross Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 152 examination by the ld.Addl PP for the State however admitted that police had recorded his statement and pointing out memo Ex. PW 31/M contained his signature.In statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C A3 and A5 did not explain this incriminating circumstance against them as to why and for what purpose they had purchased gas cylinders from PW54 Mehmood Kamal.""A plain analysis of the above discussion of evidence would show that PW-54 was unable to identify the accused; he was cross examined by the prosecution.In the cross examination, this witness denied the facts put to him:""It is wrong to suggest that the said two persons had led the police team to my shop on 19/6/1996 and had pointed out my shop as being the place wherefrom they had purchased two gas cylinders.I also did not make any such statement to the police.Confronted with point B to B of Ex. PW-54/A....It is correct that my signatures appear on pointing out memo Ex. PW-31/M at Point B-however this was already written document and was not read over to me when I signed it.It is correct that I had been told the names of the two persons by the police as being Mohd. Naushad and Mirza Nissar Hussain @ Naza....It is incorrect to say that accused Naushad (ld APP points towards accused Naushad) and accused Mirza Nissar Hussain @ Naza (shown to the witness by ld. APP) are the said two persons who had come to my shop on 13-05-1996 and were delivered gas cylinders on 14/5/1996..""It can be seen from the above extract of PW-54s testimony that the Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 153 witness not only failed to identify the accused, he refused that they had gone to his shop.This was his consistent story, both in examination in chief, as well as cross examination by the prosecution.In these circumstances, the Trial Courts inferring that the accused had, in fact, gone to his shop, along with the police on 19-6-1996, and even on 13-5-1996 for purchasing the gas cylinders is unsupportable.Like in the case of the stay of A-3 at Gorakhpur, the Trial Court imposed a reverse burden of proof, and drew adverse inference against the accused, for omission to cross examine PW-31, who merely stated that they had led the police party to the shop of PW-54, from where they had purchased gas cylinders.This is evident from the following excerpt of the Trial Courts judgment:This statement of the witness was not challenged in the cross examination.No suggestion was put to this witness in the cross examination that both these accused persons had not led the police party at the shop of M/s. Unique Agencies.""An interesting fact is that PW-54 was not shown the gas cylinder which was recovered from A-3 Naushads premises, pursuant to his disclosure statement.Though a fairly commonplace article, the prosecution was in a position to put this article for identification during trial; it deliberately omitted to do so; not even a TIP was held in this regard.Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, it is held that the Trial Court fell into error in holding that the pointing out of M/s Unique Agencies, from where two gas cylinders were supposedly bought by A-3 and A-5, were proved.The Court also fell into error in completely ignoring the contradictory statement of PW-54, who did not, during the trial, at any stage, identify the accused.The evidence here was akin to those circumstances Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 154 which the Trial Court consciously rejected, whenever the prosecution based its case, solely on the testimony of police witnesses.For these reasons, it is held that Circumstance No. 30 alleged against A-3 and A-5 was not proved.Pointing out of Shop from where soldering was made (Circumstance No. 28 para 309 of the impugned judgment)PW-31 deposed that Naushad and Killey pointed out to Vijay Electronics on 19.06.1996 as the place from where they got the wires soldered to the battery.With respect to Imperial Gramaphone Company he said that the accused pointed out to this shop as the place from where the Jayco wall clock was purchased.PW-39 Inspector Hari Ram Malik corroborated PW-31 to say that they pointed out to Imperial Gramaphone Company, where they had purchased the soldering iron and that a pointing out memo was prepared and the shop owner signed on the same.PW-58 Jitender Pal Singh, the owner of the electronics store Imperial Sound and Service deposed that on 19.6.1996, the police went to his shop along with two people and told him that one soldering iron and solder had been purchased by the two people who had come with them.He said that he could remember these two people who had purchased the same from him and had made a statement to this effect to the police.He said the items were sold for Rs. 35/-.He even stated that he could identify the two persons if shown to him, but when they were shown to him, in a group of ten accused persons, he said that due to the passage of time he was unable to identify them.This witness was cross examined by the ld.Addl PP for State after declaring him hostile.In his cross examination by the ld.Addl PP, the witness admitted that the police had recorded his statement.The witness further admitted that the said two persons had come with muffled faces and they were seen by him when their faces were unmuffled in his presence by the police.He further admitted that he had told the police that the said two persons had come at his shop and purchased a soldering iron and solder wire from his shop.The witness further stated that A3 present before the court today might be Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 156 one of the two persons.However he could not say anything about the other accused A5 as having come to the shop for the above said purchase.The witness further admitted that the pointing out memo Ex. PW 31/K was prepared on which he signed at point 'B'.The witness stated that he could identify the soldering iron purchased from his shop if shown to him.The witness identified the soldering iron Ex. Z1after it was shown to him before the court.********** ******************Scanning the over all testimony of this witness reveals that soldering iron Ex. Z1 recovered by the police in this case from the residence of A3 was identified by this witness to be the same which was purchased from his shop for a sum of Rs. 35/- There is no denial that this independent public witness was not running his electronics spare parts shop at stall no. 8A in the name and style of Imperial Sound and Service.Statement of the witness is also categorical that both these accused persons were brought by the police in muffled faces at his shop in a police vehicle.Their faces were unmuffled and the accused persons were shown to the witness.He had informed the police that the said two persons brought at his shop on19/6/1996 had purchased the soldering iron and solder from his shop.The names of these two accused persons find mention in the pointing out / identification memo Ex. PW 31/K. This witness has categorically identified his signatures on Ex. PW 31/K which has not been challenged by the accused persons.No suggestion was put to this witness in the cross examination that both these accused persons had not come at his shop on 13/5/1996 and had not purchased any soldering iron and solder from his shop for Rs. 35/.No motive was imputed to this witness to falsely plead that both these accused persons whose names were disclosed as A3 and A5 had accompanied the police at his shop.Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 157Accused persons did not explain how and for what purpose they happened to purchase soldering iron and solder from the shop of this witness.There is no denial by the accused persons that soldering iron Ex. Z1 was not recovered from their possession or that it was never purchased from PW 58 Jitender Pal Singh.Police was not aware about the shop of the witness prior to the two accused persons leading the police party at his shop.Only after both these accused persons led the police party to the shop of this witness, the police came to know that they had purchased the soldering iron and solder from his shop.The existence of the shop at that specific place has not been controverted by the accused persons.The Trial Courts findings depended largely on the failure to cross examine the witness, and what was elicited from him during the cross examination by the prosecution.The Court did not focus on the inability of the witness to identify either accused.There is also no material on record to suggest that the soldering iron was of a distinctive nature or make, as to be dubbed an uncommon or out of the ordinary article, which the witness could have identified, especially since he dealt with and sold such articles in a routine manner.This circumstance therefore, was not proved against the accused, and the Trial Courts reasoning and findings are, therefore, erroneous on this aspect.The recovery of a key was discussed as Circumstance No. 26 in paras 291-295 of the impugned judgment.The prosecution had alleged that on 18.06.1996, A-3, A-5 and A-6 led the police party to a place behind the Nizamuddin ITI Bus Stand from where at Arab-ki-Sarai, a key was recovered.The prosecution alleged that the key had been prepared at Jama Masjid and was seized under Memo, Ex.31/F. The key was alleged to be a duplicate one in respect of the stolen Maruti Car, placed on record as Ex.The prosecution had entirely relied on the police testimonies of PWs-31,39 and 101 for this purpose.The Trial Court had rejected this circumstance, i.e. Recovery of duplicate key, stating as follows:On screening the testimony of prosecution witnesses on this aspect, again, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove if duplicate key, Ex.P-7 was got recovered by the accused persons in pursuance of their disclosure statement or that it was the key which was used at the time of commission of theft of Maruti Car belonging to PW-8 - Atul Nath.......Moreover, as per prosecution, this duplicate key was got prepared from PW-64, Mohd. Rizwan at Jama Masjid.PW-64, Mohd. Rizwan appeared in the witness box.He turned hostile regarding preparation of duplicate key.The key (Ex.P7) was not shown to PW-64 to prove that it was the same key which was got prepared by the accused persons from him.""In the light of the above reasoning, the Trial Court rejected this circumstance and also added that the absence of any public witness to support the recovery did not lent credence to the prosecution version in this regard.On analysis of circumstances discussed at S. No. 9, Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 159 10, 23, 26, 30, 31, 32 and 46(C), and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that A-3 along with his associates not only hatched criminal conspiracy to cause bomb blast at Lajpat Nagar Market, Delhi but also actively participated in procuring various articles to execute the plan.""This Court is of the opinion that ex-facie, the approach of the Trial Court pertaining to Circumstance No. 26 in holding in one part of the judgment that the prosecution had not proved its allegation, and concluding to the contrary while summing-up the incriminating evidence against the accused, is unsupportable.It was alleged that on 17.06.1996, A-4 led the police party to the house of Mangal Chand at BJ-24, Shalimar Bagh and on the production of a two rupee currency note, cash of Rs.1 lac was obtained from him.The cash was seized.The two rupee currency note had been seized earlier.The recovery of Rupees one lac in cash from Mangal Chand, which according to the prosecution, was obtained after showing a two rupee currency note to Mangal Chand, was part of the sequence which started with the arrest of A-4, who pointed-out A-7; two Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 160 rupee currency note was seized from A-7 and A-4 led the police party to Shalimar Bagh where the currency was recovered.The Trial Court concluded in para 542 that this circumstance had to be held against A-3 for the following reasons:Prosecution has proved recovery of Rs. one lakh by A4 from Mangal Dass.This money was meant for A3.Only A3 was beneficiary as A4 had accompanied him on 14/6/1996 to go to Gorakhpur where both were apprehended.A3 did not explain presence of A4 with him.He did not assert if money collected by A4 was not meant for him.This circumstance also is at par with the contents of disclosure statement made by him.""He, A-4 and SI Sanjay Kumar went inside the home. A-4 gave two rupee currency note to Mangal Chand, who verified it and gave Rupees one lac currency note in another bag.At that stage, other police staff reached the premises and seized the two rupee currency note and the one lac rupee currency which was kept under seal ""RPG"".The seizure memos were Ex.PW-17A and 17C. The currency notes were produced before the Court.The prosecution nowhere mentioned that A-3 was taken with the police party and either identified by Mangal Chand or PW-35 did not produce any identification in the form of an Employment or Voter Identification Card.In the cross-examination, what emerged was that summons was sent by the Court to his Sonepat, Haryana address.The appellant had urged that there were no details of that address in the list of witnesses filed together with the charge-sheet.The witness, in the course of his statement submitted that he never mentioned he had office at Shalimar Bagh nor resided there.His testimony, in this regard, can only be seen by the Court as regards the alleged handing-over of the seal to him.PW-17, SI Sanjay supported the recovery.Furthermore, and most importantly, the prosecution made no attempt to produce Mangal Chand from whom the amount - alleged to be payable and in fact held to be payable to A-3, was recovered.If so, Mangal Chands role was, at least, as one of a facilitator; and at no stage did the prosecution attempt to explain why he was not interrogated or taken into custody.All these have to be viewed in the backdrop of the somewhat startling conclusion drawn by the Trial Court in para 251 that the recovery of Rupees one lac was an incriminating circumstance against A-3, Naushad ""despite the fact that it was at the instance of A-4 and on the showing of two rupee currency note allegedly recovered from A-7.""The following conclusion was drawn by the Trial Court on the basis of such material:Death Sent.2/10; Crl.From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses referred above it stands established that A4 in pursuance of his disclosure statement obtained Rs. 1 lac from Mangal Chand residing at BJ24, Shalimar Bagh on the strength of two rupee currency note shown to him.The police was not aware about all these facts prior to A4 leading the police team at that specific place.A4 has failed to explain as to how and under what circumstances, he was to get Rs. 1 lac from Mangal Chand.He also failed to explain as to for what purpose, he had collected the heavy amount from Mangal Chand.Memo Ex. PW 17/C contains signature of Mangal Chand which shows that Mangal Chand was residing at the given address.Obtaining of Rs. 1 lac by A4 from Mangal Chand substantiates the story presented by the prosecution that Rs. 1 lac collected from Mangal Chand were meant to be received by A3 for his role in the incident.""The conclusion of the Trial Court in the above regard is not only on the basis of any evidence but it appears to be entirely on hearsay.This can be clearly seen from the discussion with regard to the role of A-7, appearing at paras 596-602 of the impugned judgment.In para 597 it was in fact stated that:This occurrence took place on 16/6/1996 when conspiracy to cause bomb blast had already came to an end.Prior to 21/5/1996 no active participation of A7 in the incident has been brought on record.It could have been given even by one person.This version of the prosecution has not been believed in the circumstances referred above.Even if it is assumed that A7 had delivered two rupee currency note to A4 on 16/6/1996, it does not establish him to be a member of conspiracy to cause bomb blast on 21/5/1996 at Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 163 Delhi which was no more in existence.The testimony of PW-35 nowhere reveals that at any stage was Mangal Chand questioned as to whom the money was meant to be given to.Even if he were to have implicated A-3, without the primary evidence of Mangal Chand, PW-35 could not have proved that fact.All that could have been concluded was that at the instance of A-4, two rupee currency note was shown to Mangal Chand, who handed-over Rupees one lac.This fact was disbelieved by the Trial Court, in paras 596 to 602 of the impugned judgment.The Trial Court also held that the post-event recovery of something not connected with A-7 could not be attributed to A-7 or held to be incriminating as against him.Similarly, it also concluded in respect of A-4 that the conclusion of the amount could not be held as incriminating against that accused (A-4), in the following manner:Since Mangal Dass was not directly known to A4, collection of Rs. 1 lakh by him only on the strength of two rupee currency note is not a factor to prove his involvement in the incident.Anybody having a currency note of Re. two could have got the cash from PW Mangal Dass.In the absence of any material, there was no basis for the police to arrest A4 in this incident.The prosecution had alleged 17 circumstances - 15 against A-5 Naza.These were:Now, their testimonies are in direct conflict with that of PW-60; that witness could not identify any accused as the purchaser; he said in the cross examination after being declared hostile that he was not sure whether the two accused had visited his shop.The Trial Court, however, held that since the witness admitted that when the two accused persons pointed out his shop and identified him, police prepared memo Ex. PW 31/L and he signed the same at point 'B'.It was also held that:""Overall testimony of this witness reveals that no material discrepancies have been elicited in the cross examination of this witness to discard his version given before the court.Nothing has come on record to show that this independent public witness did not run his shop under the name and style of Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 170 Ganesh Electronics at shop no. 21 Jangpura.This witness categorically testified that on 21/5/1996 two persons had purchased 9 volt battery from him for a sum of Rs. 95/-.No enmity has been imputed to this witness for falsely claiming sale of 9 volt battery from him for Rs. 95/. Again this witness is categorical that on 19/6/1996 police had brought two persons at his shop and one of them had identified his shop from where 9 volt battery was purchased.This witness pointed out towards A5 to be one of the said accused persons and did not identify the other accused who had accompanied him.This witness has no ulterior motive to falsely identify A5 to be the person who had purchased 9 volt battery from him.This witness elaborated his version and voluntarily stated that the two persons were brought in the maruti van at his shop and the said persons were in muffled faces.When the said two persons were unmuffled, he was asked whether they had purchased the battery from his shop and he replied that when the said persons were saying that they had purchased the battery from his shop, they might be correct.He further admitted that out of those two persons, A5 might had purchased the battery from him.However, in the subsequent cross examination, the witness cleared the doubt and asserted that he had told the police that the above named two accused persons pointed out his shop and identified him.The police prepared the memo Ex. PW 31/L and he had signed the same at point 'B' and the above named two accused persons had also signed the said memo.No suggestion has been put in the cross examination that memo Ex. PW 31/L was not prepared at his shop or that the accused persons did not sign the same.Accused persons have failed to state as to how and under what circumstances, their signatures appeared on the pointing out memo Ex. PW 31/L. These signatures of both these accused persons on the pointing out memo Ex. PW 31/L in the presence of PW60 Rajesh Kumar categorically establishes that both of them had led the police team to the shop of PW 60 Rajesh Kumar and had pointed out the shop from where they had purchased 9 volt battery.Again this fact was not in the knowledge of the police prior to the accused persons taking the Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 171 police party to the shop of PW60 Rajesh Kumar in pursuance of their disclosure statements.Case of the prosecution is that this battery was used in the bomb blast.This Court is of the opinion that the witnesses doubt regarding A-5 and inability to identify the other accused, and his volte face, renders his testimony that they had led the police to his shop, shaky.Though in the examination in chief, the witness mentioned about purchase of battery from his shop by two individuals, his inability to identify either clearly, during the trial undermines the prosecution story.He had also stated that one of the buyers had a ""massa"" on his face (i.e. a scar or birthmark).The prosecution did not attempt to connect this aspect with either accused; the Trial Court also overlooked this fact.Like in the case of other circumstances, such as purchase of gas cylinder, purchase of araldite, pointing out by the shop keeper of ""Dulhan Dupatta"" etc, the primary fact is the identification of the accused concerned, as the individuals who went to the shop to buy the article, on some day prior to the incident.This was to establish a link in the chain of circumstances, which tied up to the various act preparatory to the offence itself.The absence of positive identification nevertheless led the court to hold as proved - in our view erroneously, that the accused had led them to a place which was hitherto unknown to the police, and from where the shopkeeper made some kind of identification, which was not refuted during cross examination, which in turn resulted in their involvement in the crime.The law is not concerned with proof of possibility of involvement, Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 172 which is all that the prosecution achieved through such evidence, but proof beyond reasonable doubt, i.e. such proof as would rule out all controversy or doubt that these accused did what was alleged against them, in respect of such circumstance.Reliance on the accuseds signatures, on the pointing out memo, in the absence of their clear identification, in the courts opinion, could not have been resorted to, to implicate them.(ii) Pointing-out of the place from where soldering of battery was done (Circumstance No.28)The prosecution had alleged that sometime in 1996, A-5 and A-6 had visited the shop of PW-38, Vijay Kapoor, and asked that two wires be soldered to a battery.He stated that the soldering was done for Rs. 5/-.He also stated that a month later, the accused had gone to his shop, and identified it, a fact which was recorded in Ex. PW13/N. In cross examination, this witness stated that his signatures were taken on blank paper, and that the memo was written in the Lodhi Office of the police.He also admitted not remembering how many customers had visited his shop that day, and further that his employee did the soldering requested for.Unlike in the case of other circumstances, the witness in this case was able to identify one of the accused (A-5) positively during examination in chief.However, his admission that the pointing out memo was prepared somewhere else, and that he signed on blank papers, was not contradicted.His further admission that he could not remember how many customers visited him the same day further weakens proof of this circumstance.The Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 173 absence of any date approximate period, further injects some vagueness into the evidence.The identification of A-5 has to be viewed in the backdrop of all these facts, which point to his unreliability, and having been tutored by the police.Here, a TIP would have been crucial, in lending assurance to the fact alleged, since the prosecution case is that this circumstance was to prove an act preparatory to the crime, and intrinsically connected with its execution.On an overall conspectus of the materials on the record, it is held that this circumstance was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, by the prosecution.(iii) Pointing out of the shop from where a clock was purchased (Circumstance No 29).To prove this, reliance was placed on the testimonies of PW-50 and PW-48. PW-48 Parmod Kumar during his examination stated that one person aged 19-20 years had visited his shop and had purchased a wall clock; he identified A-7 Latif.He was declared hostile by the prosecution; at its behest, during cross examination by the prosecutor, the witness deposed:""...it is wrong to say that the said two persons were in muffled faces, when they came to the shop with the police and that their faces got unmuffled after their arrival to the shop for getting them identified from me and that I had identified the said two persons on being the same who had come to the shop on 14.5.1996 for purchasing the wall clock.I did not make any statement to \the police.It is wrong to say that I had made a statement mark PW-48/A to the police.The witness is read over mark PW-48/A which he denied having made to the police.Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 174 ""... It is wrong to say that the said three persons had come to the shop for the purchase of the wall clock."""".... It is wrong to say that the accused Mirza Nisar Hussain and Mohd. Ali Bhatt @ Mohd. Killey (accused shown to the witness by Ld. APP) were the person who led the police team to the shop.It is wrong to say that I am deliberately not identifying the accused persons out of fear or having been worn over by them and deposing falsely.....""The prosecution also relied upon PW-50 Yogesh Kumar Gupta to prove the said circumstance.PW-50 Yogesh Kumar Gupta deposed during his examination in chief that:During the cross examination of PW-50 Yogesh Kumar Gupta by Ld. APP, it was stated by the witness that:""... I cannot admit or deny whether accused Mirza Nisar Hussain @ Nasa and Mohd. Ali Bhatt @ Mohd. Killey (witness is shown and pointed out these two accused by Ld. APP) were the same two boys who had led police team to my shop on 19.6.1996......""The Trial Court, after noticing that the shop owner could not identify A-5 or A-6 as the two individuals who went to his shop to purchase a wall clock, for which a receipt was issued by PW-48 (recovery Memo PW-31/G) nevertheless held that they had taken the police to his shop, where they had stated that the purchase was made:This witness has nevertheless proved that on 19/6/1996 the police had brought two persons at his shop and theyhad told Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 175 about the purchase of wall clock from his shop.This witness also proved his signatures on the recovery memo Ex PW-31/G. He has admitted his signatures on the pointing out memo ExPW 31/H. This witness further admitted that the names of those two boys who had come at his shop on 19/6/1996 were mentioned in the memo and he had signed that memo after reading the same.""Similarly, the Trial Court did not feel it strange to return a similar finding, with regard to appreciation of PW-48s evidence:It further stands established that on 19/6/1996 two persons whose names were disclosed as A5 and A6 had led the police team to the shop of the witness and had pointed out that it was the same shop from where they had purchased the wall clock.The statement of the witness was corroborated from the documentary evidence whereby sale receipt Ex. PW 48/A was issued out of the receipt book Ex. G1 which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 31/G. This testimony of this witness substantiates the version of the prosecution that on 19/6/1996 both A5 and A6 had led the police team to the shop of PW48 Pramod Kumar from where they had purchased the Jayco wall clock.No suggestion was put to this witness in the cross examination that these two accused persons had not led the police team to the shop of the witness or that they had not purchased any Jayco wall clock from him.The prosecution had thus established that the Jayco wall clock was purchased from the shop of PW48 Pramod Kumar and PW50 Yogesh Kumar Gupta on 14/5/1996....""In the opinion of this Court, when both these independent witnesses, in the first instance, failed to identify the accused concerned, i.e. A-5 and A-6, who had allegedly visited the shop to purchase the clock, and one of Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 176 these witnesses, i.e. PW-48, identified someone else, the Court ought not to have drawn the inference based solely on the signatures in the ""Pointing-out Memo"", that the fact stood established.The shop owner, i.e. PW-50 was consistent in his omission or failure to identify the accused; PW-48 not only did not identify them but even went one step further and positively identified A-7 as the only individual who had gone to the shop and purchased the clock.The conclusion based on the fact that the witnesses had signed Ex.PW-31/G and Ex.PW-31/H, goes beyond the permissible limits of what can be considered by a Court under Section 27 of the Act read with proviso to Section 162 of the Cr.PC.Neither PW-50 nor his shop assistant, PW-48, corroborated this.Their failure to identify the accused was constituted as fatal blow to the prosecution allegations in this regard.In such circumstances, to seize the clutch at the pointing-out memo, in order to say that the said accused had led the police party to the shop and that in turn established the incriminating circumstance, was impermissible.Once the preliminary fact, i.e. purchase of the object or article from the shop by the accused could not be established, the secondary aspect that such accused had led the police party to the shop became irrelevant, under no circumstances did that secondary fact link the accused to the offence.(iv) Regarding A-5's travel from Kathmandu to Delhi (Circumstance No. 36).The prosecution had alleged that A-5 had travelled from Kathmandu Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 177 to Delhi before the bomb blast at Lajpat Nagar.He also identified the list as Ex.67/A. That list contained A-5s name.The IO of the case, PW-101 also deposed to this and further, seizure of A-5s Boarding Card which was marked and produced as Ex.The Trial Court in its findings (in paras 379-381) upheld the prosecution allegations.""In the evening of 8th May itself Javed Senior had asked me to accompany (him) to Delhi along with the bag containing gun powder (barood) and two detonators.Thereafter on 10th May, Javed Senior had sent Naza to Delhi, who had to make a setting for blast in Delhi.""(c) Circumstances alleged against A-6The Trial Court had analysed the evidence which included depositions of police witnesses as well as independent witnesses and took into consideration materials such as seizure memos, articles etc. and in the impugned judgment held that several circumstances alleged against A-6 Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 178 were not proved.The only surviving circumstance which has to be considered by this Court is the factum of A-6s arrest.In regard to this circumstance, the Trial Court relied on the discussion made by it vis--vis the arrest of A-7 who was alleged to have been along with A-6 at Gorakhpur; the Trial Court held that:Arrest of A-7 on 16/17-6-1996 in the manner claimed by the prosecution has not been believed by the Court as discussed above.Similarly apprehension of A-6 along with A-7 in the said circumstances cant be believed.(d) Circumstances alleged against A-9 JavedAs far as A-9 is concerned, the Trial Court discussed the evidence in respect of Circumstances No. 34 (Confessional statement); his stay at Satyam Hotel (No. 35) and his arrest (Circumstance No. 40) and held that all those circumstances were proved.(i) Arrest of A-9: Circumstance No. 40The prosecution had alleged that the Gujarat Police received information, sometime in May, 1996 about two individuals, i.e Asadullah and Rashid crossing the border at Nepal and entering India, and ultimately going to Ahmedabad to carry out a bomb explosion there.The State police, on receipt of information, started searching the city.He deposed that the police conducted a search, and eventually arrested Javed (A-9) and Asadullah (A-10) on 1-6-1996, along with the other two, near Rupali Cinema.He identified Javed Khan (A-9) and pointed to another accused and identified him as Asadullah (A-10), however the accused says his name was Abdul Gunny Goni to which the witness stated that Asadullah was one of the aliases of Abdul Gunny Goni.The Appellants counsel had argued that A-9s arrest did not take place on 1-6-1996 and that, in reality, he was taken into custody much earlier, on 24-5-1996, and kept in illegal detention.A-9 no doubt says this, in the statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. PC.However, the testimonies of PW-98 and PW-99 are consistent on this aspect.The appellants allegation of having been arrested on 24-5-1996 was not put to PW-99, who deposed about the arrest.After the Ahmedabad police arrested Javed (A-9), Asadullah (A-10), Maqbool Butt and Rashid on 01.06.1996 from near Rupali Cinema, Ahmedabad, A-9 and A-10 made disclosure statements before PW-99 B.M. Rajvanshi (Ex.PW-99/A and Ex. PW-99/B).Javed (A-9) in his disclosure statement mentioned about his involvement in the Lajpat Nagar blast and mentioned the name of all the accused persons except for Naushad (A-3).He stated visiting the house of Wajid Kasai (PW-13) on 14.05.1996 and leaving a bag containing explosives with his (PW-13s) sister for Naza (A-5).On receipt of the wireless message from Ahmedabad, on 02.06.1996 itself Insp.Paras Nath (PW-101) went to Wajid Kasais (PW-13s) house at Turkman Gate, Delhi and made enquiries from PW-13 and his sister Pappe (PW-14).A.948 to 951/10 Page 188It was alleged that A-9 was taken from Ahmedabad to Jaipur, where he was kept in connection with a bomb blast at Dausa, Rajasthan.The confessional statement made by A-9 was proved by PW-100, the Magistrate.A-9 further stated that when he reached Wajids house, Wajid and Naza (A-5) were not there and only women and children were present there.A-9 asked them to give the bag to Naza (A-5) and told them that it contained Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 190 Nazas clothes.Javed Kirwa @ Javed Senior (A-15), Mohd. Killey (A-6) and Riyaz (A-13) had reached Kathmandu before him.A-9 further stated that on his asking about the task in Delhi, they replied ""that Naza (A-5) had been given after making the same and Riyaz Maula (A-13) was the mechanic because only he was the trained person."" On 19.05.1996, Mohd. Killey (A-6) and Riyaz (A-13) went back to Delhi and Javed Kirwa @ Javed Senior (A-15) informed A-9 that the work in Delhi had not been done due to some defect.A-9 further stated that earlier on 06.05.1996 two persons had come from Pakistan and their names were Asadullah (A-10) and Rashid (he came to know of their names later).A-9 further stated that on reaching Mumbai, Asadullah (A-10) told them that they were to go to Ahmedabad and in the evening at 8:30 PM the four of them left for Ahmedabad and reached it on 24.05.1996 at 12:00 PM.A-9 further stated that on reaching Ahmedabad they went to a hotel, had a bath and then had their meal.Asadullah (A-10) and Rashid both left for Namaz whereas A-9 and Julfikar stayed back; 15 minutes later CBI officials and the manager of the hotel came to the room and conducted a search.At about 4/5:00 PM Asadullah (A-10) and Rashid came to the hotel from where the CBI officials took all of them and interrogated them.A-9 further stated that he told them that he had gone upto Patna only and he did not know anything Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 191 and did not have any knowledge regarding other things.He further stated that he only brought the bag to Delhi and there Javed Kirwa @ Javed Senior (A-15) informed him about the blast; Javed Kirwa @ Javed Senior (A-15) had himself done all the work regarding the blast on the basis of planning of Bilal Beg.A-9 further stated that he did not know anything about any other blast.The first three were awarded death sentence; A-9 was awarded life imprisonment.It would be relevant at this stage to extract the relevant parts of the Trial Courts judgment:At no Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 202 stage the police opted to put any of the accused persons for TIP from the prosecution witnesses.No DD entries regarding any such visits was proved on record during trial.The police failed to show by documentary evidence their visits to specific places.The accused arrested from outside Delhi were never produced before the concerned Court and no transit remand of any of the accused was obtained creating doubt of the date, place and the manner in which the accused persons were apprehended and arrested in this case.Number of witnesses cited in the list of witnesses were not examined by the prosecution during trial.Insp./ACP P.P. Singh is stated to be the overall incharge of the investigation.Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 203 However, at the first instance, he did not bother to appear as witness before the Court.Only when application u/s 311 Cr.No memos contain signatures of PW-105 ACP PP Singh.P.P. for the State during trial and specifically during final arguments always complained about non-cooperation from the IO of the case.He expressed his inability to address arguments in detail due to non-cooperation from the IO.No efforts were made during the last about more than 14 years to apprehend the co-accused persons against whom challan was presented as Proclaimed Offenders.Antecedent of none of the accused was collected by the police during investigation.In the disclosure statement of the accused persons, the police had come to know about the details of the antecedents of the accused persons and also regarding their various activities.However, no independent evidence was collected by the prosecution to substantiate the information recorded in the disclosure statements of the accused persons.No worthwhile evidence was collected by the police to show the activities of these accused persons prior to the incident and to find out as to in how many similar cases they were involved or any of them was ever convicted at any time.""The Trial Court, as noticed from the extracts of its judgment, faulted the investigation with defective presentation of evidence, and omissions in regard to proof of allegations.A close reading of the impugned judgment itself would reveal that obvious inferences about lack of credibility of witnesses, in regard to circumstances, or general unreliability of prosecution in that regard, on specific aspects such as identification were glossed over, and superficially explained.These, in the opinion of this Court, point to a flawed understanding of ""proof beyond reasonable doubt"" in a criminal trial.The deficiencies are highlighted below, in respect of lack of identification of Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 204 accused by independent witnesses and use of signatures on memos (pointing out memos) as proof that the accused had led the police to a certain place, despite the failure of independent witnesses to identify the concerned accused.Gupta Hotel, at Gorakhpur.Furthermore, the passenger list of the train was not produced; only a photocopy was produced.Even the concerned witness, Shri Chakravarthy, did not depose during the trial.The Court did not believe the handwriting report; it does not anywhere corroborate that the sample writings of A-3 matched with that in the hotel register.All these omissions were overlooked and the Trial Court held that the prosecution proved the circumstance alleged.(b) The prosecution failed to examine Mangal Chand, who had given A-4 Rs. One lakh, on the latters showing the Rs. 2 currency note; this was to prove the incriminating circumstance against A-3 and the allegation that he was to receive such money for illegal purposes.The prosecution neither arrested Mangal Chand, who was prima facie an accessory to the crime; according to its showing; no explanation was offered in this regard.It did not even choose to examine him, or record his statement.This crucial omission was not given any weightage, and the Trial Court uncritically accepted the prosecution version that the money recovered was meant for A-3; no witness - neither independent witness, PW-35, nor even any other Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 205 witness - spoke about it.(c) A-3 was sought to be identified by PW-61, shop owner of ""Dulhan Dupatta"".The witness did not identify A-3; even after he was declared hostile, he denied the incident of A-3s visit during investigation.The witness however did not identify others - A-5 and A-6 even during the prosecutions cross examination.In spite of these obvious infirmities, and question mark about the credibility of the witness, as regards identification, the Trial Court whole heartedly accepted the police version.(d) PW-60, a shop owner, did not identify A-5 and A-6 in examination in chief, as the two individuals who had purchased a battery from him.He stated - in cross examination by prosecution that A-5 ""might be"" one of the two, purchasing a battery from him.Yet, this was accepted as proof of identification of the accused.(e) Similarly, the statement by PW-38 that A-6 ""might have"" been one - (along with A-5, whom he identified) as the individual who got soldering of wires done.(f) The statement of PW-48 regarding purchase of clock by A-7 (and not A-5 or A-6).He did not identify these two; yet his testimony was used against them.(2) Using signatures on pointing-out/recovery memos as incriminating circumstance.Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 206The previous discussion in this judgment would reveal that a large number of independent prosecution witnesses did not support the official version; they resiled from the statements made during investigation, and were declared hostile, and cross examined by the prosecution (these were PW-33, 48, 50, 58, 60, 61 and 92).The Trial Court noticed these facts, but went on to hold that the signatures of such witnesses in ""Recovery Memos"" or ""Pointing out"" memos were not denied, and consequently the statement recorded in Section 161 - about secondary facts that one or the other accused had visited the premises of such witness, during the investigation, had not been denied; consequently, the fact was proved, and that, in turn, was an incriminating circumstance.These instances are detailed below.(b) The statement of PW-50 - who could not identify A-5 or A-6 (alleged to have purchased a wall clock from him) ""nevertheless"" was used as establishing purchase of a wall clock ""by two boys"" (Ref.Para 324, impugned judgment) and that PW-50 had ""no enmity to make false deposition against the accused in this regard."" Proof of his signatures on Memos PW-31/G and PW-31/H were held corroborative and incriminating as to the fact that police had taken PW-5 and PW-6 to his shop during investigation.(c) PW-48s failure to identify A-5 or A-6 - who purchased a wall clock, and his identification of A-7 was nevertheless interpreted as incriminating A-5 and A-6 because of seizure memo, Ex.31/G.The Court noticed (para 335) that the witness ""failed to support the prosecution regarding identification."" Yet, the Court inferred, on the basis of the Memo, Ex. PW-31/M, signed by PW-54 on the basis of its observation that ""no suggestion was put to this witness in the cross-examination that both the accused persons had not led the police party to his shop"", (para 337) and that though the witness ""opted not to support the prosecution on material circumstance"", yet, ""it stands established"" that A-3 and A-5 ""led the police team to the shop of PW-54"" (para 337).(e) Similarly, the failure of PW-64 to identify A-3 and A-5 as those who got a duplicate key made, was ignored and the circumstance that the said accused had led the police to the witnesss shop, during investigation, when he allegedly identified them, was based on his signatures on PW-31/J.(f) PW-58 - from whom the prosecution alleged that A-3 and A-5 had purchased a solder iron - did not identify the accused in Court.He was arrested on 14th June.The recovery of lethal explosives, similar to the kind which resulted in the explosion at Lajpat Nagar, was not explained by him.Although other conspirators, such as Javed Kirawa and Bilal Beg were not tried, and there is no direct evidence forthcoming about A-3s role in the blast, the circumstances proved are sufficient to establish Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 227 that he was a conspirator, who intended to aid such crimes.Their appeals (Crl.Appeal Nos.950/2010 and 951/2010 filed by Mirza Nissar Hussain @ Naza and Mohammed Ali Bhatt Death Sent.2/10; Crl.A.948 to 951/10 Page 230 @ Kille) are allowed.The conviction and sentences as against A-9 are sustained.His appeal i.e. Crl.","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"ORDER S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.This is an appeal by State.The four respondents were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 304, I.P.C. by the trial Court.It is alleged that Ramesh Chander, the second respondent herein, who is armed with the firearm shot dead the deceased persons.He set up a plea of self-defence.The trial Court, however, convicted all the appellants and sentenced three of them to undergo imprisonment for life but Ramesh Chandra, however, was sentenced to death.The High Court which heard the appeals filed by the accused as well as the confirmation of the case acquitted three of the respondents.So far as the accused Ramesh Chandra is concerned the High Court took the view that he has exceeded the right of self-defence and accordingly convicted him under Section 304, Part 1, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.In this appeal the State has questioned the judgment of the High Court on the ground that all the four respondents ought to have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The prosecution case is as follows:The respondent Suresh Chandra is the Pradhan of village Maagdapur and has a licensed pistol.The second respondent Ramesh Chandra is his brother and had a licensed rifle.Shyam Sunder, father of the third respondent also had a licensed gun.There were dispute in respect of an auction for the fishery rights between the first respondent and the deceased.Three days before the incident the deceased and his two sons and P.W. I went to respondent No. 2 with their money a bid amount.There was exchange of harsh words between them.On 3-10-76 the deceased and his three sons including P.W. 1 went to the market for purchasing some foodgrains.About 4.00 P.W. when PWs.1 and 2 were also there all the four appellants came there armed with weapons.The first respondent abused the deceased and he grappled with him.At this juncture, on the exhortation of the other respondents Ramesh Chandra shot the three deceased persons.The High Court acquitted the three of the respondents mainly on the ground that they did not play any role and that Section 34 cannot be applied in their case.Now coming to the case of Ramesh Chandra, the High Court has accepted the right of private defence set up by him.In any event he was convicted under Section 304, Part I and was awarded life sentence.This is an appeal against an acquittal and we see no good ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This petition has been filed for the relief of direction, directing the second respondent to release the buses of the petitioner bearing Registering Nos.NL01B1408 and NL01B1409, within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court.2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent police without considering the actual occurrence happened earlier, based on the false complaint given by the Thasildhar, without any enquiry registered the case in Crime No. 433 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 269, 271, 465, 468, 471, 484 and 420 IPC r/w Section 3 of the Epidemic Act and Section 51 of Disaster Management Act. As of now, during the time of investigation, the buses bearing Registration Nos.NL01B1408 and NL01B1409 are recovered by the respondent police and kept in the Police Station, without any safety and security.Hence, it is necessary to direct the respondent police to produce the buses and hand over the same to the petitioner, since the petitioner is the owner of the said buses.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that during the time of occurrence, thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 buses now alleged to be recovered, ran with false records and was carrying the passengers without any e-pass.Only because of the said reason, a case has been registered and the buses, which are the material objects, were recovered and kept in the Police Station.The respondent police is directed to produce the petition mentioned buses before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate's Court ie., Judicial Magistrate Court, Andipatti, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.http://www.judis.nic.in 4 R.PONGIAPPAN, J.Ns On production of such vehicles, the petitioner is at liberty to file a petition for interim custody as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter the Presiding Officer of the said Court has to pass necessary order only on merits.6.In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 174 of 2006, against the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 279 and 304(A) IPC.After investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet against the revision petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.8, Coimbatore.The learned Judicial Magistrate taken the charge sheet on file, subsequently, the same was transferred to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken the case on file in C.C.No.535 of 2010, after trial the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found guilty of the accused for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC and convicted him as follows:Magistrate,Coimbatore, the accused filed an appeal before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in Crl.The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, made over the appeal to the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.After hearing the arguments, the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.As against the said judgment of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in Crl.A.No.128 of 2011 dated 08.10.2012 the revision petitioner had filed the present Criminal Revision Case before this Court.3 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the occurrence place of the road is very narrow, the revision petitioner came from east side and turned towards north and could not have maintain the speed more than 20 k.ms., he could not have driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.The rider of the motor cycle even did not posses a valid license, there is no insurance and R.C., book.None of the witnesses have spoken about the accident and not stated that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (i.e.,) Lorry bearing Registration No.The Courts 3http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1544 of 2012 below failed to consider the contradictory statements of prosecution witnesses.The deceased driven his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and he has not possessed valid license for driving the two- wheeler, did not wear helmet and transported heavy loaded Milk can in the said two-wheeler.The Courts below ought to have acquitted the appellant by giving the benefit of doubt, which warrants interference by this Court.4 The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the occurrence had happened due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner.P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.6 have clearly spoken about the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver.Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the Courts below have rightly appreciated the prosecution witnesses and convicted the accused, which does not warrant any interference by this Court.5 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.6 On reading of the entire evidence and on seeing the rough sketch, the revision petitioner came from east and turned towards the 4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1544 of 2012 north, he almost came in the center place of the road and the scooter came from the west to east that also came almost in the center place of the road.If the driver of the lorry and the rider of the motor cycle maintain the moderate speed then the accident could have been avoided.But, in this case, on reading of the evidence none of the witnesses except P.W.1 and P.W.6 has stated that the accident had occurred only to the rash and negligent manner of the petitioner.P.W.1 and P.W6, only have stated that the lorry driver of the offending vehicle, came with a high speed and hit the motor cycle and he did not raise any horn or warning and dashed against the motor cycle.The motor vehicle Inspector has stated that the width of the road is only 20 feet and while, turning the vehicle, one cannot maintain the speed more than 20 Kms.The motor vehicle Inspector has also spoken about the inspection report and the damages caused to the vehicle, which itself clearly shows that the accident could have happened due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle also.6 Even the defence counsel has put a suggestions before the Investigating Officer who laid a charge sheet, that the deceased has not possessed valid license at the time of accident, he has submitted that the rider of the motor cycle/deceased did not posses a valid license, even the prosecution has not found out the owner of the motor cycle.Therefore, in 5http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1544 of 2012 the absence of specific materials, the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also on seeing the rough sketch and from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, this Court finds that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence properly.7 This Court finds that there is perversity in appreciation of the evidence by both the Courts and especially the witnesses have not specifically spoken that the revision petitioner driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, therefore under these circumstances this criminal revision case is liable to be allowed.8 Accordingly, the present criminal revision case is allowed and judgment of both the Courts below are set aside.The fine amount if any paid by the revision petitioner shall be refunded.The petitioner is acquitted from the offences under Section 279 and 304(A).Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous petition is closed.30.07.2019 Index : Yes/No Speaking order/non speaking order sbn 6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1544 of 20121.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.2.The learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.3.The State rep by, The Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Wing (Central) Police Station, Coimbatore District4.Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.7http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1544 of 2012 P.VELMURUGAN.J sbn Crl.R.C.No.1544 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 30.07.2019 8http://www.judis.nic.in","['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Rajesh Mahajan learned Amicus Curie who has been nominated by the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellant, it may be noted that Ram Chander PW-1 who is the father of the child kidnapped; namely Mukesh PW-2, while deposing in Court has not uttered any word of any threat conveyed to him pertaining to the kidnapped child of causing death or bodily injury to the kidnapped child.There is no reference in the testimony of Ram Chander of any conduct of the accused where from an apprehension would arise in the mind of Ram Chander that if ransom was not paid, his child would be hurt or killed.We note that Ram Chander has simply stated that when he received a call from the appellant he was told to bring money.With reference to the testimony of Ram Chander PW-1, Mukesh PW-2 and Raj Kumar PW-3, the learned trial Judge has returned a finding that the prosecution has successfully established that the appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 364-A IPC.For the offence held committed by the appellant, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine it has been directed that the appellant shall undergo RI for further six months.Conceding that there is no blemish in the testimony of Crl.738/2003 Page 1 of 10 PW-1 and PW-2, learned counsel for the appellant points out a serious procedural infirmity during conduct of trial which has considerable bearing on the testimony of Raj Kumar PW-3 and the commission of the offence punishable under Section 364-A IPC.738/2003 Page 1 of 103. To appreciate the submissions urged at the hearing of the appeal by Sh.He categorically stated that no specific amount to be paid as ransom was conveyed to him.The kidnapped child i.e. Mukesh PW-2 has simply stated that the appellant had kidnapped him and when he wept he Crl.738/2003 Page 2 of 10 was beaten.738/2003 Page 2 of 10Raj Kumar PW-3, who runs a milk dairy in front of the tea shop belonging to Ram Chander stated that at his telephone number 2634918 when ransom call was received by him to be conveyed to Ram Chander, he was categorically informed that the police should not be told anything, otherwise the kidnapped child would be killed.In the back drop of the evidence afore-noted, submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is that, as held in the decision reported as JT 2007 (5) SC 48 Vishwanant Gupta Vs.With reference to the testimony of PW-3, learned counsel points out that PW-3 was examined on 08.08.2002 and was partially cross-examined on said date.Counsel submits that as recorded by the learned trial Judge, since no further time was left on 08.08.2002, further cross- examination was deferred.On said date, Crl.Learned counsel points out that the appellant was in custody on 29.10.2002 and was produced before the Court from the police lock-up in the Court premises when the case was called.Counsel wonders as to how could the appellant go in the Court complex to search for his lawyer.With reference to the record, counsel draws our attention to the order dated 30.10.2002 which records that the accused told the Judge he was a poor man and that his counsel was not appearing and he be provided with the service of a counsel at the State expense.On the same date Sh.Sanjiv Goel, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curie.Vide order dated 30.10.2002 the application was allowed and it was directed that PW-1 and PW-3 would be summoned for further cross-examination.738/2003 Page 3 of 10At this stage, we may note that PW-1 was not cross- examined on 29.10.2002 i.e. the date fixed for his cross- Crl.738/2003 Page 4 of 10 examination for the reason counsel for the accused was absent.738/2003 Page 4 of 10On 31.10.2002 PW-1 appeared and was cross-examined.Inspite of being served PW-3 did not appear.What has happened as a result of the afore-noted fact is that a valuable right of the accused to cross-examine PW-3 on a very vital aspect of the matter has been violated.First is to set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter for further evidence with directions that Raj Kumar PW-3 be summoned and tendered for further cross-examination.The other is to close the chapter in the appeal noting that the appellant has Crl.As of today the appellant has served an actual sentence of 8 years 4 months and 20 days.738/2003 Page 5 of 10There was evidence of threat being given to the victim being put to death.738/2003 Page 8 of 10The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 364-A IPC is set aside.The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC.Since the appellant has undergone a sentence in excess of the prescribed period for the maximum term under Section 363 Crl.738/2003 Page 9 of 10 IPC, we direct that unless required to be kept in custody in some other case, the appellant be set free forthwith.738/2003 Page 9 of 10Copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail, Tihar for compliance.PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J SURESH KAIT, J JANUARY 06, 2010 'mr' Crl.738/2003 Page 10 of 10738/2003 Page 10 of 10",['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The Investigating Officer, ASI Arvind Kumar, identifies the petitioners as well as the second respondent / complainant.They are also identified by their respective counsel.M.A. No.12182/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.This application is disposed off.This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.44/2014 dated 16.01.2014 registered under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Jahangir Puri, on the ground that the matter has been compromise between the parties.A copy of the Compromise Deed executed between the parties on 30.05.2014 has been annexed to this petition.It is further stated that the original deed has been duly filed in the court of Sh.Narender Singh, SDMJ, Ganaur, Haryana in Civil Suit No.152/2011, which has also been duly settled and withdrawn in terms of the aforesaid compromise.Issue notice.Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and N.M.C. No.3533/2014 Page 1 of 6Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.2 / complainant, accept notice.FIR Crl.M.C. No.3533/2014 Page 5 of 6 No.4/2005 registered against the petitioners under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC with Police station Samay Pur Badli is quashed and all consequent proceedings pursuant thereto are also ordered to be dropped.""M.C. No.3533/2014 Page 5 of 6I am of the opinion that since the matter has arisen out of a dispute between uncles and brothers of the same family, all of whom are primarily agriculturists; and since the complainant is also not interested in supporting the case of the prosecution in view of the aforesaid compromise between the parties; the likelihood of the prosecution succeeding is remote and therefore it will be in the fitness of things if this matter, which is still under investigation, is given a quietus.Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No.44/2014 dated 16.01.2014 registered under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Jahangir Puri, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed.The petition is disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J AUGUST 11, 2014 dr Crl.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Mr. Raj Kumar Khanna, a practicing lawyer of this Court has sought for the quashing of the FIR No. 146/99 registered at Police Station Naraina, under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code (In short IPC) against him and his family members at the instance of his daughter-in-law Ms. Inderjit Kaur Sidhu, respondent No. 5 another practicing lawyer of this Court.2. Son of the petitioner Manoj Kumar is also a practicing lawyer of this Court.He got married to Inderjit Kaur Sidhu on 22nd September, 1996 according to Hindu rites at Gurudwara in Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi.After the marriage the newly married couple started living with the petitioner in his apartment.Relations between newly married couple became strained.According to petitioner, respondent No. 5 did not subscribe to the view points and values of petitioner and his family.She was adamant and not interested to live with her husband in the family of her husband.It is further averred that respondent No. 5 on becoming aware of Manoj Kumar's filing of a petition of divorce, fabricated a complaint not only against her husband, but implicated all family members of the petitioner with oblique motives and as a retaliation to the divorce proceedings initiated by Manoj Kumar.Respondent No. 5 filed a well thought out complaint so that all members of petitioner's family could be implicated.The said complaint was registered on 9th July, 1999 itself under Section 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Naraina.At that time the petitioner was about to leave his house in order to attend his cases in the High Court.Entire house of the petitioner was ransacked, every article stored in trunks and/or in wooden diwans and almirahs were pulled out.Each and every drawer and filing rack of his office was ransacked.it was procured to falsely implicate the petitioner and his family.My mother-in-law at that time quietly took over the money, but moment they left all of them punched on me with the same taunts and also my father-in-law and my husband gave me beating with sticks.I had no option at that moment but to be quite and suffered silently and also did not tell anybody about the same since I wanted to save my marriage and probably thought that one day they will realize their mistake.On 13th January' 97 my mother-in-law in the night told me that since tomorrow is an auspicious day i.e. 14th January, I will remove your Chudda, ask your father to send same gifts and cloths for her.But I could not inform my father, so next morning I myself went to market and bought a suit for her along with certain Puja items and sweets but she didn't like them and started abusing me and my parents for not giving her anything.As a mark of respect I used to hand over all the items and gifts to my mother-in-law i.e. jewellery.Sarees and were being kept with my mother-in-law.In fact he was so unfair and cruel in making statements like if you meant to be happy in this house you earn about Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- a month an give it to them.Nobody would dare to say anything to you.He further used to give me example of his cousins who were married into rich families and he used to tell me that their wives are earning Rs. 30,000/-, 40,000/- per month and nobody dares to say anything to them and at the time of monetary needs their in-laws always help them, but look at your parents, they have not given anything to make you happy.My father-in-law and on different occasions my mother-in-law and my husband used to tell me that my parents should sell of their immovable properties lying useless at my native place and should arrange to buy a flat for them in a good locality in Delhi.To save my matrimonial life I continued suffer silently and did not raise my voice and tried to adjust to the maximum.However they did nt mend their ways and continued to torture me in different ways including the way mentioned above.Because of this torture and the cruel behavior of my husband, brother-in-laws, and mother-in-law and father-in-law I suffered great physical and mental pain and agony.In the morning my husband and my brother-in-law had a fight for some reason and my husband became furious and asked me to leave the place along with him.I did same when my husband asked for the car keys from my brother-in-law & my brother-in-law and my mother-in-law told my husband in front of me ""Iske baap ki gaadi nahin hai, gadi mein ghumna hai to Iske baap ko bol kam se kam thodi sharm kar le aur apni beti aur damad ke liye ek car to kharid de, itni hasiyat to hai uski."" That day I came back with my husband in scorching heat.My husband then dragged me to my room and locked me inside my room, luckily the phone was in my room and I immediately called my father and asked him to come as soon as possible, Since I could not bear the humiliation and injuries I could hear outside the room filthiest abuses and languages being said by my mother-in-law an brother-in-law. ""YEH DO TAKE KI AURAT APNE APP KO KYA SAMAJHATI HAI, IS KE BAAP NE KYA DIYA HAI, JO ISSE APNE GHAR MEIN RAKHE JO ISKE PAAS THA, WOH TO MIL GYA AB KYA RAKHA HAI IS MEIN DAFA KARO YAHAN SE."" I immediately phoned my father and asked him to come home directly.I through all quarters kept on making efforts and always hoped that some sense would prevail over them but thing went bad to worse.I may also inform your goodself that my relatives namely Mr. Ranjeet Brar, Mr. Joginder Mann, Mr. Gurdev Brar, My father and My younger brother and common friends namely Mrs. Anusuya Salwan etc. had made efforts to reconcile the issue but due to the greedy nature of the accused persons and their lust for dowry they had refused for any settlement.That recently I have started receiving threatening telephonic calls from my in-laws or at their behest that in case I do not accept their illegal and unjustified demands me and my family will have to face dire consequences.Now I am left with no option but to lodge this complaint and I request your goodself to kindly book the accused persons and take appropriate actions by registering a case against Mr. Manoj Khanna, Mr. Raj Kumar Khanna, Rohit Khanna and Mrs. Nirmal Khanna for causing physical and mental torture for demanding dowry and for not returning my Shri Dhan and refusing to maintain me.JUDGMENT Usha Mehra, J.She left the matrimonial home on 5th September, 1997 informing her husband that she would never come back.Son of the petitioner filed a petition for divorce.Summon on that petition was ordered to be issued.Ms. Inderjit Kaur removed the sarees and gold jewellery of petitioner's wife claiming those to be hers.Police accordingly seized even the articles belonging to petitioner's wife.Inderjit Kaur not only got seized sarees and gold ornaments but removed letters, greeting cards which she had written to her husband during the period she stayed away from her husband.Those letters, greeting cards when produce would show that she was all complements for petitioner and his wife.Protest was raised by the petitioner and his wife than the articles like letters, photos, diary and greeting cards could not form ""Stridhan"" hence these could not be seized.But police in particular respondent No. 4 in connivance with respondent No. 5 brushed aside the protests of the petitioner.Illegally and forcibly police permitted respondent No. 5 remove those letters, greeting cards, diary and photographs.Petitioner insisted signing the seizure memo.Respondent No. 4 forced by petitioner allowed him to counter sign the letters, greeting cards, photos and the diary.Seizure memo was prepared at the spot.Thereafter the petitioner and his wife were arrested.However, bail was granted to them subsequently.The police authorities acted on extraneous consideration and in a hurry without verifying the facts in raiding his house.Mr. D.C. Mathur, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR on the following grounds:- (1) that the procedure adopted by SI Nirmal Sharma was extraordinary.It is contrary to the well regulated procedure followed by the police in other similarly situated case; (2) that the allegations levelled against the petitioner do not make out any case either under Section 406 IPC or under Section 498-A IPC; (3) The complaint dated 9th July, 1999 was lodged at the instance of respondent No. 5 after two years of her leaving the matrimonial home.It is a meticulously executed legally drafted document and well thought out comprehensive complaint.This smacks of malafide on the part of the investigating officer who in connivance with connivance with respondent No. 5 falsely implicated each and every member of petitioner's family.Complaint was lodged by respondent No. 5 with the Deputy Commissioner of Police (South-West District) Delhi on 9th July, 1999 and at a super speed the FIR bearing No. 146/99 was ordered to be registered at Police Station Naraina against the petitioner and his family members.The speed at which the FIR was got registered shows malafide on the part of police officials.In the normal course the complaint ought to have been endorsed by SHO Police Station Naraina and then forwarded it to Crime Against Women Cell.Since there was a connivance between respondent No. 2 i.e. Dy.The proceedings taken up by the Crime Against Women Cell are mainly directed to bring about a reconciliation between the strained spouses.It is always kept in mind that the petitioner-wife should not drag the husband-respondent straight to the Court, lest the relations between the couple become more strained.663/1995 wherein he has stated as under:-""The proceedings by the Crime Against Women Cell are in the nature of enquiry to find out the truth as to the allegations made in the complaint before registering a case.For example it becomes necessary to ascertain the factum of marriage, even and also the allegations of cruelty and Stridhan.""But police contrary to its own affidavit as referred to above acted just in the reverse.It did not bother to verify the facts nor bothered to call the parties for reconciliation.Instead police in a hurry registered the case in super speed.Commissioner of Public could have verified the complaint as per the requirements as spell out in the affidavit of Dy.Commissioner of Police (Hqrs.).Nothing has been placed on record to show what was the grave urgency in registering the case without holding preliminary inquiry particularly when the complainant herself conveniently slept over the matter for almost two years.This shows malafide on the part of the police who in connivance with respondent No. 5 wanted to harass the petitioner and his family and also wanted to destroy the evidence against her.No attempt was made to resolve the difference between Manoj Kumar and respondent No. 5 nor efforts were made to bring about amicable settlement for which purpose Crime Against Women Cell was created.This cell is meant to safeguard the marriage and not to ruin it by registering case immediately on the asking of the complainant.As per her own showing she continued to keep channel of communication open with her husband even after leaving the matrimonial home.But when the petitioner's son filed divorce petition on 26th May, 1999 as a retaliation she lodged the present complaint in order to wreck vengeance.There was no question of petitioner voluntarily handing over these documents.Police is trying to cover up its misdeeds.Even otherwise respondent No. 5 has made general allegations against the petitioner ascribing no specific role to him.The allegations made being omnibus allegations can be read to his advantage.Complainant has named each and every member of the family just as a pressure tactics.To Deputy Commissioner of Police, South West District, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Complaint AgainstMy mother-in-law and relatives from husband's side gave me few items as gifts, the details of which is also enclosed as Annexure 'B'.Shockingly just within few days of my marriage, my husband, his brother and his parents all of them started taunting me for not bringing sufficient dowry as per their standard and expectations.My mother-in-law used to taunt me and use to say ""that me and my family have fooled them and has played fraud on them since I had not brought enough dowry and said that since she belongs to Amritser and has known the Jat community very well and they are known for giving lot of dowry on their daughters wedding, but in my son's case you people had played fraud on us.My son used to get lot of proposals of rich girls."" She used to use the filthiest abuses for me like ""KUTTI, HARAMZADI, KAMINI, HAMARE PALLE PAD GAI HAI, HAMARE SATH DHOKHA HUA HAI, ASSEE TE SOCHYA SI KI JATTAN VICH BAHUT KUCHH DITA JANDA HAI.""All of them in fact used to use abusive and filthiest of language to taunt me and harass me.On 23.9.96 I went back to my parents house along with my husband for Pheras and my parents gave me sweets and gifts for my in-laws (as stated in the Annexure-A).On my return to the house some of the relatives from in-laws side were also present in the house and when I showed the gifts and sweets to them, they made fun of me and taunted me along with my mother-in-law and brother-in-law that they are not happy with what I have got and said that all these things even a Peon can give to his daughter and look at your standard.My agony continued with each occasion which followed month after month.On Karva Chauth i.e. 22.10.96 my father along with one of his cousin came to my house with lot of gifts, cloths, sweets and utensils as per the custom for my mother-in-law, brother-in-law, husband and father-in-law.My mother-in-law also demanded that as per this custom gold is to be given on this occasion, but your parents have not given anything and I was aghast and shocked with their behavior and tried to ask my husband as to what is wrong in the gifts which have been given.Instead of replying he slapped me and I had no option but to suffer and sulk within myself which resulted in lot of mental trauma and physical tension which effected my health.On the Diwali day i.e. 10.11.96 again my parents Along with my relatives came to our house with lot of gifts and sweets and my in-laws instead of welcoming them were rude and dry to them.After they left once again my brother-in-law Along with my mother-in-law showered the filthiest abuses and taunts and also did not give any food to me to eat on that day.On the next morning my mother-in-law gave stale food for me to eat.My father-in-law and husband also taunted me and said that I am a liability on them as there are no gains from me to them.Certain cloths of my daily use were with me and were Along with some piece of jewellery like 2 pairs of gold earrings and 2 rings for my daily use, but the keys of the almirah were always with my husband.It is worth mentioning here that the items like tape recorder, transistor, emergency light, certain sarees, 6 bed sheets, certain crockery items which were given to me on different occasions by my parents were handed over to my brother-in-law by me on instructions of my mother-in-law as she told me that these items will berequired at the time of the brother-in-law as she told me that these items will be required at the time of the brother-in-law's marriage.My in-laws and my brother not only used to taunt me but all of them use to beat me on one pretext or the other.I was not allowed to touch anything of the house and also even if there were any phone calls for me which I used to attend, my brother-in-law in the filthiest language to use tell me ""PHONE TERE BAAP KA NAHIN HAI, BILL TERE BAAP KE GHAR SE NAHIN JATA, JO PHONE use KARTI HIA."" He further started insulting everyone, who so ever use to call me like my friends, relatives and including my parents.My brother-in-law was so cruel and a rowdy character that he is fact used to beat me with belt and a stick lying in the house.On my complaint my husband used to tell me that since I was not earning enough of money so therefore these problems would continue.So much so that on number of occasions I had nervous breakdown and the Doctors attending to me categtorrically diagnosed that my indisposition was mainly became of mental tension.Apart from this on more than once occasion I suffered physical injury in my body on more than one occasions as mentioned above.My brother-in-law, mother-in-law, also started taunting and insulting me at the relatives places whenever I used to go there with them and used to make fun of me.In the month of June' 97 on once such occasion me my husband my mother-in-law and brother-in-law went to reside for a day at one of the relative in Faridabad.Since we had to walk for about two kilometres to catch the bus for Delhi, I suffered from severe sunstroke and no body took care of me.On 5.9.1997 it was a usual morning in the house as usual there was a fight between my husband and my father-in-law which I have seen right from the day one of my entering the house with regard to some joint property money.I told my husband that why he is fighting for money with his father, he should stand on his own feet.To this my husband told me that I will be like this only if you don't like you can leave this house and slapped a newspaper on my face.I was slightly agitated on this and proved my father and asked him to come to the Court as I was wanted to tell him some thing since things were unbearable for me.I came outside the room and my mother-law-law started abusing me for nothing.To which I told that you are the one who has created all the problems because of her greediness of money.Moment I said this my brother-in-law started hitting me on my head with a belt in his hand and seeing my father-in-law and my husband silently watching this later on also joined my brother-in-law and also started hitting me with blows and legs.My father reached in 40 minutes.My husband in the meantime and opened the door and pushed me outside the house so I sat in the neighbours house.When I saw my father climbing up I called him and told him about the incidents and my father told me not to worry and pacified me and told me that he will talk to them.My brother-in-law had already left the house.My father-in-law and my husband apologised to my father for their act and requested him that you take her back for few days and my husband said that he would pick me up after 3-4 days.Despite their tortures and the cruel behavior I did not inform to anybody about this incident except my father for the sake of saving my marriage.However, I continued my efforts to talk my husband after this.But he always deferred the issue on one pretest or the other.Of late he even started saying that ""I was their with him only on a trial basis since the trial period is over the file must be consigned to record room."" My husband always used to boost about his contacts in judiciary and other circles and used to say that nobody can do any harm to him, no matter what may come he will never continued this relationship.During my stay with my parents number of time I demanded my Shri Dhan from my husband, his brother and parents, but all of them point blank refused to return the same which was kept with them.All of them on different occasion had a strange demand that I should agree for divorce on mutual consent so that my husband could be remarried to a rich family, according to them there were lot of such offers, even after my marriage to him and my mother-in-law also told me that girls are available in plenty of numbers there is no dearth of girls for his boy.They can choose and get anything they want among the girls an there was no need of yours.She use to say ""KUDIYAN DA KOI GHATA NAHIN, BATHERIAN MILDIYAN NE"".On number of occasions I told my husband in the court premises that since I was not having sufficient income to support myself, so therefore he should pay me at least my pocket expenses and day to day expenses to maintain myself, but he always refused to do so.New Delhi Dated: ; 9-7-99 Complainant Inderjeet Sidhu d/o Sh.Though the complaint was not paragraphed but for the sake of convenience it has been paragraphed and numbered.Except the allegation in para 9 she has not attributed any cruelty against the petitioner linking with any kind of demand.In para 11 she says she left the house on 5th September, 1997 because of he fight had nothing to do with her.Reading of para 11 shows that petitioner has not been accused of any cruelty rather as per her own showing, the petitioner apologised to her father who came to take her.She left the matrimonial home on 5th September, 1997 and after almost two years she lodged the complaint on 9th July, 1999 involving all the members of her husband's family.","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"He has drawn the attention of this court to the list of cases alleged to be registered against the present appellant.There are as many as 6 cases mentioned in the said list.The aforesaid table is reproduced as under :With the consent of both the parties, the appeal is heard finally.The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 17-12-2018, whereby the statutory appeal under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Adhiniyam') filed by the petitioner was dismissed affirming the order of externment dated 12-10-2018, passed by the District Magistrate by which the appellant was externed from the municipal limits of District Sidhi for the period of eight months.The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25-02-2019 as well as the impugned order of externment dated 12-10-2018 passed by the respondent no.3 and the order dated 17-12-2018, passed by the appellate authority, the respondent no.2 are hereby quashed .","['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The appellant being the mother, it is stated she is entitled to compensationAs per the prosecution case, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in furtherance of common intention had committed murder of Darshan Singh on 23rd March, 2005 at his house RZ-S-285, Nihal Vihar, Delhi at about 9/9.15 P.M. PW-6 claims and has stated that she was an eye witness to the occurrence.She has deposed that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had come to her house and had asked for a knife for cutting salad.She gave them the knife and thereafter respondent Nos. 2 and 3 sat in Crl.A. No. 245/2012 Page 3 of 14 the open portion of the plot and started consuming liquor.She did not approve of this.When her husband, the deceased Darshan Singh, returned home, she expressed her grievance and annoyance to her husband.Darshan Singh started speaking to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and PW-6 went to the kitchen for preparing food.During the discussion, Darshan Singh and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 entered into fisticuffs and she came out after hearing the commotion.She was pushed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and she tore the clothes worn by them.Respondent Nos. 2 Randhir Singh @ Dhira gave a couple of stab blows by knife to the husband in his abdomen but she was not able to state the total number of stab wounds given.She called the police by making a call at telephone No. 100 and in the meanwhile respondent Nos. 2 and 3 ran away from the spot.She took the deceased to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital.There he was treated and his statement (Exhibit PW-6/A) was recorded.Thereafter, on 24th March, 2005, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were arrested from a liquor shop at Nihal Vihar.She had witnessed their arrests.She deposed that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had started grappling with her husband and when she tried to save him, the two respondents had pushed her.She further deposed that respondent No. 2 had stabbed her husband, whereas Crl.PW-6 is clear and categorical in her examination- in-chief and cross-examination that after her husband came back at 8.30 P.M. she had gone to the kitchen to prepare food.It is, therefore, clear that there was a time gap between the deceased coming back to the house and the occurrence, i.e., the fight which took place.He had claimed that earlier he had liquor with the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 at bus stand and thereafter had travelled with the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the scooter but had got dropped at a location before his house.The deceased was admitted to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital at about 10.30 P.M. on 23rd March, 2005 as per MLC (Exhibit PW-9/A).In these circumstances, we are inclined to discount the dying declaration of the deceased, as purportedly recorded in Exhibit PW-6/A that the deceased had objected to drinking of respondent No. 2 and 3 in the open portion of his house, after returning home at 8.30 P.M. One of the reasons we are inclined to disbelieve the deceased's statement to the said effect is that PW-6 has stated that she on request of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had given them a knife for cutting salad.This Crl.At another portion in the MLC (Exhibit PW-9/A) it is mentioned that stab wound of 3 x 3.5 cm was present in epigastric region to the right side of the middle line.We note that there was only one stab wound.Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):Surinder Kaur, mother of the deceased-Darshan Singh, has filed the present appeal impugning the judgment dated 29th October, 2011 and order of sentence dated 9th November, 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in the charge sheet emanating from FIR No. 266/2005, Police Station Nangloi, under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short).By the impugned judgment, the respondent No. 2 Randhir Singh Crl.A. No. 245/2012 Page 1 of 14 @ Dhira has been convicted under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 326 and 34 IPC and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.1 lakh.In default of payment of fine, the appellant has to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months.The other co-accused Jaspal Singh has been convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and six months.He has also been directed to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.A. No. 245/2012 Page 1 of 14At the outset, we record that the State has accepted the judgment and the order on sentence and has not preferred any leave to appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant impugning the judgment and order on sentence has raised three contentions; (i) the conviction should have been under Section 302 IPC; (ii) the sentence under Section 304 Part-I IPC for five years and fine of Rs.1 lakh is inadequate and (iii) Jaspal Singh was wrongly convicted under Section 326 IPC and should have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.An additional prayer is made with regard to compensation, which was directed to be paid to the wife, i.e., Jagjit Crl.A. No. 245/2012 Page 2 of 14 Kaur.A. No. 245/2012 Page 2 of 14The three contentions are somewhat inter-connected and, therefore, have to be examined together.The trial court judgment is lucid and elaborate and sets out the circumstances why respondent No. 2 has been convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.The judgment also explains why respondent No. 3 has been convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and not under Section 304 Part-I IPC.We have examined the reasoning given by the trial court judgment and also the statements of the relevant witnesses, namely, Jagjit Kaur (PW-6) wife of the deceased, Dr. Vivek Bindal (PW-12), Dr. Kulbhushan (PW-13) and Dr. Manoj (PW-9).We note here that the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have relied upon statement of ASI Dharam Singh (PW-8).A. No. 245/2012 Page 4 of 14 respondent No. 3 kept watching the occurrence.She deposed that she knew Randhir and identified him.She also identified respondent No. 3 who was present in the court and had stated that she did not know his name.PW-6 was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor.A. No. 245/2012 Page 3 of 14A. No. 245/2012 Page 4 of 14PW-6 in her cross-examination has deposed that she did not know respondent No. 3-Jaspal but she had given a knife to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for cutting salad.She has stated that these persons had come to their house at 8 P.M. on 23rd March, 2005, whereas her husband arrived at the house at 8.30 P.M. The occurrence in question as per the telephone call made to the police control room phone had taken place between 9 to 9.12 P.M. The PCR form (Exhibit PW-15/B) records that a telephone call was made to the control room at 9.12 P.M. stating that in the house RZ-285, S Block, Munna Property Dealer, there was a quarrel and exchange of blows.Thereafter, DD entry No. 26 was recorded at P.P. Nihar Vihar, Police Station Nangloi at 9.15 P.M. Crl.A. No. 245/2012 Page 5 of 14 (Exhibit PW-7/A).A. No. 245/2012 Page 6 of 14 shows that PW-6 at least knew the respondent No. 2 fairly well.As per PW-6 and the dying declaration of the deceased (Ex. PW-6/A), the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were already drunk when they came to the house and after that they had asked for the knife.The aforesaid conduct of the said two respondents and PW-6 shows that she was acquainted and knew drinking habits of the respondent No. 2 and her husband, deceased Darshan Singh.A. No. 245/2012 Page 5 of 14A. No. 245/2012 Page 6 of 14The PW-6 has clearly deposed that there was a sudden quarrel between the deceased and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were otherwise drinking together.However, the consequences can be ascertained from the medical records.The MLC (Exhibit PW-9/A) records that the patient was conscious and oriented and had one stab wound 3 cm x 1 cm on epigastric region.The patient was declared fit for statement.The aforesaid MLC was proved by Dr. Manoj (PW-9) but the said doctor had not personally examined the deceased.PW-9 has deposed that Dr. Deepak had initially examined Darshan Singh and thereafter he was examined by Dr. Vivek, Senior Resident, Surgery.Dr. Deepak and Dr. Vivek were not produced.A. No. 245/2012 Page 7 of 14A. No. 245/2012 Page 7 of 14He has stated that he had visited Darshan Singh in his house on 26th March, 2005 and at that time Darshan Singh had complained about pain in stomach.PW-8 did not record any statement to the this effect.Later on he came to know on 1st April, 2005 at 12.45 at night that Darshan Singh had expired at LNJP Hospital.Thus, there is dispute, whether the deceased Darshan Singh was discharged from Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital on or about 25th March, 2005 or was referred to LNJP Hospital for further treatment without being discharged as such.In these circumstances, we are inclined to disbelieve the statement made by PW-8 and accept the position as contended by the appellant that the deceased was referred from Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital to LNJP Hospital.The medical records in the present case, which have been recorded contemporaneously, support the said Crl.A. No. 245/2012 Page 8 of 14 contention.A. No. 245/2012 Page 8 of 14The cause of death as recorded in Exhibit PW-12/A was hepatic failure with acute renal failure with metabolic acidosis with septecemia.The post-mortem report was proved by Dr. Kulbhushan (PW-13).He has stated that the post-mortem was conducted by one Dr. Rohit but he has left the hospital and his whereabouts were not known.We may note that two injuries were noticed in the post-mortem and they are as under:""1) Contusion 25x10 cms present on right chest region and upper front of abdomen on ..side.2) Stab wound 2x0.5x3 cms present on right upper abdomen 11 cms above the umbilicus and 2.5 cm to the right of midline.As already recorded above, it is not injury No. 2 but as per the post-mortem report, injury No. 1 was the cause of death.PW-13 in his deposition in the court has stated as under:""Injury No. 1 is antimortum, around 1 week in duration and could be caused by blunt force impact.Injury No. 2 is caused by sharp edged weapon.Injury No. 1 is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.""A. No. 245/2012 Page 9 of 14As per the post-mortem, the deceased had sustained five external injuries, namely, (i) contusion 12x10 cms on right lower chest region and upper front of abdomen on right side (ii) stab wound of 2x0.5x3 cms on the right upper abdomen, (iii) lapratomy, i.e., operation wound of 22 cms in front abdomen (iv) scabbed abrasion of .5x.5 cm on the left knee and (v) scabbed abrasion of 1x1 cm on left leg.The stab wound as per the post-mortem report and as per the testimony of PW-13 was not sufficient or the cause of death.The said injury resulted in damage/injury to the liver and consequent thereupon Darshan Singh died after an operation.He had remained hospitalized for eight days.In these circumstances, we feel that the respondent No. 2 has been rightly convicted under Section 304 Part-I and not under Section 302 IPC.That apart, we also feel that Explanation 4 to Section 300 IPC would be applicable as there was a sudden quarrel and in that process there was a scuffle causing Injury Crl.No doubt a kitchen knife, which was given by PW-6 for cutting salad, was used but then that would not draw or take the case out of Explanation 4 to Section 300 IPC.The stab wound was not the cause of death.A. No. 245/2012 Page 10 of 14Neither was he found to be instigating the other respondent on goading him on.In view of the statement of PW-6, an eye witness to the occurrence who was deposing after the loss of her husband, it is held that respondent No. 3 has been rightly convicted Crl.Generally, the order of acquittal Crl.A. No. 245/2012 Page 12 of 14 shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal.A. No. 245/2012 Page 12 of 14Both of Crl.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This Criminal Original Petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the criminal proceeding in C.C.No.168 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi, seeking an order to call for the records and quash the same.The petitioner herein is the accused in the criminal proceedings, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi, for the alleged offence, punishable under Sections 417, 418, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of I.P.C r/w Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The respondent / complainant had already filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.30 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi.In the said case, the petitioner herein filed a petition in Crl.2368 of 2000 to discharge him, on the ground that no notice was served upon the petitioner, the same was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate.Subsequently, the respondent herein filed Crl.Aggrieved by which, the petitioner herein filed Criminal Revision in Crl.By order, dated 17.11.2003, this Court allowed the criminal revision, whereby held that the petition to amend the charges, so as to incorporate Section 148 r/w 420 IPC and 468 r/w 471 IPC are not legally maintainable in the pending proceeding, that was initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. There is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid facts.Aggrieved by which, the Criminal Original Petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the decision, Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P, reported in 2000 (II) CTC 107, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that after instituting complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on account of dishonour of cheques, criminal proceedings under Section 406 and 420 IPC could not be initiated against the family members of the drawer of the cheque and accordingly, the proceedings under Section 406 and 420 IPC were quashed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.In the instant case, it is seen that the respondent had filed complaint against the petitioner in C.C.No.30 of 2000, since the cheque, dated 03.12.1999 issued by the petitioner was dishonoured.It is not in dispute that the respondent subsequenlty filed Crl.M.P.No.3639 of 2001 in C.C.No.30 of 2000 for amending the complaint, so as to incorporate offence under Section 148 r/w 420 IPC and 468 r/w 471 IPC.Though the same was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, in the revision, by order, dated 17.11.2003 made in Crl.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the criminal proceeding in C.C.No.168 of 2004, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi is quashed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.No order as to costs.02-12-2008Index : Yes Internet : Yes tsvnToThe Judicial Magistrate, AvinashiThe Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.CRL.O.P.No.24260 of 2004","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"06.01.2015 Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the applicants.Ms. Pratibha Mishra, Public Prosecutor for the State.This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicants are in custody in connection with Crime No.556/2014 registered at P.S. Kundipura, District Chhindwara for the offence punishable under sections 341, 147, 148, 149, 307, 354, 506-B, 195-A of IPC.As per prosecution, it is alleged against the applicants that one case is pending against co-accused Pappu Patel.It is further alleged that Pappu Patel along with Umesh and these applicants had restrained the complainant and gave blows by rod and lathi to him, thereby he sustained many injuries.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case.He further submits that as per prosecution, main accused is Pappu Patel and Umesh.There is specific allegation against them that they assaulted the complainant on his foot and wrist.He further submits that there is general allegation against these applicants that they were accompanied with Pappu Patel and also assaulted the complainant by using stick and knife.Charge sheet has been filed.The applicants are in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, they be released on bail.(G.S.Solanki) Judge ravi","['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Sunder Lal, Ram Bahadur, Ram Chander, Ram Shankar and Ram Bharosey tied both legs of Beni Ram with towel.Ram Bahadur pressed legs of Beni Ram, Ram Bharosey, Ram Shankar caught hold his both hands, Sunder Lal by spade and Ram Chander by spear started jabbing to Beni Ram stating to kill him, Sunder Lal cut the neck of Beni Ram, Ram Chander gave spear blow on the stomach.Informant and Smt. Ram Rati wife of Beni Ram alarmed.On their alarm Subedar Khan resident of the same village and Ram Singh of village Bharuwa arrived.All of them tried to save Beni Ram but accused threatened to them of dire consequences.After killing Beni Ram, assailants went away towards village through the bank of river.On the oral information of Shyam Bihari (P.W.1) Case Crime No.258 of 1991, under Sections 147, 148, 302 I.P.C. was registered on 22.11.1991 at 15:30 p.m. under chik F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 and G.D. Entry No.32 Ext.Ka-2 was also prepared on same day at 15:30 P.M. Investigation of the case was handed over to S.I. Gyan Singh (P.W.5).Investigating Officer reached the place of incident, prepared inquest memo (Ext.Ka-4) and relevant documents Ext.Ka-5 to Ext.Ka-11 i.e. address of the deceased, letter to R.I., letter to C.M.O., letter to C.M.O., police form-13, police form 379 and specimen seal respectively and dispatched the dead body for post-mortem.The witness replies in accordance to the question put to him.Thus, on the basis of statements of P.W.1 Shyam Bihari and P.W.5 Gyan Singh Investigating Officer it can't be inferred that the place of incident is not established.Apart from it, in spot map Ext.Ka-12, it is clearly mentioned that at place marked as ''D' dead body was found and at the place marked as ''3' blood was found and both places are situated towards east side of the river.On asking by defence in cross-examination Investigation Officer has stated that apart from place D he did not see blood of the deceased.As per recovery memo Ext.He has proved F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 included in the file, in the handwriting and signature of Babu Ram Yadav.He has also proved disclosure of F.I.R. no.258/1981 in the G.D. No.32 at 15:30 P.M. as Ext.Regarding registration of F.I.R. No any question has been put to this witness so that registration of F.I.R. at 15:30 P.M. can be doubted.37. P.W.1 Shyam Bihari has stated that his report was scribed in the police station on his dictation and after hearing it, he had put his thumb impression and he has proved it as Ext.Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.(Per : Ali Zamin, J.)1. Heard Sri Apul Mishra alongwith Sri Rahul Mishra and Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ajit Ray, learned A.G.A. for the respondent and perused the material on record.This appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 29.01.2002 passed in Session Trial No.568 of 1996 (State vs. Ram Bahadur and 3 others), Police Station Beesalpur, District Pilibhit by which learned Additional Session Judge, Pilibhit has convicted the appellants-accused Ram Chander, Ram Shankar, Ram Bharosey and Ram Bahadur and sentenced appellant Ram Chander to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148, appellants Ram Shankar, Ram Bharosey and Ram Bahadur have been sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 I.P.C. and all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000 under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. in default of fine to undergo further a period of 6 months additional imprisonment.In brief facts of the prosecution case are that Gaon Sabha land was allotted on lease to the deceased Beni Ram, brother of the informant in which one Sunder Lal (since died during trial) was claiming his land.Munendra Pal Singh village head (Pradhan) resident of village Bharuwa settled the dispute between them a day before the incident and it was decided that Beni Ram will leave three and half bigha land in favour of Sunder Lal.On 22.11.1991 at 11:00 A.M. Ram Bahadur, Sunder Lal of the village came to the house of deceased Beni Ram having spade in hand and asked for measurement as decided yesterday, on which Beni Ram (deceased), Shyam Bihari (informant) and Smt. Ram Rati wife of Beni Ram proceeded for measurement taking gattha of wood (log) and rope.When they reached at 1:00 p.m. on the field, Ram Chander having a spear in hand, Ram Shankar and Rama Bharosey met there.Dr. A.K. Sharma (P.W.3) conducted post-mortem on 23.11.1991 at 3:30 P.M. and prepared report Ex.Ka-2, according to which following injuries were found on the body of the deceased Beni Ram:Incised wound 14 c.m. x 7 c.m. cavity deep at the front of abdomen 5 c.m.below the umbilicus, intestine coming out.Incised wound 9 c.m. x 5 c.m.below trachea the left ear and running below mandible, left carotid artery jagutar vein cut.Incised wound 4 c.m. x 3 c.m.x muscle deep right side of the neck, 3 c.m.below the left angle at mandible on deep dissection carotid artery cut.Incised wound 1 c.m.Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. bone deep on the back of right shoulder scapula.Incised wound 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. bone deep on the back of right shoulder 1 c.m. above injury no.5 cardio process of right scapula cut.Incised wound 1 c.m.x 5.7 c.m. x chest cavity deep over the angle of right scapula.Abrasion 3 c.m.x 1 c.m.on the inner end of right collar bone.Abrasion 7 c.m.x 1 c.m.over the left side of neck 5 c.m. above the middle left collar bone.In his opinion cause of death was shock & haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries and death of the deceased was near about one day old.After dispatching the dead body for post-mortem Investigating Officer inspected the place of incident and prepared spot map Ext.He also took into possession rope, log (lattha), blood stained and plain earth (sand), spade along with handle, old towel and prepared memo Ext.After completing the investigation submitted charge sheet Ext.Ka-3 under Sections 147, 148, 302 I.P.C. against the accused-appellants before the C.J.M., Pilibhit, who committed accused for trial to the court of Sessions Judge where Case Crime No.258/1991 was registered as Session Trial No.568 of 1996 (State vs. Ram Bahadur and others).The Sessions Judge transferred it to the court of Special Judge (E.C. Act), Pilibhit for trial.The trial court framed charge under 147 and 302/149 I.P.C. against the accused-appellants Ram Bahadur, Ram Shankar, Ram Bharosey and under Section 148, 302/149 I.P.C. against accused-appellants Sunder Lal and Ram Chander.The accused denied the charge and claimed trial.Prosecution to prove its case has produced six witnesses.P.W.1 Shyam Bihari informant, P.W.2 Smt. Ram Rati are witnesses of fact while P.W.3 Dr. A.K. Sharma conducted post-mortem, P.W.4 Mohd. Anees second Investigation Officer, P.W.5 Gyan Singh first Investigating Officer and P.W.6 Constable Narendra Pal Singh are formal witnesses.The accused-appellants in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., have stated that the witnesses have deposed against them due to enmity and denied the prosecution case, but they led no evidence in their defence.Trial court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of records has passed the impugned judgement and order.Hence, this appeal.9. Learned counsel for the appellant No.2 Ram Bharosey, appellant No.3 Ram Bahadur and appellant No.4 Ram Shanker, Sri Apul Mishra has submitted that appellants are not connected with the offence.He further submitted that if the whole story of prosecution as stated by P.W.1 Shyam Bihari is accepted that the appellants grappled the deceased, then it was not their intent to commit murder covered under Section 34 of I.P.C. In support of his contention he relied on the following judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court:Learned counsel for the appellant no.1 Ram Chander, Sri Rahul Mishra assisted by Sri Raghuvans Mishra has submitted that P.W.1 Shyam Bihari has specifically stated that he reached the place of incident at 1:00 P.M. going from the police station whereas per chik report Ext.Ka-1 first information report has been registered at 3:30 P.M. Shyam Bihari has also stated that he met daroga and put his thumb impression on the paper when he came police station along with the dead body.He has also stated that he reached police station along with the dead body at 10:00 P.M. in the night while P.W.2 Smt. Ram Rati has stated that the dead body reached police station at 6:00 P.M. and Shyam Bihari was also along with her.Both witnesses also stated that their statements might have been recorded on the same day, from which it becomes clear that first information report is anti-timed.It is also submitted that on the point of lodging F.I.R. and reaching of the informant to the police station question could have been put to the scribe of the chik and G.D. but scribe of chik and G.D. has not been produced by the prosecution so he has been deprived of the opportunity of cross-examination also.He has also submitted that according to prosecution a spear injury was caused to the deceased in the stomach.Injury by spear will be punctured one but according to post-mortem report injury no.1 has been found to be stomach injury cavity deep incised wound of 14 c.m. x 7 c.m.Thus, the injury alleged to have been caused by spear does not match with the medical report.His next submission is that according to P.W.1 Shyam Bihari the incident took place 20 steps away from the west side of the river and its natural sense will be that incident took place towards west side of the river while P.W.5 Investigating Officer Gyan Singh has stated that the dead body was at a distance of 20 steps in the east from the river, as such from the prosecution evidence place of occurrence is also not established.He further submitted that Smt. Ram Rati has stated that in the incident her forefinger of right hand was cut off but there is no medical report to support her statement and Investigating Officer has stated that if finger of Smt. Ram Rati was cut off then she must have told him and he would have got her medically examined thus Investigating Officer does not support her statement, which makes her presence at the spot doubtful.Next submission is that P.W.1 Shyam Bihari has stated that he was residing along with his son in Sitarganj and he was residing separate with his deceased brother.What was occasion to come on the day of incident has not been explained.Therefore, his presence at the time of incident is doubtful.Lastly he has submitted that P.W.1 Shyam Bihari informant is brother, Smt. Ram Rati is wife of the deceased, both are highly interested witnesses.P.W.1 Shyam Bihari states that he does not know about share and side of the deceased land.He also states that as soon as the accused reached on the field, the accused grappled with his brother while P.W.2 Smt. Ram Rati states that reaching the field marking for partition were made, talks took place between them, near about half an hour period was spent in the field and when her husband sat to smoke chilam, incident took place.Thus, inference will be either P.W.1 Shyam Bihari or P.W.2 Smt. Ram Rati is telling a lie or both of them are telling a lie.Learned counsel prayed that prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants.The impugned judgement and order is not sustainable.Accordingly, judgement and order is liable to be set aside and appellants are liable to be acquitted.On the other hand Sri Ajit Ray, learned A.G.A. for the respondent submits that on the basis of oral information of the informant Shyam Bihari, F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 was registered at 3:30 P.M. and in Ext.Ka-1 itself time of the incident has been mentioned 1:00 P.M., not a single question has been put by the defence from the witness P.W.6 Narendra Pal Singh regarding the time of registration of the case.The informant P.W.1 Shyam Bihari, P.W.2 Smt. Ram Rati are rustic persons and their statements in the trial court have been recorded near about after lapse of 6 years from the date of incident.According to Prabhu Dayal v/s State of Rajasthan (2018) 3 SCC (Cr.) 518 rustic witnesses can develop a tendency to exaggerate and this does not make that the entire testimony of such witnesses is falsehood.Minor contradiction in the testimony of witnesses are not fatal to the prosecution case.In State of Karnataka v/s Suvarnamma (2015) 1 SCC (Crl.) 663, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in regard to exact time of an incident or the time of duration of an occurrence, usually people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation.It depends on the time sense of individuals which varies from person to person.A witness is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and piercing cross-examination by the counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment the witnesses nowdays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the court.The courts should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy.So, on the basis of the statement of informant Shyam Bihari and P.W.2 Smt. Ram Rati, it cannot be said that the F.I.R. is anti-timed.Placing reliance on Vijai Pal v/s State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) (2015) 2 SCC (Cr.) 733, he has submitted that value of medical evidence is only corroborative and testimony of Shyam Bihari and Smt. Ram Rati with regard to causing spear injury in stomach by Ram Chander is intact and their statements in this regard are reliable.He also submitted that P.W.1 Shyam Bihari and P.W.2 Smt. Ram Rati have stated that after taking meal they had gone to the field which is corroborated by medical evidence as in post-mortem report Doctor has also found that 2-3 hours before the incident deceased could have taken meal.Shyam Bihari has stated that he lived separately with the deceased in the village and he also lived at Sitarganj along with his son.In his cross-examination nothing has been elicited from which it can be inferred that on the date of incident he was not present on the spot and in the village, where the incident took place.The spot map Ext.ka-12 has been proved by the Investigating Officer P.W.5 Sub-Inspector Gyan Singh, who had taken the blood stained and plain sands from the place of incident and it has been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra.According to expert report human blood has been found on it from which the place of occurrence is established.Shyam Bihari has stated that place of incident is 20 steps away from the west side of the river.On the basis of his statement it cannot be inferred that the place of incident is changed.He has further submitted that the witnesses have stated that in murder of Jagdish, case was registered against the deceased.He has also stated that a gangster case was also registered against the deceased brother and another case under Section 25 Arms Act was also registered against him which indicates that the witness is not concealing the facts but speaking truly, thus he is reliable and trustworthy witness.Lastly he has submitted that so far as discrepancy regarding incident taking place on reaching the place of incident and after sometime reaching the place of incident is concerned due to the lapse of time and witnesses being rustic one, this discrepancy has taken place but P.W.2 Smt. Ram Rati has stated that on reaching the spot places were dug for marking in which half an hour was spent and when her husband sat for smoking chilam the incident was caused.She has also stated that from the house in reaching the spot it took half an hour.The estimated time has been told by the witness which also corroborate the time of incident to be 1:00 P.M. mentioned in the F.I.R. Ext.He submitted that from the evidences produced by the prosecution charges are fully proved against the appellants.The trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants-accused.In cross-examination P.W.1 Shyam Bihari has stated that he reached the spot at 1:00 P.M. going from the police station, while as per F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1, the report of the incident has been made on 22.11.1991 at 15:30 P.M. In cross-examination Shyam Bihari has also stated that dead body reached the police station at 10:00 P.M. P.W.2 Smt. Ram Rati has stated that dead body came to the police station at 6:00 P.M. As such there is a discrepancy between statements of Shyam Bihari and Smt. Ram Rati with regard to reaching the dead body at the police station.P.W.1 Shyam Bihari has stated that by dictating he lodged the report and after hearing it, he had put his thumb impression.From his statement it is very much clear that when he went to the police station for lodging report at that very time after dictating and hearing the report he put his thumb impression on the report.He has also stated that he is illiterate and he by profession is a farmer.P.W.2 Smt. Ram Rati has also stated that she is illiterate.As per F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 informant Shyam Bihari is by caste Dhobi (washerman).The sub- conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him -- Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment.""In the instant case the incident has occurred on 22.11.1991 and statement of P.W.1 Shyam Bihari was recorded on 23.10.1997 and statement of P.W.2 Smt. Ram Rati was started on 23.10.1997 and completed on 03.03.1998 i.e. the statements of both witnesses were recorded near about after a lapse of six years.In the first information report, Ext.Ka-1 the time of incident has been mentioned 1:00 P.M. and time of giving information to the police station is mentioned as 15:30 P.M. The witness has stated very clearly that he reached the police station and at the police station he had no talk with the daroga.This much talk too did not take place that you reach on the spot.Further he has stated that after lodging report he had gone at the spot and he reached on the spot from the police station at about 1:00 P.M. in the afternoon.It appears that due to his testimony being recorded after a lapse of six years from the date of incident and witness is also a rustic witness overawed by the court atmosphere and piercing cross-examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mixing up facts, getting confused regarding sequence of events or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v/s State of Gujarat, (supra), he has stated that he reached on the spot at 1:00 P.M. going from the police station.Informant Shyam Bihari has further stated that he had talk with darogaji at the police station at the time when he made thumb impression on the paper.He has also stated that when he came along with the dead body at the police station then he had met darogaji.He has clearly stated that after lodging report he had gone on the spot.From his whole statement it is clear that after lodging the report, informant Shyam Bihari returned to the spot thereafter dead body of the deceased was taken to the police station.It appears that due to statement being recorded after six years from the date of incident and informant being rustic one out of nervousness mixing the fact with regard to putting thumb impression has stated that he put his thumb impression on papers when he met darogaji on coming along with dead body.Considering his whole statement it can't be inferred that he lodged the report when dead body reached the police station.Thus, on the basis of statements of P.W.1 Shyam Bihari that he reached the place of incident at 1:00 P.M. going from the police station and statement of Smt. Ram Rati as well as his statement with regard to time of reaching dead body at the police station, time of lodging F.I.R. 15:30 P.M. mentioned in Ext.Ka-1 and informant's putting thumb impression on paper when he met daroga along with dead body, it can't be inferred that F.I.R. was lodged when dead body reached the police station.In view of the above discussion, we do not find any substance in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that F.I.R. is anti timed.24. P.W.1 Shyam Bihari in his cross-examination has stated that the incident has taken place at a distance about 20 steps from the west side of the river and as per P.W.5 Gyan Singh Investigating Officer and spot map Ext.Ka-12 distance of the dead body from the river is 22 steps towards east of the river.The veracity of spot map Ext.Ka-12 proved by Investigating Officer P.W.5 Gyan Singh has not been disputed by the defence.In the Ext.Ka-12 dead body has been shown at place marked as ''D' which is towards east of the river and distance of the dead body from the east of the river has been shown to be 22 steps.P.W.1 Shyam Bihari has stated that the incident took place at about 20 steps from the west side of the river which cannot be taken as the dead body was 20 steps towards west from the west side of the river.It is tact of the counsel as to how he puts question to a witness.Ka-13 Investigating Officer took into his possession blood stained (sand) from the place of incident.He also took into his possession the towel from which legs of deceased alleged to have been tied and a spade shown in the spot map at place F was found.According to scientific report available on record human blood were found on the materials recovered from the place of incident.These facts clearly establish the place of incident towards east of the river.As such prosecution regarding place of incident is consistent, corroborated and reliable.In view of the above, we also find no substance in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that on the basis of statement of informant P.W.1 Shyam Bihari and P.W.5 Investigating Officer, Gyan Singh, place of incident is not established.As per post-mortem report Ext.Ka-2, seven incised wounds and two abrasions have been found on the person of the deceased, in which injury no.1 is incised wound 14 cm.x 7 cm.cavity deep at the front of abdomen 5 c.m.below the umbilicus, intestine coming out.In Ext.Ka-1 proved by P.W.1 Shyam Bihari, it has been mentioned that Ram Sunder inflicted spear injury on the stomach.P.W.1 Shyam Bihari through his testimony also has supported the prosecution version and has stated that accused Ram Chander caused spear injury in the stomach of deceased Beni Ram.P.W.2 Smt. Ram Rati too supporting the prosecution story has stated that Ram Chander caused spear injury in the stomach of her husband.Statement of both the witnesses regarding inflicting spear injury in the stomach of deceased Beni Ram by appellant-accused Ram Chander has not been impeached.Thus, the statement of P.W.1 Shyam Bihari and P.W.2 Smt. Ram Rati is consistent and corroborative to each other.For instance, while the accused were armed with kantas and spears, only one punctured wound was found.The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye-witnesses.The significance of the evidence of the doctor lies vis--vis the injuries appearing on the body of the deceased person and likely use of the weapon and it would then be the prosecutor's duty and obligation to have the corroborative evidence available on record from the other prosecution witnesses.In cross-examination she has stated that she had shown the cut finger to the Investigating Officer.The Investigating Officer P.W.5 Gyan Singh has stated that he cannot tell whether finger of Smt. Ram Rati was cut or not.Smt. Ram Rati had not received any injury and her finger was not cut, if it happened, so, then she certainly would have told him and he would have got her medically examined for the same.In first information report, it is mentioned that along with deceased Beni Ram, Smt. Ram Rati had also gone at the place of incident.In spot map Ext.Ka-12 at place-1 shown in a circle presence of wife of the deceased has been mentioned.As per statement of P.W.5 Gyan Singh, the spot map was prepared on the day of incident and from cross-examination nothing has been extracted so that its veracity can be doubted.P.W.2 Smt. Ram Rati has also stated that she had accompanied her husband and in her cross-examination by defence nothing material has been extracted, so that her presence on the spot at the time of incident can be doubted.P.W.1 Shyam Bihari in examination-in-chief as well as in cross-examination has stated that he and his sister-in-law (bhabhi) were present on the spot together.He has also stated that due to fear of accused his bhabhi did not go to the deceased to save him.Thus, with regard to presence of P.W.1 Shyam Bihari and P.W.2 Smt. Ram Rati at the time of incident on the spot, prosecution evidence is consistent, corroborative to each other.P.W.2 Smt. Ram Rati in last day of her cross-examination has stated that when her husband was caught, tied and killed she cried and wept, five persons were there so, she could not dare save him.As such the prosecution evidence of P.W.1 Shyam Bihari and P.W.2 Smt. Ram Rati is consistent and corroborated to each other that due to fear of accused, Smt. Ram Rati did not go to the deceased to save him which in the facts and circumstances of the case appears credible.She has also stated that she tried to save her husband but accused caught hold her.She has further stated that when her finger was cut blood dropped on the place of incident.Next, she has stated that she did not feel finger was cut off.Again she has stated that finger was fallen there on the spot.She has also stated that as the spade was jabbed on neck, she fell down over her husband and injury was caused in her hand.It is the prosecution case that accused Sunder Lal was jabbing with spade and accused Ram Chander with spear and according to Smt. Ram Rati her forefinger was cut as the spade was jabbed on the neck she fell over her husband to save him.As per Ext.It is also mentioned in it that report was lodged on 22.11.1991 at 15:30 P.M. We have already discussed in preceding paras of the judgement with regard to F.I.R. being ante time and in para 23 of the judgement has found that F.I.R. is not anti-timed.The prosecution has produced the informant P.W.1 Shyam Bihari and defence was provided opportunity of cross-examination to this witness.In such circumstances, although scribe of the chik F.I.R. and G.D. has not been produced by the prosecution and defence had no opportunity to cross-examine the scribe of the chik F.I.R. and G.D. but as prosecution has produced informant P.W.1 Shyam Bihari, who orally lodged F.I.R. Ext.Ka-1 and to prove chik F.I.R. and G.D. prosecution has also produced P.W.6 Constable Narendra Pal Singh and no question with regard to registration of F.I.R. has been put to him.38. P.W.1 Shyam Bihari in cross-examination has stated that he was also residing along with his son, separate with his deceased brother.He has also a house in Sitarganj.His son Sohan Lal was residing with him in Sitarganj.He has stated that on the day of incident at about 11:00 A.M. Ram Bahadur and Sunder Lal came at his house to call deceased Beni Ram, at that time Sunder Lal had a spade.He has also stated that Sunder Lal asked from them to measure the field as decided yesterday on which he, deceased Beni Ram and his wife Smt. Ram Rati reached lease field.He and Beni Ram were bare hand and Smt. Ram Rati had a khurpi.They reached on the field at about 11:00 A.M. and he has narrated the story of the incident.In the spot map Ext.Ka-12, his presence has been also shown by mark 2 in a circle.From his cross-examination nothing has been extracted by defence from which his presence at the time of incident can be doubted.On going through his testimony, it is also clear that the defence has not tried to clarify from him with regard to opportunity of being present in the village where the incident took place.Apart from it, it is also notable that the witness Shyam Bihari has clearly stated that he was also residing along with his son, separate with the deceased brother.In such a situation, his presence at the time of incident appears natural also.P.W.2 Smt. Ram Rati also has supported the presence of Shyam Bihari at the time of incident.In view of the above discussion, on the basis of statement of informant Shyam Bihari that he has also a house in Sitarganj and he was residing along with his son separate with the deceased, his presence on the spot can't be doubted.Accordingly, we find no substance in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that presence of informant Shyam Bihari at the time of incident is doubtful.It is true that P.W.1 Shyam Bihari in his cross-examination has stated that he does not know what share and in which side the accused Sunder Lal had to get in the lease land but in cross-examination itself he has stated that in between field of Beni Ram and accused Sunder Lal field of Siya Ram, Damodar Lal, Ram Gopal and Pancham Rai are adjoining to each other.In cross-examination he has also stated that he did not go in the panchayat.It is case of prosecution that land was allotted to the deceased on lease and prosecution evidence in this regard is intact.Thus, in view of his statement that he did not go in the panchayat, on the basis of statement of informant Shyam Bihari that he does not know what share and which side accused Sunder Lal had to get, no any adverse inference against prosecution can be derived.40. P.W.1 Shyam Bihari has stated that after reaching the field accused assembled and grappled his brother and fallen down him.P.W.2 Smt. Ram Rati has stated that on reaching the field marking for partition were made, talks took place between them near about half an hour was spent in the field and when her husband sat to smoke chilam incident took place.P.W.5 Investigating Officer Gyan Singh in cross-examination has stated that he did not find chilam or spread tobacco on the place of incident.As per recovery memo Ext.Ka-13 a rope of mooz and jute, a spade, a log of wood and an old towel by which both legs of the deceased alleged to have been tied have been recovered by P.W.5 Gyan Singh Investigating Officer but chilam and tobacco were not recovered by him.If really it was a fact that deceased Beni Ram putting chilam in his mouth as tried to smoke accused persons caused the incident, then certainly chilam and tobacco should have been there and found by the I.O. but it was not so.Apart from it her statement itself appears inherently contradictory as she has stated that firstly Ram Bahadur fallen down the deceased, Ram Bahadur and Ram Shankar tied his legs, Ram Bharosey caught the hand, Sunder Lal cut neck by spade and Ram Chander inflicted spear injury in the stomach.In Ext.Ka-1 the first information report which has been made just after the incident, it is mentioned that when informant Shyam Bihari, deceased Beni Ram and Smt. Ram Rati reached the field accused Ram Chander, Ram Shankar and Ram Bharosey also met there and accused Sunder Lal, Ram Bahadur, Ram Chander Ram Shankar and Ram Bharosey fallen down his brother Beni Ram and tied legs of his brother Beni Ram, Ram Bahadur pressed legs of his brother, Ram Bharosey and Ram Shankar caught his both hand, Sunder Lal by spade and Ram Chander by spear started jabbing stating to kill him.Sunder Lal cut neck of his brother by spade and Ram Chander gave spear blow on stomach.This version has been supported by P.W.1 Shyam Bihari through his testimony also and from his cross-examination nothing has been extracted, so as to doubt his testimony.It appears that Smt. Ram Rati being a rustic and illiterate lady and her statement also has been recorded after a lapse of six years from the date of incident as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhu Dayal v/s State of Rajasthan (2018) e SCC 517 has exaggerated the prosecution story with regard to digging of places for demarcation thereafter sitting the deceased on earth put chilam in his mouth and as he tried to smoke the incident was caused and as discussed in para 31 of the judgement in order to save deceased her forefinger was also not cut off but in material particulars of prosecution case, her testimony like allotment of land on lease to her husband, claim by accused Sunder Lal in the lease land, matter being decided by village head Ram Chander @ Munendra in the evening of the past night, coming of accused Sunder Lal to call the deceased, going on the lease land of deceased Beni Ram, informant Shyam Bihari and herself, tying leg of the deceased by accused Ram Bahadur, Ram Shankar catching hand by Ram Bharosey, causing spade injury on the neck by accused Sunder Lal and spear injury on the stomach by accused Ram Chander is intact.As such on reading her statement as whole core of the case is not shaken and appears to have a ring of truth, as such on the basis of her statement that on reaching the field marking for partition were made, talks took place, her husband sat and as he tried to smoke chilam, incident was caused and in saving deceased her forefinger was cut, her whole statement can't be discarded.Accused Ram Bahadur pressed legs of the deceased Beni Ram, Ram Bharosey and Ram Shankar caught hold his both hands.Sunder Lal cut the neck of Beni Ram and Ram Chander gave spear blow on the stomach which is supported by the post-mortem report Ext.Ka.2 proved by P.W.3 Dr. A.K. Sharma.As per post-mortem report as a result of stomach injury intestine of the deceased came out.Over the neck three incised injuries, on right shoulder two incised injuries and one incised injury chest cavity deep over the angle of right scapula have been found.Causing spade injury on the neck and spear injury on the stomach as found in Ext.Ka-2 post-mortem report in the condition of hands being caught by two accused and legs by one accused is possible one.Pressing legs of deceased by one accused, catching hold of both hands by two accused and causing spade and spear injury by two accused indicates that all the accused shared common intention in perpetration of crime.Testimony of P.W.1 Shyam Bihari with regard to going of accused persons through the bank of river is corroborated by spot map Ext.Ka-13 as such prosecution evidence in this regard also is consistent, corroborated and reliable.The facts, circumstances and the observation of five cases referred by learned counsel for the appellants Sri Apul Mishra are follows.In the case of Balwantbhai B. Patel vs. State of Gujarat and another, it has been stated that on 30th November 1993, at about 9 p.m., Ghulam Hussain Ansari, Sagir Ahmed Ansari, since deceased, Gyasuddin Ahmed Ansari and Kitabuddin Ansari were sitting at their house in Falia, District Bharuch, when the three accused Thakorbhai Somabhai, Jagdishbhai Nanjibhai Patel and Balwantbhai Patel, the present appellant, arrived at that place in a drunken condition.They abused Sagir Ahmed Ansari and others sitting there and when they objected, Thakorbhai inflicted a knife blow in the abdomen of Sagir Ahmed and another knife blow on the left side of his head.Gyasuddin Ansari and Kitabuddin Ansari intervened so as to rescue Sagir Ahmed whereupon Balwantbhai, the present appellant, caught hold Gyasuddin and Jagdishbhai inflicted a blow on his head with an axe.The appellant thereafter ran away hurling abuses on the other side.Sagir Ahmed died soon after he reached the Civil hospital.The trial court convicted all the accused and judgement of the trial court was confirmed in appeal by the High Court.In the appeal it was contended that the appellants herein had caught hold of Gyasuddin Ahmed Ansari, PW which had enabled Jagdishbhai, the co-accused, to cause a simple injury on him.It was pointed out that the injury report of Gyasuddin Ahmed Ansari was not on record which clearly falsified the prosecution story.It was also submitted that, in any case, the story of catching hold of a witness or of a deceased or an allegation of exhortation made by an accused are invariably used to cast the net wide with respect to the incident.The Supreme Court has held as under:""There is no evidence to show that Gyasuddin Ansari had received any injury as his injury statement is not on record.The finding, therefore, of the High Court about the appellant's presence appears to be on shaky foundations.We are also not unmindful of the fact that allegations of catching hold of an attack victim or of an exhortation are invariably made when the number of injuries on the injured party do not co-relate to the number of accused or in the alternative in an attempt to rope in as many persons as possible from the other side.In the case of Bishu Sarkar and others vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2017 SC 1729, prosecution relied on the testimony of PW 2 Nepal Dey, PW 3 Gopal Dey and PW 5 Kanai Sharma.According to PW2 Nepal Dey, he saw accused Tarit Kundu, Sahadeb Sarkar, Sasthi Sarkar, Bishu Sarkar, Sukumar Ghosh and Paresh Sarkar and all six persons caught hold of the collar of shirt of Raju Bose and assaulted him by fist and blows......Accused Sukumar Ghosh and Paresh Sarkar gave the order to kill Raju Bose.Then accused Sasthi Sarkar, Bishu Sarkar, Sahadeb Sarkar had remained engaged in catching hold of Raju Bose.Accused Tarit Kundu gave a blow on the back of Raju Bose with the help of a sharp-cutting weapon like ''bhojali'.The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:""It is true that PWs 2 and 5 assert that the present appellants had caught hold of Raju Bose.But it is not clear from the record whether such act was so intended to enable accused No.1 to deal the fatal blow.Further, PW 3 is completely silent on this aspect.In the circumstances we deem it appropriate to grant benefit of doubt to the present appellants and acquit them of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.""In the case of Gaya Yadav and others vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 2003 SC 1759, accused Gaya Yadav belonged to neighbouring village Kurkut Bigha and came to the deceased Jagannath Singh, Mukhiya of Mau Gram Panchayat in Mau Bazar and requested the deceased for supper for the night in his village on the occasion of ""Holika Dahan"".The deceased was reluctant to accept the invitation.At this time the accused Karu Yadav, who is also of the village Kurkut Bigha arrived there and both the accused insisted upon Mukhiya for the supper.The deceased succumbed to the request of the accused, P.W.3 Lallan Bihari the informant also accompanied him, as they made their way out of Mau village P.W.3 saw 9-10 persons coming from the opposite direction.P.W.3 thought that these persons might be going somewhere on the occasion of ""Holika Dahan"".Soon those persons came closer to them and the accused Gaya Yadav and Karu Yadav gave a push to the deceased Mukhiya and thereafter all other accused persons surrounded him.Out of them he could recognize Bhagat Yadav, Mukhiya Yadav, Madeshwar Yadav, Rahish Yadav, Deo Prasad Yadav and Khalitra Yadav.Having seen the accused surrounding the deceased the informant retreated about 10-15 steps backward and thought that the accused persons would leave the deceased Mukhiya but instead accused Khalitrar Yadav and Rahish Yadav caught hold of Mukhiya and accused Gaya Yadav and Bhagat Yadav fired at him from country made pistol.Thereupon, Mukhiya fell down.Thereafter, the accused Mukhiya Yadav who was armed with pausli bent over Mukhiya as if he was cutting the neck of Mukhiya.Simultaneously, all of them were uttering that Mukhiya should not survive.P.W.3 Lallan Bihari, informant during trial deposed that he went back 4 or 6 steps from where he saw that Rahish Yadav and Khalitra Yadav were catching hold the two arms of the deceased and the accused Gaya Yadav and Bhagwat Yadav each fired a shot from the pistol at the deceased who fell down.Thereafter, the accused Mukhiya Yadav began to cut the neck of Mukhiya by pausli.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:""So far as A-2 Madheshwar Yadav, A-3 Khalitra Yadav and A-4 Rahish Yadav are concerned, there is no evidence to show that they have shared the common intention to murder the deceased.No overt act has also been attributed to them.Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish its case against them for the offence under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubts.Their appeal is, accordingly, allowed.""on account of the same there was ill feeling between the two groups and on the date of occurrence on 22nd September, 1990 at 8:00 P.M. when one Natarajan was coughing on account of his fever the accused No.1 was passing by that road on his scooter.Shortly thereafter at 10:00 P.M. the complainant PW1 and the deceased - Mohan were returning from a theatre and when they had reached the house of one V. Murli the five accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the complainant and the deceased with deadly weapons.PW-1 then raised an alarm and on hearing the cries his relatives including Sekhar who is the other deceased came out of their houses and rushed towards Mohan.The five accused persons then also attacked these people and while accused No.3 caught hold of Sekhar, accused No.2 stabbed him with knife on his abdomen and caused fatal injury.These accused persons more particularly accused Mukhiya and 6 hurled stones which caused injury to the member of the complainant group.Accused No.1 also stabbed one Ravi Kumar with a knife on his left elbow, as a result of which said Ravi Kumar was injured.The injured persons were taken to the hospital for treatment and Mohan died during the midnight on account of shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained by him.The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:""We find considerable force in the submission of Mr. Parasaran, the learned senior counsel for the appellants, that prosecution has not explained the grievous injury on the head of accused-appellant No.1 and such non-explanation persuades us to draw an inference that the prosecution has not presented the true version at least so far as the role played by accused appellant No.1 and the witnesses who have been examined and who have ascribed a positive role to the appellant No.1 that he caught hold of Mohan when appellant No.1 stabbed Mohan are not true on material point and their evidence thus has become vulnerable.It has been also held that Mr. Parasaran is right in his submission that the witnesses ascribed the role of catching hold of Mohan by accused No.1 and role of caching hold of Sekhar by accused No.3 and the High Court gave the benefit to accused No.3 since the witnesses had not narrated the same to the police when examination under under Section 161 Cr.P.C. took place and therefore the self same infirmities having crept in when the prosecution witnesses stated about catching hold of Mohan by accused No.1, the said accused No.1 is entitled to the benefit of doubt.In fact as stated earlier Mrs. Amreshwari, the learned senior counsel appearing for the State also fairly stated that possibly it would be difficult to sustain the conviction of accused No.1 when the accused No.3 has got benefit of doubt and has been acquitted and no appeal against the said order of acquittal has been filed by the State.On account of such infirmities the prosecution as indicated above and more particularly when the prosecution has failed to offer any explanation for the grievous injuries sustained by accused No.1 on his head and the High Court has already found that the said injury was caused in course of the incident, we have no hesitation to hold that the accused-appellant No.1 D.V. Shanmugam is entitled to the benefit of doubt and accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence of the said accused- appellant No.1 both under Section 302/34 IPC as well as under Section 324 I.P.C.""In the case of Sushil vs. State of U.P., 1994 Law Suit Supreme Court 995, it has been stated that a day earlier to the occurrence there was an altercation between the deceased Jai Prakash and the appellants when the appellants had threatened to kill him.On 15th August, 1982 at about 5:45 A.M. the deceased Jai Prakash along with his uncle Hoshiyara PW 2 had gone to the jungle close by to their village to answer the call of nature.At about 6:30 A.M. after they had eased themselves, Hoshiyara cleaned his hands and when the deceased Jai Prakash was cleaning his hands it is at that point of time the accused Sushil, Tapeshwar and Ram Niwas arrived there.The accused/appellant Tapeshwar caught hold the hands of the deceased Jai Prakash, Ram Niwas attacked with a knife in the abdomen and stomach while Sushil gave knife blows on the waist and knee.When Hoshiyara saw this assault on Jai Prakash he raised hue and cry.The witnessess Charan Singh PW 3, Chandermal PW 4 and Dharampal PW 5 rushed there.The three assailants named above ran away from the place of occurrence after assailing Jai Prakash.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:""The appellant Tapeshwar was not armed with any weapon nor he is alleged to have made any assault on the deceased.There is no evidence that Tapeshwar was aware of the fact that the co-accused Sushil and Ram Niwas were armed with knives which may be used by them in the crime.The prosecution evidence is also silent on the point whether these two accused took out the knives suddenly with or without the knowledge of Tapeshwar or came with knives openly and visibly and inflicted knife injuries to the victim.In these facts and circumstances, it is difficult to say with certainty as to what extent, if at all, the appellant Tapeshwar shared the common intention with the other two appellants Sushil and Ram Niwas.In view of the opinion of Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed in Ramesh Singh @ Photti v/s State of A.P. and Ashif Khan v/s State of Maharashtra and another (supra), the acts and conducts of the appellants no.2, 3 and 4 in the instant case as mentioned in para 51 of the judgement prior to the incident, like going of accused Sunder Lal and Ram Bahadur to call the deceased for measurement as decided in the evening of past night, on reaching the deceased and witnesses meeting of all the accused persons on the place of incident situated in a remote area on the bank of the river, falling down the deceased by the accused persons thereafter tying both legs of the deceased and pressing legs by accused Ram Bahadur catching hold both hands by accused Ram Bharosey and Ram Shankar inflicting spade and spear injuries, seven in number by Sunder Lal and Ram Chander respectively, making no effort by any accused to save the deceased, after the incident going away together of all accused through the bank of river indicates that all accused persons had shared the common intention in killing the deceased Beni Ram.The accused in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have stated that witnesses have deposed against them due to enmity but what was the enmity, it has not been explained by them.Since, Sunder Lal (died during trial) was claiming land in the lease land of the deceased, so with regard to him it may be said that witnesses of fact had enmity but so far as appellants are concerned, there is no material on record to draw such an inference.Without any explanation or evidence it cannot be accepted that there was enmity between the deceased and accused persons and witnesses of fact deposed against them due to enmity.Therefore, on the basis of their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it cannot be accepted that accused persons have been falsely implicated and witnesses deposed against them due to enmity and appellant Ram Chander to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C.Thus, upon a wholesome consideration of the facts of the case, attending circumstances and the evidence on record, we do not find that the learned trial Judge committed any illegality or legal infirmity in convicting and sentencing appellants Ram Chander, Ram Shankar, Ram Bharosey and Ram Bahadur each to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C., in default of fine six 6 months additional imprisonment, appellants Ram Shankar, Ram Bharosey and Ram Bahadur to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 I.P.C. and appellant Ram Chander to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C.This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.The C.J.M. concerned shall send his report with regard to the accused-respondents within one month thereafter.The lower court record shall be returned to the court concerned.Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Jitendra","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard the learned counsel for the parties.This is the fourth repeat application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant whereas his earlier two bail applications (Mcrc No.6840/2016 & Mcrc No.12493.2016) have been dismissed on merits vide orders dated 08.07.2016 & 26.10.2016 respectively.The applicant is in custody since 09.03.2016 relating to Crime No.129/2016 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Morena (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 332, 333, 186, 294, 506, 34, 394, 397, 201 of IPC and under Section 11, 13 of the MPDVPKAfter considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that there is no change in the circumstances or no new ground could be shown by the applicant so that the view taken on 08.07.2016 and 26.10.2016 may be changed.It was also mentioned in the order dated 26.10.2016 that appreciation of evidence cannot be done at this stage.(N.K. Gupta) Judge pd","['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(DIPANKAR DATTA,J.)W.P.9956(W) of 2014 pg (Asha Mondal @ Ashalata Mondal & Ors.vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay Mr. Suman Sankar Chattopadhyay...for the petitioners Mr. Amrita Lal Chatterjee....for the State A report has been filed by the Circle Inspector, Amta Circle, Howrah Rural District through Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate for the State.It appears therefrom that investigation of Amta Police Station Case No. 46 of 2014 dated February 05, 2014 under Sections 448/427/342/323/325/379/506/376-D/120B of the Indian Penal Code has been completed and police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter the 'Code') has been filed before the learned magistrate vide Amta Police Station Charge Sheet No. 91 of 2014 dated April 26, 2014 under Sections 448/427/342/323/ 325/379/506/376-D/120B against eight F.I.R. named accused persons and two persons whose names transpired in course of recording the statements of the victims and the complainant under Section 164 of the Code.The report shall be retained with the records.Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate for the petitioners submits that some other persons, whose names transpired in course of recording of the statements of the victims and the complainant under Section 164 of 2 the Code, have not been charge sheeted.He prays for an opportunity to look into the report.Put up the writ petition under the same heading on Tuesday next (13.05.2014).Learned advocate on record for the petitioners shall be at liberty to look into the report.","['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"And In the matter of: Apurba Saha ....petitioner.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the allegation of compelling the victim to cohabit with him on threat of uploading pictures are patently absurd.Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a Bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah subject to the condition that during bail he shall appear before 2 the learned trial court regularly till disposal of the trial and he hall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.In the event the petitioner fails to comply with the conditions as enshrined hereinbefore, it is open to the trial court to cancel the bail without any further reference to this Court.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)","['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"By this present Miscellaneous Criminal Case under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the applicant is challenging order dated 6.1.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khategaon, District-Dewas.Earlier the applicant has filed an application bearing M.Cr.C.No.32396/2019 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The said application has been withdrawn vide order dated 26.8.2019 with a liberty to renew the prayer after two months of the statement of the prosecutrix.As per prosecution story, on 15.7.2019 complainant lodged a report against the petitioner that, at about 12 o' clock when she was sitting on her shop, at that time applicant teasing to the complainant and from his ship and when the prosecutrix asked him that, why he is teasing her then the applicant came with ballam (sharp object) to cause injury in the shop of the complainant and the complainant entered in her house and the applicant also entered in the house of the complainant and caused injury to her.Upon crying, her husband and his brother came there and save her.The applicant caused injury to the husband of the complainant by sharp object.On the basis of the said report, offence under Sections 452, 354(A), 509, 323, :2: M.Cr.C.No..2637-2020 325 and 506 of the IPC has been registered against the applicant at police station Harangaon, District-Dewas.:2:Against the said order, the applicant has filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has filed the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the learned Judge while rejecting the application has failed to consider the provisions of Section 437 (6) of Cr.P.C. whereas as the said Section, if in any case triable by Magistrate, the trial of the person accused of any no-viable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate and in the present case the first date for evidence was 30.10.2019, but none of the prosecution witnesses present before the trial Court.As per the said provisions, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.C.No..2637-2020Learned Public Prosecutor for the State submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail; hence he prays for rejection of the application.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.However, till 3.1.2020 the trial could not have been completed and none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined.","['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"C.R.M. 9259 of 2018 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 09/10/2018 in connection with Chanchal P.S. Case No.581 of 2018 dated 11/09/2018 under Sections 341/323/325/307/34 of the Indian gd Penal Code.And In the matter of: Gour Ch.Das @ Gour Das @ Gora Das & Ors.....petitioners.Mr. A. Sarkar ...for the petitioners.Mr. Bitasok Banerjee ...for the State.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Chanchal P.S. Case No.581 of 2018 dated 11/09/2018 under Sections 341/323/325/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners claim that following a dispute over the felling of a tree with a neighbour, there was a fight and injuries were suffered on both sides.The petitioners say that an exaggerated complaint has been lodged against them.The State produces the case diary and refers to one of the injuries.The concerned victim suffered two deep-cut scalp injuries.The State says that wooden sticks were used to mercilessly beat up the complainant and his associates.Considering the nature of the incident and the extent of the injury, the immediate detention of the petitioners may not be called for, particularly since they have been identified.The petitioners must, however, cooperate with the investigation.In addition, the petitioners will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer, till the investigation is completed.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Suvra Ghosh, J.)","['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"A.No.674/2007 Page 1 of 10The reason why learned counsel for the appellant has made restricted submissions is the fact that the dead body of Smt. Sudershan Pahuja was recovered from the house of the appellant.The body had been concealed in a trunk which was placed in the kitchen of the house.Indeed, the photographs taken by PW-7 being Ex.PW-7/A to Ex.PW-7/K negatives whereof are PW-7/1 to Ex.PW-7/10 are indisputably the kitchen of the house of the appellant.That the deceased had gone to the house of the appellant stands proved by the testimony of her son Harish Pahuja PW-1, his wife Rubi Pahuja PW-5 as also Parminder Singh PW-3 who have deposed that the deceased Smt. Sudershan Pal had gone to the house of the appellant to collect Rs.20,000/- Crl.A.No.674/2007 Page 2 of 10 which she had loaned to the mother of the appellant.A.No.674/2007 Page 2 of 10Case of the prosecution is that the deceased had loaned Rs.20,000/- to Sumitra, the mother of the appellant, and on 17.2.2001 had gone to the house of the appellant to receive back the said money.Needless to state, the mother of the appellant was residing with him.Since the deceased did not return home till late afternoon, hence her son and her daughter- in-law were naturally alarmed.Harish Pahuja the son of the deceased and his friend Parminder Singh went to the house of the appellant but found the same locked.Since the deceased did not return home and could not be located even by late evening, the son i.e. Harish Pahuja lodged a missing person's complaint, Ex.PW-10/A, informing that his mother had gone to the house of the appellant.This led the police to track down the appellant and his mother.Since their house was locked, from the neighbours they learnt that a daughter of the appellant was married and was residing some where at Tughlak Road, New Delhi.The police located the house of the daughter of the appellant, where they met Deepa, the youngest daughter of the appellant, then aged about 8-9 years, who informed the police Crl.A.No.674/2007 Page 3 of 10 that the deceased had come to their house at 5628/78, Regar Pura, Karol Bagh and had demanded Rs.20,000/- from her grandmother.Her grandmother did not pay the money.The deceased bit her grand-mother and on seeing this her father got enraged and picked up an iron rod and repeatedly hit the deceased on the face and the skull.That the deceased died.That her father and her grand-mother cleaned the blood stains from the floor and put the body inside a trunk and put the trunk in the kitchen.She was sent to the house of her sister.Her father and her grandmother went away.A.No.674/2007 Page 3 of 10On the basis of the said statement, Ex.PW-2/A, made by Deepa, the police went to the house of the appellant.Indeed, from the kitchen, a trunk was found and on it being opened, the dead body of the deceased was recovered.After the appellant was apprehended he made a disclosure statement and got recovered the weapon of offence which he had used to inflict injuries on the deceased.We note that Deepa who was examined as PW-2 turned hostile and refused having made any statement to the police.A.No.674/2007 Page 4 of 10A.No.674/2007 Page 4 of 10Indeed, learned counsel for the appellant has, after making very feverish submissions on merits, restricted Crl.The deposition of young Deepa in Court is belied from the fact that when her grand-mother, who was also apprehended, was sent for medical examination, as per MLC Ex.PW-20/A the doctor noted that she had a bite mark on the under-side of the left arm and bruises on the arm.Sumitra, the grand-mother of Deepa has not explained the said bite mark injury on her fore-arm and this gives credence to the statement made by Deepa which ultimately led the police to recover the dead body of the deceased from the house of the appellant.Indeed, in view of the afore-noted over whelming evidence, coupled with the fact that the injuries on the body of the deceased being 12 in number, as per the MLC Ex.PW-8/A; injuries being fatal and by no stretch of imagination can any one argue that he who inflicts said injury does not intend to cause the death of the victim, learned counsel did not venture much into the evidence.The 12 injuries on the deceased are as under:-""1. CLW 11 x 2 x bone deep cms over left side forehead starting from the outer end of the left eyebrow going upwards, outwards and backwards upto a point 4 cms above the top of left ear pinna.A.No.674/2007 Page 5 of 10CLW stellate shape shaped 3 x 1.5 x bone deep cm over middle of forehead, 0.5 cm above the root of the nose.CLW 5.1.8 x bone deep cm obliquely placed over right side forehead 1.2 cm above the right eyebrow.CLW 2.5 x 0.7 x bone deep cm over right side face 2 cm left in front of right ear.CLW 1 x 0.3 x bone deep cm over left side chin 1 cm left to mid line.Flapping of the skin margin present.Flapping of the skin margin present.CLW 6.8 x 1.9 x bone deep cm over right temporal region 4 cm behind the lower end of injury no.9.""A.No.674/2007 Page 6 of 10Indeed, the weapon of offence has been recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant and on his pointing out.Learned counsel for the appellant urges that the evidence establishes that the deceased bit the mother of the appellant who was aged 85 years.At that, the appellant attacked the victim.A.No.674/2007 Page 7 of 10","['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"P.W. 3 tried to protest when appellant no. 1 and others assaulted him with sword and lathi.Thereupon, the appellants also assaulted Parboti Debi with sword 3 and lathi.Asoke Kahar (P.W.1) is the son of Jagannath Kahar and is the defacto complainant in this case.He intervened in the skirmish and was also assaulted by the lathi.P.Ws. 2 and 3 sustained bleeding injuries and were admitted in hospital.P.W. 1 was also struck 4 on his right shoulder with lathi and he also fell down.He lodged first information report which was exhibited and he proved his signature thereon.The police came to the place of occurrence and seized blood stained clothes of the victim and P.W. 1 signed on the seizure list.He identified the wearing apparels of his father and sister.In cross-examination P.W. 1 stated that his father was struck by the backside of the sword.She corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 and stated that when she requested the appellants not to assault P.W. 3, they assaulted her causing bleeding injuries.In cross-examination she stated that she was in hospital for 11 days.P.W. 3 is the father of P.W. 1 and 2 and is the other injured victim who corroborated their evidence.He stated that appellant no. 1 assaulted him on the head with a sword.He further stated that P.W. 2 was also assaulted by the miscreants.He lost his consciousness and was admitted in hospital.P. W. 4 is a neighbour, who stated that he came to the place of occurrence after the incident.He made arrangements to take P.W. 2 to the hospital.04.1985 around 9-30 p.m. the appellants along with other miscreants came to the house of Jagannath Kahar (P.W.3) at Mominpara, Block No. 9 and House No. 18 under P.S. Jagatdal, being armed with deadly weapons like lathi, nepala, sword etc. forming an unlawful assembly with the object of causing rioting.Appellant no. 1 asked P.W. 3 why they had not been invited the 'annaprasan ceremony' of his grandson.Thereafter, the appellants threatened P.W. 3 to kill him.The case being a sessions triable one was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore for trial and disposal.Charges were framed under Section 148 /307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellants claimed to be not guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses.The defence of the appellants were one of innocence and false implication.In conclusion of trial, the trial court by judgment and order dated 29th July, 1987 convicted and sentence the appellants as aforesaid.Hence, the present appeal.P.W. 1, 2 and 3 are the injured witnesses in the instant case.He stated that on the fateful day when he was taking his food along with his father and sister in their house the appellants came to their residence and abused their father as to whey they were not invited on the 'annaprasan ceremony' of his son which was being celebrated on that day.Thereafter the accused persons assaulted P.W. 3 with sword.He fell down and sustained bleeding injuries.When P.W. 2 tried to intervene she was also assaulted with sword and lathi.She suffered bleeding injuries as also a fracture on her hand.He signed on the seizure list.He corroborated the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses and deposed about the assault on P. Ws. 2 and 3 by appellant no. 1 and his nephew.In cross-examination, P.W. 6 stated that he saw the incident while fetching water.P. W. 7 is an ASI of Police, who received the FIR.He proved the written complaint as well as the formal FIR.P. W. 8 and 9 are the medical witnesses in the instant case.P. W. 8 stated that he had examined Jagannath Kahar (P.W. 3) and found the following injuries :-1. Lacerated injury over the left side of the scalp 3"" x 3 "" x "".2. Lacerated injury over the left forearm 1 "" x "" x "" plus 1"" x "" x "".3. Lacerated injury over the right forearm 1 "" x "" x "".He further deposed that the victim was conscious when he examined him.He stated that he was assaulted by Kana Pandit, Kamala Mondal, Bimala Mondal, Jalal Mondal, Rajballav Singh and nephew of Kana Pandit on 1.4.85 at about 9.30 P.M. with bamboo, heavy sharp instrument (nepala).He also examined Parbati Debi (P.W. 3) and found the following injuries :1. Lacerated injury over the scalp 1 "" x "" x 1"".Swelling and tenderness on left forearm.In cross-examination, he stated that lacerated injury can also be caused by sword.P. W. 9 stated that one Jagannath Singh was admitted multiple lacerated injuries over the scalp and both forearms.On x-ray of the scapula, it was found that there was a doubtful crack fracture of the neck of left scapula.He also stated that the x-ray of Parboti Debi, (P.W. 2) showed fracture of left radius.P. W. 11 is a neighbour, who was, however, declared hostile.P. W. 12 is the Investigating Officer of the case, who submitted the charge sheet.It is the evidence of P.W. 1 that the blunt side of the sword was used.He further submitted that independent witness, P. W. 11 has not supported the prosecution case.He, accordingly, prayed that the conviction to be set aside.Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the evidence of injured witnesses were consistent and is supported by medical evidence.Under such circumstances, no corroboration is necessary to bring home the guilt of the accused/appellants.He prayed for dismissal of the appeal.It is true that they are relations of the injured witnesses.Furthermore, the names of the appellants transpired as assailants at the earliest opportunity before the Medical Officer, namely, P. W. 8 as recorded in the injury report.Hence, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the injured witnesses whose ocular version is corroborated by the medical evidence merely on the ground that the same is not corroborated by independent witnesses.Corroboration by independent witness is not a rule of law but a rule of prudence and caution.If the evidence of the injured witnesses are unequivocal, consistent and is corroborated by medical evidence, there is no reason to disbelieve them merely on the ground of lack of corroboration.It is true that P. W. 6 in cross-examination claimed that he did not see anyone apart from appellant no.1 and his nephew at the place of occurrence.However, one ought not lose sight of the fact that he was not inside the house of P.W. 3 where the incident occurred but P. W. 6 had seen the incident from a distance when he was fetching water and it is possible that he was unable to notice the presence of all the assistants at the place of occurrence.Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the incident as portrayed by the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.Hence, the intention to kill P.W. 1 is not evident in the facts of the case.Accordingly, I alter the conviction of appellant no.1 from Section 307 IPC to 326 IPC.In view of the aforesaid discussion, I maintain the conviction of the appellants under Section 148 IPC.Coming to the sentence I find that the incident had occurred four decades ago.The appellants do not have any criminal antecedent.Accordingly, I reduce the sentence imposed on the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and direct that they shall suffer imprisonment for a period already undergone and pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven days more.With regard to the conviction under Section 326/34 IPC, I direct the appellant no.1, who is the principal assailant upon P.W. 3, shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and shall pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days more and the appellant nos.2 to 4 herein shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and shall pay a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven days.All the sentences shall run concurrently.Let a copy of this judgment along with LCR be sent down to the trial court at once for compliance and execution of the sentence in accordance with law.The appeal stands disposed of.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) Aloke/AB Item no. 417","['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In short, the facts of the case are that on 01.10.2013 complainant, Mr. Yogesh Tyagi lodged a complaint that one Mohd. Tasim who is working as Property Dealer told the complainant that the petitioner, who is owner of plot measuring 400 sq. yds.situated in Khasra No.27/19, Village Jharoda Majra, Burari, Delhi, has agreed to sell the said plot to Munavvar Hussain, S/o.Anuddin Hussain at the rate of Rs.45,500/- per sq. yd., total amounting to Rs.1,82,00,000/- and an agreement to sell dated 17.07.2012 was executed.Pursuant to the said agreement, Munavvar Hussain paid Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen lakhs only) as earnest money.Mr. Tasim handed over a Crl.M.C. No.3387/2014 Page 1 of 7 photocopy of the agreement and a receipt.The complainant agreed to purchase the said plot at the rate of Rs.46,500/- per sq. yd.from Munavvar Hussain.The complainant paid a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty one lakhs only) on 25.08.2012 as earnest money to Tasim and Manavvar Hussain, which was paid to Kuldeep Singh (petitioner) on the same day in respect of the said plot.Thereafter, the petitioner entered into his house and after some time came out armed with revolver and refused to return the original agreement and to issue the receipt by showing pistol.The complainant has also alleged that the complainant along with his brothers Rajesh Tyagi, Ashwani Crl.Thereafter, the complainant demanded the agreement to sell from petitioner but he refused to hand over the same.M.C. No.3387/2014 Page 7 of 7The petitioner acknowledged the receipt of the said amount on the backside of the agreement.Thereafter, two post dated cheques bearing Nos.699782 and 699783 amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) and Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) respectively both dated 25.09.2012 drawn on State Bank of India were issued and given to the petitioner.On 22.09.2012 a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs only) and on 25.09.2012 a sum of Rs.29,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty nine lakhs only) were paid to Tasim in respect of the said plot, who handed over the said amount to the petitioner and obtained receipt on the backside of copy of the agreement.The complainant has also alleged that he had also paid a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty lakhs only) to Tasim on 22.10.2012 in respect of purchase of said plot, which was to be paid to the petitioner.Mr. Tasim told him that he went to Kuldeep Singh (petitioner) and paid Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty lakhs only) to him and asked him to acknowledge the receipt of the said amount.The complainant tried to contact the petitioner and was ready to pay the balance amount but neither the documents of title were executed by the petitioner nor the amount of Rs.1,31,00,000/- (Rupees One crore thirty one lakhs only) was returned.The Investigating Officer verified the photocopy of agreement and bayana receipt from Notary Public and concerned stamp vendor regarding purchase of stamp paper and notarisation.The petitioner was absconding.Accordingly, proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.M.C. No.3387/2014 Page 3 of 7were initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 16.07.2014 and the process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. were executed on 22.07.2014 vide DD No.27, P.S. Burari, Delhi and the proclamation was published in the newspaper.I have carefully considered the material on record and I find that the petitioner was fully aware of the proceedings pending before the trial Court regarding issuance of the proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner as he could not be arrested despite Crl.M.C. No.3387/2014 Page 6 of 7 issuance of non-bailable warrants.The petitioner also received a notice dated 29.03.2014 sent by the Investigating Officer but the petitioner did not join the investigation.It appears that the petitioner tried to avoid the process of the Court.M.C. No.3387/2014 Page 6 of 7Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no ground for quashing the proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.M.A. No.11725/2014 The application is dismissed as infructuous.(VED PRAKASH VAISH) JUDGE AUGUST 25th, 2014 hs Crl.M.C. No.3387/2014 Page 7 of 7","['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"No.23 of 1998 whereby the appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 304 (Part II) of I.P.C or 304 (Part II) read with Section 34 of I.P.C and sentenced for seven years rigorous imprisonment.The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 18.7.1997 the deceased Ramratan along with his son Keshav (PW3) went to plough the field situated at Village Dani (Police Station Gudh, District Rewa).There was a dispute relating to ownership and possession of that particular field with the appellants and therefore, the appellants along with one Sukhlal came to the spot and stopped the complainant/deceased to work on the fields.The 2 Criminal Appeal No.730 of 1999 appellants were armed with the sticks and therefore, the deceased Ramratan and Keshav left the field and went back to the village.On the way the appellants Ram Dutt, Sudarshan, Manoj alias Chottan Mishra restrained the deceased and assaulted the deceased Ramratan and his son Keshav with sticks.Both the injured persons fell upon the earth.On their shouting Chhotelal (PW4), Chandrakali (PW1) and Ishwari etc. came to the spot.They took the injured persons to the Village Dani.Thereafter, the deceased Ramratan was taken to the Police Station Gudh where he lodged an FIR Ex.All the injured persons were sent to Government Hospital Rewa for their medico legal examination and treatment.Dr. M. K. Tiwari (PW6) after examining the victims Ramratan and Keshav gave his reports Ex.P/6 and P/7 respectively.He found swelling and tenderness on the left hand of Ramratan and bony cervix sound was also there at the first metacarpal bone in his hand.No other injury was found on him whereas, Keshav sustained 4-5 injuries caused by hard and blunt objects on his chest, back, left side of the head, fore arm, right knee and other places of the body.Both the patients were admitted in the hospital and Ramratan was referred for his X-Ray examination.Dr. Atul Singh (PW7) examined the victim Ramratan radiologically and gave his report Ex.(Delivered on the 10th day of October, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 10.3.1999 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in ST.He found a fracture in his first metacarpal bone.Again the victim Ramratan was referred for radiological examination on 22.7.1997 and a fracture was found in his head.Panchayatnama lash Ex.P/25 was prepared of the deceased and body of the deceased Ramratan was sent for post mortem.Dr. B. K. Sharma (PW10) did the post mortem on the body of the deceased Ramratan and found that he died due to complications of head injury.After due investigation a charge sheet was filed before the JMFC, Rewa who, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Rewa and ultimately it was transferred to the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa.The appellants abjured their guilt.They did not take any specific plea in the case but, they have stated that they were falsely implicated in the matter.In defence Shivendra Kumar Agnihotri (DW1) and Baijnath Tiwari (DW2) were examined to prove the alibi of accused Manoj and Surendra Prasad Mishra (DW3) was examined to prove the alibi of the accused Sukhlal .After considering the evidence adduced by the parties the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the other accused persons from all the charges.The appellants were also acquitted from the charges of offences punishable under Section 307, 302, 341, 294, 323 and 506-B of I.P.C but the appellants Ram Dutt, Sudarshan, Manoj @ Chottan Mishra were convicted for offences punishable under Section 304 (Part II) read with Section 34 of I.P.C whereas, the applicant Mola was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of I.P.C and all of them were sentenced for 7 years rigorous imprisonment.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.Criminal Appeal No.730 of 1999The learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the evidence of the various eye witnesses may be perused.They did not support the prosecution story.The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants on the basis of the FIR lodged by the deceased Ramratan considering it as a dying declaration.The learned Additional Sessions Judge was confused about the overt act of the appellants as an individual.While convicting the appellants the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted them for offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) read with section 34 of I.P.C, whereas at the time of granting the sentence he sentenced the appellant Mola for offence punishable under section 304 (Part II) read with Section 34 of I.P.C, whereas the remaining appellants were sentenced for offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of I.P.C. There was no overt act specifically mentioned in the FIR as to who had caused the head injury to the deceased Ramratan and therefore, no accused could be convicted for main offence of Section 304 (Part II) of the I.P.C. It is also submitted that FIR was not at all a dying declaration in the eyes of law.In support of his contention the learned counsel for the appellants placed his reliance upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of ""Sukhar Vs.Under such 5 Criminal Appeal No.730 of 1999 circumstances, such FIR cannot be believed.To disbelieve the FIR (dying declaration) the learned counsel for the appellant placed his reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of ""Maniram Vs.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is to be considered as to whether the appeal filed by the appellants can be accepted ? And whether the sentence directed against the appellants can be reduced ?The present case is a peculiar case in which Keshav (PW3) son of the deceased Ramratan, an injured witness, turned hostile.Chandrakali (PW1), Keshav (PW3) and Chhotelal (PW4) were examined as eye witnesses who turned hostile.They simply stated that they saw the victim Ramratan lying injured on the earth.Ramratan was taken to the Police Station Gudh where he had lodged an FIR Ex.The incident took place on 18.7.1997 and Ramratan expired after that incident.There is no allegation that the mental condition of the deceased Ramratan was not sound and therefore, the FIR which was lodged within reasonable time 6 Criminal Appeal No.730 of 1999 after the incident and proved by the Head Constable Shiv Pratap Singh (PW8) is acceptable.Dr. M.K. Tiwari (PW6) examined the victim Ramratan and Keshav and found the corresponding injuries as mentioned in the FIR.Initially one visible injury was found on the victim Ramratan which was in his fingers of left hand.No visible injury was found on his head.Though symptoms of vomiting etc. were not reiterated then on 22.7.1997 a second X- Ray was done to the victim Ramratan and Dr. Atul Singh (PW7) gave his report Ex.He found that the victim Ramratan sustained a fracture in the fronto parietal region of the skull corresponding to parietal border at orbit.By that discovery it was found that victim Keshav sustained some injuries on his head.The deceased Keshav died after some time due to complications which arose in his head injury and when, the injuries were not of such nature so that they were sufficient to cause his death initially, therefore, it was rightly observed by the trial Court that the culprits who, assaulted the deceased Ramratan were guilty of offence punishable under section 304 (Part II) of I.P.C and not guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.The prime question is about the culprit who assaulted the deceased or participated with the common intention.It is no where clear in the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that how he selected the culprits for conviction.In the FIR Ex.P/13 it was stated that the deceased Ramratan and Keshav ran from the spot and thereafter Ram Dutt and Manoj restrained the 7 Criminal Appeal No.730 of 1999 victim and assaulted them.It is no where mentioned in the FIR that the appellant Mola had also participated in the assault but the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant Mola without any basis.In the present case when the FIR was recorded there was no possibility of death of the deceased Ramratan and FIR was written in a routine manner therefore, it cannot be said that the FIR cannot be treated as a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act.The FIR Ex.P/13 is the only evidence against the appellants in the present case and therefore, it should be observed as to whether the dying declaration given by the deceased by way of FIR is trustworthy or not.The dying declaration have various qualities.It should be clear and it should allege against the culprits with some clarity.In this case initially six accused persons were prosecuted.The deceased Ramratan in the FIR Ex.P/13 made omnibus statements against three persons viz. Ram Dutt, Sudarshan and Manoj that they assaulted him.The deceased sustained only two injuries.One was there on his fingers and another was on his head.His head injury was so peculiar that no visible injury was found on his head.It could be located after four days of the incident when radiological examination of his head was done.Dr. B. K. Sharma (PW10) has informed that the deceased was 70 years old man who lost his resistance.At such an age various bones of the body turn brittle and therefore, one stroke on the head could cause several 9 Criminal Appeal No.730 of 1999 fractures in the head.Under such circumstances, it cannot be accepted that more than one stroke was given on the head.If more than one stoke was given on the head then there must be some visible injury on his head and he must be in coma from the very beginning but, the deceased Ramratan was conscious at the time of lodging the FIR.During the MLC examination neither he complained about his injury on his head nor the doctor found such an injury.Under such circumstances, it is also possible that he sustained the head injury later on and therefore, it cannot be said that initially he sustained more than two stroke on his body.The deceased Ramratan had alleged in the FIR Ex.P/13 that three persons had assaulted him and his son.It is an omnibus allegation against the culprits.He did not make any specific allegation that out of those culprits who assaulted upon him.The culprit who gave a stroke on his head was mainly responsible for the offences punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of the I.P.C and a culprit who, assaulted the deceased Ramratan on his hand could be convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of I.P.C due to his common intention but, a person who did not assault the victim Ramratan could not be convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of I.P.C either directly or on the basis of Section 34 of I.P.C because there was nothing on record to say that he had any common intention with the main accused and therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the two accused persons on 10 Criminal Appeal No.730 of 1999 this count.If only two persons had assaulted the deceased Ramratan out of these appellants, it is clear from FIR Ex.P/13 that there is no allegation upon the appellant Mola that he assaulted the deceased Ramratan and therefore, his common intention cannot be presumed with other co-accused persons.Similarly out of the remaining three appellants viz. Ram Dutt, Sudarshan and Manoj one person appears to be innocent, who did not participate in the crime.It is possible that he had assaulted the victim Keshav but, by such an act it cannot be said that he had any common intention with the other co-accused persons who assaulted the deceased Ramratan.If the omnibus allegations in the FIR Ex.P/13 are accepted then it would be injustice to one of the appellant who, did not participate in the crime and when the appellant in not isolated in the case then it is possible that he could be either Ram Dutt, Sudarshan or Manoj.In such circumstances, the FIR Ex.P/13 the dying declaration of the deceased Ramratan is not specific and clear by which any conviction can be drawn against any specific appellant.Under such circumstances, it would be risky to convict all the three persons for the offences whereas only two persons had participated in the crime done against the deceased Ramratan. 11Under such circumstances, none of the appellants could be convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of I.P.C or any inferior offence of the similar nature either directly or with the help of Section 34 of I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in convicting the appellants for offence punishable under section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of I.P.C.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the appeal filed by the appellants appears to be acceptable and therefore, it is accepted.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 10.10.2012 bina","['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"1 .2018 m No.33 No.34 owed C CRM No. 5835 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 07.08.2018 in connection with Kolaghat Police Station Case No. 216 dated 14.05.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 341/325/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Surajit Maity & anr.... Petitioners Mr. Suman De, Advocate .. for the petitioners Mr. Aniket Mitra, Advocate ..for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Kolaghat Police Station Case No. Case No. 216 dated 14.05.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 341/325/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2","['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"He grew paddy on the land and reaped it.ORDER Sen, J.This rule has been obtained by the two accused who have been convicted of having committed theft.The first accused Yakub Sheikh has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.Half of the fine has been directed to be paid to Kalu Santal as compensation.The case for the prosecution is that Kalu Santal was in possession of certain land as the adiar of one Charan Das Chatterjee.","['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"rt Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of ou incident, age of prosecutirx was 16 years and she was a consenting party and he has been falsely implicated.Alternative submission was C that prosecutrix sustained injury in her private part when she was h attending the call of nature.ig The submission is opposed by the Government Advocate and he H submitted that at the time of incident, the prosecutrix was only 08 year old girl and she was sexual assaulted by the appellant.As a result of the sexual assaulted she had sustained injury in a private parts.This fact is duly proved by Dr.Rashmi Kurariya (PW-7) as well as mother of the prosecutrix Nanhi Bai who lodged the FIR.After going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the Trial Court.Accordingly, I.A.No.1401/2017 stands rejected and closed.Hence, I.A.No.16059/2017, an application for suspension of fine amount stands disposed of.sh C.C. as per rules.",['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The petitioners are the accused in Summary Criminal Case No. 346/2011, pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Amalner.The case arises on a complaint filed by the respondent no.1 herein and in respect of offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC.The petitioners have approached this Court, invoking its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, praying that by a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, the order dated 21-12-2013, passed by the learned Magistrate, rejecting the application (Exhibit 85) made by the petitioners, for recording their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [For short, ""the Code""], afresh, be quashed and set aside, and that the learned Magistrate be directed to record the statement of each accused afresh.::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:10:49 :::On going through the copies of the record of the examination of the accused persons, as are annexed to the petition, I find substance in this contention.I find that, the questions put by the Magistrate are actually composite questions and each question consists of some sub-questions.It is obvious that, answers given to such questions cannot be properly comprehended.In the view that I am taking, it is not necessary to elaborately discuss the matter, but by way of example, the Question No.13 put to the petitioner no.1 - Kalyan s/o.Sahebrao Patil - is taken into consideration.This question reads as under :"" In the statement of witness no.2- Kanti Arjun Patil - it is stated that, on 28-7-2011, a news was published in the newspaper.In that, it was published that, the complainant was expelled from MNS.In that news item the message was that, by taking photos with superiors, a business was made.She read the news item in 'Punyanagari' ::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:10:49 ::: (5) newspaper.She received phone calls from many women.How such news came out in respect of the complainant ?::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:10:49 :::Because of that news item, the complainant was defamed.What you have to say about this ?""The above question is answered as ""हे खोटे आहे"" (It is false).Now, this question consists of the statements that, on a particular date, a news was published in a newspaper.The question also states what was the matter published by way of said news.The question also says that, the witness no.2 read the news in a particular newspaper.The question also says that, thereafter, the said witness received phone calls from a number of women.The question also states that, the said witness then made inquiries with the accused no.2 (Not the petitioner no.1 who was examined).The quesetion also states that, the accused no.2 said that he would tender an apology.The question then finally says that, because of the publication of the said news item, the complainant i.e. the respondent no.1 was defamed.Now, the answer, 'It is false', cannot be properly understood, inasmuch as, it is not clear, whether the denial is in respect of publication of news, or about the matter containing the news, or about the witness no.2 having read that in a particular newspaper, or about the witness having received a number of telephone calls from certain women, or about the witness having made ::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:10:49 ::: (6) inquiries with the accused no.2, about the accused no.2 having said that he would tender an apology, and ultimately about, that, because of the publication of the said news item, the complainant was defamed.The answer, 'It is false', would be the right answer even if the denial is in respect of any one of these facts.::: Downloaded on - 27/01/2014 23:10:49 :::","['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT J.H. Bhatia, J.Leave granted.Amendment be effected immediately.2. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.With consent of the Counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing immediately.To state in brief, the wife and minor children of the present petitioner had filed Criminal Misc.Application No. 130/1997 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the J.M.F.C., Ichalkarnji.The application was contested by the petitioner.After hearing the parties, respondent No. 1 Mr. J.B. Anandgaonkar, the then J.M.F.C., passed the order dated 14/11/1997 allowing the maintenance application.That order was challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No. 222/1997 before the Sessions Court, Kolhapur contending that the learned Magistrate had not made proper inquiry about the various aspects.That revision application was allowed by order dated 16/1/2001 and the maintenance application was remanded back to the J.M.F.C., Ichalkaranji for fresh inquiry.After fresh inquiry respondent No. 2 Mr. G.G. Bhansali passed the order dated 4/4/2003 granting maintenance to the wife and the children.The petitioner filed a complaint against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 219 and 220 of I.P.C. in the Court of J.M.F.C., Ichalkaranji on 24/11/2004, which was registered as M.A. Application No. 312/2004 and the matter was put up for arguments on the point of maintainability of such a complaint.After hearing the petitioner and after going through the relevant provisions of law, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ichalkaranji, dismissed the Revision Application with costs of Rs. 5000/-.The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the dismissal of his complaint by the Courts below.However, that order was set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge in Revision Application No. 222/1997 and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court.After remand respondent No. 2, while discharging his duties, as Judicial officer, considered the evidence led by both the parties and passed the order of the maintenance against the petitioner.The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 5000/- in view of his conduct in filing the complaint against the Judicial officer in respect of judicial orders passed by them.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that the petitioner had not only made the complaint against the Judicial Officers but he had also made the allegations against several advocates, who were appointed by him from time to time, for not performing their duties in proper manner.The learned Additional Sessions Judge noted as follows:This conduct of the complainant should not be taken lightly and while dismissing this revision, heavy costs of Rs. 5000/- payable to the State deserves to be imposed against the complainant."" These observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are perfectly justified.Such practice of making wild allegations against judicial officers only because they had passed certain orders against the particular party needs to be deprecated strongly.",['Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Subsequently, the appellant was heard on the question of sentence and by an order dated 5th March, 2002, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.The deceased, Laxmi Kanta, was an employee with the Central Reserve Police Force (for short the CRPF).On 23rd October, 1996, police station Najafgarh received intimation that a woman was burning in Naveen Place Colony, Jharoda Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi.The report indicated that the woman was an employee of the CRPF.On receipt of the information, the police went to the spot and came to know that the woman, Laxmi Kanta, had been removed to the CRPF Base Hospital in a police van.When the police reached the CRPF Base Hospital, they came to know that she had been referred to Safdarjung Hospital.It appears that in the meanwhile, Laxmi Kanta had informed the doctor in CRPF Base Hospital that her husband, Jaya Kumar Nair, the appellant had poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire.She gave similar information to her Commanding Officer who had come to see her in the Base Hospital.The police reached Safdarjung Hospital and made inquiries from the doctor on duty and were informed that the deceased was fit to make a statement.Accordingly, the Investigating Officer Constable Vinod Kumar recorded her statement in which she stated that her husband had poured kerosene oil on her and lit a matchstick and threw it on her as a result of which her saree caught fire.The Police then completed their investigations and a challan under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (for short Cr.PC) was filed.On 7th May, 1997, the following charge was framed against the appellant-That on 23-10-1996 at 9 p.m. Navin Place Colony near Kali Payau, Najafgarh, Jharoda Road, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Najafgarh, you had committed murder of Ms. Laxmi Kanta and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 302 IPC, within my cognizance.The accused pleaded not guilty and accordingly a trial was held.The appellant did not lead any evidence in his defense.The evidence on record shows that PW-1 Anil Kumar who was neighbour of the deceased stated that on 23rd October, 1996 he heard shouts from Laxmi Kanta.He immediately came out of his room and saw Laxmi Kanta burning.He extinguished the fire with the help of his mother and soon thereafter the police came.He stated that he did not know how Laxmi Kanta had caught fire but he pointed out the place in the open chowk (courtyard) where her burnt clothes were lying.By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant was convicted of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).Significantly, he stated that the appellant was not present in the courtyard when Laxmi Kanta was on fire.PW-2 Dr. S.N. Patnayak from the CRPF Base Hospital proved the MLC Exhibit PW-2/A in which it is recorded that Laxmi Kanta had stated that her husband had poured kerosene on her body at about 9.00 pm on 23rd October, 1996 and lit it.He noted the burns on her body and after initial treatment the deceased was sent to Safdarjung Hospital for further treatment and the police informed.In his cross-examination, he stated that the deceased was fully conscious but was crying due to pain.During the first year of marriage, the couple lived happily and thereafter they began quarreling and that the appellant often demanded some money from him.This witness was declared hostile.Inspector Neeraj Tyagi who was the Officer Commanding of the deceased was examined as PW-10, He stated that he was informed about her admission to the CRPF Base Hospital and he met Laxmi Kanta and inquired as to what had happened.She told him that a quarrel had taken place between her and her husband who then burnt her.He lodged an FIR against the appellant in police station Najafgarh.The doctor on emergency duty in Safdarjung Hospital, that is, Manoj Shukla was examined as PW-13 and he certified that the deceased was competent to make a statement.He took down the statement given by Laxmi Kanta in Safdarjung Hospital (Exhibit PW 13/A).Her statement was to the effect that her husband, that is, the appellant had poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire.Exhibit PW-5/A is the post mortem report in respect of the deceased.It shows extensive burn injuries and it has been certified that the cause of death is due to septicemia shock as a result of 55% deep infected ante mortem burns.The appellant did not lead any defense evidence but in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC he stated that the allegations against him were false and fabricated.The deceased was cooking food when her clothes caught fire.He tried to save her from getting burnt and as a result he received some burn injuries on his hands.He stated that he had taken her to the hospital in a police van.He further stated that the marriage between him and the deceased was a love marriage and the parents of the deceased were not happy with the marriage and were not on speaking terms with the appellant.He stated that since it was a love marriage, there was no question of any dowry demand.Learned amices curiae, submitted that the prosecution should have investigated how and why the appellant's hands got burnt.It was submitted that the case of the appellant was that the deceased had accidentally caught fire and his hands were burnt while he was trying to extinguish the fire.We do not find any substance in this contention urged by learned Counsel.For one, it has come on record that only his right hand sustained some burn injuries.It is quite unlikely that if he was trying to extinguish the fire, he would do so with only one hand and not use both hands.Moreover, we also find from the evidence on record that the appellant was nowhere to be seen when his wife was burning in the courtyard and when PW 1 Anil Kumar and his mother tried to extinguish the fire.It is also not acceptable that the appellant had accompanied the deceased to the CRPF Base Hospital.There is nothing whatsoever to suggest this.On the contrary, Exhibit PW-2/A suggests that the deceased was brought in a van of Delhi Police to the CRPF Base Hospital.Similarly, when PW-10 Insp.Neeraj Tyagi met the deceased in the CRPF Base Hospital, there is nothing to suggest that the appellant was present nor is there anything to show that when the dying declaration was recorded in Safdarjung Hospital, the appellant was available.If on these critical moments the appellant was not found showing any concern for his wife, it is very unlikely that he would have tried to extinguish the fire, as claimed by him.In fact, the appellant visited Safdarjung Hospital only on 25th October, 1996 when he was taken there after his arrest for a medical examination.The OPD card, Exhibit C-1 shows that he did not get his burnt hand treated in any hospital prior to that date.It was also submitted by learned amices Curiae that the arrest of the appellant was made under somewhat suspicious circumstances in as much as he was allegedly waiting at a bus stop on 24th October, 1996 when he was arrested.We do not find this submission of any consequence.On the contrary, what is suspicious is that the appellant ran away from his house.There was no reason for him to do so if nothing had happened at his instance.There is no report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (for short the CFSL) to indicate that kerosene oil was used in burning the deceased.In this regard, an effort was made to demolish the cause of death by burning on the basis of the opinion given by Dr. G. K. Chobey in the post mortem report Ex. PW-5/A as cause of death due to septicemia shock as a result of 55% deep infected ante mortem burns.But the fact remains that she made three statements before her death which can be treated as dying declarations.However, given the circumstances of (he case, it was not required for the doctor to lift the food and send it to CFSL to rule out any possibility of poisoning.Exhibit PW- 15/A1 is the death summary prepared by Dr. S. Kumar.It is clearly observed by the doctor in the death summary that the patient was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital with 55% deep burns on 23rd October, 1996 (wrongly written as 27th October, 1996) in a very critical condition.She was treated properly but her condition did not improve.She was also put on humidified oxygen inhalation but her condition did not improve and she could not be revived despite all C. P. R. measures.When an incident takes place within the four walls of a room, the prosecution ordinarily would not get any eye witness.Therefore, such cases have to be judged having regard to the entirety of the circumstances which are brought on record by the prosecution during the trial of the case.We may note that in this case the deceased had made three statements before her death.Firstly, she had stated before PW2 Dr. S. N. Patnayak in the CRPF Base Hospital that her husband had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire.Her second statement was made before PW-10 Insp.Neeraj Tyagi her Commanding Officer before whom she stated more or less the same thing and, finally also before PW-14 SI Shyam Pal Singh, Investigating Officer.We have not been pointed out any inconsistency in any of these three statements.Both PW-2 Dr. S. N. Patnayak before whom she made the first statement and PW-13 Manoj Shukla from Safdarjung Hospital were satisfied that the deceased was conscious and capable of giving the statement.There is, therefore, no reason to doubt the capability of the deceased to make the dying declaration.",['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
"A.No.219/1996 Page 1 of 19A.No.219/1996 Page 1 of 19Briefly put, case of the prosecution is that in the aftermath of the assassination of the Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi, violent anti-Sikh riots erupted in Delhi, which continued for a few days from 31.10.1984 onwards.On 02.11.84, at around 5:30 pm, a telephonic information was received at Police Station Kalyan Puri through Inspector Rajesh of PCR that the Additional Commissioner of Police Shri Nikhil Kumar had intimated on telephone that a massacre was going on in Block No.32, Trilok Puri and the police force may be sent there.The information was recorded in the daily diary as DD No.12A dated 02.11.84 and the copy of the DD report was entrusted to SI Man Phool Singh, who immediately proceeded for the place of occurrence along with Constable Pat Ram.The SHO and the other staff also reached Block No.32 Trilok Puri in an official vehicle, where they found houses No.123, 124, 484 and 485, besides many other houses, on fire.One Sucha Singh and Lacha Singh were found there in injured condition and they were removed to the hospital.In the meanwhile, some senior officers also reached at the spot of occurrence with additional force and about 107 rioters were rounded up.The women and children belonging to the Sikh community were also sent to the Police Station.Some other injured persons, who were found at the spot, were sent to the hospital.SI Man Phool Singh met the complainant Rijju Singh at the spot of occurrence and recorded his statement, which disclosed the commission of various offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/436/304/323 IPC.SI Man Phool Singh appended his Crl.A.No.219/1996 Page 2 of 19 endorsement to the statement of the complainant Rijju Singh and sent it to the Police Station for the registration of the case and on the basis of said statement, formal FIR No.426/84 was recorded at the Police Station Kalyan Puri.We may note the complaint of Rijju Singh was specific to the incident relating to his family and the murder of his brother-in-law Lakha Singh.Besides the above said specific allegations, Rijju Singh also made general allegations pertaining to the loss of life and property caused by the rioters to several Sikh families.A.No.219/1996 Page 2 of 19Subsequent to the riots, Justice Rang Nath Misra Commission was constituted by the Government to inquire into the various aspects of the riots including the role of the police.The Commission invited petition/affidavit from dissatisfied victims of riots.Baujhi Bai, PW6 also submitted her affidavit Ex.In the aforesaid affidavit, she averred that on 01.11.1984, a mob of rioters led by the Block Pradhan Ram Pal Saroj of Block No.32, Trilok Puri came at her house.She, her son Inder Singh and his wife Raj Rani requested Ram Pal Saroj to save them, but Ram Pal Saroj responded that he was not concerned whether they live or die.By that time, three/four police Constables came there and told her son Inder Singh to go inside and thereafter he closed the door of the house from outside.The said police officials told the mob that there were Sikhs inside the house and thus the mob forced open the door.The appellant Abdul Rashid and Nisar Ahmed @ Hansar were leading said mob.Her daughters-in-law prayed for mercy, but they were dragged Crl.A.No.219/1996 Page 3 of 19 aside and the mob started looting their house.She further averred in the affidavit that thereafter the aforesaid mob caught hold of the male members and started dragging and beating them.When they started beating Inder Singh, he tried to escape, but he was caught and thereafter the mob put a burning quilt on him and when Baujhi Bai tried to remove that burning quilt, she was beaten and pushed away.The mob also assaulted her son Gopal Singh with lathies and he was thrown on a burning rickshaw.Thereafter, the mob found that her husband was hiding on the roof.They uttered the words ""Budhey Tu Kaise Bacha"" and killed him on the roof itself.A.No.219/1996 Page 3 of 19On the recommendation of Rang Nath Misra Commission, a Committee comprising of Justice Jain and Shri Agrawal was constituted to go through the affidavits filed by various victims and make recommendations regarding the registration and investigation of cases pertaining to specific incidents.The Committee, on consideration of the above affidavit of Baujhi Bai and the investigation file of Case FIR No.426/84 P.S. Kalyan Puri found that the Investigating Officer, apart from recording the statement of PW6 Baujhi Bai in respect of the incident in hand had not examined any other witness.In order to bring home the guilt of the appellants, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses.The material witnesses being the purported eye witnesses, PW5 Raj Rani, PW6 Baujhi Bai and PW7 Devi Kaur.The co-accused Ram Pal Saroj died during the trial, as such proceedings against him stood abated.The case of the prosecution rests mainly on the eye witness account given by PW5 Raj Rani, PW6 Baujhi Bai and PW7 Devi Kaur.PW5 Raj Rani has stated that in November, 1984, she was living with her family members namely, Baujhi Kaur (mother-in-law), Devi Kaur(sister-in-law), Vidya Kaur (sister-in-law), Jeevan Singh (father-in- law), Inder Singh (husband) and four children.On 01.11.84, at around 4:00 pm, a 3000 to 4000 number strong mob came to their house.The members of the mob were carrying lathies, stones and swords etc. The mob entered their house after breaking open the door and started looting the household goods.Thereafter, they asked them to go out and assured that they would not cause any harm to the ladies and children, but would not spare the male members.The mob then started beating her husband Inder Singh and father-in-law Jeevan Singh with lathies and when they became unconscious, the mob poured kerosene oil over them and set them on fire.She further stated that out of the aforesaid mob, she was able to identify Ram Pal Saroj, Hansar @ Nasir and the appellant Abdul Rashid.She identified Abdul Rashid and Ram Pal Saroj in the court, but failed to identify Hansar @ Nasir.We may note at this juncture that PW5 Raj Rani has not stated anything about presence of her two brothers-in-law Gopal Singh and Makhan Singh at the time of incident or their having been beaten and killed by the rioters in her presence.A.No.219/1996 Page 6 of 19A.No.219/1996 Page 6 of 19PW6 Baujhi Bai has stated that on the fateful day at around 4:00 pm, she was present in her house along with her husband Jeevan Singh (deceased) and sons Inder Singh (deceased), Gopal Singh (deceased) and Makhan Singh (deceased) when a huge mob of rioters entered their house after breaking open the door.She has stated that they set their house on fire with the help of kerosene oil and when they came out of burning house, she noticed that members of the crowd were carrying Churras, knives and ""dandas"" etc. Accused Ram Pal Saroj (since deceased) was leading the crowd and on his instigation, the rioters killed her husband and three sons with churras, swords and iron rods and thereafter set them on fire after pouring petrol over them.She further stated that her household goods were looted.Her daughter-in-law Devi Kaur and Raj Rani ran away from the house after the killing and she remained there outside the house near the burnt bodies of her husband and sons till 10:00 pm.Though PW6 Baujhi Bai identified Ram Pal Saroj in the court, she expressed her inability to identify the appellant Abdul Rashid and the other co-accused.She further stated that she had submitted the affidavit Ex.PW4/A before the Commission.Though in her examination-in-chief, she did not say anything about the appellant Abdul Rashid being one of the rioters who had killed her husband and sons, but in the cross-examination she denied the suggestion on behalf of the appellant Abdul Rashid that she had named Abdul Rashid as one of the rioters because he was the youth Congress leader at that time.Therefore, considering that the investigation done was perfunctory, the Committee recommended further investigation into the allegations vide letter Ex.PW3/A. Pursuant to the recommendation, further investigation in the matter was conducted by the Riots Cell constituted in this regard.A.No.219/1996 Page 4 of 19A.No.219/1996 Page 4 of 19During further investigation, the statements of Raj Rani PW5, Baujhi Bai PW6 and Devi Kaur PW7 were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein they more or less supported the averments made in the affidavit of Baujhi Bai.On conclusion of investigation, a supplementary charge sheet under Section 137(8) in respect of case FIR No.426/84 P.S. Kalyan Puri was filed.The learned Trial Court, on consideration of the challan, charged the appellant and his co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 147 IPC, 302 read with Section 149 IPC, 436 read with Section 149 IPC, 395 read with Section 149 IPC.The appellant and his co-accused persons pleaded innocence and claimed trial.The learned Trial Court, on conclusion of trial, found the appellant Abdul Rashid guilty for the offences punishable under Section 148 IPC, 302 read Section 149 IPC, 397 and 436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and convicted him accordingly.The co-accused Nisar Ahmed @ Hansar, however, was given benefit of doubt and acquitted.A.No.219/1996 Page 5 of 19A.No.219/1996 Page 5 of 19A.No.219/1996 Page 7 of 19A.No.219/1996 Page 7 of 19PW7 Devi Kaur, another eye witness, has stated in the court that in November, 1984, she was living at House No.32/1, Trilok Puri with her family, including father-in-law Jeevan Singh, mother-in-law Baujhi Bai, husband Makhan Singh, Jeth Inder Singh, Devar Gopal Singh and Nanad (husbands sister) Gopi Kaur.She also stated that on 01.11.84 at about 4:00 pm, a 300/400 number strong mob, including Ram Pal Saroj (since deceased), Hansar @ Nisar (acquitted) and the appellant Abdul Rashid came to their house.They were carrying ""dandas"", churras, knives and petrol etc. The accused persons along with other rioters caught hold of the male members of the family, including her husband, Devar, Jeth, father-in-law and assaulted them with iron rods, churras and knives etc. and killed them.Thereafter, the mob burnt their bodies by pouring petrol upon them.She further stated that the mob dragged them out of the house and then looted their house and burnt it.She, Vidya Kaur, Devi Kaur and Raj Rani ran away, but her mother-in-law remained behind with the dead bodies.She further stated that she knew above named three accused persons since before as they were residents of the same lane in which she was living.The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case.According to him, he was not in the group of rioters and actually he was not in Delhi at the relevant time.In defence, the appellant examined DW1 Padam Sharma who has deposed that on 27/28.10.84, he had arranged a car for the appellant from Shakarpur taxi stand for enabling him to take a Sikh brother to Crl.DW2 Mohd Hanif is running a Madarsa at Mauza Anup Pur Dibai, District Ghaziabad, U.P. According to him, on 01.11.84 at about 10:00 am, the appellant met him in connection with the treatment of his brother who on checking was found to be behaving like a mad man.The witness has stated that he gave three ""Taveez"" to the appellant for his ailing brother.The appellant stayed with them for three days and on the fourth day, when the condition of his brother did not improve, he advised the appellant to show his brother to some Doctor.A.No.219/1996 Page 8 of 19PW4/A, which is stated to have been submitted before Justice Rang Nath Misra Commission constituted by the Government to inquire into 1984 riots, including the role of the police.Learned counsel has contended that admittedly prior to the filing of said affidavit, the statements of PW6 Baujhi Bai and PW5 Raj Rani were recorded during the investigation of the case FIR No.426/84 on 17.11.84 and 06.12.84 respectively and in those statements neither Crl.A.No.219/1996 Page 9 of 19 Baujhi Bai nor Raj Rani named the appellant as one of the members of the mob of rioters though they had named some other persons whom they were able to identify in the mob.Agrawal Committee to the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi dated 05.04.91 reveals that in the said letter there was no comment made upon the fairness of the investigation as regards the recording of the correct statement of the witness Baujhi Bai, but it was only stated that the investigation was done in perfunctory manner inasmuch as that no effort was made by the Investigating Officer to examine any other ocular witness to corroborate the testimony of Baujhi Bai.Thus, it is argued that since the name of Abdul Rashid as being part of the mob was not mentioned by Baujhi Bai and Raj Rani in their statements earlier made to the police, it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, who are also related to each other.A.No.219/1996 Page 9 of 19Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that PW5 Raj Rani and PW7 Devi Kaur had categorically stated that Abdul Rashid, who was identified by them in the mob, was resident of Block No.32, Trilok Puri, whereas the appellant was not residing in Block No.32, Trilok Puri at the relevant time.In support of this contention, he has relied upon the voter list of East Delhi Parliamentary Constituency for the years 1984, 1987 and 1993 wherein name of Abdul Rashid S/o Ashraf Ali, resident of House No.320, Block No.32 is mentioned at Crl.A.No.219/1996 Page 10 of 19 Serial No.784 and submitted that from this it is obvious that there was one other Abdul Rashid S/o Ashraf Ali living in Block No.32 at the relevant time and, therefore, a possibility cannot be ruled out that the person named by Baujhi Bai in her affidavit Ex.PW4/A and by PW5 to PW7 during trial may be the aforesaid Abdul Rashid S/o Ashraf Ali and not the appellant, who is son of Abdul Aziz, resident of 33/55, Trilok Puri.A.No.219/1996 Page 10 of 19Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that PW5 Raj Rani, PW6 Baujhi Bai and PW7 Devi Kaur are interested witnesses being closely related to each other and also the wives of the deceased Inder Singh, Jeevan Singh and Makhan Singh respectively.It was submitted that though there is no bar under law to base conviction on the testimony of interested witnesses, if found reliable, yet the rule of prudence demands that the testimony of said witnesses be approached with due care and caution.Learned counsel has argued that PW5 to PW7 are not worthy of reliance because of contradictions and infirmities in their testimonies.He has argued that case of the prosecution is that the incident took place in presence of the above referred witnesses, yet PW5 Raj Rani in her testimony has not deposed anything about the killing of her brothers-in-law Makhan Singh and Gopal Singh by the mob.He has further submitted that even regarding the identification of the accused persons, the testimony of these witnesses is at variance.PW7 Devi Kaur identified all the three accused Ram Pal Saroj, Hansar @ Nisar and Abdul Rashid and she also Crl.A.No.219/1996 Page 11 of 19 claimed that she knew Hansar @ Nisar as he was well known to her ""devar"" Gopal Singh, whereas PW5 Raj Rani has contradicted her version by stating that the accused Hansar on trial before the court was not the same Hansar whom she saw in the crowd of rioters.Further, PW6 Baujhi Bai failed to identify either the appellant Abdul Rashid or his co-accused Hansar, though she identified the other accused Ram Pal Saroj.In view of the aforesaid contradictions, learned counsel for the appellant has urged us to conclude that the testimony of these witnesses is doubtful.A.No.219/1996 Page 11 of 19Besides the above arguments, it is also argued on behalf of the appellant that even the death of Jeevan Singh, Inder Singh, Makhan Singh and Gopal Singh is not established because the investigating agency has neither seized the dead bodies or their ashes, which may lead to an inference that actually the incident referred to by the witnesses did not take place and in that incident the above referred persons were killed by the mob.Learned counsel has argued that since in the aftermath of 1984 riots, the Government had announced compensation for the victims, a possibility cannot be ruled out that these witnesses have concocted the story to obtain compensation and their husbands might be alive.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the guilt of the appellant is firmly established from the testimony of PW5 Raj Rani, PW6 Baujhi Bai and PW7 Devi Kaur, which is Crl.A.No.219/1996 Page 12 of 19 consistent and of corroborative nature.Learned counsel took us through the testimony of above three ocular witnesses and submitted that they have withstood the test of cross-examination and there is no reason to suspect their testimony.So far as failure of the investigating agency to seize the burnt dead bodies of the deceased persons or their ashes is concerned, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the aforesaid factor, by no means, is of any help to the appellant and it cannot be taken as a circumstance to infer that the murders of Jeevan Singh, Inder Singh, Makhan Singh and Gopal Singh have not been established, particularly when it was an extraordinary situation prevailing at the relevant time and even the police force virtually abdicated its functions.Learned counsel for the State has submitted that it was precisely for that reason that the Government had appointed Justice Rang Nath Misra Commission.He has submitted that the deliberate failure of the police to perform its duty properly cannot be taken as a circumstance to discard testimony of the eye witnesses, if found reliable.Otherwise also, he submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that any one of the above referred victims is alive.Learned counsel for the State further submitted that the contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the testimony of PW5 Raj Rani, PW6 Baujhi Bai and PW7 Devi Kaur are not so material as to discard their testimony.If Baujhi Bai, because of her weak eyesight, could not identify the appellant and his co-accused Hansar, that by itself is no reason to discard the testimony of the other Crl.A.No.219/1996 Page 13 of 19 two witnesses, who did identify the appellant as a participant rioter.Lastly, it was submitted by learned counsel for the State that the appellant cannot take advantage of the earlier statements of Baujhi Bai and Raj Rani recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. because he has not confronted the witnesses with said earlier statements to seek their explanation in that regard.A.No.219/1996 Page 12 of 19A.No.219/1996 Page 13 of 19We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record.The main issue for determination in this appeal is whether or not the appellant Abdul Rashid was a member of the mob which indulged in rioting and committed the murder of Jeevan Singh, Inder Singh, Makhan Singh and Gopal Singh, besides indulging in looting and mischief.The prosecution in order to bring home this fact has heavily relied upon the testimony of PW5 Raj Rani, PW6 Baujhi Bai and PW7 Devi Kaur.PW4/A to the Commission and the aforesaid affidavit, along with the affidavits Crl.A.No.219/1996 Page 14 of 19 of others were then referred to Justice Jain and Shri Agrawal Committee to go through the affidavits and make recommendations regarding registration and investigation of the case.Perusal of said affidavit Ex.PW4/A submitted by Baujhi Bai reveals that in the aforesaid affidavit Baujhi Bai affirmed the facts regarding the murder of her husband and three sons.She also affirmed in the affidavit that the mob of rioters were led by Rashid Neta and Hansar.PW3/A is the letter written by the Secretary to Justice Jain-Sh.Agrawal Committee.In para 3 of the letter it is, inter alia, stated thus:On perusal of the above mentioned facts narrated in the letter Ex.PW3/A, it appears that Justice Jain-Sh.Agrawal Committee recommended further investigation in this case on a solitary ground that investigation was conducted in casual and perfunctory manner.There is nothing in the letter on the record to Crl.A.No.219/1996 Page 16 of 19Learned counsel for the State has submitted that even if the testimony of PW5 Raj Rani and PW6 Baujhi Bai is discarded because of material improvements made by them in respect of introducing the name of Abdul Rashid as a rioter, yet the guilt of the appellant is established by the testimony of PW7 Devi Kaur, who has fully supported the case of the prosecution and who has even withstood the test of cross-examination.It is true that Devi Kaur, PW7 did name and identify the appellant Abdul Rashid as one of the rioters.None of the witnesses in their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has given the address of other Rashid, whom they purportedly saw amongst the rioters.A possibility cannot be ruled out that since one of the accused on trial was Abdul Rashid, the witnesses, including PW7 Devi Kaur, routinely identified the appellant as one of the rioters.","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 :::The respondent No.1 has filed his written statement and opposed the claim made by the petitioner.He has also filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the petition on the objection that ""the present election petition does not contain statement of material facts as to how the result of the election is materially affected, in so far as it concerns the returned candidate.Section 32 provides that a person may be nominated as a candidate for election to fill a seat, if he is qualified to be chosen to fill that seat under the provisions of the Constitution and the said Act.Section 33 relates to the presentation of nomination ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 ::: 5 ep1.14.odt paper and requirements for a valid nomination.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 :::Presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination.--(1) On or before the date appointed under clause (a) of section 30 each candidate shall, either in person or by his proposer, between the hours of eleven O'clock in the forenoon and three O'clock in the afternoon deliver to the returning officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under section 31 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate and by an elector of the constituency as proposer:In terms of the aforesaid provision, the nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate and by an elector of the constituency as proposer, is to be delivered to the Returning Officer.In terms of 36 of the said Act, the nomination paper is to be scrutinized by the Returning Officer.Section 36(2) provides that the Returning Officer, on the objections filed to any nomination or on his own motion, may hold a summary enquiry in connection thereof.(4) The returning officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character.""::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 :::A nomination can be rejected on several grounds mentioned in Section 36(2)(a) to (c) and clause (b), which is relevant, is that there has been a failure to comply with any of the provisions of Section 33 or Section 34 of the said Act. Sub-section (3) is in the nature of exception and creates a bar to reject the nomination paper on the ground of any irregularity.Sub-Section (4) provides that the Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect, which is not of a substantial character.The present election petition is filed challenging the election of the respondent No.1 on the grounds mentioned in Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the said Act. Section 100(1) of ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 ::: 10 ep1.14.odt the said Act being relevant is reproduced below :In para 6, it is stated that along with the nomination paper (Annexure III), the respondent No.1 submitted affidavit dated 26-9-2014 in Form No.26 mentioned criminal cases pending against him and the copy of the affidavit is annexed as Annexure IV.The relevant contents of affidavit in Form No.26, filled in and said to have been delivered by the ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 ::: 12 ep1.14.odt respondent No.1 are reproduced below :::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 :::(5) I am not accused of any offence(s) punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in pending case(s) in which a charge(s) has been framed by the court(s) of competent jurisdiction.If the deponent is accused of any such offence(s) he shall furnish ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 ::: 13 ep1.14.odt the following information:-::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 :::(i) The following case(s) is/are pending against me in which charges have been framed by the court for an offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more:-(a) Case/First Information Report No. FIR No.252/91 P.S. together with complete details of Sitabuldi Nagpur concerned police station/ District/State(b) Section (s) of the concerned Act(s) and 147, 148, 324 I.P.C. short description of the offence(s) for which charged(a) Name of the Court, Case No. P.S. Sitabuldi, J.M.F.C. No.2, and date of order taking Case No.11390/09, Dt.10/08/2009 cognizance Case No.10009/09 Dt.16/07/2009 Case No.164/98, Dt.13/02/1998 Case No.1303/96, Dt.05/10/1996 ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 ::: 14 ep1.14.odt Case No.573/93, Dt.20/05/1993 Case No.219/98, Dt.26/02/1998 Case No.962/09, Dt.21/01/2009 Case No.18282/06::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 :::(b) The details of cases where the Section 135 B.P. At 143, 147,148, court has taken cognizance, 323 IPC, 143, 427, IPC, section (s) of the Act(s) and all cases are registered for description of the offence(s) for agitations.which cognizance taken(c) Details of Appeal(s)/ N.A.Applications for revision (if any) filed against the above order(s)(a) Name of the Court, Case No. P.S. Sadar, J.M.F.C. No.6, and date of order taking Case No.28/04, Dt.13/02/2004 cognizance Case No.13871/08 Dt.22/09/2008 Case No.14170/09, Dt.24/09/2009(b) The details of cases where the Section/143, 147,148,323, 427, IPC, court has taken cognizance, 135, BP.(c) Details of Appeal(s)/ N.A.Applications for revision (if any) filed against the above order(s)(a) Name of the Court, Case No. P.S. Dhantoli, J.M.F.C.No.2, ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 ::: 15 ep1.14.odt and date of order taking Case No.5652/09, Dt.25/04/2009 cognizance Case No.945/2000::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 :::(b) The details of cases where the Section/188, 171 (g 34), IPC, 135, court has taken cognizance, B.P.section (s) of the Act(s) and all cases are registered for description of the offence(s) for agitations.(a) Name of the Court, Case No. P.S. Ganeshpeth, J.M.F.C.No.1, and date of order taking Case No.14315/09, Dt.29/09/2009 cognizance Case No.4240/10 Dt.05/05/2010(b) The details of cases where the Section/3,4, 135, B.P. court has taken cognizance, all cases are registered for section (s) of the Act(s) and agitations.description of the offence(s) for which cognizance taken(c) Details of Appeal(s)/ N.A.Applications for revision (if any) filed against the above order(s)(a) Name of the Court, Case No. P.S. Ambazari, C.J.M.and date of order taking Case No.331/05, Dt.27/04/2005 cognizance Case No.333/05 Dt.27/06/2005(b) The details of cases where the Section/188 IPC, court has taken cognizance, all cases are registered for section (s) of the Act(s) and agitations.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 :::(a) Name of the Court, Case No. P.S. Koradi, J.M.F.C.No.6, and date of order taking Case No.2815/09, Dt.04/03/2009 cognizance(b) The details of cases where the Section/188,IPC, court has taken cognizance, all cases are registered for section (s) of the Act(s) and agitations.description of the offence(s) for which cognizance taken(c) Details of Appeal(s)/ N.A.Applications for revision (if any) filed against the above order(s)(a) Name of the Court, Case No. P.S. Kotwali, J.M.F.C.No.8, and date of order taking Case No.427/99, Dt.13/08/2009 cognizance(b) The details of cases where the Section/134, 135, B.P. Act court has taken cognizance, all cases are registered for section (s) of the Act(s) and agitations.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 :::(a) Name of the Court, Case No. P.S. Wadi, J.M.F.C.No.8, and date of order taking Case No.305/99, Dt.30/09/1999 cognizance Case No.307/99, Dt.08/10/1999(b) The details of cases where the Section/188, 134, 135, IPC, court has taken cognizance, all cases are registered for section (s) of the Act(s) and agitations.description of the offence(s) for which cognizance taken(c) Details of Appeal(s)/ Applications for revision (if N.A.any) filed against the above order(s) (6) I have not been convicted of an offence(s) (other than any offence(s) referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or covered in sub-section (3), of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951) and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more.If the deponent is convicted and punishable as aforesaid, he shall furnish the following information:In the following cases, I have convicted and sentenced to imprisonment by a court of law:::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 :::In para 7, it is alleged that the petitioner searched the information regarding the pending criminal matters against the respondent No.1 and verified it from the official website of District Court, Nagpur.While searching the information, the petitioner came to know about the two criminal matters, which are not mentioned by the respondent No.1 in his affidavit in Form No.26 submitted along with his nomination paper.""i) Regular Criminal Case No.343/2003 - Madanlal Parate vs. Shri Hastak & others pending before the 21 st Jt.Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur (Corporation Court No.2); and ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 ::: 19::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 :::ii) Summary Criminal Case No.231/1996 -Madanlal Parate vs. Devendra Fadnavis pending before the 15th Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur (JMFC Court No.6).""It is further alleged that the respondent No.1 has signed the personal release bond of Rs.3,000/- on 18-9-2010, i.e. Exhibit 28, before the Judicial ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 ::: 20 ep1.14.odt Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Nagpur.The petitioner has annexed the copy of the complaint as Annexure VII.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 :::The petitioner has annexed the copies of complaint and bail bond as Annexures VIII and IX.It is further alleged that the non-disclosure has materially affected the election of the respondent No.1 as a successful candidate and, therefore, the petition is being presented under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the said Act.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 :::By way of amendment introduced in para 27-A in the election petition, which was allowed by consent of the parties on 17-4-2015, it is alleged that the respondent No.1 also concealed the materials facts in his affidavit dated 26-9-2014 filed along with his nomination paper.The concealment is made in column (5)(i) about the Sections under which the chargesheet has been filed by the Police Station Officer, Sitabuldi, in Crime No.252 of 1991 under various Sections 149, 294, 448, 324 and 336 along with Sections 147, 148 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code (Sections 147, 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code were ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 ::: 22 ep1.14.odt only disclosed by the respondent No.1).It is further alleged that the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class has accordingly framed the charges against the respondent No.1 even under the other Sections of the Indian Penal Code, which are not mentioned by the respondent No.1 in column 5(i).::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 :::This petition seeks a declaration essentially in terms of prayer clause (4), which is reproduced below :""4] declare that the Respondent no.1's nomination had been improperly accepted by the Respondent no.5 for the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Election, 2014 for the 52, South-West Nagpur Constituency, Nagpur and the election of the Respondent no.1 i.e. returned candidate is void due to non-compliance of the provisions of Constitution of India, The Representation of People Act as well as the Rules and Orders framed thereunder and the other laws.""It is not necessary to reproduce the other prayer clauses made in the petition.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:20 :::::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::Association for Democratic Reforms and another, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 294, is a milestone and triggered electoral reform in the country, which has led to introducing the said provision.The Apex Court has held that it was incumbent upon every candidate, who is contesting the elections, to give information about his criminal background, which requirement is not only essential part of fair and free elections, but also every voter has a right to know about the details of the candidate and such requirement is also covered by freedom of speech granted under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::We may give an example at this stage.It can be stated with certitude that this can definitely be called antecedents for the limited purpose, that is, disclosure of information to be chosen as a representative to an elected body.""::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::(i) The object and purpose of introducing Section 33-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 calling information in Form No.26 on affidavit under Rule 4-A of the Conduct of Election Rules is to effectuate the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression, as granted to the voters under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, to know the criminal antecedents of the candidates at an election, which is necessary concomitant for a free and fair election.[Para 18](ii) The candidate filing an affidavit with false information as well as the candidate leaving particulars in the affidavit blank, are treated on par, resulting in breach of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, rendering affidavit ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 ::: 33 ep1.14.odt nugatory.The exercise of electoral right would not be an advised one and he will be exercising his franchisee with the misinformed ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 ::: 34 ep1.14.odt mind.[Paras 21 and 22]::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::Such petition is not required to be supported by an affidavit, as contemplated by the proviso to Section 83(1) and there is no other legal impediment in treating this petition on the ground under Section 100(1)(a) of the said Act. Though this petition challenges the election of the ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 ::: 36 ep1.14.odt respondent No.1 on the grounds under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::After the petition was closed for orders on 10-7-2015, the petitioner filed an affidavit in Form No.25 under Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules on 13-7-2015 stating that it is in support of the allegation of corrupt practice of ""undue influence""::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::According to him, the petition challenges the election of the respondent No.1 on the grounds under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and(iv) of the said Act and, therefore, the petitioner has to specifically plead and prove the material fact that the result of the election ""insofar as it concerns the returned candidate"" has been materially affected by improper acceptance of such nomination paper by the Returning Officer.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::He has, therefore, urged that it is not permissible for the petitioner to lead evidence to prove this fact and hence the petition is liable to be rejected for failure to make out a cause of action.In support of all his ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 ::: 39 ep1.14.odt contentions, he has relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court :::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::The appeal before the Apex Court was dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::There were 17 candidates in the field, excluding the appellant, who was defeated by the respondent No.1, who was elected.The case was that the nomination form of the respondent Nos.2 to 18 ought to have been rejected for non-compliance of Sections 33-A and 33-B of the said Act. The petition was on the ground mentioned in Section 100 (1)(d)(i) of the said Act, i.e. in respect of wrongful acceptance of the nomination papers of the candidates other than the ""returned candidate"" and the petitioner.In this background, the Court considered the question of failure to plead material fact that the election of the ""returned candidate"" was materially affected by ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 ::: 48 ep1.14.odt such improper acceptance and the petition was dismissed on that ground alone by the Apex Court.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::The appellant was declared elected by one vote and the question of validity of three votes held in favour of respondent No.1, which were wrongly rejected, and one vote counted in favour of the appellant, ought to have been rejected.In this background, the question of pleading and proof that the result of the election has been materially affected, was considered.The High Court declared that the respondent No.1 was elected by a margin of two votes and the Supreme Court modified the said order.It was a case under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) and not under Section 100(1)(a) or ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 ::: 49 ep1.14.odt Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the said Act. This decision is not an authority for the proposition that in case of improper acceptance of the nomination paper of the returned candidate, the requirement of pleading and proof that the result of the election insofar as it concerns a returned candidate is materially affected, as contained in Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the said Act, is attracted.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::The Court will have to make an enquiry to ascertain the number of valid votes caste for the candidate whose nomination was improperly accepted, to determine whether such votes have materially affected the result of the election of a returned candidate.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::The Apex Court observed in Kisan Shankar Kathore's case that when the objections are raised to the correctness of the information or alleging that there is non-disclosure of certain important information in the affidavit filed along with the nomination paper, it may not be possible for the Returning Officer at that time to conduct a detailed examination and to reject the nomination paper.Where such a detailed enquiry is needed, would depend upon the outcome thereof in an election petition, as to whether the nomination was properly accepted or it was a case of improper acceptance.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::In view of the aforesaid decisions, the position of law can be summarized as under:[Paras 25 and 41 to 43] ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 ::: 57 ep1.14.odt::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::[Para 39](iv) Once it is found that it is a case of improper acceptance of nomination paper of a returned candidate on the ground of suppression of material information, it would result in rejection of nomination paper and the declaration would be that the returned candidate was not entitled to contest and his election is void.[Paras 41 to 43](v) Necessary corollary of improper acceptance of ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 ::: 58 ep1.14.odt nomination paper of a returned candidate would be that all the votes secured by him at the election in question have to be ignored.The only consequence would be that the result of his election automatically gets materially affected.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::It is further held that upon proof of the fact that the nomination paper of the respondent No.1 carried the defect of a substantial character requiring the Returning Officer to reject the nomination under Section 36(2) of the said Act, the petitioner shall be entitled to a declaration claimed in the petition.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::Presently, I am dealing with the application under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code claiming rejection of the petition at the threshold on the ground that it fails to disclose the cause of action for want of pleading of material facts.Section 83(1)(a) of the said Act inter alia provides that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 ::: 60 ep1.14.odt facts, which is analogous to Order VI, Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Code.This provision states that every pleading shall contain a concise form of the material facts on which the party relies for the reliefs claimed.The entire chain of material facts leading to a relief claimed in the petition should be complete and any missing in the link shall result in failure to disclose the cause of action.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:21 :::(b) the Court of Competent jurisdiction had framed a charge against him in respect of such offence.In order to enable the voters to effectively exercise the right of ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 ::: 63 ep1.14.odt franchise with well informed mind, the material information considered to be the bare minimum, to form an opinion to choose the candidate to be voted at an election, is called from every candidate in Column (5)(i) in the affidavit in Form No.26 is under Rule 4-A of the Conduct of Election Rules.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 :::If the petitioner is coming with a case of failure to disclose or non-disclosure or concealment or suppression of such information by the respondent No.1 in Column (5)(i) in the affidavit in Form No.26, the petition must contain the following material facts based upon the information called, viz. -(i) the fact that the respondent No.1 is an accused in the offences under specific Section/s of specific Act/s with short description of such offence/offences together with Cases/FIR number with the details of the concerned Police Station,(ii) the fact that the offence/offences alleged against ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 ::: 64 ep1.14.odt the respondent No.1 is/are punishable with imprisonment for a period of two years or more,::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 :::(v) the fact that there is a failure to disclose or non-disclosure or concealment or suppression of the aforesaid material facts by the respondent No.1 in his affidavit in Form No.26 delivered along with the nomination form under Section 33A(2) of the said Act to the Returning ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 ::: 65 ep1.14.odt Officer.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 :::It is thereafter the Court can proceed further to complete the trial.The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent No.1 has concealed the information that he is an accused in Regular Criminal Case No.343 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 109, 217, 218, 220, 420, 425, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474 and 506-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Nagpur.The petitioner has also pleaded that the respondent No.1 is also an accused in Summary Criminal Case No.231 of 1996 for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 ::: 66 ep1.14.odt Class, Nagpur (Court No.6).::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 :::::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 :::Coming to the Item No.(iv), it is necessary for the petitioner to plead the material fact that prior to the date of delivery of nomination paper under Section 33(1) of the said Act, the charge/charges were framed against the respondent No.1 in respect of the offences which are not disclosed in Column (5)(i) in the affidavit in Form No.26 by the Court of competent jurisdiction.The date of framing of charge/charges becomes a material fact.Such pleadings are completely absent in the petition.When the charge is framed prior to the date of submitting nomination paper, it raises a presumption about the ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 ::: 68 ep1.14.odt knowledge of the pendency of such proceedings to the respondent No.1 and the statutory obligation to disclose it in Form No.26 arises.A specific question was put to the petitioner Shri Satish Uke as to whether the charge/charges were framed against the respondent No.1 prior to the delivery of nomination paper under Section 33(1) of the said Act in respect of the offences not disclosed, his response is that such charges were not so framed.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 :::The period of limitation has expired and the petitioner cannot be permitted to cure this defect by incorporating such pleadings.No amount of evidence can be permitted to be led.The lack of pleading of such material facts becomes fatal for the Court to ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 ::: 69 ep1.14.odt proceed on the trial of the election petition.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 :::According to him, all the three cases were required to be disclosed at least in Column (5)(ii) in Form No.26 by the respondent No.1 and since ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 ::: 70 ep1.14.odt there is undisputed non-disclosure, it is a case of non-compliance of Section 33-A(1)(i) and (2) of the said Act requiring rejection of nomination paper under Section 36(2) of the said Act.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 :::The lack of pleading regarding such material facts becomes fatal for the Court to proceed on the trial of the election petition.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 :::The pleading in paragraph 27A in the petition is that though the respondent No.1 has disclosed Crime No.252 of 1991 in Column (5)(i) in which he is an accused in respect of the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, there is non-disclosure of the other offences under ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 ::: 72 ep1.14.odt Sections 149, 294, 448, 324 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 :::It is therefore not a case of non-disclosure of the information required under Section 33-A(1)(i) of the said Act. Be that as it may, there is no pleading that the defect was of a substantial character and, therefore, the Returning Officer was required to reject the nomination paper of the respondent No.1 under Section 36(2) of the said Act, on that ground alone.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 :::Though in the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code an objection is raised that the verification to the petition suffers from a defect of incurable nature, the learned Senior Advocate Shri Manohar has conceded to position that the defect is curable and the petitioner can be permitted to cure such defect and the petition cannot be rejected on that ground alone.I, therefore, need not consider this question in detail.From what has been held above, it is apparent that it is a case of failure to plead material facts of non-disclosure of information in Column (5)(i) and (ii) of the affidavit in Form No.26 delivered under Section 33-A(1)(i) and (2) of the said Act that prior to the date of delivery of nomination paper under Section 33 of the said Act - (i) a charge was framed against the respondent No.1 in a case pending in respect of any offence punishable with imprisonment for a period of two years or more, ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 ::: 74 ep1.14.odt or (ii) he was an accused in a pending case in which cognizance was taken in respect of any offence punishable with imprisonment for less than two years and such defect was of a substantial character requiring the rejection of the nomination paper under Section 36(2) of the said Act.::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 :::In the result, Civil Application No.993 of 2015 at Exhibit 13 is allowed.Consequently, the election petition is rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code.The security deposit is forfeited.No order as costs.PDL/NSN ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 :::::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:22 :::","['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.N. Bajpayee, learned A.G.A. for the State.The order which is impugned in the instant application filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dated 9.6.2011, passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Garh Mukteshwar, District Ghaziabad in Case No.317 of 2011 (State Vs.Ilmas) arising out of Case Crime No.35 of 2011 (State Vs.Bablu and others) under Section 302, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Simbhawali, Ghaziabad by which the applicant has been summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 506 I.P.C.The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2 Asif lodged a first information report at P.S. Simbhawali on 1.2.2011 (annexure no.1 to the affidavit accompanying this application) at about 8.45 p.m. alleging therein that when on 31.1.2011 at about 6.00 pm the informant, his brother Chaman and one Rahat S/o Tahir after having their meal were going on a walk three persons, namely, Bablu, Nadeem and one unknown person, all armed with country made pistols appeared before them and Nadeem caught hold of Chaman while Bablu shot Chaman in his stomach with his country made pistol and the third person held the informant and Rahat away from Chaman at gunpoint.The injured Chaman was taken to the hospital where he died.On the basis of the aforesaid FIR Case Crime No.35 of 2011 was registered against Nadeem, Bablu and one unknown person.During the course of investigation the Investigating Officer apart from collecting other materials recorded the statements of informant Nadeem and Rahat and upon completion of investigation laid down charge sheet bearing no.33 of 2011 dated 23.2.2011under Section 302 and 506 I.P.C. (annexure no.8) before the concerned Magistrate against Nadeem and Bablu.On the application moved by the complainant/opposite party no.2 before the S.S.P., Ghaziabad the matter was directed to be investigated further by S.I.S., Ghaziabad by his order dated 25.2.2011 which has been brought on record by the applicant as annexure no.S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit).During further investigation the S.I.S., Ghaziabad examined the informant Asif and two new witnesses Jan Mohammad @ Janu and Aftab who in their statements claimed that they had seen the applicant along with other co-accused armed with country made pistols running away from the place of occurrence on the relevant date after they had reached there upon hearing the sound of gun shot.Relying upon the statements of Jan Mohammad @ Janu and Aftab charge sheet bearing no.33-A of 2011 dated 23.5.2011 was submitted against the applicant after completion of further investigation where upon the court below took cognizance and summoned the applicant by his order dated 9.6.2011 (annexure no.12 to the affidavit accompanying this application).Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that the impugned order by which the applicant has been summoned by the court below is an absolutely non-speaking and cryptic order which does not reflect any application of judicial mind by the concerned Magistrate to the facts of the case and the materials on record and since before a Magistrate, upon receipt of a complaint or a police report or any other information showing commission of a cognizable offence, takes cognizance and issues process, it is imperative that it must be discernible from the order of the Magistrate that he has taken into consideration the charge sheet and the other papers submitted therewith for satisfying himself as to whether a prima facie case against the accused for the concerned offences is made out and since the impugned orders does not conform to the aforesaid requirement, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.Sri Brijesh Sahai, next submitted that the applicant having not been charge sheeted in the investigation which followed the registration of the FIR at the behest of the opposite party no.2, the investigation pursuance to which charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant is without any sanction of law as the said investigation was not further investigation but reinvestigation which is forbidden under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as would be evident from the perusal of the charge sheet submitted against the applicant which has been described as charge sheet (mool) and not as supplementary charge sheet.Sri Brijesh Sahai also submitted that even it is presumed that the impugned investigation was further investigation, the same was bad on account of having been done without the permission of the concerned court.Sri Brijesh Sahai lastly submitted that evidence on the basis of which the court below has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant does not disclose the commission of any offences by the applicant and the same is not at all sufficient for his conviction for the offences with which he has been charge sheeted.LJ 2897, Virendra Prasad Singh Vs.Rajesh Bhardwaj, 2010 (9) SCC 171, Ram Chandra Vs.Adya Kumar and others, 2008 (3) JIC 484 (SC) and Hasan Bhai Vali Bhai Qureshi Vs.Sri K.N. Bajpayee, learned A.G.A. appearing for the state-respondents submitted that it is trite law that no detailed order is required to be passed at the stage of summoning, no meticulous examination of facts is required to be done at that stage and what Section 204 of the code ordains is that if in the opinion of a Magistrate for taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding ,he shall issue summons for the attendance of the accused and the aforesaid section no where requires the Magistrate to record reasons for summoning.","['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The facts giving rise to the present appeals lie in a narrow compass and centre around a criminal conspiracy, allegedly hatched by the family members of the appellant to murder the deceased, Kunal.The case of the prosecution as per the charge-sheet is that in the month of March 1999, deceased Kunal organised an entertainment show, sponsored by the father of the appellant.During the event, the deceased was introduced to the sister of the appellant, Hema.The acquaintance blossomed into love between the two.Appellant's father lodged a complaint alleging that the deceased had kidnapped his daughter.The complainant, namely, the father of the deceased, also reported the matter to the Pune Police.Sometime in June, 2000, Kunal contacted his father and informed him that he was at Gauhati with Hema.Thereupon, the complainant and his wife brought Kunal and Hema to Mumbai.On persuasion by the complainant and his wife, Hema agreed to return and stay with her parents and the marriage between Kunal and Hema is stated to have been annulled.In December, the complainant filed complaints with the S.P., Satara and the Additional Commissioner of Police, Pune against the father of the appellant alleging that he had abused him over the telephone.The complainant also alleged that even thereafter, threatening calls were made by the appellant, his sister, Hema and father.However, the things seem to have settled down with the intervention of the Advocate of the complainant.On 21st April, 2001, the deceased (Kunal) left Panchgani (where he was living with the parents) for Mahabaleshwar in his maruti car.At about 8:30 p.m., a taxi-driver informed the complainant that Kunal was lying in a pool of blood on Mahabaleshwar road.The complainant rushed to the spot and took his son in an injured condition to the hospital where he was declared brought dead.The complainant lodged an F.I.R at Mahabaleshwar Police Station against unknown persons and an offence was registered under Section 302 of the IPC.Therefore, in order to teach a lesson to the complainant they hatch conspiracy to kill his only son, Kunal.Accordingly accused No.1 contacted accused No.6 Suresh Jhajara and further informed him the complainant and his son should be taught a lesson as Kunal Parihar betrayed him.Hence should be taught a lesson and further asked to carry out future plan.Accused No.6, contacted accused No.7 and included him in the aforesaid conspiracy.J U D G M E N TREPORTABLECRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 744 OF 2008Arising Out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.5514 of 2007WITHCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 745 OF 2008[Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.5515 of 2007]D.K. JAIN, J.:Leave granted.These two appeals are directed against orders dated 23rd June, 2006 and 19th September, 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 288 of 2005 and in Criminal Writ Petition No.1884 of 2006 respectively.By the first order, the High Court has repelled the challenge made to order dated 23rd March, 2005, in Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2004, whereby the Sessions Judge, Satara had affirmed the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ""the Code"") for discharge.However, on the next day, the complainant levelled allegation that since marriage of Kunal had been fixed with another girl, the appellant and his family members had developed a grudge and had, therefore, hatched a conspiracy with co-accused Umesh, Suresh, Bhavarlal Sharma, Captain Sharma to murder Kunal.On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the Juvenile Court, Satara, being below 18 years of age, and against fifteen other persons, which included his father (A-1), mother (A-2), sister (A-4), a family friend (A-11), manager of his father (A-12), in Sessions Court, Satara.All of them have been arraigned as members to the conspiracy to murder Kunal.The appellant, herein, and accused A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-7, A-11 and A-12 have been prosecuted for offences under Section 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ""the I.P.C.""), whereas accused A-7 to A-10 and A-13 to A-16 have been prosecuted for offences under Section 302 read with Section 120B and under the Arms Act.The appellant filed an application for discharge before the Juvenile Justice Board, under Section 227 of the Code.The Juvenile Justice Board by order dated 1st October, 2004, rejected the said application.Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred a criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge, Satara.Still aggrieved, the appellant moved a revision application before the High Court.Vide order dated 23rd June, 2006, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision.Both these orders were challenged by them by means of two Criminal Writ Petitions (Nos.1283 and 1284 of 2006).Inter-alia, observing that the circumstances highlighted by the prosecution, even if accepted in entirety, only created a suspicion of motive, these were not sufficient to make out a case for conviction of the accused and some suspicion or motive cannot serve as a sufficient ground for framing of charge against them.Accordingly, all the four accused/petitioners were discharged.Emboldened by the said order, on 4th August, 2006, the appellant filed a Criminal Writ Petition (No.1884 of 2006) under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code for quashing of aforenoted order dated 23rd March, 2005, passed by the Sessions Judge, Satara and for discharge of the charges framed under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the I.P.C. Expressing surprise over the fact that this petition had been filed though the order impugned in the petition stood confirmed on dismissal of criminal revision on 23rd June, 2006, the learned Judge rejected the plea of the appellant that in the light of order dated 7th July, 2006, in the case of co-accused, by reason of parity, he was also entitled to be discharged.Inter-alia, observing that earlier order dated 23rd June, 2006 in the case of the appellant, which was certainly relevant for deciding the Criminal Writ Petitions No.1283 & 1284 of 2006, had not been noticed in order dated 7th July, 2006 (by the Chief Justice), vide order dated 19th September, 2006, the learned Judge dismissed the petition.As noted above, both the orders, dated 23rd June, 2006 and 19th September, 2006 are challenged in these two appeals.At this juncture, two other significant subsequent developments deserve to be noted.Secondly, relying on order dated 7th July, 2006, the father (A-1) of the appellant, termed as the main accused in the charge-sheet, filed an application before the Sessions Judge for discharge from all the charges.Taking note of the said order passed by the High Court, and inter-alia, observing that apart from the fact that the alleged threats are vague and are inadequate to connect the said accused with the crime, vide order dated 14th May, 2007, the Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that there was absolutely no material on the basis whereof a reasonable likelihood of the said accused being convicted could be predicted.Accordingly, he has discharged the said accused.Thus, as on date, the father (A-1), the mother (A-2), the sister (A-4) of the appellant and his two other associates (A-11 & A-Accused No.1 to 4, contacted accused No.16, through accused No.6 and 7, accused No.16 pending is a notorious criminal.Criminal cases are pending against him in the District Court of Pune.In the offence regarding body, accused No.7 contacted him through witnesses Atul Lohar in order to carry out the aforesaid plan.Accused No.7 asked accused No.8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15 to joint the aforesaid conspiracy and in order to carry out the aforesaid conspiracy successfully accused No.7 purchased one Maruti Car No.14 D-3027 from witness Afzal Khan Ibrahim Khan, resident of Dehu Road and also Motor Cycle No.By using the aforesaid vehicles accused No.7 to 10 and 13 to 15 have committed ghastly murder of Kunal.In order to carry out the aforesaid conspiracy successfully accused No.7 has used revolver, khukri, sickle, sword and iron bar and supplied it to accused No.8 to 10 and from 13 to 15, by using the aforesaid weapons the aforesaid persons have assaulted Kunal Parihar by which he sustained grave injuries and ultimately died.Hence accused No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 12 have charged been under Sections 302, 120B IPC and accused No.7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 16 have charged u/s 302 read with 120B IPC and under Arms Act Section 3 and 25.""bar and supplied it to accused No.8 to 10[Emphasis supplied]Thus, according to the prosecution version, when accused, A-1 to A-5, A-11 and A-12 learnt about the marriage of Kunal with some other girl, they hatched a conspiracy to teach a lesson to the father of Kunal, the deceased.In furtherance thereof, accused A-1 contacted one of the assassins to kill Kunal.It is alleged that accused A-1 to A-4 also contacted accused A-16, a notorious criminal.In other words, the gravamen of the accusation by the prosecution is that it is accused A-1 to A-5, A-11 and A-12 who had hatched the conspiracy; acted in concert to give effect to their plan to get Kunal murdered and in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, the other accused facilitated commission of the said crime.From the material on record, it is manifestly clear that it was the family members of the appellant, one of their employees and a friend who allegedly had all entered into an agreement to eliminate the deceased.Furthermore, in its order dated 7th July, 2006, the High Court has opined that the circumstances, relied upon by the prosecution, even if accepted in its entirety, only create a suspicion of motive, which is not sufficient to bring home an offence of murder.As noted above, State's petition for special leave against the said judgment has already been dismissed.We are, therefore, of the view that in the light of the subsequent events, namely, the orders of the High Court dated 7th July, 2006 in Criminal Writ Petitions No. 1283 & 1284 of 2006, discharging appellant's mother, sister and two close associates, accused Nos.2, 4, 11 and 12 respectively; order dated 30th April, 2007 passed by this Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition preferred by the State against order dated 7th July, 2006 and order dated 14th May, 2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Satara, discharging the father (A-1) of the appellant, stated to be the mastermind behind the entire conspiracy, for offences under Sections 120B and 302 I.P.C., on same set of circumstances and accusations, no sufficient ground survives to proceed against the appellant for the aforementioned offences.","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The case against the accused/appellant is that, the deceased Saranyawas the wife of the appellant and they lived separately as tenant in theupstairs of the house belonged to one Babu.The appellant often quarrelledwith her wife in a drunken mood.On 25.01.2013, from the dawn itself, theappellant and his deceased wife were quarreling with each other and they werealso warned by their house owner, namely Babu.After pacification, both ofthem went to their house at about 12.00 O' clock in the night.On 26.01.2013,at about 00.30 a.m. smoke emanated from the appellant's house and on noticingthe same, the house owner and another person by name Muthuvel came out of their house.At that time the appellant, also came out of his house hurriedlyand when the house owner and said named person enquired the appellant, the appellant replied that he done away his wife, since he has no peace at all inher existence.When both the house owner and Muthuvel entered into the house of appellant, they noticed that the deceased was burning and they tried toextinguish the fire, however, the deceased burnt completely.The Prosecutionfurther alleged that during the course of heated arguments, the appellantdashed her wife's head into the wall and thus, murdered her.The appellant herein was tried by the learned Principal SessionsJudge, Tuticorin, in S.C.No.128 of 2014, for charges under Section 302 and302 r/w 201 IPC.The learned Trial Judge found that the appellant/accusedguilty of the charges under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo lifeimprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of sixmonths rigorous imprisonment; and 7 years rigorous imprisonment for theoffence under Section 302 r/w 201 IPC with default sentence of rigorousimprisonment for three months.The sentences imposed were ordered to run concurrently.Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed bythe trial court, the accused has preferred the present Criminal Appeal beforethis Court.In order toscreen the murder, the appellant set fire on her body.Thus, the accused wascharged for the offences as stated above.Before the trial court, in order to substantiate its case, theprosecution examined PWs-1 to 16, marked Exs.P1 to P23 and produced MOs1 toOn the side of the accused, neither any person was examined nor anydocument was marked.Out of the above said witnesses PW1/Muthuvel/complainant and PW2/Babu, are the neighbours of the appellant.They have spoken about theoccurrence.However, they did not support the case of the prosecution andhence they were treated as hostile witnesses.Similarly PW3/Mohan, PW4/Ayya Durai, PW5/Vikram and PW6/Ramakrishnan have been treated as hostile witnesses.PW7/Anthonysamy, the father of the deceased Saranya, has spoken about the quarrel between his deceased daughter and the appellant.PW10, is the Doctor who conducted postmortem on the deceased Saranya and he gave Ex.P9/Postmortem certificate.PW14, is the Doctor, who gave treatment to the accused on 26.01.2013 and he has given Ex.P14/Accident Register, inwhich he has mentioned as follows:-?Alleged H/O sustained burns while burning his wife at about 12.30 a.m.on 26.01.2013 at his residence.?The learned trial Judge, after completing the procedure andconsidering the oral and documentary evidence let in, and upon hearing bothsides, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned, resulting infiling of the present Appeal before this Court.7.The point that arises for consideration in this Appeal is as towhether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court issustainable in law or not?Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that P.Ws.1 to 5,who are stated to have seen the occurrence and examined as eye-witnesses to the occurrence, have not supported the case of the prosecution and they haveturned hostile and hence the conviction of the appellant is liable to be setaside.He would further submit that the trial court has based its convictiontaking into account the statement said to have been made by the accused toP.W.14 at the time when he was taken by the Police for treatment for the burninjuries sustained by him at the time when he tried to save his wife when shepoured kerosene and set herself on fire to commit suicide and recorded byP.W.14 in Ex.It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel forthe appellant that since the said statement was given by the appellant at thetime when he was in the custody of police, the same shall not be proved, asper section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and therefore the conviction of theappellant is liable to be set aside.P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 in their evidence have stated that in the midnight of25.01.2013, they saw smoke coming out from the house where the deceased and the accused were residing and upon seeing the same, they rushed to the house of the accused and found the deceased in flames and immediately they put-offthe fire by pouring water and to that extent their evidence is clear andcogent.He would further submit that the accused himself has admitted beforeP.W.14, the doctor, who gave treatment to the burn injuries sustained by him,that he sustained injuries when he set fire on the body of his wife, thedeceased, which has been duly recorded by P.W.14 in Ex.P-14, Accident Register issued to the accused.He would further submit that from theevidence of Doctor who conducted postmortem and issued postmortem certificate, it is clear that the deceased was done to death before her bodywas set on fire.Therefore, it is his submission that the trial court aftertaking into account all the above has come to conclusion it is the accusedwho has murdered his wife and thereafter in order to screen the evidence hehas set fire on her body and thus convicted the appellant under Sections 302and Section 302 read with 201 IPC and the same does not require any interference, except confirmation at the hands of this Court.We have considered the above submissions and perused the materials on record, carefully.It is admitted that the accused and the deceased were husband andwife and they were living in a house belonged to P.W.2, as tenants, for aboutthree months prior to the occurrence.It is the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and5 that there used to be quarrel between the spouses, often and on someoccasions they pacified them.It also emerges from the evidence of P.W.7,father of the deceased and P.W.11, mother of the deceased, that theirdaughter used to call them over phone and complain about the conduct of theaccused in quarrelling with her.There is no denial by accused to the saidfacts.It is the case of the prosecution that at the midnight of25.01.2013, when the accused and the deceased were alone in the house, the accused murdered the deceased by causing such injuries and in order to screenthe evidence, he has set fire on the body of the deceased and in the sametransaction, he also sustained burn injuries.Based on the above statedaccusation, it is to be seen whether it was the accused who caused the deathof the deceased and tried to screen the evidence.Though P.Ws.1 to 5 have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution, it is settled lawthat their evidence to the extent it supports the prosecution case can beconsidered and appreciated.It is the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 that atthe midnight of 25.01.2013, they found smoke emanating from the house of theaccused and when they rushed there they found the deceased in flames and immediately they put-off flames by pouring water.But, they did not supportthe case of the prosecution that on 25.01.2013 at about 8.00 p.m., there wasa quarrel between the accused and the deceased and they pacified them.But,the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.11, the parents of the deceased, would go toshow that their daughter phoned to them at 8.30 p.m. on 25.01.2013 andcomplained about the conduct of the accused in quarrelling with her and alsoinformed them that P.W.1 and P.W.2 intervened and pacified.If the above saidevidence of P.Ws.7 and 11 is considered along with the admitted evidence ofP.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5, their evidence cannot be brushed aside merely on theground that they are interested witnesses, as it inspires the confidence ofthe Court.It is not the case of the appellant that he and his wife, thedeceased, never quarrelled with each other.Thus, from their evidence it isclear that on 25.01.2013 night the accused and the deceased were alonepresent together in the house and in such circumstances, it is for the Courtto presume that it is the appellant who had committed the offence.When the aboveincriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., hehas only stated that they were all false and he did not come out with anyexplanation to the satisfaction of the Court.In the above circumstances,the trial court has correctly come to the conclusion that the accused waspresent in the house at the time of occurrence.It is evident from the evidence of P.W.14 that on 26.01.2013 at10.15 a.m., the accused was brought before him for treatment to the burninjuries found on his body and when enquired, he stated that he sustainedthose injuries when he set her wife on fire.The said statement was relied on by the Trial Court only to come to the conclusion that the appellant/accused waspresent at the time of incident in the scene of occurrence.According to him, he found superficial burns all over the body andthe wounds were pale in colour.He found the following ante-mortem injuries:?(i) A contusion of size 6 cms x 4 cms x 1 cm seen over the left sideof forehead.?On dissection of scalp, skull and dura, he found the following:?Scalp contusion of size 8 cms x 6 cms seen over the left frontalregion.Sub-arachanoid haemorrhage seen over the left occipital lobe.?It is his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died ofcomplications of head injury and the death would have occurred 12-24 hoursprior to autopsy and no poison was detected in the viscera analysed.Thus, it is clear from the evidence of P.W.10, the doctor whoconducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, that the death of the deceasedwas not due to the burn injuries but it was due to the complications of headinjury.From the above, it becomes clear that after murdering his wife bycausing the above said head injury, in order to screen the commission of theoffence of murder, the appellant/accused has poured kerosene and set fire onthe body of the deceased.If at all the accused/appellant did not commitmurder of his wife and his wife attempted to commit suicide, as a normalprudent man, he would have sought for the assistance of his neighbours in theeffort of saving his wife.But, he did not do so.On the contrary, hisstatement before P.W.14 was that he sustained injuries when he set fire onthe body of the deceased.Further, if he did not commit any offence, on thearrival of police, he would have made a complaint to the police as to theoccurrence, but he failed to do so.This conduct of the appellant/accusedleads to the inevitable conclusion that it was this appellant/accused whocommitted the murder of the deceased and in order to screen the evidence, hehas set fire on the body of the deceased and thereby committed offencespunishable under Section 302 and Section 302 read with 201 IPC and liable tobe punished thereunder.The trial court has, after appreciating the evidencein detail, found the accused guilty under both the charges and sentenced himthereunder.We find no reason or ground to interfere with the wellconsidered judgment of the trial court.Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin.2.The Inspector of Police, Tuticorin North Police Station, Tuticorin District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..",['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
"(Order of this Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The petitioner is the father of the detenu Selvam @ Suresh Kumar.The detenu was incarcerated by order dated 8.4.2007 of the second respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a Goonda.Hence, the petitioner seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 8.4.2007 in Cr.M.P.No.5/2007/C1 against his son, who is now confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the above said detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.The order of detention dated 8.4.2007 came to be passed based on the ground case said to have taken place on 26.2.2007 at 7.30 p.m., on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Sivaprakash on the file of Kavindapadi Police Station.According to the complainant, while he was going along with his wife Thenmalar in his motor cycle towards Kuttiagounden Pudur from Erode, a Tata Sumo Car came speedily and halted, obstructing their way.Three persons came from the car, one was holding a gun and another was having a knife.They demanded the jewels worn by Thenmalar both at gun and knife points.When they refused, one among them snatched the hand bag kept by Thenmalar, which contains a Nokio cell phone, keys of the house and a cash of Rs.450/-.The complainant and his wife raised hue and cry.On hearing their alarm, the public nearby tried to apprehend them on the spot.On seeing the public, the car sped away and the three persons ran in different directions and escaped from the scene of occurrence.In this regard, a case was registered in Crime No.168 of 2007 under Section 392 r/w 397 IPC.During investigation, it was found that one of the three persons is the detenu herein.The detenu was arrested on 13.3.2007 and remanded to judicial custody.The second respondent, taking note of the above case as a ground case and finding that there are six adverse cases pending against the detenu for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, ordered his detention dubbing him as a Goonda.The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order of detention dated 8.4.2007 mainly on the ground of delay in considering the representation dated 20.4.2007 made on behalf of the detenu, we do not propose to go into the other aspects of the case.But, the file was circulated only on 17.5.2007, with a delay of eight days.The delay in circulating the file by the Government, viz., between 9.5.2007 and 17.5.2007 - a period of eight days, was highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.Even though 12.5.2007 and 13.5.2007 happened to be public holidays, there is no convincing reply on behalf of the State for the delay in circulating the file by the Government.The order of detention dated 8.4.2007 is quashed.The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.The District Collector and District Magistrate Erode District Erode.The Superintendent Central Prison Coimbatore.The Public Prosecutor, High Court Madras.",['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
"...petitioners.We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.dns The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.( Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J. ) ( Joymalya Bagchi, J. ) 2","['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay-J.) ( Sudip Ahluwalia-J.) 2","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"2.The brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are as hereunder:-P.W.1, the de facto complainant, is the father of the deceased Theerthakarai; P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased and P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased.The marriage between the deceased and A-1 was solemnized during the month of February 2010 and they were blessed with a male child.The habit of A-1 consuming alcohol led to matrimonial disputes between the spouses and on the fateful day, i.e., on 08.06.2013 at about midnight 01:00 a.m., the deceased committed suicide by pouring 3/26http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.73 of 2015 kerosene over her body and setting herself on flames.She was taken to the Government Hospital, Madurai , for treatment, where she succumbed to the burn injuries after five days of the occurrence.On information, the law enforcing agency, initially registered a case on the basis of the statement of the deceased Theerthakarai.However, after the demise of Theerthakarai, a written complaint, Ex.P-1, was lodged by P.W.1 with P.W.13, Sub Inspector of Police, Aviyoor Police Station.On receipt of the said complaint, a case was registered by P.W.13 by preparing printed F.I.R., Ex.Since the death had happened within seven years of the marriage, inquest was conducted by P.W.12, the Revenue Divisional Officer.Printed F.I.R. was forwarded to the learned Judicial Magistrate and also to the higher officials, whereinafter P.W.15, the Deputy Superintendent of Police took up investigation.Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, who went 4/26http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.73 of 2015 to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P-12 and drew the rough sketch.The accused/respondents 1 & 2 herein, who were arrayed as A-1 and A-2 were charged and tried before the Assistant Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District in S.C.No.23 of 2014 for the offences under Section 306 and 498(A) of Indian Penal Code, and the trial Court found that the prosecution having not proved the case as against the accused/respondents 1 & 2 beyond reasonable doubt, acquitted the accused/respondents 1 & 2 herein.The petitioner/P.W.1 aggrieved by the said order of acquittal has preferred the present appeal.2/26http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.73 of 2015He examined witnesses and recorded their statements.He also examined the doctors and recorded their statements.The body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem and P.W.9, the doctor, conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased.After completing the investigation, P.W.16 filed the final report against the accused/respondents for the offences u/s 306 and 498-A IPC.The accused/respondents herein were furnished with the relied upon documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial after framing charges under Sections 306 and 498(A) of I.P.C. When questioned, the accused/respondents herein pleaded not guilty.To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.s 1 to 16 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-15 and M.O. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same as false.Neither any oral nor any 5/26http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.73 of 2015 documentary evidence was marked on the side of the defence.The trial Court, after hearing either side and after considering the materials available on record, both oral and documentary, acquitted the accused aggrieved by which, the de facto complainant/P.W.1 has filed the present appeal.It is the further submission of the learned counsel that on the fateful day, the deceased came to her parental house and informed P.W.s 1 and 2 and she is being harassed by the accused and that she intends to end her life and P.W.s 1 and 2 pacified her and sent her to her matrimonial home.In this connection it may be pointed out that the powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379 (sic 378) CrPC are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction.But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the trial court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness.17/26http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.73 of 2015The facts as to the relationship of the parties, viz., A-1, A-2, the deceased, P.W.s 1, 2 and 3 are not in dispute.The deceased and A-1 were also blessed with one male child, which is also not in dispute.However, as P.W.s 1 to 3 are related to the deceased, this Court is entrusted with the task of stifling through their evidence to find out whether their evidence is free from embellishments and interpolations and whether their evidence is trustworthy to interfere with the order passed by the trial court.10.1.There are no eye witnesses to the occurrence.However, P.W.s 1 to 3 have been projected by the prosecution to speak about the matrimonial discord between the deceased and A-1 and also the harassment meted out by the accused to the deceased.P.W.s 5, 6, 7 and 8, have turned hostile and, therefore, their evidence in no way furthers the prosecution case.P.W.1 has further deposed that A-1 is residing in the next street and that A-1 frequently consumed alcohol, which led to frequent matrimonial disputes between the spouses.The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that P.W.s 1 and 2 used to pacify the deceased and send her to her matrimonial house.P.W.1 has further deposed that the deceased came to their house alone and the child was not with her.P.W.1 had further deposed that they pacified her and sent her to her matrimonial home and after some time, they came to know that their daughter committed suicide by pouring kerosene over her body.It is to be borne in mind that initially on receipt of information, the law enforcing agency had recorded the statement of the 19/26http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.73 of 2015 deceased at the hospital on the day of occurrence.However, subsequently, when her condition worsened, dying declaration, Ex.P.10, was recorded by the Magistrate in the presence of P.W.s 1 and 2, which was attested by them.It is only subsequent to the dying declaration, the complaint, Ex.P-1 has been lodged by P.W.1 based on which the criminal machinery was set in motion.10.5. P.W.1 has deposed that his daughter had affixed her thumb impression in the complaint, Ex.P-1 as well as the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate.However, the said deposition of P.W.1 was contradicted by the doctors, P.W.s 9 and 10, who have categorically deposed that since the victim had suffered more than 75% burn injuries, they were not able to affix her thumb impression in the complaint as well as in the dying declaration and, therefore, her left toe impression was only obtained in the above documents.It is to be pointed out at this juncture, at the risk of repetition, that subsequent to the dying declaration, Ex.P-10, given by the deceased, the complaint was given by P.W.1, in which he has pointed a 20/26http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.73 of 2015 finger on the accused as the persons responsible for the deceased committing suicide.But the said complaint of P.W.1 stands nullified by the dying declaration recorded from the deceased, in which the deceased has not made any allegations as against the accused.The deceased, nowhere in the dying declaration, has stated that she was instigated by the accused to commit suicide.Except for a statement that A-1 prevented the deceased from frequenting to her parental house, there is no allegation made as against the accused.One other crucial admission of P.W.1, which enures to the benefit of the accused is that in cross examination, P.W.1 has admitted that while the deceased was in the hospital, a panchayat was convened where the accused agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in favour of his son and also settle the properties in his favour.It is to be remembered at this stage that the deceased, who was none other than the daughter of P.W.s 1 and 2, was fighting for her life and no prudent and affectionate parent would hold a panchayat to get settlement of properties.The evidence of the above official witnesses categorically reveal that there was no harassment meted out to the deceased by the accused, but however, there were matrimonial disputes between the spouses.It is to be pointed out that the outcome of marriage is matrimonial dispute, which lingers in every family and mere matrimonial dispute between the spouses alone cannot be exaggerated and stated to be a harassment meted out by one spouse on the other.For the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason to differ from the findings recorded by the Sessions Court to acquit the respondents herein and, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of acquittal recorded in S.C.No.23 of 2014 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.02.03.2020 Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No sts To1.The Assistant Sessions Court, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar DistrictThe Inspector of Police, Aviyoor Police Station, Virudhunagar District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.25/26http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.A.(MD)No.73 of 2015 M.DHANDAPANI, J.","['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"of the Indian Penal Code along with added Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re : Chobi Sk. @ Chhabi Sk. & Anr....... petitioners Mr. Ali Ahsan Alamgir .....for the petitioners Ms. Anasua Sinha ....for the State Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that they are in custody for 46 days and it is also submitted that the incident arose with regard to a dispute over a boundary wall.The co-accused persons, similarly situated, have been enlarged on bail.Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail.In the event the petitioners fail to appear before the Trial Court, without any justifiable cause, the said Court shall be at liberty to cancel their bail in accordance with law without further reference to this Court.This application for bail is, thus, allowed.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)",['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Item No. 66And In the matter of: Md. Sahidul Haque & Ors.- versus -The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No. 135 of 2013 dated 07.03.2013 under sections 326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties.The application for anticipatory bail is not being pressed on behalf of the Petitioner No.1, Md. Sahidul Haque, and, therefore, it is dismissed.As regards the other Petitioners, we have seen the case diary.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"13.8.13 Item No. 83 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 83And In the matter of: Ashoke Kumar Jana & Anr.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Milon Mukherjee Mr. Subir Debnath Mr. Debajit Kundu For the Petitioners Mr. Saibal Bapuli Mr. Arijit Ganguly For the State Mr. Soumen Dutta For the complainant The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Egra Police Station Case No. 192 of 2013 dated 18.06.2013 under Sections 409/379/120B of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Parties.We have seen the case diary and the other material on record.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)","['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on admission.Having perused the impugned judgment, record of the trial Court and petition of appeal, we find this appeal being arguable.Hence, it is admitted for final hearing.Learned Panel Lawyer has taken notice of admission of this appeal on behalf of the respondent/State, hence no further notice is required to be sent to it.Appearing counsel for the parties also heard on I.A No.15697/2016 filed by appellant Lalla alias Jaychand Sondhiya under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C for suspension of his custodial sentences.Appellant Lalla alias Jaychand Sondhiya and another co-accused Shivdayal have been convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 27.07.2016 by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T. No.287/2015 under Section 450 of the IPC to undergo ten years R.I with a fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 376-D to undergo R.I for twenty years with a fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 506 part-II of the IPC to undergo six months R.I with a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.All the jail sentences of the appellant have been directed to run concurrently.Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that during trial appellant Lalla alias Jaychand Sondhiya was released on bail and the FIR in relation to alleged offence of gang-rape and others was delayed as it was lodged on 3rd day from the incident and there were contradictions and variations between the report and deposition given by the prosecutrix (PW-7) as to whether sexual intercourse was committed or not by present appellant Lalla.It was further contended that according to FIR, when appellant Lalla pressed mouth of the prosecutrix, then she was raped only by another co-accused Shivdayal, but prosecutrix (PW-7) deposed before the trial Court that firstly Shivdayal committed rape with her, thereafter present appellant Lalla also committed rape with her and at that time Shivdayal had caught hold her hands.It was also contended by the appellant's counsel that according to the medical report and evidence of lady doctor, no any injury was found on the private parts and body of the prosecutrix and thus lady doctor was unable to record any definite opinion regarding recent intercourse.Thus, it was prayed that appellant's custodial sentences be suspended.P.C had taken defence that he has been falsely implicated, but it was suggested by his counsel to the prosecutrix in her cross-examination (para-10) that she herself had invited both the accused persons and the incident had happened with her consent.Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the evidence on record, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we are not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail, suspending his jail sentences.Hence, I.A No.15697/2016 is dismissed and closed.Office is directed to list the appeal for final hearing in due course keeping in view that the appellant has been undergoing the jail sentences.",['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code']
"::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 00:44:52 :::The case of the appellant/prosecution against the respondent(accused), in short, is as under :-PW-1 (victim) and accused were having love affairs.On06.09.2011, after dinner father of PW-1 and other family members weresleeping in the night.At about 02:00 a.m. in the night, his elder sonPankaj got up from sleep for urination.Pankaj noticed that his sister(PW-1) was talking with accused under the tree.Pankaj came back fortaking torch.In the meantime, PW-1 and accused ran away.Pankaj woke PW-2 and his family members and he narratedincident to them.Mother of PW-1 went to the house of accused.Shecame to know that accused came to house, but lateron, he left.Motherof PW-1 did not get phone number of accused.Due to fear ofdefamation, report was not lodged.Complainant took search of hisdaughter.Accused was not responding to the calls on his mobile phone.Accused was contacted from the mobile of another person.Evidence of PW-1 shows that accused taken her to Nagpur.They went to Uttar Pradesh (UP) at Khaga by ST bus.She resided therefor about two months.It is brought on record in her cross-examinationthat the brother of accused scolded them.They were taken to the Court.Marriage forms were filled in.She has stated her age as 21 years and theage of accused was 25 years.Thereafter, she was residing with accusedas his wife.She resided with accused at Khaga (UP), as his wife.She resided therefor about two to three months.Thereafter, her custody was given to her parents.As per the evidence of PW-1 herself, she went to Khaga (UP)along with accused.Accused performed marriage with her.They hadprepared document for marriage.In the document, she has stated her::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 00:44:52 ::: 7 apeal40.13age as 21 years.She resided with the accused as his wife for two-threemonths.She was willingly residing with the accused.Her father was notready for their relations.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 00:44:52 :::Complainantcame to know that accused and his daughter proceeded towards Nagpur.Thereafter, report was lodged against accused.On the report of complainant dated 09.09.2011, crime wasregistered against accused.ASI Prabhakar Gainewar prepared spot::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 00:44:52 ::: 3 apeal40.13panchnama and recorded the statements of witnesses.On 02.11.2011,accused along with victim came to Ghuggus.Thereafter, accused wasarrested.At that time victim was with accused.Accused and victim weresent for medical examination.After completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed before JMFC, Chandrapur, who, in turn, committed thesame for trial to the Court of Session.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 00:44:52 :::The same was readover and explained to the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty andclaimed to be tried.The prosecution has examined seven witnesses.Atthe conclusion of trial, accused came to be acquitted.Hence, the presentappeal.Shri A.D. Sonak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor hassubmitted that victim was minor at the time of incident.Therefore, herconsent was immaterial for deciding the offence of rape.Learned APPhas pointed out the evidence of PW-1, her father (PW-2) and PW-6 Dr.Ashok Barapatre.Learned APP has submitted that as per the evidence ofPW Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6, victim was minor aged about 14-15 years at thetime of incident.There is no dispute that accused did sexual intercoursewith her.It is submitted that the learned trial Court wrongly acquittedthe accused.Offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 00:44:52 ::: 4 apeal40.13the Indian Penal Code are proved by the prosecution.Hence, prayed toallow the appeal and convict the accused.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 00:44:52 :::Heard Shri Y.B. Mandpe, learned Counsel appearing on behalfof the respondent (accused).She herselfleft the house of her parents in the night.As per the evidence of herfather, she was noticed by his son in the night at about 02:00 a.m.,talking with accused.When his son entered the room for taking torch,during that time, she ran away with the accused.9. PW-1 denied material statement recorded by police.Portionsmarked ""A"", ""B"", ""C"", ""D"" and ""E"" are proved by the Investigating Officer.PW-1 stated in her police statement that she was in love with accused.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 00:44:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 00:44:52 :::5 apeal40.13Her parents were abusing.Therefore, she ran away with the accused.Her marriage was performed with the accused at Khaga (UP).She hasstated her age as 21 years in the Marriage Registration Form.Sheresided with accused as his wife.10. PW-2 has stated in his evidence that his daughter was agedabout 14 years at the time of incident.In the intervening night of06.09.2011 and 07.09.2011, at about 02:00 a.m., his son Pankaj got upfrom sleep for urination.He found accused talking with his daughter byholding her hand.He got up him and narrated the incident.They triedto take search of accused and his daughter, but they could not find them.After three days, he lodged report in the Police Station.There is nodispute that accused had sexual relations with victim (PW-1).MedicalOfficer Selokar (PW-4) has stated in his evidence that on 03.11.2011, heexamined the victim.As per his opinion, she was habituated to sexualintercourse.There was no sign of forcible sexual intercourse.When they arrived at Ghuggus, bothwere apprehended.Accused was arrested, victim was sent for medicalexamination.It is::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 00:44:52 ::: 6 apeal40.13admitted by her in evidence that since then she is residing with herparents.It is brought on record in cross examination that accusedbelonging to other caste and, therefore, her father was not liking herrelations with accused.Report was already lodged by her father.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 00:44:52 :::The prosecution has to prove material ingredients of Section375 of the Indian Penal Code (before amendment).To prove offencepunishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code,prosecution has to prove that at the relevant time, victim was minor and,therefore, her consent was immaterial.She has stated her age before the Courtas 15 years.In her evidence, she has stated that at the time of incident(before one year from the time of incident) she was 15 years.In herpolice statement, she has stated her age as 16 years.She has stated herage while drafting papers of marriage as 21 years.Therefore, her father lodged report.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 00:44:52 :::PW-2 father of victim has stated that his daughter was agedabout 14 years at the time of incident.But, in his report (Exh.11), he hasstated her age as 15 years.PW-3 (Ku.Alka Bandawar), Headmistress ofZilla Parishad Higher Primary Hindi School at Ghuggus has producedschool register.As per the evidence of PW-3, entry in respect of date ofbirth was taken in the register without obtaining Birth Certificate orother document.Her date of birth was stated by her mother Sitadevi.Prosecution has not examined the mother of PW-1 namely Sitadevi.PW-2 has stated in his evidence that he himself entered thename of his daughter in the school.He himself stated her date of birth inthe school, but he has not stated the date of birth before the Court.Onlyhe has stated that she was 14 years at the time of incident.There ismaterial contradiction in respect of age stated by PW Nos.1 and 2.Evidence of PW-3 is not helpful to prosecution because as per the entryin the register, the date of birth was stated by the mother of victim.Mother of victim who has stated her date of birth, not examined by the::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 00:44:52 ::: 8 apeal40.13prosecution.There is no entry in the register that on what basis date ofbirth of PW-1 was recorded in the school register.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 00:44:52 :::17. PW-6 (Dr. Ashok Barapatre) has stated in his evidence that on23.05.2012, he had taken x-ray of victim.He has conducted ossificationtest to determine the age of victim.As per his opinion, she was inbetween 14 and 16 years.Margin of two years can be taken intoconsideration on either side.This itself shows that she was more than 18years at the time of incident.This itself is clear that to fill up the lacuna, prosecutionhas examined PW-6 (Dr. Barapatre) who has stated that on 23.05.2012,he has conducted ossification test.Therefore, evidence of Dr.Barapatre cannot be taken into consideration.Even if the evidence of Dr.Barapatre is taken into consideration then also victim was more than 18years.Evidence of victim itself shows that she was 21 years at the timeof incident.She herself stated her age as 21 years when the marriageforms were filled in at Khaga.Prosecution has miserably failed to prove that victim was::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 00:44:52 ::: 9 apeal40.13minor i.e. below 16 years at the time of incident.On the other hand, itappears that victim was more than 18 years at the time of incident.Thereis no dispute that she herself went with the accused.Her father was notliking her relations with accused.Her evidence shows that she was inlove with accused.She voluntarily resided with accused as his wife fortwo-three months.Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offencecharged against the accused.Learned trial Court has rightly acquittedthe accused.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 00:44:52 :::R and P be sent back.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2018 00:44:52 :::","['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"All the brothers haddifference of opinion as to the right of using a pathway.The deceasedMadasamy was claiming that the passage exclusively belonged to him and it shouldnot be used by others.While the matter stood thus, on 18.02.2005, the deceasedMadasamy set fire to the withered plants.The fire spread to accused No.1'sfield also and caused some damage to the plants.This was the motive for theoccurrence.(b)On 20.02.2005, when the deceased Madasamy and his wifeP.W.2 were doing work in their well situate in their land, at about 8.00 a.m.,accused Nos.1 and 2 came there, abused Madasamy and accused No.1 inflicted a cutinjury with aruval on Madasamy's left side of the neck, while accused No.2 cuthim on the back of the neck.When P.W.2 raised alarm, accused No.1 abused herand cut on her left cheek along with her left ear and accused No.2 similarlyabused her and cut on her left palm, in which P.W.2 lost her left thumb.P.W.1,P.W.5 and others have also witnessed the occurrence.Madasamy died on the spot.Both the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.P.W.5 and P.W.7 tookP.W.2 to Government Hospital, after instructing P.W.1 to inform about theaccident to the police.(c)P.W.3, the Doctor attached to Government Hospital, gavetreatment to P.W.2 and referred her for better treatment to Tirunelveli MedicalCollege Hospital.M.Os.4 to 7 arethe X-rays.Ex.P-5 is the X-ray Expert's Report.M.Os.1 to 3 are thebloodstained personal wearing apparels of P.W.2 recovered by the police from herin the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital.(d)On 20.02.2005 at about 11.00 a.m., when P.W.15, Sub-Inspector of Police, was on duty in the Sankarankovil Taluk Police Station,P.W.1 appeared before him and gave Ex.P-22 complaint, which was recorded byP.W.15 and on the strength of Ex.P-1, P.W.15 registered a case in CrimeNo.41/2005 under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.P-23 is the first informationreport prepared by him.He despatched the same to the concerned MagistrateCourt and copies to the higher police officials.(e)P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of copy ofEx.P-23 FIR, took up the case for investigation.He proceeded to the scene ofoccurrence, made an observation and in the presence of witnesses prepared Ex.P-24, the observtion mahazar and also drew Ex.P-25, the rough sketch.He alsorecovered M.O.12, bloodstained mud and M.O.13, sample mud, from the place ofoccurrence under Ex.P-26, the mahazar.Therafter, in the presence ofpanchayatdars and witnesses, the Investigator conducted inquest on the body ofthe deceased and prepared Ex.P-27, the inquest report.(Judgment of the Court was Delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J) The appellants, who stood charged and tried by the trialcourt, namely the Court of Additional Sessions No.I, Tirunelveli, inS.C.No.227/2005 under Sections 302, 307 and 294(b) IPC, were found guilty andsentenced to undergo imprisonments as detailed below.(a)Convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo lifeimprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo sixmonths rigorous imprisonment.(b)Convicted under under Section 307 IPC and Sentenced undergo rigorousimprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default toundergo three months rigorous imprisonment.(c)Found not guilty under Section 294(b) IPC and acquitted of the charge.(a)Convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo lifeimprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo sixmonths rigorous imprisonment.(b)Convicted under under Section 326 IPC and Sentenced undergo rigorousimprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default toundergo three months rigorous imprisonment.(c)Found not guilty under Section 294(b) IPC and acquitted of the charge.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal has beenbrought forth by the appellants.He sent the body forpostmortem with Ex.P-3, the requisition.(f)P.W.3, the Doctor, on receipt of Ex.P-3, the requisition,started the postmortem at 4.55 p.m. on 20.02.2005 and concluded the same at 6.00p.m.and found the following injuries on the body of the deceased.(i)A transverse cut incised wound of 15cm x 5cm x 8 cm in front of neck,starting from the left side of neck and passes in front of neck, above thethyroid cartilage and ends close to right ear.O/D. under lying muscular vesselsare cut Larynx cut.(ii)A transverse cut incised wound of 14cm x 6 cm x 7cm over back of cheekstarting from the left ear passes over the back of neck, over cervical vertebraand ends below right metoid process.C/D underlying muscles, cervical vertebraand vessels are cut.""Ex.P-4 is the postmortem certificate issued by him.P.W.3 was of the opinionthat the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due toinjury Nos.1 and 2, 9 to 12 hours prior to postmortem.(g)After postmortem, P.W.12, the Police Constable, whoaccompanied the body to the Hospital for postmortem, recovered M.Os.8 to 11, thepersonal wearing apparels of the deceased and handed them over to theInvestigator.(h)In continuation of the investigation, P.W.16, theInvestigator, examined some witnesses on 21.02.2005 and recorded theirstatements.Accused Nos.1 and 2 surrendered before the Tenkasi Magistrate.Oncoming to know the same, P.W.16, the Investigator, filed an affidavit before theCourt seeking police custody of the accused and accordingly they were taken onpolice custody.On enquiry, accused Nos.1 and 2 voluntarily gave separateconfessional statements.P-28 and P-29 are the admissible portions of theconfessional statements given by accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively, pursuant towhich, M.O.15, bloodstained aruval produced by accused No.1 and M.O.16,blodstained aruval produced by accused No.2, were recovered under Exs.P-30 andP-31 Mahazars, respectively.(i)All the material objects recovered from the place ofoccurrence, from the body of the deceased and also from the accused weresubjected to chemical analysis.Ex.P-18 is the Chemical Examiner's Report andEx.P-19 is the Serologist's Report.On completion of the investigation,P.W.16, the Investigator, filed final report against both the accused underSections 302, 307 and 294(b) IPC.3.The final report was taken on file by the concernedMagistrate and the same was committed to the Court of Session.Necessarycharges were framed by the trial court against the accused.On completion of the evidence on the side ofthe prosecution, the accused/appellants were questioned under Section 313 of theCode of Criminal Procedure about the incriminating materials found against himin the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused/appellants denied allof them as false.No witness was examined on the side of the defence and alsono document was marked.The trial court heard the arguments advanced and onconsideration of the evidence adduced, found the accused/appellants guilty andimposed imprisonment as stated in the earlier part of this Judgment.Hence,this appeal at the instance of the appellants.4.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellant, thelearned counsel for the appellant would raise the following points.(a)In the instant case, P.W.1, who is stated to be an eye-witnessand given Ex.P-22 complaint, has turned hospital and therefore Ex.P-22 was notin any way helpful to the prosecution case and in such circumstances it is notsafe to convict the appellants based on the solitary and uncorroboratedtestimony of P.W.2, who is the wife of the deceased Madasamy.(b)Learned counsel would further add that in the instant case, P.W.2has sustained injuries in the occurrence that has taken place at 'kanmoi', asper the statement given before P.W.3, the doctor, who examined P.W.2 and gavetreatment to her, but, according to the prosecution, the occurrence has takenplace near the well in the filed of the deceased Madasamy.He would furthersubmit that the distance between the field and the kanmoi is 1 k.m.and thus itwould be quite clear, according to P.W.2, she has sustained injuries not in theplace where Madasamy was attacked and therefore she could have witnessed theoccurrence in which her husband was attacked.(c)Added further, learned counsel submitted that in the instant caseP.W.2 has given categorical admission that they took the food at 7.00 a.m. asusual and went to the field for work and the occurrence has taken place at about8.00 a.m. and now as per P.W.3, the doctor, who conducted autopsy, the stomachwas empty and hence the medical evidence was contrary to the evidence of P.W.2and hence the occurrence would not have taken place at the time projected by theprosecution.He would further add that as a matter of fact, the Doctor hasdeposed that the deceased would have taken food 3 to 6 hours prior to his deathand therefore the time of death could not be the time as alleged by theprosecution.(d)It is the further submission of the learned counsel thataccording to P.W.2, before she was taken to the hospital, they went to thepolice station and informed the police about the incident but, the saidcomplaint has been suppressed by the prosecution which is fatal to theprosecution case.(e)Adding further, learned counsel would submit that the occurrencehas taken place at 8.00 a.m. on 20.02.2005, but the first information about theoccurrence has been given to the police only at 11.00 a.m. and in turn the FIRhas reached the Court only at 6.00 p.m. and there is delay in registering thecase as well as the FIR reaching the Court, which is fatal to the prosecutioncase.(f)Learned counsel therefore contended that the lower court has notconsidered the materials and the evidence of prosecution witnesses in properperspective and thus recorded an erroneous finding and therefore the appellantsare entitled for acquittal at the hands of this Court.5.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutorappearing for the respondent/State on the above contentions and paid its anxiousconsideration to the rival submissions made and carefully scrutnized thematerials on record.Further, this fact was neverquestioned by the appellants neither before the trial court nor before thisCourt and, therefor,e without impediment, it can be safely recorded thatMadasamy died due to homicidal violence.Insofar as P.W.1 is concerned, he turned hostileand P.W.5 is concerned, though she turned hostile, her evidence is available tothe prosecution as to the place of occurrence.Now, the only eye-witnessavailable was the evidence of P.W.2 and admittedly she is the wife of thedeceased.It is pertinent to point out that P.W.2 is an injured witness.In acase like this, when the witness happened to be an injured witness, unless anduntil strong circumstances or reasons are brought forth or noticed by the Court,it is settled position of law that the evidence of such witness need not bediscarded.In the instant case, according to P.W.2, in the course of sametransaction, immediately the deceased was attacked by accused Nos.1 and 2, wasattacked by both the accused and she sustained multiple injuries.She was takento the hospital by P.W.5 and P.W.7 to the Hospital and she was given treatmentby P.W.3, the doctor and the case came to be registered for the offencespunishable under Section 302 along with other provisions of Indian Penal Codeand the investigation was proceeded with and witnesses have been examined inthat regard.8.The first question would be whether there was any delay inthe registration of the case or in the FIR reaching the Court.The occurrencehad taken place at about 8.00 a.m. in the field of the deceased and leaving thebody of the deceased Madasamy in the field, P.W.2 was initially taken to P.W.3,the Government Doctor and thereafter on the advice of P.W.3, she was taken toTirunelveli Medical College Hospital, following which P.W.1 has proceeded to thepolice station and gave Ex.P-22 complaint before P.W.15, the Sub-Inspector ofPolice, who recorded the same at about 11.00 a.m. In the instant case, P.W.1has turned hostile.Though P.W.1 has turned hostile, merely because theinformant himself has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case,it cannot be a reason to reject the evidence of P.W.2 who is an inured witness.(a)P.W.2 was actually present at the time of occurrence along withher husband, the deceased Madasamy and working in the field.The transaction has taken place nearthe well of the deceased Madasamy when he was working with his wife, P.W.2 andfrom the place of occurrence, bloodstained earth and sample earth have also beentaken and subjected to chemical analysis and found contained the same bloodgroup of the deceased.Apart from this, P.W.5, though turned hostile, in herevidence has stated that she saw the body of the deceased lying near the wellsituate in the field of Madasamy.10.In so far as the second contention that according to P.W.2,they went to the police station before she was taken to the hospital and theyinformed the police and therefore the first information given to the police hasbeen suppressed, the same has got to be rejected for two reasons.When P.W.2was taken to the hospital from the place of occurrence with injuries, she wasactually struggling for her life and she was under fear after seeing the deathof her husband.Under such circumstances, she would not have given anycomplaint to the police.Apart from this, there was no suggestion to the policethat P.W.2 gave another complaint and that has been suppressed.In suchcircumstances, there could not have been any other complaint except Ex.P-22 andhence there is no question of suppression of any other complaint.11.The other contention is that as per P.W.2 they took thefood at 7.00 a.m. and went to the field for work, but the opinion of thepostmortem doctor, P.W.3, was that the stomach was found empty at the time ofpostmortem and therefore the occurrence must have taken place prior to the timeprojected by the prosecution.P.W.2 is a rustic lady and she has added that to work in the field theyleave home at 7.00 a.m. itself.Now merely because such an answer was givenby P.W.2, that by itself would not, in the opinion of the court, shake thefabric of the prosecution case.From the evidence of P.W.5, though turnedhostile, it wold be available to the prosecution to the extent of place ofoccurrence and thus the prosecution has proved that the occurrence has takenplace in the field of Madasamy and P.W.2 was present and she has also beenattacked and she happened to be an injured witness and her evidence has inspiredthe confidence of the Court.12.Therefore, in the above circumstances, the prosecution hasproved its case beyond reasonable doubt that when P.W.2 and her husband, thedeceased Madasamy, were working in their field, the appellants/accused, armedwith weapons, have gone to the filed and attacked the deceased on his neck andcaused his instantaneous death and when it was questioned by P.W.2, accusedNo.1/appellant No.1 cut on her left cheek along with left ear and accusedNo.2/appellant No.2 cut on her left palm, in which P.W.2 lost her left thumb.Hence the Lower Court is perfectly correct in recording its findings as per thecharges and imposing punishments as detailed above.This Court is unable to seeany error factually or legally in the judgment of the trial court, which doesnot require any interference.13.Accordingly, the criminal appeal fails and the same isdismissed.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.2.I-Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.3.The Inspector of Police Sankarankovil Taluk Police Station Tirunelveli District.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Shri K.S. Jha, counsel for the applicant.The earlier application was dismissed vide order dated 29.8.2016 in M.Cr.C. No. 14650 of 2016 with a direction that the applicant may surrender before the trial court and apply for regular bail.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that subsequently another co- accused has been granted bail, vide order dated 14.9.2016 passed in M.Cr.This is repeat application which was earlier dismissed with a direction to surrender before the trial court.In this view of the matter, this application is disposed of with a direction that the applicant shall surrender before the trial court and his regular bail application shall be considered by the trial court on the same day.The applicant can very well plead before the court that another co - accused has been granted bail by this court.The application is disposed of.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE bks","['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(ii) Whether the High Court can entertain application under Section 427, Cr.(a) from accused who, while undergoing sentence of imprisonment was sentenced on subsequent conviction to the imprisonment and whose appeal/revision against the subsequent sentence stood disposed of without any direction under Section 427, Cr.(b) from accused who, while undergoing sentence of imprisonment, was sentenced on subsequent conviction to the imprisonment without any direction under Section 427 of the Code and does not file appeal or revision against his subsequent sentence?The applicant along with others was prosecuted in Sessions Trial No. 21/84 decided on 12-4-1984 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a term of two years under Section 148, IPC and under Section 307/149 he was sentenced for a term of 5 years.It does not appear that any appeal was preferred against the convictions and sentences.The applicant along with others was again prosecuted in S.T. No. 45/84 decided on 25-9-1984 by the 11 Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, and so far as the applicant is concerned, he was convicted under Section 395, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years.",['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
"This criminal original petition is preferred by the petitioners/accusedhttp://www.judis.nic.in against the proceedings pending in C.C.No.821 of 2008 on the file of the 2 learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and quash the same.2.Brief case of the petitioners/accused The case is that one Rajasekar who is the publisher of Akni Parvai, playing active role in a political party and published certain news item about the petitioners/accused.The further allegation is that after 3 months, the 1st petitioner had threatened Rajasekar with dire consequences.Both Rajasekar and defacto complainant are said to have gone to the petitioner’s office, when both of them entered them, the 1st petitioner along with the 2nd petitioner attacked the defacto complainant and Rajasekar and his car driver with Uruttukattai and fled away from the scene of occurrence.The case was filed in Crime No.911 of 2007 for the alleged offences under section 341 of IPC, 324 of IPC and 506(i) and after enquiry, the offence under section 506(i) IPC against the petitioners/accused had been deleted by the Investigating Officer.Aggrieved over the same this quash petition is filed.3.The respondent police also filed their counter alleging that in the course of the investigation, the then Sub Inspector of police enquired six witnesseshttp://www.judis.nic.in and recorded their statements.Then, new C.C.Nos.8 of 2008, 821 of 2008, 6 of 2009 and 95 of 2010 were assigned during the trial conducted by special regular Magistrate.The case was posted for next hearing on 24.1.2011, hence at this stage there is no necessity to quash or stay the proceedings in C.C.No.821 of 2008 in Cr.No.911 of 2007 on the file of the respondent police.6.The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 allegation made in the FIR, even it is taken as a whole, would not constitute an offence and the FIR registered is politically motivated by way of retaliation and it is to be noted that a complaint in FIR No.910 of 2007 had been filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police against the defacto complaint for indulging in road roko in Madipakkam Coot road and thereby causing nuisance to the Public while he was on patrol.7.The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that the FIR and the final report against them are false, frivolous and liable to be quashed for false story.8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent opposed the contentions of the petitioners and sought for dismissal of the petition.9.I heard M/s.Vedavalli Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.No representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent.http://www.judis.nic.in10.The allegations made in the F.I.R. even it is taken as whole, 5 would not constitute an offence but the Police on the instigation of the politically motivated persons had filed the final report.11.In the case on hand, the allegations made in the FIR and in the final report do not constitute an offence under section 341,324 of IPC.The case of the petitioner/accused is that the final report filed by the respondent police is politically motivated.This contention cannot be rejected and the same was found in the averments contained in 161 statements.Therefore the proceedings in C.C.No.821 of 2008 are nothing but sheer abuse of process of law.12.In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings pending in C.C.No.821 of 2008 against the petitioners/accused on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur is hereby quashed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.22.06.2017 Note:Issue order copy on 15.03.2019 vs Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No To The Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 M.V.MURALIDARAN,J.vs Crl.O.P.No.30124 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 22.06.2017http://www.judis.nic.in","['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Dipak Misra, J.In this appeal, the assail is to the judgment and order dated31.8.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 417 of2001 whereby the Division Bench has dismissed the appeal while affirmingthe judgment and order dated 17.01.2001 of the learned Additional SessionsJudge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 27 of 1998 whereunder the trial Court hadconvicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (forshort ""the I.P.C."") and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment forlife.Theparental home of the deceased was situated at a distance of half akilometer.On the fateful day i.e. 2.11.1997 about 11:00 p.m., Seema, PW-3, daughter of the deceased, aged about ten years, came running to thehouse of her grandfather Shivcharan, PW-8, and informed him as well asSatish, brother of the deceased, PW-1, that her father was threatening toburn her mother.The information compelled PWs 1 and 8 to rush to thehouse of the deceased and, as the factual matrix would show, PW-1, beingyoung in age, reached the house of his sister earlier than his father andfound his sister was burning and she told him that it was the accused-appellant who had put her ablaze by pouring kerosene.The brother pouredwater on the deceased in order to extinguish the fire and thereafter tookher to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital where she could not be admitted due tolack of facility and thereafter they brought her to Safdarjung Hospitalwhere she was admitted.Despite availing treatment, she breathed her laston 3.11.1997 about noon.It is necessary to mention here that after thedeceased was taken by her father and brother to the hospital, twoneighbours, namely, Shanker Lal and Surender, PW-2 and PW-4 respectivelywent to the Police Station at Mangol Puri and gave the information aboutthe incident by DD-73 dated 2.11.1997 on the basis of which, the S.I.Vijender Singh, PW-21, went to the place of the occurrence where he met PW-3, the daughter of the deceased, and came to learn that her parents hadquarreled and her mother had suffered burn injuries and was taken to thehospital.As the prosecution case would further unfurl after thedeath took place they proceeded with the investigation, seized the burntclothes, a quilt, one plastic cane, one match-box and match stick and sentthe dead body for post mortem.The investigating agency in course ofinvestigation arrested the husband on 03.11.1997 and after recording thestatements of number of witnesses laid the chargesheet for the offencepunishable under Section 302 IPC before the competent Court, which in turncommitted the matter to the Court of Session and eventually it was tried bythe learned Additional Sessions Judge.The accused abjured his guilt and pleaded that he was not at home ashe had gone to his sister's place, Shyamwati, DW-1 at MJ-1/61, Vikas Puri,Delhi and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges leveled againstthe accused person, examined as many as 21 witnesses and got number ofdocuments exhibited.On the basis of the ocular and the documentaryevidence, the learned trial Judge came to hold that the prosecution hadestablished the charge levelled against the accused to the hilt andaccordingly convicted him under Section 302, I.P.C and imposed the sentenceas has been stated hereinbefore.On an appeal being preferred, the High Court reappreciating theevidence and placing reliance on the oral dying declaration and thetestimony of the brother and further accepting the post mortem report foundthat the learned trial Judge had really not faulted in recording theconviction.Being of this view, it dismissed the appeal.We have heard Ms. Nupur Choudhary, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) for theappellant and Mr. W.A. Quadri, counsel for the State.It is submitted by Ms. Nupur Choudhary, learned Amicus Curiae thatthe learned trial Judge as well as the High Court has erroneously recordedthe conviction against the appellant though PW-3, the daughter of thedeceased, had not supported the case of the prosecution and she being theprincipal witness, the accused deserved to be acquitted.Mr. Quadri, learned counsel for the State, per contra, would contendthat though the daughter of the deceased, PW-3, has turned hostile yet herevidence cannot totally be brushed aside as both the prosecution and thedefence can rely on such parts of the testimony which are favourable tothem.To appreciate the rivalised submissions raised at the bar, we haveperused the judgments of the trial Court and the High Court with concernedanxiety and cautiously scrutinized the evidence on record.As we find,there are basically seven witnesses whose evidence are important, they areSatish, brother of the deceased, PW-1, Shivcharan, father of the deceased,PW-8, Dr. G.K. Chaubey, who conducted the post mortem, PW-5, Seema,daughter of the deceased, PW-3, Shanker Lal, PW-2 and Surender, PW-4 whoinformed the police at the first instance and Vijender Singh, PW-21, thesub-Inspector who recorded the statement.At this juncture, it isnecessary to mention that apart from PW-3, PWs 2, 4 and 8, were alsodeclared hostile by the prosecution and were cross-examined by the state.It was PW-3, the daughter of the deceased, whowitnessed the quarrel and rushed to the home of her grandparents.Thelearned trial Judge has put the relevant question to her to find outwhether she was in a position to understand the questions and depose inCourt.In her evidence, she had stated that on the fateful day about 11.00p.m.her mother was preparing food for the children and for the saidpurpose she was pouring kerosene oil in the stove as it was empty andthereafter when she tried to light the stove, the kerosene oil was notcoming from the nozzle of the stove, then the deceased inserted a pin inthe nozzle and the oil sprinkled on her and in the process she caught fire.On being declared hostile, she was cross-examined.It is relevant to notehere that she has first deposed that she was not aware who had removed hermother to the hospital and thereafter changed her stand stating that heruncle had removed her mother.As her testimony would show she has notmentioned whereabouts of her father at the time of the incident.Herignorance about how the mother was shifted to the hospital shows that asthe High Court has correctly analysed, she has not spoken anything abouther father in order to protect him.Keeping in abeyance whether the pleaof alibi taken by the accused is proven or not to be dealt with at a laterstage, we think it apposite to scan the evidence of other witnesses.PW-1,the brother of the accused, has unequivocally deposed that after gettingthe information from Seema, PW-3, his father and he rushed to the house ofthe deceased.As is evincible from the testimony, he reached the house ofthe sister first and found she was burning and she told him that hisbrother-in-law had poured kerosene and put her ablaze.She has also statedthat the children should not be given to the accused.He has, in detail,spoken about going to the hospital and how the site plan was prepared andthe items were seized in presence of the witnesses.In the cross-examination, no suggestion has been given about the absence of husband inthe house, contrivance of the dying declaration by him or anything whichwould create a dent in his testimony.What has been sought to be broughtin the cross-examination is that no one was present in the room of thedeceased and certain other questions which have nothing to do with theincident.It has been suggested to him that his sister and the accused hadkept Rs.90,000/- with his father, PW-8, for purchasing a house and as theyrefused to return the money, they had, getting an opportunity, falselyimplicated the accused.It has also come out in the cross-examination thatthe accused was a habitual drinker and gambler and his family was supportedby the in-laws.""Superficial to deep burn injury over all the body surface area including scalp, skin peeled off at various places, margins red underneath tissues bright red and there was blackening of skin over various area.Skin was peeled off at soles, but not at palms.Venisection at left leg above medial malleolus was present.""It was 100 per cent antemortem deep burns.Internal examination revealed that Larynx contained soot particles and rest of the organs were found to be congested.""In the cross-examination he has categorically denied the suggestionthat the injuries received by the deceased could have been sustainedbecause of kerosene oil from the stove fell on her body due to the pinningof the stove and also by fall of a tin of kerosene oil on the floor.Hehas deposed without any equivocation that the burn injuries sustained bythe deceased were not possible due to accidental burns.The High Court hastaken note of the FSL Report, Ext. PW 20/B, from which it is evident thatthe analysis by gas liquid chromatography showed, kerosene oil residueswere found on the scalp hair of the deceased.It is apt to note that thepresence of kerosene on the scalp hair of the deceased and presence of dustparticles in the larynx of the deceased clearly evince that kerosene oilwas poured on the skull of the deceased which could not have happened byaccident.The testimony of the daughter, Seema, PW-3, a young girl of tenyears that the kerosene oil accidentally spilled on the body of her motheris thus absolutely unbelievable.The use which the defence can make of the medicalevidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been causedin the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye-witnesses.Unless,however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completelyrules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in themanner alleged by eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannotbe thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and themedical evidence.It is also true that the post-mortem report by itself isnot a substantive piece of evidence, but the evidence of the doctorconducting the post-mortem can by no means be ascribed to be insignificant.The significance of the evidence of the doctor lies vis--vis the injuriesappearing on the body of the deceased person and likely use of the weaponand it would then be the prosecutor's duty and obligation to have thecorroborative evidence available on record from the other prosecutionwitnesses.It is also an accepted principle that sufficient weightageshould be given to the evidence of the doctor who has conducted the post-mortem, as compared to the statements found in the textbooks, but givingweightage does not ipso facto mean that each and every statement made by amedical witness should be accepted on its face value even when it is self-contradictory.Such an opinionshall be tested by the Court.That apart,it would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answersof medical witnesses to exclude the eyewitnesses' account which are to betested independently and not treated as the 'variable' keeping the medicalevidence as the 'constant'.As per the evidence of thebrother, Satish, PW-1, he after reaching the place of occurrence found hissister ablaze and she had stated that her husband has poured kerosene onher and put her ablaze.But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence.When the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the court would be slow to believe any counter- evidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence happened.But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt.Applying the aforesaid test, we have to x-ray the evidence on record.The father of the deceased, PW-8, has stated in categorical terms that theappellant-accused was there at home.Nothing has been elicited in thecross-examination.The prosecution has been able to establish that theoccurrence took place at 11.00 p.m. There is conclusive medical evidencethat the deceased did not suffer the injuries because of accidental fire.",['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The FIR No.447 was registered on 5.11.2016 at 20.25 P.M., FIR No.448 on the Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 22/10/2018 18:13:53 4 MCRC Nos.18921/17, 19005/17 & 19016/17 same day at 21.10 P.M. and FIR No.449 also on the same day at 22.05'O Clock.All the three FIRs contain allegation relating to the alleged offence in respect of the colonies Vidya Vihar, Sai Bagh and Natural Valley.(Passed on 11/10/2018) 1/ This order will govern the disposal of MCRC Nos. 18921/17, 19005/17 & 19016/17 since it is submitted by counsel for the parties that all these MCRCs involve the same issue on the identical fact situation.2/ These MCRCs have been filed by the petitioners Taranjeet Singh Hora and Harmans Singh Hora for quashing the FIRs registered against them.In M.Cr.C. No.18921/2017 the prayer is for quashing of FIR No.449 dated 5.11.2016, in M.Cr.C. No.19005/17 the prayer is for quashing of FIR No.448 and in M.Cr.All these FIRs have been registered on the same date alleging commission of offence by the petitioners under Section 420, 467, 468, 120B and 34 of the IPC.Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 22/10/2018 18:13:53 2 MCRC Nos.18921/17, 19005/17 & 19016/17 3/ Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the three FIRs relate to the same transaction and they are registered in the same police station within a short interval, therefore, only one FIR ought to have been registered and the subsequent complaints should have been added in the first FIR.5/ Learned counsel for the objector has also referred Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 22/10/2018 18:13:53 3 MCRC Nos.18921/17, 19005/17 & 19016/17 to various documents and has submitted that the agreement dated 9.1.2010 and 31.3.2010 on which the petitioners are relying upon are prima facie fabricated documents and that in the MOU dated 13.9.2012 entered into between TDS Infra and Phoenix Infra relating to Natural Valley Colony, there was no clause relating to the tripartite agreement.He submits that different rates have been mentioned on different agreement between two companies and that the sales have been made to different parties for consideration less than what has been mentioned in the MOU between TDS Infra and Phoenix Infra which itself reveals that the agreement between TDS and Phoenix have been fabricated.3 MCRC Nos.18921/17, 19005/17 & 19016/176/ I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.7/ The petitioners are praying for quashing of the FIR broadly on the following grounds:-i. That, for the same incident three FIRs should not have been registered, therefore, the subsequent two complaints should be investigated with the first FIR without registering separate second and third FIR.8/ So far as the first ground relating to registering the 3 FIRs is concerned, the record reflects that all the three FIRs have been registered at Police Station Betma.Accordingly, the FIR was instituted in which the name of the petitioners figure as accused.No such agreements have been mentioned in the FIR.The said report has been produced by counsel for the State in the sealed cover and on the opening of the sealed cover, it is found that in respect of Crime No.448/2016, 449/2016 and 447/2016 registered at Police Station Betma, an enquiry was conducted by the SDOP, Depalpur and he has submitted three separate reports even dated 5.6.2017 to the Dy.Inspector General of Police, Indore.In the enquiry he had found that the petitioners Taranjeet Singh Hora and Harmans Singh Hora had not committed any offence and Phoenix Infra had entered into an agreement with the prospective purchasers and received the amount, but the amount was kept with themselves and no amount was paid to AR Town Developers, therefore, Phoenix Infra had not only cheated the complainants but had also cheated AR Town Developers, therefore, the names of Taranjeet Singh Hora and Harmans Singh Hora should be deleted from the list of accused.31 MCRC Nos.18921/17, 19005/17 & 19016/17Ms. Archana Kher, learned counsel for the respondent/State.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally.The applicants have challenged the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the lerned Additional Sessions Judge to First Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in ST No.347/2011 whereby the charges of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149, 324 read with section 149, 323 read with Section 149 and 294 of I.P.C were framed against the applicants.The prosecution's case in short is that the complainant had lodged on FIR on 24.2.2011 against three accused persons in which name of the applicants was not mentioned.Thereafter, their names were added in the statements of the various witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the learned counsel for the applicants challenges the impugned order on the two important counts.Firstly, names of the applicants were not mentioned in the FIR.However, at present no appreciation of evidence can be done at this stage and therefore, the evidence given by the various witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C cannot be brushed aside at this stage.So far as the charge under Section 307 of I.P.C is concerned, it is true that there are five persons who assaulted the victim Mukendra Singh.The victim Mukendra Singh sustained three injuries.One was a lengthy incised wound on the cheek upto the ear, one lacerated wound in the skull whereas, one incised wound on right hand.Looking to the injuries, it cannot be said that the applicants were intended to kill the victim Mukendra Singh.Similarly there was no evidence to show that Mukendra Singh sustained any fatal injury.Under Such circumstances, no ingredient of offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C is visible from the injuries caused to Mukendra Singh and therefore, no offence punishable under 307 of I.P.C. Is constituted for the victim Mukendra Singh.However, looking to his injury no.1 which is a very lengthy injury from cheek to the ear , it is clear that it must have caused disfiguration to him and therefore, instead of offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C, offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C is constituted.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicants can be partly allowed and therefore, it is partly allowed.The impugned order dated 13.12.2012 is hereby set aside for the charge under Section 307 read with section 149 of I.P.C against all the accused persons.Instead of that charge the charge under Section 326 or 326 read with section 149 of I.P.C shall be framed against the accused persons.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"2. Facts of the case in short are that in the intervening night of 2/3-07-2007 from Village- Sadalatpur, information has been received that transformer from the field of Habib Mohd (PW-1) have been stolen.Makanlal, Lineman (PW-2) informed the incident to Sharad Chandra Banchode, Assistant Engineer (PW-3) who submitted a written report Ex.P-9 at Police Station- Raisen regarding theft of transformer.On the basis of which FIR Ex.08/05/2012 This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 31/12/2008 passed by Special Judge (Electricity) Raisen in Special Case No. 199/2007 convicting the appellants under section 379 IPC read with section 136 of Electricity Act 2003 and sentenced to 6 months R.I and with fine of Rs.1000/-.P-11 was registered at Crime No. 313/2007 under section 2 Cr.A. No.73 of 2009 379 IPC read with section 136 of Electricity Act 2003 against unknown persons.Police prepared Spot Map Ex.P-10 and also made seizure memo Ex.P-8 of the cover of the transformer on the spot.Police Station Raisen submitted a charge sheet against the appellants.Trial Court framed charges under section 379 IPC read with Section 136, Electricity Act against the appellants.Appellants abjured guilt.To substantiate case of the prosecution, statements of Habib Mohd. (PW-1), Makanlal Pawar, Lineman (PW-2), Sharad Chandra Banchode, Assistant Engineer (PW-3), and T.P. Tripathi, ASI (PW-4) were recorded.Defence of the appellants in trial court was that of false implication.After appreciating aforesaid evidence, Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as above.This appeal has been preferred by the appellants on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper.Evidence of prosecution witnesses are suffering from material contradictions and omissions.Evidence of recovery is not reliable and unconvincing.Conviction is based on insufficient and doubtful evidence.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer supported the findings of conviction and sentence both.Makanlal, Lineman (PW-2) stated appellants were arrested on 30/07/2007 and on the basis of the information furnished by them, police made recovery.T.P. Tripathi, ASI (PW-4) stated that on the basis of information furnished by the appellants, copper wire has been recovered from Kabad shop.It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that during investigation appellants have already suffered custody period of about 8 days in this matter.No direct recovery has been proved by the police against them.No other such incident has been reported against them during pendency of the appeal.No useful purpose would be served in sending the appellants back to jail.Cr.A. No.73 of 2009For offence under section 379 IPC read with section 136 of Electricity Act 2003 undergone jail sentence of 8 days seems to be just, proper and sufficient, if fine amount is enhanced.For offence under section 379 IPC read with section 136 of Electricity Act 2003, 8 days undergone jail sentence and fine of Rs.3000/- seems to be just and proper and will meet the ends of justice.",['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Shri R.T. Thanewala, learned counsel for the objector.This is a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') praying for quashment of F.I.R bearing crime no.627/2015 dated 03/09/2015, registered at police-station Madhav Nagar, District Ujjain for offences under Sections 306/34 of IPC and consequent proceedings taken up in S.T. No.128/2016, pending before the XI Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain.The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to order dated 31/08/2016 passed in Cr.R. No.1086/2016, whereby the charge with regard to offence under Section 306 of IPC in S.T. No.128/2016 was quashed, on a petition preferred by co-accused Dilip and Madhu Gupta.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of same allegations in the same case, trial for offence under Section 306 of IPC is still going on against petitioner Subhash Yadav.C. No.10306/2016 2Though the prayer is not opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, the learned counsel for the objector, Asha Rani-wife of deceased Gyaneshwar Prasad Mittal, has strongly opposed the prayer for quashment.It is submitted that earlier, Cr.R. No.904/2016, preferred by the petitioner before this Court against the order of framing charge was dismissed, on 26/07/2016, as withdrawn, therefore, identical prayer for quashment cannot be entertained under Section 482 of 'The Code'.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.The law is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of 'The Code' is wide enough and that if the proceedings are going to result in abuse of process of the Court, then the high Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of 'The Code' can quash such proceedings and nothing will come in the way.No doubt, the revision preferred by the petitioner against charge was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated M.Cr.C. No.10306/2016 3 26/07/2016, however, thereafter another petition being Cr.R. No.1086/2016, filed by co-accused Dilip and Madhu Gupta was allowed by this Court vide order dated 31/08/2016 after elaborate consideration of factual and legal position obtaining in the matter.Relevant part of the order dated 31/08/2016 runs as under:C. No.10306/2016 3""As per prosecution, Gyaneshwar Prasad Mittal aged about 75 years residing at 72, Dussehra Maidan, Ujjain committed suicide on 27/08/2015 at around 1.30 a.m. inside his house by strangulation as a result of hanging.His wife Asha Rani also attempted to commit suicide.Merg was registered in this connection with police station Madhav Nagar, Ujjain.The sale consideration of Rs.55.00 lakhs, as per the agreement, was to be paid in four installments.The petitioners had already paid an amount of Rs.41.25 lakhs against first three installments and forth installment was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed.As per prosecution, Gyaneshwar Prasad Mittal (deceased) and his wife Asha Rani had requested the petitioners many a times to pay the fourth installment and get the sale deed executed, however, they refused to pay the fourth installment, and further pressurised Gyaneshwar Prasad Mittal (deceased) to vacate his house.Allegedly, thereafter, almost three months prior to the incident, they suddenly vacated the house saying that they have handed over its possession M.Cr.C. No.10306/2016 4 to one Subhash Yadav, advocate so that he can manage to get it vacated from Gyaneshwar Prasad Mittal (deceased).It is further alleged that Subhash Yadav has opened an office in the premises and anti-social elements used to assemble there.Gyaneshwar Prasad Mittal (deceased) was also being obstructed from using common pathway and thus a lot of nuisance was being caused.C. No.10306/2016 5M.Cr.C. No.10306/2016 8The proceedings pending before XI Additional Sessions Judge, against the petitioner are hereby quashed.Certified copy as per rules.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge sumathi","['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Prosecution case in brief is that on 21.07.1993 the deceased Chandanlal (Forest Guard) with Vijendra Kumar, Abdul Hamid and others were patrolling in the Kanha Reserve Forest (Project Tiger).At about 7:00 p.m., they found 15 to 20 persons assembled there 2 for hunting the animals.They had axes, traps, utensils and clothes.After seeing the patrolling party, the appellants fled away from the spot leaving the aforesaid articles.Chandanlal (since deceased) and his team members took articles left by the appellants at their Chowki.After sometime, the appellants about 15 to 20 persons attacked at the Chowki (sauf-naka).They assaulted Chandanlal by an axe and sticks.His team members Vijendra Kumar and Abdul Hamid (Forest Guards) climbed on the tree to save themselves.They saw, the appellants inflicting the injuries to Chandanlal.The appellants took their articles from the Chowki and fled away from the spot.Another Officer R.N. Awasthy (PW-6) brought Chandanlal to the Hospital, Mocha.Doctor declared him dead and conducted autopsy of his body.The said fact is also unchallenged in their testimony.Hence, at the time of the incident, the presence of Abdul Hamid (PW-2) and Vijendra Kumar (PW-9) are found reliable.Both the witnesses stated that they were on patrolling duty.They found that some persons were gathered and talking together in the Kanha Reserve Forest.They had axes, traps, utensils and clothes.After seeing the patrolling party, the appellants fled away from the spot leaving the aforesaid articles.Therefore, Chandanlal (since deceased) and his team members took the aforesaid articles with them at the outpost (Chowki), Saufnaka.After sometime, the appellants about 15 to 20 persons attacked at their outpost (Chowki).They assaulted Chandanlal by axes and sticks, at that time Abdul Hamid (PW-2) and Vijendra Kumar (PW-9) climbed on the tree to save themselves.They witnessed the incident.They saw that the appellants took their articles from the outpost (Chowki) and fled away from the spot.Then they went to the spot and brought Chandanlal to outpost (Chowki).They saw Chandanlal sustained several injuries.He was bleeding from his head.His condition was critical.Their Officer R.N. Awasthy and staff personnel also came there.R.N. Awasthy (PW-6), who was Range Officer received wireless message about the incident and thereafter, he came to the 5 spot.(29/01/2018) Per : Smt. Anjuli Palo, J :-Appellants/accused persons have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 04.07.1998 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla in Sessions Trial No.85/95 whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 353 read with Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- each.FIR was lodged by R.N. Awasthy (PW-6) against the appellants for the offences under Sections 353, 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 of I.P.C. After due investigation, charge- sheet was filed before the concerned Court.After committal of the case, charges under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 353 read with Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed by the learned Trial Court against the appellants.Appellants abjured guilt and stated that they are innocent and falsely implicated by the police in this case.Findings of the learned trial Court are challenged by the appellants on the grounds that the trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence on record and failed to see that the alleged story of the prosecution is solely based on the ""Dock Identification"" and on the memorandum and seizure which were not proved by the prosecution.Further the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution story.There are so many lacunae in the prosecution case, hence, the appellants deserve to be acquitted.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.Abdul Hamid (PW-2) and Vijendra Kumar (PW-9) are the eye witnesses to the incident.Their testimonies with regard to the posting of the deceased on the date of incident, i.e. 21.07.1993 as Forest Guard at Kanha Reserve Forest Area is not challenged by the 4 appellants.Along with the Deceased-Chandanlal, Vijendra Kumar (PW-9) and Abdul Hamid (PW-2) were also on duty.He brought Chandanlal to the hospital, but on the way Chandanlal died.Bachchu @ Pappu (PW-7) and Rameshwar (PW-1) partly corroborated the testimony of above witnesses with regard to the injuries sustained by Chandanlal and presence of Abdul Hamid (PW-2), Vijendra Kumar (PW-9) and R.N. Awasthy (PW-6) at the scene of occurrence.They turned hostile but their testimony which supported the prosecution story, can be used for the corroboration.After considering the above evidence which establish that Chandanlal was assaulted by the accused persons who were present in the forest for hunting or committing illegal act which is punishable under the provisions of the Forest Act. It has also been established from the evidence brought on record that they had an intention to obstruct the Forest Guards to restrain them from prohibiting the offence.The articles seized from the possession of the accused persons also indicate their intention to commit the offence.Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the identification of the appellants for involvement in the crime has not been proved beyond the reasonable doubt.He has also urged that at the time of the incident, the number of culprits and darkness on the spot creates reasonable doubt in favour of the appellants.K.C. Bopte (PW-10), Naib Tahsildar deposed that on 07.08.1993 he conducted identification parade of the appellants at Sub-Jail, Mandla and prepared memo (Ex.P/2) which was signed by witnesses Vijendra, Abdul Hameed and Ganga Prasad.During identification parade, 28 persons were added with the appellants.In his presence appellants Samlu, Naval, Munna, Deepu, Boda, Rattu, Gareeba, Premlal, Pansari, Chamru and Subbal were properly identified by Vijendra, Abdul Hameed and Ganga Prasad.On 29.09.1993 the appellants Shankar and Veershay were identified by Abdul Hamid and Ganga Prasad in between 12 persons.In cross- examination, they failed to explain that who were joined with the appellants for identification parade.Abdul Hameed (PW-2) corroborated the testimony of K.C. Bopte (PW-10), Naib Tahsildar.He admitted his signatures (Ex.P/2 and P/3).Similarly, Vijendra Kumar (PW-9) also corroborated the testimony of K.C. Bopte (PW-10), Naib Tahsildar.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the witnesses are tutored witnesses.They falsely stated against the appellants.Hence, there is necessity to scrutinize the testimony of Abdul Hameed (PW-2) and Vijendra Kumar (PW-9) with great caution because incident took place at about 7.00 p.m. In cross-examination, in para 16 Abdul Hameed (PW-2) stated that he heard some noise then both of them (he and Vijendra) climbed on the tree.He failed to explain 7 number of culprits who came on the spot for assaulting Chandanlal.He said about 10-15 persons came there, but he did not say, who caught hold the deceased, who caught hold Ganga Prasad, who beaten them and who was searching the articles.In para 18, again he submitted that the place of the incident was 50 to 60 feet away from them.Vijendra Kumar (PW-9) also deposed that his camp and that of the deceased Chandanlal were situated in opposite direction and when the persons attacked on the deceased-Chandanlal's camp, immediately, he climbed on the tree which was at the other camp.That tree was very dense.The statement of Vijendra Kumar (PW-9) creates reasonable doubt that in such a situation, they are not able to see exactly the assailants in dark and from some distinct place.In para 17, he stated that identification parade was conducted at Panchayat house but Abdul Hameed (PW-2) and K.C. Bopte (PW-10), Naib Tahsildar deposed that identification parade was held at Sub-Jail, Mandla.Vijendra Kumar (PW-9) also stated that he signed without reading identification memo (Ex.P/2).Prosecution examined Ganga Prasad (PW-15) as an eyewitness but he turned hostile.He stated that he identified Chamaru, Dukali and Munna only.In para 5, he stated that he did not remember how many persons identified by him. 8After considering of the above facts, we find that the evidence of identification parade and identification of the appellants are not sufficiently proved against the appellants.There is a reasonable doubt in favour of the appellants.L.S. Kashyap (PW-19), In-charge Police Station deposed that he recorded the memorandum of appellants Dhaniram, Subbal, Gariba, Naval, Munna, Premlal, Bhiku, Samlu, Rattu, Pansari, Boda, Veershay and Shankar and recovered incriminating articles as stated earlier.But panch witnesses Chadamilal (PW-18), Ramgopal (PW-17), Chhidilal (PW-11) and Puranlal (PW-8) turned hostile.Similarly, Anurag Das (PW-5) did not support the prosecution story and testimony of Investigating Officer.Therefore, the proceeding of memorandum of the appellants and seizure of incriminating articles from their possession are not duly established by the prosecution.The alleged charges are not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants.Even though, Dr. B.K. Chaturvedi (PW-3) supported the prosecution story that Chandanlal died due to fatal injury of his head and chest as shown in postmortem report (Ex.P/4).But the prosecution failed to prove that the injuries were caused by the 9 appellants in furtherance of their common object to commit the murder of the deceased as a member of unlawful assembly.Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that learned trial Court wrongly convicted the appellants on the basis of weak type of evidence.Hence, they are entitled to be acquitted.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the offences.Other remaining appellants are on bail.Their bail bonds stand discharged.Copy of this judgment be sent to the Court below for information and compliance alongwith its record.","['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In support of the said charges, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 4, and marked exhibits P-1 to P-58, and, on behalf of the defence, one Gurusami, Fourth Income-tax Officer, City Circle III, Madras-6, was examined as D.W. - 1 and exhibits D-1 to D-6 were marked.The case of the complainant, the appellant herein, is that the respondent herein/accused is doing business in the name and style of Messrs. Rajasekaran and Co., and he is an income-tax assessee.The balance-sheet and profit and loss account were also filed along with the return.In the balance-sheet, he has shown a sum of Rs. 2,53,498.92 as due to sundry creditors on the liabilities side.In the schedule to the balance-sheet for the sundry creditors, a sum of Rs. 1,05,000 was shown as due to Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., while actually it was an amount received as commission in June, 1975, and it was not an advance or loan.In an enquiry by the Department with Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., it was revealed that Messrs. Rajasekaran and Company was actually paid a commission of Rs. 1,05,000 in June, 1975, itself by cheque for the services rendered by them.Thus, it is clear that the accused, with a view to avoid payment of lawful dues to the Government, intentionally fabricated his account books relating to the assessment years 1976-77 and 1978-79 by deliberately suppressing the commission receipt of Rs. 1,05,000 from Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., for the assessment year 1976-77, and falsely showing it as if it was income for the assessment year 1978-79 with the intention to use them as genuine evidence in the course of the income-tax assessment proceedings.In addition, he has wilfully made false verification in the returns of income for those years.JUDGMENT K.M. Natarajan, J.These two appeals are directed by the offences under sections 193 and 196, Indian Penal Code, and for nor awarding the minimum sentence as per law for the offence under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in E.O.C.C. No. 2222 of 1982 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences II), Madras.The respondent in both the appeals, who is the accused in the case, was prosecuted by the Income-tax Department under six charges - the first charge is under section 420 read with section 511, Indian Penal Code; the second charge is under section 193, Indian Penal Code, read with section 136 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the third charge is under section 196, Indian Penal Code, read with section 136 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the fourth charge is under section 276C of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the fifth charge is under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the sixth charge is also under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, on the allegations that the accused has intentionally fabricated his account books relating to the income-tax assessment years 1976-77 and 1978-79 by deliberately suppressing the commission receipt of Rs. 1,05,000 from Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. for the assessment year 1976-77 and falsely showing the same as income for the assessment year 1978-79 with a view to defraud the exchequer of its legitimate revenue, and deliberately delivered false returns of income and statements of accounts based on the abovesaid fabricated account books and thereby attempting to mislead the Income-tax officer and dishonestly inducing him to deliver the assessment orders relating to the above assessment years, computing the total income at a considerably lower figure than that to which he is properly assessable, and acting and relying on the aforesaid fabricated account books and false returns of income and statements for the aforesaid income-tax assessment years.Hence the complaint.Four witnesses were examined on the side of the complainant.P.W. - 1 is the Income-tax Officer.He has deposed in support of the allegations stated in the complaint.Through him, the income-tax return, exhibit P-1, received from the accused for the assessment year 1976-77, exhibit P-3, the statement of accounts signed by Thiru G. Venkatesan, chartered accountant of Messrs. Venkatesh and Co., exhibit P-2, the trading and profit and loss account for the year ended March 31, 1976, exhibit P-4, schedule to balance-sheet as on March 31, 1976, about sundry creditors and sundry debts, exhibit P-5, statement of total income for the year ending March 31, 1976, and exhibit P-6, power of attorney in favour of Messrs. Venkatesh and Co., were marked.He then issued exhibit P-7 letter to Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. inquiring whether they have deposited the said amount with the accused-company on June 27, 1975, and to furnish details of commission payments made by them.The debit note dated June 26, 1975, exhibit P-18, sent by Thiru T.K. Vaidyanathan, Regional Accountant of Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., showed that the accused was paid a commission of Rs. 1,05,000 as final settlement for the services rendered by the accused concern in canvassing for the sale of 50 marine engines to Kerala Fisheries Department and the said amount was paid by way of cheque.According to him, at page 127 of exhibit P-31, ledger containing an account for Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., there was an entry for a receipt of Rs. 1,05,000 on June 27, 1975, by cheque No. 086581 on Grindlays bank without any narration to the effect that the same was account.But there is no account for commission receipt.The correspondence between the accused-company and Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. were also filed.A sworn statement, exhibit P-45, was recorded from the accused on February 21, 1979, in which the accused has clarified that he had no other business with Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. excepting the commission of Rs. 1,05,000 and that the receipt of the amount was shown as deposit and it was a mistake.P.W. - 2, S.K. Kandasami, Income-tax Officer, deposed that he recorded sworn statements, exhibits P-50 and P-55, from P. W. 3, T. K. Vaidyanathan, Regional Accountant of Messrs. Greaves cotton and Co. Ltd. P.W. - 3 deposed about his giving statements to P.W. - 2 and production of documents.The accused was examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code.He would further state that the returns were prepared by the auditor and he merely signed in a routine way.Thereupon, charges were framed and the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges.One witness was examined on the side of the accused.D.W. - 1, S. Gurusami, is the Fourth Income-tax Officer, City Circle III, Madras, and it is his evidence that, in the original assessment order for the year 1978-79, which was marked as exhibit D-4, a sum of Rs. 1,05,000 received by way of commission from Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. has been fully assessed to income Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. has been fully assessed to income-tax.Because the accused disclosed this amount as income for the year 1978-79, it was assessed for that year.The trial judge framed three points for consideration, namely :-As regards the first point, the trial judge held that the Income-tax Officer is not a court within the meaning of section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, and, consequently held that the complaint under sections 193 to 196 of the Indian Penal Code has to fail.As regards points Nos. 2 and 3, the trial judge held that the charges under section 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act have been proved.Applying the ratio in the above-quoted decisions to the facts of this case, it is seen that the offence is said to have been committed in the year 1976-77 and the order of acquittal was passed in 1984, and no useful purpose would be served by ordered re-trial at this length of time especially when the respondent has already undergone imprisonment till the rising of the court and paid the fine in respect of the offences committed in connection with the same transaction.","['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In brief the case of the prosecution is that in the after noon of 18-9-1992 the prosecutrix who is an innocent child of 6 years, was accompanying her mother, lateron her mother Kusum Bai, as she was walking little fast proceed ahead, later on the prosecutrix came to her, she was weeping.The mother noticed that the private part of the prosecutrix is stained by blood and blood was squeezing, on being asked, she said that appellant committed this hateful sin.The mother of the prosecutrix approached the appellant and asked why he has done such a sin, in reply when he denied, the mother of the prosecutrix snatched the towel which he was wearing and found the blood stains on his underwear.JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J.By this appeal preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9-3-1999 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 187/92 whereby he has been convicted under Section 376(2), IPC and has been sentenced to suffer R.I. of 10 years and fine Rs. 5000/-, in default further R.I. of one year.The mother of the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her husband and thereafter alongwith Chaukidar they went to lodge the report on the same day, i.e., 18-9-2002 at 5 p.m. The first information report is Ex. P-6 which was lodged by Brakhlal (P.W. 4).On lodging the FIR criminal law was set in motion.The prosecutrix was immediately sent for medical examination and she was examined on the same date, i.e., 18-9-2002 by Dr. Veena (P.W. 1).In furtherance to his investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused, seized his undergarments, as well as that of the prosecutrix, recorded the statement of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted in the Competent Court, who on its turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions and from where it was received by the Trial Court for the trial.The learned Trial Judge after perusing the charge-sheet framed charge punishable under Section 376, IPC.Needless to emphasis the appellant abjured his guilt.His defence is of maladroit implication.In order to prove the charge, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and placed Exs. P-1 to P-17 the documents on record.In his defence the accused/appellant did not choose to examine any witness.The learned Trial Judge after X-raying the evidence came to hold that appellant did not commit the offence punishable under Section 376(2), IPC and eventually convicted him and passed the sentence which I have mentioned hereinabove.Hence, this appeal.In this appeal Shri Sanjay Gupta was appointed as amicus curiae and I must mention here that he has placed all the arguments possible in the case.According to her, the appeal sans substance and same be dismissed.After having heard the learned Counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.At the outset, I think it germane to discuss the evidence of the prosecutrix because it is well settled in law that in a case falling under Section 376, IPC no corroboration is required and the sole testimony of prosecutrix is to be seen and if it is found to be worth reliable, a conviction can be passed on the basis of her sole testimony.On the basis of this backdrop I shall now consider the evidence of the prosecutrix.On that date she was 10 years.The learned Trial Judge after putting certain questions to her came to hold that she understand the questions and is able to answer and thereafter she was examined.In her evidence the prosecutrix says that the appellant took her away at a well and lay over her, at that time he was wearing a shirt and a towel.She further says that she was wearing a panty, the appellant thereafter took off her panty and also opened the knot of his towel thereafter she narrated that how the appellant intercoursed with her.After the commission of the offence the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother.Lateron she was taken to the hospital.This child witness (prosecutrix) was cross-examined at length but she remained embedded in her version.On minutely scrutinizing the evidence of this witness only, singular inference is gathered that the appellant who at the relevant point of time was more than 18 years just to satisfy his dirty thirst committed such a vile sin and ravished a feme-sole who had seen only 6 springs.On going through the evidence of the prosecutrix, it is perceivable that on committing such a hateful act, the blood came out from her private part and it was squeezing when the innocent prosecutrix reported the incident to her mother.The evidence of the prosecutrix in this regard has been corroborated by the evidence of her mother Kusum Bai (P.W. 3), who had specifically said that the prosecutrix came to her, she was weeping.She noticed that the blood was squeezing from her private part and her last cloth of the body (panty) was stained by blood.On being asked by her, the prosecutrix said that this shameful act was done by the accused/appellant, as a result of which she went at the spot where the appellant was sitting and asked him why he has done this hateful act and on being denied by him, she snatched the towel which he was wearing and noticed that the undergarment of the appellant was also stained by blood.Smt. Kusum Bai, immediately narrated the incident to her husband Brakhlal (P.W. 1) and thereafter they went to lodge the FIR.The evidence of the prosecutrix is fully corroborated, by the medical evidence.The lady doctor Veena Kumar (P.W. 1) on examining the prosecutrix found her hymen to be torned and there was swelling.The blood was coming out from her vagina.","['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on the question of admission.By this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. the applicants have challenged the order dated 4.2.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Jabalpur in ST No.468/2012 whereby the charges of offence punishable under Sections 306/34 and 498/34 of IPC were framed against the applicants.The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 8.4.2012 the deceased was found dead.She was found hanged.The applicants are relatives of the husband of the deceased and the parents and other relatives of the deceased have made allegations against the applicants about the harassment.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the main grievance of the learned counsel for the applicants is that initially the brother of the deceased did not say anything about the harassment and after sometime he made false allegation against the applicants, therefore no charge under Section 306 or 306/34 of IPC can be framed.However, at this stage appreciation of evidence cannot be done.It cannot be said that the witnesses were telling a truth in their previous statements or now they are telling a truth.Under such circumstances, at this stage, it cannot be said that no charge under Section 306/34 of IPC can be framed.No illegality or perversity is visible in the impugned order dated 4.2.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Jabalpur.There is no basis by which the present revision can be accepted.Consequently, the revision filed by the present applicants is hereby dismissed at motion stage.A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information.(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari","['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The dead body of Saira Bano was exhumed on 14.5.90 and on 15.5.90 second Post Mortem examination was performed.In this Post Mortem an incision mark from sternum down to pubic symphosis with stiches, a contusion extending across forehead was also noticed.Both these Post Mortem examinations were conducted by three Doctors.In the first P.M. examination the cause of death was found to be shock due to 85% burns.In the second P.M. examination it was observed that if skull has been earlier opened it might have revealed an injury if present.JUDGMENT V.S. Kokje, J.The applicants Nos. 3 and 4-Mohd.Umar and Moinuddin are his brothers.They reside at 358, Jawahar Marg, Indore except Mohd. Umar who resides at 19, Champabag, Indore, half a kilometre away.On 7.5.1990 at about 1.30 p.m., applicant No. 1 Moinuddin reported to the Police that Saira Bano was lying dead having burn marks on the body on the roof of Ghori Lodge.A merg was registered Under Section 471 Cr.P.C. The matter was investigated and a case Under Sections 498A and 306-B IPC was registered.The body was sent for Post Mortem and was handed over to Faqruddin for burial and it was accordingly graved.On 13.5.90, Rasul Ahmed, father of deceased Saira Bano complained to a Minister in the M.P. State Cabinate alleging that Saira Bano did not die a natural death but it was a case of dowry death.It was also written in the alleged complaint given to the Minister that the deceased Saira Bano was attacked with sharp edged weapon and then she was put a fire.The prosecution collected some documentary evidence in the shape of letters written by Saira Bano.On this material on record the charges were framed.It is contended on behalf of the applicants that there is no direct evidence on record sufficient to implicate any of the applicants.On the charge Under Section 302 IPC it cannot be lost sight of that the doctors performing second Post-Mortem examination have reported evidence of injuries by hard and blunt object present on the body.The blood and viscera from the dead body had been sent to F.S.L. Sagar.In both the P.M. Examinations, body was found to be burnt and in the first P.M. Examination 85% burns injury was reported.Let the record be sent back immediately to the Trial Court.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S. 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 26.04.2015 by Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.237/2015 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 364A of IPC and S.11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act added S. 302, 201, 120B of IPC and added S.25/27 of Arms Act.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.Prosecution story indicates that seizure of motor-cycle and cell phone is made from the applicant.The call details have also been collected indicating that the applicant had made phone calls to the brother of the abductee.The prosecution has recorded confessional statement of the applicant u/S.27 of the Evidence Act, whereafter the dead body of the deceased was 2 M.Cr.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 15.02.2018 made in C.M.P.No.1038 of 2018 in C.C.No.233 of 2012, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai.2.The facts of the case is that the petitioner was implicated in the Crime Number 937 of 2010 on the file of respondent police for thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 offences punishable under sections 324, 506(ii) of IPC and 3(1) of P.P.D.L. Act @ 447, 427, 324, 506(ii) of IPC.After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.However, after four years the petitioner filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.However, the said petition was dismissed.Hence, this criminal original petition has been filed by the petitioner.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the earlier counsel engaged by the petitioner has not properly communicated with the petitioner.Hence, the petitioner has engaged a new counsel with request to recall the P.W.1 and P.W.2 and cross examine them.If the petitioner was not given an opportunity, he will be prejudiced and the case will be decided against him.Hence, prayed to allow this petition and the petitioner is ready to deposit reasonable amount as per the direction of this Court.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state has no objection to entertain this petition on payment of cost.4.Hence, considering the principles of natural justice, this Courthttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the P.W.1 and P.W.2 on condition of payment of Rs.5,000/- to the Dog Squad, Kaniyakumari District.4.Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.The petitioner shall cross examine the P.W.1 and P.W.2 on the same day itself.The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- by cash to the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District for the welfare of Dog Squad, Kanyakumari District.5.With the above direction, this criminal original petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.18.03.2019 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TM To1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 4 M.DHANDAPANI, J.","['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"ORDER J.K. Maheshwari, J.This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 9.3.2000 passed by respondent No. 3 by which on revocation of the suspension, a direction was issued for non-payment of the salary for such period except the subsistence allowance along with a direction to count such period permissible for the purpose of pension.Because the petitioner was under detention for more than 48 hours, therefore, as per order dated 13.10.1996, he was placed under suspension.Vide order dated 29.11.1996 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 3399/96, petitioner was released on bail.Thereafter, the trial has resulted into acquittal as per judgment dated 31.8.1998 (Annexure-A/5).Some of the accused persons were convicted for the same offence but the petitioner was acquitted.Arising out of the judgment passed on 31.8.1998, two appeals were preferred.One appeal Cr.A. No. 1049/98 was preferred on behalf of the convicted accused persons and another Cri.A. No. 1345/98 was preferred on behalf of the State Government against petitioner Kanhaiyalal.The appeal filed on behalf of the convicted accused persons was allowed and the appeal filed by the State Government against the petitioner was rejected.In such a circumstance, it is apparent that the criminal prosecution lodged against the petitioner resulted into acquittal as per the order passed by the Sessions Court on 31.8.1998 and affirmed by the High Court.However, on conclusion of the trial petitioner ought to be reinstated on revocation of suspension.It is further submitted by him that filing of the appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court against him having no consequences in revocation of suspension.Respondents have filed their return and tried to justify their action.By filing the return, it is stated that because the order dated 31.8.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Court acquitting the petitioner was under challenge before the High Court in Cr.A. No. 1345/98 and the final order was passed in Cr. A. on 31.10.1999, therefore, the order Annexure-A/1 has rightly been passed.In the return, it is stated that because the petitioner was placed under suspension, therefore, the period in which he was under suspension has been directed to be treated as 'no work no pay'.I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.On perusal of the record, it is apparent that the suspension of the petitioner was on account of his detention in a criminal case registered at Crime No. 28/97 for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code.Sessions trial has been concluded as per order dated 31.8.1998 resulting into acquittal of the petitioner and conviction of some accused persons.Against the judgment of the Sessions Court two appeals were preferred, one is on behalf of the convicted accused persons and another is on behalf of the State Government challenging the acquittal of the petitioner.The appeal preferred by the State Government has been rejected and the appeal preferred by the accused persons was allowed.The authority competent ought to have passed an order determining the fact that placing the petitioner under suspension was justifiable or not and continuation of his suspension during the trial was justified or not.In the present case', on perusal of the document Annexure-A-l, it does not reveal that the Competent Authority has passed an order in due exercise of his powers.In the present case in order impugned Annexure A-1 dated 9.3.2000, the period with effect from the date of passing of an order of suspension till revocation of such suspension was treated on duty but during such period petitioner has been directed to be paid the subsistence allowance only.In the circumstances, there is no order as to cost.",['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
"This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.282 of 2017, on the file of the first respondent registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 506(ii), 468, 471, 420 of IPC r/w 149 of IPC.http://www.judis.nic.in 2Thereafter, the said Koulanthini and the petitioners entered into registered sale agreement dated 20.01.2003 to purchase the said property.In this regard, one Alexander Joseph, who shown as A7 in the present FIR, lodged a complaint on 19.07.2003, against the petitioners' vendor and others.He also filed a suit in O.S.No.508 of 2003 before the Principal District Munsif, Puducherry against the petitioners and obtained an order of status-quo in respect of disputed property.The petitioners also filed a suit in O.S.No.374 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Puducherry, as against the second respondent and his brother, in respect of the very same disputed property and also obtained interim injunction.In fact, the complaint lodged by the petitioners referred under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., to the Executive Magistrate and after conducting enquiry the Executive Magistrate directed the parties to approach civil Court and also ordered to maintain status-quo in respect of the disputed property.Thereafter,http://www.judis.nic.in 3 by the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2007, the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.374 of 2007, allowed and granted permanent injunction as against the second respondent.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that on the complaint lodged by one Alexander Joseph the charge sheet laid in C.C.No.43 of 2019 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry, in which the petitioners have been shown as witnesses, since they were bonafied purchaser and no materials were found as against the petitioners to add them as accused.Thereafter, on the complaint lodged by the second respondent/defacto complainant, the District Registrar passed an order dated 05.10.2015, thereby cancelled the document registered in favour of the petitioners and as against which the petitioners preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.33680 of 2015 and obtained an interim order of stay and the writ petition is still pending before this Court.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that suppressing the above facts and circumstances, the second respondent filed a direction petition in Crl.Thereafter, the petitioners filed a petition in Crl.Thereafter, the said Alexander Joseph filed a petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to add the petitioners as accused in C.C.No.43 of 2009, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry.In the said application the Investigation Officer, CBCID, Puducherry filed counter and categorically stated that the petitioners are bonafied purchasers, as such no material found as against them to add them as accused.Therefore, by an order dated 03.07.2017, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry dismissed the said application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. As against the same, the said Alexander Joseph filed a revision petition in Crl.After these long years i.e., from 2003, after the period of 14 years, the second respondent lodged a false complaint as against the petitioners and the same has been registered in Crime No.282 of 2017, which is impugned in this petition.Further he submitted that the entire transaction completely civil in nature and even from the FIR, there is no offence made out as against the petitioners, since they are bonafied purchasers, according to the Investigating Officer, CBCID, Puducherry.Therefore, he prayed for quashment of FIR.The second respondent/defacto complainant has two ancestral properties, one is bearing old No.3/New No.5, Faracis Martin Street, Puducherry and another one is bearing Old No.10/New No.12, Faracishttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 Martin Street, Puducherry.One Joseph Raj claimed title over the properties by way of forged partition deed dated 12.11.1914, by which he executed forged sale deed vide document No.3435 of 2002 in favour of one S.Koulanthini, who in turn executed a sale deed vide document No.2165 of 2003 in favour of the petitioners.Therefore the petitioners have purchased the said property knowing fully well aware that their vendor S.Koulanthini does not have title over the property.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent further submitted that the petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.374 of 2007 before the learned Principal District Munsif, Puducherry as against the second respondent and his bother.In the said suit no notice was served on the second respondent and subsequently an exparte decree granted by the learned Principal District Munsif, Puducherry and hence it does not bind on the second respondent.The second respondent had preferred a complaint before the District Registrar, Government of Puducherry for holding enquiry under Section 75(4) of Registration Act, 1908 and after conducting enquiry the Registrar passed an order dated 05.10.2015, thereby cancelled the sale deed executed in favour of the said S.Koulanthini and also subsequent sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners herein, as against which the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court and the same is pending.He further submitted that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offence under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 506(ii), 468, 471, 420 of IPC r/w 149 of IPC.Further, it is in the FIR stage and though civil suitshttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 are pending, there is no impediment to the second respondent/defacto complainant to initiate the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners.Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the quash petition.Due to his official occupation, the defacto complainant could not able to visit his properties and using this opportunity, the accused persons created forged notarial sale deed and claimed that one Joseph Raj is the owner of the said property by way of partition deed dated 12.11.1914, through which the said Joseph Raj executed sale deed in favour of one S.Koulanthini, who in turn sold out the property to the petitioners herein.He further submitted that on 21.12.2017, when the second respondent/defacto complainant went to his properties and started cleaning work, the accused persons tried to trespass into his land, abused him with filthy language and assaulted him and also threatened with dire consequences.Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.Heard Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.V.Balamurugane, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondy) appearing for the first respondent and Mr.Prakash Adiapadam, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.The petitioners are arraigned as A5 and A6 in Crime No.282 of 2017, registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 506(ii), 468, 471, 420 of IPC r/w 149 of IPC, on the file of the first respondent.The crux of the complaint is that the second respondent is the French citizen and he has two ancestral properties and the same were inherited after demise of his father.In his absence, the accused 2,3 and 4 created three forged notarial sale deed in the name of the first accused to grab his property.The said Joseph Raj also executed another forged sale deed in favour of one Koulanthini.In fact the second respondent/defacto complainant is in possession and enjoyment of the said property till date.He further alleged that the some of the accused persons attempted to trespassed into the property as such he lodged the present complaint.In fact, the second respondent made allegations as against seven persons, in which there is no allegation as against the petitioners herein, even on the complaint lodged by him.It is also seen from the complaint lodged by one Alexander Joseph as against thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 petitioners' vendors and others, the petitioners are shown as witnesses.Though the said Alexander Joseph filed a petition to add the petitioners as accused in the said proceedings i.e., C.C.No.43 of 2009, it was dismissed.Admittedly, the first transaction for the disputed property happened on 04.09.2002, by way of registered sale deed in favour of one Koulanthini.When the civil disputes are pending between the parties, the first respondent ought not to have been registered a case as against the petitioners.“…The said monies were paid in cash as per the dicta of the accused person’s son Mr. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam has filed a false and frivolous suit…” (Emphasis supplied)The condition necessary for an act to constitute an offence under Section 405 of the Penal Code is that the accused was entrusted with some property or has dominion over property.The first respondent has stated that the disputed sum was transferred by the son of the appellants of his ownhttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 volition to her.If factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint the court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details…” The decision does not advance the submission of the first respondent.As we have noted above, the complaint in the present case is bereft of the basic facts necessary to constitute the offences alleged under Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420 of the Penal Code.The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised with care.In the exercise of its jurisdiction, a High Court can examine whether a matter which is essentially of a civil nature has been given a cloak of a criminal offence.Where the ingredients required to constitute a criminal offence are not made out from a bare reading of the complaint, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will constitute an abuse of the process of the court.In the present case, the son of the appellants has instituted a civil suit for the recovery of money against the first respondent.The suit is pending.The first respondent has filed the complaint against the appellants six years after the date of the alleged transaction and nearly three years from the filing of the suit.The averments in the complaint, read on its face, do not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute offences under the Penal Code.An attempt has been made by the first respondent to cloak a civil dispute with a criminalhttp://www.judis.nic.in 17 nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence.For the above said reasons and the law applicable to the present case, the impugned FIR in Crime No.282 of 2017 is liable to be quashed as against the petitioners.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the FIR in Crime No.282 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed..04.2019 Internet:Yes/No Index :Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order rtshttp://www.judis.nic.in 18 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.The Station House Officer, Grand Bazaar Police Station, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Puducherry.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.CRL.O.P.No.6545 of 2018 and Crl.MP.No.3349 of 2018 .04.2019http://www.judis.nic.in","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"2 Cr.A. No.14 of 1998The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the day of incident 30.05.1997 in the mid afternoon during marriage celebration of one Kalia's son at village Kasmar Khandi some scuffle took place between the accused and Champalal.The matter was settled by mediators.At the time of incident at 5:00 p.m. when Champalal was returning to his house with his nephew Shobha and reached near the one Jariya's house there at from behind the shrubs the accused and his brother Banshi @ Lakhan were came out with deadly weapons, Hari Shankar was also standing at some distance.The accused and Banshi started given blows to Champalal and Shobha.The accused given a lathi blow on temporal region of head of Shobha who felt down, succumb to injury.Banshi also gave one blow of lathi to Shobha.Then accused and Banshi also beaten Champalal and caused injuries on his person, then left the spot.The dead body of Shobha was lying down on field.The Champalal came to village and informed the matter to Kotwar Shekhlal and next day i.e. 31.05.1997 Champalal reported the matter Police Station, Betul, situated 50 kms away.Shri P.R. Bhave, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Bhanu Pratap Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/ State.Judgment reserved on : 26.07.2013 Judgment delivered on : 07.10.2013 (JUDGMENT) In this appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant, hereinafter referred to as ""the accused"", has called in question the soundness of the judgment passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge to the Sessions Judge, Betul in the Sessions Trial No.173/97, whereby the learned trial court has recorded a conviction against the accused under Sections 304 part II and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and 6 months respectively.However, both the sentences were run concurrently.On the basis of this First Information Report lodged, the investigating agency registered a crime.Champalal was sent to medical examination to the hospital.The investigating agency got the autopsy done of the deceased, prepared spot map, seized lathi at the instance of the accused and examined number of witnesses including Champalal under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After conducting the inquiry, the investigating agency placed the charge-sheet before the competent Magisterial Court who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Betul on his turn transferred the case for trial before the learned Trial Judge.3 Cr.A. No.14 of 1998The learned Trial Judge framed charges against the accused Patiram and his other two aids accused Banshi @ Lakhan and Hari Shankar punishable under Sections 302, in alternate 302/34, 323 in the alternative 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Accused persons denied the charges and pleaded innocence, therefore, put to trial.Champalal (PW/10) injured witness in the incident and maker of the FIR (Ex.P-15).Eye witnesses Sabulal (PW/9) and Gangabai (PW/1) is mother of Shobha.Kalia (PW/3) in whose son's marriage scuffle held between accused and Champalal.Kotwar Shekhlal (PW/2), Hariram Yadav (PW/5) are punch witnessed, Dr. B.L. Kushwaha (PW/6) is conducted postmortem on the dead body of Shobha.Constable Mallu Singh (PW/7) Head Constable Rajanlal (PW/8) are investigation officers.Shri H.N. Mehar (PW/11) is the main investigation officer who conducted the investigation and seized lathi from the accused on his information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.The statements recorded under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. the accused persons denied all the evidence which putforth before them and pleaded innocence as well as false implication.The defense does not choose to examine any evidence.The learned Trial Judge on the basis of ocular and documentary evidence recorded conviction and imposed punishment against the accused Patiram as has been indicated herein above.But acquitted Banshi @ Lakhan and Hari Shankar from the charges punishable under Sections 302, in alternative 302/34 and 323 in 4 Cr.A. No.14 of 1998 alternative 323/34 of the IPC, against which the respondent State does not file any appeal.4 Cr.A. No.14 of 1998Shri P.R. Bhave, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant argued that as per postmortem report cause of death is injury on temporal region of head, however, the witnesses have failed to narrate that this injury caused by the accused by lathi.Other injuries, fracture of second and third ribs were also not explained by the witnesses who inflicted these injuries.Scrutiny of statement of prosecution witnesses raises doubt about their evidence.It appears that because of the earlier incident the accused gave two slaps to Champalal, the witnesses have presumed that the accused given beaten to allowing this appeal, therefore, the accused may be acquitted.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondent/State has submitted that the prosecution has proven the assault by the accused as the injured eyewitness Champalal have totally stood embedded and nothing has been elicited to discredit this witness.It is further submitted that learned trial court did not commit any error while passing the impugned judgment hence; this appeal deserves to be dismissed.The facts that deceased sustained injuries in the evening on 30.05.1997 and died a homicidal death on account of the said injuries where neither in dispute before the learned trial court nor are under challenge in this appeal.That apart, there is overwhelming ocular and medical evidence on record which is more than sufficient to establish the above facts beyond any shadow of doubt.Dr. B.L. Kushwaha (PW/6) conducted autopsy on the dead body and vide his postmortem report Ex.P-13 opined that injury caused on temporal region of Shobha's head 5 Cr.A. No.14 of 1998 and other injuries were cause of death.As per query report Ex.P-14, Doctor also given opinion that injury found on head of the Shobha can be inflicted by lathi in question, which was seized vide memo (Ex.P-5) on information given by the accused.Champalal was also medically examined by the Doctor and vide MLC report (Ex.P-12) he found injuries on person of Champalal.5 Cr.A. No.14 of 1998Therefore, upholding the findings recorded by the learned trial court in that behalf injured eyewitness Champalal (PW/10) has deposed that on the fateful day the accused and others were consuming liquor on the eve of the marriage of Kalia's son and prior to the main incident in the afternoon the accused and he indulged in a quarrel and during that the accused given him slaps and he also reacted.He further stated by mediation the matter was settled then and there.Kalia (PW/3) also supported these facts.About main incident Champalal (PW/10) has categorically deposed that in the evening when he was returning to his home with Shobha and reached near the house of Jadiya thereon behind the shrubs the accused appeared with Banshi, both having lethal weapons and started beating them.He also stated that the accused given a lathi blow on the head of Shobha so he felt down and died instantly.He stood firm in his cross-examination and nothing could be elicited by the defence which may discredit his evidence.Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination to discredit his testimony.I do not find any earthly reason for this witness to depose falsely against the accused.Champalal (PW/10) unequivocally and categorically stated about the genuineness of occurrence, development and the voluntarily assault by the accused.6 Cr.A. No.14 of 19986 Cr.A. No.14 of 1998Gangabai (PW/1), Shekhlal (PW/2), Kalia (PW/3), Sukhlal (PW/4), Sabulal (PW/9) also deposing in line with the evidence of Champalal (PW/10) stated that it was accused who after the course of sudden wordy quarrel in the afternoon with the Champalal caused injuries to deceased Shobha by means of lathi, resulting in his death, when Shobha and Champalal were returning to their home in the evening.Nothing substantial could be brought out by the defence in their cross examination which may referred their evidence unworthy of credence.On a close scrutiny of eyewitness account of eyewitness on account of Champalal (PW/10) and other witnesses Gangabai (PW/1), Kalia (PW/3), Sukhlal (PW/4), Sabulal (PW/9), I do not find any infirmity whatsoever in their evidence they are truthful witness and there evidence has rightly been relied upon by the learned trial court in holding accused Patiram guilty of causing that injury on the head of deceases Shobha by means of lathi blow, which ultimately resulted in his death.The next question crops up for reconsideration in this appeal are about the nature of the offence proved against the accused Patiram and punishment for it.The intention of the assailant, the weapon used, repetition of assault, amount of force applied and certain other factors are important to decide the matter.It is agreed fact that the accused had inflicted a single blow.It is also come in the evidence of Champalal (PW/10) and other witnesses including Gangabai (PW/1), mother of the deceased that there has been no previous enmity.There is no criminal antecedent of the accused.Since his arrest on 01.06.1997 to 15.07.1998 the accused was under custody.7 Cr.A. No.14 of 19987 Cr.A. No.14 of 1998It is perceivable from the evidence that the accused had no intention of causing murder of the deceased because his main intention of causing injuries to the Champalal and nor there was any ill feeling or enmity between the deceased and the accused.The quarrel ensued without any kind of prior preparation and singular blow was given by way of lathi which is carried by every villager in normal course of life.It is not disputed before me that the death of the deceased was due to the injury.This is also perceivable from the ocular evidence brought on record which gets corroboration from the medical evidence.On cumulative consideration of above mentioned features brought on the record, I find it is more than sufficient to hold with certainty that accused Patiram while causing injuries on the head of deceased had intended to cause death of Shobha.Therefore, uphold the findings recorded by the learned trial court in this behalf.In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that substantive sentence should be confined to the period already undergone in respect of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. with a further stipulation that accused Patiram shall pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) to Gangabai (PW/1), the mother of Shobha.The said amount shall be deposited before the learned Trial Judge within a 8 Cr.A. No.14 of 1998 period of 3 (three) months from today.The learned Trial Judge on proper identification shall pay the said amount to Gangabai.If accused Patiram fails to deposit the aforesaid amount, he shall suffer total rigorous imprisonment of 3 years, for which he will be entitled to set off his period of custody already undergone.No further sentence for Section 323 of I.P.C. is required separately in both the situations.8 Cr.A. No.14 of 1998Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.Appeal partly allowed.(Subhash Kakade) Judge AK/-","['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"3.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased a tractorbearing Registration No.TN-46-A-9249 from one Rajapandi for a sum ofRs.2,32,000/- (Two Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand only) and he has brought thetrailer bearing Registration No.TN-60-U-8348 from one Ponnusamy @ Joker.When purchasing the tractor, the petitioner obtained a loan from Anantham MotorFinance.Due to irregular payment, the finance company seized the vehicle.The petitioner approached the third respondent for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) as security.The third respondent received the R.C.Book as well as the Transfer form of the earlier owner as security.Thepetitioner failed to pay the interest .The third respondent along with onemore person committed theft of the vehicle and the complaint was registeredin Crime No.86 of 2015 dated 03.06.2015 for the offence under Section 294(b),379(N.P.) IPC r/w.Heard Mr.K.Sivabalan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner andMr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.S.Muthumalai Raja, learned counselappearing for the third respondent.2.This petition has been filed to set aside the order passed inCr.M.P.No.4267 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3(1)(r) SC/ST Act. After lodging of the complaint, thethird respondent transferred the ownership of the vehicle to his name.Thepetitioner lodged a complaint in Crime No.65 of 2016 before the secondrespondent under Sections 406, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC.The thirdrespondent has filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.118 of 2016 and the same wasdismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti and the thirdrespondent challenging the same filed the revision in Cr.R.C.No.1 of 2016before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, PCR, Madurai.The petitioner filed a petition for return of the property in Cr.M.P.NO.4267of 2017 and the same was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,Usilampatti.On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the learnedMagistrate failed to consider that the complaint was launched on 03.10.2015and the respondent has transferred the ownership only on 07.10.2015 andprayed the property to be returned to him.4.On the side of the third respondent, it is stated that the thirdrespondent is the owner of the tractor who purchased the same from oneShanmugam.The petitioner worked under the third respondent misusing the position has registered a case against the third respondent.The case was nottaken up by the respondent police.Hence, he filed a private complaint.Therespondent produced the copy of the R.C. Book and copy of Insurance policy.5.On the side of the prosecution, it is stated that both the petitionerand the third respondent were claiming the vehicle and that the R.C. Bookstands in the name of the third respondent who is an accused in the case.6.Records perused.The records reveals that both the petitioner and thethird respondent claimed the property before the lower Court.The R.C. Bookis in the name of the third respondent.Already both the petitions filed bythe petitioner and the third respondent have been dismissed by the lowerCourt.The criminal revision petition filed by the third respondent beforethe lower Court is pending.7.Mere receipt for payment of some amount to the finance company is notsufficient to prove that the petitioner is the owner of the property.On theside of the third respondent, it is stated that R.C. Book and Insurancepolicy in the name of Shanmugam and insurance policy in the name of one Palanivel were filed.Copy of R.C. book is also filed.8.Whether the petitioner has borrowed any amount from the thirdrespondent is not proved by way of any documents.Mere filing of complaintsand registering of FIRs cannot confer ownership.At this stage, thepetitioner has failed to prove the ownership and the petitioner has failed toproduce sufficient documents to substantiate the claim.The reasons stated inthe petition are not satisfactory.There is no reasons to interfere with theorder of the lower Court.Hence, this criminal revision petition isdismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Usilampatti, Madurai District.3.The Inspector of Police, Valanthur Police Station, Usilampatti, Madurai District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.","['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']"
Mr. Amit Bagchi ... For Opposite Party No. 2Learned Counsel for the parties submit that both parties have filed joint petition of compromise to the effect that Sk.,"['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"CRM No. 7111 of 2018 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 31.8.2018 in connection with Nabadwip Police Station Case No.408/2017 dated 1.10.2017 under Sections 341/326/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Shribas Haldar ... Petitioner Mr. Prabir Majumder, Advocate ..for the Petitioner Mr. Goutam Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Ayan Basu, Advocate .. for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Nabadwip Police Station Case No.408/2017 dated 1.10.2017 under Sections 341/326/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner claims that following an altercation between two groups there was some violence and only minor injuries were suffered by the de facto complainant's side.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2","['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"No. 4 of 2004 Page 1 Indian Penal Code.Prosecution case stands unfolded by Master Banti (PW-11), who along with his maternal uncle Dinesh had gone to the nearby shop to purchase candle as there was no electric light in the residential area at about 10:00 p.m. on 29th Day of May, 2001 and while they were returning, Mehndi, younger brother of appellant-accused started abusing aforesaid Dinesh and in the meanwhile, appellant-accused came there and started giving leg and fist blows to abovesaid Dinesh.According to this witness (PW-11), he immediately rushed to his house and had informed his parents about this incident and soon he along with his father returned at the spot and they saw appellant- accused and his co-accused were beating Dinesh.As per the prosecution version, many persons had gathered at the spot and injured-Dinesh was removed to the hospital, where he was declared as brought dead.Regarding this incident, FIR No. 268/2001 under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Timarpur, Delhi.After conducting the spot proceedings, Sub- Inspector Surya Prakash collected MLC of the deceased and thereafter had arrested the appellant/accused in this case.Post Crl.Appellant herein has been convicted by the trial court for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine for the offence under Section 304 (Part-II) of the Crl.No. 4 of 2004 Page 2 Mortem Report of the deceased was obtained and the exhibits of this case were seized and were sent to CFSL for analysis.Investigation of this case stood completed with the filing of charge sheet for the offence under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code before the Sessions Court, whereas, co-accused - Mehndi was prosecuted before the Juvenile Justice Board, as he was said to be a juvenile on the day of this incident.Trial of this case proceeded as appellant/accused chose to contest the murder charge framed against him in this case.Prosecution evidence consists of deposition of twenty witnesses and the material ones out of them, whose deposition has been referred to, during the hearing of this appeal, are Bunty (PW-11), his parents (PW-3) and (PW-9).Post Mortem Report of the deceased is Ex.PW-2/A, which gives the cause of death as shock due to sudden vagal inhibition caused by blows to the testis of the deceased.Sub-Inspector Surya Prakash (PW-19) and Inspector R.K. Rathi (PW-20) had conducted the investigation of this case.The stand of the appellant/accused before the trial court was of denial of the prosecution case and of his being innocent.He had claimed that he has been framed in this case Crl.No. 4 of 2004 Page 3 by the police.Three witnesses, who had been got examined by the appellant/accused in his defence were his neighbourers and the stand taken by them was that appellant/accused was not present at the spot, when this incident had occurred.However, the defence evidence was not referred to, during the hearings of this appeal.The trial of this case ended with the conviction of the appellant/accused for the lesser offence, i.e., under Section 304 (Part-II) of Indian Penal Code and the sentence imposed upon him, is under challenge in this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant had tried to dislodge the evidence of Bunty (PW-11) by contending that the time of this incident given by this witness, is 9.30 p.m., whereas, in the FIR of this case, the time of this incident mentioned is 10:00 p.m. It is urged on behalf of the appellant/accused that PW-3 - brother-in-law of the deceased, who had lodged the FIR of this case, has not supported the prosecution case.It has been emphatically argued by appellant's counsel that there was no previous dispute or enmity, nor there was any intention or knowledge on the part of the appellant/ accused that the alleged beating would result in death of injured-Dinesh.It has Crl.No. 4 of 2004 Page 4 been urged that the evidence of star witness (PW-11) does not show that appellant/ accused had given any injury on the private parts of the deceased.It is pointed out that the Doctor (PW-2) who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, has stated that possibility cannot be ruled out of the injury, which is the cause of death in this case, being sustained by the person falling on the hard object.According to learned counsel for the appellant, the alleged incident was on sudden impulse and no knowledge can be attributed to the appellant/accused that mere giving of kick and fist blows could by any stretch of imagination, result in the death of Dinesh.Thus, it is urged that the impugned judgment is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.No. 4 of 2004 Page 5Mr. Amit Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent - State counters the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant/accused, by contending that the deposition of Bunty (PW-11) by itself is sufficient to prove the prosecution case.It is pointed out that the hostility of PW-3 - father of Bunty is of no avail, as PW-9 - mother of Bunty corroborates the version of this incident as narrated by Bunty (PW-11).It is also pointed out that the medical evidence corroborates the ocular version and the appellant/accused has been rightly convicted by the trial court for the offence under Section 304 (Part-II) of Indian Penal Code, as the fatal assault on Dinesh by the Appellant and his co-accused - Mehndi was without any provocation and that there is no merit in this appeal.After carefully considering the arguments raised by both the sides and upon analysis of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the most crucial evidence is that of Bunty (PW-11), whose deposition is assailed by the defence by contending that there is variation in the timing of this incident as this witness has stated in his evidence that this incident had happened at 9:30 p.m. whereas in the FIR lodged by father of the deceased, the time of this incident given is 10:00 p.m. To Crl.During the hearing of this appeal, it was not shown as to how inconsequential variance in the timing of this incident, adversely reflect upon the prosecution case.It is true that this witness (PW-11) has not stated in so many words that any injury was caused to the deceased on his private parts, but it has to be kept in mind that this incident had taken place at night time and when the deceased was being assaulted by giving of kick and fist blows by the appellant, then in normal course of events, it is not expected that the witness would state with precision as to on which particular part of the body, the leg and fist blows were given.In a somewhat similar case of a deceased receiving injury by kick on his private parts and of his dying instantly at the spot, Apex Court in ""State of Karnataka vs. Mohamed Nazeer @ Babu"" AIR 2003 SC 999 had set aside the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and had restored his conviction under Section 304 (Part- II) of Indian Penal Code, by aptly observing as under:-""One has never come across nor can it be expected of the witnesses to state that the blow or kick was Crl.Out of the three injuries sustained by the deceased, the two which are material, are as under:-Bruise 4X2 cm over left scrotam on lower surface.Bruise 3X3 cm , over right scortam over lower surface.There was effusion of blood under injury No.2 and 3 alongwith contision of both testis.""The effusion of blood under aforesaid injuries no. 2 & 3 clearly shows that the intensity of the kick blows was quite severe, otherwise effusion of blood under injuries no. 2 & 3 with contusion of both the testes is just not possible.The presence of bruises at the seat of injuries no. 2 & 3, also indicate that the kick blows were inflicted upon the private parts of the deceased with considerable force by the appellant.The possibility of deceased receiving the injuries in question by Crl.No. 4 of 2004 Page 8 falling on a hard object, is ruled out as there is no whisper in the evidence of the eye witness (PW-11) or in the deposition of any other witness that deceased had fallen on any hard object.There is nothing in the medical evidence which creates a reasonable doubt about deceased sustaining the injuries in question by kick blows.Infact, the medical evidence advances and proves the prosecution case to the hilt.Though it was urged on behalf of the appellant, that the happening of this incident was on sudden impulse, but the appellant does not disclose as to what was that impulse.Infact, the deposition of the eye witness (PW-11) reveals that the deceased was fatally assaulted by the appellant, without any provocation being there from the side of the deceased.This distinguishes the case of the appellant from that of Shivalingaiah alias Handigidda (Supra), where the deceased had put his hands on the shoulder of the respondent/accused with a view to make him sit down and all of a sudden, the accused had reacted by squeezing the testicals of the deceased resulting in his instantaneous death and in the facts of the aforesaid case, the conviction was enhanced from Section 323 to Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.No. 4 of 2004 Page 9If someone gives blows on testis, he would having a knowledge that such injury was likely to cause death.Herein the case blows were given on testis of the deceased as a result of which there was bruise on lower surface of left as well as right scrotum.Effusion of blood alongwith contusion on testis were also noted by the autopsy surgeon.These facts bring it over the record that blows with full force were given on the testis of the deceased.When accused gives blows with full force on the testis of the deceased, he is to be credited with the knowledge that the acts committed by him was likely to cause death of the victim.The appeal as well as pending application, if any, are accordingly disposed of.","['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Budhu Pav in Crime No.257/2017, registered by P.S. Kotma, District-Anuppur under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC.As per the prosecution case, petitioner had married the deceased about 2-3 years back.For a while, he kept her well; however, thereafter he used to consume alcohol and beat her and threaten that he would expel her from her matrimonial home; therefore, the deceased had returned to her maternal home and stayed there for a long time.However, since her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law, all come to pacify her, she had gone with them about 8 days before the date of incident.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation for demand of dowry against the petitioner.All that has been alleged is that he used to beat the deceased after consuming alcohol and used to threaten that he would expel her from her matrimonial home.The petitioner has been in custody since 21.06.2017 and the charge-sheet in the matter has been filed; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, the first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Budhu Pav is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified Copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE sp/-","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Constable M.C. Alexander, Lance Nayak Hari Singh and Sub-Inspector M. Ramachandran Pillai were employed with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF).On 5.12.1986, all these three officials serving with the 42nd Battalion of the CRPF were deployed at New Delhi, Gole Dak Khana area for controlling the law and order situation.The situation in the area was stated to be tense because the authorities of the nearby Gurudwara wanted to take out procession in connection with the Martyrdom Day of Guru Teg Bahadur and the local authorities were resisting the same.Prohibitory orders under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code were also imposed in the area.After some negotiations, it appears that Gurudwara authorities were permitted to take out the procession.Because of some incidents in other parts of the city, the processionists were stated to have withdrawn inside the Gurudwara Bangla Sahib.The two companies of the CRPF who were deployed there to control the law and order situation were asked to remain there.The higher authorities of the CRPF belonging to the 42nd Battalion were also present at the spot to avoid any untoward incident.The aforesaid three officials were standing on the pavement with other jawans of the 42nd Battalion.Suddenly a truck bearing No. DHL 4815 belonging to one Ranjit Singh and being driven by one Paramjit Singh (now deceased) and insured with the appellant came at a very high speed from the direction of the main entrance of the Gurudwara Bangla Sahib, took a round of Gole Dak Khana and rammed against the three aforesaid officials and some other CRPF jawans standing on the pavement.It happened so suddenly that no one could move to safety or take any preventive measure to avoid the accident.The vehicle after crushing the jawans rammed against the wall of the Church and came to a halt.As a result of this accident, several CRPF personnel died and received injuries.JUDGMENT S.K. Mahajan, J.Since common questions of law and fact are involved in all these three appeals as well as in the cross-objections, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.A few facts relevant for deciding these appeals are:Though some of the officials had managed to escape by jumping left or right and thus sustained injuries, but the three above named officials having received severe injuries were taken to the hospital and were declared brought dead.After the matter was investigated an F.I.R. under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code was registered by the police.Alleging that accident was caused entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid vehicle by its driver, the legal heirs of the deceased officials filed separate applications claiming compensation for their death caused in the road accident stated to have been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.The written statements were filed by both the owner and the insurance company of the offending vehicle.In the written statement they took the plea that the owner had no concern or connection with Param-jit Singh who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident nor he was in his employment.The Tribunal did not frame any issue but directed the parties to lead evidence on the pleas taken by them in their respective pleadings.Claimants besides producing themselves as witnesses also produced one Ram Lal Joshi, who had retired from CRPF, as a witness in the case.The said Ram Lal Joshi, in his statement before the court stated that he joined CRPF on 1.4.1968 as Head Constable and retired on 30.10.1994 as a Deputy Commandant.He stated that accident took place on 5.12.1986 and he was the seniormost officer of 42nd Battalion at the spot and the same was under his control.He stated that his company was deployed to control law and order situation along with Delhi Police at Gole Dak Khana near the Church and Section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code had also been imposed.He further deposed that suddenly a truck came at a high speed from the side of Gole Dak Khana towards Guru-dwara and rammed against the deceased officials and other jawans standing on the pavement.He stated that the speed of the truck was so high that nobody could move to safety or take any preventive measure, but some of the jawans managed to escape by jumping left or right.He further deposed that three officials who sustained injuries were so badly injured that they died on the spot.They were taken to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital where they were declared brought dead.According to this witness, the accident took place entirely due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.Despite opportunity, the witness was not cross-examined either by the insurance company or the owner of the offending vehicle.One assistant from the office of insurance company also appeared in court as a witness but except proving the policy of insurance nothing more was said by the said witness.No other evidence was produced either by the owner of the truck or by the insurance company.On the basis of the aforesaid evidence produced before the Tribunal, it came to a finding that even if it was a case of murder, since the driver had no ill-will or any motive against the CRPF personnel and his motive was to act against the authority of the State and not against the deceased officials, it was an accident arising out of use of motor vehicle vis-avis three victims and legal representatives of the deceased would, therefore, be entitled to compensation.After holding that the legal representatives would be entitled to compensation, the Tribunal awarded compensation in their favor.Compensation for the death of Hari Singh, Lance Nayak:The legal heirs of the deceased would also be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing the application till payment.Seven- teen years have passed since the death of the deceased and the family of deceased is in need of money.Appellants are directed to deposit the balance 50 per cent compensation along with enhanced compensation with interest within six weeks from today.On deposit of this compensation with the Tribunal, the respondent/claimants will be entitled to withdraw 20 per cent of such amount and the balance 80 per cent would be deposited in fixed deposit in the names of the claimants in terms of the award for a period of five years.With these observations, these appeals and cross-objections stand disposed of.Copy of the order be given dusty to counsel for the parties.","['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"A.No.718/2000 Page 3 of 49 persons including Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein (three other accused having since been expired) was to the effect that on 09.08.1989 at H. No.L-101, Gali No. 7 Kartar Nagar within the jurisdiction of PS Bhajanpura all of them along with Mahender (expired on 11.01.1995) and Shakeel (also dead) had in furtherance of their common intention wrongly confined Smt. Ram Kumari Sharma, PW-2 wife of Sh.Narender Kumar Sharma PW-1 in a room for the purpose of extorting her ornaments and some documents and for making her sign and execute documents and had also in furtherance of the said common intention kidnapped and obstructed Smt. Ram Kumari Sharma secretly and wrongly confined her at Pran Garh, U.P. and had criminally intimidated and threatened to kill her and had also beaten her and thereby put her in fear of death or grievous hurt, extorted and snatched the registered deed, title deed and her ornaments and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 347/365/506/323 and 368 read with Section 34 IPC to which all the said accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Furthermore, it is stated that Ishwar Chand/accused No.1/respondent No.1 herein and the co-accused respondent No. 2 (since expired) were also charged to the effect that on 09.08.1989 at house No L-101, Gali No. 6 Kartar Nagar they used a rifle and katta i.e. deadly weapons whilst committing robbery and they were both charged for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC to which they both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.A.No.718/2000 Page 3 of 49In support of the prosecution version, the State put forth in the witness box 17 witnesses of whom PW-10 SI Gauri Shankar and PW-14 Dr. S.B.Aggarwal were given up as being unnecessary by the State on 06.03.1999 and 20.04.1999 respectively.Ishwar Chand/accused No.1/respondent No.1 herein (the only surviving accused to the present appeal) through his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.A.No.718/2000 Page 4 of 49denied the incriminating evidence led against him and claimed that he had paid a sum of Rs.83,000/- to Narender Kumar Sharma i.e. complainant PW-1 his Sadu (i.e. his wifes sisters husband) which the respondent No. 1 had paid to Sh.Narender Kumar Sharma towards the sale consideration of a plot which was adjacent to the house of the complainant and that an amount of Rs.22,000/- remained due which was to be paid at a later stage.It was also claimed by the respondent No. 1 that he had not got the documents executed but had taken possession of the said plot and had started living there with his family members and that he had asked the complainant Narender Kumar Sharma to get the documents executed but that Narender Kumar Sharma had been putting off the same on the pretext that the owner of the property was an old lady residing at Shahpura.The respondent No. 1 further claimed that one day when he met the son of the owner and asked for the execution of the sale deed, he, the respondent No. 1 learnt that Narender Kumar had got the documents of that plot executed in his own favour.Respondent No. 1 thus submitted that this was the bone of contention between him and Narender Kumar Sharma i.e. the complainant and that he, the respondent No. 1 thus met the father of the Narender Kumar and asked him to get the documents executed, but, the father of Narender Kumar Sharma told respondent No. 1 that Narender Kumar Sharma was a fraud.Respondent No. 1 thus stated that he had been cheated and that the father of Narender Kumar Sharma could also not help him and that he, Narender Kumar Sharma then asked him to return the money or to get the documents executed, as a consequence of which he the respondent falsely implicated him in this case in connivance with the police.Ishwar Chand/accused No.1/respondent No.1 herein claimed innocence and further stated that his goods were also grabbed by Narender Kumar Sharma.Seven witnesses in defence to assert the plea of innocence of the accused were put forth.A.No.718/2000 Page 5 of 49PW-5/A which is copy of DD No. 28A dated 09.08.1989, PP Gamri indicates that ASI Om Prakash had given a telephonic information at 12:35 a.m. that a person known to him i.e. Narender Kumar Sharma R/o L-101, Gali No. 6, Shivaji Marg Kartar Nagar, Delhi and his wife Smt. Ram Kumari Sharma had been taken to U.P. and had been assaulted by Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein and 2-3 men who had also taken away their articles and that the police be sent.PW-5/A i.e. DD No. 28A further indicates that the inquiry on the basis of this information was entrusted to ASI Chhote Lal who along with Ct.Virender Kumar went to the spot.PW- 1/A which forms the basis of the registration of FIR No. 331/89, PS Bhajanpura under Section 347/365/368/506/34 IPC indicates that ASI Chhote Lal along with Ct.Virender Singh No. 1307, North East had reached H.No.L-101,No.6, Kartar Nagar, Delhi on receipt of Ex.PW-5/A i.e. DD No. 28A PP Gamri Extn., where they met Sh.Narender Kumar Sharma, the complainant who gave his statement.As per the said statement which forms the complaint, Sh.Narender Kumar Sharma stated that on 09.08.1989 at about 8:00 a.m. he was present at his house when his brother-in-law who was also his Sadu, his sister-in-laws husband and who was also his paternal aunts son (buas son) Sh.Ishwar Chand s/o Shyam Dev, respondent No. 1 herein, native of Bulandshahr who was then residing in the house of the complainant at Kartar Nagar had come to his house along with a fair complexioned normal built 20 year old boy and after some time, the wife of Ishwar Chand i.e Smt. Shashi Bala who was his sister-in-law (saali) i.e. sister of the wife of Narender Kumar Sharma) also came and that the respondent No. 1 told him that he had to take Rs.15-20,000/- from a lady at Sikendarabad and that he, Narender Kumar Sharma and his wife Smt. Ram Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 6 of 49 Kumari Sharma should accompany them and make an excuse that they needed money urgently for their maternal uncles daughters marriage.As a consequence thereof, as per the FIR, Sh.The said vehicle was driven by a driver and that when they reached Ghaziabad, a man standing on the road aged 27-28 years was made to sit in the vehicle by Ishwar Chand and after some time they made the vehicle stop at Sikendarabad.Thereafter Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 left the complainant and his wife and Shashi Bala in the vehicle saying that he was first going to meet that lady alone to get his money and after some time Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein came back and informed them that the lady had gone to Pran Garh and thus they were all to go there and then all went in that vehicle to Pran Garh in the same Maruti van.There, as per the FIR at the house of Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein there were two persons present, as it was very hot inside the house, all of them left the complainants wife seated in that house and (came out of the house and sat in a room amongst the trees) and in sometime, respondent No. 1 along with five men came to the spot and threatened Narender Kumar Sharma and tied his hands and made him lie down on a cot and made everyone leave the room and took a katta and a rifle in their hands and started beating him and threatening him with dire consequences and assaulted him, and asked him where the registered documents and ornaments were kept.As per Ex.PW-1/A, the complainant stated that out of fear, he informed Ishwar Chand as to where his money and ornaments were placed in an almirah in his room and after about 11:00 a.m., Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein left the Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 7 of 49 complainant under the supervision of two men and two men were deputed outside the room and at about 4:00 p.m. Ishwar Chand/accused No.1/respondent No.1 herein came back and threatened the complainant and took his signatures and thumb impression on some documents and also snatched Rs.4000/- and his identity card from his pocket and also took away the watch and ring that he was wearing and left him i.e. the complainant in a tied condition.A.No.718/2000 Page 6 of 49A.No.718/2000 Page 7 of 49As per Ex.PW-1/A after sometime on hearing his noise 2-3 ladies came and untied him and in the meantime his wife also came on hearing his voice, and she informed that Ishwar Chand/accused No.1/respondent No.1 herein and his men had also snatched her chain and bangles and had taken her signatures and thumb impression on several papers.The complainant as per Ex.PW-1/A further stated that Ishwar Chand and his men had threatened him that if he lodged a complaint with the police he would be killed.As per Ex.PW-1/A the complainant took a lift from the villagers and on a scooter and Vicky, and he and his wife reached Sikanderabad from where they took a bus and came home.As per Ex.PW-1/A, Smt. Shashi Bala, the sister-in-law (saali) of the complainant i.e. the sister of the wife of the complainant who had been left behind by the complainant and his wife to take care of the children informed that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein had come with a man to the house of the complainant and had taken away a VCP and a gold tika and documents of the registration of the house of the complainant.As per Ex.PW- 1/A, the complainant thus alleged that Ishwar Chand/accused No.1/respondent No.1 herein had cheated him and deceptively taken him and his wife to Sikendarabad and Pran Garh and had forcibly extorted the taking of his signature and taken away his gold articles and his VCP in relation to which a complaint was also made at Pran Garh, U.P. and that the accused Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein had thus taken him and his wife to Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 8 of 49 Pran Garh in a Maruti van No. DID 2580 or DID 2850 and had assaulted him.As per Ex.PW-1/A it was stated by the appellant that he could identify Ishwar Chand/accused No.1/respondent No.1 herein and his associates.A.No.718/2000 Page 8 of 49On the basis of Ex.PW-1/A and the endorsement thereon, i.e. Ex.PW- 9/A, DD No. 16A dated 10.08.1989 and FIR No. 331/89, PS Bhajanpura are indicated to have been registered at 2:35 a.m. on 10.08.1989 with the copy of the said FIR being on the record as Ex.PW-3/A. Subsequently, vide Ex.PW- 1/D the complainant Narender Kumar Sharma vide a written complaint dated 02.09.1989 addressed to the SHO, PS Bhajanpura informed that at the time of making his complaint on 10.08.1989 on the basis of which FIR No. 331/89 was registered, he knew only the name of Ishwar Chand/accused No.1/respondent No.1 herein and was not aware of the names of other accused persons about whom he had stated he could recognize on seeing them, and that at the time of submission of his complaint Ex.PW-1/D dated 02.09.1989 he had learnt from his close sources the names of these associates of Ishwar Chand, Ravinder Kumar Tewatia S/o Khacheru Tewatia, Shakeel Ahmad @ Shakeel, Mahender Singh S/o Chadru, Birender S/o Rajpal r/o Village Pran Garh PS Sikendarabad, Distt.Bulandshahr and that these were the persons who had tied his legs and hands and had assaulted them and had kept a watch on him and his wife and that he sought action against these persons as well.As per the charge sheet the accused persons were arrested during the course of investigation but the accused Shakeel Ahmad @ Shakeel expired on 03.12.1990 at the JPN hospital, due to an accident.The charge sheet further indicates that Smt. Shashi Bala wife of Ishwar Chand along with Neeraj Kumar S/o Vikram Singh were arrayed in column No. 2 as accused persons and were not sent up for trial.(Significantly Sh.Neeraj Kumar S/o Vikaram Singh was examined as a defence witness DW-6 by the accused).The charge sheet Crl.PW-1/A also stated that after he had been left bolted inside the room of his house by Ishwar Chand/accused No.1/respondent No.1 herein at Pran Garh, he and his companions who had taken his signatures on some stamp papers, most of which were blank i.e. 25 in number and in the denomination of Rs.50/-, Rs.10/-, Rs.20/-, Rs.5/- and Rs.2/- and some were plain judicial papers and some of which had revenue stamp affixed on them, his hands had been untied but his feet had been kept tied and he was also threatened that he would be killed in case he does not sign those papers and his thumb impression on some of them had been taken and thereafter they left bolting him inside the room.He further stated that he cried and that his wife along with some ladies came there and opened the door and thus his wife took him to the house of the Sarpanch as he was bleeding from his nose and had injuries on his feet and thereafter they narrated the incident to the Sarpanch.It was also stated by PW-1 that his wife Smt. Ram Kumari Sharma told him that she had also been beaten and her gold ring and chain had been snatched and that her modesty has been outraged by all the five persons i.e. Ravinder, Devender, Shakeel, Mahender and Ishwar Chand/accused No.1/respondent No.1 herein and that he had also been threatened by them that their children would be killed.He, PW-1 further stated in his testimony that the Sarpanch got them dropped at Sikendarabad bus stand by Vicky and Scooter and when they boarded the bus, he PW-1 told the driver about the incident and that he had no money to Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 10 of 49 purchase the ticket and the driver allowed them to travel without a ticket and left them at Delhi.A.No.718/2000 Page 10 of 49PW-1 further stated when they reached their home they found that Ishwar Chands wife was present in the house along with the children and she told them that Ishwar Chand had come along with two persons and had taken away from the safe, one gold tika, a VCP, sale deed of the house, one LIC certificate, ration card and his educational certificate and that their children were safe and they reported the matter to the police.He further stated that he and his wife were medically examined at the GTB hospital and after some time their relatives came from the village and told the name of the persons, who accompanied Ishwar Chand/accused No.1/respondent No.1 herein and after 5-6 days the police took them to Sikendarabad at the GT Road where they saw the vehicle No. DID 2850 standing there at some distance from there and the accused Ravinder (since deceased) was standing and they informed the police about it and the police arrested Ravinder and took the van into possession vide a seizure memo Ex. PW-1/B, which bore his signatures.PW-1 further stated that the police interrogated the accused Ravinder and recorded his disclosure statement and after 10-12 days, the police arrested the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein and then he was called by the police and he identified Ishwar Chand/accused No.1/respondent No.1 herein and got recovered ornaments from his brothers house and told that the VCP had been given to Shakeel.This witness further stated that the VCP was not recovered but Ishwar Chand/accused No.1/respondent No.1 herein got recovered the gold chain, ring, identity card and ration card of the complainant and that Ishwar Singh also disclosed that the sale deed and rifle had been kept by him at Chithera but they were not recovered.Inter alia, this witness identified the gold ring, gold chain, identity card and ration card and identity card Ex.P1, P2 and P3 and stated that Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 11 of 49 the gold chain and gold ring belonged to his wife and that the identity card belonged to him.PW-1/A, he had stated that due to the summer season his wife sat inside and due to the heat, they all came out and sat down between the trees.He also stated that he had not stated in his statement Ex.A.No.718/2000 Page 12 of 49Significantly, this witness in his cross-examination stated that he had not told the police that the modesty of his wife has been outraged and had stated that his wife did not disclose to the Sarpanch regarding outraging of her modesty and even did not inform him when they were going back to Delhi from Pran Garh nor did she tell him about the same when they reached the house nor did she inform him when they were going to police, nor did she tell about the same in the police station, and rather stated that his wife informed about the same on 11.08.89 for the first time at about 5:30 p.m. about her modesty being outraged and he further stated that he had enquired from his wife whether in her statement she had told the police on 09.08.1989 of her modesty being outraged but she had stated that she had not so told to the police.The witness further stated that he had told the police on 11.08.1989 itself when his wife had told him about the outraging of her modesty, though he admitted that in his complaint dated 02.09.1989 i.e Ex. PW-1/D given by him to the SHO he had not disclosed about the modesty of his wife being outraged.He admitted that in Ex.PW- 1/A and in all other subsequent statements, he made no mention about the outraging of the modesty of his wife by the culprits.He, PW-1 further stated that he had told the police that the wife of Ishwar Chand on his return had told him that accused Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein had come along with a companion and not two persons and that he PW-1 had mentioned that the LIC certificate, ration card and educational certificate were also stated to have been taken away by the accused Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein as told by his wife and was thus confronted with Ex.PW-1/A where there was no mention about Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 13 of 49 the said documents.He further stated that he did not know about the financial dealing of Ishwar Chand/accused No.1/respondent No.1 herein and that he did not ask the name or the address of the lady from whom Ishwar Chand/accused No.1/respondent No.1 herein was to get money before proceeding from Delhi nor did he enquire about this dealing nor was this lady known to him.He further stated that at that time, as he, PW-1 was ready to go to hospital and, therefore, (the witness having already stated in his complaint also testified that he was working as a dental hygienist in the police hospital since 1988) he went with Ishwar Chand/accused No.1/respondent No.1 herein without asking any question and that he did not ask Ishwar Chand/accused No.1/respondent No.1 herein to take his wife along with them though Ishwar Chand/accused No.1/respondent No.1 herein proposed that Narender Kumar Sharma should take his wife along with them.A.No.718/2000 Page 13 of 49This witness further stated during cross-examination that he had visited the house of Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein at Pran Garh once earlier.PW-1 further stated that he raised an alarm when he was being tied at the house of Pran Garh but no one had come to his rescue and that he was raising an alarm when he was being beaten and that he was wearing a safari of a white colour and his clothes had become blood stained because of the injuries and that he had gone in the same clothes to PP Gamri where his report was lodged.This witness has further stated that none of the police officials demanded his blood stained clothes nor did he hand them over to the police.This witness has further stated during cross-examination that he had raised an alarm for about half an hour and that the door had been opened.Significantly, Crl.This witness testified that the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein had taken her and her husband to Sikendarabad for taking Rs. 20,000/- from a lady and from Sikendarabad as the lady was stated to be not there at Sikendarabad to Pran Garh.This witness stated that when they reached Pran Garh and reached the house of Ishwar Chand, he Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein asked her and her husband to sit in a room together and he asked her husband to accompany him outside the house as he wanted to introduce some of his friends to doctor sahib and thus her husband accompanied Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein and she remained sitting alone in the house.She further stated that 2-3 ladies were also talking just adjacent to the room where she was sitting and in the meantime at about 11-11:30 a.m. she heard the shrieks of her husband ""Neetu Bachao Maar Liya"" and after hearing the shrieks she came outside the room and asked for help.She, PW-2 stated that there were 20-25 papers in number including stamp papers of denomination of Rs.2 to Rs.100/- and some of them were written and revenue stamps were also affixed on them.She further stated that the chain and the ring worn by her were also snatched and from there they went to her husband to get the signatures and thereafter they went away after closing the room of her husband and after they went, she came out and heard the cry of her husband and with the help of 2-3 ladies she rescued him.She further stated that thereafter Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 17 of 49 been removed from her house and that her children had been brought, which aspect also did not form part of Ex.PW-2/DA.She testified further during cross-examination that she had told the police in Ex.PW-2/DA, that they had narrated the incident to the Sarpanch which aspect was also not so recorded and rather it was mentioned that with the help of other persons after arranging the scooter and Vicky they then came to Sikendarabad and the assistance of the Sarpanch was not detailed in Ex.PW-2/DA.24. PW-2 Smt. Ram Kumari Sharma in her cross-examination admitted that there was a post office being run in one of the rooms of that house which was closed on that day and stated that post office was run next to the room where she was confined and that Madhu Sudan was the Post master of that post office.She also stated that Madhu Sudan, Jatan Saroop, Radhey Shyam, Brahmanand and Dev Dutt were brothers of accused the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein.She further stated during cross-examination that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein, is the husband of her younger sister and that the marriage of Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein and her sister had taken place 6-7 years prior to the incident and both of them had been living in their house which was near the house at Kartar Nagar being relatives without rent.This witness has also stated that her statement was also recorded by the Crime Branch 2/3 days after the incident and that she had told the Crime Branch official in her statement that all the five persons did with her what a man would do after closing a woman in a room and that Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 18 of 49 they were five in number and was thus confronted with ExPW-2/DA wherein it was not so recorded.PW-2 further stated that those persons misbehaved with her after closing the door from outside and that she could not resist as they were five persons.She further stated that she was medically examined the next day and stated that she did not tell the doctor regarding the 'galat kaam' and rather stated that she told the next day about the same to her husband and that she was not medically examined thereafter.Inter alia, this witness in her statement denied the fact that she had fabricated the version of galat kaam' just to gain sympathy.A.No.718/2000 Page 18 of 4925. PW-9 examined by the State was Sh.Om Prakash who testified to the effect that on 09.08.1989 he was posted at the PCR as an ASI and at about 12/12:30 midnight he was coming to Kartar Nagar from Maujpur and he met Narender Kumar Sharma and his wife i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 respectively and they were in a bad state of affairs and had injuries on their person and he heard their complaint and lodged a report at PP Gamri.On being cross-examined, this witness admitted that Narender Kumar Sharma was a dentist at the Old Police Line Hospital and he had come in contact within him there and on that day he was not aware of the residential house of Narender Kumar Sharma.He stated that he made no statement to the police but denied that that he did not meet him at Kartar Nagar and denied that he had lodged no police report at PP Gamri.26. PW-8 examined by the State was ASI Chhote Lal who stated that on 09.08.1989 he was posted at PP Gamri and on that day DD No. 28A, copy of which Ex.PW-3/A was assigned to him for action and he along with Ct.Narender Kumar reached the spot at Kartar Nagar where he met Narender Kumar Sharma whose statement Ex.PW-1/A was recorded by PW-8 on which he made the endorsement as Ex. PW-9/A which was sent through Ct. Varender for registration of the FIR.This witness in his cross-examination stated that Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 19 of 49 Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-2/DA were correctly recorded by him.He further stated that the investigation was conducted by him but that he had not interrogated the neighbours.PW-8, however, denied that he had testified falsely.A.No.718/2000 Page 19 of 49S.K.Sarvaria, the then Additional District and Sessions Judge who testified to having prepared the report of the test identification proceedings of the case property conducted on 28.02.1990 (Ex.PW-12/B).PW-6 examined by the State was SI Prem Singh who testified to the effect that the investigation of the case was handed over to him by the Inspector of the Crime Branch and he had prepared the site plan Ex.PW-6/A on 24.12.1989 i.e. at Pran Garh.PW-15 examined by the State was SI Jagdish Prasad who testified to the effect that investigation of the case had been assigned to him on 12.08.1989 and that the complainant was joined in the investigation on 15.08.1989 and testified inter alia to the arrest of the accused Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein on 22.08.1989 from his house located at Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara and testified to the arrest and disclosure statement made by Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein and testified to the recovery of the chain, ring, identity card along with driving licence at the behest of the accused.He further testified to the seizure of the receipts of the ornaments vide memo Ex.WITNESSES OF RECOVERY30. PW-1, the complainant Sh.Narender Kumar Sharma in his examination- in-chief testified to the recovery of ornaments of the complainant at the house of Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 20 of 49 the brother of accused Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein at Satta Mohalla, Bulandshahr i.e. the recovery of the gold chain, gold ring, identity card and ration card i.e. Ex.P1 to P3 respectively.A.No.718/2000 Page 20 of 49PW-16 HC Ompal Singh also testified to the recovery of the ring, chain, driving licence, identity card on 23.08.1989 when the accused Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein was in the lock up at Gokulpuri and had thereafter been interrogated by the IO whereafter the accused had led the police on 24.08.1989 to the house of Madhu Sudan and on checking it was found to contain a ring, driving licence, identity card and another driving licence which was sealed and put in a cloth parcel and sealed with the seal of JPS.The witness also testified to the preparation of the seizure memo of Maruti van No. DID 2850 Ex. PW-1/B seized on 15.08.1989 signed by him.32. PW-15, examined, SI Sh.Jagdish Prasad of the Special Branch testified to the effect that the investigation of this case was entrusted to him on 12.08.1989 and that the complainant was joined in the investigation on 15.08.1989 and that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein was arrested from a house located at Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara and on his personal search being conducted vide Ex.PW-1/C whereafter the accused made a disclosure Ex.PW-15/A, the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein had taken the police party to Mohalla Satta Bulandshahr and had got recovered a chain, ring, identity card and driving licence and regarding the ownership of ornaments two receipts Ex.P1 and P2 were filed.During cross- examination this witness had stated that he met the residents of the Village Pran Garh there, but they expressed their ignorance about the same and that he had not seen any post office in the house at Pran Garh .He further stated that the receipts Ex.PW-11/A and Ex.PW11/B were issued in the name of the daughter of Gauri Shankar and that he did not meet Gauri Shankar since Crl.The nature of injuries sustained by Narender Kumar Sharma were also opined to be simple caused by a blunt object, as opined on 16.09.1989 with the nature of injuries being contusion with tenderness and of horse shoe shaped 4 cm above the umbilical level and 3 cm to the mid umbilical line swelling on the nose and upper lip and left side of the neck and small blister on the wrist and right arm and contusion on the right arm and deep abrasion and multiple blisters on the left radial aspect.Both Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 22 of 49 Smt. Ram Kumari Sharma and Sh.Narender Kumar Sharma at the time of examination on 10.08.1989 were found to be alert and conscious and Narender Kumar Sharma was also opined to be fit for statement.The said MLCs of Sh.Narender Kumar Sharma Ex.PW-13/A and that of Smt. Ram Kumari Sharma Ex. PW-17/A were proved through the testimonies of Dr.B.Narayan, CMO GTB hospital and PW-17 Dr. R.K.B.Choudhary, CMO GTB hospital respectively.He stated that the complainant Narender Kumar Sharma was the real son of his real maternal uncle and was also the brother-in-law Sadu of the accused Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein.He further stated that he was working as a Post Master in the post office being run from his house situated at Pran Garh, Distt.Bulandshahr which is open from 10:00 a.m. and closed at 5:00 p.m. He further stated that on 09.08.1989 (i.e. the date of incident) the said post office was open and he was present in the post office on that day from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and stated that the postmen Rohtash Kumar and Satish Chand were also present in that office.He further stated that on that day he had not noted Narender and his wife coming and going out from that house.He further stated that the adjoining room was also in the possession of the post office and stated that he had not heard any commotion on that day.He further stated that he resided in the said house where the said post office is located.He further stated that his father was the owner of the said premises and after his death he becomes the owner of the said premises.He also stated that the permission of his father had been taken for opening the post office in the said premises and a sum of Rs.200/- is paid as rent by the Government.He further stated that he was issuing rent receipts and he could produce the same.He further stated that there were four villages in the postal circle and about 150 postal articles are received in the post office daily and there are two post men in the post office and that there is a record in the form of attendance and he could produce the same in relation to the date of incident.He further categorically denied that Ishwar Chand/ the accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein, Ravinder Kumar, Davender, Mahender and Shakil had wrongly confined Smt. Ram Kumari Sharma wife of Narender Kumar Sharma in the house at the Village Pran Garh and denied that he had extorted ornaments at the point of a country- made pistol and also denied that Smt. Ram Kumari Sharma was beaten by them.He denied that Narender Kumar Sharma PW-2 was also beaten by them and denied that he had testified falsely in order to save his brother, Ishwar Chand/the accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein.This witness testified to the effect that he was residing in the said house which was to be purchased by him and that he DW-2 came from his native village and then he came to know that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein and others had been arrested.He further stated that he had met Narender Kumar Sharma who had told that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein had misbehaved with him and he would teach him a lesson.Inter alia, he DW-2 along with Narender Kumar Sharma had gone to the house of Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein and stated that in his presence PW-2 Narender Kumar Sharma had broken the lock of the said house and removed the entire articles from that house and loaded all the goods in a matador and transported the same to Pilkhawa.On being cross-examined by the State, the witness DW-2 stated that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein intended to purchase a plot in J-block Kartar Nagar, Shahdara but that he DW-2 did not know to whom the said plot belonged.The said plot was stated to be of 50 sq. yds.and a sum of Rs.83,000/- was paid in his presence and that some notes were of Rs.100/- in denomination, some of 50/- and some were of 10/- denomination had been used and had been brought by Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein in a red coloured bag made of cloth.The witness also denied the occurrence of the incident as alleged by the prosecution.38. DW-3 examined by the defence was Babu Giri who stated that he was residing at village Pran Garh since his birth and that his house was located at a space of about 10 paces from the house of the accused Ishwar Chand/accused Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 25 of 49 No. 1/respondent No.1 herein.He stated that he was running a shop in his house and that the door of his shop opened towards the house of the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein.He further stated that he was present at his house and no untoward incident had taken place.He also stated that Narender Kumar Sharma, the complainant was known to him and was related to the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein.Satender Kumar S/o Sh.Babu Singh who stated that during the period 1988-90 he was residing as a tenant at house No. 11/1155 Satha Mohalla, Bulandshahr and stated that as far as he recollected the police never came to the said house during the said period.He further stated that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein used to visit the said house since it was the house of the in-laws of his elder brother.This witness categorically denied during cross-examination that on 24.08.1989 Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein had led the police party to the house of Madhusudan at 11/1155, Satta Mohalla and that he had got recovered one ladys ring and a driving licence belonging to Narender Kumar Sharma and an identity card and another identity card of the police hospital and the copy of learning licence from a heap of papers.DW-5 Sh.Manender Singh stated that a sum of Rs.70,000/- was borrowed from the accused Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein from him in the month of March, 1988 and that the accused Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein had borrowed the sum from him to purchase a plot or a house.He further produced the photocopy of Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 26 of 49 his saving bank account No. 6327/30 situated at the State Bank of India, Dadri Branch U.P. which is Ex.PW-5/A, original of which is seen and returned, in support of his statement, that he had in fact given a sum of Rs.70,000/- to Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein and stated that he had paid this amount at the instance of his brother.On being cross-examined he further stated that no writing was done when he gave the amount to Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein as an interest free loan.Furthermore, the learned trial Court observed that when Narender Kumar Sharma and his wife were to leave it was expected that they would keep their house in safety, under lock and key, and the factum that the safe at the house was not locked and the title deed, jewellery, cash were lying in the safe, was not in consonance of human behaviour and standards of Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 35 of 49 behavioural probability, as while leaving his home for outstation, the owner would put his belongings into safe custody.ANU MALHOTRA, J.This judgment shall dispose of an appeal filed by the State instituted on 29.9.2000 seeking to assail the impugned judgment dated 19.04.2000 of the learned ASJ, Shahdara the FIR No. 331/89, PS Bhajanpura whereby four of the accused Ishwar Chand, Ravinder, Davender arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively to the present appeal (of whom respondent No. 2 Ravinder S/o Kanchan Singh having expired, was deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 28.02.2002), were acquitted of the charges levelled against them of the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 347/365/323/368 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ""IPC"") apart from the separate charge having also been framed against the Ishwar Chand/accused No.1/respondent No.1 herein and the accused Ravinder Kumar- respondent No. 2 (who has already been deleted from the array of parties) under Section 397 IPC, with which, the said accused persons had been charged on Crl.The State was granted leave to appeal vide order dated 22.11.2001 whereby Crl.M.C. 2967/2000 was allowed.A.No.718/2000 Page 1 of 49The proceedings against the accused Davinder S/o Rajpal arrayed as respondent No 3 have also abated as observed vide order dated 04.11.2016 in view of his demise on 16.05.2008 as reported by Inspector Kishan Kumar SHO PS Bhajanpura.The trial Court record indicates that there were four persons facing trial before the trial Court i.e. Ishwar Chand, Ravinder, Davinder and Mahender.The present appeal thus now is only against the surviving respondent No. 1, Ishwar Chand.In the instant case the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein did not put in appearance on the date of hearing i.e. 04.11.2016 but the record indicates that he had been served and was represented on 12.12.2001 by counsel Mr.Rupesh Sharma when Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein and respondent No. 3 (since deceased) were both allowed to be released on furnishing personal bonds with surety to the satisfaction of the Registrar General of this Court with direction that the appeal be listed in due course.The said bond is indicated to have been submitted by Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein on 19.12.2001 before the then Registrar General, High Court of Delhi.Taking into account the factum that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein himself did not put in appearance on 04.11.2016 and his interest has been duly put forth and looked after by the learned Amicus Curiae in terms of the verdict of this Court in State vs. Ram Gopal & Ors., 2006 Cri LJ 2805, the appeal has been taken up for hearing.Through the appeal, the State has sought to submit that the acquittal of the respondents had resulted in the miscarriage of justice and that the impugned Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 2 of 49 judgment dated 19.04.2000 was against the facts and the law.It was further submitted through the appeal on behalf of the State that the complainant Narender Kumar Sharma PW-1 and his wife Ram Kumari Sharma PW-2 had both supported the prosecution version and the multiple injuries caused to them were corroborated by medical evidence and that the learned trial Court had not given justifiable reasons to discard their testimony.Inter alia, it was submitted through the appeal that a strong circumstantial evidence of recovery of robbed articles such as gold chain, gold ring, driving licence at the instance of Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein from his brothers house at Bulandshahr, U.P. had been discarded erroneously by the learned trial Court.It was further submitted by the State that the learned trial Court had given no substantial reason as to why the testimony of PW-9 ASI Om Prakash who first saw the complainant in blood stained clothes was not to be believed.It was also contended by the learned APP through the appeal that the learned trial Court had erred in believing the defence version of the respondent that the plot was purchased by the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein, though no receipt of any documentary proof was shown.It was also submitted on behalf of the State that the impugned judgment is based on conjunctures and surmises and was not in accordance with law.A.No.718/2000 Page 2 of 49Vide order dated 04.11.2016 Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on the merits of the appeal.Arguments were addressed on behalf of the State by Ms.Public Prosecutor and on behalf of respondent No. 1 by Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, learned Amicus Curiae.The trial Court record requisitioned on 22.11.2000 has been received and perused.The charge of allegations framed on 03.11.1995 against the accused Crl.PW-9/A, the rukka recorded on the statement of Narender Kumar Sharma, the complainant Ex.A.No.718/2000 Page 9 of 49 indicates that a gold ring and gold chain, identity card and driving licence belonging to Narender Kumar Sharma were allegedly recovered at the instance of Ishwar Chand/accused No.1/respondent No.1 herein.A.No.718/2000 Page 9 of 49MATERIAL WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE STATEPW-1 Narender Kumar Sharma, the complainant in his testimony on oath while putting forth the version in Ex.Inter alia, PW-1 testified to having identified the ornaments at the Shahdara Court.A.No.718/2000 Page 11 of 49CROSS EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANTOn being cross-examined PW-1 Sh.He further stated that his wife was sitting in an adjacent room where he had been confined at the village Pran Garh and there was a distance of a wall between both the rooms where he was confined and where his wife was sitting.During his cross-examination this witness, inter alia, stated that he had stated to the police in Ex.PW-1/A that he had been tied up with a rope from the cot lying in the room and he had stated that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein had given him a rifle butt blow on his shoulder, stomach and back.This witness was during cross-examination confronted with his statement that he had told the police that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein had obtained his signatures on blank judicial stamp papers and on plain judicial papers, as these aspects were not recorded in Ex.PW-1/A. The witness has also Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 12 of 49 been confronted with Ex.A.No.718/2000 Page 14 of 49 this witness during cross-examination stated that he had never informed anyone about this incident except the police after coming to Delhi and stated that before lodging of the FIR, he, had not disclosed this fact to anyone except ASI Om Pal of the PCR.A.No.718/2000 Page 14 of 49EXAMINATION OF PW-221. PW-2 examined by the State was Smt.Ram Kumari Sharma w/o Narender Kumar Sharma.PW-2 further stated that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein and his companions compelled her to go inside in her room and they took her forcibly to the room and started beating her.She further stated that at that time Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein was armed with a rifle and the accused Ravinder was armed with a katta and the third man was also armed with a katta and that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein had given her beatings with the rifle.She further stated that the accused persons did with her what they should not have done and Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 15 of 49 stated that they were five persons and she cannot explain what they had done and she further stated that they misbehaved with her.As per the trial court record as the witness was hesitating, the proceedings were held in camera and the witness then stated that they did what a man would do after closing a woman in a room and stated that the accused persons did galat kaam.She further stated that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein had asked her for the keys of the safe on the point of the rifle and had asked her where she had kept the documents of the title of the house and had also asked her to disclose where she had kept the cash and jewellery and she had then disclosed that the safe was open and the money, jewellery and the documents were lying there and that her sister Shashi Bala i.e wife of the accused Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein was present there and that she would tell everything.This witness has further stated that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein had left the room at about 12:00 noon and had asked three persons to look after her i.e. Smt. Ram Kumari Sharma and they were the accused Ravinder, Davender and another person who had been picked up from the Ghaziabad bus stand and about 4:00 p.m. Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein came and all the persons stated that the goods had been removed from her house and that her children had also been brought and that they wanted her to sign the papers failing which she would be killed.A.No.718/2000 Page 16 of 49 they had gone to the Sarpanch and had narrated the incident and that she had also told her husband what had happened with her and he similarly told what had happened with him and informed that he had also been made to sign all such papers and also that his driving licence, cash of Rs.4000/-, and wrist watch were also snatched from him.Significantly, this witness during cross- examination stated that her statement was recorded by the IO at her house in the night at about 12/12:30 midnight i.e. statement Ex.PW-2/DA.A.No.718/2000 Page 15 of 49A.No.718/2000 Page 16 of 49Apart from being confronted with the aspect that she had told the police in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that she had heard the cries of ""Neetu Bachao Maar Liya"", on hearing the cries she had come out, which aspect was not recorded in Ex.PW-2/DA.She also stated that she had told the police in Ex. PW-2/A that they did with her what they should not have done and that she could not explain what they misbehaved with her and was confronted with Ex.She further stated that what they did was after closing the woman in a room and that they did and it was Galat Kam and thus she was confronted with Ex.She was also confronted with her statement in examination-in-chief that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein has asked her about the goods of the safe at the point of the rifle and she had disclosed that the safe was opened wherein this aspect was also not recorded.This witness stated that she had told the police that her sister Shashi Bala wife of the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein was present at house and she would tell everything and which aspect was also not found recorded in Ex.PW-2/DA.She was also confronted with Ex.She further stated during cross- examination that she had told the police in her statement dated 10.08.89 what had happened with her and she similarly told her husband what had happened with her and thus was confronted with Ex.PW-2/DA wherein this aspect was not recorded.A.No.718/2000 Page 17 of 49PW-11 Narayan Verma S/o Lakhpat Rai, a jeweller, testified to having manufactured the chain Ex.P2 and ring Ex. P2 for which he issued receipts Ex. PW-11/A and Ex.A.No.718/2000 Page 21 of 49 the goldsmith told that those receipts pertained to the wife of Narender Kumar Sharma and the complainants wife had not stated in her statement that her fathers name was Gauri Shankar.This witness further stated that he had not enquired about the address of Gauri Shankar but denied that the receipts had been fabricated by the police in collusion with the complainant.He further testified to the recovery having been effected from the possession of Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein at 7:30 a.m. on 24.08.1989 and he stated that he had not recorded the statement of any person from where the recovery was made and stated that he had not associated anyone from the locality from the time of recovery.Inter alia, this witness stated that he was not aware that there was any altercation between the accused and the complainant for getting the house vacated.He also denied that he had learnt that Narender Kumar Sharma had falsely framed Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein in the case.A.No.718/2000 Page 21 of 49PW-17/A and Ex.PW-13/A placed on record are the MLCs of Smt.Ram Kumar (PW-2) and Sh.Narender Kumar Sharma (PW-1) respectively both dated 10.08.1989 of the GTB hospital.Ram Kumar Sharma Ex.PW-17/A are indicated to be a contusion longitudinal lateral aspect of right thigh with a nature of injuries being having been opined to be simple caused by a blunt object.A.No.718/2000 Page 22 of 49DEFENCE WITNESSES EXAMINEDSeven defence witnesses were examined during the trial before the learned trial Court.DW-1 examined was Madhusudan, the elder brother of the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein.A.No.718/2000 Page 23 of 49DW-2 examined by the defence Sh.Dharamveer testified to the effect that the complainant of the case i.e. Sh.Narender Kumar Sharma was the son of his uncle and stated that earlier Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein was residing in J-Block Kartar Nagar and stated that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein had paid a sum of Rs.83,000/- to purchase a plot from someone through Narender Kumar Sharma and that the money was paid by the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein to Narender Kumar Sharma, PW-1, the complainant at his house and that he later Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 24 of 49 on learnt that there had been altercations between Narender Kumar Sharma and Ishwar Chand/ the accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein.It was further stated by DW-2 that Narender Kumar Sharma had informed Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein that his elder brother would pay the remaining amount of Rs.22,000/-.He, inter alia, stated during cross-examination that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein along with other co-accused persons had committed robbery and had they had robbed Smt. Ram Kumari Sharma and her husband of their ornaments and documents.A.No.718/2000 Page 25 of 4939. DW-4 produced by the defence was Sh.A.No.718/2000 Page 26 of 49DW-6 examined was Sh.Neeraj Kumar R/o Village Bhattpura, PS Sikendarabad, Distt.Bulandshahr who as per the prosecution version was the driver of the vehicle No. DID 2850 in which the accused/respondent No.1 herein had taken Narender Kumar Sharma and Ram Kumari Sharma to Bulandshahr.This witness categorically stated that on 09.08.1989 he had not gone anywhere with a vehicle along with Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein and others.He further stated that on 15.08.1989 his vehicle No. DID 2850 was apprehended by the police in the area of PS Bhajanpura because documents of the vehicle were not there with him at that time.This witness further stated that the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein was not known to him.He further denied that on 09.08.1989 Ishwar Chand, respondent No. 1 herein had hired his vehicle i.e. DID No. 2850 for Pran Garh @ Rs.350 per day and denied that he came to Delhi along with Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein.He also denied that Narender Kumar Sharma, Ram Kumari Sharma and others were taken by him at Pran Garh in the vehicle.DW-6 further denied that one person had Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 27 of 49 boarded his vehicle from the bus stand at Ghaziabad and that they had further gone to Pran Garh.He also denied that he remained standing outside the house of Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein and denied that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein along with Narender Kumar Sharma and his wife had gone inside the house.He further denied that he received a sum of Rs.600/- as fare from Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein and denied that he had been won over by the accused persons and thus had testified falsely.He further categorically denied that his vehicle had been used by the accused persons for the purpose of dacoity.A.No.718/2000 Page 27 of 4942. DW-7 examined by the defence was Smt.Manorma w/o of Sh.She further stated that the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein used to visit the said house often.She further stated that she had never seen Narender Kumar Sharma and his wife being taken away by anyone and also denied that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein ever came to the aforesaid house in her presence.She also denied that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein ever tried to lift the goods of the said house and to load them into a vehicle.(e) Whether the witness is found to have been bribed or accepted a bribe or received other corrupt inducement to give his evidence and;This is so, in as much as, the testimony of prosecution witnesses, Sh.Narender Kumar Sharma and Smt. Ram Kumari Sharma, bring forth the inconsistencies in the prosecution version as under:A.No.718/2000 Page 30 of 49related to Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein in as much as is the son of the Bua of Narender Kumar Sharma;Furthermore, Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein, is the co brother of Narender Kumar Sharma in as much as the wife of Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein, Smt. Shashi Bala and Smt. Ram Kumari Sharma w/o Narender Kumar Sharma are sisters as brought forth through the record.The closeness of relations between the complainant and his family and that of the accused is indicated through the testimony of Smt. Ram Kumari Sharma PW-2, who categorically stated that no rent or any other charges were being taken from Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein, though he was residing in the house owned by Narender Kumar Sharma;She stated that they were living in their house without paying rent being their relatives.The testimonies of Narender Kumar Sharma and his wife Ram Kumari Sharma do not attribute any hostility, bias or enmity between the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein and Narender Kumar Sharma till the date of the alleged incident i.e. 09.08.1989;A.No.718/2000 Page 31 of 49 he had some property dispute at his village with his brother and that he had never lived at the house of Narender Kumar Sharma as a tenant and that he had paid a sum of Rs. 83,000/- to Narender Kumar Sharma towards the sale consideration of the plot which was adjacent to the house of the complainant and an amount of Rs. 22,000/- remained due which was to be paid at a later stage.He had further stated that he had not got the document executed and had taken possession of the said plot and had started living there with his family members and though he had asked Narender Kumar for getting the document executed, he had made a pretext that the owner was an old lady and was residing at Shahpura, and that one day when he met the son of the owner and asked for execution of the sale deed, he learnt that Narender Kumar Sharma had got the documents executed in his favour and then he met the father of Narender Kumar Sharma to get the document executed and that the father of the complainant informed him that Narender Kumar Sharma was a fraud and that the father of Narender Kumar Sharma could also not help the accused/respondent No.1 when the accused/respondent No.1 asked Narender Kumar Sharma to return the money or to get the document executed, and that Narender Kumar Sharma had falsely framed him in this case with the connivance of police.A.No.718/2000 Page 31 of 49As observed by the learned trial Court in para.8 page 10 of the impugned judgment, it was not the case of Narender Kumar Sharma or his wife that they had ever asked the accused Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein to vacate their house and that when relations between the parties were cordial and that the accused was residing as a licensee in the house of Narender Kumar Sharma and Narender Kumar Sharma himself did not assert that he was in a hurry to get the house Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 32 of 49 vacated, it was held by the learned trial Court that in that event, Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein allegedly stating that after getting the amount he would vacate the house, - was not in consonance with ordinary human behaviour;A.No.718/2000 Page 32 of 49It was furthermore observed by the trial Court that Ishwar Chand/the accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein was to vacate the house on his own and in that event there was no necessity for the complainant and his wife to go to Sikendarabad on a particular day to take a sum of money for after getting the money, from Sikendarabad the house was not to be vacated on that very day;Whereas Sh.Narender Kumar Sharma stated that Ishwar Chand/the accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein had asked him to accompany him to Sikanderabad as he had to take some money from some person to the tune of Rs.8-9000/- , Smt. Ram Kumari Sharma in her testimony in examination in chief stated that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein had come on 09.08.1989 to her house and had stated that he wanted to get Rs.20,000/- from some lady at Sikanderabad whereas in Ex. PW-1/A, the complainant stated that the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein stated that he had to recover a sum of Rs. 15- 20,000/- from a lady at Sikanderabad whereas in Ex. PW-1/A which forms the basis of the FIR the complainant asserted that the accused/i.e. respondent No. 1 herein stated that he wanted the complainant to make an excuse that the money was required for his maternal uncles daughters wedding, there is no such assertion in the examination-in-chief of PW-1 Narender Kumar Sharma to this effect, though PW-2 Smt. Ram Kumari Sharma makes an assertion qua this aspect;A.No.718/2000 Page 33 of 49Through his testimony, the witness Narender Kumar Sharma stated that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein was residing as a tenant in his house in Delhi and when he asked the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein why he needed him, Ishwar Chand/ the accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein stated that after collecting that amount from Sikenderabad he would vacate his house and would get another house.statement of PW-1 Narender Kumar Sharma, Ishwar Chand/ the accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein asked PW-1 to take his wife along with him as money had to be collected from a widow, but in the meantime, the wife of Ishwar Chand/ the accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein also came there and offered to look after their children in their absence and that it could not be understood why Narender Kumar Sharma had not questioned Ishwar Chand/ the accused No. 1/ the respondent No.1 herein for not taking his own wife, as the wife of Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein would have played the same role which was expected from Smt.Ram Kumari Sharma.It was thus observed by the learned trial Court that the behaviour and conduct of the complainant and Smt.Ram Kumari Sharma was not in consonance with ordinary human behaviour in the natural course of events;It was observed by the learned trial Court that though the complainant and his wife had been taken by Ishwar Chand/ the accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein to take money from the lady on reaching Sikendarabad, the complainant and his wife were made to remain seated Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 34 of 49 in the vehicle in which they were taken to Sikendarabad and were not brought face to face with the lady from whom the money was to be collected and the said aspect as to why they were not taken was not explained nor was the accused questioned by the complainant or his wife as to why they were not being taken to that lady;A.No.718/2000 Page 34 of 49That as per the statement of PW-1 Narender Kumar Sharma, - Ishwar Chand/ the accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein returned back in 2-3 minutes from that house at Sikendarabad and informed that that lady had gone to Pran Garh and thus they went to Pran Garh and even there at Pran Garh, the complainant and his wife were not taken to meet that lady but despite the same they did not put any query to the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein;blows and confined inside a room with his hands and legs tied with rifle butt blows given on his back, shoulder and stomach and he was asked a question as to where the sale deed of his house was and the keys of his safe were also demanded, he, the complainant, informed that the safe was not locked and that the ornaments and title deed were lying in the safe but at that time when he was being so assaulted, the complainant raised no alarm for help nor did he call out for the attention of his wife at that time.The learned trial Court also observed that the accused persons had, as per the testimony of PW-1, taken away the ring, wrist watch, Rs.4000/- cash, driving licence and identity card from the complainant around 11:30 a.m. on 09.08.1989 and had confined him and bolted him inside the house and as per the testimony of PW-1, Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein had returned at 4:00 p.m. and started giving beatings to him and obtained signatures by him on 25 judicial papers of the denomination of Rs.50/-, 10/-, 20/-, 5/- and 2/- whereafter his hands were untied and his thumb impressions were obtained, and after the same he was again bolted inside the room.When he cried his wife came along with some ladies and opened the door.It was observed by the learned trial Court that the testimony of DW-1 brought forth that for about 4 hours neither Narender Kumar Sharma did any act to invite the attention of his wife or villagers, nor did his wife bother to invite the attention of any of the villagers who ought to have reached for their rescue;A.No.718/2000 Page 35 of 49That PW-1 had stated that on hearing his cries, his wife along with some ladies reached there, which fact brought forth that there were some persons near the room where PW-1 was detained and that his cries could invite the attention of some ladies along with his wife and that if some disorderly behaviour had been going on in the house, those ladies ought to have taken note of that fact, but PW-1 stated that all that was going on went unnoticed and the ladies reached there when the accused persons left.It was observed by the learned trial Court that this version was not believable;A.No.718/2000 Page 36 of 49The factum that PW-1 stated that he had taken his wife to the house of the Sarpanch of the village and they had narrated their tale and that he was bleeding from his nose and had injuries on his feet and that his wife also told him that she too was beaten and her gold ring and chain had been snatched, and that though the Sarpanch got them dropped at Sikendarabad on a scooter and Vicky, he made no attempt to call any other person nor did he accompany them to the police station, - was all unnatural;It was also observed by the learned trial Court that the factum that when PW-1 and his wife reached their house they found Smt. Shashi Bala wife of Ishwar Chand/ the accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein was present there with the children and she informed that the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein had reached there with two persons and had taken away a gold tika, VCP, sale deed and educational certificate from their safe, - were all unbelievable versions, for if the husband of Shashi Bala had committed theft at the house of the complainant, the factum that Shashi Bala neither opposed her husband from removing the goods and valuable security from the house of her own sister nor did she lodge any report with the police, nor did she herself move away from the house though she had an option to leave if she had a guilty conscious and she continued to wait for the arrival of the complainant and his wife, - were all contrary to the ordinary human behaviour especially, as Shashi Bala continued to be present with the children of Narender Kumar Sharma when he and his wife returned back during the night hours;A.No.718/2000 Page 37 of 49(e) VARIANT VERSIONS OF LODGING OF COMPLAINANT The trial Court has also observed to the effect that PW-1 had informed that after reaching his house he had reached PP Gamri at about 11:30 p.m. and lodged his report which was also confirmed by his wife.Both of them denied that they had narrated the facts to anyone on the way but ASI Om Prakash PW-9 had put forth another version for, he stated, that on 09.08.1989 at about 12/12:30 a.m. when he was coming to Kartar Nagar from Maujpur, Narender Kumar Sharma and his wife met him and they were in a bad state of affairs and their clothes had blood stains and he heard them and lodged their complaint at PP Gamri.As observed by the learned trial Court ASI Chhote Lal PW-8 reiterated the same as stated by ASI Om Prakash.DD No. 28A dated 09.08.1989 Ex.PW-5/A recorded at the behest of ASI Om Prakash at 12:35 a.m. on 09.08.1989 categorically stated that Ishwar Chand/the accused No.1/respondent No. 1 herein and 2-3 persons had allegedly assaulted and beaten Narender Kumar Sharma and his wife Ram Kumari Sharma.DD No. 28A also records the case of the complainant that he had been taken away.It was also brought forth as observed by the learned trial Court that ASI Om Prakash knew the complainant and his wife and thus they narrated their tale of woe to him.The learned trial Court observed to the effect that the entire record indicated that Narender Kumar Sharma and his wife had denied having given any information to ASI Om Prakash as per DD No. 28A stating that they had not informed anyone of the incident till they reached PP Gamri because they wanted to wipe out the impression that facts were reported after consultation with ASI Om Prakash.The learned trial Court also observed to the effect that the testimony of ASI Om Prakash also brought forth the circumstances that all efforts were made Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 38 of 49 by Narender Kumar Sharma and Ram Kumari Sharma to remove the impression that the report was lodged by Narender Kumar Sharma after due deliberation by ASI Om Prakash.A.No.718/2000 Page 38 of 49The learned trial Court also categorically observed to the effect that though ASI Om Prakash denied that he was aware about the residential address of the complainant when he met them on the way, Ex.PW-5/A DD No. 28A categorically contradicts this aspect in as much as the complete postal address of the complainant, is found mentioned therein.It was also observed by the learned trial Court that Smt. Ram Kumari Sharma had deposed that they had reached Delhi at about 10:30 p.m. but had not gone to their house due to fear that someone may be present there and reached the house of their neighbour and narrated the incident to their neighbour who called the police at the spot and that if they had gone to a neighbour at 11/11:30 p.m., it could not be understood as to why and when they met ASI Om Prakash at about 12/12:30 p.m. in the night and thus it was not explained as to how DD No. 28A stood registered;in the investigation nor were they brought into the witness box to substantiate the contentions of the complainant.It was thus observed by the learned trial Court that the confusion created by the complainant party Crl.(g) NON REPORTING BY PW-2 OF FACTUM OF SEXUAL ASSAULT The factum that PW-2 for the first time gave her version of sexual exploitation when she entered the witness box and did not report about the same through Ex.PW-1/A nor through Ex.PW-1/D to the police nor before any doctor when she was examined nor did she inform anyone at Pran Garh nor did she inform the Sarpanch, - all made her version wholly improbable;(g) NON FUNCTIONING OF POST OFFICE The learned trial Court also observed to the effect that though PW-2 Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 40 of 49 stated that there was a post office at Pran Garh in the house of the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein which was run by Madhusudan, brother of the accused, she stated that it was closed on that day but she had herself stated in her testimony that it was a working day, and her husband who was working at the Old Police Line Hospital had sent his leave application when he had accompanied the accused Ishwar Chand, respondent No. 1 herein.A.No.718/2000 Page 40 of 49(i) DOUBTFUL RECOVERIES The learned trial Court also observed that it was not probable that the accused who had allegedly snatched the gold ornaments and documents of the complainant had preserved the identity card and driving license of Narender Kumar Sharma who got them recovered subsequently which itself cast a doubt on the prosecution version.The learned trial Court further discarded the testimonies of Jagdish Prasad PW-15 and HC Om Pal Singh PW-16 stated recovery witnesses as their testimonies in relation to recoveries of Ex.P1 gold ring and Ex.P2 gold chain Ex.P3 Identity card and Ex.P4 driving license of Narender Kumar Sharma were variant in relation to the date when they went to get the recovery effected at the behest of the accused Ishwar Chand, respondent No. 1 herein.Though SI Jagpal Singh stated that they left Delhi on 23.08.1989 in a private vehicle and recovery was effected on 24.08.1989 and they returned to Delhi at 5-6:00 p.m. HC Om Pal Singh stated that they had gone to Bulandshahr on 24.08.1989 by a bus during noon hours and clarified that he remained outside a room when Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein went inside and brought the polythene containing ring, chain, identity card and driving licence of the complainant.It was thus observed by the learned trial Court that there are Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 41 of 49 discrepancies about the date when the two witnesses left and in relation to the vehicle by which they travelled and the time when they reached and effected recovery.A.No.718/2000 Page 41 of 49(j) PROBABLE REASONS FOR FALSE IMPLICATION The learned trial Court has also observed to the effect that the reason as to why Narender Kumar Sharma and Ram Kumari Sharma roped in their relations and others in the battle, and the answer thereto was available in the statement of Vikram Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It was further observed by the learned trial Court to the effect that the said statement can be used only to contradict the witness and had been so used by the prosecution in as much as this witness Vikram Singh R/o village Pran Garh, Sikendarabad, Distt.Bulandshahr, U.P. had stated that he is an agriculturist at village Pran Garh, Sikendarabad and that Narender Kumar and his wife had never come.This witness on being cross-examined by the State denied that on 09.08.1989 at about 7:00 p.m. Narender Kumar with his wife came to his house and that Narender Kumar had wounds on his body and denied that he made any statement before the police.This witness was confronted with the entire statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and reiterated having not made the same.The learned trial Court has observed to the effect that though this statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which can be used only for contradicting the witness and was so used, yet it presented the case of the prosecution and needed attention.The learned trial Court observed to the effect that it was reported in the said statement that on 09.08.1989 at about 7:00 p.m. Narender Kumar Sharma and his wife came to the house of Vikram Singh and there were injuries on the person of both of them, they were frightened and asked Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 42 of 49 this witness to save their life.Both of them told him that they were beaten by the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein, with the help of his associates and thereafter obtained his signatures on some pieces of papers and after narrating those facts they went to the house of Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein.After some time he went to the house of Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein.Ishwar Chand and his brother Satya Dev were present there and Narender Kumar Sharma and his wife were also present.Satya Dev was arranging milk to give it to them for drinking and Narender Kumar and his wife after consuming the milk asked Satya Dev to take out his scooter and drop Narender Kumar and his wife to Sikanderabad.It was observed by the learned trial Court to the effect that this statement brought forth that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein and Satya Dev were present at the house at Pran Garh and were arranging milk for Narender Kumar Sharma and his wife, when PW-7 had gone there and that the story of abduction of Narender Kumar Sharma and his wife from Delhi had not been projected before this witness.A.No.718/2000 Page 42 of 49It was further observed by the learned trial Court to the effect that it would be implicit thus to the effect that Narender Kumar Sharma and his wife had gone there at village Pran Garh and there was some dispute between Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein and Narender Kumar Sharma and as a result of their dispute, some altercation had taken place in which Narender Kumar Sharma had sustained some injuries and also alleged that his signatures were obtained on some papers.It was further observed by the learned trial court that the story of robbing them was also not projected before Vikram Singh nor was the Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 43 of 49 aspect of sexual exploitation spoken about before Vikram Singh and though they had an altercation with Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein, yet they were ready to consume milk when Satya Dev arranged it for them.A.No.718/2000 Page 43 of 49(k) OTHER INCONSISTENCIES The learned trial Court further observed that it was obvious that the incident which might have taken place between Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein and Narender Kumar and Ram Kumari was not so alarming which could make these witnesses panic and that on the way to Delhi, Narender Kumar Sharma had deliberations with his wife and ASI Om Prakash and a twist had been given to the facts and while leaving for Pran Garh and that Smt. Shashi Bala was left by them at their house to look after their children.It was also observed by the learned trial Court that Shashi Bala was not aware of the happenings and she was present at the house of Narender Kumar Sharma when they returned back to Delhi.The learned trial Court further observed to the effect that the incident if at all it had happened, had taken place only at Pran Garh.It was also observed vide the impugned judgment that Narender Kumar was working as dentist hygienist at the Civil Hospital, Delhi which was earlier known as Police Hospital, Delhi.He exploited his connection with Delhi Police and got roped Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein and others in the case here and this case was a brainchild of Narender Kumar Sharma and ASI Om Prakash and that the crime had not been generated here at Delhi;PW-11/A and Ex.PW-11/B, the receipts issued by Narayan Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 44 of 49 Verma PW-11, the goldsmith who prepared the ornaments Ex.The learned trial Court thus observed to the effect that this itself indicated that these receipts were later on procured by Narender Kumar Sharma and that the witness Narayan Verma entered at the instance of Narender Kumar Sharma and that in the receipts Ex.PW-11/A and Ex.PW-11/B, the name of Narender Kumar was not mentioned which itself made the testimony of the witness Narayan Verma hollow and that this fact itself brought forth that their testimonies were unworthy of any credit.A.No.718/2000 Page 44 of 49The learned trial Court also adverted to the testimonies of two defence witness Neeraj Kumar DW-6 and Smt.Manorma DW-7 observing to the effect that the testimonies of Neeraj Kumar, the alleged driver of the vehicle No. DID 2850 who was not produced in the witness box of the prosecution and was produced by the accused testified that on 09.08.1989 he had not gone with Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein anywhere with his vehicle and his testimony had not been effectively challenged by the prosecution.The learned trial Court observed to the effect that the testimony of Manorma, the tenant of Narender Kumar Sharma who was not produced in the witness box by the prosecution and was produced by the defence as witness was not shattered in any manner and that DW-7 had categorically denied that Narender Kumar Sharma and his wife had gone along with Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein and it was observed to the effect that it was thus brought forth that though the version of abduction of the complainant and his wife from their house was not established in Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 45 of 49 any manner what emerged was that Narender Kumar Sharma and his wife had gone to Pran Garh of their own where they had some altercations with Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein and after reaching Delhi they fabricated facts after deliberation with ASI Om Prakash and lodged a false case.A.No.718/2000 Page 45 of 49A.No.279-80/1995 which lays down that ""Depositions of witnesses, whether they are examined on the prosecution side or defence side or as Court witnesses, are oral evidence in the case and hence the scrutiny thereof shall be without any predilection or bias.No witness is entitled to get better treatment merely because he was examined as a prosecution witness or even as a Court witness.It is judicial scrutiny which is warranted in respect of the depositions of all witnesses for which different yardsticks cannot be prescribed as for those different categories of witnesses.""Taking the said principles of law for appreciation of evidence into account it is essential to observe that DW-1 Madhusudan, brother of the accused Ishwar Chand, respondent No. 1 herein who was running the post office in the house where the incident is alleged to have taken place at Pran Garh, Distt.Bulandshahr has categorically testified to the effect that on the date i.e. Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 46 of 49 09.08.1989 the said post office was open and that he was present from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and that Rohtash Kumar and Satish Chand were also present and that Narender Kumar Sharma and his wife had not come out of that house nor had he heard any commotion in the house.The prosecution during the cross-examination of this witness has been unable to challenge the veracity of the testimony of this witness in any manner.The statement of DW-2 corroborates the fact that Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein had paid a sum of Rs.83,000/- to Narender Kumar Sharma for the purchase of a plot in relation to which the title deed was stated to have been executed by the complainant in his own name instead of it being in the name of the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein.The testimony of DW-5 Mahender Singh produced by the accused also brings forth the aspect that a sum of Rs.70,000/- was also borrowed by the Ishwar Chand/accused No. 1/respondent No.1 herein from the said witness.This witness has also categorically asserted that his vehicle had been intercepted by the police as he did not have Crl.Significantly, Ex.PW-1/B the seizure memo in relation to Maruti Van shows that it was seized on 15.08.1989 and had been seized by the police of PS Bhajanpura.This witness has categorically denied that his vehicle was used by the accused persons for commission of any dacoity.A.No.718/2000 Page 47 of 49Taking the totality of the circumstances of the case into account, especially the discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses including inter alia:-the improvements made by PW-1 and PW-2 in their statements made from their statement recorded by the police including variations from Ex.PW-1/A, the complaint, which forms the basis of registration of the FIR, the variations in relation to material particulars set forth during the prosecution version and in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined on oath especially PW-1 and PW-2;the variations in the testimonies of SI Jagdish Prasad and HC Om Pal Singh, the alleged recovery witnesses in relation to the mode and manner in which the recovery was allegedly effected; the probabilization of the facts put forth by the defence witnesses being brought forth through the entire available record, all make the allegations levelled of the alleged commission of the offence punishable of extortion, abduction, criminal intimidation, assault and robbery as alleged by Narender Kumar Sharma and his wife Smt. Ram Kumari Sharma, wholly circumspect and it is thus apparent in the facts and circumstances of the instant case that there are no compelling Crl.A.No.718/2000 Page 48 of 49 nor substantial reasons to differ with the view taken by the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record, both on questions of fact and of law.A.No.718/2000 Page 48 of 49In view thereof the Crl.Appeal No.718/2000 filed by the State which survives now only against the sole surviving accused No. 1/respondent No.1/ Ishwar Chand herein, is thus dismissed.The trial Court record be returned.ANU MALHOTRA, J GITA MITTAL, J JANUARY 09, 2017 mr Crl.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The facts leading to passing of the impugned Detention Order are thatthe defacto complainant Alwyn repaired the lights of the vehicle of the detenuand the detenu assured to pay repair charges of Rs.380/- after 2 days and wentaway.On 3.10.2008 at 4.45 p.m., the defacto complainant Alwyn along with oneManikandan was coming near Petrol Bunk, Uchigopuram, Palayamkottai, Alwyn askedmoney from the detenu and the detenu is alleged to have abused Alwyn andManikandan in filthy language and also threatened Alwyn by brandishing Aruvaland snatched Rs.570 from his shirt pocket.On the complaint lodged by Alwyn, the ground case was registered inCrime No. 1610/2008 under Sections 314, 294(B), 427, 387 and 506(ii) IPC and thedetenu was arrested on 4.10.200 and remanded to judicial custody.In para 3 of the Detention Order, the detaining authority has statedthat owing to the conduct of the detenu, those who were coming to petrol bunk,those who were walking on the road and those who were waiting for the bus tookto their heels out of fear and those who were coming in two wheelers sped awayin their vehicles.Bus drivers stopped the buses and nearby shop-keepers closedtheir shops.(Order of the Court was made by R.BANUMATHI, J) The petitioner, mother of the detenu - M.Udayar alias Durai challenges theDetention Order dated 13.10.2008 passed by the detaining authority, Commissionerof Police, Tirunelveli whereby the detenu was ordered to be detained under theprovisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers,Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, SandOffenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982)branding him as a ""Goonda"".The detenu had earlier come to adverse notice in a case inPalayamkottai Police station Crime No.862/2006 under Section 302 r/w 120(b), 34IPC and 3(2)(v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and in MurappanaduPolice Station Crime No.198/2007 under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) IPC and Section4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Harassment against Women Act.Accordingly, theimpugned order of detention is quashed and Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required inconnection with any other case.1.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City.3.The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.","['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The incident resulting in the death of Jugendra Pal Singh and causing injuries to his sister Smt. Ramwati and mother Smt. Ketuki occurred on 13.04.1981 at about 7.00 a.m. In the Khalihan near village Hasanpur under Soron Police Station of District Etah.The case of the prosecution as appearing from the first information report and statement of the complainant Suresh Pal Singh (P.W. 1) S/o Suraj Singh r/o village Hasanpur P.S. Soron (Etah), in brief, is that a case under Section 366/376 IPC regarding abduction and rape of Km.Asha and Munni, both nieces (sister's daughters) of complainant, was got registered against the recused Yatendra Singh etc. on 10.04.1981 at P.S. Soron.On 13.04.1981 at about 7.00 a.m., the complainant Suresh Pal Singh, his brothers Jugendra Pal Singh and Narendra Pal Singh and his nephew (sister's son) Mahesh Pal Singh, who was residing with him, were going to see their Khilihan.When they reached near the Khalihan, the accused Bishan Singh, Jangi Singh, Gajju @ Gajraj Singh, Yatendra Singh sons of Pyare Singh, Natthu Singh S/o Sahib Singh, Bhupendra Singh S/o Natthu Singh, Ombvir Singh @ Munna S/o Udaivir Singh, Udai Pratap S/o Gajju Singh, Suraj Pal Sijngh S/o Amir Singh, Dhoom Singh, Munendra Singh @ Ram Singh, Ramvir Singh Sons of Mukut Singh Thakur, Bhoodev, Man Singh sons of Jhamman, Manendra Pal S/o Bhoodev, Ram Nath S/o Liladhar, Shibbu S/o Chattar, Hardev S/o Heeru, Ram Singh S/o Hardev and Lalau S/o Shivani Mallah ail residents of village Hasanpur P.S. Soron District Etah and Kundan Singh Thakur r/o village kachhla, District Budaun, who was Samdhi of Natthu Singh, came out from the side ofKhalihan having lathies, tamancha and Farsa.The accused Natthu Singh, who was armed with his licenced gun, exhorted saying ""Jugendra pal Singh ko pakad to tatha jan se mar do, Kyunki hamare khilaf jhutha mukadama darj karaya hai"".On this exhortation, the accused persons with intention to cause the death of Jugendra Pal Singh began to assault him by lathies etc. Somehow the complainant Suresh Pal Singh, his bother Narendra Pal Singh and his sister's son Mahesh Pal Singh escaped and rushed towards village raising alarm.On hearing hue and cry, Smt. Ramweti, sister of the complainant and his mother Smt. Ketuki, his nieces Munni and Asha and other village people came to the place of occurrence and saw the incident.When Smt. Ramwati and Smt. Ketuki tried to save Jugendra Pal Singh, they were also assaulted by the accused persons, due to which they sustained injuries.Thereafter, the accused persons considering the injured Jugendra Pal Singh to have died, fled away towards Ganga Ji.The complainant carried his brother Jugendra Pal Singh, sister and mother by bullock cart to P.S. Soron, where he made over the their written report Ext. Ka 1, on the basis of which Chik FIR Ext. Ka 4 was prepared by P.W. 4 Gurudutt, who registered a case under Section 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC at Crime No. 97/81 against above named accused persons on 13.04.1981 at 9.05 a.m., entry of which was made in the G.D. No. 12 (Ext. Ka 5).The injured Jugendra Pal Singh, Smt. Ramweti and Ketuki were sent to Primary Health Centre (PHC) Kasganj (Etah).JUDGMENT Vijay Kumar Verma, J.This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.01.1982 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Etah, in ST.No. 400 of 1981, whereby the accused-appellants (1) Jangi Singh (2) Gajju Singh @ Gajraj Singh, (3) Bhupendra Singh (4) Omvir Singh (5) Udai Pratap Singh (7) Dhoom Singh (8) Munendra Singh @ Ram Singh (9) Rambir Singh (10) Man Singh (11) Bhudev (12) Mahandra Pal (13) Ram Nath (14) Shibbu (15) Hardev (16) Ram Singh and (17) Lalau @ Lala Ram have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 147 IPC, imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC.The appellants accused (1) Bishan Singh (2) Natthu Singh (3) Yatendra Singh and (4) Kundan Singh have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 148 IPC, imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC.During pendency of this appeal, the appellants-accused Jangi Singh, Gajju @ Gajraj Singh, Natthu Singh, Saraj Pal Singh, Munendra Singh @ Ram Singh, Ram Nath, Shibbu, Hardev, Lalau @ Lalaram and Kundan Singh have died.Hence their appeal has been abated.In the way near village Hulpur.the Injured Jugendra Pal Singh succumbed the injuries and his dead body along with both the iynjured were carried to P.H.C. Kasganj, where Smt. Ramwati was medically examined by P.W. 3 Dr. R.C. Bajpai on 13.04.1981 at 12.30 p.m. According to the injury report Ext. Ka 2, the following injuries were found on her person:Traumatic swelling 7cm x 3 cm.on outer side of right Forearm upper part.2. Contusion 5 cm.x 1.5 cm.on outer side and owner portion of Rt. upper arm.3. LW. 3 cm.x 1/2 cm.x bone deep on back and root of Rt. thumb.Abrasion 2 cm.x 1/2 cm.on top of Rt. thumb.Contusion 2 cm.x 1 cm.on front and upper part of left knee joint.All the injuries were simple, which were caused by blunt weapon and friction.Duration was about 5-7 hours old.On the same day at 12.45 p.m. Smt. Ketuki was examined by Dr. Bajpai, who found the following injuries on her person vide injury report Ext. Ka 3:Contusion 3 cm.x 2 cm.on top of right shoulder.2. Contusion 10 cm.x 6 cm.on left buttock upper part.Traumatic swelling 20 cm.x circumference of left leg.U.O. Adv.X-ray of left leg.Abrasion 1 cm.x 1 cm.on inner side of left big toe.Traumatic swelling 12 cm.x circumference of left hand and writs.U.O. Adv.X-ray of left hand.Abrasion 2 cm.x 1/2 cm.on back of right hand.All injuries except injury No. 3 and 5 were simple, which were caused by blunt weapon and friction.Duration was about 5-6 hours old.Injuries No. 3 & 5 were kept under observation and X-ray of left leg and left hand with wrist was advised.Thereafter, the dead body was sent in sealed condition for post-mortem examination, which was conducted on 14.04.1981 at 11.00 a.m. by P.W. 6 Dr. O.P. Vaidya.According to post-mortem report Ext. ka 19, the following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of deceased:Two lacerated wound each measuring 4 cm.x 1 and 3 cm x 1cm.x bone deep on the top of skull 2 cm.Abraded contusion 3 cm.x 3 cm.just lateral to left outer angle of the eye.Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on the top of right shoulder.Contusion 3 cm.x 1/2 cm on the top of left shoulder.Contused swelling all over the right forearm.There is a clinical evidence of fracture both bone of the forearm at lower 1/3rd.Contused swelling all over the left forearm including back of the left hand.Double line contusion 15 cm.x 4 cm on the R. side back of chest.6 cm below the inferior angle of scapula.Contusion 6 cm.x 3 cm.in right hypochondrial region.Double line contusion 9 cm.x 2 1/2 cm on the back left side in the middle & outer part.Multiple abraded contusion all over the thigh, leg & foot right side ranging from 3 cm x 2 cm to 2cm x 2 cm.on the anterior aspect only.Multiple abraded contusion on the front of left thigh and leg all over ranging from 5 cm x 2 1/2 cm to 2 cm x 1 1/2 cm on the anterior aspect only.In internal examination, the membrances and peritoneum were found congested.The cavity contained about 20 ounces of free & clotted blood.In the stomach few ounces of watery fluid was found present.Large intestine contained very little amount of faucal matter.Right lobe was lacerated and Gall Bladder was half full.According to Dr. Vaidya, the death was caused due to coma shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.The investigation was entrusted to S.I. Munshi Lal (P.W.5) who recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared site plan Ext. Ka.After making other necessary formalities regarding investigation, charge sheet Ext. Ka.11 was against all accused-appellants.On the case being committed to the court of session for trial, charges under Section 147, 148, 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellants-caused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in order to prove its case examined six witnesses in all in this case.P.W. 1 Suresh Pal is the complainant, who had lodged the FIR at P.S. Soroa.He has proved his written report Ext. Ka 1, which was scribed by him.P.W. 2 Ramwati is the injured.P.W. 3 Dr. R.C. Bajpai has proved injury reports Ext. Ka 2 and Ka 3 of the injured Smt. Ramwati and Smt. Ketuki respectively.P.W. 4 constable Gurudatt is the scribe of chik FIR Ext. Ka. 4, which has been proved by him along with the copy of G.D. (Ext. Ka 5) regarding registration of case.The copy of hat G.D. (Ext. Ka 6) has been proved by him.S.I. Munshi Lal (P.W. 5) is the Investigating Officer.Inquest report Ext. Ka 12 and connected papers Ext. Ka 13 to Ext. Ka 16 have also been proved by this witness by recognizing the had writing and signature of S.I. A.S. Khan, who had conducted inquest proceeding on the dead body.G.D. No. 16 time 9 30 a.m. dated 10.04.1981 (Ext. Ka 17) has also been proved by S.I. Munshi Lal by recognizing the hand-writing and signature of constable/clerk Gurudatt.This G.D. pertains to the registration of case under Section 366/376 IPC against the accused Bishan Singh etc, FIR of which was lodged at P.S. Soron by Narendra Pal Singh brother of the deceased.In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants-accused denied their participation in the alleged incident and they have stated that due to connivance of the police and Bhagirath, they have been falsely implicated in this case.It is also stated by some accused that earlier also, they were falsely implicated in the case under Section 376 and 332 IPC.The accused Kundan Singh has stated that he is the father-in-law of accused Bhupendra Singh and for this reason, he has been falsely implicated in this case.The accused-appellants did not examine any wetness in their defence.The learned Trial Court after hearing parties counsel and perusing the evidence on record, convicted the appellants-accused and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 above vide impugned judgment, which has.been challenged in this appeal.We have heard Sri Somesh Khare learned Counsel appearing for the appellants-accused and learned AGA for the State-respondent and also perused the impugned judgment and entire evidence on record carefully.Regarding the incident that occurred on 13.04.1981 at about 7.00 a.m. in the Khalihan, the prosecution has examined Suresh Pal and Smt. Ramwati.Supporting FIR version, P.W. 1 Suresh Pal after narrating some facts leading to the enmity, has stated in his statement that when on 13.04.1981 at about 7.00 a.m. he and his brothers Jugendra Pal Singh and Narendra Pal Singh and his nephew Mahesh Pal Singh had gone to see their Khalihan, all the 21 accused persons present in court came out from the side of Khalihan and on exhortation of Natthu Singh began to assault Jugendra Pal Singh by lalthies.It is further stated by this witness that somehow he.his brother Narendra Pal and nephew Mahesh Pal escaped and raised noise, on which his mother Ketuki Devi, sister Ramwati and nieces Asha and Munni came there and, when his mother and sister tried to save Jugendra Pal Singh by laying upon him, they we e also assaulted by the accused persons, due to which they sustained injuries.The witness (P.W. 1) has named and recognized all the appellants-accused who were present in court at the time of his deposition.It is further stated by this witness that the accused Natthu Singh was armed with licenced gun, his samdhi Kundan Singh was having tamancha, Bishan Singh and Yatendra Singh were armed with Farsa and Ballam respectively and other accused were having lathies.He has further stated that after the incident he carried the injured persons to P.S. Soron, where he lodged the FIR and when he was carrying the injured persons for medical examination to Kasganj, Jugendra Pal Singh succumbed to the injuries near village Hulpur after which his dead body and both injured were carried to Kasganj hospital, where the injured were medically examined and after inauest proceeding, the dead body of Jugendra Pal Singh was sent to Etah for post-mortem examination.Regarding the motive to commit this crime the witness Suresh Pal has stated that on 10.04.1981, the accused Bishan Singh etc. had abducted his nieces (sister's daughters) Asha and Munni, with whom rape was also committed by them, report of which was lodged by his brother Narendra Pal Singh.It is also stated by this witness that incident of police encounter had taken place on 10.11.1980 with accused Bishan Singh etc. and during investigation of that case, his brother Jugendra Pal Singh had told the real incident to police against the accused persons, due to which they began to have enmity and they had declared that they will kill all of them and okust them from village due to which Judgndra Pal Singh had given application to S.S.P. Etah and CO.Kasganj for his security.Lengthy cross-examination made from P.W. 1 Suresh Pal by the learned Counsel for the appellants accused, out nothing material could be elicited from him.He has fully supported the case of prosecution and his testimony is worth relying.There is no serious infirmity in his testimony and the learned Trial Judge has rightly placed reliant on the testimony of this witness.Next witness is Smt. Ramwati (P.W. 2) who is injured also.In her statement recorded on 17.12.1981 in trial court, P.W. 2 Ramwati has stated that about 9 months age at about 7.00 a.m. Jugendra Pal Singh along with his brothers Suresh Pal Singh and Narendra Pal Singh and nephew Mahesh Pal Singh had gone to see hisKhalihan and when on hearing hue and cry, she and her mother Ketuki and girls Asha and Munni reached on the place of occurrence near Khalihan they saw that 21 accused present in court were assaulting her brother Jugendra Pal Singh.She has further stated that she and her mother were also assaulted by the accused persons due to which they both sustained injuries.It is further stated by Smt. Ramwati that considering her brother to nave died, the accused persons fled away towards Ganga Ji.It is also stated by this witness that being widow she has been residing in the house of her brother and she knows all the accused prior to the incident.She has also named some accused in her examination-in-chief and recoanized all the 21 accused present in the court.In cross-examination it is stated by Smt. Ramwati Devi that Jugendra Pal Singh was surrounded by the accused persons and 17 accused having lathies were assaulting him by lathies.It is also stated by this witness that Natthu Singh and Kundan Singh were armed with gun and tamancha respectively, Bishan Singh was having Pharsa and Yatendra Singh was armed with ballam and rest accused where having lathies.Smt. Ramwati also has been cross examined at length by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants, but none material has been elicited from this witness also.Being injured, the presence of Smt. Ramwati at the time of occurrence is not doubtful.Her testimony also is wholly reliable and there is no reason to disbelieve her testimony.The learned Trial Judge has not committed any illegality in placing reliance on the testimony of this witness.Ocular evidence of the witnesses Suresh Pal Singh and Ramwati finds corroboration from medical evidence.We have already extracted the injuries found on the person of deceased Jugendra Pal Singh and injured Smt. Ramwati and Smt. Ketuki.All the injuries of deceased and both the injured are possible to be caused by lathies.As such, on the basis of the testimony of Suresh Pal Singh and Smt. Ramwati, it is fully proved beyond reasonable doubt that Jugendra Pal Singh, Ramwati and Ketuki were assaulted by appellants-accused on 13.04.1981 at about 7.00 a.m. near the Khalihan, which was kept at a distance of about 100 paces from the house of complainant.There was motive for the accused persons to commit this crime.Admittedly, an FIR regarding abduction and rape of Km.Munni and Km.Asha, (both unmarried niece of the deceased) was lodged on 10.04.1981 against some accused by Narendra Pal Singh, brother of the deceased.In a case of police encounter with some accused, the deceased had told the real facts against them to the Investigating Officer.On the basis of the application moved by the deceased for his security against the accused persons, action under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. was also taken against some accused prior to this incident.There was long standing enmity between the parties and due to that enmity, the accused persons after forming an unlawful assembly on 13.04.1981 at about 7.00 a.m. made a plan to eliminate the deceased Jugendra Pal Singh and in prosecution of that common object, rhey all having deadly weapons and lathies assembled behind the Khalihan and assaulted the deceased when he cama to see hisKhalihan along with his brothers Suresh Pal Singh and Narendra Pal Singh and his nephew Mahesh Pal Singh and when Smt. Ramwati and Ketuki tried to save the deceased by laying upon him, they also were assaulted.The main submission made by Sri Somesh Khare, learned Counsel for the accused-appellants was that the appellants-accused Natthu Singh, Kundan Singh, Bishan Singh and Yatendra Singh did not use their weapons and hence their conviction with the aid of Section 149 IPC s bad in law.From the evidence on record, this fact is borne out that the accused-appellants Netthu Singh, Kundan Singh, Bishen Singh and Yatendra Singh having deadly weapons along with other accused having lathies formed an unlawful assembly, with common object to commit the murder of Jugendra Pal Singh with whom to they were having enmity.17 accused having lathies had mercilessly beaten the deceased Jugendra Pal Singh, who suffered 11 ante mortem injuries, which have extracted above.In ante mortem injury No. 1 two lacerated wounds measuring 4 cm x 1 cm and 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the top of skull were found.In the result, the appeal is hereby, dismissed.","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']"
Skm Crl OP(MD)No.15211 of 2014 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2014 26.09.2019http://www.judis.nic.in,"['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The petitioner is an agricultural Collie.He has four sons and a daughter.2.The petitioner claims that his son was originally appointed by the 8threspondent in his Biscuit Factory and that the petitioner's son fell in lovewith the 8th respondent's daughter.According to the petitioner, the respondents8 to 11 murdered his son in Malaysia in January 2007 and that the body is keptin the mortuary in Malaysia.On the above said premise, the petitioner claims tohave sent telegrams to the President of India, the Prime Minister, the Ministryfor External Affairs, the Chief Minister and the High Commission of Malaysia,seeking action against the culprits and also to make arrangements to bring thebody of his son from Malaysia.If the petitioner isfinancially sound, he could have gone to Malaysia and brought the body to Indiafor performing the funeral rites.(a) The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to make arrangements through theHigh Commission of India at Kualalumpur to bring the dead body of thepetitioner's son S.Suseendran who died on 28.01.2007 at Malaysia, to India andhand over the dead body to the petitioner, within a period of three weeks fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order.(b) The 7th respondent is directed to register the First InformationReport and investigate into the same in accordance Section 4 I.P.C. and Section188 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of carrying out an effective investigation, the 7threspondent shall seek such assistance and such information from the Police inMalaysia at Bukit Puchong, Subang Jaya, as well as from the High Commission ofIndia at Kualalumpur.The 7th respondent shall complete the investigation withina period of three months and file a final report.No costs.4.The Superintendent of Police, Sivaganga District.5.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.6.The Inspector of Police, Ilayankudi Taluk Police Station, Ilayankudi, Sivaganga District.7.The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Police Station, Paramakudi, Ramnad District.Finding no response to the telegrams, thepetitioner has come up with the present writ petition seeking the issue of awrit of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 7 or the 12th respondent toinvestigate into the death of his son and also to take steps to bring the deadbody from Malaysia for the purpose of performing the obsequies.M.Thikvijayapandian, learned counsel for the petitioner,Mr.D.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and2 and Mr.4.The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town who is the 7th respondent inthe writ petition has filed a report.According to the said report, theInspector made enquiries with one M.Shiek Sabir who is the 11th respondent inthe writ petition and came to know from him that the petitioner's son allegedlycommitted suicide and that the Malaysian Police is investigating into the samein Bukit Puchong (Balai) Police Station No.Report Crime No.5.The learned Government Advocate also filed a report from the VillageAdministrative Officer to the effect that the respondents 8, 9 and 10 are notresiding in India but residing in Malaysia.6.The learned Government Advocate also produced the copy of a letterwritten by the Deputy Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department,Chennai-9 addressed to the Second Secretary, High Commission of India,Kualalumpur in his Letter No.71834/CITZ.II/2007-1, dated 27.07.2007 by which hehas requested the High Commission to get a copy of the Postmortem Reportrelating to the son of the petitioner who died in Malaysia.R.Rajagopal, learned counsel representing the Consulate General ofMalaysia in India filed a letter dated 26.06.2007 addressed to him.In the saidletter, the Consulate General of Malaysia has advised the petitioner to takerecourse to any of the two alternatives namely, either to make a report to thePolice Department in Malaysia or to seek an assistance through the HighCommission of India at Kualalumpur for making a Police report and undertaking afurther investigation.The petitioner claims thathis son was murdered at the instance of respondents 8 to 11 since his son was inlove with the daughter of the 8th respondent.Therefore, he has filed the present writ petition.Sub Inspector of Police, Tanur (1993Crl.L.J. 1098).Regarding the death of one Sulaiman, a complaint was filedbefore the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tanur (Malappuram District), Kerala, by hismother, widow and brother alleging that he was murdered at Sharjah, UAE by oneAli.The Sub-Inspector of Police refused to register the complaint on the groundthat the alleged offence was committed out side India.Therefore, the defactocomplainants filed an O.P. on the file of the Kerala High Court.For the purpose ofcompleting the investigation, if the 7th respondent is required to get necessarydetails from the Malaysian Police at Bukit Puchong, Subang Jaya in No.BKTPUCHONG/001045/07 dated 28.01.2007, the 7th respondent has a duty to get suchdetails including the Postmortem Report as well as all other details.A question arose in Ashray AdhikarAbhiyan Vs.3.The High Commissioner, Malaysian Embassy, T.T.K.Road, Mandhaveli, Chennai.","['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on admission.sh Also, heard on I.A. No.24116/2017, which is an application e u/S.389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence passed ad against appellants No.2 Harpal, appellant No.3 Hiralal, appellant No.4 Pr Ballu @ Balwan Gurjar and appellant No.5 Ramnath.This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated a hy 08.11.2017 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in S.S.T.No.400128/2015 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge ad found appellants No.2 to 5 guilty for the offences punishable under M Sections 363 & 366 of IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo five years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- and five years R.I. with fine of of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.rt Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial court ou without appreciating the evidence properly wrongly convicted the appellants No.2 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 363 & C 366 of IPC.Although, the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief h deposed that appellant No.5 Ramnath called her at sweet shop and at ig that time appellants No.2 Harpal, appellant No.3 Hiralal and appellant H No.4 Ballu @ Balwan Gurjar were also present there but in the case diary statement of the prosecutrix (Ex.D/1), it is not mentioned that appellants No.2 to 5 called her so in this regard her statement becomes afterthought.From the statements of prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses, it is not appear that apart from co-accused Pappu @ Raghuraj Singh, appellants No.2 to 5 also abducted the prosecutrix.It is further submitted that due to enmity, the prosecutrix also implicated them in the crime.Learned trial court without appreciating these facts wrongly found the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences.Hence prayed for suspension of the jail sentence and release of the appellants on bail since the hearing of this appeal is likely to take long time.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the guilt of the appellants No.2 to 5 was proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the application (I.A. No.24116/2017) is allowed and it is directed that the sh execution of the jail sentence alone passed against the appellants No.2 e Harpal, appellant No.3 Hiralal, appellant No.4 Ballu @ Balwan Gurjar ad and appellant No.5 Ramnath shall remain suspended during the Pr pendency of this appeal and they be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand a only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction hy of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court ad on 30.04.2018 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf M by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal.Matter be listed for final hearing in due course.of C.C. on payment of usual charges.rt (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) ou JUDGE C h ig H (ra) Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL Date: 2018.02.01 13:32:28 +05'30'","['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(i) Criminal Bail Application No.2472 of 2019 is rejected;(ii) Criminal Bail Application No.2352 of 2019 is allowed;(iii) The applicant Laxman Kantappa Shinde in Bail Application No.2352 of 2019 is directed to be released on bail in connection with CR No.2 of 2019 registered with Ratnagiri Rural Police Station, on furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 21:17:58 :::Rural Police Station once in a month on every first Saturday between 10 am and 1 pm till conclusion of trial;(v) The applicant Laxman Kantappa Shinde shall not tamper with prosecution witness and shall attend the Trial Court proceedings regularly, unless exempted by the Trial Court for some reason.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 21:17:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/01/2020 21:17:58 :::","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Subsequently, telephone number was said to be given by applicant and prosecutrix responded to the telephonic call made by Junaid.The accusation against present applicant is at different footing than Juanid, against whom subsequent accusation is there.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.By means of this application, the applicant Tajeem Khan, who is involved in Case Crime No. 492 of 2019, under Sections 376, 354C, 504, 507, 406, 377, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Civil Line, District Aligarh, is seeking enlargement on bail.It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent.He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number, which was got registered on 26.08.2019 upon report of Km.Shaheen Hussain for offences punishable under Sections 376, 354C, 504, 507, 406, 377, 506 I.P.C. against Tajeem Khan, Junaid Khan, Smt. Farhat, Jubair Khan, Azam Khan, Shamia, Kahkashan and Smt. Rafat.Prosecutrix was major and was working as staff nurse.Applicant too was an employee at above hospital as ward boy.No accusation against applicant is made for those period and the previous instance of 2016 was not complained by prosecutrix.Hence bail has been prayed for.Learned counsel for informant and learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail with this contention that it is a heinous offence of rape wherein present applicant along with Junaid continued physical exploitation of prosecutrix under threat of dire consequences and making a video viral, which was got prepared by them.The prosecutrix suffered this mental and physical exploitation under above threat.Subsequently, she got this case registered and a request has been made to Superintendent of Police for getting investigation in the light of above obscene video, which was got prepared by accused persons.Hence, bail be rejected.Prior to this report, an attempt was made for getting marriage performed.Hence, the accusation against present applicant was not reported by prosecutrix.","['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The case of the prosecution was this:- The deceasedPrakash Chandra was the father of the deceased Umesh Chandraand the injured witness Dinesh Chandra (P.W. 11) as well asof Gyan Chand (P.W. 1).Prakash Chandra and his sons wereliving in Seohara town, Bijnor district.The appellant RamKaran and his five sons including the deceased Chhotey Lalwere living in another house in the same town as theneighbours of Prakash Chandra and his sons.The appellant Ram Karan and fiveothers filed Civil Suit No. 34 of 1967 in the court of theMunsif, Nagina against Prakash Chandra and his brother GopiChandra and one Krishna Devi, alleging that whileconstructing the new house Prakash Chandra had encroachedupon a portion of their land.In that suit, Ram Karan gotCommissioners appointed by the court on five or sixoccasions for taking measurements of the properties with theobject of proving his case of encroachment by PrakashChandra.But those Commissioners' reports were set aside onthe objection raised by Prakash Chandra and the otherdefendents.The last Advocate Commissioner Mr. Mathur (C.W.1) visited the spot on 6.9.1970, accompanied by Mr. ZafarHussain (C.W. 2) who appeared for Prakash Chandra andanother and Mr. Mahesh Chand (C.W. 3) who appeared for RamKaran.After the completion of the survey work at about12.30 p.m. all the three lawyers were standing and talkingin front of Ram Karan's baithak at about 1.00 p.m. ThenPrakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra came there to talk withthe Commissioner.Ram Karan, who was present there alongwith his five sons, did not like that interference ofPrakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra with the Commissioner.Hestated that he has spent thousands of rupees for taking outthe commissions and that the reports of the Commissionerswere set aside on the objection of Prakash Chandra.Sosaying, he instigated his sons to kill Prakash Chandra andhis sons.Thereupon, Chhotey Lal and Ved Prakash attackedPrakash Chandra with knives while Sunil Kumar, Anil Kumarand Satish attacked Umesh Chandra with knives.On seeingDinesh Chandra (P.W. 11) who rushed meanwhile from theeastern side to help his father and brother, Ram Karaninstigated his sons to attack him and caught hold of him by402his waist, and all his five sons attacked him and inflictedinjuries.Then P.W. 11 took out a knife from his pent pocketand wielded it against Ram Karan and Chhotey Lal in self-defence and they sustained injuries.P.W. 11 receivedinjuries and fell down.Gyan Chandra (P.W. 1), who wasseeing the occurrence, ran to his house along with someothers and bolted the door when Sunil Kumar, Anil Kumar andSatish chased him for attacking him.Abdul Wahid, P.W. 10,and others who were witnessing the occurrence raised analarm, and Ram Karan and his sons ran away.Gyan Chand, (P.W. 1) came out of his house sometimelater and found his father Prakash Chandra and brother UmeshChandra dead and Dinesh Chandra (P.W. 11) lying withinjuries.He prepared the report, Ex. Ka. 3 and proceeded ina jeep with his brother Dinesh Chandra (P.W. 11), to SeoharaPolice Station situate about half a mile away and handedover that report at 1.30 p.m. Dinesh Chandra (P.W. 11) wastaken to Dhampur hospital after he was given first aid by aDoctor on the way.He was examined at the Dhampur hospitalby Dr. Bagchi, P.W. 3 who found on his person an abrasionand nine incised wounds of which injury No. 7 on the rightside of the chest through which blood and air were comingout was serious and the rest were simple.The dead bodies of Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandrawhich were found lying in front of their house where bloodalso was found, were later sent for autopsy.Ram Karan andChhotey Lal went to the Government hospital, Bijnor wherethey were examined by Dr. Sarin (P.W. 2) at 4 p.m. and 4.15p.m.From the Judgment & Order dated the 15th April, 1975 ofthe Allahabad High Court in Crl.R.L. Kohli and S.K. Sabharwal for the Appellants.D.P. Uniyal and R.K. Bhatt for the Respondent.The following Judgments were delivered:FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal by special leave is directedagainst a judgment dated 15.4.1975 of the Allahabad HighCourt by which the Judges of the High Court while acquittingthe accused, Anil Kumar and Satish Kumar, altered theconviction of Ram Karan, Sunil Kumar and Ved Prakash fromone under ss. 302 and 307 read with s. 149 I.P.C. to oneunder ss. 302 and 307 read with s. 34, I.P.C. and confirmedthe sentences of imprisonment for life imposed on theseappellants.The entire occurrence seems to have been the result ofa chronic land dispute between the parties in which severalcommissions were issued and which ultimately proved futile.The prosecution has no doubt proved that the two personswere killed at the hands of the accused and that theoccurrence had taken place while the Commissioners werepresent at the spot though they were not able to see theactual assault and were, therefore, not in a position todepose the detailed manner in which the assault had takenplace.The only serious question on which we would like tosound a discordant note from our Brother Varadarajan, J. isas to the actual nature of the offence which had beencommitted by the appellants, Sunil Kumar and Ved Prakash.Itwould appear from the evidence398of CW 1 as also other eye-witnesses that the accused werealso assaulted with knife and one of them, Chhotey Lal, diedas a result of the injuries caused to him.The medicalevidence as also the evidence of CW 1 clearly shows thatthere was exchange of hot words, followed by the assault onthe appellants which, according to the prosecution, was aresult of the exercise of self-defence by the prosecutionparty, particularly Dinesh Chandra.In fact, the learned Sessions Judge and the High Courtheld that the accused were the aggressors and, therefore,they had no right of private defence.In order to ascertainwhether the accused had the right of private defence, thegenesis of the incident has to be traced.Now, in this casethe prosecution witnesses being partisan, the only importantinjured witness Dinesh Chandra, PW 11 being the son of thedeceased, it would be necessary to ascertain with accuracythe genesis of the quarrel as revealed from the evidence ofCourt witnesses not shown to be partisan.CW 1, Prem NarainMathur is the practising advocate and was appointed as aCommissioner.He was accompanied by Mahesh Chandra, Vakil,CW 3, advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs(accused Ram Karan) in the suit in which Commission wasissued and Shri Jafar Imam, CW 2, learned advocate appearingfor the defendants in the same suit.C.W. 1 and C.W. 3 wereat the house of accused 1 Ram Karan.C.W. 1 says thatseveral persons assembled at that time at the house of RamKaran.He is a bit vague but he says that at that time aftertea was served and he was about to leave that place he saw aperson lying on the pavement of the road.This injuredperson was lying in front of the house of accused 1 RamKaran.This statement has not been questioned in cross-examination nor adversely commented upon.It gives a clue tothe genesis of the occurrence.After measurements were takenas directed by the Court, C.W. 1 and C.W. 3 came to thehouse of accused 1 Ram Karan.Some persons collected there.According to C.W. 1 injured persons were seen lying in frontof the house of accused 1 and that was none else than thedeceased.If amongst those who collected at the house werethe two deceased and P.W. 11 Dinesh Chandra, another injuredwitness on the side of the prosecution, it is crystal clearthat the prosecution witnesses and the two deceased PrakashChandra and Umesh Chandra had come to the house of accused 1Ram Karan.How, if one of them was armed with a knife, theymust have come with a view to either picking up quarrel orto guard themselves.On the side of the prosecution Prakash Chandraand Umesh Chandra received fatal injuries and Dinesh Chandrawas also injured.However, on the side of the accusedChhotelal, son of accused 1 Ram Karan, suffered six injuriesone of which proved fatal and he died.Accused Ram Karanhimself was also injured.Both the parties were completely exasperated with thelitigation.Therefore, both sides were in anexasperated mood.Suddenly at the spur of the moment thereensued a quarrel.Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra on theside of the prosecution died and Chhotelal on the side ofthe accused died and each of them met a homicidal death.PrakashChandra and his two sons and others came to the house ofaccused 1 to protest for the work of the Commissioner.Dinesh Chandra amongst them was armed with a knife.May be,he may be usually carrying the same for his safety.Theincident occurred in front of the house of accused 1 upon asudden quarrel by this confrontation with eyebrows havingbeen raised because of a persistent litigation, theoccurrence took place.Taking an overall view of the situation, we find noevidence of any intention to kill the two deceased on thepart of the accused because the occurrence itself had takenplace suddenly when, to begin with, the entire episodestarted for the particular purpose of partitioning the landby the Commissioners who had visited the village.In thesecircumstances we are satisfied that Exception 4 of s. 300,I.P.C. is attracted and the offence of murder would bereduced to culpable homicide in respect of accused SunilKumar and Ved Prakash and, therefore, they would be guiltyof committing400an offence under s. 304(1)/34 I.P.C. and they should beconvicted accordingly.To this extent, therefore, we areunable to agree with Brother Varadarajan, J. that theconviction of the appellants Sunil Kumar and Ved Prakashunder s. 302 read with s. 34 of the I.P.C. should beconfirmed.We, therefore, allow this appeal to the extent that theconviction of Sunil Kumar and Ved Prakash are altered fromone under s. 302 read with s. 34 of the I.P.C. to that unders.304(1)/34 I.P.C. and they are sentenced to rigorousimprisonment for seven years.Conviction and sentences unders.307/34, I.P.C. are maintained and sentences awarded havealready been directed to run concurrently.We allow theappeal of Ram Karan as indicated by Brother Varadarajan, J.VARADARAJAN, J. This Criminal Appeal by special leaveis directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of theAllahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1144 of 1971,whereby the learned Judges, while acquitting two appellantsAnil Kumar and Satish Kumar of the charges, altered theconviction of Ram Karan, Sunil Kumar and Ved Prakash,appellants in this Criminal Appeal, under s. 302 and 307,both read with s. 149 I.P.C., into one under ss. 302 and 307both read with s. 34 I.P.C. and confirmed the sentences ofimprisonment for life for each of the two counts of murderof Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra and rigorousimprisonment for four years for attempt to murder DineshChandra (P.W. 11) to run concurrently and set aside theconviction of the appellant Ram Karan under s. 147 and theother two appellants under s. 148 I.P.C.The first appellant Ram Karan is the father of otherappellants Sunil Kumar and Ved Prakash and also of AnilKumar and Satish Kumar, who have been acquitted by the HighCourt as well as of deceased Chhotey Lal.P.W. 2 found one puncturedwound and four incised wounds on Chhotey Lal and threeincised wounds on Ram Karan.The injuries on both of themwere fresh and those on Ram Karan were simple while injuryNo. 1 on Chhotey Lal, namely, a punctured wound which waslung-deep and anterior to the left nipple, was grievous andthe rest were simple.The injuries on both could, in theopinion of P.W. 2, have been caused by knife.P.W. 2 issuedthe wound certificates Ex. Ka.Dr. Zuber conducted autopsy on the bodies of PrakashChandra and Umesh Chandra on 7.9.1970 and found nineantemortem, injuries, of which six were incised wounds, onthe body of Prakash Chandra and six antemortem incisedwounds on the body403of Umesh Chandra and he opined that the death of both ofthem was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from theincised injuries.Ex. Ka. 1 and Ka. 2 are the postmortemcertificates relating to Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandraissued by Dr. Zuber who was examined as P.W. 1 in theCommitting Magistrate's Court (Ex. Ka. 37).Dr. Dua (C.W. 4)conducted autopsy on the body of Chhotey Lal on 11.9.1970and found an abrasion and five incised wounds which weresufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The prosecution's case rests mainly on the evidence ofGyan Chand (P.W. 1), Abdul Wahid (P.W. 10) and DineshChandra (P.W. 11).As stated earlier P.Ws 1 and 11 are thesons of deceased Prakash Chandra and brothers of the otherdeceased Umesh Chandra.P.W. 11 had received injuries duringthe occurrence and P.W. 1 is the witness who had lodged theFirst Information Report (Ex. K. 3) in the Seohara PoliceStation at the earliest opportunity at 1.30 p.m. soon afterthe occurrence which had taken place at about 1.00 p.m.These three witnesses were put forward as eyewitnesses andthey have deposed in support of the case of the prosecution.The accused put forward their version of the case.According to the accused, after the Commissioner (C.W. 1)finished his work and went to the house of the appellant RamKaran, Prakash Chandra and his sons Umesh Chandra and DineshChandra (P.W. 11) came to the baithak of Ram Karan andattacked Ram Karan and deceased Chhotey Lal with knives andthereupon they grappled with those three persons and wrestedthe knives from them and attacked them in self-defence.Theaccused examined D.W. 1 on their behalf.The evidence of C.W. 1 is that after he completedtaking measurements he went along with Ram Karan's counselMr.Mahesh Chandra (C.W. 3) to the baithak of Ram Karan'shouse, that both of them came out of the house 8 or 10minutes later, that when he advanced from the door of thebaithak he saw a person lying injured on the pavement of theroad and another injured person standing there, that a thirdperson came and struck the injured person who was standing,and that he and C.W. 3 left the place thereafter.C.W. 3 has addedthat soon after he went and sat in the baithak of RamKaran's house, Zafar Hussain (C.W. 2) came and saidsomething to C.W. 1 from beyond the door of the baithak.Theevidence of Zafar Hussain (C.W. 2) is that aftermeasurements had been taken C. Ws. 1 and 3 went to thebaithak of Ram Karan's house while he sat in the verandah ofthe old haveli of Prakash Chandra, that he and PrakashChandra's son, who is now no more, thereafter went near theCommissioner (C.W 1) and he told C.W. 1 that he may hearwhat Prakash Chandra wanted to say, that after saying so hegot back for meeting another person while Prakash Chandraand his son remained there, that after reaching the verandahof Prakash Chandra he went away with Mehboob Ali who waswaiting for him to Mehboob Ali's house and that no quarreltook place when he was present there though when he wasreturning to the verandah of Prakash Chandra's house heheard some hot words being exchanged near the baithak of RamKaran's house.The learned Sessions Judge has observed in his judgmentthat the evidence of C.Ws. 1 to 3 is contradictory,unnatural and not truthful.He found that P.W. 1's report(Ka. 3) was lodged in the Police Station at 1.30 p.m. soonafter the occurrence had taken place at about 1.00 p.m. andthat there has been no attempt at concoction in this case.He rejected the contention that Abdul Wahid, (P.W. 10) hadany reason to depose falsely against the appellant VedPrakash and found his evidence to be reliable.He observedthat though Prakash Chandra had been working as an Engineerin a sugar mill at Seohara and P.W. 10 was employed in theengineering department, P.W. 10 was actually working underone Bachcha Lal and is an independent witness.P.W. 1 hasstated in his evidence that Prakash Chandra, Umesh Chandraand Ram Karan did not have any weapon at the time of theoccurrence.The evidence of the injured witness P.W. 11 isthat when he returned home from Moradabad at about 12.30p.m.on the day of occurrence405he saw his father Prakash Chandra and brother Umesh Chandralying in a pool of blood and that on seeing him Ram Karanshouted that he also should be killed and caught hold of himby his waist and that he was attacked with knives by theaccused persons including Ram Karan and he wielded in self-defence the knife which he had purchased on that day for hiswork.The learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence ofP.Ws.1, 10 and 11 and commented upon Ram Karan and ChhoteyLal going to the hospital at Bijnor without arranging for areport being given at the Police Station at Seohara in timeand held that the accused were the aggressors and thatDinesh Chandra (P.W. 11) caused injuries to Ram Karan andthe deceased Chhotey Lal in the exercise of the right ofprivate defence.Accordingly he found the accused guilty andconvicted them and sentenced them as mentioned above.The High Court also rejected the defence theory thatChhotey Lal was attacked by three persons armed with knife,chura and khukhri having regard to the fact that he had onlyone lung deep punctured wound and the other four wounds wereonly skin deep and of very minor dimensions.The learned Judges of the High Court found that thename of Anil Kumar is not mentioned in the First InformationReport (Ex. Ka. 3) but instead the name of one Virendra ismentioned and that it appears from the evidence of P.W. 1that Virendra is the name of Prakash Chandra's brother.Theyfound that in the statement of P.W. 11 recorded as dyingdeclaration, Sushil Kumar is mentioned instead of SatishKumar.In these circumstances the learned Judges found thatthere is reasonable doubt regarding the participation of theaccused Anil Kumar and Satish Kumar and they gave thebenefit of that doubt to those two appellants before themand acquitted them.In other respects, the learned Judgesaccepted the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 10 and 11 regarding theoccurrence and rejected the defence version and held theappellants guilty under s. 302 read with s. 34 in respect ofthe murder of Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandra and under s.307 read with s. 34 in respect of Dinesh Chandra, (P.W. 11)and convicted them accordingly and sentenced them to undergoimprisonment for life under s. 302 read with s. 34 I.P.C.and rigorous imprisonment for four years under s. 307 readwith s. 34 I.P.C.We perused the records and the judgments of the learnedSessions Judge and of the learned Judges of the High Courtand heard the arguments of Mr. R.L. Kohli, Senior Advocatewho appeared for the appellants and of Mr. D.P. Uniyal,Senior Advocate who appeared for the respondent-State ofU.P. We were taken through the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 10 andThe learned Sessions Judge has observed in his judgmentthat the evidence of the three lawyers C.Ws. 1 to 3 iscontradictory, unnatural and not truthful and that if theyhad given honest evidence it would have been easier for thecourt to conclude which side was the aggressor.Thisobservation of the learned Sessions Judge appears to be toosweeping and not correct at least with reference to C.W. 2who has professed ignorance about the actual occurrence inthe case and has stated that he left after asking C.W. 1from outside the baithak of Ram Karan's house to hear whatPrakash Chandra who had gone with him and his deceased sonwanted to tell him because another person Mehboob Ali withwhom he later went to his house was waiting for him in theverandah of Prakash Chandra's house.P.W. 1 has stated that when exchangeof hot words started the Commissioner and Vakils of theparties moved from there to the road and that just when RamKaran's Vakil had gone a short distance from Ram Karan'shouse, Ram Karan and others stated that ""they have got ourthousands of rupees spent over litigation.We have becometired of getting commissions issued.Kill them today so thatthe trouble may be ended for ever.At that time all the fivesons of Ram Karan, Chhotey Lal, Ved Prakash, Satish Kumar,Sunil Kumar and Anil Kumar were present, and when Ram Karansaid so all five sons whipped out knives and startedassulting....."".Even P.W.10 has stated in his evidence that ""when he reached neardharmshala at about 12.45 p.m. he heard the shouts of RamKaran from his house situate at a distance of 30 paces, thatwhen he reached the end of the road he was in a position tosee the house of Ram Karan, that on hearing the shouts heproceeded towards the place from where they came and stoodnear407the wall and found three Vakils present and also PrakashChandra and Umesh Chandra, that as soon as he reached theplace, the Vakils left the place, that Ram Karan then statedthat he got the Commissioner appointed 5 or 6 times andspent several thousands of rupees and he should be killedand that when Ram Karan said so his sons Chhotey Lal and VedPrakash began to attack Prakash Chandra with knives, thatSunil Kumar and Ram Karan's other sons began to assaultUmesh Chandra with knives, that during the marpit PrakashChandra and Umesh Chandra fell down after receivinginjuries, that thereafter Dinesh Chandra, son of PrakashChandra came from the eastern direction, and on seeing himRam Karan shouted that he should also be done to death, andhe caught hold of Dinesh Chandra by his waist, and that allthe four boys and deceased Chhotey Lal began to assaultDinesh Chandra with knives, and Dinesh Chandra wielded hisknife in self-defence and caused injuries to Ram Karan andChhotey Lal and thereafter fell down and becameunconscious...."".This portion of the evidence of P.W. 10also shows that C.Ws. 1 to 3 left the place soon afterexchange of hot words began between the two sides.Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no reason toreject the evidence of C.W. 2 that no quarrel took placewhen he was present near about the scene of occurrence.Thiscriticism of the learned counsel for the appellants appearsto be well-founded, for I find that a suggestion has beenmade to P.W. 10 in cross-examination and he has admittedthat there is also408another person named Wahid son of Abdul Rehman in hismohalla and that that person was an accused in a riotingcase.And in the cross-examination of P.W. 1 it has beenclearly suggested that he was not present at the spot andthat he prepared the report Ex. Ka. 3 afterwards with someconsultation.P.W. 1 has no doubt denied that suggestion andstated that he was present at the spot and that he himselfwrote the report Ex. Ka.3 before he came out of the houseby opening the door.The learned Judges have stated in theirjudgment that after Ram Karan stated that he has spentthousands of rupees on commissions and every time the reportof the Commissioner was set aside on the objection ofPrakash Chandra and he instigated his sons to kill PrakashChandra and Umesh Chandra, all the five sons of Ram Karanstarted giving knife blows to Prakash Chandra and UmeshChandra and both of them fell down.This portion of thejudgment of the learned Judges is to the effect that all thefive sons of Ram Karan including the deceased Chhotey Lalattacked the deceased Prakash Chandra and Umesh Chandrawhereas it is the case of the prosecution as brought out inthe evidence of P.W. 1 that after Ram Karan instigated hissons to open the attack only Chhotey Lal and Ved Prakashattacked Prakash Chandra with knives and only Sunil Kumar.Anil Kumar and Satish Kumar attacked Umesh Chandra withknives.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Shri Adarsh Muni Trivedi, Sr.Advocate with Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate for the objector.Heard on the question of admission.The prosecution case, in short, is that on 30.4.2013 at about 10:15 PM the applicants surrounded the victim Mukul Pandey.The applicant Pradeep Sahu assaulted him by a sword on his head, whereas the applicant Sonu assaulted by baseball bat causing injury on his left eye.The remaining applicants assaulted him by the base of a revolver on his head and some other persons assaulted the victim by kicks and fists.Initially the case was registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506-B, 324 and 341 of IPC whereas the charge sheet was filed for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 506-B, 324, 341, 307 and 201 of IPC.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is admitted by both the parties that no fatal or grave injury was caused to the victim Mukul Pandey.The learned counsel for the objector has raised an objection mainly that for constitution of offence under Section 307 of IPC, intention of the accused should be seen.On the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, at present it is to be seen as to whether prima facie the applicants had an intention to kill the victim Mukul Pandey or not.For framing of the charges, no defence evidence is to be considered and it is the golden yardstick that if the evidence collected by the prosecution is considered and the accused can be convicted for the any offence and if no rebuttal evidence is produced, then charge of that offence shall be framed.In the present case, it would be apparent that there is no allegation against the applicants that they took any contract from anyone to kill the victim Mukul Pandey, and therefore due to their criminal past, no effect would be caused in assessment as to whether a charge under Section 307 of IPC can be framed or not.The victim was assaulted by base of the firearm.If the applicants were interested to kill the victim, then certainly they could use firearm and gun shot injury could have caused to the victim.As submitted by the learned counsel for the State, the witnesses Ramakant and Ravindra have stated that the applicants fired from the gun, but such statements were given one month after the incident.If fire was done by firearm, then the victim could mention this fact in the FIR, and therefore the story told by the witnesses Ramakant and Ravindra that fire was done by the applicants cannot be accepted in the light of the FIR lodged by the victim.Under such circumstances, if the entire conduct of the applicants is seen, then Sonu did not assault for second time, whereas his first assault was not in forceful manner and no fracture was caused in the hand of the victim.The assault of the applicant Pradeep was not forceful, therefore no fatal or grave injury was found to the victim.When one injury was caused in the head of the victim, applicant Pradeep Sahu did not assault for second time.Similarly, the remaining applicants assaulted the victim causing simply injury.They had a firearm but no fire was done, and therefore by examining the entire evidence collected by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the applicants were intended to kill the victim.Hence, prima facie no charge under Section 307 of IPC could be framed against any of the applicants either directly or with the help of Section 149 of IPC.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision filed by the applicants can be accepted.The impugned order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No.490/13 is hereby set aside.The applicants are discharged from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 307 or 307/149 of IPC.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"None for the complainant.Heard on IA No. 7876/2019, an application for amendment in the subject matter.For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.Let necessary amendment be incorporated during the course of the day.The applicant has filed this first application u/S 438, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 266/2019 registered under Secs.420, 406, of the IPC initially and subsequently Section 467 of I.P.C. was added at Police Station University, District Gwalior.Before this Court, the proof of conversation between the parties has been filed to show bonafides.On these grounds he prayed for bail.Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that Section 467 of I.P.C. has been enhanced.While inviting attention to the statement of Sailendra, it is submitted that it is evident from the statement that offence under Section 467 of I.P.C is attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case.He has prayed for rejection of application.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that FIR has been registered against the present applicant the information was received at 11.45 P.M. and FIR has been registered on same day within a period of 10 minutes on 30/07/2019, in such hurried and hasty manner without inquiry into the allegations, this court is inclined to extend benefit of bail to the applicant.The applicant shall mark his attendance before the concerned Police Station in the first week of every month till conclusion of investigation and thereafter as may be directed by the trial court.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.",['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
"JUDGMENT A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.One Sundaram, a per meant resident at Periyathatchur Agaram Village, Dindivanam Taluk was returning from Kollidam Thaikkal with his hand cart to his house in Kalaignar Colony at about 20.00 hours on 16.01.1990, when a tractor bearing Registration No. TCO-6043 attached with a Trailor bearing Registration No. TCO-6044, belonging to the 2nd respondent in MCOP No. 206/90 (on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagapattinam), driven by one Jagannathan (first respondent in the MCOP) in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against him and the cart.In the said incident, the deceased Sundaram sustained serious injuries and subsequently died in Poosai Hospital at Kollidam.Respondents-1 to 4 herein, as petitioners, filed MCOP No. 206 of 1990 against the appellant and Respondents-5 to 7 herein, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation at Rs.1,25,000/-.The first respondent is the wife of the deceased Sundaram while Respondents-2 and 3 are the minor children and the 4th respondent is the sister of the said Sundaram.The appellant herein viz., the owner of the said vehicle resisted the petition contending that the Tractor was driven by the driver slowly and cautiously and it was the deceased, who suddenly crossed the road without noticing the tractor, which ultimately resulted in the accident.Yet another contention has been raised to the effect that he purchased the tractor and trailor under Hire Purchase Scheme from the State Bank of India, Sirkali Branch, the 6th respondent in this appeal and who has agreed to insure the vehicle and renew the same from time to time till the entire loan is cleared and collect the premium from the appellant.In fact, the said Bank did so for the first three years, but however, omitted to renew the Insurance Policy probably due to oversight or negligence.Instead of renewing the policy on or before the expiry date, the Bank paid the premium only on 18.01.1990 that was on the 3rd day of the accident.The Sixth respondent herein viz., State Bank of India, filed a counter statement, denying the claim that they paid the insurance premium for the vehicle to the Insurance Company and therefore, they are liable to pay compensation to the claimants.According to the Bank, the loan was advanced on an agreement for hypothecation of the vehicle and therefore, the petitioner has got a first charge over the vehicle for realisation of the loan advanced to the owner of the vehicle.4.The 7th respondent herein viz., the Insurance Company claimed that since the accident was on 16.01.1990 and the Insurance Policy expired well before that, and the same was renewed only subsequently, that was on 18.1.1990, the Insurance Company is not in any way liable to pay any amount.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after due enquiry, came to the conclusion that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver and fixed the compensation payable to the claimants at Rs.83,500/- with interest at 12% per annum thereon.Thirdly, it held that the said amount has to be paid only by the owner of the vehicle viz, the appellant herein and completely absolved the Insurance Company of the liability.The owner of the vehicle viz., the appellant herein, being aggrieved by the said award, has filed the above appeal.Respondents-1 to 4 viz., the claimants in the MCOP., have filed Cross Objection No. 57/94, claiming compensation as claimed in the Original Petition.We heard the elaborate submissions made by the counsel for the respective parties.The materials available on record have also been perused.8.Three questions arise for consideration viz., :-(a) Whether the driver of the vehicle was negligent and because of which, the accident had happened?(b) What is the amount of compensation payable to Respondents-1 to 4 viz., the claimants in the O.P.?(c) Who is liable to pay the compensation?As far as the first question is concerned, this Court can safely come to the conclusion that the accident had taken place only because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, for the following reasons:-(i) PW-2 is an eye witness to the occurrence and who is also a person, carrying on a similar profession that of the deceased.He has categorically deposed that he was pulling his cart which was loaded with cement slabs and going behind the deceased, when the accident took place.We perused his testimony and we find no reason to disbelieve the same.(ii) Secondly, the version given by the driver of the tractor is totally contrary to the contents that are found in the complaint given by him before the police.(iii) Thirdly, the motor vehicle Inspector, after proper test, issued Ex.P-3 certificate, which is to the effect that there was no mechanical defect in the said vehicle.(iv) Finally, the driver was prosecuted before the Criminal Court for an offence under Section 304(A) IPC., found guilty and paid fine.The next question is as to what is the amount of compensation that is payable to R-1 to R-4, the claimants in the MCOP.In the petition, it is claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.1200/- per month.The wife of the deceased, as P.W.1, has deposed before Court that the deceased used to earn a sum of Rs.40 to 50/- per day and out of which, he used to pay Rs.10 to 15/- towards the hire charges for the cart.The Tribunal, proceeded on the basis that he would have earned for 25 days in a month, fixed the monthly income at Rs.625/-, and out of which, it deducted the amount which he would have spent for himself and applying the multiplier of 15, fixed the compensation at Rs.58,500/-.PW-1 would claim that her husband used to earn Rs.40/- to 50/- per day and out of which, he used to give Rs.10/- towards hire charges for the cart.PW.3, the owner of the cart has also deposed that he used to collect Rs.10/- from the deceased towards hire charges.So, even taking that the deceased was earning Rs.40/- per day and out of which, deducting Rs.10/- as hire charges, one would arrive at a figure of Rs.30/-.Therefore, on that basis, it can be safely taken that he would have earned a sum of Rs.900/- per month.This Court, applying the unit method, decides to deduct Rs.250/- and take Rs.650/- as the amount he would have contributed to the family per month.Applying the multiplier of 13, we arrive at a figure of Rs.1,01,400/-.With this, we add Rs.15,000/- in all under various heads for special damages including transportation, damages to clothes, cremation expenses, loss of love and affection and arrive at the figure of Rs.1,16,400/- (Rupees one lakh sixteen thousand four hundred only) with interest thereon at 9% per annum from the date of petition.The learned counsel appearing for the State Bank of India at this juncture would contend that since the appellant is questioning only the correctness of the order, in that the Tribunal has not fastened the liability on the bank, the cross objection is not maintainable.But if one goes through the grounds of appeal, particularly ground Nos.5, 7, 10, the appellant has specifically questioned the quantum.The next question is, as to who is liable to pay the compensation.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that only because of the negligence on the part of the State Bank in not renewing the policy before it expired, he has been now made liable to pay and that further, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have directed the State bank to pay the compensation.Learned counsel appearing for the State Bank would contend that though it reserved a right to pay the Insurance Policy if it so desires, no duty was cast on it as per the agreement and that being so, the Bank cannot be fastened with the liability.There can be no doubt with regard to the ownership of the vehicle.On 15.8.1990 when the appellant was driving the car along with others, met with an accident on the National Highway.Let us proceed to consider the second point.We have also pointed out that the State Bank has filed rather a false counter statement in that it has even denied having paid premium for two years i.e., for 1988 and 1989, prior to the accident.In this case, though the claimants have a remedy, as on date the question of their neglecting to avail themselves of the same, does not arise.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.",['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
"13.09.2019 This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C has been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 23/04/2019 passed by 13th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (MP) in Sessions Trial No.109/2019, whereby against the applicant No.1 the charges under section 307, 323 in alternatively Section 323/34, 294 & 506(2) of IPC and against the Applicant No.2, charges under section 307/34, 323 in alternatively 323/34, 294, 506(2) of IPC have been framed.The facts giving rise to this petition in brief are that on 30.05.2018 at about 12:56 o'clock, complainant, Nasir, son of Abdul Majeed, aged about 42 years, resident of 1629/58, Dashmesh Nagar, in front of Gurudwara, Ashoka Garden Bhopal lodged a report alleging that on 30.05.2018 in between 11:30 to 11:40 am, the complainant who is having the auto parts shop at Apsara Complex, where the mechanic of neighbour asked the complainant to keep aside the vehicle, on this the complainant replied that he has parked his vehicle on his side.2 Cr.On this, the applicant No.1 Shadiq started abusing by filthy language, to which, complainant has objected then the applicant No.1 assaulted by danda on the left side of the head and left hand, complainant sustained head injury, blood came out, thereafter, the mechanic of the complainant Shaariq intervened.Applicant No.2 also abused the complainant by filthy language and asked to assault Shaariq and on which, the applicant no.2 assaulted Shaariq by means of danda on the right hand thumb and due to which Shaariq sustained injury and blood came out.On this FIR was lodged and offence under Section 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC was registered by the police and after investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Session, where the charges under sections 307 or 307/34 of IPC have been framed against the applicants.3 Cr.Learned Government Advocate opposed the aforesaid contentions and submitted that there is sufficient material against the applicants to prosecute them for commission of offence punishable under sections 307 or 307/34 of IPC therefore, prays for dismissal of the revision petition.I have heard rival contention of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material available on record including the case diary.At the stage of charge, credibility and reliability of the evidence is not required to be considered.R.No.3412/2019 the complainant.Consequently, complainant Nasir and mechanic Saariq sustained injuries.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The petitioner has come before this court for quashment of FIR No.29 registered at Police Station Kalapipal, District Shajapur under Section 420 of IPC on the allegation that using forged documents the petitioner obtained a Government job.The contention of the petitioner is that on the basis of a complaint departmental enquiry was initiated against him and after concluding the departmental enquiry order dated 24.09.2016 passed against him.Charges were found proved and he was terminated from the court, but no directions were given in this order to file any complaint or to register any case under the IPC, while the FIR is said to be registered on the instigation of one Abhishek Ranjan, Executive Engineer, who was not authorized in any way to lodge such FIR.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Executive Engineer has no authority to take any criminal action against the petitioner in the absence of any such direction from his superior authorities.It is mentioned in the FIR that on receiving a letter from the Executive Engineer, M.P. Pakshim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited, Shujalpur that two persons namely Kasam @ Munnu Khan S/o Hasan Khan and Kasim Khan S/o Hasan Khan have obtained Government job by producing forged documents, therefore, an appropriate action be taken HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.3762/2017 (Kasam Khan S/o Hasan Khan V/s.State of M.P.) against them.The Police has registered the case against the present applicant and investigated the case and on finding sufficient evidence to prosecute him have filed the charge-sheet.It is well settled law that for registration of a cognizable crime, no such direction as stated by the petitioner is required to the Police.On revelation of any cognizable offence from any information received from anyone, Police can register case and investigate the same.",['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
"i. The Bail Application stands withdrawn as against applicant No.1-Amol.The Bail Application stands allowed in respect of applicant No.2- Vikas Gorakh Mahanor.He be released in connection with CR No.414/2019 registered at Dhule City Police Station, District Dhule for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 452, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC dated 4.12.2019, on PR of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of Rs.15,000/- each.Applicant No.2 shall not tamper::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2020 05:23:03 ::: (6) with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner.::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2020 05:23:03 :::v. Bail before the Trial Court.(SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.) BDV::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2020 05:23:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2020 05:23:03 :::","['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Submissions were made on the appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Appellant is facing trial before the Special Court, SC/ST Act in respect of Crime No.194/2015 registered at Police Station Pandrinath, Indore for committing offence under Sections 341, 294, 506 and 195-B of IPC along with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)It has also been submitted that appellant was infact in jail in respect of some other case.This Court vide order dated 24.04.2019 had directed to file certified copy of the order in which he was granted bail.Learned counsel for the appellant has filed certified copy of the order-sheets in which it has been mentioned in order dated 21.12.2016 that appellant is in jail.Let document pertaining to that be filed before next occasion.Matter be listed after a week.(Shailendra Shukla) Judge gp Digitally signed by Geeta Pramod Date: 01/05/2019","['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"ORDER S. Ashok Kumar, J.This revision petition has been fled by the petitioner against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam passed in Crime No. 571 of 1999 of Theni Police Station.The brief facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner is the de facto complainant and he lodged a complaint against the S. I. of Police of Theni Police Station which was registered as Crime No. 571/1999 for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 324, IPC.After investigation a final report under Section 173, Cr. P. C. was filed on 2-8-1999 before the Court and a final order dated 26-8-1999 was also recorded by the learned Magistrate.Learned Magistrate by order dated 11-3-2003 rejected the said application on the ground that part of the record shall not be given under Section 173(4) Cr.The accused in the complaint given by the petitioner which was referred, is the S. I. of Police.",['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The prosecution case in short is that complainant's nephew Virendra Singh was doing medical practice in village Sojna.On 6-3-87 at about 2.30 in the night he had some altercation with Shiv Nayak Singh.Pairokar of police station Sojna in front of Aata Chakki of Purshottam Namdeo.The altercation had taken place when the Pairokar was in a drunken condition and he was accompanied with another constable whose name was subsequently disclosed as Pahalwan.The altercation had started when two constables had started abusing Virendra Singh.After the said occurrence his nephew had run away.The F.I.R. was lodged at police station Sojna by constable on 7-3-87 at 3.05 a.m. under Section 307 I.P.C. against his nephew Virendra Singh and the case was entrusted to S.I.R.K. Tewari for investigation.Virendra Singh was arrested by the police and was brought to the police station by S.O. J.B. Katariya and two constables Ghanshyam Sharma and Ram Narain.It is alleged that he had given shelter to the deceased in his house from where police had arrested him.He is also an eye witness of payment of bribe of Rs. 1000/- to the Station Officer by his brother in law Narain Singh.Parvat Singh (P.W.5) is a tractor driver who had brought the deceased, Bhoopat.Singh, two constables and their cycles to the police station.Narain Singh (P.W.6) is said to have given bribe to the Station Officer Uma Vilas Awasthi (P.W.7), S.D.M. Mehroni had prepared the inquest report and other papers for the postmortem report.Dr. C.N.Shukla (P.W.8) who had conducted the post mortem on the dead body of deceased Virendra Singh.G.P.Misra (P.W.9) second Investigating Officer had proved the order passed by Sri A.K. Tyagi, Sector Officer directing him to investigate the case and prepared the site plan.Constable Mohd. Mustafa (P.W. 10) had brought the dead body for post mortem and he had deposited the sealed bundle of cloth of the deceased and he had filed his affidavit.He had also proved entries of the G.D. dated 7-3-87, 8-3-87 and 9-3-87, which are Exts.Inspector R.K.Sharma (P.W. 12) had proved the sanction accorded by Sri A.K. Rastogi, the then Home Secretary.Sri C.D.Premi, the then D.I.G. (police), Allahabad Region and Sri Sukhdeo Singh the then Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur and these sanctions were marked as Exts.7.A11 the three accused had totally denied the prosecution case.Contables Ghanshyam Sharma and Ram Narain stated that they had accompanied the Station House Officer Sri J.B.Katariya in the search and for the arrest of the deceased who was wanted as an accused.It was also stated by them that some altercation took place between the deceased and constable Shiv Nayak Chauhan on 7-3-87 and case was registered at the police station under Section 307 I.P.C. against the deceased.In pursuance thereof they along with the Station Officer had searched and arrested the deceased from the house of Narain Singh in village Khatka Tikam Garh and from there he was brought to the police station and kept in lock up and they had not assaulted him.They had also stated that they had not detained Bhoopat Singh.The accused had examined Dr. Kusumakar Srivastava (D.W.I)."" is not mentioned in his statement.Parvat was the tractor driver and when the tractor reaching towards the police station J.B. Katariya had given two lathi blows to Virendra Singh and took him towards market.In the cross-examination he has stated that he had given the statement regarding lathi blow given by Inspector to Virendra Singh but why it is not mentioned in his statement he cannot tell any reason.He has stated that Narain Singh is his uncle.He has admitted that he had not informed the family members of Virendra Singh, Bhoopat Singh that they were taken to the police station.Narain Singh (P.W.4) has stated that about 81/2 years back Virendra Singh (deceased), had come to his house and informed him that he had some altercation with police personnel.Next morning when he was in his field Inspector J.B.Katariya and two constables came and enquired about Virendra Singh.The inspector brought him to his house where Virendra Singh and his uncle Bhoopat Singh met the inspector and he had ordered their arrest and both were arrested by the constables and their hands were tied with the rope.The inspector had threatened him for sheltering a criminal and took all the three to the house of Jai Pal Singh.Jai Pal Singh had asked the inspector to release him and he had demanded Rs.5000/- for releasing him but ultimately the matter was settled for Rs. 1000/-.At the house of Jai Pal Singh his brother-in-law Narain Singh and Mulayam Singh reached there and Narain Singh arranged for money which was given to the inspector and inspector released him.The inspector took the accused to Sojna and gave lathi blows to Virendra Singh on his leg and chest.In the cross-examination he has stated that his statement was recorded by the inspector after about one month.He has admitted that he has not lodged any report for giving Rs. 1000/- to inspector nor he had made any complaint to the higher authorities.Parvat (P.W.5) who is tractor driver, has stated that in village Sojna inspector Katariya and two constables Ghanshyam Sharma and Ram Narain came along with Virendra Singh and Bhoopat Singh.The hands of Virendra Singh and Bhoopat Singh were tied with the rope.The inspector asked him to take them to the police station and told him that he had to carry stones.The inspector had given a slap and took the arrested persons to the police station.He took them to the house of Narain Singh and asked him to take the tractor to the police station.After some time the inspector, constables, Bhoopat Singh and Virendra Singh reached there and inspector had started assaulting Virendra Singh with lathi and after assaulting him he was kept in the ladies lock up.He had heard the cries of Virendra Singh at about 3.00 p.m. in the cross-examination he had admitted that he knows Dr. Virendra Singh for about 2 years and he also knows Bhoopat Singh and Jujhar Singh and he has good relation with them.He has admitted that he was detained at the police station from 1.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m.Narain Singh (P.W.6) has stated that in the village he had received information that Virendra Singh and Bhoopat Singh were taken to the police station by inspector J.B. Katariya and constables.He reached at the house of Jai Pal Singh and found there inspector Katariya and two constables, his brother-in-law Narain Singh, Virendra Singh, Bhoopat Singh and Jai Pal Singh.He came to know that inspector demanded Rupees four five thousands for releasing Narain Singh and the matter was settled for Rs. 1000/- He has given Rs. 1000/- to the inspector Katariya.After getting the money the inspector had released Narain Singh and he along with two constables had taken Bhoopat Singh and Virendra Singh to the police station and there he gave lathi blows to Virendra Singh.In the cross-examination he has stated that his statement was recorded after about 8 months.He has admitted that Kishori had informed him about the arrest of the accused persons.He has denied that inspector had demanded money.He has further stated that two lathi blows were given to Virendra Singh by the inspector.Sri Uma Vilash Awasthi (P.W.7), S.D.M. has stated that he had received information for conducting the inquest of the deceased.He had prepared the inquest report and send the dead body for post mortem in sealed cover through constables.He had also conducted the enquiry and submitted his report to the District Magistrate.He has further stated that during the enquiry it was found that deceased had died due to the injuries of lathi blows caused by inspector J.B. Katariya.Sri C.N.Shukla (P.W.8) is the doctor who had conducted the post mortem.He had received all the papers through the constables and found the injuries on the dead body of deceased Virendra Singh as mentioned above.He has further stated that the injuries were caused by lathi and he had died on 8-3-87 between 2.00 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. The injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.In the cross-examination he had admitted that injuries No. 1 to 14 were not on vital part and he had not found any fracture.Sri J.RMisra (P.W.9) is the Investigating Officer.He was posted in C.B., C.I.D. Kanpur.On 5-4-87 he had recorded the statements of Bhoopat Singh, Jujhar Singh, Raghvendra Singh, Pahar Singh, Roshan Singh, Raja Bhaiya and Natthu Singh and after that he had recorded the statement of village Pradhan Maigua, Jai Pal Singh, Kundi, Nandu, Narendra Singh, Pratipal Singh, Tulsi Ram, Narain Singh, Jagat Narain and Bhagirath.Udai Singh.He had investigated the case uptill 11-12-87 and after that the case was investigated by Ram Kishore Sharma.In the cross-examination he had stated that Jujhar Singh had not given statement ""Do teen sipahiyon ne use (Mritak) Khinchkar hawalat main dal diya tha."" He has further stated that Bhoopat had not given the statement that ""Darogaji va constable ne aakar kaha ki tumhe band kar denge aur Virendra Ko jan se mar denge."" He has further stated that he had not stated ""Simpahiyon ne darogaji se kaha tha ki Virendra ko itna maro ki ise pata chal jay aur sab gaon wale dekhate rah jaye.""He has further stated that Pahar Singh had not informed him that on Tigadda inspector was standing with a lathi and tractor had reached there.Constable Mohd. Mustafa (P.W.10) has filed an affidavit in which he has stated that S.D.M. prepared the inquest report of Virendra Singh and sealed the dead body.He had taken the dead body and relevant papers for the post mortem along with constable Brahma Singh, Deen Dayal, Balveer and Dhani Ram.He had handed over the dead body and papers to the doctor for the post mortem on 9-3-87 at 3.30 p.m. and after the post mortem he had deposited the sealed envelop and cloth at the police station.Constable Pahar Singh (P.W. 11) was posted as Head Moharrir at police station Sojna.He has further stated that on 7-3-87 report No. 4 at 3.05 p.m. the case under Section 307 I.P.C. was registered against deceased Virendra Singh.In the cross-examination he has stated that J.B.Katariya had brought Virendra Singh (deceased) at the police station in his presence.He has further stated that J.B.Katariya alone had brought Virendra Singh.He has further stated that S.O. had directed him to get the injuries of Virendra Singh treated and the Doctor was called and when he was taken to the hospital he had succumbed to his injuries.He was not sent to Mehrauli for the treatment.JUDGMENT Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.Two appeals have been preferred by three appellants against the judgment and order dated 19-12-97 passed by Special Sessions Judge, Lalitput in S.T.No. 20 of 1993 where by the appellants Ghanshyam Sharma and Ram Narain have been convicted under Sections 323/34, 342 I.P.C. and sentenced to 6 months R.I. on each count and appellant J.B. Katariya has been convicted under settion 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and under Section 342 I.P.C. for 6 months rigorous imprisonment.On the way to the police station he was beaten and detained at the police station where he was beaten mercilessly by the Station Officer where he succumbed to his injuries.Dr. C.N. Shukla (P.W.8) and Sr.S.S. Singhal jointly conducted autopsy on the dead body of Virendra Singh on 9-3-87 at 4.00 p.m. According to Dr. Shukla, deceased had following ante mortem injuries on his person.Abraded multiple contusion in an area of 59.0 cm x whole circumference of left leg including overleg and anteromedial aspect of lower part of thigh not possible to measure the size of individual contusion on dissection large amount of blood present in soft tissue underlying the injury.Contusion 10.0 cm x 2.5 cm on anterolateral aspect of left thigh lower part.Contusion 11.0 cm x 4.0 cm on back of left thigh lower part.Contusion 4.5 cm x 3.0 cm on middle part back of left thigh.Contusion 11.0 cm x 3.0 cm on lateral aspect of left buttock.Multiple contusion : in an area of 43.0 cms x whole circumference of right leg including knee lower part of thigh not possible to measure the size of individual contusion.On dissection large amount of blood present in soft tissues.Contusion 10.0 cm x 3.0 cm on back of right thigh upper part.Contusion 10.0 cm x 3.0 cm.On back of right thigh, posterolateral aspect.Contusion 18.0 cm x 10.0 cm on posteromedial aspect of middle of right thigh.Contusion 5.0 cm x 4.0 cm on just behind right anterior superior illiac spine.Abraded multiple contusions in an area of 55.0 cm x whole circumference extending from middle part of right upper arm including elbow, forearm and hand not possible to measure size of individual contusion.On dissection large amount of blood present in soft tissues.Contusion 12.0 cm x 6.0 cm on posterolateral aspect of right shoulder and deltoid region.Abraded multiple contusions in an area of 29.0 cm x whole circumference extending from middle of left upper arm including elbow and forearm, not possible to measure size of individual contusion.On dissection, large amount of blood preseent in soft tissues.Multiple abrated contusion in an area of 26.0 cm x whole circumference.upto fingers not possible to measure size of individual contusion.On dissection large amount of blood present in soft tissues.Multiple abrasions in an area of 7.0 cm x 1.0 cm on right side face, molar and zygomatic region.Multiple abrasion in an area of 3.0 cm x 1.5 cm on left half of chin.Abrasions 4.0 cm x 1.0 cm.Over mucusal surface of upper and lower lips, outer aspect of left side.Abrasions 4.0 cm x 1.0 cm.over mucus surface of upper and lower lips, outer aspect of right side.On internal examination, the doctor had found that there was no blood in left side of the heart but about 200 gms of blood was present in the right side.Semi digested food was present in the small intestine and there were gases and faecal matter in the large intestine.In the opinion of the doctors, death was caused due to shock and haemmorhage resulting from ante mortem injuries.The prosecution in support of its case examined 12 witnesses in all.Jujhar Singh (P.W.I) he was wrongfully arrested by the Investigating Officer and he is also an eye witness of the occurrence.Bhoopat Singh (P.W.2) is maternal uncle of the deceased.He had stated that he was called at police station on 8-7-87 and he had examined the patient at the police station.His condition was not good and he had referred him to Mehroni district hospital.He has also stated that there was no one except police personnel at the police station.Katariya is guilty and convicted him for the offence punishable under Sections 302/342 I.P.C. Accused Ghanshyam Sharma and Ram Narain are also found guilty for the offences,under Sections 323/34 and 342 I.P.C. and convicted them for the same.Sri J.B.Katariya was not found guilty under Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.P.W. 1, Jujhar Singh stated that about 8 years back Inspector J.B.Katariya had come to his house and enquired about Virendra Singh and he told him that Virendra Singh had some altercation with Shiv Nayak a Pairokar of the police station.Virendra Singh and Bhoopat singh were brought to the police station by Inspector J.B.Katariya along with two constables Ghanshyam Sharma and Ram Narain. ' Virendra Singh was limping and his hands were tied on the back.He had seen that Sri J.B.Katariya had assaulted Virendra Singh with lathi and constables were catching hold of his handstand giving him fist blows.Sri J.B.Katariya had given 8-10 lathi blows to Virendra Singh in the Court yard of the police station and all the three accused had kept him in the lock up of the police station.Bhoopat Singh was kept standing in the police station and Inspector told the constables to keep him on standing position.The Inspector had detained one Tractor driver Parvat.He was hearing the moaning of Virendra Singh about two hours and after that he had stopped and he thought that Virendra Singh has succumbed to his Injuries.It is alleged that Pahalwan and Shiv Nayak came there and abused Virendra Singh.On the next day at about 5.00 a,m.Inspector came and released him and told him that whenever he will be required he will call him but Virendra Singh and Bhoopat Singh had not left the police station and insisted for meeting Virendra Singh.There was silence in the police station and he came to know that Virendra Singh succumbed to his injuries.In the cross-examination he has stated that he was interrogated by the officers of C.I.D. and he had given statement that both the constables had caught hold the hands of Virendra Singh and beating him with feast.It was not mentioned in his statement and he cannot give its reason and he could not tell the reason why the names of the persons who assaulted Virendra Singh is not mentioned.He has also not given any reason that why in his statement that all the accused had threatened, dragged and kept him in the lock up is not mentioned.He has also stated that he had informed the Investigating Officer that Pahalwan and constable Shiv Nayak had abused Virendra Singh at the police station but he cannot give any reason why in this statement it was not mentioned.He had not made any complaint about illegal detention to higher authorities.Bhoopat singh (P.W.2) has stated that Shiv Nayak and Pahalwan had came to his house enquiring about Virendra Singh.He had also stated that Inspector J.B.Katariya along with constables Ghanshyam Sharma and one Ram Narain came to his house and later on he was arrested and brought to the police station.Narain Singh was released by the police officer.Subsequently he has stated that Virendra Singh was assulted by Inspector on the leg and both the constables had given him fist blows.On the way to the police station Inspector had detained one Parvat, Tractor driver and they were brought to the police station.Bhoopat Singh has also stated that Virendra Singh was assaulted near the Chakki of Namdeo.In the police station the Inspector.had given several lathi blows to Virendra Singh.Next day he was released from the police station and subsequently he came to know that Virendra Singh had succumbed to his injuries and he informed the father of Virendra Singh and he has also lodged the report.He has stated that he had informed the CO.that his hands and Virendra Singh's hands were tied but it was not mentioned in his statement and he cannot tell any reason why it is not mentioned.He has also stated that he had informed the Investigating Officer that constables had given fist hlows but why it is not mentioned in his statement he cannot tell any reason.He could not give the reason why ""Dono Sipahiyon ne Daroga ko yah kahkar Uksaya ki Virendra ko wahan le chaliye jahan isne sipahi-ko mara tha.He has further stated that he had given this statement to the Investigating Officer."" Sipahiyon ne Darogaji se kaha tha ki Virendra ko itna maro ki isko pata chal jay aur sab gaon wale dekhate rahen"" why this statement was not written he cannot tell the reason.Pahar Singh (P.W.3) has stated that he was standing on the Tigadda and he saw that J.B.Katariya standing there and after two minutes one Tractor came from which Ram Narain, Ghanshyam Sharma, Bhoopat Singh and Virendra Singh got down.On 9-4-87 he had interrogated the accused J.B.Katariya, Constables Ghanshyam Sharma and Ram Narain and also recorded the statements of Shiv Narain and Pahalwan.On 22-4-87 he had recorded statement of Dr. S.S. Singhal, Dr. C.N.Shukla, Constable Brahma Singh and Head Moharrir Parvat Singh.On 23-4-87 he had recorded the statements of Chhatrapal Singh, Ram Singh, Mahendra Singh,Lal Singh, Gaya Prasad, Bhanu Pratap, Bal Chand and Namdeo.On 22-8-87 he had recorded the statement of tractor driver Parvat Singh On 20-11-87 he had recorded the statements of Narain son of Takat Singh and Uma Vilash Awasthi, S:D.M. On 9-12-87 he had recorded the statement of CO.He has denied about the presence of any other witness at the police station.He has denied that Virendra Singh was assaulted at the police station.On 30-12-91 he had submitted charge sheet against the accused persons.The learned Sessions Judge had convicted and sentenced J.B.Katariya under Section 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment and under Section 342 I.P.C. for six months and the appellants Ghanshayam Sharma and Ram Narain were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 6 months on each count of under Section 323/34, 342 I P.C.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.Therefore, when accused Virendra Singh was arrested he was wanted as an accused in a cognizable offence.No specific allegation of assault made by these, accused constables upon Virendra Singh was made in the F.I.R. nor such an allegation could be made by the witnesses in their statements recorded during investigation.Realizing this infirmity in the prosecution case, P.W. 1 Jujhar Singh and P.W.2 Bhoopat Singh tried to embellish for the first time in their deposition before the Court that these constables also participated in the assault made on the deceased Virendra Singh soon after the later was arrested.P.W.2 stated that both these constables has given fists blows to Virendra Singh when he was brought to police station after his arrest but again even this allegation is not found to be contained in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as admitted by the Investigating officer.It may be relevant to mention here that Pahar Singh, P.W.3, Narain, P.W.4, Parvat P.W.5 and Narain Singh P.W.6 have not stated of any beating on deceased at the hands of these accused constables.It would be too risky to place implicit reliance on this improved version put.forward by these witnesses for the first time in Court.We, therefore, reject the testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W.2 to this extent and extend the benefit of doubt to these appellants who had merely accompanied the Station Officer, Sri Katariya to cause the arrest of deceased, who was wanted as an accused in a cognizable case already registered at the police station.Accordingly benefit of doubt has to be extended to these appellants and they are entitled to be acquitted.Now the case of J.B.Katariya is that he had arrested the deceased Virendra Singh and he had died while he was in custody.A perusal of the F.I.R. indicates that specific allegations are made against the Station House Officer, J.B. Katariya.All the prosecution witnesses are consistent with regard to the role of J.B.Katariya.He had arrested Virendra Singh and assaulted while he was brought to the police station.Jujhar Singh (P.W.I) has stated that J.B.Katariya had given 8-10 lathi blows to Virendra Singh and then he was kept in the lock up.Bhoopat Singh (P.W, 2) has also stated that in the Court yard of the police station the inspector J.B.Katariya had given lathi blow to Virendra Singh.Pahar Singh (P.W.3) has also specifically stated that J.B.Katariya had given lathi blow to Virendra Singh.Narain (P.W.4) has also stated that after the arrest of Virendra Singh inspector had given lathi blow to him.Parvat (P.W.5) has also stated about the role of the inspector.Narain Singh (P.W.6) has also supported the prosecution case as regard the assault by the Inspector is concerned.Thus prosecution witnesses examined clearly stated that J.B.Katariya had assaulted Virendra Singh at Sojna Tigadda as well as inside the police station.The witnesses who are eye witnesses of the incident in question fully supported the prosecution version in unequivocal term that J.B.Katariya gave number of lathi blows to the deceased Virendra Singh.The post mortem report also supports the eye witness account.The doctor who had conducted the post mortem examination had found lathi injuries all over the body of Virendra Singh deceased, Thus prosecution has fully proved its case against J.B.Katariya,Learned Counsel for the appellant, J.B.Katariya submitted before the Court that the post mortem report indicates that all the antemortem injuries were on non- vital part.There was no oozing of blood from any injury nor any fracture was found underneath any ante mortem injury.Each one of the ante mortem injury is a simple injury.Deceased was wearing a full pant when he was assaulted no part thereof was found torn.No blood came out to be visible from outside.Accused, therefore, could not be presumed to be having knowledge of the injuries, which in fact had been sustained by the deceased when he was assaulted with Danda.It was strenuously urged that in these circumstances no case under Section 302 I.P.C. can be said to have been made out and the offence would not travel beyond the ambit of Section 323 I.P.C. We find ourselves unable to accept this submission of learned counsel for the appellant.From the evidence available on record both documentary and oral we are satisfied that J.B.Katariya had caused injuries to deceased Virendra Singh while he was in police custody and even if it is not possible to say that he intended to cause the death of Virendra Singh, but he can certainly be clothed with the knowledge that the injuries which were being caused to the deceased at the police station were likely to cause his death though probably without any intention to cause his death, or even to cause such bodily injuries to him as were likely to cause death.The offence would fall under Section 304- Part II I.P.C. So far offence under Section 342 I.P.C. is concerned it is admitted that deceased was not wrongfully confined.He was arrested in a case under Section 307 I.P.C. His arrest and detention was not illegal.His conviction under Section 342 I.P.C. is set aside.In the result criminal appeal No. 22 of 1998 is allowed.The appellants Ghanshyam Sharma and Ram Narain are acquitted for the offences charged for.They are on bail.They need not surrender.Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.Criminal appeal No. 2350 of 1997 is partly allowed.The appellant J.B.Katariya is convicted under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. in place of Section 302 I.P.C. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo further imprisonment for six months.He is on bail.State appeal No. 1315 of 1998 is dismissed.","['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This is repeat (Second) bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.First bail application of the applicant has been dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 21.12.2017 in M.Cr.The applicant is in custody since 22.10.2017 in connection with Crime No.160/2017 registered at Police Station Gairatganj, District Raisen (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 397, 394, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.As per prosecution on 20.4.2017, the applicant Pappu @ Kabir called the complainant on mobile phone and said that he discovered a gold brick, which was buried in nearby land and he offered the same to the complainant.Thereafter, complainant met Pappu @ Kabir at Vidisha road and he offered him the said brick, for consideration of Rs. 4,60,000/-.After the said deal, complainant and his brother reached there then Pappu @ Kabir and six other persons took their bag of money and, along with that gold brick, ran away from the spot.Thereafter, on the report of complainant, case for offence punishable under Section of 420 of IPC was registered.During investigation after taking the statement of complainant and other witnesses offence punishable under Section 395, 397 and 394 have been added.Other co-accused who have been arrested have been released on bail.Conclusion of trial will take time.He is a permanent resident of district Raisen and there is no chance of his absconding.He is ready to furnish bail as per the order, abiding with all conditions imposed by the Court.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.Certified copy as per rules.(H.P. SINGH) JUDGE VKV/-Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2018.03.08 16:53:29 +05'30'","['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Being an eye-witness, he deposed about his presence on duty at the concerned bus stand when at about 10 : 10 a.m., the bus driven by the petitioner, proceeded very fast and hit a person standing there.ORDER S. Ravindra Bhat, J.In this revision under Sections 397/401, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner challenges the concurrent findings of the Courts by which he was convicted of the offences under Sections 279/304-A, Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo six months' simple imprisonment (for the offence under Section 279) and one year's simple imprisonment (for the offence under Section 304-A).The facts are that according to the prosecution on 13-9-1999 at 10 a.m., at a main 100 ft. road, the petitioner was found ' driving a bus in a rash and negligent manner.This led to an accident in which one Joginder Singh, a by-stander, in the bus stand, was struck and received fatal injuries.In support of its case, the prosecution relied upon the deposition of 12 witnesses.It was alleged that a Constable, one Niranjan (P.W. 11) removed the injured to the hospital.The bus sped away.He identified the bus number and narrated how a PCR van arrived at the spot, how he took the injured to the hospital and later identified the driver of the bus, i.e. the petitioner.This witness as well as all other prosecution witnesses were cross-examined.The trial Court, by its judgment dated 7-8-2006 convicted the petitioner and awarded the sentence impugned.Learned Counsel contended that the judgments of the Courts below are vitiated because they have believed the conjectures and surmises of the prosecution.It was contended that the strongest eye-witness P.W. 11 was a planted witness.The efforts of the defense, i.e. the petitioner to prove that he was in fact not present at the site by production of the duty roster despite an application under Section 311, Cr. P.C., were frustrated.It was contended that if this course had been adopted, the petitioner would have conclusively proved that P.W. 11 was not at the site and could not, therefore, have claimed to be an eye-witness.Learned Counsel claimed that the conduct of P.W. 11, even if the facts alleged by him were assumed to be true were unnatural to say the least as, being charged with enforcement of the law, if indeed P.W. 11 had witnessed the incident, the least expected of him was to give a chase which he admittedly did not.Learned Counsel lastly contended that, taken as a whole, the findings arrived at by the Courts below were unsupported by the evidence which nowhere showed that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.It was submitted that the mere allegation of the bus having been driven at a fast speed did not lead to the inference that it was driven in a rash and negligent manner.The appellate Court, in its impugned judgment, inter alia, held as follows:Having heard arguments from both the sides and after perusal of the record, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order as learned MM has carefully scrutinized the evidence in the light of available material on record as regard the identity of the accused driving the erring vehicle.The statement of P.W. 1 Ct.Niranjan Sharma recorded at GTB Hospital, Delhi where injured was removed by him, is worth mentioning.It, inter alia, mentions that on 13-9-1999, he was present at the bus stand of 212 on his duty from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. at about 10:10 p.m. Bus No. DEP 9770 came from the Seempauri side being driven by bus driver in a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner and it struck the pedestrains standing at the bus stand waiting for bus and ran towards Durgapuri.In the meanwhile, PCR van baker 13 came.It passed the message through the wireless set.The MLC of the victim shows arrival of victim at 10:35 a.m. on 13-9-1999 and victim was brought by P.W. 11 Ct.Niranjan Sharma whose number is also mentioned as 1496 PS Nand Nagri.It at least goes to show that the victim was brought from the place of accident to the hospital by P.W. 11 Ct.Niranjan Singh.At this stage, it cannot be said that by not proving the duty roster of this Constable, an inference can be reached that he was not on duty at that place on the fateful day.It can be presumed that official duties were performed in normal course of nature and there is no reason as to why just to solve the case, IO will introduce a false witness.Even the statement of TI Brahm Singh P.W. 8 went unrebutted who testified that the accused was on duty in the bus No. DEP 9770 from 4:20 a.m. to 12:20 p.m. on 13-9-1999 at DTC bus route No. 205 from Seempauri to Koriya Pull.Accused was caught on the same bus route by the PCR officials.P.W. 11 was an eye-witness.During the trial, no attempt was made to impeach his version about his presence indeed he was extensively cross-examined.The effort of the petitioner to have the Roznama summoned at the appellate stage, therefore, cannot be viewed as an entirely innocent exercise.It is more in the nature of a desperate attempt to evade and deflect his role.The testimony of P.W. 11 was found to be credulous.","['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"DATE : 02nd JANUARY, 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER : M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.] :By this application, the applicants are seeking quashing of the First Information Report (In short ""F.I.R."") in Crime No. 124 of 2019, registered at Police Station, Patoda, District Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (In short 'I.P.C.')2. Facts leading to this application are that the informant Sahabhat/respondent No. 2 herein married Mohammad Ubed Abdul Bashid Kazi on 6.1.2019, according to Muslim rites.that the informant Sahabhat/respondent No. 2::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:10:30 :::reside at Latur.Applicant No. 5 is the married sister of husband of respondent No. 2, applicant No. 6 is the husband of applicant No. 5 and both of them reside at Solapur.Applicant No. 7 is the uncle of husband of respondent No.It is alleged by the informant that soon after marriage the husband's parents started ill-treating respondent No. 2, saying that she should bring Rs. Ten Lac, to enable them to purchase a Plot and on that count she was subjected to beating.She was also abused in filthy language.She called her relative, Sayyed Sajjid Hamid and her grand-father,::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:10:30 ::: 5 criapplnno2303-J .19 Sayyed Hamid Sayyed Maheboob and they also tried to convince the applicants and husband's parents to treat the respondent No. 2 well but, the applicants did not budge but kept on demanding amount of Rs. Ten Lacs.::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:10:30 :::parents had been to her house on 10.3.2019, at 2.00 p.m. They demanded Rs. Ten Lacs to be brought from her parents and subjected her to physical and mental ill-treatment.Thereafter, she lodged complaint against accused persons in Police Station, Patoda, on the basis of which, offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. has been registered.::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:10:30 :::On perusal of F.I.R., it is noticed that the allegations made against the applicants are vague in nature.No specific act is attributed against any of the applicants.It is vaguely mentioned that all the applicants subjected her to ill-treatment on account of failure to bring Rs. Ten Lacs from her parents.Moreover, the record produced by the applicants i.e. Adhar Cards and Ration Cards show that applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 reside at Latur, applicant Nos. 5 and 6 reside at Solapur and applicant Nos. 7, 8 and 9 are reside at Pune.The husband of respondent No. 2 is the resident of Patoda, District; Beed.::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:10:30 :::(M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) mahajansb/::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:10:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 03:10:30 :::","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"None for the victim though served.This appeal for bail is directed against the order dated 5.09.2017 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Jabalpur in Special Case No. 36/2017, whereby the application of accused/appellant Raju @ Raj Kumar under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed.The appellant has been arrested on 30.03.2017 in connection with crime no. 66/2017 registered by P.S. Lakhanwada, District Seoni under Sections 363, 366 (ka), 376 (2) (i), 376 (2) (j), 323, 294, 506/34 of I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 3 (i) (ba) (i) and Section 3 (2) (5) of S.C./S.T.As per the prosecution case, on the date of offence, the prosecutrix was 15 years and 3 months old minor girl belonging to a Scheduled Caste.About an year and half before the date of incident appellant Raju Prajapati enticed her on the promise of marriage and took inside a nullah and raped her.He threatened that if she disclosed the matter to anyone, he would kill her.Thereafter, the appellant established the physical relation with her on four or five occasions.When the prosecutrix became eight months pregnant, she disclosed the matter to her parents.Thereafter, appellant Raju threatened them not to disclose the matter to anyone and took her to his house and kept her as his wife.She gave birth to a male child.Thereafter, the appellant used to consume liquor and harassed and beat up the prosecutrix.The family members of petitioner asked her to leave the house.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the element of coercion or enticement were missing in the case.Actually, the petitioner had married the prosecutrix.She lived in his house as his wife and gave birth to the child of the appellant.Ultimately, due to differences with the appellant, she left and now this case of marital discord is converted into one under Section 376 of I.P.C. The appellant has been in custody since 30th March, 2017 and charge-sheet in the matter has been filed; therefore, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate on the other hand has opposed the bail application.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant; in the opinion of this Court, it would be appropriate to allow this appeal and release appellant Raju @ Raj Kumar Prajapati on bail.It is directed that appellant Raju @ Raj Kumar Prajapati shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Cr.P.C. Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE vy",['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The prosecution story in brief is that there was some dispute regarding damage of auto of Sunil Vishwakarma between Sunil (appellant no.1) and deceased Panju alias Santosh on 8.5.2003 around 6:00 O'Clock in the morning, the appellant no.1 Sunil had gone to the house of the deceased and told him that he had damaged his auto, therefore, he demanded money from him.Deceased replied that he did not damage the auto and he would not pay the money.There were heated exchange of words between both the persons in this regard.On the next day, at around 6:30 in the morning when deceased was going to open his shop, appellant Sunil and his sisters co-appellants Sushila and Asha had beaten the deceased by lathis.He fell down.After hearing cry of the deceased, other persons came on the spot.The report of incident was lodged by Neeraj, brother of the 11deceased, at the police station.At that time, I was preparing tea.The deceased told the appellant that he had not damaged the auto, therefore, he would not pay the money.There was a quarrel between them and Sunil had slapped the deceased.Thereafter I went inside the house to take tea.When I came out from the house after taking tea, I heard the sound of Panju and thereafter Neeraj, my father-in-law, Ajay, Vijay had rushed at the spot and we heard cry of the deceased, which was coming from the field of Jagidsh Patel.Then we had seen that the appellant No.1 and his two sisters had been beating 4 Cr.A.No.1504/2004 Sunil & others Vs.the deceased by lathis.Thereafter, we had taken the body of the deceased beneath a mango tree and Neeraj had gone to lodge the report at police station.Neeraj Kumar Pathak (P.W.4), who is the brother of the deceased, deposed that Sunil had dashed the auto with a wall.However, he was demanding money from Santosh.On the next day, at around 6:00 O' Clock appellant Sunil came in his auto, he had told the deceased that he had damaged his auto, hence, he would pay the money.Deceased replied that he had not damaged the auto, hence, he would not pay the money.At that time, he had slapped the deceased and ran away.At around 6-6:30 when deceased was going to open the shop, I heard the cry of deceased.I along with Ram Sunder Verma, Ajay and Vijay went on the spot and we had seen appellants Sunil, Asha and Sushila had been beating the deceased.Thereafter, I went to lodge the report.Dehati Nalishi Ex.P.2, and Dehati Marg Ex.P.3, were registered.I signed the same.Thereafter, I signed Panchanama Ex.Hiralal Patel (P.W.6) deposed that when I was in the house, I had heard the cry of Neeraj.Thereafter, I came out from the house and had seen that the appellants were running towards the field of Jagdish Patel.Sunita Patnaha (P.W.1), Sub-Inspector, deposed that on 8.5.2003 I was posted at City Kotwali, Rewa and Sub- Inspector R.K.Mishra registered a Dehati Nalishi, which was recorded on the basis of report of Neeraj.On the basis of Dehati Nalish, FIR was registered at Police Station, City Kotwali, Rewa vide Ex.I signed the same.Arun Kumar Gautam (P.W.2) deposed that on 8.5.2003 I was posted as Constable at Police Station Civil Lines, Rewa.Dehati Nalish was registered and marg was also recorded.14. R.K.Mishra (P.W.9), who is the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 8.5.2003 I was posted as Sub-Inspector at City Kotwali, Rewa.On the aforesaid date, near about 7:30 in the morning Neeraj S/o Rajendra submitted a report against the appellant.Dehati Nalishi was prepared, which is Ex.I prepared Panchanama of dead-body, which is Ex.P.5 and spot map, which is Ex.I inquired from the appellants about the incident and on their memorandums, Ex.I also seized plain earth and red earth from the spot vide seizure memo, Ex.Accused persons were arrested on 8.5.2003 vide Exs.15. PW-3 Geeta Verma and PW-4 Neeraj Kumar Pathak are eye-witnesses of the case.As per the deposition of PW- 3, she had heard the voice of the deceased and thereafter, she had seen that Sunil and his sisters namely Sushila and Asha had been beating the deceased by lathies.In her cross- examination, she admitted the fact that at the time of incident, marriage of appellant No.1-Sunil was to be performed and the family members had been making arrangements for the marriage.Accused's sisters had come to participate in the marriage.Dehati marg was recorded and on the basis of aforesaid marg, first information report was recorded.The police conducted the investigation and filed the chargesheet against all the three accused persons.The appellants abjured their guilt They pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the case.The trial court, after trial, held the appellants guilty for commission of offence 3 Cr.A.No.1504/2004 Sunil & others Vs.State of M.P.punishable under section 302 of IPC and awarded the sentence of life.The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended that the trial court has committed an error of law in holding the appellants guilty for commission of offence.In alternate, the learned Senior counsel has submitted that the offence alleged against the appellant Sunil could be under section 304-I of IPC and the offence against appellant nos.2 and 3 could be 323 of IPC.Contrary to this, the learned counsel for State has submitted that the prosecution has produced sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.The trial court has appreciated the evidence properly.Prosecution examined total 9 witnesses and appellants examined 2 witnesses in their defence.Geeta Verma (P.W.3) deposed that Sunil had come to the house of deceased with his auto and he had made a demand of money from the deceased about the damage of auto.I had only seen Sunil along with lathi.I had not seen any other person.Ram Sunder Verma (P.W.7) deposed the same facts that I had heard the sound of Neeraj.I reached on the spot and saw that appellants had been beating the deceased.Thereafter, they ran away from the spot.Deceased was found dead.A.No.1504/2004 Sunil & others Vs.State of M.P.Thereafter, I had taken the report to the City Kotwali and on that basis FIR was registered.Dr. V.K.Sharma (P.W.8) deposed that on 8.5.2003 I was posted as Instructor in the Forensic Department at S.S.Medical College, Rewa.I had performed the post mortem of deceased.I had noticed following injuries on the person of the body of the deceased:-One abrasion 2.5 x 1 cm on the left side of the neck .One abrasion 10 x 8 cm on the left side of the neck.Injuries 10 x 8 cm, 10 x 4 cm and 12 x 4 cm on the below chest.One bruise 1 x 1 cm at upper side of right hand.One bruise 6 . 4 cm on left side of the upper armOne swelling and injury 5 x 4 cm on temporal region.""A.No.1504/2004 Sunil & others Vs.State of M.P.On internal examination, I noticed hematoma 5 x 12 cm on the head.There was a fracture of temporal and parietal bone of the head.I had given opinion that the deceased was died due to injuries suffered by him on his head.P.2 and I signed the same.Thereafter I visited the place of incident and a marg intimation, Ex.P.2, was sent.The distance between the residence of the PW-3 and the residence of the accused Sunil is 200 meters.She 7 Cr.A.No.1504/2004 Sunil & others Vs.State of M.P.further admitted that before half an our of the incident, there was a dispute between Sunil and deceased in regard to damage of auto.PW-4 Neeraj Kumar Pathak is the brother of the deceased.As per his evidence, he was going to open his shop and then he had heard the cry of the deceased 'save me.' Thereafter, he reached at the place and he had seen that accused persons had been beating the deceased.The report of the incident was lodged at the police station.In his cross-examination, he admitted the fact that the distance between the houses of Sunil and Panju is about 300 meters.He further admitted the fact that appellant No.2-Sushila used to live at Kharhari and appellant No.3-Asha at Dhanpuri.Both had come to attend the marriage.17. PW-5 Shri Krishna Kori is neighbor of the deceased.He deposed that after hearing the cry, he came out form his house and he had seen that Sunil was running towards his house with lathi and deceased had received injuries.He denied the fact in his cross-examination that he had seen Sushila and Asha running from the spot.18. PW-6 Heeralal Patel deposed that he had seen all the three accused persons running from the spot.Same facts have been deposed by PW-7 Ramsundar Verma.The doctor (PW-8), who performed autopsy of the deceased deposed that he had noticed six injuries on the person of the body of the deceased.There was an injury on the left temporal region of the head and on internal examination, there was hematoma on temporal parietal 8 Cr.A.No.1504/2004 Sunil & others Vs.State of M.P.There was fracture of parietal bone also.He opined that the deceased died due to injuries suffered by him on the head.The evidence of doctor establishes the fact that the deceased was not beaten by three persons namely Sushila, Asha and Sunil.As per the prosecution case, there was a quarrel between the appellant No. 1-Sunil and the deceased because the appellant No. 1 made a demand from the deceased to pay the money because deceased had damaged his auto.It is also a fact that the marriage of the appellant No.1-Sunil was fixed and the appellants No.2 and 3 had come to attend the marriage and preparations of the marriage of the appellant No.1 was going on in the house.It is unbelievable that two female members will accompany a male member with lathies to beat the deceased.The evidence depicts that the appellants No.2 and 3 have been roped in and falsely implicated with the case.The trial Court, in our opinion, has committed an error in holding the appellants No.2 and 3 guilty for the offence.In regard to appellant No.1 there is evidence that he had inflicted one injury on vital part of the person of deceased i.e. on the head and other injuries on non-vital parts.The doctor in his evidence opined that cause of death was the injury which was on the head of the deceased.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arjun and another vs State of Chhattisgarh, (2017) 3 SCC 247 has 9 Cr.He had come at the residence of the deceased, which is at a distance of near about 300 meters from the residence of the appellant No.1, and asked the deceased that why he had damaged his auto and directed him to pay the money.Thereafter, there was quarrel.That time the appellant No.1-Sunil had given blows of lathi on the person of the body of the deceased.One blow landed on the head of the deceased, which was the cause of death of the deceased.Thus, the incident occurred due to sudden altercation and the appellant No.1 had not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel manner.Hence, in our opinion, in view of the evidence on record, exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC is applicable.Hence, the offence committed by the appellant No.1-Sunil would a be a case of Section 304 part I of IPC.A.No.1504/2004 Sunil & others Vs.State of M.P.Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants No.2- Sushila Vishwakrma and appellant No.3-Asha Vishwakarma is hereby allowed.They are acquitted form the charge under Section 302 of IPC.They are on bail, their bail bonds are discharged.The Appeal filed by the appellant No.1-Sunil Kumar Vishwakarma is partly allowed.Hence, he has completed actual jail sentence of near about 13 and half years.","['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"acquitted of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149, 294, 336, 188 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code (""IPC"" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10/10/2008, between 3.30 to 4 p.m., communal riots having broken out in the Burhanpur City, complainant Suresh Shukla, a Tampo Driver along with his brother Rakesh Shukla returned to his home and parked the Tampo in front of his house.At that juncture, 10-12 rioters arrived and started pelting stones.When Rakesh came out of the Tampo, 2-3 miscreants, with an intention to cause his death assaulted him leading to injuries on his right hand, shoulder, back and head.Rakesh fell on the spot.As complainant Suresh came forward to rescue Rakesh, he was also beaten by them.He received injuries on his right knee, leg, back and others caused by stone.After beating them, the brawlers, fled from the spot.Amongst them, Gulli, Chhota Baba, Munir, Mannu Mahelwar, Aasif and brother of Mahmood Leader were identified by the complainant.During the incident, the rioters also looted his household articles.The incident was witnessed by Vijay, Kadam, Dilip, Punam Shukla, Kamlesh Shukla etc., who had come on the spot hearing the cries of the complainant.Matter was reported at Police Station Lalbagh and, as during treatment, Rakesh succumbed to the injuries thus sustained, offence under Section 302 of the IPC was also added.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and deserves to be set-aside.Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Government Advocate, we have gone through the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.Complainant and eye-witness Suresh (PW4) had identified only respondent nos.5,7 namely Aminuddin, Riyazuddin alias Raju, as well as Sabir and Naeem.In the First Information Report (for short ""FIR""), it is mentioned that incident had occurred at the house of the complainant, but, as per the evidence led by the prosecution, the offence was committed near Sulabh Shouchalaya, which was situated five houses away from the house of the complainant and, therefore, it was not possible to hear the commotion arising at the spot from the house of the complainant and to ascertain the location of spot, with the consent of both the parties, report of Commissioner N.K.Patel was called by the trial Court.As per the facts mentioned in the FIR, deceased Rakesh was brought to the Hospital in a seriously injured condition in a Tampo, but, Dr. Dilip Patidar (PW1) has testified that Rakesh had himself come for medical aid and this fact is mentioned in MLC report (Ex.P/1) also.In the FIR, it is mentioned that the rioters had veiled their faces.Compliance of Section 157 of the Code was also not done.Presence of human blood could not be ascertained on the sword seized from Sharif.There were material contradictions, omissions and exaggerations in the evidence of witnesses.Dilip (PW8), Devendra Singh (PW12), Rizwan Khan (PW13), Vijay (PW15) were declared hostile.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.The application for grant of leave to file appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Anticipatory Bail Application No. 398 of 2020 is rejected.( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. ) ::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 10:54:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 10:54:57 :::",['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this criminal revision are that Sharad Kumar Patel (who has died during the pendency of this revision), non-applicant No.3 Bhupendra Kumar and non-applicant No.4 Azad Kumar Basant Lal lodged a complaint at police station Majhgawan, Tehsil Sihora averring that they are the partners of firm M/s Radhakishan Narayandas and the firm is engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of Bidis under the 2 CRR.No.1615/2003 trademark ""Khargosh"".The Bidis that are made by the firm are mainly sent for sale in Uttar Pradesh and the firm has Bidi making units in village Majhgawan, Indrana, Ghughra and Katangi in Jabalpur District.It is further averred that in the past Chandrika Prasad Patel and Govind Singh, used to work in Majhgawan unit of the firm.Reserved on : 13/02/2020 Delivered on : 24/02/2020 This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 23.08.2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sihora, Jabalpur in criminal case No. 290/99 whereby learned JMFC framed charge against the applicants / accused for the offence punishable under Sections 485, 486, 487, 488 read with Section 34 of IPC.Complainants/ respondents expelled them and ten months ago they also expelled applicants Jayantilal Patel and Ramchandra Patel from the partnership of the firm M/s. Radhakishan Narayandas.Thereafter they had no relation with the firm and the trademark of the firm.It is further averred that the information was received that applicants Jayantilal Patel, Ramchandra Patel, Chandrika Prasad Patel and Govind Singh are selling the Bidis by using the firm's name and trademark and are earning illegal profits and also causing loss to the firm, so action be taken against them.On that police inquired about the matter and during the enquiry, police raided the premises located at village Gidurha and seized packets of ""Khargosh"" brand Bidis and packaging material and found that applicants are illegally doing business of making and selling Bidis in the name of ""Khargosh"" brand.On that police filed the complaint before the JMFC Sihora against the applicants.On the basis of that complaint Criminal Case No. 290/1999 was registered and learned JMFC, Sihora vide order dated 23.08.2003 framed charge against the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 485, 486, 487, 488 read with Section 34 of IPC.Being aggrieved from that order applicants filed this criminal revision.3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that earlier applicants Jayantilal and Ramchandra were also the partners of the firm M/s Radhakishan Narayandas.Complainant wrongly expelled them from the partnership.Applicants Jayantilal and Ramchandra had filed a Civil Suit No. 18A/2006 against that resolution.That Suit was decreed by VIII ADJ, Jabalpur vide judgment and decree dated 22.10.2008 and declared the resolution void.It was also declared that applicants Jayantilal and Ramchandra are the partners of the firm M/s Radhakrishna Narayandas and are entitled to act as partners of the firm along with the respondent.So no offence under Sections 485, 486, 487, 488 read with Section 34 of IPC is made out against the applicants.Learned 3 CRR.No.1615/2003 trial court without appreciating this fact wrongly framed charges against the applicants.So, applicants be discharged from the aforesaid charges.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the implication of the judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jabalpur is to be considered by the trial court after recording the evidence.At this stage, only on the basis of that judgment charges framed by the trial court against applicants cannot be quashed.There is sufficient evidence available on record to frame charges against applicants.In the matter of Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and others Vs.On merits, materials/ documents filed by accused cannot be considered.The material produced by prosecution alone is to be considered.Complainant wrongly expelled them from the partnership.In that judgment, the court declared that resolution void and it was also declared that applicants Jayantilal and Ramchandra are the partners of the firm M/s Radhakrishna Narayandas and are entitled to act as partners of the firm along with the respondents.It also appears from the record that Sharad Kumar Patel, non-applicant No.3 Bhupendra Kumar and non-applicant No.4 Azad Kumar Basant Lal had filed Civil Suit No. 1A/2000, before District Judge Jabalpur.In that Civil Suit also vide order dated 05/02/2000 District Judge prohibited the applicants Jayanti Lal Patel and Ramchandra from selling, marketing and distributing Bidis Under the trademark 'Khargosh'.The Bidis that are made by the firm are mainly sent for sale in Uttar Pradesh and the firm has a Bidi making units in village Majhgawan, Indrana, Ghughra and Katangi in Jabalpur District.It is further averred that ten months ago they had expelled applicants Jayantilal Patel and Ramchandra Patel from the partnership of the firm M/s. Radhakishan Narayandas, thereafter they had no relation with the firm and the trademark of the firm.",['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
"This is an appeal by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal, on behalf of the Provincial Government against an acquittal of two accused Kaloo Khan and Jaisar Khan who were tried on a charge under Section 353, Penal Code by a Magitrate of Suri.The prosecution case was that a watcher constable of the district enforcement branch saw three carts driven by the two accused and another man Salu Khan each carrying six tins of kerosene oil.He asked them if they had permits and as they could produce none he directed them to proceed to Dubrajpur thana, showing his warrant of appointment.The cartmen attempted to bribe him but he refused to be tempted whereupon they in turn threatened to assault him.He then went on his bicycle and brought two chowkidar Nanda Lal and Patal and took the carts to the neighbouring village.Thereafter they proceeded towards the thana.As they reached the junction where the road branched off towards Adampore, the carters ignoring the constable turned their carts down the branch road to escape.The constable endeavoured to unyoke the cattle whereupon Kaloo Khan struck him and the carts began to move again.He was again assaulted by Kaloo and Jaisar.There was a further assault and finally the cartmen left with the carts and went to Adampore.The accused were eventually arrested and were sent up for trial in connection with the possession of the kerosene tins.He was entitled to arrest them and take them to the thana.The accused therefore in endeavouring to escape and in assaulting the constable when he endeavored to prevent them from escaping were guilty of an offence under Section 353, Penal Code.",['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The extradition was based on four (4) FIRs out of the said thirty-three (33) FIRs and in the subsequent _____________________________________________________________________________________________ WP (Crl.) No.375 of 2007 Page 1 of 36 period during 1995 to 1999 six (6) more FIRs were registered against the petitioner.On 2.1.2002 the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was extended to the National Capital Territory of Delhi vide GSR6(E).Two (2) more FIRs were registered against the petitioner being FIR Nos.33/03 and 125/03 though according to the petitioner they arise out of the same incident.On 29.12.2006, FIR No.104/06 was registered at P.S. Lodhi Road under Section 3 of the said Act against the petitioner and another accused.Commissioner of Police and Others decided on 1.12.2006 were called.LJ 1474 to the effect that once a matter has been considered by the Supreme Court on earlier occasions as a result of which consideration sections have been held to be valid, a new ground of challenge even on the basis of approach made in later decisions of the Supreme Court may not be available before this Court to the petitioner.",['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
"On 12-5-84 at about 15.00 hours Jasodabai (PW 1) was going to her work at the ^I;k* near Jawar Jod.She had a bucket in her hand.JUDGMENT P.N.S. Chauhan, J.A metador No. MBI 9072 came from the side of Metwara and after crushing Jasodabai broke down the barbed wire fencing of the road-side plantation damaged the plants and stuck in the ditch.The scene of occurrence being within the jurisdiction of Jawar P.S. in Sehore district the papers were transferrd to that P.S. by Sonkatch police.Inquest was held and post mortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Riaz Hussain whose report is Ex.P-4, which is an admitted document.It is not in dispute that Jashodabai died of injuries sustained in the said accident.The respondent-accused denied his presence in the vehicle at the time of the accident though his driving license was amongst the document that were seized from the metador.Therefore he did not consider it necessary to record a finding on the other point of rash and negligent driving and acquitted the accused which has been challenged in this appeal by the State.The learned counsel for the respondent after concluding his arguments sought leave to give a list of citations the next day.Instead of a list of citations he has presented a detailed written arguments.Nor a commendable practice indeed.Shri V.N. Shukla (PW 10) the then station house officer Jawar has stated that he seized registration, fitness certificate, insurance and driving license of the vehicle involved in the accident vide seizure memo Ex.In absence of cross examination on this point the arguments that Ex.P-8 should not be held duly proved because Shri Sanjay Prabhakar from whose possession the documents are alleged to have been seized and the independent witnesses of seizure have not been examined, deserves to be rejected.There is no reason whatsoever to assume that Shri Shukla has prepared this false document.The evidence of police officer has to be judged like evidence of any other witness, on its intrinsic worth on prima facie presumption of his honesty and conscientiousness.There is no reason for presuming him to be a highly interested witness (Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 : (1956 Cri LJ 421).Ex. P. 8, therefore is not liable to be assailed as not duly proved which shows that inter alia respondent's driving license was seized from the possession of Shri Sanjay Prabhakar who was present on the spot when Shri Shukla reached there after getting unconfirmed information of the incident.In para 3 of his statement Shri Shukla has clarified that San-jay Prabhakar and Parasmal Sindhi were detained by the crowd on the spot who informed him that the driver had run away.Thus it is clear that though respondent's licence was found alongwith other documents in the possession of Sanjay Prabhakar soon after the incident the respondent himself was not present there.Sanjay Prabhakar was one of the occupants of the vehicle involved in the accident.This is proved by Ex.P-7 showing seizure of the said metador from his possession.From the particulars of Sanjay Prabhakar given in Ex.P.6 and 7 it is clear that he is resident of Nasik.This vehicle also belongs to an industrial unit of Nasik.Therefore, it is clear that Sanjay Prabhakar was one of the occupants of this vehicle.There was no other driving license amongst the papers seized.The respondent as also the vehicle do not come from the area where the accident took place.In these circumstances the fact as to how his driving license came to be amongst the documents of this vehicle in his absence being within the exclusive knowledge of the respondent he was expected to explain the same Under Section 106 of Evidence Act. No such explanation is forthcoming.There is sufficient evidence to show that the driver had run away in the statements of Murlidhar (PW 1) Babulal (PW 2) Moolchand (PW 5) and Madanlal (PW 6), therefore even if the statement of Shri Shukla that this fact was conveyed to him by Sanjay and Parasmal is to be excluded from consideration being hit Under Section 162, Cr.P.C. the fact that the driver of the vehicle managed to escape after the accident stands fully proved.Another crucial document is Ex.The arrest memorandum of respondent proved by Shri D.S. Patil (PW 9) A.S.I. police outpost Metware.He has stated that he arrested the respondent on his voluntary surrender on 21-5-84 vide Ex.P-12 at Metware Police outpost.The fact that the respondent voluntarily surrendered has been assailed on the ground that this fact was not put to him Under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The criticism is misconceived.The respondent has been asked in question No. 24 that he was arrested vide Ex. P-12 and he denied the fact of such arrest.Thus it is seen that on 21-5-84 when the vehicle was to be received back from the police custody the respondent had come along with the said Begool and had surrendered before A.S.I. Shri Patil.There is no conceivable reason to doubt the varacity of Shri Patil in his behalf.The learned trial magistrate rejected this clinching evidence on the erroneous ground that Shri Patil has not disclosed what was stated by the respondent at the time of surrender.Whatever the respondent might have said being self incriminatory, would have amounted to confession and would be inadmissible in view of the bar Under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Even otherwise the evidence on the point of surrender had no linkage with what the respondent stated before the police at the time of surrender and therefore the abovesaid reason for rejecting the said evidence is wholly untenable.But in this case as shown above the discrepant ocaular evidence notwithstanding the facts and circumstances proved, leave no reasonable doubt that the metador being driven by the respondent.Appreciation of evidence is a difficult art and demands a meticulous analytic eye capable of seeing the parts as also the whole picture in one simultaneous process in absence whereof the most likely casualty in justice.From the evidence of Murlidhar (PW 1) husband of the deceased, Babulal (PW 2), Moolchand (PW 5) and Madanlal (PW 6) the picture that emerges is that deceased Jasoda was going with the bucket in her hand to fetch water.She was on her left side of the road.The metador in question came at a high speed from the side of Motwara and after hitting Jasoda went off the road breaking down the fencing of road-side plantation and got stuck up in the ditch.In result the appeal succeeds.",['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
"This petition has been filed to call for the records in Crime No.304 of 2015, on the first respondent.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.168 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-1, Poonamallee, in Crime No.38 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police having been taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC as against the petitioner.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent person and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2011 for the offences under Sections, 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC, as against the petitioner and filed charge sheet in C.C.No.168 of 2017 before the Judicial Magistrate-1, Poonamallee.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence under Section 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC.all the points raised by the petitioner have to be considered only during the trial.Therefore, he prayed to dismiss this petition.Heard Mr.It is seen from the charge there are specific avernments to attract the offences as against the petitioner.Further it is also seen that there are materials to connect the petitioner to the offences.More over all the points raised by the petitioner have to be considered only during the trial.The petitioner at liberty to raise all the points before the Court below during the trial.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 (Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors.) stated in para 4,5, and 9 may be made hereunder.However, considering the petitioner being lady and her age as well as thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J., lbm case is of the year 2017, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Investigation Officer, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai -3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.6875 2019 and CRL.M.P.Nos.3783 and 3784 of 2019http://www.judis.nic.in","['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The father of the informant died about a year prior to the lodging of the complaint.Gangarani Bagdi.But very often Sasth tried to have illicit relation with Gangarani forcibly.On the date of incident in the evening Sasthi and his elder brother Ananda being highly excited entered into the house of the informant and tried to lift Gangarani.The informant with his brothers resisted and Ananda with the help of 'kencha' and Sasthi with the help of dagger (chora) attacked the informant and his brothers.The informant somehow managed to escape and took shelter in the house of one Ghosh.JUDGMENT Kalidas Mukherjee, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge.2nd Court, Bankura convicting Sasthi Bagdi and Ananda Bagdi and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5.000/- each in default S.I. for six months under Section 302/34, I.P.C. One Dilip Bagdi lodged complaint with the O.C. of Patrasayer P.S. alleging that on 25-2-1995 at about 6.00 p.m. his brother Bhagya Bagdi alias Ajit Bagdi was stabbed to death by Sasthi Bagdi.The second brother of the informant could not escape and he was assaulted in his back and neck by means of dagger.The aunt of the informant tried to resist but she was assaulted on her leg by Ananda Bagdi by means of 'kencha'.After the receipt of the complaint the P.S. case was started under Section 302/324, I.P.C. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted.The learned trial Judge on perusal of the materials on record framed charge under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and 324/34,I. P.C., against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.In this case the prosecution examined as many as 20 P. Ws, including the persons of the neighborhood, the witnesses of seizure, Autopsy Surgeon and I. O. P.W. 1 Falguni Ghosh.P.W. 2 Kalidasi Delut, P.W. 9 Yudhisthir Ghosh, P.W. 11 Swapan Ghosh.P.W. 15 Dilip Bagdi (de facto complainant) were declared hostile.The learned Trial Judge upon consideration of the materials on record was pleased to pass the Judgment of conviction and sentence holding that both the accused persons committed the murder of Bhagya Bagdi in the manner as stated by the prosecution but, the charge under Section 324, I.P.C. against the Ananda Bagdi was not proved as the injured Kalidasi was declared hostile and did not make any allegation against accused Ananda Bagdi.The learned Trial Judge observed that in the result the charge under Section 302/34, I, P.C. as framed against both the accused persons was proved beyond any manner of doubt, but, the charge under Section 324 I.P.C. against Ananda Bagdi failed.The learned Trial Judge ultimately convicted Sasthi Bagdi and Ananda Bagdi under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and passed the sentence as aforesaid.The learned Judge acquitted Ananda Bagdi of the charge under Section 324, I.P.C.Mr. Kumar contends that the another son of Gangarani was not examined and there is no explanation for such non-examination.It is further contended that the offence was committed at 18.00 hours on 25-2-1995 and it was reported to the P.S. on 26-2-1995 at 7.15 hours and there is evidence to show that Madanbabu and Pranab got sufficient time for fabrication in the matter of lodging of the complaint.Mr, Kumar submits that the place of occurrence is doubtful, Mr, Kumar contends that in view of the evidence on record the learned Trial Judge was not justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence.It is contended that the evidence of P.. Ws. remains unchallenged on material points.It is contended that from the evidence of PW 10 it would appear that both the accused persons Ananda and Sasthi ran after the Bhagya and stabbed him by means of a knife three times.Mr. Mukherjee contends that although it is not in the evidence of other P. Ws.that Ananda also chased Bhagya and caught hold of him, it is in the evidence that Ananda was present with Sasthi from the very beginning till the infliction of assault by Sasthi on Bhagya and this goes to show that there was active participation on the part of Ananda and the learned Trial Judge was justified in convicting Ananda under Section 302, I.P.C. with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C.Mr. Mukherjee contends that the offending weapon was recovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in pursuance of the statement made by the accused and there was no suggestion from the defence that the weapon allegedly recovered was not the same with which the assault was allegedly inflicted on Bhagya.Mr. Mukherjee thus contends that having regard to the evidence on record the learned trial Judge was justified in convicting both the accused persons under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and there is no ground to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Judge.As regards the assault by accused Sasthi upon Bhagya it is in the F.I.R. that on 25-2-1995 at about 6.00 p.m. Sasthi and Ananda being highly excited entered into the house of the informant and they wanted to lift the mother of the informant.It is also in the F.I.R. that being resisted, Sasthi by means of dagger assaulted Bhagya on the back and the neck.It has also been mentioned in the F.I.R. that several blows were dealt on Bhagya by accused Sasthi.From the ocular version of the prosecution case as stated by p. W. 3, P.W. 10, P.W. 13, P.W. 14, P.W. 17 and P.W. 18 it appears that on the date of incident at about 5.30/6.00 p.m. Sasthi and Ananda went to the house of Ganga and being resisted by the sons of Ganga Sasthi assaulted Bhagya by means of dagger on the verandah of Shankar Ghosh (P.W. 3).From the evidence of these P. Ws.it is clear that Sasthi dealt the blow on Bhagya as a result of which Bhagya succumbed to the injuries.The evidence of the P. Ws.remained unshaken after undergoing the test of cross-examination.Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of these P. Ws.so as to cast any shadow of doubt upon the veracity of their testimony.There is also no doubt as to the place of occurrence which is the verandah of Shankar Ghosh (PW 3).Another important aspect of the prosecution case is the recovery of the offending weapon pursuant to the statement made by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Mr. Mukherjee has drawn our attention to the evidence of P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 10 and P.W. 17 regarding the recovery of the offending weapon.It is in the evidence of P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 17 that Sasthi led the police to his house wherefrom he brought out the dagger and handed over it to the police in their presence and the.seizure list was also prepared on the spot wherein they signed.Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of the P. Ws.so as to cast any shadow of doubt on the said recovery of the offending weapon.Mr. Kumar in this regard submits that the offending weapon has not been sent to the F.S.L. for examination and report.The I. O. (P.W. 20) has stated that he did not send the seized articles for chemical expert's report to ascertain whether there was any human blood with the seized articles or not.as to the infliction of assault on Bhagya and the recovery of offending weapon pursuant to the statement of accused Sasthi, the non-examination of the weapon by the F.S.L. would not in any way shake the veracity of the prosecution case.As regards the medical evidence, the doctor (P.W. 7) has noted the following injuries on the dead body of Bhagya Bagdi aged 17 years:a) One sharp cutting very deep extending up to cervical vertebrae injury at near right side of neck of sterno clavicular Joint measuring 1 1/2"" x 1/2 with deep cutting all cervical vessels on right side.b) There is 1"" x 1/2"" sharp cutting incised wound over the manubrium sterni.c) There is 2 1/2"" x 1 1/2"" incised muscles deep injury at right scapular region with bleeding.In my opinion cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage of following above injuries by sharp cutting instrument like knife or dagger of ante mortem and homicidal in nature.All the injuries are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.In the cross-examination P.W. 7 has stated this type of injury can be caused if anyone is stabbed by a knife.We find that the ocular version of the prosecution case finds ample corroboration from the evidence of the Autopsy Surgeon.So having regard to the evidence of the P. Ws.The learned Trial Judge therefore, was justified in convicting the accused Sasthi and passing the sentencing as aforesaid.We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence as recorded by the learned Trial Judge in respect of appellant Sasthi.As regards the conviction and sentence in respect of appellant Ananda it in the evidence of P.W. 10 that Ananda and Sasthi ran after Bhagya and caught hold of Bhagya by the side of their 'baithakkhana' and then Sasthi stabbed by a knife three times on the person of Bhagya.From the materials on record we find that only PW 10 has stated that Ananda also chased and caught hold of Bhagya.Excepting P.W. 10 no other P. Ws. stated that Ananda ran after Bhagya and caught hold of him.Moreover, in the F.I.R. there is no mention that Ananda ran after Bhagya and took active part in the matter of infliction of assault upon Bhagya.The allegation against Ananda as stated in the F.I.R. is that he inflicted assault on Kalidasi on her leg by means of 'kancha' and as Kalidasi (P.W. 2) did not support the infliction of injury upon her, the accused Ananda was acquitted by the learned Trial Judge.In order to convict Ananda under Section 302, I.P.C. for causing death of Bhagya with the aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C., the prosecution has to prove that there was prior concert or pre-arranged plan.From the evidence on record we do not find that there was prior meeting of minds amongst the appellants for inflicting assault on Sasthi to cause his death.From the evidence on record we find that both the appellants came to the house of Ganga with the intent to lift Ganga as Sasthi had illicit relation with Ganga and on being resisted, Sasthi dealt the fatal blow on Bhagya as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries.The lone testimony of P.W. 10 that Ananda also chased and caught hold of Bhagya is not sufficient to warrant conviction of appellant Ananda with the aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C.Let a copy of this order along with the L.C.R. be sent to the learned Trial Court immediately.Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for, be handed over to the parties as early as possible.Alok Kumar Basu, J.I agree.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"It is alleged that he exhorted other co-accused persons.It would be apparent that the applicant is falsely implicated in the matter.As many as 6 accused persons are implicated by the victim.No common intention or object of the applicant is established with other co- accused persons.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has an apprehension of his arrest relating to crime No.276/2014 registered at Police Station Pathariya, District Damoh for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 22 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Except of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, remaining offences are bailable.The victim Madan had sustained 9 injuries.Out of such injuries, no injury was found fatal or grave.There is no allegation against the applicant that he assaulted the victim by any weapon.Prima facie no offence punishable M.Cr.C.No.17178/2014 under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicant for bailable offences.Under such circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.C.No.17178/2014 This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).R.K. Jain, R.P. Singh and Rakesh Khanna for the petitioners.S.C. Mahanto, C.V.S. Rao and Mahabir Singh for theRespondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.C. RAY, J. The petitioners who are life convicts inthis writ petition have assailed a D.O. Letter No.4665/1983-GI/G4/R.10-84 dated 24.4.1985 issued by the re-spondent No. 3, Inspector General of Prisons, Haryana,Chandigarh intimating to the Superintendent of Jail thatconvicts who are on bail and whose sentences are suspended,are excluded from the remissions systems in view of theprovisions of Section 637 of the Punjab Jail Manual on theground that the aforesaid letter purports to deprive thepetitioners from the benefit of remissions of 19 months and12 days granted to them during the period they were on bail,while counting the total period of sentence including remis-sions undergone by them in order to consider their cases ofpre-mature release from imprisonment.The petitioner No. 1, Jai Prakash was convicted by theDistrict and Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, on December 4, 1975under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was award-ed life imprisonment.Against this judgment and order of theSessions Judge he preferred an appeal before the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana and he was granted bail on 12.1.1976.This appeal, however, was dismissed on 28.9.1978 and he wasarrested on 29.1.1979 while he was going to the Court tosurrender himself to serve out the remaining part of thesentence as stated by him.The petitioner has stated thatduring the period he was on bail he earned remission of 19months and 12 days.Similarly, the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 were also convict-ed by the District and Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, on 23.3.1976 in a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Codeand they were awarded life imprisonment.1979 for serving out theirremaining part of sentence.The petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 werealso given remissions of 19 months and 12 days during theperiod they remained on bail.It has been stated that though all the petitioners weregiven remissions of 19 months and 12 days and they wereunder the impression that the period of remission earned bythem would be taken into consideration under para 637 ofPunjab Jail Manual while computing their sentence under Para516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual.They have now been informedby the respondent No. 3 as per his letter dated 24.4.1985addressed to the Superintendent, District Jail, Bhiwani,respondent No. 2, that the convicts who were on bail andwhose sentences were suspended would be excluded from theremissions purported to be earned by them while they were onbail.The petitioners have submitted that a number of pris-oners to whom remissions were given during the period whenthey were on bail were also released by the State Governmentafter taking into consideration the remissions granted tothem during the period when they were on bail or that theirsentence had been suspended.Names of six persons werementioned in the petition who were pre-maturely released.The petitioners have also stated that since they surrenderedthemselves before the jail authority after dismissal oftheir appeals by the High Court they are entitled to havethe period of remissions earned by them to be counted whileconsidering the total period of sentence undergone for theirpremature release.A counter-affidavit affirmed by the Superintendent ofDistrict Jail, Bhiwani has been filed.The petitioners are not entitled to thebenefit claimed as they had not surrendered in the jail forundergoing the remaining period of the sentence.The appealof petitioner No. 1 had been dismissed on 28.9.1978 but hedid not surrender for several months.According to the petitioners' own averments in para 2of the petition, the other four writ petitioners remainedout of jail for more than two months after the dismissal oftheir appeal.It is evident that they had not surrendered inthe jail for undergoing the remaining period of sentenceimmediately after dismissal of their appeals.It has also been stated that similar cases of remissionearned during the period of bail came up before the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana and it was held by the HighCourt that special remissions were not available to theconvicts who had not surrendered voluntarily on the expiryof the bail period.It has been stated further that non-surrender of the convict for1112several months after dismissal of appeal by itself showedthat the surrender was not voluntary and such a convict didnot merit the remission and an interpretation different fromthat would defeat the administration of justice.It has beenaverred that petitioners could not avail of the remissionsordered erroneously and inadvertently not in accordance withthe relevant rules.As regards the six specific cases men-tioned, it has been stated that the benefit was given toTuhi Ram and Dig Ram only but not in the cases of the otherfour convicts referred to in the petition.They were deniedthe benefit as it is being done to the petitioners.""MANUAL FOR THE SUPERINTENDENCE AND MANAGEMENT OF JAILS IN THE PUNJABThe submission thatthe petitioners who were temporarily released on bail areentitled to get the remission earned during the period theywere under bail, is not at all sustainable.As such theremissions that were inadvertently given to these petition-ers cannot be taken into account in considering the total 1113period of sentence undergone by them while considering theirpremature release from imprisonment under paragraph 637 ofthe Punjab Jail Manual.It also appears from the order ofthe Governor of Haryana dated 14th August, 1977 annexed asAnnexure 'R1' to the writ petition that the special remis-sion was granted by the Governor of Haryana to only thoseprisoners who were in confinement on 14th August, 1977 onthe occasion of the first visit of the Chief Minister ofHaryana to jail and who had been subsequently released onbail.It is pertinent to set out paragraph 2 of the saidorder:-""All those prisoners who have been convicted before the 14th August, 1977 but subsequently released on bail shall be enti- tled to the remission only if they surrender in the jail for undergoing the unexpired portion of their sentence.""The petitioners though convicted prior to 14th August,1977 that is the date of visit of the Hon'ble Minister tothe Jail were granted bail before the said date.Secondly, all thesepetitioners did not surrender in the jail for undergoing theunexpired portion of their sentences immediately after theirappeals were dismissed by the High Court.1979 in pursuance of the warrantissued by the court.1979 to serve outthe remaining part of their sentence.1977referred to hereinbefore.1985 to allSuperintendents of Jails including the Superintendent ofDistrict Jail, Bhiwani, drawing their attention to paragraph2 of the letter dated 11/14-1-1985 from the State Governmentto the Jail Department which is to the following effect:-""Attention of all Superintendents of Jails is drawn to para 4 of the Government letter under which Government have affirmed that convicts who are on bail and whose sentences have been suspended are excluded from the remissions systems in.This D.O. letter has been annexed as Annexure 'A' to the writ petition.The letter dated 11/14 January, 1985 issued by the Gover- nor of Haryana to the respondent No. 3 is an- nexed as Annexure 'R5' to the writ petition.The relevant excerpt of it is set out herein below:-It is clear and evident from this letter that convictswho were on parole from jail on the date and time of thevisit of the Chief Minister to the Jail will be grantedremissions on condition that they surrender at the jail onthe due date after expiry of parole period for undergoingthe unexpired period of their sentence.This means that aconvict in order to get the benefit of remission as directedby the said order issued under Article 16 1 of the Constitu-tion of India has to surrender voluntarily at the Jail afterexpiry of bail.In the instant case, petitioner No. 1 didnot surrender in jail or before the Magistrate after hisappeal was dismissed by the High Court and the petitionerNo. 1 had been 1115arrested under warrant of arrest as he did not surrender injail after his appeal was dismissed.Petitioners who were onbail also did not surrender immediately after dismissal oftheir appeal but they surrendered themselves after twomonths of dismissal of their appeal.The letter of the respondent No. 3 theInspector General of Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh i.e.D.O.Letter No. 4665/1983-GI/G4/R10-84 dated 24.4.1985 is quitein accordance with the Government order made on 11/14 Janu-ary, 1985 and the respondent No. 3 in fact quoted paragraph2 of the said letter which contains the necessary requisitefor grant of remissions from sentence.The said D.O. letterof the respondent No. 3 cannot therefore be challenged as inviolation of paragraph 637 of the Punjab Jail Manual nor itis contrary to the directions contained in the aforesaidorder.In the premises aforesaid, this writ petition is dis-missed.There will be no order as to costs.",['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
"2.1 Meenakshi (D1) married the appellant/Thirupathi and they were blessed with two daughters, viz. Divya (P.W.6) and Karthika (P.W.7) and one son Dinesh (D2).The appellant suspected his wife’s fidelity and frequently quarrelled with her.The family was residing in Door No.2352, Housing Board Colony, Anupanadi West, Madurai.Meenakshi’s (D1’s) sister Karpagavalli (P.W.3) was residing in Door No.2318 in the same colony.The appellant’s parents were also residing nearby.The parents of Meenakshi (D1), viz. Perumal (P.W.1) and Kamakshi (P.W.2) were residing in Sayalkudi in Ramanathapuram District, which is about 200 kilometres away from Madurai.2.2 Four days prior to Deepavali in 2011, Kamakshi (P.W.2), the mother of Meenakshi (D1), tried to speak to her daughter, but, was not able to get her on line.So, she contacted her younger daughter Karpagavalli (P.W.3) and asked her to find out the whereabouts of Meenakshi (D1).Karpagavalli (P.W.3) went to Meenakshi’s (D1’s) house and found that it was locked.Since there was no news from Meenakshi (D1), her parents suspected foul play and came to Madurai in thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 evening of 22.10.2011 and went to Karpagavalli’s (P.W.3’s) house.Then, they all came to Meenakshi’s (D1’s) house and found that the door was locked.They staved in through the rear door of the house and to their shock, they found the dead bodies of Meenakshi (D1) and Dinesh (D2) with injuries.2.3 On the written complaint given by Perumal (P.W.1), Uma Shankar (P.W.18), Inspector of Police (hereinafter referred to as “the Investigating Officer”) registered a case in Crime No.535 of 2011 on 22.10.2011 at 22.30 hrs.under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P.31), which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate on 24.10.2011 at 05.00 p.m., as could be seen from the endorsement thereon.2.4 The Investigating Officer (P.W.18) came to the place of occurrence and despatched the two bodies through Mahendran, HC 1785 (P.W.16) to the mortuary in the Government Hospital, Madurai.On 23.10.2011, at the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.18) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.19), in the presence of witnesses Azhagarsami (P.W.5) and Mahendran (P.W.15).At the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer (P.W.18) seized the following items:http://www.judis.nic.in 4 ∀ A screw driver measuring 12 inches (M.O.3);∀ A sharp edged metal comb specially used by women for untangling the knots in the tress (M.O.4) and ∀ A 100ml.box of Endosulfan (pesticide) (M.O.5).2.5 On 23.10.2011, the Investigating Officer (P.W.18) went to the mortuary and conducted inquest over the body of Meenakshi (D1) and the Inquest Report qua Meenakshi (D1) was marked as Ex.After inquest, he despatched the body of Meenakshi (D1) for post-mortem.They have further stated that the appellant suspected his wife's fidelity and believed that she was of loose morals and therefore, quarrelled with her frequently and assaulted her.Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the body of Dinesh (D2) and the Inquest Report qua Dinesh (D2) was marked as Ex.After the inquest, he despatched the body of Dinesh (D2) for post-mortem.2.6 Dr.Rajavelu (P.W.11) performed autopsy on the body of Dinesh (D2) and issued the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P.6).After obtaining the Viscera Report (Ex.P.7), he gave the final opinion (Ex.P.8).In his evidence as well in the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P.6), he has stated as follows:“Appearances found at the post-mortem Decomposed body of a male child aged about 10 years.Finger & toe nails are blue.The following ante-mortem injuries are noted on the body On dissection of scalp, skull & dura :Contusion of 4cm x 3cm seen on the left temporal region.Contusion of 4cm x 2cm seen on the right mastoid region.Diffused subdural haemorrhage & Subarachnoid haemorrhage noted over both the cerebral hemispheres.http://www.judis.nic.in 5 OTHER FINDINGS :Peritoneal cavity - contains 10ml of decomposed fluid, Pleural cavities - contains 20ml of decomposed fluid, Pericardium - contains 10ml of decomposed fluid; Heart - flabby; Lungs - cut section decomposed; Larynx & trachea - normal; Hyoid bone intact; Stomach - contains 100 gms of partially digested semi solid food materials with smell of decomposition, mucosa - decomposed; Liver, Spleen & Kidneys - cut section decomposed; Small intestine - contains 10ml decomposed fluid with smell of decomposition, mucosa - decomposed; Bladder - empty; Brain - described.” In the final opinion (Ex.P.8), he has stated as follows:“The deceased would have appear to have died of head injury 24-36 hours prior to post-mortem.”http://www.judis.nic.in 6 2.7 Dr.Rajavelu (P.W.11) performed autopsy on the body of Meenakshi (D1) and issued the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P.9).After obtaining the Viscera Report (Ex.P.10), he gave the final opinion (Ex.P.11).In his evidence as well in the post-mortem certificate, he has stated as follows :“Appearances found at the post-mortem Decomposed body of a female aged about 33 years.Face, chest, abdomen are blotted.Finger & toe nails are pale.The following antemortem injuries are noted on the body.Following injuries seen on the front of the left side chest around the nipples1.A circular punctured wound of 0.5cm size cavity depth noted 3cm below and lateral to the nipple in the 5th intercoastal space.On dissection : The wound margin is irregular and inverted directed inward and upward direction pass through the skin, underlying tissue and muscles enter the pleural cavity, the lung, the pericardium, pierce the cavity of left ventricle of the heart.2.A circular punctured wound of 0.5cm size, cavity depth 6cm lateral and below to the nipple on the 4th intercoastal space.On dissection : The wound margin is irregular and inverted, directed horizontally inwards and pass through the skin, underlying tissue pleural cavity and pierce the lung.3.A punctured wound of 0.5cm x muscle depth seen 5cm above and lateral to the nipple.On dissection : The wound pass through the skin and underlying tissue.4.A punctured wound of 0.5cm x muscle deep seen 3cm below and medial to the nipple in the 4th intercoastal space.On dissection : Wound margin irregular and inverted pass through the skin underlying tissue and muscle.5.A punctured wound of 0.5cm x muscle deep noted 4cm above and medial to the nipple in the 2nd intercoastal space.http://www.judis.nic.in 7 On dissection : Wound margin irregular and inverted pass through the skin, underlying tissue and muscle.6.A punctured wound of 0.5cm x bone deep noted 5cm above and medial to the nipple.’ On dissection : Wound margin irregular and pass through the skin and underlying tissue.OTHER FINDINGS :Peritoneal cavity - empty, Pleural cavities - left side 1500ml of blood with clots, right side empty, Pericardium - contains 100ml of fluid blood with clots seen, Heart - both chambers empty, Coronaries - patent, Lungs - cut section pale, Larynx & trachea - normal, Hyoid bone - intact, Stomach - contains 100gms of partially digested food, nil specific smell, mucosa - normal, Liver, Spleen & Kidneys - cut section pale, Small intestine - contains 20ml of bile stained fluid, nil specific smell, mucosa - pale, Bladder - empty, Uterus - normal, cut section empty, Brain - surface pale, cut section pale.” No poison was detected in the visceral examination of the internal organs of Meenakshi (D1) vide Viscera Report (Ex.P.10).In the final opinion (Ex.P.11), Dr.Rajavelu (P.W.11) has stated as follows:“The deceased would appear to have died of external injury No.1 and its corresponding internal injuries along with cumulative effect of all other injuries, sustained by her 24-36 hours prior to post-mortem.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 2.9 During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (P.W.18) came to know that the appellant had taken away his two children, viz., Divya (P.W.6) and Karthika (P.W.7) and absconded and therefore, the case was altered to one under Section 302 r/w 363 IPC and the Alteration Report (Ex.P.24) was prepared and sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate on 27.02.2012, as could be seen from the endorsement thereon.2.10 Meanwhile, Perumal (P.W.1) filed H.C.P.(MD) No.40 of 2012 on 09.01.2012 alleging that his two grandchildren Divya (P.W.6) aged 15 years and Karthika (P.W.7) aged 12 years, are in the illegal custody of the appellant, who has committed the murder of Meenakshi (D1) and has absconded with his two children.2.11 A Division Bench of this Court entertained the habeas corpus petition and issued notice to the police.The Investigating Officer (P.W.18) formed a special team to nab the appellant and rescue the children.On 14.06.2012, the appellant surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai, which was not the jurisdictional Court.However, strangely, the order that is said to have been passed by this Court was not marked before the Trial Court.Therefore, we are marking the certified copy of the order dated 15.06.2012 in H.C.P. (MD) No.40 of 2012 as Ex.C.1, in exercise of the powers under Section 391 Cr.P.C. No prejudice will be caused to the appellant, because, even in the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, it has been suggested that he has deliberately suppressed the order passed in H.C.P. (MD) No.40 of 2012, which, of course, he has denied.Therefore, the defence also wanted the order to be brought on record.∀ The children were enquired by this Court and at their request, were handed over to their paternal grandparents and not to their maternal grandfather, Perumal (P.W.1).2.13 Now, reverting to the narration of facts, the Investigating Officer (P.W.18) took custody of the appellant on 20.06.2012 for three days and interrogated him.He recorded his confession statement, based on which, he recovered a gold thali (M.O.1) and a pair of gold stud (M.O.2) belonging to Meenakshi (D1) from Muthoot Finance in Kerala, under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.26).From the confession statement of the appellant, the Investigating Officer (P.W.18) came to know about one Ameen (P.W.9) and recorded his statement.2.14 The material objects, viz. screw driver (M.O.3) and iron tress untangler (M.O.4) were sent through the Court to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.The articles were examined and blood was detected in the screw driver (M.O.3) and tress untangler (M.O.4) vide Biology Report (Ex.P.29).However, the Serology Report (Ex.P.30) states that the blood found in the tress untangler (M.O.4) was human blood, but the result of grouping test was inconclusive.2.15 After examining the witnesses and obtaining various reports, the Investigating Officer (P.W.18) completed the investigation and filedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 final report in P.R.C.No.11 of 2012 before the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, under Section 301 (2 counts) and 404 IPC against the appellant.2.16 On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.62 of 2014 and was tried by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.The trial Court framed charges under Section 302 (2 counts) and 404 IPC against the appellant and when questioned, the appellant pleaded “not guilty”.2.17 To prove the case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and marked 31 exhibits and 6 material objects.2.18 When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same and gave a written explanation which will be discussed later.2.19 After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court, by judgment dated 19.07.2017 in S.C.No.62 of 2014, convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:Section 302 (2 counts) Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2.20 The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused has filed the present appeal.3 Heard Mr.They have also stated that on accounthttp://www.judis.nic.in 14 of torture given by the appellant, Meenakshi (D1) went to her natal home in Ramanathapuram District and a police complaint was also lodged in A.W.P.S., Madurai Town and the police advised the couple to live away from each other for six months.7 To corroborate this, the prosecution examined Kameswari (P.W.17), the then Sub Inspector of Police, A.W.P.S., Madurai, who has stated that on 06.10.2007, Meenakshi, W/o.She has further stated that she (P.W.17) called Meenakshi (D1) and her husband for enquiry and in the enquiry, Meenakshi (D1) agreed to re-join her husband in the interests of her children.In the cross-examination, it was suggested to her that the A.W.P.S., Madurai, does not have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint from a person who lives in Anupanadi West area and only the A.W.P.S., Thirupparankundram will have jurisdiction, for which, she stated that, for conducting a petition enquiry on the complaint given by a woman, territorial jurisdiction is not relevant and only if a regular FIR is registered, the aspect of territorial jurisdiction will be examined by the police.It was further suggested to her that the petition No.254 of 2011 relates to some other person and not to the complaint of Meenakshi (D1), which, she denied.http://www.judis.nic.in 15 8 Thus, on an overall reading of the evidence of Perumal (P.W.1), Kamakshi (P.W.2), Karpagavalli (P.W.3) and Kameswari (P.W.17), we find that the prosecution has proved the alleged motive satisfactorily.The most powerful circumstance against the appellant is that, after the incident, he had absconded with his two daughters viz. Divya (P.W.6) and Karthika (P.W.7) and did not even attend the funeral of his wife (Meenakshi-D1) and son (Dinesh-D2).9 Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel, took this Court through the written explanation given by the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, he has stated that he had a very cordial relationship with his wife; there was no dispute between them; they had purchased a house in Door No.2352, Housing Board Colony, Anupanadi West in their joint names in the year 2008 and were living happily; his job is to make steel almirah, for which, he would go frequently to various places and remain there for two to three months continuously; he informed his wife and children and went to Ganga Bureau Company in Tuticorin, where, he was employed, during which time, the unfortunate incident had taken place; his parents-in-law had taken a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from him; when he asked them to return the amount, they developed ill feeling towards him and that is why, they have falsely implicated him in this case; he came to know that the police were on thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 16 hunt for him and fearing that, he will be tortured, he remained in Tuticorin itself; he did not take with him Divya (P.W.6) and Karthika (P.W.7); he did not go to Kerala; since his parents-in-law wanted to usurp the property, this case has been foisted on him.10 Relying upon the above statement of the appellant, Mr.In this case, the deceased were none other than the appellant’s wife and son.The appellant may have many a grievance against his wife and therefore, he would have decided to remain away from her funeral.But, there is no plausible explanation, as to why, he did not even come to see the dead body of his son Dinesh (D2).Yet another powerful circumstance against the appellant is that, 1 (2011) 11 SCC 754http://www.judis.nic.in 17 after the incident, his two daughters Divya (P.W.6) and Karthika (P.W.7), who were school-going children had also gone missing.No doubt, Divya (P.W.6) and Karthika (P.W.7) turned hostile.Karthika (P.W.7), who was 14 years old, when she was examined on 02.06.2014, has stated that on the night when her mother and brother died, she and her elder sister were sleeping in the house of her paternal grandfather, which is three houses away.In the charge that was framed against the appellant, it is clearly stated that on 21.10.2011, while the appellant and his two daughters were sleeping in the house of the appellant’s father, around 12.30 midnight, he saw light burning in the house, where his wife Meenakshi (D1) was staying and suspecting her, he went there and held her by her tresses and assaulted her; at that time, when Dinesh (D2) intervened, he (appellant) pushed Dinesh (D2) with such force that hehttp://www.judis.nic.in 18 dashed against the wall and fell dead; thereafter, the appellant took the iron tress untangler (M.O.4) and stabbed Meenakshi (D2) around her chest, resulting in her death.13 According to Karthika (P.W.7), her father was not there with them on that night and that, he did not take them with him.14 Divya (P.W.6) and Karthika (P.W.7) have stated in their evidence that there was no misunderstanding between their parents.Even in the Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement of the appellant, he had stated so.Had that been true, he would not have stayed away from the funeralhttp://www.judis.nic.in 19 of his wife and son.His explanation that he had given Rs.2,00,000/- to his parents-in-law and when he asked them to return the amount, they developed animosity towards him and therefore, they had foisted this case against him appears incredible, because, in the cross-examination of Perumal (P.W.1), no such suggestion has been put.The story of the appellant extending loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to his parents-in-law surfaced for the first time only in the Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement.The appellant has not denied the fact that he voluntarily surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai on 14.06.2012, which is not the jurisdictional Court and the children were produced by the police before this Court on 15.06.2012, one day after his surrender.Hence, we are in complete agreement with the following finding of the trial Court returned in paragraph 57:“The reason for P.W.6 and P.W.7 for not attending the funeral of their brother and mother though they were in Madurai is also doubtful.If they have attended the funeral, there might not be any necessity for P.W.1 to file the Habeas Corpus Petition before the High Court.From the evidence of P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W.18, it is clear that the accused has left the place of occurrence immediately 2 (2002) 7 SCC 157http://www.judis.nic.in 20 after the occurrence.” 15 As regards the recovery of gold jewels from Muthoot Finance, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel contended that Ganesh (P.W.10), Manager of Muthoot Finance, has not stated that it was the appellant who had pledged the jewels (M.Os.1 and 2), but, has stated that it was one Ameen (P.W.9).Ameen (P.W.9) has stated that he is a native of Shencottah and works for a steel almirah company in Kollam, Kerala; he knows the appellant, who is also an almirah craftsman; the appellant approached him for a job and he got him a job in his company;the appellant approached him with his two daughters and asked to arrange an accommodation for him and that, he got him a place to stay in Kollam; the appellant gave him a pair of ear rings (M.O.2) and a gold thali (M.O.1) and wanted a loan; he pledged those items with Muthoot Finance and obtained loan and gave him.16 Assuming for a moment that the prosecution was not able to satisfactorily prove the fact of the appellant giving two jewels to Ameen (P.W.9) for pledging them with Muthoot Finance, yet, the evidence of Ameen (P.W.9) that he is an almirah craftsman and that, he knows the appellant who is also an almirah craftsman and that, the appellant came with his two daughters in search of a job to Kollam in Kerala, where, hehttp://www.judis.nic.in 21 got him a job and also accommodation, cannot be disbelieved.17 As regards the conviction of the appellant under Section 404 IPC, except the police confession of the appellant, there is no other material to establish the charge.Under such circumstances, the conviction and sentence slapped on the appellant for the charge under Section 404 IPC cannot be sustained and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said charge.In support of this contention, the learned Senior Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the police confession of the appellant.In our opinion, the police confession whichhttp://www.judis.nic.in 22 came into being after registration of the FIR and during investigation cannot be looked into, even in favour of the accused, save as provided under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, in the light of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sudalaimani vs. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Chromepet Police Station, Chennai3, wherein, one of us (PNPJ) was a member.That apart, there are six stab injuries around the chest portion of Meenakshi (D1), which shows the intensity with which the offence was committed.The act of the appellant qua Dinesh (D2) would fall within the third limb of Section 299 IPC and would not graduate to Section 300 IPC.However, the same cannot be said qua the death of Meenakshi (D1), which will clearly fall within Section 300 Thirdly or Fourthly and there being no way to invoke any of the five exceptions, the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC for the death of Meenakshi (D1) cannot be unsettled.19 In the result, this appeal is partly allowed.The conviction and sentence slapped on the appellant under Section 404 IPC are set 3 2014 (4) CTC 593http://www.judis.nic.in 23 aside.Further, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of Dinesh (D2) are also set aside and in lieu of that, the appellant is convicted under Section 304(II) IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Meenakshi (D1) stand affirmed.The sentences shall run concurrently.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"sdas allowed C.R.M. No. 3455 of 2018 In Re.: An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 06.06.2018 in connection with Dankuni Police Station Case No. 399 of 2017 dated 06.11.2017 under Sections 498A/325/354B/376/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re: Gita Debi & Ors.......... petitioners Mr. Mahammad Mahmud, Mr. Mahfuzus Salam Mollah, Mr. Biswajit Bhattacharya ...for the petitioners Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwala .... for the State It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that there was a family dispute and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further 2 condition that they shall appear before the Court below within a period of fortnight from date and shall pray for regular bail.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)","['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:The ground case alleged against the detenu is registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ganesh Nagar Police Station in Crime No.219 of 2013 foroffences under Sections 341, 294(b), 387 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Aggrieved by theorder of detention, the present petition has been filed.Besides several grounds raised by the learned counsel for thepetitioner to interfere with the order of detention, he questioned the detentionorder as there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, when hisbail application was already dismissed and in the absence of any material tosupport, either in the ground case or in a similar cases, regarding thelikelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, the detaining authority has notarrived at any subjective satisfaction to pass the impugned order and therefore,the order is vitiated in law.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also on theabove submission and perused the records.Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent,detaining the detenu, Jerin Joseph @ Diwan, aged 25 years, S/o.John Bosco, madein P.D.O.No.15/2013 dated 03.06.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petitionis allowed.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy District.4.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.","['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 42 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short).M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 42Since all these thirteen petitions have arisen out of different charge sheets in respect of different first information reports registered pursuant to the complaints of investors, who have invested in the Housing Projects launched by M/s. A.J.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred to as accused company) and involves identical question of law, they are being disposed of by this common order.3. Crl.M.C. 2877/2014 pertains to FIR No. 88/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 2932/2014 pertains to FIR No. 25/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 2938/2014 pertains to FIR No. 110/2009 registered at P.S. Mandir Marg, Crl.M.C. 2977/2014 pertains to FIR No. 87/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 2979/2014 pertains to FIR No. 86/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 2995/2014 pertains to FIR No. 24/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 3002/2014 pertains to FIR No. 89/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 3006/2014 pertains to FIR No. 75/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 3015/2014 pertains to FIR No. 03/2010 registered at P.S. Mandir Marg, Crl.M.C. 3023/2014 pertains to FIR No. 50/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 3025/2014 pertains to FIR No. 109/2009 registered at P.S. Mandir Marg, Crl.M.C. 3031/2014 pertains to FIR No. 169/2009 registered at P.S. Mandir Marg and Crl.M.C. 3037/2014 pertains to FIR No. 74/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W.The concise facts of the case as borne out from the charge-sheet are that a number of investors filed their complaints against accused Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 2 of 42 company which were clubbed under different First Information Reports.All the complainants came up with identical allegations of inducements, misrepresentations etc. by the Directors of the accused company.The accused company gave an advertisement on 18.03.2006 in the newspaper The Hindustan Times to induce the general public for investment in their project at Gannaur, Sonepat.However, the accused company and its Directors were found to be engaged in cheating innocent customers by way of misrepresentation of facts through their various advertisements in print as well as electronic media.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 2 of 42As per the charge sheets Ms. Madhu Singh (Managing Director of accused company) along with others induced innocent investors for investment in aforementioned residential project of the accused company, in defiance of rules and regulations embedded in their agreement.Further, the company and its Directors neither obtained necessary permissions / land use change/ approved building plans, nor acquired the project land for the proposed project, but collected investments from a large number of investors, running into hundreds of crores.Investigating agency claimed that accused company and its Directors amassed funds running in several crores of rupees by cheating innocent customers with misrepresentation of facts while advertising the project of Gannuar, District Sonepat, Haryana as a township of 300 acres with 60% of the land dedicated to greenery, whereas, till the charge sheet was filed, the accused company had executed sale deeds in respect of 83 acres of land only and that too without making full payments to the land Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 3 of 42 owners.Further, the accused company started collecting funds from the innocent investors for its aforesaid township, even when the accused company had only 2 acres of land in their possession.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 3 of 42During investigation, it was observed that the accused company and its Directors misused the funds between the years 2005-2008, ranging to hundreds of crores of rupees which have been collected from a large number of investors for various residential projects of the company and utilization of which could not be proved, thus investigating agency concluded that the same have been used for the lavish living of the Directors of the accused company.Investigation revealed that the accused company has a Board of Directors, comprising of three Directors namely Ms. Madhu Singh (CMD), Ms. Kailash Rani (mother of accused Madhu Singh) & Ms. Geeta Singh (Sister-in-Law of Madhu Singh).Initially Economic Offences Wing registered a case F.I.R. No. 56/09, under sections 406,420 read with section 120-B IPC, against the accused company and its Directors.Further, during the pendency of investigation various investors filed complaints against the accused company and its Directors.It was further revealed during investigation that the Corporate office of the accused company situated at 8, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, First Floor, Gole Market, New Delhi was purchased by the accused company through its Director Smt. Madhu Singh from one Smt. Suman Lata Singla W/o Sh.S.K. Singla vide Sale Deed dated 21.07.2006, for a total consideration of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 42 five lakhs only).Since the booking of projects started w.e.f. 2005 onwards, investigating agency suspected that the payments which were made to the vendor were done out of the cheated funds which were collected from investors.Investigation further revealed that the original title documents of the said property were mortgaged with Allahabad Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi for seeking loan by the accused company, wherein overdraft limit of Rs.200 lakhs (Rupees Two hundred lakhs) and bank guarantee limit of Rs.3.91 crores (Rupees Three crores and ninety one lakhs) was sanctioned.As per the investigation, following properties were mortgaged against the loan A/c of the accused company:M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 42I. Office of the accused company i.e. Property no. 8, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi.Two Fixed Deposit Nos.124225 for Rs.18,60,375/- (Rupees Eighteen lakh sixty thousand three hundred and seventy five) dated 29.02.2008 and 124226 for Rs.79,07,250/- (Rupees Seventy nine lakh seven thousand two hundred and fifty) dated 29.02.2008 were also kept as security against Bank Guarantee.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 5 of 42By way of these thirteen petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 03.06.2013, passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, as well as quashing of charge sheets for the offences punishable under sections 406/ 409/ 420/ 201 read with section 120-B Crl.During investigation, it was also revealed that the said Corporate office of the accused company at 8, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi was sold to the petitioner by accused company through its Director/Authorised Representative, Ms. Madhu Singh vide registered Sale Deed dated 15.12.2009 against a total sale consideration of Rs.2.25 crore (Rupees Two crore and twenty five lakhs).Investigation further revealed that on 12.09.2010, petitioner, individually as well as through his Company M/s. Habitat Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. purchased 50 % equity of the accused company by paying a sum of Rs.4,35,35,200/- (Rupees Four crores thirty five lakhs thirty five thousand and two hundred).Based upon its investigation, investigating agency concluded as under:-""From the investigation conducted so far, evidence collected (oral as well as documentary), it is crystal clear and proved that accused Madhu Singh, Director of M/s AJS Builders Pvt. Ltd. in collusion and connivance with other associates i.e. Smt. Geeta Singh (sister in law) and Smt. Kailash Rani (mother), hatched a criminal conspiracy, with the common intention and sole object to cheat the innocent public right from the very beginning.Accused Harvinder Singh had also joined the accused Ms. Madhu Singh & others during the alleged period for the commission of the offences.""Investigating agency arrived at a conclusion that the Sale Deed dated 15.12.2009, in respect of the property of the accused company at 8, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi, is a sham transaction, purportedly executed by accused Ms. Madhu Singh to avoid its attachment.In order to sustain its conclusion, investigating agency has primarily relied upon following circumstances:-M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 6 of 42(a) The property has been purchased by the petitioner without due diligence and no bona fide purchaser would buy a property without originals of the previous chain, whereas stipulations 5 and 6 of the Sale Deed dated 15.12.2009, make it clear that original chain of the title documents was not furnished by the Vendor, which makes the Sale a sham transaction.(b) The property has been sold at a much cheaper price than its actual market price.To arrive at this conclusion, investigating agency is making reference of valuation of the said property at the time of seeking loan, when it was assessed as approximately Rs.7.57 Crore (Rupees Seven crore and fifty seven lakhs) in the year 2007 whereas, petitioner purchased the same in the year 2009 at a much less value of Rs.2.25 Crore (Rupees Two crore twenty five lakhs) only.(c) The payments which have been made to the Vendor by the Vendee have been reflected and corresponding debit / credit entries have been checked.After examination, Chartered Accountant (CA) stated that these transactions are sham transactions.(d) Statement of co-accused Ms. Madhu Singh, who subsequently claimed that the property in question was sold by her to the petitioner.The investigating agency is Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 7 of 42 of the opinion that the property in question has been transferred with the apprehension that the said property could be attached by the investigating agency in order to recover the cheated funds collected from the investors.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 7 of 42Further Investigating agency imputed the petitioner for witnessing the Agreement dated 05.02.2011, executed between M/s. Best Realtech (India) Pvt. Ltd. and accused company, in respect of development of the project of accused company at Gurgaon, Haryana, which as per the investigating agency was detrimental to the interest of the investors.In order to sustain its claim that the petitioner was incharge for day to day functioning of the accused company, investigating agency has relied upon statement of one Mr. Harjit Singh, Director of M/s. Best Realtech (India) Pvt. Ltd. in addition to the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C.During the course of proceedings before this Court, the complainants Mr. Keshav Sethi (in Crl.M.C.2977/2014), Ms. Kusum Jain (in Crl. M.C.2995/2014), Mr. Dev Raj (in Crl.M.C.3037/2014) and Mr. Vipul Kochar (in Crl.M.C.3023/2014) were impleaded as respondent No.2 on their respective applications.On 17.09.2014 learned counsel for the complainants Mr. Mohit Mathur, on instructions from Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate submitted before this Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 8 of 42 Court that he will move an appropriate application on behalf of the complainants for impleadement in all the respective petitions.However, on 23.09.2014 Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate submitted that all the remaining complainants were not interested in moving impleadement applications.Thereafter, respondent No.2/ complainant filed reply.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 8 of 42While impugning the conclusion of the investigating agency regarding culpability of the petitioner, Mr. Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the influence of Ms. Madhu Singh and a few well connected investors, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the investigating agency.It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that in order to sustain conjectural hypothesis about culpability of the petitioner, investigating officer has deliberately concealed vital facts and infact, has arbitrarily given deaf ears to the representations/ complaints of the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has unfolded various illegal acts of Ms. Madhu Singh, Mr. Tejwant Singh, Mr. Harjit Singh, etc. and his victimization by accused Ms. Madhu Singh and others.It was argued that induced with the various projections of the accused company and its functionaries, petitioner and his family members also invested in Gurgaon Project of the accused company during the period 2007 to 2009, but despite specific complaints by the petitioner, none of his complaints have been considered by the investigating agency, whereas similarly circumstanced other investors have been arrayed as complainants / witnesses in the cases registered against the accused company.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 9 of 42It is case of the petitioner that like other investors, petitioner had visited the corporate office of the accused company for refund of his and his family members investments in the beginning of the year 2009, where he was trapped by accused Ms. Madhu Singh, Tejwant Singh and others to purchase property bearing no. 8, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi, under the pretext that the accused company had invested its substantial liquidity towards purchase of major landholdings and thus is finding shortage of liquidity and the rumours about the bankruptcy of the accused company has caused damage to the extent that despite sound position, owing to the slump in realty sector, the Company was unable to fetch finances to meet out unprecedented demand of refund by investors.Per contra to the finding of the investigating agency that the petitioner did not conduct any due diligence before purchase of the property, it was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that before execution of the Sale Deed, petitioner had duly conducted due diligence of the property (both physical and title search) and had also obtained duly certified copies of the complete chain of title documents of the property which clearly reflected a clean title in favour of the accused company and since there was no encumbrance on the property, petitioner purchased the said property.To fortify his contentions, Mr. Daman Kohli has shown certified copies of the previous chain of title documents, copies of which have already placed on record.It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of the Sale Deed, petitioner took possession of the First Floor of the property whereas built up structure on the 2nd floor of the property was retained by the sister concern of the Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 10 of 42 accused company, from where even the accused company started operation of its business activities.It was also submitted that the delay in furnishing original title documents by the seller is clearly stipulated in the Sale Deed and it is with full caution that the petitioner got the complete chain of previous title documents duly stamped and signed by the seller on each and every page.Mr. Kohli also submitted that the nephew of Ms. Madhu Singh who is also a shareholder of the seller/ accused company is also a witness to the duly registered sale deed.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 10 of 42It was also submitted by Mr. Kohli that victimization of petitioner subsisted when petitioner was further lured to part with substantial sum of Rs.4,35,35,200/- (Rupees Four crore thirty five lakhs thirty five thousand and two hundred), towards 50% equity of the accused company in favour of the petitioner and his company M/s. Habitat Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.It was further submitted that on 05.02.2011, being the 50% equity holder of the accused company, petitioner also became witness to the execution of the Agreement executed inter se accused company and M/s. Best Realtech (India) Pvt. Ltd.. Mr. Kohli has drawn my attention towards relevant clauses of the said Agreement, whereby M/s. Best Realtech (India) Pvt. Ltd. undertook to bear all costs and expenses for developing Housing Project of the accused company in Gurgaon, on the same terms on which the accused company has invited investments from different investors, besides undertaking to refund, if any of the investor in the said project of the accused company so desired.However, when the perpetuating dishonest and fraudulent intent of accused Ms. Madhu Singh and her associates became apparent to the petitioner, he made various representations disclosing their illegal acts and also his victimization.Attention has been drawn to various complaints/representations, addressed at all levels ranging from S.H.O. Mandir Marg, New Delhi to Commissioner of Delhi Police, but despite complaints/ representations disclosing commission of cognizable offence, no action has been taken by the investigating agency.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 11 of 42It was further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that endeavour of the investigating agency to array the petitioner as a conspirator with accused Ms. Madhu Singh, against whom the petitioner is fighting in different courts and forums, is liable to be deprecated.On mention by the counsel for the petitioner this fact is also not disputed that there are multiple complaints filed by the petitioner Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 12 of 42 against the threat to life extended to the petitioner by accused Ms. Madhu Singh and her men.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 12 of 42M.C. 3031/2014 Crl.M.A. No.10529/2014 in Crl.M.C. 3037/2014 The above applications are dismissed as infructuous.(VED PRAKASH VAISH) JUDGE FEBRUARY 3rd, 2015 hs Crl.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"It is lastly submitted that petitioner has clean antecedents and he is a permanent resident of Delhi.His mother and sister are also building pressure for marriage.Bail appl no. 303/2020 Page 3 of 5BRIJESH SETHI, J (ORAL)Vide this order, I shall dispose of a bail application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C on behalf of the petitioner Gulshan in FIR No. 141/2019 u/s. 376/506 IPC & 4 POCSO Act, PS Sarai Rohilla.Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated.It is submitted that investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed and petitioner is not required for any investigation.It is submitted that one Monu had good friendly relations with Bail appl no. 303/2020 Page 1 of 5 family of prosecutrix 'K' and her mother.Resultant thereof, the prosecutrix and her mother have developed the malice, ill will, personal vendetta and grudge against the petitioner and due to which a false case was lodged against the petitioner by misusing and abusing the statutory provisions of Section 376/506 IPC and Section 4 of POSCO Act to create a pressure, force and coercion upon the petitioner so that real sister of the petitioner may not pursue her criminal case against said Monu.Bail appl no. 303/2020 Page 1 of 5It is submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the statement of the complainant i.e. mother of victim and victim herself and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.It is, therefore, prayed that petitioner be released on bail.APP for the State has opposed the bail application on the Bail appl no. 303/2020 Page 2 of 5 ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.Petitioner has made sexual intercourse with the victim who was minor ie.about 14 years old at the time of commission of offence without her consent.He has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of bail application.Bail appl no. 303/2020 Page 2 of 5I have considered the rival submissions.The present case was registered on the complaint of complainant 'S', who is the mother of the prosecutrix 'K' wherein she alleged that her neighbour Gulshan i.e. the petitioner took her daughter to the room of his friend co- accused Firoz in July 2018 where he forcefully made physical relations with her daughter and threatened to kill her brother, if she tells anyone about the incident.When she came to know about the incident that has happened with her daughter, she filed the complaint.Statement of the complainant i.e. mother of the victim u/s 164 Cr.PC was recorded wherein she corroborated the FIR and also stated that the mother and sister of the petitioner were well conversant of what the petitioner had done to the victim.In her statement recorded u/s. 164 CrPC, the victim has categorically stated that petitioner had taken her to his friend's Bail appl no. 303/2020 Page 3 of 5 house (Firoz) at Daya Basti.The petitioner had taken the keys from Firoz who had thereafter left the house.Thereafter, the petitioner had removed her Salwar and committed sexual intercourse with her.Thereafter petitioner threatened the victim that if she discloses anything to anyone, her brother would be killed and she would be defamed.The victim had stopped going to the school and revealed everything to her mother.The victim has submitted that petitioner is still threatening her on phone and also compelling her for marriage.The authenticity of the conversation recorded in CD can only be judged at the appropriate stage i.e. during the course of trial.However, there is another CD on record regarding conversation dated 26.04.2019 between petitioner and prosecutrix.Transcription of the Bail appl no. 303/2020 Page 4 of 5 same reveals that on second page of the second recording it is stated by the petitioner that he has done everything.Of course, the authenticity of this conversation will also be judged during the course of trial.Bail appl no. 303/2020 Page 4 of 5Keeping in view the above facts and the allegations leveled against the petitioner which are very grave in nature and further keeping in mind the age of the victim/ prosecutrix and further in view of the fact that even threat was extended to the victim, no grounds for bail are made out at this stage.The bail application is, therefore, dismissed and stands disposed of accordingly.BRIJESH SETHI, J MARCH 4, 2020 Amit Bail appl no. 303/2020 Page 5 of 5Bail appl no. 303/2020 Page 5 of 5","['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The appellant was the complainant before the trial Court namely, theCourt of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai and Calender Case No.1123 of 1997came to be instituted on a complaint preferred by the appellant/complainantherein alleging that the respondents herein committed an offence punishableunder Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.The trial ended in conviction ofboth the respondents herein who figured as accused Nos.1 and 2 for theoffence of bigamy punishable under Section 494 IPC and both of them weresentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine ofRs.100/- with a direction to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week incase of default in payment of fine.On an appeal preferred before theSessions Court in C.A.No.48 of 2002, the learned Appellate Judge (IIIAdditional District and Sessions Judge) Madurai set aside the conviction andacquitted the respondents herein holding that the appellant herein had notproved that the respondents had committed the offence punishable underSection 494 IPC.2.As against the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversingjudgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and acquitting therespondents herein, the appellant herein (complainant) has preferred thepresent Criminal Appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 along with a petition under Section 378(5) of Cr.P.C seekingspecial leave to prefer such an appeal.The said petition filed under Section378 (5) Cr.P.C, which was numbered as Crl.O.P.(MD)No.205 of 2004, standsallowed and the numbering of the appeal even before the grant of specialleave stands ratified by the order granting special leave under Section378(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code.3.The case of the appellant/complainant is that she is the legallywedded wife of the first respondent-Thirupathi (A-1) and that the firstrespondent, during the subsistence of his marriage with theappellant/complainant, married the second respondent-Dhanalakhsmi on18.06.1997 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 494 IPC.The further case of the appellant/complainant is that the second respondent-Dhanalakshmi (A2) did marry the first respondent knowing fully well that thefirst respondent was already married and the appellant herein/complainant washis legally wedded wife and that the marriage between theappellant/complainant and the first respondent was subsisting at the time ofher marriage with the first respondent and that thereby she also hadcommitted the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC.The respondents, who appeared on summons before the trial Court,denied having committed any offence, pursuant to which a charge was framedagainst the respondents 1 and 2 herein for an offence punishable underSection 494 IPC.After having a charge read over and explained, they deniedhaving committed the offence and they wanted the case to be tried.Accordingly, a trial was conducted in which including the appellantherein/complainant three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and onedocument was marked as Ex.P.1 in order to prove the charge framed against therespondents herein.On the side of the respondents herein, who faced thetrial as accused persons, no witness was examined and no document was marked.After affording them an opportunity under Section 313(1)(b) of theCode of Criminal Procedure, to explain the incriminating materials found inthe evidence adduced on the side of the appellant herein/complainant,arguments were heard by the trial Court.Keeping in mind the points canvassedin the arguments advanced on both sides, the learned trial Judge consideredthe evidence and after such consideration, pronounced a judgment, holding therespondents herein accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty of the offence punishableunder Section 494 IPC with which they stood charged and convicted them forthe said offences.After giving an opportunity under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C tomake their representation regarding the punishment to be imposed, the learnedtrial Judge imposed a punishment on each one of the respondents herein toundergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-with a further direction that in default of payment of fine, he/she shouldundergo rigorous imprisonment for one week as a default sentence.The findingof the trial Court is based on the oral testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 and thedocumentary evidence, namely Ex.The finding of the trial Court holding the respondentsherein/accused 1 and 2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 494 IPCwas found fault with by the lower appellate Judge, on the sole ground thatthere was no direct evidence as to the marriage between the first respondentand the second respondent, which is said to be bigamous.The learned lowerappellate Judge also disbelieved the oral testimony of P.W.2, who wasexamined as the sole eye witness to have seen the marriage performed at theentrance of Samayapuram Mariyamman Temple.The judgments ofthe Courts below and the materials available on record summoned from theCourts below for reference in this appeal are also perused and taken intoconsideration.10.The respondents 1 and 2 herein were prosecuted for having committedan alleged offence punishable under Section 494 IPC in the Court of JudicialMagistrate No.II, Madurai in Calender Case No.1123 of 1997, a case wasinstituted on complaint.14.Here is a case in which the order of acquittal impugned in thisappeal was passed by the learned Sessions Judge in an appeal.Hence, it is anappellate order of acquittal which is made appealable to the High Court underSection 378 of Cr.P.C. The case having been instituted on complaint,attracts sub-section (4) and the only condition for entertaining the appealis that a special leave should be granted on an application filed within thetime stipulated in sub-section (5).It is not in dispute that such anapplication was filed within the time stipulated in sub-section (5) and theappeal has also been preferred within such time, even though the appeal couldhave been preferred within 30 days from the date of grant of special leave toappeal.15.It is an admitted fact that and it has also been proved beyondreasonable doubt that the first respondent is the husband of theappellant/complaint and their marriage took place on 18.06.1972 in accordancewith the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as applicable to TamilNadu.P.W.1 has given a categorical statement in her chief examination thather marriage with the first respondent was solemnised at RamalingaSowdambigai Sannathi within Panjavarnaswamy Temple, Uraiyoor, Trichy andthat due to the cohabitation they were gifted with three daughters by names,Akilandeeswari, Priya and Prema and a son by name, Shanmugam.These factsspoken to by P.W.1 in her evidence was not challenged by therespondents/accused in their cross examination.It has also been stated inclear terms by P.W.1 that the marriage was not dissolved as on the date ofalleged occurrence and also as on the date of her examination before thetrial Court.16.When the incriminating parts of the evidence adduced on the side ofthe complainant were culled out and formulated as a questionnaire underSection 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, the respondents did not deny the same and on theother hand they simply stated that they were not guilty of the offence.Therefore, the factthat the marriage between the appellant herein/complainant and the firstrespondent/first accused was subsisting as on the date of the allegedoccurrence, namely on 18.06.1997, stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.17.Then the next question that arises for consideration is whether themarriage alleged to have been performed on 18.06.1997 stands proved by theappellant/complainant.In this regard, though P.W.1's evidence is not adirect evidence regarding the factum of marriage, she has given a clear andcogent evidence to the effect that she was informed of the marriage of herhusband namely, the first respondent with the second respondent and that thesaid marriage came to be registered on the very same day in the Office of theRegistrar situated near the Court in Trichy.The same has beenmarked as Ex.The said copy is a certified xerox copy of the document andhence, it contains the signatures of the first respondent as well as thesecond respondent.It is pertinent to note that the same is not a marriagecertificate evidencing the registration of marriage under any of the lawsrelating to the registration of the marriage.It was titled and styledas an agreement of a domestic relationship to live together (thH;f;ifcld;gof;if gj;jpuk;).The execution of the said document and registration ofthe said document have not been denied or disputed, on the other hand standadmitted by the respondents/accused persons.It contains a recital that theygot married to each other on the date of the document itself in SamayapuramMariyamman Temple.18.Apart from the production and proof of the above said document as anevidence to prove the case of the appellant/complainant herein regarding theperformance of the alleged marriage between the respondents herein on18.06.1997 at Samayapuram Mariyamman Temple, one Sivaji was examined as awitness to the said marriage.According to his version,on 18.06.1997, he along with one Ravikumar, had gone to Samayapuram MariammanTemple near Trichy to offer worship to the deity therein and at that point oftime, at about 7.00 to 7.30 a.m, he saw the respondents with garlands at theentrance of the temple.He has further stated that he also saw the firstrespondent tying a Thali to the second respondent and the respondentsexchanging garlands.It is his furtherevidence that when the appellant/complainant approached the police, theyasked her to approach the Court.19.P.W.2, during cross examination, has asserted that he was an eyewitness to the marriage of the first respondent with the second respondentand he actually saw the first respondent tying a Thali around the neck of thesecond respondent at the entrance of the above said temple.It is also hisevidence during the cross examination that there were about 15 to 20 persons,who attended the marriage, but he did not inform those persons that the firstrespondent was already married and that however, he asked the firstrespondent as to how he could venture to marry the second respondent when hisfirst wife Saraswathi was alive, for which the first respondent replied thathis second marriage with the second respondent was performed with the consentof his first wife.The section also provides for validation of marriages performedprior to the introduction of Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 andseveral such marriages were saved from being held void for non observance ofany of the customary rituals provided the conditions found in Section 7-Awere present.After the amendment in Tamil Nadu, for convicting a personprofessing Hindu religion for bigamy, it shall be enough to show that heunderwent a form of marriage which complies with the above condition namely,acknowledgment by words or symbolic representation of acknowledgement byexchanging garlands or exchanging of rings or tying of thali provided themarriage is with a woman professing Hindu religion.P1 isstyled as an agreement for having a domestic relationship.But the same hasbeen used for proving an admission made therein that the respondentsunderwent a form of marriage in the morning on the date on which the saidagreement came to be executed and registered.Here is a case in which the marriage has taken place andhence, if the second respondent is proved to have got the knowledge of thefirst marriage of the first respondent with the appellant/complainant, thenshe shall be liable to be punished with the punishment prescribed underSection 494 IPC.However, when a person is to be punished for abetment of anoffence, separate charge stating that she is prosecuted for abetting such anoffence and that the act abetted has been committed should have been framed.The charge against the second respondent ought to have been framed as one foran offence punishable under Section 494 IPC read with Section 109 IPC.27.P.W.1, in her evidence in chief examination, has not asserted thatthe second respondent did have the knowledge of the subsistence of themarriage between the appellant/complainant and the first respondent.On theother hand, she has simply stated that one Banumathi, younger sister of thefirst respondent and one Subbu @ Subbulakshmi, the elder sister of the secondrespondent had attested Ex.P.1 document and that both of them knew thesubsistence of marriage between the appellant/complainant and the firstrespondent.However, learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention ofthe Court to the other part of her evidence wherein she has stated that thesecond respondent resided in the street next to the street in which P.W.1 wasliving in Trichy and that hence, she knew the marriage of the firstrespondent with the appellant/complainant.A person living in the next streetin a town cannot be said to have direct knowledge regarding the maritalstatus of a person living in the other street.Regarding the sentence, the submissions made on both sides are alsotaken into consideration.The maximum punishment prescribed under the saidpenal provision, namely 494 IPC is imprisonment of either description for 7years and also fine.The trial Judge seems to have imposed a sentence ofrigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.100/- with a defaultsentence of rigorous imprisonment for one week.So far as the fine amount isconcerned, the trial Court seems to have shown leniency.Theexcess fine amount shall be collected from the first respondent and the firstrespondent shall surrender before the trial Court within two weeks, whereuponhe shall be committed to jail for undergoing the unexpired portion of thesentence.The trial Magistrate shall issue necessary warrant.Theimprisonment, if any, already undergone shall be set off under Section 248Cr.1.The III Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai.2.The Judicial Magistrate No.2 Madurai","['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This family is the solitary Brahmin family living in that little village and against them the entire wrath of the Kisans and their fellow travellers, the Communists, seems to have broken because they were the landlords and secondly they belonged to a community which is the special target of attack in these parts.The evidence is clear that they were subjected to systematic intimidation of murder, looting and arson.In this task of attacking this family the Kisans and their fellow traveller Communist opponents were encouraged by the fact that some other leading Mirasdars were on inimical terms with this family apparently trying to curry favour with these violent people by posing as their sympathisers and friends.The net result of this was that this family of Jagannathachariar concerned like rats, was systematically bombarding the authorities, Police and the Magistracy, to take action against these trouble-makers.The evidence of D.W. 1 is :""At that time meetings under Section 144 Cr. P. C. were banned, under an order in K. C. No. 5 of 1950 by Sub-divisional Magistrate, Pattukottai.The order was promulgated.Ail the Sub Inspectors in the jurisdiction of the Sub-divisional Magistrate including myself received copies of that prohibitory order & copies were said to have been sent to ail V.Ms.I sent constables to publish the order, and caused publication by heat of tom-tom in all the villages within my station limits.I sent the order to the village of Alagiyanayagipuram.I remember to have received the acknowledgment from the Nadar V. M. There is also an Ayyar V. M. At about 3 P.M. I went in a friend's car to Alagiyanayagipuram.When 1 reached there I saw about 100 or 150 persons crowded in a public street in front of the house of one Vaithilingam in that village.They were about to create disturbance shouting slogans.At the sight of the Police, many of them dispersed.The plaintiff and Vaithilingam and Peristhambi continued to stand there.In order to prevent further trouble and disturbance, I had to arrest them and take them to the Police station under Section 157, Cr.Ex. B-3 is my report.At the time of the arrests, Communist Kisan trouble was going on, on a large scale in Pattukottai, Mannargudi and Tirutturaipundi.The eldest of them the 1st defendant was bombarding the authorities Police Magistracy, State Government etc. to book these patent and potential mischief mongers.These agitators were known to intend to put on a special display to mar the Republic Day Celebrations.JUDGMENT Ramaswami, J.In 1950 the District of Tanjore and especially the area of the Sub-Divisional Magistracy of Pattukottai was the seat of continuous trouble between the landlords and the Kisans.This Kisan movement was being fully exploited by the Communists and their fellow travellers on the foot that every trouble was welcome for fomenting agitations against the Government and for promoting forces of disorder and violence.The net result was that the Government took stringent measures to restrain the activities of these Communists.Special Police officers were posted and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pattukottai, directed all the Taluk Magistrates of Pattukottai and Arantangi to promulgate prohibitory orders under Section 144, Cr. P.O. in all the villages under their jurisdiction and especially as the Communists were for instance trying to mar the celebrations of the Republic Day and threatening to commit acts of violence and disturb peace and tranquillity.It is evident from a perusal of the order that it was passed on the reports of the Police Officers P.Ws. 1 Sri V. S. Subramaniam and D.W. 1 Sri M. K. Panikkar.Sri V. S. Subramaniam was then acting as the Circle Inspector of Police, Thiruthuraipoondi and Sri M. K. Panikkar w,is then the Sub-Inspector of Police, Adirampatnam.It is established in the evidence that the Sub Divisional Magistrate's direction to all Taluk Magistrate to publish this order in all their villages in their taluks by heat of tom-tom was carried out.The respondent in this second appeal Sri Jagannathachariar is a Mirasdar of Pattukottai Taluk, owing lands in the village of Alagiyanayakipuram.The other members of his family are his brothers impleaded as defendants 2 and 3 in the suit.P. C. I took them at about 8 P.M. or 9 P.M. It was too late that night at Pattukottai.So they were remanded the next day.Ex. 15-11 is one of the reports in connection with that incident which I sent.The endorsement on my report is made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pattukottai Sri C. S. Subbiah Pillai, forwarding that report to the District Superintendent of Police.Ex. B-12 contains the endorsements of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and District Superintendent of Police with regard to their arrests.I submitted a first information report and the case-diary of the case to the Deputy Superintendent of Police through the Inspector of Police ...... The Sub-divisional Magistrate returned the first information report.So I submitted a second report on the order of the Deputy Superintendent of Police ..... under Section 188 I.P.C. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, verified my report and sent the file to the Sub-magistrate, Pattukottai, to take cognizance.The Deputy Superintendent of Police wanted to know the result of action taken.There was one Kisan Deputy Superintendent of Police at Tanjore, one Inspector at Pattukottai, three Sub-Inspectors at Tanjore, Pattukottai aria Tiruturaipundi and several C.I.D. personnel were posted for the Kisan trouble.Mirasdars were put to great difficulty.The action I took against plaintiff, I did only on order of my officer.Ex. B-8 is my report in reply to the Deputy Superintendent of Police's queries, Ex. B-7.""The learned ' Stationary Sub Magistrate, Pattukottai, before whom the plaintiff Chinnamuthu Ambalam and two others Vaithilinga Tevar and Periathambi Ambalam were charged for an offence under Section 188 I. P. G. were acquitted after twelve witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution of whom only three witnesses spoke in support of the complainant On the ground that ""on the whole, the case seems to have been magnified out of small incidents on account of ill-feelings as already indicated.Unfortunately the Sub Inspector has too willingly lent a helping hand and over enthusiastically booked a case.The prosecution witnesses have not come out with a correct version....... The only other evidence is that of the Sub Inspector; it has been made clear how exaggerated his evidence is in regard to the occurrence.""Thereupon in 1953 tbe plaintitf, one of the acquitted accused, filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises, for recovery of Rs. 100/- as damages for malicious prosecution.The defendants to the suit were Jagannatha-chariar and his two brothers.The learned District Munsif came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had made out his case and decreed the suit against the first defendant and dismissed defendants 2 and 3 out of the suit on the ground that there was no proof that defendants 2 and 3 beyond merely giving evidence in C. C. No. 450 of 1950 had done anything further and cannot be considered as prosecutors of the plaintiff.There was an appeal therefrom and the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the first defendant was the real prosecutor but that he (first defendant) did not act maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause and that the plaintiff is not entitled to damages.On a careful analysis of the evidence and after giving due weight to the fact the trial court had the advantage of hearing the witnesses, and seeing them in the box he came to the conclusion : ""I accept the evidence of D.W. 1 that there was a meeting of the Communists on 11-2-50 and that plaintiff took part in such a meeting and that he was arrested by D.W. 1 at such a meeting"" (page 24).Again ""I hold D. 1 acted with malice but did rot act without reasonable and probable cause"". ""(Para 26)"".He allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.Hence this Second Appeal by the defeated plaintiff.",['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
"i) Criminal Bail Application No. 2878 of 2019 is allowed;ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 21:14:12 ::: Sajakali Jamadar 3 of 3 11-BA-2878-19.doc connection with C. R. No. 527 of 2019 registered with Bhosari Police Station, Pune on furnishing P.R. bond for the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 21:14:12 :::iii) The applicant shall report concerned police station once in a month on every first Saturday between 10.00 am.to 12.00 noon, till further order.iv) Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 21:14:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2019 21:14:12 :::","['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT J.D. Jain, J.(1) The petitioner is employed as an Inspector in Delhi Police.In July 1976 he v-'as posted as an Inspector in AntiCorruption Branch of Delhi Police.On 1st July, 1976, he lad a trap against one Raj Singh on the complaint of one Ram Chander for demanding illegal gratification.It is a complaint for not registering the case.""(2) On coming to know of it, the respondent then posted as Additional District Sessions Judge at Delhi instituted a complaint.against the .petitioner in December 1977 under sectin 500, Indian Penal Code, for defamation.He inter alia .averred that the petitioner was posted as Station House.On 30th.July, 1975, he tortured to.death on Harnam Singh, a retired School teacher of Kingsway Camp even though there was no FIR.against,.him, An.attempt was made to dispose of.the dead body without postmortem examination.The respondent intervened and.State v. Raj Singh in the Court of Shri D.C. Aggarwal, Special Judge, on 18th November, 1977 the petitioner was examined as a prosecution witness being the investigating Officer.During the course of his cross-examination.he, inter alia, deposed that : ""TWOcases for damages against me, Union of India S. D. M. were filed by Shri H.K. S. Malik through his brother and mother sinise I had not obliged him in forcibly occupying plot No. C-5, Rana Pratap Bagh.There is a complaint case against me pending regarding the same plot since I did noi oblige Sh.H. K. S. Malik for convening a civil case into a criminal case regarding the same plot.postmortem examination had to be carried out.Consequently, an inquiry under the Punjab Police, Rules was instituted and the respondent was examined as a witness in that inquiry on 14th June, 1976, by the S. D. M. Kingsway Camp..The S.D.M found the accused prima facie guilty of murder and submitted his report I accordingly.Eventually, acase under Section 302, Indiain penal Code, being F.I.R. No. 1009 was registered against the petitioner on 9th September, 1977 and the respondent was mentioned therein as the prime mover.The respondent further alleged that the petitioner had been trying to prevent him from appearing as a witness against him in the said case since July 1976 and he had conveyed even.threats.Further, the petitioner met the respondent personally three or four times with a request not to depose as a witness against him but the respondent was not disuaded from doing his dirty.So, the petitioner considers the respondent as his enemy.On 31st October, 1977, the respondent learnt of a plan to murder him at night and he took immediate precautions.However, one SatpalSharma,who was an eye witness in the aforesaid murder case, was brutally stabbed on that night.Thus, the contention of the respondent in the complaint was that the petitioner harboured a grudge against him and, therefore, he made the aforesaid statement in the Court of the Special Judge with a view to harm the reputation of the respondent.He asserted that the aforesaid statement carried, inter alia, an imputation that the respondent was a person of depraved moral character as to commit acts' which constituted offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code.While denying each and every imputation made against him by the petitioner, he asserted that the same had been made intentionally and knowingly to lower the moral character of the respondent in the estimation of others.In order to substantiate his contention he extracted the following passage from the judgment dated 26th November, 1977, of Shri D. C. Aggarwal, Special Judge, in the above mentioned case : ""INthese circumstances it has to be taken notice of that as against Inspector .Shamsher Singh, admittedly a murder case was registered at Police Station Kingsway Camp although according to him it was a false case.Of course, I would not attach importance to the case of damages filed against him by Shri H. K. S. Malik (now Additional District Judge) as derogatory to his credibility as police officer, as he explained that that case had been filed only because he had not allowed Shri H. K, S. Malik and his mother to ford' bly Occupy a plot No. C-5 Rana Pratap Bagh."" .On the same day the learned Magistrate passed an order summoning the petitioner for trial under section 500, Indian Penal Code.In the meanwhile, he entered appearance before the Metropolitan Magistrate.The substance of the accusation was read over and explained to him on 13th January, 1978, as required by Section 251, Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code), and he was asked to show cause why he should not be punished for an offence punishable under Section 500, Indian Penal Code.Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in revision against the said order.",['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Counsel for the State submits that the case diary is available with him.T his is the first appeal filed under Section 14-A of the S.C./S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the impugned order dated 29.07.2020 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), District Balaghat, whereby the court below has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.The appellant is in custody since 28.01.2020 in connection with Crime No.08/2020 registered by Police Station - Rampayli District-Balaghat for having committed offence under Sections 456, 354, 354-A of IPC and Section 3(2)(5-A), 3(1)(W)(1) of SC/ST (POA) Act & 7/8 of POCSO Act.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated.The Trial will take a long time to conclude.The appellant is permanent resident of the district and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case.On these grounds prayer is made to enlarge the appellant on bail.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the appeal and prayed for it's rejection.(1) The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;(2) The appellant will cooperate in the trial; (3) The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer;(4) The appellant shall not commit any offence during the entire period of bail;(5) The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;(6) The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court;(7) The appellant shall inform the Investigating Officer/Court about Signature Not Verified SAN his/her address and residence in case the applicant moves out from his/her Digitally signed by NEETI TIWARI Date: 2020.10.23 10:59:08 IST 3 CRA-4467-2020 permanent address for any point of time; and (8) The appellant shall not contact any of the other accused persons in this case in any manner whatsoever.It is made clear that if the appellant interferes in recording of the evidence in any manner whatsoever and pressurize witnesses while doing so, State & the complainant will be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail.This order shall remain effective till the end of the trial but in case of bail jump and breach of any of the pre-condition of bail, it shall become ineffective and cancelled without reference to this Bench.Certified copy as per rules.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE nd Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by NEETI TIWARI Date: 2020.10.23 10:59:08 IST","['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J) Challenge is made to the order of the second respondent, dated23.07.2008, made in No.61/BDFGISSV/2008, whereby the order of detention was madeagainst the petitioner under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982,terming him as 'Goonda'.2.Affidavit in support of the application along with the grounds ofattack and also the counter affidavit are perused.Added further,the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was an inordinateand unexplainable delay in consideration of the representation made by thedetenu.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the abovegrounds the order under challenge has got to be set aside.The Court paid its anxious consideration on the abovecontentions.","['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT Samvatsar, J.The accused were on inimical terms with one Jaganath now deceased & there were some disputes going on between them before the Revenue Courts.On 13-7-1952 the deceased Jaganath was working in a field which belonged to the accused Keshya and was taken by the deceased in lieu of his debt.The deceased was working in the field since mid-day assisted by his servant one Shankar Chamar.When both of them were returning from the field in the evening and were crossing a nala on the way they were attacked by the three accused with lathies.Shankar ran away but Jaganath was mercilessly beaten and sustained .12 injuries which included a compound depressed, fracture of the left temporal bone.Jaganath died as a result of these injuries on the following day.Upon these facts the three accused along with two other persons were put up for trial under Sections 302/149/147, I.P.C. The Additional Sessions Judge Dewas acquitted the other two persons but convicted the three appellants under Section 325, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.Aggrieved by this, the accused have preferred this appeal against their conviction and sentence.Mr. Rege, the learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the lower Court has found that there was a mutual fight between the two parties, but the learned Judge has failed, to determine which party had commenced the assault.The learned Counsel contended that the injuries on the body of the deceased were not those of rod marks but were such as could be caused by fall.P. W. 2 Shankar and P. W. 20 Amara have stated that the deceased Jaganath was beaten by sticks.The story given out by the prosecution witnesses was thus not correct.The learned Counsel also submitted that there was no charge under Section 34, I.P.C. though the learned Judge had made use of this section in determining the guilt of the accused.The accused No. 1 Dewa has denied the offence but has admitted that there was a fight but according to him it was due to an attack upon him by Jaganath and Shankar and that it was he who was the sufferer in that.Shankar's presence on the scene is thus directly admitted.According to Shankar while they were going through the nala, the three accused attacked Jaganath with sticks.The witness himself was also attacked but he escaped and ran away.From a distance, ho looked back, and saw the three accused hammering Jaganath.P. W. 20 Amara, who was some distance behind Jaganath and Shankar corroborated Shankar.He saw the three accused beating Jaganath.Amara is the person who reported the incident at the Police Station and has lodged the first information report which contained the names of the three accused.The accused were arrested the same day and on medical examination found to have injuries on their bodies.That Jaganath sustained injuries at the place of occurrence and was found lying there unconscious is no longer in dispute.In my opinion there is thus enough material on record to hold that the accused beat the deceased Jaganath.The next question for determination is under what section should the accused be convicted.Mr. Rege, the learned Counsel for the appellants, urged that the accused were, charged under Section 149 for participating in beating with the common object but there was nothing in the charge-sheet to suggest that the accused were being charged for common intention which is a material ingredient Of Section 34, I.P.C. He also criticised the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge regarding common intention and pointed out that all the accused had not assaulted Jaganath together and had reached the spot one after the other.The last argument does not appeal to me.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Shri Ashok Kumar Pali, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri S.K. Kashyap, learned P.L. for the State.The appeal is admitted for hearing.Heard on I.A. No.4913/2016, an application on behalf of the appellant-applicant, T.S. Sengar, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, who has been convicted under section 467/471 IPC to undergo R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.25000/-; under Section 468/471 IPC to undergo R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-; and under Section 120-B IPC to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.5000/-, and in default to undergo further R.I. for six months on each count.Fine amount has been deposited and the accused- appellant has been released on bail till today.Keeping in view totality of the circumstances, I.A. No.4913/2016 is allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of the appellant-applicant shall remain suspended and he shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One lakh) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 01-12-2016 and on such other dates as may be directed in that behalf.As the appellant has been acquitted of the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and he has been convicted under the Indian Penal Code, Office to examine as to whether this matter has to be listed before the Division Bench or not.Accordingly, I.A. No.4913/2016 is allowed and stands disposed of.Call for the record of the Court below.List along with the record for hearing.","['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT Usha Mehra, J.(1) This revision petition has been filed by one Shri Daulat Ram assailing the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dated 18th February, 1991 thereby discharging the accused Rajinder Motwani and dismissing the complaint of the petitioner under Section 211/500 Indian Penal Code .(2) In brief, the facts of this case are that the petitioner is a landlord/owner of property bearing No. 3493, Gali Lallu Nissar, Qutub Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, and one Shri Sajjan Dass of Narain Market, was a tenant under him in respect of one room used as a godown on a monthly rent of Rs. 25.00 .The respondent and his father in order to blackmail the petitioners, started claiming the tenancy in the name of their firm M/s. Popular Stores.This they claimed because once upon a time Sajjan Dass was a partner in the said concern.Since the petitioner refused to recognise them as a tenant, the respondent and his father filed a civil suit on which a local commissioner was appointed to ascertain the possession of the party in the suit premises.The local commissioner found that the respondent was not in possession of the alleged godown.Having failed in their object, the respondent tried to dispossess the petitioner through illegal help and backing of the police and also tried to implicate falsely the petitioner in criminal cases.(3) The police officers visited the petitioner on 25/26th October, 1986 and informed him that there is a police report lodged against him for dispossessing the respondent and theft of articles and that he should report to the police station.The police official while contesting the bail application brought on record the report filed by the on the day when he applied his mind and passed the order of summoning.Therefore, the complaint which was filed by the petitioner dated 28t October, 1986 is hit by the Provisions of 195(l)(b), Criminal Procedure Code .Anticipatory bail was sought on 31.10.1986 because of the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner regarding the theft.Since the Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction hence the Additional Sessions Judge was justified in quashing the order.Since the complaint itself was not maintainable, hence the revision is also not maintainable.(4) On the other hand, Mr. G.D. Gandhi appearing for the petitioner contended that Magistrate took cognizance on the day the petitioner filed the complaint i.e. 28th October, 1986 when the complaint was taken on record, it amounted to taking of the cognizance.Hence on 28th October, 1986, when the Magistrate took the cognizance no proceedings were pending.His complaint dated 23rd October, 1986 had been concealed by the police throughout.It this regard I am also supported by catena of judgments of the Supreme Court and High Court, reference can be had to the following authorities:1.Gopal Dass Sindhi and others Vs.2.Kamlapati Trivedi Vs.State of West Bengal .3.State of Punjab Vs.Brij Lal Palta .Allbert Accused No.1 Vs.5.Rejeshwar Prasad Misra Vs.6.Baijnath Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh .7.State of Himachal Pradesh Vs.Krishan Lal Pardhan and others 1987 Crl.8.State of West Bengal Vs.Bejoy Kumar Bose .",['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The liberty was granted by the Division Bench to dispose of the above-mentioned application being IA No.9770/2011 without being influenced by the impugned order.8.2 Being aggrieved by the illegal and criminal actions of the office bearers of the Society, defendant no. 3 made representations at the office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies but there was no effective action.Thereafter defendant no.3 had sent a representation to the Lt. Governor of Delhi requesting his intervention also requesting Lt. Governor to direct the Society to continue him as regular and bonafide member.Hence defendant no. 3 filed an arbitration petition being 37/JR1/CH/92-93 before the Registrar Cooperative Societies Act claiming that he had not resigned from membership of the Society and he did not have any disqualification under any provision of law and thereby he is a regular and bonafide member of the Society.8.7 Defendant no. 3 also contends that the office bearers have played fraud on him.The office bearers have also put up a false case that Paras Nath Pathak is not the one and the same person and that the real Paras Nath Pathak had resigned from membership.Allegations are also made that Mr. Shekhar Vashisht played an instrumental role in the sale proceedings for some ulterior motive as the purchaser was his mother in law, the plaintiff herein.8.20 The Society wrote a letter bearing No. UCGHS/GK/08-01/05 dated 31.08.2005 to DDA knowing about the status of the Flat No. B-Thereafter Society took possession of the said flat vide its letter dated 14.02.2006 and intimated certain information to DDA.By this order, I propose to decide the third application filed by the plaintiff, bearing I.A. No.9770/2011 filed under Section 94 read with Order XXXIX, Rules 1, 2 & 3 CPC.It is the admitted position that the plaintiffs earlier applications, both under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 CPC bearing I.A. No.4897/2007 & I.A. No.7083/2008 were dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2010 and the ex-parte injunction order granted on 11.08.2008 was vacated.The said order was passed by the Court after hearing both the parties.Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order, bearing FAO(OS) No.117-18/2011 before the Division Bench, which was dismissed as withdrawn.The parties were also granted liberty to raise their all respective contentions.Thus, the learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the present application is maintainable on the grounds of fresh cause of action and the same be disposed of.The Plaintiff's CaseThe plaintiff filed the present suit under Sections 31, 33 & 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for declaration, and in the alternative, claiming a compensation to the tune of Rs.82,16,000/- from the defendants apart from other reliefs.4.2 The plaintiff submits that the defendant No. 2 had issued a No Objection Certificate dated 29.12.2003 in favour of defendant No.1 and consequently, the said flat was allotted in her favour.Thereafter, the defendant No.1 got the said flat registered in her favour.The said I.A. No.9770/2011 in CS(OS) No.774/2007 Page No.2 of 21 property was then converted from lease-hold to free-hold vide registered deed dated 24.08.2004 making the defendant No.1 the absolute owner.4.3 Defendant No.1 now being the absolute owner of the said property and being in possession thereof entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff and executed a Sale Deed dated 09.05.2005 and by virtue of the same, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the property.Thereafter defendant No. 1 & 2 started claiming that defendant No.1 had, in fact, ceased to be a member of the Society and hence not entitled to the said flat.The plaintiff states that there is absolutely no relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants.The defendant No.1 had conveyed a deed in favour of plaintiff, by the title paramount and 4.5 There were no proceedings initiated qua cancellation of the said Sale Deed and a duly registered document cannot be superseded or become non-existence by an executive action/order and in the absence of a registered document.4.6 The plaintiff also submits that the communication dated 16.3.2007 on the face of it is null and void and is any event an outcome of connivance of defendant No. 1 & 2 as the flat in question continues to be vested upon the plaintiff as she is the lawful/legal owner as she had got the flat legally and with proper procedure.4.7 Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application for interim relief.Ex-parte order granted on 11.08.2008 and was vacated vide order dated 20.09.2010 after hearing the parties.While dismissing the interim applications filed by the plaintiff, the Court has dealt with submission of the parties and given its findings in paragraphs-15 to 20 of the order which are against the plaintiff.The same read as under:-In other words, the entire thrust of the plaint of the plaintiff is that the defendant no.1 did not have the title to the property and yet she sold the same in favour of the plaintiff and consequently, she became a victim of fraud and yet she wants to be declared as bonafide purchaser.In view of the order passed by the Division Bench, now the plaintiff is insisting for an interim order in the second application being IA No.9770/2011 i.e. for same relief.I.A. No.9770/2011 in CS(OS) No.774/2007 Page No.6 of 21It is argued by the plaintiff that the documents executed in his favour would show that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies is not vested with any jurisdiction to allow allotment of the said flat.It is stated that under the garb of the communication, no third party right can be created of the said flat depriving the rights of the plaintiff.The plaintiff also submits that if defendant No.2 acts on the basis of the communication dated 13.05.2011, then the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and hence prayed for status quo.The matter was assigned to the Assistant Registrar Cooperatives Society.Defendant no. 3 filed an appeal against the order of Assistant Registrar before the Presiding Officer of Delhi Cooperative Tribunal.The same was dismissed on the ground that the writ petition was filed on disputed question of facts.8.8 With regard to that Paras Nath Pathak submitted a representation at the concerned police station and asked the police officials to register a F.I.R. but the police officials refused to register an F.I.R. Defendant No.3 claims that the police officials were under the influence from the office bearers.On 14.12.2002 Sri Paras Nath Pathak gave a written complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Police Head Quarter, I.P. Extension requesting them to register a complaint against the office bearers of the Society for fabrication of documents, criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts.I.A. No.9770/2011 in CS(OS) No.774/2007 Page No.9 of 21 8.9 Despite the representations no complaint/F.I.R was registered by the police or the CBI.Hence defendant no. 3 approached the High Court and filed a Writ Petition being W.P (Crl) No. 26/2005 for issuance of a direction to the State to register and F.I.R. in this regard.8.10 Pursuant to the directions of the High Court, an enquiry u/s 55 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act was initiated and Shri S.M. Agarwal, ADJ (Retired) was appointed as Enquiry Officer.The High Court vide its order dated 21.03.2006 in W.P. (Crl) No. 26/2005, directed the DCP, EOW Cell Delhi Police to take up enquiry and file report within four weeks.8.11 Pursuant to the orders dated 21.03.2006 by the High Court a F.I.R. was registered being No. 133 dated 19.04.2006 under sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was conducted by Insp.S.S. Gill and the Writ Petition was disposed of.8.12 Thereafter, defendant no. 3 approached the Registrar of the Cooperatives Society and wanted to opt for his legitimate claim on a flat in the housing society.8.13 Defendant no. 3 again approached the Court for clarification of the order dated 26.04.2001 and the Court vide order dated 17.08.2007 passed in C.M. No. 10539/2007 in W.P. (C ) No. 2614 of 2001 has observed ""having considered the materials on record I am of the opinion that no clarification is required to be made; the events relied on are all subsequent to the dismissal of the petition and therefore if the petitioner has any remedies available in law it is open for him to pursue the same.the order dated 26.04.2001 was on the basis of that adjudication in the writ petition entails investigation into the disputed questions of facts; there was no decision on merits of the case""8.14 Hence defendant no. 3 approached the Registrar of Cooperative Society for confirmation of his membership and allotment of his flat B- 47, the only vacant flat.A detailed proceedings went on at the office of the Registrar who vide order 16.04.2008 approved the report of Enquiry Office Shri S.M. Aggarwal and membership of defendant no. 3 was approved.8.15 It is also alleged that a Writ Petition being W.P. (C) No. 4324/2008 titled as Seema Bijlani Vs.Registrar Cooperative Societies & Ors was filed before this Court to frustrate the claim of defendant no. 3 and he was not made a party.I.A. No.9770/2011 in CS(OS) No.774/2007 Page No.11 of 21 8.16 A publication was made in the two daily newspapers namely Statesman, Rashtriya Sahara dated 23rd July 2008 for draw of a flat (B-47) any persons having any objections may submit representation to Assistant Registrar within 15 days of the said publication.In the meanwhile a suit was filed by the plaintiff against Smt. Gayatri Kukreja.Thereafter DDA vide letter dated 16.03.2007 that the Deed of Conveyance dated 24.08.2004 stands cancelled by the L.G. of Delhi.Reply of Defendant No.2 SocietyDefendant No. 2 has also filed reply to the application, stating therein that the plaintiff is not the owner of the flat as alleged.The flat in fact was allotted to Smt. Gayatri Kukreja who through proceedings initiated against her, submitted her resignation and the same was accepted by the Registrar Cooperative Societies.9.1 After knowing of this fact, Mr. Shekhar Vashist, son in law of the plaintiff and a member of the society manipulated the documents for getting flat done to free hold as DDA organized a Riverside camp in Mayur Vihar Phase I and converted the said flat from lease hold to I.A. No.9770/2011 in CS(OS) No.774/2007 Page No.13 of 21 freehold.It is alleged that a manipulation was done by Mr. Vashist and the flat was sold at a throw away price for a consideration of Rs. 7.90 lac as against the proper market value of 30 lac who was fully aware of the fact that defendant No. 2 Smt. Gayatri Kukreja had already resigned from the membership.9.2 The plaintiff had intentionally not stated all the facts in the matter despite of having knowledge of all the facts.The alleged NOC dated 29.12.2003 was never issued by defendant no. 2 but a mere manipulation of documents by Mr. Vashist who also witnessed the conveyance deed.9.3 The defendant no. 1 gave her resignation from the membership of the Society and hence had no title to the said flat.Defendant no. 2 till date is the owner of the flat and plaintiff has no right whatsoever.The defendant No. 2 states that Mr. Shekhar Vashist is the owner of flat no. D-139 in the society and his wife (daughter of the plaintiff) is residing in flat no. C-92, both in the society.Infact there was collusion between plaintiff and Mr. Shekhar Vashist and the documents were manipulated.The plaintiff got a stay in CS (OS) No. 774 of 2007 but after detailed arguments the stay was vacated.The plaintiff also filed a review application but the same was also dismissed.The plaintiff I.A. No.9770/2011 in CS(OS) No.774/2007 Page No.14 of 21 also filed an appeal against the vacating of stay order but that too was dismissed.The same read as under:-The plaintiffs preferred an appeal being FAO (OS) No.281/2008 against the dismissal of first application for interim relief.","['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that this casemay be sent to Mediation Centre for the purpose of settlement betweenthe parties for which the applicants are ready to deposit the cost.Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for theapplicants, it is directed that applicants shall deposit Rs. 10,000/- withintwo weeks from today in the account head of Registrar General,Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad High Court,Allahabad.In case, the aforesaid amount is deposited the notice shall beissued to O.P. No.2 returnable within a period of four weeks.The threefourth of the above mentioned deposited amount shall be paid to O.P. No.2 as expenses.This case shall be sent to Mediation Centre for furtherproceedings.After proceedings of the Mediation Centre, list this case before this Courton 1.4.2010.Till then no coercive step shall be taken against theapplicants in Case No. 806 of 2009 under sections 98-A, 323 I.P.C. andsection ¾ of D.P. Act pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Rampurin case the receipt of the aforesaid deposited amount is filed beforethe court concerned.List on 1.4.2010 for orders.Order Date :- 21.1.2010N.A.",['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.147 of 2018, under Section 376 IPC Police Station-Phephna, District-Ballia is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR was lodged by the victim herself against as many as four persons including the applicant.The allegation is that after extending promise to marry, the applicant has established physical relationship with the victim at the pre-marital stage.She understands the far-reaching repercussions of pre-marital sex with unknown persons and now, when the applicant has wriggled out from his promise, she has lodged the present FIR.Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Let the applicant-Manoj Kumar, involved in case crime no.147 of 2018, under Section 376 IPC Police Station-Phephna, District-Ballia be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.",['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
"mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;font-size:10.0pt;case diary.</span></p> <p class=""MsoNormal"" style=""text-align:justify;line-height:150%""><span style=""font-family:&quot;Bookman Old Style&quot;"" lang=""EN-GB""><span style=""mso-spacerun:yes"">&nbsp;</span><span style=""mso-tab-count:2"">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Heard.</span></p> <p class=""MsoNormal"" style=""text-align:justify;line-height:150%""><span style=""font-family:&quot;Bookman Old Style&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;"" lang=""EN-GB""><span style=""mso-spacerun:yes"">&nbsp;</span><span style=""mso-tab-count:2"">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>This is repeat (Third) application u/s. 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.89/2013 registered at Police Station-Singhpur, District-Satna for the offences punishable u/s. 302, 376 (2-G), 201, 34 of IPC.Accordingly, this repeat application stands rejected and closed.</span></p> <p class=""MsoNormal"" style=""text-align:justify;line-height:150%""><span style=""font-family:&quot;Bookman Old Style&quot;;color:black"" lang=""EN-GB""><span style=""mso-tab-count:2"">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>M.Cr.C. stands disposed off.</span><span style=""font-family:&quot;Bookman Old Style&quot;"" lang=""EN-GB""><span style=""mso-tab-count: 3"">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span style=""mso-spacerun:yes"">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><span style=""font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%"" lang=""EN-GB""><span style=""mso-tab-count: 2"">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><span style=""font-size:15.0pt;line-height: 150%;font-family:&quot;Courier 10 Pitch&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;"" lang=""EN-GB""></span></p> <p class=""MsoNormal"" style=""margin-left:3.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: .5in;mso-line-height-alt:5.0pt""><span style=""font-family:&quot;Bookman Old Style&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;"" lang=""EN-GB""><span style=""mso-spacerun:yes"">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>( S.K. SETH)</span></p> <p class=""MsoNormal"" style=""margin-left:2.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: .5in;mso-line-height-alt:5.0pt""><span style=""font-family:&quot;Bookman Old Style&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;"" lang=""EN-GB""><span style=""mso-spacerun:yes"">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span style=""mso-tab-count:2"">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Judge</span></p> <p class=""MsoNormal"" style=""margin-left:2.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: .5in;mso-line-height-alt:5.0pt""><b style=""mso-bidi-font-weight:normal""><span style=""font-size:15.0pt;font-family:&quot;Courier 10 Pitch&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;"" lang=""EN-GB"">&nbsp;</span></b></p> <p class=""MsoNormal"" style=""margin-left:-73.5pt;text-align:justify;mso-line-height-alt: 5.0pt""><i style=""mso-bidi-font-style:normal""><u><span style=""font-size:9.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:13.0pt;font-family:&quot;Courier 10 Pitch&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"" lang=""EN-GB"">Irfan</span></u></i><i style=""mso-bidi-font-style:normal""><u><span style=""font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:13.0pt;font-family:&quot;Courier 10 Pitch&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"" lang=""EN-GB"">/</span></u></i><span style=""font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt"" lang=""EN-GB""></span></p> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState=""false"" LatentStyleCount=""156""> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid=""clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D"" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:""Table Normal"";mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;mso-style-noshow:yes;mso-style-parent:"""";mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;mso-para-margin:0in;font-family:""Times New Roman"";mso-ansi-language:#0400;mso-fareast-language:#0400;mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <!--<object type=""application/pdf"" data=""../../MPHCJB/2014/SA/125/SA_125_2014_Order_03-Jul-2014.pdf"" id=""ggg_object"" style=""display: none""></object>--> <object type=""application/pdf"" id=""ggg_object"" style=""display: none""></object> <!--<iframe src=""../../MPHCJB/SA_125_2014_Order_03-Jul-2014.pdf"" id='ggg_object' width=""800px"" height=""600px"" >--> </div> </font>",['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
"I. Fracture 17 cm long right and left parietal bone region;Fracture Left zygomatic arch;{11/01/2018 } Per J.P.Gupta, J :This appeal has been filed assailing the judgment dated 16/10/2006 passed by the 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa, in Sessions Trial No.103/2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 302 of IPC for committing murder of Lakhan and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life imprisonment as mentioned in the impugned judgment.It is undisputed in the case that Pintu (PW-5) is son of the deceased, Sulochna Bai (PW-4) is wife of the deceased and Ranju Bai (PW-1) and Manda (PW-6) are daughters of the deceased and house of the deceased and the appellant are situated in the same vicinity.In brief, the facts of the case emerge from the findings of the learned trial court and evidence on record are that one day before the incident altercation were taken place between the deceased and the appellant on account of throwing of live electric wire towards the house of Lakhan.On 21/03/2016 near about 6.30 PM Lakhan went towards the betel shop and his son Pintu (PW-5) was coming towards his house, he saw that the appellant was beating his father Lakhan with the stick.Then Pintu (PW-5) got frightened came to his house and informed to his mother and sisters, then he along with his mother Sulochan Bai (PW-4) and his sisters Ranju Bai (PW-1) and Manda (PW-6) went towards the place of the incident and they found Lakhan lying in the front of the house of the appellant.He was injured and dead.Then Sulochan Bai (PW-4) called for Shivlal (PW-7) and Rameshchand (PW-8).They came on the spot and Sulochan Bai (PW-4) informed that Pintu (PW-5) had narrated that appellant assaulted the deceased with the stick and caused his death.Thereafter Rameshchand (PW-8) telephonically informed to the police station Piplod.Thereafter police party reached on the spot near about 11 PM where Dehati Nalish (Ex.P-5) and Marg Intimation (Ex.P-7) was recorded on the basis of information given by Sulochan Bai (PW-4) and thereafter FIR (Ex.P-13) was registered at Police station Piplod, Tehsil Khandwa as Crime No.80/2006 under sections 302 of the IPC.During the investigation the dead body of the deceased was examined by Dr. Anil Kumar (PW-2) and after completing the other formalities of the investigation, the charge sheet for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of IPC against the appellant was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Khandwa, who in turn committed the case to the court of Session Khandwa from where it was received on transfer by the 3rd Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Court) Khandwa who conducted the trial.During trial against the appellant/accused charge for the offence punishable under sections 302 of the IPC was framed.He abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.His defence is that he has been falsely implicated in this case and in his defence no witness has been adduced.Learned Trial court after completion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the appellant for commission of the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC on the basis of evidence of Pintu (PW-5) finding his testimony creditable and getting corroboration from the statements of Sulochan Bai (PW-4), Ranju Bai (PW-1) and Manda (PW-6) as well as Shivlal (PW-7) and Rameshchand (PW-8) and further getting corroboration from the statement of Dr. Anil Kumar (PW-2).Apart from it, there is no compliance of section 157 of Cr.P.C. The FIR is antedated with a view to falsely implicate the appellant.Further contended that Dr. Anil Kumar (PW-2) has not opined that any single or all injuries in cumulative effect was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.In such circumstances, looking to the alleged motive, nature of weapon, it cant be said that the appellant assaulted the deceased with the intention to kill him or caused injuries intentionally which were sufficient to cause his death in ordinary course of nature.The same was caused on account of assaulting by other person.Therefore, the nature of the death was homicidal.As per Ex.P-1 according to Dr. Anil Kumar (PW-2) following injuries were found on the body of the deceased:-i. Lacerated wound 2 X1X1 cm over lateral end of left eyebrow;Contusion 15X2 cm over chest extended from just above left nipple to down ward to Right nipple region; iii.Contusion 17 X2 cm over chest extend from below 3 cm from Left nipple to right nipple;Contusion 16 X2 cm over left hypchorid region and Epigestric region extend from near mid axillary line lower chest left to downward epigestric region; v. Abrasion 1 X1 cm lateral to 2 cm from No.1 On dissection following injuries were found:-Fracture Left 5th rib near sterrium bone region;Sub dural and extra dural haemorrhage present and large haemorrhage present;He opined that cause of death was excessive haemorriage and shock due to multiple fracture of body and chest injury.Leading to cardio respiratory arrest.Injuries are homicidal in nature and duration of injuries were within 24 hours.Now the question is that whether the aforesaid injuries was caused by the appellant with the stick.In this regard Pintu (PW-5), who is son of the deceased has categorically stated that on the date of incident near about 7 pm when he was coming to his house in the front of the house of appellant, he saw appellant was beating his father with the stick.Seeing this incident, he was frightened and go home from the way of back side and told his mother that the appellant is beating his father.Thereafter he along with his mother and sisters went towards the appellants house and saw his father was lying dead and there were injuries on forehead, chest and stomach of his father.Sulochan Bai (PW-4), Ranju Bai (PW-1) and Manda (PW-6) have also stated the same thing in their statements.As per statement of Sulochan Bai (PW-4) she called for Shivlal (PW-7) and Rameshchand (PW-8) and told them the facts of the incident and then Rameshchand (PW-8) informed to the police.Shivlal (PW-7) and Rameshchand (PW-8) have supported this story and Investigating Officer, N.P Dhada (PW-11) have also stated that near about 10 PM Rameshchand (PW-8) telephoned to the police station Piplod and informed that one person is killed in his village and thereafter he sent police force to the village.Sulochan Bai (PW-4) also stated that in the night police force came, she informed to them about the incident and Dehati Nalish (Ex.P-5) and Marg Intimation (Ex.P-7) was recorded by the police.In the statement of the aforesaid witnesses, there is no material contradiction and omission.Shivlal (PW-7) and Rameshchand (PW-8) are independent witnesses and they have reached on the spot very soon where Sulochan Bai (PW-4) have categorically disclosed them that his son Pintu (PW-5) saw the incident and the deceased was beaten by the appellant with stick.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The complainant was not in picture at all.As far as the sale deed is concerned, he was neither vendor nor vendee nor middle man or attesting witness of the instrument.He is completely a stranger to the aforesaid disputed sale deed.Two of them are related to vendee and two are said to be middle man in the deal but their roles have not been delineated at all.One Subodh Kumar Jain, respondent no. 2/complainant lodged an FIR despite the fact that he was not the party to the said transaction in any manner.This FIR was registered on 1.11.2011 at P.S. Kotwali Muzaffar Nagar vide Case Crime No. 1149 of 2011, under Sections 420,467,468,471,379 IPC and 120-B IPC.The matter was investigated and the Investigating Officer initially submitted the final report in the matter on the premise that the dispute relates to the evasion of stamp duty for which proceedings were already pending before the competent authority but subsequently the investigation was transferred, legal opinion obtained from the senior prosecutor and charge sheet under Section 420 IPC was filed against five accused including vendee Padma Jain, her husband Sunil Kumar Jain, her son Sarad Jain, alleged middle man V. K. Jain and his son Anmol Jain.The matter was adjudicated by the competent authorities.Remaining stamp duty was ordered to be paid and further a penalty of Rs. 40,990/- was also imposed.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition as disclosed in the F.I.R are thus :- On 5.5.2016, complainant Yatendra Singh Chauhan, who is respondent no.5 herein, lodged the written complaint with police station Maharajpura Gwalior stating that he is the owner of the M/s Yatendra Chauhan Contractors and Suppliers.brother Dinesh Valecha are the Directors of the Valecha Engineering Pvt. Ltd Co. (for short ""the company"").Kapil Valecha and Karan Valecha are the sons of the petitioner.M.H.Mehta is the General Manager of the company.On 10.10.2014, on behalf of the company, M.H.Mehta had entered into a written agreement with him in his residence at DH 89 DD Nagar Gwalior.According to the agreement, he had to supply 2,50,000/- metric tons ""crushed stones aggregate"" at the work site of the company as it has got the contract of construction of four lane road of Etawah-Mainpuri Purawali at that time.The company paid him only 10,00,000/- (ten lac) rupees against the aforesaid amount.Both the cheques were dishonored by the drawee bank of the company.The directors and the employees of the company fled away from the work site.Bajaj also lodged an FIR at Police Station Jhansi Road Gwalior for the similar type of the offences having been committed by them.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the F.I.R, M.H.Mehta had entered into an agreement on behalf of the company for the supply of crushed stones.The police have not made him an accused of the case, whereas he is the main accused.he was being brought by the police, he escaped from the custody of police at Railway-Station Bina.learned Public Prosecutor.For respondent No.5 :- Shri Awdhesh Singh Bhadoria learned counsel._______________________________________ O R D E R.(Passed on the 4th day of January, 2018) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashment of the First Information Report in respect of him registered at Crime No.155 of 2016 in Police Station Maharajpura Gwalior against him and three other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506, 294 and 34 of the I.P.C.In that case, the police arrested Dinesh Valecha from Mumbai.When he was being brought to Gwalior, he escaped from the custody of the police at Railway-Station Bina.Now, the aforestated persons would hurl at him various kinds of filthy abuses and would give him death threats on phones.Upon the complaint, Police Mahajarajpura Gwalior registered the FIR at Crime No.155 of 2016 and have made the petitioner, Dinesh Valecha, Kapil Valecha and Karan Valecha the accused persons of the case for committing the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506, 294 and 34 I.P.C.cheques towards the outstanding amount.But, he had mentioned in the FIR only cheque numbers without the dates on which the cheques are issued, amount of each of the two cheques, the name(s) of drawee bank(s), the name(s) of signatory(s) of the cheques and the date(s) of dishonour of the cheques.He further submitted that Kapil Valecha and Karan Valecha are neither directors of the company nor the employees of the company.He further submitted that the complainant has made general and vague allegations against them for giving abuses and life threats to him because in the FIR the dates, timings of the telephone calls, telephone number(s) through which they would give him abuses and death threats and the telephone number(s) on which he had received the same are not given.He further submitted that the complainant has made Kapil Valecha and Karan Valecha accused of the case with an ulterior motive to bring pressure upon the petitioner and Dinesh Valecha for payment of the outstanding amount.the petitioner and Dinesh Valecha had intention to cheat him or commit breach of trust against him before the execution of the agreement.He further submitted that the real dispute between the company and the complainant is that he had supplied the crushed stones of poor quality to the company resulting in non-payment of the amount as demanded by him.Thus, the dispute between the complainant on one side and the accused persons and the company on the other is of purely monetary dispute of civil nature.Thus, no offence against the petitioner under Sections 420 (for cheating), 406 (for breach of trust), 294 (giving filthy abuses) and 506 (for giving life threats) I.P.C are made out.Therefore, the FIR be quashed in respect of the petitioner.In support of the submissions, he placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of State Of Haryana And Ors Vs Ch.Bhajan Lal And Ors, AIR 1992 SC 604, International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and new Materials (ARCI) & Others Vs.1 SCC 348, M.Cr.C.No.1942 of 2004 and M.Cr.C.No.2005 of 2004, cause-title Wolfang Rein & ORS Vs.State and ANR, date of orders dated 2.7.2012 passed by the Delhi High Court and a few orders passed by this High Court and the Bombay High Court under Section 482 CrPC in unreported cases.In all these cases, gravamen of accusations against them are that they had entered into agreements with the complainants for supply of crushed stones and thereafter they did not make payments and they and their employees fled away from the work site.He further submitted that the police of police station University arrested Dinesh Valecha in said Crime No.98 of 2016 at Mumbai.Thereupon, Crime No.355/2015 against him is registered at G.R.P police station Bina under Section 224 I.P.C. He further submitted that the registrations of the aforesaid cases upon the complaints of the different complainants in the aforestated police stations are prima facie proofs that the petitioner and the three other accused of the present case had intention to cheat the complainant or commit criminal breach of trust against the complainant at the time of execution of the written agreement which had been entered into with him on behalf of the company by its General Manager M.H.Mehta.He further submitted that the petitioner had also filed M.Cr.C.No.8307 of 2016 for the quashment of the FIR registered against him and others in Crime No.98 of 2016 at police station University Gwalior.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA BAIL APPLN.1113/2017 & Crl.M.A.No.244/2018 BAIL APPLN.Represented by: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC, Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC, Mr. Nitesh Rana, SPP and Ms. Anumita Chandra, Advocate.Represented by: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC, Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC, Mr. Nitesh Rana, SPP and Ms. Anumita Chandra, Advocate.BAIL APPLN.1113/2017 & 1114/2017 Page 1 of 81114/2017 & Crl.By way of the present applications, petitioners Virendra Jain and Surender Kumar Jain, the two brothers seek regular bail in ECIR/01/DLZO- II/2017 dated 11th February, 2017 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short 'PMLA').The above-noted complaint was lodged after an order dated 28th October, 2013 was passed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs directing investigation by Serious Fraud Investigating Officer (in short 'SFIO') into affairs of the various companies.On the basis of the investigation report a Criminal Complaint No. 57463/2016 dated 29 th November, 2016 was filed by SFIO against 31 accused persons including the two petitioners for violation of the provisions under Sections 233/628 read with Sections 211/240 (3) of the Companies Act and under Sections 420/468/477-A/120B IPC before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Central) Special Acts, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.These bail applications came up before this Court earlier and vide order dated 20th September, 2017, this Court dismissed the two bail applications.Aggrieved by the order dated 20th September, 2017 dismissing the bail applications, the petitioners preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 23 rd November, 2017 in a batch of writ petitions and criminal appeals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declared the two further conditions imposed for release on bail in Section 45 BAIL APPLN.1113/2017 & 1114/2017 Page 2 of 8 (1) of PMLA to be unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and remanded back the matter to the respective Courts which denied the bail, to be heard on merits without application of the twin conditions mentioned in Section 45 of the PMLA.Thus in both the petitions additional applications challenging the order dated 8 th December, 2017 passed by the learned Special Judge have also been filed.BAIL APPLN.1113/2017 & 1114/2017 Page 2 of 8Appeals filed before the Commissioner, Income Tax were dismissed however, the challenge before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal succeeded and both the orders of the Assessing Authority and CIT (Appeals) were set aside and the matter remanded back with directions to provide adequate opportunity to the petitioners after confronting them with the entire material.BAIL APPLN.1113/2017 & 1114/2017 Page 3 of 8This Court during the course of arguments repeatedly inquired from the learned counsel for the respondent that even if assuming there was rotation of entries to the tune of approximately 8,000 crores and since substantial investigation has been carried out, what was the financial stability of the companies and the amount available with the companies however, no clear figure could be given by learned counsel for the respondent.It is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent that a complaint and a supplementary complaint have already been filed in the case.The case of the prosecution rests primarily on the documentary BAIL APPLN.1113/2017 & 1114/2017 Page 7 of 8 address the same will be duly informed to the court by way of an affidavit and in case the petitioners are found interfering in the process of further investigation or tampering with the evidence or violating the conditions imposed, the respondent will be at liberty to take appropriate remedies in accordance with law.Petitions and applications are disposed of.Order dasti.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE JANUARY 25, 2018 'vn' BAIL APPLN.1113/2017 & 1114/2017 Page 8 of 8BAIL APPLN.1113/2017 & 1114/2017 Page 8 of 8","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Case diary perused.This is first application filed by the applicant / accused under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.400/16, Police Station Kotar, District Satna (MP), offences registered under Section 326, 294, 323, 506-B & 34 of I.P.C.So far as the other co-accused Mahendra Singh and Gyan Singh are concerned, in the said incident their role was different from the applicant and the applicant cannot get relief on the ground of parity.Hence, the applicant is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.Hence, the bail application is rejected.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE vj","['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The sentences imposed on the accused were directed to run concurrently.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come forward with the present appeal.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Rajeshkanna, A1 and P.W.2 were doing business in sago under the name and style of J.S.R, in which they were all partners.Subsequently, since some dispute arose between them, the deceased and P.W.2 left A1 and started their own business.A1 and A2 alone were doing the said business .When the deceased and P.W.2 urged A1 to settle the accounts, A1 asked them to come on 26.4.2001 so that the accounts could be settled.On 26.4.2001 at 9.30 p.m., when P.W.1 went to the shop of A1, the deceased, P.W.2 and A1 were present.When they demanded A1 to settle the amount, A1 took patta knife from the drawer and attacked the deceased.A2 also attacked the deceased and P.W.2 with knife.P.W.2 was taken to Hospital by P.W.5 one Kannan.The deceased was taken to Gokulam Hospital by P.W.1 and then the deceased was taken to Government Hosptial, where the Doctor declared the deceased Rajeshkhanna dead.Thereafter P.W.1 gave a complaint to the Chevvapet Police Station.P.W.11 Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.340 /2001 under Sections 302, 307 IPC and prepared Ex.P15 FIR.On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W.12 the Inspector of Police, took up investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 2 a.m. and prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P3 and a rough sketch Ex.He completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 IPC.Before the trial court on the side of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined, Exs.P1 to P17 were filed and M.Os. 1 to 18 were marked.On the side of the defence, D.Ws 1 to 4 were examined, Exs.D1 to D16 were filed and M.Os. 1 and 2 were marked.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against them through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused denied their complicity.The trial court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence convicted the appellants and sentenced them as stated above.As there was no representation on behalf of the appellants, notice was issued to the learned counsel for the appellant who reported no instructions.Even though notice was taken to the accused, there was no representation for the appellants.Hence Mr.Parthiban was appointed as legal aid counsel and he has appeared in this matter.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side ) has no objections for the same.From the records it is seen that during the incident, the deceased and other persons attacked the accused and in this regard no investigation was made.P.W.2 Jai Ganesh has given dying declaration before D.W.1 Judicial Magistrate,.D.W.4 Doctor in his evidence would state that A1 sustained fracture on his nose, which was grievous in nature and A1 also sustained simple injuries.D.W.4 Doctor in his evidence would state that A1 sustained fracture on his nose, which was grievous in nature and A1 also sustained simple injuries.He would further state that as A1 complained of pain, he sent him for taking X ray.D.W.4 would also state that A2 also sustained simple injuries.D.W.2 Doctor in his evidence would state that A1 sustained nose injury and he took X ray of the nose injury and gave Ex.D5 report .From the above materials, I am of the view that the investigation has not been properly made and the injury caused on the accused has also not been considered.Without considering this aspect, the trial court has convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 304 Part II read with 34 IPC and 326 read with 34 and sentenced them to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part II IPC read with 34 and two years under Section 326 read with 34 IPC.I am of the view that the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part II IPC is on the higher side.Considering the fact that the A1 also suffered grievous injuries and further the accused have to maintain their families, I am of the view that in order to meet the ends of justice, the sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 304 Part II read with 34 IPC could be reduced to seven years and accordingly sentence is modified into seven years of rigorous imprisonment instead of 10 years.In other respects the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 326 read with 34 IPC is confirmed.With the above modification, the appeal stands dismissed.The counsel appearing for the accused is entitled to get remuneration from the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority, Chennai.I Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, SalemThe Public Prosecutor High Court, Chennai","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The complaint proceeds that A1 to A14 have executed three power of attorneys in favour of the second respondent defacto complainant vide document nos.178/1998, 297/2007 and 1787/2008 and on the strength of the same, the power of attorney mortgaged the property for Rs.1 lakh.In pursuance of the same, the power of attorney entered into an agreement for purchase of the property and put up compound wall and grill gate and obtained service connection and conducted three cases before the Court at Chengalpet and thereafter, executed a sale deed in favour of one Shanthi on 13.7.2011 vide document no.7424/2011 and the defacto complainant has been insisting A1 to A14 to receive the balance sale consideration, but the accused have been postponing the same.While so, the defacto complainant on behalf of Shanthi applied for patta and they come to know that the property was already sold to one Jinnah, who is the petitioner herein.The complaint further proceeds that the sale deed in favour of Jinnah is not valid and the same is executed by his principals without the knowledge of the power of attorney, after obtaining part of the sale consideration and thereafter creating encumbrance to cheat the purchaser who is the power of attorney holder and without handing over the original documents, which are in the custody of the power of attorney holder.Thus, the principals of the defacto complainant i.e., A1 to A14, in order to cheat their power of attorney, have created illegal sale deed and committed an act of land grabbing.The complaint was lodged on 31.3.2011 and was registered as FIR in Cr.No.100/2013 on 24.12.2013 against the principals and the petitioner herein.3.The petitioner/A15 has come forward with the present petition to quash the proceedings on the ground that the allegations raised in the FIR failed to make out any offence in law, much less offence of cheating and none of the ingredients of the offences as referred to above is made out and the complaint came to be lodged only to wreck vengeance against the petitioner herein and to counter blast the complaint and the civil suit filed by the petitioner herein and that, the dispute raised herein is more of civil in nature and there is no element of crime involved in it and the criminal jurisdiction invoked is an abuse of process of law.It is further stated herein that A1 to A14, being the owners of the property, executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner as well as in favour of the second respondent's wife and the sale deed in favour of the petitioner was earlier in point of time and the sale deed in favour of his wife executed by the second respondent by using the power of attorney, which is said to have been executed by A1 to A14, was much after the sale of the property to the petitioner with the knowledge of the sale transaction in favour of the petitioner and it is only the complainant along with the second respondent's wife trying to dispossess the petitioner of the property by using the power of attorney and the sale deed and the complaint filed by the second respondent is hence tainted with malafide and with ulterior motive and the same is registered as FIR without any enquiry.It is also his case that the allegations raised in the FIR disclose cognizable offences and make out a prima facie case.According to the second respondent, the property was offered for sale by the owners and he agreed to purchase the same for more than Rs.20 lakhs as sale price and obtained registered deed of power of attorney in his favour, authorising him to deal with the property and thereafter he constructed compound wall in and around the property and put up grill date and obtained electricity connection and defended three civil suits filed against the principals and thereafter sold and executed registered sale deed in favour of his wife Shanthi.Only on making application for patta, he came to know about execution of sham and nominal sale deed in favour of the petitioner by the principals without any right to do so and A1 to A15 have thus defrauded the second respondent and A1 to A14 committed criminal breach of trust by falsification of records along with A15 and pendency of the civil suit cannot absolve them from the criminal prosecution and FIR was registered only after holding detailed enquiry.It is further submitted that the petitioner committed fraud on his vendors by creating two forged documents i.e. one for Rs.1,20,00,000/- and another for Rs.25,07,000/- and the same requires thorough probe.5.Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records.6.It is not in dispute that the property belongs to one Raghavan and A1 to A14 are his sons and grand sons through the deceased son and A1 to A14 have executed registered power of attorneys in favour of the second respondent defacto complainant and during the currency of the same, A1 to A14/owners of the property executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner vide Document No.3529 of 2011 dated 31.3.2011 without reference to the power of attorney and after execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the power of attorney holder executed a sale deed in favour of his wife on 13.7.2011 on the strength of such power of attorney.The second respondent has come forward with the present complaint stating that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner herein, after agreeing to sell the property to the second respondent and after obtaining Rs.20 lakhs as part of the sale consideration and after allowing the defacto complainant to mortgage the property and to execute a sale deed and to defend three civil suits and without obtaining the original title deeds from the power of attorney holder and without verifying the encumbrance on the property, is dishonest and fraudulent act and is outcome of the collusion between A1 to A14/owners on one hand and A15/purchaser on other hand to create encumbrance on the property in order to harass the power of attorney and his purchaser.Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he also lodged a complaint against the second respondent and others in this regard.The petitioner has also filed the civil suit in OS No.349/2013 against the purchaser Shanthi, defacto complainant and A1 to A14 for various reliefs, i.e., to declare the power of attorneys dated 15.4.1998, 24.1.2007 and 13.9.2008 in favour of the second respondent herein vide Doc.Nos.179 of 1998, 292/2007 and 1787/2008 on the file of SRO, Guduvancheri as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff; to declare the sale deeds dated 13.7.2011 executed by the second respondent herein in capacity of power agent of the Principals in favour of his wife, which was registered as Doc.No.7424 of 2011 on the file of SRO, Guduvancheri as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff; and for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant/purchaser from in any manner dealing with the suit schedule property in pursuance of the sale deed dated 13.7.2011 executed in her favour by the power of attorney.The suit was filed along with IA.No.1707/2013 for interim relief.A1 to A14 as the respondents/defendants 2 to 16 therein, have filed their counter and written statement in I.A.1707/2013 and the wife of the second respondent defacto complainant and the second respondent as defendants 1 and 17, filed their detailed written statement in the suit and counter in the application.8.The perusal of the avements raised in the FIR would reveal that A1 to A14 as different set of defendants in the suit filed two different counters and written statements in the same.As far as the Second respondent is concerned, he has come forward with improved but different version at every stage.9.It may be true that the second respondent has by way of typed set and additional typed set, produced the copies of the documents in support of his theory regarding execution of mortgage, pendency of civil suit against the principals and cash receipts for payment of part of the sale consideration etc. The fact that the deed of power of attorney was executed in his favour by the principals and he mortgaged the property on the strength of the same and he defended the suits on behalf of the principals, may be evident from the documents as referred to above.However, other documents filed on his behalf by way of agreement of sale and cash receipts and statement of accounts are more in the nature of self serving documents and are the matters for appreciation of evidence.Till date, the second respondent, who have allegedly paid huge amount by way of sale consideration, has not come forward with any civil suit to declare the earlier sale deed executed by the owners, not binding on him.His principals i.e., A1 to A14 being the owners of the property, the validity of the sale deed executed by them cannot be seriously attacked herein.",['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
"% (ORAL) Quashing of Criminal Complaint No.8/2013 for the offences under Sections 323/379/392/411/509/34 of IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act is sought on the basis of Settlement arrived between the parties before the Counselling Cell, Family Courts, New Delhi.","['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19/06/2019 in connection with Chakdha P.S. Case No. 203 of 2019 dated 06/05/2019 under Section 448/325/326/354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Abtab Sk. @ Atabiddin Sekh @ Atabuddin Sekh & Ors.....petitioners.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)","['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"a) A-1 and A-2 are cousin brothers.P.W.2-Mariamma is the wife of the deceased Thiruvannamalaiyan.Both the accused family and the deceased family were living at Melpattu village.A-2 owned 1 acre 40 cents of land in the said village.This land was leased out to the deceased for Rs.3,000/- for a period of five years.He also allowed the deceased to possess and enjoy the said land and take the yield arising therefrom.After five years period was over, the deceased demanded for the return of the lease amount.But, A-2 refused to make the payment.Due to this, there was a frequent quarrel between A-2 and the deceased.P.W.2 was often sent by the deceased to the house of A-2 asking for the return of the payment.b) On the day of occurrence, i.e. on 16.05.1994 at about 5.30 p.m, while the wordy quarrel was going on between the deceased and his wife P.W.2 near the land of A-1, she pleaded with A-1, who was passing that way, to save her by his intervention.Then, A-1 asked the deceased not to beat P.W.2 anymore and he tried to pacify both of them.But, the deceased scolded A-1, stating that he was supporting P.W.2, because he was having illegal relationship with her.Efforts taken by A-1 to separate them failed.Therefore, he took a wooden log found near a tree and beat the deceased on his head.At that time, A-2 also instigated A-1 to attack the deceased.The incident was witnessed by P.Ws.3 to 5, who are the villagers.Both of the accused on seeing them, sped away from the scene.c) Next day i.e., on 17.05.1994 at about 10.00 p.m, A-1 went to Village Administrative Officer-P.W.1 and gave an Extra-Judicial Confession, confessing that he attacked the deceased with the wooden log due to the quarrel and also handed over the said wooden log-M.O.1 to the Village Administrative Officer.d) Then P.W.1 and P.W.6 proceeded to the scene of occurrence along with A-1 to see the dead body.Since the dead body was not found at the spot, they went to the house of the deceased where the body was kept and saw the dead body with the injuries.e) Thereafter, they went to the police station on 18.05.1994 at about 9.00 a.m. P.W.1 prepared Ex.P-2 report and produced the accused as well as M.O.1 wooden log and also handed over the report Ex.P-1 to P.W.15, the Sub Inspector of Police, on the basis of which, P.W.15 then registered a case for an offence under Section 302 and 302 r/w 109 IPC.He sent the complaint and the First Information Report to the Court and the superior officers.f) P.W.16 the Inspector of Police went to the spot at 12.30 p.m. He observed all the formalities by preparing the Observation Mahazar and the Rough Sketch and he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased.On the same day, he examined P.Ws.2 to 5 and the panchayatdars.The dead body was then sent for postmortem.g) P.W.11, the Doctor conducted postmortem on 19.05.1994 at about 9.00 a.m. He found as many as three injuries on the body of the deceased and gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to the injuries on the head.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.The appellant Arunachalam was tried and convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC, for having caused the death of one Thiruvannamalaiyan.Originally, the appellant Arunachalam and another accused, namely Subramani (A-2) were tried for offence under Sections 302 and 302 r/w 109 IPC, of whom, A-2 has been acquitted, and the appellant alone has been convicted as referred to above.Ex.P-8 is the postmortem certificate issued by him.He then arranged for sending the material objects for chemical analysis.After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.In the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to P.W.16 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-20 were filed and M.Os. 1 to 4 were marked.Both the accused while being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C denied their complicity in crime in question.Ultimately, the trial Court acquitted A-2 and convicted A-1 alone for the offence under Section 302 IPC.Challenging the conviction, Mr. V. Murali, the counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that though eye witnesses were examined, those witnesses turned hostile and as such, there is no sufficient evidence to convict the accused and the only piece of evidence is the Extra-Judicial Confession, which would suffer from various infirmities and as such, this is a case of no evidence and consequently, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in respect of these aspects.We have carefully considered the submissions made by the respective parties.We have also gone through the records.According to the prosecution, on 16.05.1994 at about 5.30 p.m, when the wordy quarrel was going on between the deceased and his wife P.W.2, A-1 and A-2 intervened and at that time, the deceased uttered abusive words against A-1, as if he was having illegal relationship with his wife P.W.2 and this made him to take a wooden log found nearby and attack the deceased.In that process, A-2 also attacked the deceased with the hands.As referred to above, A-2 was acquitted as there is no evidence against him.Now, to connect the appellant (A-1) with the crime, the only piece of evidence that is available is the Extra-Judicial Confession made by the first accused to P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer.All the other eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws.2 to 5 turned hostile.The recording of Extra Judicial Confession has been spoken to by P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer and P.W.6, the Village Menial.It is settled law that even though there is no other evidence except the Extra-Judicial Confession, if the same is taken to be a reliable piece of evidence, then the conviction can be based.According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place on 16.05.1994 at about 5.30 p.m. P.W.1 recorded the Extra-Judicial Confession on 17.05.1994 at about 10.00 p.m. Only next day, the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.1) produced the accused along with the complaint and the report to the Sub Inspector of police P.W.15 at about 9.00 a.m.Though it is the case of the prosecution that the Extra-Judicial Confession has been made by A-1 to P.W.1 before the commencement of the investigation, the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.7 would make it clear that the statement was given by the accused to P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer at the spot in the presence of the police officer.They also admit the same in the cross examination.Thus it is obvious that the Extra-Judicial Confession cannot be said to be a voluntary one and as such, it loses its value.Further, it is noticed that the Doctor P.W.11 would state in his evidence and Ex.P-8-Post Mortem Certificate that the deceased would have died 96-100 hours prior to the commencement of postmortem.A according to the prosecution, the death had occurred only on 16.05.1994 about 5.30 p.m as per Ex.P-1, Extra-Judicial Confession.Therefore, the time of death as opined by Doctor P.W.11 also would not tally with the case of the prosecution.Consequently, this Court is constrained to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.Under those circumstances, we are unable to sustain the conviction imposed by the trial Court and therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the first accused are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge.The bail bond executed by the first accused shall stand cancelled.The appeal is allowed accordingly.",['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The prosecution case briefly stated is as under :(i) That Mahendra Mehta, then aged about 30 years, was residing with his parents, wife Surabhi and a year old son Amit in Flat No.309, Ravi Kiran Building, Carter Road No.3, Borivali (E), Mumbai.He was one of the partners in Riddhi Jewellers situated at 285/305, Krishna Niwas, Office No.22/A, URS 4 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 5 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc Zaveri Bazar.PW 3 Rakesh Jain, his brother Manojkumar Jain and Vimal Mehta, brother of Mahendra Mehta, were the other partners of Riddhi Jewellers.PW 1 Mukesh Mehta, brother of Mahendra Mehta, was residing intervening 6-7 buildings from Ravi Kiran building, Borivali (E), Mumbai where Mahendra Mehta was residing with his family and parents.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::(ii) On 21/03/2007 morning, Mahendra Mehta was to travel to Gujarat.At about 4.30 a.m., PW 3 Rakesh Jain returned to Bombay from Baroda.He went to the house of Mahendra Mehta in Ravi Kiran building.PW 3 Rakesh delivered two samples of gold to Mahendra.Those samples were to be taken to Gujarat by Mahendra.That time, Rakesh also handed over a mobile phone to Mahendra which was being used by them in Gujarat.At 5.30 a.m., PW 3 Rakesh went to Ganesh temple which was situated in the compound of the same building.Rakesh was one of the partners of Riddhi Jewellers.According to him on 21/03/2007 at around 4.30 a.m., he returned to Bombay from Baroda and straight way went to the house of Mahendra Mehta as Mahendra was to go to Gujarat at around 6.30 a.m. on the same day.Rakesh URS 16 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 17 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc handed over two samples of gold to Mahendra and a cell phone which was being used for transaction in Gujarat.After handing over gold samples, Rakesh left the house of Mahendra at around 5.30 a.m. and went to Ganesh temple situated in the compound of Ravi Kiran building.On his way to temple, PW 3 Rakesh saw a lady and a man at the gate of the building.He proceeded ahead.He then saw two motorbikes near Saibaba temple.Two persons were sitting on each motor bike.Thereafter PW 3 Rakesh reached his residence.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::At 6.30 a.m., Rakesh received phone call from Vimal Mehta informing him that some persons attempted to snatch away the bag and assaulted Mahendra.He was also informed that Mahendra was being carried to Bhagwati Hospital by PW 1 Mukesh and his father Devichand.On receiving information, PW 3 Rakesh went to Bhagwati Hospital.Medical Officer declared Mahendra as dead.SEO Ismail Khan conducted the identification parade.During identification parade, PW 3 Rakesh identified accused no.1 James and accused no.5 Rakesh Bachchawat.ig PW 3 Rakesh misidentified accused no.4 Shabbir who was not in the TIP.(iii) It is further stated by PW 3 Rakesh that on the same day i.e. on 08/05/2007, he was taken to Byculla prison.During TIP conducted in Byculla prison, he identified accused no.6 Swapnali as the same lady to whom he saw at the gate of Ravi Kiran building.Thereafter on 05/06/2007, TIP was held at Arthur Road jail.In that TIP, PW 3 Rakesh identified accused no.7 Vishal as the person sitting on motorbike.He stated that victim did not leave the bag.Thus, we do not find any reason to disbelieve their evidence on incident.(xi) So far as TIP is concerned, it is a matter of record that the eye witnesses have mis-identified some of the accused as discussed above.PW 4 Mahesh identified accused no.3 Raju @ Dheknya on 05/06/2007 during the TIP.(xii) The star witness on TIP is PW 17 SEO Ismail Khan.He stated that PI Darekar called him at Crime Branch office, Dahisar, and requested to hold identification parade in Crime No.11/2007 of Crime Branch.Accordingly letter was issued to him.It is stated by PW 17 SEO Khan that in the TIP held on 08/05/2007, Sukhdeo Shinde and Nagesh Jangam were the two panch witnesses.ASI Deshmane introduced PW 17 SEO Khan to Jailor.The identifying witnesses i.e. PW 3 Rakesh Jain, PW 4 Mahesh Vyas and PW 6 Mitesh Shah were made to sit in a separate room.This TIP was in respect to accused no.1 John, accused no.2 Vishal and accused no.5 Rakesh Bachchawat.PW 17 SEO Khan selected 18 dummies.Out of 18, he asked 12 dummies to stand in a line.He took care to see that place of identification parade was not visible to outsiders and particularly to the identifying witnesses.Initially accused no.1 James and accused no.2 Vishal were called.They were given idea of conducting identification parade.Accused were given a choice to select their own place, change the clothes if they desired and take the position in the line as per their wish.Accused declined to URS 23 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 24 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc change the clothes.Thereafter panch witness Sukhdeo was sent to bring identifying witness PW 3 Rakesh Jain.PW 3 Rakesh identified accused James and Vishal by touching them with finger.(xiii) Another panch was sent to call PW 6 Mitesh Shah.He was asked to identify the culprits.PW 6 Mitesh identified accused James and Vishal by touching their bodies.The proceedings were accordingly recorded by PW 17 SEO Khan.The same procedure was followed in respect to the third identifying witness PW 4 Mahesh Vyas.He too identified accused James and Vishal.Memorandum of TIP was drawn.(xiv) In the process of identification, PW 17 SEO Khan selected six dummies.Accused no.5 Rakesh Bachchawat was then called.He was identified by PW 3 Rakesh Jain during TIP.Memorandum of identification was drawn by SEO URS 24 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 25 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc Khan.Witness identified article 9 - Jeans Pant, article 10 - Banyan and article 11 - Mobile hand set.He could not identify accused Jambo before the URS 34 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 35 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc Court.PW-23 - P.I. Darekar identified him in the dock.It is pertinent to note that accused No.1 Jambo was acquainted with accused No.6 Swapnali.PW-14 - Radheshyam Amrutlal Bind was running a Mechanic Shop of repairing motor bikes.He stated that motor bike bearing No. MH-02/HA-1715 was sold by him to accused No.2 Vishal Chauhan for Rs. 20,000/-.He identified accused No. 2 - Vishal Chauhan in the dock.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::JUDGMENT (PER SMT.I. K. JAIN, J,) :-By the said Judgment and Order, the trial Court convicted the Appellants/original accused nos.1 to 7 under Section 396 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only); in default R.I. for two years.For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the Respondents as accused as they were referred before the trial Court.(iii) At around 6.00 a.m., Mahendra left the house and walked down to catch train for Surat which was scheduled at URS 5 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 6 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc 6.30 a.m. On the way, at some distance from his house in front of Jain Milk Dairy, four persons came on two motorcycles and snatched the bag which was being carried by Mahendra.Mahendra resisted the same, so those persons assaulted Mahendra by means of choppers over the head and wrist.That time, one male and one female were loitering at the gate of Ravi Kiran building.After assault, assailants ran away on the motorcycles.Mahendra was severely injured and lying in a pool of blood.PW 3 Mukesh, elder brother of Mahendra, was informed about the incident.He rushed to the spot.Devichand, father of Mahendra, also came to know and he too came to the spot.They shifted Mahendra to Bhagwati Hospital.Medical Officer at Bhagwati Hospital declared Mahendra dead at around 7.45 a.m. Matter was reported to Kasturba Marg Police Station.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::He received a telephonic message at around 7.05 a.m. on 21/03/2007 that Mahendra was admitted to hospital as MLC URS 6 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 7 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc case.He communicated information to PI Dalvi and proceeded to hospital.Mahendra was admitted in ICU.He was not in a condition to give statement.On the death of Mahendra at 7.45 a.m., PSI Mandavkar recorded report of Mukesh.He returned to police station and registered C.R.No.55 of 2007 under Sections 393, 397 and 302 of IPC.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::It appears that ADR entry no.22/2007 was also registered on the basis of report lodged by Mukesh.Investigation was set into motion.During investigation, it was revealed that accused no.7 Vishal Jain was serving in Sejal Jewellers.He was knowing Mahendra Mehta.This information was passed on by accused no.7 Vishal to accused no.5 Rakesh who, with the help of accused nos.1 to 4 and 6, executed the plan to rob Mahendra.It was also revealed that on 21/03/2007 when Mahendra was on the way, accused nos.1 to 4 snatched away the bag which was being carried by Mahendra and URS 7 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 8 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc when Mahendra resisted, they assaulted him and caused his death.Then accused were arrested.On completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::In due course, case was committed to the Court of Sessions.The Appellants/accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.Their defence was of total denial and false implication.On going through the evidence of 26 witnesses examined in the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellants as stated in para 1 above.Hence these Appeals.We have heard the learned Advocates for the Appellants and the learned APP for State.After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, the Judgment delivered by the learned Additional URS 8 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 9 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that on facts prosecution succeeded but for want of proper compliance of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, trial vitiates and judgment and order of conviction and sentence needs to be quashed and set aside.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::The fact of homicidal death is seriously in dispute.As such, exclusive burden lies on the prosecution to not only overrule the possibility of natural, accidental or suicidal death but also to prove homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt by reliable and convincing evidence.To establish the factum of homicidal death, prosecution has relied upon -(i) Inquest panchanama,(ii) Medical evidence and(iii) Circumstantial evidence.(i) Inquest panchanama -Accused have not disputed genuineness of inquest URS 9 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 10 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc panchanama (Exh.52).It was drawn on 21/03/2007 between 8.40 to 9.30 hours at Bhagwati Hospital dead house, Borivali (West).It can be seen from the panchanama that several injuries were noticed on the head, forehead, right hand, right wrist and right arm.These injuries clearly indicate that the death in question was unnatural.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::(ii) Medical evidence -After inquest panchanama was drawn, dead body was sent for post-mortem examination.PW 13 Dr.On 21/03/2007, Dr.Sanap received the dead body of Mahendra Devichand Mehta through Kasturba Marg Police Station for post-mortem.On the same day he conducted post-mortem between 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. He noticed the following external injuries on the dead body -i) Incised wounds over left hand, index finger 1 st phalgnx posteriorly, size 4cm X 2 cm X bone URS 10 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 11 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc deep, over ring finger, size 2cm X 2cm X 1cm, over wrist, size 4cm X 3cm X bone deep and over thumb, size 3cm X 1cm X bone deep.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::ii) Incised wound over left arm size 7cm X 6cm X muscle deep.iii) Incised wound over scalp, forehead 3cm X 1cm X 1cm and 5.3cm X 1cm X bone deep and over occipital area 3cm X 1cm X bone deep.iv) Incised wound over right shoulder 3cm X 1cm X muscle deep, over right arm 6cm X 2cm X muscle deep, over right wrist 7cm X 3cm X muscle deep and 6cm X 3cm X bone deep, over right dorsam of hand, thumb cut completely of SBC, size 6.3cm X 5cm X bone deep.On internal examination, Dr.Sanap noticed the following injuries -::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::According to PW 13 Dr.Sanap, all the injuries were ante-mortem and caused by sharp and hard cutting object like chopper, sword, etc. The probable cause of death opined by PW 13 Dr.Sanap was haemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries.PW 13 Dr.Sanap opined that it was an unnatural death.Post-mortem report was proved at Exh.59A.Sanap stated that such injuries could be possible by assault with weapon like chopper and spear (Arts.1 and 2).In this connection, it was vehemently contended by Mr. Chitnis, learned Senior Advocate for Appellants, that deceased met with an accidental death.Referring to the nature of injuries stated by PW 13 Dr.Mr. Chitnis pointed that ADR entry was deliberately suppressed as the death was due to accident.He submitted that had ADR entry been produced, the truth would have come to the light.In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the Appellants, relevant ADR entry No.22/2007 was called by URS 12 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 13 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc us and verified.The learned APP has produced its true copy on record which shows the history of homicidal death and not an accidental death, as submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for Appellants.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::On ADR, evidence of PW 19 PSI Chandrakant Mandavkar is important.On 21/03/2007, he received a telephonic message at around 7.05 a.m. that Mahendra was admitted to the hospital for treatment and it was a MLC case.He communicated the information to PW 22 PI Dalvi and proceeded to the hospital.He found Mahendra in ICU undergoing treatment.He stated that Mahendra was not in a condition to make statement and expired at 7.45 a.m. His brother PW 1 Mukesh was in the hospital.PSI Mandavkar inquired from Mukesh.On inquiry, he recorded the report (Exh.47) as per the say of Mukesh.In view of the evidence of PW 19 PSI Mandavkar and true copy of ADR entry No.22/2007 which came to be URS 13 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 14 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc verified from the original register, we do not find merit in the contention raised by the learned Senior Advocate for the Appellants that the death in question was an accidental death.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::Further it is significant to note that before the trial Court, factum of homicidal death was not seriously in dispute.The defence set up in cross-examination of PW-13 Dr.Sanap was that injuries which were found during post-mortem could be caused by fall from any height on hard and blunt object.It indicates that there is no consistency in the defence raised by the accused.On the other hand, we find overwhelming evidence in the form of inquest panchanama, post-mortem report supported by testimony of PW 13 Dr.Sanap which exclusively tilts in favour of homicidal death overruling the complete possibility of natural, accidental or suicidal death.We, therefore, do not find any reason to take a view different then taken by the trial Court on the mode and cause of death of Mahendra Mehta.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::(iii) Circumstantial evidence -In addition to uncontroverted inquest panchanama (Exh.52), post-mortem report (Exh.59A) and Cause of Death Certificate (Exh.83), prosecution has placed strong reliance on the following circumstances -Oral dying declaration to PW 1 Mukesh.(D) Discovery of the incriminating articles.circumstances would be necessary at an appropriate stage.Suffice it to state that prosecution could establish the above circumstances through the evidence of PW1 Mukesh Mehta, PW3 Rakesh Jain, PW4 Mahesh Vyas, PW6 Mitesh Shah, PW8, Kishor Nikam, PW11 Manoj Shah, PW-14 Radheshyam Bind, PW15 Sultan Siddhiqui, PW16 Sandeep Jain, PW17 Ismail Khan, PW18 Sanjay Jain, PW20 Ankush Chavan, PW22 PI URS 15 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 16 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc Raghunath Dalvi, PW23 PI Sunil Darekar and PW26 PI Ramakant Pimple.These circumstances too indicate that the death in question was a homicidal death.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::To prove the authorship of the accused and to attribute the specific role to each of them in commission of act also prosecution relied upon the aforesaid circumstances.After two days, PW 3 Rakesh had been to Dahisar Police Station and informed police that he saw a lady and a man at the gate of Ravi Kiran building and also two persons each on two URS 17 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 18 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc motor bikes.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::(ii) On 08/05/2007, PW 3 Rakesh was called at Thane prison for identification parade.(iv) On 25/06/2007, TIP was held in Arthur Road prison in respect to accused no.4 Shabbir.PW 3 Rakesh could not URS 18 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 19 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc identify accused no.4 Shabbir in TIP and mis-identified accused no.3 Raju @ Dheknya during the parade.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::(v) From the entire evidence of PW 3 Rakesh, it is apparent that he had seen accused nos.5 and 6 at the gate of Ravi Kiran building and accused no.1 sitting on the motorbike.(vi) The next eye witness examined by the prosecution is PW 4 Mahesh Vyas.He used to go to Jain Milk Dairy early in the morning for bringing milk.He stated that on 21/03/2007 at about 6.00 a.m., he was returning home after purchasing milk.Near Maru General Store, he heard shouts.He looked to the direction of shouts and saw four persons snatching away a bag from the hands of one person.He stated that the person holding the bag was resisting.According to PW 4 Mahesh, out of four persons, two assaulted the person with sharp edged weapons and remaining two caught hold the victim.He saw two motorbikes parked to the left side of place of incident.He URS 19 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 20 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc stated that after assault, assailants ran away with their motorbikes in the Southern direction.However in the Court, he identified accused no.5 Rakesh Bachchawat holding the victim and accused no.2 Vishal assaulting the victim.So far as accused no.3 Raju @ Dheknya is concerned, PW 4 Mahesh identified him in the TIP as well as in Court.However in the TIP conducted on 25/06/2007, PW 4 Mahesh identified accused no.4 Shabbir, he could not name the accused in Court.In respect to accused no.2 Vishal and accused no.3 Raju @ Dheknya, his evidence is consistent.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::(vii) Another eye witness is PW6 Mitesh Shah, who was going to National Park for morning walk.When he reached the main road, he heard shouts ""Bachao, Bachao"".PW 6 Mitesh turned back and saw two persons holding the victim and two snatching bag from the victim.The assailants assaulted the URS 20 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 21 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc victim with sharp edged weapons.After assault, all four went away on two motorbikes parked near the place of incident.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::Thereafter PW 6 Mitesh went near the victim lying in pool of blood.After two days, he informed Dahisar police about the incident.(viii) In the TIP held on 08/05/2007, PW 6 Mitesh identified accused no.1 James, on 25/06/2007 he identified accused no.4 Shabbir during TIP.(ix) The evidence of PW 3 Rakesh, PW 4 Mahesh and PW 6 Mitesh is assailed by the defence on several grounds.Those are -(i) Vimal Mehta who informed PW 3 Rakesh, not examined.(ii) PW 4 Mahesh Vyas introduced a new story that injured person went to Jain Milk Dairy and made phone call to his house.(iii) Delay in recording statements of these witnesses not explained.In support, reliance is placed on Lahu Kamlakar Patil and Another V/s.State of Maharashtra1(iv) Their evidence on identification of the accused is confusing, concocted and forged.1 (2013) 6 Supreme Court Cases 417 URS 21 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 22 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::(v) The testimonies of PW 3 Rakesh, PW 4 Mahesh and PW 6 Mitesh are not consistent and cannot be relied.(x) On going through the entire evidence of PW 3 Rakesh, PW 4 Mahesh and PW 6 Mitesh, it can be seen that their evidence in respect to manner of occurrence of incident is cogent and consistent.Except a minor contradiction in the evidence of PW 6 Mitesh, nothing substantial could be elicited in the piercing cross-examination of the eye witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::The proceedings were noted by PW 17 SEO Khan.Then PW 3 Rakesh was sent to different room.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::Then dummies, accused and panchanama of TIP were handed over to the Investigating Officer.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::(xv) On the same day, PW 17 SEO Khan conducted identification parade in Arthur Road prison.In the parade, PW 3 Rakesh Jain identified accused no.6 Swapnali as the lady standing at the gate of Ravi Kiran building.Its separate memorandum was drawn by PW 17 SEO Khan.(xvi) At the time of second parade held on 05/06/2007, accused Raju @ Dheknya Thakre was subjected to identification parade.Shaku Qureshi and Ramsagar were the panch witnesses.PW 17 SEO Khan stated that 3 identifying witnesses Rakesh Jain, Mahesh Vyas and Mitesh Shah were called at Arthur Road prison.He selected six dummies.Accused no.3 Raju stood in between dummy nos.3 and 4 as per his wish.Then identifying witnesses were called one by one.They identified accused no.3 Raju in the identification parade.Memorandum of identification parade (Exh.90) was accordingly drawn.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::same procedure as followed in the earlier parades, this identification parade was held.Identifying witnesses PW 3 Rakesh Jain, PW 4 Mahesh Vyas and PW 6 Mitesh Shah identified accused no.4 Shabbir @ Khadda in the TIP.There is no reason to disbelieve the same.There was no animosity between identifying witnesses, SEO who conducted TIPs on one hand and the accused on the other.In our view, the evidence of eye witnesses and PW 17 SEO Khan inspires confidence and clearly establishes the manner of incident of assault on Mahendra and the role played by each of the accused in occurrence of incident.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::(C) Oral dying declaration to PW 1 Mukesh -To prove oral dying declaration, prosecution examined PW-1 Mukesh Mehta.He is the real brother of deceased Mahendra.It is stated by Mukesh that on 21.3.2007, in the morning at around 6.30 a.m. when he was sleeping in the house, his wife Mamta received a phone call of Veena Mehta, wife of his real brother Vimal Mehta asking her to send Mukesh immediately as Mahendra met with an accident.Therefore, his wife woke him up and informed the message of Veena.Immediately, Mukesh rushed to the house of Mahendra.On the way,he saw Mahendra lying in URS 27 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 28 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc injured condition on the road near his house.At the same time, his father arrived there.Mukesh inquired from Mahendra what had happened.On that, Mahendra told him that four persons arrived on two motor bikes.They were snatching his bag and he resisted the same.Those persons then assaulted him.When Mukesh asked him about identity of those four persons Mahendra told that they were unknown to him.Thereafter, Mahendra fell semi-unconscious and he was taken to Bhagwati Hospital in a rickshaw.He was declared as dead by Medical Officer.Mukesh proved Exh. 47 report lodged by him after Mahendra was declared dead.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::On going through the evidence of Mukesh, it is apparent that Mahendra did not name accused persons.From the evidence of Mukesh, at the most it can be said that Mahendra met with homicidal death.So far as authorship of the accused to cause death of Mahendra is concerned, evidence of Mukesh is not helpful to the prosecution as deceased had not implicated the appellants/accused in the commission of alleged act.(D) Discovery of incriminating articles -::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::On discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act the learned Senior Counsel for accused Nos. 1,3 and 4 relied upon Prabhoo V/s.State of Uttar Pradesh2 in which it has been held that -The main difficulty in the case is that the evidence regarding the recovery of blood stained axe and blood stained shirt and dhoti is not very satisfactory and the courts below were wrong in admitting certain statements alleged to have been made by the appellant in connection with that recovery.According to the recovery memo the two witnesses who were present when the aforesaid articles were produced by the appellant were Lal Bahadur Singh and Wali Mohammad.He did give evidence about the production of blood stained articles from his house by the appellant.The witness said that the appellant produced the articles from a tub on the eastern side of the house.The witness did not, however, say that the appellant made any statements relating to the recovery.Wali Mohammad was not examined at all.This witness said that a little before the recovery the Sub- Inspector of Police took the appellant into custody and interrogated him; then the appellant gave out that the axe with which the murder had been committed and his blood stained shirt and dhoti were in the house and the appellant was prepared to produce them.These statements to which Dobi Baksh (PW 3) deposed were not admissible in evidence.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::Section 27 provides that when any fact is deposed to and discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovery may be URS 30 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 31 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc proved.In Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor the Privy Council considered the true interpretation of Section 27 and said :::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::On going through the evidence of PW-8 Kishor Nikam, it can be seen that he was called by Police Officer Darekar to act as a Panch.Accused No.4 Shabbir was in police custody that time.It is stated by PW-8 Kishor that accused Shabbir made a statement to discover chopper and pant, which was thrown by him near Naigaon.The statement of Shabbir was accordingly recorded.It is further stated by PW-8 Kishor that after memorandum was drawn, Shabbir led them to Naigaon.He discovered a pant and chopper which were lying between the trees.He proved memorandum and recovery panchanama accordingly.Nothing substantial could be elicited in the cross-23, Investigating Officer - Sunil Darekar.On 12.6.2007, he voluntarily gave a memorandum URS 32 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 33 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc in the presence of Panch witnesses to discover chopper and pant.He stated that chopper and pant were recovered at the instance of Shabbir near a field at Naigaon.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::Memorandum and Panchanama exhibits 69 and 70 are duly proved by the Investigating Officer and Panch Witnesses.There is no reason to disbelieve their testimonies.Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on discovery and there is no reason for us to interfere with the same.So far as accused No.3 Raju @ Dheknya is concerned, evidence of PW-18 will have to be looked into.One Police Officer requested him to act as Panch.So he accompanied the Officer to Police Station.Accused Raju gave memorandum in his presence to discover a chopper and a pant.It is stated by PW-18 Sanjay that after memorandum, accused Raju discovered chopper and clothes in their presence.None of the accused persons except accused No.3 cross-examined this witness.Nothing otherwise could be brought by accused No.3 in the cross-examination to discard the URS 33 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 34 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc testimony of Panch Witness Sanjay.His evidence is fully corroborated by PW-23 PI Darekar.We are, therefore, not inclined to take a view different than one taken by the trial court in this regard.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::(E) Recovery of clothes at the instance of accused no.1 from the flat of accused no.6 -On 28.4.2007, he was called at Unit No XII of DCB, CID.Accordingly, he went there.He stated that one person in custody of police gave his name as Jambo.He made a statement to discover his Shirt, Banyan, Pant and a Mobile.According to PW-11 Manoj, after memorandum, Jambo led them in a jeep to a flat in Udisha Apartment, Room No. 501, owned by accused No.6 - Swapnali.A person by name Sharad Mahadik was present there.Jambo made discovery of Jeans Pant, Banyan and a Mobile Phone of Nokia Company.These articles were seized and Seizure Panchanama Exhibit 78 was drawn.No plausible explanation was given by accused No.1 Jambo and accused No.6 Swapnali in respect of recovery of clothes from the house of accused No.6 - Swapnali.This is the most clinching circumstance against accused No.1 Jambo and accused No.6 Swapnali.We find no reason to disbelieve the same.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::(F) Recovery of motor bikes -This motor bike was recovered at the instance of accused No.2 Vishal Chauhan.In this connection, PW-20 ASI Ankush Chavan stated that on 24.4.2007, the abovesaid motor bike was recovered at the instance of accused Vishal Chauhan.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::Another motor bike bearing No. MH-01/HA-802 was sold by PW-15 Sultan Siddiqui, who runs a Shop ""City Motors"".PW-15 deals in sales and purchases of old motor bikes.He identified accused No.1 Jambo in the dock.This motor bike was recovered at the instance of accused by PW-22 P.I.Raghunath Dalvi.Memorandum Exhibit 108 given by accused No.1 to discover the said motor bike and discovery panchanama of the motor bike Exhibit 109 are proved by PW-22 - P.I. Raghunath Dalvi.Accused No.1 Jambo and accused No.2 Vishal Chauhan could not elicit anything adverse in the cross-examination of these witnesses.According to prosecution, deceased Mahendra Mehta was known to accused No. 7 - Vishal Jain.On 19.3.2007, PW-16 - Sandip Jain alongwith Mahendra Mehta had been to Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai for purchasing gold chain.At around 4.00 p.m. when they were proceeding to Zaveri URS 36 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 37 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc Bazar, accused No.7 Vishal Jain met them near the shop where he was working.It is alleged that accused No.7 - Vishal Jain passed on this information to accused No.5 Rakesh Bacchawat, who then, with the help of other accused planned to rob Mahendra and accordingly, the plan was executed on 21.3.2007 when Mahendra was proceeding towards railway-station to catch the train.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::The trial court has relied upon the confessional statement of Vishal Jain recorded by learned Magistrate Mr. Agrawal.It is apparent from confessional statement Exhibit 106 that the same is exculpatory.Accused Vishal Jain does not implicate him in the entire confession made before URS 37 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 38 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc PW-21 Mr. Agrawal.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::There is no evidence to show that he passed on the information to accused No.5 Rakesh Bacchawat.In the absence of such link, we find that evidence against accused No.7 is not sufficient to convict him.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::Even so, there must be material to show that the overt act or acts of one or more of the accused was or were done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused or in prosecution of the common object of the members of the unlawful assembly.In this case, such evidence is lacking and hence the appellants cannot be held liable for the individual act of A-16.""4 (1989) 3 Supreme Court Cases 605 URS 39 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 ::: 40 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:34 :::In the light of the above, on facts, in fact, URS 45 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:35 ::: 46 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc conviction of accused Nos. 1 to 6 was required to be maintained.We could notice that 66 identical questions were put to each of the accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge though entirely different incriminating circumstances against each of them were brought on record.It is pertinent to note that role played by accused Nos. 5,6 and 7 even according to prosecution was limited, as accused Nos. 5 and 6 were guarding at the gate of the building and accused No.7 passed on the information to accused No.5, who, executed the plan.The statements under Section 313 of the Code URS 58 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:35 ::: 59 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc were recorded just by cut-copy-paste.Most of the questions put to each of the accused were irrelevant and misleading.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:35 :::The accused have demonstrated from the questions put to them that serious prejudice has occasioned to them as statements were recorded in the total disregard of the provisions of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. In this premise we are not inclined to order retrial from the stage at which provisions of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were not complied with.In the result, appeals succeed.Accordingly, we pass the following order :-[a] The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence in Sessions Case No. 642 of 2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, is hereby quashed and set aside ;[b] The accused are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 396 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.[c] Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 who are in jail shall be released forthwith, if not otherwise required in any URS 59 of 60 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:35 ::: 60 CrAppeal 415.10.Gr.doc other case.::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:35 :::[e] Registry to communicate this order to the accused in jail through the concerned jail authorities.[f] We quantify fees to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee to the appointed Advocate Mr. A.V. Bedekar at Rs. 5000/-.[SMT.I.K. JAIN, J] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J] grt/-::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2015 00:00:35 :::","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant is to the effect that a matrimonial dispute was pending between him and his wife, Rakhi Singha, the deceased.Maintenance proceeding was instituted by Rakhi against the appellant.Appellant failed and/or neglected to pay maintenance dues and was taken into custody.Out of grudge, in the night between 25/26th July, 2008 while Rakhi was sleeping with her sister Sikha Singha, P.W.1 at the Paikpara residence, the appellant attacked her.Hearing the shouts of her sister, Sikha woke up and found her sister with a deep cut injury on her neck.She saw the appellant running away with a 'batali' (a sharp cutting weapon) in his hand.Sikha chased him but he succeeded to flee away.She sent information about the unfortunate incident to her mother Dulali Singha, P.W.2 through a taxi driver.Dulali and other relations who were residing in a nearby house rushed to the spot.The victim was taken to hospital but was declared dead.From the analysis of the evidence on record, it appears that P.W.1, Sikha Singha is the most vital witness in the instant case.She deposed she was sleeping with her sister Rakhi Singha on the fateful night.After dinner they had gone off to sleep around 12.30 a.m. Suddenly, she woke up hearing shouts of her sister and found Rakhi bleeding from her neck.She also noted Ananda, her brother-in-law trying to flee away with a batali.She chased him but he succeeded in escaping.She informed the matter to her mother through a taxi driver.Her mother and other sisters arrived at the spot.The victim was taken to Beniagram Hospital where the doctor declared her dead.She further deposed Ananda, her brother-in-law had been taken into custody for non-payment of maintenance dues in connection with a maintenance case.He had threatened to kill his wife, Rakhi if the case was not withdrawn.She was extensively cross-examined with regard to a dispute over land between themselves and their uncle Haripada.However, cross-examination of the witness did not dislodge her from her stance that she was present at the place of occurrence when her sister was assaulted on the neck and that she had seen the appellant run away from the place of occurrence.Evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by her mother P.W.2, Dulali Singha and other sisters, viz., P.W.3, Sanju Singh, P.W.8, Anuradha Singha and P.W.10, Priyanka Singha.These witnesses deposed upon hearing the incident they rushed to the spot and found Rakhi in bleeding condition.Cut injury in the Larynx, blood in the traks.Both the Larynx congested and cut injury in the cardiatic vessels (Lt. Side).""He opined that death was due to hemorrhage, shock and hypoxia and ante-mortem in nature.P.W.13, Manik Lal Dey, is the investigating officer in the instant case.He proved the formal first information report.He went to the hospital at 5.45 a.m. in the morning.AS/SS & PA Item No.221 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Present:The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi and The Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh C.R.A.287 of 2011 Ananda SinghaState of West Bengal.For the Appellant : Mr. Shataroop Purkayastha, Adv.The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.7.2010 and 29.7.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No.206/June/09 arising out of Sessions Sl.No.05/09 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months more.On the next day, Sikha lodged written complaint scribed by P.W.9 at the police station resulting in registration of Farraka P.S. Case No.107 of 2008 dated 26.7.2008 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.In the course of investigation, police seized the weapon of offence and other articles.The appellant was arrested.In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and charge was framed against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In the course of trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents.In conclusion of trial, trial judge by impugned judgement and order dated 28.7.2010 and 29.7.2010 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.Taxi driver who informed the other witnesses has not been examined.Name of the appellant did not transpire before the doctor to whom the victim had been taken and was declared dead.There was enmity between the family of the deceased and one Haripada Singha, their paternal uncle.Hence, possibility of murder committed at the behest of Haripada cannot be ruled out.Hence, it is argued that the appellant may be acquitted.On the other hand, Mr. Arun Kumar Maity, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that P.W.1 a natural witness to the incident who woke up and saw the appellant running away from the spot with a batali.Immediately after the incident, first information report was registered and post mortem doctor corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the nature of injury caused on the deceased.Weapon of offence was also recovered from the place of occurrence probabilising the prosecution case.Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.She was removed to hospital where she was declared dead.P.W.4, Dr. Sajal Pandit, Medical Officer at Beniagram B.P.H.C. deposed Rakhi was brought to the Health Centre by her mother and others where she was declared dead.P.W.7, Dr. Md. Hamid Ali, post mortem doctor found the following injuries on her person:-""cut injury on the left side of the neck, 1 "" X 1""X 3"", below the Angle of the mandible, slightly oblique.He held inquest over the dead body of Rakhi.He examined witnesses and seized articles including weapon of offence from place of occurrence.He seized wearing apparels of Rakhi (P.W.12).He handed over the investigation to S.I., Surajit Sadhukhan who sent the seized articles for F.S.L. examination and submitted charge sheet.Evidence of P.W.1 is, therefore, corroborated not only by her relations viz., P.W.3, P.W.8 and P.W.10 who rushed to the place of occurrence soon after the incident but also by P.W.7, post mortem doctor who noted a cut injury on the left side of the neck.Hence, ocular version of P.W.1 appears to find support from the medical evidence with regard to the manner of assault on the deceased resulting in her death.Her version is criticised by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant on the score there was no light in the room.It is also argued that it is unnatural that P.W.1 did not sustain any injury on her person during the assault.I am unable to accept such contention.P.W.1 has categorically stated in the FIR that light was burning in the room at the time of occurrence.Her presence in the room along with her sister at night is most natural.P.W. 1 woke up upon hearing cries of her sister and saw the appellant running away with a batali.Faint plea with regard to animosity between the victim's family and their uncle is of little relevance.Motive of the appellant to commit crime has clearly been established.He had been detained for non-payment of maintenance dues and had threatened his wife.Thereafter he came to her residence and assaulted her.In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution case against the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt.Copy of the judgment along with L.C.R.s be sent down to the trial court at once.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.I agree.",['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
"2.The prosecution case is that the appellant/Murugan had physical intimacy with the victim on the promise that he will marry her.But he went back on his words.As a result of the appellant's conduct, the marriage that was scheduled to be performed between the victim and her relative was also stopped.In this regard, victim lodged Ex.The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that having regard to the evidence on record, he would not challenge the conviction imposed on the appellant under Section 417 of I.P.C. He only wants leniency to be shown in the matter of punishment.The appellant appears to have spent 45 days in prison.The appellant also comes forward to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the victim.The appellant also undertakes to execute an affidavit conveying his unconditional apology to the victim for what he has done.The appellant was tried along with three others in Spl.The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(xii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for each offence.He was also sentenced to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as fine.The other accused were acquitted.Questioning the same, this criminal appeal has been filed.P.1/complaint.Since the offences under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe were also involved, the investigation was done by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samayanallur.Final report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Maduari.The case committed to Sessions Court in P.R.C.No.116 of 2006 and was taken up for trial in Spl.S.C.No.147 of 2008, on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai.Charges were framed against all the accused as follows:-“1st charge : Cheating by the 1st accused by false representations that he would marry the complainant and thereby punishable u/s 417 IPC against 1st accused, 2nd charge : Committing rape of the complainant by 1st accused u/s 376 IPC against the 1st accused, 3rd charge : Committing criminal breach of trust by selling 4gm gold stud belonging to the complainant, punishable u/s 406 IPC against 1st accused, 4th charge : Committed an offence of cheating by misrepresenting the complainanthttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 regarding causing miscarriage punishable u/s 417 IPC against A1 to A4, 5th charge : Against A2 to A4 committed an offence causing miscarriage to the complainant punishable u/s 312 IPC, 6th charge : Against A1 to A4 intentionally insulted a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and the complainant being a woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, exploited her sexually to which she would not have agreed punishable u/s 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST(PA) Act.” Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.On the side of the accused no evidence was adduced.4.The learned Trial Judge after a detailed consideration of the evidence on record acquitted A2 to A4 but convicted and sentenced the appellant herein as mentioned above.Her testimony evokes the confidence ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 this Court.The victim belongs to a notified Scheduled Caste community.The appellant belongs to Kallar community.The victim was working in the field of the appellant's father.Section 3(1)(xii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, reads as under:-“Being in a position to dominate the will of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and uses that position to exploit her sexually to which she would not have other agreed;”5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant brings it to my notice that apart from Section 3(1)(xii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, the appellant was charged for offence of rape.The appellant was also acquitted of the charge under Section 376 of I.P.C. He therefore contends that when once the appellant is acquitted of the charge of rape, the charge under Section 3(1)(xii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, also has to go as a natural corollary.In this regard, the learned counsel forhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 the appellant drew my attention to a decision of the Honourable Kerala High Court made in Crl.A.No.865 of 2006, (Thomas Kashy Vs.State of Kerala) dated 06.03.2013 in paragraphs 10 and 13 of the said decision, the Honourable High Court held that when the finding is to the effect that there was no rape or forceble sexual assault, it becomes difficult to understand how the victim can be sexually exploited.6.Now comes the question as to whether the conviction imposed on the appellant under Section 417 of I.P.C. will have to be maintained.The appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the credit of Spl.S.C.No.147 of 2008, on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.The Court below shall hand over the compensation amount of Rs.30,000/- to the victim along with a copy of affidavit of apology to be executed by the appellant.This Court condemns the appellant for having taken a false defence before the Court below that he never had any relationship with the victim.That is why a direction to executehttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 an affidavit of apology has been issued.If the appellant fails to comply with the direction now given namely., deposit of compensation of Rs.30,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and execution of the affidavit of apology, the sentence imposed by the Court below for the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. will stand restored.Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.1.The III Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samayanallur, Nagamalai Pudukkottai Police Station, Madurai District.http://www.judis.nic.in 9 G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.ias Crl.A.(MD)No.62 of 2011 19.07.2019http://www.judis.nic.in","['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"C.R.R. 3137 of 2006 SB Ct. No. 34 + C.R.A.N. 1650 of 2006 In Re : Mr. Shyamal Dey None appears for the parties.No accommodation is sought for.I find from the records of the case that C.R.A.N. 1650 of 2006 was filed by way of a joint compromise petition at the instance of both the petitioner and the opposite parties for withdrawal of criminal case being C.G.R. No. 2173/2003 arising out of Bhowanipore P.S. Case No. 182 dated 04.08.2003 under sections 120B/420/467/468/471/477a/408 of the Indian Penal Code.The application so filed was not pursued.The revisional application being C.R.R. 3137 of 2006 along with C.R.A.N. 1650 of 2006 as such is dismissed.(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)","['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard, Case-diary perused.As per prosecution story, 04/01/2020 complainant/prosecutix lodged an F.LR.against the present applicant that applicant is working with heruncle namely Manoj Meena, they are working in home loan business.On 03/11/2019 applicant came to house of prosecutix to collect the loan file, when prosecutix open the door, after that applicant collect the loan file and committed rape with her, on same day she informed to her father and mother but they did not lodged the FIR, again on 03/01/2020 applicant came to house of prosectix and try to commited rape with her, but due to shouting applicant run away from spot.She informed to her father and mother thereafter they lodged the FIR.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present crime.Even then, they have not taken any action against the applicant nor an FIR was lodge.There is no criminal antecedents against the applicant.Now the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed.Conclusion of trial will take considerable time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant/objector submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. In case of bail jump this order shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. AWASTHI) JUDGE Vibha Vibha Pachori 2020.09.08 10:35:52 +05'30'","['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Both the appeals arising out of a common judgment have been argued together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.Present appeals have been instituted under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) against the judgment dated 10.11.2014 and order on sentence dated 13.11.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Trial Court) in Sessions Case 08/2014 arising from FIR 17/2013 Police Station Ambedkar Nagar, by virtue of which both the appellants have been convicted under Section Crl.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 1 of 42 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 1 of 42The present case pertains to the murder of one Rohit (deceased) at the hands of the appellants and one Asif (declared juvenile in conflict with law JCL).""1. DD No.51-A regarding stabbing of a person near the bus stop of Bus Route No. 521, Sector 5, Ambedkar Nagar, was received in Police Station Ambedkar Nagar on 14.01.2013 and the said DD was marked to ASI Mam Chand for necessary action.After receiving the DD No.51- A, ASI Mam Chand along with Ct.Ram Avtar reached near bus stand 521, the road dividing C and D Block, Dakshin Puri, but could not find any public witness there.Police officials came to know that injured has been taken to hospital in PCR Van.In the meanwhile, staff of the beat also reached the spot.ASI Mam Chand left beat HC Ratan Lal and Ct.Vineet at the spot and proceeded to Trauma Centre, AIIMS with HC Ram Avtar and in the hospital collected the MLC of Rohit Gupta s/o Sh.Rakesh Kumar Gupta, The injured was declared dead in the hospital by the concerned Doctor and no public witness was found at the hospital.ASI Mam Chand came at the spot and found lot of blood there.No public witness was found at the spot.Hence, an FIR u/s. 302 IPC, PS Ambedkar Nagar was Crl.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 2 of 42 lodged and investigation was marked to the SHO PS Ambedkar Nagar Inspector Abhay Singh Yadav, the then SHO PS Ambedkar Nagar.The spot was got inspected by the crime team, photographs were taken.Investigating Officer prepared the site plan of the spot.Investigating Officer collected the chappals of the deceased, earth control and blood samples from the spot and got them sealed in sealed pullanda and deposited the same in the police station.Thereafter Himanshu, brother of the deceased, came to the spot and Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Himanshu.Himanshu in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC stated that he is running a dhaba at Bus Stand Route No. 521, Dakshin Puri and his brother Rohit used to come to his dhaba occasionally to assist him.On 14.01.2013, at about 11 pm when Himanshu and deceased Rohit were in the process of closing the dhaba, accused Raj Kumar @ Lala, Rahul @ Bhuri and Asif, who were known to Himanshu came to the dhaba and demanded food from Rohit.Rohit told them that dhaba has been closed and food is not available.On hearing this accused Raj Kumar and his associates started abusing Rohit.Himanshu intervened and rescued his brother and accused Raj Kumar @ Lala, Rahul @ Bhuri and Asif left the dhaba.After sometime, Himanshu and Rohit closed the dhaba and started going to their house.Himanshu was 20-25 steps ahead of Rohit, when all of a sudden Rohit cried and when Himanshu turned back, he found that Raj Kumar, Rahul and Asif were fighting with Rohit.Himanshu was terribly scared.After sometime, PCR Van came to the spot and took Rohit to Trauma Centre.Himanshu reached Trauma Centre after sometime and found that Rohit was unable to speak and Rohit was declared dead by the Doctor.Himanshu was highly perturbed and stayed outside the hospital for one and half hour.After sometime, when Himanshu became normal, he went to his house and from the house he went to the spot.Himanshu specifically stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC that accused Raj Kumar, Rahul and Crl.Thereafter, Investigating Officer searched for the accused but the accused could not be found.The dead body was got identified by relatives.On 17.01.2013, Investigating Officer received a wireless message that three boys have been apprehended in case FIR No.18/13 and one of those boys is juvenile and those three boys have disclosed their involvement in the present case.On receiving this information, Investigating Officer along with his staff reached big park at H-Block, Dakshin Puri and Inspector Investigation presented the three boys to the Investigating Officer and told him that these three boys have admitted their involvement in the present case.The names of those boys came to be known as Asif, Raj Kumar and Rahul.Asif was found to be juvenile and separate proceedings were conducted with respect to Asif as per the directions of the Juvenile Justice Board.Accused Rahul @ Bhuri and Raj Kumar @ Lala were interrogated by the Investigating Officer and they were arrested in the present case.Accused Raj Kumar got recovered a knife used in the commission of the crime from the H-Block park, Dakshin Puri.chief deposed that his family consists of parents and three brothers including him.Rahul is the eldest brother, the deceased was the middle one, while he is the youngest.On 14.01.2013 at about 11:00 PM, he alongwith his elder brother/deceased were present in their dhaba and were closing down for the day.Three persons, being the appellants and Asif (JCL), came to his dhaba and demanded food to be served, to which his deceased brother declined and told that the Crl.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 14 of 42 dhaba had closed for the day.They then started using abusive language and grappled with the deceased.He intervened and rescued his brother.Thereafter, all the three persons left.After 5-10 minutes of their leaving, they closed their shop and started walking towards their home.Somewhere before the park, he heard the cries of his deceased brother.On looking behind, he saw the appellant Raj Kumar stabbing the deceased 4-5 times on his thighs.The other two persons including appellant Rahul were holding his deceased brother.He started shouting due to which the appellants and Asif (JCL) fled away from the spot.He rushed towards the deceased, who was bleeding extensively and had fallen infront of the shop of PW-1 Sharwan.Thereafter, his neighbouring shopkeeper PW-1 Sharwan, who sells flowers, informed PCR officials.PCR vehicle came and took the deceased to Trauma Centre.PW-2 followed them to the Trauma Centre by an auto rickshaw.He was informed by the doctor that his brother had died.He became highly perturbed for 1-1 hour.Thereafter, he returned home and informed his parents as he was not carrying his phone at that time.He alongwith his family returned to the hospital at about 2:30/3:00 AM.His statement was recorded by the police in the hospital.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 14 of 42The witness was thoroughly cross-examined, where he stated that he had left the dhaba first and was followed by the deceased.At the time of the incident, there was no public witness around.He had tried to lift his brother up.The deceased had moved in the direction of their shop and had come near the flower shop of PW-1 Sharwan.All other shops in the area were closed and only the flower shop of PW-1 Sharwan was open, who was the first person to come near Crl.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 15 of 42 them.The deceased had not stated anything to PW-1 at the time.He remained with the deceased till the PCR vehicle reached the spot and remained at the spot for about 25-30 minutes after PCR van left the spot.Police officials had started investigation when he left for the Trauma Centre.He further stated that he had first taken a lift on motorcycle from a passerby till the corner, from where he had taken an auto rickshaw.He categorically denied the suggestion that he had any conversation with the police officials who had come to the spot before he left for the Trauma Centre.Upon reaching the Trauma Centre, he first saw his brother and on seeing him, became perturbed and came out.He was unable to gather his senses for one and a half hour.It was only later that the doctor had informed him that his brother had died.At the stage, the PCR officials were still in the hospital.His statement was recorded by the PCR officer when he had returned to the hospital after visiting his house.From the hospital, he was taken to the scene of incident and later to the police station.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 15 of 42The only other public witness is PW-1 Sharwan Kumar who deposed that he is engaged in the business of selling flowers and has a shop opposite bus stop of route no.521 in the area of Dakshin Puri, New Delhi.A dhaba is run close to his shop by two brothers, namely Himanshu and Rahul along with their father who used to come off and on.On 14.01.2013 at about 11-11.30 PM, he saw deceased Rahul to have come and fallen in front of his flower shop with bleeding injuries.He informed the police on 100 number from his mobile 9716078703 and informed the Police officials.The deceased was drenched in blood.Thereafter, Police reached the spot.His statement was recorded by Police after a week or 10 days.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 16 of 42During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had disclosed the name of the deceased to the police officials.He had known Rahul and his brother for over 2-2 years prior to the incident.He stated that he had left for home after the police had arrived at the spot.On the day, he was neither questioned by the police nor did he volunteer to make any statement to the police.He had informed PW-2 Himanshu using the same mobile phone.PW-2 Himanshu had arrived at the spot within 5-7 minutes of the telephone call.Thereafter, PW-1 left for his home.He had later enquired from PW-2 Himanshu and learnt that the Rahul had died.This conversation had been picked up by the elder brother Rohit and had taken place at about 1:30 AM.He further stated that the PCR officials had removed the injured/deceased to hospital in their official vehicle and PW-2 Himanshu had followed them in some other conveyance.He further stated that when he had called PW-2 Himanshu, he seemed perturbed and told that he was coming in his direction only.The information was received by PW-20 ASI Rameshwar, who was posted at K-55, PCR Van, who deposed that at about 11:35 PM, a call was received from the Control Room to the effect that one person had been stabbed near Bus Stand of Bus Route No.521 near Baba Street, Dakshin Puri.He along with his staff members reached the spot in the PCR Van where one person had sustained stab injuries on both thighs near groin region was lying there.They removed him to Trauma Centre, AIIMS.They came to know that the name of the injured was Rohit Gupta.During cross- examination, he stated that besides him, there was one driver and gunman in the PCR and no relative or friend of the injured was present.He stated that he cannot comment if the relatives or friends of the injured were present in the hospital as he did not know them.He further stated that when they were removing the injured in the van to the hospital, they were told by some person that his name was Rohit Gupta and he was running a dhaba in the vicinity.PW-20 had passed on the particulars at the time of preparation of MLC.PW-13 Ct.Jagbir was posted in Police Station Safdarjung Enclave and was on duty in the Trauma Centre, AIIMS.He deposed that sometime after midnight, PCR Van No.K-55, of which PW-20 ASI Rameshwar was the in-charge had brought an injured person, whose name was probably Rakesh and again said Rohit.He was examined by the doctor and declared brought dead.He had conveyed the information to PS Ambedkar Nagar on telephone.In his cross- examination, he stated that he had collected the name and address of the deceased person from the MLC.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 18 of 42PW-7 ASI Mam Chand deposed that on 14-15.01.2013 at about 11:50 PM, he had received the information through DD 51-A (Ex.PW-7/A), which was handed over by PW-15 HC Rattan Lal.Thereafter, he along with PW-9 Ct.Ram Avtar reached the spot and noticed that blood was lying on the road.The injured was removed to the hospital.No eyewitness was available and in the meantime, PW-15 HC Rattan Lal and Ct.Vineet also came there.On his direction, PW-15 HC Rattan Lal and Ct.Vineet remained at the spot in order to guard the same; PW-7 proceeded with PW-9 Ct.Ram Avtar to the Trauma Centre, AIIMS.The deceased was found admitted in an injured condition.He was declared dead by the doctor.He did not find any eyewitness in the hospital.He received the MLC and returned to the spot.But again, no eyewitness was present there.The copy of the FIR was brought by PW-9 Ct.Ram Avtar at about 3 AM and handed over to the SHO.At that stage, one public witness PW-2 Himanshu in highly perturbed state came to the spot and told the facts about the incident to the SHO.PW-2 disclosed that he is the brother of the deceased and narrated the incident in detail also disclosing the names of the assailants.The SHO (PW-22) then took over the investigation and prepared the site plan, which had been signed by PW-7 as a witness.During cross-examination, PW-7 stated that when he had received DD 55-A, he was outside the police station and around the place of Crl.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 19 of 42 Mahila Mandal.PW-15 HC Rattan Lal was with him when he went to the spot.He had made enquiry to find out if anyone connected with the victim was present in the hospital or not, but no one could be found there.When he returned to the spot from the hospital, only PW-15 HC Rattan Lal and Ct.Vineet were present at the spot.He had arrived there at about 1:15 AM and prepared the rukka while sitting on his motorcycle at the spot.No other police official or public witness had arrived before the rukka was sent.PW-9 Ct.Ram Avtar had returned to the spot after the SHO had arrived at the spot.He further stated that he had not seen PW-2 Himanshu arriving and therefore, could not comment on the mode of transportation used by him; he went on to voluntarily state that he only saw him coming to the SHO.He was unaware of the facts disclosed to the SHO by PW- 2 Himanshu.He further stated that he had assisted the SHO in preparing the site plan (Ex.PW-7/C) by pointing out the place where the blood had been found and chappals were lying.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 19 of 42PW-15 ASI Rattan Lal deposed that on 14.01.2013, he was posted as Head Constable in police station Ambedkar Nagar and at 11:40 PM, ASI Liyakat Ali handed over DD 55-A to him.He took the DD entry to the bus stand on Route 521 in Dakshin Puri, where he met PW-7 ASI Mam Chand and PW-9 Ct.Ram Avtar and handed over the DD entry to him.There was blood lying on the road at the said place.PW-7 ASI Mam Chand made efforts but could not find any eyewitness.It was learnt that the injured had been taken to Trauma Centre, AIIMS by PCR vehicle.PW-7 ASI Mam Chand left him at the spot and proceeded to Trauma Centre.He returned at about 1:15 AM on 15.01.2013 from the hospital.PW-7 ASI Mam Chand made further enquiries, however he was unable to locate any eyewitness Crl.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 20 of 42 even at that stage.Around the same time, PW-22 SHO Abhey Singh had also arrived at the scene.The tehrir was sent by PW-7 ASI Mam Chand at about 2:25 AM.The SHO had inspected the scene.The site plan (Ex.PW-7/C) was prepared at the instance of PW-7 ASI Mam Chand.Around the time of proceedings, PW-9 Ct.During cross-examination, PW-15 stated that he had reached the spot at about 11:50 PM and left the spot at about 3:45 AM the next morning.Public persons were standing at a small distance from the place of occurance and upon enquiry by PW-7 ASI Mam Chand, they informed that one person had been stabbed and after a call to 100, he has been taken to Trauma Centre.In his presence, PW-7 ASI Mam Chand did not record the name and address of those persons and voluntarily stated that in his presence, PW-7 ASI Mam Chand was conducting enquiries from public persons.PW-7 ASI Mam Chand left the spot at about 12:15 AM and returned at about 1:15 AM.The SHO reached the spot after the rukka was prepared and sent.In his presence, the SHO had recorded the statement of one public witness, namely PW-2 Himanshu, who had reached the spot.He stated that he did not know the mode of transport used by PW-2 Himanshu and voluntarily stated that he had seen him coming on foot.The site plan was prepared by the SHO in his presence and he had signed the site plan.PW-9 Ct.Ram Avtar had accompanied PW-7 ASI Mam Chand, who deposed that on the intervening night of 14-15.01.2013, he was on Crl.After receiving DD 51-A, he had proceeded with PW-7 ASI Mam Chand to the spot.Blood was lying there and no eyewitness was found.PW-15 HC Rattan Lal and Ct.Vineet had also reached the spot.They were left at the scene of incident, while PW-9 and PW-7 ASI Mam Chand went to the Trauma Centre, AIIMS.One injured person named Gupta was found in the hospital and he had been declared dead.PW-7 ASI Mam Chand collected the MLC; no eyewitness was present in the hospital.They returned to the spot.Again, no eyewitness was found.PW-7 ASI Mam Chand had given him the rukka at 2:25 AM on 15.01.2013, which was taken by him to the police station where FIR was registered.PW-9 brought the copy of FIR and rukka back to the spot.PW-22 Ins.Abhey Singh was also present there and he took over the investigation.During cross- examination, PW-9 stated that they had learnt from a public person that the victim had been taken by PCR vehicle to Trauma Centre AIIMS.He further stated that he did not know the particulars of the public person.They stayed at the Trauma Centre from about an hour and had reached there about 12:30 AM or so.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 21 of 42The investigation in the matter was undertaken by PW-22 Ins.PW-7 ASI Mam Chand, PW-15 HC Rattan Lal, Ct.Vineet and PW-9 Ram Avtar were present at the place and PW-7 was in the process of preparing his rukka.He informed the entire sequence of events and sent his rukka through PW-9 Ram Avtar, on which the FIR 17/2013 (Ex.PW-10/A) was registered.PW-22 further deposed Crl.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 22 of 42 that he had prepared the site plan (Ex.PW-7/C) at the instance of PW-7 ASI Mam Chand.PW-22 was thoroughly cross-examined, wherein he stated that on 15.01.2013 at 1:15 AM, he had received the information of the incident.He returned at 5 AM after conducting the proceedings.The distance between the place of occurrence and the dhaba of the deceased is about 25-30 steps.When he had prepared the site plan PW-1 and PW-2 were not present at the spot and immediately said that only one witness PW-2 Himanshu came at the spot.He voluntarily stated that PW-1 was involved afterwards in the investigation.PW-2 Himanshu had come to the spot after the exhibits were collected and had come at about 3 AM.The site plan (Ex.PW-7/C) was not prepared in the presence of PW-2 Himanshu; again said that the final site plan was prepared in the presence of PW-2 Himanshu.The site plan was signed by PW-2 Himanshu and PW-7 ASI Mam Chand.The site plan was prepared on the pointing out of PW-7 ASI Mam Chand.No specific location was indicated separately by PW-2 Himanshu.The exact location of point A and B in the site plan (Ex.PW-7/C) were described to PW- 22 by PW-7 ASI Mam Chand and voluntarily stated that the same was also confirmed by PW-2 Himanshu.He further stated that he went for the search of the accused at different places.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 23 of 42 person was accompanying him.He did not visit the house of the accused in the course of the search.Coming back to the story unfolding from ocular evidence on record.The deceased was stabbed on two occasions between point A and B when appellant Rahul and Asif (JCL) tried to immobilize the deceased and appellant Raj Kumar gave stab blows.As per Ex.PW-1 Sharwan had called the Police Control Room; which was inturn relayed to Kite 55 PCR Van under the charge of PW-20 ASI Rameshwar.The PCR Van rushed to the spot, where someone had informed PW-20 of the name of the deceased.Indubitably, the information sent by Kite 55 at about 1 AM states that ""ghar wale saath hain"" (relatives are along) and the same remains in clear contradiction with the ocular account, however it cannot shake the otherwise consistent ocular account supported by medical evidence.PW-20 has stated that no relative or friend of the injured was present.The deceased was received at the Trauma Centre by the PW-13 duty officer.The PCR Van reached the Trauma Centre sometime after midnight and declared by the doctor to be brought dead.The MLC (Ex.PW-6/A) was prepared wherein the particulars of the deceased are given, though in the column of relative name, the name of Rameshwar, i.e. PW-20, is written.This is once again in tune with the testimony of PW-20 that he, as Crl.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 26 of 42 the in-charge of Kite 55, had taken the deceased to the Trauma Centre.The information was also relayed by the control room to the police station, where DD 51-A was recorded and allotted to PW-7 ASI Mam Chand.Accordingly, PW-7 along with PW-9 reached the spot where they were joined by PW-15 HC Rattan Lal and Ct.There was no eyewitness there.Upon coming to know that the injured had been removed to the Trauma Centre, PW-7 proceeded with PW-9 Ct.Ram Avtar to the Trauma Centre, AIIMS at about 12:15 AM.The deceased was found and he was declared dead by the doctor.Again, no eyewitness was found.They returned to the spot at about 1:15 AM and investigation ensued.Abhey Singh have deposed that on 17.01.2013, during the course of investigation of another FIR 18/2013, Asif (JCL) had pointed to the appellants herein as his accomplices and thereafter, pursuant to his disclosure statements (Ex.PW-15/A and Ex.The appellant Raj Kumar @ Lala was also convicted under Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.Both the sentences awarded to the appellant Raj Kumar @ Lala were ordered to run concurrently.Himanshu run [sic: ran] to save his brother and found that accused Rahul @ Bhuri and Asif have caught hold of Rohit and Raj Kumar @ Lala attacked Rohit on his thigh with a knife a number of times.When Himanshu cried for help, accused Raj Kumar @ lala and Rahul @ Bhuri alongwith Asif (juvenile in-conflict with law) ran away.Someone called 100 number.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 3 of 42 Asif (juvenile) have killed his brother in pursuance of a conspiracy.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 2 of 42The knife was seized and kept in a pullanda.The place of incident was identified by both the accused persons.""After completion of the investigation chargesheet was filed against both the appellants.Charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC was framed against both the appellants.A charge under Section 27 of Arms Act was also framed against the appellant Raj Kumar.To bring home the guilt of the appellants, prosecution examined 23 witnesses in all.The statement of the appellant Rahul was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein he pleaded innocence and stated that he was picked up from his home and falsely implicated in the present case.In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant Raj Kumar stated that on 15.01.2013, he had gone to Karkardooma Court Complex to attend the proceedings of his case; his father was forced to call him to the Police Station and Crl.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 4 of 42 after attending the case at Karkardooma Court, he went to the Police Station where he was falsely implicated.The appellants examined three witnesses in their defence.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 4 of 42The Trial Court found that the testimonies of PW-2 Himanshu and PW-1 Sharwan Kumar coupled with the medical evidence if properly appreciated, without taking into consideration the defects in the investigation, it could safely be concluded that the accused/appellants had committed the murder of the deceased and convicted the appellants as noticed in paragraph 2 aforegoing.Mr. Jitender Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Rahul submits that the judgment of the Trial Court is based on surmises and conjectures.The Trial Court has failed to take into consideration that PW-2 Himanshu was in fact not an eyewitness as he was not present at the time of the crime, which is evident from the fact that PW-2 did not accompany his injured brother from the place of the incident to the hospital.Moreover, his name does not find mentioned in the MLC prepared by the doctor and further from the testimony of PW-7 ASI Mam Chand, it has emerged that there was no eyewitness at the spot.Elaborating his arguments further, Mr. Sethi contends that the statement of PW-2 Himanshu who is real brother of the deceased cannot be believed as having been present at the place of the incident he would have tried to save his brother or at least made a call to police officials or his own family members.It is, thus, contended that the testimony of PW-2 is unreliable and cannot be trusted.Reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) v. Naresh & Anr, 2012 (2) JCC 830 (paragraph 8) and Balraj Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1976 Crl.LJ 1471 (P&H) (paragraphs 13 and 20).A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 5 of 42Relying on the testimony of PW-7 ASI Mam Chand, it is further contended that this witness has deposed that he received a call at 11:50 PM on the intervening night of 14-15.01.2013 and thereafter he came at the spot and found no eyewitness either at the spot or in the hospital.Reliance was placed on the rukka to show even at that stage no person was named and PW-2 appeared only around 03:00 AM.i.e. after three and half hours of the incident.Mr. Sethi contends that a phone call was made to the Police by PW-1 Sharwan Kumar from his mobile phone No.9716078703 who is running a flower shop near the place of the incident.This witness has also testified that he had informed Himanshu (brother of the deceased) about the incident.PW-1 also deposed that Himanshu arrived at the spot within 5-7 minutes of the telephone call.It is also contended that had Himanshu been at the spot there was no occasion for PW-1 Sharwan Kumar to inform PW-2 Himanshu.The attention of this Court has been drawn to the PCR form, wherein the name of Himanshu also does not find mention though it is stated that at 01:00 AM family members were present at the hospital but how the deceased was stabbed was not known.This is in direct contravention to the testimony of PW-2 that after the incident he went home to get his family members while according to the PCR form, his family members were already present at 01:00 AM at the hospital.Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the appellant Rahul further goes on to submit that PW-2 Himanshu being an eyewitness, the site plan should have been prepared at his instance while the testimony of PW-22 Insp.Abhay Singh would show that the site plan was prepared by him at the instance of PW-7 ASI Mam Chand.It is Crl.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 6 of 42 strenuously argued before us that PW-2 has been introduced as an eyewitness which is evinced by a careful examination of serial number of witnesses at the site plan, which would show that initially PW-2 was not shown as a witness, but as a mere cover up his name was added by renumbering the witnesses.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 6 of 42Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on a careful examination of the site plan placed on record would show that there were three places where the incident took place; firstly, where the deceased was stabbed; secondly, where the deceased was stabbed again; and thirdly, where the deceased dropped while no such description was given by PW-2, who claims to be an eyewitness, which casts a serious doubt with regard to his presence.by the Investigating Officer and sent to the Doctor with a request to conduct post-mortem does not show the name of either PW-2 Himanshu as an eyewitness or the name of the appellants.No question was put for recording of the statement at the hospital or at the place of the incident.Sheikh Israr Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Raj Kumar, additionally contended that the testimony of PW-2 would show that he knew all the accused persons and appellant Raj Kumar resides at a distance of 250-300 meters from the place of Crl.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 8 of 42 incident and 30 meters from the dhaba of PW-2 Himanshu and deceased and in case, PW-2 would have disclosed the names of the appellants, then his house would have been raided, but no such raid had taken place.The deceased and his brother were known to the appellant Raj Kumar as they had been tenants for two years in the house of appellant Raj Kumar and they would have raided the house of appellant Raj Kumar within hours of the incident which was not done.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 8 of 42The incident took place in the heat of moment, when the deceased had refused to serve food to the appellants claiming that the dhaba had been closed.It is also contended that the appellant Raj Kumar stabbed the deceased not on a vital part of the body but only on the thigh.If there was an intention to kill the deceased, he would have attacked one of the vital parts of the body and not only on the thighs.The post-mortem report and the opinion of the doctor does not state that any blow which was inflicted on the deceased could have resulted in his death.Learned counsel submits that much should not be read into where the statement of PW-2 was recorded as PW-2 in his testimony has stated that after the incident, he went to the Hospital from where he went to the place of the incident and was then taken to the Police Station and in such a situation, his answer could have been misunderstood and in any case no prejudice would have been caused to the appellants herein.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 9 of 42A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 12 of 42We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and given thoughtful consideration to the matter.The prime prosecution witness remains the brother of the deceased PW-2 Himanshu.(v) The factum that PW-1 had to call PW-2 and inform about the incident proves the absence of PW-2;A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 13 of 42(vi) The name of PW-2 is absent in the PCR Form, though it is mentioned that the family members were present though how the deceased was stabbed was unknown;Since numerous contentions have been raised regarding the evidence and the inconsistencies in the sequence of events, we proceed to analyse the testimonies of the police witnesses.PW-18 L/Ct.The information was passed on to the network/PCR van/Police Station at 23:35:15 hours.PCR Form Crl.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 17 of 42 (Ex.PW-18/A) also reads ""ek admi ko chaku mar diya hai"" (one person has been stabbed with a knife).Thereafter, PW-7 prepared the rukka on the above information and handed it over to PW-9 Ct.Ram Avtar at 02:25 AM on 15.01.2013 with a direction to take it to the police station for getting FIR registered.PW-22 SHO Abhey Singh Yadav had also arrived at the spot.Ram Avtar had returned with copy of FIR and the original tehrir.During the proceedings at the spot, PW-2 Himanshu (brother of the deceased) had also joined.SHO recorded his statement and thereafter, efforts were made to trace the assailants, but no one could be found on the day.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 20 of 42PW-9 had returned with a copy of FIR and handed over the same to him/SHO with the original tehrir.Then the witness tried to trace the assailants.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 22 of 42When he reached, PW-7 ASI Mam Chand was writing the rukka.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 23 of 42We may also notice the medical evidence, which corroborates the ocular testimony on record.Both the MLC (Ex.PW-6/A) and the postmortem report (Ex.PW-17/A) show two stab wound on the inner aspect of the right thigh of the deceased.Though at first blush, the contentions of the learned counsel for appellants seem persuasive, however, on a careful analysis of the ocular evidence of the aforegoing witnesses, we find that a complete sequence of the chain of events is established.On the fateful night intervening 14-15.01.2013, the deceased and PW-2 Himanshu were in the process of closing down their dhaba, when three persons including the appellants and Asif (JCL) came and demanded food.The deceased declined by informing that the dhaba had been closed for the day.This did not please the accused, who started abusing and grappling.The PW-2 Himanshu intervened and saved his elder brother.Then they closed the shop and started walking towards their home.PW-2 Himanshu was 22-25 paces ahead of the deceased when the accused returned and stabbed the deceased.The appellant Rahul and Asif (JCL) tried to hold the deceased, while the appellant Raj Kumar gave two stab blows on his thighs.The shrieks of his brother drew the attention of PW-2, who looked behind to witness the incident.PW-2 Himanshu started shouting and rushed towards the deceased, however, the accused were able to flee.The deceased was extensively bleeding and fell infront of shop of PW-1 Sharwan.This was witnessed by PW-1 Sharwan, who called the Police Control Room (PCR) at 23:33:23 (Ex.PW-18/A) from his Crl.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 24 of 42 mobile number 9716078703 and informed that ""ek admi ko chaku mar diya hai"" (one person has been stabbed with a knife).A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 24 of 42We stop here to note as to which place the appellant was actually stabbed.PW-2 Himanshu had specifically stated in his cross-examination that his brother ""had moved in the direction of our [their] shop and had come near the shop of Sharwan."" Similarly, PW-1 Sharwan deposed that he saw the deceased ""to have come and fallen"" infront of his shop.PW-7 ASI Mam Chand, PW-15 ASI Rattan Lal and PW-22 Ins.Abhey Singh had consistently testified that the site plan (Ex.PW-7/C) was prepared by PW-22 at the instance/pointing out of PW-7 ASI Mam Chand, who had pointed based on the blood and the chappal.PW-2 Himanshu had come at about 3 AM, when the site plan (Ex.PW-7/C) was being prepared and had confirmed the points.His name was, accordingly, added and probably because there was no space to add the name of a witness at the bottom of the page, the name of PW-2 Himanshu was added at serial number 1 after renumbering the witnesses.The same can, by no means, lead to the conclusion that the document was tampered as the same remains in consonance with the ocular testimony.We have also gone through the photographs (Ex.PW-5/1 to Ex.PW-5/15) placed on record and particularly Ex.PW-5/10, Ex.PW-5/11, Ex.PW-5/14 and Ex.PW-5/15, which clearly show the Crl.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 25 of 42 presence of blood at points A and B infront of shop Om Sai Service in the background in consonance with the site plan (Ex.PW-7/C) and the scaled site plan (Ex.PW- 3/A, the distance between points A and B is 730 cms (about 24 ft) and from B to C, where the deceased finally collapsed infront of shop of PW-1 Sharwan is 2490 cms (about 82 ft).We proceed to the events after the stabbing.Rukka was prepared and sent through PW-9 Ct.Ram Avtar at about 2:25 AM for the registration of FIR.In the meantime, PW-22 Ins.Abhey Singh arrived at the spot and took over the investigation.At about 3 AM, PW-2 Himanshu came to the spot on foot and his statement was recorded.In this sequence of events, there was no question of the name of the eyewitness, i.e. PW-2 Himanshu, or of the assailants being present in the rukka or the PCR Form.The question then is where was PW- 2 Himanshu after witnessing the murder of his brother? The answer is found in the testimony of PW-2 only.He had deposed that when he had heard the cry for help of his brother, he had turned around to witness the stabbing of the deceased.He started shouting and rushed to his brother, however, the assailants ran away.He tried to lift his brother.He became extremely perturbed and went into a state of trance.PW-2 Himanshu waited till the PCR Van (Kite 55) Crl.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 27 of 42 took his brother.His perplexed state did not allow him to approach the police.Both PW-1 Sharwan and PW-7 ASI Mam Chand have confirmed that they found PW-2 in a highly perturbed state.We find no reason to disbelieve the same as it is not unusual for one to get disturbed after witnessing the death of his own brother first hand.After the PCR van left, PW-2 took a lift on motorcycle from a passerby till the corner, from where he had taken an auto rickshaw.He reached the Trauma Centre and was informed by the doctor about the death of his brother.A coordinate bench of this Court was faced with a similar situation in Noor Mohd. v. State NCT of Delhi, 2012 Cri LJ 28: 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3604 wherein the appellant had alleged that the brother of the deceased, an alleged eyewitness, was unreliable as the MLC was silent about the name of the injured and recorded that the police had brought the body.The same was rejected by the Bench while observing as under:A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 27 of 42It is urged by learned counsel for Dalip that PW-3 could not be believed because there was no corroborative material in support of his assertion about having accompanied his brother to the hospital.Reliance was placed upon the MLC (Ex. PW-15/A), which is silent about the name of the injured; besides it recorded that the police had taken the body.Learned counsel argued that if indeed Rahisuddin had witnessed the incident and had either accompanied the PCR or had gone with it, there was no reason for the hospital authorities to exclude the mention of his name. ... ...Often the relatives who accompany the injured Crl.It might well have been that when he was admitted, PW-3 had not reached or having reached, was searching for the place where his brother had been taken.""A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 28 of 42(Emphasis Supplied)The details in the MLC, infact, show that PW-2 had approached the doctor, though he missed the police officials.The knowledge of the death of his brother, further worsened the mental condition of PW-2, who came out from the Trauma Centre and lost senses for 1 and a half hours.Since PW-2 had already left the Trauma Centre, there was no question of him being found by the police officials (PW-15 or PW-9).It was only when he regained his senses did he return home and came back with his family.Now, there is a contradiction as to the place where the statement of PW-2 was recorded, but considering the state of PW-2 Himanshu, not much can be made from such a minor contradiction.Similarly, we do not find that the inconsistency of PW-2 and PW-1 regarding the phone call and the possession of mobile phone by PW-2 Himanshu is sufficient to discredit their testimonies in toto, which otherwise are reliable and consistent.Such inter-se discrepancies are normal and can be attributed to errors of observation and lapses of memory [See Asha v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 SCC (Cri) 712 (paragraph 9); Leela Crl.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 29 of 42 Ram (Supra) (paragraphs 9, 10, 12 and 13); and Sukhdev Yadav (Supra) (paragraphs 1 to 3)].This erupted into a sudden fight, which was pacified by PW-2 Himanshu.Thereafter, the deceased and PW- 2 closed their dhaba and within a couple of minutes, the appellants and Asif (JCL) returned and appellant Raj Kumar stabbed the deceased while the other two held him.There was no cooling off period and the tempers continued to run high [See Jite (Supra) (paragraphs 38-43) and Arjun v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Crl.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 40 of 42 Crl.A. 983/2015 dated 14.07.2017 (paragraph 35)].Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant is modified from Section 302 to one under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.A. 1702/2014 & 158/2015 Page 40 of 42We had also called for the fresh nominal rolls of the appellants, as per which, appellant Raj Kumar has undergone about 5 years 5 months imprisonment including remission, while appellant Rahul has undergone 5 years 1 month imprisonment including remission.The order of the Trial Court with regard to fine under Section 302 shall be read as for one under Section 304 Part II and remains the same.The appeals stand disposed of.","['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"His first wife was one Mrs.Sharmila.They had no issue.3.P.W.1 was not at his house at that time.He was on duty.He received a message that both the children (D.1 & D.2) were lying dead in the water tank.He found the dead bodies of the children (D.1 & D.2).The Post mortem Doctor has opined that both the children (D.1 & D.2) were died not due to drowning but due to smothering.6.When the investigation was in progress, it is stated that the accused appeared before P.W.13, the then Village Administrative Officer on 14.02.2010 around 8.00 am and made a voluntary confession.It is stated that she told that she had the feeling that the children born to her and her husband would be affected in future, if, the deceased were alive.Because of the said motive, according to her confession, she killed both the children (D.1 & D.2) by smothering and threw the dead bodies into water tank.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.44/2011 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal.She stood charged for offences under Sections 302 (2 counts) & 201 I.P.C. By judgment dated 30.01.2012, the trial Court convicted the accused under both the charges and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for each count in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, for offence under section 302 I.P.C., and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-P.W.1  Mr.Nehru is a resident of Namakkal.He was a Driver working in a Transport Corporation.They had taken one Shakthivel in adoption (hereinafter referred to as D.1).After some time, Mrs.sharmila passed away.Therefore, he married one Ms.Rasia as his second wife.Through his second wife, he had a daughter by name Shalini (hereinafter referred to as D.2).After 25 days of the birth of Shalini, Mrs.Rasia died.Thereafter, with a view to bring up both the children viz., adopted son Sakthivel & Shalini, P.W.1 married the accused.Out of the said wedlock, there are two children born to them.Thus, all the four children were in the care and custody of P.W.1 and the accused.It is alleged that on 14.02.2010, around 5.00 am, the accused killed both the children (D.1 & D.2) by smothering them by pushing a pillow against their faces and killed them.Thereafter, she threw the dead bodies into a water tank to make it as though, the children died due to drowning.The accused did not disclose anything about the occurrence.P.24 is the complaint and Ex.P.25 is the F.I.R. Then both the documents were sent to the Court.5.The Investigation was taken up by P.W.16, the then Inspector of Police.He went to the place of occurrence, conducted inquest on the body of both the deceased and forwarded the same to Doctor for post mortem.P.W.13, reduced the said extra judicial confession in writing and then he took the accused to P.W.16 and produced her.P.W.16 arrested the accused and forwarded her to Court for judicial remand.On completing investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.7.P.W.6 - Dr.Parameswari, conducted autopsy on the body of Sakthivel (D.1) and found the following injuries:-External Examination No visible external injuries.White frothy fluids comes out from the nose.Eye lids closed.Mouth & lips closed Tongue: inside the oral cavity.P.7 is the post mortem certificate.She opined that D.1 would have died due to smothering and not because of drowning.8.P.W.7 - Dr.Mohan, conducted autopsy on the body of Shalini (D.2) and found the following injuries:-Could not make out.Frothing in the both the nostrils.Internal examination: Opening skull no fracture of skull bone.Brain: Pale.Thorax: No fractured Ribs.Lungs: Odematus, Pale Heart: Partly filled with blood.Hyoid Bone  sternum preserved for the Forensic Analysis. Ex.P.12 is the post mortem certificate.He opined that D.2 would have died due to smothering and not because of drowning.9.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.The accused denied the same.Material Objects were marked.10.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, the father of the deceased (D.1 & D.2) and the husband of the accused has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.2, the neighbour has stated that he heard about the death of the children (D.1 & D.2), he came to the place of occurrence and found the dead bodies.P.W.3 is yet another neighbour of the deceased.He has also stated about the same facts.P.W.4 is yet another neighbour has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.5 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar, rough sketch and the recovery of material objects at the place of occurrence.P.W.6 has spoken about the post mortem conducted on D.1 and her final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.7 has spoken about the post mortem conducted on D.2 and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.8 is yet another neighbour.However, she has also not spoken anything incriminating against the accused.P.W.9, a Constable has stated that he handed over the dead bodies to Doctors for post mortem.P.W.10 has also spoken about the same facts.P.W.12, the Head Clerk of the Magistrate Court has stated that he sent the material objects for chemical analysis as per the order passed by the learned Magistrate.11.P.W.13, the then village Administrative Officer has spoken about the extra judicial confession made by the accused, recorded by him.P.W.14 has spoken about the registration of the case.P.W.15 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed in this case.12.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., she denied the same as false.However, she did not choose to examine any witness nor did she mark any document on her side.Her defence was a total denial.13.Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court convicted the appellant/accused as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.14.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.15.As we have already stated, there is no denial of the fact that both the deceased (D.1 & D.2) were living with P.W.1 and the accused.It is also in evidence that the children were lying dead in the water tank.The medical evidence would clearly go to establish that the death of the deceased (D.1 & D.2) were not due to drowning but due to smothering.Thus, the prosecution has established that the death of the deceased (D.1 & D.2) were due to homicidal violence.But, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidence of P.W.13 cannot be believed for more than one reason.He would point out the evidence of P.W.3, the neighbour of the deceased that when the Police arrived at the place of occurrence on 14.02.2010 at 9.00 am, the accused was very much available and she was interrogated by the Police and the accused told them that the children were accidentally jumped into the water and died.P.W.8, yet another neighbour has also stated that when the Police came to the place of occurrence, the accused remained there and faced the enquiry.She did not abscond.She was thus, very much in the custody of the Police on 14.02.2010 around 9.00 am.When that be so, it is highly unbelievable that on 14.02.2010 at 8.00 am, the accused had gone to P.W.13, the then Village Administrative Officer and made the extra judicial confession.We find force in the said argument.17.Above all, it is highly unbelievable that the accused would have chosen the then Village Administrative Officer, who is a total stranger to make the voluntary confession.For these reasons, we find it difficult to act solely based upon the said extra judicial confession made by the accused.Further, as per the settled law, since, an extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence, unless, the same inspires the fullest confidence of the Court and there are evidences from other sources to corroborate the said extra judicial confession, it is not safe to rely on the doubtful extra judicial confession and to convict the maker of the confession.Since, there is no corroboration from any other independent source, on material particulars, then, we cannot convict the accused solely based on the said extra judicial confession.Thus, the appellant/accused is entitled for acquittal.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 21 st December 2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS in SC No. 82 of 2008 convicting Jagdeo Singh @ Jagga (Accused No.1) (A-1) (Appellant in Crl.A. No. 527 of 2014) for the offences under Section 21 (c) and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs Psychotropic Substance Act (NDPS), Section 489 C and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act; Gurdeep Singh (A-2) (Appellant in Crl.529 of 2014) for the offences under Section 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 489 C and 120 B IPC; and Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukhi (A-3) (Appellant in Crl.A. No.607/2014) for the offences under Section 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act and 489-C and 120- B IPC.The appeals are also directed against the order on sentence dated 30th January 2014, sentencing A-1 to undergo twelve years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) with fine of Rs. 1.5 lakh for each of the offences under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for six months, and imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.10,000 and in default to undergo SI for one month Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 2 of 57 for each of the offences under Sections 489-C and 120-B IPC and further seven years RI and fine of Rs.50,000 and in default to undergo SI for three months for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. All three sentences were directed to run concurrently.A-2 was sentenced to RI for ten years with fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default to undergo SI for three months for each of the offences under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, RI for three years and fine of Rs.10,000 and in default to undergo SI for one month for each of the offences under Section 489-C and 120-B IPC; further A-3 was sentenced to RI for fifteen years and fine of Rs.1.5 lakh and in default to undergo SI for six months for the offence under Section 29 and 21(c) of the NDPS Act and three years RI and fine of Rs.10,000 and in default to undergo SI for one month and for the offence under Section 489-C and 120-B IPC.PW-16 endorsed the said information and discussed it with the ACP of the Special Cell.He then constituted a raiding team comprising of himself, Sub-Inspector (SI) Harbir Singh (PW-1), SI Ramesh Sharma, SI Ranbir Singh (PW-4), SI Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 3 of 57 Kishan Lal, Head Constable (HC) Suresh Chand, HC Ramesh Kumar, Constable Anil Kumar, Constable Ajay Kumar, Constable Hawa Singh and Constable Om Prakash.They left the office of the Special Cell in a government vehicle and reached the spot.On the way, as well as at the spot, the police asked two or three passersby to join the raiding team, but none agreed.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 3 of 57At around 7.30 pm, a Pulsar motorcycle No. DL 7SAZ 2142 stopped near the public toilet at Patparganj Road, Ganesh Nagar crossing.It was driven by Gurdeep Singh (A-2) who was carrying a black colour bag on his shoulder and on the pillion was Jagdeo Singh (A-1).A-2 took out a polythene bag from the black colour bag he was carrying and handed it over to A-1. A-2 remained on the motorcycle and A-1 stood at the Ganesh Nagar crossing.Both of them were served with notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. They were apprised of their legal right to be examined in front of the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.Both refused to exercise such right.Their refusal was signed by them on the notices issued to them.From the polythene bag carried by A-1, two packets wrapped in yellow colour tape were recovered.They were weighed at 1 kg each.Upon opening they were found to contain light skin colour powder which A-1 revealed to be heroin.The samples were drawn out of the substance and the remaining substance was sealed in a separate pullanda.The seizure memo was prepared and FSL form was filled.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 4 of 57A cursory search of A-1 conducted by PW-1 revealed a pistol, one magazine and eight live cartridges.They were sealed in a separate cloth pullanda and a separate memo and FSL form was prepared.The black bag carried by A-2 was checked.It contained two packets wrapped in yellow colour tape weighing 1 kg each.They too contained skin colour powder which A-2 revealed to be heroin.Again samples were drawn and the remaining substances were sealed in separate pullanda.The seizure memo was prepared and the FSL form was formed.The case then was registered and investigation was handed over to Inspector Upendra Solanki (PW-17).Their disclosure statements were recorded.Both purportedly disclosed that the currency notes were counterfeit; that they were in the business of drugs, arms and ammunitions as well as fake currency along with Sukhwinder @ Sukhi (A-3).Twenty seven currency notes of Rs.1000 denomination were seized from the amount recovered from A-1, and two currency notes of Rs.1000 denomination were seized from the amount recovered from A-2, and a FSL form was prepared in respect of the said seizures.Investigation and chargeThe call detail records of the mobile phones recovered from A-1 and A-2 Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 5 of 57 were obtained.The statements of witnesses were recorded.The recovered pistol, eight cartridges, samples of heroin was sent to the FSL, Rohini.The report of the FSL confirmed that the currency notes were counterfeit and the samples contained high percentage of diacetylmorphine (DAM).Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 5 of 57The disclosure statement of A-3 in that case, and the intercepted calls on electronic surveillance in the said case revealed that A-3 was dealing in drugs, illegal arms and fake currency in conspiracy with A-1 and A-2. A-3 had been in continuous touch with A-1 and A-2. A-3 was thereafter produced and arrested in the present case.An application was also filed for taking the voice sample of A-1 and A-2 for comparison with the voice appearing in the intercepted mobile conversations.However, both A-1 and A-2 declined to give their voice samples.On 20th January 2009, a supplementary charge sheet was filed against A-3 for being in conspiracy with A-1 and A-2, for supply of drugs, arms and fake currency in Delhi.On 13th July 2009, charges were framed against three accused for having conspired to deal in drug trafficking and having been found in possession of commercial quantity of heroin and fake currency and thus Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 6 of 57 having committed offences punishable under Section 21 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, Section 120-B and Section 489- C IPC.14. A-1 denied having come to the spot on the motorcycle or even knowing A-2 before the arrest in the present case.He stated that on 23rd March 2007 at 5.30 pm, he was forcibly picked up by the police in Faridabad and the contraband and arms were planted on him by the police officials.He stated that he was residing in rented premises E-874, Dabau Colony, Faridabad.While he was in the market with his wife and eight years old daughter, PW-1 and other police officials stopped him and asked him to accompany them in their gypsy vehicle.PW-1 is stated to have told A-1 that ""Sahib"" wants to inquire something from him and that A-1 should accompany them and when A-1 declined, PW-1 and other police officials pushed him into the gypsy and tied his hands with rope and covered his face with the cloth.The vehicle was taken to Dhaula Kuan and thereafter to Laxmi Nagar.Further, in his presence, no site plan was prepared by PW-17 and no motorcycle was taken into possession.As regards notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act he admitted that ""I did tear it off as I was very tense and troubled on my false implication"".He denied that any counterfeit currency, arms and ammunitions were recovered from him.He had shifted to outside Delhi after his release from jail and he wished to lead his life afresh.PW-1 (SI Harbir Singh) is related to SI Ombir Singh as they are cousins.Statement of A-2 under Section 313 Cr PCIn his statement, A-2 claimed that he was never a member of KZF.Although he had been arrested in two bomb blast cases, he had been acquitted.He denied having come to the spot on a motorcycle.He claimed that he did not know A-1 before his arrest.Though the motorcycle belonged to him, he was forcibly picked up by the police on 23 rd March 2007 at around 2:30 pm outside Gurudwara Sheesh Ganj.20. A-2 stated that one police official, SI Ramesh Sharma, Special Cell kept visiting him and inquired about his activities after his acquittal.Thereafter, he started working as a Sewadar in Gurudwara Sheesh Ganj and SI Ramesh Sharma used to visit him and also asked him to appear before the Special Cell.This continued for till two years, and when A-2 got fed up, he told SI that if he continued to harass him, he would file a petition in the Court.After about 1 months of his telling him that, SI Ramesh Sharma came at around 2:30 pm on 23rd March 2007 and asked A-2 to accompany him.At that time, A-2 was standing near the STD booth near Gurudwara.SI Ramesh Sharma spoke very politely to A-2 and told him that it was last time ""Sahab"" wanted to talk to him and, therefore, A-2 agreed to go along with him to the Special Cell.Along with him, Gurlal, another sewadar was standing.A-2 gave the key of his motorcycle to Gurlal.He told Gurlal that the motorcycle was parked in the parking lot of Gurudwara.21. A-2 stated that he was not apprehended in the manner stated by the prosecution; nor was he apprised of his legal rights to get himself searched before a Magistrate or a gazetted officer.He was mercilessly beaten and was forced to write the words on Section 50 notice.Before he wrote the words, the document was blank.He denied that any contraband was recovered from him.He denied recovery of any mobile phone.He stated that only a SIM card bearing No. 9999579926 was recovered from his possession.No mobile phones were recovered from A-1 in his presence.No site plan was prepared by PW-17 and no motorcycle was taken into possession in his presence.He claimed that the police had planted a notice on him and when he received the said notice pursuant to the order of the Court, he tore it off as he was very tense and troubled due to his false implication.He claimed that no currency was recovered nor did he give any disclosure that the currency was fake.He claimed that the entire proceedings were false and manipulated.No arms or ammunitions were recovered from him.22. A-2 stated that he knew A-3 because on a few occasions he had come to Gurudwara Sheesh Ganj and being a sewadar, one room had been allotted to him.Once or twice A- 3 had called him to confirm about the availability of the room in the Gurudwara.He had nothing to do with the intercepted calls.25. A-3 stated that he had no knowledge of the interception of the mobile phone conversations.He stated that he did not even know A1 before his arrest in this case.He claimed that he had been falsely implicated and nothing had been recovered from him - neither any contraband nor pistol nor mobile phone.He claimed that even in FIR No. 77/2007 he had been falsely arrested.He claimed that he never had any conversation with A-1 or A-2 regarding heroine and that the intercepted calls did not pertain to him.He claimed that DVDs and CDs did not contain any calls made by him.He claimed that his signatures were taken on many blank and written documents forcibly and that the police officials used to beat him if he refused to sign.He claimed that the voice or conversation which he had heard in Court did not pertain to him and that ""though the said voice sounds similar to my voice, the CDs and the DVDs have been tampered.""The first witness for the defence was Dr. Anand Kumar (DW-1), Medical Officer attached with CJ-4 dispensary at Tihar Jail.A-2 had complained that Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 13 of 57 he had been beaten by the police.On examination ""pattern bruises were found present over the left side of the back and he was prescribed medication for the pain."" Apart from the suggestions to him that the document wrongly recorded that bruises were found and that A-2 had been seen by Dr. Rakesh, who prepared the report, nothing much was elicited in the cross-examination of this witness by the learned APP.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 13 of 57He was standing with A-2 and other sewadar Gurlal at the STD booth situated near the entrance of Gurudwara at around 2:30 pm on 23 rd March 2007 when a person of medium height and slightly dark complexioned told A-2 ""sahib bula rahe hain."" A-2 addressed the said person as Mr. Sharma and asked him what happened but the said person merely repeated the statement made earlier. A-2 then told Gurlal that his bike was parked in front of the museum opposite Gurudwara and that he should bring the bike inside the Gurudwara premises and park it.The next day when he came to the Gurudwara, Gurlal told him that he had handed over the keys of the motorbike to the brother and father of A-2, who had come to the Gurudwara after coming to know of his arrest.It was found that A-2 had been taken away by the police and his bike was also taken away by the police after breaking its lock.Director, CFSL, Chandigarh (DW-3).DW-3 clarified that although in reply to the RTI application of A-1 (Ex. DW-3/B), it had been stated that no official from the CFSL, Chandigarh had attended the trial Court, he stated that he had appeared in the trial Court on 12th January 2009 to record the voice sample.He also brought an attested copy of the office movement register showing his movement from Chandigarh to Delhi (Ex. DW-3/E).The 4th defence witness was Mr. Deepak DW-4), the Nodal Officer who brought the summoned record (Ex. DW-4/A and 4/B respectively).It was not functional thereafter.DW-4 also brought the records pertaining to mobile No.9873836607 (Ex. PW-4/C) which showed that the phone was functional till 23rd March 2007 in the Delhi circle.The last call in the said phone received was at about 19:38:08 hours.Thereafter, it was not in network in Delhi circle.As per the cell chart ID, the location of the mobile at that time was Nangla Rai at Delhi Cantt., and at about 18:00:50 one outgoing call was made from the same cell tower.At about 18:07:10, an incoming call was received from the same tower.At about 18:18:15, an outgoing call was made from the same mobile tower.Another outgoing call was made at about 19:06:18 from the tower at Lajpat Nagar, Part-II.(i) Although A-2 had contended that his motorcycle had been forcibly taken by the police from the parking lot after breaking open the lock, in an application filed by him before the learned Special Judge on 7th June 2007 (Mark R-1), he took a very different stand.He stated that at around 6-6:30 pm, when he was standing with his friend near the STD booth near the Gurudwara, SI Ramesh Sharma had come there and asked him to accompany him to his Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 17 of 57 office for some inquiry; that A-2 followed the SI on his own motorcycle and that only after he and the vehicle of SI passed the Lal Qila red light, SI Ramesh Sharma asked him to leave his bike and accompany in his vehicle since he had received a message that a senior officer was leaving and would return only after 9:00 pm and SI Sharma did not want A-2 to spoil his whole night.(iii) The intercepted mobile conversations proved on record by the prosecution totally corroborated the version put forth by the prosecution with respect to the manner of apprehending the accused persons.The intercepted mobile conversations proved that A-1 and A-2 were known to each other, much before 23rd March 2007 and were together involved in some business.Even on 23rd March 2007, A-1 and A-2 were in continuous touch with each other till 7:30 pm.The mobile conversations were played in Court and the transcripts were also filed in the judicial record.It showed that at around 4:45 pm, A-1 called up A-2 and both of them decided to meet near a tea vendors shop.The learned trial Court also adverted to the further Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 18 of 57 conversation that took place between the two at 5:13 pm, 7:05 pm and 7:35 pm.At around 7:35 pm in the conversation between A-1 and A-2, A-1 informed A-2 that he was able to reach the designated spot by taking a lift and told A-2 that he was standing near a banana vendor.Two minutes thereafter, A-2 made a call to a person, whom he addressed as Raju stating that the said person Raju should be able to spot him and tried to tell him where A-1 was standing.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 18 of 57(iv) The intercepted mobile conversations were of unimpeachable quality and could not be doubted merely because they were produced belatedly.The prosecution was able to satisfactorily explain the delay.The depositions of PW-s 1, 17 and 30 revealed that the four mobile phone Nos. 9876933745, 9317534945, 9811328172 and 9817060613 were under the surveillance of the Special Cell, much before the apprehension of A-1 and A-2 and the conversations that took place on the said mobile phones were automatically saved in the server of the Special Cell.The call related information was automatically recorded at the time the calls were made and thereafter transferred to the server of the Special Cell using a software application.The allegation that the signatures of A-1 on various documents was forged was false as the evidence of the handwriting expert did not conclusively prove that the signatures of A-1 were forged.Right from the supply to them of the chargesheet and documents, they were taking the plea that no contraband had been recovered them.The percentage of diacetylmorphine in the four samples, i.e., S-1, S-3, S-5 and S-7 showed that these were of commercial quantity.An attempt had been made to remove number 3 (from 31.6%) and 41 (from 41.2%) which was noticed by the learned trial Court.The deposition of PW-14 put to rest any doubt as to the discrepancy that resulted as a consequence of such tampering.(x) Even in the absence of the public witnesses, the prosecution has been able to prove recovery of 4 kg.While PW-1 deposed that A-1 had approached the spot from the Laxmi Nagar side, PW-4 deposed that he approached from the Seelampur side; PW-10 stated that he approached from Patparganj side and PW-16 stated that he approached from Seelampur side.It is pointed out that the site plan is not prepared and the identification by PW-16 is different from the site plan filed by the IO (PW-17).(ii) PW-1 deposed that there was a goal chakkar at the place of arrest, whereas the site plan did not show any such goal chakkar.In fact, it was a red light crossing.(iii) Even as regards the time of arrest, there were inconsistencies.The journey on the motorcycle from Sarai Kale Khan to the place of arrest takes at least 20-30 minutes in peak hours.The prosecution story that A-1 was at goal chakkar on 23rd March 2007 was, therefore, false and fabricated.The Nodal Officer (PW-29) confirmed that the said mobile number was at Laxmi Nagar Chowk at 7:30 pm, which was 2 kms.There was no explanation as to why the said mobile conversations were not part of the original charge sheet.The alleged information that A-3 was using from the mobile No.9876933745 for contacting KLF was not part of the original charge sheet.There was no evidence to show that any of the mobile phones pertained to A-3 or how the phones were intercepted.The technology used in the system was capable of being manipulated.The procedure for interception was full of loopholes and Section 65B of the Evidence Act has not been complied with.The report of Dr. Rajender Singh (PW-28) regarding matching of the voice samples of A-3 on the taped conversations with the sample voice was doubtful and has not been proved in accordance with law.Mr. Jain submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove that A-3, at any time, either subscribed to or owned mobile Nos. 9876933745 and 9317534945 and, therefore, he could not have been convicted under Section 20 NDPS Act. The tampering of the CDs containing the taped conversations cannot be ruled out.At around 6.10 pm information was received by PW-16 that A- 1 and A-2 would come near Pandav Nagar Mother Diary around 7.30 pm for supply of smack to one Negro and the said information was passed on ACP Ravi Shankar who instructed PW-16 to conduct a raid.In any event since the secret information was not in respect of the contraband being in some house, the provision of Section 42 NDPS Act was not attracted.As regards the occurrence at Pandav Nagar, Mother Diary, Mr. Katyal pointed out that although notices were in fact issued under Section 50 NDPS Act to each of accused, i.e., A-1 and A-2 separately, both of them had destroyed the copies of the notices served upon them.In any event, contraband was recovered from the polythene bag of A-1 and from bag of A-2 and thus the contraband was not present on their person.The contraband was sealed with the seal of HS and handed over to PW-16 along with FSL forms and PW-16 left the spot at around 10.20 pm.It was taken to PS Lodhi Colony at about 11.15 pm and handed over to SHO Paras Nath (PW-13) who affixed his seal of PNS on all the parcels and FSL forms and deposited the same in the malkhana.Turing to the facts in the present case, there is a whole chain of events that has taken prior to the interception orders of the mobile phones.The interception orders were in respect of the mobile phones (Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW20/B, Ex.PW26/A, Ex.PW26/B and Ex.PW26/C).PW-1 stated that after the after the bomb blasts that took place in 2005 at Liberty and Satyam Cinemas the mobile phones of the suspects were kept under surveillance.PW-1 had been deputed to listen to those conversations.He learnt that A-3 was in constant touch with Daya Singh Loharia, a Member of KLF.There was a specific instruction from senior officers that the surveillance of the mobile phones had to be kept secret.PW-17 explained that after hearing the conversations of all the calls, he copied all of them in DVD and CDs (Ex.P-29, P-36 and P-38).The computer system installed in the Special Cell was under the supervision and control of PW- 30 and the password of the same remained with him.It was stated that during the relevant period there was no problem in the operation of the computer system while recoding the calls nor was there any break down.58. PW-17 clarified that it was PW-1 who downloaded and handed over the transcripts to him for observation.He had opened the file in the office computer giving it the name of Upender.He spoke of the preparation of the transcripts of all mobile phone calls.As far as A-1 Jagdeo Singh and A-2 Gurdeep Singh are concerned the case of the prosecution has to be considered de hors the electronic evidence produced i.e., the CDRs of the mobile phones stated to have been used by each of them.The specific case of the prosecution is that at around 7.30 pm on 23 rd March 2007 both the accused came near the public toilet Patparganj Road at Ganesh Nagar Crossing.According to the prosecution, the motorcycle was driven by Gurdeep Singh (A-2) who was carrying a black colour bag on his shoulder.Jagdeo Singh (A-1) was the pillion rider.A-2 took out a polythene bag from the black colour bag that he was carrying and handed it over to A-1. A-2 remained near the motorcycle and A-1 stood at the Ganesh Nagar Crossing.At that point of time, both were apprehended."" This is purely a surmise since the burden was entirely on the prosecution to show that the signatures on the seizure memo, recovery memo and the inspection memo etc., were in fact only of A-1 and no one else.On his part A-1 has probablised his defence that those signatures were not his.The evidence of CW-1 is more than sufficient to probablise that defence.Evidence of torture of A-1 and A-2The plea of A-2 is that he was picked up from Gurudwara Sheesh Ganj forcibly and his motorcycle was also picked up from the parking area.He examined Pargat Singh (DW-2) to prove this plea.He also has alleged as being tortured by the police while in custody.In respect of that plea he examined Dr. Anand Kumar (DW-1).The relevant pages of the said register has been brought by me today and are Ex.DW1/B"".He produced the medical record of A-1 (Ex. DW5/A).He deposed that ""As per the said medical record, the accused Jagdeo was first examined on his admission to jail on 4 th April 2007 and had complained that he had been beaten by police on 2 nd April 2007 and that he had pain over his whole back.On examination, pattern bruises were found present over the whole back, left arm upper and lower, left thigh, and the legs and he was prescribed medication for the pain"".(emphasis supplied)The aforementioned sentences were directed to run concurrently with the sentences already imposed upon A-1 in FIR No.164 of 2007 at Police Station (PS) Sidhwabet.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 2 of 57Case of the prosecutionAdditionally, A-1 was charged with having been found in possession of one pistol along with eight live cartridges and thereby committing an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 6 of 57The prosecution examined twenty nine witnesses.When the evidence was put to the three accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr PC), each of them denied it and claimed to have been falsely implicated.In Laxmi Nagar under the railway bridge Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 7 of 57 the vehicle was stopped.The police officials then tried to shift him to a private Wagon R in which A-2 and PW-17 were already sitting.When A- 1 raised hue and cry a lot of people gathered at the spot and questioned the police as to why they were taking A-1 away.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 7 of 5715. A-1 denied having been apprised of any legal right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He was beaten by the police officials who forced him to write on the notice.He denied that any contraband or pistol was recovered from him.He also claimed not to know A-3 prior to his arrest in the present case.In respect to the transcript of the intercepted calls, A-1 denied having been part of this conversation or having made the conversation shown in that transcript.He stated that it was correct that on 2nd January 2009 he had agreed to give his voice sample but he had specifically requested that he should be taken to CFSL Chandigarh since he was apprehensive that in Delhi the police officials would manipulate his voice samples.Although the trial Court had permitted this but A-1 was not taken to CFSL Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 8 of 57 Chandigarh.On 12th January 2009 he refused to give the voice sample in Court apprehending that it would not be taken properly and would be manipulated.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 8 of 57When asked if he wished to say anything else, A-1 stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case.He stated that he has been in judicial custody from 2001 to 15th August 2006 since more than 21 cases has been registered against him in various police station and that he has been acquitted in most of them.In six cases he has been convicted and in two cases he has filed appeals which are pending in the High Court.A-1 alleged that consequently PW-1 had been responsible for A-1 being falsely implicated in the present case.He denied that the conversations recorded on the CDs and DVD between him and the other co-accused persons were in his voice.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 9 of 57He denied the intercepted calls.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 11 of 57As regards voice samples, A-2 stated that he did agree on 2nd January 2009 to give his voice sample but requested that he should be taken to CFSL, Chandigarh for that purpose.However, they were not taken there.On 12 th January 2009, he had refused to give the voice sample in the Court as he was apprehensive that it would be manipulated.An additional statement was recorded of A-2 on 11th July 2013 when he denied all the intercepted calls.Statement of A-3 under Section 313 Cr PCIn his statement, A-3 stated that he used to go and meet Daya Singh Lahoria while he was lodged in Nabha jail as he was a good friend of his.He stated that he used the mobile No.9876933745 but thereafter stated that he had never used the said mobile phone and that he was not dealing in fake currency notes, drugs, arms and ammunition.He stated that he did not know A-1 but knew A-2 who was a sewadar in Gurdwara Sheesh Ganj, New Delhi.He had got in touch with A-2 when he had come to Delhi for pairvi of cases of Daya Singh Lahoria in the Supreme Court and in Jaipur courts.He claimed that no mobile phone was recovered from his Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 12 of 57 possession.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 12 of 57Gurlal had since left the services of the Gurudwara and was presently residing in Punjab.In his cross-examination, DW-2 stated that neither he nor Gurlal made any complaint to the police about the motorcycle of A-2 being taken by some police officials.He also did not complain to the police after coming Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 14 of 57 to know from his father and brother that A-2 had been picked up by the police.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 14 of 57The third defence witness was Mr. S.K. Jain, Dy.At about 17:58:44 an outgoing call was made from that mobile for 61 Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 15 of 57 seconds.At around 19:32:15 an outgoing call for 29 seconds was made from the same cell tower at Sarai Kale Khan.At about 19:32:47 an incoming call was received for 16 seconds from the cell ID tower of Bhairon Marg, Pragati Maidan.The mobile phone was used with IMEI No.354540018396220 for all the aforementioned calls.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 15 of 57An attested copy of the first medical examination of A-1 was (DW-5/A) was brought on record.A-1 had complained that he was beaten by the police on 2nd April 2007 and had pain over his whole back.On examination, pattern bruises were found present over the whole back, left arm upper and lower left thigh and the legs.A-1 was prescribed medication for the pain.He was unable to speculate how A-1 could have received the injuries.Head Constable Sanjeev (DW-6) attached to PS Special Cell, Lodhi Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 16 of 57 Colony was examined next.He brought the malkhana register No.19 for the year 2007 and the daily diary register for the same year.He pointed out that the register with respect to the duty roster of the year 2007 had been destroyed within a period of two years.He stated that there was no entry as to PW-17 (Inspector Upendra Solanki) receiving any case property from malkhana.He further stated that PW-17 had made the said entry at NR Rohini where he was then posted.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 16 of 57The trial Court judgmentBy the impugned judgment dated 21st December 2013, the learned trial Court found the three Appellants to be guilty of the offences under Section 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, Section 489(c) and 129-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. By the order on sentence dated 30th January 2014, the learned trial Court sentenced the A-1, A-2 and A-3 in the manner indicated hereinbefore.Therefore, A-2 sat in the vehicle with SI Sharma and his bike was driven by a police official.Since this application was filed three months after his arrest, the answers given under Section 313 Cr PC was false.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 17 of 57Three minutes thereafter, A-2 again called Raju and while talking, he screams, telling him to run away.Consequently, both A-1 and A-2 had taken a false defence before this Court.As per the deposition of PW-17, after listening the calls in the DVD, he copied them in the CDs (Exs. P-29, 36 and 38).Thus, the conditions laid down under Section 65-B of the Evidence Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 19 of 57 Act had been complied with.Since there was no manual intervention, it could not have been tampered with.When the CDs were played in Court, the call related information was reflected on the computer screen along with the graphs of the voice patterns.The details showed that the calls in question were made during the period February 2007 and March 2007, i.e., before the arrest of the accused.(vi) The contention of the accused was that the mobile transcripts showed that A-1 and A-2 were having conversation around 7:45 pm was contrary to the stand of the prosecution that they were arrested at around 7:30 pm.The members of the raiding party deposed that Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 20 of 57 the time of apprehension of accused persons ""was about 7:30 pm."" and this did not mean exactly 7:30 pm.Further, the cell tower catches the frequency of a mobile phone if the location of the said mobile is within 1-2 km range.Therefore, there was no discrepancy if the cell tower at Pragati Maidan was able to catch the frequency of mobile phone used by A-1 when he was near Ganesh Nagar.The said spot was within 2 km. of Pragati Maidan.The evidence of Dr. Rajender Singh (PW-28), who was the head of the Foreign Voice Identification Unit, CFSL proved that the questioned voice of A-3 in the taped conversations tallied with his specimen voice.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 20 of 57(vii) Dr. S.K. Jain, Dy.(DW-3) had come to the Court on 12th January 2009 to record the voice sample of A-1 and A-2 but they had refused.An adverse inference, therefore, was drawn against them.They did not take the plea that no mobile phone had been recovered from them, although the recovery memos were duly supplied to them with the chargesheet.(viii) Since the recoveries in the present case had not been effected from the persons of the accused, but from the bags carried by them, hence Section 50 NDPS Act was not applicable.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 21 of 57(ix) Dr. Madhulika Sharma (PW-14), the FSL expert, explained that the colour of the samples which were received for analysis, which were of cream colour, could change to brown colour due to moisturization.PW-14 was not examined on this aspect.After A-1 and A-2 were apprehended, A-3 spoke about the arrest to at least three persons from his mobile.After the arrest of A-1 and A-2, the conspiracy in question had come to an end and, therefore, the statements made by A-3 thereafter could not be read against his co- conspirators under Section 10 of the Evidence Act, but they could be read against A-3 himself under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.Consequently, all the three accused were held guilty for the offences with which they were charged and sentenced in the manner indicated Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 22 of 57 hereinbefore.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 22 of 57Submissions of counsel for the AppellantsOn behalf of A-1, Mr. Rana made the following submissions:(i) The prosecution story regarding the arrest of A-1 was totally false.While PW-4 stated that A-1 is arrested at 7:30 pm on 23rd March 2009, the CDR and the call locations contradict the whole story.The CDR and the call locations filed by the prosecution for mobile nos. 9811328172 and 9873836607 allegedly recovered from A-1 shows that the said mobile was at Sarai Kale Khan at 7:32 pm and at Bhairon Marg on 7:32:47 pm, which is approximately 6-7 kms.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 23 of 57from the place of arrest shown by the prosecution.from the place of arrest and 8-10 kms.from Sarai Kale Khan.(v) Although the place of arrest was a busy public place with many markets, shops etc. being there, PW-17 did not bother to involve any public witness.(vi) The signature of A-1 on the different memos and notice under Section 50 NDPS Act were forged by the IO.Reliance has been placed on the decisions in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609, Rakesh @ Shanker v. State (decision dated 8th January 2014 in Crl.PW-17 uploaded the said transcripts in his computer on 24th January 2008, i.e. after 2 months and 22 days.The voice samples along with the said CD and DVD made from the said copies were sent to CFSL on 6th October 2008, i.e., 8 months after taking the sample, but it had not been verified by the FSL Lab as to whether the CD was an original one or a fake one.(ix) The recoveries were planted on the accused.There was discrepancy in the depositions of PWs 13 and 16 as to whether the case property was deposited in the Malkhana or MHMC Malkhana was called to the office handed over the properties recovered.(x) PW-17 stated that he had opened the sealed pulanda on 4th April 2007 without permission of the Court, and then took out Rs. 27,000, while keeping Rs. 1,740 there.A question arose as to how Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 25 of 57 he knew that Rs. 27,000 were fake currency, whereas Rs. 1,740 were genuine.Moreover, Ms. Deepa Sharma (PW-12), the FSL expert deposed that she received Rs. 27,000 in loose condition.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 25 of 57(xi) The linking evidence regarding chain of events of the source from which the contraband was produced and its final destination was not proved.(xiii) As per judicial as well as other records, the time of arrest of A-1 on 23rd March 2007, was 7:30 pm the CDR for mobile number 9873836607 showed that A-1 was still making calls to A-2 at around 19:41:07 pm to 19:41:35 pm (call No.8629).Further, DW-4 deposed that at around 19:32:47 pm he was in Bhairon Marg and not Ganesh Nagar.If, as per DW-4, the said mobile remained switched off w.e.f. 12:03 noon on 15th March 2007, there was no need to obtain any sanction for interception of such call.The circumstance in which A-3 was arrested was also doubtful.He was arrested on 26th July 2008 while he had already been arrested Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 26 of 57 in FIR No. 77/07 with the same Special Cell.This happened after the report of the handwriting expert was received by the learned trial Court on 5th May 2008, which showed that the signature of A-1 on various documents were forged whereupon the prosecution panicked and to do damage control, made A-3 an accused in the cases.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 26 of 57He had complained against ASI Ombir Singh, who was then dismissed from service after a departmental inquiry.Apart from reiterating many of the above submissions, Mr. Gautam, learned counsel for A-2 pointed out inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses as to the time and place of arrest and the steps taken thereafter.It was pointed out that the mobile phone remained with the IO for a long time.Therefore, his statement could not be said to be voluntary.Mr. Gautam submitted that inasmuch as the case property was taken to the office and not deposited at the nearest PS, an adverse inference ought Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 27 of 57 to be drawn against the police.There was no evidence to prove that A-2 was a member of the KZF.The mobile phone seized from A-2, i.e., 9821060613 was not in his name.It was not shown to him either.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 27 of 57Mr. Anurag Jain, learned counsel appearing for A-3, submitted that he was falsely implicated in this case.The mobile conversations which allegedly took place between the accused persons were false, and concocted.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 28 of 573 were missing.There was no evidence to show that A-3 had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other accused to deal in trafficking of fake currency, arms and ammunition and heroine.He further stated that he handed over the parcels to MHC (M) HC Mahavir Singh (PW-5) who affirmed the same.As regards the deposit of parcels and FSL forms, PW-Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 29 of 578 stated that four samples sealed with the seal of HS and PNS along with FSL forms were handed over to PW-11 by a road certificate.PW-11 affirmed the same and stated that he deposited the samples with FSL Rohini.PW-14 affirmed that she received the four sealed parcels along with FSL form and specimen seal impression as HS and PNC for chemical examination.According to Mr. Katyal, the site plan (PW-17/A) when read in consonance with the evidence of the witnesses shows that there was no discrepancy as regards the place of apprehension at the spot.The reports under Section 57 NDPS Act (Ex.PW-6/C) & Ex.PW-6/E) having the receiving of office of ACP, Special Cell, NR were also proved by Ex.PW6/D and F.As regards the mobile phones used by A-2, Mr. Katyal pointed out that from the CDR of Mobile No. 9871060613 it was apparent that it was being used on both the mobile phones i.e., Nokia 2300 (IMEI 355361003085245) having a SIM of Airtel and Nokia 8310 (IMEI 350700106948921) having SIM of Hutch.The mobile Phone No. 9999579926 was admittedly in the name of A-2 himself that was used on Nokia 8310 as evidenced from the CDR.As regards A-1, the mobile instrument is Motorola 5960 (IMEI 358612004213070) with the SIM of Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 30 of 57 Hutch.The second phone was recovered from A-1 was Nokia 1110 with IMEI 354540018396 as 6223) with the SIM of Hutch.On these mobile instruments the mobile numbers of 9888979849 and 9811328172 were used.The third was Sony Eriksson with the IMEI 354244013209750 having a SIM of Hutch.Till placing on record the intercepted conversations, A-2 took the stand that the mobiles were not recovered from them.The intercepted conversations showed that A-1 and A-2 knew each other very well and were involved in some clandestine activity.Neither the CDRs nor the voice interceptions could be manipulated with the mobile phone.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 30 of 57As regards the beatings given to A-1 and A-2, Mr. Katyal pointed out that during police custody of A-1 and A-2, they were produced before doctors for their medical check-up and in none of the reports there was any complaint made regarding the alleged beatings.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 31 of 57It was pointed out that the retraction statements of A-2 showed that when he was produced before the Court, he did not complain of any torture.The plea that they were kept standing outside the Court of the learned MM, when remand was sought, was not substantiated.Inspector Preetam Singh (PW-24), SHO, PS Sidhwa Bet confirmed that A-3 had been arrested in FIR No. 164 of 2007 and mobile phones and other materials had been recovered from him.Mr. Katyal took the Court through the various interception orders.The intercepted calls were copied on DVD/CD and were seized by seizure memo.He Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 32 of 57 submitted that the trial Court had extensively dealt with the evidence on record and had rightly convicted them in the manner indicated hereinabove Electronic evidence and Section 65-B of the Evidence ActCriminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 32 of 57Among the critical pieces of evidence the intercepted conversations on the mobile phones allegedly used by the three accused and the call detail records (CDRs) of those phones.PW-1 revealed some facts to PW-16 by keeping his operation to be secret.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 34 of 57PW-1 stated that he was given permission only on 2nd April 2008 to hand over the intercepted phone conversations transcriptions in a pen drive to SI Upender Solanki (PW-17).The conversations between the accused persons were intercepted and provided to the office of the Special Cell.They were translated into Hindi.Since A-3 knew only Gurumukhi, the calls pertaining to him were translated.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 35 of 57When the DVD prepared by PW-17 (Ex.P-26) for reference was produced, defence counsel objected to it in view of Section 65B EA.They also objected to marking of CD (Ex.PW-29) containing the questioned conversation with the specimen voice sample taken of A-3 during investigation.The transcripts of those conversations were also exhibited as Ex.P30 to Ex.Likewise, the CD containing the selected calls of each of the other accused were tendered in evidence.They too were objected to by the defence counsel.Those conversations were nevertheless played in Court and transcripts thereof also produced.In his cross-examination PW-17 stated as under:""The original device on which the intercepted call records pertaining to this case was not sent for examination to the FSL.I was only given the pen drive in which the said intercepted call details were copied by SI Harbir Singh.I did not see from where these call details were copied.PW-17 further stated as under:Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 36 of 57An application was filed by the prosecution before the trial Court under Section 311 Cr PC.In the further examination-in-chief, PW-17 stated as under:""After SI Harbir Singh handed over the said pen drive to me at about 7 pm and I copied the data from the same in the hard disk of the computer system that I was using at that time.Since the calls ran into thousands, it took me almost three months to hear all the calls and thereafter, I copied all the calls in DVD Ex.P26 and the relevant calls in the CDs Ex.P29, P36, and P38 (the CDs and the DVD will be heard by this Court during the final arguments).I had returned the pen drive to SI Harbir Singh on 2 nd April 2008 itself and after copying the data in the computer system.I had copied the data in a file which could only be accessed by using the password which was known to me only.Nobody could have accessed to file made by me without my knowledge.During the three months period, no fault occurred in the computer system in which the relevant file was stored and neither was the said file corrupted in any manner.I state that the calls recorded in the CDs and the DVDs Ex.I have no personal knowledge whether Harbir Singh could have tampered or manipulated the data in the pen drive.I did not Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 37 of 57 at any time hear the original intercepted calls.I did not seize the hard disk of the original computer system from which the intercepted calls were copied.""I did not have access to any such record.A separate folder was prepared.In effect what was happening in the process was that electronic data was copied from one device to a pen drive.When he was examined in detail it became apparent that what was being spoken of was the making of further copies of those copies.The original remained on a server which none of the other persons had occasion to access.No such person was examined in the present case.It has also come in the evidence of PW-17 himself that ""I did not at any time make an enquiry whether the original computer monitoring system which was recording the intercepted call had a breakdown or not.""Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 41 of 57The other piece of electronic evidence is the intercepted mobile conversations.PW-28 Dr. Rajinder Singh, the CFSL expert, who analysed the voice samples stated in his cross-examination: ""The intercepting machine was not sent to us and the questioned sample was sent in a cassette."" As far as Inspector Sandip Malhotra (PW-30) is concerned, his evidence is to the effect that he was the administrative head of the system which was used for monitoring the calls.The password of the said system remained with him.He opened the system using the password and in his presence PW-1 copied the relevant calls."" In his cross-examination by counsel for A-1, he stated ""I was throughout present with SI Harbir Singh when he copied the data from the monitoring system.It took about 8-9 hours to copy the data.It further declared:Case against A-3As far as the case of A-3 Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukhi (the Appellant in Crl.A. No. 607 of 2014) is concerned, the entire case of the prosecution against him is based on electronic records.It may be recalled that Sukhwinder was already arrested in some other case when the investigation of the present case was underway.Initially, the FIR did not include the name of Sukhwinder.Therefore, as far as A-3, Sukhwinder @ Sukhi is concerned, the entire electronic records have to be kept out of consideration.There is no dispute that as far as A-3 is concerned, there is absolutely no other evidence to connect him to the two accused, i.e., A-1 and A-2 and to bring home the charges framed against him after the filing of the supplementary chargesheet.In the view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the trial Court convicting A-3, Sukhwinder @ Sukhi for the offences with which he was charged with cannot be sustained.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 45 of 57Case against A-1 and A-2The members of the raiding team who were present at the spot and have deposed in this behalf are SI Harbir Singh (PW-1), SI Ramvir (PW-4), HC Ajay Kumar (PW-10) and Inspector Anil Dureja (PW-16) who was heading the raiding team.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 46 of 57The case of the prosecution is that from the polythene bag carried by A-1, two packets of 1 kg each of heroin was seized.Also from the personal search of A-1, PW-1 recovered one pistol, 1 magazine and 18 live cartridges.From the back bag carried by A-2, two packets of 1 kg each of heroin were recovered.Thereafter, PW-17 conducted personal search of both the accused, wherein he recovered from A-1, Rs. 28,740 consisting of 27 currency notes of Rs. 1,000 denomination and from A-2 Rs. 2,025 consisting of two currency notes of Rs. 1,000 denomination.The third set of recoveries were made from the personal search of both the accused.A perusal of the trial Court judgment shows that extensive reliance has been placed on the intercepted telephone conversations which were produced by the police with the supplementary chargesheet.The trial Court reproduced the intercepted conversations in paras 43 and 44 and also relied upon the evidence gathered from the intercepted conversations which were recorded in the CDs in paras 46 toOn the aspect of arrest of A-1 and A-2, the genesis of the case assumes significance.Compliance with Section 42 NDPS is thrown into doubt on account of the fact that in the supplementary charge sheet the Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 47 of 57 prosecution has come up with the theory that the information regarding the possible handing over of narcotics by A-1 and A-2 to a Nigerian was chanced upon while tapping the mobile conversations.This is very different from the secret informer giving that information to Anil Dureja.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 47 of 57Compliance with Section 50 and the evidence of the handwriting expertCriminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 48 of 57Para 54 of the trial Court judgment deals with evidence of the handwriting expert Mr. T. Joshi of CFSL, Chandigarh examined as CW-1. A-1's specimen writings and signatures were collected and sent to CW-1 for examination.As such, it is not been possible to link the authorship of the mark Q-1 to Q-11 with the standard writing S-1 to S-4, AS-1 and AS-2.""CW-1 further categorical stated ""I could not link the authorship of questioned writing Mark Q-1 to Q-11 with the standard writing Mark S-1 to S-4, AS-1 and AS-2"".In his further cross-examination he stated that ""the writing features that were observed in the questioned writings were not observed in the standard writing as we consider the strokes, curvatures, alignment and other parameters were different in the questioned and standard writings but one of the parameter, i.e., pressure could not studied from the questioned signature and meaning thereby the writing features of questioned documents and standard writing could not be linked."" When asked to elaborate what was the parameter which was lacking, he clarified ""The parameter was the greater pressure in the Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 49 of 57 questioned writing not in the standard writing and the same cannot be asked from the agency.""It was for the prosecution to explain under what circumstances different signatures, other than those of A-1, appeared on those documents.The trial Court took exception to both A-1 and A-2 tearing up the notices under Section 50 NDPS Act that were served on them.In this context, the plea of the accused that they were subject to torture while in custody assumes significance.On the aspect of torture of both A-1 and A-2 while in custody, the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in that regard.It merely called for a report and directed the Police Commissioner to hold an enquiry to determine who the erring police officials were and thereafter to take necessary action against them.The trial Court overlooked the fact that normally the accused is unable to produce any direct evidence to make the good the plea that he was tortured in the police custody.In this case however apart from taking the plea in his statement under Section 313 Cr PC that he was tortured in the police custody he also produced a defence witness Dr. Anand Kumar, Medical Officer in Tihar Jail (DW-1).DW-1 produced the medical record of A-2 (Ex.He categorically stated ""on examination, pattern Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 51 of 57 bruises were found present over the left of the back and he was prescribed medication for the pain.As per the in and out register record, this accused was examined by then medical officer Dr. Rakesh.He was not shaken in his cross-examination.He further clarified ""The first medical examination of an accused admitted in jail is conducted immediately on the entering of the accused in the jail premises and he is not allowed to go inside the jail premises without the said examination and therefore the injuries mentioned on the first examination record of an accused cannot ever be received by him inside the jail.""Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 51 of 57Nothing significant was elicited by the APP in the cross-examination of DW-1 and DW-5 to discredit their testimony.The Court concludes that both A-1 and A-2 have probablised their version that they were subjected to torture in police custody.Consequently, their so-called confessional statements could hardly be taken to be voluntary.The defence evidence ought not to have been overlooked while assessing the Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 52 of 57 story of the prosecution about both A-1 and A-2 being apprehended from the spot i.e., outside the public toilet near Patparganj.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 52 of 57Contradictions in evidence of PWs as to the place of arrestIn para 56 of the trial Court judgment, the various contradictions pointed out in the statements of the prosecution witnesses have been dismissed by holding that it has no major significance which goes to the root of the matter.These inconsistencies pertain to certain important aspects regarding the place from where both the accused A-1 and A-2 were apprehended.According to the prosecution both the accused were intercepted when they were outside the public toilet near Ganesh Nagar crossing.This implied that they had come from the Laxmi Nagar side.However, none of the witnesses had spoken in one voice on this aspect.It has been pointed out that Anil Dureja (PW-16) in his cross-examination stated that the deployment of the police personnel was near the Mother Dairy on both sides.He did not remember what the distance was between the Ganesh Nagar chowk and the Mother Dairy.The distance between the Laxmi Nagar bridge and the Mother Dairy is stated to be 150 meters.The distance between the toilet at Ganesh Nagar and the Mother Dairy is almost 50 meters.If the police personnel were deployed within 10-15 meters on Mother Dairy then it is clear that they were not at the spot where the two accused were.PW-10 on the other hand stated that he had taken the position near the 'roundabout' near Mother Dairy.There was in fact no roundabout within 50 meters from the bridge.Even PW-1 talks about taking position near the crossing of the gol chakkar after getting Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 53 of 57 down from the over bridge.There is no gol chakkar at that spot.The site plan filed by the prosecution does not show any gol chakkar.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 53 of 57The further contradictions are that while PW-1 stated that both the accused came to the place from the Laxmi Nagar side, PW-4 stated that they came from the Shakarpur side.Even if both Shakarpur and Laxmi Nagar bridge are on the same side, this is contradicted by PW-10 who states that they approached the place from the Patparganj side which is opposite to the Laxmi Nagar side.It is also clear that with respect to the recovery of three things from the personal search of the accused i.e. fake currency notes, the mobile phones and the pistol and live cartridges, the seizure and recovery memos had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.With the signatures of A-1 on the said documents not being proved beyond reasonable doubt the prosecution has been unable to establish whether the seizures took place in the manner indicated.There is another aspect of the recoveries which has completely been missed by the trial Court.PW-16 has stated that he deposited the recoveries in the malkhana, whereas, PW-13 stated that he called the MHC(M) HC Mahavir Singh and handed over the articles to him.PW-17 states that he took out Rs.27,000/- from the sealed pullandas and kept back Rs.1740 there.In his cross examination, PW-17 states that ""It is correct that fact that the sealed envelope which was opened to take out the notes was preserved was not mentioned Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 54 of 57 in my records.I do not remember whether the envelop used by me for keeping the balance of Rs 1740 was the same envelope in which the original amount of Rs 28740 was kept.It is correct that no description of the seal which was affixed on the said envelop has been mentioned in Ex. PW4/A. Even on 4 th April 2007, I had not verified the contents of the case property but had only opened the pullandas of jamatalashi.I do not remember whether I had even broken the seal on the envelope containing the currency notes or I had managed to take out the notes without breaking the said seals.I do not remember whether I had resealed the envelope.I do not know how the remaining currency notes were kept.It is incorrect to suggest that no counterfeit currency was recovered from the accused"".Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 54 of 57109. PW-17 fails to explain how he knew that Rs.27,000 which he had taken from there were the fake currency notes and that the rest of the amount was of counterfeit.Ms. Deepa, Assistant Director FSL Rohini (PW-17) stated that she received the notes (29 notes of 1000 each, 27 recovered from A-1 and 2 from A-2) in loose condition.This is again a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution.While one mobile phone seized from A-3 was shown to belong to him, the prosecution failed to connect the mobile phones recovered from A-1 and A-2 with them.The relevant records show who the subscriber to the SIM was but not whose photo was on the customer application.Those subscribers were not examined as witnesses.It appears to the Court that the trial Court proceeded essentially on the basis of the intercepted conversations and the transcripts of those conversations and therefore overlooked the serious lacunae as far as the other evidence is concerned.Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 of 2014, 529 of 2014 & 607 of 2014 Page 55 of 57It is seen that the trial Court discarded the evidence of A-2 that the motorcycle was seized from the parking lot.It noted that in his bail application A-2 took a stand different from what he stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr PC.In his bail application, he claimed that up to the Lal Qila signal, he himself drove the motorcycle following SI Ramesh Sharma and thereafter he was forced to accompany them in a car.Finding these pleas to be to be contrary, the trial Court drew an adverse inference against him.The Court finds this approach of the trial Court to be an unsafe one to adopt in a criminal case where an accused has a fundamental right against self- incrimination.Apart from saying that it was perhaps thrown away by the accused, there appears to be no effort made to recover the key from near the place of interception.When viewed in the background of the totality of the prosecution case, this appears to be a significant lacuna.Each of the above aspects when considered separately may not be sufficient by themselves to create a doubt about the case of the prosecution, but when viewed in totality, the prosecution evidence cannot be said to inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and point unmistakably to their guilt.The records be returned to the trial Court forthwith.",['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
"A perusal of the CD file shows that the Child Welfare Committee,Kanyakumari District, also after examining the detenu and the unwillingnessof the parents of the detenu to take the detenu back to their home, entrustedthe custody of the minor detenu with the fifth respondent, namely,R.Jeyarani, W/o.Ramu, who is the sister of the petitioner herein.The documents produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutorshows that the detenu in her own handwriting wrote a letter stating that sheis not ready and willing to go with her parents and yet another statementgiven by the fifth respondent, namely, R.Jeyarani, W/o.Ramu, shows that sheis prepared to take care of the detenu at her home.Therefore, the ChildWelfare Committee keeping in mind the fact that the detenu is a minor, took adecision to send her back to her parental home.But, peculiarly andsurprisingly, the parents expressed their unwillingness to take the detenu totheir home for the reason that the fourth respondent has been frequentlygiving phone calls threatening them not to interfere with the life of thedetenu.Therefore, the detenu was sent along with the fifth respondent, whois the sister of the petitioner.It is seen that the registration of the case against the fourthrespondent has ultimately ended in granting anticipatory bail to him by theFast Track Mahila Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.We are surprised to seethat how this is possible for the Mahila Court to grant anticipatory bail tothe fourth respondent, who is said to have kidnapped a minor girl.In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, since theparents are not willing to take back the detenue with them, we areconstrained to send the detenu, namely, Jesila, to Vidiyal Home, Muthupatti,Near Palanganatham, Madurai, till she attains the age of 18 years.Wedirect the Authorities of the Home not to permit the fourth and the fifthrespondent at any point of time, to see the detenu.With above directions, this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed.1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.5.The Superintendent, Vidial Home, Muthupatti, Near Palanganatham, Madurai..[Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.] The petitioner, namely, K.Vijayarani, the mother of the detenu, namely,Jesila, has come to this Court seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing therespondents No.1 to 3 to produce the person or body of the Petitioner's minordaughter, namely, Jesila (17/17), D/o.Kannan @ Morris, before this Court andset her at liberty.2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that thepetitioner, her husband and the detenu are residing peacefully.Takingadvantage of the fact that the petitioner's husband is a physicallychallenged person, who has lost his hands and one leg in an accident, thefourth respondent Mr.M.Neveen forcibly knocked the door of the petitioner'shouse at 11.30 p.m., on 10.09.2016 and opened the door and finally, kidnappedthe petitioner's minor daughter at knife point.The petitioner's husband,who is a physically challenged person was unable to stop the said illegalactivity made by the fourth respondent, who is already a married man andhaving two children.In themeanwhile, the fourth respondent has obtained Anticipatory Bail byapproaching the Fast Track Mahila Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, inCr.Now, the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kanyakumari, is conducting investigation inthat case.Pursuant thereto, the detenu was secured and producedbefore us.Parents of the detenu and the fifth respondent, who is sister of thepetitioner also appeared before us.After a formal interrogation with thefather and mother of the detenu, the parents have expressed their difficultyin taking the detenu back to their home citing a reason that everyday, thefourth respondent, namely, M.Naveen is frequently visiting the fifthrespondent's house, wherein the detenu has been taking shelter and he hasbeen giving unnecessary phone calls to the parents of the detenu threateningthat if they further interfered with the life of the detenu, they would bedone away with.In view of the said statement, we posed a question to the parents ofthe detenu, since the detenu is minor as on today, her custody should betaken by them as legal guardian.The parents of the detenu jointly repliedstating that they are not in a position to take the custody of the detenuapprehending further complications for the reason that the police had nottaken any legal action against the fourth respondent when they reported tothe police station on receipt of threatening phone calls from the fourthrespondent.At this point of time, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor hasproduced the CD file.We are also giving liberty to the parents of the detenu to approachthe jurisdictional police station for police protection if situationwarrants.If any such complaint is lodged by the parents of the detenu, theconcerned Police Officers are directed to register a case against theintruder.2.The Inspector of Police, Ethamozhi Police Station, Kanyakumari District.3.The Inspector of Police, South Thamaraikulam Police Station, Kanyakumari District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.",['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Shri G.G. Bade.The appeal is already listed for final hearing today.The appeal is taken up for final hearing.2] The appellant assails the judgment and order dated 05.04.2002 in Sessions Case 33/1998, by and under which, the Ist::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:54:47 ::: apeal232.02.J.odt 2 Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli convicted the appellant for offence punishable under section 435 and 436 of Indian Penal Code and imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and payment of fine of Rs.500/-.3] Shri G.G. Bade, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as ""the accused"") would submit that the judgment impugned is manifestly erroneous and occasions serious miscarriage of justice.He would urge that the prosecution has made no attempt to prove the very sine quo non for constituting offence under section 435 or 436 of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:54:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:54:47 :::Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to amount of one hundred or (in case of agricultural produce) ten rupees.-- Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, damage to any property to the amount of one hundred rupees or upwards [or (where the property is agricultural produce) ten rupees or upwards], shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.Classification of offence.-- The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable and triable by Magistrate of the first class.Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc.-- Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.Classification of Offence.-- The offence under this section is cognizable, non-bailable, non- compoundable and triable by Court of Session.The first ingredient which the prosecution is required to establish is that mischief is committed.Mischief is defined in::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:54:47 ::: apeal232.02.J.odt 4 section 425 of I.P.C. thus:::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:54:47 ::: apeal232.02.J.odt 5::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:54:47 :::The prosecution was therefore, statutorily mandated to prove that the accused set afire his own hut with the intention to cause, or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person.7] I have scrutinized the record to ascertain as to what weighed with the learned Sessions Judge in recording a finding that charge under section 435 and 436 of I.P.C. is brought home by the prosecution, but in vain.The prosecution case is that the accused set afire to his own hut which admittedly was located on government land.It is not the case of the prosecution that there were any hut or dwelling around or in the immediate vicinity and that the accused intended to cause damage or loss to some other building or dwelling or property and with such intent set afire his own hut.The learned A.P.P. makes an attempt to support the judgment impugned by contending that one Shamrao Kisan Dhore had kept his tur sticks (fodder) in the open land in the vicinity of the hut of the accused.The person who allegedly kept the fodder near the hut of the accused is not examined.Nothing is brought on record by the prosecution to suggest much less conclusively prove that the intent of the accused in burning down his own hut was to cause loss to any other person.::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:54:47 ::: apeal232.02.J.odt 6 8] I must also record, that three witnesses who allegedly witnessed the incident were examined by the prosecution.Out of the three witnesses P.W.1 admits in the cross-examination that he did not witness the accused doing the act.Even P.W.5 also admits in the cross-examination that he did not witness the accused burning down the hut.He states that he heard shouts, saw the accused running and some persons chasing him and therefore, joined the chase.I must observe, that not only is the prosecution a miserable failure in proving the basic ingredient of section 435 and 436 of I.P.C., as noted supra, even the evidence on record is grossly insufficient to prove, much less proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused set afire to his own hut.::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:54:47 :::9] I am afraid that the judgment impugned is manifestly erroneous.It is a matter of some concern that neither the learned Sessions Judge nor the battery of defence counsel, applied mind to the scope and ambit of section 435 and 436 of I.P.C. nor did they make any attempt to find out or ascertain from the material on record as to whether the basic ingredient of 435 and 436 of I.P.C., which is that mischief must be committed, is established.::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:54:47 ::: apeal232.02.J.odt 7 10] The appeal is allowed.The accused is acquitted of offence punishable under section 435 and 436 of I.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:54:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:54:47 :::",['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code']
"found that there was prima facie case against six persons, namely, Virbal, Bihari, Shishupal, Kandiya, Gangadhar and Gyasiya and he fixed the date for further proceedings against these six persons.Subsequent to the filing of this private complaint, in respect of the same matter, the Police filed a Challan Under Section 307, IPC against five persons, namely, Bihari, Shishupal, Gyasiya, Ramchand and Manphool.Of these Bihari, Shishupal, Gyasiya, are common accused in the complaint and the Challan.All the accused filed an application before the trial Court that both the complaint case and the Challan of the Police should be tried together.The Magistrate rejected this application against which the accused filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, who has referred the case to the High Court.",['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
"A.No.120/2011 Page 1 of 18A.No.120/2011 Page 1 of 18On 24.07.2005 at about 04.00 or 04.15 A.M. ASI Jaipal Singh, Head Constable Jagdish Prasad and Constable Raj Rao were on duty in PCR van at Madhuban Chowk, Rohini.An informer told them about hearing cries of a woman from a park towards Deepali Chowk.Immediately, they went to the spot and found a man committing rape upon a lady while the other wearing kurta-pyjama had caught hold of her hands.Constable Raj Rao apprehended him when he attempted to escape.The person who was performing sex with the lady was apprehended by ASI Jaipal Singh.Daily Diary (DD) No.9A was recorded at Police Station, Rohini.SI Harjinder Rana went to the spot and took custody of the appellants.She recorded ASI Jaipal Singh's statement and lodged First Information Report.Prosecutrix 'G' (assumed name) and both the appellants were taken to Sh.Baba Sahib Ambedkar Hospital (in short 'BSA) for medical examination.Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.The exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory.Pursuant to the appellant's disclosure statements their involvement in case FIR No.338/2005 under Section 457/380 IPC at Police Station, Rohini surfaced and their correct names were ascertained Virender @ Lala and Kailash.The prosecutrix 'G' was admitted for treatment at IHBAS.After completion of investigation, a Crl.A.No.120/2011 Page 2 of 18 charge-sheet was filed against the appellants.A.No.120/2011 Page 3 of 18 emerged in the testimonies of PCR officials as to where they were stationed; at what distance the spot of occurrence was and at which specific place the prosecutrix was found.There were residential houses nearby, but no independent public witness was associated.It is highly unbelievable that none of the residents would hear cries of the lady from the nearby park.The appellants have not challenged their presence and apprehension by PCR officials on the relevant date and time.They claimed that they had confrontation with the PCR officials and were falsely implicated when they did not accede to their demand to pay illegal gratification.A-2 had consumed liquor and it was detected during medical examination (Ex.PW4/B).A-2 in 313 statement admitted that they were drunk.They did not elaborate when and at which place, they had consumed liquor.DD No.9A (Ex.PW-15/K) recorded at 04.31 a.m. at Police Station Rohini reveals that two men have been apprehended with a lady in the park, near Deepali Chowk from where her cries were coming.The prosecutrix 'G' a hapless lady lived alone on the footpath.She was mentally retarded.Kuldeep Singh, recorded in the MLC (Ex.PW-4/A) that she was talking 'irrelevantly'.Considering her mental condition, she was sent to IHBAS for examination.On 28.07.2005, after considering report from IHBAS, she was admitted there for treatment.She was diagnosed having 'Unspecified Psychosis'.The Investigating Officer was not able to record her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She was taken to Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini at 07.20 a.m. on 24.07.2005 where her MLC (Ex.PW-4/A) was prepared.The MLC records that she was a victim of rape at about 03.45 P.M. that Crl.A.No.120/2011 Page 5 of 18 day.He disclosed that at about 04.15 A.M. they got information from a vehicle owner that he had heard cries of a lady from a park at Deepali Chowk.When they reached in the park at A-3 Block, Sector-8, Rohini, they saw 'G' was lying naked on the ground and was crying.A boy wearing kurta-pyjama had caught hold of her hands and the other person was performing sex with her.The boy wearing kurta-pyjama attempted to escape but was caught hold by Constable Raj Rao.The man who was in naked condition was caught hold by him.Their names were ascertained Ravinder and Satyawan @ Sultan.He apprised the control room.Local police arrived at the spot.The occurrence took place at 4/4.15 A.M. First information Report was lodged promptly without any delay at 06.00 A.M. ASI Jaipal Singh attributed specific role to the each accused in his statement Ex.PW2/A given to the police at the earliest- soon after the incident.While appearing as PW-2, he (ASI Jaipal Singh) proved the said version without any variation and deposed that on 24.07.2005, he was posted at PCR, North-West Zone.On getting information from some vehicle owner Crl.A.No.120/2011 Page 6 of 18 at about 04.00 a.m. about hearing cries of a lady in the park near Deepali Chowk, he informed PCR Commander for further direction to reach the spot.On reaching in the park at A-3 Block, Sector -8, Rohini, they saw a lady crying.Two persons were there, one of them had caught hold of her hands while the other was committing rape upon her.The lady was asked to put on her clothes.On inquiry from the victim, he came to know that she was not of stable mind.SI Harjinder Rana reached the spot with senior officers and recorded his statement (Ex.PW-2/A).In the cross- examination, he stated that the distance between Madhuban Chowk and Deepali Chowk was 2.5 kilometer.He fairly admitted inability to furnish description of the informer.He was not able to refer to the make of the car.They entered inside the park from the ring road side.There were trees in the park.SI Harjinder Rana reached the spot after half an hour.He stayed there uptill 08.30 A.M. He further admitted that he did not hand over any report regarding calls made to headquarters.There were lights in the park.Information to the local police was sent around 04.15 a.m. He denied that the accused going in the car, were stopped at Madhuban Chowk and money was demanded from them.The place of occurrence was residential area.He was not aware if the accused's car was parked near the place of incident or not.On scanning his deposition, Crl.He had no prior animosity with the accused to falsely implicate them in the incident.The investigation was carried out subsequently by local police at Rohini and PCR officials had no say to fabricate the evidence.He and his colleagues had reached the spot in the performance of their official duties and were able to apprehend the accused with the lady.No suggestion was put in the cross-examination that he was not on official duty that time.Thereafter, they rushed to the spot.They saw that a man was committing sex with a lady Crl.A.No.120/2011 Page 8 of 18 and another person wearing kurta-pyjama had caught hold of her hands.The lady was crying.On seeing them, the person who had caught hold the lady's hands tried to run away.He immediately apprehended him and his name was ascertained Ravinder.The person committing rape was apprehended by ASI Jaipal Singh.He was not wearing any clothes at that time.He disclosed his name Satyawan.The prosecutrix was unable to furnish her details and it appeared that she was mentally retarded.ASI Jaipal directed her to wear her clothes.After 10-15 minutes, local police arrived and recorded their statements.In the cross-examination, he explained that the person who gave the information had come in a car at around 04.00 a.m. ASI Jaipal had not noted down the description of the person and the car.It had taken 7-8 minutes to reach the spot.They left the spot after 10-15 minutes on arrival of the Investigating Officer.He denied that the accused were implicated as they refused to pay bribe to them.He admitted that there were residential houses around the place of incident.Material facts regarding the incident remained unchallenged in the cross-examination of this witness.No suggestion was put to him that he with ASI Jaipal Singh had not gone to the park and prosecutrix 'G' was not recovered from there.It was not specifically put as to which of the Crl.They came back along with a lady and two persons.He identified both the appellants A-1 and A-2 brought by ASI Jaipal Singh and Constable Raj Rao.Message was given to the control room and police official of police station Rohini reached the spot.In the cross-examination, he stated that he remained at the spot for about ten minutes.He further stated that their statements are recorded by the Investigating Officer.Again nothing was suggested to PW-1 that ASI Jaipal Singh and Constable Raj Rao had not gone inside the park and had not returned with the prosecutrix and the appellants.She deposed that when she was sleeping on the road on footpath, two men took her to a park 'when morning was to commence'.One of them caught hold of her and the other did 'jabardasti' with her.She further elaborated that the said person opened his pants and removed her salwar and did 'galatkam' with her forcibly.Then PCR van came and the police officials got her released from those two men.She identified and re-cognized Kailash who committed rape upon her and Virender who had caught hold of her hands.The incident took place around 04.30 a.m. She could guess the time by 'seeing stars'.She elaborated that she was woken up by two persons present in the court and they dragged her.She did not shout as both of them did 'jabardasti' with her.PW-4/A).There is no conflict between the ocular and medical evidence.They did not furnish their correct particulars and gave incorrect names.Subsequently, it was found that their correct name were Virender and Kailash.Both had consumed liquor.They did not explain their presence in the park at odd hours with the prosecutrix.The appellants who had consumed liquor exploited innocence of a mentally retarded lady whose mental faculties were under developed and who lived alone on footpath.They took her to a nearby park to satisfy Crl.A.No.120/2011 Page 16 of 18 their lust and committed rape upon her.Due to her metal conditions, she was not able to put resistance.A young lady leading a vagabond life was subjected to gang rape under the cover of her mental condition.The appellants Virender @ Lalla @ Bhura (A-1) and Kailash @ Satyawan @ Sultan @ Kala (A-2) challenge judgment dated 13.12.2010 in Sessions Case No.109/2009 arising out of FIR No.729/2005 registered at Police Station Rohini by which they were convicted for committing offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC.By an order dated 04.01.2011, they were sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine of `5,000/- each.They were duly charged and brought to trial.The prosecution examined 15 witnesses to substantiate the charges.In their 313 statements, the appellants pleaded false implication.On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment held both the appellants perpetrators of the crime and sentenced them.A.No.120/2011 Page 2 of 183. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that there was no legal evidence against the appellants to base conviction.The Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error in relying upon the testimonies of police witnesses with whom the appellants had an altercation on demand of bribe.Statement of the prosecutrix was not recorded during investigation.In her cross- examination, she categorically admitted that she was tutored by the Investigating Officer.Presence of ASI Jaipal Singh, Head Constable Jagdish Prasad and Constable Raj Rao at the spot is highly doubtful.No log book/register maintained in the vehicle was produced.The informer was not cited as a witness.The prosecution witnesses were unable to disclose the name of the informer and the vehicle in which he was travelling.The MLC and FSL reports do not establish appellants' involvement in the incident.Vital contradictions and inconsistencies have Crl.Test Identification Proceedings were not conducted.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the prosecutrix's statement has been corroborated by PCR officials and there are no good reasons to discard their statements.A.No.120/2011 Page 3 of 18I have considered the submissions of the parties and have examined the Trial Court record.They did not specify as to which of the police official Crl.A.No.120/2011 Page 4 of 18 had demanded bribe from them.PCR officials came into motion when an unknown informer disclosed that he had heard cries of a woman in the park at Deepali Chowk.Both the appellants were apprehended from the park with the lady.There was no occasion for the PCR officials to have confrontation with the appellants at Madhuban Chowk.It lends credence to the prosecution version that she was found in the park and was a victim of sexual assault.A.No.120/2011 Page 4 of 18A.No.120/2011 Page 5 of 18The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report on the statement of ASI Jaipal Singh (Ex.PW-2/A).The accused did not deny their apprehension with the lady from the park.PW-2 (ASI Jaipal)'s statement that rape was being committed upon the lady while the other had caught hold of her hands has remained uncontroverted and unchallenged in the cross-examination.A.No.120/2011 Page 6 of 18A.No.120/2011 Page 7 of 187. PW-8 (Constable Raj Rao), another police official posted in PCR van has corroborated PW-2's testimony in entirety.He also deposed that on 24.07.2005 he was posted in PCR vehicle stationed near Madhuban Chowk.At about 04.15 A.M. some vehicle owner informed ASI Jaipal that a lady was crying in a park, Sector-8, Rohini.ASI Jaipal Singh immediately sent a message to command room.A.No.120/2011 Page 9 of 18 PCR officials had demanded bribe and for what reason.PW-8 was not acquainted with the accused prior to the incident.A.No.120/2011 Page 8 of 18A.No.120/2011 Page 9 of 188. PW-1 (Head Constable Jagdish Prashad) has supplemented the statements of PW-2 and PW-8 on material facts.He also deposed that on 24.07.2005, he was on duty with ASI Jaipal Singh and Constable Raj Rao in PCR vehicle Commander 41 parked at Madhuban Chowk.On 04.00 A.M. the informer told them that he had heard cries of a woman from the side of Deepali Chowk park.He along with other staff went near the park at A-3 Block, Sector-8, Rohini.ASI Jaipal Singh and Raj Rao went inside the park.PW-1 had no ulterior motive to fabricate a false story.A.No.120/2011 Page 10 of 18A.No.120/2011 Page 10 of 18All the three police witnesses PW-1, 2 and 8 have corroborated each other on vital facts.They were not nurturing any grievance or ill-will with the appellants to falsely implicate them in the heinous offence.They were posted on duty in PCR van and on getting information about the commission of a serious offence, in the discharge of their official duties, they rushed to the spot and were able to apprehend the appellants and the lady with whom the sexual assault was committed.The Trial Judge put preliminary questions to her to ascertain if she was capable to give rational answers and was mentally fit to depose.She further deposed that she was taken to the hospital where she was examined.She identified her clothes (Ex.P-1) seized at the hospital.In the cross-examination she stated that the incident took place about three months back.She used to reside permanently on the road.She had no jhuggi or pucca residence.Nobody else resided with her on the road at that time.Five police officials were present in the police vehicle.She further stated that the police vehicle came when she was on the road.She admitted that she identified Kailash and Virender at the instance of the Investigating Officer.She further admitted Crl.A.No.120/2011 Page 13 of 18 that she did not know the accused prior to the incident.They were shown to her by the Investigating Officer when she attended the court on earlier two dates.She further admitted that when the incident took place she was not mentally fit.She denied the suggestion that Kailash did not commit rape upon her and the accused Virender had not caught hold of her.She further denied that the statement was made falsely by her at the instance of Investigating Officer.Prosecutrix's statement, who was mentally retarded, is to be examined as a whole.The whole of the evidence in chief and cross examination has to be read together to find out the truth.Mere reading of a portion of the cross examination, ignoring the chief examination would be misleading.It is true that at some places in the cross-examination she has admitted that both the accused were shown to her by the Investigating Officer and she identified them at her instance.PW-7 is a poor hapless lady who was leading a vagabond life.She used to sleep on footpath.She belonged to the poor section of the society.She was illiterate and rustic witness.She was not expected to recapitulate all minute details of the incident correctly and exactly.However, she was categorical in her deposition before the Court that Kailash committed rape while Virender caught hold of her.In the cross-examination no suggestion was put to her that Kailash and Virender were not found in the Crl.A.No.120/2011 Page 14 of 18 park with her.Nothing was suggested that the prosecutrix was not subjected to sexually assault or that the police officials had not recovered her from the park with the accused.The case was investigated by the police officers of police station Rohini who were having no animosity with the accused.PW-7 'G' was also not acquainted with the accused to falsely identify them at the instance of the investigating officer.She attributed specific role to the each accused.She corroborated statements of PWs 2 and 8 on all material facts.Her testimony consistently matches with the version of every other witness.Minor deviation in the cross- examination on some aspects does not efface her entire deposition.In the decision reported as State of Himachal Pradesh V.Asha Ram AIR 2006 SC 381, Supreme Court highlighted the importance to be given to the testimony of the prosecutrix as under:-A.No.120/2011 Page 12 of 18A.No.120/2011 Page 13 of 18A.No.120/2011 Page 14 of 18""........It is now well-settled principle of law that conviction can be founded on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration.The evidence of a prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness.The testimony of the victim of sexual assault is vital unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable.Even minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.A.No.120/2011 Page 15 of 18Her version that she was sexually assaulted finds reflection in MLC (Ex.PW-4/A).PW-4 (Dr.Kuldeep Singh) examined her on 24.07.2005 at 07.20 a.m. She was taken to hospital by SI Harjinder Rana.In the MLC it is recorded that she was a victim of sexual assault.She was referred to senior gynecologist and was examined by Dr.PW-6 (Dr.Nidhi Tiwari) identified signatures of Dr.Shilpa at point 'X' on MLC (Ex.A.No.120/2011 Page 16 of 18Minor contradictions, discrepancies and improvements highlighted by the counsel for the appellants are inconsequential.They are not of such magnitude to materially affect the trial.These deviations on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case are not enough to reject her testimony in its entirety.Their presence with the prosecutrix inside the park has been established and proved beyond reasonable doubt.Both were apprehended at the spot and were taken to hospital for medical examination.Their vehicle was seized at the spot.Non-examination of informer or independent public witness from the locality is not fatal.The informer set the police machinery into motion.He was not a witness to the occurrence and had heard unusual cries of the lady from the park at odd hours.The Trial Court has dealt with appellant's contention regarding FSL report, absence of injuries etc. minutely and no interference is called for to disturb the said findings.In their 313 statements, the appellants did not offer plausible explanation to the incriminating circumstances proved against them.It is unbelievable that both the appellants would be falsely implicated in heinous offence on their Crl.A.No.120/2011 Page 17 of 18 alleged refusal to pay bribe to the PCR officials.PW-7 'G' had no extraneous consideration to identify the accused as culprits.The testimony of all the witnesses including the prosecutrix is consistent and inspires confident.A.No.120/2011 Page 17 of 18In the light of the above discussion the appeal lacks merits and is dismissed.Trial Court record be sent back forthwith.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE May 10, 2013 sa Crl.A.No.120/2011 Page 18 of 18A.No.120/2011 Page 18 of 18","['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"He has further submitted that on 3.10.2007 the mother of the deceased Sapna Goel along with other near relatives had given an application in writing to the ACP, Tilak Nagar, Delhi that the post mortem on the dead body of her daughter Sapna Goel be waived and the dead body be handed over to them for cremation.He further stated that it is mentioned in the application that deceased Sapna Goel was Crl.P. No. 13/2010 Page No. 1 of 4 happy in her matrimonial home and there was no complaint against the accused persons.So keeping in view the application moved by her mother and other relatives no case is made out against the accused persons.He has further submitted that Dr. L.C. Gupta who has conducted the post mortem is a tainted doctor and some enquiries were pending against him so no reliance can be placed on the report of the post mortem of the said doctor.This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners u/s 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the order dated 30.9.2009 (Order on Charge) and 17.11.2009 (framing of Charge) whereby the learned trial Court has framed Charge against the petitioners under section 302/34 IPC may be set aside and quashed.He has further submitted that learned trial Court had wrongly framed Charge and the petitioners are liable to be discharged.P. No. 13/2010 Page No. 1 of 4On the other hand learned counsel for the State stated that there is sufficient material on record for framing of Charge against the petitioners and the learned trial Court has rightly framed Charge against all the accused persons on the basis of statement recorded by the police of the mother of the deceased and various other near relatives who have made serious allegations against all the petitioners having killed the deceased.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.Although the mother of the deceased Sapna Goel had moved an application before ACP that the post mortem on the dead body of her daughter be waived but it was only because of the fact that she and other near relatives were present at the house of the accused persons and when the I.O S.I. Dharmpal arrived there the accused persons had told her mother and the other relatives and also the police officer that Sapna Goel was drying cloths on the roof of the house and due to giddiness she fell down from the roof and died.Thereafter at the instance of the accused persons an application was moved in writing to ACP, Tilak Nagar, Delhi, for waiving of post mortem of deceased.All the accused persons also moved a similar application to the police for Crl.P. No. 13/2010 Page No. 2 of 4 waiving of post mortem giving the same story in the application.S.I Dharmpal reached the spot when the accused persons were about to take the dead body of the deceased for cremation.S.I Dharampal reached the spot on the basis of a DD No. 21A dated 3.10.2009 wherein somebody had informed the police that a lady has died on account of hanging.On the receipt of this DD, SI Dharampal reached the spot but the S.I. refused to waive of the post mortem and thereafter post mortem was got conducted by Dr. L.C. Gupta on the following day at 4.10 p.m and Dr. L.C. Gupta has given his opinion regarding cause of death as under:-P. No. 13/2010 Page No. 2 of 4Dr. L.C. Gupta has given a clear finding in the post mortem report that all the injuries are ante mortem in nature and homicide cannot be ruled out.So from the findings of doctor in the post mortem report it is clear that this is a case of homicide and the injuries on the dead body are ante mortem in nature and possibility of homicide cannot be ruled out.The arguments of the learned counsel for the accused cannot be accepted that there are some allegations against doctor and some enquiry is pending.Post mortem report cannot be rejected merely on this ground.The mother of the deceased gave statement to the police leveling serious allegations against all the accused persons.Similarly statements of other witnesses have also been recorded by the police in which they Crl.P. No. 13/2010 Page No. 3 of 4 have leveled serious allegations against the accused persons.Police also recorded statement of one Tara Chand Gupta, the Nana of the deceased under section 161 Cr.P.C. He told to the police in his statement that on 2.10.2007 he had received a telephone call from Sapna Goel at about 11 p.m. wherein she wanted to meet him on the following day.He further submitted that he wanted to know the reasons from Sapna Goel but she told him that her Nanand namely Lata and her husband Sanjeev were present in the house so she will told everything on the day when they will meet and the telephone was dis-connected.The police also recorded statement of Priyansi, minor daughter of the deceased under section 161 Cr.P.C. who told the police that on the date of incident her Bua Lata and Sajeev were present in the house and her Bua had made her ready to go to the school when she asked Bua about the well being of her mother she told that she was sleeping as she was not well.Presence of petitioners Lata and Sanjeev has been confirmed by this witness Priyanshi.The police also took 42 photographs of the deceased at the time of the post mortem and these photographs also show the presence of injuries on her neck etc.P. No. 13/2010 Page No. 3 of 4After going through the statements of the witnesses and the post mortem report, I am satisfied that learned trial Court has rightly framed Charge against the petitioners under section 302/201/34 IPC.There is no merit in the revision petition8. Dismissed.P. No. 13/2010 Page No. 4 of 4","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 47 of 2020, under Sections 60/63 U.P. Excise Act, and 420 IPC, Police Station Haldaur, District Bijnor, during pendency of trial.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.The order reads thus:""Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release.""Order Date :- 8.9.2020 Mukesh Kr.","['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on the night intervening 11 th and 12th February 1989 PW-1 Laik Ram, who was security supervisor in Ishvaku India Pvt. Ltd., visited police post Prashant Vihar at around 3.00 AM and informed that on the fateful night at about 2.30 AM when he had gone to check his security staff at Plot No.4, Sector-9, Rohini he was informed by Villan Jamadar that one Surat Ram has been murdered in the jhuggies of Sain Baba Housing Society.On the basis of Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 2 of 21 said information, FIR No.31/1989 under Section 302 IPC was registered at Police Station Samepur Badli.Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 2 of 21ASI Inder Singh also conveyed the information to the SHO and proceeded to the spot of occurrence.SHO Inspector Rati Ram also reached there, and found that the dead body of Surat Ram was lying on a cot in his Jhuggi.The cot as well as the mattress thereupon were stained with blood.Blood stained cot Ex.P-1 and mattress Ex.P-2 were converted into sealed packets and taken into possession.Investigating Officer lifted blood from the spot on a piece of cotton and sealed it in a phial and also took into possession the blood stained earth and the control earth from the spot.He found a green coloured printed saree Ex.P-3 smeared with blood at the roof of adjoining jhuggi which was also converted into a sealed packet and taken into possession.The Investigating Officer got the spot of occurrence photographed and also prepared a rough site plan.He also arranged for sending the dead body for post mortem.During investigation, statement of PW-2 Villan Jamadar was recorded wherein he named the appellants Munna Lal, Sohan Sahai and Asad Bai as the persons who had committed murder of Surat Ram.Dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem.It is further the case of the prosecution that appellant Munna Lal was arrested on 14th February 1989 and on his disclosure and pointing out, blood stained knife/churri Ex.P-4 as also his blood stained kurta and lungi Ex.P-5 and P-6 were recovered, which were converted into sealed Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 3 of 21 packets, and taken into possession.Thereafter, on the same day appellant Sohan Sahai was arrested.He was wearing a blood stained shirt Ex.P-9 which was taken into possession.She made a disclosure statement and in furtherance thereof she got recovered her blood stained petticoat and blouse Ex.P-7 and P-8 which were seized by the police.On 17th February 1989, after the post mortem, a sealed packet containing blood stained clothes of the deceased was also handed over to the police.All those blood stained articles including the weapon of offence were sent for serological examination.Except for petticoat Ex.P-7 and blouse Ex.P-8 of Asad Bai and blood stained earth lifted from the spot of occurrence, which tested positive for blood group `B, all other exhibits tested positive for blood group `O. The knife Ex.P-4 was sent for opinion of the doctor who conducted the post mortem and he opined that the injuries found on the person of deceased Surat Ram could have been caused by the knife Ex.P-9 which appellant Sohan Sahai was found wearing at the time of arrest.He has also drawn our attention to serological reports Ex.It would be seen that PW4 Kul Bahara in his testimony, inter alia, stated thus:These three appeals are directed against the judgment as also order on sentence both dated 31st October 1994 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.18/1994 arising out of FIR No.31/1989 under Section 302/34 IPC, P.S. Samepur Badli.Learned trial Judge vide aforesaid judgment and order on sentence has convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short `IPC) and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months respectively.His statement to that effect was recorded by ASI Inder Singh and sent to the police station for registration of the case.After completion of the investigation, all the three appellants were forwarded for trial under Section 302/34 IPC.Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 3 of 21The learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through the judgment and pointed out that learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded conviction of the appellants relying upon following evidence/circumstances:-(a) Eye witness account of the occurrence given by PW-3 Villan Jamadar.Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 4 of 21(b) Believing the evidence of motive to the effect that appellant Asad Bai wanted to perform second marriage of her daughter Mangli Bai with appellant Sohan Sahai in consideration of Rs.1500/- whereas deceased Surat Ram was against it and wanted Mangli Bai to go back to her husband.(c) The extra judicial confession made by the appellant in presence of PW4 Kul Bahara.(d) Recovery of blood stained weapon of offence i.e. knife/churri Ex.P.4 at the instance of Munna Lal as also recovery of his blood stained kurta Ex.P-5 and lungi Ex.P-6;(e) Recovery of blood stained shirt Ex.P-9 from the person of accused Sohan Sahai;(f) Recovery of blood stained petticoat and blouse Ex.P-7 and Ex.8 at the instance of accused Asad Bai;(g) Serological reports Ex.P-13/1 to Ex.P-13/4, which establish that blood stains on the clothes of Munna Lal and Sohan Sahai as also on the knife/churri Ex.P-4 matched with the blood stains on the clothes of the deceased, the cot and the mattress and blood lifted from the place of occurrence, as all those exhibits had stains of blood group `O.Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that learned trial court has erred in relying upon the testimony of purported eye witness PW-3 Villan Jamadar whose narration, about the manner in which murder took place, is highly unnatural, bordering on fiction and whose presence at the spot is highly doubtful.She has further submitted that the Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 5 of 21 learned trial Judge, though, he has relied upon the testimony regarding extra judicial confession, has failed to take note of the fact that PW-4 Kul Bahara in his cross examination has stated that Asad Bai had confessed about her guilt at the police station.She has argued that since the alleged confession was made while in custody at the police station, it is inadmissible in evidence.Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that the evidence of the prosecution regarding the recovery of the weapon of offence and blood stained clothes at the instance of respective appellants is highly doubtful.She has also drawn our attention to the serological report Ex.PW-13/1 to Ex.PW-13/4 and pointed out that except for the blood stains on the blouse Ex.P-7 and the petticoat Ex.P-8 of Asad Bai and the blood stained earth sample lifted from the spot, which tested positive for blood group `B, all other samples tested positive for blood group `O. She has submitted that this mis-match between the blood stains found on the exhibits, casts doubt on the prosecution case and in particular indicates that someone else who was having blood group `B was there at the spot of occurrence but, there is no explanation forthcoming as to who that person was, whose blood was found in blood stained earth lifted by the Investigating Officer from the spot.Thus, she has argued that a possibility cannot be ruled out that some other person with blood group `B was responsible for the murder of Surat Ram.She has also argued that evidence to prove motive is also not reliable and is liable to be rejected.Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 5 of 21Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 6 of 21Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has argued in favour of the conclusions arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.He has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly relied upon the testimony of PW3 Villan Jamadar, who is a natural witness being a resident of a nearby jhuggi and who had no motive whatsoever to falsely implicate the appellants for the murder of the deceased Surat Ram, which version also finds support from other circumstantial evidence.In support of this contention, he has drawn our attention to the testimony of PW3 Villan Jamadar and PW4 Kul Bahara and submitted that from their evidence, it is amply proved on record that there was a motive on the part of the appellants Asad Bai and Sohan Sahai to kill the deceased, who was not agreeable to second marriage of his daughter Mangli Bai with the appellant Sohan Sahai.P4, blood stained lungi Ex. P-5 and kurta Ex. P-6 of appellant Munna Lal, at his instance, as also the recovery of blood stained petticoat and blouse of appellant Asad Bai Exhibits P-7 and P-8 at her instance and also recovery of blood stained shirt Ex.PW13/1 to Pw13/4 and submitted that the blood stains found on knife/churri Ex.P-4, saree of Asad Bai Ex.P-3, lungi and kurta of appellant Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 7 of 21 Munna Lal Exhibits P-5 and P-6 and shirt of appellant Sohan Sahai Ex.P-9 tested positive for human blood of group ""O"" and those blood stains matched with the blood group of the deceased Surat Ram lifted from the spot in a phial and also the blood stains found on cot Ex.P-1 and mattress Ex.P-2 on which the dead body was found.Thus, he has argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly relied upon the testimony of PW3 Villan Jamadar which finds corroboration from above referred circumstantial evidence of motive as also confession of the appellant Asad Bai and the recovery of the blood stained weapon of offence and clothes at the instance of respective appellants and urged us to dismiss the appeals.Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 7 of 21We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned defence counsel as also the learned counsel for the State.His testimony, however, does not appear to be trustworthy.Firstly, because, the witness in his examination-in-chief has stated that on the fateful night at around 2.00 A.M., he had gone out of his jhuggi to urinate.He heard some noise coming from the jhuggi of Surat Ram, therefore, he peeped into the jhuggi, and he saw in the light of an earthen lamp (diya) that appellant Sohan Sahai was holding Surat Ram by his legs, appellant Asad Bai was holding him by her hands and Munna Lal was cutting his neck with a Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 8 of 21 churri.On seeing this, he went running to Laik Ram, Security Guard of the company and narrated the entire incident to him.Thereafter, he went along with Laik Ram to the police post.If above version of the witness was true, then in the rukka Ex.PW1/A wherein the statement of Laik Ram was recorded, the names of the appellants and the details about the manner in which murder of Surat Ram was committed would have found mention in the statement of Laik Ram Ex. PW1/A recorded at the police post.However, it is noted, that though aforesaid statement Ex.PW1/A records that PW 3 Villan Jamadar told Laik Ram that Surat Ram has been murdered in the jhuggis of Sain Baba Housing Society, there is no mention of the names of the culprits and the details about the manner in which murder was committed.Secondly, PW3 Villan Jamadar, in his cross- examination, has stated that when Munna Lal was cutting the throat of the deceased slowly with the knife/churri, nobody had put his or her hand on the mouth of the deceased.If the aforesaid version was true then definitely the deceased must have cried with pain and even physically resisted the appellants.In such eventuality, obviously, the nearby jhuggi dwellers would have heard the cries of the deceased and reached the spot of occurrence, which is not the case.Even there is nothing in the testimony of the Investigating Officer to suggest that he found any sign of resistance given by the deceased at the spot of occurrence.Therefore, we do not find it safe to rely upon the testimony of PW3 Villan Jamadar, which is highly unnatural and bordering on fiction.Otherwise also, Villan Jamadar in his cross-examination has stated that he Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 9 of 21 accompanied PW1 Laik Ram to the police post for lodging the report.If he was an eye witness to the occurrence and had gone to the police post with one Laik Ram, for lodging the report, his entire version should have found mention in the report Ex. PW1/A lodged by PW1 Laik Ram.Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 8 of 21Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 9 of 219. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that Asad Bai was wife of the deceased Surat Ram, therefore, it can be safely inferred that she, being the wife, was present in the jhuggi of Surat Ram on the fateful night.He has argued, thus it was obligatory upon her, in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to explain in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as to where she was on the fateful night or what happened in the jhuggi which resulted in murder of the deceased.He has argued that, since Asad Bai has failed to come out with any explanation in that regard, it provides a strong additional incriminating circumstance against her.The prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence.To properly appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the State, it is necessary to reproduce para 17 of the said judgment, which reads thus:Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 10 of 21We have been taken through the entire evidence on record.The medical evidence on record clearly proves that the death of Kalwati and her two minor daughters was homicidal caused by strangulation.The cause of death was asphyxia.""when the police had taken away Asad Bai on account of murder of her husband, the police also took me from my jhuggi at about 12.00 night and at the police station Asad Bai had confessed that she had murdered her husband, in my presence""Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 12 of 21From the aforesaid version, it is apparent that purported extra judicial confession, if at all it was made, was made by Asad Bai at the police station while she was in custody.Thus, in our view the learned trial court has erred in relying upon the testimony of PW4 Kul Bahara relating to extra judicial confession made by the appellant Asad Bai.It would be noticed that the Additional Sessions Judge has also believed the evidence of the prosecution regarding motive on the parts of the appellants to kill the deceased Surat Ram.The story of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that Mangli Bai daughter of Asad Bai was married to PW4 Kul Bahara.She returned from her matrimonial home after 15 days.Asad Bai did not wish her daughter Mangli Bai to go back to her husband Kul Bahara and she wanted to marry her to the appellant Sohan Sahai in consideration of Rs.1500/-, whereas the deceased Surat Ram was opposed to the idea and he wanted Mangli Bai to go back to her husband and there used to be fight between Asad Bai and the deceased Surat Ram on the said issue.To prove the aforesaid motive, prosecution has examined two witnesses PW3 Villan Jamadar and PW4 Kul Bahara.PW3 Villan Jamadar in his cross-examination on behalf of the appellant Asad Bai was unable to tell about the exact nature of conversation which used to take place between Surat Ram and Asad Bai regarding their daughter Mangli Bai, and in the later part of the cross-examination, he has Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 13 of 21 admitted that he was never present during such conversations.In his examination-in-chief also he has stated that he used to hear that Asad Bai wanted to marry their daughter Mangli Bai again, whereas Surat Ram wanted to send her to her previous husband.However, he has not clarified in his cross- examination from whom he had heard that but, he is categoric that he never heard any conversation between Asad Bai and the deceased Surat Ram regarding their daughter Mangli Bai.Therefore, it is obvious, that PW3 Villan Jamadar is not an eye witness to any such discord between the appellant Asad Bai and the deceased and his testimony regarding the motive part is only hearsay, and, therefore, is inadmissible in evidence.Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 13 of 21Another witness examined by the prosecution to prove motive on the part of the appellants Asad Bai and Sohan Sahai to kill the deceased Surat Ram is PW4 Kul Bahara.We may mention at the outset that PW4 Kul Bahara falls within the category of an interested witness because according to him 15 days after his marriage with Mangli Bai, his mother-in-law (appellant Asad Bai) took her back to her house and never sent Mangli Bai back to her matrimonial home.From this, it can be inferred that witness might be nursing a grudge against the appellant Asad Bai as she was not allowing her daughter to go back to her matrimonial home.Had he actually been witness to such a transaction, he would at least have known the name of the person with whom Mangli Bai was supposed to be remarried.Further, to prove above referred point of discord between appellant Asad Bai and her deceased husband Surat Ram, the best witness could be Mangli Bai herself.Mangli Bai, however, has neither been cited nor examined as a witness to prove the motive.Since prosecution has opted to withhold the best evidence by not producing her as a witness, we are inclined to infer that had she been examined as a witness, her version would have gone against the prosecution.Therefore, under the circumstances, we are of the view that the evidence led by the prosecution to establish motive on the part of the appellants Asad Bai and Sohan Sahai, is not reliable, and that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in concluding that there was a motive on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased.Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 14 of 21Coming to the recovery of the weapon of offence knife/churri Ex.P-4 and blood stained lungi Ex.P-5 and kurta Ex.P-6 at the instance of accused Munna Lal.To prove aforesaid recovery, prosecution has relied upon the Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 15 of 21 statements of the Investigating Officer PW13 Inspector Rati Ram, PW12 Constable Anang Pal Singh and PW 2 Pratap Chand Mandal.Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 15 of 21PW 2 Pratap Chand Mandal has stated in his examination-in-chief that accused Munna Lal was arrested by the police on 14th February, 1989 and he made a disclosure statement to the police stating that he could get recovered one white shirt and lungi and knife.Thereafter, he led the police party to jhuggi opposite the jhuggi of the deceased and got recovered knife/ churri Ex.He has stated that recovered articles were taken into possession vide memo Ex.2/B, which bears his signatures at point ""A"".Perusal of the record would show that though the recovery memo Ex.2/A bears the signatures of PW2 Pratap Chand Mandal, neither the disclosure statement of Munna Lal Ex.12/A nor his personal search memo Ex.P-12/B bears signatures of this witness.Had this witness been present at the time of arrest of Munna Lal and when he made disclosure, under natural circumstance, the Investigating Officer would have obtained his signatures on the personal search memo as well as the disclosure statement of the appellant Munna Lal, being an independent witness.Since his signatures are not there on the arrest memo Ex.PW12/B and disclosure statement Ex.PW12/A, his presence at the time of the recovery of Exhibits P-4 to P-6 is doubtful.Otherwise also, PW13 Inspector Rati Ram in his entire testimony has nowhere stated that PW2 Pratap Chand Mandal was with him on 14th February 1989, when he received information Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 16 of 21 about the presence of the appellant Munna Lal at his jhuggi, or that he subsequently joined him in the investigation to witness the recovery of weapon of offence and blood stained clothes of the appellant Munna Lal Exbts P-4 to P- 6 at his instance.On the other hand, in his cross-examination he has stated that when he arrested Munna Lal, he did not join any independent witness from the nearby jhuggis to his arrest.Therefore, it remains unexplained as to when PW2 Pratap Chand Mandal came to be joined as witness and under what circumstances he signed the pointing out-cum-recovery memo Ex.12/A as also the sketch of the knife Ex.2/A. Even the testimony of Constable Anang Pal Singh who is supposed to be other witness of recovery of weapon of offence and clothes Exbts.P-4 to P-6 on the pointing of appellant Munna Lal, does not give any clue as to how and when PW2 Pratap Chand Mandal came to be joined as a witness to the recovery at the instance of appellant Munna Lal.In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that presence of PW2 Pratap Chand Mandal at the time of recovery is highly doubtful and that being so, the testimony of PW12 Constable Anang Pal Singh and PW13 Investigating Officer Inspector Rati Ram also becomes doubtful and unreliable.Thus, we do not find it safe to rely upon the aforesaid evidence of recovery of witness and blood stains clothes at the instance of Munna Lal.Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 16 of 21If the evidence pertaining to recovery of above said articles at the instance of Munna Lal fails, then the evidence of the prosecution regarding Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 17 of 21 recovery of the blood stained shirt from the person of accused Sohan Sahai as also the blood stained petticoat and blouse at the instance of Asad Bai becomes doubtful, because of the same reasons.Otherwise also, the prosecution story, as narrated by the Investigating Officer Inspector Rati Ram, to the effect, that at the time of arrest accused Sohan Sahai was wearing blood stained shirt Ex.P-9 appears to be highly improbable, because had prosecution version about murder of Surat Ram been true, under natural course of circumstances, the first impulse of the appellant accused would have been either to get rid of the shirt or to wash it in order to remove the blood stains from the shirt, instead of moving around wearing the blood stained shirt.Thus, in our view, even the evidence of recovery of blood stained shirt from the person of the accused Sohan Sahai is highly doubtful.Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 17 of 21Even if the recovery of petticoat and blouse Exhibits P-7 and P-8 at the instance of appellant Asad Bai is accepted, then also it is of no help to the prosecution because as per the serological report, the blood found on the petticoat and the blouse Exbts.P-7 and P-8 was of group ""B"" which did not match with the blood group ""O"" found on the samples lifted and seized from the spot of occurrence, as such those clothes are not connected to the murder of the deceased Surat Ram.Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 18 of 21Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 18 of 21Lastly, it would be seen from the serological report Ex.13/3 that though the case of the prosecution is that the blood group of the deceased Surat Ram was O, the blood stained earth lifted from the spot of occurrence tested positive for the blood group B. That being the case, a possibility of someone having blood group B been present at the spot of occurrence or having been involved in the killing of the deceased Surat Ram cannot be ruled out.From the record, including the testimony of the Investigating Officer Inspector Rati Ram, it is apparent that Investigating Officer has not cared to find out the reasons for presence of blood group B in the blood stained earth lifted from the spot of occurrence.In absence of any explanation coming forth in this regard, a possibility cannot be ruled out that some other person with blood group B might be responsible for the death of the deceased.Further, the Investigating Officer Inspector Rati Ram in his testimony has deposed that on reaching the spot of occurrence, he seized blood stained earth, blood stained articles including one printed green saree which was found at the roof of adjoining jhuggi of son of appellant Asad Bai, vide a Seizure Memo Ex. PW1/B. On seeing the blood stained saree, under the natural course of circumstances, Investigating Officer was expected to suspect some lady for the murder.According to PW1 Laik Ram, who is one of the witnesses to the Seizure Memo Ex.PW1/B, PW3 Villan Jamadar was present at the time of recovery of the saree.If Villan Jamadar actually was an eye witness to the Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 19 of 21 occurrence, at least at the time of recovery of saree, he would have told the Investigating Officer that the deceased was killed by the appellants Asad Bai, Sohan Sahai and Munna Lal.In that eventuality, the Investigating Officer was naturally expected to arrest Asad Bai instead of allowing her to go along with the dead body as Inspector Rati Ram has deposed in his testimony.The aforesaid conduct of Inspector Rati Ram rules out the presence of PW3 Villan Jamadar at the time of occurrence and raises a strong doubt that he has been introduced subsequently as an eye witness by the Investigating Officer.Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 19 of 21In view of the discussion above, we are of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in appreciating the evidence inasmuch as relying upon the testimony of PW3 Villan Jamadar as also the evidence relating to motive on the part of the appellants as well as the extra judicial confession made by appellant Asad Bai.Even the testimony of witnesses regarding recovery of incriminating articles, like weapon of offence Ex.P4 and blood stained clothes of the appellant Exbts P-5 to P-9 at their instance is highly doubtful.Thus, we do not consider it safe to sustain the judgment of conviction.Accordingly, we accept the appeals filed by the appellants Sohan Sahai, Asar Bai and Munna Lal and set aside the judgment of conviction as also the order of sentence passed by the learned trial Judge.Crl.A.Nos.17/95, 21/95, 106/95 Page 20 of 21All the three appellants are, accordingly, acquitted.The appeals stand disposed of as having been allowed.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The prosecution's case may be briefly summarised as under :-One Lakhpat Singh vide his statement made on 29th July, 1995 Ex.PW2/A informed that the appellant accused Harnam Singh had taken his child Vinod on 28th June, 1995, after he returned home from School.Complainant Lakhpat Singh stated that when he returned home at 7.00 p.m., lie was informed by his wife that Vinod had been taken by Harnam Singh, a cousin of the complainant.Lakhpat Singh searched for Vinod but could not trace him.Lakhpat Singh received letters firstly demanding ransom of Rs. 4 lacs and, thereafter, a sum of Rs. 2 lacs.Prosecution claims that on 15th September, 1995, child Vinod was recovered from the possession of appellants Harnam Singh, Pappu and Vijender and Parvati.The fourth accused Parvati is stated to have died during the proceedings.A ransom note was found to be in the hand-1 writing of Jagbir Singh who is stated to have pointed out the place where the dead body was buried in house and on the basis of his information certain recoveries were also-; made.State in the appeal before the Supreme Court urged that the High Court had erroneously discarded the ""ransom note"" especially when Jagbir Singh accepted the handwriting to be his handwriting.Sample of his handwriting had been voluntarily given for comparison by the handwriting experts.Opinion was also available.JUDGMENT Manmohan Sarin, J.I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my learned brother R. S. Sodhi, J., by which the appeals filed against the judgment and order dated 31st August, 2000 and 21st September, 2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 102/ 97, arising out of FIR No. 480/95, Police Station, Ambedkar Nagar, are sought to be dismissed.The learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellants guilty under Sections 364-A and 368, IPC and sentenced appellants Harnam Singh, Pappu and Vijender to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months each.On the minor child being recovered from the possession of the accused persons, he was handed over to the complainant by the U.P. Police.The statement of the child was recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. by the Metropolitan Magistrate.Minor Vinod named the accused persons as the persons responsible for kidnapping and keeping him in illegal confinement.On the above allegations, appellants were charged and prosecuted for the offences under Section 364-A read with Section 34 and Section 368, IPC.Prosecution had examined PW-2 Lakhpat Singh i.e., the father of child, PW-3 Vinod the kidnapped boy, PW-4 Ravinder Dudeja, Metropolitan Magistrate, before whom the statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded.The minor child deposed that Harnam Singh had taken him away on the pretext of getting him Jalebis and brought him to Vijender.He was thereafter shifted from one place to another.He had described frequent beatings by Vijender and frugal feeding by Vijender, Harnam Singh, Pappu and Parvati.The witness had duly identified the appellants in Court.The child had also deposed regarding Ram Prakash, a relation of the complainant, who had also been accused.He declined to identify Ram Prakash as also the suggestion that Ram Prakash also used to beat him or had shown him the pistol.The child also stated that police had recovered him from the possession of Harnam Singh, Pappu, Vijender and Parvati, since deceased.Vijender tried to run away hiding between the goats but was caught.The minor child had withstood cross-examination and the trial Court found his statement trustworthy.I) That the accused kidnapped or abducted the person;II) Kept him under detention after such kidnapping and abduction;iii) The kidnapping or abduction was for ransom.In the present case the question being considered is whether the last ingredient has been proved by the prosecution? For succeeding, the prosecution was required to prove that the letters demanding payment of ransom emanated from the accused or were sent at the behest of the accused.6. Let us consider the evidence as led by the prosecution in respect of proving the ransom note and the demand of ransom.The deposition of Lakhpat Singh in this regard is as follows :-""On three occasions, the police went to Aligarh District to look for my sen but he was not traceable anywhere at that time.Thereafter, I' received four ransom letters from Harnam Singh, demanding a ransom of Rs. 2 lacs in the first instance thereafter he demanded ransom of Rs. 4 lacs.Ex. PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D are the said four ransom letters received by me from Harnam Singh.The original envelopes in which the above letters were received by me are Ex.PI to Ex.P4.""The Public Prosecutor sought to cross-examine him.This part of the statement is as under :-""It is correct that I had stated in my statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. dated 29th September, 1995 that the accused demanded Rs. 1 lakh as ransom.It is also correct that on 15th September, 1995, I had handed over 5 ransom letters to the police officials of Patiali District Etah (UP), where I informed him regarding kidnapping of my son Vinod.It is correct that the police recovered my son Vinod from the above four accused persons, namely, Pappu, Vijender and Parvati.Accused Ram Prakash was also present with them.""In cross-examination also no particulars of demand of ransom of Rs. 1 lac being oral, telephonic through someone or which accused demanded and from or through whom.Here also reference appears to be in context of ransom notes.Thereafter, he was cross-examined by counsel for the accused-Harnam Singh and during the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he owed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to Harnam Singh.He stated that Ram Prakash had been implicated in this case on the fact that his name was mentioned demanding ransom.He deposed that the ransom letters are in the hands of appellant accused-Pappu, Pappu is the son of the sister of Chachi (Paternal aunt of accused-Harnam Singh).In his cross-examination, he further stated, ""the ransom let-ters were received by me through registered post and not by hand.The case set up is that demand for ransom was through ransom letters and not an oral or telephonic demand by any of the accused made either to the complainant or to the kidnapped child.8A. Ransom letters which were tendered in evidence by Lakhpat Singh are Ex. PW-2/B, PW-2/C and PW-2/D i.e. three in number, Lakhpat Singh in his examination-in-chief stated that he received the letters from Harnam Singh, but in cross-examination he stated that he received the letters through registered post.Harnam Singh is not the sender in any of the letters.The original have been carefully seen by me.The first envelope Ex.Pl is addressed to one Ram Prasad Nagar Tailor.The sender's name as given on the envelope is Rakesh Babu Badora.There is, however, no ransom letter, which is stated to have been exhibited or received through this envelope proved on record.The first exhibit out of the ransom document is Ex. PW2, which is not mentioned in the statement of Lakhpat Singh, as recorded.This is a photocopy of an Inland letter and appears to have been sent by some detenu in prison and does not disclose any bearing to the present case.The envelope Ex.P2 is addressed to Lakhpat Singh and purported to have been sent by Ram Prakash Tailor.PW2/B are four pages of hand written letters.Ex. PW2/C are two pages of hand written letter on lined pages of copy book.PW2/D is another hand written letter on lined pages of copy book.On a mere visual examination of these three exhibits, namely, PW2/B, PW2/C and PW2/D, it is obvious to the naked eye that these are not written by one person.These aspects appear to have been totally overlooked by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who contrary to the deposition of complainant that these were in the hands, of Pappu, concluded that these were writ-, ten by Harnam Singh.Additionally, there is another page, which is again in a different hand writing, which is tagged on to these without being given any identification.The question to be considered in these circumstances is whether on the mere bald averment of the complainant that the ransom letters are in the hands of Pappu, the same ought to be accepted as proved.The witness did not even state that he was familiar with the hand writing of Pappu or that he had ever seen him writing or had received any other communication from Pappu.No sample hand writing of Pappu was taken, so as to have its comparison by handwriting expert.It was not even put to Pappu in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C, that ransom notes were in his handwriting.It was only put to the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that ransom notes were received by complainant, which was stated to be incorrect.It may also be noted that on the date when statement of Lakhpat Singh was recorded, it was only the counsel of Harnam Singh, who was present.In fact, accused Pappu, Vijender and Paravati were not represented through counsel and it was only subsequently on 15th September, 1997 that Mr. Ranjit Singh was appointed as the Am-icus Curiae on their behalf.Subsequently, on the next date, amices Curiae, so appointed, was not available.The amices Curiae continued to be not available and the matter was adjourned and on 20th March, 1998, Mr. A. U. Khan was appointed as amices Curiae.In short, on 12th August, 1997, when the above cross-examination took place, where Lakhpat Singh is stated to have said that ransom letters were in the hand writing of Pappu, the latter was not represented by any counsel.In the cited case the accused persons, who had hired a taxi and gone to a hotel and stayed for night along with the driver, left in the morning asking the waiter to take care of the driver.The driver was found dead.The waiter who was a solitary witness was not examined.The owner of the hotel deposed and stated that he had learnt of the stay of the accused from the waiter.It was held that (Para 7 of Cri LJ) :-""The accused persons are said to have made a entry in the register duly maintained by the hotel, in their own pen, and signed the same showing their stay on the fateful night in the hotel in question.Sofar as this entry is concerned, the same has been exhibited on the basis of statement of PW-6 (owner) though, he has nowhere stated that lie knew either the writings or signatures of any of the accused persons.Indisputably the accused never made the entry in the presence of PW-6, but the same is claimed to have been made in the presence of the waiter alone.Thus the entry in the register having not been legally proved is not admissible in evidence.There is no other evidence in relation to stay of the accused persons in the hotel on the night of occurrence and there being no substantive evidence in relation to this very circumstance, the same cannot be proved by the, statement of PW-6/owner, which could have been used only by way of corroborative evidence and thus the prosecution has failed to prove this circumstance which was the most important one to hold the accused persons guilty.Pappu's handwriting was not even taken for comparison.Rather there ; was total confusion as to whether the letters were even sent by Harnam Singh or by registered post as claimed, or where in the hand of Harnam Singh as held by the Court.Reference may also be usefully made to the State of Haryana v. Jagbir Sigh, reported at .: In the cited case an innocent child of about four years was a victim of unnatural death.As per the prosecution, the respondents murdered the child after kidnapping him.The intended demand for ransom for his release was stated to be the motive for the crime.Accused Jagbir Singh was found to be guilty by the Sessions Judge who convicted him under Sections 302/362/201/ 384, IPC.An appeal was filed and the High Court by its judgment found them not.Jagbir Singh had been produced before the Addl.The Addl.CJM had also deposed that the accused had admitted the signatures to be his.The Supreme Court held (Paras 19 and 20 of Cri LJ) :-""In order to enable the exercise of power under Section 73, the pendency of a proceeding before the Court is the sine qua non.Therefore, the comparison of the signature on the alleged ransom note in no way helps the prosecution.Great emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the State on the evidence of PW-4, the Additional CJM that the accused had admitted that the signature was his.It may also be noted that while the deposition by the complainant was that the ransom letters were handed over by Harnam Singh, subsequently changed to, ""received through registered post"" and in the deposition, these were stated to be in the hands of Pappu, the trial Court in para 34 of the judgment concluded these were in the hands of Harnam Singh.In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to satisfy the essential ingredients of kidnapping being for payment of ransom in the absence of proving ransom notes.Prosecution has failed to prove demand of ransom by any of the accused for kidnapping, Prosecution has failed to prove the ransom notes as originating from or at behest of accused.The prosecution has, however, been successful in proving that the minor had been taken out of custody by the appellants.The prosecution has also successfully proved the confinement of the minor by the accused persons.The minor has been recovered from their possession and custody.Accordingly, the prosecution has proved the offence under Sections 365 and 368, IPC, read with Section 34, IPC.Accordingly, the order passed by the trial Court is modified to sentencing all the accused/appellants to rigorous imprisonment of 7 years instead of life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of fine, appellants shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each.The benefit under Section 428, Cr.P.C. would also be available to appellants.The appeals are partly allowed as aforesaid.","['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"J U D G M E N TCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 728 OF 2007ARISING OUT OFSpecial Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4570 of 2006Hon.C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.It is not necessary to set out facts in detail since we have stated all the facts in Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 2006 (Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan) and a cognate matter which we have decided today.Suffice it to state that a complaint being First Information Report (FIR) No. 84 of 1995 was registered at Malviya Nagar Police Station, Jaipur on February 26, 1995 against Daya Singh, appellant herein, Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur (accused No.2) and one Harnek Singh @ Surender Verma (absconding) for offences punishable under Sections 353, 420, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474 read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), for offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 7 and 25 of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 18 of TADA etc.The case of the prosecution was that the appellant herein along with his wife Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur fabricated Registration Certificate for purchasing several vehicles in order to carry out conspiracy of kidnapping and abducting one Rajender Mirdha, son of Shri Ram Niwas Mirdha to exert pressure on the Government of India to release one Devendra Singh Bhullar, an alleged Khalistani terrorist who was being held in custody by the police.It was also alleged that the appellant was found to be in possession of prohibited arms and ammunition allegedly recovered from House No. B-117, Model Town, Ashok Nagar during police raid where the appellant was staying.Initially, prosecution was launched in the Designated Court at Ajmer since the provisions of TADA were also invoked.The appellant herein, however, challenged his prosecution under TADA.In Daya Singh Lahoria v. Union of India & Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 516, this Court upheld the challenge since the prosecution of the accused could only be maintained in accordance with the Extradition Treaty and the Decree of Extradition under which the accused were extradited by the United States of America to India.The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, convicted accused No.1 (appellant herein) as under:Under Section 420 IPC : to 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months S.I.Under Section 468 IPC : to 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months S.I.Under Section 471 IPC : to 2 years R.I.Likewise, the State of Rajasthan, being aggrieved by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court against Suman Sood instituted an application for leave to appeal against acquittal.A Single Judge of the High Court refused to grant leave against accused No.2 (Suman Sood) holding that the trial Court was right in recording an order of acquittal against her and no case had been made out to grant leave.Leave was accordingly refused.He, therefore, did not press the appeal.The High Court disposed of the appeal and observed;""At the very outset, the learned counsel Mr. G.S. Fauzdar for the accused appellant Daya Singh contended that maximum sentence in the present case was seven years and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and appellant has already completed his sentence of imprisonment of seven years, therefore, in these circumstances, he does not press the appeal filed on behalf of Daya Singh, challenging his order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as mentioned above.In view of the above statement of the learned counsel for the appellant Daya Singh @ Vinay Kumar, the SB Cr.Appeal No. 332/05 filed by Daya Singh is hereby dismissed as not pressed"".Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, appearing for the appellant, challenged the order of conviction and sentence.When her attention was invited by the Court to the above paragraph, she submitted that she did not dispute that such a statement was made on behalf of the accused in the High Court, but submitted that, she be permitted to argue the appeal, particularly when in other Special Leave Petitions, leave was granted and appeals were heard on merits.On merits also, no case had been made out by the prosecution.The other accused (Suman Sood) was acquitted on the same evidence and leave to appeal against an order of acquittal was refused by the High Court.The conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellant on the same evidence is also vitiated and deserves to be set aside.In the light of the finding recorded by us in the cognate matter, this appeal is, more or less, academic and has become infructuous in view of the following circumstances;(i) the appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 364A, IPC and has been ordered to undergo sentence of imprisonment for life and we have upheld the said order; and","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Due to the law and order problem, a Peace Committee Meeting was conducted at the Taluk Office, Kudavasal in thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/10 Crl.RC.No.381 of 2017 presence of the Tahsildar.The agitating public/villagers had requested that the petitioner firm should not draw water through bore well till there was continuous rain or there was water in the river.The petitioner company had offered to bring water through tankers from outside source and do the bottling in their factory and the agitating villagers did not agree for that and there was no consensus between the parties.This revision petition has been filed seeking to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order dated 13.02.2017 in Na.No.1930 of 2016 on the file of the respondent and revise the same.The petitioner firm is a company engaged in the business of mineral water after obtaining necessary license in the year 2008 and the license was in existence.The petitioner company had been running the business of bottling mineral water by drawing ground water through bore well in No.53 Simili Revenue Village, Thalayalangadu Village in Guttural Taluk.Since the villagers objected for drawing of under ground water in Thalayalangadu Village, Guttural Taluk, petitioner firm has sent a representation to the respondent, stating that due to failure of North-East monsoon in the year 2016, the ground water level has gone down and thereby, the villagers finding it difficult to draw water from their bore well, objected the petitioner company from drawing the underground ater through bore well.Pursuant to the same, on 02.01.2017 the villagers conducted a road blockade and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nannilam, Kudavasal Taluk and Inspector of Police, Kudavasal Police Station conducted a meeting with the villagers, due to which, the road block was withdrawn.Thereby, the Tahsildar had requested the Executive Magistrate to direct the petitioner's company to stop drawing of water from the bore well.A report was also given by the Deputy Superintendent of Police that in respect of the road block, a case has been registered in Crime No.2 of 2017 for offences under Section 143, 341 and 188 IPC and it was also stated that if the operation of the petitioner company was not stopped, there was possibility of the villagers conducting agitation against drawing of water.Based on the above report, the respondent passed the impugned order on 13.02.2017 directing the petitioner company under Section 133 (1) B of Cr.P.C to stop the operations of the company temporarily till the next rainy season or till the drought gets over.The revision has been filed challenging the above order.Only if any of these two ingredients are available the respondents may pass the prohibition order.The road roko was conducted on the instigation of a political goon who had attempted to extort money from the Petitioner Company.This court heard the learned counsel on either side and considered their submissions and perused the impugned order, along with the other materials.P.C absolute.In other words, the order under Section 133 Cr.P.C., can only be a preliminary order since Section 138 empowers the Magistrate to hear the objections of the concerned party for the purpose of either making the order under Section 133 Cr.P.C., absolute or for modifying it.”http://www.judis.nic.in 8/10 Crl.RC.No.381 of 2017In the opinion of this Court, the Magistrate ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner after fixing specified period and thereafter, after following the procedure under Section 138 Cr.P.C. should have passed the order.Though this order is stated to be passed under Section 133 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C, which ought to be temporary preliminary in nature the Respondent had directed the Petitioner Company to stop operation till the next rainy season or till the drought gets over which amounts to closing operations in perputuity.The impugned order has been passed without following the procedure contemplated under Section 138 Cr.P.C. and without application of mind.Further, if the order is passed under Section 133 of Cr.PC the magistrate has to fix the time and place in the order for appearance of the petitioner either before himself or some other Executive Magistrate subordinate to him to show cause as to why the order should not be made absolute and such an observation is missing in the order.In view of the above, the impugned order is vitiated.http://www.judis.nic.in 9/10 Crl.RC.No.381 of 2017 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA., J.In the result, this revision is allowed.The impugned order dated 13.02.2017 passed by the respondent is set aside.However, it is made clear that the respondent is directed to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, if circumstances warrants so.19.11.2019 bri Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order To1.The Executive Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvarur.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.RC.No.381 of 2017http://www.judis.nic.in 10/10","['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"They are assessees.JUDGMENT Pratap Singh, J.1. Accused No. 3 in E.O.C.C. Nos. 659 to 662 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences No. I), Egmore, Madras, has filed these petitions under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the aforesaid cases quash the same.The allegations in it are briefly as follows :The complainant is a public servant and he is authorised to file the complaint.It is also filed at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, within the meaning of section 279 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (which I shall hereafter refer to as ""the Act"").The first accused is a partnership firm carrying on business in surgical goods.Accused Nos. 2 to 5 are partners of the first accused firm who were in charge of, and were responsible to, the first accused firm for the conduct of the business of the first accused during the relevant time.Along with the return, the connected statements were also delivered.Search were conducted at the premises of the first accused firm and its allied firms and the residences of the partners and connected places in June, 1980, under the provisions of section 132 of the Act. During the course of the search, a large number of accounts books and documents were seized and they were examined and detailed investigation was made which disclosed large scale suppression of income by deliberate inflation of purchases and falsification of accounts by introduction of fictitious credits.During the course of assessment proceedings subsequent to the search, unable to explain the deliberate inflation of purchases, etc., the accused came forward with a proposal for settlement.They agreed to the suppression of the income of the first accused firm and allied firms being considered in the hands of the first accused firm and the concealed income for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1979-80 being fixed at about Rs. 41 lakhs.The first accused filed a return of income in response to a notice issued under section 148, dated October 16, 1980, and the income-tax return for the assessment year 1976-77 on February 6, 1982, admitting an income of Rs. 12,13,640 as against an income of Rs. 1,02,470 admitted in the original return.The petition of the accused for waiver under section 273A was rejected.With a view to wilfully evade tax and to defraud the exchequer and to deceive the Income-tax Officer, acting in concert and furtherance of common intention, all the accused conspired to fabricate false evidence in the shape of books of accounts with a view to using them as genuine evidence in the income-tax assessment proceedings, to deliver a false return of income of the first accused for 1976-77 with false supporting statements based on fabricated books of accounts to dishonestly induce the Income-tax Officer to deliver an assessment order, on such false return and statements determining the total income of the first accused at an amount lower than the real amount and thus have committed offences punishable under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 34, 193, 196 and 420 thereof and section 276C, 277 and 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in one series of acts which are connected and form the same transaction.On similar allegations for assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, the respondent has filed complaints in E.O.C.C. Nos. 660 of 1988, 661 of 1988 and 662 of 1988 before the same court under section 120B, 34, 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 276C, 277 and 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the aforesaid assessment years also.In these complaints, it is alleged that original returns were filed on August 5, 1977, August 28, 1978, and August 9, 1979 and in respect of them, assessment were completed on September 26, 1977, October 19, 1978 and September 12, 1979, respectively, and the search was conducted on June 7, 1980, and the revised returns for assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 were filed on October 16, 1980, and the total concealed income for all the four assessment years was Rs. 41 lakhs.Then again it is alleged that, in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy and for the aforesaid purpose and in the course of the same transactions, all the accused have done the acts which constitute the various offences.I have referred to them in the summarisation of the complaint in E.O.C.C. No. 659 of 1988 supra.Original returns for 1976-77 to 1979-80 were filed on August 4, 1976, August 5, 1977, August 28, 1978 and August 9, 1979, respectively.Assessments in respect of those original returns were completed on November 18, 1976, September 26, 1977, October 19, 1978 and September 12, 1979, respectively.","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"2.State Rep by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Villupuram District. ... Respondents in Crl.O.P.17885/2018 1/11http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.For Petitioners : Mr.Thomas T.Jacob in Crl.O.P.15054 of 2010 Mr.A.Muniraj in Crl.O.P.17885 of 2018 For Respondents : Ms.Saradha Devi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 in Crl.O.P.15054 of 2010 & for R2 in Crl.O.P.17885 of 2018 Mr.O.P.No.17885 of 2018 are the accused 1, 2/11http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.Nos.15054 of 2010 and 17885 of 2018 2 and 5 and the private respondent in these criminal original petitions is the defacto complainant.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as 'accused' and 'complainant'.3.The accused are alleged to have hatched out a criminal conspiracy for wrongful gain by selling the property of unwary landlords without their consent and knowledge by creating bogus power of attorneys concerned with immovable cultivable lands situated in Survey Nos.164/1, 164/2, 164/3, 164/4, 165/1, 165/2, 165/3, 165/4, 166/1, 166/2, 166/3 and 166/4 with an extent of 29.5 acres at Aurvadai Village, Villupuram Revenue District as if it were executed by landlords for the disposal of property and got the properties transferred and thereafter disposed of the same to the detriment of real owners and the defacto complainant.Hence, these petitions.4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during 3/11http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.Nos.15054 of 2010 and 17885 of 2018 the pendancy of these criminal original petitions, the petitioners and the private respondent arrived at a compromise and the petitioners have paid the entire sale consideration to the private respondent.The private respondent/ complainant accepted and received the payment and has consented for compounding the offence.O.P.Nos.15054 of 2010 and 17885 of 20183.I submit that as I have received the entire sale consideration I am willing to withdraw the case by compounding the case against these Petitioners/ Accused 3 and 4 namely Mr.V.Prabakar and Mr.Mahmood Siddique and seek this Hon'ble Courts indulgence to permit me to withdraw and compound the case against these Petitioners/ Accused 3 and 4 namely Mr.V.Prabakar and Mr.Mahmood Siddique and thus render justice.Crl.O.P.No.17885 of 2018:O.P.Nos.15054 of 2010 and 17885 of 2018 Common Prayer:Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records in C.C.No.329 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vanur, Villupuram District and quash the same.N.Kumararajan for R2 in Crl.O.P.15054 of 2010 & for R1 in Crl.O.P.17885 of 2018 COMMON ORDER These criminal original petitions have been filed seeking to call for the records in C.C.No.329 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vanur, Villupuram District and to quash the same.2.The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.15054 of 2010 are the accused 3 and 4; the petitioners in Crl.5.To that extent, the private respondent has filed affidavits dated 23.08.2019 and the relevant portion of the same reads as follows :“Crl.O.P.No.15054 of 2010:http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.Therefore, the complainant's interest lies primarily in recovering the money rather than sending the accused in jail.10.In view of the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India and also considering the affidavits filed by the complainant, this Court is of the view that the charge sheet in C.C.No.329 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vanur, Villupuram District, is liable to be set aside.11.Accordingly, the charge sheet in C.C.No.329 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vanur, Villupuram District, is hereby quashed and these criminal original 9/11http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.Nos.15054 of 2010 and 17885 of 2018 petitions are disposed of.The petitioners/ accused are acquitted from all the charges levelled against them.12.With the above directions, these criminal original petitions are disposed of.1.The District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vanur, Villupuram District.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.Nos.15054 of 2010 and 17885 of 2018 M.DHANDAPANI,J.pri Crl.15054 of 2010 and 17885 of 2018 06.12.2019","['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Brief facts, just necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the deceased Smt. Farida Bi was the daughter of Usman (PW-01).About 3 years ago Farida Bi was married to accused Rafiq.Accused Ramjan and Rehmat Bi, are the father-in-law and mother-in-law 2 respectively of the deceased Farida Bi and the accused Hurmat Bi is the real sister of the accused Rafiq.About 2 years prior to the date of the alleged incident Usman (PW-01) left for Bhusawal to earn his livelihood.Till then he was living at Khandwa, the deceased Farida Bi was living happily.When Usman (PW-01) left for Bhusawal, the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused persons, for or in connection with demand of dowry.On the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 14-02-1991 she had gone to house of her uncle Sattar (PW-06) and narrated him that her `Nanad' - Smt. Hurmat Bi was quarrelling with her.Thereafter, Sattar (PW-06) sent his wife - Smt. Maina Bi (PW-03) to the house of the accused persons.When she asked about the quarrel from the accused Smt. Hurmat Bi, she got infuriated and started abusing.She was saying that Farida Bu is a cunning woman and often used to quarrel, she would be taken back or else she would be killed.Thereafter, Smt. Maina Bi (PW-03) returned to her home.The accused Rafiq and his elder brother went to the house of Smt. Maina Bee (PW-03) and allegedly asked them that who had gone to his house, he would break their legs.At that time, Sattar (PW-06) told accused Rafiq that as per their capability they had given dowry.Why they are harassing the girl (Farida Bi).He also added, let her mother come in the evening, on her arrival they will discuss the matter.But, accused Rafiq was adamant and said that he will finish the dispute once for all.At about 03:30-04:00 P.M. father-in-law of the deceased accused- Ramjan called Sattar (PW-06).When Sattar reached there after 15 minutes, he found that Smt. Farida Bi was burnt to death.Someone informed the Police on telephone.On the basis of which `Rojnamcha Sanha' (Ex.P/3) was prepared and `Merg' (Ex.P/4) 3 was registered.Whenever, parents of the deceased used to come at her matrimonial home she told them that her sister-in-law, accused Smt. Hurmat Bi used to quarrel with her and used to taunt her for not bringing enough dowry.When Usman (PW-01) father of the deceased used to visit Khandwa she used to tell him about the harassment.Rs.500/- was given by Usman to Farida Bi, so that her in-laws should stop harassing her.Smt. Farida Bi gave this amount to the accused Rafiq.In-laws of the deceased were also threatening her and to leave the matrimonial home.After the death of Smt. Farida Bi, spot map (Ex.P/5) was prepared.The container of kerosene, match box, burnt clothes and soil with and without keresone, one `Sansi' made of iron were seized, vide Ex.P/6) from the spot.After drawing `Safina Form' (Ex.P/7) and `Panchnama' (Ex.P/8), the dead-body was sent for postmortem examination by Dr. Kaushal Kumar Lohani (PW-07) to District Hospital Khandwa.Autopsy of the dead-body of the deceased was conducted by Medical Officer Dr. Mahesh Kumar Patni (PW-04), who found the deceased 81% burnt and it was a third degree burn.( 18.01.2016) Per : Sushil Kumar Palo, J.:This appeal preferred under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for brevity `CrPC'] is directed against the judgement, dated 20-08-1993, passed in S.T. No.196/1992 (State of M.P. vs. Rafiq and others) by learned II Additional Sessions Judge, East Nimad (Khandwa), District Khandwa, whereby the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the charges for the offence punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code [for short `the IPC'].The death of the deceased was caused due to shock because of severe burn injuries.Postmortem report (Ex.P/2) was prepared.Seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, vide Ex.P/10 for examination.The accused persons were arrested.After due investigation charge-sheet was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction, which in turn, committed the matter to the Court of Sessions.10. Charges in respect of offence punishable under sections 304- B and 498-A, and in the alternative, 306 of IPC were framed against the accused persons.The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded for trial.The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence recorded the finding of acquittal of the accused- respondents by the impugned judgment.Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State endeavoured to convince that the learned trial Court has erred in pronouncing the judgement of acquittal, on the ground that the death of the deceased has occurred within a span of 7 years from the date of solemnisation of her marriage.Father of the deceased has clearly stated about the demand of dowry.The postmortem report (Ex.P/2) reveals that the death was not natural.Thus, the learned Panel Lawyer contended that learned trial Court has committed grave error in not appreciating the evidence brought on record, especially the medical report.We have gone through the record and the contentions raised by the learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State.It is not disputed that the deceased - Smt. Farida Bi died due to severe burn injuries and her marriage was solemnised with accused Rafiq 3-4 years prior to the date of the incident.Necessary ingredients to prove commission of the offence are lacking in the present case.The Medical Officer (PW-4) has denied the suggestion that the deceased died before she was burnt.He also opined that the hands of the deceased were severely burnt.This indicates that when a persons is caught with fire accidentally, he/she endeavours hard to save himself/herself.In the present case the deceased might have made best possible efforts when her hands came in contact with fire and got severely burnt.These witnesses are also close to Usman (PW-01) and, therefore, the learned trial Court has inferred them as interested witnesses.Delay in recording the statements and apparent inconsistencies therein, create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution story.Therefore, the learned trial Judge did not find the statements of these prosecution witnesses creditworthy.Besides, Rabia Bi, an immediate neighbour of the accused persons, who was examined as a defence witness, in her statement has stated that the deceased narrated that no quarrel occurred at the place of her in-laws.The deceased - Smt. Farida Bi used to visit this witness repeatedly, but she never expressed about any quarrel for or in connection with demand of dowry.Rabia Bi did not say anything incriminating against the accused-respondents.Another neighbour Suleman (DW-01) has also deposed that the deceased - Smt. Farida Bi frequently used to visit his place, but she never expressed anything about demand of dowry, causing any cruelty or ill-treatment to her by her in-laws.He specifically stated that no cruelty was meted out to Farida Bi one day prior to the incident.He further stated that Smt. Farida was suffering from some unknown disease, for which she was being treated by a local 'Sailani Baba' by practicing 'Jhadphoonk' (witchcraft).She used to roam around spreading her hair without consciousness.","['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT R.C. Chavan, J.By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant challenges the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Criminal Revision No. 49/1997, directing the applicant to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 400 per month to the non-applicant.The facts, which gave rise to the present proceeding are as under:Non-applicant Shobha Nandeshwar claims to have been married to applicant Jagdish after she had carried the applicant's child in her womb.Since, the applicant neglected and failed to maintain her, in spite of the fact that he owns four acres land and also earns Rs. 50 per day from agricultural labour, the said Shobha filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sakoli.She claimed maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500 per month from applicant Jagdish.Jagdish filed reply, denying that Shobha was married to him as per the customs or the prevalent rites applicable to the Buddhists.He denied having consented to any such marriage, though he admitted that Shobha was carrying pregnancy of nine months and also that she had given report to Police Station Arjuni Morgaon against Jagdish.He also admitted that Shobha had delivered a child in a hospital at Nawegaon Bandh and that the child died.He claimed that he was a teenage student of Junior College and, therefore, neither possessed any means nor any income, to be able to pay any maintenance to Shobha.When Shobha took the matter in revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the learned Additional Sessions Judge reversed the order passed by the learned Magistrate, holding that the marriage was proved and that Jagdish was liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400 per month to Shobha.Aggrieved thereby, Jagdish has preferred this application.I have heard the learned Counsel for applicant Jagdish and also learned Counsel for non-applicant Shobha.",['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The petitioner had questioned the maintainability of the said proceedings by pointing out that it is the admitted case of the second Crl.M.C. No.4709/2016 Page 1 of 8 respondent that they are not married to each other, the case having been founded on allegations of ""live-in relationship"", his submission being that such relationship was not ""in the nature of marriage"", he to the knowledge of the second respondent being married to another woman (named Anjali) at the relevant point of time.The Metropolitan Magistrate, by her order dated 17.11.2015, rejected the said contention to put an end to the proceedings observing that the submission raised mixed questions of law and fact.M.C. No.4709/2016 Page 1 of 8He has come up to this Court invoking the inherent power and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to pray that the aforesaid orders of the courts below be set aside and the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act taken out by the respondent be quashed.M.C. No.4709/2016 Page 2 of 8It is her admitted case that she was aware that the petitioner had a child (a daughter) from his first marriage, narrating their initial interaction since they having come to be acquainted with each other since 2006, upon being introduced by common friends in Mumbai.She would claim that the petitioner had told her in December, 2008 that his wife had sent him a notice for divorce.The second respondent has narrated that the parties were living together and moving around in manner ""akin to married life"", even going out to various stations and Crl.M.C. No.4709/2016 Page 3 of 8 staying together.M.C. No.4709/2016 Page 3 of 8According to her allegations, on 05.04.2011 the second respondent incidentally came across a copy of petition dated 25.03.2011 of first motion for divorce by mutual consent to be submitted by the petitioner and his wife and this discovery revealed to her that the information about he having taken divorce in March, 2010 was factually incorrect.As per the case set out in the Domestic Violence Act petition, the relationship between the parties soured, for some time, the petitioner having tendered profuse apologies to her and she eventually having calmed down and accepted the position agreeing to be patient till the divorce came through.The petition under the Domestic Violence Act was presented in February, 2013 by the second respondent.A little prior to that she had lodged a complaint with the local police in District Gurgaon, Haryana, no action having been taken thereupon.She approached the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Gurgaon, which court, after pre-summoning inquiry, had issued process against the petitioner for offences under Sections 376/403/417 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).The matter arising out of the said proceedings eventually came up as sessions case no. 66/2014 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, the gravamen of charges laid against the petitioner therein Crl.M.C. No.4709/2016 Page 2 of 8 being that he had subjected the second respondent to sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage and had thereby not only raped but cheated her.It is not disputed that the said sessions trial ended in judgment dated 12.07.2016 whereby the petitioner was acquitted with findings to the effect that the sexual relationship between the parties in a house in Gurgaon where they had lived together was consensual.","['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"From the affidavit filed before us today the following facts have been revealed: -On November 15, 2010 the aforesaid Jaladhar Singh Sardar fled away from Jabla More, P.S. 2 Manbazar, District Purulia while he was on the way back to Purulia Correctional Home along with his two surities, namely, Sri Deban Singh Sardar and Smt. Mamata Singh Sardar.Though it is revealed from the above report that Radiogram under Serial no. 144/AB/2010 dated November 15, 2010 was sent to(i) ADGP and I.G of Correctional Service, West Bengal and (ii) Officer-in-Charge, Manbazar Police Station, District Purulia, no satisfactory information has been furnished before us today in the aforesaid affidavit with regard to the necessary steps which might be taken in the aforesaid matter.At this stage, we are of the opinion, that filing of affidavits furnishing information to the Court is not enough for the officers concerned to discharge their functions for which they have been paid fat salaries from the public exchequer.Usually, it is not the practice of this Court to direct the responsible officers of the State Government to be present personally before us leaving aside of their important assignments 3 in connection with their respective services.But in this case, we think fit and proper to direct the following officers to be present before us to explain their conduct which amounts to gross violation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure which should have been taken in this case long back: -i) The Director General and Inspector General of Correctional Service, West Bengal;1 2017 CRA No. 137 of 2007 In Re : Amrit Singh Sardar & Ors.ii) The Deputy Inspector General of Police of the concerned range relating to the District of Purulia;iii) The Superintendent, District Correctional Home, Purulia;iv) The Superintendent of Police, District Purulia;v) The Officer-in-Charge, Manbazar Police Station, District Purulia;The aforesaid officers are directed to appear before this Court on the next date of hearing of this matter, i.e. on July 28, 2017 at the first sitting of this Court with relevant records to satisfy this Court with regard to the steps taken in the above matter for the period from November 15, 2010 till date in accordance with the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure.Heard in part.Further hearing of this appeal stands adjourned.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd February, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.943 of 2007, convicting the appellants for in furtherence of their common intention committing murder of one Anwar Ahmed Hussain, husband of appellant no.1 on 21st August, 2007, in the house of deceased and appellant no.1, at mezzanine floor of Room No.156, Maharashtra Nagar, Compound No.1 [West] and sentencing each of them to suffer imprisonment for life.According to prosecution, deceased Anwar along with his wife, appellant no.1 and two children were residing at the said mezzanine floor of room no.156 Maharashtra Nagar, Compound No.1, Bandra (W), in which offence in question was committed.He was earning livelihood by hawking and selling spectacles near Bandra Railway Station.The appellant no.2 was assisting in said business and was also visiting the house of the deceased.The said visit turned in love affair in between the appellants.The deceased warned the appellant no.2 not to come to his house.However, the appellants went on meeting each other.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::""Doctor's Chemist"" run by PW5 Izaz Abdul Gaffur, purchased sleeping pills, ""Restil"" and administered it to the deceased.She then called appellant no.2 at her house on the pretendance of deceased being sick.2.2 At about 7 to 8 p.m. after occuring noise in the house of the deceased, blood mixed with the water drip on the husband of landlady PW 2 Smt. Anwari Begum Isla Uddin, residing beneath the house of deceased on the mezzanine floor.PW2, having not received any response to call given to appellant no.1 from the staircase, asked her neighbour Shamim to find out the happenings.2.3 On the next day i.e. on 22nd August, 2007 at about 9 to 9.30 a.m. both the appellants along with the children of deceased and the appellant no.1 came down the mezzanine floor after locking the room and left the house with appellant no.2 carrying a big bag and thereafter did not return.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::reported matter to Bandra Police Station.PW14 PSI Kudapkar on PSO duty along with Police Constable PW1 Brid and other police staff went to the said place.PW2 informed them that deceased, appellant no.1 and their children, were residing on the mezzanine floor and odour was emitting from the said room.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::PW1, after going upstairs found that room was locked.As the neighours and the landlady were not having key of the said lock, they broke open the lock and entered the room and found that decomposed corpse of deceased was lying on a bed-sheet spread on the floor with one black ribbon strangulated tightly round his neck giving an impression that deceased was murdered by strangulating with said ribbon.PW14 registered Crime No.349/2007 thereon for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown person.He drew inquest and scene of offence panchanama Exh.20 and 21 in presence of panch PW7 Mohd. Hassain and another.He seized blood stained knife Article 21, chopper Article 22 and steel hammer Article 24 kept below suit case and so also blood stained salwar Article 20 found in the said room.PW14 also seized a quilt Article 14 and sando baniyan Article 15 stained with the blood and dropped from the loft, produced by landlord of the deceased at the Police Station, by drawing panchanama Exh.18 in presence of panch PW6 Vasim and another.On 25th August, 2007 PW14 seized clothes of the deceased Article 16 and Article 18 and a navy colour underwear brought by Police Constable Salve at the Police Station from the Cooper Hospital, by drawing panchanama Exh.40 in presence of panchas PW7 and one another.2.6 PW15 PI Sawant investigating the said crime received the clue of commission of the offence by the appellants and sent PW9 API Badgujar and the staff to Mirath (U.P.) for nabbing appellant no.2 hailing from the said place.PW15 on 6.9.2007 sent them to the medical examination.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::According to the prosecution, the appellant no.2 gave the confession to PW11 Dr. Shinde on 6.9.2007 while examining him 5 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 6 apeal 234.09.bom.doc by giving history that he had killed one Anwar Husain Sibiti Hasan (deceased) on 21.8.2007 at about 8 p.m. and at that time during the incident he sustained injury.According to the prosecution, the appellant no.1 also gave the confession to PW11 Dr. Shinde on 6.9.2007 while examining her by giving history that she killed her husband Anwar Husain with the help of appellant no.2 Mohd. Imran Najir Ansari on 21.8.2007 at about 8 p.m. and at that time during the incident she sustained injuries.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::According to the prosecution PW15 on 7.9.2007 as a sequel to the statement made by appellant no.1 leading to the discovery of the medical shop at which she had purchased sleeping pills, went to the medical shop of PW5 Izaj Gafoor to which appellant no.1 had led panchas and Police and Exh.42 is the memorandum and discovery panchanama of the said events drawn by him.PW15 after bringing the said articles to the Police Station, kept them for drying and thereafter again sealed said clothes by drawing panchanama Exh.26 in presence of same panchas i.e. PW3 Rashid Mujawar and another.PW15 vide forwarding letter Exh.43 sent muddemal articles ig seized to Chemical Analyser for examination.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::At the conclusion of the investigation, PW15 submitted charge-sheet against the appellants for in further of their common intention having murdered deceased , in the court of 9th court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay.The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge (Exh.3) framed against them for such offence by the Court of Sessions, after the case was committed to the said Court.The prosecution examined in all '15' witnesses at the trial i.e. above referred witnesses and additionally PW4 Haji Mohammaed Sharif regarding appellant no.2 assisting deceased and appellant no.1 in their business, PW8 P.C. Suresh Salve regarding handing over navy blue colour underwear Article 16 and the ribbon Article 18 7 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 8 apeal 234.09.bom.doc on the corpse to PW14, PW12 Abida M. Qureshi regarding room in question was locked when Police had been at the said room and PW13 Mohammad A. Mansuri regarding the appellant no.2 visiting shop on 21.8.2007 and taking Rs.500/- from him on the pretext of his mother being sick and then he was frightened and collecting his articles and leaving with the bag.The prosecution also placed reliance upon the other documentary evidence, which was prepared during the course of investigation.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::The defence of both the appellants was that of total denial and of false implication by Police.The appellant no.1 though admitted that deceased was her husband and they were residing on mezzanine floor and appellant no.2 was visiting place of business claimed that he was not visiting her house and was her brother.The appellants did not examine any witness in support of their defence.The trial court after appreciation of the prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that by the said evidence the prosecution has established the various circumstances discussed in the judgment and the said circumstances considered in light of non- explanation on the part of the appellant leading to the conclusion of sole inference of the guilt of the appellants for in furtherance of their common intention having committed murder of husband of 8 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 9 apeal 234.09.bom.doc appellant no.1 by cutting his throat.In consonance with said conclusion arrived, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as narrated hereinabove.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::Mr. Priytosh Tiwari, the learned counsel for the appellant by taking us through the evidence of each of the prosecution witnesses strenuously contended that the prosecution evidence by and large pertains to establish certain circumstances relied by the trial Court.It was urged that though the appellants are not disputing of deceased having met homicidal death, or that his body was found in the room in question, still evidence miserably fails to establish that room in question was locked as claimed by the witnesses, as the prosecution has failed to produce the broken lock before the Court corroborating their evidence and hence the said circumstance cannot be said to be firmly established .It was urged that the further circumstance of the appellants having made the confession to PW11 Dr. Shinde being inadmissible in law cannot be taken into consideration against the appellants.It was urged many of the remaining circumstances relied as pointed out by him are either not firmly established or the said circumstance within themselves failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances leading to the sole inference of the guilt of the appellants.It was thus contended the order of conviction and sentence cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be quashed and set aside and the 9 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 10 apeal 234.09.bom.doc appellants deserve to be acquitted or at least deserve to be given benefit of doubt as suspicion even of grave nature cannot be made basis for conviction.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::Gambhir .vs.Shivappa .vs.Bheemal .vs.Sanjay .vs.Koki Prabhakara Reddy .vs.Ranjit Singh .vs.Kavinder .vs.Joyram Ingty .vs.Naval Singh 10 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 11 apeal 234.09.bom.doc .vs.State of Rajasthan .vs.Asraf Sk.State of Maharashtra .vs.Surender Singh .vs.State of Delhi: LAWS (DHL)-1989-12-13 regarding effect of non-attestation of dying declaration.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::Thoughtful considerations were given to the submissions advanced by both the sides and record of the case was carefully examined in order to ascertain the merit from the submissions canvassed.At the first blush, it can be said that since there is no eye- witnesses for the crime in-question and the case has been rested upon the circumstantial evidence as per the settled legal position regarding such type of cases, we find it necessary to assess the prosecution evidence to ascertain whether the circumstances relied by the trial Court were duly established by the evidence adduced 12 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 13 apeal 234.09.bom.doc and thereafter to ascertain whether the said circumstances within themselves form a formidable chain leading to sole inference of the guilt of the appellant.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::The evidence of Dr. Kachare and particularly the injuries noted by him on the corpse i.e. amongst other cut throat injury on the neck and cause of death given by him ""as death due to cut throat injury""itself establishes the deceased having met with homicidal death.The same is apparent as pointed out in the further part of the judgment regarding the other evidence by which the prosecution has established that corpse of the deceased was found in a room on the mezzanine floor of room no.156 in Maharashtra Nagar.The perusal of the evidence of panch PW7 of spot panchanama and that of PW14 PSI who had drawn the said spot panchanama clearly excludes any possibility of deceased having received the said injury for any other reason other than himself being assaulted, as after careful scrutiny of the evidence of above referred witnesses, we do not find any embellishment therein for coming to the conclusion 13 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 14 apeal 234.09.bom.doc that the said facts were not established by their evidence, will lead to a conclusion of the prosecution by the said evidence has established the deceased having met with homicidal death.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::With regard to the second circumstance of the blood stained water having dripped from the mezzanine floor in the house of PW2 landlady on 21st August, 2007 at 8 a.m. and the third circumstance of corpse of the deceased was found in a room which was locked and the fourth circumstance of both the appellants along with the children of appellant no.1 and deceased having left the room on the next day i.e. on 22.08.2007 at about 9 a.m. The reference to the evidence of PW2 landlady, PW1 Brid, PW12 Abida M. Qureshi, evidence of panch witness PW7 for spot and inquest panchanama and the evidence of PW13 Mohammad A. Mansuri reveals that by their evidence prosecution duly establishes the said circumstances.Without detailing every facets of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, it can be said that the evidence of PW2 in terms reveals that on the day in question at about 8 a.m. she heard noise from the mezzanine room rented to appellant no.1 and on her inquiry, the appellant no.1 replied that it was due to falling of water pot.It reveals that thereafter as the blood dripped on the cloth of her husband lying on the bed was noticed, she called appellant 14 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 15 apeal 234.09.bom.doc no.1 from the staircase as the room was closed.It reveals that due to non-response on part of the appellant no.1, she called Shamim and asked him to see the happenings in the room of the appellant no.1 and thereon Shamim gave call to the appellant no.1 and thereon appellant no.1 opened the door and replied that while cutting mutton, she sustained injury and the blood might have dripped down.PW2 further deposed about the appellant no.1 coming to her house and showing her finger tied with cloth.Her deposition reveals that on next day, both the appellants along with the children of the appellant no.1, left the room by telling that they were going to Millat Nagar and inform accordingly to anyone who comes for inquiry and appellant no.2 was carrying big bag.It reveals that thereafter they did not return and on third day, i.e. on 23.08.2007 aggressive odour emitted from the room and her husband told that it might be due to decomposition of rat and they were not able to sleep in the room.It reveals that thereafter PW2 find drop of liquid of decomposed body falling in the room and she informed the neighbours about it and one of the neighbours Hasan informed to Police.It reveals that the Police came on the spot and broke open the lock of the room.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::After careful scrutiny of the cross-examination of the PW2, we do not find anything brought on the record except that she 15 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 16 apeal 234.09.bom.doc was not present when the Police broke the lock of the door of the mezzanine room.Even accepting the said admission as it is, it does not shatter her evidence regarding the room being locked, as the said facet relates to herself being not present at the time of the Police breaking the lock and does not relate to the fact of herself having seen the lock on the said room.Thus her evidence considered in proper perspective establishes of the above referred circumstances.We further add that hardly there is any challenge to her evidence on the part of the appellants of the room being locked after the appellant and the children left the room or for the fact of themselves having left with the bag as deposed by her.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::The due corroboration to the relevant part of evidence of PW2 for the aforesaid circumstance is found from the evidence of Police personnel PW1 and PW14 who had been to the spot after receiving the information of emission of odour from the neighbours.The evidence of PW1 in terms reveals that door was locked from the outside and they had broken the lock of the room.The evidence of PW1 is well corroborated by complaint Exh.10 to such effect lodged by him.Even the evidence of PW14 regarding the same is not different.It also reveals the room being locked and they had opened it by breaking the lock.Evidence of both the witnesses further reveals that after entry, the decomposed body of the deceased was found in the room.They have deposed in 16 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 17 apeal 234.09.bom.doc consonance with the prosecution case narrated earlier regarding the situation in which the body was found.The perusal of their depositions do not reveal that such aspect of their evidence were shattered during the cross-examination.In addition to the aforesaid evidence, the reference to the evidence of PW12 reveals that the appellant no.2 was visiting the house of the appellant no.1 during the absence of the deceased.It reveals that she had sent Shamim and Hasan to the Bandra Police Station after the neighbours have told that odour was coming.She specifically deposed that when the Police came, the room of deceased and the appellant no.1 was locked and the lock was opened by the Police and the body of deceased was found in the said room.We find that her evidence has remained totally unshattered during the cross-examination.Though suggested that she had deposed falsely, hardly anything was brought during the cross-examination for giving any credence to the suggestion given.The evidence of PW12 as well as of the earlier referred evidence of PW2, do not reveal any reason for them for entertaining any animus against the appellant for staking such a claim.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::In the same context, the reference to the evidence of PW13 reveals that he was serving as a Tailor at Bandra and the appellant no.2 was working with him as well as residing at his work place for a period of two months and as such he was well 17 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 18 apeal 234.09.bom.doc acquainted with him.The further part of his deposition reveals that appellant no.2 absented for work on 21.8.2007 and 22.08.2007 at about 7 to 8 p.m. , the appellant came to his workshop and asked for Rs.500/- on the count that his mother was sick and he was then in frightened.He gave him Rs.500/- and thereafter appellant no.2 collected his articles from his shop and left with a bag.We find that the said evidence of PW13 has remained unshattered in spite of the cross-examination.As a matter of fact, we find that except giving suggestion to PW13 that he deposed falsely and denied by him, no other effort was made on the part of the defence to challenge his said evidence.Needless to add that the said evidence duly corroborates prosecution case of the appellants trying to flee away from the place probably due to the commission of the crime as claimed by the prosecution.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::The reference to the evidence of PW7 also reveals some what identical story.The evidence of PW7 reveals that on the relevant day he has acted as a panch along with another when he 18 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 19 apeal 234.09.bom.doc was called at the mezzanine room by the Police.His evidence reveals in detail that the body of the deceased wasfound in the said room and the condition of the said body, as well as the articles seized by the Police i.e. blood stained salwar, chopper, knife and hammer from the said room.His evidence is also found corroborating the evidence of the Police personnel PW1 and PW14 referred hereinabove, who had entered in the said room.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::The learned counsel for the appellants by harping upon the evidence of PW7 submitted that his evidence only reveals that the Police had opened the door.It was urged that his evidence fails to reveal that Police had broken lock on the room.It was contended that PW7 being independent panch, his evidence run contrary to the evidence of earlier referred witnesses as the same fails to depict that the room was locked.It was thus contended that prosecution has failed to establish the circumstance of, room in question being locked.After carefully considering the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses and the sequence in which the events had occurred, we are unable to give any significance to said submissions canvassed.The aforesaid evidence duly reveals that the Police had been to the said spot as odour was emitting out of the room in question.The evidence of PW2 reveals that her husband has felt that it might 19 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 20 apeal 234.09.bom.doc have been due to decomposition of rat.It reveals that till then nobody had suspected of any foul play.The evidence denotes that the Police opened the lock for ascertaining the reason behind the said foul smell.It reveals that thereafter the body of the deceased was found in the said room.Thus considering from the said angle, PW7 would have been called only after noticing the dead body for recording the further events and situation prevailing at the spot and for drawing inquest panchanama.Hence in all probability PW7 being called lateron after the lock was opened, it would be unreasonable to accept himself deposing about the said events occurred prior to his arrival.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::Similarly looking the matter from another angle and even assuming that PW7 was accompanying the Police since the beginning or after noticing the lock on the room, then also carefully considering his evidence, we do not find that his evidence reveals that the said room was not locked.Such a conclusion is inevitable as PW7 has deposed of the door being open.The perusal of the cross-examination does not reveal any position brought on the record that it was not locked.Thus even from the said angle, the criticism or the circumstances pointed out from the evidence of PW7 cannot be given any undue significance.We are of such a view as in the event of the door being not locked, PW2 and her husband would have well entered in said room for ascertaining as 20 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 21 apeal 234.09.bom.doc to what was the reason behind smell.Such an inference is obvious as appellant no.1 and deceased were tenants and not strangers.However, instead of occurring of any such event of themselves entering the room, giving a call to the Police clearly denotes that the room then must have been locked.Furthermore the evidence of PW2 considered in proper perspective also denotes that she was told by the appellant no.1 while leaving the room that they were going away to Millat Nagar and informing accordingly to anybody who comes for inquiry.The said facet of her evidence considered in a proper perspective also denotes in all probability room being locked.Needless to add that it would be insensible to imagine in Bombay persons leaving the room by keeping it open.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the prosecution having not produced the lock at the trial, also denotes that the said room was not locked.We are unable to accept the said submission as in reality the same relates to nature of evidence required to be adduced for establishing a fact.In the event of, fact of room being locked being established by the prosecution, through the cogent evidence of PW2 , PW1, PW14 and PW13, it cannot be gainsaid that it was incumbent for prosecution to produce the said lock for establishing the relevant facet.At least the inference as suggested by learned counsel for the appellants, cannot be drawn on the said isolated circumstance ignoring 21 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 22 apeal 234.09.bom.doc otherwise convincing cogent and evidence of the above referred witnesses.In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the prosecution has duly established the circumstances under consideration.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::Now with regard to the fifth circumstance of the appellants being found in one room at Shajah Nagar Mirath, the evidence of PW9 API Badgujar reveals that PW15 P.I. Sawant had sent him along with the Police Party at Mirath, Uttar Pradesh for nabbing the appellants.It reveals that at the address of the appellants given to them, nobody was found and hence they had halted for 3-4 days.It reveals that after receipt of information that appellants were residing at Shajah Nagar, Mirath, on 2.9.2007 along with Nisarigate Police, he had been to the said Police Station and found both the appellants in one room.It reveals that on the basis of the photograph of the appellants given to him, he identified and arrested them by drawing panchanama Exh.28 in presence of panchas.It reveals that thereafter he had obtained transit remand and brought them to Bombay.After perusal of the cross- examination, we do not find that except giving the witness suggestion that he has deposed falsely, any significant material was brought on the record for not accepting his evidence.Though there is substance in the submission of prosecution having not examined panch witnesses, still we find it difficult to accept the submission that on the said count the evidence of PW9 is liable to be rejected.We are of such a view a it is fairly settled legal position that the presumption of truth available for the evidence of any witness recorded on oath is equally available for the evidence of the honest Police Officer and their evidence is not liable alone on the count of themselves being from the Police Department.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::ig Having regard to the same and after carefully considering the evidence of PW9, we find that the same is free from doubt, embellishment or any interestedness.Now considering the sixth circumstance relied by the prosecution of appellant no.1 having purchased sleeping pills on the day in question and administered the same, the trial Court had held that initial part of the said circumstance was duly established by the prosecution i.e. purchase of sleeping pills on the basis of the evidence of PW5, but not the latter aspect, as no evidence has surfaced regarding the same and even the medical evidence 23 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 24 apeal 234.09.bom.doc adduced having not established such a tablet was administered by PW1 to the deceased for making them easy to commit crime in question due to thereby there would have been least resistance on part of the deceased.In the said context, the prosecution has also adduced the evidence of PW15 Investigating Officer for establishing that statement made by appellant no.1 of showing the place at which she had purchased the said pills for the purpose as stated by him and having led the panchas and Police to the shop of PW5 and the panchanama Exh.42 regarding the same.Since we find there is a failure of the prosecution to establish discovery of the shop in pursuance to the statement made can be said to be an incriminating fact or even otherwise giving all latitudes to the prosecution with certainty having established, the nexus of the tablets purchased with the crime in question, we find it difficult to place much reliance upon the said evidence for any significant purpose.However, thereby we do not intend to convey that the entire evidence of PW5 would be liable to be discarded as the fact of appellants having purchased such pills from his shop has been duly established from his evidence.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::With regard to seventh circumstance of the appellant 24 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 25 apeal 234.09.bom.doc no.2 possessing the knowledge regarding the place at which the blood stained clothes and gunny bag used by appellant no.1 for cleaning the room were kept concealed and thereby nexus of appellant no.2 with the crime.The prosecution has also adduced the evidence of PW3 and PW15 regarding the statements made by appellant no.2 leading to the discovery and seizure of a bag containing the clothes which were used by appellant no.1 for cleaning the room and the same being seized from the place shown by the appellant no.2 at Bandra creek.However, reference to the evidence of PW3 reveals that he had not supported the prosecution and the learned APP had cross-examined him by obtaining permission of the Court.Hence prosecution as well as the trial Court had relied only upon the evidence of PW15 and C.A. report received regarding the said clothes indicating that human blood was found on the said clothes seized from the bag which was taken out from the sea water and sent to C.A. Thus considering limited significance of the said circumstance, we do not propose to indulge in detail dilation about it except stating that considering the place at which the said recovery was made i.e. clothes kept in a bag and thrown in a creek water , the said evidence would not be liable to be discarded as tried to canvass by the learned counsel for the appellants on the count of the recovery being from an open place accessible to all.It is indeed true that the recoveries of such a nature are found to be insignificant in view of knowledge regarding 25 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 26 apeal 234.09.bom.doc the same can be possible to any particular person for the said reason other than himself being a culprit and thus for the said reason significance of such a recovery from the open place being reduced.However, in the instant case, considering the evidence of PW15 in proper perspective and the manner in which the said clothes used for cleaning the human blood in the room, were thrown at a place in a sea which though open, still considering the peculiarity attached with it, we find it difficult to accept submission canvassed for the simple reason that the said facets denote that knowledge of such articles being at such place could not have been gathered by anybody else other than the person linked with the said recovery.Similarly we also do not find substance in the criticism canvassed that panch witness PW3 having not supported the prosecution, the entire evidence pertaining to the said recovery is liable to be discarded.We reject the said submission for the same reasons for which we have earlier not found in favour of the submission canvassed qua the evidence of PW9 API Badgujar on the count of non-examination of panch witnesses.Needless to add by establishing human blood on the said clothes, gunny bag vide C.A. report Exh.44, the prosecution has established nexus of the said clothes with the crime in question and particularly due to non- explanation about all the said aspects on part of any of the appellant.Similarly in absence of any suggestion of tampering of the seals of the said articles sent to C.A. , we are unable to give any 26 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 27 apeal 234.09.bom.doc credence to the submission canvassed that on the said count the said evidence is worthless.Resultantly we find that though for limited purpose the said evidence deserves to be taken into consideration for adding assurance to the conclusions arising out of the other established circumstances.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::Now considering to the last eighth circumstance relied by the trial Court regarding the extra judicial confession made by the appellants to PW11 Dr. Shinde i.e. statements made by both the appellants while giving history about the injuries sustained by them when they were sent for medical examination by PW15 to the said Doctor on 6.9.2007 i.e. the matter contained in Exhs.35 and 36, we are unable to place any reliance upon the said apparently inadmissible evidence.We are of such a view as after considering the evidence of PW15, it is apparently clear that both the appellants were then in Police custody.The evidence of PW15 that he sent both the appellants for such an examination itself denotes that both the appellants were then in his custody.In the said context the reference to the provisions of Section 26 of the Evidence Act which runs as under:-::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.""Admittedly the appellants being in custody when they had given the said history, in the event of same being of any confessional nature as canvassed, same would be wholly inadmissible in law and the prosecution would be debarred to prove the purported confessions against the appellants, all such evidence thereto adduced by the prosecution will be required to be left out of consideration and as such the circumstances under consideration and erroneously held to be established by the trial Court will be required to be held as not established and will be 28 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 29 apeal 234.09.bom.doc required to be left out of the consideration.Resultantly we find that out of above charted circumstances, excepting the last eighth circumstance, the prosecution has established all the circumstances or part thereof as indicated in the discussion made hereinabove.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that after excluding the vital circumstances of the purported confessions allegedly made by the appellants to PW11, the remaining circumstances being incapable of leading to the sole inference of the guilt of the appellants or at least of appellant no.2, both the appellants and/or at least the appellant no.1 would be entitled to be acquitted or at least given benefit of doubt.It was canvassed that there being no cogent evidence of room being locked or even assuming it to be locked, there was every possibility of somebody else entering said room and committing the murder and thereafter going away by locking the room for implicating the appellants.We are unable to accept the said criticism as we find that there is a close proximity within the events of the appellants along with the children leaving the spot of offence on 22.08.2007 at about 9 a.m. after locking the same and about the fact of since then room being locked and decomposed corpse of the deceased found in the 29 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 30 apeal 234.09.bom.doc said room on the next day; as duly established by the prosecution.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::Hardly any evidence is surfaced on the record that anybody else had thereafter opened the said room.At any rate the room being locked, the same excludes any such possibility as canvassed.Thus the said circumstance of corpse of deceased being found in the said room which was locked when appellants had left room, has significant serious potential of the said circumstance alone leading to the sole inference about their guilt in causing homicidal death of deceased even not disputed by the appellants and otherwise also established by the prosecution.Such a conclusion is inevitable has none of the appellants has advanced any explanation during their examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Hence even if the other circumstances i.e. circumstance nos. 2,5,6 and 7 are not taken into consideration, the other established circumstance nos. 1,3 and 4 alone are capable of leading to the inference of their guilt.Additionally the said other circumstances established by the prosecution also strengthens such a conclusion, as the said circumstances considered along with the earlier two referred circumstances forms a formidable chain leading to the sole inference of the guilt of the appellants.The same is apparent from the circumstances of blood stained water percolating in the room of PW2, though appellant no.1 tried to explain of the same being on count of injury sustained by her, her conduct of non-opening the door at the relevant time and the time at which the said event had 30 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 31 apeal 234.09.bom.doc occurred i.e. about 8 p.m. on the relevant day also fortifies the conclusions arrived earlier.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::Same is the case regarding fifth circumstance of both the appellants being found in one room at Mirath.It is indeed true that as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the prosecution has not given the evidence as to who was the owner of the said room and additionally the appellants acquainted with each other, being found in one room by itself would be innocuous circumstance as canvassed.Similarly with regard to the part of circumstance no.6 of trial Court having held that there is no evidence of appellant no.1 having administered sleeping pills purchased by her to the deceased, it can be said that even for the said circumstance no explanation had been given by the appellant no.1 i.e. regarding the reason for purchasing the said pills.Thus the said circumstance 31 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 32 apeal 234.09.bom.doc considered along with the other circumstances also fortifies the inference arising out of the same.Since it is well known that the evidence of medicine consumed may not be retained in the body after passage of certain times, we find total rejection of the said part of circumstance by the trial Court was not proper.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::The learned counsel for the appellants also tried to canvass that ultimately the appellant no.1 was a lady and it is unlikely that she would have caused the throat injury to her husband and at the most, the evidence denotes that she had accompanied the appellant no.2 and as such her conviction under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was improper.We do not find any force in the said submission as bare glance of the said section 32 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 ::: 33 apeal 234.09.bom.doc 34 of the I.P.C. makes it clear that act includes the series of an act and under Section 34 of the I.P.C. if such an act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, then each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it was done by him alone.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::Resultantly we find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:07:42 :::","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Counsel for the parties have chosen not to appear at the call by High Court Bar Association to boycott the Court.Let record of the trial Court be called for.Perused the judgment.Considered I.A. No.23926/2015, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.In view of the fact that appellants though were prosecuted for the offence under Sections 294, 325/34, 323/34, 395 and 506B of IPC; however, the prosecution has failed to establish the charges under Sections 294, 323/34, 395 and 506B IPC and that co-accused Suresh, Deeprani and Haribai are being exonerated of all the charges and the fact that the appellants were on bail during trial and they have not misused the liberty so granted, but without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the jail sentence awarded to the appellants for the offence under Section 325/34 IPC deserves to be suspended.The I.A. is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that on appellants, viz. Kannai and Mukesh Kurmi, depositing entire fine amount as also furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each, with a solvent surety Criminal Appeal No.3281/2015 in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 10.3.2016 and on all such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard, sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants shall remain suspended till further orders and they shall be released on bail.Let this appeal be listed for final hearing in due course under appropriate category.C.C. as per rules.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Rustam Singh Barela in Crime No.07/2018 registered by Police Station Rajpura, District Damoh under Sections 376D, 450 and 506 of the I.P.C.As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix is a 28 years old mature, married woman with two children.At about 12:30 p.m. on 27.2.2018, the prosecutrix was sleeping at her home with her two children.She had not bolted the door from inside.Her husband had gone to visit his relatives.At that time, petitioner Rustam came and lay with her on the same cot.The prosecutrix thought that it was her husband, who was sleeping.However, when she realized that petitioner Rustam was sleeping on the cot, she raised an alarm; whereon, Rustam threatened to kill and clamped her mouth shut.Rustam informed her that petitioner Prem Singh is also standing outside the door; thereafter, Rustam raped the prosecutrix.When Rustam was leaving, prosecutrix threw a brick on him.Both Rustam and Prem Singh were threatening to kill the prosecutrix and her husband.when her husband arrived at 4:00 a.m. in the morning, report was lodged.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement of the prosecutrix, her husband and her brother-in-law have been recorded by the trial Court on 29.6.2018 and they have all turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case at all.In support of his contention, he has filed copies of the statements of the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Misc.Criminal Case No.11936/2018 Rustam Singh Barela Vs.State of M.P.prosecution witnesses.The petitioner has been in custody since 1.3.2018; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application mainly on the ground that the statement of the prosecution witnesses cannot be evaluated or appreciated for the purpose of grant of bail to an accused person.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Rustam Singh Barela, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge ahd Digitally signed by MOHD AHMAD Date: 2018.07.11 23:15:59 -07'00'","['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The prosecution story, briefly stated, was as under :-All the appellants as well as Hira Singh, deceased and his brother Ganesh Singh (PW-1) were residents of village Shivpur Diyar, P.S. Kotwali, district Ballia.About 5 days before the occurrence of this case, appellants Radha Mohan Singh and Kaushal Kishore and others had assaulted one Udai Narain and a case was registered in this regard .Ganesh Singh (PW-1) was witness of prosecution in the said case.Radha Mohan Singh and others were pressurizing Ganesh Singh (PW-1) not to give evidence against them in said case , but he was not agreeable to it.Hira Singh deceased, elder brother of Ganesh Singh (PW-1) was residing at Calcutta in connection with his business.Two days before the occurrence of this case, Hira Singh had come to his native village.On 14-3-1979 it was a day of Holt festival.People of the village of the parties were busy in singing Holi songs and meeting with each other.In the evening.Hira Singh deceased had gone to meet Udai Narain.While he was returning from the house of Udai Narain, appellants Radha Mohan Singh and Kaushal Kishore met him in the way and asked him to ask his brother (Ganesh Singh) not to give evidence against them.Hira Singh told that his brother had seen the occurrence and he would give evidence.The above appellants then threatened him that they would teach him a lesson.Ganesh Singh (PW-1) had also gone -in the village to meet some people and when he returned to his house, Hira Singh told about the threat given by the appellants Radha Mohan Singh and Kaushal Kishore.Thereafter, Hira Singh deceased and Ganesh Singh (PW-1) went to the house of Nand Kishore (PW-5).Mohan (PW-3) and Ram Pyari (PW-6) were also present there.All the four persons then proceeded towards north.After meeting people they were returning to their house.Duration fresh.Ganesh Singh (PW-1) thereafter got prepared report from Madan Yadav and lodged the same at P.S. Kotwali at 10.30 p.m. On the basis of written report (Ext. Ka-1), Head Constable Shamsher Singh (PW-9) prepared chick, F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-17) made an endorsement of the same at G.D. report and registered a case against the appellant under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 323 and 307, IPC.The investigation of the case was taken up by Sri Shiv Kumar Singh, I.O. (PW-8).who interrogated Ganesh Singh (PW1) at the police station,Hira Singh deceased died in the hospital at 10.40 p.m. The information regarding his death was sent to P.S. Kotwali, which was received there at 12.10 a.m. the endorsement of which was made at G,D. report (Ext. Ka-20) .On the basis of above information, the case was altered under Section 302, IPC.The I.O. Sri Shiv Kumar Singh (PW-8) reached the spot, where he interrogated Mohan Yadav (PW-3) and Ram Pyari (PW-6) and sent them for medical examination.Thereafter the I.O. interrogated Ram Jee Singh (PW-4) and Nand Kishore (PW-5).The I.O. inspected place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-12).The occurrence had taken place in the open place and assuming that darkness had started, there was sufficient light of twilight as well as moon light in which the known persons could be easily identified as the parties are residents of village and used to live in the midst of nature and accustomed to live without light.JUDGMENT U.S. Tripathi, J.This appeal has been nominated by the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 29-3-2004 to this Bench under Section 392 , Cr.P.C. for opinion, as there was difference of opinion between the Hon'ble Judge (Hon'ble S.K. Agarwal, J. and Hon'ble K.K. Misra, J.) of the Bench which heard and decided it.The appeal was directed against the judgment and order dated 16-6-1980 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ballia in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 1980 convicting the appellants Radha Mohan, Devendra Singh alias Mutuk Singh, Kaushal Kishore, Tej Bahadur Singh and Kapil Deo Singh under Sections 302 read with 149, IPC and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life, further convicting appellants Tej Bahadur Singh and Kapil Deo Singh under Section 147, IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo R.I. for a period of one year, further, convicting Radha Mohan, Devendara Singh and Kaushal Kishore under Section 148, IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo R.I. for a period of two years.Appellant Kaushal Kishore was further convicted under Section 324, IPC and Kapil Deo Singh and Tej Bahadur Singh under Section 323, IPC and remaining appellants were convicted under Section 324 read with 149 IPC and 323 read with 149, IPC, but no separate sentence was awarded under these sections.At about sun set when they reached near the house of Nand Kishore (PW -5), the appellants Radha Mohan Singh armed with spear (Bhala), Devendara Singh armed with Lathi and Kaushal Kishore armed with knife met them there.Radha Mohan Singh appellant inflicted spear below on Hira Singh deceased and when Ganesh Singh (PW-1) tried to save him, appellants Tej Bahadur Singh and Kapil Deo Singh inflicted Lathi blows on him.Mohan Yadav (PW-3) and Ram Pyari (PW-6) tried to save them and Kaushal inflicted knife blow on Mohan and Kapil Deo Singh assaulted Ram Pyari (PW-6) with Lathi.On the alarm raised by the injured Ram Jee Singh (PW- 4), Nand Kishore (PW-5), Jagdish Singh and others came to the spot and witnessed the occurrence.Thereafter, the appellants ran away towards east.Hira Singh had sustained spear and Pharsa injuries.A charpai was arranged on which Hira Singh was taken to Bandh and from there to District Hospital, Ballia, where he was medically examined by Dr. M.A.R. Siddlqui (PW-2) at 9 p.m. who found following injuries on his person :-(1) Incised wound 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm x skin deep on left side chest 19 cm below nipple.(2) Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on left side of chest (as far as probed easily 10 cm above left nipple), margins sharp cut, tailing downwards, fresh blood coming out of wound.The injuries were kept under observation and patient was admitted in the hospital.The injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon and were fresh in duration.Ganesh Singh (PW-1) was also medically examined by Dr. Siddiqui at 9,50 p.m. and following injuries were found on his person :-(1) Lacerated wound 3 cm x .5 cm scalp deep on right parietal region of head, 12 cm above right ear.(2) Contusion with swelling 3 cm x 3 cm on right parietal region 6 cm from right ear louble (above) red in colour.(3) Abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on left side face just lateral to left eye.(4) Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on right shoulder outer most.(5) Contused swelling , 3 cm x 3 cm on front of left knee joint.The injuries were simple caused by blunt object, except No. 3 caused by friction against hard surface.He also recovered blood from the spot and prepared recovery memo.The inquest of dead body of Hira oSingh was conducted on 15-3-1979 by Sub Inspector Ram Sabad Singh (PW-7) in the mortuary of District Hospital.He sealed the dead body and sent the same for postmortem along with other relevant papers.Ram Pyari (PW-6) was medically examined on 15-3-1979 at 11.30 a.m. by Dr. S.P. Singh (PW-11) who found following injuries on his person ;:-Painful swelling 2.5 x 1.5 cm on the back of left hand's thumb at its root.Abrasion 3x2 cm on the right side Of head 4 cm above and in front of tragus.Complain ofpain on mid front of chest.Mohan (PW-3) was medically examined by Dr. S.P. Singh (PW 11) on 15-3-1979 at 12.10 p.m. and there were following injuries on his person :-Lacerated wound 1.5 x 0.2 cm x skin deep on the palmer aspect of left middle finger at its middle phalanx.Lacerated wound 0.3 x 0.2 cm x skin dep on the palmer aspect of left ring finger just above the middle phalanx.Both injuries were simple caused by blunt object and 3/4 day old.Autopsy on the dead body of deceased was conducted on 15-3-1979 at 4 p.m. by Dr. Prem Prakash (PW-10), who found following ante mortem injuries on his person :-(1) Stitched wound 3 cm long on the left side of chest, 1 cm below the clavicle and 5 cm left to the mid-line.On the removal of stitches, it was found that there was a stab wound 3 cm x chest cavity deep on the left side front of chest, 1 cm below the clavicle and 5 cm left to the mid-line.Margins of wound were well defined.Wound was directed inwards downwards and towards right side.cm x 0.2 cm skin deep on the left side of chest in mid axillary line, 16 cm behind the axilla and 24 cm left to the mid-line.Internal examination showed that both the pleuras were punctured.Right pleural cavity contained one pint of blood, Left pleural cavity contained 1 pint of blood, In the right lung punctured wound 1.5 cm x large tissues deep at their middle lobe was present.In the left lung punctured wound 2 cm x 1 cm x through and through at the upper lobe was present.Stomach contained semi digested food .Small intestine contained semi digested food materials and large intestine contained faccal matter.The remaining investigation was completed by Sri S.N. Singh, Inspector, who submitted charge-sheet against the appellants.Cognizance of the case was taken by the Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions.Appellants Kapil Deo Singh and Tej Bahadur Singh were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 147, 302/ 149, 324/149 and 323, IPC while appellants Radha Mohan and Devendra Singh were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 324/149 and 323/149, IPC.Kaushal Kishore was charged with the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 323/149 and 324, IPC.The appellants pleaded not guilty and contended their false implication due to enmity.The prosecution in support of its case examined Ganesh Singh (PW 1), Dr. M. A. R. Siddiqui (PW 2), Mohan Yadav (PW 3), Ram Jee Singh (PW 4), Nand Kishore (PW- 5), Ram Pyari (PW 6), Ram Sabad Singh, Sub-Inspector (PW 7), Shiv Kumar Singh, I.O. (PW8), Shamsher Singh Head Constable (PW 9), Dr. Prem Prakash (PW 10) and Dr. S. P. Singh (PW 11).Ganesh Singh (PW 1), Mohan Yadav (PW 3), Ram Jee Singh (PW- 4), Nand Kishore (PW 5) and Ram Pyari (PW- 6) were witnesses of fact, while evidence of remaining witnesses was formal in nature.The appellants led no evidence.The learned Sessions Judge on considering evidence of the prosecution held that the appellants were members of unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to commit murder of Hira Singh and to inflict injuries on the persons, who came to his rescue and therefore, the prosecution established the guilt of appellants.With these findings, he convicted and sentenced.the appellants as mentioned above.Aggrieved with their above conviction and sentence, the appellants preferred this appeal.The appeal was once dismissed by the Bench consisting of Hon'ble R.R.K. Trivedi and Hon'ble Ikram-ul-Bari, JJ.The appellants went in appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court against the above judgment and order.Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 14-3-2002 allowed the appeal and remanded back the appeal to this Court for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard, as the appeal was decided in the absence of learned counsel for the appellants.After remand of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants were heard by Bench consisting of Hon'ble S. K. Agarwal and Hon'ble K. K. Misra, JJ.By the judgment, and order dated 22-3-2004 Hon'ble S. K. Agarwal, J. allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of appellants.By separate judgment and order of the same date Hon'ble K. K. Misra, J. dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellants.In view of difference of opinion between the two Hon'ble Judges of the Bench, the record was placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice under Section 392, Cr.P.C. who nominated the appeal to this Bench for opinion.This is how the appeal is before this Bench.I have heard Sri A. K. Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.A. for the respondent and have perused the entire evidence on record.The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants had no motive with the deceased; the occurrence had taken place in the darkness and nobody had seen the occurrence; there was delay in the lodging of F.I.R.; the report was ante-timed the evidence of the ocular witnesses is not reliable and therefore, the appellants could not.be convicted.Before adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the apepllants, I would like to refer the gist of evidence of ocular witnesses.Ganesh Singh (PW 1), the younger brother of deceased Hira Singh, stated that about 5 days before the occurrence of this case, appellants Radha Mohan, Kaushal Kishore and others had assaulted one Udai Narain of which he was witness of the prosecution.Radha Mohan and others were pressurizing him not to give evidence in the said case.On the date of occurrence it was Holi festival and people of the village were busy in singing and enjoying Holi songs.Hira Singh deceased had gone to meet village people and while he was returning to his house Radha Mohan and Kaushal Kishore appellants met him in the way and asked him to persuade his brother (witness) not to give evidence against them.On it Hira Singh replied that his brother had seen the occurrence and he would give evidence.The above appellants then threatened him that they would teach him a lesson.Thereafter, the witness along with the deceased went to the house of Nand Kishore, Mohan (PW 3) and Ram Pyari (PW 6) were also present there.All the four persons proceeded towards north.While returning to their house at about sun set when they reached at Rasta near the hosue of Nand Kishore, appellants Radha Mohan armed with spear, Devendra Singh armed with Pharsa, Tej Bahadur and Kapil Deo armed with Lathi and Kaushal Kishore armed with knife came there.Radha Mohan inflicted spear blow on the deceased.When the witnesses tried to save him, appellants Tej Bahadur and Kapil Deo Singh inflicted Lathi blows on him.When Mohan and Ram Pyari tried to save them, Kausal Kishore inflicted knife blow on Mohan (PW 3) and Kapil Deo inflicted Lathi blow on Ram Pyari, Pharsa injury was also caused to Hira Singh.On the alarm raised by them, Ram Jee Singh (PW 4) Nand Kishore (PW 5) Jagdish Singh and others came to the spot and saw the occurrence.Thereafter, the deceased, who was in injured condition was taken on Charpai up to Bandh and from there he was taken to District Hospital, Ballia in a tempo.Alter medical examination he got prepared report from Madan Yadav and lodged the same at P.S. Kotwali.Mohan Yadav (PW 3) stated that on the date of occurrence, in the evening he along with Hira Singh deceased, Ganesh (PW- 1) and Ram Pyari (PW 6) was sitting at the house of Nand Kishore.From there they went to meet the people of the village.While returning from north when they reached in the Gali near the house of Nand Kishore, appellants Radha Mohan, Devendra, Tej Bahadur, Kapil Deo and Kaushal Kishore came there from southern side.Radha Mohan was having spear, Devendra was having Pharsa, Kapil Deo and Tej Bahadur were having Lathis and Kaushal Kishore was having knife.Raising exhortation, itadha Mohan inflicted spear blow on Hira Singh, Devendra Singh inflicted Pharsa blow on him.When Ganesh (PW 1) rushed to save his brother Kapil Deo and Tej Bahadur assaulted him with Lathi.When the witnesses tried to intervene, Kaushal Kishore appellant inflicted knife blow on him, which hit on his hand.Kapil Deo and Tej Bahadur inflicted Lathi blows on Ram Pyari, who sustained injuries.Nand Kishore (PW 5) Ram Jee (PW 4) and Jagdish Singh also came to the spot and then the appellants ran towards east.Ganesh Singh (PW 1) and Hira Singh were taken to hospital.He and Ram Jee went to hospital on next day, where they were medically examined.Ram Jee Singh (PW 4) stated that on the date of occurrence at about sun set, he reached at the house of Nand Kishore to meet him.He heard alarm from the Gali towards east of the house of Nand Kishore and went there.There he saw that Radha Mohan, Mutuk Singh, (Devendra Singh) Tej Bahadur, Kapil Deo Singh and Kaushal Kishore Singh appellants were assaulting Hira Singh.Radha Mohan was having spear, Mutuk Singh was having Pharsa, Kapil Deo and Tej Bahadur Singh were having Lathis and Kaushal Kishore Singh was having knife.Radha Mohan and Mutuk Singh had assaulted Hira Singh.Ganesh Singh (PW 1) was assaulted by Kapil Deo and Tej Bahadur.Kaushal Singh had inflicted knife blow on Mohan (PW 3) and Kapil Deo Singh had inflicted Lathi blow on Ram Pyari (PW 6).Besides him Nand Kishore (PW 5) and Jagdish Singh had also reached the spot and seeing them, the appellants ran away.Nand Kishore (PW 5) stated that on the date of occurrence, Hira Singh was murdered and Ganesh Singh was assaulted.But he did not know whether Mohan and Ram Pyari were also assaulted.He came to know about the occurrence when he returned to his house and had not seen the actual assault.The witness was declared hostile by the prosecution.Ram Pyari (PW 6) stated that he had not seen the occurrence.He was also declared hostile.The motive alleged in the F.I'.R. was that the appellants had old enmity with Ganesh Singh (PW 1) and the deceased, regarding litigations and village party Bandi.The appellants were always tiying to suppress Ganesh Singh (PW 1) and the deceased.In his evidence Ganesh Singh (PW 1) stated that prior to 5 days of the occurrence Radha Mohan, Kaushal Kishore appellants and others had assaulted one Udai Narain of his village and he was witness of the prosecution of the said assault.Radha Mohan and others were pressurizing him not to become witness in the said case.But he was not acceding to their pressure.On the date of occurrence, the appellants Radha Mohan and Kaushal Kishore again asked Hira Singh deceased to persuade his brother not to give evidence against them.Hira Singh refused and on it, they threatened him to teach a lesson.Enmity beween the parties is not disputed.It is also clear from the cross-examination of Ganesh Singh (PW 1) that Sudama Singh and his wife had initiated a criminal case of Marpit against Ganesh Singh (PW 1) and his brothers, in which father of appellant Mutuk Singh was witness.There was also a civil litigation between Sudama Singh and Ram Jee Singh, in which Sachchida Singh, father of Mutuk Singh was witness.Another criminal case was initiated against Mutuk Singh and his father, in which Ganesh Singh (PW 1) was cited as a witness.It was also suggested on behalf of the appellants to Ganesh Singh (PW 1) that besides him, Ram Jee Singh and Mahabir were also witnesses in the case of assault on Udai Narain.The appellants had also admitted in their statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that they were falsely implicated on account of enmity.Therefore, enmity between the parties is not disputed.However, the fact that Ganesh Singh (PW 1) was witness in the case of assault on Udai Narain against appellants Radha Mohan and others is not mentioned in the F.I.R. but it is admitted to appellants that Ganesh Singh (PW 1) was witness in the case of assault on Udai Narain, but they had not assaulted.Therefore, it cannot be said that the factum of assault by appellant.Radha Mohan and others on Udai Narain and Ganesh Singh (PW 1) being witness of the prosecution in the said case was introduced for the first time.Ganesh Singh (PW 1) was interrogated in the said case by the I.O. prior to the date of occurrence.Though there was no date of evidence in the Court in near future, but there is no evidence on record to show that charge-sheet was not submitted in the case.There is also no evidence on record to show that a final report was submitted in the said case.In case the police had interrogated Ganesh Singh (PW 1) in the said case of assault on Udai Narain, it had given apprehension to the appellants that he would appear as witness against them in the Court also and in these circumstances they had to take every steps to win him over, so that they could not be punished in the said case.It was further contended that in case Ganesh Singh (PW 1) was witness against the appellants, the appellants had no occasion to pressurize his brother Hira Singh, who was residing at Calcutta and had come to his village for a short period and as such there was no motive against Hira Singh.There appears no force in the above contention.Admittedly Hira Singh was elder brother of Ganesh Singh (PW 1).If Ganesh Singh (PW 1) was not conceding to the pressure of appellants, the appellants in all probabilities had thought it proper to ask his elder brother, who had come to village, to pressurize him in this regard and when Hira Singh also did not agree to their proposal, it was but natural for the appellants to teach him a lesson.There is also evidence on record that the appellants were influential persons of the village and persistence of Ganesh Singh (PW 1) and his brother Hira Singh deceased to give evidence against them would have badly hurt their ego and they would have decided to teach a lesson to them.Even that apart, in this case ample materials are on record to show that the family of the appellants and the deceased were not in good terms and had strained relationship over civil and criminal litigations which itself is more than sufficient to constitute the motive as well.Moreover, in this case there is direct witness and therefore the motive element does not play such an important role as to cast any doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witness even if there be any doubt in this regard.Therefore, the motive alleged by the prosecution was probable and immediate.The omission regarding above motive in the F.I.R. is not very much material firstly; because the facturn of Ganesh Singh (PW 1) being a witness in the case of assault on Udai Naraln is admitted and the facts and circumstances in which the report was lodged there was every possibility that informant would have not.thought it necessary to mention this motive in detail in the F.I.R and therefore, the omission of this motive Is not very much material and it cannot be said that this motive was subsequently introduced.The occurrence in this case allegedly took place at about sun set and the F.I.R. was lodged at 10.30 p.m., while the distance of police station was only 6 miles (10 Km.).The learned counsel for the appellants contended that there was delay in lodging the report.It is clear from the evidence of Ganesh Singh (PW 1) and other ocular witnesses that occurrence took place at about sun set.Hira Singh deceased had sustained spear and pharsa injuries in the incident and after the occurrence a Charpai was arranged on which the deceased was brought up to Bandh and from there he was taken to District Hospital, Ballia in a tempo.The deceased as well as Ganesh Singh (PW 1) were medically examined in the District Hospital at 9 p.m. and 9.50 p.m. respectively and thereafter Ganesh Singh (PW 1) came to police station, where he got prepared the report and lodged the same.It was clarified by Ganesh Singh (PW 1) in his evidence that though buses for Ballia were available at the Bandh, but on the date of occurrence it was Holi festival and therefore, no bus or rickshaw was plying.It was also clarified that there were many rickshaws and tempos in his village, but on account of Holi festival,.no rickshaw or tempo was available.That he had to wait for tempo at the Bandh for about 2 hours.He further clarified that he along with his brother reached District Hospital, Ballia near about 9 p.m. Thus, the non availability of rickshaw and tempo in the village of occurrence has been fully explained.is a matter of common experience that on.Holi festival rickshaw pullers and tempo drivers are busy in celebrating festival and they do not ply their rickshaw and tempo on said day.Thus, the circumstances in which informant Ganesh Singh (PW 1) and deceased Hira Singh were brought to District Hospital and thereafter,' report was lodged, the delay, if any, has been fully explained.The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the explanation offered by Ganesh Singh (PW 1) does not appear correct, as according to the witness, the distance of Bandh from the place of occurrence is only about 500 yards and the informant must have reached there at about 6.30 p.m. and it is also admitted to him that distance of police station was only 7 miles and therefore, this distance could have been covered within half an hour.But no inference can be drawn simply by picking up certain sentence from the evidence of a witness.The witnesses are villagers.They stated timing on their speculation and there could be some difference in the timing given by such type of witnesses.Method of mathematical calculation cannot be applied on these witnesses and therefore, by applying mathematical formula the testimony of above witnesses on the point of explanation of delay in lodging the report cannot be disbelieved.As mentioned above, it has also been fully explained by Ganesh Singh (PW 1) as to why he had to wait for about 2 hours for conveyance at the Bandh.Therefore, there is no force in the above contention.The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the occurrence had taken place in the darkness and nobody had seen the assault.In the F.I.R. the time of occurrence is given at about sun set.Ganesh Singh (PW 1) has stated in his evidence that the occurrence took place at about sun set, while he along with his brother Hira Singh and Mohan (PW 3) and Ram Pyari (PW 6) were proceeding towards the house of Nand Kishore (PW 5).Mohan Yadav (PW 3) also stated in his examination -in-chief that the occurrence took place in the evening.In his cross-examination, he stated that Hira Singh and Ganesh Singh (PW 1) came to the house of Nand Kishore (PW 5) prior to one hour of the sun set.However, his cross-examination was deferred for next day and in his next day's cross-examination he stated that sun had set pior to one and half hour, of the occurrence.However, the witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross- examined.Ram Jee Singh (PW 4) also stated in his examination in-chief that occurrence took place at about sun set, Nand Kishore (PW 5) and Ram Pyari (PW 6) have not supported prosecution case and were declared hostile.Ram Pyari (PW 6) stated that occurrence took place in the night and three Gharis night had passed when the occurrence took place.On the basis of above evidence it was contended that occurrence took place in the darkness.It is relevant to mention at this stage that Mohan (PW 3) changed his previous version about time of occurrence in his cross-examination of next day, and therefore, the possibility that by next day, he was won over and pressurized by the appellants cannot be easily ruled out.Ram Pyari (PW 6) though injured witness had not supported the prosecution case and he was declared hostile.But the Court has at least to be aware that prima facie, a witness who makes different statements at different times has no regard for truth.His evidence has to be read and considered as a whole with a view to find out whether any weight should be attached to the same.The Court should be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness and, normally, it should look for corroboration to his evidence.The High Court has accepted the testimony of the hostile witnesses as gospel truth for throwing overboard the prosecution case which had been fully established by the testimony of several eye-witnesses, which was of unimpeachable character.The approach of the High Court, in dealing with the case, to say the least, is wholly fallacious.""If the evidence of Mohan (P. W. 3) is considered as a whole, it would appear that he is an injured witness and sustained injuries in the same transaction and had also supported the case of the prosecution in his earlier statement.As held above, the possibility that after first day's cross-examination, witness was pressurized and was won over can also not.be ruled out.The perusal of entire evidence of the witness shows that he had corroborated the testimony of Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1).The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1) has admitted In his cross-examination that he started from his house for meeting people on Holi festival at 4.30-5 p.m. That he visited about 10 houses.That he spent about 1 or 2 minutes at each house and it took about 2 hours and therefore, he could not reach the place of occurrence prior to 6.30 or 7 p.m. Having considered the evidence of Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1) I find that above contention is not correct.The witness stated that he started from the house of Nand Kishore (P.W. 5) at about 4.30-5 p.m. He denied the suggestion of appellants that it took about 2 hours to complete the visit.Further, he stated that he returned within 1 1/2 hours.He also stated that there was no singing at the houses which he visited and thus in all probabilities he returned and reached the place of occurrence at about 6.15 p.m. In the months of March when the occurrence took place sun sets at about 6 p.m. and there is twilight for about 30 minutes after sun sets and therefore at the time of occurrence there was sufficient light.It is not disputed that the appellants and the witnesses are of the same village and the appellants were well known to the witnesses.It is also not disputed that occurrence had taken place on the day of Holi festival.Holi occurs on succeeding day of Purnima (full moon night) and on that day, the moon rises just after the sun set.The occurrence had taken place at about sun set and the report was lodged at 10.30 p.m. Informant Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1) has explained that after the occurrence arrangement for a Charpai was made and deceased Hira Singh, who was in injured condition was brought up to Bandh on the said Charpai.There they waited for conveyance for about 2 hours and then got tempo and reached the hospital.After medical examination of the deceased and the informant he went to polfs.e station, got prepared the report and lodged the same.The evidence of Shamsher Singh, Head Constable (P.W. 9) shows that the informant Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1) handed overwritten report (Ext. Ka 1) at the police station at 10.30 p.m. on the basis of which he prepared a chik, FIR and made an endorsement of the same at the G.D. report.The evidence of Dr. M.A.R. Siddiqui (P.W. 2) shows that Hira Singh was examined at 9 p.m. and Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1) was examined at 9.50 p.m. Informant Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1) went to police station after his medical examination.Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1) stated that it took about 30 minutes to get the FIR prepared.Thus, in all probabilities, the report would have been lodged at 10.30 p.m. It is also established from the evidence of Shamsher Singh, Head Constable (P.W. 9) that after lodging of the report, a memo was received from the hospital at 10.35 p.m. regarding admission of Hira Singh in hospital and another memo was received at 12.10 p.m. regarding death of Hira Singh deceased, on the basis of which the case was altered under Section 302, IPC, vide G. D. report (Ext. Ka-21).He further stated in his cross-examination that special report of the case was sent at 3.10 a.m. through Constable Nagina Ram, who returned back at the police station at 7.15 a.m. The special report was probably sent after altering the case under Section 302, IPC.The case was altered under Section 302, IPC at 00.10 a.m. and some time must have been taken in preparing special report, deploying constable and sending the same.Sending special report at 3.10 a.m. suggests that FIR was lodged at the time alleged by the prosecution.The learned counsel for the appellants contended that informant Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1) was medically examined at 9.50 p.m. and thereafter he came to police station Kotwali; that Police Station Kotwali is at a considerable distance from the hospital and therefore, no report could be registered at 10.30 p.m. at the instance of Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1), who admitted that it took about 30 minutes in preparation of the report.There is no evidence on record to show that P.S. Kotwali, Ballia is at a considerable distance from District Hospital, Ballia.The distance between hospital and police station has not been elicited from any of the witness.Judicial notice be taken of the fact that Ballia is a small city and without any evidence regarding above distance, it cannot be inferred that police station Kotwali is at a considerable distance from the hospital.In small cities like Ballia the distance of Kotwali could be covered within 10 or 15 minutes.Therefore, there is no force in the above contention that Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1) could not reach the police station prior to 10.30 p.m.It was further contended that the inquest report was not prepared in the night as crime number and sections of the offences were noted down in the inquest report with different ink and it shows that FIR was not in existence till inquest memo was prepared.Perusal of inquest report and the evidence of Sub-Inspector Ram Sabad Singh (P.W. 7) shows that inquest was prepared on 15-3- 1979 in the morning.Sub-Inspector Ram Sabad Singh (P.W. 7) stated that he departed from police station at 6.30 a.m. and reached there at 7 a.m. It is however mentioned in the inquest report that inquest report could not be prepared in the night for want of sufficient light and Ram Sabad Singh came to mortuary in the morning and prepared inquest report.However, he further stated that sending of G. D. report and chik, FIR along with inquest report is not necessary, but the post-mortem report shows that 8 enclosures were also sent along with the dead body.It has not been clarified from Dr. Prem Prakash (P.W. 10) who conducted autopsy that copy of report and G.D. were not received along with the dead body.Assuming that these papers were not sent, the lodging of the report at 10.30 p.m. cannot be doubted, as the special report was sent in the same night at 3.10 a.m. No clarification was sought from Sub-Inspector Ram Sabad Singh (P.W. 7) as to how and under what circumstances interpolations were made in Sections of the crime in the inquest report.Unless clarification is sought, it cannot be said that Sub- Inspector Ram Sahad Singh (P.W. 7) himself had made interpolation.Therefore, on this basis, it cannot be said that FIR was not lodged at the time alleged by the prosecution and it was not in existence till the preparation of inquest report.Thus, from the above evidence and discussions it is clear that the FIR was lodged at the time alleged by the prosecution and there was no ante timing.To substantiate the manner of occurrence and complicity of appellants, the prosecution has relied on ocular testimony of Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1), Mohan (P.W. 3), Ram Jee Singh (P.W. 4), Nand Kishore (P.W. 5) and Ram Pyari (P.W. 6).Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1) is the complainant and real brother of the deceased.He claimed that at the time of occurrence, he along with his elder brother Hira Singh deceased was returning to his house after meeting the people of the village on the occasion of Holi and when he and the deceased reached near the house of Nand Kishore at about sun set, the occurrence took place.In his statement the witness had given each and every detail of the occurrence, weapon possessed by each of the appellants and role played by each of them.He is also injured witness and his injuries were examined just after examination of injuries of the deceased at 9.50 p.m. in the same night.He had also taken deceased up to the hospital.He went to the police station and lodged the report.The witness has categorically stated that while appellants Radha Mohan was inflicting spear blow on the deceased, he tried to save him and then appellant Tej Bahadur Singh and Kapil Deo Singh inflicted Lathi blows on him.The injuries sustained by witness, as stated by Dr. M.A.R. Siddiqui (P.W. 2) were lacerated wounds and contusions and contused swelling.Dr. Siddiqui stated that these injuries were caused by blunt object except injury No. 3, which was caused by friction.The above medical evidence supports the evidence of Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1).The duration of injuries of the witness and that of Hira Singh are the same.Thus, it is established that witness sustained injuries in the same transaction, in which the deceased sustained injuries.The injuries on the person of the witness in the same transaction confirms his presence on the spot.As held above, there was sufficient light and opportunity for the witness to recognize the assailants, who were known to him from before.It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the witness stated in his cross-examination that when the assailants came near him, he recognized them and it shows that he could not see the role of each accused.The word ""Najdik"" occurring in the statement of the witness has not been got clarified.It may be 10 paces or 2 paces.No doubt, the witness is close relative of the deceased, but this is no ground to discard his testimony.It was also contended that the witness was inimical with the appellants and therefore the accused persons were nominated on account of suspicion due to pre-existing enmity.Enmity between the parties is admitted.In this case, as held above, enmity was motive for committing the murder of the deceased and assault on the witness.As held above, there was sufficient light and witness has full opportunity to recognize the assailants and therefore, there was no question naming the appellants on account of suspicion alone.It was further contended that the witness had made certain subsequent developments in his statement, as he had not mentioned in the FIR regarding going to village along with the deceased to meet people as well as threat given by the appellants to Hira Singh.No doubt, the above facts do not find place in the FIR but this omission is not very much material.FIR is not encyclopedia of evidence of the prosecution and only gist of the occurrence is mentioned in the FIR to move the police machinery in motion.At the time of lodging of the FIR the brother of the witness was admitted in hospital in precarious condition and he had also sustained injuries and in such circumstances it was not possible for the witness to give each and every detail of the prosecution story in the FIR.The place of occurrence has been mentioned in the FIR and it is supported by the evidence of I.O. Ram Sabad Singh (P.W. 7), but found blood and trodden earth at the spot.The place of occurrence has also not been seriously disputed.It was further contended that Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1) stated that during course of Marpit appellant Kaushal Kishore inflicted knife blow on Mohan (P.W. 3) and the latter caught hold the knife, but the medical evidence of Dr. S. P. Singh (P.W. 11) and injury report of Mohan shows that he had sustained lacerated wounds and no incised wound.The witness has stated in his cross examination that Mohan had caught hold knife, but he could not snatch it.There is nothing on record to show that knife was pulled.While Mohan had caught hold and in case the knife is not pulled in such a way, it could not cause incised wound.The lacerated wounds of Mohan (P.W-3) were on left middle finger and left ring finger.Therefore, in all probabilities, these injuries were caused when he had caught hold knife.Therefore, on this ground, the testimony of Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1) cannot be discarded.The learned counsel for the appellants contended that according to evidence of Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1) deceased was assaulted with spear and Pharsa but his injury report and evidence of Dr. M.A.R. Siddiqui (P.W. 2) shows that deceaed had sustained only two incised wounds and no punctured, penetrating or stab wound and there was no spear injury.Therefore, evidence of Ganesh Singh is contradictory to medical evidence.This contention bears no force in view of evidence of Dr. Prem Prakash (P.W. 10) and postmortem report.Dr. Siddiqui (P.W. 2) described injury No. 2 as incised wound 3x2 cm x bone deep on left side chest.Dr. Prem Prakash (P.W. 10) stated that ante-mortem injury No. 21 was stitched wound 3 cm.long on left side chest.He found that on removal of stitches there was a stab wound 3x2 cm x chest cavity deep on left side of front of chest 1 cm below clavicle and 5 cm.below to mid line.Margins of wound were well defined.It is therefore clear that from outer appearance injury No. 2 of injury report corresponding to injury No. 1 of post mortem report resembled as incised wound, but in fact it was a stab wound.Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1) had stated in his cross-examination that blade of spear was about 3 Anguls (about 1xh inches) wide.It means that spear had pointed as well as sharp edge and therefore it caused incised as well as stab wound.Therefore, one injury of the deceased was caused by spear.Thus, the evidence of Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1) is in conformity with medical evidence.The evidence of Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1) also finds corroboration from medical evidence, FIR and other circumstances of the case referred to above.Therefore, his evidence is clear, cogent and trust worthy.As mentioned above, the witness had given each and every detail of the occurrence in his examination-in-chief as well as in the cross-examination of first day.However, when he was cross-examined on next day, he stated that due to darkness he could not see whether Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1) had fallen down or not.He also stated that there was complete darkness at the time of occurrence and he could not recognize the assailants.But as mentioned above, the evidence of witness cannot be discarded in toto simply because he was declared hostile.A perusal of entire evidence of the witness shows that on the next day, he was made to say something in favour of appellants, as he appears to have been won over.The subsequent evidence of the witness that there was complete darkness on the spot is totally belied by the fact that the night of occurrence was moon lit night and occurrence had taken in the open place and therefore, there was no question of pitch dark.The assailants were also known persons to the witness.He had also sustained injuries and presence of the witness on the spot cannot be doubted and his subsequent statement was due to influence of appellants and therefore, entire testimony of the witness cannot be discarded on this ground.It was further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the injuries of the witness do not support that he was assaulted with knife.As mentioned above the witness stated that he had caught hold edged portion of the knife, but he clarified that Kaushal Kishore suddenly snatched the knife and in these circumstances, lacerated injuries were caused on his left middle and ring fingers.The learned counsel for the appellants contended that injuries of Mohan (P.W. 3) were examined on next day i.e. 15- 3-1979 and it indicates that his injuries were subsequently prepared to make him an eyewitness.The I. O. Sheo Shankar Singh (P.W. 8) clarified that he interrogated Mohan (P.W. 3) on next day and since he had sustained injuries he sent him for medical examination.The injuries of the witness were not serious and being Holi festival if the witness did not go to hospital in the night of occurrence, no adverse inference can be drawn and considering duration of his injuries it cannot be said that his injuries were prepared subsequently.Therefore, the evidence of Mohan (P.W. 3) to the extent he corroborated prosecution story is believable.The next witness is Ram Jee Singh (P.W. 4).The trial Court had not relied on the testimony of this witness on the ground that he had enmity with the appellants, his house was at some distance and therefore he was a chance witness and that there were discrepancies between his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and given in the Court.It is true that the witness had some enmity with the appellants and he had also his house at some distance.But the witness has given plausible explanation for his presence on the spot.The discrepancies between his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and in the Court are not very much material.Though he had not sustained any injury, but he cannot be termed a chance witness.The name of the witness finds place in the FIR.Even that apart the prosecution story is established from other eye-witnesses referred to above.The other two witnesses of the occurrence namely Nand Kishore (P.W. 5) and Ram Pyari (P.W. 6) have not supported the prosecution story and therefore their evidence is of no avail.It was further contended by the learned counsel for the apellants that on the date of occurrence some children of Hindu community had thrown colour on Sageer and Meer Hasan, members of Muslim community and on account of it, some altercation had taken place and it appears that Hira Singh deceased and other injured had sustained injuries in the above altercation.Having considered the evidence on record I find no force in the above contention.The appellants had nowhere stated in their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that Hira Singh deceased and other injured witness sustained injuries in the Marpit between Hindu and Muslim communities.A half hearted suggestion was given to Mohan (P.W. 3) that children of the family of Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1) had thrown coloured water on Sageer and Meer Hasan in which some altercation (Jhanjhat) had taken place.But there is no suggestion that either Hira Singh or any other injured sustained injuries in the said altercation.There is also no evidence to prove this fact.It has also not been clarified that the above altercation took place at the time of occurrence or prior to it.Therefore, above alleged altercation cannot be linked with the occurrence of this case and it cannot be said that Hira Singh and other injured sustained injuries in the said altercation.Had it been so, Ganesh Singh (P.W. 1) informant, the real brother of the deceased, would have not spared the real assailants.It is true that the fatal injuries on the deceased was caused by Radha Mohan and Devendra alias Mutuk Singh by spear and Pharsa respectively and deceased had not sustained any other injuries, but the evidence on record shows that all the appellants had simultaneously come to the spot armed with various weapons and had caused injuries from their respective weapons to the deceased and other injured.Therefore, there was active participation by all the appellants and they had shared common object to unlawful assembly, to which they were members.Therefore, the appellants were rightly convicted and sentenced under various Sections with the aid of Section 149, IPC.Thus, the guilt of all the appellants have been established and they were rightly convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court.","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"1. Admit.Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel for respective parties.The applicants pray for to quash and set aside the order dated 29/07/2011 passed by the learned J. M F C Court no 2, Chandur Bazaar under section 437(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in Crime No. 35 of 2011 whereby the bail granted earlier in favour of the applicants was cancelled.The court considered the application for cancellation on the ground that there was complaint as to violation of the bail order as they were not to enter village Kharpi till the filing of the charge-sheet by the Shirasgaon Police in the case.The court found the ground pleaded by the complainant as doubtful and without merits.But on the ground that the offence appeared serious punishable with imprisonment for life, the court decided to cancel the bail.The applicants prayed, in the alternative, for the order of anticipatory bail.3. Heard submissions at the Bar.The facts appear as under :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:12 :::FIR No. 35 of 2011 was lodged on 02/07/2011 at Shirasgaon Police Station in District Amravati by first informant Sheikh Sattar Sheikh Karim under section 324,147,148,149 of the IPC against applicants on the ground that they had raised quarrel over the boundary of the agricultural field and the access road and assaulted first informant, and family members by means of axe, iron pipe,and sticks.Learned JMFC, Chandur Bazaar was pleased to grant conditional bail in favour of the applicants upon execution of bond in the sum of Rs 15000/- and furnishing a solvent surety by each of them and a conditions were added that they will not enter Kharpi village till the filing of the charge-sheet in the case and shall not tamper with evidence.Warning was given that if they enter in the Kharpi village till the charge sheet is filed, their bail shall be cancelled.After recording supplementary statement and perusal of the C.T. Scan, medical document and certificate as to the nature of the injury caused to head of the first informant, on 19/07 2011 section 307 IPC was introduced in the accusations made earlier.Police sought to arrest the accused again for investigation and prayed for to cancel the bail granted earlier.The first informant applied for cancellation of the bail on the ground that the offence is serious, punishable with life imprisonment and alleged that the accused have managed the police to register simple offence under ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:12 ::: 4 section 324 of the IPC instead of under section 307 of IPC and further on the ground that the accused gave threat to kill complainant and his relatives.However the first informant failed to substantiate the grounds pleaded by him.Heavy reliance is placed for the applicants upon the ruling of the Supreme Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana: (1995) 1 SCC 349 in which it is held as under:-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:12 :::Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis.Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted.Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are:interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner.The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail.However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.""::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:12 :::However, bail granted illegally or improperly by a wrong, arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion can be cancelled even if there is absence of supervening circumstances.If there is no material to prove that the accused abused his freedom court may not cancel the bail.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:12 :::In the present case, it would be pertinent to note that there was alteration in the penal provision as section 307 was invoked later instead of Section 324 of the I.P. C. but no city scan report was produced of alleged injury.The police did not ask for P.C.R. but had asked for M.C. R. Of the applicants which was granted, weapon of offence was already seized on the date of arrest of the applicants.At the same time, it is equally well settled that inherent power of the High Court can ordinarily be exercised when there is no express provision in the Code for redressal of grievance, but if there is equally effective and alternate remedy available and there is an express provision barring a particular remedy, the High Court should not resort to exercise of inherent power.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:12 :::In my opinion in the present case mere alteration/addition of the aggravated penal provision was not by itself a sufficient, overwhelming ground to cancel the bail already granted particularly when the investigating officer did not specifically pressed for the police custody remand of the applicants for further investigation even after adding aggravated penal provision under Section 307 of the IPC.The impugned order of cancellation of the bail granted earlier to the applicants is therefore unsustainable and indefensible.No one shall be deprived of his personal liberty, which is most sacrosanct, on the bald ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:12 ::: 8 premise.This is a proper case to interfere by exercising inherent power to secure the ends of justice.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:12 :::The impugned orders of cancellation of the bail are therefore quashed and set aside.Upon surrender to the custody of the trial court and upon application for grant of bail, let the applicants be released on bail upon furnishing the personal bond in the sum of Rs 25,000/- with two or more solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to be provided in the equal sum by each of them.i) They shall attend the trial on each date of hearing and shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner.ii) They shall not commit any crime while on Bail.Application disposed of accordingly.JUDGE Sahare ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:12 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:12 :::","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Ram Singh in crime no. 4/2017 registered by P.S.-Hinouta, District-Chhatarpur (M.P.) under Sections 307, 353, 186, 212, 216/34 of I.P.C. and 25/27 of Arms Act.As per the prosecution case, on an information received from an informer on 4/03/17, the police party of P.S. Chandla reached the field of petitioner Ram Singh Pal to arrest Ramavtar Kewat, who carried an award on his head.When the police party conducted a raid, co-accused Ramavtar fired two shots from a .315 bore country-made pistol.Both the shots sailed over the head of the police personnel.The police force also fired in defence.However, Ramavtar managed to escape from the spot but Ram Singh was caught.A .315 bore loaded country-made pistol and a live cartridge was seized from his possession.He has been falsely implicated in the case.No policemen suffered a gun-shot injury in the incident.In fact, the police had woken up the petitioner who was sleeping in his field and had beaten him.He had sustained an injury to his head in the incident.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on the other hand has opposed the bail application on the ground that four policemen have suffered simple injuries in the incident.the police failed to arrest the main accused Ramavtar in the case;the petitioner Ram Singh has no criminal antecedents; andthe petitioner has been in custody since 5/03/17;-in the opinion of this Court, petitioner deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Ram Singh is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 60,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.C.C. as per rules.(C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge Vy/","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The applicant is law abiding person.If he is released on bail, he will never misuse his liberty, terms and conditions of bail and will co-operate in the trial.(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C (iv) argument/judgement.If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.Order Date :- 11.9.2019 Saurabh","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.28512 of 2019 The present Writ Petition is filed to call for the records of the proceedings of the second respondent bearing Na.No.2961/ 2017/ H1, dated 26.07.2018 and quash the same.Thereafter, the second respondent had passed a suspension order on 13.11.2017, suspending her from service based on the allegation that an F.I.R. was registered against her on 13.11.2017 in Crime No.492/2017 under Sections 294(b), 406, 420 and 506(1) of IPC and hence, she was placed under suspension.Though she was suspended in the year 2017, however, till date the suspension order was not revoked, for which, the petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition and prayed for appropriate orders.3.The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner conducted an unregistered chit and collected huge money from the general public, for which the general public affected and she cheated the general public by collecting huge money without obtaining any approval from the Competent Authority.For which the police registered an F.I.R. against her in F.I.R. No.492/2017 under Sections 2/4http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.28512 of 2019 294(b), 406, 420 and 506(1) of IPC.Hence, the suspension order issued against the petitioner is valid and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court permits the petitioner to make a representation for revocation of suspension order and for payment of subsistence allowance, for which, the respondents may pass appropriate orders on merits.5.In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed.No costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.2.The Commissioner, 3/4http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.28512 of 2019 Ranipettai Municipality, Ranipettai, Vellore District.","['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"These two appeals are directed against impugned judgment dated 08.04.2009 and subsequent order on sentence date 20.04.2009 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, North East District, Delhi in case No. 50/2006, FIR No. 191/2002, P.S. Vivek Vihar, whereby the appellants Sapna Talwar and Satyajeet were convicted under Section 302 IPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, they were also convicted under Section 365 IPC and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.Further, appellants Sapna Talwar and Satyajeet were also convicted under Section 201 IPC and were to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for one and a half months.Appellant Yunus was only convicted for an offence under Section 120 B IPC.In addition, Sapna Talwar and Satyajeet have also been sentenced under Section 120 B IPC and all three of them were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence under the abovementioned provision.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 2 of 51A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 2 of 51The facts as per the prosecutions case are that on 13.07.2002 one Laxman Dass informed the police that his younger brother Vijay Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was missing, he said that 12.07.2002 at about 1:00 pm, his brother was to meet one person from Haridwar in the Meridian Hotel, Delhi but that meeting was not held and since then his brother was missing.During the investigation police interrogated Yunus the appellant herein, who stated that appellants Sapna and Satya Jeet had departed to Lucknow.The police contacted the Lucknow Railway police and both the accused persons were arrested at the Lucknow Police Station by the local Railway police at Lucknow.Thereafter, on 22.07.2002, both the accused persons were brought to Delhi by the Delhi Police officials.They made disclosure statements.Thereafter, it was discovered that the appellant Sapna was an employee of the deceased and had got the job on the recommendation of Satyajeet.It is alleged that the deceased used to sexually exploit appellant Sapna.Therefore, to take revenge, Sapna married Satyajeet with an under taking that both of them would kill the deceased Vijay kumar, therefore, both of appellants hatched a conspiracy and were joined by their co-accused Yunus, a friend of Satyajeet in their plan.It is alleged that appellant Yunus gave the CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 3 of 51 other appellants his mobile phone to be used with other SIM card and also provided them with a country made pistol (katta) which was used by them to kill the deceased.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 3 of 51As per the prosecution story, on 12.07.2002 accused Sapna enticed the deceased to come to meet her near the C.B.S.E. building at about 6:30 pm where they kept having fun for some time.Thereafter, both the accused persons, Satyajeet and Sapna accompanied the deceased in his car to Ghaziabad border where they purchased liquor and all of them started having it.Then Sapna administered sleeping pills in the liquor of the deceased and when he became unconscious they went to Dadri through Bulandshahar highway and on reaching a small canal, they tied him, then took him out and repeatedly hit him on his head with their country made pistol and then strangulated him to death with a string.They threw his body in that same canal with the help of one unknown passerby and left for Haridwar.For the next few days the accused persons kept fleeing from one place to another and during this time they were duly assisted and supported by the accused Yunus who at last after giving a sum of Rs. 1000/- made them board the train to Lucknow.On being arrested by the police, the accused Sapna and Satyajeet made their disclosure statements, Ex.PW 20/A and Ex.Pw CRL.(c) There is no legal evidence on record to hold that the appellant Yunus is responsible for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC.(d) The appellant Yunus had denied the suggestion for providing the country-made pistol to the other two accused, as there was no reason to do so.Admittedly, as per the CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 7 of 51 report of the ballistics expert, the said pistol was not in a working condition.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 7 of 51(e) The disclosure statements of accused Sapna Talwar, Satyajeet @ Lovely being inadmissible in law cannot be considered, unless independent corroboration is provided by the prosecution.(f) The mobile phone alleged to have been provided by the present appellant also has no concern with the crime, as the same has not been proved to have been used by the co- accused.PW -4 Vishal Rajpal : Deceased was his uncle.PW -5 Momim : He is allegedly known to the accused Satyajeet and on 16.07.02 latter requests him that his family members had ousted him and his wife Sapna.PW -6 Ashok Rana : He is the friend of Vijay Bajaj and on 12.07.02 in the afternoon he allegedly saw a girl (Sapna) who sat in the car of Vijay Bajaj at petrol pump, Dilshad Garden.PW -7 Sushil Sharma : Deceased was his class fellow.PW -8 Ms. Vineeta Bajaj : She is the wife of deceased Vijay Bajaj.PW -10 Gyan Singh : On 17.07.02 accused Satyajeet and Sapna allegedly stayed in his lodge.PW -11 Anil Kumar (Manager) : On 14.07.02 Accused Satyajeet and Sapna allegedly stayed in his hotel Pelican, D-1, Patel Nagar-II, Ghaziabad.PW -12 Manoj Kumar : In his presence Vishal and Ramesh allegedly identified the clothes of the deceased in PS Jarcha.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 9 of 51A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 9 of 51PW -14 Ramesh Kumar : He is an employee in the company of the deceased .PW -16 Sanjeev Kumar : Deceased was his maternal uncle.PW -17 R.K. Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel.PW -18 Ct. Satpal Tyagi : He handed over zero FIR, statement of complainant and copy of DD No.29 A to the duty officer of PS Vivek Vihar.PW-19 Shiv Ram Giri : He is the owner of Shiv Chhaya Guest House, Haridwar where accused Satyajeet and Sapna allegedly stayed in the name of Surender Singh and Paramjeet Kaur on 13.07.02 and left the same on 14.07.02 at 7.00 am.PW-20 HC Yogender Singh : On 21.07.02 he alongwith IO SI Yasbeer Singh, SI Anand Swaroop, Lady HC Chammo Khan went to Lucknow Jail for investigatin of this case.PW-21 Ct.Preetam Singh : On 21.07.02 he joined the investigation and went to Hindon Mortuary, Ghaziabad alongwith IO SI Yasbeer Tyagi.PW -22 HC Satyaver Singh : In the intervening night of 13 and 14, July 2002 he was posted as duty officer in PS Vivek Vihar and received the copy of zero FIR registered in PS Mansarowar Park through SI Anwar.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 10 of 51 PW -23 Ct.Pushpa Singh : On 19.07.02 She was posted in PS GRP Char Bagh, Lucknow where she along with SI R.B. Singh and Ct.Neeru Shukla searched the accused persons at Charbagh railway station.PW -24 Ct.Neeru Shukla ...Do...A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 10 of 51PW -25 Ct.Krishan Bihari Chaubey ...do... PW -26 SI Ranjeet Prasad Diwakar ...do... PW -27 SI Brijpal Singh PS Khanpur, District Bullandshahar, UP : On 16.07.02 he was posted in PS Jharcha and complainant Raj Kumar came to his PS and gave a written information about dead body of an unknown person lying near a drain at Veerpura.He prepared a panchnama Ex.PW-27/A and seized the shirt and shoes of the deceased and also seized the dead body in a cloth pullanda and got the dead body photographed.PW -28 SI Yashbir Singh : On 14.07.02 he took up the investigation of this case and on 23.07.02 the investigation of this case was transferred from him.PW -29 Kallu (hostile): He is the father of accused Yunus.PW -30 Sri Bhagwan Singh : He is the owner of parking slot at Har ki Paudi, Haridwar where the accused allegedly parked their vehicle i.e. Maruti Zen against a slip.PW -31 SI Mahesh Kumar : Draftsman PW -32 Mohd Islam : He was the compounder in Haq Medical Centre from where accused Sapna Talwar allegedly got the tablets of Diazepam.PW -33 Tara Singh (hostile): He is the owner of medical store situated at S-2, Anupam Apartment, Shop No.4, Vrindavan Garden, Sahibabad.On 25.07.02 CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 11 of 51 accused Sapna allegedly purchased 10 tablets of Diazepam and one injection (calmpose) and one syringe.PW -34 SI Dharampal Singh : On 19.07.02 he was posted in PS GRP, Charbagh, Lucknow and searched for the accused persons there.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 11 of 51PW -35 Raj Kumar : On 16.07.02 he intimated in PS Jharcha about the dead body lying in the drain near an exhaust water pipe.PW -36 Ashok : On 16.07.02 on the direction of police he brought out the dead body from the drain and signed the panchnama Ex.PW26/A.PW-37 HC Gurnam Singh : On 24.09.02 he deposited the six sealed pullandas to MHCm.PW -38 Akhtar : On 16.07.02 he signed the panchnama of dead body Ex.PW-26/A.PW -39 SI Rishi Ram : On 19.07.02 he was posted as Head Moharrir in PS Kotwali, Haridwar.On that day SI N.P. Singh deposited one Maruti Zen car with him.On 24.07.02 IO came to him with the accused persons and seized the said car vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/C. PW-40 SI R.B. Singh : He was the (thana prabhari) PS GRP, Char Bagh, Lucknow.He arrested the accused Sapna and Satyajeet there and seized one wrist watch, one sim card and cash Rs.6200/-.PW-41 Ct.Jai Prakash : On 16.07.02 he was posted in PS Jharcha and at about 1-1.30 pm one Raj Kumar came to him and informed about one dead body lying in a culvert near village Veerpura.PW -42 HC Chammo Khan : On 21.07.02 he alongwith SI Yashbir Singh, HC Yogender, SI Anand Swaroop went to GRP railway station, Lucknow and arrested both accused persons who were already in the Lucknow Jail.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 12 of 51 PW-43 HC Hira Lal MHC(M), who deposed that on 21.07.2002 he made several entries with regard to depositing of pullandahs and the Maruti Car in the Malkhana.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 12 of 51PW-48 Ct.Om Pal Singh : On 16.07.02 he was posted in PS Jharcha and an information was received in said PS that one dead body was lying in a drain.Thereafter, he along with HC Brijpal, Ct.Jai Prakash went to that place.The dead body was taken out and got photographed.Satpal Tyagi who was posted in Police Station MS Park, registered the Zero FIR and also recorded the statement of the complainant, i.e. PW-3 the elder brother of the deceased.DD No.29A was also registered.(b) In his statement recorded before the Court, PW-3 deposed that on 12.07.2002 his younger brother Vijay Bajaj had gone to market for business.He was also supposed to accompany him, but he could not accompany him as he had to attend the Kirya of the mother of his friend.His brother had gone to collect money from 5-6 persons.The last person was Manoj Jain of Shivalik Pharmaceuticals, Haridwar who was to meet his brother at Hotel Maridian, Delhi.At about 5.15 p.m. his brother rang up and informed that Manoj had not come to the hotel.During the night, the other brothers came to know that the deceased Vijay Bajaj had not returned.He lodged the report Ex.His apprehension was that his brother had been kidnapped.PW-6Ashok Rana deposed that he is running the business under the name and style of Rana Tours and Travels at Balbir Nagar, Shahdara.He knew Sushil Sharma who is residing near to his house.He was on friendly terms with Vijay Bajaj.He knew Vijay Bajaj for the last about 7-8 years prior to his death.On 12.07.2002 in the afternoon, while he was going to UP Border and on the way at the petrol pump, Dilshad Garden, he saw Vijay Bajaj had made one girl to sit in his car and then he left.Sushil Sharma PW-7 made a statement that he knew Vijay Bajaj being his class-fellow.On 12.07.2002 at about 1.30/2.00 p.m. he and Ashok were on the motor-cycle and following the car of Vijay Bajaj who gave lift in his car to a girl at Dilshad Garden near Petrol Pump and then they left.PW-15 Vikrant Arora who is the friend of the deceased Vijay Bajaj since college days, deposed that on 12.07.2002 at about 7.00 p.m. he received a telephone call from the mobile phone of the deceased Vijay Bajaj who requested him for his car stating that his (Vijay Bajaj) car had broken up being heated up and he was present at Vivek Vihar itself.At this, he told Vijay Bajaj to go to his house and pick up his car.However, on his return, he found that the deceased did not come to his house to pick up his car.PW-14 CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 14 of 51 Ramesh Kumar Sharma who is the last seen witness before the death of the deceased as per the case of the prosecution has deposed that he has been working as an Accountant for the last about 8-9 years with Sheetal Bottle Glass Company.On 12.07.2002 at about 8.00/8.15 p.m. when the bus by which he was travelling, was stopped at the red light of Surya Nagar, he was standing on the footrest of the bus, he noticed that vehicle of the deceased Vijay Bajaj was also standing on the red light of Surya Nagar.Vijay Bajaj was having his Zen Maruti Car bearing No.In that car, Vijay was sitting on the driver seat and on the back seat, one lady was sitting and near the driver seat one boy was also sitting in that car.He asked from Vijay as to whether he was going to his house, then he replied that he was going to somewhere else.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 14 of 51(c) PW-30 Sri Bhagwan Singh who was managing Pantdeep Parking Slot situated at Har ki Paudi at Haridwar, has deposed that on 13.07.2002 at about 7.00 a.m., a Maruti Zen blue colour Car came to in that parking slot and it was parked there against a slip issued by him.However, nobody came there to claim the said vehicle back for 5-6 days.One man and a lady had parked the said car there.After about 15 days, the police came to him for investigation and both the above said persons who had parked that vehicle were also with the police.The police recorded his statement after interrogation.PW-11 Anil Kumar deposed that he was the Manager of Hotel Pelican.On 14.07.2002 one Rahul along with one lady had come to his hotel and stayed there.They disclosed their address as D-603, Ashok Nagar, Delhi.They left the hotel on 15.07.2002 at about 8.00 a.m. PW-5 Momim deposed that on 16.07.2002 at about 10 p.m. accused Satyajeet disclosed to me that his family members had ousted him and his wife after beating them and they be allowed to stay at his house.Although, initially he refused him, but, at their persistent request, both were CRL.They left in the morning.PW.10 Gyan Singh who is running a lodge situated at Railway Road, Choti Bajaria, Ghaziabad, has deposed that on 17.07.2002 at about 11.00 p.m. one boy and one girl came to his lodge.The boy had disclosed his name as Surender Singh.(d) PW-27 SI Brijpal Singh deposed that on 16.07.2002 he was posted at P.S. Jarchar, District Gautam Budh Nagar.The complainant Raj Kumar came to the police station and gave a written information about the dead body of an unknown person lying near a drain (nala) at Veerpura.He along with the other police officials reached the spot.He prepared a Panchnama Ex.PW27/A. He seized the shirt and shoes of the deceased vide seizure memo Ex.PW27/B signed by him at point A. Photographs of the dead body were taken which are Ex.PW27/C and Ex.PW27/D. The dead body was sent to dead house for postmortem through Const.Jai Parkash.(e) The postmortem was conducted on 17.07.2002 and the cremation of the deceased was done on 19.07.2002 by the police.(f) PW-28 SI Yashbir Singh deposed that after having received the details of mobile phones contacted through the mobile phone of the deceased, the details are Ex.PW17/A to Ex.PW17/D, he came to know about accused Yunus.The said accused Yunus was interrogated by him on 19.07.2002 at his house.Accused Satyajeet and Sapna were known to have left Delhi on that very night.He informed all these facts to DCP East Sh.Arvind Deep who contacted DCP GRP Railways.The latter gave information about arrest of both the accused, Sapna and Satyajeet.(g) PW-23 Const.Pushpa Singh, PW-24 Const.Neeru Shukla, PW-25 Const.PW39/A.(i) PW-44 HC Chhamo Khan posted at LG House, Delhi deposed that on 21.07.2002 he was posted in P.S. Vivek Vihar.On that day, he along with other police officials took the custody of the accused Sapna and Satyajeet from Lucknow jail after taking permission from the Court.The disclosure statement was made by the accused Satyajeet @ Lovely and Sapna before PW-20 HC Yogender Singh being Ex.PW20/A (of accused Satyajeet) and Ex.PW20/B (of accused Sapna).They were arrested through arrest memos prepared by the I.O. being Ex.PW20/C (of accused Satyajeet) and Ex.According to him, they led the police to a place near Dadri, UP and pointing out memo in this regard is Ex.PW4/A signed by him at point C. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW4/C.(k) The accused again took the investigator and his team to another place near a canal which was at a distance of about 2-2 km from that place.Pointing out memo in this respect is Ex.PW4/B. He prepared the site plan of that spot which is Ex.PW4/D. Thereafter, they went to police station Jharcha.He inspected the record of the Malkhana Moharrar.One Vishal and another Kishan met them there in the police station.They identified the deceased from his photo, shoes and wearing clothes.The clothes of the deceased were sealed and were opened before them for the CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 17 of 51 purpose of identification and later on those were sealed again.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 17 of 51(l) On 24.07.2002, both the accused Sapna Talwar and Satyajeet @ Lovely led them to Haridwar at Har Ki Paudi.PW-45 received the Car Maruri Zen on superdari from the concerned SHO and thereafter, accused took them to a parking lot near Har Ki Paudi and pointed out a place.Pointing out memo Ex.PW28/B was prepared.The said accused then led them to a hotel Shivchhaya at Haridwar and pointed out the same.The Owner/Manager of the said hotel identified both the accused and handed over the photocopy of relevant entry in his guest register which is Ex.PW28/C.(m) On the way to Delhi, he received the information about co-accused Yunus about his presence in his house in Delhi.He made the disclosure statement Ex.PW21/A and brought out one country-made pistol .315 Bore and five cartridges two of which were live, after bringing the same from an almirah in his house.He seized the same.Sketech of these weapons were prepared by him which are Ex.PW4/J (of the country-made pistol) and Ex.PW4/K (cartridges).He filled up the CFSL form and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana.All the three accused were lodged in lockup.(n) Thereafter, the accused Sapna Talwar and Satyajeet @ Lovely took them to Anupam Apartment, Vranda Garden and point out a chemists shop.S4, BS Complex, GT Road, Ghaziabad.Accused Satyajeet pointed out that shop.PW4/M. His statement was also recorded in this regard.(q) Thereafter, both the accused led the police party to shop No.1 in the name of R.K.Batteries where one Shahid met them.He identified both the accused and his statement was recorded.(r) On 28.07.2002 accused Sapna had handed over her wearing top (shirt) which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/O signed by PW-45 at point C.(s) On the same day, he picked up blood from the back door of the car from its inside by scrapping the same with blade.The seizure memo in this regard is Ex.It showed the extent of robust association between all these three accused persons.(x) Subsequently also the accused persons Sapna and Satyajeet were arrested as per the information provided by the third accused Yunus.At that point of time Vijay Bajaj was in his Zen Maruti Car bearing No.He was sitting on the driver seat.One lady was sitting near the driver seat.One boy was also sitting in that car.He asked Vijay as to whether he was going to his house, and then he replied that he was going somewhere else.Thereafter, he caught the bus and left the place.He correctly identified the boy and girl, who were seen by him in the car with Vijay, in Court as Sapna and CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 27 of 51Prior to this, PW-6 Ashok Rana had also seen deceased Vijay with the accused Sapna on 12.07.2002 at the Petrol Pump, Dilshad Garden as he was on his motorcycle.Another witness PW-7 Sushil Sharma, friend of deceased, in his testimony deposed that at about 1:30/2:00 p.m. when he and one Ashok Rana were on the motorcycle, they saw the deceased along with one girl at Dilshad Garden near Petrol Pump.Similarly, PW-15 deposed that on 12.07.2002 at about 7:00 p.m., he received a telephone call from the mobile phone of the deceased who asked him to give his car as his car had broken.PW-8 Vineeta Bajaj, the wife of the deceased, also deposed that on 12.07.2002, she was in touch with her husband whole day on his mobile phone and at about 8:30 p.m. she contacted her husband on his mobile phone No. 9810015012 and he told her that he is coming back in 15 minutes.PW-17 R.K. Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtell, produced the prints out/call details of mobile phone of the deceased and others.The said details show that the last call received by the deceased was at 20:59:23 on 12.07.2002 and CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 28 of 51 there was no response on that number of the deceased on 13.07.2002 onward.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 28 of 51In view of above, it is clear that PW-14 Ramesh Kumar Sharma had seen the deceased alive at about 8:15 p.m. and the prosecution was able to prove the same in evidence.PW-32 Mohd. Islam deposed in court that accused Sapna took a delivery of five Diazepam tablets from his shop and the said medicine was procured by her without a valid prescription of Doctor.PW-34 SI Dharampal Singh, posted in Police Station GRP Shajahanpur, U.P., deposed that Sapna and Satyajeet were taken into custody on the basis of interrogation and on being searched one SIM card was recovered.PW-30 Sri Bhagwan Singh who was managing Pantdeep Parking Slot situated at Har ki Paudi at Haridwar, has deposed that on 13.07.2002 at about 7.00 a.m., a Maruti Zen blue colour Car came into that parking slot and it was parked there against a slip issued by him.However, nobody came there to claim the said vehicle for 5-6 days.One man and a lady had parked the said car there.After about 15 days, the police came to him for investigation and both the above said persons who had parked that vehicle were also with the police.The police recorded his statement after interrogation.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 29 of 5113.07.2002 - PW-19 Shivram Giri PW-19 Shivram Giri deposed that he along with his son was running a guest house in the name of Shive Chhaya Guest House situated at Upper Road, Haridwar, Uttranchal and on 13.07.2002 one Surender Singh, s/o Amarjeet Singh, along with his wife Paramjeet Kaur came to their guest house.An entry in this regard was made in the register at serial No.4045 and they stayed in their guest house upto 14.07.2002 and they left the same at 7:00 a.m. He also deposed that some officials of U.P. police came to him on 24.07.2002 and he identified and pointed out towards Sapna and Satyajeet, who were present in court, as having accompanied the said police officials.14.07.2002 - PW-11 Anil Kumar PW-11 Anil Kumar deposed that on 14.07.2002 one Rahul along with one lady came to their hotel and stayed there.During that period, he was working as Manager in Hotel Pelican, D-1, Patel Nagar-II, Ghaziabad.They made an entry in guest register at about CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 30 of 51 11:50 p.m. and room No.106 was allotted to them.They disclosed their address as D-603, Ashok Nagar, Delhi, and left the hotel on 15.07.2002 at about 8:00 a.m. He further deposed that when the police had brought boy and girl in the hotel on 28.07.2002, he came to know about their names as Satyajeet and Sapna.In cross- examination, he admitted that there was no initial/signatures on the cutting/overwriting.15.07.2002 - PW-9 Shahid PW-9 Shahid was declared as hostile who gave the testimony that he does not know anything about this case.He also denied the suggestion of the prosecution and denied the fact that before the police on 15.07.2002 he offered to keep Satyajeet and Sapna in a room behind his shop.As per the prosecution case, Yunus, who was running a shop near his shop, came to his shop with one boy and lady and asked him to provide the accommodation.His statement was also recorded by the police as Mark PW-9/A wherein he confirmed that on 15.07.2002 at about 9:00 p.m. Yunus, who was running a shop near his shop, brought one boy and girl with a request to allow them to stay with him for night only.On their persistent CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 31 of 51 requests, he allowed them to stay for the night and they left on 16.07.2002 at 7:00 a.m. 16.07.2002 - PW-5 Momin PW-5 Momin deposed that he has a shop of Raju Electronics.He knew Satyajeet @ Lovely for the last 4-5 years.On 16.07.2002 at about 10:00 p.m., accused Satyajeet along with Sapna came to his house at 387, Ashok Vatika, Loni Road Pasonda, U.P. Satyajeet disclosed to him that his family members and ousted him and they be allowed to stay in his house.At the first instance, he was reluctant.However, on their persistent requests, he allowed them to stay in the house of Iddu, his maternal uncles son at Morta village.They stayed there only for one night and left in the morning.He also correctly identified Satyajeet and Sapna who were present in the court.17.07.2002 - PW-10 Gyan Singh PW-10 Gyan Singh deposed that he is running a lodge situated at Railway Road, Choti Bajaria, Ghaziabad.On 17.07.2002 at about 11:00 p.m., one boy and one girl came to his lodge.The boy had disclosed his name in the register as Surender Singh, resident of CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 32 of 51 B-44, Ajanta Apartment, Lucknow.He identified both of them in court.18.07.2002 - PW-9 Shahid As per the case of the prosecution, till 14.07.2002 the family members/relatives of the deceased had not expressed their doubt upon anyone as culprit.As per the family members, there was one telephone bearing No.9810695421 which was known to be belonging to accused Sapna from which calls were made on that phone of Airtel.On verification from Airtel about the ownership of phone of Sapna, PW-28 came to know about the address of Sapna.It was of Nand Nagri.The mother of the accused, namely, Geeta Talwar, met PW-28 on that day.Sister of the accused, namely, Jyoti and brother, namely, Ahsok @ Sonu, were also present in the house at that time.He had visited the house on 14.07.2002 at about 5:00/5:30 p.m. He also made an entry about his departure in the Police Station.Through these call details, he came to know about accused Yunus.He was interrogated by him 19.07.2002 at his house.On interrogation, he came to know that accused Satyajeet and Sapna already left Delhi on that very night.He informed all these facts to DCP East Sh.Arvind Deep who contacted DCP GRP Railways, CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 33 of 51 Lucknow and latter gave information about the arrest of the said accused Sapna and Satyajeet.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 33 of 51PW-26 SI Ranjeet Prasad Diwakar deposed that on 19.07.2002, he was posted in GRP Charbagh.At about 8:00-8:30 a.m. SI R.B. Singh met him in the Police Station and told about an information from Delhi about two accused, one boy and one girl, who had absconded from Delhi.He had also disclosed their names as Satyajeet @ Lovely and Sapna Talwar.He along with other team members went to Railway Station Charbagh in search of said accused.At Platform No.1 near parcel godown, they say one boy and one girl sitting behind bags of parcels.When they inquired from them about their whereabouts, accused Satyajeet told his name as Vinod and Sapna told her name as Shalu.They asked them to show their railway tickets.As the boy was bringing out his railway ticket from his pocket, some documents fell down on the ground.One of these was a driving licence in the name of Satyajeet.This raised doubt about his identity.On further interrogation, both admitted their names as Satyajeet and Sapna Talwar.On being searched, accused Sapna was found having one grey coloured bag containing Rs.6200/-, one SIM card Airtel, one wrist watch Titan, one vial of some injection and one train ticket.The boy was found having one CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 34 of 51 wrist watch Titan and driving licence in the name of Satyajeet.All these documents were seized vide document Ex.PW23/A. On the vial a chit was affixed which bore the inscription ""Calmpose"" on it and the train ticket was dated 18.07.2002 from Ghaziabad Junction to Lucknow.The identity card contained photo of Satyajeet.PW- 23/A arrest memo-cum-disclosure statement was prepared at the time of arrest.The police also recorded the statements of PW-23 Constable Pushpa Singh as Ex.PW23/DA, PW-24 Constable Neeru Shukla as Ex.PW24/DA, PW-25 Constable Krishan Bihari Choubey as Ex.PW25/DA and PW-26 Ranjeet Prasad Diwakar as Ex.PW- 26/DA.Pointing out memo in this respect is Ex.PW4/B and site plan was also prepared at the spot which is Ex.PW-4/D.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 37 of 51Thereafter, they went to Police Station Jarcha and inspected the record of Malkhana Moharrir.One Vishal and another Kishan met them there in the Police Station and they identified the deceased from his photo, shoes and wearing clothes.The clothes of the deceased were sealed and were opened before them for the purpose of identification and they were again sealed.On 24.07.2002, both the accused led them to Haridwar at Har Ki Podi and from local Police Station a car Maruti Zen was received from the SHO and both pointed out the place of which pointing out memo is Ex.PW-28/B was prepared.The accused thereafter led the team to Hotel Shiv Chhaya and pointed out the same.The hotel manager handed over photocopy of relevant entry in the guest register which is Ex.PW-19/A. His statement was also recorded.The seizure memo of the car Ex.PW-21/A, Yunus allegedly brought out a country-made pistol .315 bore and five cartridges, two of which were live, from an almirah and the said material was seized.The sketches of these weapons were prepared as Ex.PW-4/J (country-made pistol) and Ex.PW-4/K (cartridges).Seizure memo in this regard is Ex.PW-4/G. All these articles were kept in pullandah and sealed by seal of RNV.We concur with the view taken by the learned trial judge that PW-14 is the last seen witness who had last seen Vijay Bajaj CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 40 of 51 alive in the company of the accused Sapna Talwar and Satyajeet @ Lovely.CASE AGAINST YUNUS IN CRL.The case of prosecution against Yunus was that in order to kill the deceased Vijay Kumar, the accused Sapna and Satyajeet hatched a conspiracy.They joined Satyajeets friend Yunus in their plan and received his mobile phone which could be used with other SIM card of Sapna.They also received a country-made pistol/katta and some cartridges also from Yunus.PW-18 SI Yashbir Singh CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 41 of 51 from the call details came to know about accused Yunus and he was interrogated on 19.07.2002 at his house.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 41 of 51As per the case of prosecution, on 24.07.2002, both accused Satyajeet and Sapna led the police to Haridwar for the purpose of recovery of the articles.When PW-45 and his team along with accused Satyajeet and Sapna were returning from Haridwar to Delhi and they crossed Ghaziabad, PW-45 ACP Ramniwas Vashisht received secret information about co-accused Yunus that he was present in his house.Both accused Satyajeet and Sapna took the team to the house of Yunus who was present in his house and after interrogation, he made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-21/A.The accused Yunus allegedly brought out one country- made pistol .315 bore and five cartridges, two of which were live, from an almirah in his house.Thereafter, he was arrested on 24.07.2002 and he was charged with Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act and Section 120 B IPC.(i) A mobile phone was recovered from the possession of accused Yunus.Its IMEI number was 449652426331480 and it was seized vide Ex. No.PW-17 R.K. Singh appeared in the court and produced documents Ex.PW- 17/A to Ex.PW-17/B. In these documents Ex.PW-17/A and Ex.PW-17B are the specific documents to this effect.(ii) Accused Satyajeet and Sapna disclosed that Yunus was in contact with them.And that Yunus provided them money which was seized at Lucknow vide document Ex.PW23/A and he also provided them the railway ticket for Lucknow.PW-21/A before the police that he had arranged a ticket for the accused Satyajeet and Sapna and had helped them in boarding a train to Lucknow.When the police worked upon this information, the accused Sapna and Styajeet were arrested by the railway police at Lucknow.The statement of PW-29, father of the Yunus, was also recorded in the intervening night of 18.07.2002 and 19.07.2002 at about 3.00 a.m. The father of the Yunus was examined as a prosecution witness and was declared as a hostile.He deposed that in the intervening night of 18.07.2002 and 19.07.2002, when he was sleeping in his house, 12-13 persons entered his house from the side of roof.All of them took away Yunus, his son, who was sleeping at the roof of their house.He followed them.On his asking, they did not disclose their identities but stated that they were taking away Yunus to Delhi.He stated that the Police did not record his statement in the case and on 20.07.2002, when he went to the Police Station Vivek Vihar, the police took his signatures on six blank papers and he identified his signatures on documents Ex.c. In so far as evidence of PW-2 Gurpreet Singh, owner of mobile shop, is concerned, he is a hostile witness and he did not recognize him and has not supported the prosecution case against Yunus.d. PW-4 Vishal Rajpal, a relative of deceased, has not deposed anything against Yunus.He was also declared hostile witness.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 46 of 51f. PW-28 SI Yashbir Singh, who came to the house of Yunus for interrogation on 19.07.2002, had not stated anything against Yunus with regard to arrest, search, seizure or recovery of any article in his chief.At the time of interrogation on 19.07.2002, despite availability of members of public, no public witness was involved.g. As per call details between 03.07.2002 to 17.07.2002, Ex.PW-17/A to Ex.PW-17/D, there is no evidence of any call from alleged mobile phone of Yunus bearing No. 9810810882 to the mobile phone No. 9810015012 of the deceased or the alleged mobile phone No. 9810695421 of Sapna Talwar.h. Admittedly, PW-28 SI Yashbir Singh deposed to have interrogated Yunus in the night of 19.07.2002 at his house, but, there is nothing available on record in this regard about the statement of Yunus or any other witness.PW-28 SI Yashbir Singh deposed that he CRL.PW-17 R.K. Singh of Airtel deposed that the police had collected the call details Ex.PW-17/A to Ex.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 47 of 51i. PW-45 ACP Ramniwas Vashisht deposed in cross-A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 4 of 51 20/B respectively, pursuant to that on 23.07.2002 the police took them to the spot and they pointed out the place vide memo Ex. PW 4/B. A site plan Ex. PW 4/C was also prepared of the place where they had thrown the body of the deceased.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 4 of 51As per the postmortem report of PW-1 Dr. P.C. Aggarwal, death was due to coma as a result of ante mortem injuries 3-4 days prior to the date of postmortem examination.Thereafter, a chargesheet under sections 365/364/302/201/ 120-B/34 IPC read with section 25 of the Arms Act against all the three accused persons was filed.The details of the offences are mentioned in para No.1 of this judgment.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 5 of 51A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 5 of 51Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellants filed the present appeal, inter-alia, on the grounds which can be summarized as follows:In Criminal Appeal No.357/2009 filed by the appellants, namely, Sapna Talwar, Satyajeet @ Lovely, the following are the main grounds for appeal which have been raised:-(ii) The trial Court has considered the alleged disclosure statements of the appellants as their legal confessions, which is against the basic concept of criminal jurisprudence.(iii) Admittedly, there was nothing to recover in pursuance of the disclosure statements of the appellants, therefore, the so-called disclosure statements of the appellants became inadmissible in law.(iv) Since the dead body of the deceased Vijay Kumar was not seen by any of his relatives and was cremated in their absence and the identity of the dead body was established by clothes found on the dead body, therefore, the possibility of Vijay Kumars clothes being planted cannot be ruled out.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 6 of 51A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 6 of 51(v) The medical evidence like post-mortem etc. pertaining to the deceased has not been fully proved.(vi) There is no clear evidence on record to prove the motive on the part of any of the appellants for committing the said crime and there is also no evidence to show as to how the appellant Yunus is connected with the other two appellants and as to why he helped them in running away from justice.In Criminal Appeal No.421 of 2009 filed by the appellant Yunus, the following are the main grounds:-(a) No public witness was joined at any point of time, like at the time of recovery or at the time of the arrest of the appellants or subsequent thereof, though the members of the public were, admittedly, present at that time.(b) The impugned order is totally based on inadmissible evidence.The statements of all the three accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All of them stated that they were innocent.Two defence witnesses were examined, namely, DW-1 Mohd. Mehmood son of Salim Mohd., and DW-2 Rashid son of Abdul Wahid, on behalf of the accused Yunus in support of his defence.The prosecution in order to prove the charges against the appellant examined following 48 witnesses :A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 8 of 51 PW -2 Gurpreet (hostile): Mobile shop owner to whom the accused allegedly sold the mobile phone of the deceased.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 8 of 51PW -3 Laxman Dass Bajaj : He is the complainant, brother of the deceased.PW-44 SI Anwar Khan : In the intervening night of 12th and 13th July, 2002 one Mr. V.K. Bajaj gave information that his brother Vijay was missing.DD 29A was recorded in this regard and handed over to him for investigation.PW -45 ACP Ram Niwas : On 23.07.2002 investigation of this case was handed over to him.PW -46 Retired HC Chattar Singh : On 16.07.2002 he was posted in PS Jharcha and one Ram Kumar gave him information about a dead body lying in a drain near Village Veerpura.He was also witness to the identification of wearing clothes of the deceased by the relatives.PW-47 SI Raja Ram Singh Yadav : He was the Moharrir in PS GRP, Charbagh, Lucknow.Since there is no eye-witness to the murder, the case revolves around the circumstantial evidence of last seen and the recovery of the material as per the story of the prosecution.The sequence of events date-wise as per the case of the prosecution are as under:-A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 13 of 51Krishan Bihari Chaubey, PW-26 SI Ranjeet Prasad Diwakar, PW-34 SI Dharampal Singh and PW-40 SI R.B.Singh deposed that both the accused Sapna Talwar and Satyajeet @ Lovely were lodged in the police lock-up after CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 16 of 51 apprehending them from the Chahar Bagh Railway Station, Lucknow.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 16 of 51(h) PW-31 SI Mahesh Kumar prepared a scaled site plan Ex.PW31/A. PW-39 SI Rishi Ram deposed that on 19.07.2002 the Car was deposited and entry in register No.19 at Serial No.88 was made being copy thereof as Ex.PW20/D (of accused Sapna).Both of them were brought in Delhi on 22.07.2002 and produced in the Court of ACMM, Karkardooma Courts and were remanded by the Court in eight days police custody.45 ACP Ram Niwas Vashisht and he interrogated both the accused, namely Sapna Talwar and Satyajeet @ Lovely.(o) On 26.07.2002 both the accused were again interrogated by him.They led the police party to shop No.One Gurpreet met there who had purchased the mobile phone of the deceased and he identified both the accused.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 18 of 51A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 18 of 51PW4/P. After completion of the investigation, he prepared the challan of this case.The result from the FSL was received which is Ex.PW45/B.Let us now consider the medical evidence.The dead body of the deceased, when sent for postmortem examination by the Jarcha police was examined by PW-1 Dr. P.C. Aggarwal.During the course of postmortem examination, this witness found:-(i) A lacerated wound of 4 cm x 2 cm bone deep on the back side of the head, 10 cm behind left ear.(ii) Occipital bone was found fractured.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 19 of 51A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 19 of 51(iii) A defused tranatic swelling 10 cm x 6 cm in area on the right side head just above ear was also found and the bone was also fractured from this point.On internal examination this doctor found:-(iv) The brain was liquefied and a blood clot was present.(v) Death was due to coma as a result of ante mortem injuries 3-4 days prior to the date of autopsy.So, as per medical evidence, the death of Vijay Bajaj was due to coma as a result of antemortem injury.The FSL report Ex.PW45/B dated 21.02.2003 on the Parcel 5 and Parcel 6 reads as under:Parcel No.6: One 8 mm/.315"" cartridge marked exhibit A1 and four improvised cartridges marked exhibits A2 to A5.""Similarly, another FSL report dated 29.01.2003 was received.As far as exhibit 3 gauze cloth piece, the species of original is Human, but no reaction/remark is shown for ABO Group.The same reads as under: CRL.Exhibit 1a : One dirty shirt Exhibit 1b : One pair of shoes Parcel 2 : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of ""D.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 20 of 51Singh U.P.P. containing exhibits 2a and 2b.Exhibit 2a : One dirty foul smelling pants with belt.Exhibit 2b : One dirty foul smelling underwear Parcel 3 : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of ""RNV"" containing exhibit 3, kept in a plastic container.Exhibit 3 : Gauze cloth piece having brown stains described as ""blood lifted car""""RNV"" said to contain Desi Katta sent in original to Ballistics Division Parcel 6 : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of ""RNV"" containing exhibit 6 Exhibit 6 : Five bullets RESULT OF ANALYSISBlood was detected on exhibit 3 CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 21 of 51In the morning both the accused persons parked the vehicle of the deceased with blood stains of the deceased on it in a parking lot at Haridwar and stayed in a hotel under fictitious identity.(ii) Their disclosures led to the discovery of dead body of deceased Vijay and it was found to have the same injuries as were disclosed by the accused persons to have been inflicted on his head.(iii) The dead body was found at the same place where the accused disclosed to have thrown it in the jurisdiction of PS Jarcha.(iv) With the help of the wearing apparels and other articles the dead body was a uniquely and unambiguously identified as that of the deceased Vijay Bajaj, particularly consequent to the identification by PW-4 Vishal Rajpal.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 22 of 51A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 22 of 51(v) In the ensuing morning the accused Sapna and Satyajeet were found present in the town of Haridwar with the car of the deceased Vijay Bajaj in which they were seen accompanying the deceased just prior to the incident.(vi) This car was found to be having blood on its rear right door.The possession of the car of the deceased Vijay and that too with the presence of blood stains, found from the constructive possession of the accused Satyajeet and Sapna, transmit a burden on the accused persons to show the circumstances in which that car and those blood stains on the door of the car appeared.(vii) Accused persons Sapna and Satyajeet have been shown by the prosecution to be running from one place to the other after causing death of the deceased Vijay Bajaj.U/s 10 Evidence Act this is a relevant fact and the accused persons could never discharge the burden so cast upon them to show the necessity of assuming fictitious identifies and being in a state of restless running from here to there after the death of accused Vijay Bajaj was caused.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 23 of 51A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 23 of 51(viii) Prior to this, the prosecution was able to prove that Sapna was making efforts of collecting Diazepam sleeping pills.It was shown that such pills were procured also.Some of such pills were found from the possession of Sapna and Satyajeet at Lucknow which were seized by that police vide document Ex.PW 23/A. Here the accused Sapna was found in possession of Calmpose pills which are used to induce sleep.Calmpose is the brand name of the same generic chemical known as Diazepam.Prosecution had shown that they were used to impair the deceased Vijay Bajaj.(ix) Both the accused persons were duly sheltered and assisted by the third accused Yunus during their hightailing from one point to the other.Right from the time when Yunus provided Katta to the accused Sapna and Satyajeet for causing death of Vijay Bajaj, Yunus remained in their contact until they both left for Lucknow.This proved the scope, extent and liability CRL.(xi) The accused persons took the phone of the deceased Vijay Bajaj and sold it for Rs.3300/- at the shop of PW 2 Gurpreet Singh.(xii) The disclosure statements of the accused persons Satyajeet and Sapna were recorded at two places.Initially at Lucknow in a document Ex.PW-23/A on 19.07.02 and thereafter in Delhi in documents Ex.The case of the prosecution against the appellants was based on circumstantial evidence.It is pertinent to mention here that despite opportunity being being granted to the appellants, there was no cross-examination on their behalf.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 31 of 51A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 32 of 51A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 34 of 51After the arrest of Sapna and Satyajeet on 19.07.2002 at lunch, they were lodged in jail.PW-28 SI Yashbir Singh applied for permission in the court of MM, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, to bring the said accused persons to Delhi.The copy of application is Ex.PW- 28/A. Both the accused were brought to Delhi by him and were produced before the court in Delhi and both were remanded to police custody for eight days.In the disclosure statements recorded on 21.07.2002, they informed that they could get the dead body of deceased Vijay recovered from a small canal.On the basis of the disclosure CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 35 of 51 statements Ex.PW-20/A (Satyajeet) and Ex.PW-20/B (Sapna), they were arrested on the same day.The arrest memos are Ex.PW-20/C (Satyajeet) and Ex.PW-20/D (Sapna).A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 35 of 51The prosecution proved that prior to their arrest on 16.07.2002, the dead body was recovered within the jurisdiction of Police Station Jarcha.The clothes of the dead body were also identified by the family members, particularly PW-4 Vishal Rajpal.Before the arrival of Delhi Police at Police Station Jarcha, a dead body had already been recovered by Jarcha police on the above mentioned place and a Panchnama Ex.PW-26/A was prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination.PW-27 SI Brij Pal Singh seized the shirt and shoes of the deceased vide Ex.PW-27/B, photographs Ex.PW-27/C and Ex.PW-27/D were also taken.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 36 of 51We must mention here that no doubt while delivering the impugned judgment, the learned trial judge at various places has referred to disclosure statements as confessional statements, which is not permissible.After disclosure statements made by the accused Sapna Talwar and Satyajeet @ Lovely before Delhi Police on 21.07.2002, the accused persons thereafter led PW-45 ACP Ramniwas Vashisht and his team to a place near Dadri, U.P. on 23.07.2002 and pointed out a place where site plan was prepared and also took them to CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 37 of 51 another place near a Canal which was at a distance of about 2-2 kilometers from that place.PW-28/C was also prepared and while returning to Delhi, both accused took them to the house of Yunus at 1743, Gali No.1, Islam Nagar, Ghaziabad, who was present in his house.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 38 of 51A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 38 of 51On the basis of the disclosure statement Ex.On 25.07.2002, both the accused then took the team to Subzi Mandi, Chander Nagar.Accused Satyajeet pointed out one shop of Chander Bhan.Thereafter, they led the team to Haq Clinic number 7A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, where the statement of Islam was recorded.On 26.07.2002, both the accused led the team to shop No.S4, BS Complex, GT Road, Ghaziabad.Accused Satyajeet pointed out that shop.One Gurpreet met them there who identified both the accused and statement of Gurpreet was also recorded.On 28.07.2002, they led the team to Hotel Pelican, Ghaziabad and pointed out the same.The Manager-cum- Receptionist Anil Kumar met them there.He identified both the accused as the same who stayed there in the name of Rahul and his wife.The photocopy of the guest register produced by the manager CRL.PW-4/L. The seizure memo in this regard is Ex.PW-4/M. Thereafter, both the accused led the team to Krishna lodge, Railway Road, Ghazibad, where Mr Gyan Prasad Yadav, Manager of the said lodge, met them.He identified both the accused as the same persons who stayed there in the name of Surender Singh and his wife.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 39 of 51During the course of investigation, when the vehicle parked at Haridwar was examined, it was found to have blood stains on the rear right door which was lifted vide seizure memo Ex.PW-4/P and subsequently, this was confirmed to be human blood by the FSL report.It is pertinent to mention here that for the period from 13.07.2002 to 18.07.2002, there was no explanation on behalf of the appellants Sapna Talwar and Satyajeet @ Lovely that why they were moving from one place to another.From the aforesaid incriminating material and circumstances, it is clearly established by the prosecution that the murder of Vijay Bajaj was committed by Sapna Talwar and Satyajeet @ Lovely.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 40 of 51The prosecution has also been able to establish that accused Sapna Talwar and Satyajeet @ Lovely committed the offence under Section 201 IPC because they had caused the death of the deceased and after having the knowledge of the said fact, they caused disappearance of evidence after offence of murder by throwing the dead body in the water.In view of the testimonies of the witnesses, it is clear that the prosecution has been able to establish on record beyond reasonable doubt that both the accused Sapna Talwar and Satyajeet @ Lovely have committed the offences under Section 302 r/w 120B and 201 IPC.(iii) Yunus made a disclosure statement Ex.These purported circumstances seen together, in the view of the trial court, clearly established that the accused Yunus was in contact with Sapna and Satyajeet and that he was assisting them; he was providing all the material and instrumental help to them; he provided a telephone and on its disruption a second one also.He also provided them a Katta.PW4/G and PW4/H at point C. He was cross examined by the Special Public Prosecutor for the State and he denied all the suggestions made by him before the court.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 44 of 51A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 44 of 51The defence witnesses DW-1 Mohd. Mehmood and DW-2 Rashid were examined by the appellant Yunus.They deposed that they are neighbours of the family of Mohd. Yunus and in the intervening night of 18.07.2002 and 19.07.2002 at about 2:30-3:00 a.m., they saw police officials on the gate and they overpowered Yunus and took him down to the street.The neighbours also gathered there.The police officials informed that they were taking Yunus to Delhi for some inquiry.The learned trial judge in his impugned judgment acquitted him of charges under the Arms Act against him as the same stood not proved.However, he was held guilty of offence punishable under Section 120 B read with Section 34 IPC and was awarded imprisonment for life for the said offence.In nutshell, the case of prosecution against the Yunus is that he provided the katta and five cartridges to the main accused, particularly, Satyajeet, who is his friend and also alleged to have provided a mobile phone to Sapna.As per the story of prosecution, Sapna used the said mobile after putting in her own SIM card and he provided money to the accused as per Ex.PW-23/A.After having gone through the testimonies of all the witnesses and the documents on record, we do not agree with the CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 45 of 51 finding of the learned trial judge that any case against the Yunus under Section 120 B IPC is made out as the prosecution has not established its case under this provision against Yunus.Our findings are as under:A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 45 of 51a. Yunus denied the suggestion for providing country-made pistol to the other two accused persons.As per the FSL report, the said pistol was not in working condition.examination that he did not remember the date when SI Yashbir collected call details.He did not remember the number of telephone of which call details were taken.j. PW-28 SI Yashbir Singh in his testimony stated that one Mujib had given mobile phone to accused Yunus but said Mujib was not produced as a witness nor his statement was recorded.k. No experts opinion or doctors opinion, who conducted the postmortem, was obtained regarding the use of alleged katta to commit the said offence.l. PW-45 ACP Ramniwas Vashisht stated that they had parked their vehicle at a distance of 100 yards before the house of accused Yunus while PW-21 stated that they CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 48 of 51 had parked their vehicle at a distance of 500-600 yards in north side from the house of the accused Yunus.m. PW-4 Vishal Rajpal in his cross-examination deposed that they reached there, the doors of the house of Yunus were open while PW-45 ACP Ramniwas Vashisht stated that the main gate was closed when they went there.The doors were opened by Yunus from inside.n. PW-45 ACP Ramniwas Vashisht stated that three or four persons had entered inside the house and rest of them remained outside.PW-21 Constable Pritam Singh stated that they all entered into the house of the accused.o. PW-21 Constable Pritam Singh deposed in his cross-examination that there was one almirah of wood having size 2`x5` in that room whereas PW-45 ACP Ramniwas Vashisht stated in his cross-examination that the almirah was affixed in the rear wall of the room which was made of steel being of average size.p. PW-21 Constable Pritam Singh stated in his cross-examination that seizure memos were in the handwriting of SI Yashbir Tyagi while PW-4 Vishal Rajpal stated that seizure memo, sketch of country-made pistol and CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 49 of 51 cartridges, personal search memo of accused Yunus, site plan and arrest memo were made by PW-45 ACP Ramniwas Vashisht.The prosecution version in this case is doubtful as the prosecution did not join any independent witness as attesting witness to the alleged disclosure statement as well as recovery.The disclosure statement without any discovery of fact is also meaningless.Non-joining of public witness as attesting witness smacks of malafide and makes prosecution version more doubtful.The prosecution is not able to CRL.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 50 of 51 establish chain of circumstances so complete to connect the accused Yunus with the alleged offence.A. 357/2009 & 421/2009 Page 50 of 51For all these reasons, we are of the clear view that the prosecution has not been able to bring home its case against Yunus as there are many missing links and chain is far from complete.The prosecution was failed to prove any case against him under Section 120 B IPC.Therefore, we cannot hold him to be guilty merely on the basis of suspicions raised by the prosecution.The impugned judgment and order of sentence against Yunus are set aside and he is acquitted of all charges in this case.His appeal is allowed and he be set at liberty forthwith.The appeal filed by appellants Sapna Talwar and Satyajeet @ Lovely is dismissed except to the extent that they stand acquitted of the charge under Section 365 IPC.MANMOHAN SINGH, J BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J OCTOBER 12, 2011 kk/jk/sa CRL.","['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"According to the 1st respondent, for the purpose of the investigation of the said offence, it became necessary to carry out searches and seize documents and other Arti- cles from the office and factory premises of the said concerns at Connaught Place, New Delhi, and at Kalkaji New Delhi respectively.He, therefore, made a record in writing at 7.30 A. M. on 1-1-1968 under Section 165(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was filed as annexure 'A' by the petitioners and as Annexure R-2 by the respondents.It runs as under :--""Special Police Establishment Central Investigating Agency (1).Whereas I, B.A. Lakshminarayana Swamy, Dy.of Police, Special Police Establishment, Cia (1), Cbi, New Delhi, am investigating the case in R. C. 12/67-CIA(1) u/s 120B Ipc R/ W Section 420, Ipc and Section 5(2) of Act Ii of 1947, and Whereas, it has become necessary for purposes of my investigation in the said case to take possession of the following documents and things said to be in possession of M/s Lloyd Electric and Engineering Co. M-13 Connaught Place, New Delhi, at their office premises in Connaught Place and in their factory premises at Kalkaji, New Delhi, viz.Rate Contract file of M/s Lloyd Electric Engineering Co. in No. SE6/RC/6770/ l/Lloyd/3472 dated 15-4-65 for the period 1965 to date.All supply orders placed on the said firm in the above Rate Contract including Invoices, Bills, Vouchers, Delivery receipts, Inspection notes etc.Purchase files of the above firm for Air Compressors made from M/s Kirloskar Pneumatics, M/s. Sri Ram Refrigeration Industries, M/s. Usha Refregeration Co., and other firms for the period 1965 to date.All correspondence files of M/s Lloyd Electric and Engineering Co. Ltd., D. G. S. and D. and other Government Deptt.regarding supply of Air Conditioners for the period 1965 to date.All correspondence files of M/s Lloyd Electric and Engineering Co., M/s Punj Sons (P) Ltd., M/s. Fedders Lloyd Corporation (P) Ltd., and M/s. Fedders Lloyd Sales Corporation for the period 1965 to date in respect of manufacture and sale of Air-Conditioners, purchase of accessories in the above manufacture with other firms and between themselves also.Correspondence files of the above firms with foreign suppliers in respect of Air Compressors during 1965 to date.Correspondence files of the above four firms with Ministry of Finance for Foreign Exchange allocation for the period 1965 to date.Unit Serial No. Register of Air Conditioners manufactured by the said firms for the period 1965 to date.All documents and Registers of the said firms relating to the payment of Excise Duties on Air-Conditioners for the period 1965 to-date.Cash books and Ledgers, Bahi Katha books of the said firms for the period 1965 to date.Stock, Issue Registers of Air Conditioners manufactured in the Factory and Air Compressors purchased from other firms or imported.Premises to be searched:Office premises of M/s. Punj Sons (P.) Ltd., M/s. Kedders Lloyd Corporation (P.) Ltd., (3) M/s. Lloyd Electric Engineering Corporation at M-13, 'Punj House, Con-naught Place New Delhi.2. Factory premises of M/s. Punj Sons (P.) Ltd. and M/s. Fedders Lloyd Sales Corporation at Kalkaji, New Delhi.Dated 1st Jan. 1968 7.30 A. M.According to the 1st respondent, simultaneous searches had to be carried out in the office premises at Connaught Place and in the Factory premises at Kalkaji, and as it was physically nto possible for him to search both the premises simultaneously, he made an order (Annexure R-1) at 7-45 A. M. on 1-1-1968 under Section 165(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code deputing respondent No. 2 to search the office premises at Connuaght Place, while he himself searched the factory premises at Kalkaji on the same date.The said order runs as under :--""To Shri Jethanand Dy.of Police, S. P. E., C. I. A. (I), New Delhi.Sub: RC.12/67-CIA-Investigation of.For purposes of my investigation in the above case, it has become necessary to conduct simultaneous searches at the office premises of M/s. Lloyd Electric and Engineering Co., M-13, Punj House, Connaught Place and at the Factory premises of M/s. Punj Sons (P.) Ltd., Kalkaji, this morning.Copy of the grounds of search submitted to the Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi, is enclosed for your information.As I will be engaged in the search of the said factory premises at Kalkaji, I am requesting you to conduct the search of the office premises of M/s. Lloyd Electric and Engineering Co., and other allied concerns located at No. M-13, Punj House, Con-naught Place, New Delhi, as detailed in the said grounds of search and to seize the documents and things referred to therein.This requisition is being made to you in accordance with Section 165(3) Cr.B. A. Lakshminarayana Swamy Deputy Supdt.Civil Writ No. 16 of 1968 was filed by M/s. Fedders Lloyd Corporation (Private) Limited, represented by Director, S. N. P. Punj, Civil Writ No. 17 of 1968 was filed by M/s Lloyd Electric and Engineering Company represented 'by Partner, V. P. Punj, Civil Writ No. 18 of 1968 was filed by Airserco represented by sole proprietor, T. V. P. Punj, Civil Writ No. 19 of 1968 was filed by M/s. Fedders Lloyd Sales Corporation represented by Partner, S. N. P. Punj, and Civil Writ No. 20 of 1968 was filed by M/s Lloyd Sales Corporation represented by Partner Mrs. I. R. Punj.The respondents in all the writ petitions are the same namely, (1) B. A. Lakshminarayana Swami, Dy.S. P. S.P.E.C.I.A. (I), C.B.I., New Delhi, and (2) Jethanand, Dy.S. P., C. I. A. (I), New Delhi.The first respondent further averred in his aforesaid affidavit that he had reliable information that the aforesaid company and its sister concerns, in conspiracy with the above mentioned S. S. Chouhan and H. C. Mehrotra, cheated the Government of India and some State Governments in supplying sub-standard air-conditioners under a Rate Contract entered into by the aforesaid company and its sister concerns with the D. G. S. and D., that the air-conditioners supplied under the said Rate Contract were fitted with indigenous compressors whereas the requirement of the Rate Contract was for fitting the said air-conditioners with imported compressors made in U. S. A., and that this was done by dishonestly removing the manufacturer's name plate, disfiguring the markings of the Indian compressors, and passing off the units as being fitted with foreign compressors.Requisition u/s. 165 (3) Cr.of Police, S. P. E., C. I. A. (I), New Delhi.7.45 A. M.They thereupon filed the present five writ petitions in this Court on 8-1-1968 praying for the issue of ""a direction in the nature of a mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith return the documents and things seized on 1st January, 1968, under Annexures 'B' and 'C'"", and for certain other interim reliefs.(2) that the action of the 2nd respondent in having searched the office premises of the petitioners at Punj House, Connaught Place, New Delhi, and in having seized the documents and things mentioned in Annexure 'C' to the writ petition, was illegal and contrary to the mandatory provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 165 Criminal Procedure Code, in that the respondent No. 1 did nto make any order in writing recording his reasons for his being unable to conduct the search himself in person, and in that the 1st respondent did nto deliver an order in writing to respondent No. 2 specifying therein the place to be searched and the things for which the search is to be made, and the second respondent did nto have any such order as is contemplated by Section 165(3), Criminal Procedure Code, nor did he show any such order to the petitioners; and (3) that the searches and seizures made by the two respondents were contrary to law and illegal for the further reason that the copies or the record, if any, made under Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (3) of Section 165, Criminal Procedure Code, were nto sent forthwith to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence, as provided for in Sub-section (5) of Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code.In reply to the writ petitions, an affidavit of the 1st respondent, dated 21-1-1968, which has already been referred to above, was filed.As already stated, the 1st respondent averred in the said reply that the five petitioner-concerns are the concerns of the Punj family which is carrying on business under the name and style of and is controlling the five petitioner-concerns.It was further averred that V. P. Punj was shown the requisite orders along with the grounds for search, that the search and seizure were made strictly in accordance with law, that he did make an order under Section 165(3) Criminal Procedure Code, a copy of which was filed as Annexure R-1 to the reply affidavit, that as it was nto physically possible for him to make the searches both at Con-naught Place and at Kalkaji, he searched the factory premises at Kalkaji and deputed respondent No. 2 to search the office premises at Connaught Place, that the report prepared under Section 165(3), Criminal Procedure Code, was shown to V. P. Punj who was a partner or executive and represented all the firms, along with a copy of the grounds for search, that in token of having seen them he endorsed the grounds for search with the remark ""seen"" and signed it, that that fact was also mentioned in the seizure list, a copy of which was given to V. P. Punj and was acknowledged by him, that a copy of the record prepared under Section 165(3), Criminal Procedure Code, and a copy of the seizure list were also sent to the Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi, though there was some delay as the same was sent on 10-1-1968 when the deponent returned from tour which he had to undertake on Government duty immediately after the search and seizure on 1-1-1968, that the record prepared under Sec, 165 (1), Criminal Procedure Code, was sent to the Magistrate on the day of the search itself, and that, therefore the searches and the seizures were quite legal and in accordance with law.As a rejoinder to the said reply V. P. Pun] filed an affidavit, dated 23-1-1968, in which he stated that it was incorrect to say that he was shown ""the requisite orders along with the grounds for search"", that the only document that was shown to him was Annexure 'A' to the writ petition (i. e. the record made under Section 165(1), Criminal Procedure Code), wherein he made the endorsement ""seen V. P. Punj"", that excepting that document, no other document was shown to him by either of the respondents, and that no separate record under Section 165(3) or Annexure R-1 or separate record containing the grounds under Section 163(1) was shown to him at any time.Shri S. N. P. Punj also filed an affidavit, dated 23-1-1968, as a rejoinder to the reply of the respondents.In this affidavit, it was reiterated that the respondents did nto comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 165, Criminal Procedure Code, and it was stated that the First Information Report was dated 28-124967, that it contains an endorsement which shows that it was forwarded on the same day to Shri M. S. Joshi, Special fudge, Delhi, that another endorsement thereon shows that it was received by the learned Special Judge at 1-10 P. M. on 3-1-1968, that on 8-1-1968, an application for copies of the record made under Section 165 Criminal Procedure Code, was made by the petitioners in the Court 08 the Special Judge for S. P. E. cases, Delhi, as provided in the proviso to Section 165(S) of the Criminal Procedure Code, that the Special Judge directed the Senior Public Prosecutor, Cia (I) to report immediately, that the Senior Public Prosecutor, in his turn, called upon the Investigating Officer to report by 2 P. M, on 8-1-1968, that on 9-1-1968, the record under Section 165 (1), dated 1-1-1968, signed by B. A. Lakshminarayana Swamy, 1st respondent, and the requisition or order under Section 165(3), also signed by B. A. Lakshminarayana Swamy, were submitted in the Court of the Special Judge, Delhi, and copies of the said two documents were supplied to the petitioners by an order of the Special Judge, Delhi, dated 9-1-1968, that photostat copies of the application, dated 8-1-1968, for emergent copies of the record made under Section 165(1) with endorsement thereon, the order of the Special Judge, dated 9-1-1968, directing copies of the documents to be furnished, the copies of the First Information Report, the record under Section 165(1), and the requisition or order under Section 165(3) were filed as Annexures 1 to 5 to this affidavit, and that the above facts show clearly that the provisions of Sub-sections (1), (3) and (5) of Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code were nto complied with at all, and consequently the searches and the seizures were illegal and invalid.The first respondent, B. A. Lakshminarayana Swamy filed a further affidavit dated 27-1-1968, in reply to the aforesaid rejoinder affidavit of V. P. Punj and S. N. P. Punj.The said conclusion of the High Court that the search was defective was nto challenged in the Supreme Court.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"JUDGMENT Somasundaram, J.Abdul Khader, the appellant herein, stands convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri Division, at Krishnagiri, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for an offence under Section 493 of the Penal Code.Section 498 of the Penal Code punishes persons who cohabit with a woman after deceitfully making a belief in her that she was legally married to him.The prosecution case was that on 16th January 1967, the appellant by deceit, made P.W. 1 believe, that she was married to him and after creating such a belief in her mind, he made her cohabit with him.The defence of the appellant was one of denial.The learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant went through a form of marriage knowing that it was not the proper form and thereby deceived P. W. 1, and made her have sexual intercourse with him.The appellant is not a stranger to P. W. 1 because he is her cousin.He had given a new saree and ear ornaments to her.There was also an exchange of garlands in the presence of P. Ws. 3, 4 and one Lal Batcha.They lived together as husband and wife for a few days.The appellant had taken P. W. 1 to his house, and after two days, his sister, brother-in-law and father had pushed P. W. 1, out.The appellant had asked her to remain with her grand-mother stating that he would fix up a house and then take her.These circumstances establish that he never practised any deception on her.The section is not intended to punish one for contracting a marriage which turns out to be illegal.But it only punishes a man for obtaining, the body of the worn in by deceitfully assuring her that he had acquired that right by jus mariti.P. W. 1 in this case was lawfully married to the petitioner.Further, there has been no deceitful assurance or act on his part so as to attract Section 493, Penal Code.The conviction is hot correct.Both the conviction and sentence are set aside.The appeal is allowed.",['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.In the present case, the applicant is under incarceration for more than three and half years and he has completed half of the punishment prescribed for the said offence.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that statements of material witnesses have already been recorded in crime No.83/2014 on the basis of which this Court has already enlarged the applicant on bail vide order dated 29/04/2019 passed in MCRC No.15314/2019, therefore, allegation does not survive.The applicant is in custody since 03/10/2015 and early conclusion of the trial is a bleak possibility and prolonged pretrial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty.Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge rahul RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR 2019.06.18 17:09:40 +05'30'","['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"By way of the impugned judgement dated 07.09.2011 and order on sentence dated 13.09.2011, Mohd. Imran (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant No.1'); Mukesh alias Karka (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant No.2'); and Akram (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant No.3'), were convicted and sentenced as follows:I) Appellant No.1CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 2 of 30ii) Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 302/34 IPC.In default of payment of fine, the Appellant No.1 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 months.The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.ii) Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 302/34 IPC.CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 3 of 30 In default of payment of fine, the Appellant No.2 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 months.CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 3 of 30The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.III) Appellant No.3The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.Furthermore, the benefit of Section 428 CrPC has been granted to the Appellant No.3 as well.CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 4 of 30CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 4 of 30The fulcrum of the case of the prosecution is that on 18.04.2010, the Appellant nos.1, 2 and 3 (hereinafter collectively referred to as 'Appellants'), sharing common intention, caused stab injuries on the body of Dhiraj s/o Mr. Ram Nandan (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') leading to his death.The injuries were caused with a knife [Ex.P9], whilst committing robbery, at Sanjay Jheel, Mayur Vihar Phase-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Sanjay Jheel/crime spot').After committing the murder, the appellants took the mobile phone, Rs.60/-70/-, and the school ATM card of the deceased and absconded from the crime spot.The entire incident was witnessed by Ms. Sapna (PW-6), who was present with the deceased at the time of the incident.A PCR call [Ex.PW13/A] was made at the instance of PW-6 by Mr. Satish (PW-3); who was playing cricket at some distance from the crime spot, and Daily Diary No.13A was lodged at Police Station Pandav Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Police Station').Sub-Inspector Krishan Pal, PCR, North East zone (PW-15) alongwith Constable Murad Khan reached at the crime spot where they found the dead body of the deceased smeared in blood.Inspector B.R. Meena (PW-23/Investigating officer/IO) also reached at the crime spot, where PW-6 was also present.CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 5 of 30CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 5 of 30Crime team was called at the crime spot.PW-23 recorded the statement of PW-6 [Ex.PW6/A]; prepared the rukka [Ex.PW23/A] and gave it to Constable Bahadur Singh (PW-18) for registration of F.I.R. [F.I.R. being Ex.PW19/A]; and thereafter prepared the site plan [Ex.PW23/B].The dead body of the deceased was sent to LBS Mortuary through PW-15 and Constable Murad Khan.PW-23 took two samples each of blood soaked earth and earth controls from the crime spot [vide separate memos Ex.PW-6/B to E].A P-Cap lying near the body of the deceased was also taken into possession [vide memo Ex.PW-6/F].Thereafter, PW-23 alongwith woman Constable Krishna took PW-6 to her house and took into possession the blood stained clothes worn by her at the time of the incident [vide memo Ex.PW6/G].On 19.04.2010, PW-23 conducted inquest proceedings and the dead body of the deceased was identified by Mr. Neeraj Kumar and Mr. Ram Nandan Prasad [vide Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW1/A, respectively].Further, PW- 23 requested the doctor for postmortem vide application Ex.PW23/D. Postmortem was conducted and the dead body of the deceased was handed over to his relatives [vide Ex.PW1/B].The clothes as well as the blood CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 6 of 30 sample of the deceased were taken into possession [vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/E].CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 6 of 30It is further the case of the prosecution that the mobile device of the deceased; being amongst the articles robbed by the Appellants, was placed under surveillance and it was discovered that another mobile number being 9958103551, activated in the name of one Gulshan Bano R/o Jhuggi Jawahar Mohalla, Shashi Garden, Delhi (mother of the appellant no.1) was being used on the said mobile device.On enquiry from the mother of Appellant No.1, the former pointed towards the latter stating that he was using the said mobile number.Consequent thereto, the Appellant No.1 was apprehended and made a disclosure statement [Ex.PW17/A] admitting his involvement in the incident.Appellant No.1 was arrested [vide arrest memo Ex.PW17/D] and his personal search was conducted [vide memo Ex.PW17/E].Appellant No.1 got recovered from the fridge in his jhuggi, the mobile device of the deceased in which he was using the said mobile number.The mobile device and the SIM of the said mobile number being used therein, were taken into possession CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 7 of 30 [vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/B].Furthermore, the Apellant No.1 also got recovered from his jhuggi a bloodstained T-shirt, which he was wearing at the time of the commission of the offence [vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/C].CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 7 of 30Appellant No.2 was apprehended and during interrogation he also made a disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the incident [Ex.PW21/C].Appellant No.2 was arrested [vide arrest memo Ex.PW21/A] and his personal search was conducted [vide memo Ex.PW21/B].Appellant No.2 got recovered from his jhuggi the knife [Ex.P9] used in the commission of the offence [vide memo Ex.PW21/E].Furthermore, the Appellant No.2 also got recovered a white coloured blood stained T-shirt, which he was wearing at the time of the commisison of the offence [Ex.PW21/F].Subsequent thereto, at the instance of Appellant Nos.1 and 2, Appellant No.3 was arrested.Pursuant to his arrest, Appellant No.3 also made a disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the incident [Ex.PW18/PX2].Appellant No.3 was arrested [vide arrest memo Ex.PW18/A] and his personal search was conducted [vide memo Ex.PW18/PX1].Appellant No.3 got recovered a shirt having bloodstains CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 8 of 30 from his jhuggi, which he was wearing at the time of the commission of the offence [vide memo Ex.PW18/PX4].CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 8 of 30However, the Appellants refused to participate in the TIP proceedings [Ex.PW9/E to G].Broadly, PW-6 (the eyewitness) has deposed to the incident as follows:That on 18.04.2010, at about 10 A.M., while she was on her way to her friend's house she met the deceased.The deceased was her cousin brother.They both got engaged into a conversation and whilst simulataneously conversing and walking reached Sanjay Jheel.They both sat down there on a bench when the Appellants approached the deceased and asked him for the time.Thereafter, the Appellants asked the deceased to stand up and both of them stood up.On their standing up, the Appellants asked the deceased to hand over everything in his possession, however, PW- 6 and the deceased told the Appellants that they do not have anything and CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 22 of 30 asked for them to be left alone.Appellant No.2 took out a knife and asked for the deceased to hand over everything in his possession or otherwise he will be killed.On the other hand, Appellant No.3 threatened PW-6 to leave from there or otherwise she too will be killed.PW-6 started walking away from the crime spot and after walking a few steps again requested to the Appellants to leave them alone.The deceased also requested the Appellants to leave them.CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 22 of 30The Appellant Nos.1 and 3 caught hold of the deceased and the Appellant No.2 stabbed the deceased on his chest.On being stabbed, the deceased started crying and after taking a few steps fell down on the ground.Thereafter, the Appellants took away the money and mobile phone of the deceased and absconded from the crime spot.PW-6 went up to the deceased while he was bleeding from his chest and asked him to get up.However, the deceased couldn't speak and was breathing heavily.PW-6 approached some boys, which included PW-3, and asked them for their help.At her request, PW-3 made the call to the police to report the incident, pursuant to which the police arrived and took the dead body of the deceased to the hospital.One of the contention which was raised by the Appellants before the Trial Court in order to discredit the testimony of the sole eye-witness, PW-6 CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 23 of 30 was that she has only deposed of one stab wound viz. Injury No.1, whereas the postmortem records two stab wounds on the body of the deceased.The Trial Court whilst rejecting this contention and holding the testimony of PW- 6 to be consistent, credible and truthful, observed as follows:CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 23 of 30i) Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under the provisions of Sections CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 2 of 30 392/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').In default of payment of fine, the Appellant No.1 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 1 month.Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under the provision of Section 397 IPC.In default of payment of fine, the Appellant No.2 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 1 month.i) Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 392/34 IPC.In default of payment of fine, the Appellant No.3 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 1 month.ii) Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 302/34 IPC.In default of payment of fine, the Appellant No.3 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 months.On 04.05.2010, PW-23 recorded supplementary statement of PW-6 qua the identity of the Appellants, and on 05.05.2010 statement of PW-6 was recorded under the provisions of Section 164 of CrPC [Ex.PW6/H].The Exhibits were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as 'the FSL').In the FSL examination [Ex.PX2] it was discovered that human blood was present on the clothes recovered at the instance of the Appellants as well as on the knife, however, the blood group could not be detected.Insofar as the post-mortem report is concerned [Ex.PW5/A], it has been stated therein that the following injuries were present on the body of the deceased:i) Incised stab wound 3.3 x 1.9 cms obliquely present over left side at chest 112 cms above heel and 8 cms from midline, chest cavity deep, margins sharp and regular, lower end acute, CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 9 of 30 directed downwards, inwards and medially (hereinafter referred to as 'Injury No.1');CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 9 of 30ii) Incised wound .5 x .1 cms oblique, present over dorsum of left hand, skin deep, margin sharp and regular (hereinafter referred to as 'Injury No.2');iii) Abrasion 0.5 x .03 cms present 1 cm above medial end of right eyebrow on forehead (hereinafter referred to as 'Injury No.3').It has been opined by Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh (PW-5) that the cause of death was haemorragic shock consequent upon stab injury to the chest; all injuries were antemortem in nature.Injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and Injury Nos.1 and 2 were caused by a single edge and sharp weapon/knife.Furthermore, on internal examination the following injuries were discovered:""In continuation of Injury No.1, skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle, in between 6th and 7th ribs, upper body at 7th rib, pleurae left side, pericardium and left ventricular of heart above apex, 2.8 x 1.5 cms were incised, about 2.5 litres of blood in cavity, all layers of muscle at left vertical were incised, cavity deep, chambers empty.""As per the sketch drawn by PW-5 of the knife, the length and width of the blade thereof is 20.3 cms and 3.7 cms (at most), respectively.It has also been deposed by PW-5 that Injury Nos.1 and 2 have been caused from the same weapon of offence.CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 10 of 30Furthermore, PW-5 has also tendered subsequent opinion with respect to Injury No.3 [Ex.PW5/B].It has been stated therein that the Injury No.3 could have been caused due to surface friction against a rough surface.At the trial, the prosecution has examined 23 witnesses in support of its case.The Appellant No.1 in his defence has chosen not to lead any evidence.However, it has been stated by him in his statement under the provision of Section 313 CrPC that he found the mobile phone from the bushes of the park at Sanjay Jheel; where he was playing football.The Appellant No.2 in his defence has produced Mr. Nasir Ahmed (DW-1), his employer, CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 11 of 30 who asserted that at the time of the incident Appellant No.2 was present with him in Rewari, Haryana.CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 11 of 30The Appellant No.3 in his statement, under the provision of Section 313 CrPC, whilst disputing the recovery made at his instance, has also stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.The Appellant No.3 in his defence has produced Md. Yasin (DW-2), his employer.It has been deposed by DW-2 that Appellant No.3 was working with him at the time of the incident.i) The testimony of PW-6, the sole eyewitness, being consistent, credible and truthful;ii) PW-6 has identified the Appellants in Court.Furthermore, PW-iii) The recovery of the mobile phone of the deceased from the Appellant No.1;CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 12 of 30""25. ...It is stated that as per PW6, only one stab wound was caused but as per P/M report Ex.PW5/A, deceased sufferred two stab wounds.PW6 has talked about only one stab injury inflicted by accused Mukesh on the chest of deceased.As per P/M report Ex.PW5/A, there is another stab injury present over dorsum of left hand and doctor opined that both injury No.1 and 2 are caused by single edged sharp weapon/knife.PW6 has stated that he pleaded with accused persons to leave them as they are not having any thing.On this, accused Akram threatened her to go away from there otherwise she will be killed.She started leaving from the spot, after taking few steps she again requested accused persons to leave them.As per PW6, she saw accused Imran and Mukesh caught hold deceased Dhiraj and accusecd Mukesh stabbed Dhiraj on his chest.Injury on the dorsum of left hand of the deceased shows that while being assaulted with knife as natural reaction to defend, deceased must have brought his hand in-between, as result of which he sustained this injury.Since PW6 was leaving from the spot and from some distance she saw accused stabbing deceased, it looks probable that she did not see accused inflicting injury No.2 i.e. on left hand of the deceased.She was cross-examined by both the Ld.The Trial Court rightly concluded that the possible reason for PW-6 not having testified to the injury on the dorsem of the left hand (Injury No.2) could be that it was caused when she started walking away from the crime spot.As rightly observed by the Trial Court, Injury No.2 could have been caused as a consequence of the deceased exercising his right of defending himself by a natural reflex action against assault by Appellant No.2 with a knife.Even otherwise, it seems only logical to conclude that Appellant No.2 was not aiming for the dorsum of his left hand.CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 25 of 30CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 25 of 30However, insofar as the fatal injury is concerned i.e. Injury No.1, the same was caused by the Appellant No.2 using the knife [Ex.P9] recovered at his instance, whilst Appellant Nos.1 and 3 had caught hold of the deceased.The Injury No.1 was on a vital part of the body viz. left side of the chest, with a force so great that it resulted into an incise wound as large as 3.3 x 1.9 cms, and as a consequence thereof, several grave and internal injuries also resulted.The Injury No.1 so caused cannot be said to be accidental, unlike Injury No.2, as with two persons holding the deceased and a stab wound already present on the dorsum of his left hand (Injury No.2), there was not much scope of movement for a young boy of an average physique.","['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants in Court today is taken on record.This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 07.02.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 1352 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 197 of 2018 (State vs. Sunil Pandey and another), under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Purani Basti, District-Basti pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti.Heard Mr. Ram Mani Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Kripa Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.After death of mother of opposite party no.2, namely, Pavitra Devi, the name of opposite party no.2 and his elder brother has been entered in the revenue records as legal heir of their mother.The application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.","['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"It is alleged that Pandian divorced her and contracted second marriage with one Revathy.This appears to be the motive for the accused to bear ill-will towards Pandian, while so, Pandian had reconciled with Podhumponnu.Heard the learned counsel on either side.2.Criminal Revision Petition.Criminal Revision Petition.No.31 of 2010 has been filed by the first accused questioning the judgment imposed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court finding him guilty.Since both the Criminal Revision Petitions are interlinked, this Court heard them together.But ignoring the same on 05.04.2005, at about 03.00 a.m., there was a murderous assault on the revision petitioner / victim.The revision petitioner had sustained serious injuries including head injury and three fractures.Crime No.56 of 2005, was registered on the file of the Inspector of Police, Mayanoor Police Station, karur District.The matter was investigated and final report was filed.The charges under Sections 341 and 307 were framed against accused Nos.1 and 2 while charge under Section 341 and 307 r/w 34 were framed against the third accused.http://www.judis.nic.in 44.In support of the charges, on the side of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.11 were marked and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 were marked.M.O.1 and M.O.2 were also marked.On the side of the accused, three witnesses were examined and Ex.D1-Attendance Register was also marked.5.The learned trial Judge by judgment dated 25.01.2008 acquitted Accused Nos.2 and 3 of all the charges and found the first accused alone guilty of the charge under Section 324 I.P.C. The first accused was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine amount of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 341 of I.P.C., and for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo two year rigorous imprisonment and a sum of Rs.1000/- was also imposed as fine.The default sentence was also imposed on him.6.The learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 05.09.2008 while sustaining the conviction imposed on the first accused, has held that the period of sentence already undergone by him would be sufficient.However, the fine amount imposed by the learned trial Magistrate was confirmed.7.The learned counsel on either side reiterated the respectivehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 contentions.As regards the second accused, he had pleaded alibi.In support of his stand, Ex.D.1-Attendance Register was also marked.He also examined the defence witnesses D.W.2 and D.W,.3, who are the Principal and Warden of the Institution, in support of his stand that he was elsewhere.The learned trial Judge after elaborate consideration of the evidence on record chose to accept the plea of alibi pleaded by the second accused.9.I am of the view that there is no necessity to interfere with the said findings.The occurrence had taken place at about 03.00 am.On 05.04.2005, on the same day, at about 02.30 p.m., Ex.P1 complaint was lodged and Ex.P.7-Firsthttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 Information Report was registered.In the complaint itself, the first accused has been implicated.If the revision petitioner was attacked by somebody, there was no need for the petitioner to implicate Muthusamy / first respondent herein.10.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that except the testimony of P.W.1, there is no other corroborating evidence.P.W.1 is on injured witness.The injuries would speak for themselves.In any event, I am only exercising the revisional jurisdiction.Both the Courts below have clearly found that Muthusamy was guilty of the offence, with which he was charged.I cannot re- appreciate the evidence.Therefore, I confirm the conviction imposed on him.Now comes the question of punishment.The sentence certainly warrants interference.At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the occurrence had taken place wayback in the year 2005 and since more than 15 years have elapsed, this Court would not be justified in sending Muthusamy to prison.Obviously, Muthsamy must be a senior citizen by now.Therefore, interest of justice will behttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 served by directing Muthusamy to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) to the revision petitioner / Pandian directly within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.If the Muthusamy / Accused No.1 fails to pay this compensation amount, he will have to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year.If the victim is not willing to accept the compensation amount directly from the accused, the accused shall deposit the same to the credit of S.C.No.17 of 2007, on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kulithalai, Karut District, which can be withdrawn by the victim.The judgments passed by the Courts below are accordingly modified.11.Criminal Revision Petition No.31 of 2010 stands dismissed accordingly.Criminal Revision Petition No.731 of 2008 stands disposed of accordingly.06.06.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Tsghttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.1.The Inspector of Police, Mayanoor Police Station, Karur District.The Sessions Court, Karur3.The Assistant Sessions Court, Kulithalai, Karur District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Crl.R.C.[MD]Nos.731 of 2008 & 31 of 2010 06.06.2019http://www.judis.nic.in","['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"ORDER G.B. Pattanaik, J.This appeal is by the informant against an order of acquittal recorded by the High Court of the charges under Sections 304B and 201, I.P.C. Six accused persons stood charge and were tried for having committed an offence under Sections 304B and 201, I.P.C. on the allegation that the deceased, Rajbala, died on account of electrocution within 7 years of her marriage and she had been subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband as well as in -laws for demand of dowry, and that the dead body was disposed of without waiting for the parents of the deceased to arrive at the place of occurrence.PWs.1 and 2, the brother of the deceased and cousin of the deceased were two witnesses examined by the prosecution in support of the case of harassment and cruelty meted out to the deceased by her husband as well as in-laws.The learned Sessions Judge on conclusion of the trial came to the conclusion that there exists no material as against accused Nos. 5 and 6, and therefore, without examining them under Section 313 acquitted them of the charges leveled against them.So far as accused No. 3 is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted him of the charge and that order of acquittal became final not being assailed by the State by preferring an appeal in the High Court.The convicted accused persons, namely, accused Nos. 1,2 and 4 who are the mother-in-law, husband and father-in-law respectively, of the deceased preferred appeal against their conviction and sentence.The High Court by the impugned judgment came to a positive finding that the evidence on record is sufficient to establish that Rajbala during her lifetime used to be harassed by her husband and in-laws on account of insufficient dowry, and further demands used to be made.Notwithstanding the aforesaid finding being arrived at, since the prosecution evidence did not establish any unnatural circumstance for the death of the deceased, the High Court acquitted accused Nos. 1,2 and 4 of the charge under Sections 304B and 201, I.P.C. The High Court, however, convicted the accused persons under Section 498A in view of the conclusion referred to earlier and sentenced them for the period already undergone.It is this order of acquittal of accused Nos. 1,2 and 4 for the offence under Sections 304B and 201, I.P.C. which is the subject matter of appeal.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the death of the deceased undoubtedly having taken place within 7 years of marriage and that the death being on account of electrocution which is a burnt injury, and the finding of the High Court being that the husband and in-laws had harassed deceased, Rajbala, on account of insufficient dowry, and further demands used to be made, the ultimate conclusion of the High Court that the ingredients of offence under Section 304B has not been established, is unsustainable in law, therefore, the order of acquittal is wholly unjustified.In the circumstances, we set aside the order of acquittal passed by the High Court of the offence under Section 304B, I.P.C. and hold that the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 committed offence under Section 304B, and therefore, they are convicted thereunder and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment.They must now surrender to undergo balance period of sentence.This appeal is allowed.","['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']"
"P.W.1, Jharia Das deposed the victim was married to the appellant two years prior to the incident.The appellant had an illicit relation with another girl.On the date of occurrence one Rabin Saha, a neighbour from the matrimonial home of the victim informed him that the victim suffered burn injury.Rabin Saha admitted the victim at Jalpaiguir District Hospital.On getting information, P.W. 1 rushed to his daughter.His daughter was in her senses and was talking.She stated that her husband poured kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire.She died at hospital after 4/5 days.He lodged complaint at Haldibari P.S. He put his LTI on the complaint.In cross-examination, he stated that six months prior to the occurrence his daughter had given birth to a child.Unfortunately, the baby died after her birth.His daughter used to lament the loss of her baby.P.W.5, Rabindra Nath Saha & P.W.6, Gautam Dutta have been declared hostile.P.W.5 deposed that on the date of occurrence at 11 A.M./12 noon he heard a hue and cry.He came out from the house and found the victim was lying in front of a public well and her wearing apparels were being changed by local people.She had severe burn injuries on her person.She was taken to Haldibari hospital and thereafter shifted to Jalpaiguri hospital.She told him to inform her parents.Accordingly, he informed her father (P.W.1).P.W 6 claimed that the victim had suffered burn injuries at her matrimonial home.P.W. 7, Goutam Saha was a witness to seizure of burnt cloths from the house of the appellant.convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.By the selfsame judgment and order, the co-accused persons, namely, Dinawari Biswas (mother-in-law), Smt. Sarani Biswas (sister-in-law) and Shantia Biswas (husband of the sister-in-law) were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.Prosecution case as narrated in the first information report was given a complete go by in the purported dying declaration of the victim.There is no allegation of torture for or in connection with dowry in the dying declaration.Evidence on record does not satisfy the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 498A of the IPC.Original dying declaration was not produced in court.Doctor who gave the certificate of fitness of the victim has not been examined.Hence, the dying declaration ought not to have been relied upon.Accordingly, the appellant is liable to be acquitted.Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State argued that the dying declaration of the victim was recorded by the Sub-divisional Officer, Jalpaiguri, Sadar.Photocopy of the dying declaration duly attested by the witness has been exhibited as secondary evidence since the original was untraceable.P.W.12 enquired with regard to the fitness of the victim from the treating doctor who endorsed his satisfaction in the dying declaration in her presence.Hence all the pre-requisites for recording dying declaration were duly satisfied.From the dying declaration it appears that the appellant had an illicit relation with one Laxmi and over such issue there was an altercation between him and the victim.He poured kerosene oil on the body of the victim and tried to set her on fire.Due to such instigation the victim set herself on fire.Other evidence on record corroborate the dying declaration in all material particulars.Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.Victim was physically assaulted by the appellant when she raised protest over such issue.Appellant also demanded money from the victim.As he was unable to meet such demands, victim was assaulted by the appellant and other in-laws.P.W.8, Ramesh Roy, relation of the victim who has corroborated the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses.Both of them deposed that victim was set on fire at her matrimonial home by her husband and other accused persons.He signed on the seizure list.He deposed that the victim had suffered burn injuries at her matrimonial home.P.W 12 was the sub-divisional officer of Jalpaiguri Sadar at the time of the incident.Upon receipt of requisition she came to the hospital and recorded dying declaration of the victim (Ext. 6).Prior to recording the dying declaration, she asked the attending doctor whether the victim was physically and mentally fit and conscious to make statement.Doctor replied in the affirmative and appended a note in the dying declaration.Thereafter, she proceeded to record the dying declaration.She took the LTI of the patient on the declaration.She proved the carbon copy of the original document duly attested by her as the original was untraceable.The said document was admitted as secondary evidence in terms of section 65 of the Evidence Act.P.W 13 was the autopsy doctor.He proved the post mortem report and deposed that the victim had died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of burn injury, ante mortem in nature.He proved the inquest report (Ext9).P.Ws 9, 10 and 11 are the investigating officers in the instant case.While P.Ws 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 claimed that the victim had told them in the hospital that she had been set on fire by the appellant and other in- laws, in the written dying declaration (Ext. 6) recorded by P.W 12 she stated that there was an altercation between herself and the appellant over the issue of illicit relation between the appellant and one lady, namely Lakhsmi.In the course of altercation the appellant had doused her in kerosene oil and tried to set her on fire.At that time, she herself set her on fire.Such analysis of evidence on the part of the trial judge, in my considered opinion, is just and reasonable and does not call for interference.However, learned counsel for the appellant has seriously criticised the written dying declaration on a number of scores.It is argued that the original document was not produced in court and a carbon copy was illegally admitted into evidence.It is also submitted that the doctor who treated the patient and endorsed the certificate has not been examined.I have given anxious consideration to the aforesaid objections raised on behalf of the appellant.Objection with regard to admissibility of the attested photocopy of the dying declaration is of little substance.It has come on record that the original dying declaration kept in the office of the sub-divisional officer, Jalpaiguri was not traceable in the said office.I have gone through the evidence of P.W 1 in extenso.No challenge has been thrown to the presence of P.W 12 at the hospital on 22.3.1998 when she recorded the dying declaration.P.W. 12 handed over the attested photocopy of the dying declaration to.I.O. and the original was kept on record.At the time of trial (which was held in 2010, after about 12 years) the original document was untraceable and hence, the duly attested photocopy was accepted as secondary evidence.The procedure adopted by P.W 12 is neither unnatural nor opposed to normal human conduct.Finally, it has been argued that the attending doctor who gave certificate of fitness has not been examined.Failure to examine the attending doctor in the facts of the instant case does not affect its credibility.P.W 12 in her deposition categorically stated she had enquired of the attending doctor with regard to the consciousness and the mental fitness of the victim prior to recording her statement.The attending doctor gave his affirmation and duly made an endorsement in the presence of the said witness.Hence, the endorsement of the treating doctor which was made in the presence of P.W 12 has been duly proved by her.In these circumstances, I am of the opinion prosecution has been able to prove that the written dying declaration was duly recorded by the sub-divisional officer, P.W 12 after the certificate of fitness with regard to the consciousness and the capacity of the victim to make such statement was duly endorsed by the treating doctor in her presence.All the formalities and requisites for recording a valid dying declaration are satisfied.Perusal of the dying declaration also gives an impression that the victim had narrated the incident in an honest and bona fide manner.She did not make all her in laws responsible for her misfortune.She admitted that she had herself set her on fire and not her husband.The manner in which the dying declaration (Ext 6) was recorded in the instant case and its tenor inspires confidence that it is an honest and truthful rendition of the incident resulting in death of the victim.There was a quarrel between the couple over an illicit relation between the appellant and another lady.In the course of quarrel the appellant tried to set her on fire by dousing her in kerosene oil.Due to such conduct on the part of the appellant, the victim instigated to self immolate herself.Evidence has also come on record that over such issue the appellant had subjecting the victim to mental and physical torture.The aforesaid factual backdrop clearly shows the intention of the appellant to incite the victim to kill herself.I am unwilling to accept the suggestion made on the part of the appellant that the victim may have committed suicide as she was depressed due to the untimely death of her child in the light of the clear and unequivocal motive disclosed by the her in the dying declaration.I find no substance in such submission advanced by the appellant.In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant had subjected the victim to mental and physical torture over an illicit relationship between himself and another lady.He tried to kill her and under such extreme circumstances the victim was induced to commit suicide.Hence, I am inclined to uphold the conviction recorded against the appellant on the aforesaid counts.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.","['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Through: Sh.Sanjay Lao, APP.HON'BLE MR.The prosecution alleges that on 13-04-2003, in the evening, at 09:00 PM, when Harsh Dua, and his brothers, Praveen and Sonu Dua, had gone to attend the engagement ceremony of their friend at Sanjay Park, Govind Pura, and were talking amongst themselves, the Appellant reached there, and Crl.A. 134/2009 Page 1 picked up a quarrel with Praveen.He reportedly told Harsh Dua, that Praveen had slapped him, and that he would not leave him.Harsh and the others tried to calm down the appellant; he went away.Harsh and his brothers went inside the park.A few minutes later, Inderjeet Chawla @ Deepak, a friend of Parveen also reached there.When all these friends were conversing, the Appellant came there.He complained to Inderjeet that Parveen had slapped him, without a cause, and that it did not bode well for him.Again, Praveen's brothers tried to diffuse the situation, and calm down the appellant; they also apologized on behalf of Parveen.At this stage, Parveen slapped the Appellant.Inderjeet tried to intervene; Jagtar then pulled out a knife, and inflicted injuries on him.He cried out for help.Parveen tried to save him; the appellant then turned on him, and gave several serious knife blows on his vital parts.Parveen fell down.The appellant fled the spot.JUSTICE S.P.GARG MR.The Appellant impugns a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 14-08-2003, in SC 60/2007, whereby he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.Parveen's brothers rushed him to the hospital.Inderjeet gave his statement; an FIR, No. 136/03 PS Preet Vihar was registered, alleging offences under Sections 307/324 IPC.Later, in the early hours of the next morning, Parveen died.The appellant was arrested for committing the crime; Section 302 IPC was also added to the charge sheet.He pleaded innocence, and claimed trial.The prosecution examined twenty witnesses in support of its case.The appellant examined his mother, in his defence.In addition, the court examined two witnesses, since a plea was taken that the Appellant was suffering from mental disorder, and was undergoing treatment in jail.After 2005, he underwent treatment Crl.A. 134/2009 Page 2 for bi-polar depression.After considering all the materials on record, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, convicted the Appellant for the offence mentioned in the preceding portion of the judgment, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment in the manner described earlier.Mr. M.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the Appellant urged at the outset, that the Trial Court findings as far as they pertained to the facts go, cannot be assailed, because PW-1 Inderjeet Chawla, the injured witness, and PW-5 as well as PW-7, brothers of the deceased, supported the prosecution about the attack which took place.Counsel urged that though there were some variations in the testimonies of these witnesses, they did not undermine the basic story about how Parveen had been attacked.It was however urged that the Trial Court fell into error in not noticing that the Court witnesses' depositions had clearly shown that the Appellant was not in his senses.Court witness No.2 was the doctor who had treated the Appellant even before the incident; he deposed about his mental illness.Even after his conviction, when he was undergoing sentence, the Appellant was a psychiatric patient, who underwent regular treatment.The Court should have given these serious consideration; instead the impugned judgment does not reflect any application of mind.It was argued next that even if the prosecution is said to have proved all the facts alleged in this case, at best the Appellant could have been justifiably convicted under Section 304-II IPC, and certainly not under Section 302 IPC.Here, counsel argued that the episode took place due to a sudden quarrel; the deceased had concededly slapped the Appellant, who Crl.A. 134/2009 Page 3 retaliated later by stabbing him.There was no premeditation, and deliberation or planning.Counsel relied on the decision reported as Kandaswamy v State of Tamil Nadu 2008 (11) SCC 97, where the facts were recounted as follows:""XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX PWs 1 and 2 were examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence.Gurvammal is the elder sister of PW 1 and deceased Alagarsamy is her husband.The accused was known to him.Guruvammla died leaving behind two children - a girl and a boy.This made his father (PW 2) to bring Alagarsamy to his house.At about 8.30 p.m. on the occurrence day, he was standing opposite to the house of Ramaiah with his son, after returning from the house of Visalam.PW 2 was also coming in the street from the shop and he asked as to whether he had gone to Visalam's house and come back.Alagarsamy alighted from the bus and PW 2 also asked him as to whether he had gone to Visalam's house.Palpandi (son of accused) also alighted from the bus and the accused asked him as to why he has not brought his mother with him for which he had been sent.Palpandi replied to his father (the accused) that unless the accused goes mother will not come.Finding fault that he is repeating the same answer, the accused beat his son.Alagarsamy asked him as to why he was beating the young boy for which the accused responded stating that he had no business to intervene in his family problem and saying so, removed the Aruval from his person and cut Alagarsamy which injury landed on his left hand.Threatening them with dire consequences, the accused made good his escape.Alagarsamy was lying dead.This betrayed pre- meditation.The sequence of events was that after that, the Appellant left the spot, went somewhere and Crl.Chandra Shekhar, who delivered the judgment, about this evidence.In the present case, there are three head injuries, two on the scalp and one on the left parietal region.The first two injuries are, undoubtedly, fatal injuries.As a result of those injuries, multiple fractures of the right parietal bone occurred, the membranes got severed and there was injury to the brain matter.As regards the third injury, which is an incised wound of 2? 1? on the left parietal region, it cannot be said for certain that in the ordinary course it would have caused death.The medical evidence is silent on this aspect.The doctor did not even say what impact this third injury had internally.All the three appellants inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased with the weapons in their hands according to the prosecution witnesses.There is an allegation that after the deceased fell down all the three went on giving blows on the leg and waist.Certain injuries were found on the knee joint, elbow joint and left forearm of the deceased....XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX ...intention that can be safely imputed to Appellants 1 to 3 o 3 was to cause bodily injuries to Pyara Singh which were likely to cause death.It is this common intention which, in our view, had developed on the spot.Therefore, the offence committed by Appellants 1 to 3 would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder and they are liable to be convicted and punished under Section 304 (Part I).They are also liable to be convicted under Crl.A. 134/2009 Page 11 Section 148 IPC for the offence of rioting.On the basis of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the High Court, there is no escape from the conclusion that the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly of five or more persons having the common object falling within the scope of clause (iii) of Section 141, though the common object was not to kill or hurt the deceased person.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The present appeal instituted under the provision of section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C') assails the judgment dated 27.04.2018 and the order on sentence dated 14.05.2018, rendered by the learned Additional Session Judge-01, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in Session Case No.440846/2016, title as 'State vs. CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 1 of 29 Mahabir Mehto', emanating from F.I.R No. 216/2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject FIR') under sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and under sections 6/10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO'), registered at Police Station-Baba Haridas Nagar.CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 1 of 29By the way of the impugned judgment dated 27.04.2018, Mahabir Mehto (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') has been convicted for the commission of offences punishable under the provisions of section 506 (Part I) IPC and sections 6/5 POCSO.CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 2 of 29The facts, as elaborated by the trial court are extracted in extenso, as follows: -In her complaint, the complainant stated that on 02.09.2013, the accused had come to stay with her along with his family consisting of his wife, elder daughter (i.e. the prosecutrix) aged 16 years, younger daughter aged 4 years and son aged 8 years.She alleged that on 03.09.2013, when the prosecutrix was doing household chores, she noticed an unusual bulge in her belly.Upon being inquired, the prosecutrix revealed to her that the accused had been establishing physical relations with her for the last one year by threatening her and that as a result thereof, she had become pregnant.When the complainant confronted the accused about the same, he fled away from the house with his younger daughter.On the basis of the above complaint, FIR under Sections 376/506 IPC was registered against the accused.The prosecutrix was medically examined on the same day.She was found to be having pregnancy of 28 weeks.In her statement, she supported the contents of FIR and disclosed that she had told about the acts of the accused to her mother but she did not do anything as she was of unsound mind.During the course of investigation, Sections 6 and 10 POCSO Act were added.The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., whilst denying the case of the prosecution, stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case and further stated that he reprimanded the prosecutrix for having an affair with a boy, living in the neighbourhood, the police at the instigation of the complainant, PW-2, who had grudge against him for refusing to give her a share in his ancestral property, foisted the false case against him.The first issue that warranted adjudication at the trial, was the determination of the age of the prosecutrix, at the time of the commission of the offence.CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 4 of 29PW14/A) given by the Medical Board, DDU Hospital on the examination of the prosecutrix.As per the said report, the bone age of the prosecutrix was opined about 20-30 years.In his testimony, he deposed as under:In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 07.09.2013, the prosecutrix stated as follows: -""Statement of Km.One day, when I was sleeping, my father came upon me.I pushed him and thereafter, I went to my mother, however, the accused also came there and again he came upon me.Thereafter, my Bua (Aunty) made inquiry from my father, who denied the same and thereafter, my father along with my younger sister went away to Bihar.The police officer called me in the Police Station Baba Haridas Nagar.I along with my Bua went to PS Baba Haridas Nagar and my Bua made a complaint to the police officer.Thereafter, the police officer took me to RTRM Hospital.After medical examination, the police official brought me back to the Police Station and from there, I was taken to Nirmal Chhaya.CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 21 of 29It is correct that my bua used to visit my house several times.I never told her during those visits the above facts, which I deposed today before this Hon'ble Court.My grandfather used to reside with my uncle, Raju.My grandfather is having properties in village and the same is not yet divided CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 22 of 29 between his children.I am not aware if my Bua is also having share in the said property.My brother accused Mahabir Mehto was also residing in the same vicinity along with his family.My brother accused Mahabir Mehto used to work as labour.In the month of July, 2013, on day my brother accused Mahabir Mehto come to my house and he requested me to arrange a room in the same house but initially, I did not allow my brother to stay there as a tenant as my brother accused Mahabir Mehto used to take liquor daily and my husband also used to take liquor daily.When my brother insisted me to arrange a room in our house, thereafter, I CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 23 of 29 allowed him to stay there along with his family.Thereafter, in the month of October, 2013, accused Mahabir Mehto shifted in my house with his family.One day, I noticed the condition of my niece, child victim and on that day, I did not ask anything from her.I also used to work as labourer and I used to leave my house in the morning and return back in the evening.On that day after returning my house, in the evening, I enquired my niece, child victim about her condition, however, on that day, my niece started weeping and disclosed that her father committed rape upon her on several occasions.Thereafter, I along with my niece child victim went to PS Baba Haridas Nagar and made complaint against the accused, which is Ex.PW2/A bearing my thumb impression at pt A. From there, police official took my niece child victim to RTRM Hospital and I also accompanied her to the hospital, where she was memdically examined and the doctor declared that my niece child victim is pregnant.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.By way of the impugned order on sentence dated 14.05.2018, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, along with fine Rs.15,000/-, for the offence punishable under section 6 read with section 5(n) of POSCO.In default of the payment of fine, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.Further, for the offence punishable under the provision of section 506(Part I), IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years, along with fine of Rs.5,000/-.In default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.The gravamen of the charge, for which the appellant has been convicted, is for having committed penetrative sexual assault on his CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 2 of 29 daughter, the prosecutrix, a girl aged about 15 years, at the time of commission of the offence.After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed.It is a matter of record that the prosecutrix gave birth to a male child and that the said child had been given in adoption by the orphanage Sewabharti Matrichhaya.CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 3 of 29On 08.01.2014, the charge for the commission of offence punishable under Section 6 read with Section 5(n) POCSO Act and Section 506 IPC was framed by the Ld.Predecessor against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.""By way of the order dated 08.01.2014, the charge for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 6 read with Section 5(n) POSCO and Section 506 (Part I) IPC was framed against the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution examined 14 witnesses in all to establish their case against the appellant.CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 4 of 29The trial court having considered the evidence on record, found as follows: -""10.1 In the absence of any document issued by any authority regarding the age of the prosecutrix, the prosecution has relied upon the bone age report dated 09.03.2018 (Ex.The detailed report is Ex.PW14/A, which bears my signature at point A....""In his cross-examination, PW14 expressed his inability to state the exact age of the prosecutrix at the time of her examination and stated that he could neither admit nor deny the suggestion that the prosecutrix was 26 years of age at the time of her examination.The highest rated option available determines the age of a minor conclusively.If the matriculation or equivalent certificates of the child is available, no other evidence can be relied upon.Only in the absence of such certificates, as entry of date of birth in the record of the school first attended by the child is to be relied upon.When no such entry is available, then the reliance can be placed on a birth certificate issued by a corporation or municipal authority or panchayat.It is only in the absence of any of the aforesaid, that Rule 12(3) postulates the determination of the age of the child on the basis of medical opinion.10.4 While considering the scope and nature of the inquiry contemplated under Rule 12 of the JJ Rules, 2007, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P., (2012) 9 SCC 750, that the expressions 'prima facie', 'on the basis of physical appearance' or 'documents, if available' used in Rule 12 re- emphasize the fact that what is contemplated is only an inquiry following the procedure laid down under the said rule and not an investigation or trial under the Cr.P.C. It was held that while conducting an inquiry, a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted and if the assessment of age could not CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 7 of 29 be done, the benefit would go to the child considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year.Only in the absence of any matriculation or equivalent certificates, the court need obtain the date of birth certificate from the school first attended other than a play school.Only in the absence of matriculation or equivalent certificate or the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, the court need obtain the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat (not an affidavit but certificates or documents).The question of obtaining medical opinion from a duly constituted Medical Board arises only if the above-mentioned documents are unavailable.In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, then the court, for reasons to be recorded, may, if considered necessary, give the benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his or her age on lower side within the margin of one year.""Since the offence is alleged to have been committed for one year prior to the lodging of complaint dated 04.09.2013, the age of the prosecutrix at the relevant time comes to about 15 years.The complainant in her complaint dated 04.09.2013 had specified the age of the prosecutrix as 16 years.In the MLC CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 8 of 29 of the prosecutrix, which was prepared on the same day, her age was also mentioned as 16 years.The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 07.09.2013, wherein she stated her age as 15 years.The prosecutrix and the complainant have been examined by the prosecution as PW1 and PW2 respectively.In the cross- examination of none of them, the accused had disputed the age of minority of the prosecutrix.PW14/A) of the Medical Board pertaining to the bone age of the prosecutrix was filed.It was only during the cross-examination of PW14 Dr. L.R. Richhele, who was examined by the prosecution to prove the report Ex.PW14/A, that the accused for the first time disputed that the prosecutrix was a child at the relevant time by putting a suggestion to the effect that she was 26 years old at the time of her examination by the Medical Board.Being the father of the prosecutrix, her age was within the special knowledge of the accused.The very fact that the accused neither disputed the age of the prosecutrix during the course of entire trial nor produced any material to dislodge the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix was a minor at the relevant time goes to show that the challenge to the age of the prosecutrix at the belated stage was nothing but an afterthought with a view to avoid the rigour of the POCSO Act and take advantage of the wide range of the bone age (i.e. 20-30 years) of the prosecutrix opined by the Medical Board.CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 8 of 2910.7 Considering the above, the contention of the defence counsel that the provisions of the POCSO Act would not apply to the present case is found to be devoid of any substance.""The above findings arrived at by the trial court, have not been assailed before us on behalf of the appellant.Therefore, we have no hesitation in CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 9 of 29 finding ourselves in agreement with the trial court, when it returned finding to the effect that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the commission of the offence.CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 9 of 29The trial court, thereafter, proceeded to appreciate and evaluate the testimony of the prosecutrix, which constituted the foundation of the prosecution's case.The trial court, upon careful consideration of the evidence on record and in particular the testimony of the prosecutrix, returned a finding that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 6 read with Section 5 of the POCSO, predicated on the reasoning elaborated as under:-Admittedly, the accused is the father of the prosecutrix.It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time, the prosecutrix along with her mother and younger siblings was residing with the accused.As per the MLC dated 04.09.2013 of the prosecutrix, which has been proved by PW-5 Dr. Sidhi Sainik as Ex.PW5/A, she was having the pregnancy of 28 weeks at the time of her medical examination.Now the question which requires to be adjudicated is whether the accused was responsible for the penetrative sexual assault on the prosecutrix.12.1 The prosecutrix is the sole witness of the commission of the act of penetrative sexual assault on her.In her testimony recorded on 19.02.2014, the prosecutrix (PW1) deposed that she along with her parents and two siblings used to reside in a rented accommodation; that CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 10 of 29 the accused used to work as a mason and that her mother is not mentally sound and is deaf and dumb; that about one year ago, when she was sleeping, the accused tried to force himself upon her; and that she pushed him and went to her mother but the accused came there and after extending threat to kill her, he committed rape on her.She further deposed that after the said incident, the accused used to commit rape on her on every day and that when the landlord came to know about the same, he got the house vacated.The prosecutrix also deposed that they shifted to the house of her paternal aunt (bua) i.e. the complainant and that when her aunt saw her condition, she suspected that some wrong act had been committed with her and took her to RTRM Hospital, where the doctor told that she was having pregnancy of seven months.She further deposed that when her aunt confronted the accused with the same, he denied that he was responsible for it and went away to Bihar alongwith his younger daughter and that thereafter, her aunt made complaint to the police.CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 10 of 2912.2 The prosecutrix was cross-examined by the accused.In her cross-examination, she admitted that she did not know the dates or months when the accused committed rape on her and that the complainant had visited her house on several occasions but she did not disclose about the acts of the accused to her during the said visits.However, she denied the suggestions that she was having friendly relations with a boy, who got her pregnant and that when the accused came to know about the same, he had scolded her and for the said reason, she had named him as the accused.In such a scenario, especially when she did not get any support from her mother, the possibility that she could not muster courage to disclose about the acts of the accused to the complainant, who is the sister of the accused, can not be ruled out.In fact, it can be seen from the deposition of the prosecutrix (PW1) that on 03.09.2013 also, she had revealed about the acts of the accused to the complainant only when the complainant had become suspicious and asked her about her physical condition.Since the prosecutrix was having a pregnancy of about seven months at that time and her pregnancy must have started showing, she had no option but to confide in the complainant.Considering the facts and circumstances, the conduct of the prosecutrix appears to be quite natural.12.5 The counsel for the accused further contended that the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix can not form the basis for holding the accused guilty.He argued that during the relevant time, the mother of the prosecutrix was also residing in the same house and therefore, she would have been the best witness to throw light on the allegations against the accused.Pooja D/o Mahavir Mehto R/o House No.28, Surekpur Road, Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh, Delhi, aged 16 years:Muzaffarnagar, Bihar 6-7 _ ` CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 20 of 29 , , ^ f @ \ ` f - @ rape @ 6-7 2/9/13 @ 4 ""CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 20 of 29In her testimony recorded on 19.02.2014, the prosecutrix deposed as under: -"" 19.02.2014 (In Camera Proceedings) PW-1, Child Victim, aged 16 years (cited at serial no.1 in the list of the witnesses) On SA ....... XXX...About one year back one day an altercation had taken place between my father and my grandfather.Thereafter, we vacate the said house and shifted to another house in Najafgarh, which had three rooms.However, we ever staying in a simple room.When I objected to it, the accused extended threat saying that he would kill me and he committed rape upon me forcibly.After that, my father used to commit rape upon me every day.When our landlord came to know this fact, he instructed us to vacate the house and thereafter, we vacated the said house.Thereafter, we shifted to the house of our Bua (Aunty), who was also residing near Om Dairy at Najafgarh.On seeing my condition, my Bua (Aunty) suspected that some wrong act was committed with me and thereafter, my Bua(Aunty) took me to RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur for my medical examination.After my medical examination, the doctor told us that CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 21 of 29 I was having pregnancy of seven months.On 07.09.2013, the police officials took me to Dwarka Courts from Nirmal Chhaya and my statement was recorded there by the Ld.MM At this stage, one envelop with the seal of MG is taken out from judicial file.Child victim correctly identified her thumb mark on her statement at point A, B, C & D and proceeding U/s 164 Cr.PW1/A.At this stage the child victim has been asked to identify the accused, who did wrong act with her (The accused is standing behind a curtain and is unable to see the child victim and he has been further asked to close his eyes.However, child victim has been asked to identify the accused from the parting between the curtain) After seeing the accused through the parting between the curtain, child victim was correctly identified the accused present behind the curtain as her father, who had committed rape upon her and had been made her pregnant.I am also not aware whether Bua was also asking for her share in the said property.I am also not aware whether my father was against the demand of my Bua of getting share from ancestral property.It is wrong to suggest that due to above reason, my bua instigated me to implicate my father in false case of that I have deposed falsely.It is wrong to suggest that accused never pregnant me and the child does not belong to the accused.""CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 22 of 29Although the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, as aforestated, is sufficient by itself to sustain the conviction of the appellant, subject to it being reliable and having ring of truth in it, in view of the asseverations on behalf of the appellant that, contradictions arise from a conjoint reading and the appellant's statement that he was falsely implicated for denying PW-2, a share in their ancestral property; it is considered appropriate and necessary to peruse and appreciate the testimony of PW-2, the Bua of the prosecutrix, The testimony of PW-2 is as follows: -""19.02.2014 (In Camera Proceeding) PW2, Bua (Aunty) of the child victim (mentioned at serial no.2 in the list of witnesses).On SA I along with my family is staying at Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh for the last 8 years as tenant.From the hospital, we along with police official returned back to Baba Haridas Nagar Police Station and my niece child victim was shifted to Nirmal Chhaya.On the same day, when police official visited our house, in search of accused Mahabir Mehto, he had already left our house.CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 23 of 29I am aware of the fact that my niece child victim delivered male baby in DDU Hospital.Today, accused Mahabir Mehto is present in the court(the witness has correctly identified the accused) XXXXX By Sh.L.S. Gautam, Ld. Counsel for accused.My father is having some property in his native place.Till date the said property is not divided among his children.I am not interested in my share in the property of my father.It is wrong to suggest that I demanded my share from my father and the accused strongly opposed the same.I had grudge against him.I never visited the house of the accused and since then, year back, quarrel/fight took place between me and accused and since then, I was not having visiting terms with the accused.It is wrong to suggest that child victim did not disclose anything against the accused or that the accused was not responsible for her condition or that she was having relation with one boy and accused opposed the same and scolded the child victim and this fact came in my knowledge or that I instigated the child victim to name the accused as culprit or that I implicated the accused in false case or that I am deposing falsely.I went to the locality of the accused, where he was residing to enquire about the truth and to know the real person, who was responsible for the condition of child victim.It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely.CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 24 of 29We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and given our anxious consideration to the entire evidence on record.Our finding, in this regard, in addition to the evidence on record, including the ossification test conducted on the prosecutrix, is strengthened by the circumstance that, the appellant did not, at any stage of trial or before us in the present appeal, dispute that the prosecutrix was not a child at the relevant time.b) The prosecutrix was 28 weeks pregnant at the time of her MLC Ex.CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 25 of 29c) The version of the prosecutrix that, the appellant had committed penetrative sexual assault on her, has remained constant throughout.d) The defence of the accused to the effect that the prosecutrix;was having an affair with a boy living in the neighbourhood, who impregnated her, and is being falsely implicated in the present case, upon reprimanding the prosecutrix for the same; is completely untenable and vacuous, inasmuch as, neither the CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 26 of 29 identity of the boy has been disclosed at any stage nor has any material been produced on the record to substantiate the defence.CRL.A. 1013/2018 Page 26 of 29e) The submission of the appellant that, he was falsely implicated by his sister PW-2 , since he refused to give her a share in the ancestral property, fails to impeach the latter's testimony, for the reason that, neither did the appellant examine his father, to substantiate his defence, nor did he produce any other cogent material in this behalf.A. 496/2015, decided on 23.04.2019]However, there shall be no order as to costs.The Trial Court Record be sent back forthwith.A copy of this judgment be communicated to the appellant through the Superintendent, Tihar Jail and also be sent for updation of the records. .","['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"1. Vide the instant petition the petitioners have assailed the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 passed by ld.MM, South Delhi whereby ld.MM has passed the order as under :M.C. No.2992/2011 Page 1 of 8documents filed on record.Prima facie there is sufficient material on record to proceed with the case against all the accused persons namely Navdeep Soni, Rani Soni, Sandeep Soni and Dolly Soni.Accordingly, the cognizance is taken against all the accused persons u/s 498A/406/34 IPC.Summons be issued to he accused persons and notice to surety through IO for 31.03.2011.""Ld. counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were put in column 2 in the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the ld.Further submits that Navdeep Soni being the husband, the charge-sheet was filed against him.MM has not recorded any statement before summoning the three accused.In support of argument, ld. counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment passed by this Court in Crl.M.C.924/2005 titled as Atma Ram Singhal & Ors.M.C. No.2992/2011 Page 2 of 8 State & Anr.M.C. No.2992/2011 Page 2 of 8The respondent No.2 is the complainant, who lodged complaint under Section 498-A/406 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') against her husband Anil Singhal as well as other relations.This complaint was made to the ACP, Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell, Pitampura.Thereafter, an FIR was registered.Police, after investigation, filed challan under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.').Names of the petitioners herein were put in Column No.2 in the said charge sheet.Complainant's husband, father-in- law and mother-in-law were shown as main accused.The relation of these petitioners, who were put in Column No.2, with the complainant's husband is as under :-Petitioner No.1 ""Uncle (chacha) of the complainant's husband Petitioner No.2 ""Son of the petitioner No.1 Petitioner No.3 ""Another uncle of the complainant's husband Petitioner No.4 ""Wife of the petitioner No.3 Petitioner No.5 ""Daughter of the petitioner No.3 Petitioner No.6 ""Son of the petitioner No.3 Petitioner No.7 ""Another uncle of the complainant's husband Crl.M.C. No.2992/2011 Page 3 of 8M.C. No.2992/2011 Page 3 of 8After the filing of the charge sheet, the learned MM chose to summon all these petitioners, who were shown as accused in Column No.2, by passing the following order :-""Present: APP for the State.Accused present on bail.IO SI Bhagwan Dass present.SI Bhagwan Dass has given his explanation.M.C. No.2992/2011 Page 6 of 8 the offence and issue process.However, the question to be determined is as to when the MM decides to issue the process, notwithstanding the observations of the Investigating Officer; is he to indicate some reasons and reflect his thought process in the order as to why he is taking such a course.to consider the same afresh and pass appropriate order.Accordingly, Crl.M.C. No.2992/2011 Page 7 of 8 Crl.M.A.10554/2011 (stay) & Crl.M.A.11298/2011 (early hearing) In view of the order passed in Crl.M.C.2992/2011, these applications are dismissed as infructuous.M.C. No.2992/2011 Page 7 of 8SURESH KAIT, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 Vld/RS Crl.","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated as follows:(a) P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased Selvi.On 14.6.2002, P.W.1 accompanied by his wife, was returning to Titan Quarters in Hosur to Mathigiri Road in a TVS 50 after purchasing the household articles.When they were so coming, both A-1 and A-2 came in their Yamaha two wheeler and were chasing.The accused came towards them, and suddenly, A-1 snatched the chain which was worn by the deceased, and immediately A-1 drove the vehicle fast.Then, both of them escaped from the place.(b) P.W.1 and the deceased were searching for the accused, and they were going.At that time, on the way, they found both the accused.The deceased shouted pointing to A-2 that it was he who snatched the chain.Immediately, P.W.1 stopped the vehicle and intercepted the other vehicle in which the accused were travelling, and both A-1 and A-2 fell down.Immediately, A-1 stabbed Selvi on her left side chest and neck with a pitchuva knife. A-2 also stabbed her on her shoulder with a pitchuva knife.At that time, P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 went to the rescue.So causing injuries to them, they left the place immediately.(c) It was P.W.1 who took his severely injured wife to the Government Hospital, Hosur, where the Doctors examined and declared her dead.Then, further intimation was given to Hosur Police Station which was in turn forwarded to Mathigiri Police Station.P.W.12, the Doctor, has examined P.W.4 at about 8.40 P.M. On 14.6.2002, and has given a wound certificate, Ex.She also examined P.W.3 and issued a wound certificate, Ex.Equally, P.W.2 was examined by her, and Ex.P12 is the wound certificate in that regard.On the strength of Ex.P1, the report, a case came to be registered in Crime No.99 of 2002 under Sections 379, 324, 307 and 302 of IPC.The printed FIR, Ex.P27, was despatched to the Court.(e) P.W.16 took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection of the first place where the incident of robbery has taken place and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P5, and a rough sketch, Ex.Then, he went to the second occurrence place where the murder has taken place, and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P6, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P33 is the admissible part.Pursuant to the confession, he produced M.O.2, gold ingot, and he has further produced M.O.1, motorbike, a cell phone, a country made gun and a Titan Watch.For Appellants : Mr.V.Vibhishanan for Mr.P.Subba Reddy in CA 324/2008 Mr.V.Gopinath Senior Counsel for Mr.L.Mahendran in CA 757/2008 For Respondent : Mr.They challenged the judgment of the I Additional Sessions Division, Krishnagiri, made in S.C.No.207 of 2005 whereby the appellants stood charged, tried, found guilty and awarded punishment as follows:Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body of Selvi in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.Then, a requisition, Ex.P15, was given to the hospital authorities for the purpose of postmortem.(f) P.W.13, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Hosur, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Selvi and has noticed four external injuries.She has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P16, with her opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries to vital organs heart and lungs about 14 to 16 hours before autopsy.(g) The further investigation was taken up by P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, who caused the arrest of A-1 on 19.7.2002, and he gave a confessional statement which was recorded in the presence of witnesses.They were all recovered under a cover of mahazar.(h) A requisition was given for conduct of the test identification parade.The same was conducted by P.W.14, the Judicial Magistrate.As far as A-1 was concerned, it was conducted at Central Prison, Salem, and P.Ws.1 to 4 were taken for identifying him.The identification parade proceedings are marked as Ex.Equally, as regards A-2, the identification parade took place at Central Prison, Bangalore, where P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 have participated in the parade.The identification parade proceedings are marked as Ex.On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report.3.The case was committed to Court of Sessions, and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and also relied on 34 exhibits and 14 material objects.On completion of evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which they flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, found them guilty and awarded the punishment as referred to above.Hence these appeals at the instance of the appellants.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant in C.A.No.324/2008, the learned Counsel Mr.V.Vibhishanan would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution came out with two parts; that firstly, there was a robbery in which A-1 and A-2 were involved, and secondly, A-1 and A-2 attacked the deceased and also in that transaction, A-1 attacked P.Ws.2 and 3, and A-2 attacked P.W.4; that the earliest document was Ex.P1, the report, given by P.W.1, the husband of the deceased; that a perusal of Ex.P1 would clearly indicate that nowhere he has pointed out any role of A-1 in Ex.P1 or Ex.P15, the requisition, given by P.W.16, the Investigating Officer, for the conduct of postmortem or the evidence before the Court; that nowhere it is found that A-1 had any role in the commission of robbery, and it was also attributed to A-2; and that under the circumstances, the lower Court was not correct in finding A-1 guilty as far as that particular charge was concerned.5.Added further the learned Counsel that the prosecution relied on the confession alleged to have been given by A-1 and also the consequent recovery of the material objects; that it is pertinent to point out that all these material objects were not connected to Crime No.99 of 2002; but, they were all connected to some other crime number, and thus, the prosecution cannot rely on the recovery of those material objects; that as far as the recovery of the gold ingot marked as M.O.2, was concerned, there was no evidence to show that the gold chain alleged to have been stolen, was actually melted into gold and made as ingot; that in the absence of the same, it cannot be taken or presumed that it was the gold chain which was the subject matter of robbery; and that under the circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that part of the case.6.As far as the second incident was concerned, the learned Counsel would submit that the case of the prosecution was that at the time of occurrence, A-1 not only stabbed the deceased, but also attacked P.Ws.2 and 3; but, the lower Court was not prepared to accept the case of the prosecution insofar as the overt acts attributed that he attacked P.Ws.2 and 3 with knife and has acquitted him; that the same would mean that the lower Court was not ready to believe the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3; and that the same reasons are all equally applicable to the entire episode.7.The learned Counsel would further add that in the instant case, A-1 was arrested on 19.7.2002; that as far as the identification parade in respect of A-1 was concerned, it was in no way helpful to the prosecution; that there is evidence to show that A-1 was actually in the police station and was shown to the witnesses; and that under the circumstances, it was of no consequence at all.8.Added further the learned Counsel that even from Ex.P1, the report, and also the evidence of P.W.1 it would be quite clear that the entire act of attacking the deceased was done only by A-2, and nowhere, A-1 is indicated; but, the trial Court has taken an erroneous view and found A-1 guilty of both the offences without any evidence whatsoever, and hence he is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.9.Advancing arguments on behalf of A-2 in C.A.No.757/2008, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.11.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.12.It is not in controversy that an incident has taken place on 14.6.2002 at about 8.15 P.M. at which the chain of the deceased Selvi was snatched by two persons, and they have actually escaped from the place.Following that incident, both the persons were intercepted by P.W.1, the husband of the deceased, and also the deceased, and in that process, Selvi was stabbed to death.This homicidal death was never disputed by the appellants, and hence it has got to be recorded so.As could be seen from the available materials, the incidents were two in number.The first part is as to robbery, and the second part is as to murder in which P.Ws.2 to 4 were also injured.According to P.W.1, he accompanied his wife, and he took his wife in the two wheeler, and she was sitting as a pillion rider, and when they were going, the incident has taken place, and it was the pillion rider namely wife, who has identified A-2 as person who snatched the chain.It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that it was A-1 who drove the bike, and both of them have escaped from the place.Thus, it was only P.W.1, who was actually the witness in respect of the incident of robbery.From the evidence of P.W.1, it could be seen that he has identified that it was A-1 who drove the bike, and A-2 was a pillion rider who snatched the chain.It is true that the occurrence has taken place in night hours and that too, within a minute or two.Now, the occurrence projected by the prosecution did not stop there.According to P.W.1, he and the deceased were in further search of the assailants in their vehicle, and at that time, when they found both the accused near the bus stop, P.Ws.2 to 4 were also there, and on seeing A-2, the deceased Selvi shouted pointing to A-2 that it was he who snatched the chain.The evidence would further go to show that immediately they were intercepted by P.W.1 by parking the vehicle across, and then both of them fell down; and that at that time, the incident has taken place.From the evidence of P.W.1, it could be well seen that it was the deceased who caught hold of the shirt of A-2 who snatched the chain; that at that time, it was A-1 who intervened by stabbing her; that on seeing this, P.W.1 caught hold of him; that immediately, A-2 attacked the deceased also; and that when P.Ws.2 to 4 went to the rescue, they were also attacked by the appellants.P.W.1 has not only seen them at the place of first occurrence of robbery, but also at the time when the second occurrence has taken place.It has also taken place in a public place.It is pertinent to point out that in a given case like this, when two incidents have taken place and that too, the first part is a robbery, and the second part is a murder and when they were intercepted, they attacked not only the deceased, but also some others, naturally such incidents would cause a dent in the memory of a human being.But, originally, there was snatching of chain, and thereafter, the second incident has taken place in which not only the deceased was attacked, but also P.Ws.2 to 4 were attacked by both.It is true that the lower Court has acquitted A-1 in respect of charge under Sec.324 (two counts) of IPC for attacking P.Ws.2 and 3 since there was some inconsistency in evidence.Hence the benefit was available to him.In this case, A-1 was arrested on 19.7.2002 within a month of the occurrence.Immediately after his arrest, he has given a confessional statement leading to the recovery of some of the material objects.It is true that except M.O.2, all other material objects produced by him, were not connected to this case, and hence that part of the evidence could not be relied.As far as A-2 was concerned, the prosecution came forward to state that it was the gold ingot which came into existence by melting the chain which was worn by the deceased at the time of occurrence.The accused cannot expect the prosecution to explain how the chain was melted into ingot.16.Apart from the above, much comment was made by the appellants' side on the identification parade conducted.As far as A-1 was concerned, within a short span of time, P.W.1 and the other witnesses have identified him properly.As regards A-2, the evidence would go to show that when the deceased and P.W.1 were in search of the assailants, the deceased shouted pointing to A-2 that it was he who robbed the chain, and when she caught hold of the shirt of A-2, it was A-1 who attacked her, and when P.W.1 caught hold of the shirt of A-1, A-2 attacked her.The lower Court was perfectly correct in marshaling the evidence, considering the same and finding them guilty for robbery and also for murder.1.The I Additional District Judge Krishnagiri2.The Inspector of Police Mathigiri Police Station (Crime No.99 of 2002)3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras","['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']"
(Atul Sreedharan) Judge a ASHISH DATTA 2017.09.14 15:49:23 +05'30',"['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The prosecution case is that the deceased Manjula Devi was the wife of Adhavan/accused No.2/second respondent herein.Both were employed as police constables at Pudukottai.Accused No.2 Adhavan lodged Ex.P.15 complaint before Ganesh Nagar police station, Pudukottai on the same date at about 15 hours.P.16 First Information Report in Crime No.512 of 2006 was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Investigation was taken up.According to the investigation officer, respondents 1 and 2 herein/accused Nos.1 and 2 had murdered the deceased.Therefore, Ex.P.20 alteration report was filed and the offences under Sections 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C.,http://www.judis.nic.in 3 were incorporated.Charges were framed against two accused.They denied the charges in toto and claimed to be tried.6. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased.He deposed that the relationship between his daughter and accused No.2 washttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 not cordial.Accused No.2 was having illicit relationships.He also spoke about the financial transaction between accused No.1 and the deceased.She deposed that a few days prior to the occurrence, both happened to meet each other and during the conversation Manjula Devi had told about her travails and the plan of accused No.2 to marry Hema.P.W.6 Selvaraj witnessed the arrest, confession and recovery of the material objects.Though he turned hostile, he admitted his signatures in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.W.7 is a magazar witness.He also turned hostile but admitted his signature in Ex.It was marked as Ex.P.W.10 Dr.Selvaraj conducted postmortem.This Revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 02.12.2008 in S.C.No.68 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai, acquitting respondents 1 and 2 herein.The prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24. M.O.1 to M.O.9 were also marked.On the side of the accused, no evidence was adduced.The learned trial Judge after a detailed consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them of all the charges.Aggrieved by the same, P.W.1 has preferred this Criminal Revision petition.4. Heard the learned counsel on either side.The deceased as well as accused No.2 worked as police constables.Accused No.1 had received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the deceased.On the occurrence date, the deceased had stopped accused No.1 and demanded the money back.In response, accused No.1 was said to have threatened her with dire consequences.Later accused Nos.1 and 2 joined together and murdered Manjula Devi by strangulating her neck by using a nylon rope and to screen the crime, they made it appear as if Manjula Devi committed suicide by hanging herself.He had opined that the deceasedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 appeared to have died by ligature strangulation at about 12 to 18 hours prior to autopsy.P.W.11 was the police constable who worked with the deceased.He deposed that Manjula Devi left her work place at about 12.05 hours on the occurrence date.P.W.12 and P.W.13 told the police that they saw the deceased coming in her two wheeler at about 12.30 p.m., opposite to Rose Land and that they noticed a quarrel between accused No.1 and the deceased and that accused No.1 held out threats to the deceased.However, the said witnesses turned hostile during trial.P.W.15 Devaraj is a police constable who also resided in the police quarters.He deposed that he heard some suspicious sound and that he went to the house of the deceased and saw the accused No.2 sitting in front of the house while the accused No.1 was inside the house.He saw that the deceased was laid on the floor.When he queried, accused No.2 informed him that Manjula Devi had hanged herself and that he brought her down.Thereupon P.W.15 informed the police from the telephone in his house.On hishttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 return, he saw that accused Nos.1 and 2 were taking the body of Manjula Devi in an auto and that the accused No.1 followed the same.After a while, they brought the body back.They were advised by another constable by name Nagarajan, to take Manjula Devi to hospital.P.W.16 Muthukumar was working as Sub Inspector of Police in Wireless section and he was informed by accused No.2 about the suicide of Manjula Devi.P.W.16 thereupon went to the place of occurrence and saw the accused Nos.1 and 2 taking the deceased in an auto and returning after half an hour.P.W.22 is the investigation officer who recorded the statements of the witnesses and he effected the arrest and recovery and filed the final report.He also obtained opinion from Dr.Karthikeyan which was in consonance with the opinion of P.W.7 doctor.He would further contend that evenhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 though P.W.12 and P.W.13 had turned hostile, their evidence cannot be rejected in toto. P.Ws.15 to 19 have spoken about the taking of the body in an auto by the accused and bringing it back after a while.This clearly creates suspicion over their conduct.The accused have not at all explained these incriminating circumstances in their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. P.W.7 doctor has clearly opined that the deceased died due to ligature strangulation.This was confirmed by Dr.The petitioner's counsel would contend that these incriminating circumstances were not taken note of by the learned Sessions Judge.The reasons given for acquitting the accused are flimsy.The learned counsel also relied on a number of decisions.The Revision petitioner also filed written arguments.I am unable to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner.While it is true that P.W.1 to P.W.5 have spoken about the intense strain in the relationship between the accused No.2 and the deceased, their testimony by themselves is wholly insufficienthttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 to sustain the prosecution case.At best they may indicate that the accused had a motive.It must be noted that the prosecution case rests only on circumstantial evidence.But they did not support the prosecution case.Likewise P.W.14, who is another witness to sustain the last seen theory also turned hostile.In order to prove the confession and recovery, the prosecution examined P.W.6 Selvaraj.He also turned hostile.P.W.10 Dr.Selvaraj conducted autopsy.To a specific question posed in the cross examination, he answered that he could not give any definite opinion regarding the cause of death.In Ex.P.14, it was opined that the deceased would have appeared to died due to ligature strangulation at about 12 to 18 hours prior to the autopsy.It is beyond dispute that no definite opinion was offered by the postmortem doctor.Thus the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the deceased died due to homicidal violence.Of course, the learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner would cite the opinion given by Dr.Karthikeyan from whom the second opinion was obtained.But the said Dr.Karthikeyan was not examined.As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, the prosecution will have to prove two things.Firstly, Manjula Devi died as a result of homicidal violence.Secondly, the accused are the authors of the said homicidal violence.In this case, the prosecution have not even established that Manjula Devi was strangulated to death.Both in the case of suicide and the death due tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 strangulation, there will be ligature strangulation.In this case, the prosecution was not able to rule out the possibility of suicide.In fact P.W.10 Dr.The State did not prefer any appeal against the Judgment of acquittal.It is only the father of the deceased who has filed this Criminal Revision case.The learned trial Judge had discussed the evidence adduced by the prosecution in extenso and after considering the rival contentions came to the conclusion that the accused are entitled to acquittal.The presumption ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 innocence which is available to the accused during trial stands further strengthened and reinforced by the Judgment of acquittal.The learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner has not made out any case for dislodging the presumption in favour of the accused.The Judgment of the Court below has not been shown to be perverse or suffering from illegality or irregularity.I find no ground to interfere with this Criminal Revision case.The Criminal Revision stands dismissed.No costs.16.08.2019 Index : yes/No Internet:Yes/No pmuhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukottai.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai.The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.CRL.R.C.(MD).No.32 of 2009 16.08.2019http://www.judis.nic.in","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"1 9.2018 b.CRM No. 7347 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 6th September, 2018 in connection with Dinhata Police Station Case No. 155 of 2018 dated 12.4.2018 under Sections 147/148/149/427/326/302 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Ajidul Haque & Ors.... Petitioners Mr. Sudip Guha .. for the petitioners Mr. Saibal Bapuli Mr. Arani Bhattacharyya ..for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Dinhata Police Station Case No. 155 of 2018 dated 12.4.2018 under Sections 147/ 148/149/ 427/326/302/of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners claim that they have been falsely implicated in the case though some of the petitioners may have been accidental by-standers.The State refers to the statements of several eye- witnesses under Section 161 of the Code where the names of several of these petitioners figure.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2","['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Shri Shivraj Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.This is first bail application on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is in custody since 26.04.2017 in connection with Crime No.136/2017, registered at Police Station Hanumana, District Rewa, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 368/34 of IPC.Initially the offence against the present applicant was registered under Section 363 of IPC and later on after investigation offence under Section 366, 368 r/w 34 of IPC were added.It is also found from the material available on record that the present applicant had taken the girls from the house and handed over to one Sunita, further she had not accompanied them.Considering the aforesaid, and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 26.04.2017, the application is allowed.It is directed that applicant Seema Basor be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/ (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, securing applicant's presence before the trial court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.The application is allowed.Certified copy as per rules.(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) V. JUDGE ss","['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Date: 31/10/2018 14:20:58 ::2::In brief, the prosecution case is that at the relevant point of time, applicant No.1 was posted as Gram Rozgar Sahayak and applicant Nos.2 & 3 were posted as Sub-Engineer in Gram Panchayat, Junapani in District-Harda.A complaint in writing was made to Special Police Establishment/Lokayukt by one Mahesh Kumar Gurjar alleging that the applicants along with elected office bearers of Gram Panchayat had prepared false bills, vouchers and muster rolls to misappropriate the funds allotted for the construction of toilets under the government scheme.Sections 420, 409, 467 & 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(c), 13 (1)Hence, this petition to quash the F.I.R.We have heard rival submissions at length and perused the material available on record.","['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"C.R.M. 106 of 2014And In the matter of: Subrata Mondal and Ors. ...Petitioners.Mr. Ashok Das ...for the petitioners.Therefore, the petitioner no.1, namely, Subrata Mondal, the petitioner no.2, namely, Subhas Bar, the petitioner no.3, namely, Prabhat Bar, the petitioner no.4, namely, Arup Makhal, the petitioner no.5, namely, Basudeb Makhal, the petitioner no.6, namely, Srikanta Mondal, the petitioner no.7, namely, Indrajit Gayen, the petitioner no.8, namely, Biren Gayen, the petitioner no.9, namely, Ratan Makhal alias Balaram, the petitioner no.10, namely, Biswanath Makhal alias Biswajit, the petitioner no.11, namely, Srikanta Bar and the petitioner no.12, namely, Sunil Gayen, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only each with two sureties of like amount, one of 2 whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Uluberia, District: Howrah.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.) (Asim Kumar Mondal, J.)","['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The case of the prosecution is as follows:(i) On 11.12.1996 at about 11.30 a.m., while P.W.2, the victim Manickam, a postman, was walking on the main road at Thondapadi Village, A.1 and A.2 along with other other co-accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly carrying deadly weapons.They attacked P.W.2 with Aruvals and severed both hands.A.4 and A.6 facilitated A.1 and A.2 doing so.(ii) P.W.1, who is the sister of P.W.2, the victim, and an eye witness, had rushed to the Village Administrative Officer and narrated the occurrence.On the basis of Ex.P.1, complaint, Ex.P.15, the First Information Report was registered by P.W.7, the Sub Inspector of Police.P.W.1 is the complainant; P.W.2 is the injured and P.W.3 is the brother of P.W.2. P.W.4 is the doctor, who had treated P.W.2 after the occurrence and issued Ex.P.3, Wound Certificate.P.W.9, the Inspector of Police had conducted investigation and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.W.9 has arrested A.1 and A.2 and recorded their confession statements Exs.On the basis of the confession statements, he recovered M.O.1 and M.O.2 weapons used by A.1 and A.2 respectively in the occurrence.He has also recovered M.O.4 and M.O.5 blood stained sand and blood stained wooden logs of Munna Tree under Ex.The admissible portion of the confession statement of A.1 is Ex.P.17 and that of A.2 is Ex.A.3 and A.5 were absconding.The investigating officer had filed charge sheet.The case duly was committed for trial.When questioned, the accused pleaded innocence.On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.9 were examined.P.1 to P.18 were exhibited and M.Os.1 to 5 were marked.P.Ws.1 and 3, according to the prosecution, are ocular witnesses.P.W.2 is the injured witness.ajr/sjCrl.R.C.No.1073 of 201017.12.2014A case was registered against the petitioner and five others for the offences under sections 148, 302 and 342 IPC in Crime No.311 of 1996 on the file of the respondent.Pursuant to investigation, a charge sheet was filed informing the commission of offences.On questioning under section 313 Cr.P.C, A.1 took the plea of private defence and A.2 the defence of alibi.Other accused have denied their complicity.On the side of the accused, D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined.Learned trial Judge acquitted A3 and A5 and convicted other accused and passed sentence as follows:Accused No.Conviction under SectionSentenceA1148 IPCOne year SI342 IPCOne year SI307 IPCFive years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- I/D six months R.I.A2148 IPCOne year SI342 IPCOne year SI307 IPCFive years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- I/D six months R.I.A4147 IPCSix Months SI342 IPCOne Year SI307 r/w 114 IPCThree Years RI and fine of Rs.500/- I/D three months R.I.A6147 IPCSix Months SI342 IPCOne Year SI307 r/w 114 IPCThree Years RI and fine of Rs.500/- I/D three months R.I.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, all the accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.11 of 2002 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Perambalur.The appellate Court while allowing the appeal of the other accused, convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 337 I.P.C., sentenced him to Five Years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.8. P.W.2, injured moved Criminal Revision Nos.306 and 307 of 2013 challenging the judgment of acquittal as regards the other accused and seeking enhancement of the sentence as regards this petitioner, first accused.This Court under order dated 23.10.2007 was pleased to dismiss Criminal Revision No.306 of 2013, challenging the order of acquittal of other accused.However, in Criminal Revision No.307 of 2013, this Court took the view that the offence under Section 326 IPC stood attracted and hence remitted the matter to the appellate court for fresh consideration.Thereupon the matter was reheard by the appellate court, which convicted the petitioner under section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment.The petitioner having paid the fine has filed this Revision.On general considerations, this Court would suspect the veracity of the prosecution case.The occurrence, wherein both arms of P.W.2 were cut off, in an attack by six persons, is said to have taken place at 11.30 a.m. P.Ws.1 and 3, sister and brother of P.W.2, who allegedly were witnesses to the occurrence have chosen to inform the Village Administrative Officer only at 5 p.m on such date and thereafter FIR came to be registered.The explanation offered for the delay is that the Village Administrative Officer was at a different Village and hence they could reach him only at 5 p.m. It is most unlikely that a person who had suffered the loss of two arms at 11.30 a.m. would have been lying unattended till 5 p.m, without having lost his life.Therefore, there is prima facie reason to think that in the least, the time of the occurrence has been shifted.While the other accused in the case stand acquitted, such avenue to this petitioner has been closed, owing to the fact that he has chosen to examine himself as defence witness and admitted the commission of the offence.He had stated that P.W.2, facing prosecution for the offences under sections 448 and 354 IPC, he having misbehaved with the first daughter of the petitioner, had sought to misbehave with the second daughter and towards preventing such wrong, he had exercised the right of private defence.That two arms of P.W.2 had been totally chopped off is an indication that the prosecution's original case of involvement of several persons was more likely.In the face of evidence, tendered by petitioner as D.W.1, we are constrained to confirm the finding of the lower appellate court.However, it is seen that 18 years have passed since the date of occurrence.Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged 70 years and suffers from many health related problems.This Court was of the view that the victim/P.W.2 may be questioned as to whether he was willing to accept the payment of compensation.The same subsequently was closed on 24.11.2014, since he could not be traced.It is seen that the petitioner has been in custody for a period of six months.In the circumstances, substantive sentence of imprisonment shall be restricted to the period already undergone by the petitioner.The petitioner shall be now required to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only), within a period of two months of receipt of this order, in default undergo two years rigorous imprisonment.The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as above.17.12.2014Index:yes/noInternet:yes/noajr/sjToThe Inspector of PoliceKaikalathur Police StationPerambalur District C.T.SELVAM, J.","['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Perused the case diary.This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.180/14 registered at P.S. Kelaras, District Morena, for the offences punishable under sections 307, 324, 323, 147, 148, 149, 294, 504-B of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)As per prosecution story, on account of driving the motorcycle, the quarrel took place between the complainant and Gambhir Singh.On account of it at about 7:00 PM Gambhir, Aashu, Ravindra Singh, Arvind Singh, Dhande, Bunty, Anku, Lalu, Ramendra Singh, Ranveer.Sonu and five other unknown persons armed with lathi, danda, farsa and katta came to Jatav Mohalla and gave abuses in the name of caste of the complainant, when complainant and his father and relatives came out then they started beating by means of lathi, danda causing injuries to the complainant, Ratnu, Ramavtar, Gabbar, Ramprakash, Dayaram, Rakesh Vikas Pradeep and Ramkali.(Rajendra Singh Sikarwar Vs.He has not committed any offence.Gambir Singh has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 17.06.2014 passed in M.Cr.C.No.4750/2014 and Arvind granted bail vide order dated 08.07.2014 passed in M.Cr.There is no likelihood of his absconsion.Hence, prayed for anticipatory bail.Prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the State.It appears that Ratnu, Ramavtar, Gabbar, Ramprakash, Dayaram, Smt. Ramkali, Rajesh, Vikas, Pradeep and Ramkatori have received injuries.Ramavtar has sustained one incised wound, one lacerated wound and bruise, Rajesh has received two abrasion and other have received injuries which are simple in nature.From perusal of the case diary of Crime No.182/2014, it appears that on the report of the applicant the case has been registered against the complainant party in which applicant has sustained two incised wounds, one lacerated wound and three bruises, Aashu has sustained five bruises, Lalu has sustained two bruises.As per x-ray report Gambhir Singh has sustained hairline fracture over fronto- parietal region.This injury has been reported to be caused by the sharp-edged weapon.C.No.6724/14 this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting officer/competent Court.The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and he will co-operate in the investigation.He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub- section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.This order shall remain operative for a period of sixty days and during this period the applicant is free to move the regular bail application before the concerned Court.C.C. as per rules.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"C.C. as per rules.Head the learned counsel for the parties.Looking to the physical condition, applicant prays for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant is in custody since 19.07.2019 in connection with Crime No.38/2019 registered at Police StationKishangarh, District Chhatarpur (MP), for the offence punishable under Sections 379, 34 of IPC.Prosecution story in short is that the complainant lodged a report and stated that on 18.07.2019 at about 10 O' clock he had gone for grazing 18 buffaloes in jungle however, he returned back to house at about 1 O'clock for having meal thereafter, at about 6 O'clock again he went to jungle to found buffaloes but he did not find in jungle thereafter, it is alleged that the applicant along with other persons tried to steal buffaloes from the jungle.It is alleged by the prosecution that applicant along with other persons committed theft of buffaloes.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case.He has no criminal past against the applicant and trial will take long time to conclude.There is no probability of absconding of applicant and tampering the evidence.On these grounds he prays for grant of bail.Learned PL for the respondent/State opposes the application.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in entirety, particularly the fact as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, in the opinion of this Court, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.Consequently, the first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.It is directed that the applicant-Rajendra @ Kallu be released on Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Date: 13/08/2019 11:38:26 2 MCRC-32958-2019 bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with two local surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.C.C. as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE MISHRA Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Date: 13/08/2019 11:38:26","['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated August 24, 1977 and August 31, 1977 passed by a Special Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi, whereby he found the appellant guilty under Section 161 of the IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1 )(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short).The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 161, IPC.In case of default in payment of fine he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.Similarly he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Act. In case of his failure to clear the fine he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.Both the sentences were to run concurrently.However, the sentences imposed in default of payment of fine were to run consecutively.Brief facts which gave rise to the present appeal are as under: that one Shri Raghbir Singh resident of village Bindapur, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the complainant for the sake of convenience) approached the convict/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant in order to facilitate the reference) for supply of a copy of the revenue record pertaining to his land situated, at village Bindapur, The appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 100/- from the complainant for the said purpose and told him that he should approach him over again on Monday i.e. 14th July, 1975 along with Rs. 100/-.The complainant lodged a written complaint with the Superintendent of Police, CBI, New Delhi, with the above said allegations.Consequently a regular case No. RC 34/75-SPE/CBI/Delhi Branch was registered.The said case after registration was entrusted to P.W. 3, Dy.S.P. Chander Bhan, for the purposes of investigation.He secured the presence of two independent witnesses i.e. Shri Prabhati Lal (P.W. 2) and Shri Baldev Raj (PW. 4) from the office Of Directorate of Sugar and Venaspati, Jarnnagar House, New Delhi.A raiding party was formed by including the said persons in the said raiding party.The complainant (PW 1) was introduced to the said witnesses who narrated the facts of the present case to them.He also produced ten currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10)/- each to be given to the appellant by way of bribe on his demand.The currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and a demonstration was given to the witnesses with regard to the working of the phenolphthalein powder.The above tainted currency notes of Rs. 10/- each were handed back to the complainant with instructions to be passed on to the appellant when demanded by him by way of bribe.Shri Prabhati Lal (P.W. 2), an independent witness was deputed to act as a shadow witness in order to see and overhear whatever transpired in between the complainant and the appellant.After the completion of necessary formalities the raiding party reached village Palam at about 2-30 p.m. Shri Raghbir Singh PW. 1 and Shri Prabhati Lal PW. 2 left to contact the appellant at his office (Patwarkhana).The appellant was found present at his office.The complainant asked the appellant as to whether he had prepared a copy of the extract from the revenue record pertaining to his land.The appellant asked for his fees.The complainant enquired of the appellant with regard to the amount to be paid whereupon the appellant told him that he would have to pay Rs. 100/- for the copy of the relevant revenue record pertaining to his land.The complainant on hearing the same took out the ten currency notes from his pocket and gave them to the appellant who accepted the same and put them into the left side front pocket of his shirt which he was wearing.The right as well as the left hand fingers of the appellant were got dipped into sodium carbonate solution which turned pink.The left side front pocket of the shirt on being washed with sodium carbonate solution also turned pink.JUDGMENT Mohd. Shamim, J.Thereafter the appellant started preparing the copy of the revenue record after looking into the same.Shri Prabhati Lal PW.2 thereupon came outside the office of the appellant and informed the raiding party that the appellant had accepted the bribe of Rupees 100/- from the complainant on demand.3 ChanderBhan, Dy.S.P. along with other members of the raiding party rushed to the office of the appellant and challenged him after disclosing his identity.The appellant was preparing copy of the revenue record pertaining to the land of the complainant at that time.After challenging, P.W. 3 Dy.S.P. Chander Bhan caught hold of the.appellant by both of his arms.The appellant got perplexed.On personal search of the appellant ten currency notes of Rs. 10/- each were recovered from the left side front pocket of his shirt.The numbers of the said currency notes tallied with the currency notes mentioned in the handing over memo prepared earlier.A copy of an extract from the Khasra Girdawri in respect of the land of the complainant prepared by the appellant was also seized.The appellant was arrested and later on released on bail.The appellant was summoned.The said admissions on the part of PW. 1 Raghbir Singh are to be read along with the statement of the appellant under Section 313, Cr.P.C. wherein he was very categorically stated that he had complained against the complainant to the SDM, Punjabi Bagh for his unauthorised colonisation.As per his report the SDM ordered that the complainant be dispossessed from the land in his possession and the same be handed over to gaon sabha.The appellant in this connection has placed on record his report with regard to the unauthorised colonisation.One of the persons complained against, as is manifest from the said report, is PW. 1 Raghbir Singh complainant (vide Ex. D/A).The orders passed by the SDM are Ex. DB and Ex. DC.To the same effect is the statement of PW. 7 Kanwar Sain, Office Kanungo, Mehrauli.He has very categorically stated that the appellant complained against PW. 1 Raghbir Singh with regard to the unauthorised colonisation in 1974 and the SDM thereupon passed orders for taking possession over the said land belonging to the complainant Raghbir Singh and to deliver the possession over the same to gaon Sabha.He has further stated that he along with the appellant went to take possession.However the same could not be taken on account of the apprehension of breach of peace.It thus can be safely concluded from above that it was the appellant who complained against the complainant, PW. 1 Raghbir Singh (vide report dated August 15, 1974).The complaint was lodged with the police on July 11, 1975 i.e. only 17 days after the possession was to be handed over to gaon sabha.Thus the complainant has got an animus against the appellant.He has got a motive to lodge a report against the appellant.Consequently the complainant by no stretch of imagination be called an independent witness.His statement is to be looked upon with suspicion and caution and it would not be safe to place reliance thereon.Furthermore, a perusal of the charge sheet reveals that as per the prosecution version the appellant was preparing a copy of the extract from the revanue record (Khasra Girdawri) in respect of the land of the complainant Raghbir Singh at the time the raid was laid against him.To the same effect is the statement of PW.3 Dy.Surprisingly enough the copy of the said extract from the revenue record was never seized from the spot.Instead an extract from the revenue record pertaining to the land of Shri Balbir Singh is placed on the file of this Court as is manifest from Ex. P5/A. This again casts suspicion on the case of the prosecution.It is in the statement of PW. 1 Raghbir Singh as well as PW. 3 Chander Bhan.Dy, S.P. that the appellant after having accepted the tainted currency notes kept the same in the left side front pocket of his shirt.The said shirt after the recovery of the tainted currency notes was removed from his person and was dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate whereupon the said solution turned pink.It implies thereby that the pocket of the shirt of the appellant which he was wearing must have pink colour.Astonishingly the shirt (Ex.P. 1) which was produced before the Court did not have any such colour on the left side front pocket.This fact has been admitted by PW., 3 Chander Bhan.This again casts suspicion with regard to the authenticity of the prosecution version particularly when the said shirt before pink marks at other places i.e. on the front side of the shirt.The learned lower Court has ignored this fact by stating that it is just possible that the faint pink colour on the pocket of the shirt of the accused might have disappeared with the passage of time.The learned lower Court, I feel, was not correct while coming to the said conclusion.Had that been true the pink marks on the other parts of the shirt would have also disappeared.The appellant in his written statement in Urdu (vide para 6) has stated that on July 14, 1975 the complainant Raghbir Singh approached him with the request to accept the impugned amount for handing over the same to Sube Singh.Sube Singh was to come to take the said money from him later on and he was required to give the said amount to Sube Singh.It was in the above circumstances that he took the said amount by one hand and kept the same on the cot with the help of another hand and told the complainant straightway that he should deliver the said amount himself to Sube Singh.It is sufficient if he comes out with a probable and plausible version.I feel that the appellant has put forward a probable and plausible version in the present case.","['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed to set aside the order dated 09.09.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karera district Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 90/2012 by which the learned Trial Court has refused to call - (1) Dr. R.K. Agrwal, District Hospital, Bhind; (2) Mr. Yogendra Bhadoriya, Principal, Maharani Laxmibai College of Excellence, Gwalior, and; (3) the Investigation Officer, who investigated Crime No. 86/2011 of Police Station Sehore, as defence witnesses.Brief facts just necessary for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner is one of the accused, who stand trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karera.The petitioner filed an application for adducing evidence of Dr. R.K. Agrawal, who on the requisition of police medically examined the petitioner and was under treatment from 01.07.2011 to 03.07.2011 at District Hospital, Bhind.He also claimed that on the date of incident, i.e., 2nd July, 2014 from 02.00 to 04.00 PM, he was present in DCA Computer class at Maharani Laxmi Bai College of Excellence, Gwalior.Therefore, in this regard he wanted to examine the Principal Mr. Yogendra Singh Bhadoriya.The petitioner also requested to call the Investigation Officer of (Rahul Vs.State of M.P.) 2 M.Cr.C No. 8896/2014 Crime No. 86/2011 registered at Police Station Sehore under Sections 177, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 325 and 294 of IPC, which is a cross case.The petitioner also requested to examine Mr. K.C. Chauhan, Station House Officer, who investigated the matter.The petitioner's application was partly allowed by the learned Trial Court.Regarding the other prayers, the learned Trial Court refused to call the witnesses.Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on Manoj Kumar Swami Vs.""Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.233 -Summoning of documentary evidence - offence under Ss.498-A, 304-B of Penal Code - Case was listed for defence evidence - At stage of defence accused would have right to summon any evidence which may be relevant for proper appreciation of (Rahul Vs.State of M.P.) 3 M.Cr.C No. 8896/2014 prosecution evidence - allegations made by accused that deceased was an uneducated lady but she had given statement that she had passed HSC examination - Held, it is in the interest of justice that application of accused to summon relevant record to ascertain this fact should be granted by Court.""Therefore, the petitioner is directed to produce the certified copies of the necessary documents which the petitioner relies before the Trial Court.After filing the same the petitioner can move an application for calling the witnesses, which may be relevant for the decision of the case.The petitioner, if files the relevant documents within two weeks and satisfy the learned Trial Court that the documents are relevant, the learned Trial Court may consider the same and if felt necessary may allow the accused to call the witnesses named above as defence witnesses.With the above direction, the M.Cr.","['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Marriage of Reeta (since deceased) was solemnized Cr.A. No.2605/05 2 with appellant no.1 Manoj on 21/4/2000 and the remaining appellants are his family members.Prosecution case, in brief, is that appellants were involved in subjecting Reeta to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry, and, ultimately, on 31/5/2001, under suspicious circumstances, she breathed her last and cause of death was ascertained as asphyxia in the post mortem report (Ex.P/10), wherein as many as 4 injuries were also noticed on her palms and one on chin.As per report (Ex.P/17) dated 29/11/01 of Forensic Science Lab, Organo Phosphorous pesticide was found in the viscera of the deceased.(8.10.13) Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 9.12.2005 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in S.T. No.322/2001, the appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code ('Code' for short) whereby they have been convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years with fine stipulation and R.I. for 2 years with fine stipulation respectively.One written report dated 31/5/2001 addressed to Station House Officer, Itarsi was filed by father of the deceased Narbada Prasad.During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and thereafter Crime No.365/01 (Ex.P/13) for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC, was registered at Police Station, Itarsi and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against, as many as, seven accused persons.Out of them, except appellants others were acquitted of the charges.Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the trial Court had erred in appreciating the evidence on record and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.According to him, appellant no.3 Vijaya alias Vijaylata, sister-in-law of the deceased, is married and has been staying separately since long and there is no incriminating evidence against her and, therefore, she is entitled to be acquitted.Alternatively, he argued that, at the most, appellant no.2 Shanti Bai, mother-in-law of the deceased, can only be convicted under Section 498A of the IPC and appellant no.1 Manoj has already suffered the impugned custodial sentence, while Shantbai has suffered imprisonment for 4 years.In response, learned Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the Objector, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, submitted that the impugned judgment was well merited.Cr.A. No.2605/05 3Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have gone through the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.Santosh (PW1), brother of the deceased, deposed in para 2 of his evidence that Reeta had never told him in regard to maltreatment at the hands of her in-laws and she used to tell her mother only.Pinki alias Sunita (PW3), friend of the deceased, deposed in para 1 that Reeta had told her that her husband and mother-in-law used to harass and beat her on trifle matters.In para 3 she deposed that appellant no.3 used to instigate appellant no.2, but she did not depose the manner in which and when appellant no.3 instigated them.Rakesh Sahu (PW9) deposed in para 1 that on 29.5.01 when he met the deceased, she had started weeping and upon asking had informed her that appellant no.3 and her husband Ramesh had threatened to bring Rs.50,000/-, Fridge and VCR else they would harass her.Though some omnibus allegations were leveled against appellant no.3 in the evidence of some witnesses, yet, on that basis alone, her conviction cannot be sustained as on the same set of evidence, some other accused have already been acquitted by the trial Court and against them no appeal has been filed by the State.It is an admitted fact and also brother of the deceased Santosh (PW1) admitted in para 12 of his evidence that appellant no.3 Vijaya resided at Hoshangabad along with her husband Ramesh.From the evidence of all the witnesses, it is crystal clear that appellant nos. 1 and 2 used to subject Reeta to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry and her death was caused within seven years of the marriage.The fact that Cr.A. No.2605/05 4 deceased was subjected to physical cruelty soon before her death, is also established from the evidence of the witnesses, as well as, from medical evidence.Therefore, in view of Section 113B of the Evidence Act, it was rightly presumed by the trial Court that appellant nos. 1 and 2 had caused the dowry death of Reeta.In the aforesaid premises, the appeal is allowed in part.Appellant no.3 Vijiya alias Vijaylata is acquitted of the offences.However, the appeal, so far as it relates to appellants nos. 1 and 2, the same stand dismissed.Their convictions and sentences are affirmed.As per record, appellant no.1 Manoj was in jail.His supersession warrant be sent to jail authorities.Appellant no.2 Shantibai is on bail.","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']"
Case diary perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.C.C. As per rules.,"['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Respondent no.2 Smt. Deepika Shukla is also present along with her counsel.Heard learned counsel for the parties finally.This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' has been filed by the applicants for quashing of order dated 06.05.2015 as well as the proceeding of Criminal Case No.332/2014, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maihar, District Satna The applicant no.1 is the husband and applicant no.2 is brother- in-law of the respondent no.2-complainant.","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The surviving accused are represented by Advocate Satyajit Bora.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::AT the relevant time, in the Maruti temple at Tivthan Tanda in Gangakhed taluka, religious programme of 'Parayan of Pandav Pratap Pothi' was going on.Mike and loud speakers were therefore set up at the said temple.One Waman Balu Rathod was one of the organizers of the said religious function.The villagers of the adjoining villages used to attend the said function and arrangements were made for the meals of the said devotees by way of prasad.6) As per the case of the prosecution, on 30 th August, 1995, accused No. 5 - Lahu first had been to Waman Rathod and requested him to give the loud-speaker to be used in the Ganpati festival in the village of the accused persons.Waman Rathod refused the request of Lahu.It is alleged that all the accused then approached Waman after sometime and jointly requested Waman to give them the loud-speaker and the mike for Ganpati festival.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::few others.7) Uttam Rathod, brother of the deceased Waman, lodged a complaint of the alleged incident, whereupon investigation was set in motion.DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 25th January, 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT :9th February, 2018 JUDGMENT:-(P.R.Bora,J.)2) The respondents in Criminal appeal No.445 of 2001 and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 2001 were prosecuted in the aforesaid Sessions Case for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.445/2001 whereas convicted the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.304/2001 for the offence punishable under Sections 304 Part-II of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.15,000/-,::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 ::: 3 Cri.Appeal 445/2001 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::in default to suffer further R.I. for one year.Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has filed the Criminal Appeal No. 445/2001, taking exception to the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in regard to the original accused Nos. 2 to 5; whereas the original accused No. 1 has preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 304/2001, challenging the order of conviction passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.3) In view of the fact that both the appeals are arising out of one judgment, the arguments in both the appeals were simultaneously heard by us and we deem it appropriate to decide both these appeals by a common reasoning.During pendency of the appeal accused No. 4 viz. Nivrutti Dagduba Bhusnar has expired and the appeal thus stood abated against him.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::However, Waman, did not accede to the request made by the accused.According to the further case of the prosecution, the accused then though left the said place, assembled there again after some time, equipped with the weapons and made assault on Waman Balu Rathod as well as::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 ::: 5 Cri.Appeal 445/2001 & Anr.The accused were arrested.The statements of the witnesses were recorded.Panchanama of the spot was prepared; inquest panchanama on the dead body of the deceased Waman was carried and post mortem examination of the dead body was also got done by the police.During the course of the investigation, some recoveries were also made and after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against all the five accused in the court of JMFC at Gangakhed.Since the offences charged against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court at Parbhani.The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses.The prosecution evidence had commenced with the testimony::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 ::: 6 Cri.Appeal 445/2001 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::of Dr. Manohar Ghule, the Medical Officer from Rural hospital, at Gangakhed and was concluded with the evidence of Shivaji Kamble (PW 13) - PSI, who had made the investigation in the alleged crime.The defense of the accused was total denial.The learned Sessions Judge, after having assessed the oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 5 and convicted accused no.1 , i.e. appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 304/2001, for the offence punishable under Sections 304 Part-II of IPC and imposed the sentence as noted herein above.8) Shri S.J.Salgare, learned A.P.P. Appearing for the State, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds.The learned APP submitted that despite there being sufficient evidence against all the accused, proving their complicity in the commission of crime, the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 5 and has erred in not holding accused No.1 guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.9) The learned APP, taking us through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and more particularly the evidence of::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 ::: 7 Cri.Appeal 445/2001 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::The learned APP further submitted that the prosecution had examined the eye- witnesses to the alleged occurrence and the said eye-witnesses and more particularly, PW 3 Uttam and PW 7 - Kallubai had perfectly given the ocular account of the alleged incident proving the incriminating acts of the accused persons.The learned APP further submitted that the medical evidence brought on record by the prosecution through the evidence of Dr. Manohar Ghule (PW 1); Dr. Siddharh Bhalerao (PW 4) and Dr. A.G.Solanke (PW 6) has not been properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge.The learned APP submitted that PW 4 - Dr Bhalerao had examined deceased Waman and PW 6- Kallubai at Gangakhed Rural hospital immediately after the incident and in his evidence, has deposed about the injuries, as were noticed on person of deceased Waman as well as PW 6 Kallubai.The learned APP submitted that sufficient evidence was placed on record by the prosecution to prove weapon used in commission of the offences and it was also sufficiently brought on record by the prosecution that the injuries as were noticed on person of deceased Waman as well as injured::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 ::: 8 Cri.Appeal 445/2001 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::Kallubai, were possible to have been caused with the said weapons.The learned APP further submitted that the prosecution had also brought on record the incriminating acts of other accused in making assaults on the victims and the evidence so brought on record was not shattered even during the course of cross-examination.The learned APP submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has drawn some unwarranted inferences and for no good reasons, rejected the prosecution evidence.The learned APP further submitted that the evidence, which was brought on record by the prosecution was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the complicity of the accused in knowingly and intentionally causing death of deceased Waman.In the circumstance, according to learned APP, the learned Sessions Judge has manifestly erred in not holding accused No.1 guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and instead holding him guilty for a lesser offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and acquitting accused Nos. 2 to 5 from all the offences..::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::The learned APP submitted that in view of the fact that the Sessions Court has held the fact to have been proved, that the assault was made by accused no.1 on the head of the deceased with a sharp and cutting weapon, the burden was shifted on the accused to bring on record sufficient evidence to rebut presumption raised against him that his intention was not to cause the death of deceased Waman.The learned APP further submitted that though accused No.1 has failed in rebutting the said presumption, the learned Sessions Judge has erroneously not held him guilty for the offence under section 302 of IPC and instead has held him guilty for the lesser offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.12) The learned APP, for all above reasons, prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order and to hold all the accused guilty for offence under Section 302 read 34 of IPC and to adequately punish them.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::the accused, supported the impugned judgment and order in so far as accused Nos. 2 to 5 (now accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5).The learned Counsel, inviting our attention to the elaborate discussion made by the learned Sessions Judge, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has minutely scrutinized and has correctly analyzed the evidence of each and every prosecution witness and has recorded a well-reasoned finding, exonerating accused Nos. 2 to 5 from the charges levelled against them.The learned Counsel further submitted that having regard to inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and failure on part of the prosecution to bring on record any unimpeachable evidence against accused Nos. 2 to 5, showing their complicity in commission of the alleged crime, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the said accused.The learned Counsel submitted that no interference is, therefore, warranted in the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge so far as acquittal of accused Nos. 2 to 5 is concerned.14) After having considered the submissions made on behalf of the learned APP and the leaned counsel for the accused and on perusal of the impugned judgment and the::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 ::: 11 Cri.Appeal 445/2001 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::evidence on record, apparently, it does not appear to us that any interference may be required in so far as the acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Judge in respect of accused Nos.2 to 5 is concerned.Accused Nos.1 to 3 are real brothers of each other.Deceased accused No.4 was father of accused Nos. 1 to3. Accused No. 5 does not seem to be in relation to other accused.However, all the accused are residents of village Underwadi.15) As revealed from the submissions made by the learned APP, the thrust of the prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, was mainly on the evidence of PW 7 - Kallubai, who is posed to be the victim of the alleged incident as well as the eye witness to the assaults made on deceased Waman.Reliance was also placed by the prosecution on the evidence of PW 5 - Telu Paithane and he was also stated to be an eye-witness to the alleged incident.PW 3 - Uttam Balaji Rathod had lodged the report of the alleged incident whereupon the investigation was set in motion.Obviously, the prosecution also relied upon the testimony of said PW 3 - Uttam.The other witnesses were the::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 ::: 12 Cri.Appeal 445/2001 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::panch witnesses on the spot and the alleged recovery of weapon.In addition to the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution has also examined the police persons, who were part of the investigation and two medical officers, one who had issued the injury certificates and the another who had conducted the post mortem examination.16) It was vehemently argued by the learned APP that by examining the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution has, beyond reasonable doubt, proved the complicity of all the five accused in knowingly and intentionally causing death of deceased Waman and causing severe injuries to PW 7 - Kallubai.It is not in dispute that PW 7 - Kallubai is sister of deceased Waman.According to learned APP, the learned Sessions Judge has, for some wrong reasons, declined to rely upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.The learned APP also submitted that some of the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge are contrary to the evidence on record.The learned APP, taking us through the evidence of PW 3 - Uttam; PW 5 - Telu; PW 7 - Kallubai and PW 10 - Dhuma, submitted that the inconsistencies and the contradictions, as are considered by the learned Sessions Judge in the testimonies of these witnesses, were, in fact, minor and immaterial and::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 ::: 13 Cri.Appeal 445/2001 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::must have been ignored by the learned Sessions Judge.In light of the submissions so made by the learned APP, when we perused the evidence on record and thereafter analysis of the said evidence made by the Sessions Judge, we did not find that any apparent error has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge in not holding accused Nos. 2 to 5 guilty for the offences with which they were charged.In so far as the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge while holding accused No.1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC is::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 ::: 14 Cri.Appeal 445/2001 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::Though the said finding was sought to be objected by Shri Satyajit Bora, learned Counsel appearing for accused No.1, on certain points, we did not find any merit in the submissions so made.The defense of the accused that the vital injury, which ultimately resulted in causing death of Waman, was likely to be caused by beating of head of the deceased against the stony platform by an accident, has been rightly rejected by the learned Sessions Judge.Relying upon the evidence of PW 4 - Dr. Siddharth Bhalerao; PW 6 - Dr. Anand G.Solanke; the learned Sessions Judge has reached to the conclusion that the vital injury, which ultimately resulted in causing death of deceased Waman, was not likely to be caused accidentally and there was sufficient evidence on record showing that the same was caused in the assaults made on deceased Waman in the alleged incident.The finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that deceased Waman suffered the homicidal death, therefore, has to be sustained.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::injury to deceased Waman which ultimately resulted in causing his death.It was the contention of the learned A.P.P. that though the assaults were actually made by accused no.1 and accused no.3, what was more material was the intention of all the accused to cause death of deceased Waman and, as such, the trial Court must have held all the accused guilty for the offense under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.20) After having considered the entire evidence on record, we find it difficult to agree with the argument so advanced by the learned A.P.P. The evidence on record shows that accused no.1 alone has admitted his presence on the spot::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 ::: 16 Cri.Appeal 445/2001 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::of occurrence.The others have denied their presence on the spot of occurrence and their alleged participation in commission of the alleged crime.Though PW 3 Uttam and PW 7 Kallubai, are cited as eye witnesses and their evidence has been heavily relied upon by the learned A.P.P., on perusal of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses it is apparently revealed that both are not corroborating the facts stated by each other.PW 3 Uttam was stated to be on the spot of occurrence since beginning.His house is also situated just near to the spot of occurrence.In the circumstances, as has been observed by the learned trial Judge, serious doubts are raised about the entire occurrence when Uttam had not stated anything about first two visits of the accused persons.21) It is the matter of record that on the basis of the complaint lodged by Uttam (PW 3), the investigation was set in motion.In the circumstances, as has been observed by the learned trial Judge, inconsistency in the evidence of Uttam (PW3) and Kallubai (PW 7), on the alleged two previous visits of the::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 ::: 17 Cri.Appeal 445/2001 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::accused persons, and the alleged demand by them from deceased Waman to hand over the loud-speaker, cannot be ignored.As noted hereinabove, accused no.1 did not dispute his presence on the spot of occurrence.The question was whether the prosecution has proved presence of accused nos. 2 to 5 along with accused no.1 so as to gather whether accused nos. 2 to 5 were having common intention of causing death of deceased Waman.On this material aspect the evidence of PW 3 and PW 7 is inconsistent.Though PW 5 Paithane was also cited as the eye witness, he did not support the prosecution version.Thus, the prosecution has failed in bringing on record any unimpeachable evidence so as to prove the complicity of accused nos. 2 to 5 in commission of the alleged crime.In paragraph no.55 to 62 of the impugned judgment, the learned trial Judge has elaborately discussed the inconsistencies in the evidence of Uttam (PW 3) and Kallubai (PW 7).We need not to repeat the observations made by the learned trial Judge; suffice it to say that after having perused the evidence on record, we fully agree with the observations made by the learned Judge.22) It is further apparently revealed that the complaint at Exh.35 filed by PW 3 Uttam is not consistent on the material::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 ::: 18 Cri.Appeal 445/2001 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::In Exh.57, there are names of Dhondiram, Bandu and Laxman as witnesses but, in the complaint at Exh.35, these names are not mentioned.In Exh.35, name of accused no.5 Lahu is mentioned but, in the report at Exh.57, his name is missing.However, the explanation is unacceptable and the same has been rightly not accepted by::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 ::: 19 Cri.Appeal 445/2001 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::the learned trial Judge.The conclusion recorded by the learned trial Judge that probability of manipulation in the original complaint filed by PW 3 Uttam was difficult to be ruled out.23) After having considered the evidence as above, it does not appear to us that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in recording the finding that the prosecution has failed in bringing on record any cogent and sufficient evidence against accused nos. 2 to 5 proving their involvement in commission of the alleged crime.According to us, the trial Court has, therefore, rightly acquitted accused nos. 2 to 5 from the charges levelled against them.No case is made out by the State for causing interference in the finding so recorded by the trial Court.24) It was the further contention of the appellant State that the learned trial Judge has erred in not holding accused no.1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.After having considered the entire evidence on record and the discussion made by the learned trial Judge on the issue, we do not find much substance in the objection raised by the appellant State.We fully agree with the conclusion recorded::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 ::: 20 Cri.Appeal 445/2001 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::by the trial Court that no such evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution so as to hold that accused no.1 was having an intention to cause the death of deceased Waman.The evidence on record reveals that it was a sudden quarrel between accused no.1 and deceased Waman on account of handing over of the loud-speaker set for the purpose of Ganpati festival.As has been rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, accused no.1 had gone to the spot of occurrence only for the purpose of making demand of loud-speaker and nothing has been brought on record to draw an inference that at the relevant time there was any intention of accused no.1 to finish Waman.The quarrel between deceased Waman and accused no.1 started all of a sudden without premeditation.The prosecution has also not brought on record any such clinching evidence showing that the sickle was purposely and intentionally brought by accused no.1 with him.However, when the said sickle was used by the accused in making assault on the head of deceased Waman, as rightly held by the learned trial Judge, the knowledge has to be attributed on the part of accused no.1 that making an assault by him with a sickle on the head of deceased Waman was likely to cause his death.In the circumstances, according to us, the learned trial::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 ::: 21 Cri.Appeal 445/2001 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::Judge has rightly held accused no.1 guilty for the offense punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC.The prosecution has failed in making out any case to hold accused no.1 guilty for the offense punishable under Section 302 of IPC.The aforesaid contention of the prosecution also, therefore, cannot be accepted and the appeal filed by the State, therefore, deserves to be dismissed in toto.25) In an appeal filed by accused No.1 (Criminal Appeal No.304/2001), the appellant has challenged his conviction for the offense punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC.However, in view of the finding recorded by us while deciding Criminal Appeal No.445/2001, Shri Satyajit Bora, learned Counsel for the appellant, on instructions, restricted the argument only to the extent of quantum of sentence imposed upon accused no.1 by the trial Court; in other words, to reduce the period of sentence, and to release accused no.1 on the sentence already undergone by him.Learned Counsel further submitted that after pronouncement of the judgment, accused no.1 was taken in custody and was released on bail vide order::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 ::: 22 Cri.Appeal 445/2001 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::Learned Counsel submitted that though the orders were passed by the respective Courts for releasing the applicant on bail, some time was consumed in arranging for bail, etc. and if the said time is considered, accused no.1 has practically undergone the imprisonment for a period of about seven months.Learned Counsel further submitted that the alleged incident occurred prior to about 23 years.The accused, who was at the relevant time 38 years old, has now crossed his age of 61 years.Learned Counsel further submitted that there was no previous enmity between accused no.1 and the deceased and whatever happened was in a sudden fight between the both.State of Maharashtra ( 2015 All.M.R. (Cri) 1790), learned Counsel submitted that accused no.1 be released on the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him.Learned A.P.P. submitted that the learned trial Judge has already considered the circumstances as::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 ::: 23 Cri.Appeal 445/2001 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::27) We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant i.e. original accused no.1 and by the State.Having regard to the facts involved in the present case, it appears to us that the request made by the appellant accused no.1 deserves to be positively considered.Admittedly, it was a sudden fight and was not a premeditated act.There is no dispute that there are no criminal antecedents to accused no.1 and present is the only criminal case against the accused.As has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, accused no.1 has now crossed the age of 61 years.It is a matter of record that he has already undergone imprisonment for a period of seven months.Aforesaid are the circumstances which make us to consider the request of the appellant to reduce the sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court and to substitute the same with the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::circumstances of each case and the Court has to keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offense and all other attendant circumstances.In the instant matter, admittedly, accused no.1 had been to the spot of occurrence for demanding the loud-speaker set from deceased Waman to be used for Ganpati festival which was to commence from the next day and not with the intention of causing injury to deceased Waman which had ultimately resulted in causing his death.From the evidence on record it is also discernible that in a fit of anger, a single assault was made by accused no.1 on the head of deceased Waman.It can be gathered that accused no.1 was deeply annoyed since his request for handing over the loud-speaker set was turned down by deceased Waman.Learned trial Judge has, therefore, rightly held him guilty for the offense punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC.The only question now remains to be considered is whether to accept the request made by the accused to modify the sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court and to sentence him with imprisonment already undergone or to confirm the sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 ::: 25 Cri.Appeal 445/2001 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::29) In the case of Narayan Aba Pawar and others Vs.State of Maharashtra (cited supra), the trial Court had convicted the accused therein for an offense punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and had sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each.In an appeal, the Division Bench set aside the conviction for the offense punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and held the accused guilty for the offense punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC.While considering the adequacy of sentence to be imposed upon the appellants / accused, the Division Bench has made the following observations in para nos. 20 and 21 of the said judgment which read thus:It appears that the original accused no.1 Narayan Aba Pawar is aged 70 years now, while original accused no.2- Laxmibai Narayan Pawar is aged 65 years as of today.The date of incident is September 1997 and thus nearly 17 years have elapsed since the date of the incident.Accused Nos.1 and 2 have thus undergone three months imprisonment till date.Accused No.3 Ganesh has been in jail throughout and according to learned Counsel for the appellants, he has undergone an::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 ::: 26 Cri.Appeal 445/2001 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::imprisonment of more than 5 years.Looking to the age of the accused nos.1 and 2 and also in the light of the fact that the incident had occurred more than 17 years back, according to us the imprisonment of three months undergone by the accused nos.1 and 2 would subserve the interest of justice.We are quite conscious of the fact that the imprisonment of 3 months for an offence punishable under Section 304 (II) would be a fleabite sentence.The amount of fine imposed by the Trial Court needs to be enhanced and according to us, it would be appropriate if each of the accused should be asked to payment of fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of which to undergo RI for 1 and ½ years.""30) It appears to us that the course as was adopted by the Division Bench in the cited case can be conveniently adopted in the case in hand also.In the present matter also, the incident in question had occurred in the year 1995, and thus, 23 years have elapsed since the date of incident.He has no criminal antecedents.In the circumstances, we are inclined to accept the request of the accused to modify the sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court and to release him on the sentence of imprisonment already undergone.We reiterate that accused no.1 is not::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 ::: 27 Cri.Appeal 445/2001 & Anr.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::habitual offender.The crime committed by the accused cannot be termed as heinous crime and since he was not involved in any anti social activities, prolonged confinement may not be required in the instant case.We are, however, of the opinion that the balance can be struck by adequately increasing the amount of fine which can be in turn directed to be paid to the widow of deceased Waman.The learned Trial Judge has imposed fine amount of Rs.15,000/- on the present accused.In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to enhance the said amount to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupee one lakh).The accused has already paid the fine amount of Rs.15,000/-.Thus, now he would be required to pay the balance amount of Rs.85,000/- (Rupees eighty five thousand)31) In the foregoing circumstances and for the reasons stated above, following order is passed:Criminal Appeal No.445/2001 filed by the State is dismissed.Criminal Appeal No.340/2001 is partly allowed as under:-::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::Fine amount, if paid by the appellant, the same be paid to the widow of deceased Waman, and if she is not surviving, to the surviving legal heirs of deceased Waman.The trial Court shall, after deposit of the fine amount, issue notice to the widow of deceased Waman or, the legal heir(s) of deceased Waman, as the case may be, and to ensure that the amount of fine is expeditiously remitted to them.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 04:31:13 :::","['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.64 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 342, and 376 IPC, P.S. Lalapur, District Prayagraj is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has enticed away the victim.Submission made by learned counsel that both the parties has jotted down the marriage agreement dated 10.04.2019 signed by both of them.She remained in the company of applicant about fortnight.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the victim has roamed around for 10-12 days with the applicant, which clearly shows that the applicant is a consenting party.He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 27.04.2019 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.In view of the above, let the applicant- Pradeep Kumar Bharatiya be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no.64 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 342, and 376 IPC, P.S. Lalapur, District Prayagraj with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL.IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANTS ARE DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.","['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.62/2019 registered at Police Station Gohad, District Bhind for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323, 326 read with 149 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the main allegation is on Rishi Singh, who caused injury to the injured Surendra with a farsa and as per Citi Scan report, Surendra sustained fracture in left parital bone and left temporal bone.Present applicants have been falsely implicated.Under these circumstances they pray for anticipatory bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the application.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.Consequently this application of applicant under Section 438, Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, the present applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.The applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 18th June, 2019 and on such other dates fixed by him and shall also cooperate in the investigation.The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.He shall further 2 MCRC-22455-2019 abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(VIVEK AGARWAL) V. JUDGE ALOK KUMAR 2019.06.04 11:28:49 AKS +05'30'",['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Criminal appeal No. 2199/03 has been filed by the appellant / accused Sunil Kumar Dubey, challenging his conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A of IPC, by the impugned judgment, by which, learned Trial Court has sentenced him to undergo RI for life for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC; RI for 10 years for offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and RI for 3 years for offence-2- Cri.A.2199/03 & 690/04 punishable under Section 498-A IPC.While, criminal appeal no. 690/2004 has been filed by the State, challenging acquittal of the respondents / accused namely Ram Kishan Dubey, Sushil Kumar Dubey, Smt. Rajkumari Dubey and Smt. Sunita Gautam, from the aforesaid charges.Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellant Sunil Kumar Dubey has filed criminal appeal no. 2199/03, challenging his conviction on the ground that the learned Trial Court is not justified in convicting him, overlooking unreliable evidence of prosecution.There was no evidence available on record relating to demand of any dowry.Criminal appeal no. 690/04 has been filed by the State against impugned judgment challenging finding of acquittal against the remaining accused persons on the ground that there were ample evidence available for demand of dowry on record, therefore, learned trial court is not justified in acquitting them.Main point for consideration in both these appeals is as to whether the learned Trial Court is justified in passing the impugned judgment, by which, appellant Sunil Kumar Dubey has been convicted and other accused have been acquitted.-3- Cri.A.2199/03 & 690/04There is no dispute as to the fact that deceased Shobha @ Premila was married to accused / appellant Sunil Kumar on 26.4.1995 and she died on 5.10.1997, due to burn injuries, which is an unnatural death, and therefore, we have to see that whether death of Shobha @ Premila was homicidal or it was ""dowry death"" and that, whether the deceased was ill- treated for fulfilling the demand of dowry by her husband or in-laws.Learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence regarding death of dowry from Paragraphs 15 to 26 in the impugned judgment and considered each evidence regarding demand of dowry alleged, out of which, demand of colour T.V. had been told by the deceased to her mother, father and sisters when she came to her maternal house third time after her marriage, but appreciating the evidence, the learned Trial Court has rightly held that there is no evidence that she had talked to her in-laws and husband regarding demand of colour T.V. after giving dowry, at the time of her Court statement, between them.In no letter, the deceased has told that she had been harassed for fulfillment of demand of colour T.V., even husband Sunil never made demand of colour T.V. from her father-in-law.Sisters of the deceased have not mentioned the fact of ill-treatment for demand of colour T.V. in their statements Ex.D/3 & D/4 and Ku.Sushma (PW-6), who is sister of the deceased, has admitted that her sister never told her when she was beaten or abused for fulfillment of demand of colour T.V. Therefore, the learned Trial Court is justified in rejecting the allegation regarding demand of colour T. V. in dowry and harassing the deceased for fulfillment of said demand.Other alleged demands are that of demand of money of Rs.20,000/- for construction of house and demand of Rs.10,000/- after Sunil, husband of the deceased, became jobless.Out of which, Rs.10,000/- was paid for construction of house and Rs.5000/- was paid to the husband after he lost his job.Although, there are contradictions regarding demand of even-4- Cri.A.2199/03 & 690/04 amount and learned counsel for the appellant / accused has submitted that the demand of money for extending help in construction of the house and monetary help for livelihood cannot be termed as demand of dowry.In support of his contention, he has cited a judgment of Hon'ble Apex court passed in the matter of Appasaheb and another vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 SCC 721, in which, it has been held that the demand made by the appellant / accused from the parents of the deceased (wife) to meet domestic expenses and for purchasing manure, cannot be said to be a demand of dowry.Since, essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC viz. demand of dowry is not established, the conviction of the appellants under Section 304-B r/w.S. 34 IPC cannot be sustained.It has been further held that demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure, cannot be termed as a demand of dowry.Therefore, even if, demand of Rs.10,000/- or Rs.5000/- was made by the parents of the appellant / accused from the deceased or her parents, for construction of the house or as monetary help to a jobless husband of their daughter, the said payment cannot be termed as a demand of dowry and further, after making such payment, there is no evidence that demand had been existing till the death of the deceased, has not been established.Therefore, in the absence of necessary ingredients of ""demand of dowry"", conviction of the appellant / husband Sunil for the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC, is not sustainable and acquittal of other respondents / accused no. 1 to 4 in criminal appeal no. 690/04, is proper.So far as the death of deceased Shobha @ Premila is concerned, it is an admitted fact that Shobha @ Premila was living with her husband in the quarter which was allotted to her father-in-law and other members of the family were residing in separate house nearly 200 meters away from the quarter, in which, the deceased was living.Therefore, the learned TrialIn para 5 of his statement, he has confirmed that he was unable to mention the reason of death, therefore, he had preserved viscera and sent it for chemical examination.In cross-examination, he has further admitted that he had not examined density of blood of the deceased.He has stated that burn injuries found on the body of the deceased were post mortem but he has admitted in cross-examination that he had not preserved mucus from trachea, larynx and lungs and he had not conducted blood level test of the deceased.He has further admitted that he had not conducted any test for presence of carbon in blood, although he has stated that such test might be conducted by chemical examination but no blood was preserved for chemical examination which would reveal the presence of carbon particle in the blood.In fact, no examination has been made after conducting post mortem regarding injury sustained by the deceased whether they were post mortem or ante mortem, even chemical examination conducted by FSL, only mentions absence of poisonous substance in viscera.Therefore, other circumstances are to be seen.Learned counsel for the appellant / accused has drawn attention towards the statement of Dr. Subhash Pathak (PW-16), who has seen the-6- Cri.A.2199/03 & 690/04 spot as a Senior Scientist of FSL Team and on seeing spot, he has been stated that the quarter was having 3 rooms, out of which, doors of front were closed from inside at the time of incidence as told to him.He has found blackening in all 3 rooms of the quarter.He has also found pieces of burn cloths in kitchen and other two rooms and this is only possible when the victim moved in all 3 rooms while she caught fire.Police has not prepared any Panchnama regarding condition of the house when the police reached on spot whether the doors of the house were closed from inside or they were open.However, it is an admitted position that appellant Sunil Kumar Dubey was not present at the time of incident in the house.Further, statement of Dr. Subhash Pathak (PW-16) reveals that doors of front and backside were closed from inside and this fact might have gone against the Prosecution agency for implicating the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and further considering the fact that the father of the deceased is a Police Constable, Shivcharan (PW-1), a detailed spot map has either not been prepared or if prepared, it has not been produced, as the factum of closure of doors from inside, might have gone against the theory created by the prosecution agency.Learned Trial Judge has also created different story in para 47 of its judgment, in which, it has been held that the deceased might have been killed by putting pillow on her face or by pressing throat as tongue was found protruded which may be the result of strangulation.Although, the Judge can use experience of the life by considering the evidence of judgment but such experience does not include hypothetical inference.Where the Doctor has stated that the burn injuries were post mortem and failed to collect blood or fluid for confirming the same, Modi's Medical-7- Cri.A.2199/03 & 690/04 Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Ed.23,Page-595), mentions that in homicidal smothering, affected by the forcible application of the hand over the mouth and the nostrils, bruises and abrasions are often found on the lips and on the angles of the mouth, and alongside the nostrils.The inner mucosal surface of the lips may be found lacerated from pressure on the teeth.It further mentions that in case of suffocation, the lips are livid, and the tongue sometimes protruded.Bloody froth comes out of the mouth and the nostrils.Therefore, merely on the basis of protruded and in the absence of any mark of hypothecation it cannot be said that death of the deceased was result of hypothecation particularly when she was alone in the house and doors of the house were closed from inside and was removed in all 3 rooms of the house in burning condition.Learned Trial Court is not justified in holding that the death of the deceased was homicidal in the absence of any proper evidence either medical or circumstantial.The witnesses had seen the deceased cleaning the house in the morning and after sometime, fume was seen coming out from the house while she was inside.Therefore, the death of the deceased may be either accidental or suicidal but in the absence of any evidence regarding demand of dowry and further, in the absence of any evidence in quarrel between the deceased and her husband and further considering the fact that immediately before the incident, the deceased was seen cleaning her house in normal way, it cannot be said that death of the deceased was due to any abetment by her husband.The possibility of abetment for suicide is also not available from the evidence on record.Therefore, there is no evidence against the respondents no. 1 to 4 / accused in criminal appeal no. 690/04 regarding demand of dowry or harassment for dowry and also their presence at the time of incident where deceased was living in the house.Therefore, the acquittal of the respondents no. 1 to 4 in criminal appeal no. 690/04 is proper.A.2199/03 & 690/04 force in the appeal filed by the State against acquittal and learned Trial Court is justified in acquitting them.Therefore, criminal appeal no. 690/2004 filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondents no. 1 to 4 is hereby dismissed.According to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, (Ed.23, Page-633) persons removed from houses destroyed by fire are often found dead from suffocation due to the inhalation of smoke, carbon monoxide and other irrespirable gases, which are the products of combustion.In such a case, burns found on the body are usually post- mortem.Therefore, it is also possible that after death of the victim, due to suffocation, burn injuries, which are result of continuous burning, may appear post-mortem in nature and the fact that tongue of the deceased was found protruded it is possible that victim might have died due to suffocation, entire damage caused by complete burning.Therefore, merely on the basis of the statement of Doctor that burn injuries were post- mortem, it cannot be held that her death was homicidal.Further, no chemical examination of viscera has been done for confirmation of presence of carbon particle or trachea, larynx or blood and above all, doors were found closed from inside, in which, deceased was found in burnt condition, therefore, it cannot be held that her death was homicidal.Thus, learned Trial Court is not justified in convicting the appellant Sunil Kumar Dubey for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.Consequently, criminal appeal no. 2199/2003 filed by the appellant Sunil Kumar Dubey is allowed and impugned judgment of conviction and sentenced awarded by the Trial Court is set-aside and he is acquitted of the charges of offence punishable under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A of IPC as no demand of dowry has been established from the evidence produced by the prosecution.The appellant is in jail; therefore, he is directed to be released from jail forthwith.-9- Cri.A.2199/03 & 690/04Criminal Appeal No.690/04 preferred by the State against the acquittal of the respondents, Ram Kishan, Sushil Kumar, Smt. Rajkumari and Smt. Sunita, is hereby dismissed.","['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"ALLOWED md.CRM No. 5246 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 24.07.2018 in connection with Arambagh Police Station Case No.911 of 2017 dated 15.09.2017 under Sections 498A/307/406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. ;And In Re:-Tarun Kabi ... Petitioner Mr. Tanmay Chowdhury, Advocate Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh, Advocate .. for the petitioner Mr. Aditishankar Chakraborty, Advocate Mr. Nirupam Dhali, Advocate .. for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Arambagh Police Station Case No.911 of 2017 dated 15.09.2017 under Sections 498A/307/406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.The petitioner is the husband of the victim and has come up before this Court since the petitioner's prayer has been rejected by the Sessions Court while the other relatives have been granted anticipatory bail.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of State is taken on record.Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.The instant revision is filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act challenging the order dated 24.01.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Agra in Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No. 2 of 2020 by which the appeal filed on behalf of the revisionist was dismissed and order dated 21.12.2019 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Agra in case crime no. 206 of 2019 under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B IPC, P.S. Bah, District Agra, rejecting the bail application of the applicant.It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the incident is of 27.03.2019 and the first information report was lodged on 6.7.2019 i.e. after more than three months, under Section 364 IPC against two named persons namely, Vijay and Smt. Sarvesh.It is further contended that accused was not named in the first information report and his name was surfaced in the statement of co-accused Vijay, in which he implicated the revisionist along with other co-accused namely Sainky, Chhatrapal and Smt. Sarvesh.It is further contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has falsely been implicated in the present case, he has no concern with the murder of the deceased.It is further contended that the age of the applicant is juvenile, aged about 16 years 10 months and 23 days on the date of the incident.The report of the DPRO, which is annexed as supplementary affidavit shows that the revisionist is quite normal child having no criminal antecedent nor his family having any chequered past.I have gone through the order impugned and there is no material on record to fall this case under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2000 which is quoted hereinbelow :-Bail of juvenile.(1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety 1[or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution of fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order.""I have carefully seen the order impugned.As per Section 12(1) of Juvenile Justice Act, bail to the minor could be refused, they are:-(i) If there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal(ii) Or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger.(iii) Or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.On a careful perusal of the order, their is not even a whisper as to the case of applicant fall within either of the categories mentioned above.It appears that the learned Judge has over obsessed by the sections of IPC in which the applicant is entitled.Consequently the revision stands allowed.","['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The appellant Bajirao and his.JUDGMENT Hemeon, J.at Linga, Chhindwara tahsil; and during the trial charges under Sections 468 and 474 'ibid' were added against the appellant.In appeal, I held that the addition of the charges during the trial might have been prejudicial to the appellant and quashed the convictions and sentences.The State Government, Madhya Pradesh, thereafter moved the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, to file a complaint against the appellant under sections 468 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code.The objections raised by the appellant were overruled and the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, directed a complaint to be filed against him.under those sections in a competent Court.The appellant has now come up in appeal against that order.The case against him was, briefly stated, to the effect that the appellant being covetous of Kishan's valuable field, forged with the help of others a sale deed (articles K-1 to K-4), dated.the 25th December 1950, purporting to have been executed by Kishan, had it registered and retained it.Kishan heard a rumour of this and made inquiries from the appellant who assured him that there was no truth in the rumour.The appellant then being apprehensive that the matter would eventually come to light killed Kishan and threw his body into a river.","['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The prosecution case, in short, is that the prosecutrix (PW-1) was a student, who was working in the house of one Rekwar Sahab resident of Housing Board Colony, Damoh in the evening hours.On 31.10.2008 when the prosecutrix was coming back from the house of Rekwar and she reached near the culvert by the Housing Board Irrigation Colony, the appellant and his companions 2 Cr.A. No.2959/2011 detained her.The appellant held here hands and dragged her in a gutter near the culvert.The appellant administered some liquor to the prosecutrix and thereafter he did rape with the prosecutrix.At the time of incident the companions of the appellant were teasing the prosecutrix by moving their hands on her body.Thereafter the prosecutrix was left to the spot and she became unconscious.When she gained consciousness, she went to her house and informed about the incident to her mother Tulsa Bai (PW-3), one Bhagwati (PW-4) and others.She was taken to the Kotwali Police Station, Damoh where she had lodged an FIR Ex.P-1 on the same day at about 12:05 AM in the night.She was sent for her medico legal examination in the night itself.Dr. Shraddha Gangele (PW-8) examined her and gave a report Ex.She found that blood was oozing from the vagina of the prosecutrix and after cleaning one small abrasion was found on the exterior part of the vagina.Dr. Shraddha Gangele took yellow salwar of the prosecutrix and also prepared two slides of vaginal swab and such articles were handed over to the concerned lady constable.After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the CJM Damoh, who committed the case to the Special Court under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as ""Special Act"").2 Cr.A. No.2959/20113 Cr.A. No.2959/2011The appellant abjured his guilt.He did not take any specific plea.He has stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter.However, no defence evidence was adduced.appellant from the charge of Section 3(2)(v) of the Special Act, but convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506 (Part-II) of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above.The co-accused Neeraj Singh was also acquitted by the trial Court, because his identification could not be established by the prosecution.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the testimony of the prosecutrix was not trustworthy and therefore no offence was made out against the appellant.4 Cr.A. No.2959/2011In the present case, the prosecutrix (PW-1), Kanchan (PW-2) sister of the prosecutrix and Tulsa Bai (PW-3) mother of the prosecutrix were examined about the age of the prosecutrix and they had shown that the prosecutrix was 13-14 years old at the time of incident.5 Cr.A. No.2959/2011The prosecutrix has deposed that her age was 13 years at the time of incident and she was not cross examined for the assessment of her age.Similarly, no cross examination was done to the witnesses Kanchan, sister of the prosecutrix and Tulsa Bai, mother of the prosecutrix about the age of the prosecutrix.Under such circumstances, it was established that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age at the time of incident.6 Cr.A. No.2959/20116 Cr.A. No.2959/2011The prosecutrix (PW-1), Kanchan (PW-2) and Tulsa Bai (PW-3) have stated that the prosecutrix went to work in the house of Rekwar Sahab and she was expected to come back upto 6:30 PM in the evening.When she did not come back, Kanchan and Tulsa Bai etc. started searching the prosecutrix and when they came back to the house, they found that the prosecutrix had already reached the house and she told the entire story as to how the appellant committed rape upon her.Bhagwati (PW-4) was also examined to say that the prosecutrix informed her about the incident, however she turned partly hostile and did not corroborate the story of the prosecutrix.The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out the various contradictions in the statements of witnesses Kanchan, Tulsa Bai and the prosecutrix and also their evidence with the FIR.However, such are the minor contradictions and by such minor contradictions, the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be thrown away.For example, time of leaving the house of Rekwar and time when the victim reached her house.If the prosecutrix left the house of Rekwar at about 6:30 PM and she was administered some liquor or intoxicant, then certainly the family members of the prosecutrix could not search her.She was unconscious near the culvert.It is true that Dr. Shraddha Gangele (PW-8) did not find any smell of liquor 7 Cr.A. No.2959/2011 from the mouth of the prosecutrix, but it would be apparent that the liquor was given to the prosecutrix at about 7:00 PM in the evening and she was examined by Dr. Shraddha Gangele at 2:30 AM in the night.Smell of liquor could be in the mouth of the prosecutrix according to the quantity of liquor and the time before which the liquor was administered.Hence, it cannot be said that the testimony of the prosecutrix was incorrect.7 Cr.A. No.2959/2011However, if it is supposed that the prosecutrix was not administered with any liquor, then it was for the appellant to prove that she was a consenting party and looking to her age if she was a consenting party, then still crime under Section 376 of IPC would constitute against the appellant because she had not given any consent for such an intercourse.Similarly, the prosecutrix has accepted that she sustained some injuries due to thorns lying on the earth, but she did not say about other injuries.When Dr. Shraddha Gangele (PW-8) examined the prosecutrix, she could not find any injury caused by thorn unless the prosecutrix would have invited her attention to those injuries.The prosecutrix appears not to be a literate girl and it was not expected from her to invite attention to the doctor to such minor injuries, and simply because Dr. Shraddha Gangele did not find any injury of thorn, the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be thrown away.8 Cr.A. No.2959/20118 Cr.A. No.2959/2011The most important fact is that the appellant was known to the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix has stated that the appellant and his companions were chasing her from time to time.No enmity was shown by the appellant with the prosecutrix so that she would have lodged a false FIR against the appellant.So far as gang rape is concerned, in this connection the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be believed because she named three persons to be companions of the appellant Shankar.Out of them she 9 Cr.A. No.2959/2011 mentioned the name of c-accused Neeraj Singh in the FIR but thereafter she sent a letter to the SP concerned that Neeraj Singh was not companion of the appellant Shankar, and therefore the trial Court acquitted the Neeraj Singh co- accused of the appellant.The police could not search the remaining two companions of the appellant.The allegations made by the prosecutrix against the companions of the appellant appear to be unnatural.If the appellant was with other three companions at the time of incident and the other companions were moving their hands on the body of the prosecutrix when the appellant was committing rape, then looking to the mental and physical position of the prosecutrix, the remaining alleged accused could not be prevented to commit rape upon the prosecutrix.If they were interested to move their hands on the body of the prosecutrix, then it was not possible for them to leave the prosecutrix when the appellant Shankar left the prosecutrix.10 Cr.A. No.2959/201111 Cr.A. No.2959/201113 Cr.A. No.2959/2011 The sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the jail sentence of seven years' RI and for reducing the sentence from the minimum limit there should be a strong reason.The appellant is in jail continuously since he was arrested.13 Cr.A. No.2959/2011On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal filed by the appellant can be partly accepted.(N.K.Gupta) Judge 25/3/2014 Ansari","['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"ORDER Palok Basu, J.In this transfer application under Section 407, Cr.P.C. a short question arises to decide which the necessary factual background needs to be mentioned.There is a shop known as Janta Kendriya Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Ltd. situated in Rudrapur, district Deoria, Ram Nazar Tiwari, applicant was allegedly the salesman in the said Bhandar and one Gaya Prasad Dwivedi was said to be the Secretary.On 16-2-1988 an F.I.R. was lodged by the applicant against Gaya Prasad Dwivedi which gave rise to the case Crime No. 444 of 1990 of Police Station-Rudrapur.After investigation the police has admittedly filed a charge sheet under Section 380, I.P.C. against Gaya Prasad Dwivedi which is now pending in the court of I Judicial Magistrate, Deoria.Another F.I.R. has been lodged by Gaya Prasad Dwivedi through the Co-operative Cell at Gorakhpur under Section 409, I.P.C. against Ram Nazar Tiwari, applicant.The controversy is as to whether the two cases which admittedly relate to the goods belonging to the said Bhandar should be tried together by the same court or not.Sri R.B. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant stressed that since all the witnesses even in the case instituted at Gorakhpur belonged to Deoria, the place of incident also happens to be Rudrapur situated in the district of Deoria and that the allegations pertain to the district Deoria, interest of justice requires that two trials should be held in Deoria.Sri Surendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, however, stated that since the Gorakhpur F.I.R. was properly investigated by the Co-operative Cell has jurisdiction to institute the charge-sheet in Gorakhpur, the said trial should remain in Gorakhpur.The C.J.M. Deoria is directed to try the two cases referred to above himself or direct both of them to be tried by a competent court.",['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
"This case discloses a lamentable state of affairs.A tale of woe has unfolded itself revealing how the principal characters who are high ranking police officials in charge of the District of Coimbatore in the matter of enforcement of law discharge their sacred duty in a cavalier fashion with a deep sense of irresponsibility and an obdurate disinclination to see the obvious ever ready to take shelter under the slogan 'it is a Civil dispute'.Here are the facts which bear out the remarks made above.The gist of the complaint is as follows :-""Grave injustice has been done to the petitioner and her family by Coimbatore Police Officers Thiru Muthuswamy, D.S.P., Thiru Nazimuddin and Thiru Madhavan B-3 Police Station Inspectors.On the basis of a false complaint made by Balasubramanian of Baba Theatre, the petitioner's husband"" was arrested on 19-2-1989 in spite of anticipatory bail having been obtained by him in the High Court and was kept in the Police Station for a day and a half and ill-treated and thereafter confined in the Central Jail, Coimbatore.On 21-2-1989 when the petitioner was in her sister-in-law's place in Chittalancherry, Palghat Taluk, the petitioner and her sister-in-law were arrested by Coimbatore Inspector Thiru Madhavan and other Police people who came along with Baba Complex Bala-subramanian, Coimbatore D.M.K. leader Thiru Prabhakaran and they were taken to a dingy house in the outskirts of Coimbatore in garden, where they were illtreated and their signatures obtained on blank papers.Thereafter, on 24-2-1989 at 3 a.m. they were taken to B-3 Police Station, Coimbatore and the office of the D.S.P., Coimbatore and illtreated 23-2-1989 evening the petitioner's husband was brought to B-3 Police Station and all of them were taken to the office of the D.S.P. and under threat they were ""compelled to sign an agreement for sale in favour of Rangasamy, an employee of Baba Theatre and Murugesa Gounder, a creditor of the petitioner's husband, for a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- as if they had received a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- in cash.The petitioner had filed C.S. No. 175 of 1989 in this Court that the agreement was not valid.As there was danger to the property and life of the petitioner, she could not go to Coimbatore and she was staying in Madras.On 4-3-1989 in the night, a Police party along with an army of goondas went to the petitioner's house and found the relatives and servants of the petitioner and removed them along with all the articles in the house without any exception in a van and 4 or 5 lorries.Thereafter, Balasubramanian and goondas occupied the house.The petitioner has got documentary evidence to prove the same and desired to meet the addressee in person and place the evidence before him.There is danger to the life of the petitioner, her husband and her son and there is a threat that the entire family will be wiped off.As big police officials are threatening the petitioner and her family, they have taken refuge under the addressee.The petitioner does not believe anybody else and prays for protection for herself and her family.The petitioner or her husband is not in a position to go to Coimbatore and file any proceeding in Court as there is no protection for them in Coimbatore.The second respondent is Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu.The third respondent is the D.I.G. of Police, Coimbatore.Respondents 4 to 6 are the parties at whose instance, according to the petitioner, the police committed the atrocities mentioned in her complaint.Respondents 7 to 9 are the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore and Sub-Inspector of Police, B-3 Police Station, Coimbatore, respectively.Another telegram was sent to the second respondent.He in turn forwarded it to the Deputy Superintendent of Police who sent it to the Inspector, B-2, Police Station for enquiry and report.On the back of the telegram, there is an endorsement that a report was submitted after compliance.Obviously, no action was taken thereon, as the earlier telegram addressed to the third respondent had been forwarded to the Superintendent of Police.The second respondent sent a communication to the third respondent on 10-5-1989 with the complaint given by the petitioner to the Chief Ministry of the State, requiring him to enquire immediately and send a report within five days.There was a warning that even if there was a delay by one day, action would be taken against the persons concerned.That was received by the third respondent on 15-5-1989, and forwarded to the Superintendent of Police on 18-5-1989 calling for a report before 21-5-1989 without fail.There were reminders by the third respondent to the Superintendent of Police on 24-5-1989 and 30-5-1989 requiring him to send his report immediately in order that a report may be sent to the CM Cell.The petitioner had given a complaint on 15-3-1989 to the Inspector General of Police, Madras, containing the same allegations as found in the complaint dated 27-3-1989 made to the third respondent.In fact, the petitioner's husband has referred to the same in paragraph 6 of his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.As per the report, the statement of the petitioner could not be recorded as she was not available at Coimbatore and confidential enquiry revealed the following facts :-P. K. Unni was residing at Door No. 55, S.R.P. Nagar, Coimbatore.He was a film producer having his office at No. 17, 3rd Street, Habibullah Road, Madras.He had taken loan from Balasubramaniam, Managing Director, Baba Films, Coimbatore"" and K. Murugesan, Managing Partner, M/s. Murugesan Enterprises, Financiers and Exhibitors, Coimbatore and also from Thiru.Velavendan, Ex.-Minister, Madras and producing films.Subsequently neither he produced the films nor return the loans to the above parties.On 31-1-89 at 18.15 hrs.a case in B-3 Kattoor P.S. Cr. No. 219/89 under section 420, I.P.C. was registered on the complaint preferred by Balasubramaniam, Managing Director, Sri Baba Films, No. 1 Gopalapuram 2nd Street, CBE, by sub-Inspector Thiru.Subramaniam B-3 Crimes.On 20-2-89 at 05.30 hrs.at 55 S. R. P. Nagar, Coimbatore the said Unni was arrested by Tr.Ramamoorthy, Sub-Inspector of Police B-3 Crime and he was remanded to judicial custody on the same day.It is true that the said P. K. Unni obtained an anticipatory bail in the High Court, Madras on 2-1-89 for the case in Cr. No. not known of 1989 on the file of Inspector B-2 Police Station, Coimbatore.""On 20-2-89 at 22.00 hrs.on the complaint of Balasubramaniam M. D. Sri.Baba Films, Coimbatore against P. K. Unni, his son Dileesh and Seethalakshmi and 2 others, a case in B-3 Kattoor P.S. Cr. No. 327/89 under section 342, 347, 364, 365, I.P.C. was registered for abducting the Accountant Remanathan on 19-2-89 in the Car when Balasubramaniam and Ramanathan, the Accountant approached Unni and his family members to settle the issue on the request made by Unni over phone.On 21-2-89, S.I. Tr. A. K. Madhavan of B-3 Kattoor Law and Order Police Station with PC 991 Muthu and W.P.C. 1804 Rejeswari and 1714 Jayadevi visited Citalanjeri, Palghat district and brought Seethalakshmi, her sister-in-law Kalyani to B-3 Kattoor P.S. at 16.00 hrs.""During the enquiry it reveals that it is a civil dispute about the money transaction.Hence D.S.P. advised the parties to settle the issues either among themselves or in the Court of law.They effected a compromise among themselves in the presence of lawyers representing all the parties and a deed was executed.As such no further action need to be taken on the petition.The Range Office original references are retransmitted herewith.""Enquiry reveals that the petitioner is having her own house at Dr. No. 55, S.R.P. Nagar, Coimbatore which is in ""R. S. Puram P.S. limits.It is not the case of respondents 4 to 6 in C.S. No. 175 of 1989 in which they are defendants 1 to 3 that there was any panchayat or compromise as a result of which an agreement for sale was entered into by the petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff in that suit.According to them, possession was with respondents 4 and 5 from 24-2-1989 when a portion of the house was delivered by the petitioner and from 26-2-1989 when the rest of the house was delivered to them.That fact itself should have put them on the trail and they should have continued the investigation.Stranger is the statement found in the last report dated 21-6-1989 that the petitioner was not available at Madras and her whereabouts were not known.She filed an application in the High Court to appoint an advocate Commissioner to take an inventory of the articles in her house at Coimbatore, lock the house and deposit the key in the Court.On 3-3-1989 Thiru Haja Naziruddin was appointed as Commissioner by the Madras High Court to take an inventory of the articles in the house and to find out who was in possession of the same.On 4-3-1989, the Commissioner inspected the house in the morning and took an inventory of all the articles and also noted that the petitioner's son and other relatives were in the house.He filed a report in the High Court to that ""effect.The petitioner prays for return of all ""the articles taken away by Balasubramanian, the police party and the army of goondas from their house on 4-3-1989"".That was followed by a personal meeting of the petitioner's counsel with the third respondent and a copy of the same complaint was also handed over to him.There being no information or indication of the action taken on the complaint, the petitioner's counsel sent a letter on 7-6-1989 to the third respondent that he had no information of the action taken by the latter and requested him to cause the furnishing of the file number of the case etc. There was also a hint in the letter that the writ Court will be moved, if needed.But, the petitioner continued to be kept in dark without any information of the action taken on her complaint.Hence, the petitioner was obliged to move this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issue of a Mandamus to the second respondent to initiate at once appropriate enquiry and investigation into the complaint of the petitioner against respondents 4 to 9 as contained in the written complaint dated 27-3-1989 submitted to the third respondent annexed as Annexure A to the writ petition.The first respondent in the writ petition is the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government.Notice of motion was ordered on 21-6-1989 returnable in two weeks.The other respondents entered appearance shortly thereafter.He felt that the matter should be heard by me as I had dealt with the civil dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents 4 to 6 on the other, on the original side and as a contempt application was pending before me relating to the same matter.At his instance, the papers were placed before the Officiating Chief Justice who directed the writ petition to be posted before me with the contempt matter.However, I had to adjourn the matter to another date to enable the writ petitioner to file a supplemental affidavit explaining an omission in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.In spite of the fact that appearance had been entered in the writ petition as early as on 28-6-1989 by respondents 2 and 3, neither of them gave any serious thought to this proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India relating to an indictment made against some senior Police officials of Coimbatore.It is stated therein that on 15-3-1989 a complaint in writing was submitted to an Inspector General of Police, one Mr. Dorairaj who was later met by the deponent's counsel and who asked the counsel to go to Coimbatore and meet the third respondent personally.The complaint handed over to the Inspector General of Police, Madras, was forwarded to the third respondent, who sent it to the Superintendent of Police on 10-4-1989 calling for a report from the latter.Thus, the Superintendent of Police had with him the telegraphic complaint as well as the written complaint given to the Inspector General of Police, Madras, and the complaint addressed to the Chief Minister of the State.On 21-2-89, Dileesh Kumar, s/o.Unni also came to B-3 Kattoor P.S. by that time.Then the Sub-Inspector questioned them and sent them out subsequently.On 23-2-89 Tr. K. K. Muthusamy, D.S.P., L&O enquired into the matter on the petition given by Balasubramaniam and Murugesan with Unni and others.The commissioner Tr.Khaja Nizirudeen appointed by the High Court, Madras visited the place on 4-3-89 and he would have submitted a report to the High Court.The agreement was prepared and accepted by both the parties will-fully and there is no foul play.Further a civil suit is also pending in the High Court over the issue.The third respondent was not satisfied with the report.He returned it to the Superintendent of Police immediately with the following endorsement dated 1-6-1989 :-""Retd.(i) The S.P. will send for the petitioner, examine her and record her statement as told by her.(ii) He will also examine other connected persons.(iii) He must also go through the records/ documents if any in this episode (relating to dispute between the petitioner and one Baba complex.(iv) Pl.""Inspector of Police, Bs (L&O) P.S. conducted an enquiry on the allegations made in this telegram.Cases have been registered against the petitioner and her husband both in B-3 L&O and crime Police Stations.It is learnt that the petitioner's husband owed some lakhs of rupees to the counter petitioners, Balu and Murugesa Gounder, for which a Panchayat was held.Then the petitioner herself vacated the premises and gave it for the counter-petitioner's possession.Subsequently, on consulting her advocates, she sent up this telegram, alleging that her mother and servants were forcibly evicted from her residence.Now this dispute is pending in the High Court, Madras.Under these circumstances this telegram needs no further action.""Thus, on 10-6-1989, the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore, had with him not only the records previously sent to him but also the letter of petitioner's counsel dated 7-6-1989 and the documents enclosed therewith.It is necessary to point out here that the following documents were enclosed with the petitioner's counsel's letter dated 7-6-1989 :-Copy of report and list filed by advocate Commissioner.Copy of High Court judgment in application for redelivery of house.Detailed list of articles and statement of value.The receipt of these documents cannot be disputed as they are found among the records produced by the third respondent before this Court.It should also be mentioned at this stage that on 29-4-1989 the advocate Commissioner appointed by me to redeliver possession of the house to the petitioner with the aid of the police had approached the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore with a request to depute personnel to help him in taking possession of the house and delivering it to the petitioner.The Superintendent of Police had instructed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to do the needful and directed the advocate-Commissioner to meet the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is the 7th respondent herein.The 7th respondent deputed one Inspector by name Mr. Chinnasamy from the Control Room and seven constables.What happened thereafter is not relevant for the purpose of this case.On 12-6-1989, the third respondent called upon the Superintendent of Police to expedite his report immediately as an urgent report to CM's Cell was being held up.In reply thereto, the Superintendent of Police informed the third respondent by communication dated 15-6-1989 which was received by the third respondent on 19-6-1989 that a Sub-Inspector of Police from District Special Branch, Coimbatore Urban had been directed to Madras to obtain a written statement from the petitioner herein and on receipt of the same, the report will be sent to the third respondent shortly.On 21-6-1989, the following report is sent by the Superintendent of Police to the third respondent and received by him on 22-6-1989 :-""The petitioner Smt. Seethalakshmi is not available at Madras in the address, furnished by her in the petition.Since this is a civil dispute petitioner has to seek remedy through the Court only.In these circumstances it is opined that no further action needs to be taken on this petition.""On the basis of the said report, the third respondent sent a report to the second respondent, the relevant portion of which reads as follows :-""This petition was enquired into by the Inspector District Special Branch, CBE Urban.The petitioner's husband Tr.Unni has been arrested on 20-2-89 and sent for judicial custody on the same day on a complaint preferred by the CP.Balasubramaniam ""dealt in B-3 Kattur PS Cr.No. 219/89 under section 420 I.P.C. On 21-2-89, on another complaint of abduction preferred by the CP dealt in B-3 Kattur PS Cr. No. 327/89, under section 342, 347, 364, 365, I.P.C., the petitioner her son and sister-in-law have been arrested and let off subsequently.On 23-2-89, as per the advise of the DSP-City L&O both the parties effected a compromise among themselves in the presence of lawyers representing all the parties and a deed was executed.Records produced before me do not disclose the names of the persons who were enquired and whether any statement was recorded from any person by the Inspector who is supposed to have held the enquiry.The enquiry is described as confidential in one place and discreet in another place.The enquiry was not held with a view to find out the truths.But, it was done with a view to submit a report on the lines drawn already.While the report dated 4-6-1989 states that the petitioner herself vacated the premises and gave it to the counter petitioners' possession pursuant to a panchayat, the report dated 27-5-1989 contained the version that a compromise was effected in the presence of lawyers representing all the parties and a deed was executed, but strangely Balasubramanian took possession of the house on 4-3-1989 night after the advocate-Commissioner visited the place and took an inventory of the articles found in the house.As pointed out already, the third respondent as well as the Superintendent of Police had with them the letter of the petitioner's counsel dated 7-6-1989, which displayed his phone number.The easiest thing for them was to have contacted the petitioner's counsel by phone and ascertained the whereabouts of the petitioner.It should be noted that this writ petition was filed on 21-6-1989, the date borne by the last report of the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore.The report dated 27-5-1989 admits the factum of anticipatory bail obtained by the petitioner's husband.Secondly, the third respondent asserts categorically that the petitioner's husband was never arrested by the Sub-Inspector of Police, B-3 Police Station, Law and Order, i.e., the 9th respondent.The fact that the petitioner's husband was arrested by the Sub-Inspector of Police B-3 Police Station is admitted by respondents 8 and 9 in their counter-affidavits, though according to them the person who actually arrested him was not the 9th respondent but a Sub-Inspector who was temporarily in charge as respondents 8 and 9 had gone on leave on the relevant date.The third respondent may try to take shelter under a technicality that his statement pertained only to an arrest by the 9th respondent.It is not fair on the part of a high official like the third respondent to make an assertion that the petitioner's husband was never arrested by the Sub-Inspector of Police, B-3 Police Station when the records produced by him and the counter-affidavits filed by respondents 8 and 9 prove to the contrary.Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 contended that the complaint dated 27-3-1989 did not give full particulars of the persons who are said to have committed the offence.According to him, the names of the persons who formed the the police party or the army of goondas said to have accompanied the 6th respondent on the night of 4-3-1989 are not furnished in the complaint.The rule does not give a license to any party to a civil dispute to indulge in crimes.","['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learnedcounsel for the intervenor and learned APP for the State.In these applications, the applicants are seeking pre-arrest bail in crime No.261/2018 (FIR No.264/2018) for offencepunishable under sections 376, 406, 420, 504 and 506 read with34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Wakad police station,Pune.Taking undue advantage of social status of Nikita, it isclaimed that applicant under false promise of marriage andproviding financial support for further education, establishedphysical relations with her.The allegation is also that applicant ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 ::: 3 29) aba1787-18.docAmit has received an amount of Rs.40 lakhs from father ofcomplainant with an promise to pay it to her being her share inancestral property.::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 :::So far as other two applicants, namely Avinash andYogesh are concerned, the allegations against them are restrictedonly to the extent of threatening the complainant Nikita, and toact in aid of the main accused Amit.Mundargi would then urge thatthe allegation of receipt of Rs.40 lakhs are not supported by anydocumentary evidence.He would then urge that the applicant isvery much available for investigation and as such, custodialinterrogation is not warranted.::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 :::4 29)So far as the other applicants, namely Yogesh VishnuGaikwad in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1802 of 2018 andAvinash Shripati Kamble in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1787of 2018 are concerned, according to them, the only allegations areof abetment.9. Learned APP has invited my attention to theinvestigation carried out till date and would submit that theconduct of the applicants as is narrated in the F.I.R., which can beinferred from the evidence collected during the course ofinvestigation, speaks of very character of the applicants.It isfurther pointed out that father-in-law of applicant Amit has soldthe ancestral property and handed him part of the consideration tobe paid to complainant which claim to have been misappropriatedby the applicant Amit.Same needs to be recovered from theapplicant Amit.As such, it is claimed that custodial interrogationof all the three applicants is warranted and pray for rejection oftheir applications.Having considered the submissions, what is noticed is,so far as applicants Yogesh Vishnu Gaikwad and Avinash ShripatiKamble are concerned, there are no justifiable reasons on record, ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 ::: 5 29) aba1787-18.docmuch less in the investigation papers, which warrant theircustodial interrogation particularly in absence of involvement incommission of offence punishable under section 376 of the IndianPenal Code.In view thereof, the applications of these applicants,namely Anticipatory Bail Application No.1802 of 2018 andAnticipatory Bail Application No.1787 of 2018 stand allowed onthe following conditions :-::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 :::i) In the event of arrest in Crime No.261/2018 (FIR No.264/2018) for offence punishable under sections 376, 406, 420, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Wakad police station, Pune, the applicants Yogesh Vishnu Gaikwad in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1802 of 2018 and Avinash Shripati Kamble in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1787 of 2018, be released on bail on their executing P.R. bonds of Rs.25,000/- each with one or two sureties each in the like amount;ii) The applicants shall attend the Investigating officer as and when directed;iii) The applicants shall not influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence;::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 :::The oral statement of the wife of the applicant and thestatement of father-in-law and that of complainant in voluminousterms justify the claim put forth by the complainant Nikita.The Anticipatory Bail Application No.1125 of 2018 ofthe applicant Amit Baban Kale is rejected.Mundargi, at this stage submits that this Court hadgranted ad-interim protection to the applicant on June 20, 2018which is operating till date.According to him, the same becontinued for a period of four weeks from today.This request is objected to by the learned APP andlearned counsel for the complainant.In the facts andcircumstances of the case, the protection is extended for a period ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 ::: 7 29) aba1787-18.docof two weeks from today.::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 :::All the applications are disposed of in above terms.(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2019 22:33:17 :::","['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the appellants, who have been convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Maharajganj in S.T. No.83 of 2010 under Section 498-A I.P.C, 304-B I.P.C, 201 I.P.C and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G. A. for the State.Perused the judgment and order of learned Sessions Judge and lower court's record Ghanshyam Harijan, appellant no.1 is the husband of deceased and no new ground for bail is made out.Accordingly, prayer for bail of Ghanshyam Harijan, appellant no.1 is rejected.Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail.Considering the age and relationship of Bairagi and Smt Dela @ Dhela in my opinion the appellants are entitled to be released on bail.Pending appeal appellants Bairagi and Smt Dela @ Dhela are convicted in S.T. No.83 of 2010 shall be released on bail on their executing a personal bonds and on furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.Till further orders realization of fine, if any, shall also remain stayed.Order Date :- 14.11.2011/Shahnaz",['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
"The prosecution case in short compass is that, the first informant Hema w/o Santosh Kompally, on 15-07-2018 approached to the Police of Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded District Nanded and filed the report that her marriage was solemnized on 15-02-2017 with applicant No. 1-husband at Hyderabad.Applicants No.2 and 3 are in-laws whereas applicant No.4 is the brother-in-law and applicant No.5 is sister-in-law of complainant - wife.The applicants No. 7 and 8 are the distant relatives of::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 00:01:06 ::: 3 936-CriA-3374-18 the husband of complainant.According to complainant, after marriage she joined the company of husband in the joint family comprising in- laws and brother-in-law at Nacharam Hyderabad (Telangana).She received the proper treatment for some days of marriage from husband and in laws.But after some days the complaint was subjected to mental torture on trifle reasons.The applicants started demanding money from her parents.According to the complainant, the inmates of matrimonial home placed demand of Rs.50,000/- and on some occasion Rs. 1,00,000/- from her parents.But, the demand was not satisfied and on that count they used to assault and abused in filthy language.The applicants No. 7 and 8 also used to instigate the inmates of matrimonial home for maltreatment and harassment to fulfill the demand of money from father of complainant.The applicant-husband was demanding amount of Rs. Five lakhs for contract business.But when the complainant failed to satisfy demand the husband tortured the wife by saying that she has an black complexion and he wanted to perform another marriage by accepting huge dowry.The complainant wife was beaten up and abused by the husband.They kept her unfed.The other applicants i.e. in-laws , sister-in-law and brother-in-law used to instigate the applicant husband for such ill-treatment.According to complainant, in the marriage of brother in-law -Satish, the applicants did not allow the parents of complainant to attend the marriage ceremony.Moreover, she was also neglected by them in marriage.They insisted the complainant wife to withdraw the police complaint.In view of behaviour of applicants the complainant has an apprehension of her life.ORAL JUDGMENT :- (Per: K.K.SONAWANE, J.)1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.Heard finally, with the consent of learned counsel for parties.It has been alleged that on 24-06-2018, the applicants asked the complainant to bring Rs. Five Lakhs from her father as he is going to retire from service and he would get handsome amount towards::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 00:01:06 ::: 4 936-CriA-3374-18 pensionary benefits.It has been alleged that applicant left the complainant wife at the house of parents and threatened her to bring money otherwise she would not be allowed for cohabitation.Thereafter the complainant on 26-06-2018 filed complaint to Police.Taking umbrage of the Police complaint, the applicants on 17-07-2018 came to house of parents of complainant, and assaulted and abused the complainant and her parents.Eventually, she approached to the Police and filed the present report for penal action against the applicants.::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 00:01:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 00:01:06 :::Pursuant to FIR, Police of Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded District Nanded registered the crime and set the penal law in motion.Investigating Officer recorded statements of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case.Pending the investigation, the applicants moved the present application to quash and set aside the F.I.R. But, meanwhile, the Investigating Officer after completion of investigation filed the charge-sheet.Learned counsel for applicants vehemently submits that applicants are innocent of the charges pitted against them.They have not committed any crime, but they are falsely implicated in this case.According to learned counsel, the complainant was not interested in cohabiting with applicant-husband.There were no unlawful demand of::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 00:01:06 ::: 5 936-CriA-3374-18 money.There was no any specific allegations against applicants for cruelty as contemplated under Section 498-A of the IPC.The learned counsel submits that applicants No. 4 is brother of applicant and since March, 2017 he is residing at USA for his job.He has no concerned whatsoever with the allegations made in the FIR.The applicant No. 5 is married sister of applicant-husband and since marriage she is residing with her husband i.e. applicant No. 6, who is working as technician in Ordinance Factory at Yeddumailaram Village Medak District Telangana State.Applicants No. 7 and 8 are the distant relatives and mediator for settlement of marriage of the complainant with applicant-husband.Learned counsel submits that applicants No. 4 to 8 are residing separately.Applicants No. 4 to 8 have no any concerned with the marital life of applicant No. 1 and complainant.They have no any reason to cause interference into the domestic affairs of the spouses.All the allegations are general and vague in nature.The present complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law.It would unjust and improper to compel the applicants to face the agony of trial.Hence, learned counsel urged to quash and set aside the penal proceeding initiated against the applicants.::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 00:01:06 :::The learned APP as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2-first informant opposed the contentions put-forth on behalf of applicants and submit that the allegations of ill-treatment nurtured on behalf of complainant in the FIR discloses commission of crime under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 504 and 506 etc. of the IPC.The complainant categorically described the episode of her maltreatment and torture at the hands of applicants.There was unlawful demand of::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 00:01:06 ::: 6 936-CriA-3374-18 money from applicants for contractor business and also physical assault as well as abuses in filthy language to the complainant on the part of applicants.::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 00:01:06 :::We have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides.We have also delved into the relevant documents produced on record as well as factual aspects of the matter.We find that there is no scope for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in favour of applicants No. 1 to 3 as it appears from the FIR that prima facie case is made out against them.There are specific allegations cast against husband and in-laws about cruelty as envisaged under Section 498-A of I.P.C. Therefore, we expressed that this Court is not inclined to nod in favour of applicants No. 1 to 3 for grant of relief in their favour.Eventually, learned counsel for applicants No. 1 to 3 seeks leave to withdraw the proceeding to their extent.Accordingly, leave was granted and application to the extent of applicants No. 1 to 3 came to be disposed off as withdrawn.In regard to allegations made against applicants No. 4 to 8, we find that during crucial period of co-habitation of complainant with husband, the applicant No. 4 was not available at matrimonial home of complainant as he was in USA for his job purpose.Applicant No. 5 sister in-law was residing with husband- applicant No. 6 at her matrimonial home.The applicants No. 7 and 8 are the distant relatives.The entire allegations about cruelty are against husband and in-laws.There was reference that applicants No. 4 to 8 instigated the husband and in-laws for mental and physical harassment to the complainant-::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 00:01:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 00:01:06 :::7 936-CriA-3374-18 wife, but all the aspersion against them are vague, and general in nature.There were no specific instances or details of participation of applicants No. 4 to 8 in the alleged act of cruelty available on record for adverse inference about their involvement into the crime.The allegations against applicants No. 7 and 8 are also stray and omnibus in nature.Therefore, it would unjust and improper to compel the applicants No. 4 to 8 to face agony of trial before criminal court following marital discord between spouses.In the cases, where accusations are made, the overt-acts attributed to persons other than husband, are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.Their Lordships of Apex Court further observed that, ""in their over- enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused.""::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 00:01:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 00:01:06 :::8 936-CriA-3374-18::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 00:01:06 :::Hence, penal proceeding initiated against these applicants No. 4 to 8 deserves to be quashed and set aside.Therefore, we proceed to pass following order :::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 00:01:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 00:01:06 :::Application in respect of applicants No. 1 to 3 stands dismissed as withdrawn.No order as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 00:01:06 :::","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"C. No.8582/13 was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 31/10/13, M.Cr.C. No.279/15 was disposed of with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of six months vide order dated 4/2/15, M.Cr.C. No. 3357/15 was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 29/4/15 & M.Cr.C. No. 8728/15 was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 27/10/15 with liberty to file the fresh application after reexamination of the injured before the trial court.Notice of this application was served on the State counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that said six month's period has already expired and trial has not been concluded till now.He further submits that at the instance of co-accused Vidya Gupta the complainant was recalled and statement of complainant has been recorded wherein he has stated that acid was thrown by his wife and he has also proved Ex.D-2 wherein the said fact is stated.He further submits that the applicant is in custody since 21/7/13 and he has completed more than two and half years in custody and Vidya Gupta has already been enlarged on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application for grant of bail.(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE","['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on I.A.No.5057/2018, third application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant / Mukesh Bhilala.Appellant assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04/09/2015 passed in S.T. No. 112/2014 by Special Judge (POCSO), Dist.Guna, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to RI for three years with fine of Rs. 500/-, under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to RI for five years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and under Section 376 (2) (i) of IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.There are fair chances of success of this appeal and the appeal may take long time for its conclusion and the appellant cannot be kept in custody for an unlimited period.Under these circumstances, the execution of sentence be suspended and he be released on bail.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.List the case for final hearing in due course Certified copy as per rules.(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Durgekar* Digitally signed by SANJAY N. DURGEKAR Date: 2018.08.10 14:37:27 +05'30'","['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(3) Riaz Ahmed no doubt joined that criminal conspiracy at Lahore and subsequently came to India to join Saleemuddin to assist him in his espionage activities.On August 10, 1968 he was introduced by M. A. Bajwa to Malik Salim, another Pakistan Intelligence Officer telling him that Riaz Ahmed was being sent to India under the assumed name of Asif.to contact Saleemuddin at Bareilly.The two Pakistan Intelligence Officers gave him the documents Exs.According to the confession, Riaz Ahmed was arrested by the police in front of the Railway Station, Delhi Main on August 13, 1968 at about 10.13 P.M. The confession showed that Riaz Ahmed was a party to the conspiracy hatched at Lahore by the Pakistan Intelligence for collecting information regarding the air-fields in India.The documents recovered from him at the time of his arrest also confirm his participation in the conspiracy.Ex. PL/3 is a typed brief captioned ""mission"" containing instructions as to the job which Riaz Ahmed was expected to perform.This further confirmed his participation in the conspiracy.Ex. PL/4 is a slip of paper containing two addresses of Lahore to which Riaz Ahmed was required to send his communications from India.He located the same around noon time.He then went back to the police station Killa, Bareilly and contacted the local Police there.Accompanied by the local police and the two witnesses Bhagwati Pershad (Public Witness 5 ) and Basheshwar Nath (Public Witness 7) he went to the house of Saleemuddin at about 4.15 P.M. He remained busy at that house until 8.00 P.M. From 9.00 P.M. to 10.30 P.M. he interrogated Saleemuddin at the police station and it was on some disclosures made by Saleemuddin that Bajaj organized another raid for the arrest of Mohd. Yunis and recovery of incriminating articles.Nirankar Sarup (Public Witness 9) and Har Pershad (Public Witness 10) were summoned by the Killa Police Bareilly.They arrived at the police station at about Ii P.M. Taking these persons with himself Bajaj and the raiding party went to the house of Mohd. Yunis at 33 Phoolwalan Bareilly.He saw that man sitting in that shop on 5 or 6 different occasions.One day that man whom he identified as Saleemuddin, requested him to take him to the Aerodrome as he had not seen an air-craft.He said he was sorry he could not do so because civilians were not allowed to enter the Aerodrome.During his subsequent visits Mohd. Atique introduced him to Mohd. Yunis.He told them of what he knew.They then asked him if he knew the name of any officer working at the air-port and whether there was any officer Gupta by name.The witness pleaded his ignorance.B. Lal (Public Witness 14) deposed that the writer of Ex. Pcc was the same person who had written the specimen writing Ex. Pq (S2).Ex. Pq contains an exact re-production of the contents of Ex. PCC.It was written in Ex. Pcc that on July 29 from 7.45 P.M. to 8.30 P.M. there was a black out in Bareilly.The name of the Wing Commander at Bareilly was also mentioned and it was stated that the writer had made friends with Ravi Kumar who was employed in the repairing station at the Izzat Nagar Air Port.It was further mentioned in this report that the area of the aerodrome was being extended and that a sketch of the air field was under preparation.There was also a reference to an under-ground air-field in the cantonment area and that the writer was trying to locate it.(52) EX.JUDGMENT Hardayal Hardy, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of two criminal appeals and one criminal revision.(2) The appellant Saleemuddin was being tried along with one Riaz Ahmed, a Pakistan national.Two other persons, Mohd. Atique and Mohd. Yunis were also being tried along with them.By a judgment dated October 31, 1969 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Riaz Ahmed, Mohd. Atique and Mohd. Yunis were acquitted of the charge framed against them while Saleemuddin was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years for an offence punishable under Section 120B Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the Indian Official Secrets Act. 1923 and also to rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 3 In a judgment which but for the errors to which we shall presently refer, is extremely well written, the learned trial Judge has held that Riaz Ahmed being a foreign national could not be tried in this country for the offence of conspiracy which according to him was committed outside India.He was, however, arrested before he could contact Saleemuddin at Bareilly.Saleemuddin did commit acts of espionage at Bareilly by making a rough sketch and preparing an intelligence report relating to Izzat Nagar Air-port at Bareilly.He also sent some reports to the Pakistan Intelligence earlier and was therefore guilty of conspiracy and espionage.[After discussing the facts, the judgment proceeded.] (4) The case was tried by Shri K. S. Sidhu, Addl.Sessions Judge Delhi.who on a consideration of.The said confession was no doubt made after the accused had remained in police custody for nearly 13 days, but in the opinion of the learned trial Judge, this circumstance alone did not detract from the voluntary nature of the confession.The, letter was delivered to Riaz Ahmed for being delivered to Saleemuddin at Bareilly.In this letter Malik Salim was apparently telling Saleemuddin that instead of Riaz he was sending Asif because Riaz had to under-go 'some surgery.The word ""Riaz"" obviously has reference to another person bearing that name.But since the name of the accused was also Riaz he was being sent under the assumed name of Asif.Ex. PL/1 is a photograph of Saleemuddin bearing his signatures on its back.The offence was complete as soon as Riaz Ahmed who was a national of Pakistan, agreed to be a party to the conspiracy at Lahore.He was arrested in India before he could do any illegal act in this country in pursuance of the conspiracy and that is why no charge for an offence under Section 3 of the Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923 was framed against him.We were told that the State was satisfied about his death.The appeal against him, therefore, abates.(26) According to the learned Judge, the evidence produced by the prosecution relating to the alleged participation of Mohd. Yunis in the conspiracy, consisted of his confessional statement (Ex.PM/7), recovery of an incriminating document (Ex. FEE) from his possession, the oral testimony of Chander Pal (Public Witness 16) and Ravi Kumar (PW4) and the evidence of the handwriting expert.The said document.Mohd. Yunis was found present in the house.He made a disclosure statement (Ex. PUU) in consequence of which a sketch (Ex. PEE) indicating important places and buildings at the lzzat Nagar Air-field, Bareilly was recovered from his house.(30) Learned trial Judge has held that the house of Mohd. Yunis is not far away from the house of Saleemuddin.Although the exact distance was not mentioned, both the houses are within the jurisdiction of the same police station and Mohalla Phoolwalan is not far away from the house of Saleemuddin in Mohalla Phoota Darwaza.According to the learned Judge, if Mohd. Yunis who was living in a house close by and the proceedings for the search of the house of Saleemuddin continued from 4.30 P.M. to 8.00 P.M. he must have in all probability come to know that the house of Saleemuddin had been raided and would have taken steps, to remove the offending article.The evidence does not furnish any material in support of this particular observation of the learned Judge.Bajaj and other members of the raiding party were in plain clothes.There is no evidence on record to show that when the house of Saleemuddin was being searched from 4.30 to 8.00 P.M. any other persons besides the members of the raiding party and the occupants of the house were present.The search took place inside the house.Even while the police was waiting outside for 15 to 20 minutes before Saleemuddin arrived there, there is nothing to suggest that their presence was being marked by any members of the public.The two houses of Saleemuddin and Mohd. Yunis are no doubt within the jurisdiction of police station Killa but they are not in the same street.We were told that the house of Mohd. Yunis is at a distance of about 220 yards from the house of Saleemuddin and that they are in different streets.It is therefore not possible to agree with the trial Judge that Mohd. Yunis ""must have in all probability come to know that the house of Saleem- ud-din had been raided"" nor does it follow there from that Mohd. Yunis would have destroyed the incriminating document before the police raided his house.Nirankar Sarup does not belong to the locality of Mohalla Phoolwalan.His shop is very close to the police station.He also admitted that Bhagwati Pershad (PW. 5) who had earlier lent his services to the police at the time of its raid on the house of Saleemuddin, is one of his co-sharers in the rickshaw business.The learned Judge has also held that he had been specially called by the police through a constable from a paan shop at about 11.00 P.M. when the police was getting ready to go for the search of the house of the accused.We have looked into the evidence of this witness and since the observations of the learned Judge are not based on the impressions formed by him when the witness was under examination, it is open to us to look into his evidence.(32) Nirankar Sarup admitted in cross-examination that Bhagwati Pershad used to keep his rickshaws, 5 or 6 in number, in his stand and passed on the profits from those rickshaws to him.But assuming there was some kind of partnership between them in the rickshaw business, Bhagwati Pershad was not a witness in the case of raid on the house of Mohd. Yunis.If from the same locality the police summoned two persons who were co-sharers in their business and the services of one of them were utilised as an independent witness of search in one case, it does not follow that the other person whose services were utilised several hours thereafter for search in a different house, would cease to become reliable.It is only after Saleemuddin was taken to the police station and interrogated that the name of Mohd. Yunis was .revealed and thereafter Bajaj proceeded to the house of Mohd. Yunis.It has not been shown that Nirankar Sarup was known to Bajaj.He was called to the police station through a constable who according to the witness, was not even known to him.A suggestion was put to him in cross-examination that some one had lodged , report against him that he had kidnapped some one's daughter and that he had succeeded in getting the case dropped by using his influence with the police.He denied the suggestion and nothing has been placed on record to show that there is any truth in the allegation.If the evidence of Bhagwati Pershad has been believed by the learned trial Judge, there is no reason why the evidence of this witness who is apparently more respectable than Bhagwati Pershad.According to his statement, his house is at a distance of about 100 to 125 yards from Thana Killa whereas the distance from his house to the house of Mohd. Yunis would be between 3 to 4^ furlongs.Can it be said under these circumstances that he was not a witness from the locality ? The search was carried out sometime after 11.00 P.M. It was the month of August.There might have been quite a number of persons living near the house of Mohd. Yunis but if the police took with themselves some one whose house was half a mile away from that house, it cannot be said that the witness did not belong to the locality, particularly when no connection has been shown between Bajaj or any other police officer belonging to Police Station Killa at Bareilly.(33) The next witness of search is Har Pershad (Public Witness 10).' He actually belongs to Mohalla Phoolwalan, and is therefore a witness from the locality.He said that in his presence Mohd. Yunis had told the police that a map was.lying in almirah in his house and that he could produce it.The map Ex. Pee was produced from between two books lying in the almirah.The recovery memo Ex. Public Witness bears the signature of this witness.In cross-examination it was brought out that he had instituted a complaint against Fiaz-ud-din father of Saleemuddin and that showed his enmity against the accused.It however transpired that he had done so after this case, because the accused had harassed him a lot through thier friends and relations by trying to bring influence on him not to give evidence against them.Another ground urged by Mr. Anthony was that the witness had stated that he signed the sketch Ex. Fee and also the recovery memo Ex. Puu, and in fact he had signed only one of those documents.The other witness Nirankar Sarup had mentioned that he had signed only one of the two documents.If the witness made a slight mistake, it cannot be said that his evidence as such is not relevant or admisible.Both the witnesses of sketch have supported the prosecution case about the recovery of Ex. FEE.(36) Mr. Anthony lastly argued that Nirankar Sarup could not give the direction in which the main entrance of the house of Mohd, Yunis was situated.The witness gave a complete description of the inner apartments and merely because he could not say whether the main entrance was to the East or to the West or to the North or to the South, would hardly discredit his testimony.(37) We, therefore, hold that the prosecution evidence fully establishes the recovery of Ex. Fee from the house of Mohd. Yunis.There is also the evidence of the handwriting expert, Shri B. Lal (FW 14).According to that witness, the document Ex. Pee is entirely in the hand of Mohd. Yunis and all the writings in that document are in his hand.But there is one piece of writing (Ex. Q 11/1) which is encircled red and is in the handwriting of Saleem-ud- din.If there was no connection between Saleemuddin and Mohd. Yunis a document showing the building etc., in Izzat Nagar Air-port prepared by Mohd. Yunis could not contain the writing of Saleem-ud- din.The presence of this document, therefore, clearly establishes the association between Saleemuddin and Mohd. Yunis and the possession of Ex. Pee shows the common concert between them.The association between Saleemuddin and Mohd. Yunis is also amply proved by the oral testimony of Chander Pal (Public Witness 16) and Ravi Kumar (Public Witness 4).Ravi Kumar who was a leading Air-craftsman at the lzzat Nagar Air-port at Bareilly was living in a private accommodation.He and his wife used to go to Bara Bazar for shopping.They used to buy cosmetics etc. from a shop known as Citizens Centre.(38) MOHD.Atique was one of the salesman at that shop.In 1968 Mohd. Atique introduced him to another person whom he described as a compounder working with a doctor.He was told that Mohd. Yunis was a student of M.Sc.and was working in a rubber factory in Bareilly.He denied the suggestion that he had made the statement in court under the fear of dismissal on the allegations of mixing up with civilians.The police came to know about this witness from one of the documents found from the possession of Saleemuddin and, therefore, examined him as a witness.(39) The witness is a Maharashtrian.He has no animus against the accused.Nothing has been brought on record to show that he was making the statement in court under pressure from the police.No question was put to him about his acquaintance with Bajaj.The only outcome of his evidence is that the shop of Mohd. Atique was the rendezvous of Saleemuddin and Mohd. Yunis and that Saleemuddin was eager to visit Izzat Nagar Air-port.(40) Chander Pal was a cleaner in a truck which was employed to carry bricks from the kiln of Asa Nand to the Air-port for Bharat Builders who were doing construction work there.During that period two youngmen, Saleemuddin and Mohd. Yunis met him at the kiln and asked him about lzzat Nagar Air-port.(41) In cross-examination he stated that the two accused spent about 3 to 4 hours at the kiln and that he did not ask them why they were asking those questions.This evidence by itself is not of any importance but when read in conjunction with the sketch (Ex. PEE) which shows the various buildings and their location in the air-port and which bears the writings of Mohd. Yunis and Saleemuddin, it is apparent that these two persons must have been going round and meeting persons who had occasion to be inside the air-port.(51) The documents recovered from the possession of the accused and from the search of his house clearly implicate this accused.Apart from Ex. Pqq, Ex. Pcc is the intelligence report which had been prepared by the accused and had been kept ready by him for delivery to Riaz Ahmed who was expected to contact him at Bareilly.Ex. Pqq (S2) is a specimen writing of the accused made in the presence of a magistrate.Pz recovered from the possession of the accused is an incomplete rough sketch of the lzzat Nagar Air-port.B. Lal, the document expert, compared the writing in Ex. Pz with the specimen writing Ex.PQ/3 of Saleemuddin and deposed that the disputed words in Ex. Pz were written by Saleemuddin.The reference in the sketch to Ex. Pcc also goes to show that this sketch was prepared by the accused.The recovery of the typed brief Ex.PY and the handwritten brief in Urdu (Ex. PAA) from the possession of the accused further establishes that he was engaged in espionage activities at Bareilly in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy, in terms of these briefs.The pocket diary Ex. Pbb contains some nothings in his hand which further establish that he was engaged in espionage activities at Bareilly.This document shows that he had seen some movie on June 21, at Bareilly.In Ex. Pbb he made an entry thereof (Ex. Q8/5) giving the tail numbers of some aeroplanes which seem to have been shown in flight in the news reel.There is another entry dated June 20, showing that he had already dispatched one intelligence report (Ex. RPT) to the other conspirators in Pakistan.Ex. Pss is a post-card letter purported to have been written by one Anwar Nasim from Pakistan to Saleemuddin accused at Bareilly.In that letter Anwar Nasim was remonstrating with the accused and had inquired if Riaz Ahmed had met him.The confession (Ex. PK/1 ) made by Riaz Ahmed also lends assurance to the conclusion that Saleemuddin accused was a party to the criminal conspiracy.The documents recovered from Riaz Ahmed also fortify the conclusion that Saleemuddin was a party to the conspiracy for collecting information regarding defense installations in India.Ex. Pl, handed over to Riaz Ahmed by Malik Salim for onward delivery to Saleemuddin at Bareilly is another document incriminating the accused.In that letter the word ""Sari"" has been written.But according to the cipher code adopted by the conspirators the word ""Sari"" stood for ""Intelligence Report."" The documents recovered from Riaz Ahmed viz. PL/I, PL/2, and PL/3 are also incriminatory of Saleemuddin.These documents clearly establish the guilt of Saleemuddin in the charge of criminal conspiracy.(54) There is also evidence implicating the accused in an offence under Section 3 of the Indian Official Secrets Act. One of the counts relates to the rough sketch Ex. Pz and to the intelligence report Ex. PCC.(55) In their examination under Section 342 Criminal Procedure Code all the three accused denied their complicity in the offence alleged against them.Riaz Ahmed stated that he was a Pakistani national and had entered India on August 13, 1948 without any travel documents.He admitted that he had visited India on two occasions on the authority of travel documents.But this time it was on the advice of his maternal uncle who was residing at Amritsar that he came to India without any travel documents.He said that he had done so because he was advised by his maternal uncle that if he wanted to settle in India he should come without a pass-port.He denied having made a confession and added that he was arrested at Amritsar and that he had written on the Railway Time Table (Ex. PX) at Amritsar Railway Station the words Sohan Lal, because he wanted to settle down in India with Sohan Lal as his name.He said that he did not disclose to the police the name of his maternal uncle and that he did not know any of the other accused.(56) Saleemuddin and Mohd. Yunis also denied all connections with the conspiracy.As regards the photograph (Ex. PL/1), Saleem-ud- din admitted that it was his photograph and that he had also signed it at the back.He said he had sent it from Bareilly to his beloved Noor Bihar of Sialkot and that in the accompanying letter he had mentioned about his meeting with Capt. Shukla and that is why the letter was censored and retained.He denied having made the confession.Mohd. Yunis denied his connection with the conspirary.He also denied having made any confession.He admitted that he was identified by Chander Pal and Ravi Kumar at the identification parade, but being the tallest among all the participants in the parade and having been asked to put on the same clothes which he was wearing at the time of his admission to jail and with his glasses removed, he was made to join the parade.He stated that he was suffering from tuberculosis and heart trouble.(57) The statement of the accused is thus one of denial.There is clear evidence to support the case of conspiracy against all the three accused.There is also evidence of an offence under Section 3 of the Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923 against Saleemuddin and Mohd. Yunis.(58) The question that arises for consideration is what sentence should be inflicted on them.The maximum sentence provided for the offence under Section 3 of the Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923 is 14 years.The offences have been committed by the accused after great deliberation and planning both in Pakistan and in India.The information that the accused were collecting in India relates to military secrets of vital nature.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge has himself held that the offences being serious the accused deserved deterrent punishment.Supplying information about defense installations in this country to a country which has already been at war with this country.It imperils not only the security of the country but exposes its military equipment and people to destruction.We therefore convict Riaz Ahmed and Saleemuddin of the offence of conspiracy and give them the sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment each.The sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial Court to Saleemuddin appears to us to be highly in-adequate.Both the sentences against him will.however, run concurrently.(59) The case against Mohd. Yunis stands on a different footing.He is a young college student reading for the M.Sc.The sentence awarded to him is.however, not to be treated as a precedent in such cases.It is the state of his health and want of evidence about his connections with foreign spies which impel us to treat his case with leniency.We are told that he is due to appear for his M.Sc. examination soon.The jail authorities may make arrangements for his taking the examination.(60) The result is that the appeal of Saleemuddin is dismissed while the appeal and Criminal revision filed by the State are allowed.The appeal against Mohd. Atique abates.","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the detention order passed in BCDFGISSSV No.1163/2016 dated 17.11.2016 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Kishore Kumar, aged 24 years, S/o.Rajan, residing at No.3/176, L.V.Nagar, Balakrishnapuram, New Gummidipoondi, Thiruvallur District- 601 201 and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, M-4, Redhills Police Station, as Sponsoring Authority, has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred to the effect that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases :i.T-4, Maduravaiyal Police Station, Crime No.1297 of 2014, registered under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code;ii.E-5, Sholavaram Police Station, Crime No.512 of 2015 registered under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code; andiii.Vellore North Police Station Crime No.376/2016 registered under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code.Further it is averred in the petition that on 20.09.2016, one Muthukumar, S/o.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the representation given by the petitioner has been disposed of without delay and therefore, the contention putforth on the side of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted, wherein, it has been clearly stated that in between column Nos.7 and 9, sixteen clear working days are available and in between column Nos.12 and 13, three clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such delay and the same would affect the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22[5] of the Constitution of India and therefore, the Detention Order in question is liable to be quashed.The Detention Order dated 17.11.2016 passed in No.BCDFGISSSV No.1163 of 2016 by the first respondent against the detenu by name, Kishore Kumar, aged 24 years, S/o.","['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The petitioner is in custody since 22.08.2014 and the new ground raised herein is recording of statement of prosecutrix on 12.02.2015 in which age as claimed by the prosecutrix to be 17 years, but as per case diary the age of the prosecutrix on the basis of school register is shown as 25.07.1996, according to which, the prosecutrix was 18 2 M.Cr.C.No.2405/2015 years and about one month on 15.08.2014 when the alleged crime was committed.","['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-''7(i).That, the respondents may kindly be directed to make appointment of the petitioner on the post of Constable in Department of Madhya Pradesh Police.(ii) That, Any other writ order and direction, which is found just, suitable and proper in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted to the petitioner.(ii-a) That, the order Annexure P/9 may kindly be set aside.'' (2) The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that in the year 2017-18 an advertisement was issued by the respondents for appointment on the post of Police Constables.The said Special Recruitment Drive was for the members of primitive scheduled tribes.The petitioner also participated in the Special Recruitment Drive and by the merit list (Annexure P3), the petitioner was declared selected and accordingly, the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Special Branch, PHQ Bhopal, by letter dated 02/11/2018 (Annexure P5), directed the petitioner for his appearance before the Special Branch, PHQ Bhopal on 16/11/2018 for verification of his character.It is submitted that on 12/03/2017, Crime No.75/2017 was registered by Police Station Raghogarh, District Guna against the petitioner for offence u/S. 363 of IPC.Later on, charge-sheet for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(1) of IPC and Section 3 /4 of Protection of 2 Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [in short '' POCSO Act''] was filed.Thereafter, by letter dated 22/04/2019 (Annexure P9), the petitioner has been informed that the Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 08/03/2019 has held that the petitioner is unfit for his appointment on the post of Constable.Bunty by order dated 14/3/2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.3046/2019 has held 5 as under:-","['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The notice be made returnable within three weeks.This is an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 115/2015 registered at Police Station-Rajpura, District Damoh for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 354, 506-II of the IPC.Since this matter arose out of private complaint filed by complainant Sunita, wherein Judicial Magistrate first Class, Hatta, District Damoh took cognizance against this applicant and warrant of arrest had been issued against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that during enquiry by police, it was found that after the incident, the complainant went to the police but she had not disclosed the fact in regard to outraging her modesty.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. SOLANKI)","['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The first six items in the schedule relate to five letters and one telegram while the seventh item mentions other books, papers and documents relating to the appellants in the possession of the Registrar of this Court under Order, dated May 6, 1966, passed by this Court.JUDGMENT Raju, J.The above writ appeals, involve for consideration identical questions of law and, therefore, were heard together and are considered in common.When the writ petition No. 9354 of 1995 came up before the learned single Judge for orders regarding admission, the learned single Judge by his order dated 31-7-1995 dismissed the same.Before the learned single Judge, as could be seen from his order, only three grounds of challenge have been pursued and they are :""(a) The issue of a summons under Section 40 of the Act could be made or justified when some investigation or proceeding under the Act is pending and when there is no such investigating or proceeding, there is no authority to invoke Section 40 of the Act. Therefore, it is the bounden duty or necessity for the authority issuing the summons to inform the appellant as to the nature of investigation or proceeding, pending before him under the Act and the non-specification of the same in the summons vitiated the same.Aggrieved, the above appeal has been filed.","['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"sh Heard on admission.a hy Heard on I.A.No.7520/2018 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal ad Procedure filed on behalf of appellants Bhantu Ahirwar and M Dinesh.A perusal of the record reveals that appellants stand of convicted under Sections 323 read with section 34 of the IPC rt and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment ou for a period of six months and fine in the sum of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.C Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the h appellants have been released on bail by the trial Court under ig section 389 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure till H 04.06.2018; therefore, it has been prayed that the substantive jail sentence of the appellants be suspended.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.Keeping in view the short duration of sentence imposed upon the appellants, in the opinion of this Court, the appellants deserve to be released on bail.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 06.12.2018 and on all other subsequent dates fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellants shall stand suspended and they shall be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) sh JUDGE e ad vai Pr a hy Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2018.05.16 03:58:41 -07'00' ad M of rt ou C h ig H","['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"(28/11/2017) Per S.K.Awasthi, J.This Judgment shall govern the outcome of Criminal Appeal No. 140/1999, Criminal Appeal No. 159/1999 and Criminal Appeal No. 114/1999 which have been preferred against the Judgment dated 25.02.1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 205/1990 whereby the Trial Court has convicted the appellants of each appeal indicated hereinabove for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') with respect to death of Lekhan Singh.Similarly, the appellants have been convicted under the same provisions of IPC with respect to death of Govind Singh.The appellants have also been convicted under Section 325 read with Section 149 of IPC for inflicting grievous injuries upon Chain Singh and Ram Singh.Lastly, the appellants have been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC with respect to the injuries suffered by Dhondu in addition to conviction under Section 148 of IPC.Therefore, the situation which emerges with respect to the punishment is that the appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- each for causing death of Lekhan Singh and Govind Singh and the appellants have also been directed to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- each for causing grievous hurt to Chain Singh and Ram Singh.Additionally, the appellants have been directed to serve three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- for causing hurt to Dhondu, 3 Criminal appeal No.140/1999 Prakash Singh & Ors.State of MP with default stipulation.The appellants have also been sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment for their conviction under Section 148 of IPC.The facts which emerge for adjudication are that on 07.08.1990, Sher Singh (PW-12), the father of deceased Lekhan Singh and Govind Singh, narrated the incident before the Police that occurred on same day in evening, that the accused persons, who were equipped with weapons such as Lohangi, Lathi, Farsa etc., had constituted an unlawful assembly and cornered the deceased persons by inflicting several injuries on them which were fatal in nature and eventually led to their death.During the occurrence of the said incident, the other victims namely, Chain Singh, Ram Singh and Dhondu, also suffered injuries inflicted by the unlawful assembly of persons which included the present appellants.The respondent proceeded to record an FIR bearing Crime No. 108/1990 (Ex. P-27) and named all the accused persons for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of IPC.Subsequently, the deceased persons and other injured victims were taken to the Hospital where their medical examinations were carried out; however, on the next date i.e. 08.08.1990, Lekhan Singh and Govind Singh succumbed to the injuries sustained by them and the post-mortem was conducted by Dr. A.D. Bhatnagar (PW-4).In the Post Mortem Report (Ex. P-7) in relation to Govind Singh, it was observed that the deceased Govind Singh sustained thirteen injuries which were caused by hard and blunt object, out of which the injuries enlisted at Serial No. 1 and 2 of the Post-Mortem Report were concluded as being fatal in nature and the cause of death was recorded as Cerebral Hemorrhage and the person died while in the state of Coma.Thereafter, another Post-Mortem Report (Ex. P-11) was prepared with respect to the deceased, Lekhan Singh, according to which the deceased Lekhan Singh received as 4 Criminal appeal No.140/1999 Prakash Singh & Ors.State of MP many as fourteen injuries, out of which Injuries No. 5 and 12 were caused by a sharp-edged weapon whereas the remaining injuries were by a hard and blunt object.Lastly, it was concluded that Injury No. 12 which was caused on occipital region resulted into clotting of blood and was fatal in nature.Consequently, Dr. A.D. Bhatnagar (PW-4) observed that the cause of death was Cerebral Hemorrhage and the death occurred while the person was in the state of Coma.The Medical Reports with respect to the remaining victims indicated that they had suffered injuries caused by hard and blunt object.The respondent on the basis of evidence collected during the course of investigation and the medical evidence which had come on record, proceeded to present the chargesheet against the accused persons including the present appellants.Consequently, the charges were framed on 12.01.1995 against all the accused persons for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC as also for commission of offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 148 of IPC.However, later on, additional charges were framed by the Trial Court against all the accused persons with respect to death of Lekhan Singh on 04.10.1997 for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.The prosecution was given an opportunity to lead evidence and as many as sixteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution which included the statement of Chain Singh (PW-13) and Ram Singh (PW-14) who also sustained injuries during the occurrence of the incident whereas one of the accused persons, namely, Anant Singh, took the plea of alibi by submitting that he was admitted in a Hospital in District Vidisha at the time of the incident.In order to substantiate the plea of alibi, the statement of Dr. SGS Khare (DW-1) was recorded.5 Criminal appeal No.140/1999 Prakash Singh & Ors.State of MPUpon cumulative consideration of the material on record and statements of the witnesses produced by the prosecution, the Trial Court proceeded to pronounce impugned Judgment dated 25.02.1999 and convicted the present appellants for commission of offences stated hereinabove.This Judgment is the subject-matter of the instant appeals before this Court.During pendency of the appeals, appellant No.1-Prakash Singh of Criminal Appeal No.140/1999 died, therefore, his appeal stands dismissed.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution witnesses who have been presented as ocular witnesses, namely, Geeta Bai (PW-5), Sharda Bai (PW-6), Chain Singh (PW-13), Ram Singh (PW-14), are the family members of the deceased persons and are interested witnesses.Therefore, their testimonies cannot be relied upon to convict the present appellants.It was further contended that the Doctor, who had performed the Post-Mortem of the deceased persons, namely, Dr. AD Bhatnagar (PW-4), had categorically stated in Para 14 of the statement recorded before the Trial Court that the injuries suffered by Lekhan Singh can be caused if a person falls down on the floor.Therefore, on the basis of statements of the interested witnesses, it cannot be assumed that the appellants had inflicted the injuries which find mention in the Post-Mortem Reports (Ex. P-7 and Ex. P-11).The learned counsel for the appellants laid much emphasis on the fact that according to the Medical Reports as well as the Post Mortem Reports, the injuries caused were simple and therefore, no intention to cause injuries which are sufficient for death in the ordinary course of nature can be gathered in the facts of the present case.We have given our anxious consideration on the contentions raised by the rival parties and the material available on record.First of all, it is to be considered whether the death of deceased Govind and Lekhan was homicidal in nature or not ? In this connection, the evidence given by Dr. A.D.Bhatnagar (PW-4) may be considered, who performed the postmortem on the body of the deceased Govind and found following injuries vide his report Ex.(i) One lacerated wound on occipital region towards left side, size 2""x1/2""x bone deep compound fracture;(ii) One lacerated wound on left temporal region size 1""x1/2""x bone deep compound fracture;(iii) One lacerated wound on right side over parietal region 1/2""x1""x1/4"";stitched, stitches removed before examination.(iv) One abrasion on left clavicle bone near sternum size 2""x1/2"";(vi) One abrasion on left shoulder joint posteriorly size 2""x1"" swelling;(vii) One contusion on left clavicle bone near shoulder joint size 1""x1"" brownish in colour;(viii) One abrasion on left elbow joint size 1""x1/2"";(ix) One contusion on right leg 2"" above ankle joint laterally size 3""x2"" brownish in colour;(x) Four contusions on left leg, thigh behind knee joint (posteriorly) size 2""x2"", 3""x2"", 2""x2"", 2- 1/2""x2"" swelling brownish in colour;(xi) One contusion on left knee joint laterally 2""x2""brownish in colour;(xii) One contusion on left popliteal fossa size 2""x2"", reddish brown in colour swelling positive;(xiii) One contusion on right shoulder in joint posteriorly size 2""x2"" reddish brown in colour.Dr. A.D.Bhatnagar further submitted that he has performed the postmortem of deceased Lekhan Singh and found following injuries vide his report Ex.P/11 :-(i) One contusion on right forearm from hands up to elbow x 3"" reddish brown in colour, swelling positive;(ii) One contusion on left side of abdomen size 3""x2""reddish brown in colour;(iii) One contusion on left forearm from hands upto elbow joint laterally size 10""x3"", reddish brown in colour, deformity positive;(iv) One contusion on left forearm medially 2""x2""reddish brown in colour swelling positive;(v) Multiple contusions on left side of back from scapular region up to left renal area bluish in colour, swelling positive;(vi) One contusion on lumber region size 6""x2"" bluish in colour;(vii) Swelling 4""x3 & deformity positive left elbow joint;(viii) One incised wound on vertebral column at lumber region 2""x1"", blood clot positive;(ix) One contusion on right arm posteriorly size 4""x3""reddish brown colour, swelling positive;(x) One incised wound on right leg 3"" above ankle joint anteriorly size 2""x1"", blood clot positive swelling;(xi) One contusion on right popliteal fossa, reddish brown in colour swelling;8 Criminal appeal No.140/1999 Prakash Singh & Ors.State of MP(xii) One incised wound on occipital region size 2""x1/2""x bone deep, blood clot;(xiii) One contusion on right hand, reddish brown in colour swelling, deformity positive;(xiv) One contusion on left popliteal fossa;According to Dr. Bhatnagar, the deceased Govind Dangi and Lekhan Dangi died due to cerebral hemorrhage and the injuries found to the deceased were sufficient to cause their death.The opinion given by Dr. Bhatnagar (PW-4) cannot be discarded.Such injuries could not be caused in an accident and they could not be self-inflicted and, therefore, death of deceased Govind Dangi and Lekhan Dangi was neither accidental nor suicidal, hence it was homicidal in nature.Witnesses Geetabai (PW-5) and Sharda Bai (PW-6) deposed that accused Jagat Singh having farsa, Jalam Singh armed with sword, Maharaj Singh with Lohangi, Harnam Singh, Ajab Singh, Prakash, Sher Singh, Ghanshyam, Vijay, Sajjan, Santosh, Anant Singh, Babbu and Dhanraj carrying lathis came and caused injuries to Govind Singh and Lekhan Singh.Accused Jalam Singh inflicted blow of sword on the chest and right hand of Lekhan Singh whereas accused Jagat Singh gave a blow of farsa on the head of Govind Singh.Other accused persons caused injuries by lathi.However, in the cross- examination both the witnesses admitted that at the time of incident they were in their house and after receiving the information about the incident from Dhandu and Chain Singh they reached on the spot.Thus, it is clear that these witnesses were not present at the time of crime and they have not seen the incident.Witnesses Sher Singh (PW-12) and Ram Singh (PW-14) deposed that six years ago at about 5 pm, after receiving the information from Chain Singh that accused persons have inflicted injuries to Govind Singh and Lekhan Singh, they reached on the spot where they saw that the accused persons having in their hands sword, farsa, lohangi and lathis were returning from the spot.Govind Singh and Lekhan Singh were 9 Criminal appeal No.140/1999 Prakash Singh & Ors.State of MP found on the spot in injured condition, therefore the trial Court has rightly concluded that Sher Singh and Ram Singh were also not present on the spot when accused persons were assaulting.Witness Chain Singh (PW-13) deposed that Six and half years ago at about 5 - 5.30 pm, there was a crowd of 40-50 people near the culvert on the eve of immersion of Bhujuriyon, where he was present along with Govind Singh, Lekhan Singh and Dhandu.Accused Jagat Singh, Prakash, Maharaj Singh, Dhanraj, Mathura, Jalam were assembled there.Mathura caught the legs of Lekhan Singh, then Prakash, Jagat Singh, Jalam, Maharaj Singh, Dhanraj and Mathura caused injuries to Lekhan Singh by their respective weapons like Lathi, Farsa, Sword, Lohangi.Lekhan Singh was standing near the platform of Dulha Dev where he was beaten and Govind Singh was standing near the platform.Govind Singh was beaten by Harnam Singh, Bablu @ Babulal, Anant Singh, Vijay, Sajjan Singh, Ghanshyam, Ajab Singh, Preetam, Sher Singh, Maharaj Singh by lathis and Man Singh by Lohangi, due to which Govind Singh fell down.When he went to Lekhan Singh, then Dhanraj gave lathi blow on his shoulder and after beating of Lekhan Singh, all the accused had beaten him and Dhandu and Ramsingh were also beaten by the accused persons.The prosecution's non- production of one independent witness who has been named in the FIR by itself cannot be taken to be a circumstance to discredit the evidence of the interested witness and disbelieve the prosecution case.What one may notice, another may not.And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters.Again, it depends on the time- sense of individuals which varies from person to person.(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span.A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the appellant Sajjan Singh is not named in the FIR.The sole eyewitness Chain Singh (PW-13) has deposed that at the time of incident Sajjan Singh caused injury to Govind Singh but he did not assign any role of Sajjan Singh assaulting the deceased Govind Singh in his statement Ex.D-5 under Section 161 of 20 Criminal appeal No.140/1999 Prakash Singh & Ors.State of MP CrPC.Thus, the trial Court has committed error in accepting the evidence of Chain Singh (PW-13) as credible.From the perusal of FIR (Ex.P-27) it reveals that the FIR is lodged by Sher Singh, father of deceased Govind Singh and Lekhan Singh and the trial Court has found that at the time of incident, he was not present on the spot.Chain Singh (PW-13) has received as many as 10 injuries.A lacerated wound was found on his skull and swelling was found on his left forearm and left shoulder.He had contusion on his right jaw, right ankle and left thigh.In these circumstances, it cannot be expected from him to record his statement immediately after the incident.Further, it is to be stated that with regard to the main part of the prosecution version that accused assaulted deceased Gurdev Singh, the prosecution evidence is fully corroborated by medical evidence.The medical evidence also corroborates the say of the witnesses that on both the deceased, apart from injury by firearm, accused assaulted by gandasa.Dr. R.K. Chaudhary, P.W. 1 and Dr. H.L. Gupta, P.W. 2, who carried on post-morterm examination of Gurdev Singh (deceased), found that he was having as many as 13 injuries out of which 6 injuries were incise wounds.There were multiple contusions and lacerated wounds on the body.Similarly, with regard to Tek Singh (deceased), there were in all 9 injuries, 3 were incise wounds and rest were multiple contusions and lacerated wounds.Therefore, it cannot be stated that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not corroborated by medical evidence.It is true that they have failed to locate exact seat of the injuries but that is natural, when the incident takes place all of a sudden within two to three minutes and successive blows are inflicted by the accused, 8 in numbers.They came all of a sudden armed with the deadly weapons and attacked the victims, who rushed to take the shelter in the house.In such a fact situation, some contradictions as to who assaulted whom, with what weapon and whether it was by sharp edge or blunt side of Gandasa are bound to be there and particularly when blows are given in quick succession, it would be against the ground reality to expect the witnesses to depose exactly on which part of the body blow landed.In these circumstances, even if there is some exaggeration with regard to the inflictions of blows, it would hardly be a ground for rejecting their testimony.""Though the trial court referred to the evidence of the eye- witnesses, it chose to disbelieve them merely on account of minor 22 Criminal appeal No.140/1999 Prakash Singh & Ors.State of MP inconsistencies in their evidence, relating to the exact site of occurrence and failure to name all who landed blows and the exact nature of injuries.The High Court, on the other hand, held that minor inconsistencies and discrepancies regarding the exact place or the point at which the incident took place or as to who landed the blows is not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of injured eye- witnesses.Having gone through the evidence of Chain Singh (PW-13), we are in complete agreement with the trial Court that the contradictions and discrepancies cannot be said to be material contradictions affecting the credibility of the evidence of Chain Singh.In his testimony Chain Singh has given graphic details of the occurrence and his evidence is also corroborated by the medical evidence which clearly shows that several blows were given to the deceased Lekhan Singh and Govind Singh by the appellants/accused persons by way of sharp cutting weapon as well as by hard and blunt object.The learned counsel for the appellants has also pointed out that the statements of the prosecution witnesses do not sufficiently indicate the overt act of each individual who have been named as accused, leave alone the role of the appellants.Suffice it to observe that in a case where ingredients of Section 141 of IPC which defines unlawful assembly are satisfied and from the material available on record, it is clear that the appellants had gone to the place of incident equipped with sharp-edged weapons and hard and blunt objects, the pre- meditation and common object of the members of the assembly can easily be ascertained.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant Sajjan Singh has filed an application on 2.12.1993 before the trial Court, alleging that he was minor, hence his 25 Criminal appeal No.140/1999 Prakash Singh & Ors.State of MP case be separated and be sent to the Juvenile Court for hearing but the said application was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 16.3.1994 without conducting any enquiry and without granting any opportunity for producing the evidence regarding juvenility to the appellant, which is mandatory according to the settled law.After getting several opportunities on 23.9.1993 accused Man Singh and Ghanshyam submitted that they do not wish to produce any evidence in this regard and after that, all the applications including the application filed on behalf of accused Sajjan Singh, were decided by common order dated 16.3.1994 and the trial Court found that on the basis of the medical evidence, mark sheets and horoscopes, it appears that Ajab Singh and Ghanshyam were below 16 years of age at the time of incident, therefore, it was directed that the charge sheet regarding them shall be filed before the Juvenile Court but the other accused persons including Sajjan Singh have not filed any document regarding their age and they have also not prayed for time to adduce any evidence to prove their juvenility, hence, the trial Court dismissed their applications.After 26 Criminal appeal No.140/1999 Prakash Singh & Ors.State of MP rejection of their claim, the accused persons have not challenged the rejection order of the trial Court by filing revision petition before this Court.Therefore, the order of the trial Court has attained its finality.Before this Court also, accused Sajjan Singh has not filed any document to show that at the time of incident he was below 18 years.Since accused Prakash Singh (appellant No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.140/1999) has expired, therefore, his appeal stands dismissed, however the conviction and jail sentence of remaining appellants in these three appeals for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 325/149, 323/149 and 148 of IPC is maintained.A copy of the judgment be also sent to the trial Court along with its record for information.","['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 25.7.2019 in connection with Daspur P.S case no. 141 of 2019 dated 1.6.2019 under sections 341/323/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code And Allowed In Re : Smt. Shefali Gantait nee Shephali Gantait nee Mita Gantait & Ors.The application being CRM 6585 of 2019 is disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 2","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State informed that notice to the respondent no.2/victim has already been served.None appeared for the victim.Heard on and I.A.No.14149/2019 application filed by appellant under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.The appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 354-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 3(1)(11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/-with default stipulations.Having heard both the learned counsel for the parties, appellant jail sentence has already be suspended by the trial Court under Section 389(3) of the Cr.P.C. and that period is further extended by this Court.The appellant did not misused the liberty.Appellant was on bail during the trial.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.List this case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge vai Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2019.09.17 11:57:35 +05'30'",['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The appellant used to abuse Shobha for bringing less dowry.She used to deprive her from getting food and also used to misbehave with her.Before the date of incident, Shobha was not given any food by the appellant.On 5.7.1992 at 10 A.M when Shobha was sitting in her room, appellant, with a kerosene oil cane, entered her room, poured the oil on her and set her ablaze.Shobha cried and because of that neighbours reached to the place of incident.The said police station registered it as Crime No.90/92 under section 307 of IPC.Shobha was medically examined and statement of witnesses were recorded.In turn, Shobha was hospitalized for further treatment where she died.Apart from this, Mata Prasad (P.W.4), is neighbour of appellant and an independent witness.The appellant was tried by the court below in Sessions Trial No.312/92 for committing offence under section 498-A and 304-B and in alternatively under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').By the impugned judgment dated 9.11.95, the appellant was exonerated from the offence under section 498-A and 304-B IPC.However, she is held guilty for committing murder of her daughter-in-law Shobha.The appellant is accordingly convicted under section 302 IPC and was directed to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.Upon receiving the information of her death, 'marg' intimation No.90/92 was recorded and offence was converted from section 307 to 302 of IPC.After investigation, challan was filed before JMFC under section 498-A and 302 of IPC.On committal, the Sessions Court received the matter.The appellant abjured the guilt and prayed for full fledged trial.In her defense statement, she stated that she has been falsely implicated.Her daughter-in-law Shobha sustained burn injuries while preparing the food.In her support, Amritlal (D.W.1), Puranlal (D.W.2) and Smt. Janki Bai (D.W.3) entered the witness box.After recording the evidence of parties and hearing the arguments, the impugned judgment is passed which is called in question by Shri Siddharth Datt by contending; (i) The incident had taken place on 5.7.92 at 10 A.M. The FIR (Ex.P/14) was recorded at 10.50 A.M. There exists an over writing on the relevant column which is related to date and time of receiving information.Shri Datt submits that although this F.I.R may be treated as a dying declaration, this document is not trustworthy because at the bottom of this document, in a different hand writing name of deceased Shobha is written.Putting it differently, it is argued that under the thumb impression of deceased Shobha, in a different writing, her name is mentioned which creates serious doubt on this dying declaration; (ii) The dying declaration (Ex.P/10) recorded by the Doctor is also not trustworthy because time mentioned in it is 10.15 A.M.-:- 3 -:-A No.1565 of 1995 is interpolation in one entry of this dying declaration.This witness could not give satisfactory explanation regarding existence of two finger impressions on the dying declaration (Ex.P/10).Similarly, he could not give justifiable explanation about adding of words in the portion of impression which is marked as ""D to D""; (iv) Dr. Nema was unable to show the reason of death whether it is homicidal or suicidal hence it is totally unsafe to hold the appellant guilty; (v) In cross-examination, Rakesh Tiwari (P.W.14) admitted that there exists an over writing in Ex.P/14 in "" l to l"" portion.As per statement of this witness also Shobha, was 100% burnt.If she was 100% burnt, it cannot be believed that she was in a fit state of mind to give the dying declaration.This witness was unable to explain as to how two finger impressions are available on Ex.P/10; (vi) Gulab Bai (P.W.2) mother of deceased did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile hence it is not safe to give stamp of approval to the impugned judgment; (vii) Reliance is also placed on the statement of defense witnesses wherein they have stated that Shobha had committed suicide;Shri Datt, learned counsel for the appellant, on the strength of aforesaid arguments stated that the findings of the court below are perverse in nature.The court below has not appreciated the documentary and ocular evidence in a lawful manner which resulted into conviction of the appellant.Shri Ajay Tamrakr, learned P.L for the respondent/state urged that the spot-map (Ex.P/1) was prepared which contains the name of Mata-:- 4 -:-A No.1565 of 1995 Prasad (P.W.4).Mata Prasad (P.W.4) is the neighbour and an independent witness who entered the witness box on behalf of the prosecution.By taking this court to the statement of Mata Prasad (P.W.4), he urged that the statement of this witness is totally trustworthy.In the dying declaration, the Doctor has specifically mentioned that deceased Shobha was in a fit state of mind.By placing reliance on Ramavati Devi Vs.It need not be recorded be the Magistrate.No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.We have heard the counsel at length and perused the record.The appellant was tried for committing offence under section 498- A and 304-B of IPC also apart from offence under section 302 of IPC.The mother of deceased Smt. Gulab Bai (P.W.2) turned hostile and prosecution could not lead any evidence to bring home the allegations regarding offence under section 498-A and 304-B of IPC.The first dying declaration was recorded by the Doctor at 10.15 A.M. As per evidence on record, the place of incident/ house of deceased and appellant is very near to the hospital and police station.There is no over writing on the first dying declaration (Ex.P/10) so far time of recording of this dying declaration is concerned.This dying declaration is pregnant with two finger impressions.In the right bottom of Ex.P/10 just below the thumb impression, it is clearly mentioned that it is right thumb impression of deceased Shobha.Yet another impression almost at the middle of this declaration finds place.Although there exists no explanation for existence of this thumb impression, we find no reason to doubt the dying declaration because of existence of another thumb impression on the same declaration.This is trite that if dying declaration is otherwise trustworthy, it amounts to substantive evidence-:- 5 -:-A No.1565 of 1995 and it cannot be discarded on flimsy grounds.The Doctor made it clear that the alleged interpolation of words between ""D to D"" were also made at the time of recording of declaration.A careful reading of this dying declaration (Ex.P/10) clearly shows that Shobha clearly deposed that mother-in-law/ appellant had poured kerosene and set her ablaze.There is no over writing or interpolation on this relevant parts of dying declaration.Thus, we find no reason to disbelieve this dying declaration.The aforesaid dying declaration (Ex.P/10) is called in question for yet another reason.It was argued that when burn injuries were to the tune of 100%, it is not safe to accept the dying declaration.The F.I.R (Ex.P/14) is also assailed for the same reason.It is noteworthy that Doctor clearly in the first dying declaration that Shobha is in a fit state of mind to give the declaration.The Division Bench of this Court in Rajiya Bi Vs.The Division Benchs in State of MP Vs.Koushal- 2008(4) MPHT-170 and Kamal Singh Vs.State of M.P.-ILR (2010) M.P.1797 also took the same view.Pertinently, in Vijay Pal Vs.State of M.P-(2015) 4 SCC-749, the Apex Court considered a matter where deceased sustained 100% burn injuries.The oral dying declaration was made to brother of the deceased.The dying declaration was found to be credible.State of Karnataka- (2010) 6 SCC 533 wherein the argument that deceased sustained severe burn injuries and it was elicited that tongue of the deceased was swollen and protruding and lips were burnt, were not accepted despite the fact that she sustained 100% burn injuries.The statement of Doctor was believed that she was in a fit state of mind to give the declaration.The same is the case here where Dr. Nema (P.W.9) could withstand the cross-examination and hisWhen he reached to the place of incident at around 10 A.M, he found that husband of deceased, namely, Govind brought Shobha out of the house.She was crying that mother-in-law set her ablaze.He and Govind took Shobha to the hospital.This witness clearly deposed that in the mid way to the hospital, Shobha was saying that appellant had set her ablaze.Her husband Govind repeatedly asked her not to take name of mother and advised her to take his, brother's or father's name but Shobha candidly-:- 7 -:-A No.1565 of 1995 stated that she will take the name of appellant because she alone had set her ablaze.This statement of the independent witness carries a lot of weight.There is no enmity between the family of appellant and this independent witness who is neighbour of the appellant.The appellant in her statement/ explanation under section 313 of Cr.P.C stated that deceased caught fire while preparing the food.However, the defence witnesses narrated a different story i.e she committed suicide.Thus, the defence of appellant and the story narrated by the defence witness, is not worthy of credence.","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.5.The Director General of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.6.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.7.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.8.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.9.The Executive Engineer, Highway Department, Madurai, Madurai District.10.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar Limit, Madurai City, Madurai.11.The Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station, Othakadai, Madurai District.12.The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Melur, Madurai District.13.The Inspector of Police, Puthur Police Station, Madurai District.14.The Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai District.2. Heard Ms.R.Fathima, appeared in person, Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.R.Sethuraman, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 10 and 12 to 15 andMr.We also note that the petitioner informs thatshe is moving the present writ petition ?as per the guidelines and footstepsof the senior citizen and Social Activist - Traffic Dr.Ramaswamy?.We wouldseriously doubt as to whether a public interest litigant, like the petitionerherein, can move a Writ Petition at the behest of others.The petitioner hasalso informed commission of certain offences under the Indian Penal Code,which really may not be attracted in this case and some of which requiresanction for prosecution.4.This Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable.",['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
"The application is hereby allowed.Applicant No.1 Narayan Dhanraj Ghuge and applicant No.2 Mahadev @ Mahadu s/o Fulchand Ghuge in Bail Application No.1210 of 2020 and applicant No.1 Vyankati s/o Manikrao Ghuge and applicant No.2 Rahul Sudam Ghuge in Bail Application No. 1224 of 2020 in connection with Crime No. 190 of 2020 registered with Yusuf Wadgaon Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 307,::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2020 03:00:01 ::: (4) BA-1210_ 2020.odt 324, 323, 147, 148, 149, 304, 427 of the Indian Penal Code be released on furnishing personal bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety each of the like amount, on the following conditions :::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2020 03:00:01 :::(ii) The applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station once in a week on every Sunday between 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. till fling of the charge-sheet.The applications are accordingly disposed of.(V.K. JADHAV, J.) VD_Dhirde::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2020 03:00:01 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2020 03:00:01 :::","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Sri Anurag Kumar Pandey, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the charge-sheet no. 51 of 2017 dated 12.08.2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 81 of 2015 and proceedings of case no. 144 of 2017 (State Vs.Rishipal and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District-Baghpat pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.Marriage of applicant no.1 was solemnized on 25.11.2013 with the opposite party no.2, but their marriage was not successful, as a result thereof, the opposite party no.2 lodged FIR dated 31.07.2015 making allegation of her harassment and torture in her matrimonial house by the accused persons on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, in which, charge-sheet was submitted on 12.08.2017 and cognizance was taken on 29.06.2018 by the Magistrate concerned.Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 1.8.2019 passed by this Court in an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 6541 of 2019, whereby upon being informed about the factum of inter-se compromise in between the parties concerned, the concerned court below was directed to verify the factum of compromise between the parties concerned.The said order dated 1.8.2019 is being reproduced herein-below:-""Shri Anurag Kumar Pandey, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No. 2 along with counter affidavit, which are taken on record.Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Anurag Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.As such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.Applicants are permitted to file compromise application before the concerned court below within three weeks.Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise.If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that pursuant to aforesaid order dated 1.8.2019, the parties concerned appeared before the concerned court below, who have been identified by their respective counsel and terms of compromise made between the parties concerned were read over before the parties and thereafter, the Magistrate concerned passed an order dated 3.09.2019 verifying the said compromise.Certified copy of the said compromise verification order dated 3.09.2019 has been appended as Annexure No.5 to the application.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Theaccused no. 4 i.e. Energo Masch Power Engineering & Consulting Pvt. Ltd. isanother Company.The accused Nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8 are its Directors.9 is the Manager of M/s Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (inshort 'IREDA') a financing agency and is brother-in-law of A5 and A6, andaccused No. 10 is a private person, namely Mrs. Sudha Ramani who is said tohave been given a fictitious authorization in respect of a Bank account bya resolution of the company.In brief, it was alleged that the accused entered into acriminal conspiracy to cheat the complainant and the Company.These Criminal Appeals are preferred by the complainant againstthe Judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabadby which the High Court has in exercise of powers under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) quashed the proceedings in CCNo.37 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Special Judge for EconomicOffences at Hyderabad insofar as the accused Nos. A4, A5, A6, A9 and A10are concerned.The complainant i.e. the appellant herein lodged a privatecomplaint in his capacity as a Promoter Director of Sri Satyanarayana PowerPrivate Ltd. - a company incorporated to generate biomass based powerproject in the District of Warangal in the State of Andhra Pradesh(hereinafter referred to as the 'Company').The complaint was filed inrespect of the offences allegedly committed under Section 628 of theCompanies Act, 1956 (in short the 'Companies Act') and Sections 120B and420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the 'IPC').This complaint wasfiled in the Court of Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad.The accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are Directors of the Company.Further,accused A1 to A3 made false declaration in regard to record maintainedunder the provisions of the Companies Act, and filed a false declarationpurporting to be an extract of Board Resolution of the Company beforeAndhra Bank, Sowcarpet Branch, Chennai in order to open a bank account.According to the complainant the signatory to the Board Resolution was noteven a Director in the Company on the date the bank account was opened.Aseries of events alleged in the complaint show how the complainant wasinduced to invest in the Company by acquiring land for the Company at acost of Rs. 20 lakhs and make payment for the front end fee to IREDA whichhad in collusion with the other accused sanctioned the financial assistanceto the Company to the extent of Rs. 11.50 crores subject to the conditionthat the promoters should invest Rs. 4.98 crores as their contributiontowards the total project cost of Rs. 16.48 crores.Though Rs. 145 lakhsfrom the first installment of loan and Rs. 92 lakhs from the secondinstallment of loan were paid to the A4 Company only a nominal amount ofRs. 30 lakhs was used for work and the rest was swindled.As a part ofthese transactions the complainant alleged that A1 to A3 had made a falsedeclaration as records in a purported Board Resolution of the Company inorder to open a bank account and falsely authorised A10 and thereby made afalse declaration amounting to an offence under Section 628 of theCompanies Act. Thus, A10 was falsely authorized to operate the bankaccount.It will thus be seen from the above that according to thecomplainant the transactions of all the accused persons in conspiracy witheach other amounted to offences under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC andSection 628 of the Companies Act.However, without giving any special reasons as regards accused Nos. A9 andA10 the High Court quashed the taking of cognizance.It may berecalled that the allegation as regards Section 628[2] of the Companies Actis said to have been committed by the accused A1 to A3 by making a falsedeclaration with regard to the record that is maintained in accordance withSection 193 of the Companies Act by filing an extract of the Boardresolution of the company before the Andhra Bank, Sowcarpet Branch, Chennaiin order to open a bank account 'the said Board resolution being a falsedeclaration,' since a bank account in the said bank was already opened evenbefore A1 had obtained consent of the complainant to open the said accountand further since the said Board resolution is signed by Hari Sesha Reddy -A3 who was not even a Director in the company as on the date of the openingof the bank account.The offence alleged against A10 was that she haddrawn huge amounts through self cheques in the capacity of the authorizedsignatory of the company.It is surprising to see that the High Court hasquashed the complaint against the accused persons on the ground of legaldefects though no allegation containing such defects were made against thesaid accused persons.As can be seen from the complaint the allegations are that theaccused conspired with each other to cheat the complainant and a series oftransactions gave rise to offence under Section 120B read with Section 420of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 628 of the Companies Act. It is,therefore, clear that if the Special Court has jurisdiction to try offencesunder both the aforesaid Acts then the trial can certainly continue inrespect of the offences which do not require the complainant to belong tothe categories specified under Section 621 of the Companies Act. Thus thetrial could certainly continue against those accused under the IPC.The High Court completely overlooked the fact that thecomplaint made allegations against the accused A4, A5, A6, A9 and A10 onlyin respect of Section 120B and 420 of Indian Penal Code and there was noreason in law to quash a complaint against them on the ground that theywere immune from prosecution under Section 628 of the Companies Act byvirtue of Section 621 of that Act.Date : 26/03/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today.Suresh Babu, Adv.Mr. Ravi Kumar Tomar,AOR Mr. V.Senthil Kumar, Adv.Mr. K. Muthu, Adv.Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv.Chawla) (Renu Diwan) Court Master Court MasterITEM NO.1D COURT NO.4 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCriminal Appeal No(s).516-518/2010S. SATYANARAYANA Appellant(s) VERSUSENERGO MASCH POWER ENGG.&CONST.P.L.&ORS.Respondent(s)[HEARD BY HON'BLE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND HON'BLE S.A.BOBDE, JJ.]Date : 26/03/2015 These appeals were called on for judgment today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Vivek Singh for Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh,AORFor Respondent(s)Mr.Ravi Kumar Tomar,AOR Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv.(NP) Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde pronounced the judgment of theBench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and His Lordship.","['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Appellant-Satish, has preferred this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989, feeling aggrieved with the order dated 10.3.2017, rendered by Special Judge Shajapur, in S.T. No.38/2017, whereby the prayer for regular bail has been declined to the appellant.Allegedly, prosecurtrix aged about 15 years was enticed away by one Prakash.Further allegation is that she was taken by Prakash to Borgaon and in Borgaon the present appellant helped Prakash in procuring rental premises for his stay.The further allegation is that the prosecutrix was also subjected to rape by Prakash.It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that only allegation against the appellant happens to be that he helped and facilitated Prakash in procuring rental premises for stay and that the same prima facie cannot amount to an offence under the aforesaid provisions of law.Though the prayer for bail is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering the nature of the allegation so also the quality of evidence to support the same, it would be appropriate to admit the appellant on bail.Consequently, setting aside the impugned order, the appeal is hereby allowed.It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on execution of personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his regular presence during trial.Certified copy as per rules.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge M.Jilla.","['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The prosecution case in brief is that on 31 -8-74 at 10-20 AM a case under Section 392 IPC was registered against Rana Sikh at police station Cantonment.The investigation was entrusted to S.I. Sagir Ahmed who started from police station Cantt at 10.45 AM along with S.I. Jahangir Khan and S. I. Lalman.When they reached outpost Chakeri they took Rameshwar Singh Head-Constable, Ram Gopal Head constable and some other police personnel.After visiting the place where offence under Section 392 IPC had taken place they received information that accused Ranveer alias Rana who was involved in the offence under Section 392 IPC was at the shop of Autar Singh near Khalsa Inter College.On this information the police party started for the shop of the Autar Singh and they took Satya Narain, Ganga Ram and Jugraj as Motbir witnesses.When the police party was 20-25 paces away from the shop of Autar Singh, the accused saw them and immediately whipped out his pistol and fired at the police party saying that if the police party comes near they would be killed.Saying so the accused ran towards Narendra ground by scaling over the wall jumped on the other side.The police party and others continued to chase the accused.On Narendra ground also the accused fired at the police party but nobody was hurt.The chase continued and the accused fired at the police party from time to time.When the accused and the police party were in the lanes of village Safipur, Head-Constable Ram Bahadur Singh thought that the accused has run out of ammunition and he came close to the accused who turned around and fired a shot at Ram Bahadur Singh Head-Constable.Ram Bahadur Singh, however, gave a Danda blow to the accused and sat on the ground pressing his injury by his both hands.At this stage Sri Sagir Ahmad S.I. fired at the accused but he missed his aim.The police continued to chase the accused but he was able to make good his escape.1) Punctured wound 1 cmx 1 cm circular with depth under observation on the right chest lower part at the level of the seventh rib in the line of the nipple 6 cm below the nipple.Margins inverted.Tatooing present around the wound.JUDGMENT O.P. Jain, J.Appellant Ranveer Singh alias Rana was convicted and sentenced under Section 307 and 332 IPC in S.T. No. 204/75 by Vlth Addl.Sessions Judge, Kanpur.A sentence of three years R.I. under Section 307 IPC and one year R.I. under Section 332 IPC has been awarded.The shot fired by the accused hit Head-Constable Ram Bahadur Singh on the chest.Head-Constable Ram Bahadur Singh was sent to the hospital through Sri Lallan Singh A.S.I, and Rameshwar Singh Head-Constable.A report of this incident was written by Sagir Ahmad S. I. and it was sent to police station Cantonment where a case was registered at 1.30 P.M. The firing incident took place at 12 noon.The injuries of Ram Bahadur Singh were medically examined by S. K. Khare P.W. 7 and the following injuries were found.2) Punctured wound 2.25 cm x .25 cm x depth under observation on the back right side in post auxiliary line at the level of the 7th rib.Margine averted.After completing usual investigation the Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet against the accused.The accused was committed to the Court of Sessions.The prosecution examined eight witnesses before learned Sessions Judge.The first witness is Head-Constable Ram Bahadur who is the injured, P.W. 2 Jahangir Khan and P.W. 4 Sagir Ahmed S. I. are the members of the police party and are eye witnesses.P.W. 3 Ganga Ram is the member of the public who accompanied the police party and he is also an eye witness of the incident.Dr. S. K. Khare P.W. 7 has examined the injuries and Dr. H. N. Bahadur P.W. 5 has given the details of the treatments and has stated that on 1 -9-74 he stitched the entry and exit wounds of Ram Bahadur Singh.The last witness is P.W. 8 D. K. Gupta who is the Investigating Officer of the case.The plea taken by the accused is that he has been falsely implicated and that on the date of the incident he was at Allahabad where he surrendered on coming to know that he is wanted in this case.In order to prove his defence the accused has examined D.W. 1 Ajai Pal Singh.The most important witness in the case is naturally injured Ram Bahadur Singh P.W. 1 who has stated that they had gone in search of the accused because he was wanted in an earlier case under Section 392 IPC.An entry of their departure from police station Cantonment was made in the General Diary No. 29 Ex.It is further stated by Ram Bahadur Singh that he came to know that the accused was at the shop of Autar Singh and when they reached near that place the accused whipped out his revolver and fired at the police party but no one was hurt.Thereafter the accused started running and he scaled compound wall of Narendra ground.The police party continued to chase him till they reached village Safipur.In between the two places the accused continued to fire at the police party.Near the house of one Balwant Singh the police party thought that now there is no bullet in the revolver and therefore Ram Bahadur Singh went forward for apprehending the accused but the accused took a turn and fired at Ram Bahadur Singh causing injury on his chest.Ram Bahadur Singh gave a danda blow to the accused and sat down holding the injured part by his both hands.It is not necessary to repeat the statements of all the eye witnesses which are similar and it will be proper to come straight to the criticism levelled by the learned counsel for the appellant.At the time of the incident the police party had three Head-Constables and three constables beside the Sub-Inspector named above.The criticism levelled by the learned counsel for the accused about Ganga Ram is factually correct and it is true that Ganga Ram has admitted in his cross-examination that 20-25 cases were registered against him at police station Cantt and two cases were pending against him at the time he gave evidence in this case.This should, however, be kept in view that when a police party is going to arrest a desperate criminal, an ordinary law abiding person is not likely to accompany the police party and to put himself in danger.Therefore, the police has no option but to take the assistance of such persons who come forward to assist it.At that time the police could not have scrupulously examined the antecedent of the persons who were ready to assist the police party.","['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"i. Complainant Aniket Shankarrao Deshpande was resident of Purwa Apartment situated at Ahinsa Nagar, opposite Akashwani, Aurangabad and was serving in Sterlight Technology Company situated at MIDC Waluj, Aurangabad.Mansi 21 year old sister of Aniket was residing with him.She was studying in IInd year B.C.S. in MGM College, Aurangabad.At the time of incident their father was posted at Shrinagar.Aniket was to return home from work at 07:00 pm.He could not return on time as some problem had cropped up in one machine and he was required to over stay in the company to attend the problem of machine.Aniket came back home on 12th June, 2009 at 05:00 am.He ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 ::: 7 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt called Mansi on her mobile at around 05:00 am.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::receive any response from Mansi so again he phoned her.He thought that Mansi might be fast asleep and her mobile battery might have discharged.So instead of disturbing Mansi he went to the house of his friend Vivek Agrawal who was residing in Bhagyanagar at Aurangabad.Till 09:00 am to 09:30 am Aniket slept at the house of his friend.By that time Vivek had already left to his workplace.Aniket then locked the door of the house of his friend and came to his house at around 10:00 am.Aniket noticed that house was closed from inside.He knocked the door and also called his sister on phone but he did not receive any response.After few minutes as the door was not opened Aniket suspected something wrong and went down stair to the house of owner ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 ::: 8 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt Bankar Patil.Aniket was staying on the first floor.He informed the owner of the house that he wanted to climb from the grill of their Varandha in order to go to his house.Then he climbed the grill and went to the gallery of his flat.He noticed that door of the room attached to balcony was opened.He entered the drawing room and then to bedroom of Mansi.Aniket was shocked to see Mansi lying on the bed in injured condition.Her hands were tied with wire of headphone of mobile and legs were died with big scarf of Mansi.Aniket found bed-sheet covered around her face.He removed the bed-sheet and saw no clothes on her person.He noticed injury to her neck and profused bleeding.A screw driver and a scissor were lying there.Many articles in the house were found scattered.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt Aniket.She called other neighbourers.Aniket called his friend Vivek Agrawal and Vishal for help.He asked Mr. Khadke who was providing tiffin to him and residing in the next apartment, to come with doctor immediately.Mr. Khadke then came with doctor.In the meanwhile Police were informed.Police also rushed to the house.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::Doctor examined her and declared that she died before 3-4 hours.Aniket lodged report with the police station.Crime No.65 of 2009 was registered at Jinsi Police Station under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.Police took dead body in custody.It was sent for postmortem to Ghati Hospital.Before referring the dead body for postmortem, inquest Panchanama was drawn by P.S.I. Akmal in the presence of Panch witnesses.P.S.I. Akmal seized black mobile, one scarf, one T-shirt, one blood stained bracier under separate Panchanama.Inquest ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 ::: 10 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt Panchanama and seized articles were handed over by P.S.I. Akmal to PW-32 Investigating Officer Sopan Borse.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::PW-32 P.I. Sopan Kisan Borse was entrusted with the investigation of crime.He visited the spot.At the time of recording scene of occurrence Panchanama, blood stained bed-sheet, scissor, screw driver, green Salvar and a nicker were seized.Photographs were taken.Statements of witnesses were recorded.On 13th June, 2009, blood sample of Mansi, pubic hair, vaginal swab preserved by Medical Officer at the time of performing postmortem, viscera and seized clothes of Mansi were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory Mumbai for analysis and DNA test to find out whether girl was ravished.During investigation supplementary statement of Aniket was recorded.In his supplementary statement Aniket informed Police that Mansi was ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 ::: 11 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt having a mobile phone and he did not find her mobile phone in the room.A.P.I. Gautam Patare attached to Chavni Police Station was conversant with cyber crimes.Three teams were formed for further investigation.It was revealed that Mansi had purchased mobile from Zee Corner Mobile Shop.Statements of PW-6 Sheetal Satish Sonawane friend of Mansi who accompanied her to purchase a mobile and mobile shop owner PW-18 Abdul Rauf came to be recorded.A receipt regarding purchase of mobile by Mansi was collected.A.P.I. Patare obtained information from Airtel company on the basis of IMEI number mentioned on the receipt regarding purchase of mobile.From IMEI number of mobile of Mansi, it could be revealed that said IMEI number was visible on the mobile having simcard number ""9503667292"".From tower location A.P.I. Patare could also know the spot from where mobile was being used.It was from hotel Pancham.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt x. A.P.I. Patare then visited hotel Pancham.Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya was present.Mobile was seized from Accused No.2 under seizure Panchanama.Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya was interrogated regarding possession of mobile with him.Accused No.2 informed police that his son Mayur had given a simcard to him and a customer Jawedkhan @ Tingrya gave him the mobile towards a bill of his hotel.Information in respect of mobile purchased by Mansi as per the receipt exactly tallied with the mobile seized from Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya.Before arrest, Investigating Officer confirmed from Jawedkhan whether he had given the mobile to Pradip Chandaliya.Jawedkhan admitted that he gave mobile to ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 ::: 13 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt Pradip Chandaliya.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::After arrest Accused Jawedkhan was interrogated.During interrogation it could be revealed that gold ring of Aniket which was found missing from the house was given by Jawedkhan to Accused No.3 Ram Bodkhe against some dues which Accused Jawedkhan owed to Ram Bodkhe.Accused No.1 Jawedkhan was referred to Ghati Hospital for medical examination.Medical Officer was requested to take his blood, pubic hair, semen sample and nail clippings.Investigating Agency could recover the clothes of Jawedkhan at his instance which clothes he was wearing at the time of commission of offence.Those clothes were concealed in garbage just in front of the spot of incident.Accused No.3 Ram Bodkhe gave statement to recover gold ring received by him from Accused Jawedkhan.At the instance of Accused No.3, gold ring of Aniket was recovered from a room of electric motor near Tulsi Chambers.Its seizure Panchanama was recorded.It appears that after the incident Accused Jawedkhan changed his clothes and wore clothes of Aniket.He had shown his readiness to produce those clothes hidden in the garbage near Tapadia Natyagraha.Memorandum of Accused Jawedkhan was accordingly recorded and clothes of Aniket were recovered at the instance of Accused Jawedkhan.In the present case to prove homicidal death Prosecution has placed strong reliance on medical and circumstantial evidence.So far as factum of homicidal death is concerned, evidence of PW-25 Dr. Anand Bassaiya Mugadalimath and PW-30 Dr. Sachin Gade is important.On 12th June, 2009 Dr.Mugadalimath was attached to Forensic Science Department Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad.Dead body of Mansi Deshpande was brought to the hospital by Jinsi Police.5) Stab wound over neck anteriorly over mid line irregularly slit shaped, horizontally placed of size 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity deep on approximation 3.9 cm, margin irregular, contused blood infiltrated both angles blunted.9) Two contusions over upper medial of quadrant of left breast, upper contusion have 2 arches of size 4.5 cm each with concavity downwards & distance between two arches is 2 mm.Lower contusion have single arch with concavity upwards and 5 cm long.Both contusions are reddish in colour.10) Contusions over both ala of nose, irregular in shape and reddish.11) contusions over both lips whole length, irregular in shape and reddish.12) Laceration of frenulum of upper lip, margins irregular contused & blood infiltrated.13) Two stab wounds over right side of chest laterally of size 2 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep and 4 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep, on approximation 2.4 cm and 4.4 cm in length, irregularly oval in shape, margins - irregular contused and blood infiltrated with tailing posteriorly and anterior angles rounded and both placed horizontally.Direction of stab wound - Anteriorly downwards.19) Two stab wounds over left gluteal region laterally of size 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity deep and 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x cavity deep, separated by 0.3 cm, irregularly oval, on approximation 0.8 cm x 0.3 cm in length, margins irregular, contused and blood infiltrated, both angles blunted.On dissection tract of stab wound - skin - subcutaneous tissue.Direction of stab wound - Anteriorly downwards.20) Two stab wounds over left gluteal region ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 ::: 22 Cri.No evidence of fractures of Hyoid bone.No evidence of fractures to cricoid and thyroid lactilages except stab injury as mentioned in injury no. (5).On internal examination and dissection of neck, doctors found evidence of haemorrhage in all strap muscles.Petechial haemorrhage above and below Epiglottis and larynx was noticed.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt Hymenal remnants seen at places.There was loss of rugosity of vaginal wall.There was also found contusion on the vaginal wall anteriorly lower 1/3rd reddish in colour.On internal examination they noticed as follows -""Uterus of size - 6 cm x 4 cm x 2.5 cm of weight 50 grams.On opening blood clots seen.Cervix closed transversly slit like.Ovaries and fallopian tubes normal.""The entire evidence of Dr. Mugadalimath and Dr.Mugadalimath, could not bring on record anything adverse affecting the reliability of medical evidence.In addition to medical evidence, prosecution has relied upon uncontroverted inquest panchanama (Exhibit 31), photographs (Exhibits 35/1 to 35/5) of the spot taken by PW-3 Baburao Sitaram Batade and spot panchanama (Exhibit 29).So far as inquest panchanama is concerned, PW-32 P.I. Borse deposed that P.S.I. Akmal had drawn inquest Panchanama (Exhibit 31) and seized various articles from the spot vide seizure Panchanama (Exhibit 30).In respect of photographs, evidence of PW-3 Baburao Sitaram Batade would be relevant.Baburao Batade (PW-3) was running Paras Photo Studio at Kailashnagar, Aurangabad.She answered her examination and being holidays was staying alone when Aniket was attending his office.It is stated by Aniket that on 11th June, 2009 at around 09:00 am he left for the office.Mansi was alone in the house.He was to return home at about 07:00 pm.Due to some problem in a machine, he was required to over stay and came home at around 05:00 am on the next day.Before coming home Aniket called Mansi on her mobile phone.The mobile was switched off.After reaching home he knocked the door for 5 to 10 minutes.Thinking that Mansi might be fast asleep he went to the house of his friend Vivek in Bhagyanagar at Aurangabad and slept there.He woke up at 09:00 to 09:30 am.By that time Vivek had already left for the work.He locked the door of the house of Vivek and came to ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 ::: 28 Cri.The flat of Aniket was on the first floor.He came down stair to the house of owner Bankar Patil and told him that he has to enter his house by climbing the grill of their Varandha.Then he climbed the grill and went to the gallery of his flat.He saw door of room of balcony opened.Then he entered the drawing hall and bedroom of Mansi.He found that hands of Mansi were tied with wire of headphone of mobile.Her legs were tied with a big scarf.Her face was covered with a bed-sheet.He removed bed-sheet and saw that body of Mansi was stiff and she was not talking.No clothes were found on her body.He also saw injury to her neck and profused bleeding.Many articles in the house were lying scattered.A screw driver and scissor were lying there.He got frightened and immediately rushed to neighbourer Mrs. Soni.Aniket then states that Mrs.Soni accompanied him.After seeing Mansi she started calling Mrs. Bankar.Aniket phoned his friends Vivek and Vishal for help.He requested Mr. ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 ::: 29 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt Khadke residing in front of the house and who was providing tiffin to them to call the doctor immediately.Mr. Khadke came with doctor within 10 minutes.Police also reached the spot.Doctor examined Mansi and declared her dead.Vivek Agrawal was serving in Sterlight Company, MIDC Waluj, Aurangabad as Deputy Manager.Complainant Aniket was serving in the same company.It appears from the evidence of PW-1 Vivek that on 11 th June, 2009 he had been to company in the morning.Aniket also joined duty at about 09:30 am.It is further stated by PW-1 Vivek that on the next day at around 05:30 am Aniket rang the door bell of his house.He opened the door.Thereafter, Aniket went to sleep in a room.PW-1 Vivek also went to sleep in his room.According to Vivek at around 08:45 am he left the home for office.That time Aniket was sleeping.At 09:30 am he received phone call from Aniket informing that his sister Mansi was raped.PW-1 Vivek then rushed to the house of Aniket.He saw people gathered near his house.He also saw that both the hands of Mansi were tied with wire of headphone and legs were tied with clothes.Many household articles were lying scattered in the room.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt She stated that on 12th June, 2009 at around 09:00 am she heard that Mansi was murdered.She had gone to the house of Mansi and learnt that mobile phone, gold ring, cash and pant of brother of Mansi were stolen.Mansi was student.From the evidence of PW-2 Vaishali it can be seen that Aniket and Mansi only two persons were residing in the house and incident of theft and murder had taken place.This witness was not cross-examined by the Accused.Next important witness is PW-4 Shanta Rameshwar Soni to whom Aniket had rushed for help after seeing Mansi lying injured in pool of blood.According to PW-4 Shanta Soni on 12 th June, 2009 at around 05:30 am she opened the door of her house.She saw Aniket knocking the door of his house.She asked Aniket not to knock the door as his sister would get up.Aniket told PW-4 Mrs. Soni that he returned home after attending night duty in the office.PW-4 Mrs. Soni told Aniket that he should wait for some time as Mansi might be sleeping.She asked Aniket to sit in her house and went for plucking flowers.PW-4 Mrs. Soni stated that when she returned after collecting flowers she saw that Aniket was not in her house.It is then stated by PW-4 Mrs. Soni that at about 11:25 am again Aniket came and knocked the door of her house.She opened the door.Aniket asked her to come to his house and see whether his sister Mansi is alive or not.PW-4 Mrs. Soni accompanied Aniket.She went to his house.She saw that hands and legs of Mansi were tied.Blood was oozing from her mouth.She checked her veins and pulse and then called Bankar Patil from the gallery of house.(I) (a) Recovery of mobile of Mansi from AccusedAs stated by Investigating Officer, P.I. Borse (PW-32) on 19th June, 2009 supplementary statement of Aniket was recorded.From the supplementary statement it was revealed that Mansi had purchased a mobile of Sony Erikson company.The ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 ::: 38 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt statements of shop owner and salesman of mobile shop came to be recorded and receipt of purchase of mobile Exhibit 39 was collected.On recovery of mobile of Mansi, prosecution examined PW-7 complainant Aniket, PW-6 Sheetal Sonawane, PW-11 Amirkhan - a Panch, PW-16 Mohammed Mubin - a witness on test identification parade in respect of mobile handset of Mansi, PW-18 Abdul Rauf - owner of mobile shop, PW-19 Ravindra Bahule - a police constable in the team of detection of stolen mobile, PW-20 A.P.I. Gautam Patare and PW-24 Shaikh Nadeem - a salesman at the mobile shop.34. PW-6 Sheetal Satish Sonawane was college mate of Mansi.They were studying in MGM college in I st year B.C.S. and were together in one class since XIIth standard.Mansi was her best friend.She stated that Mansi was calm and quiet.Mansi told her that her marriage was arranged with Dinesh residing in America.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odtAccording to Sheetal in 2009 Mansi called her on phone and told her that she wanted to purchase a mobile phone.This happened before 15 days of incident.Sheetal stated that both then went to Nirala Bazaar, 'Z' Corner at Aurangabad.Sheetal identified receipt Exhibit 39 and mobile phone seized in the crime from Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya as the same mobile which was purchased by Mansi.Witness Sheetal has not been cross-examined by Accused persons.Prosecution had examined PW-11 Amirkhan a Panch on seizure of mobile from Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya, but this witness did not support the prosecution and his evidence needs to be kept out of consideration.Another witness Assistant Police Inspector Gautam Keshav Patare (PW-20) was attached to Jinsi Police Station at the relevant time.He conducted investigation in the case.On 21st June, 2009, A.P.I. Patare received information that stolen mobile ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 ::: 40 Cri.The next witness Shaikh Nadeem Sk.Saleem (PW-24) was a salesman working at Zee Corner mobile shop.He stated that on 28th June, 2009 at 06:30 pm owner of the shop Abdul Rauf called him on phone and asked him to attend Jinsi Police Station.He went to Jinsi Police Station.Police had shown him a photograph of a girl who came to purchase mobile from their shop.He identified the photograph as of the same girl who purchased mobile from their shop.He also identified the receipt regarding purchase of mobile which bears his signature.According to this witness receipt Exhibit 39 and mobile article 25 were the same.He states that mobile was purchased by Mansi Deshpande a girl in the photograph.Mr. Datta Narhari Bharaskar (PW-22) was Naib Tahsildar attached to Tahsil Office, Aurangabad.On 28th June, 2009, letter Exhibit 90 was received by him from P.I. Borse of Jinsi Police Station for conducting identification parade of Muddemal.The evidence of this witness shows that he conducted identification parade in respect of gold ring, clothes and mobile.The evidence of Naib Tahsildar is corroborated by PW-16 Mohammed Mubin Mohammad Abbas.The other important witnesses on recovery of mobile are PW-31 Ganesh Pawar and PW-33 Sachin Bhadange.PW-31 Ganesh Ramrao Pawar was serving in Bharti Air-Tel company as Nodal Officer.The company was providing mobile services to customer.It is stated by Ganesh Pawar that on 2nd July, 2009, Aurangabad Police demanded certain information on E-mail.He stated that IMEI number is of 15 digits.Last digit '0' is common in all IMEI number, whereas first fourteen digits are unique.Information regarding IMEI number was also given to Police by them.It was a computerized information.Mobile call details Exhibit 131, certificate thereon Exhibit 132 and certificate regarding information of mobile Exhibit 130 have been proved by this witness.(PW-33) Sachin Shantaram Bhadange was a Nodal Officer in Vodafone company.He stated that mobile No.9764079190 was of their company.Last call from said mobile was made on 12th June, 2009 at 01:54 hours.He stated that after ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 ::: 45 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt 12th June, 2009, no telephone call was made from said mobile.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::It can be further seen from the evidence of A.P.I.Patare that before arrest he interrogated Pradip Chandaliya regarding possession of mobile and Pradip Chandaliya disclosed to him that mobile was given to him by his customer Jawedkhan i.e. Accused No.1 towards payment against the bill of hotel.Through the evidence of above witnesses, prosecution could establish beyond reasonable doubt that -(i) Mobile recovered from Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya belonged to deceased Mansi.(ii) The said mobile identified at article 25 was given by Accused No.1 Jawedkhan to Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya towards the payment against hotel bill.The testimony of Damodhar thus inspires confidence.The next witness on recovery of gold ring is PW-29 Ashok Kesharlal Chopra, Manager working in the shop of R.C.Bafna.This witness was examined to show that PW-8 Damodhar had purchased gold ring from the shop of R.C.Bafna.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt from the shop.He identified gold ring article 26 as the same ring sold from their shop.The evidence of PW-29 Ashok could not be shattered in the cross-examination.He showed his readiness to produce gold ring.Memorandum of Accused Ram Bodkhe was recorded vide Exhibit 64 in the presence of Panch witnesses.Then at the instance of Accused Ram Bodkhe gold ring was recovered from the room of electric motor in Tulsi Chambers.The gold ring was kept below a brick in the room.Borse has duly proved recovery Panchanama of gold ring and identified the gold ring article 26 as the same ring recovered on the basis of information given by Accused Ram Bodkhe.It is pertinent to note that test identification parade was conducted by PW-22 Naib Tahsildar in respect of gold ring and Aniket identified gold ring Exhibit 26 as the same ring which was gifted by his friend Damodhar.He too supports the identification of gold ring by Aniket at the time of test identification before Executive Magistrate.(IV) Recovery of blood stained clothes of Accused No.1 at his instance.It is the case of prosecution that on 23 rd June, 2009 Accused No.1 Jawedkhan made a memorandum to discover his clothes concealed in garbage in front of the building in which incident took place.PW-15 Asif Mohammad Akbar was the Panch witness on recovery of clothes of Accused No.1 Jawedkhan.It is stated by Asif that in his presence Accused Jawedkhan had shown his readiness to discover the clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident.Memorandum Exhibit 61 was drawn in his presence.At the instance of Accused No.1 Jawedkhan his blood stained clothes were recovered from the heap of waste material.Discovery Panchanama was recorded vide Exhibit 62 in the presence of PW-15 Asif by PW-32 P.I. Borse.It further appears from the evidence of Investigating Officer that seized clothes of Accused No.1 Jawedkhan were sent for chemical analysis.The blood sample of Mansi was also sent for chemical analysis to find out the blood group of the deceased.C.A. report Exhibit 119 shows that blood group of deceased was AB.Another C.A. report Exhibit 117 indicates that T-shirt of Accused Jawedkhan was having blood stains of blood group AB.Accused Jawedkhan was also sent for medical examination after his arrest.PW-21 Dr.She was Casualty Medical Officer at Ghati Hospital at the relevant time.The evidence of Medical Officer shows that blood sample of Accused was collected and it was sent for DNA and chemical examination.It can be seen from C.A. report Exhibit 115 that on examination blood group of Accused Jawedkhan was found as A.The blood stains found on the shirt of Accused Jawedkhan were of blood group AB which was the blood group of the deceased.Since no plausible explanation is coming forth from the side of Accused No.1 we have no hesitation to rely upon this circumstance too.It was revealed during investigation that Accused Jawedkhan had changed his clothes after the incident and put on the clothes of complainant Aniket.The clothes of Aniket were recovered at the instance of Accused Jawedkhan.On 24th June, 2009 during interrogation Accused Jawedkhan had shown his readiness to produce the clothes of Aniket hidden below garbage near Tapadiya Natya Graha.As per memorandum accused led the police and Panch witnesses to the place where clothes of Aniket were kept concealed in garbage near Tapadiya Natya Graha.In pursuance to the information given by Accused Jawedkhan clothes of Aniket were recovered ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 ::: 56 Cri.The clothes of Aniket were also sent for chemical analysis.No blood stains were found on the clothes of complainant.The blood stains which were found were only on the shirt of Accused Jawedkhan.During test identification parade Aniket identified the clothes recovered at the instance of Accused Jawedkhan as the clothes belonging to him (Aniket).This is another clinching circumstance to indicate that Accused Jawedkhan after the incident had changed his clothes and wore the clothes of Aniket which were available in the house.(VI) Medical evidence showing that girl was forcibly raped and then done to death.The evidence of Medical Officer Dr.Mugadalimath (PW-25) and Dr. Sachin Gadge (PW-30) has been elaborately discussed herein above.By the said judgment and order Accused No.1 Jawedkhan, Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya and Accused No.3 Ram Bodkhe were convicted and sentenced for various offences as under :Accused No.1 Jawedkhan :of Rs.300/- in default Simple Imprisonment for ten days.457 Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.300/- in default Simple Imprisonment for ten days.458 Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.300/- in default Simple Imprisonment for ten days.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::default Simple Imprisonment for ten days.376 Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.300/- in default Simple Imprisonment for ten days.201 Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.300/- in default Simple Imprisonment for ig ten days.Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya :::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::Learned Additional Sessions Judge found that Accused were not guilty of some of the offences alleged against them and accordingly acquitted the Accused as under :Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2012 is by the State of Maharashtra for enhancement of sentence awarded by the Trial Court.Criminal Appeal No.468 of 2012 is also by the State of Maharashtra against the order of acquittal.The instant case reveals a sordid story in which the alleged brutal sexual assault on a young helpless girl followed by merciless murder by dastardly act of the Accused is said to have been committed.Most disgusting feature is that an innocent college going girl of 21 year fell a prey to the unbridled lust of the Accused.The story sends shocking waves to everyone having slighted sense of human value and dignity.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::v. Aniket was frightened and immediately rushed to his neighbour Mrs.Soni.Soni accompanied ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 ::: 9 Cri.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::The shirt of Accused Jawedkhan was stained with ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 ::: 14 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt blood.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::Investigating Agency then forwarded clothes of Accused Jawedkhan and clothes of Aniket recovered at the instance of Accused No.1 to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt xvii.On 25th June, 2009, original simcard of Vodafone company which was in the mobile of Mansi was recovered from the shutter of godown of Tulsi Chamber at the instance of Accused Jawedkhan.Identification parade in respect of gold ring and clothes of Aniket was held before the Executive Magistrate.Aniket identified that gold wring and clothes were belonging to him.An opinion was also sought from Medical Officer Ghati whether Accused Jawedkhan was capable to perform sexual intercourse or not.Several witnesses were examined in the course of investigation.After completing investigation charge-sheet was submitted to the concerned Magistrate who committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions.Their defence was of total denial.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odtProsecution examined in all 33 witnesses during trial.After going through the evidence adduced in the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the Accused and also acquitted in respect of some of the offences as stated in paras 1 and 2 above.We have heard the learned counsel for parties in extenso.With the assistance of the learned counsel for parties, we have carefully gone through the evidence of prosecution witnesses.After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned advocates for parties, reasonings recorded by Trial Court and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below we are of the opinion that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court against the Accused in respect of various offences as stated in paragraph No.1 above, except sentence awarded for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is just and proper and needs to be upheld.So far as order of sentence in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, we find that in the facts and circumstances of the case ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 ::: 17 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt life imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court would be an inadequate sentence and capital punishment is the only punishment which is adequate punishment.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::Dr. Mugadalimath stated that history of alleged assault was given by police in the inquest Panchanama.Dead body was identified by Aniket Deshpande brother of Mansi.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt On external examination the team performing postmortem including Dr. Mugadalimath noticed the following injuries -1) Crescentic abrasion over lower part of cheek with concavity anteriorly right side of size 3 cm, reddish in colour.2) Two linear scratch abrasion over lower part of cheek right side of size 7 cm and separated by 0.2 cm anteriorly and 0.5 cm posteriorly and reddish in colour.3) Three crescentic abrasions over mandibular area right side of size 4 cm, 4.5 cm and 5 cm each, 5 cm, 5.5 cm and 6 cm.below and lateral to chin with concavity downwards reddish in colour.4) Two crescentic abrasions over right side of neck of size 2 cm and 3 cm with concavity backward and 5.5 cm and 6 cm below and forward to right mastoid, reddish in colour.Stab wound in 10 cm from chin and 8 cm from supra sternal notch.On dissection tract of stab wound - skin - subcutaneous tissue - platysma - deep cervical fascia - thyroid cartilage - vocal cord - left carotid sheath - Left common carotid artery - left ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 ::: 19 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt internal jugular vein.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::Direction of stab wound - backwards -downwards - laterally.6) Stab wound over neck anteriorly over midline, irregularly oval in shape, horizontally placed of size 3 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity deep on approximation 3.4 cm in length, margin irregular, contused and blood infiltrated and both angles blunted.Stab wound is 13 cm from chin and 5 cm from supra sternal notch.On dissection tract of stab wound - skin - subcutaneous tissue - deep cervical fascia - tracheal rings - oesophagus.Direction of stab wound - backwards and downwards.7) Stab wound over right side of neck 15 cm below and laterally to chin, 8 cm from right mastoid with lower margin, anteriorly of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity deep.On approximation 1.4 cm in length and irregularly oval in shape, margin irregular, contused and blood infiltrated, both angles blunted.On dissection tract of stab wound - skin- subcutaneous tissue - platysma - deep cervical fascia - right side strap muscles.Direction of stab wound - downwards - backwards and medially.8) Two stab wounds over neck right side of size 0.6 cm x 0.6 cm and 0.3 x 0.3 cm, both cavity deep and 4 cm x 6 cm below right mastoid.On ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 ::: 20 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt approximation 0.8 cm and 0.5 cm in length and both irregularly oval in shape, margins irregular contused and blood infiltrated with both angles blunted.On dissection tract of wound - skin - subcutaneous tissue - platysma - deep cervical fascia - sternocleido mastoid muscles.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::Direction of stab wound - backwards, downwards and medially.On dissection tract of stab - skin -::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt subcutaneous tissue.Direction of stab wound - Anteriorly and downwards.14) Contusion over right thenar aspect of palm of size 4 cm x 4 cm, irregular and reddish.15) Contusion over left thenar aspect of palm of size 4 cm x 3 cm, irregular and reddish.16) Contusion over right foot medial aspect of size 6 cm x 5 cm, irregular and reddish.17) Contusion over left foot medial aspect of size 6 cm x 4 cm, irregular and reddish.18) Stab wound over left side of chest laterally of size 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity deep on approximation 0.7 cm in length, irregularly oval in shape, margins - irregular, contused and blood infiltrated both angles blunted.On dissection tract of stab wound - skin - subcutaneous tissue.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt posteriorly of size 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity deep and 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x cavity deep separated by 0.3 cm.On approximation 0.8 cm x 0.3 cm in length, irregularly oval in shape, margins irregular, contused and blood infiltrated, both angles blunted.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::On dissection tract of stab wound - skin - subcutaneous tissue.Direction of stab wound - Anteriorly downwards.21) Evidence of multiple contusions over left side of neck of sizes varying from 6 cm x 0.2 cm to 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, irregular and reddish.On neck dissection - evidence of hemorrhages in all strap muscles.Evidence of petechial hemorrhages above and below epiglottis and larynx.All the above injuries were found ante-mortem.Further on external examination of genital organs doctors noticed Labia minora contused along the whole length, reddish in colour.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::The evidence of Dr. Mugadalimath shows that viscera was preserved, blood, pubic hair, nails, vaginal swab and smear, swab from left breast, matted vaginal hair, aspirated vaginal fluid of the deceased were collected for chemical analysis.Those samples were forwarded to FSL, Aurangabad for analysis.For DNA test samples were sent to FSL, Mumbai.Medical Officers opined cause of death due to multiple penetrating wound over neck with transection of carotid vessels associated with signs of strangulation and smothering with injury over external genitals.It was also noticed by doctors that injuries over external genitals mentioned in column No.21 of the postmortem report were ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 ::: 24 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt pointing forcible sexual intercourse with the victim.Dr. Mugadalimath further stated that injuries 1 to 21 in column No.17 could be possible by pointed blunt edge weapon like screw driver, scissor etc. It is stated by Dr. Mugadalimath that he along with Dr.Sane and Dr.Gadge performed postmortem.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::It is then stated by Dr. Mugadalimath that they received DNA test report and CA reports from concerned laboratories i.e. Mumbai and Aurangabad.After receiving DNA report and CA reports doctors had opined final cause of death of Mansi as multiple penetrating wounds over neck with transection of carotid vessels associated with signs of strangulation and smothering with and forceful sexual intercourse.Dr. Mugadalimath had stated that injury on neck of victim could be possible by hands, nails and blunt tipped weapon.The ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 ::: 25 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt smothering could be possible by shutting the mouth and nostrils by palm.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::Accused have not disputed genuineness of inquest Panchanama (Exhibit 31).From inquest panchanama it can be seen that multiple injuries were found on the dead body of Mansi.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odtOn 12th June, 2009 he was called by Police to take photographs of the scene of offence.Accordingly, he took 14 photographs and handed over the photographs and its bill to Police.PW-3 Baburao has not been cross-examined by the Accused.Further it can be seen from the evidence of Investigating Officer (PW-32) P.I. Borse that he visited the scene of offence and recorded spot Panchanama in the presence of Panch witnesses.Several articles mentioned in Panchanama (Exhibit 29) were seized from the spot.Accused have not disputed genuineness of spot Panchanama (Exhibit 29).It shows that articles in the house were lying scattered.Accused did not cross-examine the Investigating Officer in respect to the factual position of scene of offence clearly indicative of the fact that victim was done to death by the assailants.Before we advert to each of the circumstances enumerated above it would be essential to evaluate the evidence ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 ::: 27 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt regarding occurrence of incident.PW-7 Aniket Shankarrao Deshpande is a crucial witness.He is complainant and brother of victim Mansi.Father was in Government service and posted at the relevant time at Shrinagar.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt his house at around 10:00 am.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::He knocked the door and also called Mansi on phone.But he did not receive any response.He waited for 5 minutes and then suspected something wrong.Then Aniket lodged FIR.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::Police seized articles lying on the spot.Aniket noticed that his clothes and gold ring were missing.He identified those articles before the Court.Accused Nos.2 and 3 did not cross-examine him.Nothing substantial could be elicited in the cross-examination of Aniket to disbelieve his testimony.The evidence of Aniket is thus consistent, trustworthy and believable.Another witness examined by prosecution is PW-1 Vivek Chandrakant Agrawal.PW-1 Vivek came home at 07:30 pm.At around 08:00 - 09:00 pm Vivek called Aniket on phone.Aniket ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 ::: 30 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt informed him that he was in company.Then Vivek asked him when would he return home.Aniket told him that there was major fault in the machine and he would be late in returning home.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::He could see bleeding injuries on her neck and blood on the bed-sheets.Police had already reached the house.Accused have not cross-examined PW-1 Vivek and we do not find any reason to disbelieve his testimony.PW-2 Vaishali Vivek Khadke used to provide tiffin to Aniket and Mansi.She was residing in front of Purwa Apartment.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::She thought that Mansi might have ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 ::: 32 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt opened the door and Aniket might be inside the house.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:02 :::Mrs. Bankar immediately came.She asked to call the Police.Thereafter, Police were informed.This witness is also not cross-examined by the Accused.26. PW-5 Manoj Sajan Mali, a medical practitioner was running Shree Clinic at Kailashnagar, Aurangabad at the relevant time.On 12th June, 2009 at about 10:30 am he was in his clinic and received a phone call from his patient Mr. Khadke residing in front of Purwa Apartment informing him about the incident and asking him to attend the girl.As PW-5 Dr. Mali was not aware of residential address, he told Mr. Khadke to come and take him to the place.Accordingly, Mr. Khadke came on bike and Dr. Mali attended Mansi.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt It is stated by PW-5 Dr. Mali that articles in the house were scattered.He saw hands of Mansi tied with wire and legs tied with clothes.He also noticed profused bleeding around her neck.He could gather from the circumstances that it was a case of murder and so he expressed his inability to examine Mansi and told Aniket to call Police before touching the body of Mansi.Aniket asked him that he had already informed the Police and requested PW-5 Dr. Mali to see whether there is any chance of survival of Mansi.On the request of Aniket, he examined Mansi and found that her respiratory system and pulses were not functioning.Body was stiff.PW-5 Dr. Mali told Aniket that Mansi was no more.Accused did not cross-examine this witness.The next witness Shobhana Deelip Patil (PW-9) was the owner from whom Aniket sought permission to climb the staircase to go to his house.She stated that on 12 th June, 2009 at around 11:15 am Aniket came to her house and asked her son Abhikshekh that he was not having the key of his flat and wanted to go to his flat through their iron ladder.Abhikshekh allowed him ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 ::: 34 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt and accordingly Aniket climbed the ladder and went to his house.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::Thus from the evidence of PW-25 Dr. Mugadalimath and PW-30 Dr. Sachin Gade, postmortem report (Exhibit 32), final cause of death certificate (Exhibit 112), spot Panchanama (Exhibit29), seizure Panchanama (Exhibit 30), the manner of incident and circumstances brought on record as discussed above an irresistible conclusion must follow that death of victim girl was homicidal in nature.Prosecution case exclusively rests on the circumstantial evidence.The principal fact or ""factum probandum"" may be proved indirectly by means of certain ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 ::: 35 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt inferences drawn from ""factum probans"" i.e. evidentiary facts.To put it differently, circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence on various other facts in issue that taken together forms a chain of circumstances from which the existence of a principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 ::: 36 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt nature and tendency.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused and the accused alone.Keeping in view the settled law we shall examine the circumstantial evidence on which reliance is placed by the prosecution.In the case on hand prosecution has relied upon the following incriminating circumstances which according to the prosecution prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::(VIII) Failure of the Accused to offer plausible explanation to the incriminating circumstances against him.The said receipt contains details of mobile purchased by Mansi.P.I. Borse formed separate squad for further investigation.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::Both Sheetal and Mansi were often visiting each others house.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::Mansi purchased a mobile phone of Soni Erickson company having simcard of Vodafone company for Rs.7,000/-.After purchasing mobile Mansi was given a receipt.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt was in possession of owner of hotel Pancham.So along with Panch witness and other staff he went to hotel Pancham on Jalna Road and gave information at the counter of hotel about purpose of his visit.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya was available on the counter.A.P.I. Patare asked Pradip Chandaliya whether he was possessing mobile.Pradip Chandaliya told him that he was having mobile handset of Soni Ericson company which was given to him by his customer Jawedkhan on 14th June, 2009 towards a bill of hotel.Pradip Chandaliya also stated that simcard in the mobile was given to him by his son Mayur.Pradip Chandaliya handed over the mobile to A.P.l.A.P.I. Patare identified the mobile and the simcard before the Court.The evidence of A.P.I. Patare is consistent throughout and nothing otherwise could be elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony.In order to ascertain whether mobile seized from Accused No. 2 belonged to Mansi, reliance is also placed on the evidence of PW-18 Abdul Rauf and PW-24 Shaikh Nadeem.PW-18 Abdul Rauf Mohammad Yakub was running Zee Corner ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 ::: 41 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt mobile shop at Nirala Bazar, Aurangabad.Accused did not cross-examine this witness.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::In the cross-examination by Accused No.1, nothing substantial could be brought on record to doubt his testimony.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odtAnother witness (PW-19) Ravindra Murlidhar Bahule was a police constable in the team formed for detection of stolen mobile.He identified mobile article 25 and supported Panchanama of recovery of mobile.Since Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya has not seriously disputed that mobile was recovered from him by Police the evidence of P.C. Bahule is not of much importance.According to prosecution, mobile which was seized from Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya was identified by complainant PW-7 Aniket as of Mansi.Test identification parade in respect of mobile was conducted by PW-22 Datta Bharaskar.Aniket identified gold ring and clothes belonging to him and mobile as of Mansi.TIP Panchanamas were duly proved by Mr. Bharaskar.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt He was cross-examined at length by Accused.Except some minor contradictions and omissions, the evidence of Mr.Bharaskar remained consistent throughout on TIP.E-mail was received from the office of Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad.Accordingly details were given to Police pertaining to said mobile.This witness had given detailed information in respect of the calls made, from which number calls were received, time of ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 ::: 44 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt conversation traceable from IMEI number and simcard number.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::(iii) IMEI number mentioned on the receipt of purchase of mobile (Exhibit 39) exactly tallied with IMEI number visible on the mobile seized from Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt(iv) Receipt Exhibit 39 shows that the said mobile was purchased by Mansi.(v) Accused No.1 Jawedkhan did not explain possession of mobile with him.On the recovery of simcard in the mobile phone of Mansi prosecution examined PW-12 Mukram Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, PW-23 Vinod Kharat, PW-26 Mayur Chandaliya, A.P.I.Patare (PW-20) and P.I. Sopan Borse (PW-32).PW-12 Mukram Khan did not support the prosecution and his evidence needs to be kept out of consideration.PW-23 Vinod was working in Hotel Pancham owned by Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya.He was examined to show that simcard given by PW-26 Mayur to his father Pradip was ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 ::: 47 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt inserted in the mobile by him.According to PW-26 Mayur he purchased three simcards from a mobile shop.One was given by him to his friend Mayur Jain.He handed over two simcards to PW-23 Vinod Kharat who was working in their hotel.He denies that he had given simcard to his father.To that extent contradiction is proved through the evidence of Investigating Officer.Mayur however admits that simcard which was given to his father was purchased by him.The evidence of this witness suggests that simcard which was found in the mobile recovered from Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya given by Accused No.1 Jawedkhan was purchased by Mayur and it further suggests that mobile handset given by Jawedkhan to Pradip Chandaliya was without simcard.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::The next important witnesses on recovery of simcard are PW-20 A.P.I. Patare and PW-32 P.I. Borse.It is stated by A.P.I. Patare that he interrogated Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya regarding possession of mobile handset with him and during interrogation Pradip Chandaliya stated that simcard in the said mobile was given to him by his son Mayur.A.P.I. Patare seized the simcard under Panchanama.The said simcard was ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 ::: 48 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt given by PW-26 Mayur to his father Pradip Chandaliya for being used in the mobile seized from Pradeep Chandaliya.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::Further link in the circumstances has been established through the evidence of PW-32 P.I. Borse.P.I. Borse interrogated Pradip Chandaliya regarding possession of mobile.Pradip Chandaliya told him that simcard was given to him by his son Mayur and mobile handset was given to him by Jawedkhan @ Tingarya s/o Habib Khan a customer of his hotel towards the bill of hotel.P.I. Borse then interrogated Mayur who admitted that he had given the simcard to his father for being used in the mobile handset.This evidence clearly establishes that while handing over mobile to Accused No.2 simcard was removed by Accused No.1 Jawedkhan.Now the crucial question which is to be answered is regarding the simcard used by Mansi.In this connection P.I.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt given by Accused Jawedkhan simcard was recovered from the place stated by him.It was seized and it's Panchanama Exhibit 54-A was drawn in presence of Panchas.Article 21 simcard has been identified by P.I. Borse as the same.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::True, Panch witnesses do not support the prosecution on recovery of simcard.In our view that alone would not be enough to discard the testimonies of police officers whose evidence is otherwise found to be trustworthy and believable.On the basis of their evidence we hold that prosecution has proved this clinching circumstance against Accused Jawedkhan beyond doubt.It can be seen from the evidence of PW-7 Aniket that gold ring gifted to him by his friend on his birthday was found missing from the house.PW-8 Damodhar Manik Ghuge was doing welding work in Sterlight company where Aniket was serving.Damodhar and Aniket were working in the same ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 ::: 50 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt department.He stated that in March 2008 he had attended birthday of Aniket and offered him a gold ring weighing 5½ grams.He purchased the gold ring from the shop of R.C.Bafna at Aurangabad.He came to know that gold ring given by him to Aniket was stolen.Police called him to identify the gold ring.He went to Police Station and identified the gold ring as the same given by him to Aniket.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::This witness was cross-examined on identification of gold ring.Damodhar stated that gold ring was containing name of R.C.Bafna and white imitation stone.Despite cross-examination at length, evidence of Damodhar has remained unshaken and consistent throughout.PW-29 Ashok stated in his evidence that gold ring seized in the crime was having monogram of their shop.The same was sold ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 ::: 51 Cri.Through his evidence prosecution could prove that gold ring article 26 given to Aniket was purchased from the shop of R.C.Bafna.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::According to prosecution gold ring article 26 was recovered at the instance of Accused No.3 Ram Bodkhe.During investigation Accused No.3 Ram Bodkhe was interrogated.Another witness PW-15 Asif Mohammad Akbar was examined on recovery of gold ring at the instance of Accused No.3 Ram Bodkhe.He sticks up to his evidence regarding ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 ::: 52 Cri.Nothing could be elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::Further it was revealed during investigation that Accused Jawedkhan had to pay some dues to Ram Bodkhe and against the payment of dues Accused Jawedkhan had given gold ring article 26 to Ram Bodkhe.Prosecution through the evidence of Complainant, Panch witnesses and Investigating Officer has proved that gold ring recovered at the instance of Accused No.3 Ram Bodkhe was given to him by Accused No.1 Jawedkhan and the said ring was gifted to Aniket by his friend Damodhar.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odtP.I. Borse fully supported memorandum and discovery Panchanama of the clothes of Accused Jawedkhan and identified T-shirt article 28 and Jeans Pant article 27 as the clothes which were recovered on the basis of information given by Accused No.1 Jawedkhan.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odtThis is a strong clinching circumstance against Accused Jawedkhan confirming his presence on the spot and tilting the ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 ::: 55 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt needle towards him and him alone to show that he is the culprit.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt and recovery Panchanama Exhibit 57 was drawn by P.I. Borse.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::On examination of genital organs Medical Officers found that the girl was sexually assaulted.Postmortem Report Exhibit 32 duly proved by Medical Officers shows clear evidence of forcible sexual intercourse with the victim.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odtAccused Jawedkhan was sent to Ghati Hospital for medical examination as stated above.PW-21 Dr. Heena Khan examined the Accused and found that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse.She proved the certificate ExhibitDuring examination Dr. Heena Khan collected blood, public hair, semen samples and nail clippings of Accused Jawedkhan.Accused Nos. 2 and 3 did not cross-examine PW-21 Dr. Heena Khan.There was no effective cross-examination of this witness from the side of Accused No.1 Jawedkhan.In respect of DNA test of Accused Jawedkhan it was revealed during investigation by P.I. Borse that special kit was required for taking blood and semen samples of the Accused.The special kit was available only at FSL, Kalina, Mumbai.Head Constable Hiwale was deputed by P.I. Borse for calling the special kit from FSL Mumbai.He then sent the special kit along with Accused Jawedkhan to Medical Officer Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad and wrote a letter Exhibit 147 to take blood and semen samples of Accused Jawedkhan in special kit for performing DNA test.The samples were accordingly collected ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 ::: 58 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt and forwarded to FSL Mumbai for DNA test of Accused Jawedkhan.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::The opinion of expert on examination was as under :""For all the 17 genetic systems analysed with the PCR using male specific Y STR system the male haplotypes obtained in Semen stains detected on bed sheet (FSL ML Case No. DNA 356/09 - Exh.1) exactly matched with male haplotypes in control blood sample of accused Jawedkhan.""On the basis of the results of analysis it is crystal clear that Accused Jawedkhan had committed rape on Mansi as male haplotypes of Jawedkhan were found in the aspirated vaginal fluid of Mansi clearly indicative of the fact that it was Accused Jawedkhan who committed rape on victim girl.Further from DNA report Exhibit 119 it can be seen that in the DNA extracted from the semen stains on the bed sheet in the house of Mansi, male haplotypes in control blood sample of Accused Jawedkhan were found.This makes it clear that Accused had committed sexual intercourse with victim Mansi.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt From another report Exhibit 120 it can be seen that blood stains detected on the bed-sheet, T-shirt of the Accused and the control blood stains of deceased were of same biological individual.In this background, it can be safely concluded that prosecution could successfully prove that Accused No.1 Jawedkhan sexually assaulted victim Mansi.(VII) Motive.In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes pertinent significance as existence of motive is an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning in such a case.The absence of motive however, puts the court on its guard to scrutinize the circumstances more carefully to ensure that surmises and conjectures do not take place of legal proof.From the incriminating circumstances discussed here-in-above motive of the Accused in the present case has been established i.e. to commit theft, satisfy the unbridled lust of the Accused and then to cause death of victim girl so that his acts can be simply buried forever.As motive is apparent, prosecution does safely cross this hurdle too.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt(VIII) Failure of the Accused to offer plausible explanation to the incriminating circumstances against him.The last circumstance against the Accused is his failure to offer plausible explanation to the incriminating circumstances against him.In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Accused has not given any explanation whatsoever for any of the clinching circumstances brought on record by the prosecution against him.We consider the silence of Accused as an additional link to complete the chain in the circumstantial evidence and on the close and critical examination of the evidence on record we hold that all the circumstances proved by the prosecution clearly indicate that accused and accused alone is responsible for the acts attributed to him.On the contrary, the same are of exclusive nature consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and conclusively lead to an irresistible conclusion that it is Accused No.1 who ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 ::: 61 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt committed lurking house trespass with an intention to commit theft and then committed rape on the victim and done her to death.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::In response to the submissions made on behalf of Appellant Jawedkhan, learned APP Mr. Sonpawale strenuously submitted that considering the nature of offence, manner in which it was committed and its impact on the society at large it is a rarest of rare case in which capital punishment needs to be awarded and life imprisonment would be an inadequate sentence.On the point of death sentence learned APP relied upon the following authorities:::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::C.R.(Cri.) 744 ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 ::: 63 Cri.a) Accused was 21 years old at the relevant time.The hard facts of the present case are that Accused Jawedkhan entered the house in the odd hours to commit theft, brutally and sexually assaulted victim girl who was sleeping alone in the house and then mercilessly caused her murder.Such an act of the Accused in our view has to be dealt with stern hands.The circumstances established by the prosecution listed above show how a precious life of a young girl was taken away by Accused in a most cruel, barbaric and inhuman manner.Further how brutal and diabolical act of causing sexual assault and death of victim was, is apparent from the modus-operandi of Accused proved through various circumstances brought on record.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odtIt would not be out of place to mention here that at all levels may be International, National, State or local commitment has been made that women have an inherent right to life which includes right to live with dignity, honour and respect.Any leniency in our view would result into an inadequate punishment.It was revealed from his past antecedents that Accused Jawedkhan was involved in five offences relating to housebreaking and two offences of theft.The extracts of crime registers (Exhibits 152 to158) were proved by the Investigating Officer clearly indicating that past antecedents of Accused Jawedkhan were not clean and clear.In this background and considering the nature of offence, manner in which it was committed and upon evaluating the aggravating and mitigating circumstances according to us this is a case which falls in the category of rarest of rare case.We have therefore no hesitation in awarding sentence of death to Accused No.1 Jawedkhan.So far as remaining two Accused Pradip Chandaliya ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 ::: 73 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt and Ram Bodkhe are concerned they were convicted basically for the offences relating to receiving stolen property.Both did not challenge the order of conviction recorded by the Trial Court against them.It is the State of Maharashtra who came in appeal for enhancement of sentence against all the Accused.On appreciation of the evidence against Accused No.2 Pradip Chandaliya and Accused No.3 Ram Bodkhe we find that the reasons and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are based upon due appreciation of evidence and are consistent with the evidence on record as well as the settled legal principles.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::In respect to the appeal against acquittal under some of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, we upon evaluation of evidence do not find any perversity, illegality or incorrectness in the findings recorded by the Trial Court.We thus find that appeal against acquittal filed by the State of Maharashtra deserves to be dismissed.In the above premise and in the totality of the facts and circumstances, we proceed to pass the following order -::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt ORDER Criminal Appeal No.516 of 2012 I. Criminal Appeal No.516 of 2012 is dismissed.Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2012 I. Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2012 is partly allowed against Accused No.1 Jawedkhan @ Tingarya s/o Habibkhan.Conviction of Accused No.1 Jawedkhan @ Tingarya s/o Habibkhan under Sections 456, 457, 458, 392 read with 397, 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained.The order of sentence of imprisonment for life in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is modified and instead Accused No.1 Jawedkhan @ Tingarya s/o Habibkhan is sentenced to death, he be hanged by neck till he is dead.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt IV.The order of sentence in respect to the other offences mentioned in II above is confirmed.V. Appeal Against Accused No.2 Pradip s/o Askaran Chandaliya and Accused No.3 Ram s/o Sheshrao Bodkhe stands dismissed.Copy of judgement shall be given free of cost to Accused No.1 Jawedkhan @ Tingarya s/o Habibkhan immediately.Criminal Appeal No.468 of 2012 I. Criminal Appeal No.468 of 2012 is dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2016 00:03:03 :::","['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The petitioners herein stand accused of having committed offencesunder Sections 170, 419, 353, 506(1) r/w.34 of IPC and are facing trial inC.C No.343 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,Tirunelveli.2.The case of the prosecution is that on 15.08.2010 at about 20.00 hrswhen the fifth respondent, namely, Tmt.V.Roselin Savio, was on duty as theSub Inspector of Police of Veeravanallur Police Station, the accused enteredthe station premises by falsely posing themselves as if they are coming fromHuman Rights Commission and authoritatively demanded certain documents pertaining to one Suresh who was detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (shortly known as Goondas Act).When the said Sub Inspector of Police wanted to know the identity of the accused, they not only refused but alsothreatened her with dire consequence.Thereupon, the said Sub Inspector ofPolice informed her superior officials.Since the accused intentionallyentered the police station by impersonating themselves as officialsrepresenting the Government Human Rights Commission and made the Sub Inspector of Police to believe so and demanded production of case documents,Crime No.161 of 2010 was registered on the file of the VeeravanallurPolice Station.3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted thatOne Suresh, a Dalit Youth who was a resident of Veeravanallur was subjectedto human rights abuse.Therefore, a Non Governmental Organization known as Dalit Foundation constituted a fact finding team to go into the said issue.The said Dalit Foundation and Peoples Watch had organized a trainingprogramme from 11.08.2010 to 20.08.2010 at Pillar House, Madurai.Asa part of the training, the accused visited Veeravanallur to gather materialsrelating to the said issue.They interviewed the family members of the saidSuresh.Thereafter, they went to Veeravanallur Police Station to enquire theStation House officer about the status of the case pertaining to the arrestof the said Suresh and the alleged ill treatment meted out to him in thepolice station.(P-351-379).The police have concealed evidence including letters of authority carried byeach trainee issued by People's Watch, large training manuals and otherevidence which would reveal the fact that they were trainees.(Discussedin Para 9).The accused Suresh, was arrested from a temple festival and brutally beatenin full view of public.The allegation of torture by police is confirmed byDr.(P.695) and statement of Dr.Simson Ravi, Assistant Surgeon,Govt.Hospital (P-291-293).The accused/victim Shri.Gnana Thiraviyam who was a diabetic patient was notgiven any treatment/medicine by the Police/Jail Authorities due to which hisblood sugar rose to level of 480 and he suffered ill-health.His medicalpapers are enclosed.(P.1415-1431).The Hon'ble Commission may advise the Govt. of Tamil Nadu to directthe concerned Public Prosecutor to withdraw the Case FIR No.161/10 u/s 170/353/416/506(ii), PS Veervanallur, against all the five innocent victimsnamely (i)Ms.The five trainees/victims, were arrested in a false case vide FIRNo.161/10 dated 15.08.10 of PS ? Veeravanallur.The three female and two maletrainees/victims remained in Judicial Custody till 24.08.10 and 25.08.10respectively.These five trainees have undergone the public shame and suffering ofbeing imprisoned for 8/9 days with common criminals for no fault of theirs.Therefore, the Hon'ble Commission may advise the Tamil Nadu Govt. to grantadequate compensation to all the five trainees/victims, for trauma they hadsuffered in jail and the defamation in the eye of the known as well as otherpublic persons.The witnesses have not been subjected to any cross-examination.3.The Secretary, Home Department, Fort St.It was subsequently transferred to Deputy Superintendent ofPolice, Organized Crime Unit, CB CID, Tirunelveli City who laid the finalreport against the petitioners.The same was taken on file in CC No.343 of2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli.To quash thesaid proceedings, 4 out of the 5 accused have filed this Criminal OriginalPetition.4.According to the petitioners, when they went to the police station,neither the Inspector of Police nor the Sub Inspector of Police wereavailable.After obtaining the telephone number of the S.I of Police, theywere about to leave the police station.At that time, the fifth respondentwas coming towards the police station.She said to be known to the firstpetitioner.She, therefore, invited all the team members to have a cup ofcoffee with her.When they waiting for the coffee to be served, the sixthrespondent, who was the in-charge Inspector of Police, arrived.When hebecame aware of the purpose of their visit, his attitude changed.Based onhis information, the seventh respondent who was the then DeputySuperintendent of Police S.Ramu arrived.Since by then darkness set in, thepetitioners wanted to leave the police station.But they were not allowed toleave the police station.They were detained and then taken to the houseof the Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi.Only then, the team membersrealized that they have been implicated in a criminal case and also arrested.They were remanded to judicial custody.The were granted bail only after 10days.The petitioners thereafter filed Crl OP(MD) No.10130 of 2010 forquashing the F.I.R. But, the said criminal original petition was renderedinfructuous in view of the filing of the final report.Therefore, they filedCrl OP(MD)No.11303 for quashing the final report.Crl OP(MD)Nos.11348 and 12006 of 2010 were also filed seeking transfer of investigation.The saidpetitions were allowed on 28.09.2010 and the investigation was transferredfrom the Inspector of Police, Veeravanallur Police Station to DeputySuperintendent of Police, Organized Crime Unit, CB CID, Tirunelvei City.Since the third respondent also filed a final report implicating the teammembers and the same was taken on file by the learned Trial Magistrate in CCNo.343 of 2012, the present criminal original petition was filed for quashingthe said proceedings.Hendri Tiphagne, the learned counsel for the petitioners arguedwith considerable force and and passion.He raised very many contentions.NHRC has been arrayed as the eighth respondent in this petition.The conclusions and recommendations of the NHRC are as follows:The three entries cannot be correct at thesame time.(para 8.4 ? 8.6, 8.16-8.19).The obtaining of correct addresses from the five accused persons aftersustained interrogation and confusing replies from 5 trainees would take atleast 30/40 minutes.(Para-6.10.1).The 5 Trainees, went inside the PS Veeravanallur much earlier than made outby the Police (Para 8.12-16 & 8.18), ie., earlier than 20.00 hrs, which makesthe trainees version of timings credible.(Para-8.17).WSI-Reselin was earlier posted in PS Tirupavanan, District Manamadurai andwas acquainted with Shri Gnana Thiraviyam, one of the male trainees whileworking there.WSI Roslyn has falsely denied her earlier acquaintance withShri.Gyana dhiraviam.(Para ? 9.11)The situation at PS Veeravanallur at the time of the stated incidentie.20.00 hrs was not such that anyone had to rescue WSI-Roselin from theclutches of 5 accused trainees.(8.4-8.6)The meeting of 5 accused persons/victims with WSI-Roselin in the evening of15/8/2010 was cordial and friendly.But the situation changed at about 2045hrs with the arrival of Inspector/SHO-Murugeshan and SDPO/Cheranmahadevi ? S Ramu, (para 7.9 ? 12, 8.10).The Police did not inform the arrested trainees about the grounds of arrest.Only the Judicial Magistrate Cheranmahadevi, told them about the offenceunder which they were arrested.(Para ? 7.13, 9.13)The required ingredients of sections 170/353/416/506(i) IPC of FIR No.161/10PS Veeravanallur, are not satisfactorily fulfilled.This is discussed indetail in Xssue No.1?of this report.(para 8.1 ? 8.22)The trainees were implicated in a false by the Police due to some reasonconnected to their enquiry into the allegation of torture of accused Suresh.The detailed firs CD made out on 15/0/10 by the IO does not mentionthe presence of the two independent witnesses at the time of the allegedincident.Though there are five accused and only four of them arebefore this Court, the benefit of this order will enure in favour of the nonpetitioning accused Ms.Bharathi also.18.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Organized Crime Unit, Crime Branch CID, Tirunelveli City.6.The Inspector of Police, Veeravanallur Police Station, Veeravanallur, Tirunelveli District.","['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"C.C. as per rules.(SMT.ANJULI PALO) JUDGE pn Digitally signed by PANKAJ NAGLE Date: 2018.06.28 11:00:10 +05'30'Heard learned counsel for the applicants finally at motion stage.The present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the complaint Case No.59/2018 pending before the J.M.F.C. Jatara District Tikamgarh.The documents as indicated by the applicants show that the allegation against the applicants with regard to cruelty was occurred at the place of Mauranipur, Jhansi (U.P.) and Jaipur (Rajasthan) and complaint was lodged before the Court of J.M.F.C. Jatara, District Tikamgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 294 and 506-B of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.The main plea of the applicants is that the J.M.F.C. Jatara, District Tikamgarh has no jurisdiction to try the complaint against the applicants for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC.After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case in which an interference is required by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.Consequently, the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.However, the respondent would be at liberty to file the complaint against the applicants before the competent Court having territorial jurisdiction.","['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"No.1/State.This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.206/2017 registered at Police Station Guna, District Guna for offence under Sections 354, 354-A, 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(w) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)The necessary facts for the disposal of present application in short are that respondent no.2- complainant lodged the following FIR :-""12 First Information contents izFke lwpuk rF;% cts esa lwpuk gS fd Jheku ,lMhvksih egksn; xquk ds i= dz-@,lMhvksih@xquk@32@17 fnukad 31@03@17 ds }kjk vkosfndk dq-gseyrk ,Ddk 'kkldh; foeq dU; Nk=kokl cekSjh ftyk xquk ds f'kdk;rh vkosnu ds laca/k esa /kkjk 354]354,]34 Hkknfo ,oa ,llh,lVh ,DV dh /kkjk 31w dk vijk/k iathc) djus gsrq izkIr gqvkA mijks vkns'k ds ikyu esa dk;eh dh tkrh gSA udy vkosnu gLotsy gS izfr] Jheku iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn;] vk-tk-dk Fkkuk izHkkjh ftyk xquk e-iz- fo""k; Jh vkj-,l-ifjgkj ftyk la;kstd vktkdk foHkkkx xquk }kjk izrkfMr djus ds laca/k esaA egksn;] mijks fo""k; esa fuosnu gS fd esjk uke dq-gseyrk ,Ddk gS eSa vkfnoklh efgyk lgk;d v/;kid ds in ij inLFk gwaA orZeku esa 'kk-foeq tkfr dU;k Nk=kokl ckeksjh dk v/kh{khd; izHkkj gSA tc ls foHkkx esa Jh vkj-ifjgkj ftyk la;kstd in ij vk;s gSa blds dqN fnu ckn ls gh eq>s VkpZj djuk izkjaHk dj fn;k x;kA eq>s dke ds cgkus ,oa Nk=kokl dh vU; tkudkjh dk cgkuk cukdj vius fuokl ij cqyk;k djrs FksA tc eSaus buds caxys ij tkuk mfpr ugha le>k rks dq>s dbZ ckj /kedh nh xbZ fd rqedks xou ds ekeys esa Qlk;k tk;sxk ,Q-vkb-Zvkj dh tk;sxh fjdojh fudkyh tk;sxhA Jh ifjgkj us eq>ls Qksu ij v'yhy ckrs dh eq>ls dgk rqe gekjh nksLr jgksxh rks D;k esjs izk;osV ikV~lZ xeZ gks tk;asxs vkSj rqEgkjs izk;osV ikV~lZ Hkh xeZ gksxs rks D;k rqe Mkyus ls euk djksxhA rqe fuoZL= gekjs lkeus dsV ckd djksxh rks gedks dqN ugha gksxk] tc rd rqe gedks Vp ugha djksxhA Vp djksxh rks esjs izk;osV ikV~lZ xeZ gks tk;sxsA jkr ds 11 cts Qksu yxkdj m ckr dgh xbZA eSus euk fd;k rks eq>s 2 Nk=kokl ls gVkus dh /kedh nh A eq> ij nckc cukdj eq>s 'kkjhfjd laca/k cukus ds fy, etcwj fd;k x;kA eq>s vius fuokl ij cqykdj Nk=kokl pktZ esa nsus dh ckrs djus yxs fQj Jh vkj-ifjgkj us esjk gkFk idM fy, eSus fojks/k fd;k rks eq>s Mjk;k fd vxj gkFk NqMkvksxs rks ge dgh vkSj gkFk yxk;sxsA ,slk dgdj mUgksaus psLV dks Vp fd;kA eSa mBdj tkus yxh rks bUgksus eq>s fdfpu esa pk; cukus dk cksydj ihNs ls vk;s vkSj eq>s ihNs ls idMdj vius izk;osV ikV~lZ eq>ls Vp djkus yxsA eSus fojks/k dj ds ckgj vk xbZ blds i'pkr ~eq>s 'kk-vk-dU;k vkJe dk izHkkj gVk fn;k x;k D;ksafd eSus budh eU'kk iwjh ugha dhA eSa vkfnoklh efgyk eq>s bl izdkj ls vf/kdkjh }kjk izrkfM+r fd;k tk jgk gSA fojk/sk djus ij /kedh nh tkrh gS fd Nk=kokl ls gVk fn;k tkosxkA eq> ij rjg rjg ds vkjksi yxkdj ckj ckj /kedkdj nckc cukdj izrkfMr fd;k tkrk gSA eSus lh-ch-pansy us eq>s igyh nQk Qksu yxkdj lkgc ls eqykdkr djkbZA eSus lh-ch-paVsy lj ls iwNks eq>s D;ksa cqyk jgs gS lkgc] rks mUgksus cksyk vf/kdkjh ls esy tksy vPNk jgrk gS muls vkdj feyks ,slk dgkA esjs }kjk lh-ch-pansy dks lwfpr fd;k x;k fd Jh ifjgkj th ds bjknksa ij eq>s 'kadk gS rks oks eq>ls v'yhy ckrsa djrs gSa v'yhy gjdr djrs gSaA eSa buds v/khuLFk dk;Zjr gksus ds dkj.k ;s lgu djrh jghA vc lcz VwV pqdk gSA budh v'yhy gjdr ,oa /kedh ls eSa VwV pwdh gwaA eSa vR;ar ruko xzLr gks pqdh gwaA eSa vkfnoklh efgyk gwa eq>s vf/kdkjh }kjk izrkfMr fd;k tk jgk gSA vr% Jheku~th ls fuosnu gS fd Jh-vkj-ifjgkj ftyk la;kstd vkfne tkfr dY;k.k foHkkx xquk ds fo:) dk;Zokgh vfr'kh?kz djokus dh d``ik djsaA gLrk{kj vaxzsth izkFkhZ dq- gseyrk ,Ddk 'kk-foeq tkfr dU;k Nk=kokl ceksjh ftyk xquk e-iz- 9926778507"" .'' It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that since the complainant was holding the the charge of Superintendent of two different hostels, a direction was issued by the Collector, Guna to withdraw the charge of post of Superintendent of one hostel from the person who was holding the charge of more than one hostel and accordingly, a notice was issued to the complainant- respondent No.2 to hand over the charge of the hostel.As the respondent No.2 was creating all the hurdles in handing over the charge, ultimately a complaint was made by the incoming incumbent.She was directed to take the charge ex parte and in spite of the instructions issued by the applicant, the complainant- respondent No.2 did not hand over the complete charge and all the relevant documents were withheld by her and apprehending some departmental action against her, she has lodged a false FIR.The counsel for the applicant has also referred the letter dated 22/03/2017 issued by the applicant directing the Area Coordinator, AJAK, Guna to ensure that the charge of the Superintendent, Vimukt Jati Girls' Hostel, Bamori is handed over to the incoming incumbent Smt. Bhanu Patwa.Thereafter, an order dated 25/03/2017 was passed by the applicant, directing the Area Coordinator to ensure that charge of the institution is given to the incumbent and all the accounts of which charge is not given, should be freezed and the details of the material purchased during the last three years should also be prepared.It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the girls of the hostel had made a written complaint to the Collector, Guna on 31/10/2012 against the respondent No.2 as she was involved in illicit activities thereby physically violating the occupants of the girls' hostel.Similarly, a notice was issued to the respondent No.2 on 3/01/2017 that one the girl is illegally residing in the hostel for the last three years whereas she was never admitted in the hostel and in spite of that, the respondent No.2 had allowed that girl to stay in the hostel.The matter shall be 4 investigated in a free and fair manner and final opinion shall be formed by the Investigating Officer and he would proceed in accordance with law.It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.2 that so far as the allegation of delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, it is submitted that the respondent No.2 has merely narrated the correct facts, otherwise respondent No.2 could have made the allegation that she was physically or sexually violated by the applicant immediately prior to lodging of the FIR.It is further submitted that the applicant apart from harassing her physically and sexually, was in habit of sending indecent messages to the respondent No.2 and some of the messages have been placed on record.It is submitted that in the whatsapp messages the applicant had sought answer from the respondent No.2 that as to why she does not have any friend and had suggested that she should have friend.Heard the counsel for the parties.The submissions made by the counsel for the applicant can be summarized as under:-(I)That, the applicant is working as District Coordinator,AJAK Department, District Guna whereas the respondent No.2 was holding the charge of post of Superintendent of two different hostels.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Ms. Shraddha Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Public Prosecutor.Heard the learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.6381/2017, an application on behalf of the appellant - Harikishan Pal for staying the effect of conviction.It is submitted that the appellant has been selected in the examination conducted by Staff Selection Commission and if the effect of conviction is not stayed, then his entire career shall be spoiled.2 CRA 798/2016 Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the appellant was having close relationship with Dharmendra Sharma @ D.K. Singh and, therefore, he is equally responsible for the offence.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.Considering the role attributed to the appellant in the commission of alleged crime so also the fact that his career is at stake, it would be appropriate to suspend the effect of conviction imposed against him.Accordingly, the prayer for staying the effect of conviction is allowed.The conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offences shall remain stayed till pendency of this appeal.I.A. No.6381/2017 stands accordingly disposed of.C.C. as per Rules.",['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
"Arguments heard upon both the applications filed on 13.03.2020 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail on behalf of applicants namely Ramlal Saket and Kamla Saket, both are confined in custody since 27.02.2020 in connection with the crime No.20/2020 registered at Police Station Talaiya, District Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376-2, 366A, 368 of IPC and Section 5L/6 of POCSO Act.It appears from the impugned order that the prosecturix came into contact with the son of both applicants and their son Atul Kumar Saket called her through video calling.When she reached Rewa, Atul Kumar Saket received her and took her in the house.The allegation against the present applicants is that they gave the shelter to the prosecutrix in their house because they are the parents of main accused Atul Kumar Saket.It is also alleged that Kamla Saket gave the threat to the prosecutrix for not disclosing the incident to anybody at Bhopal.It is directed that the applicants namely Ramlal Saket and Kamla Saket be released on bail upon their furnishing bail bond worth Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) each and personal bond of the same amount to the Digitally signed by SHAHINA KHAN Date: 26/06/2020 15:44:50 2 MCRC-11925-2020 satisfaction of the trial Court.A t the time of releasing the applicants from custody, all the instructions issued by the Government related to COVID-19 shall also be followed by the concerned authority.Accordingly, both M.Cr.C. stand allowed.Certified copy as per rules.(B. K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE shahina Digitally signed by SHAHINA KHAN Date: 26/06/2020 15:44:50","['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard on admission as well as on I.A.No.19726/2013, an application for staying the proceedings pending before the trial Court.The applicants have moved a petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 2.7.2013 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in criminal revision No.277/2012, whereby an order under section 398 of the Cr.P.C. was passed for re-enquiry in the complaint.A copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below for information.","['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"A. No. 512/2000 Page 1 of 46PW-3 H.C Chander Bhan while on patrolling duty at the Chabutra of Gurudwara Bangla Sahib received information from a devotee that a quarrel had taken place in the NDMC Park.The criminal law machinery in this case was set in motion by DD No. 14A (Ex. PW 18/A).On 14.06.1995, ASI Dharam Singh (PW-18) was on emergency duty from 8 a.m to 8 p.m at P.S Parliament Street.Pursuant to the receipt of the aforesaid information he along with Constable Bhagat Ram (PW-13) reached at the spot i.e Jai Singh Road.At the spot one PCR Van, H.C Chander Bhan (PW-3), Constable Nirmal Singh, injured Shera and the appellant Mannu met him.Subsequently, ASI Dharam Singh (PW-18) took the injured in the PCR Van to R.M.L Hospital where the doctor declared the injured as brought dead.Thereafter, he along with the Addl.S.H.O reached at the spot where H.C. Chander Bhan handed over to him a kirpan along with the cover.The kirpan and cover of the kirpan were recovered at the spot and was sealed by A.S.I Dharam Singh.Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to the S.H.O, Gurnam Singh Randhawa.The accused was detained at the spot and he recorded the statement of HC Chander bhan.The rukka was sent for registration of the case.The photos of the scene of occurrence were taken.The I.O. inspected the spot, site plan was prepared, 'Tat' which was lying at the spot in the park was sealed in a parcel, along with the sample soil was also taken into possession.The old turban lying at the spot was taken into custody.Some blood was lying at the spot.He also took sample of concrete from the spot.The accused mannu who was detained at the spot was sent for medical examination by ASI Dharam Singh.He recorded the statement of eye witness Prakash Chander.He recorded the statement of other witnesses.After his examination, the accused was brought back to the NDMC park and was arrested.However, names of none of these persons including ASI Dharam Singh who was the senior most official finds mention in the MLC.PW-7 Prakash Chander also claims that the deceased Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 4 of 46 was well- known to him and he knew the name of the deceased.Further ASI Dharam Singh (PW-18) who claims to have accompanied the deceased to the hospital has stated in his statement that the deceased informed him that his name was Shera, yet no one informed the doctor in the hospital.A. No. 512/2000 Page 4 of 46d) In the MLC it is recorded that an ""unknown"" person had been brought dead by Constable Jai Ram Singh of PCR Van with the alleged history of being found unconscious on Jai Singh Road.The two police officials (PW-13 and PW-18) who were travelling in the same PCR Van with the deceased to the hospital gave absolutely two different versions in their respective statements.g) As per the prosecution's version, no call was received by the PCR van, still it failed to establish how it reached at the spot.This is clear from the evidence on record including the evidence of PW-3, H.C Chander Bhan who stated that he did not send any intimation to the Police Station nor made any call to the PCR.h) That the deceased did not reveal the name of the accused to PW-3 H.C Chander Bhan nor made any statement regarding the incident although he had ample time and opportunity to do so.i) When a suggestion was put to PW-3 H.C Chander Bhan in his cross examination that if the accused made any attempt to run away on seeing H.C Chander Bhan, because as per the normal human conduct, the appellant if he was actually involved in the crime, could not have gathered the courage Crl.With the legal dicta as discussed in the foregoing paras, let us now examine as to whether the counsel for the appellant succeeds in throwing any serious doubts on the prosecution case particularly to discredit or impeach the testimonies of the two eye witnesses i.e. HC Chander Bhan (PW-3) and Prakash Chander (PW-7).As per the deposition of Prakash Chander (PW-7), he himself was serving as a sevadar in Gurudwara Bangla Saheb and he very well knew Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 17 of 46 both the accused and the victim.At the time of the incident, at 10.30 PM on 14th June 1995, Prakash Chander (PW-7) was also lying in the same NDMC Park along with a few others when he witnessed the quarrel to have taken place between the accused and the victim over a gunny bag.During the quarrel, Prakash Chander (PW-7) saw the accused snatching the gunny bag from the victim and thereafter the victim running towards the shop.The accused then caught him near a tree and took out a kripan from the possession of the victim and started hitting him with the kripan while sitting on him.He could not see how many blows were given by the accused to the victim because accused sat with his back facing towards him.He also saw PW-3 HC Chander Bhan to have reached at the spot who took both the accused and the victim from the park towards the road behind the toilet.In his cross-examination, he stated that he was working as sevadar in the Gurudwara Bangla Saheb for the last five years.He also deposed that at the time of the incident, 5-6 persons were sleeping in the park and after the incident, seeing the police these persons went away.He also deposed that he did not get up from his place as he was under the apprehension of getting stabbed if he would interfere.He also deposed that at the time of the incident, the accused was only wearing an underwear (kachha) and he did not see any blood stains on his Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 18 of 46 body.He also deposed that he did not see any blood stains on the clothes of PW-3 HC Chander Bhan.He also deposed that he could only see from one eye.He also deposed that when HC Chander Bhan took the victim Shera towards the road, he could see that the victim was alive.The presence of PW-7 also cannot be disputed because of the fact that his statement was recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. while he was available at the spot and he was also witness to the seizure memo of samples of the soil (Ex.A. No. 512/2000 Page 19 of 46 having come to know about some altercation to have taken place in the NDMC Park.After he had reached the spot, he saw that there was a clean shaven person and a Sardar who were grappling with each other.He also saw that a clean shaven person pinned down the sardar on the ground .He further saw that the clean shaven person was having a small kripan in his right hand and was inflicting blows with the kirpan on the sardar who was lying on the ground.He saw that he was being hit on the chest with the kirpan.This witness tried to snatch the kirpan from the hand of clean shaven person and in that process the clean shaven person had rubbed and cleaned the blood from the kirpan.This witness had overpowered both the persons and took both of them out of the park towards the road.The injured person told his name as Shera to this witness while blood was oozing out from his body.The victim sat near the police quarters on Jai Singh road and fell down as he was suffering from pain.In the meantime another constable Nirmal Singh had reached there and after handing over both the said persons to the said constable, PW-7 started moving towards Ashok Road in search of vehicle to remove the injured to the hospital.But in the meanwhile a PCR Van had reached there.The PCR officials alongwith ASI Dharam Singh and Bhagat Ram had removed the injured to the hospital while PW-3 HC Chander Bhan and Constable Nirmal Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 20 of 46 Singh remained at the spot alongwith the accused.After sometime SHO of Police Station Parliament Street, ASI Dharam Singh and SI also reached at the spot and they were informed that the injured Shera had expired.PW-3/B, and also bears his signatures.PW-3 is also the witness to the seizure and recovery of the gunny bag (Taat), pagri, and blood stained earth sample which were lifted from the spot by the police and sample of the soil and personal search memo of the accused.The wound is present 102 cm above left heel wound is muscle deep.d. Injury No.2 is piercing through left lung and anterior wall of the heart.The post mortem Report further states that it was the injury No.2 that pierced the left lung due to which the left lung had collapsed.KAILASH GAMBHIR, JBy this appeal filed under section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned judgment dated 29.05.2000 and order on sentence dated 30.05.2000 whereby the Appellant - Mannu was convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, further to pay fine of Rs.10000 and in case of default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.The facts germane to the case of the prosecution are that - Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 1 of 46His personal search was taken and after interrogation of Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 2 of 46 the accused, they went back to the police station.The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted and the exhibits were sent for analysis and after completion of the investigation challan was filed.A. No. 512/2000 Page 2 of 46To prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses.The State was led by Mr. Sunil Sharma, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor.Addressing arguments on behalf of the appellant, Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocate categorised her submissions under various heads, the same are outlined as under:-I. Gaps, infirmities, contradictions and lacunae in the prosecution:As per the counsel for the appellant the genesis of the prosecution case is shrouded in mystery and the two eye-witnesses have been introduced to make out a semblance of a case.The infirmities, gaps and Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 3 of 46 contradictions which were pointed out by the counsel for the appellant are detailed as under:Therefore, there is nothing substantive on record to prove the presence of Constable Jai Ram Singh at the spot.c) As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased was brought to the hospital by the PCR officials, ASI Dharam Singh (PW-18) and Ct Bhagat Ram (PW-13).e) As per the prosecution case, the place of occurrence was NDMC Park but the DD Entry, MLC and the Post Mortem Report, all show that the deceased was found unconscious on Jai Singh Road which clearly demonstrate that the scene of occurrence was Jai Singh Road, Gurudwara Bangla Sahib and not NDMC Park.A. No. 512/2000 Page 5 of 46f) PW-5, Dr Sanjeev Tandon deposed that Injury No.2 (stab wound) had pierced the left lung and the anterior wall of the heart, yet the deceased was able to walk from the Park to Jai Singh Road which according to the prosecution was at a distance of 230 mtrs .A. No. 512/2000 Page 6 of 46 of continuing to fight and stab the deceased in front of a police officer.A. No. 512/2000 Page 6 of 46j) The MLC of the accused show that it was recorded at 3:30 a.m. however, the incident allegedly took place at 10:45 p.m. Evidence on record suggests that till 3:15 a.m. the accused remained on the spot.The SHO has himself said that Mannu, the accused herein was taken to the hospital at 3:15 a.m. Thus, the medical examination of the accused was conducted after 4.5 hours when he could have been sent immediately with the injured and this fact further casts a doubt on the prosecution case.k) The exhibits were sent to CFSL after more than 20 days of the incident.Even the Rukka was sent to the Police Station at 12:50 a.m., however the incident occurred at 10.45 p.m. Thus the counsel urged that the case of the prosecution suffers from proven improbabilities, infirmities and contradictions and does not inspire confidence.The story of the prosecution is that PW-3 H.C Chander Bhan while on patrolling duty at the Chabutra of Gurudwara Bangla Sahib received Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 7 of 46 information from a devotee that a quarrel took place in the NDMC Park.Counsel submitted that this ""devotee"" has not been named or produced in the witness box.Hence the Hon'ble Court should draw adverse inference against the prosecution for non- examination of material witnesses in the case.A. No. 512/2000 Page 7 of 46It is a settled law that where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which could have been supplied or made good by examining a witness who though available but was not examined, the prosecution case can be termed as suffering from deficiency and withholding of such a material witness would oblige the Hon'ble Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution.The statement and evidence of the alleged eye- witness PW-7 Prakash Chander lacks credence and reliability and his presence at the spot is also highly doubtful.A reading of his testimony and the testimony of H.C Chander Bhan clearly show that they were not present at the place of occurrence.The name of Prakash Chander (PW-7) does not find mention in the Rukka and the FIR.According to PW-7 about a month prior to the incident there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased in which the accused sustained head injuries.This is entirely Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 8 of 46 false as the material/evidence on record show that the quarrel took place between one Deepak tea stall owner and the accused a month prior and not between the accused and the deceased ""Shera"".A. No. 512/2000 Page 8 of 46The owner of Deepak Tea Stall could have thrown some light on the incident and was a material witness but was conveniently discarded from being examined by the prosecution.Furthermore, PW-7 stated in his cross examination that in the alleged quarrel between the accused and the deceased had caused head injury to the accused with the help of a crutch of another person.However, his statement is patently false as the MLC of the accused shows that there was no such head injury.In respect of PW-7 Prakash Chander it is also very surprising that at 10:45 p.m he could see the incident very minutely in the darkness of the Park when he himself is blind from one eye.It is also very intriguing that PW-7 as per his deposition was always present whenever the accused was being beaten up or when he Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 9 of 46 was supposed to beat anyone.He seems to be an omnipresent witness in the present case.A. No. 512/2000 Page 9 of 46That the glaring discrepancies would be noticed in the testimonies of PW-3 H.C Chander Bhan and PW-7 Prakash Chander with regard to the narration of the incident which affect the very core of the prosecution case.Its non-corroboration by other witnesses or evidence makes it a weak piece of evidence.In these circumstances the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgements is that when the prosecution relies upon the testimony of a sole eye-witness, then such evidence has to be wholly reliable and trustworthy and if the evidence of the sole eye- witness is in conflict with the other witnesses, it may not be safe to make such a statement as a foundation for the conviction of the accused.Counsel in this regard referred to the following judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:(i) (2012)4 SCC 722: Govindaraju alias Govinda vs State(ii) (2005) 10 SCC 196: Pohlu vs State Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 10 of 46 III.Medical evidence and other evidence in support:A. No. 512/2000 Page 10 of 46The whole story about the accused having wiped the blood on the kirpan with his hands is a fabricated one.This is corroborated by the CFSL Report which says that no blood was found on the kirpan.In similar circumstances i.e. when no blood was found on the weapon of offence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court have set aside the conviction of the Appellant.Reference in this regard was placed on the following judgements:(ii) ILR Delhi Series 1986 Volume II: Imtiaz Ahmed vs StateThe prosecution has also been unable to produce the blood stained clothes of the accused.A version has been put forth that the accused was in his undergarments at that point of time.The undergarment (Kachha) has also not been produced.If the accused was actually sitting on the chest of the deceased and giving kirpan blows, the undergarment would have been soaked with blood.The undergarment (Kachha) was admittedly not sent to CFSL.That PW-3 HC Chander Bhan stated that when he took the deceased from the Park to the road, the deceased was leaning upon him.Even PW-7 Prakash Chander stated the same.However, even though the Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 11 of 46 deceased was bleeding profusely, surprisingly H.C Chander Bhan's clothes not smeared in any blood stains casts a doubt on the prosecution story.Thus it is manifest that PW-3 H.C Chander Bhan does not seem to be a witness to the crime at all and has reached there only after everything was over.To support this argument counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:A. No. 512/2000 Page 11 of 46(ii) ILR Delhi Series 1986 Volume II: Imtiaz Ahmed vs State(iii) 52 (1993) DLT 351: Rishi Pal & Ors vs State IV No motiveCounsel also submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive for the crime.According to the prosecution the dispute this time was over a gunny bag.It is inconceivable that over a small piece of 'tat' and that too after the accused had already snatched it from the deceased as per the testimony of PW-7, he ran after the deceased to kill him.V Conversion of sentence from 302 IPC to 304 (I) or (II)Lastly, it was submitted by the Learned Counsel that even if the Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 12 of 46i. Admittedly there was a sudden fight which allegedly happened between the Accused and the Deceased over a piece of gunny bag.There was no pre-meditation: The accused was not carrying any weapon with him and is alleged to have taken the kirpan of the deceased to stab him.The accused made no attempt to run away from the spot.There are no other criminal cases pending against the accused in any other Court Counsel submitted that reference in this regard could be made to the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:(i) (2009)15 SCC 635: Gurmukh Singh vs State of Haryana Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 13 of 46A. No. 512/2000 Page 13 of 46(ii)JT 2013(12) SC 28: Chandera @ Chandera Ram vs State of Chhattisgarh The counsel thus urged and prayed for the discharge of the Appellant/accused to meet the interests of justice.Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently refuted the said submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and contended that the case of the appellant is an open and shut case based on the testimony of two eye witnesses and both the testimonies remained coherent, cogent and clinching throughout.They are also duly supported by the medical and forensic evidence leaving no space for any doubts.Learned APP also submitted that the learned trial court went into each and every aspect of the material placed on record by the prosecution and the defence raised by the accused at the time of recording of his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the reasoning given by the learned trial court to convict and sentence the appellant for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.Learned APP thus strongly urged that the appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of any merit and the same may be dismissed.We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 14 of 46The incident took place near a devout place of worship, known for its purity and religious beliefs, Gurudwara Bangla Sahib.Gurudwara Bangla Saheb is the most prominent Sikh Gurudwara and is known for its association of 8th Sikh Guru - Guru Harkishan Singh.The victim in the present case was a sevadar at the Gurudwara Bangla Sahib.God creates, we destroy, how true that is in our society that for some psychological satisfaction, a human develops a tendency, an urge, fear or anxiety to rip off a person's life in seconds and at that spur even forgets the outcome that he would have to suffer at the hands of law, and that there can be no escape from the clutches of law.The incident took place in the NDMC maintained park which adjoins the said Gurudwara.As per the case of the prosecution, the tussle between the accused and the victim was over a piece of gunny bag (taat) which was given by the Management of the Gurudwara to the sewadars for sleeping purpose.The night of 14th June 1995, was the peak of summers and probably due to this reason, the accused was only wearing an underwear and there was no other cloth on his body.HC Chander Bhan (PW-3) and Prakash Chander Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 16 of 46 merely based on few infirmities.A. No. 512/2000 Page 16 of 46PW-3/E) collected from the spot, seizure memo of Pagri of the deceased (Ex.PW- 3/f), seizure memo of the old gunny bag (taat) and personal search memo of the accused proved on record as Ex.PW-3/H. Despite a lengthy cross- examination of this witness, we do not find that the defence could succeed to create any dent to disbelieve his testimony.Many questions were put to him to dispute his presence and even with regard to his working as a sevadar in the Gurudwara Bangla Saheb but nothing could be elicited by the defence to disbelieve his presence at the spot of the crime or even his being a sevadar in the said Gurudwara Bangla Saheb.A. No. 512/2000 Page 17 of 46ASI Dharam Singh had recorded the statement of PW-3 Chander Bhan which carried the endorsement of ASI Dharam Singh and then sent the rukka (Ex.PW-18/B) to the Police Station for registration of the FIR.He further deposed that he had handed over kripan to ASI Dharam Singh and sketch of the Kirpan was drawn by ASI Dharam Singh which is proved on record as Ex.He is also a witness to the sketch of the cover of kirpan.The defence could not succeed to shatter his evidence despite his grueling cross-examination.The testimonies of these two eye witnesses find corroboration in the testimonies of PW-13 Bhagat Ram, PW-18 ASI Dharam Singh and PW-16 - Inspector B.S. Rana and PW-19 Inspector Gurnam Singh.The ocular evidence of this witness finds corroboration by medical evidence and forensic evidence proved on record by the prosecution.A. No. 512/2000 Page 19 of 46A. No. 512/2000 Page 20 of 46A. No. 512/2000 Page 21 of 46Learned counsel for the appellant made a desperate but vain attempt to find fault with the testimonies of prosecution witnesses especially the two eye witnesses but nothing substantial was pointed out to disbelieve the case of the prosecution.To say that no DD entry was produced to show that PW-3 HC Chander Bhan was on patrolling duty at Gurudwara Bangla Saheb; the names of PCR officials were not found mentioned in the MLC of the deceased; failure of ASI Dharam Singh (PW-18) to inform the name of the deceased to the doctor of the hospital; PW-18 ASI Dharam Singh, Constable Bhagat Ram giving two different versions about the disclosure/non-disclosure of his names by the victim - Shera while he was being taken to the hospital in the PCR Van; variations with regard to the place of occurrence; how the deceased received fatal injury on the road which was at a distance of 230 sq. yds.and DD entry was recorded after a gap of 15 minutes from the time of incident; PCR Van reaching at the spot without receipt of any information about the incident; non-disclosure of the name of the accused by the deceased to HC Chander Bhan although he had ample time to disclose the same; ample time for the accused to run away if he had actually committed the crime; delayed medical assistance to the accused after a gap of 4-5 hours; sending of exhibits to CFSL after more than 20 days of the incident; are Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 22 of 46 only the peripheral aspects of the case but in no manner the same can corrode the credibility of the prosecution case.As already stated above, Gurudwara Bangla Saheb is a prominent place of worship and thousands of people almost round the clock pay visit to the gurudwara to seek blessings and there is nothing unusual that PW-3 Chander Bhan was on a patrolling duty in the vicinity of the said gurudwara.We also do not find anything unusual that the PCR had reached at the Jai Singh road at its own where the victim and the accused were brought by PW-3 - HC Chander Bhan.The non disclosure of the name of Shera by PW-18 to the doctor, who attended the deceased also cannot be held fatal to throw over broad the case of the prosecution which is otherwise found reliable, credible and trustworthy.A. No. 512/2000 Page 22 of 46So far as the variation with regard to the place of occurrence as pointed out by counsel for the appellant is concerned, the argument merits outright rejection as indisputably the victim and the accused were brought to the Jai Singh Road from the spot of the crime by HC Chander Bhan(PW-3) and there is nothing wrong if the DD entry and the postmortem entry records the name of the place where the victim was found unconscious.This fact, will however not change the place of actual Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 23 of 46 occurrence of the site which will remain the NDMC Park adjoining the Gurudwara Bangla Saheb.A. No. 512/2000 Page 23 of 46So far the contention of counsel for the appellant that the accused did not make any attempt to run away, had he been actually involved in the crime or the fact that he would not have the courage to continuously stab the victim in front of police officer, also do not cut much ice as HC Chander Bhan(PW-3) had over powered the accused and it is not the version of HC Chander Bhan(PW-3) that the accused kept on inflicting blows after he had seen him.As per his testimony, he saw the accused giving kirpan blows to the sardar who was lying on the ground and then he tried to intervene to snatch the kirpan from his hand.The blows therefore, were already inflicted by the accused on the victim before the intervention of HC Chander Bhan.The other discrepancies pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant are also totally inconsequential being of very trivial and insignificant nature.Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon.However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety.Dealing with the next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution neither recorded the statement of Constable Jai Ram Singh nor examined him as a witness although he was the only person whose name was found to be mentioned in the MLC and would have been the best person to depose about the incident and Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 27 of 46 similarly, non examination of Head Constable Sucheta, who went to inform the PCR and likewise non-examination of the 'devotee' who had informed HC Chander Bhan(PW-3) about the quarrel to have taken place in the NDMC Park.Undoubtedly, the name of constable Jai Ram Singh does find mention in the MLC of the victim Shera and he was one of the police official who was present in the PCR.HC Chander Bhan (PW-3) in his cross-examination has referred to the person - Constable Jai Ram Singh in the PCR van.There were other police officials also in the PCR Van including the driver of the PCR Van.So far as the non-examination of the devotee is concerned, PW-3 HC Chander Bhan did not disclose the name of the devotee and in his cross- Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 28 of 46 examination he categorically stated that he did not note down the name of the person who had informed about the quarrel in the NDMC Park as many people had passed through that area to move towards the Gurudwara side at that time.A. No. 512/2000 Page 27 of 46A. No. 512/2000 Page 28 of 46The evidence is to be weighed and not counted.The general rule is that it is not the numerical strength of witnesses but the inherent strength of any witness which is the guiding factor for the prosecution to prove its case, therefore, it is not that particular number of witnesses in a case will be required to prove any particular fact if such a fact can be proved by any single credible witness.We thus, do not find any force in the contention raised by counsel for the appellant to disbelieve the prosecution version due to non examination of the said three witnesses.The next contention raised by counsel for the appellant was that there was no blood found on the weapon of offence and therefore, the story of the prosecution cannot be believed.PW-3 - HC Chander Bhan was very categorical in stating in his examination in chief that the accused person rubbed and cleaned the blade of the kirpan at the time when he tried to snatch the kirpan from his hand.When such coherent Crl.He further clarified that his clothes did not get any bloodstains from the injured Shera while he was talking to him and proceeding towards the road.We find no reason to disbelieve the clarification given by him that his clothes did not get any blood stains from the injured Shera.Even otherwise, the statement of the witness is to be read as a whole and once the court finds no reason to disbelieve his presence at the spot and his narration of what he had seen in front of his eyes is credible, we are not convinced to accept that his presence can be disbelieved because his clothes were free from bloodstains of the deceased.We also cannot loose sight of the fact that the presence of PW-3 HC Chander Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 30 of 46 Bhan at the spot of crime is duly corroborated by other prosecution witnesses mainly PW-7 Prakash Chander, SHO, and others.Even the FIR of the case was registered on the statement of PW-3 HC Chander Bhan.A. No. 512/2000 Page 29 of 46A. No. 512/2000 Page 30 of 46PW-5/B wherein, he stated that the weapon has slightly curved in the front portion and therefore, the injuries caused on the body of the victim may be inflicted from a slightly curved weapon.The said subsequent opinion given by PW-5 - Dr. Sanjiv Tandon, Senior Head of Department of Forensic and Medical, Lady Harding Medical College stating that the weapon examined by him was slightly curved is also in consonance with the sketch of the weapon of offence proved on record as Ex.PW-3/B which clearly shows that the kirpan was a curved one in the front portion.A. No. 512/2000 Page 31 of 46 not find any force in the aforesaid contention raised by counsel for the appellant.A. No. 512/2000 Page 31 of 46Learned counsel for the appellant also raised a contention that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive on the part of the accused to commit the said crime.Motive assumes importance in cases wholly depending upon the circumstantial evidence and where ocular evidence is very clear and convincing and the role of accused persons in the crime can be clearly established, the failure to prove motive for the crime is hardly of any consequence.(Ref: Yunis @ Kariya etc. Vs.A. No. 512/2000 Page 32 of 46 result in demolishing the otherwise clear and convincing evidence of the prosecution.A. No. 512/2000 Page 32 of 46The following anti mortem injuries were received by the deceased as per the post mortem report:a. Abrasion of 3X2 cm present on the right lateral centhus of eye b. Stab wound of 1.5X0.5 cm present on left side of the chest, 5 cm below left nipple & 124 cm above left heel left feet.The Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 33 of 46 wound is directed medically upward having fine border and sharp edges.A. No. 512/2000 Page 33 of 46c. Wound of 1.6 cm, 0.5 cm above left illiaccrest in mid axillary lone.The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other Crl.A. No. 512/2000 Page 44 of 46 special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention...A. No. 512/2000 Page 44 of 46A. No. 512/2000 Page 45 of 46 appellant is modified from life imprisonment to the rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with fine as already imposed by the learned trial court.A. No. 512/2000 Page 45 of 46The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.","['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Since both the appeals have arisen out of the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.04.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.305/2009, both the following present interlocutory applications are being disposed of by the present common order:Heard on I.A.No.7748/16 and I.A.No.6669/16, applications under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence filed by appellant No.1, namely, Vikram (in Cra.450.2016) and by appellants No.1 and 4, namely, Kamlesh and Deshraj Singh (in Cra.463.2016) respectively.Each of the appellants has been convicted as mentioned below:Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the present appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to them.In the present case, so many eyewitnesses like Pappu (PW-1), Inder Singh (PW-2), Kera Bai (PW-6), Avtaar Singh (PW-7), Rajesh Yadav (PW-9), Bhura (PW-8), Chandu (PW-10) and Sunnulal Yadav were examined.Some of the witnesses have declined to see the assault done with the deceased Prahlad Singh and some of them have said omnibusly that all the accused persons who were ten in number assaulted the deceased Prahlad Singh.Eye-witness Rajesh Yadav (PW-9) has turned completely hostile.Dr. Ashok Sharma (PW-4) has performed the post-mortem on the body of deceased Prahlad Singh and gave his report Ex.According to him there was a fracture on his head and a stitch wound was found on the head and he died due to the injuries caused on his head.Dr. Mamta Pardeshi (PW-3) had performed MLC of the deceased Prahlad Singh when he was alive.She gave a report Ex.According to her, several contusions were present on the head having size from 2x2 cms to 5x3cms.It was not 3 Cra.450.2016 & Cra.463.2016 mentioned by Dr. Mamta Pardeshi (PW-3) that how many contusions were found on the head whereas 10 accused persons were implicated in the crime.It is not the evidence of the witnesses that each of the accused had assaulted on the head of the deceased whereas no other injuries were found on his person except injuries on the head.No specific overt acts of the present appellants, namely, Vikram, Kamlesh and Deshraj Singh have been established by any of the eyewitnesses.Possibility cannot be ruled out that the other accused persons had assaulted the deceased and therefore the deceased Prahlad Singh would have died.There is no reason to presume the common intention or object of the present appellants along with other main accused persons.There are fair chances of success in this appeal.Present appellants- Vikram, Kamlesh and Deshraj Singh cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the present appeals filed by them may turn infructuous.Under these circumstances, appellants- Vikram, Kamlesh and Deshraj Singh pray for suspension of their remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the 4 Cra.450.2016 & Cra.463.2016 fact that the present appellants were on bail during trial, it would be appropriate to accept the applications of appellants- Vikram, Kamlesh and Deshraj Singh.Consequently, their applications I.A.No.7748/16 and I.A.No.6669/16 are hereby allowed.If appellants- Vikram, Kamlesh and Deshraj Singh deposit the fine amount before the trial court and furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) each along with one surety bond each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court that they shall appear before the Registry of this Court first on 19.12.2016 and on subsequent dates given by the office for appearance till the disposal of the present appeals then appellants- Vikram, Kamlesh and Deshraj Singh shall be released on bail and execution of their jail sentence shall remain suspended till the disposal of these appeals.Certified copy as per rules.",['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Heard on I.A.No.6560/2013 and I.A.No.6561/2013 which are the applications filed under Sections 320 and 320(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to compromise the matter with a prayer to accept the same and decide the case in the light of the compromise.Matter was referred to the Principal Registrar of this Court directing him to verify the factum of compromise between the parties.Verification report dated 16.10.2014 has been perused.It has been found by the Principal Registrar of this court during verification that parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any fear or force for the offence registered at Crime No.216/2012 at Police Station Ambah, District Morena (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 3662 Mcrc.5404.2013 Deepak Rathore Vs.State of M.P. and another II, 34 of IPC On perusal of case-diary, it is clear that the offences as alleged against the petitioner are not of such nature which affects the society adversely.","['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Allegations are false.Applicant is aged 19 years and suffering confinement since 06-09- 2019 which amounts to pretrial detention.As per the undertaking of the counsel on behalf of the applicant for social/community work, the applicant is directed to visit District Hospital, Sheopur in Outdoor Patient Department (OPD) and serve the patients for six months on THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 M.Cr.C. No.40492/2019 every Monday and Tuesday between 09:00 am to 1 pm from this month of October till April, 2020 so that he may learn the lesson to believe in peaceful co-existence in the society and become a better citizen.The natural instinct of compassion, service, love and mercy needs to be rekindled for human existence as they are innately engrained attributes of human existence.4 M.Cr.Certified copy as per rules.(Anand Pathak) Judge Anil* Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA Date: 2019.10.01 06:56:57 +05'30'With consent heard finally.The applicant has filed this first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail, who has been arrested and is in custody since 06-09-2019, in connection with Crime No.122/2019, registered at Police Station Manpur, District Sheopur for the offence punishable under Sections 354-A, 342, 323, 504/34 of IPC and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act.He does not bear any criminal record.He undertakes to cooperate in investigation and trial and to appear before the investigating officer and trial court as and when required and further undertakes that he would not be a source of harassment and embarrassment to the complainant party in any manner and intends to do some community service.Thus, prayed for bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer and THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.C. No.40492/2019 prayed for dismissal of this application.Chief Medical Health Officer (CMHO), Sheopur shall permit the applicant to work in the Outdoor Patient Department only while assisting the ward boys and male nurses to serve the patients.He would not be allowed to move in the Wards and ICU etc. CMHO, Sheopur/Hospital Superintendent, District Hospital Sheopur District Sheopur shall use the service of applicant in maintaining cleanliness in the building and serving the patients and doing work like First Aid etc., so that applicant may inculcate some basic knowledge of First Aid or Emergency Care of patients which may be helpful for unforeseen exigencies or natural calamities wherein applicant may be helpful as a volunteer.Even otherwise, CMHO/Hospital Superintendent as the case may be may submit a report about the work done by the applicant after completion of his stint with community service in every two months.The report may be submitted in THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 M.Cr.On the other hand, applicant shall also have to submit a report in every month about his experience of community service before this Court, which shall be placed before this Court under the caption ""Direction"".This direction is made by this Court as a test case to address the Anatomy of Violence and Evil by process of Creation and a step towards Alignment with Nature.","['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The facts are as follows:Birdhichand deceased was a goldsmith.He had a shop in Purani Mandi, Aimer.He used to reside in his house at Aimer at some distance from his shop.He used to keep his cash and valuables in a safe in his shop He had raised funds to start new business.He had received a loan of Rs. 5.000/- in instalments from the Rehabilitation Department.He had raised funds by selling some property, also.Shivprasad another resident of Aimar.was a friend of the deceased.The appellant, Phoolchand is a resident of Kishansarh and is the brother of Shivprasad's wife.The prosecution case, as it emerges from the record, is, that Phoolchand and Shivprasad hatched a conspiracy to murder Birdhichand with a view to take away cash and valuables from his shop.in the evening, Phoolchand and Shivprasad went to Shamlal.the Caretaker of the Tourist Bungalow at Pushkar, which is about.21 miles from Kishangarh.There, they talked to Shamlal who also joined them in the conspiracy.When these three were conferring with each other in confidence, Jagmohan, the Farash-cum-Chowkidar of the bungalow also came there.Shamlal asked Jagmohan to go away as he did not want him to intrude into their conversation.Jagmohan obeyed.On May 21, 1966, at about 8 p.m., Shivprasad and Phoolchand both went to the house of Birdhichand.Phoolchand remained outside while Shivprasad went to the poli of the house and called Birdhichand.As Birdhichand was, at that time, in the latrine, his daughter, Chandrakala, aged 11 years, responded to the call.She went downstairs and met Shivprasad.She saw Phoolchand standing at a short distance behind Shivprasad near the Chabutra.Shivprasad told her that he wanted to see Birdhichand.In the meantime Birdhichand came out of the latrine.His wife, Shanti who was on the 1st floor, asked him to take his dinner.Birdhichand put on his shirt and told her that Shivprasad and Phoolchand were waiting outside and that he would return within five minutes after seeing them.He asked his wife, that she should in the meantime prepare mango juice.On Shanti's enquiry, the deceased told her that the keys of the shop were with him.Saying this, the deceased went away from his house in the company of Shivprasad and Phoolchand, never to be seen alive, again.After awaiting in vain the return of her husband till 1 A. M. Shanti went to sleep.On the same day at the Tourist Bungalow, Pushkar, at about 9 P. M. Jagmohan.Farash was about to close the door of the bungalow, as usual, when Shamlal, Care-Taker stopped him from doing so, saying that he was expecting three visitOrs.1966, the Farash saw Shivprasad and Phoolchand accompanied by another person coming into the bungalow.All the three went to Shamlal's office and talked to him.Shamlal made an entry in the Visitors' Book with regard to the fact that two persons were put up in Room No. 2F. There after Shamlal took all the three up stairs into Room No. 2F. There were only two beds in that room.Shamlal asked Jagmohan Farash to put a third bed therein for use by the visitOrs.Accordingly, Jagmohan laid the third bed in that room.Jagmohan was living, at the material time, in a quarter within the precincts of the bungalow along with his two daughters, Ruth Prem (19) and Vimla (17) and his son Ullas (16).At that time, his wife was not present there.She was in the family way and had gone to her parents' village.He went to Shamlal who was lying on a cot in front of his quarter within the precincts of the bungalow and told him about the shrieks.Shyamlal then went to Room 2F and returned and informed Jag mohan.that Shivprasad was crying because a table had fallen and hurt his leg.. Shamlal advised Jagmohan to go and rest.Jagmohan laid himself on his bed; but being in a disturbed state of mind, was unable to get a wink of sleep.About 15 minutes thereafter, he saw Shivprasad corning down and going to Shyamlal and then returning to Room 2F. After an elapse of hour and half, Shivprasad again came down-stairs ' and went back with Shyamlal to Room 2F. Shivprasad had then a kurta and a towel in his hand,On the morning of May 22, 1966 at about 7, Jagmohan saw Phoolchand, Shivprasad and Shamlal going out of the bungalow after locking behind Room 2F. Thereafter, Shyamlal and Phoolchand returned to the bungalow in the evening.On the night between the 22nd and 23rd of May at about 11 p.m., Ruth Prem heard the sound of ""khat khat"" coming from the first floor of the bungalow.She awakened her sister Vimla.Then both these girls saw two persons coming down by the staircase with a heavy load on their shoulders from the 1st floor.Shamlal was also with them.She then saw those persons carrying away that bundle out of the bungalow.On May 23, 1966, at about 7 a.m. Chootu went to his field which is at a distance of about 2 furlongs from the bungalow.There he saw a dead-body wrapped in a gunny bag.There was blood on the bag Chhotu forthwith went to the Police Station, Pushkar, made the report Ex. P/l.The report was recorded by A.S.I. Mohinder Pal Mohinder Pal accompanied Chhotu to the field and sent an information to the Circle Inspector, Aimer.Mohinder Pal posted constables to guard the dead-body at the spot.H.M. Tak, Sub-Inspector who was deputed to investigate the case, reached Pushkar at about Noon and got the dead-body taken out of the gunny bag.A number of articles were found on the dead-body, Those articles included a ring (Ex. 4), silver bottons (Ex. 5), some silver ornaments (Exhs. 11, 12, 13 and 14), one-rupee currency note and a key (Ex. 17).The autopsy was conducted by Dr. Chander Mohan Mathur at Pushkar.The Doctor found 5 stab wounds en the body.Wound No. 1 was on the thoricic cavity on the left side of the chest.Wound No. 2 was in the abdominal cavity.A loop of small intestines was found protruding out of the wound.Wound No. 3 was also going deep into the abdominal cavity! Wound No. 4 was on the left lumber region and had pierced the left kidney.The Investigating Officer found blood on the floor outside Room 2F, on the staircase and also on the way leading to the field of Chhotu, where the dead-body was found.The Investigating Officerrecorded the statement of Jagmohan and his daughters, Ruth Prem and Vimla, on the 24th May. On 24th May, the Sub-Inspector took into possession the stock Register (Ex. 27) and the Visitors' Book (Ex. 25) of the Bungalow.He also seized blood-stained Dari (Ex. 30).On May 20, 1966, Shivprasad and Phoolchand visited Tourist Bungalow at Pushkar in the evening and talked to Shyamlal, Caretaker in confidence.Shivprasad and Phoolchand (appellant herein) together visited the house of Birdhichand, deceased, at 3 p.m. on May 21, 1966 at Aimer.Thereafter, Shivprasad called out the deceased and took him away.On May 21, 1966 at about 11 p.m. Phool Chand and Shiv Prasad, accompanied by another person (who according to the prosecution was the deceased) came to the Tourist Bungalow.Shyamlal, Care taker took them upstairs, and lodged them in Room No. 2F.On the night, between the 21st and 22nd May, 1966, at about 4 a.m., shrieks emanating from this Room 2F were heard.Next morning at about 7 A. M. on the 22nd May, 1966, Phoolchand and Shivprasad were seen going out after locking Room No. 2F, and the third visitor was not with them Shyamlal, carrying a Lota was also going out.On May 22, 1966 at about 11 a.m.. Phoolchand and Shivprasad came back to the Tourist Bungalow; Shivprasad then seated himself on the chabutri, while the sound of some footsteps of the other going upstairs were heard.On the night between the 22nd and 23rd May 1966, two persons were seen carrying a heavy load from the Tourist Bungalow.Shyamlal was with them, Shortly thereafter, Shyamlal alone returned to the Bungalow.On May 23, 1966, the dead- body of Birdhichand wrapped in a gunny bag was found in the field of one Chhoti PW at a distance of about furlongs from the Tourist Bungalow, Pushkar.JUDGMENT R.S. Sarkaria, J.It is directed against an appellate judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan whereby the acquittal of the appellant was set aside and converted into a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code.At about 4 a.m. on May 22, 1966, Ruth Prem woke up on hearing shrieks emanating from Room 2F. She awakened her father.Jag mohan, who was lying asleep on a nearby cot.Jagmohan also heard the shrieks.There were also marks, each 1/2"" wide around both the legs in their lower one- third part.The Doctor also found reddening on both sides of the neck of the body.In the opinion of the Doctor, wounds 1 to 4 were sufficient to cause instantaneous death in the ordinary course of nature.The reddening on the neck, in the Doctor's opinion, might be the ""result of applying of hands on the neck.""He also took pos session of blood-stained bed-sheets (Ex. 31, Ex. 32) and the blood-stained table Ex. 33 from Room No. 2F. On the 25th May he arrested Phool Chand, appellant, Shyamlal, Care taker and one Prabhatilal.In consequence of the information supplied by Phool Chand, the Police Sub- Inspector recovered a silken kurta and a towel from the house of Kishorilal.On June 1, 1966, pursuant to information given by Prabhatilal, he recovered a towel (Ex. 23) of the Tourist Bungalow, chappel (Ex. 6) of the deceased and pyjama (Ex. 22) lying in room 2F.Shiv Prasad absconded and could not be arrested despite search.Therefore, after completing the investigation against Phoolchand, Shyamlal and Prabhatilal, the police sent them under a charge-sheet before a Magistrate, who after a preliminary enquiry committed them to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, who tried the case and acquitted all the three accused.Against the acquittal of Phoolchand and Shymalal, the State preferred an appeal to the High Court.The High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted Phoolchand under Section 302, read with Section 34 Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.The High Court maintained the acquittal of Shyamlal in respect of offences under Section 302 read with Section 109 and Section 465, Penal Code but convicted him for an offence under Section 201, Penal Code, with a sentence of 3 years' rigorous imprisonment.At the trial the prosecution demanded conviction of the appellant and his co-accused purely on the basis of circumstantial evidence which may be catalogued as under:It bore several injuries including stab wounds and reddening on both sides of the neck.The stab wounds were ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.The Dari of Room No. 2F, Seized on the 24th May, 1966 from the store-room, and one bed sheet were found stained with blood which according to the Serologist was human blood.Blood was found on the stone pieces of the floor just outside Room 2F and on the slab of the staircase.This blood according to the report of the Serologist was of human origin.20. Evidence with regard to circumstance No. 2 was given by Smt. Shanti Devi (PW 6) and Chandrakala (PW 7) the wife and daughter, respectively of the deceased.To substantiate Circumstance No. 8, the prosecution examined Chhotu (PW2) the Investigating Ofifcer, H.N. Tak (PW 33) and Dr. Chandra Mohan Mathur PW.Evidence with regard to Circumstance 10 was furnished by the statement of the Investigating Officer.In its opinion, ""Shanti Devi's statement in this Court, that Phool Chand visited her house along with Shiv Prasad during the night of May 21, 1966 when her husband accompanied them, does not seem to be true so far as Phool Chand is concerned."" It further held that Jagmohan's statement was ""wholly unacceptable."" It further found that the infirmities in Ruth Prem's evidence go to show that she had seen (or heard) nothing during the nights between 21/22-5-66 and 22/23-5-66, and that her evidence has been created."" On these findings,"" the trial Court acquitted Phoolchand and Shyamlal.On appeal by the State, the High Court reversed these findings.In its opinion, the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses was entirely trustworthy and therefore, the circumstances enumerated above which had been cogently established, were sufficient to bring home the guilt to the appellant beyond doubt.Mr. Mulla, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that in the circumstances of the case, the High Court was totally unjustified in reversing the acquittal.Apart from reiteratnig the reasons given by the trial Court Counsel has pointed out several features of this case, which according, to him, had made the testimony of Jagmohan an unsafe basis for convicting the appellant.It is contended that the investigation was not fair; that the investigator fabricated evidence of the recovery of some incriminating articles to implicate the appellant; that this piece of evidence was found wholly unreliable by both the courts below; that Jagmohan was , first rounded up as one of the suspects and after some detention, a statement was extorted from him after a delay of at least two days and the story of Jagmohan's proceeding on two days' leave was fabricated to cover up the delay; that Jagmohan's evidence be sides being of an accomplice character, was a got up one; that to tie down Jagmohan to the story put in to his mouth by the Police, his statement was got recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164, Cr.P.C., that in any case, Jagmohan according to his own admission, had never seen Phoolchand, appellant before the 20th May, and on that day, too.for some fleeting moments in the darkness; that on the morning of 20th May, also, he claims to have seen Phoolchand from a distance; that in these circumstances it was hazardous to convict the appellant on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of Jagmohan; that no such corroboration wag forthcoming since the evidence with regard to Phoolchand's visit to the house of the deceased on the night of the 21st May, 1966 was utterly unreliable.As against this, Mr. Jain, appearing for the respondent-State has tried to support the judgment of the High Court.After a careful consideration of the evidence on record and the arguments advanced on both sides, we are of opinion that the conviction of Phoolchand, appellant cannot be upheld.The case against the appellant hinges to a very large extent on the testimony of Jagmohan.While most of these reasons were effectively dispelled by the High Court, two of them in our opinion, have not been considered in the right perspective, nor entirely neutralised.The first of them relates to his statement that on May 20, 1966, also, at about 8 p.m. Phool Chand appellant and Shivprasad came to the Tourist Bungalow, Pushkar and began having a talk with Shyamlal accused.When the witness tried to go near them, Shyamlal asked him to be off, and the witness went away.The trial Judge did not believe the above version of Jagmohan because in his opinion the defence version rendered by two Audit Officers, B.P. Mathur (DW 3) and R.L. Sharma (DW 4) showed that at 8 P.M. on the 20th May. 1966, Shyamlal was at the Bus Stand, Pushkar to see off the said Officers.On these premises, the trial Judge concluded:The statement of Jagmohan that accused Shivprasad and Phoolchand came to the Tourist Bungalow in the evening of 20-5-66 does not seem to be correct in point of time.(Underlining ours)We agree with the trial Judge that Jagmohan's version as to the visit of Shivprasad and his companion to the Tourist Bungalow, Pushkar on the 20th May not be correct with regard to the time of the visit.The visit appears to have been sometime after 8 p.m. under cover of darkness.The time of this visit and keeping Jagmohan away, have an important bearing on the question of Phool Chand's identification.In cross-examination, Jagmohan admitted that he had not seen Phool Chand before his visit to Shyamlal on the 20th May. In other words, Phool Chand was not known to the witness.The witness according to his own showing, was not allowed to come near and participate in the talk between the visitors and Shyamlal.He had therefore, caught only a momentary glimpse of the visitors in the darkness.In spite of the fact that Phool Chand was a stranger to Jagmohan, no test identification of Phool Chand was held before a Magistrate.On the 21st May, also, he according to his own version, saw Phool Chand and Shiv Prasad coming to the Bungalow at 11 P.M. at night time.He did not escort the visitors to lodge them in Room No. 2F. Nor did the witness contact them.It was Shyamlal only who took them to that room to be lodged for the night.It seems that Jagmohan was deliberately not allowed by Shyamlal to get near the visitOrs.Under these circumstances, Jagmohan could commit an honest mistake as to the identification of Phool Chand who was not previously known to him.The second infirmity in Jagmohan's evidence stems from the circumstance that there was a delay of two days in recording his statement by the Police.Jagmohan has tried to explain it away by saying that he had gone away from Pushkar after taking two days' leave for the 22nd and 23rd May, 1966 and his statement was recorded on his return from leave on the 24th May. There is a discrepancy as to the place where Jagmohan's statement was recorded.The Investigating Officer stated that he had examined Jagmohan in the Tourist Bungalow.Inconsistently with it, Ruth Prem (PW 27) daughter of Jagmohan stated that their statements were recorded in the Police Station where her father had been kept under restraint for some days.No leave application of Jagmohan was forthcoming.Jagmohan gave a cock and bull story inasmuch as he said that he had sent his son Ullhas (PW 29) to borrow Rs. 5/- to cover his travelling expenses to Beawar, while he himself could do the same on his way to Beawar via Aimer.In view of all these circumstances, the trial Court's finding that the story of Jagmohan going on two days' leave, had been invented merely to cover up the delay of two days in his examination by the Police, could not be said to be clearly wrong.The fact remains that there was hesitation on his part to disclose the facts within his knowledge, concerning the commission of this murder.Then, his statement was got recorded by the Police before a Magistrate, under Section 164, Cr.P.C. Might be that this precaution to get a hold on the witness was taken, because there was an apprehension of the witness resiling from his statement under pressure of the accused.Such an apprehension could not be altogether unfounded because one of the accused, namely, Shyamlal, was his immediate Officer, and another, Shivprasad was absconding.It remains to be seen further whether such confirmation, circumstantial or direct, was available, in this case.That Birdhichand was murdered sometime on the night between 21st and 22nd of May, 1966 is not disputed.The medical witness who conducted the autopsy found redness on both sides of the neck of the deceased.There were several ante-mortem stab wounds on the body which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.The Doctor opined that the redness on the neck was caused by the application of pressure on the neck.The medical evidence thus indicates that the murder was in all probability, committed by two assailants acting in concert.While the medical evidence fixes the number of the assailants at two, it cannot fix their identity.There was yet another circumstance which, if established, could have, with some certainty, connected Phool Chand with the murder in question.This circumstance, as alleged by the prosecution, was that on the evening at about 8 P.M. on May 21, 1966, Shiv Prasad absconder and Phool Chand appellant, both decoyed and took away Birdhi Chand from the latter's house at Aimer.The prosecution had examined two witnesses to substantiate this circumstance.The witnesses were Smt. Shanti, the wife, and Chanderkala, aged 11 years, the daughter of the deceased.The trial Court found that Chanderkala even at the time of her examination in court, was too immature to understand the sanctity of oath, and therefore no oath was administered to her.The Court further held that she was a child witness and as such her evidence was ""dangerous in the extreme"" as child witnesses not un-often live in a climate of ""make-believe.""The trial Court also took note of the fact that Shanti Devi while informing on the 22nd May, about the non-return of her husband, to her brother Rattan Lal (PW 4), did not name Phool Chand, but named Shiv Prasad only as the person who had taken her husband away from the house:The High Court has tried to counter these reasons by saying that in cross-examination no questions were put to the child witness to establish that she had been tutored to make that statement: that Smt. Shanti's statement at the trial was of a derivative nature and her omission to name Phool Chand before the police as the companion of Shiv Prasad when the latter took away her husband from his house at Aimer, could not be used to contradict or discredit either Shanti or her daughter Chander Kala.In our opinion, the High Court did not appraise the failure of Smt. Shanti to implicate Phool Chand, while reporting the matter to her brother, in the right perspective.Firstly, her report to her brother was not a statement made to police in the course of investigation.Consequently, the bar of Section 162, Cr.P.C. as to the use of that statement, did not apply.Secondly, Smt. Shanti must have made full enquiries from her daughter, Chanderkala, as to the number of persons who had been seen by her when she went downstairs to meet Shiv Prasad.Smt. Shanti has stated that soon after the departure of her husband her suspicions about the security of their valuables were (Ref.(I.T.) No. 158 of 1967, D/-6-3-1970 of the Award of Ind. Tri.Maharashtra) aroused.Consequently, she got a double lock put on the shop of her husband.Conversely, if Phool Chand had really been seen standing behind Shiv Prasad near the chabutri by Chanderkala, she would not have failed to pass on that information to her mother when she asked her to put another lock on the door of the shop.",['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
"Arguments heard.Perused case diary and material on record.This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C in connection with crime no.280/2015, registered at Police Station Rampayli, District Balaghat, against them for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the IPC.Prosecution allegations are that the applicants are son and father and they are neighbour of deceased Sursen in village Gosai Tola.The applicants used to torture and harass the deceased by saying that he had played witchcraft upon them and their family members as a result of which they fell ill.It is also submitted by him that the applicants are permanent residents of village Gosai Tola and they do not have any criminal antecedents.It is also submitted by him that the police seized a suicide note alleged to be written by the deceased in which he had not stated that on account of torture by the applicants he was forced to commit suicide.Upon these submissions learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicants.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer on the ground of suicide note written by the deceased.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN)",['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
"B/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Amirul Sk. & Others.... Petitioners Mr. Atis Kumar Biswas .. for the Petitioners Mr. Arabinda Manna .. For the State Apprehending arrest in connection with Murutia Police Station Case No. 132 of 2016 dated 2.8.2016 under Sections 447/324/354B/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. )","['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"M.C. No.2863/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.16253/2013 Page 1 of 10 the Police Station Connaught Place that upon visiting office he found that the office was unattended and without the lock.On the same date i.e. 24th July, 2000 respondent No.2/Mr.N.S. Hoon claiming himself to be the tenant of the said premises also filed a complaint with the Police that the petitioner No.2 along with one Dewan forcibly evicted the premises by threatening the workers and he picked up the briefcase of the respondent No.2 which was kept in the office, containing rent deed, other documents and money.N.S. Hoon also filed a subsequent complaint on 26th July, 2000 against Sanjay Ahuja and others.On 6th November, 2000 Mr.N.S. Hoon filed a writ petition, being W.P. (Crl.) 947/2000 in this Court seeking direction to register the FIR.The same was registered being FIR No.732/2000 under Sections 448/379/34 IPC.The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the summoning order dated 12th May, 2008 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in case arising out of the FIR bearing No.RC 4S/2003/SCB-1 DLI and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom.Brief facts of the case as per the petition are that the petitioner No.2 filed a complaint with the Police Station Connaught Place Smt.Meera Ahuja on 20th July, 2000 mainly on the reason that she was trying to grab office bearing No.1003, Akashdeep Building, 26 A Barakhamba Road, belonging to the firm of M/s. Ahuja Finance Corporation.Another complaint was filed by the petitioner No.2 with Crl.The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 28th May, 2003 transferring further investigation to CBI.On 13th June, 2003 the CBI registered the case under No.RC 4S/2003/SCB-1 DLI.On 11th January, 2005, after investigation the CBI filed a final report in the said case exonerating the petitioners under Sections 448/379/34 IPC due to lack of any evidence observing further as under:-M.C. No.2863/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.16253/2013 Page 1 of 10(i) As per partnership deed, Smt Meera Ahuja was not a partner of M/s Ahuja Finance Corsporation and therefore could not dispose off or rent properties belonging to the firm.M.C. No.2863/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.16253/2013 Page 2 of 10(ii) The rent deed was executed by Smt. Meera Ahuja in the capacity of partner of M/s Unitex Corporation which was not the owner of the property in question.(iii) Moreover Smt. Meera Ahuja was not partner of the said M/s Unitex Corporation.(iv) Complaint dated 20th July, 2000 was filed by petitioner No.2 against Smt Meera Ahuja that in their absence, the latter was trying to grab properties belonging to the firm of M/s Ahuja Finance Corporation.Smt. Meera Ahuja had allegedly informed the Estate Manager, Akashdeep Building in writing that she was authorizing Mr Hoon (Respondent No.2) to use the property in question as his office.(v) No independent witness corroborates story of respondent No. 2 regarding presence of police personnel or theft of briefcase.(vi) No proof of threats or commotion thereby having no proof of criminal trespass.It is also a matter of fact that another complaint was filed against the petitioners, their son and brother Avtar Ahuja by Meera Ahuja under Sections 380/406/420/448/468/451 read with 120B IPC on 20th September, 2001 and the investigation was transferred to CBI by an order of this Court.Closure report was filed in the said complaint and the same was accepted by the Magistrate further observing that the CBI had rightly concluded that the allegations made by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners were of civil nature and there was no need to initiate any legal action under any provision of law.M.C. No.2863/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.16253/2013 Page 3 of 10By order dated 31st March, 2006, the trial Court had accepted the final report of CBI while observing that despite of sufficient notice given to respondent No.2, he did not appear nor filed any protest petition in rebuttal.On 15th April, 2006, respondent No.2 filed a revision petition being Crl.On 6th August, 2007, the Additional Sessions Judge remanded the matter back to the Magistrate, while observing that the investigating agency was not competent to decide ownership or title of the premises in view of the allegations of dispossession and no one had denied the said fact that petitioner No.2 took over possession of the said flat.By order dated 28th October, 2013, the petitioners were directed to produce the original partnership deed.It was mentioned that if the said partnership deed is not produced then the petitioners have to explain to the Court as to why it is not produced.On 19th December, Crl.M.C. No.2863/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.16253/2013 Page 4 of 10 2013 counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners do not have the original partnership deed.It appears from the record that the petitioners also filed an application seeking amendment of the petition being Crl.Along with the application the amended petition was also filed.The application was allowed by order dated 19th December, 2013 and the amended petition was taken on record.The prayer made in the amended petition reads as under:M.C. No.2863/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.16253/2013 Page 4 of 10Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi;(B) Quash the summoning order dated 12.05.2008 and the summons issued thereupon in RC 4S/2003/SCB-I DLI;(C) Set aside and quash order dtd.06.08.2007 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Ld. Addl.Under these circumstances, without expressing anything on merit, the judgment dated 6th August, 2007 passed by the Additional Crl.M.C. No.2863/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.16253/2013 Page 9 of 10 Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, in Criminal Revision No.117/2006 is set aside.Consequently, the summoning order dated 12th May, 2008 is quashed with the direction that the criminal revision petition is restored to its original position.The petitioners are impleaded as respondents in the said criminal revision petition.The same shall be heard after service of notice to both the parties.The Revisional Court is requested to make its endeavour to decide the revision petition within a period of three to four months.M.C. No.2863/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.16253/2013 Page 9 of 10Trial court record be sent back forthwith.The present petition is accordingly disposed of.Pending application also stands disposed of.(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE APRIL 27, 2015 Crl.M.C. No.2863/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.16253/2013 Page 10 of 10M.C. No.2863/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.16253/2013 Page 10 of 10","['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Case diary perused.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.387/2019 registered by Police Station Gadarwara District Narsinghpur for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380, 511 of the IPC.The case of the prosecution is that, in the intervening night of 8- 9/4/2019, applicant with other co accused persons was found to attempt theft in the shop of complainant Chain Singh Rajput situated at village Kaudiya near Barheta Road.It is submitted that applicant Chain Singh Rajput got information on telephone then he reached the spot and got hold of the applicant-Golu Dhanak and co-accused Kishan Dhanak.They were taken to the police station, where on interrogation they admitted that they were trying to open locks and shutter of the shop.It is also alleged that some iron rods were also recovered from their possession.Applicants were taken into custody and abovementioned offence was registered against the applicants.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not committed any crime and has falsely been implicated in the case.He is a permanent resident of the address shown in the application.There is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has Digitally signed by LORETTA RAJ Date: 28/06/2019 01:52:08 2 MCRC-20877-2019 opposed the application.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the fact as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant and the period of detention of the applicant, in the opinion of this Court, it is a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE loretta Digitally signed by LORETTA RAJ Date: 28/06/2019 01:52:08","['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The applicants has applied for bail in Case Crime No. 119 of 2005 under Sections 376 and 306 I.P.C. P.S. Shahi District Bareilly.An information was given that deceased Km.Durgesh daughter of Ayodhya Prasad, aged about 13 years committed suicide by hanging herself at her house.On that information, one head constable/ A.S.I, alongwith other two police personnel came at the place of the occurrence and prepared the inquest report of the deceased on 29.3.2005 since 9.30 A.M. To 11 A.M. The inquest report was prepared in the presence of Ayodhya Prasad, the father of the prosecutrix.According to the inlquest report, the cause of death was strangulation by pressing the neck of the deceased.According to that report, the parents of the deceased Durgesh Kumari had gone to Delhi on 24.3.2005 who attend Satsang of Satgurudev Maharaj and the deceased remained alone at her house because one Tula Ram, the brother of the first informant was also living in the village.The deceased was student of Class-IVth.On 24.3.2005 at about 8 P.M., she had gone to attend the call of nature out side the village but she did not return after a considerable period then one Tula Ram went towards the place of occurrence in search of the deceased.He heard the Shriekh of the deceased from the field of one Mohan Swaroop.He proceeded towards there by flashing a torch light and saw the applicants and co-accused Nanhey Lal and Prem Pal who were committing the rape at the pistol point by pressing the mouth of the deceased.Thereafter, the applicants and other accused persons ran away leaving the deceased at the place of occurrence.The deceased disclosed the fact before all the persons who gathered at the place of occurrence that she was forcibly lifted by the applicants and two other co-accused persons and taken to the field of wheat where she was raped by the applicants and 2 other co-accused persons at the pistol points.The parents of the deceased were not present at the house so the F.I.R. was not lodged immediately thereafter.But thereafter certain derogatory remarks were also passed by the applicants and other co-accused persons on the deceased and she was harassed and mentally tortured.On 28.3.2005, the parents of the deceased came to Bareilly from Delhi but the father of the deceased stayed at Bareilly for some work and the mother of the deceased came to village Lalpur.JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.The mother of the deceased went to the house of Khem Karan Lal.In the meantime, the applicants and two other co-accused persons entered into the house of the deceased by crossing a boundary wall and the main gate was closed by them from inside and they committed murder of the deceased by throtling and to conceal this act and to divert the attention of all the persons, the deceased was hanged by them at the door and they ran away from the house by jumping the boundary wall.They were seen by Deena Nath when they were jumping the boundary wall , subsequently, it was found that the deceased was hanging thereafter, rope was cut and she was taken down but and the deceased had died and on that information , Ayodhya Prasad, the father of the deceased came in the village in the same night.But, the Chaukidar went to police station to gave this information.It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that according to the prosecution version, the applicants and two other co-accused persons committed the rape with the deceased on 24.8.2005 at about 8.00 P.M. but in respect of the rape, no F.I.R. was lodged, whereas, Deena Nath, the uncle of the deceased was present in the village.Accordingly to the information of the chaukidar and according to the statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the deceased committed suicide because she was raped by the applicants and other co-accused persons and the insulting remarks were passed upon her by them and she was mentally harassed, but the allegation of rape has been made against the applicants and other co-accused persons but no such F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants and other co-accused persons, therefore, it is an allegation after thought.It is further contended that the prosecution story is not corroborated by the post mortem examination report, the deceased had not committed the suicide but she was murdered by strangulation because injuries were found on the neck of the deceased on the front of both the sides of the neck 7 cm below the right ear and 3 cm below the chin and 4 cm below left ear and the cause of death was Asphyixia as a result of ante mortem strangulation, it is contended that the deceased was murdered by her family members but to save their skin, the false information was given to the police station concerned and thereafter, the applicant and other co-accused persons were falsely implicated.It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that according to the detailed report dated 30.3.2005, ther father of the deceased clearly stated that when his wife has gone to the house of one Khem Karan Lal at that time, the deceased was alone at her house.The applicants and other co-accused persons got a chance and entered into the house by jumping the wall and after closing the door from nside and they committed the murder of the deceased by way of throttling .It is further contended that nobody has seen that how and in what manner the deceased was murdered but the post mortem examination report shows that first of all the deceased was subjected to rape , thereafter, he was murdered by throttling because in the post mortem examination report, an abrasion insize of 4cm x 3 cm was present on inner part of thigh near to vaginal region and hymen was teared and clothed blood was present and the blood was found in the uterus of the deceased also.It shows that a sexual assault was made on the deceased .She was murdered there after hanged by to divert the attention , there was a sexual assault also, thereafter the deceased was murdered.There is specific allegation against the applicants and other co-accused person when they have entered the house of the deceased by jumping a wall and the door of the house was closed from inside, it shows that she was murder and thereafter hanged by the applicants and other co-accused persons, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the parents of the deceased have committed the murder of the deceased.Accordingly this bail application is rejected.","['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"-: 1 :- Misc.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE Misc.(Jitendra s/o Budan Mankar v/s State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated : 09.08.2019 :-Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant - Jitendra.Shri Anil Ojha, learned Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant/State.Submissions were made on this first application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail in connection with Crime No.200/2019 registered at Police Station Anjad, District Barwani for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.As per the prosecution story, deceased Ranubai, the wife of the applicant, married for a year with applicant committed suicide by setting herself ablaze.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in this matter.He points out that Merg was first recorded 11 days after the death and this delay has not been explained by the prosecution.In the Merg statement, the harassment has been shown to be meted out to the deceased by making allegation against her character by the applicant.Learned counsel for the State was also heard.Perused the case-diary.After duly considering the documents placed in the charge-sheet, this application is being allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000-00 [Fifty Thousand Rupees] with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his regular-: 2 :- Misc.[ Shailendra Shukla ] JUDGE (AKS) Anil Digitally signed by Anil Kumar Sharma DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench Indore, Kumar postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=753b65d225a9746e99a75a 441cdc964aa7a158d438793e7f3246 Sharma 7b355745f3ae, cn=Anil Kumar Sharma Date: 2019.08.09 17:29:37 +05'30'","['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Case diary is available.This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 22.12.2017 in connection with Crime No. 278/2017 registered by Police Station Bhauti, District Shivpuri for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376-D, 342, 326A, 120-B of IPC and under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that there is no allegation of rape against the applicant.The only allegation against the applicant is that he provided an accommodation to the co-accused and the prosecutrix at Bombay.Certified copy as per rules.","['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Mr. Aniket Mitra appears for the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited.The allegations are of theft of electricity.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out that after assessment, the total amount of energy said to have been pilfered comes to about Rs.87,000/- (Rupees Eighty Seven Thousand only).However, in this case, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has very fairly volunteered to pay the money to the said company as a condition for grant of anticipatory bail.The Petitioner will be obliged to pay that amount within fifteen days from the date the Electricity Distribution Company demands such sum in writing.With the aforesaid observations and directions, the application for anticipatory bail stands allowed.(TAPEN SEN, J.) (INDRAJIT CHATTERJEE, J.)","['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of case crime no. 200/2019, under Sections- 323, 324, 504, 506, 452, 354 IPC, P.S.- Adarsh Mandi, District Shamli pending before the concerned court below as well as summoning order dated 30.10.2019 and all consequential proceedings of the aforesaid case.""1. Heard Mr. Atul Pandey and Sandeep Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no. 01/2019 dated 27th September, 2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 200 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs.Ompal), Shadik Ali & Another), under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Adarsh Mandi, District-Shamli, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shamli.The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment.He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs.Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs.P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs.The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs.For a period of 45 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.""The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of summoning order dated 30.10.2019 and all consequential proceedings of the aforesaid case.It is correct that in earlier application filed by the applicant, Sections 452 and 354 IPC were not there, but the fact remains that incident and case is the case.When application of applicant for quashing of proceedings under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC of aforesaid case was dismissed, the second application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of same proceedings would not be maintainable under shield that two more sections have been added.","['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"The role ascribed to him is that of the middlemen, who arranged seven solvers/impersonators and brought them to Bhind for appearing in Police constable Recruitment Test, 2013 held on 15.09.2013 posing as real candidates.Taking into consideration these facts applicant's previous applications: M.Cr.C.No.8543/2017, M.Cr.C.No.10660/2017, M.Cr.C.No.22965/2017 and M.Cr.No.1/State.Mr. Vivek Khedkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/CBI.This is fifth application under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail.The applicant is an accused in Crime No.458/2013 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Bhind for the offences under Sections 417, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B and 511 IPC.C.No.42826/2018 were dismissed on 18.08.2017, 23.10.2017, 18.12.2017 and 18.01.2019, respectively.However, on a comparison made, we do not perceive any similarity.In the present case besides the fact that the applicant had earlier misused the liberty; in a supplementary chargesheet filed by the CBI 14 accused persons including accused applicant Deep @ Deepnarayan under Sections 120-B read with 417, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 511 of IPC and Sections 4/3 D (1), (2) of MPRE Act, 1937 on 03.12.2018 before the Court of Learned Special Magistrate, CBI, Vyapam Cases, Gwalior.Apart from this, CBI also filed a separate chargesheet in the case against 02 juveniles under Sections 120-B read with 417, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 511 of IPC on 14.01.2019 before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bhind, wherein charges are yet to be framed against them.","['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']"
"Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appealare recapitulated as under:-The dispute is between very close and intimate familymembers.Deceased Gurcharan Singh was the brother ofBakhtawar Singh and uncle of Darshan Singh.He was thefather of Gurdish Singh, PW7, the informant.The agriculturefields of both brothers, Gurcharan Singh and BakhtawarSingh were situated adjoining to each other.According to theprosecution, on 15.7.1991 at about 8 a.m. Gurdish Singh,PW7 and his father, Gurcharan Singh were irrigating theiraforesaid fields and were also mending its ridges and at thattime Gurdev Singh, PW8 and Ajit Singh were also presentthere.In the meantime, Darshan Singh and Bakhtawar Singhcame there from the side of their fields raising lalkaras andabused the complainant party.Darshan Singh, accused wasarmed with D.B.B.L. gun and his father Bakhtawar Singh was 3carrying a Gandasa and they were saying that they wouldteach a lesson to the complainant party for cutting the ridges.According to the further story of the prosecution,Bakhtawar Singh gave a Gandasa blow causing injuries on thechest of Gurcharan Singh.Gurcharan Singh was also havinga Gandasa with him and in order to save himself he alsocaused injury on the head of Bakhtawar Singh.Thereafter,Darshan Singh fired two shots from his licensed gun which hitGurcharan Singh in the chest and some of the pellets hitGurdish Singh PW7 on his left upper arm and Gurdev Singh,PW8 on his left thigh.Gurcharan Singh fell down and died atthe spot.Gurdish Singh and others retraced their steps inorder to save themselves.Both the accused in order to savethemselves ran towards their respective houses.GurdishSingh, PW7 left the dead body of Gurcharan Singh andproceeded to the police station to lodge a report.GurdevSingh PW8 also accompanied him.They met Om Prakash, ASIat about 9 a.m. at Barnala crossing where Gurdish Singh PW7gave his statement.It was then read over and explained tohim who signed the same admitting the contents thereof to becorrect.Om Prakash, ASI made his endorsement (Ex. N/1) 4and forwarded the statement to the police station, Rajkot andon the basis of which the case was registered against both theaccused.Om Prakash, ASI accompanied Gurdish Singh andGurdev Singh to the place of occurrence.He prepared inquestreport in respect of the dead body of Gurcharan Singh andthen sent the dead body for post-mortem examination throughConstable Milkha Singh and Head Constable Pargat Singh.Om Prakash, ASI lifted blood stained earth from the placewhere dead body of Gurcharan Singh was lying and took thesame into possession after preparing the recovery memo.Onegandasa and an empty cartridge of 12 bore were found lyingnear the dead body.The gandasa and the empty cartridgewere also taken into possession.The Investigating Officerprepared visual site plan of the place of occurrence withmarginal notes.The factum of the incident has not been denied bythe accused and they claimed right of private defence.According to the prosecution, the motive of the crime wasdispute regarding partition of land between both brothersBakhtawar Singh and Gurcharan Singh.One year prior to thepresent incident, the village Panchayat had got the disputecompromised by a written agreement.There was a commonwell situated in the adjoining land.As a result of thecompromise, the well along with a small piece of land attachedto it was given to Gurcharan Singh and the land of commonpathway leading to the well was given to the accused party.The compromise was not accepted by the accused party andthey wanted repartition of the land attached to the well.Dalveer Bhandari, J.Both Darshan Singh and Bakhtawar Singh wereacquitted by the Sessions Court, Ludhiana.The said judgmentof acquittal was set aside by the High Court of Punjab &Haryana at Chandigarh.3. Darshan Singh and Bakhtawar Singh filed appeal againstthe said judgment before this court.During the pendency ofthis appeal, Bakhtawar Singh died and consequently theappeal filed by him abated.Gurdish Singh and Gurdev Singh's injurystatements were also prepared and sent for medico legalexamination.Dr. Mukesh Gupta PW4 conducted post-mortemexamination on the dead body of Gurcharan Singh on 515.7.1991 at 4.30 p.m. On the same day at 5.50 p.m. Dr.Gupta also conducted medico legal examination of GurdevSingh and found one abrasion on his left thigh.Dr. Guptafound a superficial abrasion on Gurdish Singh on his elbow.Thisgrievance led to this unfortunate incident.The prosecution examined 11 witnesses.Dr. MukeshGupta, PW4 who conducted the post-mortem examinationfound the following injuries on the dead body of GurcharanSingh:-There were 14 wounds in an area of 20 cm x 18 cm on left side of the chest above the nipple.One of the wounds which was above the nipple was having inverted margins.A wad was recovered from this wound.This wound was 1 cm x 1 cm.The 9 wounds which measured 0.75 cm x 0.75 cm which were on the chest and shoulder also had inverted margins.Out of these wounds 6 were found to entering chest cavity and 6 pellets were recovered from the chest cavity.The remaining 3 wounds were having everted margins.These were near the axilla and each wound measured 1 cm x 1 cm.One of the 14 wounds which measured 0.75 cm x 1.5 cm was having inverted margins.It was skin deep and was on the shoulder, upper part of humerous and clavicle bones were found to be fractured.4th and 5th rib of the left side of the chest were also found to be fractured.There were 7 wounds in an area of 20 cm x 8 cm on the upper part of the chest on its right side above the nipple.Out of these wounds 3 wounds measuring 0.75 cm x 1 cm each was having inverted margins, these were skin deep.2 wounds were having everted margins having a dimension of 1 x 1 cm each near the axilla.A pellet was recovered from near the axilla.The remaining 2 wounds were near the top of right shoulder measuring 0.75 x 1.5 cm each with inverted margins.These were skin deep.An incised wound 8 cm x 0.5 cm skin deep on the left side of chest 3 cm above the nipple.It was horizontally placed.""Dr. Mukesh Gupta found following injury on the personof Gurdev Singh:-""An abrasion measuring 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the front and inner side of left thigh.It was a superficial abrasion reddish in colour, over the junction of upper 1/3rd and lower 2/3rd of the thigh.There was damage to the pajama corresponding to the injury.""According to the doctor, the injury was simple in natureand was caused within 24 hours.Doctor also found injury onGurdish Singh to be superficial.The same reads as under:-""A very superficial abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the upper side of left upper arm 12 cm above the elbow.It was reddish in colour.""It may be relevant to mention that Dr. M.S. Gill, PW5,who conducted the medical examination of Bakhtawar Singhfound the following injuries on his person:-An incised wound 7 cm x 0.5 cm on the parietal region of the right side of head.It was placed anterior posteriorly.The wound was bone deep and 4 cm above the right pinna.Clotted blood was present.""According to doctor, this injury was caused by sharp-edged weapons.Both Gurdish Singh, PW7 and Gurdev Singh, PW8 arethe eye-witnesses who gave detailed description of theoccurrence.After examining the prosecution evidence, thefollowing statements of Darshan Singh and Bakhtawar Singhwere recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.. The relevant portionof the statement of Darshan Singh reads as under:-""I am innocent.In fact the complainant party had gone back from the agreement got effected by the Panchayat one year prior to the occurrence.In accordance with the said compromise we had ploughed the land which was earlier under common pathway.One day prior to the occurrence we had irrigated that portion of the land.On the day of occurrence when we went to the fields, Gurcharan Singh (deceased) along with 3-4 outsiders came to our field and remarked that we would be taught a lesson for irrigating the land.Immediately thereafter Gurcharan Singh gave a gandasa blow hitting my father Bakhtawar Singh on the head as a result of which he fell down.I felt that my father had been killed.Gurcharan Singh then advanced towards me holding the gandasa.I apprehended that I too would be killed and I then pulled the trigger of my gun.Gurcharan Singh fell to the ground and his companions took to their heels.I then took Bakhtawar Singh in injured condition to Govt. hospital, Sudhar.Police came to the hospital at about 5 p.m. We were kept under guard and brought to the police station on the next day after getting my father discharged.We have been falsely implicated in this case.Bakhtawar Singh (accused) pleaded as under:-""I am innocent.It was the complainant party who had resiled from the compromise got effected by Panchayat about a year before the occurrence.We had ploughed the land which had fallen to our share and one day prior to the occurrence we had irrigated the same.On the day of occurrence when we went to the fields Gurcharan Singh (deceased) along with 3-4 outsiders came to our field and remarked that we would be taught a lesson for irrigating the land.Immediately thereafter Gurcharan Singh gave a gandasa blow on my head as a result of which I fell down.Gurcharan Singh then advanced towards Darshan Singh holding his gandasa whereupon Darshan Singh fired a shot from his gun.I was taken to Government hospital, Sudhar by Darshan Singh.Police came there on the same day at about 5 p.m. and took us to the police station after getting me discharged.I have been falsely involved in this case.""According to the versions of the accused Darshan Singhand Bakhtawar Singh, Gurcharan first gave Gandasa blowhitting Bakhtawar Singh on the head and the injury caused onBakhtawar Singh was an incised wound of 7 cm x 0.5 cm.onthe parietal region of the right side of head.The wound wasbone deep and 4 cm above the right pinna and clotted bloodwas present and after receiving these injuries in order to savehimself, Darshan Singh fired at Gurcharan Singh and as aresult of which he died.According to the accused, the entireact is covered by the right of private defence.According to theprosecution, Bakhtawar Singh gave first injury on the chest of 10Gurcharan Singh whereas according to the defence the firstinjury was given by Gurcharan Singh to Bakhtawar Singh.The appellant Darshan Singh fired only after the seriousincised wound by a Gandasa was inflicted on his fatherBakhtawar Singh and at that time in order to save his life hefired 2 shots which hit the deceased Gurcharan Singh leadingto his death.The point for determination is the place where theunfortunate incident had taken place.According to BhupinderSingh Patwari, PW3, point `A' in site plan Ex.According to Bhupinder SinghPatwari, Point `E' is in Khasra No.10 from where DarshanSingh had allegedly fired at Gurcharan Singh.According tothe site plan prepared by Bhupinder Singh Patwari, Point `F' isthe place where the dispute took place with Bakhtawar Singh.According to the Patwari, this point `F' is in Khasra No.10 at a 11distance of 5 karms which is equivalent to 27.5 feet from theaforesaid pathway and point `A' is at a distance of 7 karmsfrom point `F'.Thus, from this evidence it is evident that theoccurrence took place inside Khasra No.10 which was inpossession of Bakhtawar Singh accused.Gurcharan Singhcovered a distance of about 7 karms which is equivalent to37.5 feet.The trial court came to the conclusion that the presenceof Gurdev Singh and Gurdish Singh at the time of allegedoccurrence is highly doubtful.Dr. Mukesh Gupta also statedthat injuries on the person of Gurdev Singh and GurdishSingh could be caused by friendly hands and can be selfsuffered.He further stated in the cross examination thatduration of the injuries was less than 6 hours.As per theprosecution case, the injuries were allegedly received by themat about 8 a.m. No pellet was recovered from the injuries ofthese witnesses namely, Gurdev Singh and Gurdish Singh.According to the trial court, the possibility of these injuries ontheir person having been fabricated at a later stage cannot beruled out.The trial court also held that there was no mentionof the injuries received by Gurdish Singh and Gurdev Singh in 12the inquest report whereas this fact finds mention in the firstinformation report.According to the prosecution, GurdishSingh suffered pellet injury on the left upper arm whereas,Gurdev Singh was hit on his left thigh.If it was so, therewould have been mention of this fact in the inquest report orthe investigating officer must have prepared their injurystatement, but neither any such injury statement wasprepared at the spot nor their medical-examination wascarried out.Om Prakash, ASI, in his cross-examination hasadmitted that he came to know about the injuries of GurdishSingh and Gurdev Singh only when they gave theirsupplementary statements at the bus stand.According to thefindings of the trial court, their injury statement was preparedat the spot and they were medically examined by Dr. MukeshGupta.Thus, according to the trial court the injuries werefabricated with connivance with the investigating officer just inorder to make Gurdish Singh and Gurdev Singh stampwitnesses.The trial court after discussing the entire evidence cameto the conclusion that two counter versions of the case havebeen presented and, in the view of the trial court, the defence 13version is more probable and nearer to the truth for thefollowing reasons:(i) The delay in lodging the FIR impells the court to scrutinize the evidence of witnesses regarding the actual occurrence with greater care and caution.(ii) The crucial point to be decided in this case was that who was the aggressor or which of the parties can have the motive to open the attack?The trial court held that ""if the accused were already cultivating the land as per compromise, then it does not appeal to reason as to why they would feel aggrieved.On the other hand there was strong motive for Gurcharan Singh to assault the accused person as he has resiled from the compromise.""(iii) The next crucial point according to the trial court was as to where the incident took place? According to the trial court the incident had taken place in the field of the accused.Gupta stated that the injuries on Gurdev Singh and Gurdish Singh could be caused by friendly hands and can be self suffered.(v) No pellet was recovered from the injuries of the prosecution witnesses namely, Gurdev Singh and Gurdish Singh.The possibility of the injuries on their persons having been fabricated at a later stage cannot be ruled out.The trial court found that, in the instant case, it appeared that the inquest report was prepared first and the FIR was prepared at some later stage because there was no mention about the injuries of Gurdev Singh and Gurdish Singh in the inquest report, whereas this fact is mentioned in the FIR.According to the prosecution case, Gurdish Singh suffered a pellet injury on his left upper arm whereas, Gurdev Singh was hit on his left thigh.This was so mentioned in the FIR.If it was so, this fact would have been mentioned in the inquest report or the Investigating Officer must have prepared their injury statement, but no such injury statement was prepared at the spot nor their medical examination was got done.In the cross-examination, Om Prakash ASI had admitted that he came to know about the injuries of Gurdish Singh and Gurdev Singh only when they gave their supplementary statements at the bus stand.The finding of the trial court is that the injuries were fabricated with the connivance of the Investigating Officer just in order to make Gurdish Singh and Gurdev Singh stamp witnesses.(vi) Gurdish Singh P.W.7 had admitted that his father Gurcharan Singh was face to face when Bakhtawar Singh gave Gandasa blow from above to downward vertically on the chest of Gurcharan Singh.However, Dr. Mukesh Gupta contradicted him and stated that injury no.3 on the person of Gurcharan Singh was skin deep and was horizontally placed and was possible by a fall on a sharp edged weapon.From this it can safely be concluded that it was not Bakhtawar Singh who gave Gandasa blow to Gurcharan Singh in the manner as suggested by the prosecution.It is most likely that Gurcharan Singh suffered injury no. 3 by a fall on his own Gandasa and this was the reason that the wound was only skin deep.The story put forth by the prosecution that 16 Gurcharan Singh was cutting weeds of ridges with Gandasa is not believable.Gurdish Singh stated that he was collecting the cut weeds.They were not having any Kassi or Khurpa and it was not possible to cut weeds of ridges with Gandasa.(vii) The trial court came to a clear conclusion that Bakhtawar Singh was injured at point `F' as shown in the site plan at the hands of Gurcharan Singh (deceased).Gurcharan Singh after causing that injury forwarded towards Darshan Singh armed with Gandasa and at that point Darshan Singh had no option but to open fire and Gurcharan Singh died of that firearm injury.",['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']