Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

actprompt

like 0

Heard Sri Shankar Saun, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned AGA for the State.It is stated by the counsel for the applicant that the complainant Narendri Giri has filed an affidavit before the SSP, Gautam Budh Nagar denying about the incident and participation of the applicant.A copy of the affidavit dated 16.7.2014 has been annexed as Annexure-2 at page 15-19 of the bail application.Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that the affidavit has been filed by the complainant before the S.S.P. Gautam Budh Nagar.Let the applicant Sachchidanand Chauey involved in Case Crime No. 475 of 2014 under Sections 354, 354 Ka (1) IPC and 7/8 Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012, police station -Phase -2, NOIDA DADRI, district Gautam Budh Nagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']

Arguable points are involved in this criminal revision, hence, admitted for hearing.Record of both the lower Courts be requisitioned.No fresh notice is necessary to the respondent as Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has appeared.Appearing counsel for the parties are also heard on I.A.No.24019/2017 filed under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C, 1973 for suspension of custodial sentence of the petitioners Mewaram and Sanjay.Petitioner - Mewaram was convicted by the JMFC, Jaura, District Morena, under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC and petitioner - Sanjay was convicted under Section 324 (two counts) of IPC.The lower appellate Court has affirmed the conviction recorded by the trial Court but has reduced the jail sentence and increased the fine amount for the petitioner No. 1 - Mewaram under Section 323 of IPC, which is as under:Appearing counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already deposited the modified fine amount and they were released on regular bail during the trial and their custodial sentence was previously suspended by the lower appellate Court and there is no possibility of early hearing of this criminal revision before this Court.On the other hand, above-mentioned prayer has been strongly opposed by the Public Prosecutor.After considering the rival contentions made by the parties and looking to the facts that the petitioners were released on regular bail during trial and their jail sentence was suspended by the lower appellate Court and there is no possibility of early hearing of this revision, without commenting on the merits of the matter, I.A.No.24019/2017 is allowed and it is ordered that subject to depositing the fine amount and on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) by each petitioner - Mewaram and Sanjay with a solvent surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, petitioners' jail sentence shall remain suspended till disposal of this revision and they be released on bail.Petitioners are further directed to remain present before the Registry of this Court firstly on 20.03.2018 and, thereafter, on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry for the same purpose in future.Certified copy as per rules.(Ashok Kumar Joshi) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2017.12.12 10:18:08 +05'30'

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

Case diary perused.This is the first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicants, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.235/2019, registered at Police Station- Digaura District Tikamgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC.The allegation of the prosecution is that on 26.8..2019 at about 5.45 p. m. at village Vadau P.S. Digaura District Tikamgarh in front of the house of Rajendra Singh some altercation had taken place between Rajendra Singh and complainant Durg Singh at that time co-accused Rajendra Singh has inflicted injury by axe on the head of Durg Singh, by which he has sustained grievous injury.It is also alleged that at the time of incident the applicants have also inflicted injuries by means of axe and sticks by which the complainant sustained injuries in his palm of his right hand and near right eye respectively.The complainant Durg Singh has lodged the report of the incident.On that basis above mentioned crime has been registered against the applicants and other co-accused.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicants have not committed any offence and have falsely been implicated in the crime.It is further submitted that the applicant are permanent resident of the address shown in the application.They are ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all terms and conditions imposed upon them.There is no chance of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.Learned counsel for the respondent/ State on the other hand has opposed the application.During the course of investigation the presence of co-accused Rajencra Singh was not found to be proved at the place of the incident and therefore, further proceeding has been deferred against him.Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicants on bail.Consequently, the application filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the applicants is allowed.It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. thirty thousand only) each with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly, the aforesaid M.Cr.C. is allowed and disposed of.Certified Copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE kkc Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 31/01/2020 16:52:52

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

The facts leading to filing of this Criminal Revision Petition and necessary disposal are as follows:The petitioner/ Accused had married the defacto complainant , Krishneveni, PW 1 on 27.04.2001 at Chennai.After three days, he left to USA and thereafter the defacto complainant had also joined the petitioner/ accused on 23.06.2001 at USA.She lived there with great difficulty for four months and she left from USA and came to Chennai.In the mean time, at USA, the petitioner/accused had filed an application for divorce.The defacto complainant had returned to India and also approached the Sub Court, Poonamallee, seeking restitution of conjugal rights.Then, she had filed the complaint, Ex.P.1 against the petitioner/Accused and his family members A2 to A6 for dowry harassment and cruelty inflicted upon her.On the basis of Ex.P.1, the petitioner/accused along with other accused were charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 498(A) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.b) The case was taken on file in C.C.No. 1003 of 2004 by the Judicialhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 Magistrate, Alandur and necessary charges were framed.The accused had denied the charges and sought for trial.In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW 6 and also marked Exhibits.c) On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused have come with the version of total denial and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case.During the trial A2 died and hence the charges levelled against him stood abated.d) The trial Court after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also looking into the materials available on record, acquitted A1 to A6 from the charges levelled under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, while acquitting A3 to A6 for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC found the petitioner/ A1 alone guilty for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment.Against the order of acquittal of the other accused in C.C.No.1003 of 2004 dated 10.02.2005 the second respondent filed Crl.R.C.No. 742 of 2005 and Crl.However against the order of acquittal of the petitioner in C.A.No. 31 of 2005, the second respondent filed Crl.R.C.No.442 of 2014 and set aside the order of acquittal by order dated 10.02.2014 and remitted the matter back to the Principal Sessions Court, Chengalapattu.The petitioner had filed a petition to recall the exparte order in Crl.R.C.No.442 of 2014 and it was dismissed by this Court on 29.09.2014 against which the petitioner had file Special Leave Application (Crl.) in Crl.M.P.No.21952 of 2014 before the Honourable Supreme Court.The Apex Court dismissed the same by order dated 17.11.2014 however held that the Appellate Court shall not weigh with the observation made by the High Court in Crl.After remand the appeal was heard afresh and in and by the impugned judgment of the lower appellate Court, the judgment and conviction of sentence of the trial Court was confirmed.The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the trial Court having acquitted the petitioner and the other accused for offence under Section 4 of DP Act and having acquitted the other accused for offence under Section 498(A) of IPC erred in convicting the petitioner alone for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC on the same set of evidence.The trial Court erred in convicting the petitioner when no ingredients of offence under Section 498(A) of IPC has been made out against the petitioner.The trial court disbelieved the case of prosecution in respect of incidents regarding demand of dowry and cruelty in India.However, trial Courthttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 taking into consideration the allegations regarding the incidents that happened in USA found the petitioner guilty for offence under Section 498(A) of IPC.The allegations made in respect of the incidents that happened in USA do not made out a case for offence under Section 498(A) of IPC.The finding of both Courts below suffers from the legality and perversity and the judgment of conviction and sentence have to be set aside.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that even beforehttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 marriage there was a demand of dowry and at the time of marriage 150 sovereigns of jewels and Rs.2 lakhs was paid in cash and thereafter they wife/defacto complainant went to USA.During her stay in USA, the petitioner had issued a legal notice for divorce and had filed the petition for divorce and thereby committed cruelty.5.The learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant would submit that there was a demand of dowry by the parents of the petitioner and Rs.1lakh was paid to the parents of the petitioner and subsequently there was a demand of Rs. 5 lakhs and after going to USA the petitioner had committed cruelty on the defacto complainant/wife had sent her legal notice and also by filing the petition for divorce.During the stay of the defacto complainant at USA the petitioner had pushed her from the cot and caused harassment and cruelty on her.Per contra the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial court had disbelieved the evidence with regard to the receipt of Rs.1 lakh and further demand of Rs. 5 lakhs during the defacto complainant's stay at India and had categorically held that the prosecution has not proved the allegations of demand of Rs.5 lakhs and had acquitted the petitioner and other accused for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court had erred in finding that by sending the legal notice at USA the petitioner had committed cruelty on the defacto complainant.He would further submit that at no stretch of imagination the conduct of sending a legal notice and filing a petition for divorce at USA can be held to behttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 an act of Cruelty within the meaning of Section 498(A) of IPC.The trial Court after analyzing the entire evidence had taken into consideration the contradiction between the witnesses and found that the prosecution has not proved the case with cogent evidence and had disbelieved the case of prosecution with regard to receipt of Rs.1lakh and demand of Rs.5 lakh by the accused and acquitted all the accused for offence under Section 4 of D.P.Act.However, the trial court had rendered a finding that the petitioner by sending legal notice at USA and having initiated the proceedings against the defacto complainant for divorce at USA had committed cruelty and convicted him for offence under Section 498(A) alone.

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

Case diary is available.Heard, learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has filed this first application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Godan, District Datia, in connection with Crime No.165/2020 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 294, 323, 506, 34, 326 of the IPC.Allegations against the applicant and other co-accused in short are that when the complainant was installing lighting in a wedding, at that time, the present applicant along with co-accused Mahesh Vanshkar, Narendra Vanshkar and Arjun Vanshkar came there and started abusing the complainant.When they were stopped, co- accused Mahesh hit Gulab with Lathi on his head due to which he started bleeding.When complainant's son-in-law Pavan came to save them, Narendra hit Pavan with a Lathi on his head causing injury.Thereafter when his daughter-in-law Kusuma and daughter Sunita came forward to intervene, applicant Veer Singh gave a Lathi blow on Sunita's left hand causing injury.Thereafter, co-accused Arjun gave a Lathi blow on left hand of Kusuma causing injury to her.No overt act has been assigned to the applicant.Even as per the medical report, Sunita has sustained simple injury, therefore, offence under section 326, IPC would not be attracted against the present applicant.

['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 27.2.2009 in afternoon at around 3 o'clock, Mangal Giri, Baba of temple of village concerned had raped niece of the first informant Mukesh namely Km.Saroj D/o Shankar Lal r/o Jaanipur Kalan, a minor girl, after calling her in a room of the temple while she was playing alone outside the temple.The Baba, thereafter, fled away.When the informant visited his cousin Smt. Rani's house, he came to know about this occurrence and he further inquired from children and villagers who reported that they had seen the incident.His brother-in-law (father of the victim) had gone to work as labour.He took his niece Saroj-victim smeared in blood to his sister's house from the temple.On the basis of the written report of the Mukesh F.I.R. of the offence u/s 376 IPC was registered against unknown Baba of the temple situated in village Jaanipur Kalan at the police station Shikarpur, Bulandshahar.Initially, this case was investigated by S.S.I. Sri Arjun Singh, thereafter investigation was handed over to Adil Raseed, S.S.I. Shikarpur.During investigation, the victim smeared in blood was sent to the District Hospital Shikarpur by S.S.I. Arjun Singh.Having taken victim's blood stained clothes and Baba's langot into custody, its memo was prepared.Thereafter, the place of occurrence was inspected at the instance of the first informant and site-map was prepared.Thereafter, the investigation was received by S.S.I. Aamil Raseed.Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh, J.(Delvered By Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh, J.)1. Heard Sri Sarvesh Chandra Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Anjum Haq, Ms. Anita Srivastava, Sri Sagir Ahmad and Sri Gautam Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.In order to prove its case following evidences were produced by the prosecution:-Victim Km.Saroj P.W.1 2 Complainant Mukesh P.W.2 3 Con.-512 Ram Shesh Mishra P.W.3 4 S.I. Aamil Raseed P.W.4 5 S.I. Arjun Singh P.W.5 6 Dr. Abhilasha Gupta P.W.6 7 Dr. Vaibhav P.W.7 8 Dr. Madhu Sharma P.W.8 9 Ravindra Singh P.W.9 10 Dr. Pritam Singh P.W.10 Documentary Evidence:-Statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C.Ka-1 2 First Information Report Ex.Ka-2 3 Chik Ex.Ka-3 4 Carbon Copy of G.D.Ka-4 5 Arrest-memo of the accused Ex.Ka-5 6 Charge-sheet Ex.Ka-6 7 Recovery-memo of blood stained clothes Ex.Ka-7 8 Site-map Ex.Ka-8 9 Discharge-slip Ex.Ka-9 10 Medical-Report of the victim Ex.Ka-10 11 Reference-form Ex.Ka-11 12 Reference form of C.M.O.Ka-12 13 Clinical history Ex.After the evidence of the prosecution, statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused again denied the charges.To determine this, the following points are considerable, keeping in view the charges levelled by the prosecution on the accused, to dispose off the case:-1- Was the victim minor at the time of incident- if yes, was she an immature girl of under 12 years?In the report/discharge slip Ex.The conclusion of above said analysis is that at the time of the incident the victim was minor girl under 12 years.Point No:-2 As far as this point is concerned, it is a question of fact and for its disposal it would be justifiable to peruse the evidences of prosecution witnesses separately.Prosecution Witness No.1/The victim was examined as PW-1, she was aged about 12 years when she entered in the witness box.The trial court has taken care to ascertain as to whether she was able to understand the questions and able to give rational answer thereof by asking certain questions before recording her statement.After recording that she was a competent witness to depose to the fact, the trial court has proceeded to record her statement.So far as competence and reliability of testimony of a child witness, the law is fairly well settled.In the court, this witness has narrated the incident being of five months ago happened in the afternoon and the place of occurrence being the temple and the accused being the Baba residing in that temple.She has stated on oath that she was taken in the room on the pretext of giving Prasad and there she was raped.I wore my clothes, my clothes got soaked in blood after wearing it.I had received injuries on my vagina.The deposition of this witness U/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Magistrate too.When the sealed envelope of statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. was opened, showed and read over to the witness, she admitted the said statement and has proved it as Ex.Ka-1 stating the thumb impression and signature on it being of her own.This witness/victim has been thoroughly cross-examined.In cross-examination also, she was not shaken rather fully corroborated her statement made in examination-in-chief and stated that she used to go to the temple to play and other children too go for playing.People come there for worship but they used to come in morning, not in afternoon.On the fateful day, she alone had gone to temple for playing.Baba had called her for giving prasad while she was playing outside, but he did not give prasad and took her into the kothari of the temple where nobody was present.On asking, what game she was playing in the temple, she replied that she was playing gintu.The witness was questioned by the learned counsel for the defence that in the statement given under section 164 Cr.P.C., she had stated to the Magistrate about having gone to see barat, whereas now she stated about having gone to play.In reply, the witness clarified her statement that though she had gone to see the barat but by that time the barat had already left.So she went to the temple to play.She has categorically stated that she was striped in the room and her mouth was closed by the Baba on raising alarm.On being questioned by the court whether the door of kothari was open when the Baba put off the clothes, the witness replied that when the Baba took her into the kothari, the door was open and after entering, Baba closed the door.This witness has identified the accused present in court that this was the same Baba and has rebutted the contention that her father visited to Baba.(she) has also proved her statement to the sub-inspector and the fact of being admitted in the hospital after the incident.In her cross-examination, the witness has clearly stated that "Baba Mangal Giri had committed the same bad act with me as told by me.I am not lying rather telling truth".This witness has stated about regaining consciousness in the hospital and has stated that she firstly got consciousness, then she put on the clothes and after wearing clothes, she again went unconscious and then she got consciousness in the hospital.The learned counsel for the defence has contended before the court that this witness has stated that she fell unconscious and thereafter reached home stumbling and on reaching home, she narrated the incident to her mother, whereafter her parents took her to the hospital.But on the contrary in her statement in the Court, she states that she regained consciousness in the hospital, and that if she became conscious in the hospital, how did she reach her home and on this basis, (he) attempted to rebut the credibility of the witness.This question has also been asked by the court to the witness that if she got consciousness in the hospital, how did she go to her home and her reply was that she had gone stumbling in unconscious condition.This witness is very young girl and it clearly appears from her statement that by falling unconscious she means not being fully comprehended and instead not being fully conscious and being in semi-conscious condition.She is an immature girl, even mature witnesses call it fainting when they happen to feel dizzy.Otherwise too, minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a witness who is otherwise unshaken, are not worth consideration.It is clear that in her examination-in-chief and cross-examination, the witness has not at all deviated on the substantial points i.e. time of the incident and the place, happening of the incident and the accused and therefore, she is totally reliable witness.This witness is complainant and the report regarding the incident has been lodged by him.This witness has also proved the fact of admission of his niece in the hospital and her medical examination.This witness/P.W.-2 was questioned in the cross-examination that when did he reach the village; how come the victim is his niece; when he got the information of the incident.In reply, the witness has clearly stated that he is resident of village- Bhailayee which is at the distance of twenty kilometers from the victim's village and the victim's mother namely Rani is his cousin, and on the fateful day, he along with his cousin (brother) and Rani's real brother namely Dhannu had gone for visiting his sister namely Rani and when reached at village- Jaanipur at about 3.00 o'clock, he got the information in the way.He stated that the incident occurred during the period when winter was on subside and it was month of February.He stated that on reaching at the village, children told him about the incident and hubbub ensued that the Baba committed such offence, then only he came to know about the incident.Hearing this, he alongwith his sister's family members and neighbors went to the temple.(This witness) has stated about writing report by himself; and then narrating the incident to the sub-inspector who had demanded for written report which was given by him.This witness has clearly stated that he did not see the incident through his own eyes and that he reached after the incident.The witness was asked that when the victim's real maternal uncle was present, why did he not lodge the report, thereupon he replied that since all people were going to Bulandshar for medical examination, so he lodged the report.(He) has stated in his report about seeing the incident by children of the village and has stated the victim's house was 100 meter away from the temple.This witness has also stated that the next day, he went back to his village- Bhailayee.This witness has also stated the victim was taken to Bulandshar Medical College from the police station by the police and was then referred to Meerut from Bulandshar.The fact is also corroborated from the documents available on the file.The witness rebutted this contention that the pradhan had taken forty thousand rupees from the Baba for repairing the floor of the temple, and on demand, the false report was lodged against Mangal Giri by misleading the complainant by pradhan.This contention has also been rebutted that he did not see the temple and has stated that (he) has had seen the temple and the kothari inside it where the Baba lived.Thus, so far as this witness is concerned, he has also corroborated the victim's statement and prosecution version.And the defence could not extract such substantial contradiction from this witness, so as to discard this witness or the victim.A contention has also been necessarily made by defence that there are contradictions in the witness's statement.Saroj smeared in blood in the village; Km.Saroj is lying unconscious; blood is oozing; please take immediate action'.He nowhere stated that he went to the temple and took the victim from the temple himself.His averment was the victim was laying in pool of blood at his sister's house and he had come to lodge the report and the same statement he has given before the court.Thus, so far as witnesses of the facts are concerned, the prosecution version has been completely corroborated by the aforesaid both the witnesses.Now, it is to be examined whether the oral evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence or not.Prosecution Witness No.:-06:-Dr. Abhilasha Gupta the doctor at Meerut Medical College who treated the victim after she was referred by Bulandshahar District Hospital.This witness has stated on oath that on 28.2.09 while she was on duty, in the above medical College, the victim namely Saroj r/o Shikarpur, Bulandshahar, village Vaireena aka Janipur Kalan, was brought on being referred by District Hospital Bulandshahar and that she underwent treatment at the Medical College.This witness has categorically stated that the victim had injuries in her vagina which was possible to have been caused by rape."A small laceration is seen on Rt vaginal wall of size 3 x 4 mm between 5 O' clock to 6 O' clock position."The Report Exhibit Ka-10 of Bulandshahar District Hospital contains the same injury in it. "xx Hymen freshly torn, edges congested, bleeds on touch ragged torn edges at 6 O'clock position.Vagina full of clots.xx she is referred to Meerut Medical College for further management."During cross-examination, this witness has stated to have found injury on the private parts of the victim, and has also stated that the victim was treated only by administering medicines without any operation.Under the clinical summary in the Ext. Ka-9, it is clearly mentioned that "It is a medico-legal case referred from Bulandshahar District Hospital with c/o physical assault x 9 hr back bleeding per vaginum x 9 hr back.".No other major injury was found by this witness on the person of the victim.On being asked in cross examination whether such injury could be sustained on falling over some pointed object, the witness absolutely denied it.Dr. Sangeeta Jain and Dr. Vaibhav who treated the victim and whose names are there on the discharge slip, are stated to be her associates who had attended the victim under her supervision and direction.Dr. Abhilasha Gupta was Head of the department and it was under her own supervision and before her own eyes that her Associates Dr. Sangeeta, Dr. Uzma, Dr. Mona had attended the victim.Dr. Sangeeta was the consultant Doctor.This CRS number is entered by the record section at the time of admission.All the details- the name of the patient, her permanent address, date of discharge are same and the name of father is written as Sri Shanker.This witness has admitted in cross examination that the discharge slip does not contain the signature of Dr Sangeeta and that of Dr Urmila but it contains his own signature as an associate Doctor.(He) also proved the discharge slip to be in his own writing as well as that of his junior doctor Dr Uzma's handwriting and it contained the signatures of Dr. Uzma and Dr. Mona as well.During the cross examination this witness was cross-examined with regard to the name of victim's father being recorded Shivkumar instead of Sri Shanker.In reply he stated that he had clarified this during the examination in chief itself that it was a mistake and there is no difference in rest of the details.Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the name of victim's father being recorded as Shivkumar instead of Sri Shanker creates doubt as to the identity of the victim and therefore the statement cannnot be relied to implicate the accused.It is noteworthy that all the details i.e. the name of the victim, age of the victim, her being referred from Bulandshahar District Hospital, and address are same in the discharge slip Ext. Ka-9 of Meerut Medical College but the name of father is written Shivkumar instead of Sri Shanker.The victim was referred to Meerut Medical College on 27.2.09 by the district Hospital for further treatment.Verified photocopy of the above-mentioned Reference Form has been submitted by PW-6 the doctor of the Meerut Medical College.The date and address are the same as all other details.The photocopy of the case sheet Ext.Ka-13 of Medical College by PW-7 bears that very Annual number which is on the discharge slip Ext. Ka-9 and it contains name of the father of the victim as Sri Shanker.Under these circumstances only because the name of father got written as Shivkumar instead of Sri Shanker in the discharge slip due to inadvertent mistake, the identity of the victim cannot be doubted.It is not the contention of the defence that on that day some other girl named Saroj of the same address, police station and of same age was admitted on being referred from Bulandshahar District Hospital.May be due to hustle and bustle, the name of father was not heard correctly.Prosecution Witness No.8:-Dr. Madhu Sharma was examined as this witness.This witness is doctor of the District Women Hospital Bulandshahar.She has stated to have conducted medical examination of victim Saroj on 27.2.09 at 7.30pm in the above capacity and had found no external injury on the person of the victim, found breast undeveloped and pubic hair absent.Internal examination was as follows- hymen was freshly broken.Hymen was bleeding on its sides being touched.The hymen was ruptured in the condition of 6 'O' clock.The vagina had blood clots inside it.she has stated the slide having been prepared from the vaginal discharge for the examination of sperms and the same was sent to the pathology department, and in view of the critical condition of the victim she was referred to the Medical College, Meerut for further treatment, and she has also stated that the medical examination report of the C.M.O. and the photo copies of the reference letters sent to the Medical College to be present in the file and having brought along the original M.L.C. report, has verified them with the original and while stating them to be in his own handwriting and under his own signature, has proved them as Ext. Ka-8. Ka-9 and Ka-10 and has also opined that such injuries are probable to receive, if the victim is raped forcibly.This witness, in the cross-examination, has stated that the victim's parents had come with her at the time of examination and that she was in conscious state.She could not state whether she came on her own or was carried in arms by her family member.This witness has completely denied the statement of defence that the victim might have received such injury on being fallen on any pointed object while playing.She has clearly stated that such injury can not occur on being fallen on any pointed object.She has also stated that the liquid discharge could not come out because of blood clotting inside the vagina.Preetam Singh has been examined as this witness.This witness is a Pathologist.He has proved the pathological report as Ext-Ka14, and has stated that no sperm has been found in the medical examination.Hence, it is evident from the deposition of PW6 to PW8 all the three witness that the statements of the victim PW-1 and 2 are corroborated from the medical evidences also.It will be worthwhile to peruse the deposition of formal witnesses now.Prosecution Witness No.3:-Ram Shesh Misra is the writer of Chik and GD.He has proved the original G.D., Chik FIR and the carbon copy of G.D., as Ext.This witness has also corroborated the statement of PW-2 that the victim did not come alongwith the complainant.He is an informal witness.No other remark is expected on his statement.S.I. Amil Rashid has been examined as this witness.This witness has also deposed to have sent the clothes of the victim and of the accused to the Forensic Science Laboratory.He has also stated to have received the medical reports of the victim from the Medical College, Meerut.This witness has denied it that he in the collusion of the complainant has concocted a false story and that no such incident took place.He has stated that no such fact came to his cognizance, during the investigation, that the accused owed forty thousand rupee to the Pradhan Ravindra.Rather he has stated to have learnt that the accused earned his livelihood by begging and that he puts on just an underwear.Prosecution Witness No.5:-This witness, while being posted as S.S.I at PS-Shikarpur on 27.02.09, has stated the instant case being registered on the report of the complainant lodged about the rape of his niece Saroj, and that he went to the spot along with the complainant Mukesh, the victim Saroj soaked in blood at the spot, then having sent her to the Government Hospital by a private vehicle, taking into custody the clothes of the victim viz. two Kachhis, one blood stained frock and the accused's underwear into custody, and then getting the recovery memos prepared by the witness Devendra Singh, and Ravidnra Singh under their signature, wrapping and sealing and stamping of the clothes, recording statement of the witnesses, inspecting the spot and preparing the memo and site plan on pointing out of the witnesses in his handwriting & signature, and proved them as Ext.Ka-7 and Ext.He admitted the investigation having been transferred from him to S.I., Adil Rashid.One bundle sealed and stamped was opened before this witness, under the permission of the court, which had the stamp of Forensic Science Laboratory.He has also stated about taking three sepoy and one S.I along with in a jeep to go to the victim's village and making its entry in GD.He has also stated about his meeting with the Pradhan of the village Ravindra Singh, Devendra Singh, so many other persons and the victim's family members, about the victims's house being 200 metre away from the temple, about inquiring Bachchu Lal and Rajpal at the place of occurrence.This witness on cross-examination has described the place of occurrence/room that the door of the room opens in west, there was haystacks in the room, there was one mattress also on the haystack.This witness, has denied the suggestion that the frock did not have blood-stains on it.This witness has denied the suggestion that he did not go to the spot and prepared the site plan while sitting at the police station.The bundle containing the accused's underwear was not presented before this witness.In this way, no such contradictions could come out from the version of this witness which would raise a doubt on the investigation conducted by this witness.Ravindra Singh has been examined as this witness.He is witness of the recovery-memo of victim's clothes.This witness has stated the accused Mangal Giri's underwear and the victim's blood-stained clothes were taken into custody on 27.02.09 in his presence, has proved his signature on the memo and has also proved the recovery-memo 8A/7, available on file.One sealed & stamped bundle was opened under the permission of the court before this witness, and this had proved the underwear marked as material Ext.5 and the clothes was marked as material Ext.6 having been recovered in his presence.This witness, in the cross-examination, has denied that the temple was not under-construction that time.That time, the idol of Shiv Ji, and the photographs of Hanuman Ji and Parvati ji were installed.This witness informed that his house is 60 metre away from the temple.He was informed by his wife over the phone, about the incident.He came to know about the entire episode when he reached the village.He deposed that he reached before the dawn fell and the police reached just one minute after his arrival.Other persons had already gathered there.It took around half an hour in completing the whole proceedings.By that time night had completely fell but there was light.He has denied this point that he was not there at the spot and that he did not put his signature on the recovery-memo and that the underwear did not belong to Baba Mangal Giri.This witness has been alleged to have taken Rs. Forty thousand from Baba Mangal Giri as loan and in order to avoid repaying that he has falsely implicated him.The suggestion of enmity has been strongly denied by him with the statement that there was no question of the accused lending him money when he himself earn his livelihood by begging for daily commodities from others.This witness has further stated that he had a good relationship with the accused as he was visiting temple frequently for Darshan.Answers provided by accused of different questions asked in reply to questions put regarding prosecution case are that "it is false" and "I do not know", and that he was implicated due to village fractionalism".In reply to the questions about his loincloth (lungi) he said that "he does not wear any such cloth." In reply to the question "what else you want you say", it was stated by the accused that Pradhan used to visit him and borrowed money but he refused of having any dispute or enmity with the Pradhan.While recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the material evidence have been put to him including the statement of Pradhan, he, however, completely denied each circumstance.The object of recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is based on the principles of right to fair trial and the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty.We feel that the appeals were heard in a slipshod manner.It was open for the respondents to press the appeals on merits and pray for acquittal.Reasons must contain extenuating circumstances which prompted the High Court to reduce the sentence below the prescribed minimum.Appeal deserves to be dismissed being bereft of merit.Appellant shall serve out the remaining sentence.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

The prosecution case was that on 07.6.2002 Nitin Aggarwal (PW-2) lodged a complaint to ASI Phool Chand in P.S. Dilshad Garden regarding kidnapping of his father Jai Narayan Aggarwal.In this complaint, he mentioned that he resided with his parents at Model Town.His shop was in Sikriwalan, Delhi and their factory was at B 16/6, Jhilmil Industrial Area.He claimed, that, he had earlier informed the police of a call he had received on the factory telephone, on 31.12.2001, wherein the caller had threatened to kidnap him and had demanded ` 5,00,000/-.In the present instance, he stated that his father, Jai Narayan Aggarwal had left for the house from the factory in his Maruti Car (No. DL 6CD 2817) at around 09.30 PM.Since his father had not reached home even at 10.30 P.M., he had called him on his mobile phone, but the call was not answered.He called his father again, at about 12.30 A.M. but his call was answered by an unknown man who told him that his father was in their custody and their "Bhai" would talk to him in the morning.PW-2 further stated that the informer had warned him that in case the police was informed, the body of Lalaji (his father) would be found in the drain.He suspected that Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 2 his father had been kidnapped by some gang.It was alleged that the kidnappers had demanded ` 15 lakhs for the release of Lalaji.On 13.6.2002, for securing safe release of his father, PW-2 arranged the ransom amount (30 bundles, with hundred notes of the denomination of Rs. 500 in each) and the I.O. and Nitin Aggarwal (PW-2) signed on some of the notes in ten of these bundles, and the currency notes in these bundles were then mixed up in the other twenty bundles.The kidnapper did not disclose the exact location where the ransom was to be handed over.The bag containing the ransom amount was given to Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (the uncle of PW-2 who deposed as PW-4), Surender Kumar (the brother-in-law of PW-2 who deposed as PW-9) and Kamal Kant (PW-2's friend who deposed as PW-8) who assumed false identities, and as directed by the kidnappers boarded the Delhi-Saharanpur train and sat in the last bogie of the train.When the train crossed the New Ghaziabad Railway Station they were asked to throw the bag containing the ransom money, which they did.On 14.06.2002, PW-2's father was released.Thereafter the investigation of the case was handed over to Inspector C.S. Rathi.In the course of the investigation, he got the telephone numbers used by the kidnappers for demanding ransom and the addresses, where these telephones were installed were traced.The I.O. also met the victim PW-1 Jai Narayan and obtained descriptions of the kidnappers.The IO, along with his staff, then visited the address from Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 3 where these calls had been made, which turned out to be a house in Khatoli, Muzaffar Nagar (where Telephone No. 73119 was installed).There, they met one Rakesh who told them that Titu@ Mukesh Verma used to receive and make calls from that number to Deepak.They were also told that Deepak was related to Pradhan Ram Naresh.The IO met Pradhan Ram Naresh and enquired about Deepak after disclosing all the facts to him.He admitted that Deepak was his brother-in-law and resided in Lajpat Nagar, Ghaziabad.Thereafter, the IO along with the staff and the Pradhan reached Deepak's house, where they found him.On seeing the police party, Deepak tried to flee; however, he was nabbed and interrogated.During interrogation, Deepak confessed his involvement in the offence and his disclosure led to recovery of a sum of ` 9,49,500/- which was kept in a black colored suitcase lying in the almirah.The notes were sealed and seized; Deepak was arrested.At his instance, Sukram Pal was caught who led to recovery of a desi katta and two cartridges which were used in the commission of the offence.A sum of ` 9,000/- was also recovered from his possession; it was seized.Sukram Pal and Deepak led the police to Mukesh's house where a scooter was parked.Deepak allegedly revealed that the said scooter was used to receive the ransom amount.The scooter was taken into possession; Mukesh, however was untraceable.Sukram Pal and Deepak also pointed out Rihan's house (No. 112, Devi Dass Mohalla, Khatoli) where Jai Narayan was kept captive, after his abduction.Rihan was not present in the house.However, his wife Samina was there.The police party searched the premises and recovered Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 4 cash of ` 60,000/- in the denomination of Rs. 500/-.On 25.06.2002, accused Deepak was interrogated and he revealed that he had deposited ` 9000 in Citi Bank.This money was seized.Learned counsel highlighted that PW-2 had deposed about a threat six months prior to the incident, i.e. 31.12.2001 whereby a call demanding ` 5 lakhs as ransom and a further threat to kidnap had been made-out.The complainant had alerted the police about this fact.The truthfulness of the testimonies of PWs-2 and 19, Inspector Brij Mohan was evident from the fact that Ex. PW-2/B, which is prepared on 13.06.2002, clearly described the currency notes which were marked.Learned counsel submitted that the relative series on the currency notes were noted and countersigned by PW-2 and PW-19. PW-4 deposed having witnessed that 30 packs of cash in denominations of ` 500/- each, totaling ` 15 lakhs had been seen and that the police official, PW-19 had signed on the 10th, 20th and 30th note of each of ten bundles and that ten bundles were then mixed with 20 bundles.The signed currency notes were in 10 bundles.The recoveries made pursuant to the disclosure statement of Deepak, (who was arrested on 20.06.2002) established that several of those signed notes were taken into custody; these were evidenced by the Memo, Ex. PW-12/E. Deepak failed to explain these and merely denied having possessed them, in his reply to the queries put under Section 313 Cr.PC.Learned APP argued that the case was in fact solved after Deepak's arrest since he led to the place where PW-1 had been confined, i.e., Rihan's house.Further, currency notes were seized from that place.They were the subject matter of Ex. PW-12/Q.Learned APP urged here that the these accused were in fact arrested much later on 25.06.2002; they had refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) proceedings as deposed to by PW-18, who recorded his observations in the documents marked during the trial as Ex. PW-18/A to PW-18/D. It was argued that besides the recoveries made on 20.06.2002 from Rihan's house, aggregating ` 60,000, a further amount of ` 31,000/- was recovered pursuant to his disclosure statement, after his arrest.Furthermore, the belt which belonged to the abducted person, PW-1 was also recovered and produced during the trial; it was seized under Memo Ex. PW-11/E.Like in the case of Rihan, Mukesh too was identified by PW-1; he too was arrested on 25.06.2002; his disclosure statement, assisted the police in the recovery of currency notes to the tune of ` 2,69,500/-.These also contained some marked notes; photocopies of all the notes and some of the original notes were produced during the trial.It was urged that during the course of investigation, specimen finger prints of the accused were taken.The specimen print, S-2 (belonging to Mukesh), part of Ex. PW-22/B-3 matched with the specimen of left thumb, designated as Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 12 chance prints Q-2 and marked as S-2 in the report, which was produced as Ex. PW-22/L. Similarly, the chance print developed by the finger print expert, PW-22, i.e. Q-3 was identical with the right thumb mark, S-3 from the finger print specimen of Rihan, according to the report, Ex. PW-22/F and 22/M. These recoveries, coupled with the positive identification by PW-1, of Mukesh and Rihan established beyond reasonable doubt that they were involved in the offence alleged against them.It was submitted that as regards Sukhram Pal, two recoveries of ` 9,000/- and ` 10,000/- (Ex. PW-12/L and Ex. PW-11/C), and the recovery of katta, Ex. PW-12/N proved his involvement.Furthermore, the evidence of PW-1 revealed that Sukhram Pal guarded the premises when the victim was in custody of the abductors.At that time, the callers had threatened to resort to abduction and demanded ` 5 lakhs.On the day of the incident, i.e. on 06.06.2002, the witness was worried since his father did not return at the scheduled time from his factory.At 12.30 AM, he made a telephone call to his father's mobile; it was received by someone else, who stated that his father had been abducted; a ransom demand was made thereafter.PW-1 further deposed having received another call at his residence, later on 07.06.2002, by which the Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 13 caller asked him to arrange ` 25 lakhs.He was thereafter allowed to talk to his father at 10.00 PM that night.Apparently there was a lull after this and on 13.06.2002, PW-2 arranged for ` 15 lakhs and had them marked by the police; PW-4, his uncle, Pramod Kumar supports this statement.After 30 bundles containing ` 500/- denomination notes, aggregating to ` 15 lakhs, (of which 10 bundles were marked and signed by PWs-19 and PW- 2 at serial numbers 10, 20 and 30 of each bundle), all currency bundles were mixed.PWs-4, 8 and 9 went along with the bundles, on the last bogie of the train from Shahdara Railway Station.According to a pre-arranged plan with the abductors, the bundle was thrown near the New Ghaziabad Railway Station.The next day, i.e. on 14.06.2002, PW-1, Jai Narayan was released.The investigation thereafter proceeded and the police traced the calls somewhere to Khatoli in U.P. According to the prosecution version, initially Rakesh and subsequently Pradhan Ram Naresh were questioned; this led to the arrest of Deepak and Sukhram Pal on 20.06.2002 and subsequent arrests on 25.06.2002, of Mukesh and Rihan, and the recoveries alleged in this case.Apart from bald and general denials, these Appellants could not give any reasonable explanation to these incriminating circumstances.Mr. K.B. Andley, Sr.Advocate with Mr. M.Shamikh, Advocate for appellant in Crl.A. Nos.1315 & 1383/2011 Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate for appellant in Crl.A. No.1/2012 Ms. Stuti Gujral, Advocate for appellant in Crl.A. 2/2012 Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP on behalf of the State in all the matters.In these appeals, common judgment and order on sentence dated 17.09.2009 of learned Additional Sessions Judge SC No.15/2009 has been challenged.The Appellants were convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 364-A/34 IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, with fine.On the same day Rihan and Mukesh Verma @ Titoo were arrested by the police; they made disclosure statements.On 26.6.2002 at the instance of Mukesh, one charger along with one mobile, a police uniform were recovered from his house.He also assisted in the recovery of ` 2,67,500/- which was taken into possession by the I.O. Sukram Pal assisted in recovery of ` 10,000/- from his house.Rihan's disclosure led to recovery of ` 31,000/- from his house which was also taken into possession.After completion of investigation charge sheet for the offences punishable U/s 365/364A/34 IPC was filed against the accused before the Trial Court.Upon being charged, the accused claimed that they were not guilty.The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution - which included testimony of 25 public witnesses and the exhibits produced in the case, concluded that the Appellants were guilty as charged, and sentenced them, in the manner described above.Appeals Nos.1315/2011 & 1383/2011, though filed in 2011, involved individuals who were in jail for about 9 years (Deepak and Mukesh); consequently the matters were set down for hearing.At the stage of final hearing, on 03.01.2012 it was noticed that the co-accused, Rihan and Sukhrampal had not preferred appeals.Consequently, the Court directed Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee to contact them, and Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 5 ascertain if they wished to file appeal.The DHCLSC did contact them; their appeals were filed, as Crl.At the outset, this Court wishes to record its appreciation and acknowledgement to counsel assigned by the DHCLSC, i.e., Shri.Bhupesh Narula, and Ms. Stuti Gujral (who appeared and argued on behalf of Shri Siddharth Agarwal).They were fully prepared with the matter, and rendered meaningful assistance to the Court and, as shall be seen hereafter, their contribution was invaluable.It was submitted that the two individuals, through whom Deepak's role was ascertained, i.e., Rakesh and Pradhan Ram Naresh, were deliberately not examined during the trial.They could have given valuable information about the role, if at all, played by Deepak, in the episode.It was urged that admittedly, according to PW-1's testimony, two individuals had abducted him; one pointed the katta at him, and later muffled his face with a towel, and the other was in a police uniform.Deepak was not among these two.Furthermore, Deepak was not shown to Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 6 be connected with any of the co-accused.Moreover, though the witness mentioned the currency notes, the prosecution had not proved their seizure, as the originals were not produced in court; only photocopies were relied on.This, according to the counsel was unacceptable, and did not amount to proof of such fact.It was argued that even if it was assumed that Deepak had currency notes which he could not explain or account for, that circumstance, in the absence of positive evidence linking him with the abduction, threat to PW- 1's life, or apprehension of his bodily injury, and in the absence of any Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 7 demand (by Deepak) could not have led the Trial Court to find his guilt for the offence under Section 364-A, IPC, especially when there was no charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC.He did not ascribe any special role, i.e. his Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 8 standing guard over him, when he was held captive, after abduction.It was urged in this regard, that the victim had been confined after his abduction for quite some time; had this accused been keeping guard over him, all the while, PW-1 would have named him, or mentioned his role, in the statement recorded during investigation, immediately after he was set free.Such was not the case.Counsel for Rihan also argued that the prosecution version about recovery of ` 91,000/- from him, in two lots was unbelievable.Here, it was argued that none of the notes bore any markings or signatures, as alleged during the trial.The entire conviction hinged on the testimony of PW-1 who could not have identified the appellant, as he saw him fleetingly at night.During the trial, all the accused had refused to participate in the TIP (testified by the concerned Magistrates - PW-18 and 21).However, the victim, PW-1 was able to identify Mukesh and Rihan during the trial, without any difficulty.The role attributed to Mukesh was that he initially Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 14 asked PW-1 to give him a lift till a turning (bend in the road).Mukesh was dressed in a police uniform which too was also seized pursuant to the disclosures made by him after his arrest.Rihan, who too was identified by PW-1, accompanied Mukesh.Both of them had approached PW-1's car.Rihan sat at the back.When the car reached the turning, the accused were asked to get-down; they, however, requested PW-1 to cross the bridge.PW-1 further stated that when the car reached the middle of the bridge, Rihan pointed a country made pistol to his temple and asked him to stop.Jai Narayan snatched the pistol and threw it on the road.Mukesh took out a knife and pointed it at his abdomen and pushed him.Rihan, in the meanwhile, took-out a towel and threw it on Jai Narayan's face.Both of them pulled him out and kept him in the back seat of the car; Mukesh took over the wheel and drove it for about 2-2 hours.It is also stated that Rihan lifted the country made pistol which had been thrown down by Jai Narayan.He further deposed being taken to the accused's house, and identified Rihan's wife as Shamina and his eldest daughter's name as Shibbo.PW-1 could recount all the events which took place when he was in the custody of the abductors.He had led the police to the house where he had been confined.It can be seen from the evidence of PW-1 that he was clear as regards the identification of Mukesh and Rihan.He could identify the family members as well as the location of Rihan's house.Though PW-1 was cross- examined, on the behalf of the accused, nothing significant could be elicited to discredit his testimony.A submission on behalf of Mukesh was that the prosecution could not establish how the investigation in fact commenced.Added to these were two other circumstances, according to counsel, which falsified the prosecution story.Here it was urged that the police witnesses deposed to having having ascertained the call details as well as the ownership of the telephone number and yet omitted to bring that material evidence during trial, on record.Two, the entire story about the currency notes being handed-over to the police for marking on 13.06.2002 and being dropped at a pre-arranged destination on that day itself is unsupported by any objective material.It was urged that no call details were proved, to establish that in fact any of the witnesses, who had boarded the train were contacted at the relevant time, signaling them to throw the bags of Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 16 currency.Furthermore, argued counsel, the easiest thing that the police could have done was to follow the train or try and nab those who tried to pick-up the currency notes.As far as the recoveries from Rihan and Sukh Ram Pal are concerned, the witness who primarily deposed about it is PW 11 HC Anil Kumar.He deposed that on 26.6.2002 accused Mukesh led the police to a house; this led to recovery of a police uniform, Panasonic make mobile phone and a charger.Mukesh's statement also led to the recovery of ` 2,67,500/-.Yet ` 19,000/- was recovered at his behest.He was not a party to any covert or overt act, threatening PW-1; nor was he a party to his abduction and illegal confinement.Their appeals, Crl.A. Nos. 1383/2011 and 2/2012 are consequently dismissed.The conviction of Deepak, is, for the reasons discussed above, modified to one under Section 365/34 IPC read with Section 411 IPC.He is sentenced to undergo RI for seven years, for the offence under Section 365/34 IPC.

['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']

ORDER P.N. Sinha, J.This revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding being Special Case No. 2 of 1997 arising out of Haldibari P.S. Case No. 106/94 dated 1-10-1994 under Section 468/471/409 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the I.P.C.) now pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Cooch Behar.On the basis of such charge sheet the Special Case No. 2 of 1997 is now pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge at Cooch Behar.He further submitted that though the de facto complainant submitted a prayer before the District Magistrate for withdrawing from prosecution, there was no step by the State Administration to withdraw from prosecution.In this case, the accused was denied his right and Article 21 of the Constitution was violated.The criminal proceeding accordingly should be quashed.On the other hand, Mr. Alok Roy Chowdhury, the learned advocate for the State submitted that the Chairman of the Haldibari Municipality has no authority or jurisdiction to withdraw from prosecution.At the stage of consideration of charge these points may be raised by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge.There is no ground at all to quash the criminal proceeding.Secondly, the de facto complainant himself submitted a prayer before the District Magistrate, Cooch Behar for withdrawal from prosecution though no action was taken over such application.It gives the clear indication that the de facto complainant was not interested to proceed with the criminal proceeding since the amount allegedly defalcated was already paid by the accused.

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

Heard Sri Vikas Tiwari, learning counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj Saxena learned AGA appearing for State and perused the material brought on record.By the order under challenge dated 14.02.2020, the applicants have been summoned by learned Special Judge (D.A.A. Act)/Additional Session Judge, Jhansi, under Sections 392, 323, 504, IPC, Police Station Lahchura, District Jhansi, in Complaint Case No. 80 of 2019(Suresh Vs.Sachin and another).Thereafter the opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court of Additional Session Judge(Special Judge (D.A.A. Act), with respect to the incident dated 10.06.2019 with prayer to direct the SHO of concerned police station to register the case against the accused-applicants.The learned magistrate called the report from the concerned police station and also recorded the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.. and passed the summoning order dated 14.02.2020, against the applicants, to face trial under Sections 392, 323, 504, IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and no such incident occurred.No offence under Sections 392, 323, 504, IPC is made out against them.Learned AGA appearing for the State submits that the summoning order has been passed on the basis of the material available on record before the learned Special Judge (D.A.A. Act)/Additional Session Judge, Jhansi, which supports the complaint case and prima-facie cognizable offence is made out against the applicants for their summoning.The order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality..I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels.From the perusal of record and the summoning order it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicants on the basis of the material available before the learned magistrate.The learned Magistrate was satisfied that a prima-facie case for summoning was made out.The satisfaction is based on the material on record before him.

['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']

The charge as against the first accused is that on 3.3.2003 at the Auto stand opposite Koyambedu Market, the first accused Settu alias Dhanasekaran attacked Senu alias Sreenivasan with knife and thereby he committed murder.In the course of the same transaction, the second and the third accused caught hold of the head and hands of the said Senu alias Sreenivasan facilitating the first accused to stab him to death and thereby the second and the third accused committed the offence punishable Under Section 302 r/w 34, I.P.C. During the course of the very same transaction the fourth and the fifth accused also facilitated the first accused to commit the crime of murder and thereby fourth and the fifth accused committed the offence punishable Under Section 302, r/w 34, I.P.C.The brief facts of the prosecution case as brought out in the testimony of the witnesses examined are as follows:Soundarajan P.W. 1, Sekar P.W. 2, Peter P.W.3, Venkatesan P.W.4, Udayakumar P.W.5 and Saravanan P.W.6 are all auto drivers attached to the same auto stand opposite Koyambedu Market.Soundarajan P.W. 1 was elected as the President of the Auto Drivers Association.Udayakumar P.W.5 was a close friend of Senu alias Sreenivasan since deceased.P.W.5 has spoken to the fact that there used to be quarrels between the first accused Sethu alias Dhanasekaran and himself and that Senu alias Sreenivasan, since deceased used to support him and the accused 2 to 5 used to support the first accused Settu alias Dhanasekaran, P.W.5 is a resident of Nerkundram.The first accused Settu and the 5th accused Selvakumar alias Omakumar came to the house of P.W.5 armed with knives to attack him.But he having witnessed those two accused, took to heels from his house.This incident took place about a week prior to the occurrence.On the next day, P.W.5 informed Senu, since deceased about said incident which took place the previous day.The first accused procLaimed that he would take the life of either Senu or Udayakumar.Soundarajan also witnessed the other accused going in the auto-rickshaw of the first accused bearing Registration No. TN-09 E-8366 during the night on 3.3.2003 near Kaliyamman Kovil Street.Kalidas P.W. 15 saw all the 5 accused at about 1 a.m. on 4.4.2003 at a tea shop in front of Kasi Theatre.He found all the 5 accused in a nervous state.When he enquired about their presence, the first accused told him that he murdered Senu.The first accused also requested P.W. 15 not to devulge the same to any other person.Soundarajan P.W. 1 spotted Senu in a pool of blood in the Auto-rickshaw of the latter in the Auto stand opposite Koyambedu Market.JUDGMENT M. Jeyapaul, J.The first accused who prefers Crl.A. No. 345 of 2004, the second accused who prefers Crl.A. No. 309 of 2004, the third and the fifth accused who prefer Crl.The fourth accused who also suffered the judgment of conviction has not preferred any appeal.The trial Judge convicted all the four accused/appellants and the accused who has not preferred appeal for offence Under Section 302 r/w 34, I.P.C. and sentence each of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine Rs. 5,000/- each, failing which to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.Though the Criminal Appeal No. 935 of 2004 was not listed we called for the bundle of the said appeal and took up the same along with these three appeals for disposal.P.W. 17 registered a case in Crime No. 367 of 2003 Under Section 302 r/w 34, I.P.C. He prepared the printed First Information Report, Ex. P. 14 and dispatched the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate.He rushed to the scene of occurrence and drew a rough sketch Ex.P.W. 17 recovered blood-stained shirt M.O. 1, blood stained pants M.O. 2 and Auto-rickshaw M.O. 3 under Mahazar Ex.P.3 in the presence of the abovesaid witness.Dr. Manokaran P.W. 16 on receiving a requisition from P.W. 17, commenced postmortem examination on the dead body of Senu at 12.15 p.m. on 5.3.2003 and he found the following injuries on the dead body of Senu:(1) Nine (9) linear Parallel superficial Incised wounds 0.5 cm-1 cm apart measuring 17 cm-60 m (1) x 0.5 cm (B) x 0.5 cm (D) extending from right side of the neck, wound margins are regular and clean cut, one superficial incised wound entered deeply into the structure on right side of the neck and ' aroused common carotid artery, Extensive subcutaneous reddish haemdrrhage on the right side of the neck, extensive pharyngeal and para-pharyngeal haemorrhage on right side of the neck.(2) A central punctured wound at the middle of neck at 3-4 trachcal ring level 2 cm x 1 cm x lumendeep; margins are regular o/d if entered into the lumen of trachea with haemorrhage in the mucosal surface of trachea;(3) Reddish brown abrasions of the back of right shoulder 3 x 3 cm; 2 x 2 cm; 2 x 1 cm.(4) A small puncture wound 0.5 x 1 cm X skindeep of the middle of abdomen, 5 cm above the umbilicus o/d the depth is 1 cm.All the above injuries are ante-mortem in nature.Internal Exam.:Normal in size, C/s All Chambers contain fluid blood; coronaries patent, lungs, liver, spleen, kidneys C/s pale.Contains 300 cc of brown colour fluid with thick food substance present; No definite smell.Pale, Hyoid bone, Pelvis skull and scalp intact.P.W. 15 has opined in the post-mortem certificate Ex. P. 13 that the deceased appeared to have died due to cut injury over the neck.13 were recovered from the dead body.He examined them individually and recorded the confession statements voluntarily given by them in the presence of Shanmugam and Subramaniyam.6, blood-stained Gray colour pants M.O. 7, half sleeve khakhi colour shirt M.O. 8, another khakhi colour pants M.O. 9, khakhi colour shirt M.O. 10 and Auto bearing Registration No. TN-09 E-8366 M.O. 11 were recovered under relevant Mahazars in the presence of the abovesald witnesses.On 10.3.2003, all the abovesaid 3 accused were remanded to Judicial custody.The material objects recovered in this case were sent to the Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of consigning them to chemical examination.The other two accused were thereafter arrested and remanded to Judicial custody.A.3 Sreekanth is the brother's son of Arumuga Nayakar.He would state that as per the demand made by A.3, he gave a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to him.Krishnasamy, P.W. 11 is the Metropolitan Magistrate.He had recorded the statements of the witnesses Under Section 164, Cr.P.C. Gopinath P.W. 13 is the owner of the Auto-Rickshaw bearing Registration No. TN-09 E-8366 driven by A.5 Omakumar at the time of occurrence.Ramu, P.W. 14 would state that the first accused approached him to arrange a lawyer for the case of murder.having obtained the Forensic report' Ex. P. 12 and the Chemical report Ex. P. 19 Laid the final report as against the accused for the offence Under Section 302 r/w 34, I.P.C.The incriminating circumstances found In the testimony of prosecution witnesses were put to the accused Under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The accused submitted that a false case was foisted on them.in the background of the prosecution version as spoken to by Udayakumar, P.W.5 and Soundarajan, P.W. 1, has come to the conclusion that all the accused joined together and committed the murder punishable Under Section 302 r/w 34, I.P.C.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that the extra judicial confession alleged to have been given to Kalidas P.W. 15 does not inspire judicial confidence as P.W. 15 has been examined about 7 days after the occurrence.However, apart from Kalidas P.W. 15, there is no evidence to establish that these accused committed the offence of murder as alleged by the prosecution.The trial Judge has failed to see the extra Judicial confession in its proper perspective and proceeded to accept the same and record a judgment of conviction as against all these accused.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the extra judicial confession has been given by the first accused to his close friend Kalidas P.W. 15 immediately after the occurrence.The conduct of the accused involved in the crime will also have to be taken into consideration.The trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion based on the testimony available on record that it was only these accused who committed the murder in pursuance of common intention punishable Under Section 302 r/w 34, I.P.C.At that time, he found all the accused at the Tea shop.The first accused confided to him that the accused had murdered Senu.However, during the course of cross-examination, he had stated that he had not passed on the information either to his friends or to his kith and kin.It is not as if he had gone to the police station immediately after the occurrence.He has categorically deposed before the Court that from 4.3.2003 to 10.3.2003 he was very much available in Chenhai.His explanation is that he did not divulge the information to any person as the first accused A.1 asked him not to reveal the fact to any other person.It is found from his testimony that he came down to police station when A1, A3, A5 were brought to police station for examination.P.W. 15 would state that he had informed the police that A.1 confessed that he had committed the murder of Senu.The delay in examination of P.W. 15 has not been properly expLained by the prosecution.If P.W. 15 had been examined the next day and he has come out with the extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by the first accused, then we can give some credence to his testimony.It is quite unnatural for a person not to reveal to anybody such information for seven days.Therefore, extra judicial confession reportedly given by A.1 to P.W. 15, is unreliable and untrustworthy.It is totally unsafe to rely upon such doubtful version to return a verdict of conviction.Soundarajan P.W. 1 has spoken to the motive part of the prosecution story.Udayakumar P.W. 5 has also spoken the fact that the deceased used to Support him and pick up quarrel with the first accused.P.Ws. 1 to 6 have spotted the accused at about 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. on 3.3.2003 near Kaliyamman kovil temple.There is no evidence to establish that they came there to annihilate Senu.The presence of the accused was not connected to the crime at all by the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution.There is evidence to show that the third accused approached not only Arumugam Nayakar P.W. 9 but also father in law Ranganathan P.W. 10 demanding a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to go over to Chennai.Such piece of evidence is not so material to incriminate the accused in a case of murder.The statement of P.W. 1 to P.W. 4 recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Krishnasamy, P.W. 11 would disclose that there was motive for the crime and the accused were spotted during night on the date of occurrence.P.W. 1 to P.W. 4 have spoken to such fact before the Court also when the trial was taken up by the learned Sessions Judge.The learned trial Judge should have avoided examining the Judicial Magistrate when the witnesses have not turned hostile.We cannot assume things based on the motive part of the prosecution story spoken to by this witnesses conjectures and surmises are quite alien to criminal jurisprudence.The recovery has been made at the instance of A.1, A.3 and A.5 only after they were taken to police custody.As the recovery has been effected based on the alleged confession statement given by A.1, A.3 and A.5 when they were in the police custody, we do not attach much importance to the recovery part of the case put forth by the prosecution.Of course the testimony of Dr. Manokaran, P.W. 16 in the background of the' postmortem certificate Ex. P. 13 would establish that Senu @ Sreenivasan was put to death.But when there is no cogent evidence to connect the accused to the crime, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.We find that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that A. 1 to A.5 committed the murder of Senu @ Sreenivasan punishable Under Section 302 r/w 34, I.P.C.In result the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No. 385 of 2003 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai is set aside and Appellants 1 to 5 are acquitted of the charge Under Section 302 r/w 34, I.P.C. and they are set at liberty.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']

(29-11-2012) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 22-9-2009 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa hereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Collector/District Magistrate, Rewa dated 14-7-2009 cancelling the petitioner's arms licence has been affirmed.The facts that have been brought on record by the petitioner briefly stated, are that the petitioner, who lives in village Gaddi, within the jurisdiction of P.S.Govindgarh, District Rewa, is an agriculturist and has also obtained a mining lease.It is stated that the petitioner had applied for obtaining an arms licence under the provisions of the Arms Act for a .315 Bore Rifle which was accordingly granted to the petitioner on 30-5-2004, however, on a complaint being filed by one Safia Khan, his business rival, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 7-5-2007 by the District Magistrate to which the petitioner had filed a reply but the concerned authority without properly appreciating the same, suspended the arms licence of the petitioner by order dated 11-9-2007, which was assailed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa who is the appellate authority.It is stated that the appellate authority, by order dated 6-11-2007 quashed the order of suspension of the arms licence and remanded the matter back to the District Magistrate for fresh adjudication after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner pursuant to which the District Magistrate/Collector, Rewa, again took up the matter, called for the report of the Superintendent of Police, Rewa and the concerned police station in respect of the criminal cases registered against the petitioner and his activities and thereafter passed an order dated 14-7-2009 cancelling the petitioner's arms licence.The petitioner challenged the order of cancellation of his arms licence before the Commissioner, Rewa, who, by the impugned order dated 22-9-2009 has affirmed the same, being aggrieved by which the petitioner has filed the present petition.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

The allegations leveled in the present case are that on 06.08.2012, a police report was lodged by one Yogesh with regard to missing of his mother Smt.Darshana Devi.It was alleged by the complainant in the complaint that his mother left the house on 21.07.2012 after being called by an unknown lady.Thereafter, the Bail Appln.732/2016 Page 1 of 5 mobile phone of his mother could not be connected.The complainant found two registers from the room of his mother wherein entries regarding money transaction were made.732/2016 Page 1 of 5During the course of investigation, call detail record of the mobile phone of Smt. Darshana Devi was analyzed and on the basis of same, accused Yash Pal @ Sonu was arrested, who disclosed that he had taken money from Smt.Darshana Devi and was unable to return it and thus, he planned to eliminate her.He also disclosed that on 21.07.2012, he along with accused Manoj took Smt.Darshana Devi towards village Daryapur.They both got down from the car on the pretext of tyre puncture and sat on the rear seat.Accused Yashpal caught hold the hands of Smt.Darshana and accused Manoj strangled her to death with her chunni.Accused Yashpal took ear ring, gold chain, mobile phone and cash of Rs.12,000/- of the deceased and then threw the dead body on the side of canal in bushes near village Rohat, PS Sadar, District Sonepat, Haryana.During further investigation, receipt of Muthoor Finance Corporation regarding mortgage of jewellery and SIM card which was used for talking to the deceased were recovered from accused Yashpal.At the instance of accused Yashpal, decomposed dead body of deceased was also recovered which was identified by her son Yogesh.Accused Manoj was also arrested and at the instance of both the accused persons, car used in the crime was recovered.The present application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for the grant of regular bail in FIR No.427/2012, under Sections 364/302/201/404/120B IPC, Police Station Narela.On the basis of complaint made, FIR No.427/2012, PS Narela under Section 365 IPC was registered.Bail Appln.Thereafter, Sections 302/201/120B/34 Bail Appln.732/2016 Page 2 of 5 IPC were added in the present case.Bail Appln.732/2016 Page 2 of 5During further investigation, ornaments of deceased were seized from Muthoot Finance office.A sum of Rs.47,045/- from accused Yashpal was also seized which he had taken after mortgaging the ornaments.Mobile phone of accused Yashpal was also seized.Two diaries of deceased having entry of Rs.14 lacs lent to accused Yashpal were also seized.Statement of one public witness Jogender was recorded who stated that he saw the deceased and accused Yashpal along with one person in the car near Sannoth Village, Narela.Moreover, the accused Manoj even refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade.Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the deceased went missing since 21.07.2012 and her missing report was lodged on 06.08.2012 and the FIR was registered on 11.08.2012, whereas the statement of public witness PW7 Jogender was recorded on 18.08.2012 which creates doubt regarding the story of prosecution.It was further argued that the dead body was recovered on 14.08.2012 and in the post mortem report, no ante mortem injuries were found and also no exact cause of death was opined by the doctor.It was further argued that there is no report of the doctor to the effect that the death of the deceased was a homicidal death.Nothing incriminating has come on record against the petitioner.It was further submitted that the petitioner is behind the bar since 15.08.2012 and the conclusion of trial is likely to take time.On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Bail Appln.732/2016 Page 3 of 5 the State has argued that witness Jogender has clearly identified both the accused persons as the persons who were lastly seen in the company of deceased on 21.07.2012 i.e. the day she went missing.It was further argued that the mobile phone locations of both the accused persons were found at the same location of mobile phone of the deceased on the day when the deceased went missing.The ornaments of deceased as well as their receipt mortgaging the same with Muthoot Finance Company were also recovered from accused Yashpal.Bail Appln.732/2016 Page 3 of 5In the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature to the effect that he criminally conspired with his co-accused and in furtherance of the said conspiracy committed the murder of deceased for a sum of Rs.1 lacs.It is specifically alleged against him that he was last seen in the company of deceased along with co-accused Yashpal and this fact has been stated in the statement of witness PW7 Jogender.The contention of the petitioner that no cause of death of deceased has been given by the doctor cannot be appreciated at this stage for the reasons that the trial is still going on and no comments on the merits of the case can be made at this stage.It is also apparent from the record that the highly decomposed dead body of the deceased was recovered and that too after many days of death.It is also specifically alleged against the petitioner that he strangled the deceased with the help of her chunni.It is also matter of record that the petitioner refused to join the Test Identification Parade.Bail Appln.732/2016 Page 4 of 5In view of the seriousness of the offence and the fact that there was active involvement of the petitioner in the commitment of the murder of the deceased and he refused to join the Test Identification Parade, this Court does not find it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail.The bail application is accordingly dismissed.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE MAY 30, 2016 dd Bail Appln.732/2016 Page 5 of 5Bail Appln.732/2016 Page 5 of 5

['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

Order Date :- 11.5.2020

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']

It is not in disputeand cannot be disputed that she died due to asphyxia by strangulation asfound by PW 1, autopsy doctor.A contusion of 9 cm x 3 cm size was foundacross the front of the neck underlying skin, muscle, trachea, oesophaguscongested and hyoid bone was fractured, extravasation of blood in the neckregion due to injury of neck vessels.It was also found that the tongue hadprotruded out and was bitten by teeth of both jaws.Blood was coming outfrom mouth and and nose.Both eyes were closed and congested and face wasalso congested.The membranes were congested, brain base of skull, pleura,larynx, trachea, bronchi, both the lungs and pharynx were found congested.Yet another circumstanceput forward and which is highly artificial and unbelievable and beyondcredulity is that he started in the morning on 27-9-198 from DW 1's houseand directly reached the court, covering a distance of 70 kms by 10 a.m.and he remained in the court up to 11 a.m. without going to the house whichis situated hardly 1 1/4 kms from the court.It is highly unbelievable andunacceptable.It is also an admitted position that he had news of hiswife's death in the court at 11 a.m. He did not disclose the name of theinformer.The bail bonds of the first respondent standcancelled.He should surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence.In casehe does not surrender himself, the Superintendent of Police, Banda Districtis directed to take him into custody forthwith and report the compliance tothe Registry of this Court.The bail bonds of the second respondent standdischargedWe have heard learned counsel on both sidesIn Sessions Trial No. 78 of 1985 in the Court of the Special Judge (E.C.Act), Banda, the Sessions Judge convicted Ramesh Prasad Misra, the firstrespondent under Section 302 Indian Penal Code ('IPC', for short) andsentenced him to death.He was also convicted under Section 201 IPC andsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for four years and to pay afine of Rs 1000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for sixmonths.He was also convicted under Section 498-A and sentenced to undergotwo years' RI and to pay a fine of Rs 1000 and in default to undergofurther simple imprisonment for six months.All the sentences were directedto run concurrently, Smt Butto Devi, the second respondent, mother of thefirst respondent, was acquitted of the offence under Section 302 but wasconvicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for four yearsand a fine of Rs 1000 and in default to undergo six months' simpleimprisonment.She also was convicted under Section 498-A and sentenced toundergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs 1000 and in default toundergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.Both thesentences were directed to run concurrently.A Division Bench of theAllahabad High Court consisting of B.N. Katju and D.S. Bajpai, J.J.,however, by judgment dated 21-7-1988 in Criminal Appeal No. 2108 of 1987acquitted both the respondents of all the charges and also rejected thereference for confirmation of death sentence.Thus this appeal by specialleaveThis is one of the most horrendous bedroom murders of a young marriedgirl, Urmila Devi, of 19 years on the intervening night of26-9-1985/27-9-1985 in Karwi town in Banda District of Uttar Pradesh.Shewas married to Ramesh Prasad Misra, aged around 28 years, a practisingadvocate at Karwi, on 25-4-1985 and hardly after five months she met withcruel death.She was carrying 4 to 6 weeks' pregnancy.These circumstances clearly indicate force and pressure put upon her andconclusively establish that the death occurred due to asphyxia bystrangulation.Thereafter, the dead body was burnt and the entire body wasburnt except the feet.It would thus be clear that the burns were post-mortem.The offence is, therefore, one of murder.It would beconclusive that the death had taken place around midnight of26-9-1985/27-9-1985 in the bedroom of the first respondentThe question, therefore, is whether the first respondent has committedthe murder of his wife ? Undoubtedly, the entire prosecution case rests oncircumstantial evidence.It is settled law that it is the duty of theprosecution to establish all the circumstances conclusively to hold thatthe respondent alone had committed the offence.Witnesses may be prone tospeak, and in this case, material witnesses have spoken falsehood but thecircumstantial evidence will not.It is, therefore, the duty of the courtto carefully scan through the evidence on the anvil of human conduct,probabilities and attending circumstances extending all doubts in favour ofthe accused.In a case of this type, hardly any direct evidence would beforthcoming for the prosecutionThe case of the prosecution is sought to be based on the evidence of PW2 and PW 6 - a practising advocate who are, admittedly, the neighbours.Intheir statement under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, ('CrPC', forshort) they have stated that they heard the quarrel between the firstrespondent and his wife, Urmila Devi and the latter was heard crying.However, both the witnesses turned hostile to the prosecutionThe question is whether the first respondent was present at the time ofdeath or was away in the village of DW 1, his brother-in-law.It is rathermost unfortunate that these witnesses, one of whom was an advocate, havinggiven the statements about the facts within their special knowledge, underSection 161 recorded during investigation, have resiled from correctness ofthe versions in the statements.They have not given any reason as to whythe investigating officer could record statements contrary to what they haddisclosed.It is equally settled law that the evidence of a hostile witnesswould not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or theaccused, but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of theevidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defencemay be accepted.One clinching circumstances, viz., that PW 2 and PW 6 hadheard some quarrels in the house of the respondents and the deceased wascrying out, is not on record as substantive evidence.PW 2 and PW 6 had noregard for truth; they fabricated the evidence in their cross-examinationto help the accused which did not find place in their Section 161statements that they had seen one man of white complexion and aged between30 to 35 years, going to the house of the deceased on the fateful night andleaving the house at 8.00 a.m. on the next dayHe slept in the houseand left the house on the next day, i.e. 27-9-1985, at 8 a.m. This wasspoken of not only in his statement made under Section 313 CrPC by thefirst respondent but also, as stated above in the evidence of PW 2 and PW 6in their cross-examination.PW 2, Biswas Kumar, a neighbour of therespondents and PW 6, Harshvir Singh were examined to prove the prosecutioncase that on the intervening night of 26-9-1985/27-9-1985 they heardquarrels emanating from the house of the accused and the deceased was heardcrying; but they turned hostile at the trial and were duly declared hostileand were cross-examined.PW 6, is none other than a practising advocate anda colleague of the 1st respondent.Equally, PW 5, Alok Dwivedi is anotherpractising advocate who was also examined to prove that the firstrespondent himself and one Avadh Vishwa Karma, Advocate, together had gonefrom the Court with the written report, Ex. KA-3 signed by the firstrespondent to the police station and had given it at the Police Station,Karwi at about 2.00 p.m. DW 2, Bhavendra Kumar Singh, an advocate of 20years' standing and the senior of the first respondent was examined toprove the alibi.It is most distressing to note that practising advocate,PW 6 and DW 2, with a view to exculpate the first respondent from theclutches of law, have, without any compunction, spoken falsehood and haveno regard for truth betraying their duty of being responsible law officerswho are expected to uphold truth and nothing but the truth.DW 2 has spokenfalsely that after the first respondent got the news of the death of hiswife he was often fainting and swooning which was not even spoken by thefirst respondent in his Section 313 statement.He should have rushed home to find outthe cause for the death and search out whether the crime was for gain etc.and immediately swing into action and make the police investigate into thecrime.On the other hand, although he had the news at 11 a.m. he went tothe police station at 2.10 p.m. after finding no escape from furtherdelaying the reporting to the police of the crime.This conduct isinconsistent and incompatible with normal human behaviour of an innocentman but seems to be one of a clever demeanour.The evidence of DW 2regarding occasional faints and swooning and ultimate unconsciousness is abunch of tissues of lies unsavoury to be acceptedThe question is whether this theory of alibi and of a strangercommitting crime is true, likely and probable ? The deceased was hardly 19years' old, a young teenager who was studying in intermediate standard atthe time of marriage.PW 2, Chandra Shekhar had five daughters and UrmilaDevi was the third one and being a man of small means, he anxiously marriedher to the first respondent, spending Rs 35, 000 with fond hope that shewould have a bright married life which ultimately turned out to be helllosing her precious life.After the marriage, she was staying with herhusband and had spent hardly five months and was having 4 to 6 weeks'pregnancy.There is no suggestion even of her being of loose character.Ifthe stranger had really come and stayed in the house and committed murderby strangulation, would he have burnt the dead body so as to createevidence to alert the neighbours to come and catch him ? It would beabhorrent to the common sense to believe it.Yet another circumstance todisbelieve this theory is that having committed the murder at midnight,would he have waited till 8.00 a.m. and left the house after daybreak so asto secure evidence of his presence and of having committed the murder ?Under this clinching impossible human conduct, the theory of a stranger'scoming to the house, staying with the deceased during the intervening nightof 26-9-1985/27-9-1985 and of committing her murder is a false one.Theevidence of PW 2 and PW 6 in this behalf is a figment of imagination,emanating from fertile confabulation of 1st respondent, PW 6 and obviouslyof DW 2 and his other colleagues who are all practising advocatesYet another theory set up by the first respondent to prove his alibi isthat pursuant to a letter dated 18-9-1985 written by his brother-in-law, DW1, resident of Jharimajugaon, a railway employee stating that his sisterwas unwell and that on its receipt on 24-9-1985, he went to see his sisterdirectly from the court on 25-9-1985 without coming to his house andkeeping his briefs and coat in the house.He is stated to have kept hiscoat in a shop.It appears to be a highly artificial theory set up by thefirst respondent.On his own admission of DW 1, his wife, viz., the sisterof the first respondent had usual fever which did not warrant him to gostraight from the court to his sister's house without coming to his houseand informing his wife of his going, without keeping his coat and also hisrecord in the house.DW 1 admitted that one vaidya was treating her forfever and that fever continued even after the first respondent left thehouse.DW 1 was attending to his duties going to a distant place.Noprescription of medicine was given.The distance between Karwi and hissister's village is 70 kms.Even assuming that he had gone on 25thSeptember, he would have returned on 26th evening.He merely mentions that while he was in court at 11 a.m. he received themessage that his wife had died and he went to the house and after seeingher dead body he went to the police station and lodged the report.There isno explanation as to where he was moving or what he was doing from 11 a.m.to 2.10 p.m. and why he had lodged the report at 2.10 p.m. when he hadreceived the message of the death of his wife at 11 a.m. He did not evenmention that his wife was having burn injuries.It is now seen that thedeceased was first strangulated and done to death and was then burnt.Obviously, therefore, he had not committedhimself to any specific cause of the death.If the theory of stranger'scoming and causing the death of his wife is excluded and his theory that hehad gone to his sister's house and he did not come back to his house tillhe received the information that his wife was dead which information hereceived at 11 a.m. on 27-9-1985, stands excluded, and for the aboveobvious reasons, it does get excluded, then the necessary conclusion isthat he must have been present in the house.None could have access to hisbedroom at midnight.So he committed the murder and he wanted to createevidence of screening the offence of murder by burning her to create anevidence of suicide committed by the deceased.These false theories set upby the first respondent are yet another circumstance to complete the chainto inculpate the first respondent in the commission of the offence ofmurder and scratching the evidence of murder.There is strong evidence ofPW 2, father and PW 4, sister of the deceased, of demand for dowry whichfurnishes motive to commit murderTheevidence of PW 2 and PW 4, father and sister of the deceased who spokeabout the motive, was excluded on applying Section 32 of the Evidence Act.Thus, evenassuming that Section 32 is inapplicable to the facts of this case as heldby the learned Judges of the High Court, the narration of the facts ofdemand for dowry of sofa, motor cycle etc. and non-supply thereof is apiece of evidence to prove motive for committing the offence of murder.Such evidence would be relevant and admissible under Section 8 of theEvidence Act. The deceased informed these witnesses of the ill-treatmentmeted out to her due to her inability to secure the articles demanded byRamesh Prasad Misra.On the other hand, the learnedJudges of the High Court betrayed their duty of final court of fact, tosubject the evidence to close and critical scrutiny.They either have noknowledge of the elementary principles of criminal law or adopted casualapproach towards a serious crime like the present one.In either case,miscarriage of justice is the inevitable result at their hands in criminalcasesAccordingly, we set aside the acquittal of the first respondent inrespect of all the three charges and restore the conviction of the firstrespondent for an offence of murder under Section 302 IPC.However, thesentence of death, recorded by the Sessions Judge is converted into RI forlife.

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']

116 15.12.2020 rkd Ct. No.28 (Allowed) C.R.M. 9977 of 2020 (Through Video Conference) In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Uttarpara P.S. Case No. 277 of 2020 dated 13/09/2020 under Section 448/323/325/306/354B/427/379/506/34/201 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Falguni Mandal ....petitioner.He and his family members assaulted the petitioner and others.General diary was recorded.Subsequently, petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the victim committed suicide as his sister had been ill-treated by the petitioner and others.We have considered the materials on record.Grievances expressed in the suicide note may be assessed in the light of the fact that the deceased was accused of torturing his wife who committed suicide.In view of the aforesaid facts, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']

This is projectedas the motive for the occurrence.On 29.03.2000, at about 10.00 AM, PW-1 and the deceased wereproceeding through the land of one Annamalai Thevar.At that time, the accusedcame there with a sickle in his hand.He shouted at the deceased saying that hewould not leave the deceased without wrecking vengeance.So saying, the accusedcut the deceased with sickle.The deceased warded off the said attack by hishands.The blow fell on the right forehand.Then, the accused cut him on theright side of the abdomen of the deceased.The injury was so deep and theintestine protruded out.PW-1 attempted to rescue the deceased.Immediately, theaccused cut PW-1 on her right hand, left hand, right shoulder and right upperhand, repeatedly with sickle.In the said dying declaration,the deceased told that due to previous enmity, the accused cut him with sickle.[Dr.Ramakrishnan was not examined before the Trial Court, as he had goneabroad].PW-15 was a Head Constable, attached to the Murappanadu Police Station.Then, he handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police forinvestigation.He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an ObservationMahazer, EX-P3 and a Rough Sketch, EX-P27, showing the place of occurrence inthe presence of PW-4 and another witness.Then, he recovered bloodstained earthand sample earth from the place of occurrence under a mahazer in the presence ofthe same witnesses.Then, he examined PW-2 to PW-4 and recorded theirstatements.At 07.30 PM, he examined the deceased at the hospital and recordedhis statement.[The said statement, though a dying declaration, falling withinthe sweep of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has not been proved inevidence by the prosecution].He recovered the dressmaterials of PW-1 and the deceased.On 31.03.2000, the accused surrendered before the learnedJudicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli.On the orders of the learned JudicialMagistrate, on 10.04.2000, PW-18 took the accused into his custody.On the sameday, at 06.30 PM, while in the Police Station, the accused gave a voluntaryconfession in the presence of PW-6 and another witness.In the said confession,he had disclosed that he had hidden the sickle in his house.In pursuance of thesaid statement, he took PW-18 and the witnesses to his house and produced thesickle, [MO-1].The deceased was removed to the hospital.*************[Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.] The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.369 of 2001, on the fileof the learned Additional Sessions Judge, [Fast Track Court No.I], Tuticorin.Hestood charged for offences under Sections 341, 302, 326 and 506(ii) of theIndian Penal Code.By Judgment dated 07.10.2003, the Trial Court has convictedhim under all the charges.For the offence under Section 341 of the Indian PenalCode, the Trial Court has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment forone month and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to undergo imprisonment forone week, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergoimprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergoimprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 326 of the IndianPenal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fineof Rs.500/- in default to undergo imprisonment for six months and for theoffence under Section 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorousimprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergoimprisonment for one month.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, theappellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was one Mr.PW-1 is hiswife and PW-2 is the son of the deceased.Twoyears prior to the occurrence, there arose a dispute between the deceased andthe accused in respect of cutting of acacia trees.This resulted in a criminalcase against the deceased, PW-2, one Marimuthu and few others.PW-2 and PW-3 were then working in a nearby field.On hearing the alarm raised, they rushed towards the place of occurrence andwitnessed the entire occurrence.On seeing them, the accused criminallyintimidated them by brandishing sickle against them.Then, the accused fled awayfrom the scene of occurrence with the weapon.PW-2 and PW-3, forthwith, took PW-1 and the deceased to theGovernment Medical College Hospital at Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.PW-12, Dr.The deceasedtold him that on 29.03.2000, at 10.00 AM, in a field at Agaram, he was attackedby a known person with sickle.The deceased was, at that time, fully conscious.He noticed two injuries on his body as follows:-"(i) A cut injury measuring 15 x 3 cm-traverse- on the right side of theabdomen.(ii) A cut injury on the right upper arm measuring 15 x 4 x 3 cm exposingthe bone."According to P.W.12, from out of the X-ray taken and on his own assessment, boththe injuries were grievous in nature.On the same day, at 11.10 AM, he examined PW-1, who told thatat 10.00 AM, on 29.03.2000, in a field at Agaram, she was attacked by a knownperson with sickle.A cut injury on the right arm above elbow measuring 2 X + cm.A cut injury measuring 5 cm X + X + cm at the right shoulder.A cut injury measuring 2 X 1 cm on the left arm.A swelling on the middle of left arm."X-ray was taken on PW-1, which revealed that the injuries 1 and2 were grievous in nature.PW-1 and the deceased were admitted in the hospitalas inpatients.P.W.12 opined that the injuries on the deceased as well as on PW-1 would have been caused by a weapon, like sickle.He gave an intimation to thepolice as well as to the learned Judicial Magistrate in respect of the same.PW-17 was the then Judicial Magistrate No.6 at Tirunelveli.Onreceipt of the intimation from the Hospital Authorities, he proceeded to thehospital at 12.05 PM.One Dr.Ramakrishnan was attending on the deceased.Ramakrishnan opined that the deceased was conscious and was in a fit state ofmind to make dying declaration.On his own assessment and also based on theopinion of Dr.PW-16 was the then Sub - Inspector of Police, attached to the said PoliceStation.Since PW-16 could not write, as he had met with an accident,PW-15 reduced the same into writing.EX-P1 is the statement.On returning to thePolice Station, PW-16 registered a case in Crime No.65 of 2000 under Sections341, 302, 326 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.PW-16 forwarded thestatement, EX-P1 and the First Information Report, EX-P24 to the jurisdictionalMagistrate.Then, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remandand also produced the Material Objects before the Court.While so, at 06.00 AM, on 22.04.2000, the deceased died in thehospital.PW-19 was the then Inspector of Police, attached to the MurappanaduPolice Station.On receipt of the death intimation from the HospitalAuthorities, he altered the case into one under Section 302 of the Indian PenalCode.Then, he proceeded to the hospital and conducted inquest on the body ofthe deceased between 10.00 AM and 12.30 PM.Duringinquest, he again examined PW-1, PW-2 and few more witnesses and recorded theirstatements.Then, he forwarded the dead body for postmortem.K.Selvaraj, was an Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, TirunelveliMedical College Hospital, Tirunelveli.He found the followinginjuries:-"1.Partly healed vertically oblique cut injury with evidence of suturingon the right lateral abdomen, 16 X 5 CM entering into the abdominal cavity.Sutured vertically oblique cut injury on the back, outer aspect of andfront of right forearm, 15 cm below the right elbow, measuring 15 cm X 5 cm Xbone deep.On dissection: fracture of right radius with surrounding infection.Sutured incised wound in the front of abdomen in the middle withproline sutures.18 cm X 1 cm entering peritoneal cavity, through the lower partof the wound a loop of intestine seen protruding out.[end to end anastomosis ofthe intestine has been done] [surgical procedure].Durainage wounds on the right and left flanks of abdomen withcorrugated rubber drainage tubes in situ [surgical procedure]."He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of cutinjuries - abdomen and its complications.PW-19 collected the PostmortemCertificate and examined the doctor.Then, he made a request to the Court toforward the Material Objects for chemical examination.EX-P16 is the ChemicalAnalyst Report and EX-P17 is the Serology Report.As per EX-P16, there wasbloodstain found on the sickle [MO-1].Finally, on completing the investigation, PW-19 laid chargesheet against the accused.The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 341,302, 326 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.The accused pleaded innocence,and therefore, he was put on trial.During trial, on the side of theprosecution, as many as nineteen witnesses were examined and twenty eightdocuments were exhibited, besides, five Material Objects.Out of the said witnesses, PW-1 is the injured eye witness andPW-2 and PW-3 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.They have vividly spokento about the entire occurrence.PW-6 has spoken to about the recovery of MO-1,sickle on the disclosure statement made by the accused.PW-12 has spoken to thefact that he admitted PW-1 and the deceased as inpatients in the hospital.PW-13has spoken to about the postmortem conducted by him and the cause of death.PW-15 and PW-16 have spoken to about the complaint made by the deceased and theregistration of the case.PW-17 has spoken to the fact that he recorded thedying declaration of the deceased.The others are the official witnesses.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accusedunder Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied the same asfalse.However, he did not choose to examine any witness on his side nor toexhibit any document in his defence.Having considered all the above materials,the Trial Court found him guilty under all the charges, and accordingly,punished him.That is how, the appellant is now before this Court with thisCriminal Appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the recordscarefully.As we have already pointed out, PW-1 is an injured eye witness.Due to the attack made by the accused with sickle, she had suffered twofractures.According to the medical evidence, the said injuries were grievous innature.There is no controversy before this Court that PW-1 and the deceasedsustained injuries in the very same transaction.Therefore, the presence of PW-1, at the time of occurrence, cannot be doubted at all.Of course, they are inimical towards the accused.It is on this ground,the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that these two witnessescannot be believed at all, and their presence, at the time of occurrence, cannotbe true.But, we do not find any force in the said argument advanced by thelearned counsel for the appellant.PW-2 and PW-3 have stated that they wereworking in a nearby field at Aharam and on hearing the alarm raised, they rushedto the place of occurrence and witnessed the entire occurrence.Simply becausePW-2 and PW-3 are closely related to the deceased and enimical towards theaccused, their evidence cannot be rejected.In our considered view, theevidences of PW-2 and PW-3 deserve to be accepted.Immediately, after the occurrence, PW-2 and PW-3 took PW-1 andthe deceased to the hospital.On 29.03.2000, at 11.05 AM, when PW-12 examinedPW-1, she told that she was attacked by a known person at 10.00 AM, on29.03.2000 with sickle.The said statement duly corroborates the evidence of PW-This statement falls within the sweep ofSection 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as a dying declaration.Nextly, PW-17, the learned Judicial Magistrate, recorded thedying declaration of the deceased at 12.15 PM.One Dr.Ramakrishnan, who wasattending on the deceased, certified that the deceased was in a fit state ofmind to make dying declaration.It is the contention of the learned counsel forthe appellant that in the absence of the examination of Dr.The said argument of the learned counsel, in our consideredopinion, deserves only to be rejected, for the reason that PW-17 has stated thatnot only on the basis of the opinion offered by Dr.Ramakrishnan, but on his ownassessment, from the answers given by the deceased to the questions put by him,he was satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make dyingdeclaration.At this juncture, we may point out that the opinion of the doctoris only a guiding factor to a Magistrate to arrive at a satisfaction regardingthe mental fitness of an injured person.Ultimately it is only the subjectivesatisfaction of the Magistrate about the mental fitness of the declarant thatmatters.In this case, PW-17 has categorically stated that from theopinion of the doctor and out of his own assessment, he was satisfied that thedeceased was in a fit state of mind to make dying declaration.In respect of thenon - examination of Dr.Ramakrishnan had gone abroad, and therefore, hispresence could not be secured.Thus, we hold that EX-P26, dying declaration,recorded by PW-17 does not carry any infirmity with it.Next comes the complaint given by the deceased to PW-15 and PW-16, at 12.25 PM.The deceased gave a statement orally to PW-16 and the same wasreduced into writing by PW-15, [vide EX-P1].This statement is yet another dyingdeclaration.In the said dying declaration also, the deceased had stated that hewas cut by the accused with sickle.There is no reason to doubt this dyingdeclaration as well.During the course of investigation, PW-18 recorded the statementof the deceased under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In thesaid statement also, we find that the deceased said about the circumstancesleading to his cause of death.But, unfortunately, the prosecution has not proved the same in evidence.We apprehend that the prosecution was under the mistaken impression that thesaid statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure isnot admissible in evidence, in view of the bar contained in Section 162 of theCode of Criminal Procedure.For a moment, the prosecution had failed to noticethe proviso to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which makes itclear that a statement, falling within the ambit of Section 32 of the IndianEvidence Act, 1872, as a dying declaration, is admissible in evidence and thebar contained in Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicableto such a dying declaration.From 29.03.2000 onwards, the deceased wasundergoing treatment in the hospital and he died at 06.00 AM, on 22.04.2000.Thus, he was in the hospital for 24 days as an inpatient, undergoing treatment.PW-13, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, noticed as many asfour external injuries.Two of those injuries were surgical wounds.The injury found onthe abdomen was partly healed and the other injury found on the forearm was alsopartly healed.According to the doctor, the deathwas due to the cut injury to the abdomen and its complications.In other words,according to him, the death was due to infection and the injury to the abdomen.He underwenttreatment as in-patient.The deceased died after 16 days.Injury No. 1 was the fatal injury.The deceased died in the hospital after five days.We see from the injuries that they had been caused from a very closerange as tattooing was present.As stated above theoccurrence took place on November 18, 1988 and the deceased died 18 days lateron December 5, 1988 due to septicaemia and other complications.The Doctor foundonly one injury on the head and that was due to single blow inflicted with aniron pipe not with any sharp-edged weapon.1.The Additional Sessions Judge, [Fast Track Court No.I], Tuticorin.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.3.The Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Learned A.G.A. as well as Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail application but they have conceded on the point of parity.Let applicant(s), Vinod, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

The second respondent / complainant Vishal Sharma is present in person.The petitioners as well as the complainant are also identified by the Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector Amit in Court today.It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged at the instance of the complainant pertaining to certain negotiations, which, according to the complainant, resulted in agreements for the purchase of two plots between the parties.The matter is at the stage of preliminary investigation.The Crl.M.C. No.3115/2014 Page 1 of 6 matter was referred by the court below to the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Court, Delhi whilst a Bail Application No.4644 moved by the first petitioner was being considered, and ultimately, on 27.06.2014, the parties arrived at a settlement before the said Mediation Centre.In terms of the settlement, the complainant was to be paid a sum of Rs.25 lakhs in full and final settlement.Out of this amount, Rs.10 lakhs are stated to have already been received by the complainant on 23.10.2013, and the remaining amount of Rs.15 lakhs has been over to the complainant in Court today by way of a Demand Draft bearing No.780308, dated 17.07.2014, drawn on Union Bank of India.M.C. No.3115/2014 Page 1 of 6The complainant, who is present in person, approbates the aforesaid settlement dated 26.06.2014 and undertakes to be bound by the same.This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.602/2012 registered at police station Narela under Sections 420,406,506, 120-B IPC on 01.11.2012 on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.Issue notice.Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, enters appearance and accepts notice.Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No.602/2012 registered at police station Narela under Sections 420,406,506, 120-B IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition, along with Crl.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']

Heard on the question of admission.Heard on I.A.No.17969/2017 an application for condonation of ad delay of 49 days in filing the revision.M Considering the averments, I.A. aforesaid is allowed.The delay of 49 days in filing the revision is condoned.of Also heard on I.A.No.17968/2017 an application for suspension rt of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant.ou The applicant stands convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 279 and 337 of IPC with a direction to C deposit fine of Rs.700/- each, in default of payment of fine amount, h ig additionally he is sentenced to undergo S.I. for 30 days, Section 337 (2 counts) of IPC with a direction to deosit fine of Rs.400/-, in default H of payment of fine amount, additionally he is sentenced to undergo S.I. for 15 days and for Section 304-A of IPC he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appellant was on bail during trial and during pendency of appeal.Considering the short sentence awarded by the trial Court, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, I.A.No.17968/2017 is allowed, subject to deposit of fine amount if not already deposited.It is directed that the custodial sentence of applicant-Shankar @ Ramdayal be suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand), sh along with one solvent surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of e the trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on ad 22.02.2018 and on such other future dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this regard, till disposal of the revision.Certified copy as per rules Pr a hy (H.P. SINGH) ad JUDGE ASH M Digitally signed by ASHWANI WANI PRAJAPATI DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=482004, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=aa8f72857f3bf78e15d95745 PRAJ 62da856998b54d5fd5155003ab17db of da73f06859, serialNumber=f487d5a6440348495cf c3dec95a81237144a3514db9c56881 95627b992f5dc04, cn=ASHWANI PRAJAPATI APATIA.Praj.Date: 2017.10.09 11:05:24 +05'30' rt ou C h ig H

['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']

Thereafter, the deceased walked out of the house that he would commithttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 suicide and on the next day, his body was found on the railway track.This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to transfer the case in Crime No.389 of 2012 from the file of the fifth respondent to fourth respondent [CBCID].The petitioner before this Court is the father of one S.Arjun Raj, who was found dead on 21.06.2012, at Perumalpuram KM 302/700-800 Railway Track between Nagercoil and Aralvaimozhi Railway Station railway track.Based on the information given by Railway Gangman, namely, Mani, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Nagercoil conducted spot enquiry and thereafter, lodged a complaint before the fifth respondent stating that the deceased appears to be brutally murdered by unknown persons.She has alsohttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 noted down cut and stab injuries on the body of the deceased.Alleging that the fifth respondent is not conducting the enquiry in a proper manner and is attempting to close the case as suicide, the petitioner has filed this petition for transfer of investigation.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that based on the complaint lodged by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Nagercoil, a case was registered in Crime No.389 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.The deceased was studying B.E., ECE Department, IV year, at the relevant point of time and was staying in a rental house, along with his friends, namely, Nikhil, Kiran, Arun, Dominic, Anup, Seriyan, Thomas and Thibin at Murugan Koil Street, Subramaniapuram, belonging to one Nainaar.On the night of 20.06.2012, they had liquor and there was a wordy quarrel among themselves, due to which, the neighbours shouted that they would call the police.Thereafter, the deceased left the house stating that he is going to commit suicide and on the next day, he committed suicide by falling over the railway line.The investigation reveals that the deceased, because of the playful pranks among the friends, committed suicide.The postmortem report sails with the same and therefore, the prosecution has altered the Section from 302 IPC to 174 Cr.P.C., and filedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 the final report before the Executive Magistrate under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code.4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the documents placed on record.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Nagercoil, who lodged the complaint and who conducted the spot enquiry, has noted several cut and stab injuries on the body of the deceased and further stated that the deceased appears to be brutally murdered.But, the Doctor, who conducted the Autopsy, has noted down 20 injuries, of which, most of them are of laceration and abrasion.The Doctor has further gave his final opinion that the deceased appears to have died of head injury and according to the prosecution, the injuries found on the body of the deceased are due to the contact with the railway engine.As per the version of the prosecution, the deceased and his roommates, who were in the final year of their college studies, had alcohol on 20.06.2012 and there was a petty wordy quarrel among themselves.Due to the noise raised by them, the neighbours shouted that they would call the police.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

Theapplicant No. 2 is the father-in-law of complainant, whereas, applicant No. 3 isher mother-in-law and the applicant Nos 4 and 5 are brothers-in-law.According to prosecution, after marriage, wife -Sarlabai joined the company of husband for cohabitation at Pimprala, Dist.She received proper treatment initially at her matrimonial home.Inthe year 2003, she gave birth to daughter Divya during wedlock.After aboutone and half year of the birth of daughter Divya, she was again pregnant forsecond time and since then the members of matrimonial home including in-laws, brothers-in-law and sisters in law started harassing her on trifle grounds.The in-laws and husband used to demand money for purchasing the motorcycle.The complainant made endeavour to convince the in-laws and husbandabout poor financial condition of her parents that time she was beaten up anddriven out of the matrimonial home.Thereafter, the husband, his maternalaunt and cousin brother came to complainant and after giving assurance, theytook back her for cohabitation.In the meantime, she gave birth to son -Premraj.But, her ordeal did not come to an end.Mr. Girish Nagori, Advocate for Applicants.ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER K.K. SONAWANE,J] :-1. Heard.Rule is made returnable forthwith.Matter is taken up forfinality with the consent of learned counsel for parties.The applicants preferred present application under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C.") seeking relief to quash and set aside theFirst Information Report ("FIR") bearing No. 80/2018 registered at RamanandPolice Station, Dist.Jalgaon for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A,323, 406, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC").It has been alleged on behalf of prosecution that the first informant -complainant Sarlabai approached to the Police of Ramanand Police Station,Jalgaon on 16/5/2018 and ventilated the grievance that her marriage wassolemnized on 9/5/2002 with applicant No. 1 - Fakira Pandit Bhoi.After some days, she wasbeaten up by the in-laws on the ground that there was a lizard found in thefood cooked by her and again she was sent to her parents house.Thecomplainant stayed at parents home for some days, but the financial conditionof her parents was so critical, therefore, she on own volition returned tomatrimonial home for cohabitation.there was no change in the behaviourof members of matrimonial home.They used to beat her for satisfaction ofdemand of Rs. 5 Lakhs for construction business and for purchase ofmotorcycle.On 30th August, 2013, the husband of the complainant andbrothers in law forcibly taken away her girl with them.When she had been to ::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 ::: {4} crapln 1681.18.odtthe matrimonial home to take daughter back, the members of the matrimonialhome picked up quarrel with her.The brother in law - Maharu instigated thehusband of complainant to beat her, and due to instigation, the husband ofcomplainant dealt a blow of wooden log on her hand, which resulted intofracture injury to the complainant.The members of matrimonial homeincluding father in law, mother in law, brother in law assaulted her.Thebrother in law - Vijay Bhoi and sister in law Ashabai also gave fist blows on herchest and back.In the month of September, 2013, all the members ofmatrimonial home assaulted her, hurled abuses and for demand of moneydriven her out of the matrimonial home.Eventually, she approached to thePolice Station and filed report.::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::Pursuant to FIR, Police of Ramanand Police Station registered the crimeand set the penal law in motion.Pending the investigation, applicants movedpresent application by invoking remedy under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. forrelief to quash and set aside the penal proceeding initiated against them.Learned counsel for applicants vehemently submits that there were nophysical and mental cruelty to the complainant on the part of applicants.But,she has filed present penal proceeding with ulterior motive to harass theapplicants.There were no specific allegations about maltreatment and torturemeted out to the complainant - Sarlabai to attract the ingredients of Sections498-A, 406 etc. of IPC.He produced therelevant document on record.According to learned counsel, the complainant -wife is suffering from mental disease known as "paranoid schizophrenia".Theapplicant produced medical treatment of various doctors to the complainant.But all efforts did not yield result.All the allegations are vague and fabricatedone.The applicant Nos. 7 and 8 are residing separately.They are the distantrelatives and have no concern with the marital life of spouses.These applicantshave no reason to cause interference in the domestic problems of husband andwife.There was no direct and indirect involvement of applicant Nos. 7 and 8into the crime.::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::The learned APP as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2-firstinformant vociferously opposed the contentions put-forth on behalf of ::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 ::: {6} crapln 1681.18.odtapplicants and submit that the allegations of ill treatment nurtured on behalf ofcomplainant in the FIR discloses commission of crime punishable underSections 498-A, 323, and 504 etc. of the IPC.The complainant categoricallydescribed the episodes of her maltreatment and torture at the hands ofapplicants.There were unlawful demand of money from the applicants forconstruction business and purchase of motorcycle.The respondent No.2 filedaffidavit-in-reply on record and submits that she filed the Regular Civil AppealNo.922 of 2017 against the impugned judgment and decree of dissolution ofmarriage passed by learned Civil Judge, Jalgaon.She has also filed proceedingunder Section 125 of Cr.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::In such circumstances, we are unable to persuadeourselves to favour the applicant Nos. 1 to 6 in this proceeding.In so far as allegations nurtured against applicants No. 7 and 8 are ::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 ::: {7} crapln 1681.18.odtconcerned, we find that the allegations cast on behalf of complainant - Sarlabaiagainst sister-in-law and her husband are vague and general in nature.Thereare no specific allegations attributing overt-act of both these applicants tomaltreat and harass the complainant - Sarlabai.The only allegation againstapplicants No. 7 to 8 are that they had assaulted and hurled abuses tocomplainant and subjected her to cruelty.But, these are vague and generalallegations and no particulars are given in the FIR.The allegations aboutcruelty by these applicants are found stray and sweeping in nature.Theseapplicants are the distant relatives and residing separately from husband ofcomplainant and it is hard to believe that these applicants are the beneficiariesafter causing interference in marital affairs of the of spouses.They have noreason to torture the complainant without any purported motivation.::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::In the cases, where accusations aremade, the overt-acts attributed to persons other than husband, are required tobe proved beyond reasonable doubt.Their Lordships of Apex Court further ::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 ::: {8} crapln 1681.18.odtobserved that, "in their over-enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction formaximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be makingefforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of theprosecution even against the real accused."::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrestedunder this provisions."::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::It would be an futileefforts and would cause injustice to them if they are compelled to face agony oftrial before criminal court of Magistrate.The ends of justice would be served by ensuring that the applicants maynot be forced unnecessarily to go on litigations before the Criminal Court.Hence, penal proceeding initiated against these applicant Nos. 7 and 8 deservesto be quashed and set aside.Therefore, we proceed to pass following order :::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::The Criminal Application is allowed partly.2. Application in respect of applicants No. 1 to 6 stands disposed of as withdrawn.Criminal Application is disposed of in above terms.No order as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 05:02:50 :::

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']

Doctor, PW-3, who conducted postmortem, in his evidence deposed that he had found following 8 injuries on the person of the body of the deceased :This is repeat application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.428/2011 registered at Police Station-Unchehara, District- Satna for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 325, 323, 341, 294, 506-B/34 of IPC.Earlier applications were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court.Trial is still pending.PW-6, who is the eye-witness, deposed that there was quarrel between the parties and accused Raghvendra Singh had inflicted a blow of tangi on the head of the deceased and the present applicant had also caused injuries to the deceased by a wooden stick (danda).

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

Heard Shri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.The applicants are facing prosecution in Case Crime No. 243 of 2020, under Section 147, 323, 504, 304 I.P.C., Police Station-Najibabad, District-Bijnor.Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that there are three applicants, namely, Sumit, Ranjeet and Inderjeet.Contention raised by the counsel that the name of the applicants figured up in the F.I.R. lodged promptly naming five accused persons.From the F.I.R. it is clear that the informant Anil Kumar and Sumit are real brothers.On a significant issue with regard to closing of the D.J. in the marriage ceremony this scuffle crept up.It is submitted by the counsel that all the named persons assaulted upon causing serious injuries to deceased Sanjay (the injured).I have perused the injury report as well as his post-mortem report.There is a single lacerated wound only on the left of the skull and bleeding is present.On account of this injured took his last breath on the same day and as per information of the doctor he died as a result of coma as a result of ante-mortem during investigation it has been surfaced that the role of assault is being attributed to the co-accused Tushar on whose pointing out the weapon of assault was also recovered.The applicants have got a chance of fleeing away from the incident.Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.(i) THE APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL.IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicants to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:The applicants shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']

One Bibhishan Premraj Gund (original accused No.1) and the present appellant No.1, hereinafter referred to by her first name i.e."Rukminbai" were chargesheeted by Police Station, Bembli for the ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 2 criapl421-2006offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for short), on the allegations that Bibhishan had illicit relations with Rukminbai prior to and even after the marriage of Bibhishan with the deceased Shivnanda and therefore, both of them were beating and illtreating the deceased Shivnanda.The deceased Shivnanda always used to ask both of the accused to abstain from keeping illicit relations.Ultimately, because of the illtreatment meted out to her by both of these accused, the deceased Shivnanda committed suicide by setting herself ablaze in her house on 27th June, 2000 at about 12.00 noon.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::The deceased Shivnanda was taken to the Civil Hospital at Osmanabad for treatment by her brother-in-law namely Dilip.Her statement was recorded by PHC Patil, attached to police outpost of Civil Hospital, Osmanabad on the same day at about 2.10 p.m., after getting it verified from the Medical Officer that she was in a fit condition to give statement.In that statement, she alleged that on 27 th June, 2000, when her husband i.e. accused No.1 Bibhishan had gone to the field for sowing and when she was sleeping in her house ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 3 criapl421-2006at about 12.00 noon, Rukminbai, her parents and brother i.e. appellant no.3 namely Bharat, came there.Rukminbai was holding a kerosene can.All of them hurled abuses against her and beat her by kicks and fists.Rukminbai poured kerosene from the can on her person and the mother of Rukminbai, i.e. appellant no.2 namely Suman, set her on fire by igniting a matchstick.When she was caught by fire, all of them ran away.She tried to extinguish fire from her person by pouring water.She sustained extensive burns on various parts of her body.Her brother-in-law namely Dilip Gund took her to the Civil Hospital at Osmanabad for treatment.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::PHC Patil sent the above mentioned statement of the deceased Shivnanda to Police Station, Osmanabad, on the basis of which a crime came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504, read with Section 34 of the IPC under "0" number, since the incident had taken place within the local limits of jurisdiction of Bembali Police Station.Shivnanda died in the hospital on 28th June, 2000 at 2.05 a.m. The inquest of the body of the deceased Shivnanada was prepared.Her body was referred to the Medical Officer for the postmortem.The Medical Officer found 98% of ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 4 criapl421-2006burns on her body.He opined that she died of shock due to 98% of burns.After her demise, the offence under Section 307 of the IPC came to be substituted by the offence under section 302 of the IPC.The statements of the deceased Shivnanda and inquest panchanama were sent by PHC Patil from Police Station, Osmanabad to Police Station, Bembli with his forwarding letter.He read over the contents thereof to her whereon she stated that they were as per her say.On the basis of that letter, Crime No.43 of 2000 was registered in Police Station, Bembli, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::The investigation followed.The spot panchanama was prepared.Statements of the witnesses were recorded.Accordingly, he submitted chargesheet against them in the Court of Chief Judicial Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad.The offence under Section 306 of the IPC being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 5 criapl421-2006Court of Session, Osmanabad.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::The learned Trial Judge initially framed charges against Bibhishan and Rukminbai for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC vide Exh.50 on 5 th December, 2005 and explained the contents thereof to them in vernacular.They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.He explained the contents of those charges to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty.Their defence is that of total denial and false implication.The prosecution examined six witnesses to establish guilt of the above named accused persons for the above mentioned offences.After evaluating the said evidence, the learned Trial judge found that the dying ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 6 criapl421-2006declaration of the deceased Shivnanda was voluntary and truthful.He, therefore, relied on that dying declaration and convicted Rukminbai, Suman and Bharat (original accused Nos.2, 3 and 4, respectively) only for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.He acquitted Bibhishan (original accused No.1) of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC.The original accused Nos.2 to 4 are the appellants before this Court.The learned Trial Judge sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the case of the prosecution is solely depending on the alleged dying declaration of Shivnanda recorded by PHC Patil (PW1).According to him, the deceased Shivnanda had sustained 98% burns.She was not a fit state of mind to give any statement much less the detailed and exhaustive dying declaration (Exh-63).He submits that the language used and the manner in which the events have been narrated in the said dying declaration themselves make it clear that the deceased Shivnanda is not the author of the said dying ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 7 criapl421-2006declaration.Admittedly, the brother-in-law of the deceased Shivnanda namely Dilip Gund had taken her to the Civil Hospital for treatment after the incident.He would have been the best witness to state as to whether the deceased Shivnanda was in a condition to speak and whether she had any allegation to make against anybody behind the incident of burning.However, the prosecution has not examined him without assigning any reason.The daughter of the deceased Shivnanda was present at her house at the time of the incident.However, she has been given up by the prosecution vide purshis (Exh.99).According to the learned counsel, the daughter of the deceased Shivnanda was knowing that the deceased Shivnanda had committed suicide and therefore, her evidence was suppressed by the prosecution.He submits that the house in which the incident took place is situate abutting a main road of the village.There were a number of houses and shops in front of or adjacent to that house.However, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution.He submits that as stated in the dying declaration, the husband of the deceased Shivnanda had illicit relations with accused No.1 since before the marriage of the deceased Shivnanda which had taken place prior to about seven years of the ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 8 criapl421-2006incident.The prosecution has not produced any evidence to show as to what happened on the day of the incident which prompted the appellants to go to the house of the deceased Shivnanda and to set her on fire.According to him, the very genesis of the incident as stated in the dying declaration is not natural and probable.No motive has been attributed against the appellants for setting the deceased Shivnanda ablaze.The learned counsel further submits that the Medical Officer has not endorsed on the dying declaration that deceased Shivnanda was conscious, oriented and in a fit condition to give statement.This fact also creates doubt about fit mental condition of the deceased Shivnanda.All these witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution without assigning any reason.This fact also creates doubt about truthfulness ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 9 criapl421-2006of the contents of the dying declaration of the deceased Shivnanda.He, therefore, submits that the appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::Where it is proved by the testimony of the Magistrate that the declarant was fit to make the statement, even without examination of the doctor the declaration can be acted upon provided the Court holds the same to be voluntary and truthful.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::The learned A.P.P. further relied on the judgment in the case of Atbir Vs.It creates great confidence.She, therefore, submits that the learned Trial Judge has rightly believed the said dying declaration and rightly convicted the appellants on the basis thereof.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::11 criapl421-2006The husband of the deceased Shivnanda, who was original accused No.1, has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC.The said acquittal has not been challenged by the prosecution and as such, has attained finality.As seen from the evidence produced by the prosecution, the case is solely based on the dying declaration (Exh.63) of the deceased Shivnanda.PHC Patil (PW3) (Exh.101) deposes that on 27 th June, 2000, after receiving the MLC intimation (Exh.102) from the doctor of Civil Hospital, he went to the burns ward alongwith the doctor and requested the doctor to examine the deceased Shivnanda and to opine whether she was able to give statement.Accordingly, the doctor put his endorsement that she was conscious.Then he obtained her thumb mark below it and then put his own signature.Thereafter, the doctor made endorsement thereon and signed it.He sent that statement alongwith his forwarding letter (Exh.102) to City Police Station, Osmanabad.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::12 criapl421-2006Dr. Alangekar (PW3) (Exh-94) deposes that on the request of a Police Constable, he went to the burns ward in the Civil Hospital and examined the deceased Shivnanda.He found her to be conscious and able to give statement.Therefore, he asked the police to record her statement.Accordingly, he put endorsement on the statement on the top thereof.After her statement was recorded, he again examined her and found her to be conscious.He then put his endorsement as "in front of me" and signed it.There is no dispute that the deceased Shivnanda had sustained 98% of burns.One can imagine the physical and mental condition of a person suffering from 98% of burns.The case papers of the deceased Shivnanda have not been produced on record.Therefore, the appellants could not get an opportunity to point out the medicines which were being administered to the deceased Shivnanda when her dying declaration (Exh-63) is stated to have been recorded.Generally, the history of the incident is asked to the patient when he/she is admitted in the hospital.In the absence of those case-papers, the said history also was not made available to the appellants.The history of the incident given by the ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 13 criapl421-2006deceased Shivnanda at the time of her admission would have been of a great help to the Court also to consider the state of mind of the deceased Shivnanda and her first version about the incident in which she sustained burns.The prosecution has withheld this material evidence without assigning any reason.Therefore, adverse inference will have to be drawn and accordingly drawn that had the said evidence been produced, it would not have supported the case of the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::Dilip Gund, the brother-in-law of the deceased Shivnanda had brought her to the Civil Hospital at Osmanabad after the incident.In the natural course, the deceased Shivnanda would have disclosed him the reason of her sustaining burns.He would have been the best witness to prove the oral dying declaration of the deceased Shivnanda which certainly would have thrown light on the factual position leading to the incident of burning.The prosecution did not examine him without assigning any reason though his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer as seen from the particulars of witnesses given in the chargesheet.The daughter of the deceased Shivnanda was present at the house at the time of the incident.She ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 14 criapl421-2006appeared before the Court.However, the prosecution did not examine her and informed the Court vide Pushis (Exh-::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::99) that she was given up as she was not supporting the case of the prosecution.The evidence of the daughter of the deceased Shivnanda also would have made the factual position clear.However, her evidence has been withheld by the prosecution.From the evidence of Sahebrao (PW2) (Exh-96), who happened to be a panch to the spot of incident, it is clear that there was a main road running from near the spot of incident.There were shops in front of that house.There were other houses adjacent to that house.None of the witnesses residing near the house, where the incident took place, has been examined by the prosecution without assigning any reason.The dying declaration (Exh-63) of the deceased Shivnanda reads as under :"Patient is conscious Sd/- 2.10 pm.fu-63 t ck c fnukad 27@6@2000 eh f'kouank Hkz-fcHkh"k.k xaqM o; 27 o"kZ /kank ?kjdke jk- ikMksGh rk-ft- mLekukckn-::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::15 criapl421-2006 le{k ljdkjh nok[kkuk mLekukckn ;sFks vkS"k/k mipkj pkyw vklrkauk fopkjsyo:u lkaxrs dh] eyk ,d eqyxh vklwu ,d nhj o tkow vklwu lklw o ek>s irh vkls loZt.k vkEgh ,d= jkgrks- ek>s ekyd 'ksrh djrkr ek>s ekgsj fHklsy fiaijh rk-ykrwj ;sFkhy vklwu ek>s yXu gksowu lkr o"kZ >kyh vkgsr- ekÖ;k uo&;kus vkeP;k xkokrhy :Deh.kh /kuxj ;k ukokph j[ksy Bsoysyh vkgs- o R;kaps izse laca/k ekÖ;k yXukiwohZiklwu pkyw vkgsr o R;keqGs ek>h o :Deh.khckbZph usgeh HkkaM.k raVk gksrvkt fn-27@6@2000 jksth ek>s ekyd gs ,sdchyk isj.kh dj.;klkBh xsys vkgsr eh tsou [kku d:u ?kjh >ksiys gksrs- rsOgk nqikjh ckjk okt.;kP;k lqekjkl ekÖ;k uo&;kph j[ksy :Deh.kh o rhph vkbZ] oMhy nRrw /kuxj o Hkkm vkls ekÖ;k ?kjh vkys rsOgk :Deh.khP;k gkrkr jkWdsyps dWUM gksrs- rsOgk lokZauh eyk f'kohxkG dsyh o ykFkk&cqD;kauh ekjgk.k dsyh o :Deh.khus gkrkrhy jkWdsy dWUM ekÖ;k vaxkoj vksrys o frP;k vkbZus dkMh vks<wu ekÖ;k lkMhl ykoyh rsOgk ekÖ;k loZ vaxkl tkG ykxyk rsOgk rs loZt.k iGwu xsys- ekÖ;k vaxkl iksGw ykxys rsOgk eh iGr tkmu ?kjkrhy jkat.kkrhy ik.kh rkaC;kus ekÖ;k vaxkoj vksrwu ?ksrys eyk tkG ykxY;kus ekÖ;k Mksdhps v/kZoV dsl] psgjk xGk] Nkrh] iksV nksUgh ik;] gkr ikB vkls Hkktys vkgs- uarj ek>s fnj fnyhi xaqM ;kauh [kktxh thi d:u vkS"k/k mipkjkdfjrk l-n-mLekukckn ;sFks vkuys- l/;k ekÖ;koj vkS"k/k mpkj pkyw vklwu eh iw.kZi.ks 'kq/nhoj vkgs-rjh vkt fnukad 27@6@2000 jksth nqikjh ckjk okt.ksP;k lqekjkl :Deh.kh /kuxj] frph vkbZ&oMhy o Hkkm ;kauh eyk ekjgk.k d:u thos ekj.;klkBh jkWdsy vksrwu dkMh vks<wu isVowu eyk tkGys vkgs- rjh ojhy pkj tukfo:/n ek>h dk;ns'khj rØkj vkgs- :Deh.khP;k vkbZps o Hkkokps ukao eyk ekfgr ukgh-ek>k tckc fygyk rks eyk okpwu nk[kfoyk rks eh lkafxrys izek.ks cjkscj o [kjk vkgs-::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::The contents of the dying declaration (Exh-63), which is in a narrative form, exfacie show that the manner of narration therein is not expected of an illiterate woman like the deceased Shivnanda.It seems to be in the language of PHC Patil (PW1).The deceased Shivnanda, who had sustained 98% of burns, would not have given such a detailed and exhaustive statement.Moreover, in the natural course, after stating the events those took place at the time of the incident, the deceased Shivnanda would not have repeated the same.However, the last paragraph of the dying declaration (Exh-63) again contains the summary of the preceding paragraph.This fact creates strong doubt about authorship about the dying declaration (Exh-63) as that of the deceased Shivnanda.Even if the dying declaration (Exh-63) is accepted as that of the deceased Shivnanda for a while, it will be clear therefrom that she was residing jointly with her brother-in-law Dilip, mother-in-law and the wife of Dilip in the house where the incident took place.It is not the case of the prosecution that the mother-in-law and the wife of the brother-in-law of the deceased Shivnanda were not present in the house at the ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 17 criapl421-2006time of the incident.None of them has been examined by the prosecution.Indisputably, the marriage had taken place prior to about seven years of the incident.There is nothing on record to show that during the said period of seven years, appellant No.1 or anybody from her family had illtreated the deceased Shivnanda at any point of time on any count.In the natural course, there would have been some other incident preceding the incident of burning, which would have made the appellants to think of setting the deceased Shivnanda on fire.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::The incident took place at about 12.00 noon.A number of persons were residing near the house where the incident took place.None of them has come forward to ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 18 criapl421-2006state that he/she had seen the appellants visiting the house of the deceased Shivnanda.The deceased Shivnanda would not have kept total silence after seeing the appellants coming to her house with any oblique motive.She would have tried her level best to resist them.She would have tried to run away out of the house.In any case, she would have at least raised shouts to attract attention of the others so as to seek their assistance to save herself.Nothing that of sort seems to have been done by her.In the circumstances, the incident as has been narrated by the deceased Shivnanda, does not appear to be natural and probable.It does not inspire confidence.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::The evidence of PSI Chavan (PW7) (Exh-113), who recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of investigation filed chargesheet, shows that it transpired in his investigation that the deceased Shivnanda committed suicide, in the circumstances of the case, assumes importance.He cannot state before the Court as to what was stated before him by the witnesses, but being the Investigating Officer, after considering the evidence collected by him, he was supposed to form an opinion as ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 19 criapl421-2006to what offence was disclosed against the accused persons.Accordingly, he formed an opinion thatthe offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC was disclosed.If that be so, the theory of the prosecution that the appellants themselves set the deceased Shivnanda on fire, cannot be believed.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::In the above circumstances, the sole dying declaration (Exh-63) of the deceased Shivnanda was not sufficient to hold the appellants guilty for a serious offence like murder for which the minimum punishment is imprisonment for life.It was incumbent on the part of the prosecution to produce corroborative evidence to establish the facts narrated in the dying declaration (Exh-63).The prosecution has suppressed the evidence of material witnesses, which itself creates a great doubt about the truthfulness of the contents of the dying declaration (Exh-63).In the circumstances, the learned Trial Judge should not have believed the dying declaration (Exh-63) and should not have convicted the appellants solely on the basis of the said dying declaration.The learned Trial Court committed a grave error in holding the appellants guilty of the offence of murder of the deceased Shivnanda on the basis of the ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 ::: 20 criapl421-2006dying declaration (Exh-63) without seeking corroboration thereto.The evidence of record creates doubt about the case of the prosecution.Therefore, the benefit of doubt necessarily would have to be given to the appellants.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::The prosecution failed to adduce sufficient, cogent and dependable evidence to establish guilt of the appellants for the offence of murder of the deceased Shivnanda, beyond reasonable doubt.The evidence on record is not free from doubt.The appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt.The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants are liable to be quashed and set aside.In the result, we pass the following order:O R D E R (A) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.(B) The impugned judgment and order are quashed and set aside.(C) The appellants are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2017 23:28:43 :::

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']

SINGLE BENCH HON.SHRI JUSTICE B.D. RATHI *** (Criminal Revision No.579/2006) Petitioner (1) Jalam Singh S/o Shri Devlal, Bheel by caste, Aged 70 years, Occupation-Agriculturist.(2) Ranglal s/o Shri Bherulal, Bheel by caste, Aged 62 years, Occupation-Agriculturist.(3) Dashrath s/o Shri Mathuralal, Occupation-Agricultuist, All residents of Gram Kakraya, P.S. Kumbhraj, Tehsil Chachoda, district Guna.Versus Respondents State of Madhya Pradesh through P.S. Dabra District Gwalior (M.P.).Shri B.S.Bhadoriya, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri R.K.Shrivastava, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Order (Passed on the day of 3rd July, 2014) The following order of the Court was passed by : B.D. Rathi, J:-2 Crr.579/2006 (Jalam Singh & others Vs.State of M.P.) Heard on R-I.A.No.4968/14, second repeat application preferred under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. and section 446A of Cr.P.C.Case No.278/03, the petitioners were convicted for offence punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo two-two years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.500/- each on both the counts.Thereafter, Cri.The petitioners were directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned.It is submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid directions, the petitioners were released on bail on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds.On 17/8/07 the petitioners failed to appear before the Registrar of this court, the date fixed for their appearance.In compliance of the arrest warrant, on 16/6/14 the petitioners were arrested and brought to this court and after 3 Crr.579/2006 (Jalam Singh & others Vs.In this situation, this second application has been filed for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of the petitioners.(3) In support of the application aforesaid, first of all, the argument raised by their learned counsel is that proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. have not been initiated against the petitioners or their sureties and therefore, by virtue of proviso to Section 446-A of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have a right to be released on bail because the order dated 17/7/06 was not declared as cancelled.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

The accused appellant has preferred this appeal u/S. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 15/4/2000 passed by the Special/Sessions Judge, Shivpuri (M.P.) in SST No. 76/99 convicting him u/S. 302 I.P.C. and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment.Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Govind (deceased) who was a member of the SC & ST Community on 14/8/1999 was working in the agricultural field alongwith Gebu (PW-2), Kishori (PW-1)) and Chhute (PW-3) when at about 3 p.m. the appellant who was owner and had given his field to Gebu under crop sharing came to the spot and expressed his annoyance at the late arrival of the deceased Govind who had come at around 9 a.m. in place of the normal starting time of 8 a.m. Criminal Appeal No. 435/2000 2 for labourers.The appellant hurled abuses at the deceased, who objected to it whereafter the appellant who was carrying a gun fired at the deceased who died on the spot.Kishori (PW-1) reported the incident to the police station Karera, district Shivpuri vide FIR Ex.P/1 which was written by Ashok Kumar Bharadwaj (PW-9), SHO of the concerned police station.The Judicial Magistrate of the concerning area was informed u/S. 157 Cr.P.C. whereafter the investigation was set into motion, conducted by SDO (P) T.K.Vidyarthi (PW-8).The Investigating Officer reached the spot where the dead body of Govind was lying.Panchnama of the dead-body was prepared vide Ex.The memo, requisitioning the witnesses to identify the dead-body was issued.Spot- map vide Ex.P/3 was prepared.Plain and blood stained soil were seized vide Ex.Statements u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded of witnesses Kishori, Gebu, Chhute, Devilal, Pistabai, Hailal, Mugar Singh and Prakash.The clothes worn by the deceased were received in a sealed condition from the Primary Health Centre Karera which were sent for chemical examination to FSL, Gwalior report of which was received vide Ex.P/9 opining the presence of blood on the clothes of deceased.The postmortem report (Ex.P/4) discloses various pellet injuries on the body out of which Injury No.3 sustained on the side of abdomen was found to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.The prosecution in all examined 9 witnesses namely, Kishori (PW-1), Gebu (PW-2), Chhute (PW-3), Omkarlal (PW-4), Murli Singh (PW-5), Dr. N.S.Chauhan (PW-6), Devlal (PW-7), T.K.Vidyarthi (PW-8) and Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj (PW-9) among whom, Kishori (PW-1), Gebu (PW-2) and Chhute (PW-3) are eye-witnesses who are unanimous in Criminal Appeal No. 435/2000 3 their revelation that when the appellant had come to the field to inspect the work being done by the labourers he found one of them i.e., deceased Govind missing.The appellant went back home.(Delivered on 10th day of November,2017) Per Sheel Nagu, J.Later the deceased Govind arrived at 9 a.m. and started working alongwith others.At 3 p.m., on the same day the appellant came again and expressed his annoyance at the late coming of the deceased to work.The appellant abused the deceased who objected to the same whereafter the appellant is said to have fired at the deceased who sustained pellet injuries on three different parts of the body, i.e. left forearm, left thumb, and forefinger and the third injury was found on the lower part of the back portion of the abdomen.The third injury caused fracture of left ilium and left ulna bone.The defence of the appellant was that of complete denial and of false implication.In his statement u/S. 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant raised plea of not being present at the scene of crime and further alleged false implication based on some earlier financial transactions between the appellant on one side and Gebu and Chhute on other.DW-1 Mahesh Kumar was produced in support of the defence.Believing the prosecution case and evidence, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated earlier and aggrieved thereby the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.We have heard Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri T.C.Bansal, Advocate for the accused-appellant and Shri Girdhari Singh Chauhan, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the record of the trial court.On perusal of the record, ocular evidence in shape of eye- witnesses Kishori (PW-1), Gebu (PW-2) and Chhute (PW-3) elicits that when the appellant had come to the field to inspect the work being done by the labourers he found one of them i.e., deceased Govind missing.The appellant went back home.Later, the deceased Govind arrived at 9 a.m. and started working alongwith others.At 3 p.m., on the same day the appellant returned to the spot and expressed his annoyance at the Criminal Appeal No. 435/2000 4 late coming of the deceased to work.The appellant abused the deceased who objected to the same whereafter the appellant fired at the deceased who sustained pellet injuries on three different parts of the body, i.e., left forearm, left thumb, and forefinger and the third injury was found on the lower part of the back portion of the abdomen.The third injury caused fracture of left ilium and left ulna bone, which ultimately resulted in death of Govind.Thus, the ocular evidence in shape of testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 is duly corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. N.S.Chauhan (PW-6).

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

The petitioners were initially arrested in connection with Bhadreswar P.S. General Diary Entry Nos. 1586 and 1597 both dated August 26, 2007 for their alleged involvement in connection with offence punishable under Section 379/411/413/414/468/472/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code.On perusal of relevant General Diary Entry bearing No. 1597 dated August 26, 2007 and the First Information Report in connection with Bhadreswar P.S. Case No. 196/2007 dated August 30, 2007, we find that the offence being investigated by the police as disclosed in the General Diary Entry dated August 26, 2007 and the First Information Report dated August 30, 2007 are identical.In view of the apprehension of the petitioners that they may be arrested in connection with Bhadreswar P.S. Case No. 196/2007 dated August 30, 2007, they have moved this Court seeking an order of anticipatory bail in terms of provisions as prescribed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.We have, also, perused the case diary in connection with FIR No. 196/2007 and the documents filed along with the application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It, further, appears that Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also inserted in the forwarding report and also in the General Diary Entry bearing No. 1597 dated August 26, 2007 along with other provisions of the Indian Penal Code as mentioned above.It appears from Annexure -A to the application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that learned Magistrate by his order dated August 27, 2007 granted bail to both the petitioners.In the same order learned Magistrate considered the prayer submitted by police officer to conduct inquiry and permitted the same directing police to inquire and submit P/R (prosecution report).On perusal of the case diary, we find that written First Information Report was lodged by SI Sukamal Kanti Das, Officer-in-Charge, Bhadreswar P.S. on August 30, 2007 against four persons including the petitioners.On the basis of such First Information Report dated August 30, 2007, a case being First Information Report No. 196/2007 dated August 30, 2007 was registered under Section 379/411/413/414/468/471/420/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code.We accordingly reject the application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.

['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']

This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.The applicant is in custody since 01.08.2018 in connection with Crime No.333/2018 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Satna (MP), for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376(D), 354(D)/34, 506 of IPC and Sections 5/6 and 11/12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offence, Act.As per prosecution story in short, complainant has lodged the report dated 20/07/2018 stating that applicant-Wasim Khan came to her house for making railing.Thereafter he started chating to complainant through his mobile.On 17/07/2018 applicant has sent to message to complainant in her whatsapp Number for calling her out from her house.when the present applicant has taken away the prosecutrix.The present applicant was standing and thereafter co-accused-Aman Singh left the complainant to her house, this report was registered under Sections 363, 354(D) r/w 34, 506 of the IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, thereafter, the complainant has submitted a written complaint on 25/07/2018 to SHO, Police Station, Civil Line contending that on 17.7.2018 at about 11:30 in the night present applicant and other accused took the prosecutrix forcefully in their vehicle and after that they have committed rape upon her.He further submits that the other co-accused Aman Singh has already been released on bail vide Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 03/11/2018 14:48:01 2 MCRC-43842-2018 order dated 23.10.2018 passed in M.Cr.He also further submits that the prosecutrix has not stated against the present applicant regarding commission of rape.there is no case made out against the present applicant and he has no criminal past against the applicant and trial will take long time to conclude.Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 03/11/2018 14:48:01

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']

The petitioner would further submit that he was producedbefore the TADA Court on 16.4.1995 and gave a statement under Section 164(5)Cr.P.C. and he was remanded to judicial custody; that yet another case on aprivate complaint filed in the Court of XVI M.M., G.T. Chennai was taken onfile for alleged offences punishable under Sections 19 3,211,469,307 and 109r/w.120-B IPC and the said Court, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directed theCentral Crime Branch Police, Chennai or any other appropriate jurisdictionalpolice to register a case, investigate into and file a final report and therespondent filed the final report in his Cr.No.403/2001 for offences made outunder Sections 1 93,211 and 469 IPC on the file of the Court of AdditionalMetropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the said case was alsotransferred to the designated TADA Court, Trichy.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']

The Police caught hold of the running applicant/accused.With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the revision is finally disposed of.The petitioner preferred this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26/04/2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Criminal Appeal No.198/2001, arising out of the judgment dated 12/10/2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar in Criminal Case No.1544/96, whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under:-Shri K.D.Sharma (PW-5) Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station G.R.P., Sagar, received an information from the informer that one person has put a Chandan (sandle) wood in Bamboo box in Train No.1505 and taking the same to sell.On the said information, he went to platform No.1 along with police staff and arranged for checking the train and he found the Bamboo box covered by chaddar.On search, they found 95 pieces from one box and 70 pieces from another box, wet chandan weighing approximately 23 kg and seized it by a seizure memo Ex.The cost of the said sandle wood was estimated to Rs.14,000/-.The applicant was arrested and a case No. 430/96 was registered against the applicant/accused.Both the Courts below have not committed any mistake in believing the statements of prosecution witnesses corroborated by medical evidence.With regard to sentence, admittedly the petitioner remained in jail for a period of 18 days.No previous criminal conduct of the petitioner had been proved by the prosecution therefore he seems to be first offender.With the aforesaid directions and modifications in the sentence, revision petition stands disposed of.A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.(SMT.VIMLA JAIN) JUDGE manju

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']

(Delivered on this the 09th day of January, 2017) PER: Subodh Abhyankar,J.The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 19.5.2007 passed by the Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rewa in Special Case No.30/2006 whereby each of the appellants have been convicted under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for one year and fine of Rs.1000/-; under Section Section 302/149 of IPC RI for life and fine of Rs.1000/-; under Section 307/149 of IPC RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/-; under Section 323/149 of IPC (on seven counts) six months RI under each count and fine of Rs.1000/-, under Section 452 of IPC rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/-; under Section 427 of IPC six months RI and fine of Rs.500/-; under Section 506-B of IPC RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/-.In default of payment of fine of Rs.1000/-, the appellants have been directed to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and in default of Rs.500/-, the appellants have been directed to suffer simple 2 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007 imprisonment for three months.All the sentences are to run concurrently.2 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007The facts of the case in brief are that on 16.3.2006, at around 8.30 in the morning at village Itwari Tola, Khatkhari, the accused persons, namely, appellant No.1 Baijnath, appellant No.2 Umesh @ Chotani, appellant No.3 Ghanshyam, appellant No.4 Awadhesh and appellant No.5 Ramsahodar armed with various weapons including gun, Farsa, Lathi etc. came to the house of deceased Buddhsen Saket and after breaking into the house, caused his death.In this incident, Radhiya, Jirraua, Ratan, Savitri, Asha, Devnarain, Gulabiya and Kiran were also assaulted and were caused injuries especially Jirraua, who received grievous injuries and her dying declaration was also recorded, but, fortunately she survived.The case of the prosecution is that on the fateful day of 16.03.2006 when the appellants barged into the house of deceased Buddhsen Saket, his wife Radhiya tried to stop them but the appellants broke the door open and murdered her husband Buddhsen Saket.The FIR (Ex.P/1) was lodged by Radhiya (PW-1) herself at around 9 a.m. in the morning against as many as nine accused persons.Since other accused persons, namely, Nichani S/o Ramsahodar, Vishwanath S/o Ghanshyam, Raghurai S/o Kamla Prasad and Sanjay S/o Raghurai were absconding, hence the trial was conducted against the present appellants only.Radhiya (PW-1) has stated in her statement that her husband Buddhsen Saket was fired upon by accused Marchani.She has also stated that all the accused persons assaulted her husband by various weapons and Sahodar caused Gandasa injury.She has stated that the dispute arose because they were constructing a latrine on their land.She has also stated that she knows all the accused persons present in the court and that she had also received an injury in her right hand.She has been declared hostile only on the point that the assault was made on them on account of their caste.She has also stated that appellant Baijnath had hit by Gandasa on her hand and also that they 3 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007 assaulted Buddhsen as well.He has also supported the case of the prosecution and named all the accused persons as the assailants.He was declared hostile because of non-mentioning of his caste and because he did not say that they were assaulted only because of their castes.He has stated that he was also assaulted by the accused persons.Monu has been examined as PW-4, who is nephew of the deceased Buddhsen.He has also stated to have seen the appellants committing the offence.Bhailal Chamar (PW-5) has also stated that he knows all the accused persons, who came from a tuck and then committed the offence by forcefully entering into the house of Buddhsen Saket.Similarly Chhotelal (PW-6) has also supported the case of the prosecution and has also stated to have seen the appellants causing injuries to Jirraua on whose private parts an injury by rod was caused.Vidhinarain (PW-7) the another prosecution witness has also supported the case of the prosecution.Kaushal Prasad Saket (PW-8), aged about 10 years, who happens to be another nephew of the deceased has also stated that in the morning when he was playing outside his house, all the accused persons came to his house broke open the door and killed his uncle Buddhsen.He has also stated that when the assault was being made, he slipped below a cot and has seen the entire incident.Ratan Saket (PW-3 Cr.A. No.1261 of 20079), aged about 15 years, whose house is adjacent to the house of deceased Buddhsen has also supported the case of the prosecution.Ramvishal (PW-10) was declared hostile.Gulabkali (PW-11) is the daughter of deceased Buddhsen.Apart from confirming the incident she has also stated that she was assaulted by Sahodar with the aid of Tangi.Savitri (PW-12) is the daughter-in-law of the deceased.She has also seen the incident and has deposed the same that the accused persons came to her house and caused injuries.Kiran (PW-13) has also supported the case of the prosecution.Asha (PW-14) is the daughter-in-law of the deceased.She has supported the case of prosecution and stated that Ghanshyam assaulted her by Tangi and Chhotani caused injuries by lathi.4 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007Dr. Achla Tripathi (PW-16), who has examined Jirraua (PW-2), has also confirmed that Jirraua had received injury on her pubic area which was bleeding.The medical report is exhibited as Ex.Vivek Gupta (PW-17) is the Naib Tehsildar who had recorded the statement of Jirraua when initially it was apprehended that she might succumb to injuries.R.D.Dwivedi (PW-18) is the Sub Inspector, who recorded the FIR (Ex.1) as well as Dehati Marg Intimation (Ex.P-15) while the deceased Buddhsen was being taken to the hospital.He stated that he referred Radhiya, Ratan and Asha for medical examination.R.P. Shukla (PW-19) is the Scientific Officer of scene of crime Unit Rewa.He has proved that on the southern wall of the house there were marks of pallets and some pallets were recovered from the house of the deceased.Mewalal Dubey (PW-21), who is the Head Constable has confirmed that he has sent the injured persons Jirraua, Savitri and Devnarain for medical examination.Kashi Prasad Kushwaha (PW-25) who is a seizure witness, has been declared hostile.He has stated that nothing was seized before him and no accused persons informed the police regarding any weapons which were recovered at their instance.7. PW-26 is Dr.V.N.Satnami, who was posted as Medical Officer at Mauganj District Rewa has conducted the postmortem of the deceased.He has stated that the deceased Buddhsen had received as many as nine injuries which are mentioned as under :-pksV dz0&1 dqpyh ?kqlh gq;h Fkh rFkk QVh pksV flj ij nkfgus rjQ Fkh tks 6x3x efLrd dh xgjkbZ rd ftlesa [kwu cg jgk FkkA pksV dz0&2 yky [kjkspnkj pksV flj ds lkeus nk;s rjQ 4x3 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&3 dVh gq;h pksV nk;s dqguh ij ihNs dh rjQ 4x2xpeMh dh xgjkbZ rFkk yky jax dk [kwu dk FkDdk yxk gqvk FkkA pksV dz0&4 yky [kjkspnkj pksV ck;s dksguh ij ihNs dh rjQ 6x4 lseh0 dh FkhA 5 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007 pksV dz0&5 yky [kjkspnkj pksV xnZu ij nkfgus rjQ 2x1 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&6 yky [kjkspnkj pksV nkfgus iSj 4x3 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&7 yky lwtunkj pksV ihB ij nkfgus rjQ 8x3 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&8 yky lwtunkj pksV ihB ij ck;s rjQ 9x2 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&9 yky [kjkspnkj pksV nkfgus rjQ dej esa 4x2 ls0eh0 dh FkhA The first injury has resulted in fracture of the head, which was the cause of death of deceased Buddhsen.He has also examined Jirrua (PW-2) and found the following injuries :5 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007pksV dz0&1 QVh gq;h pksV nkfgus dyk;h ij 8x6 ls0eh0 dh Fkh tks gM~Mh dh xgjkbZ rd FkhA rFkk gkFk dh dykbZ Vs<h gks x;h FkhA pksV dz0&2 yky lwtunkj pksV nkfgus Hkqtk ij 8x6 lseh0 dh FkhA rFkk gM~Mh dks Mqykus ij vkokt vkrh Fkh tks fMLyksdsVsV FkhA pksV dz0&3 yky [kjkspnkj pksV ck;s tkap ij 1@x2 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&4 QVh gq;h pksV ckg~; tuuax ij 10x8 ls0eh0x2 ls0eh0 dh Fkh ftlesa yky jax dk [kwu dk FkDdk yxk FkkA He also examined Radhiya (PW-1), who had received following injuries :pksV dz0&1 yky [kjkspnkj pksV ck;s vxzHkqtk ij 4x3 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&2 yky lwtunkj pksV ihB ij ck;s rjQ 6x4 ls0eh0 dh FkhA He also examined Ratan (PW-9), who had received following injuries :,d yky [kjksp nkj pksV nkfgus ,Mh ij 3x2 ls0eh0 dh FkhA He also examined Savitri (PW-12), who had received following 6 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007 injuries :6 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007pksV dz0&1 [kjkspnkj lwtunkj pksV nkfgus dyk;h ij Fkh 8x6 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&2 dVh gq;h pksV ck;s iSj ds xkaB esa 3x2 ls0eh0 dh Fkh tks gM~Mh dh xgjkbZ rd FkhA pksV dz0&3 yky lwtunkj pksV ck;s iqV~Bs ij 7x5 ls0eh0 dh FkhA He also examined Asha (PW-14), who had received following injuries :pksV dz0&1 dVh gq;h pksV nk;s rjQ xnZu ij 3x1x-5 ls0eh0 vkdkj dh Fkh] ftles yky jax dk [kwu dk FkDdk yxk FkkA pksV dz0&2 yky lwtunkj pksV nkfgus dU/ks ij 10x6 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&3 yky lwtunkj pksV nkfgus Hkqtk ij 5x2 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&4 yky lwtunkj pksV nkfgus tka?k ij 6x3 ls0eh0 dh FkhA pksV dz0&5 yky lwtunkj pksV ck;s iSj ij 8x3 ls0eh0 dh FkhA He also examined Gulabiya (PW-11), the daughter of the deceased, on whose person following injuries were found :-pksV dz0&1 yky lwtunkj pksV nk;s dU/ks ij 7x4 ls0eh0 dh Fkh A pksV dz0&2 yky lwtunkj pksV nkfgus tka?k ij 6x3 ls0eh0 dh Fkh A Nothing substantive could be extracted from all these witnesses in their cross-examination.Chhotelal (PW-27) is also a witness of seizure and has been declared hostile.Ramsagar Gupta (PW-28) who is a witness to incident is also declared hostile.7 Cr.A. No.1261 of 20079. Dr.A.K. Mishra (PW-30) is a Senior Medical Officer and has examined Jirraua (PW-2).He has stated that Jirraua had received fracture on her right humerus, radius and ulna and has proved the X-ray reports (Ex.P/52, P/53 and P/54).Durgesh Rathore (PW-31) is the Investigating Officer, who has duly corroborated the evidence collected by him during the course of investigation.The defence set up by the accused persons is that the accused Umesh @ Chotani used to park his truck in the Harijan Basti by the side of the house of Guruprasad because there was no road so that the truck could be driven up to the house of Umesh @ Chotani and because of this reason when Umesh, Awdhesh and Baijnath were coming from the truck, at that time the people of Harijan Basti started running and Buddhsen, the deceased also ran into his house struck his head on the door frame and hence he got the head injuries and so far as other injured persons are concerned, they all caused injuries which were self-inflicted.11 Since none has appeared for the appellants, we have heard Shri K.S. Wadhwa, the learned Additional Advocate General with Shri Pradeep Gupta, the learned Panel Lawyer but we have carefully gone through the entire evidence on record and have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.So far as the nature of death of Buddhasen is concerned, the same was homicidal in nature as has been proved by Dr.Although, a suggestion has been given to him that the injury no.1 may be caused if the head is hit by the door but this suggestion is not given to any of the eye witnesses, especially, the PW/1 Radhiabai hence no importance can be attached to such suggestion.Thus, the death of Buddhsen was homicidal in nature.The presence of the appellants on the spot has been duly proved by the witnesses, most of whom were injured and the nature of their injuries is such that their presence on the spot 8 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007 cannot be denied.The injuries caused by the appellants have also been duly corroborated by the medical evidence.It may be that the witnesses have not attributed each and every injury to any specific appellant but this only gives more credence to their story as the incident took place on 16.3.2006 whereas the commencement of the trial and the examination of witnesses took place from 2.9.2006 which is almost a period of around six months.8 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007The learned Judge of the Trial court has rightly held that it is not a case where accused persons can be convicted under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and has rightly acquitted the appellants from the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.So far as the witnesses to seizure memos, namely, Kashi Prasad Kushwaha (PW-25) and Chhotelal (PW-27) are concerned, even if they have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been won over, in that case also, the injuries caused to as many as six witnesses and their depositions in the Court are sufficient to bring home the offence of murder and assault.It is pertinent to mention here that even the child witnesses have received injuries and it is rather preposterous to come up with such a defence that the injuries received by the witnesses were selfSo far as the injuries caused to deceased Buddusen are concerned, the explanation as offered by the accused persons that he struck his head on the frame of the door while running into his house is also ridiculous especially when the witnesses have not even been suggested that Buddhesen died due to the injury which he received while running into his house and that other injured witnesses have self-inflicted injuries.Thus, the defence advanced by the appellants is a clear afterthought and cannot be accepted.The FIR in the present case has been 9 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007 lodged immediately wherein names of all the accused persons were mentioned.Thus it cannot be said that their names have been subsequently added after deliberation to falsely implicate them.The evidence of the material witnesses who were also injured, reveals that the appellants have actively participated in the commission of offence.The case of the prosecution that accused persons forcefully entered into the house of the deceased is also corroborated by Ex.9 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007So far as the finding of the learned Trial Court regarding attempt to murder of witness Jirraua (PW-2) is concerned, the same cannot be sustained.The learned Judge in para 39 of the judgment has mentioned that the injuries caused to Jirarua (PW-2) were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, which is supported by the medical evidence.After perusing the medical evidence in this regard viz. the testimony of Dr. Achla Tripathi (PW-16) and Dr.V.N.Satnami (PW-26), it appears that none of the doctors have mentioned that the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.It appears that the learned Judge has arrived at such a conclusion on the basis of the fact that initially a dying declaration of Jirraua was recorded, which may have led the learned Trial Judge to form an opinion that the appellants are also liable to be convicted under Section 307 of IPC.In view of the aforesaid, the conviction of all the appellants under Section 307/149 of IPC awarded by the learned Trial Judge is set aside and in its place they are convicted under Section 326/149 of IPC as there are as many as three fractures caused to Jirraua (PW-2) and sentenced to suffer five years' rigorous imprisonment, which they have already undergone until now.So far as the conviction of appellants under Sections 148, 302/149, 323/149, 452, 427 and 506-B is concerned, as already discussed herein above, there is no error committed by the learned 10 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007 Trial Court in convicting the appellants under aforesaid offences.10 Cr.A. No.1261 of 2007In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent as indicated hereinabove.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

Jameela a young muslim woman was found killed on18.9.1991 by Baiju, allegedly hired killer at Vattolikadavuroad after having received stab injuries.PW1, the elderbrother of the deceased lodged the First Information Reportin Police Station Ayyuampuzha without naming any person asaccused.At the time of her death, the deceased was inadvance stage of pregnancy.The lungi and shirt MOs 12 and 13respectively worn by him at the time of crime were seized asper Mahazar (P16).After recording his disclosure statementMO1, the weapon of offence was recovered from the busheswhere he had allegedly hidden it.Accused No.2 was alsoarrested in connection with the murder of Ms.is not known to the witness.Her deposition is mainlywith respect to the relationship of the deceased with theappellant.Jose (PW7) stated in the trial court that on thedate of occurrence at about 2.45 p.m., the appellant hadcalled him.He told him to come after some time.He wentthere and talked to the appellant, George (PW8) and Mohanan(PW10).He saw Jameela, deceased getting down from the busat about 2.30 p.m. She had gone to the house of her sisterAmina (PW9).Jameela afterthree days of the occurrence.Upon trial both the accusedwere found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections120B and 302 besides Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.They were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.Theappellant was also imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in caseof default, directed to under rigorous imprisonment for twoyears.Aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Court,both the accused persons filed appeal before the High Courtwhich was dismissed on 1.4.1997 vide the judgment impugnedin this appeal.This Court on 14.7.1998 dismissed the SLPin so far as it related to Accused No.1, namely, Biju andgranted leave only with respect to the appellant Saju.Thecase of the prosecution is that Jameela, a young unmarriedwoman of 24 years of age had developed illicit relationswith the appellant, with the result that she becamepregnant.She insisted that the appellant should marry herbut her request was declined on the ground that the marriagewas not possible because Jameela and the appellant belongedto different religions.The appellant is stated to havequarreled with the deceased for which Jameela filed acomplaint against him at Police Station Ayyuampuzha.Jameela did not accede to the advise of the appellant tohave abortion.On the date of occurrence she is stated tohave gone to the hospital at about 11 a.m. for a check upand on her way back she visited her sister Amina (PW9) atabout 2.30 p.m. After she left the residence of her sistershe was fatally stabbed by Accused No.1, Biju who hadfollowed her from the bus stop where she had alighted fromthe bus.After inflicting the stab injuries the saidaccused left the place of occurrence.The offence wasalleged to have been committed by Accused No.1 in conspiracywith Accused No.2 who wanted to get rid of the deceased.Admittedly there is no eye-witness in the case which theprosecution has sought to prove by leading circumstantialevidence.(2) Jameela requested 2nd accused to marry her andthat was turned down by second accused because they belongedto different religions.(3) When the close relatives of Jameela persuadedsecond accused to marry Jameela since she became pregnantthrough him, second accused proclaimed that she would notallow Jameela to deliver the child.Second accusedmanhandled Jameela in connection with this dispute and thatwas seen by her neighbours and there was also involvement ofthe police.(4) The conduct of the accused on the fateful day(both accused were seen together on the date of occurrenceby several persons and from PW.11's tea shop they hadtaken food.(7) Recovery of MO1 as a result of information givenby first accused from the bushes where it was hidden andvery near to the place of occurrence.(8) Recovery of MO 25 footwears (Hawai Chappals) fromthe place of occurrence and identified as similar to the onepurchased by first accused from the shop of PW 14 few daysprior to the date of occurrence.(9) Immediately after the incident the accused wereabsconding and arrest of first accused on 19.9.1991 by PW 22from the place he was hiding."According to the prosecution the injuries found on theperson of the deceased were caused by Accused No.1, Bijuwith the weapon of offence seized in the case at hisinstance consequent upon his disclosure statement.Hisconviction and sentence has already been upheld by thisCourt while dismissing the SLP filed by him.The appellanthas been found guilty and convicted of offences underSection 302 read with Section 120B and Section 119 of theIPC.Some conversation is also stated to have takenplace between the accused persons, the contents of which areneither disclosed nor suggested.Accused No.1 alone wasfound to have boarded the bus in which the deceased wastravelling and alighted from it along with her.Regardingthe circumstance relating to the existence of motive, PW9who is the sister of the Ms.Jameela deposed that thedeceased had told her that the pregnancy conceived by herwas through the appellant.According to her the appellantadmitted the paternity of conceived child in the initialstage but denied the paternity attributed to him six monthsthereafter.The trial court found that "in the answerselicited in the further cross-examination also it wouldappear that her version about the first source of knowledgeabout the pregnancy of Jameela was inconsistent andunnatural".Dealing with her statement, the trial courtobserved that PW9 had no occasion to meet Jameela as she wasnot visiting her mother's house and also because the secondaccused had consented for the marriage.What the witness stated was only thatJameela and the appellant were in love and they knew eachother for a period of two years before the death of Jameela.According to her the marriage between the deceased and theappellant could not be solemnised as they belonged todifferent religions.She never saw the deceased and theappellant talking as according to her they used to talk onlyin her absence.The appellant is stated to have visited thehouse of the aforesaid witness on 15.5.1991 and assaultedthe deceased regarding which report Exhibit P-4 was lodged.According to her Jameela was killed while returning from thehospital where she had gone for a check up.Nowhere in hertestimony Nabeesa (PW6) stated that the appellant wanted thechild, conceived by Jameela, to be aborted.There is nopositive evidence proving or suggesting that the appellantwas responsible for the pregnancy of the deceased.In theabsence of evidence regarding the circumstance attributingthe pregnancy of the deceased to the appellant and hisinsistence for abortion of the child, the importantcircumstance of motive cannot be held to have been proved.PW2 who is the neighbour of the deceased statedthat she had known about the pregnancy from Jameela herself.According to her the appellant had quarreled with Jameela inconnection with the pregnancy.Despite denial of theappellant Jameela was stated to have asserted that she didnot have sexual intercourse with anyone other than theappellant.In her cross-examination the witnesses statedthat the appellant never threatened Jameela.She admittedthat the appellant had apparently told Jameela that he wasnot the father of the child in her womb.The witnessconceded that she had no direct knowledge about therelationship of the deceased with the appellant.PW3 who isa neighbour and husband of PW2 was declared hostile as hedid not support the case of the prosecution.It was deposedby him that he was not aware that Jameela had requested theappellant to marry her.It is true that a number of witnesses havedeposed that they had seen both the accused together on thedate of occurrence but it is equally true that such meetingwas not unusual as admittedly they were working together inthe plantation.Mere meeting would by itself not besufficient to infer the existence of a criminal conspiracy.There is no suggestion, much less legal evidence to theeffect that both the accused were so intimate which wouldhave compelled Accused No.1 to agree to be a conspirator forthe killing of the deceased at the instance of theappellant.To a specific question as to whether he hadseen any other person going through the road towards theside where Accused No.1 had gone, the witness emphaticallyreplied in the negative.Davis (PW5) stated that on thedate of occurrence he had seen Accused No.1 at about 2oclock in the afternoon.In reply to a question as towhether he had seen anyone-else going through the road whileAccused No.2 was talking to PW4, the witness replied "I havenot noticed".Nabeesa (PW6) who is the mother of thedeceased has stated that on the date of occurrence both theaccused were sitting near her house on some timber logs atabout 2 p.m. but at 2.45 p.m. she saw only Accused No.1washing his knife near the stream which is on the southernside of her house.What happened between 2.00 p.m. to 2.45p.m.He did not see Accused No.1 with Accused No.2.He saw only the appellant, PW8, PW10 and some other people.George PW8 stated that he saw appellant on the date ofoccurrence at about 2.30 p.m. at the gate of his house.Both the witness and the appellant had conversation on thesteps of the house of the witness.Appellant was there forabout half an hour.This statement of PW8 belies theaverments of other witnesses that the appellant committedthe crime in conspiracy with Accused No.1 at about 2.45 p.m.Amina (PW9), the sister of the deceeased stated that she hadseen both the accused together sitting on the timber lognear the road.She did not see appellant accompanying theaccused No.1 thereafter.Devasi (PW11) Stated that on theday of occurrence both the accused had come to his shop atabout 1 p.m. and each had one plate tapioca and meat.Meharban (PW18) stated "I saw Accused No.2 at 2.30 p.m. atthe timber log.I saw A-2calling PW-7 Jose.Then I saw he was talking with PW-8George.That was about 2.45 in the afternoon.I saw A-1following Jameela when she alighted the bus.Then I saw A-1swiftly walking from eastern side to western side".Thisstatement of the prosecution witness does not suggest, evenby implication that both the accused were together on theday of occurrence.The statement of the witnesses noticedhereinabove may probabilise the presence of both the accusedtogether but does not prove beyond doubt that they weretogether near the road at the place of occurrence on thefateful day.Assuming they were together, would notnecessarily lead to the conclusion that they had met infurtherance of the conspiracy to murder the deceased.No fact orcircumstance with respect to the abetment attracting theapplicability of Section 109 IPF has been brought to ournotice.To prove the charge of abetment, the prosecution isrequired to prove that the abettor had instigated for thedoing of a particular thing or engaged with one or moreother person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing ofthat thing or intentionally aided by an act of illegalomission, doing of that thing.The prosecution miserablyfailed to prove the existence of any of the ingredients ofSection 107 IPC.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']

16- In the present case, according to police report situation was controlled and was maintained, then he left the village for search of the assailants.Further as per report tension was prevailing in the village for 3-4 days.The petitioners were already in jail.Hon'ble Raghvendra Kumar,J.The detention order was passed on 30.9.2014 i.e. after three months of the incident, hence there was no live and link in the incident and as such detention order itself is liable to be quashed.7- Learned counsel for the petitioners relied the following judgments:Sanawwar Vs.State of U.P. and others, LCrR 1993 page 67 decided on September 10, 1992:"18 We have noticed earlier that the detention of the petitioner has been based on sole incident of murder two persons in the Jungle.The alleged threatening to the witnesses in the same case and the allegation that villagers were fleeing do not amount to breach of maintenance of public order.It was individual act of the petitioner and his associates against individual and the same could not be said to be the grounds of such nature as to lead to any apprehension that the even tempo of the community at large would be endangered by this incident.The question whether a man has only committed a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the pubic order is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the Act upon the society.The test is whether it leads to disturbance of even tempo and current of life of the community so as to amount a disturbance of public order or does it affect merely an individual without affecting the tranquility of the society."Islamuddin Vs.The State, L.Cr.The assault was committed against two persons, namely Aman Ilahi and Ahsan IIahi who were done to death.No other person was sought to be assaulted.The incident was directed against the members of the same community for the reason that the deceased had failed to deliver possession to the assailants on a shop and a plot of land.From the grounds of detention it is apparent that the same was not a law and order situation but a public order situation as rightly contended by learned counsel for the State.Relevant portion of the grounds of detention reads as follows:"From the letter of the Superintendent of Police Mainpuri and the report of Incharge of the Police Station Kotwali Mainpuri annexed with report of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri and from the records annexed therewith, this is evident that you are a person of criminal tendency and in collaboration with your associates, and by creating fear and terror on the force of illegal arms, realize forcibly and illegally money from the traders and property-dealers, you by use of criminal force, by indulging in mar-peet (physical assault) and by resorting to other criminal acts are habitual to commit crime by terrorizing that person whoever opposes these increasing criminal activities, fear and terror psychosis has gripped the minds of the common public.In this very backdrop you for establishing your hegemony, while going on a scooter, along with your other associates on 13.10.2002 at 11.00 a.m. in the busiest market of town Mainpuri, near the Bada Chauraha (crossing) in front of the Shafi Hotel on the road itself and in the day time, stopped Shri Anand Kumar Jain, property dealer and by firing bullets indiscriminately committed his heinous murder in a planned manner.When, at the time of the commission of this criminal act deceased's son Ajai Kumar Jain wanted to save his father, you fired aiming at him who any how or other saved himself by fleeing away.Nobody dared, in the said busy market who could save the deceased from you and your associates.The dead body of the deceased remained lying on the road and bleeding continued profusely.Thereafter parawise comments was prepared on 16.10.2014 which was finally dispatched through speed post on 17.10.2014 to the Central Government.Admittedly the representation was handed over by the petitioner to Jail Authority on 09.10.2014 and the same was received in the office of District Magistrate, Hardoi and on 10.10.2014, the police report was called for.24- In the present case accordingly to the ground of detention on 24.6.2014, when the informant Shatrughan Singh alongwith his brother Udai Bhan Singh, nephew Amar Bahadur, Ram, Pratap Singh, Ajay Pratap Singh were sitting at the door and having some conversation at that time, due to village 'parti- bandi; with pre plan, Raj Kumar Singh with licensed DBBL gun Guddu Singh with country made pistol, Janak Singh with single barrel gun, Rana Pratap with country made pistol, Dharampal and Udai Bhan having lathi, Jagdish Singh alias Dhakku Singh armed with country made pistol(Addhi) came at about 2.00 P.M. They abused and exhorted to kill and they started firing causing grevious injuries to Udai Pratap Singh, Amar Bahadur, Rana Pratap and Ajay Pratap Singh.When Kallu and Rajpal of the same village dared to challenge, they threatened to finish the entire family, again they fired and left the place of the occurrence.Subsequently Amar Bahadur succumbed to injuries.Due to firing people started running helter-skelter to take shelter and closed their doors.No order as to costs.

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

The investigation is in progress.dsa Crl.O.P.No.30304 of 2019 03.12.2019http://www.judis.nic.inThis petition has been filed seeking for a direction to thehttp://www.judis.nic.in respondent police to alter the FIR.O.P.No.30304 of 2019If in the course of investigation, the respondent police collected sufficient materials, the offenses will be accordingly altered and all the accused persons will be brought to book.In view of the above submission, there shall be a direction to the respondent to continue the investigation effectively and based on the materials collected during the course of investigation, either alter the FIR or file the final report by showing the necessary offences.All the persons involved in the crime was also be made as accused persons.This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction.03.12.2019 dsa Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/Nohttp://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.30304 of 2019The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.30304 of 2019 P.RAJAMANICKAM,J.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

Certified copy as per rules.Heard on I.A. No.25728/2017, an application for suspension of jail sentence of appellant--Raju Drodawat and I.A. No.25724 of 2017, an application for suspension of jail sentence of appellant--Sudheer Yadav.They are convicted under Sections 364-d/120-B and 365/120-B of IPC and Section 25 (1-(d) of Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment, 5 years R.I. & two years R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.On due consideration of statements of (PW-1) Deshraj and abductee Vaibhav (PW-2) and other witnesses so also the fact that present appellants have not been identified nor any ransom was paid by the (PW-1), without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, (I.A. No.25728 of 2017 & I.A. No.25724 of 2017) are allowed.The substantive jail sentences of the both appellants- Raju Drodawat and Sudheer Yadav are suspended subject to their depositing the fine amount and furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.40,000/- each with separate 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 13th August, 2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']

Let this matter be fixed for hearing under the heading "Contested Hearing" two weeks after vacation.(Sahidullah Munshi, J.)

['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']

Item No. 30And In the matter of: Bapi Mallick Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Sudip Ghosh Chowdhury For the Petitioner Mr. Suman Saha For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Dadpur Police Station Case No.62 of 2011 dated 09.06.2011 under sections 341/323/325/307/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material.The charge sheet has been submitted.All the other accused have been granted bail.Since the charge sheet has been submitted, the Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within fifteen days from today.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J.)

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Heard with the aid of the case-diary.This order shall govern the disposal of M.Cr.O R D E R THIS is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicants are in custody in connection with Crime No.301/15 registered at Police Station-Kanwan, District-Dhar for the offence punishable under Sections 354-D, 509 of the IPC & 11(1) (IV) of POCSO Act.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are young persons and permanent resident of District Dhar, having no criminal antecedents.They have been falsely implicated in this case and they are detained since 16/09/2015 & 10/09/2015 respectively; whereas trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicants be released on bail.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.The applicants are also directed to attend each hearing of their trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in the Court would result in automatic cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.C. stands disposed of.C.C. as per Rules.[ J.K. Jain ] Judge Adarsh

['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']

No.112 akd [Adjourned] C. R. M. 12445 of 2019 with C. R. A. 236 of 2017 In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 24.12.2019 in connection with Daspur Police Station FIR No. 399 of 2018 dated 31.12.2018 under Sections 448/323/325/307/354B/379/435/34 of the Indian Penal Code.(G.R. Case No.01 of 2019) And In Re: Sk.Lutphar Rahaman ... ... Petitioner Mr. Suman De .. Advocate ... ... for the petitioner Mrs. Sukanya Bhattacharjee .. Advocate Mr. Arindam Sen .. Advocate ... ... for the State Department is directed to submit informal Paper books by the next date.Let this matter appear four weeks hence.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']

3973/11 Case No. 27/11 pending Sale-deed dated 21.12.09 before JMFC, Lakhna- executed by the petitioner don, in respect of the relating to land bearing offences under Sections survey no.66, having a total 409 and 420 of the IPC.area of 2.60 hectare, situated in Kevlari, for a considerable of Rs.65,000/-.4537/11 Case No. 387/11 pending Sale-deed dated 21.12.09 before Shri A.S. Sisodiya, executed by the petitioner and JMFC, Lakhnadon, in Arun Singhania relating to 10263/11 respect of the offences land, bearing survey nos.101, under Sections 420, 467, 123/11, 165/3, 165/4 and 468, 409 and 120B read 264, situated in Mouja Baiga-:: 4 ::MCrC Nos.3973/11, 4537/11, 4538/11, 4539/11, 7717/11, 8288/11 and 10263/11 with 34 of the IPC.Pipariya, for a considerable of Rs.5,18,000/-.4538/11 Case No. 386/2011 Sale-deed dated 21.12.09 pending before Shri A.S. executed by the petitioner Sisodiya, JMFC, relating to land bearing Lakhnadon, in respect of survey nos.46/2, 99/2, 134/3, the offences punishable 136/2, 165/5, 165/6, 267/2 under Sections 420, 467, and 321, having a total area 468, 409 and 120B read of 21.32 hectare, situated in with 34 of the IPC.Mouja Baiga- Pipariya, for a considerable of Rs.8,52,800/-4539/11 Case No. 385/11 pending Sale-deed dated 21.12.09 before Shri A.S. Sisodiya, executed by the petitioner JMFC, Lakhnadon, in relating to lands bearing respect of the offences survey nos.19/1, 19/2, 20, 21, under Sections 420, 467, 22/4, 59, 61/1, 61/2, 140, 468, 409 and 120B read 146, 148, 149, 177, 206, 211, with 34 of the IPC.212/1, 258/2, having a total area of 29.90 hectare, situated in Pindria, for a considerable of Rs.23,17,500/-.7717/11 Case No. 768/2011 Sale-deed dated 21.12.09 pending before Shri executed by the petitioner A.S.Sisodiya, JMFC, relating to land bearing Lakhnadon, in respect of survey nos.30/12, 36, 38, the offences punishable 49/3, 49/4, 75/2, 101, 115/2, under Sections 420, 467, 115/3, 146, 270, having a 468, 409 and 120B of the total area of 21.48 hectare, IPC.situated in Mouja Kevlary, for a considerable of Rs.8,59,200/-.:: 5 :::: 6 ::MCrC Nos.3973/11, 4537/11, 4538/11, 4539/11, 7717/11, 8288/11 and 10263/11However, upon his decision to leave the Company, he was authorized to collect the amount of Rs.50 lacs, invested by him, by selling useless pieces of land, purchased by him, for and on behalf of the Company and to adjust the considerations there- against and also to get two pieces of agricultural lands, admeasuring 10 acres and 4 acres, transferred in the name of his wife and respective amounts of consideration viz. Rs.5,50,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- paid or credited to the Company.(iii) Under the authority so granted, he, during the period from 8.12.2009 to 25.12.2009, had sold nine pieces of agricultural holdings for a total consideration of Rs.49,16,100/- and handed over the same, in cash, to Vinod Kumar Agrawal (for brevity 'Vinod Agrawal'), the Chairman of the Company, . :: 7 ::MCrC Nos.3973/11, 4537/11, 4538/11, 4539/11, 7717/11, 8288/11 and 10263/11:: 8 ::MCrC Nos.3973/11, 4537/11, 4538/11, 4539/11, 7717/11, 8288/11 and 10263/11Attention has also been drawn to a specific allegation contained in some of the complaints that it was co-accused Sneh Gupta who had rendered necessary assistance to Arun Singhania in generating the above-mentioned false documents on computer.:: 9 ::MCrC Nos.3973/11, 4537/11, 4538/11, 4539/11, 7717/11, 8288/11 and 10263/11(26.4.2012) This common order shall govern disposal of all the aforesaid interconnected petitions preferred, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), for quashing of the criminal proceedings, details whereof, for sake of convenient reference, may be tabulated in the following manner -MCrC No. Criminal Proceeding Document & amount forming pending as subject matter of the offences.:: 13 ::

['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']

The petitioner who is the Proprietor of the factory under the name and style of M/s. Poddar Iron Industries was prosecuted by the respondent No. 2 under Section 14(1) of the Employees' Provident Fund Act for not making payment of employees' contribution for the period between September, 1974 and September, 1975 before the S. D. J. M. Howrah.The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay fine in default imprisonment in all the cases.Thereafter, the petitioner was prosecuted under Sections 406 and 409, I.P.C. on the complaint of respondent No. 2, being G. R. Case No. 104/76, It is against this prosecution that the petitioner has come up before this Court.

['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']

The complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate(E.O.2), Egmore, Chennai was preferred by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chennai against the accused for an offence punishable under Sections 9(1)(a)(i), 9(1)(b)(i) and 9(1)(b)(b)(i) (four counts)of Central Excise and Salt Act 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the violation of payment of excise duty to the goods manufactured and fabricated by the accused.Admittedly, the first accused is engaged in the fabrication of steel structural for BHEL, Trichy, Ashok Leyland, Welmen Incondacent India Limited, South India Carbonic Gas India Limited, S.F.India Limited, Industrial Engineerings India Private Limited alias Foundary Limited, Hack Prestige Heavich Easan Limited.The second accused is the Managing Partner of the first accused.On the basis of the authorisation issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Department Preventive Unit conducted a raid on 6.9.1982 in the premises of the first accused and the Officers of the Central Excise conducted a random check up of the accounts maintained by the accused firm for the year 1979 and it was brought to the light that the value of the clearance of goods for the year 1979 had exceeded the prescribed exemption limit of Rs.30 lakhs.According to the accused, the defence taken before the trial Court was that they were manufacturing the steel structural fabrications either out of the raw materials supplied by others or out of their own raw materials.According to the complainant, the first accused manufacturer had cleared the goods without obtaining Central Excise Licence and without payment of duty.In C.C.1680 of 1989, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined Exs P1 to P13 were marked.In C.C.No.1681 of 1989 P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and Exs P1 to P20 were exhibited.In C.C.No.1682 of 1989 Pws 1 and 2 were examined.Exs P1 to P20 were marked.In C.C.No.1683 of 1989, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined.Exs P1 to P12 were marked.4 In C.C.No.1680 of 1989, P.W.1 Romand, the then Superintendent of Central Excise Department(Preventive Unit) would depose that as per Ex P6, the accused have produced manufactured goods to the value of Rs.29,38,360.48ps for the year 1979-80 and as per the accounts under Exs P8,9 and 10, the accused ought to have paid Central Excise Duty to the tune of Rs.57,534.42ps for the value of the goods Rs.29,38,360/48ps manufactured by them and for the period from 8.1.1980 to 31.3.1980, the value of the goods manufactured by the accused comes to Rs.5,48,891/04 and after considering the representation made by the accused, the excise tax to be paid by the accused was fixed as Rs.13,180/01ps, but the accused without paying the above said central excise duty , they marketed the goods manufactured by them.P.W.2, Thiru C.Hari Rao, the then Superintendent of the Central Excise Department during the relevant period would depose that he had issued a show cause notice dated 1.1.1985 to the accused under the Original of ExP11.Ex P12 is the order of the departmental enquiry held by the Collector of Central Excise Department Thiru K.J.Raman.As per the said order of the Collector of Central Excise , the accused have been levied a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 173(q) of the Act and that evasion of tax by the accused for the year 1979-83 comes to Rs.4.97,222/24ps.In C.C.No.1681 of 1989, P.W.1 is Mr.The Collector of Central Excise, after considering the representation made by the accused, had levied only Rs.22,722/97ps towards Central Excise duty.Ex P16 is the order of the Collector of Central Excise Department dated 24.10.1985 wherein he has levied Rs.1,00,000/- towards Central Excise duty for the evasion of tax to the tune of Rs.4,97,222/24ps.The accused have manufactured the goods from out of the raw materials supplied by the various companies like BHEL, Trichy, Ashok Leyland, Welmen Incondacent India Limited, South India Carbonic Gas India Limited, S.F.India Limited, Industrial Engineerings India Private Limited alias Foundary Limited, Hack Prestige Heavich Easan Limited.As per ExP6 and Ex P7 bills, the accused have manufactured goods worth of Rs.40,26,754/28 and marketed the same and that they are liable to pay the Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs.3,22,140/34 ps.P.W.2 , Mr.In C.C.No.1683 of 1989, P.W1 Thiru A.Romond, the Superintendent of Central Excise Department(Preventive Unit) would depose that the accused have manufactured steel goods to the value of more than Rs.30 lakhs and from the records seized under Exs P2 to P5, it came to light that the accused have manufactured the goods with the help of raw materials supplied by BHEL, Trichy, Ashok Leyland, Welmen Incondacent India Limited, South India Carbonic Gas India Limited, S.F.India Limited, Industrial Engineerings India Private Limited alias Foundary Limited, Hack Prestige Heavich Easan Limited.i) P.W.1 was residing at Kolathupalayam Village, wherein he had landed properties.On 8.3.2000 he went to cut leaves in his land and on his way to his land he saw the deceased.After cutting the leaves, P.W.1 returned from his land with leaves and saw the deceased proceeding in his cycle.when the deceased reached the main road from canal, P.W.1 was nearing the bridge.At the time the deceased was crossing A1's rice mill, A1 to A3 and one Palanisamy Gounder and Ramalingam were standing there.A1 was armed with knife and others were armed with stick.The accused intercepted the deceased and caught hold of him and from road dragged him into the rice mill.Palanisamy attacked the deceased on the fore head of the deceased with stick.Ramalingam beat on the chest of the deceased with stick.When deceased tried to escape from there, Palanisamy again best the deceased.But, that attack fell on A2 and A2 fell down.A2 beat the deceased.At that time, P.W.1 raised alarm.A1 cut the deceased and deceased fell down.Palanisamy Gounder and Ramalingam kicked the deceased on his flank.Then the accused ran away towards western side.ii) On hearing P.W.1's hue and cry, P.W.2 and P.W.3 came to the scene of occurrence.P.W.3 informed about the occurrence to P.W.4, who is the brother of the deceased.P.W.4 came to the scene of occurrence.P.W.5 arranged a car and took the injured to the hospital for giving treatment.At 2.30 p.m. injured/Sathasivam without responding to the treatment died in C.K.Hospital. P.W.1 went to the Kodumudi Police Station and gave a written complaint-Ex.P.W.5 is the driver, who took the deceased to C.K.Hospital at Erode.iii) P.W.13 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who had registered a case in Cr.No.77/2000 under Section 341, 342 and 302 IPC on 8.3.2000 at 6.00 p.m. on the basis of the complaint-Ex.On 9.3.2000 at 1.00 am, P.W.13 went to the Erode Government Hospital and recorded the statement of A3 and based on the statement of P.W.13 registered a case in Cr.No.78/2000 under Section 341, 324 IPC and that report is Ex.The First Information Report is Ex.iv) P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, Malayapalayam incharge of Kadumudi Police Station, on receipt of the First Information Report, went to C.K.Hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of panchyatars.P.27 is the inquest report.Vijayakumar had sent the death intimation to Kodumudi Police Station.P.W.11 is the Doctor, who had conducted postmortem over the corpse of Sathasivam on 9.3.2000 at 8.20 am and issued Ex.P.22-Postmortem certificate.The Doctor has opined that the cause of death is due to head injury and other injuries.P.W.15 went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar and drew rough sketch-Ex.A1 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate on 20.3.2000 and P.W.16 took the custody of A1 and recorded his confession.On the basis of the confession statement of A1, P.W.16 recovered M.O.3-blood stained aruval under Ex.After observing the other formalities, P.W.16 had completed his investigation and filed final report.P.W.16 closed the First Information Report in Cr.No.78/2000 (complaint preferred by A3) as mistake of fact.On 6.11.2000 P.W.16 received a letter from Joint Secretary(Home) to conduct further investigation.P.W.17 took up further investigation and after completing the investigation filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 under Sections 341 and 302 Rule with 34 IPC.vi) The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi in PRC.No.7/2000 and on appearance of the accused copies under Section 207 of Cr.When questioned the accused denied their complicity in the crime.On the side of the prosecution P.W.1 to 17 were examined, Ex.P.1 to 31 and M.O.1 to 13 were marked and on the side of the accused D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D.1 to 6 were marked.The point:- Originally there were five accused viz., 1.Sengottaiyan, 2.Palanisamy, 3.Ramalingam, 4.Muthayee Ammal and 5.Kolandaisamy Gounder, cited in the First Information Report as well as in the charge sheet filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. A2's son-in-law viz. Kathirvellu had presented a petition dated 13.3.2000 to the Secretary to the Home Department, Tamil Nadu stating that the accused Palanisamy Gounder and the accused Ramalingam were innocents and they were not present at the time of occurrence and an enquiry was conducted by the CB-CID Police, Coimbatore and the report of the DSP was accepted by the Additional Director General of Police(Crime), CB-CID.According to the said report, the accused Palanisamy and the accused Ramalingam were not present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence.JUDGMENT A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.A.Romond, the Superintendent of Central Excise Department(Preventive Unit).Ex P3 is the statement of A2 and as per the bills Exs P6 and P7 produced by the accused, the value of the goods manufactured by the accused for the year 1980-81 comes to Rs.36,99,661/62ps and that they are liable to pay the Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs.55,972/93ps.As per Ex P6,P8 and P9 for the year 1982-83, the accused have manufactured the goods to the value of Rs.17,39,736/49ps.But they have evaded the central excise duty of Rs.1,39,178/92ps and the Collector of Central Excise Department has also levied a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused for the violation of Section 9(2) Rule with 10 and 7A of the Act.On the above evidences, when incriminating circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were put to the accused, they would deny their complicity with the crime.The learned trial Judge, after going through the evidence both oral and documentary let in before him, has come to a conclusion that the guilt against the accused has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the accused under Central Excise Rules 174 Rule with Section 9(1)(a)(2) and also under Section 9(1) Rule with 9(1)(b)(2)of the Act and under Rule 173-F Rule with Section 9(1)(b)(ii) and Rule 173-B Rule with Section 9(1)(bb)(ii), Rule 173C Rule with Section 9(1)(bb)(ii),Rule 173G Rule with Section 9(1)(bb)(ii) and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and also slapped a fine of Rs.500/- under each count with default sentence in all the above said Calendar cases.The learned first appellate Judge, after meticulously scanning the evidence let in before the trial Court and also after due deliberation to the arguments advanced by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has held that there was no evidence let in by the prosecution to show that the goods manufactured by the accused exceeded the limit prescribed under the Act and that the trial Court without giving due consideration for the Notification Nos.118/75 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government in the Ministry of Finance(DR &T) which has exempted goods falling under Item No.68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944(1 of 1944) and also the Notification No.119/75 dated 30.4.1975 issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Finance wherein as per Rule 8(1) of the Central Excises Rules,1944,the Central Govoernment hereby exempted the goods falling under Item No.68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944(1 of 1944), manufactured in a factory as a job work from levy of excise duty and has held that the accused were not liable under the charge levelled against them and accordingly acquitted both the accused thereby allowing the appeal and setting aside the findings of the learned trial Judge.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Principal Sessions Judge in C.A.Nos.20 to 23 of 1992, the Central Excise Department/complainant has preferred this appeal.Now the point for consideration in this appeal is whether the findings of the learned Principal Sessions Judge in C.A.Nos.20 to 23 of 1992 is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal?The Point:Even according to the evidence of P.W.1, the raw materials for the manufacture and fabrication of steel goods to the accused were supplied by various companies like BHEL, Trichy, Ashok Leyland, Welmen Incondacent India Limited, South India Carbonic Gas India Limited, S.F.India Limited, Industrial Engineerings India Private Limited alias Foundary Limited, Hack Prestige Heavich Easan Limited.The learned first appellate Judge has allowed the appeal only on the ground that as per Notification No.119/75 -CE, dated 30.4.1975 issued by the Central Excise, Ministry of Finance, the accused are liable to be exempted from the Central Excise duty.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for Central Excise cases would contend before this Court that Notification No 119/75 came into force only in the year 1985 and hence the accused are not entitled to take shelter under the benefits conferred in the above notification.This contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor cannot be upheld because absolutely there is no pleadings in the grounds of appeal to the effect that the Notification No.119/75 dated 30.4.1975 came into force only in the year 1985 and that the benefits conferred under the above said notification cannot be extended or availed by the accused.It is pertinent to note here that even before the learned Sessions Judge, Chennai in the first appeal, the said defence was not taken by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, who had argued the appeal.If the Notification 119/75 dated 30.4.1975 would apply to the accused then the entire charge levelled against them will go, as correctly held by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.It is pertinent to note that the accused had already undergone the imprisonment till rising of the Court as ordered by the learned trial Judge.Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge in C.A.Nos.20 to 23 of 1992 which is neither illegal nor infirm.Point is answered accordingly.In the result, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed confirming the judgment dated 25.9.1996 passed in C.A.Nos 20 to 23 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge,Madras.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for Central Excise cases would submit that the observation made in this Judgment shall not affect the departmental proceedings pending against the accused before the appellate authority against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise Department.The submission made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor has got force and it is made clear that the observations made in this Judgment shall not have any impact on the Departmental proceedings pending before the appellate authority.A. No. 475/1997Vii) When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, they pleaded innocence.On the basis of the available evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Additional Session Judge(FCT.I), Erode has come to a conclusion that A1 to A3 are liable to be convicted under Section 341 and 302 Rule with 34 IPC and conbsequently convicted and sentenced them to undergo one month simple imprisonment under Section 341 IPC each and sentenced under Section 302 Rule with 34 IPC to undergo life imprisonment each of the accused.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,(FTC.I), Erode, the accused have preferred this Appeal.The Inspector of Police, Kodumudi Police Station filed M.P.1439/2000 before the Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C for permitting to conduct further investigation in Cr.No.77/2000 (complaint preferred by P.W.1) on the file of Kodumudi Police Station and the said petition was allowed and on that basis, P.W.16 has conducted further investigation and filed fresh charge sheet-Ex.P.30 only against A1-Sengottaiyan, A2-Muthayee Ammal and A3-Kolandaisamy Gounder.The charge sheet was dropped against the accused Palanisamy and Ramalingam on the ground that they were not present at the time and place of occurrence.Ex.P.29, petition of the Inspector of Police under Section 173(8), contains the report of the Additional Director of CB-CID, as per the report of the Additional Director of CB-CID, on the date of occurrence i.e., on 8.3.2000, A3-Kolandaisamy Gounder and his wife Muthayee Ammal(A2) and their son Sengottaiyan(A1) were drying the turmeric in the disputed place without heeding to the words of the deceased-Sathasivam and since the deceased-Sathasivam had objected the accused, for drying turmeric in the disputed place, all the three accused had attacked him, which resulted in the death of Sathasivam in the hospital and the complaint was preferred by the brother of the deceased-Sathasivam after consulting the advocates and after implicating Palanisamy Gounder and his son Ramalingam as accused, the murder case was registered against the above said five accused.It has been further stated in the report that on investigation it was brought to light that on the date of occurrence at the time of occurrence the accused Palanisamy and his son Ramalingam were not present at the scene of occurrence, but they were working in the turmeric field some four kilometers away from the place of occurrence and they retuned only at 6.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence to their house.The above said report was also filed along with Ex.P.29 by P.W.16, which cuts at the root of the prosecution case for the following reasons:i) According to P.W.1 to 3 the place of occurrence is the rice mill belonging to A1 and at the time of occurrence A1 had assaulted the deceased-Sathasivam with knife and the accused Palanisamy and accused Ramalingam (Who have been dropped subsequently in the re-investigation from the charge sheet) also attacked the deceased-Sathasivam with wooden stick on the head and chest of the deceased respectively and A2 had assaulted Sathasivam with a wooden stick and Palanisamy and Ramalingam kicked Sathasivam on the flanks.According to P.W.1 the accused had way laid Sathasivam and dragged him into the rice mill belonging to A1 and assaulted him.P.W.2 and 3 have also deposed to the fact that all the accused along with the accused Palanisamy and the accused Ramalingam assaulted the deceased-Sathasivam. P.W.3 has also corroborated that A1 to A3 along with Palanisamy and Ramalingam have assaulted the deceased-Sathasivam.According to P.W.3, the motive for the occurrence was that there was some enmity prevailing between Palanisamy and Ramalingam on one hand and the accused on the other in respect of a ditch and the motive for the occurrence against A2 & A3 and the deceased-Sathasivam was in respect of 5 cents of lands.In the cross-examination, P.W.3 would depose that about 25 cents of land belong to one Kolandaivel Samboornam, who had appointed the deceased-Sathasivam as his power of agent, already had executed the entire 25 cents in favour of A3, but P.W.3 has purchased 5 cents in the same survey number in the above said 25 cents of land from the power of attorney agent deceased-Sathasivam and there was a civil dispute pending before the civil court at Kodumudi.P.2-sale deed will go to show that the deceased-Sathasivam had executed the sale deed as a power of attorney for Sambooranam in favour of P.W.3-Palanisamy, in respect of 5 cents in survey No.542/16 of Kulathupalayam village.According to P.W.1, the entire 25 cents in the said survey number property was purchased by A1 and had constructed a rice mill thereon, but through the deceased-Sathasivam as power of attorney for Sambooranam, another sale deed in favour of P.W.3 was executed for 5 cents.As per Ex.P.29, as per the investigation of CB-CID both the erstwhile accused Palanisamy and Ramalingam were not present at the place of occurrence, that is why, they have been dropped in the charge sheet filed after reinvestigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. On the other hand, P.W.1 to 3, the eye witnesses, would depose that the said Palanisamy and Ramalingam also assaulted the deceased/Sathasivam at the place of occurrence.So the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 cannot be believed at all.ii) As per the evidence of P.W.9, the Doctor, who had deposed on behalf of Doctor Vijayakumar, who had conducted autopsy, there were three cut injuries on the head to bone deep, and stab injury behind the left ear and a contusion on the right fore head and another contusion on the left fore head and an aberration on the left forearm and left thigh.In the cross-examination, the Doctor-P.W.9, who had admitted and treated the deceased/Sathasivam at about 12.30 p.m. On 8.3.2000 at C.K.Hospial Erode, has deposed that Sathasivam had expired due to massive heart attack.But, P.W.11-Doctor, who had issued Postmortem certificate-Ex.P.22, would depose that the deceased-Sathasivam would have died due to the injuries he had sustained on the head.So, with regard to the cause of death also there is a discrepancy between the evidence of P.W.9-Dr.S.K.Krishnan and P.W.11-Dr.iii) Yet another point to be noted is the fracture of occipital bone on the skull seen as per Ex.P.22-Postmortem report.According to P.W.1 to 3, the other two accused viz. Palanisamy and Ramalingam were also assaulted with wooden stick on the head of the deceased/Sathasivam.But according to the prosecution, the said Palanisamy and Ramalingam, who were previously shown as accused in the charge sheet before re-investigation were not at all present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence.Under such circumstances, we cannot give any credit to the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 to arrive at a conclusion that the occurrence had occurred in the manner as alleged by them.iv) The next point to be noted is that A3 also sustained injury and according to P.W.16-Investigation Officer, a case under Cr.No.78/2000 of Kodumudi Police Station was registered on the complaint made by A3 and Ex.But, without investigating the same, the said First Information Report was closed as mistake of fact.Further the occurrence had taken place at 11.00 am on 8.3.2000, but P.W.1 has preferred Ex.P.1-complaint only at 6.00 p.m. After having deliberations with P.W.4 and that other advocates.The preponderance of possibilities seems to indicate that not only Palanisamy and Ramalingam were falsely implicated in this case earlier, but also the present accused 1 to 3 have been falsely implicated.There is no overtact attributed against A3, whereas the overtact attributed against A2 is that she had assaulted the deceased-Sathasivam with a wooden stick on the hands. P.W.3 in his evidence has stated that A2 had assaulted with a wooden stick on the left hand of Sathasivam.But, P.W.16, the Investigation Officer, has stated in his evidence that he had not seen any bleeding injury on the left hand of the deceased-Sathasivam.The delay in preferring the First Information Report, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by A3 and the implication of Palanisamy and Ramalingam falsely into the crime will cast cloud on the investigation of the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt shall go to the accused.We are of the constrained opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 341 and 302 Rule with 34 IPC beyond any reasonable doubt.In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants herein-A1 to A3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,(FTC-I), Erode in S.C.No.174/2001 is hereby set aside and the appellants herein/A1 to A3 are acquitted from the charges levelled against them.

['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 27.9.1998 at about 9.00 a.m a quarrel took place between the deceased and the appellants.The appellants assaulted the deceased by fists.The deceased tried to move for some steps and thereafter, he fell 2 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 1999 down.The deceased was taken to the Police Station and thereafter to the hospital but, before he could reach the hospital he expired.A panchayatnama lash Ex.P/1 was prepared and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem.(Delivered on the 17th day of October, 2012) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 12.2.1999 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, East Nimar Khandwa in ST.No.203/1998 whereby the appellants were convicted for offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C and sentenced for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.250/ and in default of payment of fine six months rigorous imprisonment was also directed.Dr. A N. Bajpai (PW5) did the post mortem upon the body of the deceased and gave his report Ex.He found no external injury visible on the body of the deceased but, on opening he found that the spleen of the deceased was ruptured from its base and huge blood was present in the concerned cavity.The deceased died due to rupture of the spleen.After due investigation a charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khandwa who committed the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately it was transferred to the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa.The appellants abjured their guilt.They took a specific plea that the deceased was the husband of their sister who was suffering from malaria since last 10-15 days.He was in habit to drink and then to assault his wife and therefore, he could have sustained that injury due to fall.However, no defence evidence was given by the appellants.The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution acquitted the accused Jamila Bi from all the charges whereas the appellants were acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C but, convicted for offence punishable under Section 3 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 1999 325 of I.P.C and sentenced as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is very much clear that from the evidence that the appellants did not use any weapon in assaulting their brother-in-law.9. Akram (PW1) and Imran (PW2) were examined as eye witnesses.They have stated that the appellants assaulted the deceased by fists.It is clear that no M.L.C was done by any doctor and after the death of the deceased the post mortem could be done by Dr. A. N. Bajpai (PW5).However, Dr. Bajpai has stated that no external injury was visible to the deceased.The witnesses were relatives of the deceased as well as the appellants.The appellants were also the relative of the deceased and therefore, it cannot be said that the witnesses have submitted falsely against the appellants.It was not possible for the witnesses to save the actual culprits and to tell against the appellants whereas the appellants were the relatives of those witnesses.It is true that no FIR could be lodged by any of the witnesses and only a merg intimation was recorded by the Police and investigation was initiated.Therefore, registration of the case was done by FIR Ex.P/9 which was registered after due inquest and therefore, the document Ex.P/9 cannot be considered as an FIR.But the eye witnesses did not prove that such blow was given by the appellants.Under such circumstances, if a fist was given in the abdomen then spleen could be ruptured if it was enlarged.The learned Sessions Judge found that the appellants were not intended to kill the deceased.Neither they assaulted in such a manner so that the deceased could die in natural course of 6 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 1999 his life and therefore, since due to their assault a fatal injury was caused which was covered as a grievous injury under section 320(8) of the I.P.C and therefore, the appellants were convicted for offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C. However, the appellants did not know that the spleen of the deceased was enlarged and therefore, it is not established that they intended to cause a grave injury to the victim.Secondly for offence punishable under section 325 of I.P.C it is to be established that who was the culprit who had an intention to cause a grievous injury to the victim and he should be convicted for offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C and thereafter, common intention of another accused is to be considered.In the present case it is no where established by the eye witnesses that out of the appellants who assaulted the victim on his spleen.No intention against any of the appellants was established that they aimed to assault the victim on his spleen Under such circumstances, their intention was not present for causing grievous injury to the deceased and therefore, their common intention for offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C cannot be presumed.If the common intention of each of the appellants was not present for causing a grave injury to the deceased then none of the appellants can be convicted for offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C with the help of Section 34 of I.P.C. It is not proved against anyone of the appellants that they assaulted the deceased on his spleen and it is also not 7 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 1999 proved that they had any common intention to cause grievous injury to the deceased because the deceased was the brother-in- law of the appellants.It is unfortunate that due to that assault the spleen of the deceased was ruptured and he died.The appellants remained in the custody for more than three months and therefore looking to their overt act and also the fact that they have faced the trial and appeal for last 14 years, it is a fit case in which they should not be sent to the jail again.However, some fine may be imposed upon them.Criminal Appeal No.451 of 1999On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the appeal filed by the appellants appears to be acceptable partly.Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants is hereby partly allowed.The conviction as well as the sentence directed by the trial Court for offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C is hereby set aside.They are acquitted from that offence.However, they are convicted for offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C and sentenced with the rigorous imprisonment for the period which they have already under gone in the custody.Also fine of Rs.1000/- is imposed upon each of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C The appellants are directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today.In default of payment of fine each oft them shall undergo for three months rigorous imprisonment.The appellants are on bail.Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information and compliance.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 17.10.2012 bina 9 Criminal Appeal No.451 of 1999

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']

P.C. during investigation have also stated in one voice that during the stay of the complainant in her matrimonial home at Mainagurie, the complainant was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband and by the present petitioner also.In her written complaint, on the basis of which the case has been started, the complainant has clearly alleged that during her stay in her matrimonial home, she was subjected to ill- treatment, mental torture as well as assaults by her husband's elder brother who is the present petitioner in this case.In her written complaint, the complainant has gone to the existent of alleging that because of ill- treatment and torture by the present petitioner she was feeling insecure in her matrimonial home.The parents of the complainant in their 5 statement under Section 161 of the Cr.In the case referred by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the main allegations against the accused persons was that they were spreading rumors without any basis against the complainant and when the complainant's - husband was residing abroad, he used to disconnect the telephone connection while taking to his wife due to which the wife became mentally sick.It was another allegation in that case that when the wife went to the house, where the accused was residing at the relevant time, she was turned out from there.

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

C.R.M. No. 14930 of 2014 MNS.And In the matter of: Atul Mondal ...petitioner.Mr. Aslam Khan ...for the petitioner.Ms. Faria Hossain ...for the State.The application for bail is, thus, rejected at this stage.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) (Sudip Ahluwalia, J.)

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

In the present case, dying declaration Ex. P/1 was recorded by the Tahsildar - Ramji Lal Verma (PW-1) is negative.The deceased did not mention about harassment relating to demand of dowry etc. Her parents namely Ajmer Singh Chauhan (PW-2) father and Suman (PW-3) mother have stated for the first time to the police in merg inquiry on 17.3.2011 i.e., approximately after five weeks of the incident that there was a demand of motor-cycle, golden chain and a cash of Rs.50,000/-.The deceased had died within seven months of her marriage and if she would have been tortured for dowry demand etc., then there must be some FIR lodged by her in her life time and she would have stated about the same in her dying declaration.Heard on IA No.5361/2016, an application for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant No.2 Anandibai.The appellant No.2 has been convicted for offence under Sections 304 B of IPC and 498-A of IPC and sentenced to 14 years RI with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and 2 years RI respectively.Learned counsel for the appellant No.2 submits that the appellant No.2 was on bail during the trial and she did not misuse the liberty granted to her.Some conciliation proceedings would have been initiated by the parents of the deceased in Cr.Appeal No.1196/2015 6-7 months before the respected persons of the community or any other steps would have been taken to resolve the dispute.It would be apparent from the statements of Ajmer Singh Chauhan (PW-2) father and Suman (PW-3) mother that they have stated that the deceased was harassed for dowry demand was only on the afterthought basis.There are fair chance of success of criminal appeal.Therefore, appellant No.2 Anandibai prays for bail and execution of jail sentence.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Consequently, application I.A.No.5361/2016 is hereby allowed.Subject to deposit of fine amount, if the appellant No.2 Anandi Bai furnishes a bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) along with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court that she shall appear before the Registry of this Court on 29.11.2016 and on subsequent dates given by the Office for appearance till the disposal of the present appeal then the appellant shall be released on bail and execution of jail sentence is suspended till the disposal of this appeal.Certified copy as per rules.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar Patel, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shams Uz Zaman, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

This petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.45 of 2016, on the file of the first respondent.http://www.judis.nic.in 2The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.45 of 2016 registered for the offences under Sections 341, 452, 294(b), 324 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code, based on the complaint given by the second respondent/defacto complainant.Now, to quash the above criminal proceedings, the present petition has been filed.11.Even though the crime was registered for the offences under Sections 341, 452, 294(b), 324 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code.On perusal of the record it could be seen that it is predominantly the civil dispute between the parties and the parties are close relatives and now, the petitioner and the second respondent/defacto complainant have amicably settled their dispute between themselves peacefully, both are living in peace and harmony and the second respondent/defacto complainant is not interested in prosecuting the complaint.1.The Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station, Arumuganeri, Tirunelveli District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case registered inCrime No.13 of 2015 dated 04.07.2015 on the file of the 1st respondentpolice, pursuant to the amicable settlement effected between the parties.The counsel appearing on either side filed a joint memo ofcompromise dated 06.01.2016, duly stating that since the parties have arrivedat an amicable settlement by way of compromise among themselves, the second respondent has agreed to withdraw the above case in Crime No.13 of 2015pending on the file of the first respondent.When such a situation arose in similarly placed matters inCrl.Theantecedents of the accused have also to be taken into consideration beforeaccepting the memo of compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law.Taking note of the judgments referred to supra, considering thenature of allegations and also recording the joint memo of compromise dated06.01.2016, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would beserved in keeping the matter pending.Therefore, the entire proceedings inCrime No.13 of 2015 dated 04.07.2015 on the file of the first respondent inrespect of the petitioners/accused alone, are hereby quashed.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis ofthe compromise entered into between the parties.The joint compromise memo dated 06.01.2016 shall form part of this order.Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petition is closed.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Karur.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

The petitioners have questioned validity and legality of the order dated 17th December 2012 passed by the Additional Collector, Beed, District Beed, whereby staying the elections to the post of Sarpanch/Up-sarpanch of Village Panchayat at Mauje Babhulwadi-Belkuchiwadi, Taluka and District Beed.The petitioners also prayed for direction to the Returning Officer for election to Sarpanch and Up-sarpanch in the village panchayat of Babhulwadi, Taluka and District Beed to the effect that petitioners be declared as elected Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of group Grampanchayat of Babhulwadi and Bedkuchiwadi, Taluka and District Beed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:22 :::The facts briefly stated are as under:The meeting was for electing Sarpanch/Up-Sarpanch for Babhulwadi, Bedkuchiwadi and Belwadi Group Grampanchayat, informing members of the Grampanchayat that nomination forms would be submitted during the period between 10.00 and 12.00 noon on 17th December 2012 and at about 2.00 p.m. at noon time and meeting would be held for electing Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch for Babhulwadi group Grampanchayat.Accordingly, it appears that nomination for the post of Sarpanch was filed by petitioner No.1 Parmeshwar Kachru Satpute, proposed by Dadasaheb Baburao Khindkar, while nomination of Dadasaheb Baburao Khindkar was proposed by Parmeshwar Kachru Satpute, for the post of Up-Sarpanch.In the meeting, however, minutes dated 17th December 2012 indicate that members of the village panchayat were absent.Importance of Gram Panchayat cannot be undermined as it helps to train the villagers in the art of governing themselves.It trains and develops local leadership.It trains rural people in democratic procedure.In smaller villages a group gram panchayat for two or three villages is established.Members of gram panchayat are elected by villagers for a period of five years.One of the members is elected as Sarpanch and another Deputy Sarpanch.Grampanchayat has a paid secretary (Gramsevak) who is appointed by Zilla Parishad.Election of Gram-Panchayat is conducted by state's election Commissioner through District Collector and Tahasildar.The elections are conducted for every five years.An adult with an age of 21 years and above is eligible for contesting the election and for voting in the same.The Chief executive officer makes the inquiry and collects the information in prescribed form and put in the meeting of standing committee.Election of Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch is conducted in 1st meeting of Panchayat under Chairmanship or representative of Collection.The 1st meeting is called as early as possible after election.The notice of election is given to elected members at least before three days.The names in prescribed form are accepted form are accepted before 2 hours of meeting from elected members The election is conducted by ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 ::: W.P.No.68/2013 14 open voting election method but if any member desires, the secret ballet method is may be used.Onerous responsibility have been placed upon the authorities concerned under the Rules of Election to the post of Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch of the village Panchayats.The appointments may be subject to reservation for the Post of Sarpanch and /or Deputy Sarpanch.The State Government is required under the Rules to specify by the notification in the official gazette the number of the offices of the Sarpanchas and Upa-sarpanchas kept reserved for the scheduled tribes and the Scheduled castes and for the category of the backward class of Citizens in the State of Maharashtra.1/3 of the seats is reserved for women.Hooligans whosoever they may be, can never be allowed to take control of the situation so as to override the just and fair democratic election process.We find in the facts and circumstances disclosed in the case in hand the respondent aspirant for the post of Sarpanch had made a serious grievance that he and his supporting members were prevented at the instance of the Petitioners from attending the meeting of the Gramsabha, by hooligans causing the obstructions created on their way by digging done by means of JCB machine, laying of stones, ploughs etc on the access way to the place of Gramsabha.A complaint to the police was also lodged in respect of the incident and the police who arrived on the scene had ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 ::: W.P.No.68/2013 16 reportedly fired shot in the air to disburse the mob to help restoring the normalcy in the village .The incident was reported widely by local newspapers as well as it appears so from the Newspaper cuttings annexed with the affidavit-in-reply of the respondent.1. Rule.In view of urgency pleaded made returnable and heard forthwith., In the result, for want of quorum, meeting was postponed to 18th December 2012 at about 2.00 p.m. in the noon time (vide Annexure "C" to the petition).Returning Officer on 17th December 2012, had received report from Ramnath Suryabhan Chinchkar, resident of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 ::: W.P.No.68/2013 4 Bedkuchiwadi, Taluka and District Beed reporting that while he along with his supporting members were coming by jeep No.MH-14-CV-8001 from Bedkuchiwadi to Babhulwadi, they were prevented by Parmeshwar Kachru Satpute and his twenty to twenty-five associates obstructing by means of J.C.B. (machine used for excavating the soil) and creating obstruction by means of placing wood, stones etc. The mob, which had collected had also pelted stones towards Police.Police had fired in the air to disburse the mob, but the mob had pelted stones towards the jeep.In the result, injuries were caused to members of the Grampanchayat namely Vandana Keshav Bhore, Champabai Karbhari More.Thus, Ramnath Suryabhan Chinchkar and members of the village panchayat were prevented from filing the nomination forms as well as attending the meeting.Considering that, under the circumstances, request from Ramnath Suryabhan Chinchkar is to be considered and inquiry is required into dispute.Thus, the incomplete election ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 ::: W.P.No.68/2013 5 process for electing Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch for Grampanchayat Bangladeshi-Bedkuchiwadi-Belwadi, Additional Collector, Beed, using his discretion, according to law decided to stay the election process.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::Thus, while petitioners prayed for declaration for their election to the post of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch, respondent No. 5 Ramnath Suryakant Chinchkar contested the petition on the ground of its maintainability in view of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as also on the ground that petitioners had suppressed the fact of their creating atmosphere of terror in the village by obstructing members of Grampanchayat to enter in the village by means of closing the way by putting J.C.B. machine and other things in the way preventing entry of respondent No.5 and his supporting members.On behalf of respondent No.5 it is contended that Rule 12 of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch) Election Rules 1964 gave ample power to the Additional Collector to stay the election process to ensure process of free and fair and equitable elections to the post of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch for Babhulwadi-Bedkuchiwadi-Belwadi group Grampanchayat and prayed for dismissal of the petition on the ground that petitioners had resorted to prohibitive acts of violence or to distort the election process, which also resulted in a complaint, lodged as F.I.R.No.1491/2012 dated ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 ::: W.P.No.68/2013 6 17.1.2012 at Pimpalner Police Station, District Beed under Section 307, 324, 341, 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 333, 337, 504, 506, 427 of I.P.C. and also under Section 3 and 7 of Representation of People::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::On behalf of State of Maharashtra, an affidavit is filed by Naib Tahsildar (Election) in the office of Naib Tahsildar, District Beed indicating that Ramnath Suryabhan Chinchkar was interested to submit nomination form but was restrained from doing so, as force was used against him.In the result, election process could not be completed due to problem of law and order, when the Police machinery had to resort to fire in the air in the interest of public security.The fact that Additional Collector, Beed was awaiting inquiry report from the Police is also disclosed in the affidavit-in-reply by Naib Tahsildar (Election).It is under these circumstances that Additional Collector, Beed resorted to emergent step to stay the election process to prevent further violence and hoodwinking in the village.Sub-Auditor Class II Officer of the Co-operative Societies (Flying Squad, Beed doing duty as Returning Officer for the election of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of Grampanchayat of Babhulwadi-Bedkuchiwadi-The fact is that the Police had to fire in the air to disburse the mob because of chaos at about 11.30 am and because of that the meeting could not be concluded on 17th December 2012 and further fact must be noted that the matter was reported to Tahsildar, who forwarded the report to Collector who in turn had to stay the proceedings of election of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of Group Grampanchayat Babhulwadi-Bedkuchiwadi-Belwadi.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::(v) Kameshwar Singh Srivastava Vs.IV Additional District Judge, Lucknow, reported in AIR 1987 S.C.138 In case of Surinder Kaur Vs." It is her case that the 7th respondent had forcibly taken the nomination papers from her and torn them off and since her husband was already ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 ::: W.P.No.68/2013 10 under police custody at the relevant time, she was incapable of resisting the high-handed action.It is obvious that she was prevented from filing the nomination papers.Under these circumstances, she was constrained to approach the authorities.But when she did not get any tangible result, she had gone to the High Court and filed the writ petition.Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the conduct of the election in the circumstances was not valid in law."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::It is urged on behalf of the Petitioners that in view of Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpancha and Upa Sarpancha ) Election Rules, 1984, when only one candidate has been nominated each for the post of Sarpanch and Upa Sarpanch they must be declared duly elected in the absence of any contest.When any equality of valid votes is found to exist between any two or more candidates and the addition of one vote will entitle any of them to be declared as Sarpanch or, as the case may be, Upa-Sarpanch, the determination of the candidate to whom such additional vote shall be deemed to have been given shall be made by lot to be drawn by the Presiding Officer in such manner as he shall determine".::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::- If for any reason (other than lack of quorum) the meeting called for the election of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch does not result in the election of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch, the Presiding Officer shall adjourn it, and hold it again for the purpose on the next day at the same place and hour.A notice of such adjournment shall be fixed on the notice-board at the office of the Panchayat.ig The business which would have been brought before the original meeting, had there been a quorum thereat, shall be brought before the adjourned meeting and may be disposed of at such meeting or at any subsequent adjournment thereof whether there be a quorum present or not."I have perused the rulings cited in the light of submissions advanced before me.I have also perused the Bombay ( now 'Maharashtra' ) village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1984 as amended from time to time .It must be borne in mind that any Gram Panchayat function at the village level.It is the primary and important unit of local self-Gram Panchayat is expected to act as village level self- Government under the three tier system of democratic decentralization of Panchayat Raj democratic system.A Gram Panchayat is also a local self-government responsible for orderly ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 ::: W.P.No.68/2013 13 administration of the village and the agency for planning and executing the local development programs for the welfare of the people in the village or group of villages.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::27% seats are reserved for other backward class (OBC) members.In proportion of population of NT and VJ to total population the seats of the Sarpanch are reserved.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::The reservation of seats is fixed by Collector by draw method.The collector of the District is under the statutory obligation to notify the offices reserved for the Sarpanchas in the District by drawing lots according to the instructions given from the State Government from time to time.The roster of reservation for each block of five years need to be prepared.In substance the Rule have to be harmoniously read to vouchsafe that entire election process for village Panchayats in the State has to be fair, socially equitable and just according to prevalent law.The rules as to election of Sarpanch and deputy Sarpanch are enacted and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 ::: W.P.No.68/2013 15 amended from time to time in the State of Maharashtra to ensure the orderly, free and fair election process.Any candidate aspiring to be Sarpanch or Deputy Sarpanch must have due regard and respect for the well established and sound principles of the law providing for the healthy democratic way of conducting the elections and socially equitable appointments of Sarpanch at local level of village Panchayats.If any body have decided to adopt Strong arm tactics, to use influence by money or otherwise upon the members of the body and resorting to dirty village level politics of any sort, and when any such act is complained against the person concerned, it need to be inquired in to expeditiously, and recurrence thereof ought to be prevented at such important village level election.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::"243-O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters- Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution -(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243-K, shall not be called in question in any court;Therefore the objection as to maintainability of this writ Petition is sustainable .Even otherwise there is alternate remedy of appeal statutorily prescribed ,since the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector , Beed is passed under Section 33(5) of the Bombay (now 'Maharashtra') Village Panchayat Act, 1958 the decision was appealable before the commissioner.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::( A.P. BHANGALE, J.) (vvr/68.13wp) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:27:23 :::

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code']

ORDER Tej Shankar, J.These three Revision Petitions arise out of three different cases against the present petitioner.As they raise common questions of law, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.The facts on the basis of which the petitioner has been prosecuted Under Section 3 r/w Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and violation of Section 19 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, in the aforesaid three different cases are also more or less similar.It is alleged that Raghuveer Saran Gupta non-petitioner No. 2 was proprietor of M/s Raghuveer Saran Arun Kumar, a dealer in fertilizers at Dinara (326/96) Satish Kumar Jain, non-petitioner No. 2 was proprietor of M/s Vivek Traders, a dealer of fertilizers at Pohri (327/96) Hukum Chand Nagaria.non-petitioner No. 2 was proprietor of M/s Jwala Prasad Hukum Chand, a dealer in fertilizers at Sirsaud (328/%).There was a stock of Vishwas Brand Single Super Phosphate (In short SSP) with the said proprietors and sample was taken on different dates in the aforesaid three cases and it was sent to the fertilizer analyst for examination.A report dated 4-9-1995 was received and according to the report sample was found Sub-standard to the extent mentioned in the report.In all the three cases it was mentioned in the report that the fertilizer was purchased from the firms mentioned therein.The allegation made against the petitioner was that he was the manufacturer of Vishwas Brand Single Super Phosphate (SSP) which was a company known as Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. Jhansi (U. P.).The petitioner claimed that there was, however, no mention of the procedure adopted by the complainant in taking sample.There was no allegation about the business relationship between the said firms and the petitioner.The said firms are not agent of the petitioner.The shops from which the sample was received did not belong to Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. Jhansi (U.P.) Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. had no sale depot in M.P. or at Shivpuri.There is no allegation in the F. I. R. that the sample was taken from the bags which were owned by M/s Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. even if it was found that the fertilizer in question was the same which was manufactured by M/s Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd., Jhansi (U.P.).There was no allegation to support the allegation that sample was taken from the bags which were in the ownership of the M/s Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. There is also nothing to show that the said firms had obtained any warranty from M/s Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. or that the goods were kept intact in the same condition in which they were purchased.Procedure for taking sample had been laid down in Schedule-II of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and the provisions are mandatory.Nothing has been shown that the procedure was actually followed.Unless it is specifically alleged that the petitioner was the owner he could not be proceeded with under the Essential Commodities Act. There could not be a joint trial under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act of the alleged manufacturer or vendor or distributor.They can only be tried if allegations are made that they have connecting links between them so as to constitute the same transaction.Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length that the revision petition lies.In support of his contentions he placed reliance upon certain authorities.The Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, accepted the final report and set the appellants at liberty.The complainant preferred a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal against the order of the Judicial Magistrate which was dismissed.The informant thereafter filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate against the 11 accused persons including the appellants.After examining the complaint and going through the record learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint as he was satisfied that no case was made out against the appellants.Again a revision was preferred and it was allowed and the case was remanded for further enquiry.The learned Judicial Magistrate thereafter issued summons to the appellants straightway.The appellants then moved before High Court Under Section 482 and Section 397 of the 1973 Code for quashing the order of the Judicial Magistrate.The statements had been published in newspapers.The Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra was examined as a witness in the Court of Sessions to prove the sanction order.An application was moved by the appellant before learned Sessions Judge for rejecting the complaint on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.The appellant raised three contentions before the learned Sessions Judge regarding the legality of the trial and all the contentions were rejected by learned Sessions Judge.He framed a charge against the appellant Under Section 500 of Penal Code.A revision petition was filed before the High Court challenging the order of the Sessions Judge.A preliminary objection was raised about the maintainability of the revision petition which was upheld.Aggrieved party approached the Apex Court.The revision application challenging an order framing charge was maintainable.

['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']

Shri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard and perused the case diary.The applicant has filed this second application u/S 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.His first application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 08.02.2019 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Dimni, District Morena in connection with Crime No.185/2018 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/S 306/34 of IPC.It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant is 2 innocent, who has no criminal past.It is also submitted that the incident was occurred on 10.09.2018 and after a long time on 21.10.2018, first time the evidence was recorded by police and he has been falsely implicated in the crime, hence prayed for grant of regular bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State as well as counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']

On 3.10.1987 Indel and Basanta took Jagdish and his driver Pappu alongwith the said tractor, but on 13.10.1987 when Jagdish did not return back, then his brother Ramesh (PW-2) searched for him at Gohad and other places and thereafter lodged a report at police Station, Madhoganj.In this report, it is mentioned that accused Indel Singh has been caught by police Station, Malpura, Distt.Agra (UP) and his brother Jagdish alongwith driver Pappu had gone with him for cultivation and they have not returned, therefore, he has an apprehension that Indel and Basanta have committed some offence with his brother giving details of the clothes which were worn by Jagdish and Guddu at the time of leaving their 3 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 home.During investigation, it is revealed that Jagdish and Guddu were taken by Indel and Basanta with a view to kill them and Indel and Basanta in criminal conspiracy with Rambabu and Babukhan looted tractor from Jagdish and Guddu inasmuch as said tractor was recovered by police Station, Malpura, Distt.These hairs could be a vital link to ascertain the identity of the deceased.They were also not produced before the Court.Another link which has not been carefully examined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is the evidence of Laxmibai (PW-3) who has admitted in para 12 of her cross- examination that the day Agra police had visited, on the same day skeletons of her husband and Guddu alongwith clothes were recovered by them from Kanipura close to Gohad.This admission of Laxmibai makes the whole prosecution story and recovery on 22.10.87 vide Ex.P/6, Ex.P/7, Ex.P/8, Ex.P/9, Ex.P/10 and Naksha Pachayatnama Ex.P/5 and Ex.P/11 doubtful as none of them have been prepared by Agra police but have been prepared by Mahoganj police leaving a void in 22 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 the chain of circumstances.Another missing link in the chain of circumstances is lodging of missing person report by Ramesh (PW-2) after admitting this fact that Agra police had visited him and his sister-in-law Laxmibai on 13.10.87 alongwith Indel and informed him about confession of Indel that he has killed his brother and driver and thrown the remnant in a canal at Dang Birkhari, yet missing person report was lodged and not a report of murder in the hands of Indel.(Delivered on this 24th day of July, 2019) Per Justice Vivek Agarwal :This appeal has been filed by appellant Indel Singh @ Udai Singh son of Badam Singh being aggrieved by judgment dated 28.7.2000 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Sessions Trial No.117/88, whereby appellant has been convicted under Sections 120-B, 302 and 394 of IPC and sentenced to five years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- and ten years RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- respectively.The appellant was charged for committing murder of 2 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 Jagdish and Guddu with a view to loot their tractor alongwith co-accused Basanta and Rambabu.Co-accused Babu Khan, who was tried alongwith the appellant, was charged under Section 411 of IPC for receiving the looted property knowingly.Prosecution story, in short, is that on 3.10.1987 Indel alongwith co-accused Basanta visited Jagdish asking him to cultivate his fields with his tractor and cultivator as Jagdish was having a tractor bearing registration No.MP W 4653 which he was using to cultivate fields of different persons on remuneration.Agra from Indel Singh and Babu Khan, as a result of which initially case was registered under Section 364, 392 and 120-B of IPC at Crime No.441/87 by police Station, Madhoganj, on 16.10.1987, as is evident from FIR, Ex.It has also come on record that in the memorandum Ex.P/1 recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, Indel Singh has admitted committing such crime.It is also a matter of record that Babu Khan has been acquitted of the charges under Section 411 of IPC on the ground that in prosecution evidence there is no material to show that Babu Khan had either purchased tractor bearing registration No. MP W 4653 or any part of such tractor.From the record, it is also evident that police has not taken any steps to either arrest Basanta and Rambabu.After preparing a Farari Panchnama on 27.10.87, 4 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 no steps were taken to declare them absconding inasmuch as no proceedings were undertaken under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is purely a case of circumstantial evidence based on the doctrine of last seen and recovery of clothes of the deceased plus broken pieces of the bone and an axe at the instance of Indel Singh.It is submitted that Laxmi Bai (P.W.3) is the widow of deceased Jagdish, who has identified the clothes of the deceased and is a witness of T.I.P., but there are several loopholes in such identification and TIP rendering them inadmissible, and therefore, it is apparent that theory of last seen too has been developed subsequently so to falsely implicate present appellant Indel Singh.It is also submitted that in case diary statement (Ex.D/2), Ramesh Kumar (P.W.2) has categorically admitted that his brother Jagdish was knowing Basanta and Indel Singh from a previous date inasmuch as Babulal Sharma resident of Girwai had recommended that Basanta is his relative and shall not commit any dishonesty in paying the money for cultivation.It is also submitted that this Babulal Sharma has not been examined by the prosecution though he is an important witness on whose recommendation tractor was sent for cultivation as he had 5 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 made a recommendation in favour of Basanta.It is also submitted that though Babulal Sharma son of Jagannath Prasad has been cited as a witness by the prosecution, but he was not examined before the Court and such non-examination of an important prosecution witness is fatal to the prosecution story.Agra Police reached their home on 13.10.1987 alongwith Indel Singh and asked them as to the name of their brother and his whereabouts.His sister-in-law Laxmi Bai (P.W.3) also identified Indel Singh and Agra Police had informed them that Indel Singh was caught selling his tractor and further informed that as per the statements of Indel Singh he killed his brother and driver and had thrown their dead-bodies in a canal at Dang Birkhari.It is submitted that this witness has also deposed that he visited Dang Birkhari canal alongwith Agra Police accompanied with his neighbour Thakur Singh, but on investigation, it was revealed that no such incident had taken place in that locality, then Agra Police had taken back Indel Singh.It is also pointed out that thereafter Ramesh (P.W.2) 6 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 lodged missing person report at Police Station Madhoganj.It is submitted that when Agra Police had already informed him about killing of his brother and driver, then there was no occasion for lodging a missing person report with Madhoganj Police after his meeting with Agra Police and Indel Singh.It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that Ramesh (P.W.2) in para 13 of his cross-examination has admitted that Agra Police had interrogated him and obtained his signatures on certain documentation which was carried out by Agra Police both at his residence and at Agra and thereafter, tractor was handed over to him in his custody, but also admitted that such tractor was not registered in his name and further admitted in para 13 of his cross-examination itself that tractor is not available on the date of giving statement.It is further submitted that this witness in para 17 has admitted that when he visited Madhoganj Police Station he was knowing that his brother is dead.Reading such evidence of Ramesh (P.W.2), it is submitted that when tractor was not registered in the name of Ramesh, then it could not have been given in custody to this witness.Secondly, if tractor was obtained by Ramesh (P.W.2) on Supurdiginama, then he was required to preserve such tractor as it was a vital piece of 7 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 evidence in the chain of evidence, specially in a case based on circumstantial evidence.It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that Ramesh (P.W.2) has admitted in para 14 of his cross- examination that Madhoganj Police had not obtained any of his statement when report was lodged with them.He also admitted in para 15 that he had informed Madhoganj Police that Agra Police had brought Indel Singh to his house and then they visited Dang Birkhari alongwith Agra Police when Agra Police had informed that Indel Singh has confessed to them that he has killed his brother and driver.P/18 and they have been improvised subsequently in Court statements.It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that testimony of Ramesh (PW-2) and Laxmi (PW-3) in regard to identification of Indel Singh is doubtful except that they had seen Indel Singh when Agra police had brought him to their residence on 13.10.1987 inasmuch as, as per prosecution story Indel Singh and Basanta had taken their tractor, but though these witnesses have given graphic account of Indel Singh's appearance, but Ramesh (PW-2) in para 18 of his cross-examination admitted that he cannot give details 8 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 (Huliya) of Basanta.If Basanta and Indel Singh are to be implicated on the basis of theory of last seen, then this witness would have given details of Basanta with equal firmness and this omission is a major omission which has not been adverted to by the learned trial Court.It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that Laxmi (PW-3) has admitted that her husband was taken to cultivate about 150 Beegha of land.Rate of cultivation was fixed at Rs.25/- per Beegha.150 Beegha roughly translates into 90 acres of land and during season of cultivation it takes about 45 hours to cultivate such land which roughly translates into 4-5 days looking to the fact that those who are aware of farming practices are aware that about 2 acres of land is cultivated in an hour and usually cultivators work for 8-10 hours a day and at this rate there was no occasion for the complainant party to wait for 10-12 days for the return of their near dears.It is submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated.It is submitted that as per Laxmi (PW-3) deceased was wearing a white shirt with some lining and a Khaki coloured pant with a watch in his hand.It is submitted that the clothes which have been recovered by the police at the instance of Indel Singh vide seizure memo Ex.P/9 contain a 9 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 white Bushirt with squares and not the lines which was containing spots of diesel.It is submitted that description of this shirt is different from the one given by Laxmi (PW-3).It is also submitted that admittedly Laxmi had seen Indel Singh on 13.10.1987 when Agra Police had brought him to their house, therefore, identification parade carried out vide Ex.P/3 loses its sanctity as prosecution had already shown Indel Singh to prosecution witnesses Ramesh (PW-2) and Laxmi (PW-3) at their residence.It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant was brought from Agra jail on 20.10.87 from where he was formally arrested, but such witnesses of formal arrest, namely, Indrapal Singh and Babu have not been examined by the prosecution in support of such formal arrest.It is also submitted that prosecution has not bothered to produce any DNA report to connect recovered pieces of dead- body to deceased Jagdish and Gudda.It is submitted that Ex.P/26, which is a report from the department of Anatomy, G.R. Medical College, Gwalior, to Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, clearly makes a mention that sex cannot be determined for material A, whereas in regard to material D, it is mentioned that it was a male body aged 30 to 50 years.Material E is a body of a male aged 21 to 30-40 years.It 10 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 contains mark of injury on left temporal bone by a blunt object.There was a recommendation to send the case to the Institute of Forensic Medicine, M.G. Medical College, Bhopal, for determination of skin and hair, but there is no report from Institute of Forensic Medicine on record.It is submitted that in fact bodies were sent in five parts and in memo Ex.P/21, age of Jagdish has been shown to be 30 years, whereas that of Guddu to be 18 years.P/26 age of material D, which is allegedly part of body of Jagdish, has been shown to be 30 to 50 years, whereas age of part E which is allegedly head of dead-body of Guddu has been shown to be 21 to 30-40 years.It is submitted that when this memo Ex.P/26 is taken into consideration in the light of evidence given by Dr. O.N.Khare (PW-13), then it becomes evident that in para 4 of cross-examination, this witness has admitted that minimum age given by him could not have been breached and age of such person cannot be below such minimum age mentioned in his report.In view of such facts, it is submitted that identification of deceased Jagdish and Guddu cannot be said to be complete on the basis of such report and evidence of Dr. O.N.Khare (PW-13).It is also submitted that Dr. O.N.Khare has admitted that he had not received all the 11 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 bones of a human body, and therefore, in absence of any forensic report like DNA report to corroborate that bodies recovered were that of Jagdish and Guddu only, no conclusive evidence can be gathered as to death of Jagdish and Guddu.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that seizure was not properly made at the time of recovery of dead-bodies.According to Naksha Pachayatnama (Ex.P/5), death was caused with an axe and gunshot, but factum of gunshot has not been corroborated by Dr. O.N.Khare (PW-13).There is no recovery of gun.It is also submitted that as per FSL report, blood stains were found on the axe recovered from an open space as is evident from Ex.Such recovery of an axe from an open place makes recovery doubtful and also creates doubt that how blood stains could have remained clinging to the axe after several days of the incident inasmuch as it has come on record that body which was recovered was found to be about 20 days old (please refer to Ex.P/10, Fard Japti).12 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 Recovery was made on 22.10.87, whereas deceased had allegedly left their home on 3.10.87 and this causes doubt as to the prosecution story.It is also submitted that none of the relatives of deceased Guddu have been examined in the matter so to seek his identification and even Supurdginama of tractor is not on record.Learned Additional Sessions Judge has also recorded a finding that after getting information about seizure of tractor from accused Indel, since Jagdish and Guddu had gone with Indel for cultivation work, missing person report was lodged by 16 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 police Station, Madhoganj, after which accused Indel was arrested and then on the information of Indel dead-bodies of Jagdish and Guddu were recovered.Such memorandum (Ex.P/1) has been relied by the learned trial Court.In para 25 to connect such recovery of dead-bodies and clothes at the instance of Indel Singh, it has been referred to that vide seizure memo Ex.In Ex.Thereafter, there are reports about material D and material E which leads to a doubt as to whether there were bodies of more than two persons, two persons or less number of persons.As far as determination of age is concerned, as per Parikh's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, III Edition 1979 revised reprint 1981, on identification of mutilated bodies, fragmentary remains and mass disasters mentions that a description of colour, length and waviness of hairs offers useful contributory evidence in identification.In the present case, though Ex.No cause has been ascribed to such bruising; it was 21 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 due to animals drifting the body or otherwise.In fact, there is mention of injury to the right and left halves of mandible by sharp weapon, but it has not been mentioned that how such finding has been recorded, specifically when the lower part of the mandible was absent.Yet another missing link is handing over of the tractor in Supurdgi (custody) to Ramesh (PW-2) despite the fact that he was not the owner of said tractor.Another lacuna is that information of incident was recorded on 22.10.87 vide Ex.P/19, whereas FIR (Ex.P/18) was recorded on 16.10.87 under Sections 394, 392, 120-B of IPC while both Ramesh (PW-2) and Laxmibai (PW-3) have admitted of having knowledge of death of Jagdish and Guddu on 13.10.87 itself when Agra police had visited them.As per prosecution in the TIP (Ex.P/3) which was conducted on 29.10.87 Laxmibai had identified Indel.This TIP was carried out at police Station, Madhoganj, whereas in para 9 of her testimony, Laxmibai has admitted that she had not met Indel at jail.She had seen Indel in a garden alongwith 23 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 Agra police and then she met Indel in the Court and had not met him anywhere else.Therefore, TIP carried out in jail or police Station becomes doubtful because this witness (PW-3) has admitted in para 9 of her cross-examination that she had not met Indel in the jail/police station.This very witness has admitted in para 11 that the day Agra police had arrived at their place, she learnt about death of her husband and driver.She again admitted in para 11 itself that she had no doubt as to the factum of death of her husband and driver after meeting with Agra police.In para 12, she has admitted that she had no talks with accused Basanta and Indel.Another missing link in the chain of circumstances is that Ramesh (PW-2), who had seen Indel alongwith Agra police, has given a graphic account of his personality, but allegation on Indel is that he after hiring tractor alongwith Basanta, had taken it alongwith Jagdish and Guddu, but this witness has not given any details of Basanta and has expressed his ignorance about the physical parameters of Basanta.This causes serious dent to the prosecution story of last seen inasmuch as if Basanta and Indel had taken the tractor together and they were constantly seen by Ramesh (PW2), Laxmibai (PW-3) and Pappu @ Umesh (PW-4) coming to their house 24 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 prior to 3-10 days of hiring of tractor and they had offered them tea etc., then nothing prevented them from giving physical parameters of Basanta.This leaves sufficient room for doubt as to the identity of Indel as the person who was seen last by the prosecution witnesses in the company of deceased Jagdish and Guddu.Another missing link is of non-examination of Babulal.In his case diary statement Ramesh (PW-2) has admitted that it was on the recommendation of Babulal that Basanta was known to him and Basanta shall not misappropriate the labour charges, the tractor was taken by Jagdish and Guddu allegedly alongwith Indel and Basanta, but even when police had declared Basanta and Rambabu as absconding, yet no steps were taken to record statements of Babulal and even no steps were taken to obtain a proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. in regard to Basanta.This leads to a possibility that in fact it was Basanta, who was known to deceased Jagdish, had taken tractor and Indel may be a purchaser of such tractor alongwith Babukhan, who has been exonerated by the Court, but since Indel was caught with the tractor and brought by Agra police, therefore, theory of last seen has been developed so to complete investigation and take credit for bringing the 25 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 accused to the books.Another missing link is that prosecution has neither produced the engine number or chasis number of the tractor which was allegedly in possession of Jagdish, nor bothered to corroborate such details of the tractor found to be in possession of Indel.He has admitted that Rs.400/- were still outstanding towards Jagdish and tractor was not transferred in the name of Jagdish and was still registered in the name of Ramswaroop.He has also admitted that he had not given any transfer paper to Jagdish.In cross- examination, this witness has admitted that police had not taken any statement from him after death of Jagdish in relation to tractor.He also admits that he had not made any documentation in regard to sell of Harrow Thresher and Trolley.This statement of Ramswaroop makes the prosecution more vulnerable, specially when as per the settled law as per the provisions contained in Chapter XXIV of Cr.P.C. in regard to disposal of property, it is the criminal Court alone which 26 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 can make an order during any enquiry or trial handing over the proper custody of the property pending conclusion of enquiry or trial.But there is no such order of handing over of the custody by the concerned Magistrate on record.Besides this, there is an admission of Ramesh (PW-2) of disposal of such property.In fact, such property could have been handed over only to registered owner of such property and not to Ramesh, and therefore, whole story of Indel taking such tractor alongwith cultivator on hire becomes doubtful.Another circumstance which has not been taken into consideration by learned Additional Sessions Judge is non- recording of statement of Thakur Singh (PW-7) who has admitted that he had informed TI Madhoganj that he alongwith Ramesh had gone with Agra police upto Gohad Chauraha in search of the deceased.This statement has not been controverted and when such statement is examined in the light of the statement given by Laxmibai (PW-3) that skeletons were recovered by Agra police from Kanipura, Gohad, non recording of statement of this witness and denying opportunity to the defence to confront him with such statement of the Town Inspector Hakim Singh (PW-11) leaves a vacuum in the story of prosecution.27 Criminal Appeal No.573/00Another lacuna is that this witness (PW-7) has admitted that when he had signed Panchnamas, at that time he is not in a position to explain whether another witness of Panchnam had signed or not and then further admitted that at the time of putting his signatures on such Panchnamas, signatures of Shrilal were not present and then further admitted in para 14 of his cross-examination that Shrilal had not signed on such Panchnamas in front of him.When this statement is seen in the light of evidence of Laxmibai (PW-3) that skeletons were recovered by Agra police, Shrilal has not been examined as a prosecution witness but as defence witness and has not supported prosecution story, authenticity and genuineness of such Panchnamas becomes doubtful.Another missing link is non-examination of any of the relatives of deceased Guddu in regard to identification of his clothes and dead-body.Testimony of Kanhaiyalal (PW-9) in regard to last seen is also doubtful.He deposed that he has a scooter repairing shop at Phoolbagh Gurudwara.He further deposed that he is also involved in the work of tractor repairing.He is a resident of Girwai close to the house of deceased Jagdish.He has given his deposition in abstract terms without giving any details.He has only deposed that at 28 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 that time at about 12 he was standing at Chandravadni Naka when Jagdish stopped after witnessing him standing there.Guddu, Basanta and Indel were with him.This witness has submitted that thereafter Jagdish had gone on Dabra road, then he gathered information that Jagdish and Guddu have been murdered.This witness has admitted that he is neighbour of Jagdish.Witness of seizure Thakur Prasad and deceased Guddu are of his community.Guddu has been shown to be a scooter mechanic who was working at a scooter agency of one Mr. Bali.Though this witness has denied the suggestion that Guddu Kushwaha was his close relative, but has admitted that he had gone to purchase spare parts of Jeter tractor at the agency of Sancheti.He has further admitted that such spare parts are available in close proximity of his shop at Phoolbagh and all the mechanics and spare part sellers close to his shop are known to him.He also admits in para 6 that he was not knowing Basanta, Indel or Babu prior to the date of incident.He admits that Jagdish had given names of these three persons to him at Jhansi road square.This is contrary to his statements given in examination-in-chief.It is also an admitted position as per his examination-in-chief that only Guddu, Basanta and Indel were the persons whom he met, and therefore, his 29 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 admission in para 6 that name of Babukhan was given to him by Jagdish is a major contradiction inasmuch as Babu Khan was not admittedly present, and therefore, there was no occasion for Jagdish to have given name of Babu Khan.This when read in conjunction with the fact that Guddu and Thakur Prasad, witnesses of seizure are his relative and he is neighbour of Jagdish, leaves sufficient doubt as to how he has been roped in by the prosecution to fill in the lacuna in the testimony of Ramesh (PW-2) and Laxmibai (PW-3) so to complete the chain of last seen.Testimony of this witness does not inspire confidence as to the theory of last seen.Hakim Singh (PW-11), who has been wrongly shown as PW-11 inasmuch as one Narayan Singh has also been shown as PW-11 so also Hakim Singh by the trial Court which recorded the evidence.Narayan Singh has admitted that no seizure of any tractor or its parts was made in front of him by the police at village Dhanoli under Malpura police Station.He refused to identify the accused person.He refused to testify arrest of Indel by Daroga and also denied that Indel had given any confessional statement as to theft of tractor.He has denied that two persons had absconded from the place from where tractor was seized.Therefore, seizure of tractor could also not 30 Criminal Appeal No.573/00 be proved by the prosecution.Evidence of Hakim Singh (PW-11) to the effect that dead-bodies of Jagdish and Guddu were excavated from under the stones in the jungle of Udaukho is not supported by statements of Laxmibai (PW-3), who has admitted that Agra police had already recovered skeletons.Seizure memos are doubtful as per the testimony of Thakur Singh who has admitted that another witness of seizure had not signed seizure memo in front of him and even his signatures were not present at the time of his signing such seizure memos.Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of dead-bodies and cause of death.

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

acquitted for charges pertaining to offences under Sections 504, 324, 323/34 and 506-B of IPC.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record.In para 13 of the impugned judgment, the learned trial Magistrate has adverted to serious anomalies found in the evidence of Balwant Singh (PW.1) and Sohan Singh (PW.2), who are said to be injured persons.The FIR (Ex. P/1) has been lodged by Balwant Singh (PW.1), wherein it has been stated that the incident took place at 6:00 am in the morning, in which he himself as well as Sohansingh (PW.2) and Gulabsingh (PW.4) sustained bodily injuries.On the contrary Sohan Singh (PW.2) says that the incident took place in the evening and he did not accompany Balwant Singh (PW.1) to the field in the morning.Further, it is noticeable that as per version given by Balwant Singh (PW.1) a mason and some labourer were also present at the alleged time of incident i.e. 6:00am.However, the learned Magistrate has disbelieved it on the ground that ordinarily mason and labourer will not go to work at 6:00 pm in the morning.Learned Magistrate has also noticed that one of the witnesses J.C. Malviya (PW.7) has stated that the incident took place at around 9:00 am while as per Balwant Singh (PW.1) the incident took place at 6:00 am.Thus the three witness namely Balwant Singh (PW.1), Sohan Singh (PW.2) and JC Malviya (PW.7) have stated different timing regarding the incident, which is not reconcilable.Apart this, no independent witness has been examined, though it is stated that a mason and some labourer were present at the time of alleged incident.

['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

Mr.S.V.Marwadi with Mr.Kartik Garg, Advocate for the Appellant Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP for the Respondent/State.This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 19/12/1997 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar convicting the appellant, who was the accused No. 2 in Sessions Case No.271 of 1996 (Original Sessions Case No.407 of 1991) of an offence punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code (In short 'IPC') and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months.There was one more Gaikwad RD 1/8 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::18.APEALNo.7941997(J) accused: viz:- Ramesh Pathak (accused No.1) in the said case, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted him.The appellant and the said accused No.1 were also charged of having committed an offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC, but were acquitted of the said charge.I have heard Mr.S.V.Marwadi the learned counsel for the appellant.I have heard Mrs..A.A.Mane, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the entire evidence adduced during the trial and I have gone through the impugned Judgment.The prosecution case, as put forth before the trial Court was to the effect that the First Informant Smt.Sheela was running a shop in the name and style of, 'Prabha General Stores'.One Tanaji Patil and one Bhaskar Sutar (PW5) were working in the said shop as servants.On 28/09/1990, when Sheela and her associate Avinash (PW2) were not in the shop, the appellant and the accused No.1 Ramesh came along with 10 to 11 persons, drove Tanaji and Bhaskar, who were in the shop, out, removed certain goods from the shop and took forcible possession of the shop by locking the same from outside.When Tanaji reported the matter to Sheela, she lodged a Report with the police on the basis of which a case in respect of offences punishable under Section 395 of the IPC and Section 452 of the IPC came to be recorded.::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::The prosecution examined six witnesses during the trial.The first witness is Sheela herself.The second witness is her associate Avinash.The third witness Prabhakar and the fourth witness Ajij are panchas in respect of the spot panchanama.None of them supported the case of the prosecution.Even otherwise, their evidence is not very relevant in the context of the facts of the prosecution case and the admitted position.The fifth witness is Bhaskar who, as aforesaid, was at the material time working in the shop of Sheela as a servant.He is the only person, who witnessed the actual incident and who speaks about it.The sixth witness is Dinkar Bagal, Sub-Inspector of Police, who was attached to Boisar Police Station, at the material time, and who has investigated into the alleged offences.It is clear that Bhaskar (PW5) is the only witness in respect of the alleged incident and, therefore, his evidence assumes importance.The other person - who was said to be present in the shop - Tanaji could not be examined during trial, because he had passed away.Bhaskar states that on the particular day, the appellant and others came to the shop and directed Bhaskar and Tanaji, who were present there, to leave the shop.Though Bhaskar and Tanaji were not ready to go out of the shop, the appellant drove them out of the shop.The appellant and the persons, who had come with Gaikwad RD 3/8 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::18.APEALNo.7941997(J) him, removed articles from the shop and then locked the door of the shop from outside.Bhaskar then went to Sheela and reported to her about the incident.There is a bald assertion made by the prosecution that some articles from the shop were removed, but this assertion has rightly not been believed by the learned trial Judge.Bhaskar has not specified in his evidence what were the articles, which were allegedly removed.Dinkar Bagal, Investigating Officer has admitted in his evidence that no articles were actually recovered in the course of investigation from the appellant, or the other accused.::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::(i) with intent to commit an offence;There was no other object behind such entry.It is significant that in its application to State of Orissa and State of Uttar Pradesh, Section 441 of the IPC has been amended, so as to include entry into, or remaining upon any property for the purpose of taking unauthorized possession of such property, as an ingredient of the Gaikwad RD 6/8 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::The Additional Sessions Judge did not consider, while holding the appellant guilty, as to what were the ingredients of an offence of 'criminal trespass' and 'house trespass'.He just assumed Gaikwad RD 7/8 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::18.APEALNo.7941997(J) that once the entry in the premises is proved, it would automatically amount 'house trespass'.This view was clearly contrary to law.In view of the fact that the prosecution case - as believed by the trial Court - even if accepted in its entirety does not show that any offence punishable under Section 452 of the IPC was committed by the appellant, it is not necessary to discuss the reliability of the evidence that was adduced during the trial to establish its case.The impugned Judgment being contrary to law, needs to be set aside.The appeal is allowed.The impugned Judgment and Order of conviction is set aside.The appellant stands acquitted.Fine, if paid, be refunded.Appeal is disposed of accordingly.::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2015 23:59:12 :::

['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']

During the suspension period the petitioner was served with a chargesheet dated 30.08.1995 under Clause 15(2) of the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952, read with Section 4(e) of the Delhi Road Transport Laws (Amendment) Act. The allegation against the petitioner was that he did not intimate about the above said case and his arrest to his department.Vide order dated 17.02.2003 issued by Manager (P & A) the petitioner was released from suspension and was ordered to be taken back on duty w.e.f. 18.02.2003, pending inquiry into the case.The petitioner was served with another memo dated 10.03.2003 whereby he was called upon to show cause as to why the penalty of 'censure' be not imposed upon him.The petitioner vide his explanation dated 13.03.2003 explained that his delay in informing the office regarding the arrest was not intentional but beyond his control as he was handicapped due to police custody and there was not even a single member of his family who could have informed the office as all of them were in jail.Vide impugned order dated 18.03.2003 the punishment of 'censure' was imposed upon the petitioner and it was further ordered that "the subsistence allowance which had already been paid to him for the period he remained under suspension is considered adequate", meaning thereby, that the remaining pay and allowances stood forfeited.The review petition was also dismissed.Consequently, the present writ petition was filed wherein it was prayed that writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 18.03.2003 passed by the respondent forfeiting his residue pay and allowances for the period of suspension w.e.f. 19.03.1995 to 18.02.2003 kindly be issued.It was further prayed that interest be also granted.I have heard the counsel for the parties.He urged that it was incumbent upon the respondent to give him reasonable opportunity to show cause as to why the above said portion of salary and other allowances should not be paid to him.In order to bring his point home, he has cited following authorities.(11) The appeal is allowed and the High Court's order is set aside.The competent authority is directed to consider the question de novo after giving to the appellant a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed against him.The respondent will pay to the appellant costs of this appeal as also the costs of the petition in the High Court.It must be borne in mind that vide order dated 18.03.2003 the punishment of censure was imposed upon the petitioner.It has not been called into question in these proceedings.It has attained finality.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']

At that time applicants were taking their bullock cart through his field which was objected by the complainant Ramsingh at which all of a sudden applicant No. 1 Harisingh taken out a Spear (Ballam) from the bullock cart and dealt a blow, causing injury at the wrist of right hand.The complainant tried to run away towards his house but he was assaulted by the applicants by lathi.The matter was reported in the Police Station by the complainant.In medical examination by Dr. R. Kumar (P.W. 5), injuries were found on the person of the complainant Ramsingh out of which injury No. 1, incised wound on the left forearm and injury No. 3 on right thumb and index finger were caused by sharp edged weapon and rest injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.JUDGMENT S.L. Kochar, J.This revision has been preferred by the applicants against the judgment dated 18-6-2004 passed by II Addl.Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Narsinghgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2003 arising out of Criminal Case No. 370/2000, judgment dated 28-11-2002 passed by learned JMFC, Narsinghgarh, whereby affirmed the conviction of the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 326, 326/34 of IPC but modified the sentence.Instead of three years R.I. with fine of Rs. 750/- the applicant No. 1 Harisingh has been sentenced to R.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 750/- and applicants No. 2 Hanumantsingh, No. 3 Indarsingh and No. 4 Jagdishsingh have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 750/- each under Section 326/34 of IPC.The learned Counsel for applicants Shri Mayank Upadhyaya, has submitted that prior to filing application for grant of permission to compound the offence, the complainant Ramsingh who is present today before this Court had also filed an application dated 10-5-2003 for grant of permission to compound the offences before the learned Lower Appellate Court.This application is available in the record and this Court has perused the same.Looking to these facts, there is no doubt that the complainant Ramsingh s/o Dayaram has amicably settled the dispute between the applicants and also filed application for grant of permission to compound the offences before this Court also.In brief the prosecution case before the Trial Court was that on 9-10-2000 at 5.00 p.m., complainant Ramsingh was going to his house from his field.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the learned Trial Court framed the charges against applicant No. 1 Harisingh under Section 326 and against No. 2 Hanumantsingh, No. 3 Indarsingh and No. 4 Jagdishsingh under Section 326/34 of IPC because the complainant had fracture of left ulna, metacarpal bone and right febula bone underneath the incised injury.The applicants denied the charges before the Trial Court.Therefore, put on trial.The learned Trial Court, after examining the prosecution and defence witnesses and hearing them, convicted the applicants as mentioned above against which they went up in appeal and the Lower Appellate Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence as indicated above.The application filed by the complainant for compounding the offence was dismissed because the offence was not compoundable.The contention of the learned Counsel for applicants is that the conviction of applicants No. 2 Hanumantsingh, No. 3 Indarsingh and No. 4 Jagdishsingh with the help of Section 34 of IPC is not tenable because at the time of causing of injury by sharp side of Spear (Ballam), they were not present.They reached later on and joined the applicant No. 1 Harisingh and thereafter all had caused injuries by lathi and all those injuries are simple in nature.Having heard the learned Counsel for parties and after perusing the entire record, there is substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for applicants regarding conviction of applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC.There is no evidence on record that there was pre-meeting of mind, premeditation and pre-plan between the applicants for causing grievous injuries to the complainant by sharp edged weapons.According to the prosecution case itself the incident had occurred all of a sudden when the applicant No. 1 Harisingh was taking his bullock cart through the field of the complainant.At that time, applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were not present.At the time of causing of the injury by Spear (Ballam), the applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were not present.Therefore, for the act of applicant No. 1 Harisingh, causing grievous injuries by Spear (Ballam), applicants No. 2 Hanumantsingh, No. 3 Indarsingh and No. 4 Jagdishsingh could not be held liable.Therefore, the conviction of the applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is hereby set aside instead thereof they are convicted under Section 323, IPC.The learned Counsel filed application for compounding the offence and the complainant Ramsingh is also present before this Court.The complainant has submitted that he has compounded the offence without any threat, inducement or promise.He has also submitted that in the Lower Appellate Court he had filed an application for compounding the offence.According to him, he and the- applicants are residents of same village and now they want to maintain peace and harmony.The application for compounding the offence filed by the complainant so far as the applicants No. 2 Hanumantsingh, No. 3 Indarsingh and No. 4 Jagdishsingh are concerned, is allowed.The fine amount, if deposited by them before the Trial Court, be refunded to them.The application for compounding the offence filed by the complainant so far as applicant No. 1 Harisingh is concerned, the same is refused because the offence under Section 326, IPC is not compoundable.The conviction of the applicant No. 1 Harisingh is maintained under Section 326 of the IPC, but in view of the compromise arrived at by the parties, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand).In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo R.I. for six months.The revision is allowed in part in the terms as indicated above.

['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

She, her son Ajay Choudhary along with Dinesh were watching television.Deepak was known to the deceased and her two sons as he was their neighbour, residing in the same street.It was alleged that Ajay, Dinesh and Beermati were laughing, upon which Deepak got enraged and called Ajay outside asking him the reason for their laughter.It was alleged that Deepak held Ajay by the neck, when he (Ajay) stated that the three were laughing over something that was being screened on TV.Deepak is alleged to have abused Ajay and told him that they were laughing and mocking him and that they were lying to him; it was alleged that he told Ajay "saale mujh par haste ho, mera mazak udate ho aur jhoot bolte ho".The Injury was antemortem, caused by sharp edged cutting stabing weapon and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature Blouse showd a cut mark corresponding to external injury.The post mortem report No. 457/95 was prepared by me, i.e. in my own hand writing bears my signatures at point A. the same is exhibited PW.12/A.Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP.The appellant (hereafter called "Deepak") impugns the judgment and order dated 13.01.1998 in S.C. No. 414/1995 whereby he was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of ` 1000/- and in default further R.I. for one month.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge also convicted Deepak for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay ` 500/- as fine, in default of which he was to undergo R.I. for a period of 15 days.A CRL.A. 45/1998 Page 1 similar sentence was imposed, after conviction was recorded under Section 450 IPC.The prosecution case was that on 19.07.1995, Deepak, in a stabbing incident, had attacked one Beermati with a knife and also stabbed Dinesh.He slapped Ajay 3/4 times.At that time, Ajay's brother Dinesh came out and separated the two.Deepak allegedly left towards his house stating that he (Ajay) had been rescued but that he would not be left alive in future; the prosecution alleged that the actual words used were "ab to bach gaya hai, ise zinda nahi chodoonga".It was alleged that thereafter Ajay and Dinesh went inside their house.About 3/4 minutes later, Deepak came back with a knife in his hand.At that time Beermati was near the entrance of her house and on seeing Deepak armed with a knife, she asked him to stop, enquiring where was he going.Deepak allegedly told Beermati that she was shielding her sons and that he would first remove her from his way - allegedly stating "tu ladkon ke bahut himayat karti hai, pehle tujhe hi raste se hataa deta hoon".Thereafter Deepak stabbed her in the lower portion of the left breast resulting in her bleeding and Beermati's falling down.It was alleged that Dinesh tried to save his mother from Deepak but that the latter said that he too used to favour his brother and would not be left alive.The alleged words used by Deepak were "tu bhi bhai ka himayati banta hai, tujhe bhi zinda nahi choroonga".With these words he attacked Dinesh with the knife in the lower left side of his abdomen.On hearing the noise, many people, including Om Bir Singh reached the spot.On seeing them, Deepak ran away along with his knife.It was alleged that Ajay took Beermati and Dinesh to G.T.B. Hospital with a neighbour and others; Beermati was declared dead.According to the prosecution version, Deepak was arrested on 20.07.1995 and on the basis of his interrogation, the recovery of a knife was made.It was alleged that a disclosure statement, Ex. PW-6/B was recorded.On 02.05.1996, the court charged Deepak for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 450 IPC.He entered the plea of not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution examined 25 witnesses in support of its case; Deepak examined two defence witnesses.On the basis of the materials, depositions of witnesses and rival contentions, the Trial Court found the accused Deepak guilty as charged and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for committing the concerned offences, in the manner indicated previously in the present judgment.At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that having regard to the evidence, particularly the depositions of PW-2, the deceased's younger son Ajay, as well as PW- 4, the elder son of the deceased, who sustained injuries, the attack by Deepak stood established and could not be denied.It was, however, submitted that Deepak got enraged due to remarks made by PW-2 Ajay Pal and other members of his family.Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that even as per allegations of the prosecution, there was no history of enmity or malice and that there was no motive for Deepak to have attacked Beermati and Dinesh.In this context, it was argued that according to the line of questioning adopted during the cross- examination, there was hardly any time-gap between the first incident when all members of the family were laughing and when the attack took place.Therefore, the versions of PW-2 and 4 about the reason for Deepak's anger are to be seen in the context of the deposition of other witnesses.Even though PW-2 and PW-4 deposed that there was trivial provocation for the attack, a reading of PW-5's testimony clarifies that the reason for the attack was something else.The said witness had deposed very clearly having witnessed the incident and heard Deepak stating CRL.A. 45/1998 Page 3 "tere bache rozana jaghre karte hain, tu inki himayat karti hai, mere raste se hat jaa" and an altercation between Birmati and the accused had taken place."It was submitted that even though PW-2 and PW-4 had stated that they were laughing due to a humorous or comic scene aired on the television, it was evident that there was some previous history of the appellant Deepak being teased or quarreled with.Learned counsel also pointed to the cross-examination of PW-4 to the following effect:"It is incorrect to suggest that I and my brother were standing on the door of our house when the accused Deepak had passed through the gali clad in a white trouser and shirt and that upon seeing him, we passed a taunting remark by saying "look the black crow in a white dress is coming".It is further incorrect to suggest that the accused felt bad when he heard the remark and an altercation took place between the accused and us.It is further wrong that the accused told us that we should not taunt in this way to which we replied that if we behave the same manner, what harm he could do to them.It is further wrong to suggest that thereafter an altercation took place between us which resulted in fight between the accused on one side and both of us on the other side.It is further incorrect to suggest that meanwhile, our mother also joined us and all of us dragged the accused inside our house and started beating him and the accused got released himself and tried to run away from there but we all three again caught hold of him.It is further incorrect to suggest that our mother picked up a thapi (wooden stick) for washing clothes and started beating the accused with that thapi and that Deepak also started beating us with fists and slapped blows and that he slapped fist blows to me also.It is further incorrect to suggest that I got angered at the beating received by me and in the fit of anger I went inside the house and brought a knife and that on seeing the knife, the accused became nervous and he tried to snatch the knife and in that process of snatching the knife, which was snatched by the accused from me, my mother received injuries and in the same process, I also received the injuries.It is further correct that after the incident the accused ran away from the spot and I cannot say he ran away towards his house."It was emphasized that the evidence of PW-2 made it clear that Deepak was the son of the deceased's neighbour and that they did not have any previous history of enmity.The entire facts revealed that an altercation took place on account of a trivial provocation which evidently had some previous history.Learned senior counsel highlighted that the post mortem report of the deceased suggested that she died on account of a single blow and the Court should take this aspect into consideration and hold that this was not a case of previous deliberation or premeditated action.In these circumstances, submitted learned senior counsel, the appellant could not have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 but instead it could have been under Section 304 IPC.To achieve this end, he went back home, returned armed with the knife, which was recovered subsequently during the investigation.The appellant, going back in the first instance and returning with such a dangerous weapon and proceeding to use it without hesitation betrayed his real intention which was to inflict deadly injuries upon those who he was angry with or against whom he bore a grudge.The MLC of Dinesh, PW-4, marked as Ex. PW-18/A, reveals that he too was examined at 5.30 PM on the date of the incident.The doctors declared him fit for statement.The observations in this document revealed that he had suffered a stab wound on the left side of the abdomen in mid-auxiliar line at the line of the last CRL.A. 45/1998 Page 5 rib to the extent of 1 inch into 1 into 6th of an inch.The postmortem report prepared by PW-12, Dr. A.K. Tyagi indicated the following injuries and cause of death:"XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX External Injury:- 1) Incised stab wound of 3.0x0.8 cm xcavity deep was present obliquely over middle outer front of left side chest.The upper inner angle was more acute than lower outer angle & upper angle is 10.0 cms horizontly out words & to left from the nipple.The injury entered the left side chest cavity by cutting the 4th rip and then went through and through the lower part of upper lobe of left lung near its inner margin it further entered the Heart i.e. left ventricle from its left wall by making a cut of 1.7x0.2 cms and ended by making small nick over inter-ventriculor septum.The depth in the heart is 04.00 cms and total depth of the injury was 11.5 cms.The direction of injury was from left to right obliquely downwords, inwards and slightly backwards.Left side chest cavity contains blood about 600 cc.Injuries to left lung and heart as mentioned with external injuries.Opinion - Death in this case was due to shock as a result of haemorrage caused by injury to chest.XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX"Since the appellant Deepak has not disputed having attacked the deceased and PW-4, it would be unnecessary to discuss the details with regard to depositions of various prosecution witnesses.These had claimed to be eye witnesses to the incident and were present when the attack took place.11. PW-2 and PW-4 are consistent by and large, in stating the details and origins of the attack.It was deposed that on the day of the incident, both of them, along with the deceased were watching television around 4.00 PM.Deepak was passing by.Simultaneously, he heard them laugh.Thinking that they were laughing or mocking at him, he called out Ajaypal, PW-2 and asked him the reason for the laughter.PW-2 informed him that the laughter was on account of some comic incident in the television programme or film.The two eyewitnesses PW-2 and PW-4 CRL.A. 45/1998 Page 6 were extensively cross-examined whether the film ANDAAZ APNA APNA was screened at that time and who were the lead actors in that film.Deepak was unsatisfied with PW-3's explanation and tried to attack Ajaypal upon which PW-4 Dinesh interceded and separated the two of them from a scuffle.Thereupon, according to both the witnesses, Deepak left the scene, threatening to return and finish Ajaypal.Barely three-four minutes later, he came back and tried to enter the house of PW-2, 4 and the deceased.According to the two witnesses, Beermati tried to stop him but was fatally stabbed.When Dinesh, PW-4 intervened, he too received stab injuries in the abdomen.The contention deserves to be accepted.This was not a case of premeditation as the accused and the deceased met by chance and the appellant had given only one blow.The evidence regarding raising of a lalkara by the other accused has not been believed by the trial court.On the basis of the evidence led in this case it is not possible to say with certainty under which circumstances the appellant gave a kirpan blow to Amrik Singh.No attempt was made by him to give another blow.The injury caused on the head of Amrik Singh does not appear to have been caused intentionally.However, the fact remains that the deceased died because of this injury.The High Court however failed to note that the prosecution has to prove that the appellant intended to cause that particular injury.In Jagtar Singh the facts were that the accused had inflicted a single knife injury which proved fatal."The next question is what offence the appellant is shown to have committed? In a trivial quarrel the appellant wielded a weapon like a knife.The incident occurred around 1.45 noon.The quarrel was of a trivial nature and even in such a trivial quarrel the appellant wielded a weapon like a knife and landed a blow in the chest.In these circumstances, it is a permissible inference that the appellant at least could be imputed with a knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause death.In the present case too, the quarrel between the appellant and the deceased's sons, was due to a trivial reason.He tried to assault Ajaypal; the deceased tried to prevent him; he attacked her.PW-4 thereafter tried to intervene; he too was attacked.All these facts do not suggest pre-meditation, or a previous history of ill will between Deepak and the deceased's family.He launched an attack on the deceased, when he thought that she would prevent him from assaulting Ajaypal.Both she and PW-4 were given single blows, when they tried to prevent his attack.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']

According to him, thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 erection of the proposed electric tower would compromise the property in several ways and his objections in regard to the project ought to have been taken into account.1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Energy, Government of Tamilnadu, Fort.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 DR.ANITA SUMANTH,J.gns / TM W.P.(MD)No.16084 of 2019 22.07.2019http://www.judis.nic.inThe prayer in this writ petition is for a Mandamus forbearing the second respondent/Power Grid Corporation of India Limited from erecting High Tension Electric Tower in S.F.Nos.525, 550/A3, B, C1, C2, C3 and 533/1, 534, 535 in Kuppam Village, Pugalur Circle, Aravakuruchi Taluk, Karur District, without obtaining a prior permission from the 1st respondent/District Collector.2.The petitioner appears to have addressed a representation in this regard to the District Collector on 09.07.2019 and has rushed to Court with the present writ petition without affording adequate opportunity to the District Collector to receive, process and conduct enquiry upon his representation.3.The petitioner has raised various objections in the writ petition itself with regard to the certainty of the High Tension Electric Power in the middle of his property.At best, the second respondent may be diverted to consider the objections put forth by the land owners in regard to the compensation sought by a land owner for any damage that may be caused by the proposed laying of High Tension wires.http://www.judis.nic.in 68.The District Collector before whom the representation of the petitioner is pending shall consider the same and after hearing both the respondents as well as the Land owner, shall pass suitable order on merits only on the aspect of compensation to the landowner, if any payable, for damage or inconvenience caused to the property or the residents therein by virtue of the action of the respondent in laying the High Tension Electric Tower.Such order shall be passed within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order.The learned counsel for the fifth respondent agrees that the proposal, insofar as it relates to the property in question, shall be kept in abeyance till such time orders are passed in this matter by the fourth respondent as above.No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.2.The Chairman, Tamilnadu Transmission Corporation Limited, No.144, Anna Salai, Tamilnadu Electricity Board,http://www.judis.nic.in Chennai – 600 002. 73.The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Karur District, Collectorate, Karur.

['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']

(01/08/2019) By a common order, all the three appeals shall be decided as they arise out of the same incident.Since, Ghanshyam and Preetam Dhakad were absconding and were arrested at a later stage, therefore, they have been convicted by separate judgments and sentences.These Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.All the appellants have been convicted for the following offences :3 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017The prosecution story in short is that on 7-11-2013, the complainant Gendi bai lodged a report that she was all alone and was sleeping in the porch of her house.At about 2 A.M. in the night, four persons came there and gagged her mouth by tying a cloth and took out her silver Kade, Silver Khangwari, Gold Tops, Gold ring and also took away Rs. 6000/-.Since the tops were pulled from her ears, therefore, her pinna got injured.The appellant Purshottam assaulted on her face, therefore, her teeth have broken.On this report, the police registered crime No. 280/2013 for offence under Sections 394,452,325 of I.P.C.The police arrested the appellant Purshottam, Ghanshyam, Preetam as well as one Laxminarayan and recovered one gold tops from the possession of the appellant Purshottam, Rs. 6000 from Laxminarayan, Silver Khangwari from Ghanshyam and two silver Kade from Preetam.The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined Gendibai (P.W.1), Balram (P.W.2), Govind Prasad Sharma (P.W.3), Dr. A.P. Singh (P.W.4), Madanlal (P.W.5), Sunil Verma (P.W.6), Dr. Vinod Chourasia (P.W.7), Hazarilal (P.W.8), Ramcharan (P.W.9), and Santosh Bhargava 4 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017 (P.W.10).The appellants didnot examine any witness in their defence.Challenging the conviction and sentence recorded by the Court below, the Counsel for the appellant Purshottam submitted that although in the F.I.R., the name of the appellant was mentioned but in the Test Identification Parade, the complainant Gendibai (P.W.1) could not identify the appellant Purshottam, although again in dock identification, She has identified the appellant Purshottam, thus identification is doubtful.She has stated that the appellants came inside the house and broke her teeth.Her mouth was gagged by tying a cloth.The tops were pulled from her ear.Her hands were tied.Her box was broken and silver Kade, silver Khangwari, gold tops and a cash of Rs. 7000 was taken away.After the miscreants left the house, the complainant started screaming as a result of which her neighbour Madan came who was followed by Balram and Jairam.They went to police outpost at about 3-4 A.M. She was sent for medical examination.The spot map Ex. P.2 was prepared.She had identified Purshottam in jail and had also identified Ghanshyam in jail.In cross examination she stated that she had lost her husband about 15 years back.Prior to incident, her eye vision was good, but after the cloth was tied, her eye vision has dropped.She further admitted that She does not have any watch but had narrated 6 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017 the time as per her assessment.She denied that the name of Purshottam was informed by the neighbours.On her own, this witness said that Purshottam is her Samadhi.She admitted that Madan untied the cloth from her mouth.She further admitted that when she went to police outpost, the appellant Purshottam and Ghanshyam were shown by the police.The stolen articles were also shown in the outpost Jhagar.She further admitted that identification memo Ex. P.3 was got signed by Daroga.6 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017Balram (P.W.2) has stated that he was informed by Madan on phone and when he went to the house of the complainant who is the mother, he found that She was tied and her teeth were broken and ear pinnas were teared and the assailants had taken away gold tops, silver Khangwari, Silver Kade, and about Rs. 6000/-.The complainant had informed that Purshottam and Laxminarayan were amongst the assailants.In cross examination, this witness denied the suggestion that some unknown persons had committed the offence.Govind Prasad Sharma (P.W3) had recorded the F.I.R. on the basis of report which was brought by constable Damodar from Police outpost Jhagar.Dr. A.P. Singh (P.W.4) had examined the complainant Gendibai and found empty socket of left and right Lateral Inciser and left central Inciser were filled with blood cot and was exfoliated due to injury.Madan (P.W.5) has also supported the prosecution story and stated 7 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017 that after hearing the screaming of the complainant Gendibai (P.W.1), he went to the spot and found that the ears of Gendibai were injured and her teeth were broken and hands were tied and one towel and rope was tied around her neck.He also informed Balram, the son of the complainant.Gendibai had disclosed the name of the appellant Purshottam and Laxminarayan.The appellant Preetam Dhakad is on bail.His bail bonds are discharged.The appellant Ghanshyam is in jail.The police after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet against four persons for offence under Sections 394,452 and 325 of I.P.C..The Trial Court by order dated 23-1-2014 framed charges under Sections 452,394 read with Section 397 of I.P.C.4 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017The accused statement of Purshottam was recorded on the same day.The Trial Court by judgment dated 27-3-2015 convicted the appellant Purshottam, by judgment dated 29-7-2017 convicted the appellant Preetam Dhakad and by judgment dated 12-5-2015 convicted the appellant Ghanshyam for the above mentioned offences.Thereafter they went to Police outpost and lodged the F.I.R. This witness turned hostile against the appellant Ghanshyam and Preetam and accordingly he was declared hostile.7 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017Sunil Verma (P.W.6) had conducted the Test Identification Parade of the accused persons, and stated that the complainant had identified Laxminarayan only.Dr. Vinod Chourasia, (P.W.7) had medically examined the complainant and found the following injuries :"1. Lacerated wound, Cm.X Cm.X deep upto muscular on left ear labret.Lacerated wound, Cm. X CM.X deep upto muscular on right ear labret.Abrasion, Cm.X Cm., on frontal part of neck.Abrasion, Cm.X Cm., on left forearm.Diffused swelling, 4 X 3 CM., on left hand.Abrasion, Cm.X Cm., on right hand."8 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017Appellants Preetam Dhakad and GhanshyamThese appellants were put for Identification, and the complainant in the Test Identification Parade, Ex. P. 4, could not identify these appellants.Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has proved the seizure of Silver Khangwari and Silver Kade from the possession of Ghanshyam and Preetam Dhakad 9 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017 respectively.9 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017Now the pivotal question for determination is that whether the prosecution has established the identification of these articles.The complainant Gendibai (P.W.1), has stated that the articles were shown by Daroga in the Police Station and identification memo Ex. P.3 was prepared, whereas according to the prosecution case, the test identification parade for identification of seized articles was conducted by Ramcharan, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sujakhedi (P.W. 9).Ramcharan (P.W. 9) has not supported the prosecution case, and has stated that he was called in Police Outpost Jhagar, where the articles were handed over to the complainant by police and identification memo, Ex. P.3 was prepared by the police in the police station itself and his signatures were obtained.Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish that the articles seized from the possession of the appellants Ghanshyam and Preetam were that of the complainant Gendi bai (P.W.1).There is no other evidence against the appellants Ghanshyam and Preetam.10 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017 P.4, but again identified the appellant Purshottam in the dock.But the prosecution has failed to prove the identification of the Gold Tops for the reasons already mentioned while considering 23 Cr.A. Nos.552/2015, 607/2015 and 1297/2017 the case of appellants Ghanshyam and Preetam Dhakad.Accordingly, it is held that although Gold Tops were seized from the possession of appellant Purshottam, but since, its identification could not be established by the prosecution, therefore, the seizure of gold tops loses its importance.However, in view of the fact that Purshottam was specifically named by the complainant Gendibai (P.W.1) in the F.I.R., Ex. P.1 which was lodged within a period of 4 hours, because the incident took place at about 3 A.M. in the night and the F.I.R. was lodged at 7:00 A.M., as well as that he was identified by the complainant in the Court, coupled with the fact that the ocular evidence of complainant Gendi bai (P.W.1) is supported by medical evidence, Ex. P.6 and P.8, it is held that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant Purshottam beyond reasonable doubt.The Trial Court has convicted the appellant Purshottam for offence under Section 394/397 of I.P.C. Since, the complainant Gendibai (P.W.1) had suffered dismemberment of her teeth, therefore, the conviction of the appellant Purshottam for offence under Section 397 of I.P.C. is affirmed.Accordingly, the appellant Purshottam is held guilty of committing offence under Section 452 and 397 of I.P.C.So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the minimum sentence for offence under Section 397 of I.P.C. is seven years.In default, the appellant Purshottam shall undergo the rigorous imprisonment of 6 months.The appellant Purshottam is on bail.His bail bonds are hereby cancelled.He is directed to immediately surrender before the Trial Court for undergoing the remaining jail sentence.He be released if not required in any other case.Accordingly, the judgment and sentence judgment and sentence dated 27-3-2015 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in S.T. No. 26/2014 is hereby affirmed with above mentioned modifications.The judgment and sentence dated 29-7-2017 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in S.T. No. 26/2014 and dated 12-5- 2015 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in S.T. No. 26/2014 are hereby set aside.The appeal filed by appellant Ghanshyam and Preetam Dhakad are allowed and appeal filed by appellant Purshottam is partially allowed.(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2019.08.02 09:47:54 +05'30'

['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']

The Executive Engineer, Heavy Electricals Ltd. (hereinafterreferred to as HEL), Bhopal invited tenders for constructionof four BCC overhead tanks, each of one lakh gallonscapacity, by a tender notice published on December 23, 1965.Four contractors, including the accused appellant, submittedtheir tenders.It was found that the tender of the appellant, whohad stipulated that he would use 18 tons of steel, was ofthe lowest amount.The other three contractors badstipulated that they would use 24 tons of steel.The case of the prosecution is that on April 9, 1966 PW 1Shivnarain Wadhwa, Chief Engineer Construction of HEL waspresent in his office.PW 5 Niranjanlal Shrivastava,Personal Assistant to the Chief Engineer, was also presentthere.A partition divides the office of the Chief Engineerfrom the place where Shrivastava used to sit.At about11.45 a.m. on that day, the appellant accompanied by twoothers, came to PW Shrivastava.The appellant gave visitingcard P4 to Shrivastava and said that he wanted to see theChief Engineer.Shrivastava sent that card through a peonto Chief Engineer Wadhwa.A short time thereafter on beingcalled by Wadhwa, the accused appellant accompanied by histwo companions went inside the office of Wadhwa.On arrivalthere, the accused talked about big tender and stated thatas his tender was the lowest,15-L382SupCI/74638the same should be accepted- The accused also handed overcopy P3 of letter dated April 8, 1966 which had beenaddressed by him to the Executive Engineer in connectionwith the above tender Wadhwa then told the accused thataccording to the information received by him, the accusedhad stipulated the use of only 18 tons of steel as against24 tons stipulated by others.The accuse however, persistedin saying that his tender was the lowest.Wadhwa then toldthe accused that whatever he had to say in the matter, heshould tell the Executive Engineer and that he might alsohand over a copy of his letter to the Assistant ChiefEngineer.The two companions of the accused, then left theoffice of Wadhwa, while the accused remained sitting there.Wadhwa then told the accused also to go, but the accusedinstead of going took out from the left pocket of histrousers an envelope and presented it to Wadhwa.Wadhwa reprimanded the accused for doing somethingwrong and at the same time he (Wadhwa) pressed the buzzerfor his Personal Assistant.Shrivastava PW then came insidethe office of Wadhwa.In the meantime, the accused had putback the envelope containing currency notes in the pocket ofhis trousers.On the arrival of Shrivastava, Wadhwa toldhim that the accused had given him bribe.Wadhwa also askedShrivastava to take out the envelope from the pocket of thetrousers of the accused.Shrivastava then took out theenvelope containing currency notes from the trousers' pocketof the accused.There were thirty 100-rupee currency notesin that envelope.Wadhwa then rung up R.C. Gupta (PW 3) whois the Secretary and Vigilance Officer of HEL as well asChandra Shekhar Tiwari (PW 4), who is the Chief SecurityOfficer of HEL.The offices of Gupta and Tiwari are also inthe Administrative Building of HEL, in which building issituated the office of Wadhwa PW.The accused then expressed his apologies and statedthat he was sorry and ashamed for what he had done.Theaccused also requested that he might be forgiven and thatotherwise he would lose his career as a contractor.Whenthe accused offered his apologies, Wadhwa remarked that ifthe accused gave anything in writing, he would consider thematter.The accused thereupon wrote something on a piece ofpaper.As the writing was not found to be satisfactory, thesame was not accepted by Wadhwa and the paper remained withthe accused.Wadhwa then asked Shrivastava to take Lalwanito his room.Wadhwa thereafter asked for the advice ofGupta and Tiwari.It was then decided that the mattershould be reported to the police.In the reportthe number of currency notes were also noted by Shrivastava.The report was then signed by Wadhwa.Appeal by special leave from the, judgment and Order datedFebruary 4, 1970 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh(Jabalpur Bench) in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1967.Hardayal Hardy, M. S. N. Nambudri and B. R. G K. Achar, forthe appellant.Ram Paniwani and H. S. Parihar, for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byKHANNA, J. This is an appeal by special leave by MohandasLalwani against the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Courtwhereby the High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal ofthe Special Judge Bhopal and convicted the accused appellantunder section 165A Indian Penal Code and sentenced him toundergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.The accused and, thereport were thereafter sent to police station Govindpura.Formal first information report P8 was prepared at thepolice station on the basis of report P1 and a case wasregistered against the accused at6392.15 P.M. Complaint about the occurrence was thereafterfiled in the court of the Special Judge Bhopal by TownInspector Gurbir Singh on.At the trial, Wadhwa (PW 1) gave evidence in support of theprosecution case as given above.Gupta (PW 3) and Tiwari(PW 4) deposed about, the extra judicial confession of theaccused in the office of Wadhwa PW when they were calledthere by Wadhwa PW on telephone.The prosecution furtherexamined Shrivastava (PW 5), according to whom, he wascalled by Wadhwa and was told that the accused had offeredhim bribe.The witness took out an envelope containingcurrency notes of the value of Rs. 3,000 from the pocket ofthe accused under the directions of Wadhwa- The witnessfurther deposed regarding the extra ' judicial confessionmade by the accused after the arrival of Gupta and TiwariPWs.The accused also admitted thatthe Personal Assistant of Wadhwa had taken out 30 currencynotes of Rs. 100 each from his pocket under the directionsof Wadhwa.The fact that Gupta and Tiwari were called ontelephone by Wadhwa was further admitted by the accused.The other prosecution allegations were denied by theaccused.He denied having offered any amount to Wadhwa orabout his having made any confession after the arrival ofGupta and Tiwari PWs.The accused further gave thefollowing version of the occurrence :"On 7-4-66 1 had gone to the office of the Executive Engineer Shri Karajgi.He was not there.I learnt from the office that my tender and the tenders of two or three persons more sent to the Assistant Chief Engineer, and there was remark on my tender that the testimonials were not attached whereas I had sent the same on the 21st.Therefore, I went to the Chief Engineer on the sameday and told him that my tender was the lowest and they say, that the testimonials have not been sent.On being asked by him I replied, 'can bring the testimonials'.Then I went to Delhi and on 9-4-66 1 came with the testimonials and the consultant Engineer and I had brought the amount of security also.For taking out the papers I was required to take out money also and after keeping money in my pocket I showed the papers to him.I said 'I have brought the testimonials also.I have brought the Engineer also.' You discuss with him and give final reply. 'He replied', Do not talk to me.Speak to the Executive Engineer. 'I said', There is corruption.Otherwise why my certificates have been removed from my tender? 'Thereupon he began to say, 'I am not prepared to hear this much.' Whereupon I replied, 'You are Head of the Depart-If you do not hear who will hear?' Thereupon he replied,. 'Do not talk anything more with me?' Whereupon I said, 'Are you also included in that corruption ?' Thereupon, he pressed the, buzzer.I had a hot talk with him.My Engineer also told, him.Thereupon he replied, 'I am not prepared to hear anything.' Then my Engineer spoke in Sindhi language, 'He is not hearing I go downstairs and I send any other person.' At the same time Wadhwa Saha ,threw away the testimonials and said, 'Where those persons have gone ?' Whereupon I replied, 'They have gone down- stairs'.He questioned, 'What did they say?'- I replied, 'They have not said anything.' 'Then I put the testimonials in my pocket and he pressed the buzzer."In defence, the accused examined one witness V. S. Asnani,Consulting Engineer.According to this witness, he wentwith the accused on the day of occurrence to Wadhwa PW.The trial court was of the view that Wadhwa PW was notwholly reliable witness.As regards Gupta and Tiwari, itwas observed that they were interested witnesses.Reference, was also made to some discrepancies in theprosecution evidence as well as to the fact that there wasno mention in the first information report of the extrajudicial confession of the accused.The version given bythe accused, in the opinion of the trial court, could notbe said to be unreasonable.In the result the trial courtgave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him.On appeal the High Court considered the evidence adduced inthe case by the prosecution and found the same to bereliable.The High Court disagreed with- the trial courtthat the prosecution evidence suffered from infirmities.The defence version was rejected by the High Court asunworthy of evidence.In the result the appeal was acceptedand the accused was convicted and sentenced as above.The trial court did not place much reliance upon thetestimony of Wadhwa because the witness admitted thatcomplaints had been made against him for showing favouritismas well as for corruption and highhandedness.On someoccasions the witness also had to give explanation toclarify some particular action.

['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']

H (J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE PK Digitally signed by PARITOSH KUMAR Date: 2017.12.13 11:14:05 +05'30'rt Learned G.A. prays for time to pass appropriate order of ou suspension within a week.h Let a typed copy of this order be sent to Shri N. Dubey, ig learned G.A. for communication and compliance.

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

JUDGMENT A. Barua, J.This revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against an order dated 4.8.2001 passed by the learned Additional session Judge, Kalna, Burdwan, in Criminal Motion No. 87 of 2001 which affirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kalna, Burdwan in C.R. Case No. 133 of 2000 under Section 498A, IPC.The wife Tripti Roy instituted the case being C.R. Case No. 143 of 2000 under Section 498A IPC of Monteswar Police Station.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said final report submitted by the police, Tripti Roy submitted a "Naraji" petition and on the basis of the petition, treating the same a petition of complaint the learned SDJM, Kalna, Burdwan took cognizance of the offence on 9.11.2000 and thereafter the learned Magistrate transferred the case of the file to the learned J.M., Kalna.The said case registered as C.R Case No. 133 of 2000 (T.R. No. 166 of 2000) on 31.1.2001 the learned Magistrate after examining the complaint and one witness found a prima facie case and issued summons against the petitioners under Section 498A of the IPC.The husband and others being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said action by the learned Magistrate preferred the said criminal motion before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his impugned order dated 4.8.2001 dismissed the same and affirmed the order of the learned Magistrate.The complainant of the housewife who was allegedly tortured physically and mentally then made the instant "naraji" petition before the learned SDJM, Kalna with the allegation that in the said case being C.R. case No. 143 of 2000, in respect of which a final report has been given had been a product of collusion between the police and the accused persons and that she protested to the said investigation made by the police resulting in the final report and she wanted the case to be investigated afresh by a higher police officer and she further prayed for Justice so that the culprits that is the accused persons in the case that she had brought viz, G. R. Case No. 143 of 2000, be punished.

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

It is an admitted position that PW3 Umesh was indoor patient for 5-6 days.By the said judgment and order of sentence, the appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 ::: 2 APPEAL307.06.odt 324 of the Indian Penal Code and for that he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 :::The appellant along with one Rajesh Kirnake was charged in the Sessions Trial for making murderous assault on Umesh Chavan (PW3) by means of knife and therefore, they were charged for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The learned Judge of the Court below acquitted both of them of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, however, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.I have heard Shri A. K. Bhangde, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Amit A. Madiwale, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Also perused the record and proceedings.According to the submissions of Shri Bhangde, the::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 ::: 3 APPEAL307.06.odt learned counsel for the appellant, there are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PW1 Mukesh Chauhan, who has lodged the oral report (Exh.23) and PW3 Umesh Chauhan, the injured, on material particulars.He submitted that there is no uniformity in respect of the weapon used by the appellant while committing the offence.He submitted that there was previous enmity between the injured and the appellant and therefore, the appellant is falsely implicated in the crime.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 :::Per contra, Shri Madiwale, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the injured in clear terms has stated that it is the appellant who has assaulted on him and the omissions are in respect of the acquitted accused.The first information report (Exh.23) is lodged by PW1 Mukesh Chavan.He is not the eye-witness.The injured is his younger brother.On 21.5.2004, after his brother Umesh left the house in the morning hours at 7.00 O'clock for procuring food for his pigs, some time thereafter somebody informed his mother that Umesh is assaulted by means of knife.In response to the::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 ::: 4 APPEAL307.06.odt information, he and his mother rushed to the spot.There they got knowledge that Umesh is already taken for treatment at Mayo Hospital.Therefore, they reached to the said hospital and on an enquiry, Umesh disclosed that it is the appellant, has given blow of knife.Evidence of PW1 Mukesh is on the line of his report (Exh.23).::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 :::He was proceeding to procure food for his pigs.When he was nearby to the Hyderabad house, the appellant and others came there and the appellant gave knife blow on his left shoulder near his neck.Another blow was also inflicted on him.Those::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 ::: 5 APPEAL307.06.odt omissions were in respect of the co-accused Rajesh, who is already acquitted by the Court below.The core of the evidence of PW3 Umesh has not shattered at all on the point of giving knife blow on him by the appellant.Further, he has identified the weapon also.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 :::PW4 Dr. Dattu Satai has proved injury report (Exh.56).He found following injuries on the person of victim Umesh.Incised wound present over infra scapular region size 1 x ½ inch x ? depth Air bubble present.2. incised wound size 1½ inch present over upper 1/3rd of left arm.3. incised wound size 1½ inch x ? depth at the level of Thorasic Vertibra.4. incised wound present over back side size 2 inch x ?depth at the level of T-105. incised wound size over right shoulder region size 1½ inch x 1 cm.Incised wound present over right thigh sixe 1 ½ inch x 1 cmLacerated wound present over scalp size 1 inch x 1 inch x ½ inch.He has prepared the injury report on the basis of Bed Head Ticket, which he brought in the Court at the time of his evidence.He placed photo copy of the Bed Head Ticket on record.It is at Exh.55.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 :::The Investigating Officer also sent a weapon to PW4 Dr. Dattu Satai along with requisition letter (Exh.57).He gave his query report (Exh.58) and opined that the weapon can cause the injuries.Another doctor is examined by the prosecution and he is PW5 Dr. Abhijeet Deshmukh.He examined the patient and noticed the following injuries :Infra claviter region.2. Left armOver the back at the level of T-2 and T-10Over the Scalp.The prosecution has also proved the recovery of knife at the behest of the appellant on his memorandum statement.His memorandum statement was recorded in presence of Madhukar Karnuke (PW2).After recording of his disclosure statement (Exh.26), weapon knife which was concealed by the appellant in the bathroom of his house, was recovered.It is thus clear that the place from where the weapon was seized, was in exclusive possession of the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 :::The learned Judge, in my opinion, has correctly appreciated the prosecution case, especially the evidence of injured and the medical evidence.The appellant, who is on bail shall surrender his bail bonds immediately, else, the Court below is directed to take necessary steps for procuring the appellant for serving his jail sentence.Needless to mention that the appellant will be entitled for set off for the period, which he has already undergone in jail.JUDGE Diwale::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:38:37 :::

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

Many people were victimized due to his criminal activities and they feared to complain about his atrocious activities.He has further stated that in the third week of the month of March, 2003, on one evening at 19.00 hrs.JUDGMENT V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.Through this writ petition, the petitioner-detenu Raja @ Raju Namdev Kharade, has impugned the order of detention dated 054.05.2003 passed by the Respondent No. 1 Shri V.D. Mishra, Commissioner of Police, Solapur.By the said order, the petitioner has been detained under Sub-section 1 of Section 3 of Maharashtra Pretention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "MPDA Act" for the sake of brevity).B to the petition, shows that the impugned order of detention is founded on one C.R. viz. C.R. No. 92/2003 registered under Section 307 and 504 of I.P.C. r.w. Section 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act and r.w. Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The said complaint dated 26.3.2003 has been registered on the basis of the complaint of Gajendra Dattatraya Harale lodged at Faujdar Chawdi Police Station, Solapur.Besides C.R. No. 92/2003, the detention order is also based on two incamera statements of two witnesses namely 'A' and 'B' which were recorded on 15.4.2003 and 16.4.2003 respectively.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.Although, in this writ petition, a large number of grounds have been pleaded i.e. ground 6(A) to 6(L), the learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed only two grounds.The first ground is that the detention order has been issued relying on three incidents i.e. C.R. No. 92/2003 and two incamera statements, however, none of the three incidents affect public order.Shri Chitnis has further contended that all the three incidents are confined to individual persons and they are private crimes as distinct from public crime.He has further contended that none of the incidents in any way affect the even tempo of the life of the community nor do any of the incidents affect the peace and tranquillity of the people of that particular locality where the crime had been committed and hence none of the incidents affect public order.In the said case, the detaining authority had relied on two incidents and issued the order of detention.In case of the first incident i.e. Crime Case No. 109/1985, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the said incident did not affect the public order whereas as far as the second case was concerned i.e. Crime Case No. 222/1985, the Supreme Court held that the public order was disturbed by the said incident.In respect of the first incident the Supreme Court in para No. 12 observed thus:-In the instant case, the criminal acts referred to in ground No. 1 are to the effect that on 4th June, 1985 at about 11 p.m. some persons informed the complainant that his brother has been shot by some persons and when complainant reached the spot he found his brother Vishnu Narain Awasthi lying in the pool of blood and he had already died.Crime Case No. 109/1985 under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered at Ghazipur Police Station.This incident is confined to individual persons and it is private crime as distinct from public crime.Further they have stated that due to fear of reprisal they did not lodge complaint with respect to the said incident.Hence, considering the incidents as narrated by the incamera witnesses 'A' and 'B', it would affect the public order as defined under the Act."In respect of the contention that the incident pertaining to C.R. No. 92/2003 does not affect public order, the detaining authority has inter alia stated in para No. 11 of his affidavit that (SIC) say that the complainant in C.R. No. 92/2003 had stated that after witnessing the said incident, due to fear the witnesses ran away and nobody came to their help.The said fact as stated by the complainant in C.R. No. 92/2003 alongwith the other material such as statement of eye witnesses and other witnesses having being considered clearly falls within the purview of public order under the MPDA Act."The learned A.P.P. Mrs. A.S. Pai has brought to our notice that in the grounds of detention, it is mentioned that the detenu assaulted the mother of the complainant on the head with sword.Thereafter, the detenu assaulted the complainant Gajendra Harale on the head and on the left hand finger.Then to save Gajendra, his old grand mother Kausalyabai covered Gajendra Harale with her body, but the detenu continued his attack and assaulted her on the head and on her hands.this witness was passing from Tuljapur Naka with his auto-rickshaw.At that time, the detenu and this one associate stopped his auto-rickshaw and asked to take him to Kali Masjid.After leaving the detenu at Kali Masjid, the witness asked him to pay the fare of Rs. 20/-.At that time the detenu abused and threatened him that if he asked for the fare, the detenu would kill him.Then the witness requested the detenu to pay him at least Rs. 10/- for petrol.Due to the request made by this witness, the detenu get annoyed and took him out of the auto-rickshaw forcibly and abused and assaulted him.The associate of detenu damaged the glasses of the auto-rickshaw with a stone.During this incident no one came to help the witness but ran away due to detenu's fear.The two nearby shop-keepers closed their shops.While leaving the spot the detenu threatened this witness not to complain regarding this matter otherwise the detenu would not allow him to do his business in that area.Due to fear of reprisal the witness did not complain about this incident.From the fact that the other persons instead of coming to help the witness ran away due to fear of the detenu, it is clear that the act of the detenu generated a feeling of fear and terror in the minds of the persons who witnessed the incident.The reach and effect of this incident is that it disturbed public tranquillity and thus it affected public order.It is also seen that two nearby shop keepers closed their shops on witnessing this incident.Thus, it is clear that this incident affected public order.In relation to the incident pertaining to witness 'B', on perusal of the grounds of detention, it is seen that witness 'B' has stated that he knew the detenu as a notorious goonda operating in the area.Due to his criminal activities, ordinary people in the area are unwilling to complain against him.His associates are involved in the offences of extortion.They often extort money from the witness and from small scale business persons.The vegetable cart of the witness was burnt in the riots, which occurred in the month of October 2002, hence, the witness did not pay the amount to the associates of the detenu.This witness has further stated that in the first week of March, 2003 on one morning at 10.00 hrs.he was selling vegetables on his cart.When the witness came near Dhangekar Automobiles in Budhwar Peth area, the detenu and his one associate were passing from that place on the detenu's motorcycle.At that time, the detenu's associate told some thing to the detenu pointing towards this witness, due to which the detenu came to the witness and started to assault him, threatening that the witness was doing the business in his area and he is not paying the detenu.The detenu threatened the witness that if he saw this witness in that area, the detenu will kill him.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

JUDGMENT Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.By orders made from time to time, the learned Magistrate authorised their detention, initially in police custody for twelve days and thereafter in jail custody for fifteen days at a stretch awaiting report, in final form, of investigation.In the meantime on 21-12-90 to be precise the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the five accused persons and on receipt thereof, the learned Magistrate passed the following order on that day:--taken Under Section 302/34, IPC.Put up on 26-12-90 for orders."The case was put up before the learned Magistrate on 26-12-1990 as directed and on subsequent dates also and various orders were passed.Ultimately, by an order dated 9-1-91, the learned Magistrate transferred the case to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Calcutta in accordance with Section 192(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.While the case was pending inquiry before the transferee Court, the opposite party, whose prayer for bail had earlier been rejected by the learned Magistrate, moved the City Sessions Court with a similar prayer.By his order dated 28-1-91, the learned Chief Judge of that Court granted bail to the opposite party after recording the following finding:--Haridas Das, J.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

It is said that during investigation the police recorded statements of complainant Ravindra Kumar Jain, one Mukesh Kumar Jain and also that of the staff Nurses namely Neelima Mishra and Smt. Preeti Masih.It is also said that Smt. Preeti Masih had attended to Smt. Manisha Jain and had found that the patient had not developed any problem and therefore, the applicant had not been sent for to attend to her.ORDER Uma Nath Singh, J.This order in the criminal revision No. 426/2002 arising out the order dated 8-3-2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh, in Criminal Case No. 3474/1997 shall also dispose of connected Criminal Revision No. 348/2002 filed against the order dated 15-3-2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.It is said that on 9-3-1997 a child delivered at 06.30 by one Smt. Manisha Jain under care and supervision of staff nurse died in a Government Hospital allegedly due to negligence of the applicant.It is also said that being a Government.Medical Officer in the District Hospital, Damoh, the applicant had treated Smt. Manisha Jain wife of Ravindra Kumar Jain, the complainant herein, privately and had also received a fee of Rs. 80/-.It is also a case of the prosecution that the applicant had demanded Rs. 2,000/- and since the money had not been paid, the applicant had refused to attend to the patient in the hospital.It is also alleged that despite a request sent to the applicant, she had not attended to the patient and she had reached only at 07.30 and had declared the child dead.On a report lodged by the complainant on 12-3-1997, the police registered an offence and also filed a charge-sheet under Section 304A of IPC.The applicant, accordingly, filed an objection application under Sections 239 and 258, Cr. P. C., in view of protection granted to a public servant under Section 197, Cr.P. C. The said objection appears to have been rejected only on the ground that since a newly born child died, there is a prima facie material that the applicant was negligent.The applicant being employed as a Class I Officer has taken a plea that she is not removable from her office save by or with due sanction of the State Government and thus, a sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P. C, is required for her prosecution.The applicant has also taken a plea that there is a dearth of materials constituting a prima facie offence under Section 304A of I.P.C. against her.A part from relevant documents filed with the revision, a report of the Office of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Hospital Superintendent, Damoh dated 4-7-2002 addressed to the Police Station Officer, Damoh, was submitted by the Government Advocate during the hearing from the said report, it appears that the wife of the complainant had been admitted in the Hospital on 9-3-1997 by emergency duty Medical Officer Dr. Sailendra Khatri.It also appears that the applicant had been assigned a duty to attend to emergency patients only on a call from the Hospital.

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

CRM 12954 of 2014 BD Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 11th September, 2014 in connection with Falta Police Station Case No. 148/2014 dated 30.03.2014 under Section 302/120Bof the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act read with Section 9(b) of the I.E. Act.In the matter of : Raja Khan .... Petitioner.Mr. Prabir Rej.... For Petitioner.Mr. Manjit Singh.Having heard the learned advocate of both the parties and considering the materials available in the case diary and also considering the fact that two other charge sheeted co- accused persons are still absconding and specially considering Rejected the gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioner, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.The application for bail is, thus, rejected at this stage.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J) (Sudip Ahluwalia, J) 2

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J) This Writ Application challenges an Order of Detention made by the secondrespondent on 14.9.2009 whereby the petitioner herein was ordered to be detainedunder the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities ofBoot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral TrafficOffenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil NaduAct 14 of 1982) branding him as a "Goonda".The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner andlooked into all the materials available, in particular, the order underchallenge.The detenu was involved in eight adverse cases as follows:D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, interalia, assailing the order of detention would submit that the detenu filed bailapplication before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai in respect ofthe ground case in Crime No.1879 of 2009 and the same was dismissed on 31.8.2009on the ground that the case was exclusively triable by Courts of Sessions.Thus, the said bail application was dismissed.The order of detention came tobe passed on 14.9.2009 but the day when the order came to be passed, noapplication was pending before any Court of criminal law insofar as the groundcase was concerned but the detaining authority has stated that there was a realpossibility of the detenu coming out on bail.Thus, the observation was madewithout any basis or material much less cogent material.Under thecircumstances, the order of detention has got to be set aside.According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for theState, a statement was recorded from the wife of the detenu that she was takingsteps to apply for bail.Hence, the detaining authority was perfectly correctin recording so.After looking into the materials available, the Court cannotcountenance the reason adduced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor forthe State.It is true a bail application was filed before the Court of JudicialMagistrate No.II, Madurai in respect of the ground case in Crime No.1879 of 2009and the same was dismissed on 31.8.2009 on the ground that the case wasexclusively triable by Courts of Sessions and thereafter, no bail applicationwas filed.Thus, it would be quite clear that no bail application was filed orwas pending on 14.9.2009 when the order under challenge came to be passed.Underthe circumstances, the observation made by the detaining authority that therewas a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is only an expression ofapprehension passing in the mind of the detaining authority without any basis ormaterial much less cogent material.Under the circumstances, the order ofdetention has got to be set aside.8.Accordingly, the order of detention is set aside.The detenu isdirected to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required inconnection with any other case.The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.3.The Inspector of Police, D-2, Sellur Police Station, Madurai.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.296 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Puducherry as against the petitioners having been taken cognizance for the offences underhttp://www.judis.nic.in 1/11 CRL.O.P.No.5572 of 2020 Sections 447, 427, 294(b), 506(ii) r/w 34 of IPC.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent herein filed private complaint as against the petitioners alleging that the father of the respondent herein owned the disputed property and the same was used as cattle shed.From the date of the settlement deed, the respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the said property and also laid compound wall around the said property.While being so, the father of the first accused filed suit in O.S.No.131 of 1987 on the file of the Sub Court, Puducherry for eviction as against the respondent’s father.The said suit was dismissed for the reason that the schedule of the property differed, and it went upto the second appeal before this Court and he failed before all the courts.After the demise of the father of the first accused, restored possession and enjoyment of the said property by the respondent herein and as such the respondent constrained to file suit for permanent injunction as against the petitioners herein in O.S.No.155 of 2015 and it is pending.Further alleged that on 17.02.2015, the petitioners have trespassed into the complainant’s property and also damaged the compound wall and cattle shed worth about Rs.1,50,000/-.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/11 CRL.O.P.No.5572 of 2020The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that though the suit filed by the first petitioner’s father was dismissed on the ground that the boundary of the property differs, the respondent’s father had no title over the property and executed settlement deed in favour of the respondent herein.Therefore, the first petitioner lodged complaint before the Inspector of Police, D.Nagar Police Station, Puducherry on 22.12.2014 with the allegation that the respondent on the strength of the dismissal of the suit filed by the first petitioner’s father completely encroached the property comprised in RS.No.185/130 and also trying to encroach the property of the petitioners comprised in RS.No.185/131 by fabricating the document.Therefore, the first petitioner filed application before the District Registrar, Puducherry to cancel the settlement deed registered as document No.2588 of 2013 with the Office of the Sub Registrar, Oulgaret, Puducherry.After conducting detailed enquiry, the District Registrar rightly cancelled the settlement deed by order dated 28.10.2015 in Ref.No.DRP.No.5/2015 executed in favour of the respondent herein.Thus it is made absolute that the first petitioner is the owner of the disputed property.Therefore, the present complaint is lodged only to harass the petitioners and nothing else.As such hehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/11 CRL.O.P.No.5572 of 2020 sought for quashment of the proceedings.Heard, Mr.D.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners.Though notice was served, no one appeared on behalf the respondent in person or through pleader.On the complaint lodged by the respondent herein, the trial court have taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 294(b), 506(ii) r/w 34 of IPC.They are none other than the son and mother.In fact, the father of the first petitioner herein filed suit for eviction in O.S.No.131 of 1987 as against the father of the respondent herein and the same was dismissed.While being so, the petitioners trespassed into his property and also caused damage to the compound wall and cattle shed to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/11 CRL.O.P.No.5572 of 2020On perusal of the records, the first petitioner’s father filed suit in O.S.No.131 of 1987 as against the father of the respondent herein for eviction of the complainant’s father from the disputed property.The said suit was dismissed only for the reason that the schedule of the property was not property mentioned.It is also noted that the said suit was filed only for eviction from the disputed property.Immediately, after the dismissal of the second appeal, the father of the respondent herein executed settlement deed in favour of the respondent on 24.05.2013 and the same was also got registered in document No.2588 of 2013 with the Office of the Sub Registrar, Oulgaret, Puducherry.Therefore, it is clear that after the dismissal of the second appeal by this Court, the father of the respondent herein without any title over the disputed property on the strength of the judgment and degreehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/11 CRL.O.P.No.5572 of 2020 passed against the father of the first petitioner herein, executed settlement deed.Therefore, the first petitioner challenged the same before the District Registrar, Puducherry.In DRP.No.5/2015 after conducting detailed enquiry, the District Registrar, Puducherry by order dated 28.10.2015 cancelled the settlement deed executed in favour of the respondent herein.While passing the order, the District Registrar observed as follows:“that the Settlement Deed No.2588 dated 24.05.2013 registered by Thiru.Ramalinga Mudaliar to his son without bonafide title records by defrauding the Sub-Registrar, Oulgaret, I order cancellation/annulment of the Settlement Deed No.2588 dated 24.05.2013 with immediate effect.To attract the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there must be an uttering of words to affect the person who lodged the complaint.In this regard it is relevant to extract the Section 294(b) of IPC.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed, and the entire proceedings in CC.No.296 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Puducherry is quashed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

a) The first accused / first appellant is the husband of the deceased-Saraswathi.The second accused-Pappathi @ Sesili Pappa and third accused-Saveriya @ Saveriyan are the parents of the first accused.P.W.1-Michael, P.W.2-Selvi and P.W.3-Arockiyam are the brother-in-law, sister and father of thedeceased respectively.The deceased was given in marriage to the first accused /first appellant in the year 2002, as a result of which, they had got two maleborn.All of them were living together.From the time of marriage, all the threeaccused were torturing her, demanding money.On a number of occasions, thedeceased came to the house of P.W.3 and informed him about the same.He used togive money and also advise her to join her husband and live peacefully.On oneoccasion, a complaint was given to P.W.14-Sub-Inspector of Police, All WomenPolice Station and thereafter, the parties were called, and the situation waspacified.Even thereafter, they continued to exert cruelty and demanding money.A complaint was given for the second time before the respondent-Police Station,and thereafter, they were called, and again they were advised.On the next dayto Pongal, she proceeded to her parental home and returned with the children onthe very day.On 18.01.2008, just before the occurrence, the deceased was beatenby the first accused.Then she went to a shop, purchased kerosene and broughtthe same in a can.After she came to the house, all the three accused personsteased her.Not satisfied, the first accused beat her, pushed her inside theroom, poured kerosene brought by her and set her ablaze, as a result of which,she sustained burn injuries.On hearing the distressing cry, a few persons camethere, and they attempted to quench the fire.Then she was taken to theGovernment Hospital, Tuticorin.P.W.21-Doctor attached to the GovernmentHospital, Tuticorin gave her initial treatment and issued Ex.P22-AccidentRegister copy to that effect, wherein it has been recorded that she sustained80% burn injuries.The Sub-Inspector of Police concerned, who receivedintimation from the Government Hospital, Tuticorin, went to the hospital andrecorded the statement of the deceased marked as Ex.P1, wherein P.W.2 has alsoattested the same.On the strength of Ex.P19-Rough Sketch.He also recovered M.Os.1 to 8 from the place of occurrenceunder a cover of Ex.P20-Seizure Mahazar.d) Pending the investigation, on 30.01.2008, the deceased died.On receiptof the intimation from the hospital, P.W.20-Inspector of Police, altered theSections into 304-B and 302 IPC under Ex.P21 and the same was sent to the Court.e) P.W.18-Revenue Divisional Officer, on receipt of the requisition,proceeded to the hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of thedeceased in the presence of witnesses and panchayatars and prepared Ex.P16-Inquest Report.(Judgment of the Court was delivered byM.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to a judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Fast Track Court No.II, Tuticorin passed in S.C. No.271 of 2008 on 16.07.2009,whereby the appellants / accused 1 to 3 stood charged, tried and found guiltyunder Sections 498-A and 302 r/w 34 IPC and each of them was awarded 3 yearsR.I. with a fine of Rs.500/- and default sentence for the first charge underSection 498-A IPC, and also awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/-and default sentence for the second charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal canbe stated as follows:-P24-ExpressF.I.R. was despatched to the Court and the copies were sent to the higher-ups.b) On receipt of Ex.P14-Intimation from the hospital, P.W.17-DistrictMunsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District, went to thehospital and verified as to the mental fitness of the deceased and after gettingthe opinion of P.W.6-Doctor that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to givedying declaration and getting a certificate therefor under Ex.P4, recorded thedying declaration of the deceased, which is marked as Ex.c) P.W.19-Inspector of Police, on receipt of a copy of F.I.R., proceededto the spot, made inspection and prepared Ex.P18-Observation Mahazar and alsoEx.He also sent a final report under Ex.P17 stating that there wasno dowry demand, and the deceased died out of burn injuries.f) The dead body of the deceased was subjected to autopsy by P.W.8, theDoctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Tuticorin and he issued Ex.P8-PostMortem Certificate wherein he gave an opinion that the deceased would appear tohave died of complications of burns.The viscera of the dead body were subjectedto chemical analysis which resulted in a report, viz. Ex.P9-Viscera Report.g) Further investigation was taken up by P.W.22-Deputy Superintendent ofPolice and thereafter, by P.W.23-Inspector of Police.P.W.23 completed theinvestigation on 13.03.2008, and filed final report against the accused beforethe concerned court, which in turn committed the case to the Court of sessions,and necessary charges were framed.h) In order to substantiate the charges, at the time of trial, theprosecution examined 23 witnesses and relied on 24 exhibits and 8 materialobjects.On completion of the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution,the accused/appellants were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to theincriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.Theydenied them as false.No defence witness was examined.After hearing thearguments of the counsel and looking into the available materials, the TrialCourt took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonabledoubt and found the accused guilty and awarded the punishments as referred toabove.Under these circumstances, this criminal appeal has arisen at theinstance of the accused/appellants.Advancing arguments on behalf of the accused / appellants, the learnedcounsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution has miserablyfailed to prove the charges made on the accused.According to the prosecution,the occurrence has taken place on 18.01.2008 at about 9.15 a.m., and immediatelythe deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Tuticorin where P.W.21-Doctortreated her at 9.30 a.m. and issued Ex.P22-Accident Register copy, wherein ithas been stated that she sustained 80% burn injuries.Pointing to this, thelearned counsel stated that if she had sustained 80% burn injuries, then surelyshe would not have been in a position to give any such statement as to theincident.Further, the counsel added that it is claimed by the prosecutionthat, on receipt of the intimation from the hospital, the Sub-Inspector ofPolice concerned, went to the hospital and recorded the statement which ismarked as Ex.P1, but the said Sub-Inspector of Police was not examined and noexplanation was forthcoming from the prosecution.He further submitted that theprosecution has marked Ex.P1 only through P.W.2 who is actually the sister ofthe deceased.4. Added further the learned counsel for the accused / appellants that inthe instant case, even a reading of Ex.P1 would clearly indicate that she wentto the shop and fetched kerosene with an intention to commit suicide andpursuant to which, after coming to the home, she committed suicide.The learnedcounsel also would add that the prosecution has relied upon Ex.P15-dyingdeclaration of the deceased, alleged to have been recorded by P.W.17-DistrictMunsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District, and even the dyingdeclaration would indicate that it was the act of all the three accused, butnowhere in any one of the documents, A2 and A3 are implicated and hence, it wasonly a developed version by the deceased against the entire family members, andit is also evident from the records that earlier, she had given two complaintsagainst the first accused which would clearly indicate that she had a grudgeagainst the family members to implicate them all.He further submitted thateven in the dying declaration, there was nothing spoken about any dowryharassment or anything and there was no whisper about A2 or A3 that theyinstigated A1 to do certain act.The learned counsel further added that itwas a clear case of suicide and these documents were marked to show that A1 toA3 have committed the offence.6. Added further the learned counsel for the accused / appellants that shewas admitted in the hospital on the date of occurrence itself, but she died onlyafter 12 days due to complications of burns and therefore, Section 302 of theCode will not apply to the facts of the case.Learned counsel for the accused / appellants, put forth the second lineof argument that it was a case where the first accused was unarmed and hence itwas not his intention to murder his wife.He further submitted that at the timeof occurrence, the first accused requested the deceased to prepare coffee andwhen she refused to do it, he got provoked and in the circumstances, he hadacted so and hence, it would clearly indicate that the act of the accused wouldnot come under the penal provisions of murder.Hence, according to the counsel,all the accused have got to be acquitted.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and alsoscrutinised the materials available.After examining the deceased, P.W.21 issued Ex.P22-AccidentRegister copy which would show that the deceased sustained 80% burn injuries atthe time of admitting into the hospital.Following the inquest made by P.W.18-Revenue Divisional Officer,the dead body was subjected to autopsy by P.W.8-Doctor, and he issued Ex.P8-PostMortem Certificate in which he gave a categorical opinion that the deceased diedout of burn injuries and complications thereon.The fact that she died out ofburn injuries was proved by the prosecution beyond any controversy.In order to substantiate the involvement of all the three accusedpersons in the crime of dowry demand and cruelty and also causing her death bypouring kerosene and setting her ablaze, the prosecution had no direct evidenceto offer.It relied only upon circumstantial evidence.Insofar as the firstcharge of dowry demand and cruelty is concerned, i.e. under Section 498-A ofIPC, the Court is unable to find any evidence insofar as A2 and A3 areconcerned.Admittedly, the first accused, after the marriage with the deceased,have got two children and they were living separately from A2 and A3, and on twooccasions, complaints were given by the deceased to All Women Police Station andalso to the respondent-Police.A perusal of those complaints would clearlyindicate that nowhere she has whispered anything about A2 or A3 and thus, itwould clearly indicate that there was no cruelty exerted by A2 or A3 on her,insofar as the demand for dowry.Under the circumstance, it would clearlyindicate that A2 and A3 have no role to play insofar as the crime of dowrydemand is concerned.All would clearly indicate that since A1 was not employed due to hisdisease, he was torturing her, and hence A1 has got to be found guilty underSection 498-A IPC.Insofar as the second charge of murder is concerned, on an analysis ofthe evidence available, the Court is of the considered opinion that the case inrespect of A2 and A3 cannot be said to have been proved.On the date ofoccurrence, i.e. 18.01.2008 at 9.15 a.m., after the occurrence, the deceased wastaken to the Government Hospital, Tuticorin where P.W.21-Doctor attended her at9.30 a.m. and issued Accident Register copy and the same has been marked asEx.Actually, a statement was given by the deceased in the hospital and thesame was recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police at about 10.00 hours, pursuantto which a case came to be registered by the respondent-Police.A comment wasmade regarding the non-examination of the Sub-Inspector of Police who recordedthe statement.It is true that he was not examined, but the prosecution hasrelied on the evidence of P.W.2 fortunately, wherein she has deposed that shesigned Ex.In Ex.P1, it is specifically stated that the deceased went to theshop for purchase of kerosene to commit suicide, and after her returning to thehouse, the first accused, with an intention of causing death, beat her, pushedher inside the room, poured kerosene and set her ablaze, and she has not statedthat A2 or A3 instigated A1 to commit the offence.Further, P.W.17-District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti,Madurai District recorded the dying declaration of the deceased within a shortspan of 1 hour and 45 minutes.A reading of the dying declaration makes it clearthat it was her husband, the first accused, beat the deceased, pushed her insidethe room and poured kerosene from the can.The occurrence has been spoken to bythe deceased in clear and unambiguous terms and hence this Court finds noillegality or infirmity in the dying declaration.P.W.17 has categoricallystated that when she went to the hospital, she first verified as to the mentalfitness of the declarant to give such a declaration, and it was actuallyrecorded only after due certification by P.W.6-Doctor, as could be seen fromEx.The Doctor was all along present at the time of recording the statement.All these would clearly indicate the involvement of the first accused in thecrime, and nowhere the Court is able to notice any evidence as against A2 and A3insofar as the offence of murder is concerned.Hence the contention put forthby the learned counsel for the accused / appellants that the deceased made anattempt to commit suicide for which she bought kerosene and set her ablaze andhence it was a case of self-immolation, cannot be accepted.The accused was all along quarreling with the deceased earlier whichnecessitated her to give two complaints, one to the All Women Police Station andthe other to the respondent-Police Station.Pursuant to both these complaints,A1 was called for and the situation was pacified, and even then, on the date ofoccurrence, he was quarreling with her.She went to the shop and purchasedkerosene, but it was not she who poured kerosene on her.Immediately, the firstaccused / first appellant, beat her and also poured kerosene on her and set herablaze.In the circumstances, it was he who acted so.In view of the reasons stated supra, the judgment of the trial Courtfinding the first accused / first appellant guilty under Section 498-A IPC hasgot to be sustained.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by theTrial Court on the first accused / first appellant under Section 498-A areconfirmed.The conviction of A1 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC is modified and heis convicted under Section 302 of IPC.The life sentence and fine amount imposedby the Trial Court are confirmed.Insofar as the second and third accused are concerned, the judgment ofconviction and sentences passed by the Trial Court is set aside, and they areacquitted of all the charges levelled against them.The appellants 2 and 3 /accused 2 and 3 are directed to be released forthwith, unless their presence isrequired in connection with any other case.The fine amounts if any, paid bythem shall be refunded to them.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tuticorin.2.The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Tuticorin.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

"(c) till January, 1998 the pay and allowances of my husband were being received by my in-laws at Delhi and only 10% of the pay and allowance were being received by us to meet our domestic expenses which were quite meagre and not sufficient to meet out essential requirements at home.Thereafter a lot of criminal force by way of beating me and my son had started by my husband at the behest and intimation by Shri.P.R. Kaloty, Mrs. Swaran Kaloty and Mrs. Anu Gill (Family of my husband) followed by breaking and destruction of domestic property provided by my parents mercilessly and(d) that it was at the behest and sudden demand of my husband (after the receipt of telephone call from his father at Delhi) that I should arrange Rs. 11 lakh in cash to meet the expenses for "Chuchak" to be given by his parents to M.S. Anu Gill (Sister-in-law) as she was in family way and also a brand new Maruti Car and certain other domestic costly appliances for Ms. Anu Gill from my parents who were at that time on live in Delhi.My husband gave me strict instructions to meet above demands immediately otherwise he shall get me killed....."ORDER S.K. Agarwal, JThis is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 140/99 u/s 498A/406 IPC PS Patel Nagar qua the petitioner; the married sister-in-law "Nanad" of the complainant (Respondent no. 2).I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and respondent no. 2 who is appearing is person.Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are: on 16.1.1994 (Respondent No. 2- complainant) was married to Major Sanjeev Kaloti who was serving in the Indian Army; the marriage was solemnised in Delhi; she lived with her husband at the places of his postings, firstly at Kanput and at Dibrugarh, Assam.The petitioner, at the time of marriage of her brother Sanjeev was working as an assistant in the Ministry of Finance, Delhi was allotted Government accommodation.On 16.11.1997 the petitioner was married and she is living in her matrimonial home at Noida.On 9th June, 1998 respondent no. 2 sent a detailed complaint to the DCP, CAW Cell, Nanakpura, Delhi alleging physical and mental torture by her husband and his other family members on account of demand of dowry.On the basis of the same abovenoted case was registered.Investigations have been completed.Challan has been filed.Against the petitioner it was alleged:-"(a) besides above mentioned articles my in-laws had demanded and had taken Gold ornaments i.e. 1 Chain, 1 Ring for Shri P.R-Kaloty, Father-in-law, golden chain and ear-ring and a golden bracelet for Mrs. Swaran Kaloty (mother-in-law) one golden chain, bracelet and earring for Ms.Anu(sister-in-law) and 2 golden sets, 2 gold chain, 2 gold bangles, 5 gold rings, and 6 gold ear-rings for myself and later on their demand for a golden Mangal-Sutra was also met by my parents....""(b) the Govt. Quarter allotted to Mrs. Anu Gill(Sister-in-law) is learn to have been in the possession of parents of my husband illegally and is being used by them for them for their illegal and other nefarious activities which I feel ashamed and not in a position to express myself in writing....."After her marriage complainant-respondent no. 2 started living with her husband who was never posted in Delhi.Such a tendency ought to be deprecated.

['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

The petitioner is an accused in this case.He was aggrieved with the protraction of the proceeding.However, at present, trial is going on at reasonable pace and dates are being fixed regularly.(Jay Sengupta, J.) 2

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

As per the prosecution, Gajraj Singh Yadav- PW 5, an employee of the MTNL posted at Gulabi Bagh, Delhi, was residing at House No.173, Page 1 of 51 Libaspur, Delhi with his family comprising of his deceased wife Smt. Sunita Yadav and two sons namely Sushant Yadav and Prashant Yadav.In the year 2003, Sushant and Prashant, were studying at the Panasia National Public School.Sunita Yadav was a housewife and remained at home.The children used to return from school at about 2.00 p.m. On the fateful day of 22nd of September, 2003, Prashant Yadav (PW 3), the younger child was suffering from pain in his foot and returned home at about 1.40 p.m. with his friend Sunil on his cycle.There was no response from inside when Prashant Yadav rang the bell of his house.The child saw blood near the door of the room; jumped into the house over the gate; opened the gate from inside and took his bag into the house.Raj Kumar @ Guddu-the appellant, was present in the room and he asked Prashant not to cry and to lock the gate.The appellant disclosed to the child that he had seen someone who had attacked Sunita Yadav with a knife and escaped.Raj Kumar asked him to bring a cloth to clean the floor so that the blood does not flow outside the gate.The child cleaned the floor as directed by the appellant.His efforts to Page 2 of 51 telephonically contact his father were obstructed by the appellant who told him not to do so.Page 2 of 51Prashant Yadav has testified that the appellant did not let both the brothers make the telephone call to their father to inform him about the incident.Both children have deposed that their mother Sunita Yadav was breathing at the time when they reached their house.So far as the plight of the injured Sunita is concerned, Prashant has stated that Raj Kumar held up his mother from the neck and told him (PW 3) to bring water.The appellant thereafter proceeded to press the throat of his mother and poured water into her mouth, as a result of which there was bubbling therefrom.Sunita was breathing even when Raj Kumar was pouring water into his mother's mouth.As Page 3 of 51 Raj Kumar was pressing their mother's throat when pouring water into her mouth Prashant told Sushant to hit Raj Kumar.Page 3 of 51The child also stated that when he was able to connect with his father's telephone, Raj Kumar snatched the phone from him and the phone line snapped.Prashant was able to reconnect the phone line and managed to contact his father's office but while he was talking to the person who had answered the phone, the accused pulled out the telephone wire.In these circumstances, Prashant states that he could only convey the message that his mother has been attacked ("mere Mammy ko mar diya") before the phone line was pulled out.It is further in the testimony of PW 4 Sushant Yadav @ Sunny, the elder of the two children, that Prashant was also extremely frightened when Raj Kumar enquired from him as to whom Prashant was calling and asked Sushant to hit him.PW 4-Sushant had also asked the appellant to call for an ambulance at which Raj Kumar pretended to call one Shanta Nursing Home asking for an ambulance.No ambulance ever arrived at the spot.On being asked by the children as to why the ambulance was not coming, the appellant assured them that the ambulance would come.In the meantime, the appellant kept asking them repeatedly to get more water which he kept pouring into the mouth of their mother Sunita.Both the children have referred to Page 4 of 51 Raj Kumar pressing Sunita's throat and pouring water into her mouth.Sushant also stated that when he turned his back on the appellant, he saw that the appellant pressed his mother's nose while pouring water into her mouth and that her mother expired at that time.Page 4 of 51It was amidst such commotion that Prashant managed to convey the aforesaid message at his father's office before the appellant pulled out the telephone wire.In the struggle between the appellant and Prashant, a utensil in which the water had been brought, fell down.On hearing this sound, PW-4-Sushant who had gone out of the room, rushed back and saw that Raj Kumar was now throttling his brother.Upon Sushant's return to the room, Raj Kumar pretended as if he was in fact massaging his brother Prashant's neck.At this Sushant attacked Raj Kumar trying to save his brother from the clutches of Raj Kumar and also raised an alarm.He told his brother Prashant to rush out of the room.As Prashant tried to flee from the room, Raj Kumar tried to grab his leg but Prashant managed to escape his clutches.Prashant rushed to his neighbour's house (referred to as "taiji" on record) and returned with her to the house.In the meantime, as per PW 4-Sushant, the appellant fled through the terrace of their house, even though Sushant tried to prevent him by catching his leg.Page 5 of 51Page 5 of 51It is in the testimony of both the brothers that the clothes of the appellant were blood stained.Sushant has also testified that while fleeing, the appellant wore his father's shirt hanging on the terrace.It appears that at 1412 hrs.on 22nd September, 2003, the Police Control Room received information to the effect that one lady had been murdered in the house no.173 of Gajraj Yadav in Gali No.9 located in village Libas.The form of the police control has been exhibited as Exh PW 21/X-1 before the trial court.At 14:20 hours it is recorded that the head constable had gone there and it was stated that the SHO be sent to the spot as soon as possible.In this police control room record, at 14:35 hours, it is recorded to the effect that Sunita, wife of Gajraj, aged 30 years was alone at home when Guddu @ Raj Kumar committed the murder and ran away; that she was lying on a cot covered with a sheet and that the arrival of the SHO was being awaited.At 14:52 hours, it has been recorded that ACP had come on the spot and entered the premises.It is further recorded on the police control room form at 15:20 hours that the two sons of Sunita, wife of Gajraj, namely Prashant aged thirteen and a half years and Sushant aged twelve years returned from school when they saw Guddu@Raj Kumar son of Kanwar Singh (their Page 6 of 51 `tau'), throttling (`reta') their mother's neck.The neck of their mother had been cut; there were two knife injuries on her left hand and one knife injury on the other hand.The appellant refers to the further entry that "Guddu ko pakkad liva".Page 6 of 51The crime team of the North-West District, Delhi conducted an inspection on the spot from 3.22 p.m. to 4.10 p.m. As per its report, Exh.PW 21/X-2, the crime team left several instructions for the investigating officer.The local police station Samaipur Badli received information from the wireless operator on the 22nd September, 2003 itself at about 2.20 p.m. that in House No.173, Gali No.9, Libaspur, Delhi belonging to one Gajraj Singh, one person had been murdered.This information was recorded as DD No.13/A (Exh.PW 13/2) and handed over to SI Dhruv Narain through Yashpal Singh to take appropriate action.The crime team officials as well as photographers were called to the spot.The then SHO Inspector R.P. Gautam-PW 21 (who retired as ACP) proceeded to the spot at about 2:45 p.m.PW-21-SHO R.P. Gautam also made inquiries from Prashant Yadav and recorded his statement Exh.PW 3/A. In view of the statement given by Prashant and the position on the spot, an offence under Section 302 of the IPC was found to have been made out.SHO R.P. Page 7 of 51 Gautam prepared a Rukka which was sent to the police station through Constable Yashpal at 5:30 p.m. FIR No.473/2003 under Section 302 IPC was registered by the police station Samaipur Badli and DD No.17A was endorsed in this regard.PW 21/D) were prepared.It appears that at this stage, PW 11 Vineet Yadav-brother of the deceased, also reached her house at 4:15 p.m. Prashant's statement Exh.PW 3/A was recorded in his presence and investigation was undertaken by the police.The witness has stated that Sunita's husband Gajraj Singh was not present when he had reached the spot.PW 11 Vineet Yadav has supported the statements of PW 3 Prashant & PW 4-Sushant with regard to the position on the spot and the blood which was found lying on the ground as well as on the bedding which included two sheets, a `bichona', pillow cover as well as a towel.He has also supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the multiple injuries on the body of the deceased; blood stains; Page 8 of 51 samples taken by the crime team and the police; the seizure of articles; preparation of the site plan; photographs of the spot and the recording of statements.PW 11-Vinod Yadav has made a further categorical statement that the deceased was clutching a bunch of hair in her left hand and that this hair was also seized by the police.Page 8 of 51We find that the defence has extensively cross-examined PW 3 Prashant Yadav as to the manner in which he reached the house and has been unable to shake his testimony.PW 9-Sunil Yadav has corroborated PW 3 when he stated that he dropped his friend Prashant Yadav.In his testimony before the court, Sunil Yadav stated that he dropped Prashant Yadav at the Libaspur More (turning) on his cycle and left him there.Their mother Sunita used to remain in the house.On 22.9.2003 PW-3 Prashant Yadav ad PW-4 Sushant Yadav had gone to school in the morning.The school used to close at 1.30 pm and both of them used to come back at home at 2 pm.Page 24 of 51 On 22.9.2003 PW-3 Prashant Yadav was having pain in his foot as such, he came back to his house along with his friend PW-9 Sunil Yadav on his cycle at about 1.40 pm and at that time, the brother of PW-9 Sunil Yadav was was also on the cycle along with PW-3 Prashant Yadav and PW-9 Sunil Yadav.Thereafter PW-9 Sunil Yadav requested a glass of water then PW-3 Prashant Yadav rang the bell of his house and also made noise on the gate but none responded from inside the house.PW-3 thought that his mother i.e. Sunita (deceased) might have gone to the terrace for drying of clothes.What you have to say?Page 24 of 51On 22.09.2003, I was passing from outside the house of my Chacha Gajraj Singh when I heard some noise and voice of my Chachi from inside.The main gate of the house was locked from inside but side gate was open.The Page 31 of 51 prosecution was unable to prove its case that PW 6 Kavit Monga had not provided the recovered paper cutting knife to the appellant who worked as his indenting agent.It could only prove that the appellant was working as an indenting agent in his office and that paper cutting knives were used for their work.However, in the present case, the source of the knife would be irrelevant.The appellant is stated to have also taken out the blood stained black pant (Exh.PW 5/3) which he was wearing at the time of commission of the offence from beneath the sofa kept in the room of his house.The accused then led the police party to the roof of the house of PW 5 Gajraj Singh Yadav; pointed out towards the bathroom from where on his pointing out one blood stained sky blue shirt (Exh.PW 5/4) and a sando baniyan (Exh. PW 5/5) from beneath gunny bags of cement, and a parcel which were seized as per the seizure memo Exh.PW 5/J. These recoveries are proved by the testimonies of PW 5 Gajraj Yadav; PW 18-Head Constable Krishan Kumar Kaushik and PW 21 ACP R.P. Gautam.The sealed seized articles were kept in safe custody in the malkhana.We, however, find that in the very next sentence, PW 4 Sushant Yadav has stated that he had not personally witnessed the recovery Page 33 of 51 but had come to know about it.According to PW 14-Shyam Singh, the doctor took a hair sample of appellant Raj Kumar and converted the same into a parcel which was duly sealed and handed over to the Head Constable Krishan Kumar Kaushik vide memo Exh.PW 14/A. The testimony of PW 14-HC Shyam Singh that the hair sample of the appellant was taken, sealed and handed over to Head Constable Krishan Kumar Kaushik was corroborated by PW 20-Dr.Neeraj Chaudhary.The witness PW 20, was not cross-examined on these aspects at all.No dispute has been raised by the appellants with regard to safe custody of any of the samples.However, Ms. Ritu Gauba, learned APP for the State has drawn our attention to the testimony of PW 14-Shyam Singh , PW 16-Head Constable Ram Singh & PW 19-Constable Ranbir in this regard who have established the safe custody of the sample; its deposit with the forensic laboratory and receipt of the report.We have noticed hereinabove the several injuries in the nature of six incised wounds on the body of the deceased as well as the cut throat wound.Perusal of the photographs Exh.He proved in court his opinion as Exh.PW 7/B regarding the single edged cutting metallic knife of metallic nature with imprint of New R.K. Brand over the handle on both sides as being the weapon of offence.Dr. Anil Shandilya also gave opinion (Exh.PW 7/C) regarding the plastic handle single edged sharp blade paper cutting knife with the reddish brown stains opining that injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report (Exh.PW 7/A) including the cut throat injury might have been caused by the knives produced by the investigating officer or similar thereto.All articles/objects and samples seized or recovered were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for forensic examination.The recovered articles which included concrete material described as blood Page 36 of 51 stained earth; the pillow with cover; bed sheet; mattress; towel; duster; few strands of hair; salwar; lady's shirt; dupatta; under clothing; blood stained gauze cloth piece (described as `blood sample'); one all metallic weapon of offence having brownish stairs; one broken weapon of offence of plastic and metallic blade; pant; shirt & baniyan; few strands of hair were marked Exh.1, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 4, 5, 6, 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 8. 9, 10, 11, 12a, 12b & 13 by the Forensic Laboratory.Blood was detected on exhibits `1', `3a', `3b', `3d', `4', `5', `6', `7a', `7b', `7c', `7d', `8', `9', `10', `11', `12a' & `12b'.Blood could not be detected on exhibit `2'.From morphological and microscopical studies the hair in exhibits `6' & `13' were found to be human in origin.Exhibit `6' (hair recovered from the spot and from the hand of deceased) and exhibit `13' (Hair of accused) were found to be similar in most of their morphological and microscopical characteristics."The serological analysis of the blood sample of the deceased (Exh.8) shows that the deceased was having blood group `O' Page 37 of 51Page 37 of 51It is noteworthy as per the report (Exh.PW 21/X-4) of the Forensic Science Laboratory, though human blood was identified on the two knives, its grouping, however, could not be identified.As per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory dated 27th February, 2004 (Exh.PW 5 Gajraj Singh Yadav has explained that a telephone message was received at his office by another employee Smt. Indermani who got the impression that her daughter was calling on the telephone in an emergency and she requested PW 5-Gajraj Singh Yadav to take her to her residence.We have noticed above the deposition of PW 5's son Prashant who had actually telephoned his office about the injury to his mother but the phone line was pulled away by the appellant.Given the information communicated by Smt. Indermani and her request, Gajraj Singh Yadav accompanied her to her residence in Shastri Nagar where they found her daughter in normal condition.Thereafter, a telephonic message was received from the office of PW - 5 Gajraj Singh Yadav informing that the earlier message related to him and not to Smt. Indermani.PW 5 has explained that on receipt of this message, he called his house when he was informed for the first time that the condition of his wife was very serious.He thereupon took permission from his immediate boss and reached his house when he found that the police had already reached there.Analysis & ConclusionIn the instant case, on examination of the evidence which has been brought on record as well as the admissions by the appellant, the following facts have been proved beyond reasonable doubt:-(i) On 22nd September, 2003, when PW 3 Prashant and PW 4 Sushant came home from their school, they found their mother, Sunita in an injured condition on a cot in their house and blood coming out from her body which had spilt over the ground.(ii) The accused was found to be present alone in the room where the deceased was lying in an injured condition.No effort was made to call the police.(iv) The main gate of the house stood closed from inside and the son of the deceased PW 3 Prashant Yadav had to jump the gate as none responded to his ringing the bell.(v) PW 3-Prashant was asked by the appellant to close the door after he was inside and also to clean the blood which was spilt on the floor.(vi) The appellant obstructed the child from telephoning his father to inform him about the occurrence.(vii) The deceased was alive when her sons reached the house.The appellant made no effort to get medical help for her.(viii) It is in the evidence of both, PW 3 & PW 4 that instead of getting medical assistance, the appellant was pressing the nose and throat of their mother and pouring water into her mouth resulting in bubbles.Sunita expired when the appellant was doing so in the presence of her two sons.(ix) PW 3 Prashant Yadav as well as his brother PW 4 Sushant Yadav were also not permitted by the appellant from raising hue and cry.It is manifest that Page 44 of 51 no call for an ambulance was made as no ambulance from any nursing home reached the spot.Page 44 of 51(xi) PW 3 Prashant Yadav tried to get out of the room to seek help.The appellant physically prevented him from doing so.(xii) The appellant made attempts to throttle PW 3 Prashant Yadav.(xiii) Both, PW 3 & PW 4 have categorically stated that PW 4 managed to escape with difficulty and brought a neighbor to the house.The appellant then fled from the spot from the terrace of their house.(xiv) The first official record i.e. the form of the police control room (Exh.PW 21/X1) mentions the presence of the appellant, children and also that the appellant had been named by the children.(xv) The police arrested the accused next morning on 23rd September, 2003 from a spot near the house of his in-laws.(xvi) After his arrest, the appellant made a disclosure statement leading recovery of two knives (Exh.PW 5/1 & PW 5/2) and blood stained clothes worn by him.(xvii) The appellant was wearing the recovered pant, shirt and vest on 22nd September, 2003 when he was found with the injured Sunita by her two sons.Page 45 of 51 (xviii) As per the expert medical opinion, the injuries found inflicted on the body of the deceased were possible by the two recovered knives.The forensic science laboratory confirmed human blood on the blade of these two knives.His friend had left by that time.Page 1 of 51Inside the house, Prashant saw his mother-Sunita Yadav lying on the cot with blood spilt all around at which he started weeping.In the meantime, his brother Sushant Yadav also reached the house.According to Prashant, Raj Kumar dissuaded him from opening the gate for his brother Sushant but he still proceeded to do so.Sushant testifying as PW 4, stated that Prashant was weeping when he reached the house.Their mother was lying in an injured condition.Raj Kumar repeated the story to Sushant Yadav to the effect that someone had attacked his mother Sunita with a knife and thereafter escaped.The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 23rd September, 2003 by PW 7-Dr.Anil Shandilya.The post mortem report was proved as Exh.PW 7/A. The deceased was found to have suffered the following ante mortem injuries:-"External injuries:Clean incised stab wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm spindal shaped situated 19 cm from medial end of left clavical and 3.5 cm from midline and 11 cm from left nipple.On dissection of the wound, the wound entered the chest cavity in between the sixth and seventh rib and pierced through lungs and entered the heart.Size 2 cm x 0.5 cm spindal shaped.On dissection of the wound, the wound entered the chest cavity and pierced the lung between seventh and eighth rib.Clean incised wound in mid axilliary line 15 cm from axillia size 3 cm x 1 cm piercing the abdominal cavity.On dissection of the wound the wound pierced the spleen as mentioned already.Page 9 of 51Back of the chest clean incised stab wound 12 cm from midline and 9 cm from angle of scapula on left side.The wound entered the chest cavity and pierced the lung in between fifth and sixth rib as already mentioned.Right side back of chest 9 cm from midline and 8 cm from right angle of scapula, clean incised stab wound entering the chest cavity and piercing the lung size 2 cm x 1 cm.Multiple incised wounds skin to muscle deep in both upper limbs, nine on left and ten on right upper limb.They are all defensive wounds of varying in size.Internal Injuries:No extravassection of blood in underlying neck tissues or blood and clots in and around tissues of the wound.No foreign body in tracea and its division.Chest : Both ribs intact.Left lung linear incised cut mark size 1.8 cm x 01 cm, 2 cm x 0.1 cm and 1.9 cm x 0.2 cm, three in number present.Right lung showed linear incised cut mark size 2 cm in length.Chest cavity full of 2 ltr of liquid blood and clots.the lateral aspect size 2 cm x 0.2 cm x 1.5 cm.All visceras pale.Abdominal cavity full of liquid blood and clots.Stomach : Mucosa NAD.Abnormal smell nil.Contents - Juice like fluid about 500 ml."Page 10 of 51Page 10 of 51As per the opinion of Dr.Anil Shandilya, the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock following multi visccral injury i.e. injury to heart, lungs and spleen.It was also opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature except injury no.7 which was caused by sharp weapon.On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.By the orders passed on 30 April 2004, the charge for the offences punishable u/s 302 IPC and u/s 27 Arms Act, 1959 was framed against the petitioner.The appellant pleaded not guilty and was put to trial on the above charge.The prosecution examined 21 witnesses whereafter the learned trial Judge put the incriminating circumstances to the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. giving him an opportunity to render his explanation for the same.The appellant also opted to lead his defence and examined DW-1, his mother Premvati as the sole witness.There was no eye witness to the inflicting of injuries on the deceased and the case of the prosecution rests solely on circumstantial evidence.The appellant was heard on sentence and the afore-noticed order on sentence was passed the same day.This judgment and order on sentence are assailed before us by way of the present appeal.Page 11 of 51We may note that the prosecution was unable to prove motive for the murder and it was so concluded by the learned trial Judge.This finding has not been challenged by the prosecution.However, it is well settled that failure to prove motive would not necessarily be fatal to the prosecution case even if the case rested on circumstantial evidence.Child Testimony - ReliabilityMr. Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the testimonies of the two minor sons of the deceased are unnatural, improbable and full of contradictions.It is disputed that these testimonies could be relied upon to base the conviction of the appellant.Before us, it is contended that PW-3-Prashant Yadav and PW-4- Sushant Yadav have stated that they had gone to the school on their own in the morning of 22nd September, 2003 whereas their father PW-5-Gajraj Yadav has stated that he had dropped the children to the school.Page 12 of 51Page 12 of 51Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the testimony of PW 3 & PW 4 is contradictory with regard to the clothes which the accused was wearing at the time.PW 3 Prashant Yadav has stated that the appellant Raj Kumar was wearing a sky blue shirt with full sleeves and black pant at the time of incident, while PW 4 Sushant Yadav has stated that the appellant was wearing a black pant, white vest and cream T-shirt.Immediately after that he deposed that he was wearing a light blue T-shirt.Thereafter he finally deposed that he was not sure of the colour of the T-shirt.Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel or the appellant has also challenged the testimony of PW 3 Prashant Yadav who had stated that his friend Sunil Yadav had accompanied him to the house as he wanted to drink water.It is urged that Sunil Yadav has appeared as PW 9 and has not supported his friend PW 3-Prashant Yadav on this aspect.Ms. Ritu Gauba, learned APP for the State has placed reliance on several judicial pronouncements on the manner in which child testimony has to be evaluated.In this regard, she has drawn our attention to the judgment reported at (2010) 12 SCC 324 State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.Krishna Master & Ors.; (2011) 4 SCC 786 State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.Ramesh & Anr.& (2012) 4 SCC 559 Promode Dey Vs.State of West Bengal.Page 13 of 51Page 13 of 51In the Krishna Master case supra, a child, aged six years at the time of occurrence in the dead of the night, was an eye witness to the incident.He had given evidence in a simple manner without making any noticeable improvements and/or embellishments.The defence had set up a case of false implication.The child was the sole witness to the incident.This witness has claimed on oath before the Court that he had seen five members of his family being ruthlessly killed by the respondents by firing gun shots.When a child of tender age witnesses gruesome murder of his father, mother, brothers etc. he is not likely to forget the incident for his whole life and would certainly recapitulate facts in his memory when asked about the same at any point of time, notwithstanding the gap of about ten years between the incident and recording of his evidence.This Court is of the firm opinion that it would be doing injustice to a child witness possessing sharp memory to say that it is inconceivable for him to recapitulate facts in his memory witnessed by him Page 14 of 51 long ago.A child of tender age is always receptive to abnormal events which take place in its life and would never forget those events for the rest of his life.The child would be able to recapitulate correctly and exactly when asked about the same in future.Therefore, the spacious ground on which the reliable testimony of PW2, Madan Lal came to be disbelieved can hardly be affirmed by this Court."The appellant obstructed their contacting their father or seeking help otherwise for their mother.They witnessed their mother dying before their very eyes.In other words even in the absence of oath the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to understand the questions and able to give rational answers thereof.I went inside and say my chachi Sunita Yadav was lying injured and blood was coming out.I asked her who had injured her but she could not tell.She asked me for a glass of water.In the meantime, her son Prashant Yadav returned from the school.I told him that someone had injured his mother and ran away and asked him to bring water as Sunita Yadav was asking for same and I thereafter telephoned Shanta Nursing Home for calling of an Ambulance.Sunita Yadav was breathing heavily at that time and I further asked Prashant to call his father Gajraj also and inform him about the said incident as I di not know the phone number of gajraj Yadav (Chacha).I do not know how did Prashant return from school.No person with the name of Sunil Yadav had accompanied Prashant when he came back from the school and nobody rung any bell".The appellant has thus admitted that PW 3 & PW 4 had also reached the spot while he was there and that Sunita Yadav was alive at that time.Page 25 of 51Page 26 of 51 We have noticed heretofore several pronouncements wherein the Supreme Court has categorically held that the testimony of a child witness relating to circumstances in which his parents has suffered injury, deserves to be accepted, if otherwise found reliable.Page 26 of 51The children have also spoken in one voice with regard to what transpired after they had entered the room where their injured mother was lying.As per the evidence on record, PW 3-Prashant Yadav and PW 4 Sushant Yadav found their mother Sunita in an injured condition when they reached home on 22nd September, 2003 from school.She was injured and profusely bleeding.The gate and doors of the house were locked from inside.They both deposed that Raj Kumar @ Guddu was pressing Sunita's throat and pouring water into her mouth.It is in the testimony of PW 4-Sushant Yadav that the appellant had even pressed her nose closed while pouring water into her mouth.There is no contradiction at all in their statements with regard to the events which transpired after they returned home from school.The appellant was found inside the house alone with a badly injured Sunita.His conduct was odd and not normal.No contradiction or improvement in material particular in their evidence has been pointed out.PW 3 & 4 are truthful witnesses who Page 27 of 51 have given cogent and reliable evidence noticed above and have been rightly relied upon by the learned trial Judge.Challenge to time of Arrest of AppellantPage 27 of 51Learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to support his challenge to the arrest of the appellant placing reliance on an illegible portion of a noting on Police Control Room Record Exh. PW 21/X1 recorded at 15:20 hours.At the end of this note, the person scribbling the same has endorsed the words "Guddu ko pakad liva".Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn our attention to the testimony of PW 3-Prashant Yadav who has stated that Raj Kumar @ Guddu was caught by the police on the date of the incident at about 4.00 p.m. However, this statement is not supported by the witness who has categorically testified that he was not present Page 28 of 51 when the accused was apprehended and that he (PW-5) came to know that the accused was apprehended from his house.The witness has only deposed that Raj Kumar was present in the police station where he had gone to sign the statement.No clarification has been sought by the defence with regard to the date or time at which the statement of Prashant Yadav was signed by him.Nothing has been put to the investigating officer in this regard.Page 28 of 51As per the prosecution, the appellant was arrested on 23rd September, 2003 at around 6.50 a.m. from Sant Nagar Burari bus stand.Ms. Ritu Gauba, learned APP has pointed out that after the appellant fled from the scene of occurrence, he could not be traced out despite best efforts by the police.We find that as per the arrest memo (Exh.PW 5/A) the appellant was arrested by PW 21-Retired ACP R.P. Gautam on 23rd September, 2003 at 6.30 a.m. from the main road, Sant Nagar, Burari in the presence of PW 5-Gajraj Singh and HC Krishnan.PW 5 Gajraj Singh a witness to the arrest, has stated that the appellant was arrested on that location in Sant Nagar Burari where his in-laws stay.The arrest of the appellant is also corroborated also by the testimony of PW 18 Head Constable Krishan Kumar Kaushik and PW 21-Shri R.P. Gautam.No question has been put with regard thereto on behalf of the appellant to the witness.Even in his own statement, it is not the appellant's case that he was arrested at the spot.We find no discrepancy in the evidence with regard to the appellant's arrest.The reliance on the contents of Exh.Disclosure & Recovery of two knives pursuant theretoIt is also in the evidence of PW 21 Shri R.P. Gautam that after his arrest, the appellant had made a disclosure statement Exh.PW 5/D leading to the recovery, on his pointing out, of two blood stained knives from the room on the first floor of his house which had been hidden in a packed fridge.It is stated that one knife was an iron knife and while the other was a paper cutting knife.The sketch of the iron knife was prepared which was proved on record as Exh.PW 5/F while the sketch of the paper cutting knife was proved as Exh.PW 5/G. The Page 30 of 51 two knives were kept in a separate seal vide Exh.PW 5/E by PW 21-R.P. Gautam.The seizure memo of the knives was proved on record as Exh.PW 5/E.Page 30 of 51The disclosure statement Exh.PW 5/D was proved in the testimony of PW 5 Gajraj Singh Yadav as well as PW 21 Shri R.P. Gautam.These witnesses also identified the paper cutting knife as Exh.PW 5/1 and the metallic knife as Exh.PW 5/2 in the court room.The recovery of these two knives on 23rd September 2003, was also proved at the instance of the accused was also proved by the deposition of these witnesses.The issue is as to whether the knife which was recovered was used in the commission of the offence.Page 31 of 51We find that the trial court has rightly rejected the challenge to the recovery of the knives on behalf of the appellant, placing reliance on the testimonies of PW 5, PW 7 & PW 21 as well as the forensic science laboratory report.The appellant has not made out any ground before us as well to reject the authenticity thereof.Recovery of clothes of accused worn at the time of commission of the offence.After his arrest on the 23rd September, 2003, the appellant made afore-noticed disclosure statement, Exh.PW 5/D wherein he disclosed that the blood stained shirt and vest (baniyan) which he was wearing at the time of the incident in the bathroom in the roof of the house of Gajraj Singh Yadav which he could get recovered as also the recovery of the pant worn by him at that time.It is in the evidence of the Page 32 of 51 witnesses that the accused thereafter led the police authority to his House No.120, Gali No.10, Libaspur, Delhi.Page 32 of 51Therefore, Sushant Yadav's statement that the police has recovered the t-shirt and vest on the date of the incident is not based on personal knowledge and no significance can be attached to this part of the deposition.Page 33 of 51The appellant has thus been unable to challenge either the admissibility of the disclosure by the appellant to the extent of the recovery or the authenticity of the recoveries at all.Weapon of offence and forensic examination of recovered articlesMs. Ritu Gauba, learned APP for the State has also pointed out that the blood stained clothes of the deceased seized by the police were sealed with the seal of the Medical Superintendent, Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi.It is in the testimony of PW 11-Shri Vineet Yadav; PW -20 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary; PW 21-retired ACP R.P. Gautam & PW 22-Jag Narayan that in her left hand, the deceased Sunita was clutching a bunch of hair.The hair which the deceased was clutching was seized by PW 21-Retired ACP RP Gautam.After the arrest of the accused, he was taken for a medical examination to the Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi for medical examination where he has examined by Dr.Manohar Kumar Nirala.Page 34 of 51Page 34 of 51In order to prove the medical examination of the appellant as well as the drawing of the sample, the prosecution examined PW 20-Dr.Neeraj Chaudhary who had proved the record prepared by Dr. Manohar Kumar Nirala, the examining doctor.PW 12/1- Exh.PW 12/8 Page 35 of 51 of the dead body also reflected that the injuries were inflicted by sharp edged weapon which could have been by the knife in question.To establish that the knives were the weapons of offence and whether the two knives recovered at the instance of the accused persons were the weapon of offence, the prosecution examined PW 7 Dr. Anil Shandilya who had conducted the post-mortem.Page 35 of 51Pursuant to an application being Exh.PW 21/X by the investigating officer before Dr. Anil Shandilya for obtaining his opinion with regard to the two recovered knives, PW 7 Dr. Shandilya examined the two knives.Page 36 of 51The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory dated 27 th February, 2004 (Exh.PW 21/X-3) reported the following on the forensic examination:-"RESULTS OF ANALYSISPW 21/X 3), the microbiological study of the hair samples showed that they were human in origin and similar in most of their morphological and microbiological characteristics.This indicates that the deceased was clutching the hair of the appellant in her left hand at the time of her death.Conduct of husband of the deceasedMr. Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant, has challenged the conduct of PW 5 Gajraj Singh Yadav urging that there are contradictions in the statements of various witnesses with regard to the time at which PW 5-Gajraj Singh had reached the spot.Reference in this regard is made to the testimony of PW 21 R.P. Gautam who has stated that he reached the spot at 3.00 p.m. when Gajraj Singh Yadav, husband of the deceased Sunita Yadav, was present.As against this, PW 11-Vineet Yadav-the brother of deceased Sunita who reached the spot at about 4.00 p.m., has categorically stated that Gajraj was not present at the spot when he had reached there.Page 38 of 51Page 38 of 51His sons Prashant and Sushant told him that the appellant had murdered his wife Sunita Yadav and run away from the spot by way of the terrace.The testimony of PW 5 Gajraj Singh could not be shaken in cross- examination.Page 39 of 51Page 39 of 51The appellant opted to lead defence and examined his mother Smt.Premvati as the sole witness who stated that the appellant was a person of good behavior and was innocent.She claimed that PW 5 Gajraj Singh Yadav was having disputes with her husband (brother of Gajraj Singh Yadav); that her husband was missing since 10-12 years and that Gajraj Singh was taking revenge from her son, the present appellant for which reason he had falsely implicated him.She also claimed that the appellant had been lifted from their house.PW 5 Gajraj Singh had denied all suggestions to the above facts.The absence of PW 5 Gajraj Singh Yadav (husband of the deceased) from the spot when PW 2 R.P. Gautam reached the spot and conducted the inspection is also manifested from the fact that memos of various items seized from the spot by PW 21-ACP R.P. Yadav have not been witnessed by Gajraj Singh Yadav, who would have been a natural witness if he had been present.On the contrary, the seizure memos contain the signatures of PW 11-Vineet Yadav as witness.None of the other witnesses have stated that Gajraj Yadav was present at the spot at that time.It is also not the case of the appellant that he had seen Gajraj Singh Yadav anywhere near the spot at the time of the occurrence.In this background, the statement of PW 21 R.P. Gautam with regard to Page 40 of 51 the presence of PW 5 Gajraj Singh is mistaken.It is also not of such significance or a contradiction in material particulars so as to dent the prosecution case in any manner.Nothing therefore turns on the statement of PW 21 with regard to the presence of PW 5 Gajraj Singh yadav in view of the other convincing evidence on the issue.Page 40 of 51This question was put to PW 5 Gajraj Singh in his cross-examination when he explained that because his two children (Prashant and Sushant) were of tender ages and there was none to look after them, under social pressure his family had observed the final ceremony (Chhamai) relating to the death of his wife Sunita so that he could be remarried.He has further stated that after the expiry of one year from her death, the traditional anniversary was also observed.The witness remarried only after performing `chhamai' ceremony.The witness has denied the suggestion of the defence side to the effect that he had got married two months after the death of his wife because he had an affair with another lady during the lifetime of his wife.The defence led no evidence to establish such affair.There is no evidence also of any prior relationship of PW 5 with his second wife.Page 41 of 51 We, therefore, find no reason to doubt the explanation given by PW-5- Gajraj Singh Yadav.In any case, it is not the case of the appellant that PW 5 Gajraj Singh Yadav was in any way responsible for or instrumental in the murder of Sunita Yadav.Page 41 of 51Failure to examine a witnessA half hearted submission has been made on behalf of the appellant to the effect that though Prashant and Sushant Yadav have stated that their Taiji came to the spot, she has not been examined as a witness.We may note that in answer to the question by the court in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant has admitted that Taiji was brought to the spot by Prashant Yadav.She, in any event, is not witness to the crime or to any of the events which transpired thereafter.Her testimony is wholly irrelevant for the purposes of the present case.Ms. Ritu Gauba, learned APP has placed reliance on the judgment reported at (2011) 1 SCC (Crl) 381 State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.Krishna Master & Ors.so far as choice of a witness is concerned.It is submitted that in this pronouncement, it was held that it was the prerogative of the public prosecutor to decide who has to be examined as a witness.Page 42 of 51Page 42 of 51(x) The appellant made the pretence of calling an ambulance from a private nursing home which never reached the spot.Page 45 of 51(xix) The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory confirmed that the blood group `O' which was the blood group of the deceased was present on the pant, vest as well as shirt worn by the appellant on 22nd September, 2003 which were recovered at his instance.(xx) The forensic examination also confirmed human blood on the knives recovered at the instance of the appellant which have been established as the weapons of offence.(xxi) The forensic examination report confirmed that the deceased was clutching hair which was similar in morphology and microscopical character to that of the appellant in her left hand.(xxii) The injuries found on the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and all injuries were ante-mortem in nature.The appellant has failed to render any explanation at all for any of the above circumstances.His explanation to the effect that some intruder caused the injuries and ran away is rendered unacceptable given his conduct in not raising a hue & cry even, let alone giving a hot Page 46 of 51 pursuit to the attacker and the above circumstances and evidence on record.Instead, the appellant was found inside the room with the doors of the house bolted from within and blood on his clothes.The appellant's conduct even thereafter was suspicious as he failed to get medical help for the deceased, who was still alive then, and prevented her sons from informing her husband or getting help.The appellants actions in physically pulling out the telephone line, attempting to throttle one son and preventing the other son from reaching other persons and seeking help, pouring water into her mouth, pressing the throat of the deceased was highly unnatural and does not inspire any confidence.On the contrary, these circumstances point towards the guilt of the appellant.Instead of being concerned with the life of the dangerously injured lady, he compelled her children to mop her blood from the floor.The same reads as thus:Inasmuch as the appeal was taken up for regular hearing, this application was not pressed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

23.09.2020 Index : Yes Internet : Yeshttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/5 Crl.O.P.No.22988 of 2019 mfa ToThe Superintendent of Police, Villupuram.mfa Crl.O.P.No.22988 of 2019http://www.judis.nic.in 4/5 Crl.O.P.No.22988 of 2019 23.09.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 5/5It is represented by the Government Advocate that following the investigation in Crime No.54 of 2018, the case has been taken on file in STC.No.976 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram and the same was disposed of on 08.09.2018 by imposing conviction and sentencing the accused.In such view of the matter, nothing further survives in the Criminal Original Petition.Resultantly, the Criminal Original Petition is closed.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram.The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Villupuram.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/5 Crl.O.P.No.22988 of 2019 T.RAVINDRAN, J.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.Applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss. 306/34 of IPC registered as Crime No. 187/2016 at Police Station Basoda, District Vidisha.As per story of the prosecution, one Mahadev Dubey committed suicide for which the allegation of abetment of such offence was attributed over the applicants as according to prosecution, such applicants have preferred some false complaint against the brother of deceased Mahadev Dubey, which prompted him to commit suicide.According to applicants, the brother of deceased, Krishan Murari Sharma with an intention to outrage the modesty has tried to force the applicant No. 2 to go with him and hurled abusive language over her caste.Heard learned counsel for the parties.It is an admitted fact that the applicant No. 2 has lodged an FIR on 12/7/2014 against the conduct of brother of deceased.

['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

The occurrence waswitnessed by him and Prem Singh, who was standing at a distance of 5/7 paces.punishable under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian penalCode, 1860 (in short 'IPC').The factual position as projected by the prosecution is as follows:On 9.2.1993 at about 8.00 A.M.,Dev Singh was heading from the house to hisfields carrying a Sutli and Sua for the purpose of stitching the bags in which potatoeswere to be packed and he had hardly covered a distance of 4/5 yards when he foundaccused Balkar Singh, Chuhar Singh, Surinder Singh, Sher Singh (hereinafterreferred to as 'deceased') and injured Shamsher Singh standing near the tubewell ofChuhar Singh, where a drain existed and some water had stagnated by the roadside, because the height of the drain was more than the height of the road and somewater had tricked inside the house of Harbans Singh.Sher Singh and ShamsherSingh requested Balkar Singh and Chuhar Singh to deepen the drain so that water would not flow into their houses, to which Balkar Singh and Chuhar Singh did notagree and asked them to do themselves and thereafter the accused left the place.Deceased Sher Singh and Shamsher Singh started deepening the drain with thehelp of a kassi.After about one minute accused Balkar Singh carrying a Gandasiand the remaining two Chuhar Singh and Surender Singh armed with lathis camethere.Balkar Singh gave a gandasi blow to Sher Singh, which hit his left temple.Chuhar Singh gave a lathi blow which hit the left side of the temple and SurenderSingh gave a blow on the head of Sher Singh, who fell down and Shamsher Singhran towards his house.Thereafter there was free exchange of danda blows fromboth sides.Shamsher Singh was injured by all the three accused, who receivedinjuries on both shoulders, left side of the chest and head.Thereafter the accused left with their respective weapons and the injured Sher Singhand Shamsher Singh were removed in a tractor-trolley and got admitted in Civilhospital, Ladwa.The police came there and recorded statement,Ex. PD/2 which wasthumb-marked by him in token of its correctness.Injured Sher Singh and Shamsher Singh were got medico-legally examined.Sher Singh, who had been referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh,succumbed to the injurieson 13.2.1993, where upon Faqir Chand ASI (PW-12) conducted inquest proceedingsEx. PJ/3 and autopsy was conducted by Dr. B.Suri (PW-14).From the accused sideall the three suffered injuries and were medico-legally examined by PW-2 Dr.P.R.Pruthi, Medical Officer, CHC, Ladwa.After investigation, accused were challaned for the offence and a chargeunder Section 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code wasframed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to substantiate the accusations, prosecution examined 14 witnesses.The trial court found that the evidence is not sufficient to establish the guilt ofthe accused person and accordingly directed acquittal.The same was questioned inappeal before the High Court.The stand of the State before the High Court was thatthe injury was caused to Sher Singh and Shamsher Singh.PW9 was eye-witness who was present at the spot where the incident took place.It was stated thatthe accused persons also had sustained injuries and had taken similar plea in theirdefence.The accused persons placed reliance on the evidence of Dev Singh.In hisstatement made to the police he had stated about having reached the place ofoccurrence after hearing the cries for help.The High Court noticed that the trial courtwas justified in holding that Dev Singh and Prem Singh had reached the spot afterhearing the cries.The High Court also noticed that the possibility of injuries on thebody of the deceased and the accused could not be directly attributable to theaccused persons.The trial court and the High Court noticed that the occurrence tookplace in the course of free fight and there were more severe injuries caused on theperson of the accused person than the deceased and the so-called eye witness.Considering the nature of evidence, the trial Court and the High Court have come tohold that the prosecution version is not acceptable.In the circumstances, the HighCourt observed that the number of injuries make it clear that it was a case of free fight and it cannot be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor.Therefore,the view taken by the trial court was a possible view and the High Court did notinterfere.Learned counsel for the appellant-State vehemently argued that the analysismade by the trial court and the High Court and the conclusions arrived at are not inline with the evidence adduced including that of the eye-witness and injured eye-witness.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD GOEL VINOD GOEL, J:Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (NDPS), West Delhi (ASJ) in Session Case No.50/2010 vide FIR No.25/2010 u/s 302/304B/498A IPC, PS Moti Nagar, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and order on sentence dated 28.02.2011 sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of fine, simple imprisonment for two months.The Ld.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 1 of 20As per the factual matrix, the appellant and the deceased got married on 20.10.2004 as per the Arya Samaj rites and rituals.On 30.01.2010, the appellant made a telephonic call to the deceaseds father, Mr. Shanti Prakash Sardana (PW-1), at about 1:45 AM and informed him that she had fallen ill and has to be taken to a Hospital.PW-1 along with the deceaseds sister-in-law, Mrs.Shiksha Sardana (PW-5) reached the appellants house where they found the deceased in an unconscious condition and took her to Khetrapal Hospital where she was declared as brought dead.PW-1 along with PW-5 and the appellant then took the deceased to Acharya Bikshu Govt. Hospital, Moti Nagar where after examination, she was declared as brought dead.3. DD No.6A (Ex.PW11/A) was recorded on 30.01.2010 by HC Mewa Ram (PW-20) posted at P.S. Moti Nagar after a call was received from Acharya Bhikshu Hospital about the deceased being brought to the Hospital by her father and husband and declared as brought dead.PW-1 refused to give his statement to the Police Officials as he informed them that his son had gone to London and his wife had gone to Kota and he would give a statement only on their return.The dead body was taken to DDU hospital for preservation by Constable Jai Prakash (PW-16).ASI Jai Singh (PW-9), Incharge of the Mobile Crime Team (West) on CRL.A.572/2011 Page 2 of 20 receiving information from P.S. Moti Nagar reached the house of the appellant at WZ 81/1, Gali no.10, Ram Garh Colony at 5:30 AM and inspected the house till 6:00 AM.He submitted his report, Ex.PW9/A. He found that the injured was taken to the Hospital.He got the photographs of the site taken from the photographer, Ct.PW-11 along with PW-21 also reached the appellants house and inspected the scene of crime.PW-19 proved the negatives of the photographs, Ex.PW19/1 to Ex.PW19/5 and the positives, Ex.PW19/6 to Ex.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 2 of 20Dr. Munish (PW-12), Junior Resident in Acharya Bhikshu Hospital, Moti Nagar deposed that on 30.01.2010, he had examined the deceased, Chandni who was brought to the casualty.He declared her brought dead vide casualty card, Ex.PW12/A. He stated that the police had reached there and shifted the body to DDU Hospital.Whole brain oedematous with flattened gyri of the brain with relatively congested meninges of the brain."The statement of PW-1 (Ex.PW1/A) was recorded in the presence of Shri R.K Saini, Executive Magistrate (PW-13).The Rukka (Ex.PW21/A) was prepared by PW-21 on the basis of this statement and FIR (Ex.PW7/A) was registered at P.S. Moti Nagar by HC Bricha Singh (PW-7).On 01.02.2010, the viscera sample of the deceased was deposited by PW-11 with MHCM, P.S. Moti Nagar HC Rajesh Kumar (PW-13).On 25.02.2010, the viscera sample was sent to FSL through Ct.The appellant was apprehended on 01.02.2010 from Moti Nagar Metro Station and CRL.A.572/2011 Page 4 of 20 brought to P.S. Moti Nagar.He argued that the deceaseds family members had concocted a false story to falsely implicate the appellant which is clear from the CRL.A.572/2011 Page 5 of 20 fact that PW-1, who had accompanied the appellant to the Hospital on the fateful night, had refused to give his statement on the same day i.e. 30.01.2010 and had waited for two days till 01.02.2010, to give his statement.He further argued that since the Trial Court had disbelieved the testimony of the deceaseds father (PW-1), brother, Atul Sardana (PW-6) and the appellants landlady of the house, Ms. Rajani Kapoor (PW-2) with respect to the alleged demand of dowry and causing cruelty to the deceased by the appellant and acquitted the appellant under Section 498A and 304B, the testimony of PW-1 and PW-6 on the other aspects is under serious doubt.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 5 of 20What do you say?It is correct.Question: It is evidence against you that on the date of the incident i.e. 29/1/2010 you had not reached so Chandani was perturbed you reached at room of PW2 Rajni Kapoor by knocking her door and called her.What do you say?CRL.A.572/2011 Page 9 of 20My wife was suffering from high blood pressure for which she was taking medicines and had become anemic.On the day of incident she fell from the bed and suffered injuries.Immediately I called my father in law and brother in law."Ans: It is possible, Vol.Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, APP.The present criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 26.02.2011 passed by the Court of Ld.On 01.02.2010, at 1:15 PM Dr. B.N Mishra, Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine (PW-15) conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased aged 25 years.5. PW-15 founds the following external injuries on the body of the deceased:Fractured nasal bone with brusing of adjacent tissue and collection of blood clots in the nasal cavity and torn nasal Macosa with dark reddish in colour.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 3 of 20Two apartly places linear Bruise of size 03 x 1 cm and 2.5 cm x 1 cm respectively with vertical placement at lower part of back over lumber spine with reddish brown in colour.Abrasion of size 4 x 2 cm present on the right lower part of the back 5 cm apart from external injury no.2 with reddish brown in colour.Abrasion of size 2 x 2 cm present on the left side of cheek bone with reddish brown in colour.Nails marks in cresentric shape presen on the right side of cheek bone and 2 cm below from Laternal canthus of right eye with reddish brown in colour.Bruise of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm present on tip of the right shoulder with reddish brown in colour.Bruise of size 4 x 5 cm present on the thenier eminence of right palm with dark reddish colour, blood cots on secion.HEAD: Subdural Haematoma present on the right tampero parital region with thick layered and dark red in colour.He was interrogated and then arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/G.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 4 of 20As per the Post Mortem report dated 01.02.2010 (Ex.PW15/B), the time since death was about two and a half days prior to the Post Mortem examination.The cause of death was kept pending in the Post Mortem Report (PMR) dated 01.02.2010 till the FSL and the Histopathological Reports were received.Dr. B.N Mishra (PW-15) mentioned in the PMR "However the association of assault on the part of her death could not be ruled out.All injuries are ante- mortem." The FSL report (Ex.PW21/E and Ex.In the subsequent opinion (Ex.PW15/A) dated 25.10.2010, the cause of death was opined as "due to coma caused by Cranio Cerebral injury (Head injury) by means of hard blunt and forceful impact upon head.The possibility of homicide cannot be not ruled out."On 19.05.2010, the Ld. ASJ framed charges against the appellant under Section 498A/304B/302 IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution examined 21 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused while the appellant examined one witness in his defence.He contended that the Police did not recover any weapon from the appellants home to connect him to the incident and no motive has been imputed to the appellant by the prosecution.He argued that the injuries were well explained by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and in any case, these injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death and hence the ingredients of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) were not fulfilled.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 6 of 20Per contra, Mr.Amit Gupta, the ld.APP for State argued that the impugned judgment suffered from no perversity or illegality and hence does not merit any interference.We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant and the ld.APP for the State.The appellant has given different versions of what had transpired on the fateful night in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. It would be necessary to analyse his version of the events here, hence the relevant questions and answers in the statement under Section 313 are being reproduced herein below: -"1. Question: It is in evidence against you that on 30/1/10 at about 3:15am an information was received in Police Station Moti Nagar from Acharya Bhikshu Hospital telephonically that Chandni w/o Sarbjit R/o WZ 81/1 Gali no.10 Ram Gard Colony was brought in the hospital by her father and husband and was declared brought dead.What do you have to say?Ans: It is correct as my wife was sick, I called my father in law and along with him took her to the hospital as she had fallen from the bed."CRL.A.572/2011 Page 7 of 20Question: It is in evidence against you that the fact regarding death of Chandni was disclosed to PW6 by his wife by saying that you had telephoned her and asked her to come immediately to your residence as there was a fight between you and chandani and at that time you were with her on which PW6 also talked with you and inquired from you on this you told him that there was a fight between you and Chandani and you had given her a push on her neck and thereafter she was not getting up.What do you say?Ans: It is incorrect.I never had any fight with my wife Chandani.However, she was sick and was lying on the bed because of weakness she could not even go to natural calls and she fell down from the bed I immediately called my father in law and her brother.My father in law came to my house and alongwith me went to the hospital.I made several calls and had also received several calls to my father in law and brother in law."What do you say?Ans: My wife was anemic and required good food which she avoided.She was given proper medical treatment and all the goods and papers were removed by the police and my father-in-law from the house."Question: It is evidence against you that on the night of 29/1/2010 at 1:45am PW1 received a call which was made by you and told to him to come soon as Chandani fell ill and you have to go to hospital for treatment of Chandani.What do you say? Ans: Since my wife had developed uneasiness because of fall from her bed I immediately made a call to my father in law for help and also to inform him about the CRL.A.572/2011 Page 8 of 20 illness and took him alongwith him to the hospital my immediate neighbours were also called and they also helped me in taking my wife to the hospital."CRL.A.572/2011 Page 8 of 20Question: It is in evidence against you that when PW1 reached at the residence of his daughter she had already died as PW1 checked her pulse to verify whether she was dead or live.What do you say?It is incorrect.I do not know at what time she had died but she was responding at the time she was taken the hospital."Question: It is in evidence against you that Chandani was at the residence of PW1 Shanti Prakash Sardana till about 3pm.What do you say? Ans.As soon as my wife fell from the bed I had informed my father in law and brother in law of the incident on telephone and they immediately came to my residence I alongwith my father in law and brother in law went to the hospital but before that my father in law took my wife to his house to pick up my mother in law at that time my wife was alive and responding."Question: It is in evidence against you that on receiving the call from you PW1 had reached initially in the house no.81/1 gali no.10 Ram Garh Colony where Chandani was lying unconscious consition and she was taken to the hospital.However, my wife was not unconscious and was responding."Since my wife was not responding to the door because of her weakness I called Rajni Kapoor so that she could open the door from inside."Question: Do you want to say anything else? Ans.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 10 of 20Question: The photograph on which no.171 (Ex.PW19/8) is written is shown to the witness and asked, is it possible if a person have sudden fall which face towards the ground and hits the edge as shown in pt-A on the photograph, the said person may get nasal bone fractured?However, same may be caused by getting hit with blunt object.Question: For the 7 external injuries as mentioned in the postmortem report Ex.PW15/B either the person be hit with some solid edged object like danda or a person may have a free fall on some solid edged object like bed?The injury noted in PM report are not possible to be inflicted on the body during the single episode as above mentioned modes.stated as the above mentioned injuries are variable in their nature and the distribution on the body, the above suggested conditions cannot caused these injuries.Question: How many hits are necessary for causing the injury no.1 to 7?Ans: The injury present on the body of the deceased cannot be caused only due to falling on the hard surface/blunt object.The same may have been caused by different means of causing injuries.Question: I suggest to you that the injury no.1 to 7 had been sustained by the deceased when she was coming to the bed in darkness and had struck with something on the floor due to which she lost balance and had a free fall on the edge of the bed?Ans: These injuries no.1 to 7 are not possible only in the above manner and the same are not possible to have been sustained only by one fall as above mentioned."CRL.A.572/2011 Page 18 of 20For this purpose, a certified copy of this judgment shall also be delivered forthwith to the Secretary, DLSA with a further direction to submit a compliance report to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.If no such compliance is forthcoming within the stipulated time, the Registry will place the matter before Roster Bench for further directions.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 19 of 20The appeal is dismissed on the above terms.(VINOD GOEL) JUDGE (HIMA KOHLI) JUDGE JULY 08, 2019 CRL.A.572/2011 Page 20 of 20

['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

2. Being aggrieved with the order dated 31.12.2018 (Annexure-P/3) passed by the respondent No.2 i.e. Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, this petition has been filed seeking quashment of the same.As per the facts of the case, the Superintendent of Police, Tikamgarh, vide his memo dated 22.03.2018, recommended that the petitioner is an habitual criminal and had been involved in criminal activities since year 2004 and committing crime continuously, due to which, terror has been created among the public and nobody is coming forward to record his statement against the petitioner.Whatever restrictions had been imposed against the petitioner, no fruitful result yielded as the petitioner did not 2 W. P. No. 511/ 2019 restrain himself from getting involved in criminal activities, therefore, it is appropriate that power under Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam, 1990') be exercised and he be externed from the revenue boundaries of District-Tikamgarh and it's adjoining districts.With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.In the said memo, the Superintendent of Police, Tikamgarh, had given details of ten cases registered against the petitioner.The Police had also imposed prohibitory measures initiating proceeding under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the petitioner, but nothing positive came from the petitioner's side.Considering the recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate issued a notice under Section 8 of the Adhiniyam, 1990, explaining therein as to why power under Section 5 of the Adhiniyam, 1990, shall not be exercised against him and he be externed for a period of one year from District-Tikamgarh and it's adjoining district.W. P. No. 511/ 2019The District Magistrate recorded the statement of the witness namely Shri Anand Singh Parihar, Station House Officer, who has narrated the criminal record of the petitioner and also disclosed that there were ten cases registered against him and also apprised the District Magistrate that the petitioner has created terror in the society and due to fear and terror of the petitioner, nobody comes forward to get the statement recorded against him.One Shri Ramla Ahirwar, the witness of a criminal case registered against the petitioner at Police Station-Prithvipur, also recorded his statement and stated before the District Magistrate that he had made 3-4 complaints against the petitioner in the said police station as the petitioner has grabbed two acres of his land.He further stated that since the petitioner is always armed, therefore due to fear, he did not approach him for getting his land back.He has also stated that he had fear of his life and not only he, but other villagers were also terrorized by the petitioner.Likewise, Shri Amit Dangi, also recorded his statement and stated before the District Magistrate that the petitioner had assaulted him by lathis and report of that incident was made to the Police Station-Prithvipur.He had 4 W. P. No. 511/ 2019 also stated that the petitioner was in a habit of creating property disputes.He has further disclosed that the petitioner had also assaulted the Forest Officers.Thereafter, Shri Swami Prasad Yadav, has also recorded his statement and disclosed that on his land, the petitioner has constructed his house and due to terror, he is not able to get his property back, although he lodged report to the Police Station-Prithvipur.He has also stated that there were several cases registered against the petitioner in respect of grabbing immovable property of the villagers, but due to fear of life, nobody is able to fight against him and even record his statement in the Court.The petitioner has also recorded the statement of his witnesses, but those were not found satisfactory.As such, the petitioner was provided adequate opportunity to defend himself and to put-up his stand.The District Magistrate has also observed that earlier on 29.09.2018, an order of externment was passed against the petitioner, but in an appeal preferred by him, the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, set-aside the said order and remitted the matter back to the District Magistrate for deciding the same afresh after giving an 5 W. P. No. 511/ 2019 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, he was provided full opportunity.During the course of arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioner had stated before the Court that the petitioner was falsely implicated in criminal cases registered against him due to some political rivalry.He had also disclosed that in maximum cases, the petitioner had been acquitted and he had never threatened any of the witnesses.

['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']

Velkondasamy/A1 got married to the defacto complainant, namely Kanagaselvi on 11.11.2002 and through their wedlock, they had a son.Their marital life ran into rough weather resulting in her getting estranged.Facts leading to the filing of this Criminal Revision Petition briefly narrated are as follows:A1 was arrested by the police on 06.09.2007 and remanded to custody.During the course of trial, A2/Chinnammal died.The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 498(A), 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused.When questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.The prosecution, in order to sustain its case, examined 9 witnesses and marked 6 exhibits.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 CrPC about the incriminating evidence against them, they denied the same.Neither any witness was examined on behalf of the accused nor any document was marked.After hearing either side and considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court, vide judgment dated 07.04.2011 in C.C.No.553 of 2007, acquitted A4/Dharmalingam, but convicted and sentenced Velkondasamy/A1 and Kaladevi/A3 as follows:Name and Conviction for the Sentence awarded by the Rank of the offence under Trial Court Accused Section Velkondasamy/ 498(A) I.P.C. 6 months Rigorous A1 Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment.323 I.P.C. Fine of Rs.500/- in default tohttp://www.judis.nic.in undergo 1 month Rigorous 4 Imprisonment.The sentenced were ordered to run concurrently.The Trial Court granted set off to A1 under Section 428 CrPC.Challenging the conviction and sentence, Velkondasamy/A1 and Kaladevi/A3 filed C.A.No.89 of 2011 on the file of the Sessions Court, Coimbatore.Challenging the conviction and sentence, Velkondasamy/A1 is before this Court.Per contra, Ms.Krithika Kamal, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and Mr.Ponraj, learned counsel for the defacto complainant/Kanagaselvi/PW1 refuted the contentions.The defence was not able to make any serious dent in the cross examination in the testimony of this witness.The evidence of PW1 was corroborated by the evidence of PW2/Balasubramaniam and PW3/Thangavel.PW3 has stated about the injury sustained by PW1 and medical treatement given to her.The prosecution has also examined the Doctor - PW8/Dr.Arunadevi and marked Ex.The Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court have appreciated the evidence in right perspective and there is no infirmity in the findings of the Courts below warranting interference by this Court under Section 397 CrPC.Hence, the conviction awarded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Court, F.T.C. No.1, Coimbatore, vide judgment dated 13.06.2011 in C.A.No.89 of 2011 stands confirmed.However, as regards sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 submitted that the petitioner has been maintaining his wife/PW1 and son for the last 5 years and that his wife is suffering from kidney failure and that if he has to undergo imprisonment, he may not be able to take care of his wife, who is at a very critical state.PW1 told this Court that the accused/A1/husband is taking care of her now and that they have also reconciled their differences.A1/Velkondasamy was also present before this Court on 23.01.2019 and also filed an affidavit dated 23.01.2019, wherein in paragraph Nos.4 and 5, he has stated as follows:I submit that I give solemn undertaking that I would clear the arrears of the past maintenance of Rs.1,83,000/- within a period of 4 weeks from today.I, further, undertake that I would not commit default inhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 payment of monthly arrears to the 2nd respondent herein and our son Master, Vidhya Bharathi.I also assure this Hon'ble Court that I shall pay for the academic pursuit of my son Master.Vidhya Bharathi in future.I am ready paying for his school fees and other necessities since his seventh standard for the past six years and I shall continue to do so.I am maintaining cordial relation with my son.I am also meeting the medical expenses for the 2nd respondent who is undergoing treatement for chronic kidney disease.I shall continue to meet out her medical expenses.I humbly pray that this my solemn undertaking may be taken on record and pass suitable direction and thus render justice."Today, learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 and the learned counsel for Kanagaselvi/PW1 have submitted that A1 has paid Rs.1,83,000/-, being arrears of maintenance to PW1 and the original receipt issued by her was produced.A1 also agreed that he would continue to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.5,200/- p.m. and also the enhanced maintenance amount, if any ordered by the concerned Court, will be paid by him.In view of this development, this Court is of the view that in the interest of justice, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on A1 is reduced to the period already undergone by him as under trial prisoner.With the above modification of sentence, this Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras Note: Free copy to Kanagaselvi to be send through Inspector of Police,http://www.judis.nic.inAWPS, Negamam P.S. Cr.No.308/2007, Palladam. 10P.N. PRAKASH, J.Jvm Crl.No.1024 of 2011 07.06.2019http://www.judis.nic.in

['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

"The deviding line between hunger and anger is very thin."True it is keen demands of appetite substantially governs men's actions.A hungry man looses control over his thinking ability, rational approach and sense of proportion and indulges in uncalled for acts which under normal circumstances he would not have conceived of.His action become an embodiment of insensitivity of finer human emotions.Here is a sad story where a man of 32 years, when informed about non-availability of food forgetting the relationship and abdicating his rational thoughts as well as human considerations, he assaulted his paternal grand-mother, a feeble old lady, who succumbed to the injuries.The prosecution story, as unfurled, is that on 26-12-93 in Village Tokni, the deceased Ojebai, Kamubai (PW-4) and Guddi alias Manotabai (PW-5) had finished their dinner and were in their house.At about 9 p.m. the accused came and asked Guddi for food.Reply came from Ojebai that there was no food at home.Blood rushed into the hand of the accused and he assaulted Kamubai, his mother and Guddi, his sister.Thereafter he brought out an axe and assaulted Ojebai on her head, chest, back and the right hand.Kamubai went to the house of Roshanlal (PW-2) and informed him about the incident.Roshanlal came to the house of Renubai and found Ojebai was lying dead.Next day, Roshanlal, Hari (PW-3) and some others came to the house of Renubai who narrated the entire incident.The investigating agency did 'panchnama' of the dead-body (Ex. P-6).The dead-body was sent for post-mortem.John Steinteck, the nobel laureate wrote thus :-Renubai and Guddi were also sent for medical examination.There medical examination reports are (Ex. P-13) and (Ex. P-14).The accused led to the discovery of the axe which was seized under (Ex. P-4).The sample earth from the spot and the clothes kept on the bed of the deceased were sent for chemical examination.The accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication : It is his further plea that he has been implicated falsely due to pre-existing dispute with regard to ancestral property.To substantiate the charge against the accused the prosecution examined 10 witnesses.PW-1 Shivlal is uncle of the accused who has been declared hostile; PW-2, Roshanlal who had arrived immediately at the place of occurrence; PW-3 is Hari; PW-4, Renubai is the mother of the accused; PW-6 is Guddi, the sister of the accused; PWs-5, 6, 7 and 8 are the formal witnesses; PW-9 is the Sub-Inspector attached to Navgaon Police Station who had conducted investigation; and PW-10 is Dr. N. R. Azad who had conducted the post-mortem examination.Apart from adducing oral evidence the prosecution also marked number of documents in furtherance of its case.On consideration of the oral, documentary and medical evidence on record the learned Sessions Judge came to hold that the accused had assaulted his grand-mother, mother and sister.However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, he convicted the accused under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code for the assault on Ojebai and under Section 323, IPC in relation to assault on PWs-4 and 5, the mother and sister and sentenced him for seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence, under Section 304-II and for six months imprisonment under Section 323, IPC, with a further stipulation that both the sentences would run concurrently.Mr. Dipak Okhade, learned panel Advocate for the State has supported the impugned judgment for the reasons indicated therein.He has further proponed that the Court below has rightly accepted the version of PWs-4 and 5 who are no other than the mother and sister of the accused, and as they had no axe to grind against him their evidence has to be given due weightage.To appreciate the rival contention raised at par, I have perused the impugned judgment with utmost anxiety and closely gone through the evidence on record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.Dr. Azad, who had conducted the post-mortem examination has observed that the number of injuries found on the dead-body of the deceased, were sufficient to cause death.He has also strongly relied upon (Ex. P-4), the memorandum under which the weapon used was recovered at the instance of the accused.On a close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-4, the mother of the accused, it is already perceptible that the accused had assaulted with an axe on the head and other parts of the body of Ojebai and there was prefuse bleeding.She has also stated that Ojebai died inside the house because of the injuries sustained by her.She has remained embodied in her version.As far as her information to Shivlal, Roshanlal, Vinti and Hari is concerned she has deposed with clarity.She has proved the FIR and has remained unshaken in the cross-examination.She has also explained the reasons for not lodging the FIR in the night itself.PW-5 is the sister of the accused.She has narrated vividly with regard to the altercation between the deceased and the accused relating to non-availability of food at home.She has also deposed that the accused had assaulted her and her mother.She has clearly stated with regard to the assault on Ojebai.Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to discard her testimony.There is no reason on the part of the mother and the sister, who have no axe to grind against the accused to implicate him.There is no suggestion to any of the witnesses that there has been some dispute with regard to the landed property and, therefore, these two witnesses have implicated him to gain advantage.In fact, suggestion is to effect that she had already gone to the flour grinding machine and there she sustained injuries and her life spork was extinguished.On a perusal of their testimony I find that it is unimpeachable and absolutely trustworhty.Quite apart from above, there is material on record that the accused has led to the discovery of the weapon used in the crime.The weapon on the question was hidden on the slope of the house.There is evidence on record that he had given recovery in presence of witnesses.Appreciating the evidence of PWs-4 and 5 juxtaposed with leading to discovery of the weapon used there is no reason to disbelieve the version propounded by the prosecution.On a perusal of the materials on record and the aforesaid evidence I am of the considered view that the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Judge has to have the stamp of approval of the Court.Now to the question of sentence, Ku.Kiran Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant has seriously pressed that the appellant should not have been sentenced for seven years RI and the said sentence is quite excessive.She has further highlighted that the appellant was not given food and therefore, he got into an emotional fury and assaulted.She has tried to impress upon this Court that the appellant belongs to backward area of the State, where finer sentiments have not yet been cultivated, hence he committed the crime without any intention or motive.As factual scenario is potrayed by the prosecution the accused assaulted the sister and mother.There was altercation with regard to the food.The state of hunger worked as a catalyst giving rise to uncontrollable anger.The special backdrop, the milieu to which the appellant belongs, the peculiar facts and circumstances in which the crime had occurred, the absence of criminal antecedents of the accused are certain aspects to be taken into consideration while imposing sentence.On overall consideration of the factual matrix, I am of the considered view a sentence of five years RI for the offence under Section 304-II would be meet and proper.Accordingly, the custodial sentence of seven years for the aforesaid offence is reduced to five years.

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner / 5th Accused praying to call for the records in PRC No.183 of 2009 on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.It is averred in the petition that the FIR initially registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C was altered to 306 IPC mainly based upon the suicide notes found in the possession of the deceased person who committed suicide.The petitioner / 5th accused was also added along with four other accused in the case.The deceased was alleged to have been subjected to mental torture by the four accused persons to repay the loan obtained from them.The deceased sought help from the petitioner / Accused No.5 to procure loan from the Bank so as to save himself from the agony of high pressure exerted on him by the four accused.161 statements of witnesses and the suicide notes disclose only that the petitioner / accused No.5 failed to obtain Bank loan for the deceased, who was desperate to discharge his monetary liabilities towards his creditors.Therefore, the alleged offence as against the petitioner / A5 was not made out.There is no material to satisfy the ingredient of abetment as provided under Section 107 IPC.The petitioner was not shown to have facilitated any act amounting to instigation leading to abetment of suicide.The deceased had grate hopes in the petitioner / A5 for securing loan from the Banks and when the petitioner told that he was not able to secure the loan in spite of his persistent efforts with the Bank officials, the deceased felt himself to be left abandoned at the mercy of the creditors and therefore, he put an end to his life.There is absolutely no criminal liability on the part of the petitioner and therefore, proceedings as against the petitioners are to be quashed.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that as per the materials filed along with the charge sheet including the 161 statements of the witnesses and suicide notes, no ingredient of Section 107 IPC has been attracted and therefore, the proceedings as against the petitioner are to be quashed.This Court perused the entire statements of witnesses and 161 statements recorded by the Investigating Officer and the suicide notes recovered from the body of the deceased.As per the statements of witnesses and suicide notes, it is stated that the deceased was put under pressure to settle the amount to the four accused from whom he got the loan for his business and he was not even allowed to go out.As far as the petitioner / A5 is concerned, the deceased sought his help to get loan from the Banks so as to clear all the debts he obtained from the other accused and he made payment (Rs.40,000/-) for such help to the petitioner.The petitioner after trying with the banks finally told the deceased that he could not get the loan by him for the deceased.The petitioner / A5 along with other accused has been charge sheeted for the offence under Section 306 IPC.As per this Section, the person who abets the commission of suicide is punishable.Section 107 IPC defines abetment as comprising (i) Instigation to commit the offence (ii) engaging in conspiracy to commit the offence; and (iii) aiding the commission of an offence.P.C at this stage and hence, this Criminal Original Petition is liable to be dismissed.In fine this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.The Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to commit the case to the Court of Sessions within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.P.KALAIYARASAN, JtsvnCrl.O.P No.8902 of 2010 28-11-2016http://www.judis.nic.in

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

C.R.M. 10241 of 2010 In the matter of : The applications for Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on July 07, 2010 And In re.: Najar Ali Mr. Dipankar Paramanick ...For the petitioner Ms. Bhaswati Pal ...For the State This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner who apprehends arrest in connection with Islampur Police Station Case No. 458 of 2009 dated 26.10.2009 under Sections 354/376/511 of Indian Penal Code.We have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioner and for the State.In case he surrenders, his prayer for bail will be considered in accordance with law.( Banerjee, J.) ( Raghunath Ray, J.) akb 2

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to direct the second respondent police to alter the FIR in Cr.No.102/2016 by implicating Sections 326 and 307 IPC and to add the names of the respondents 3,4 and 5 in the final report which has to be filed by the second respondent.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.On the complaint lodged by Seshavaradhan, the respondent police have registered a case in Cr.No.101 of 2016 u/s 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC against one Saravanan (A1) and 2 unknown persons and investigation is pending.While so, the petitioner who is one of the injured in the accident, has come up with this petition with the above prayer.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR has been registered on the complaint given by petitioner's brother, when the petitioner was in the hospital and that the wound certificate shows that he has suffered fracture.On a careful reading of the FIR it is seen that the petitioner's brother Seshavaradhan has stated that, on 22.03.2016 around 8.45 a.m. when they were all working in the vacant land, the accused who are relatives, came there and a quarrel ensued, in which it is alleged that Saravanan had taken a reeper stick and assaulted Selvaraj.The direction as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted u/s 482 Cr.P.C. However, the respondent police is directed to conduct investigation and during the course of investigation, if the name of the persons who were involved in the offence comes to light, it is needless to state that they should also be included in the case by filing an alteration report.With the above direction, this petition is closed.23.09.2016gmsTo1 The District Superintendent of Police Tiruvannamalai District2 The Inspector of Police Kalambur Police Station Tiruvannamalai District (Crime No.102/2016) Pothuammal3 The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras P.N. PRAKASH, J.gms Crl.O.P. No.21475 of 201623.09.2016

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

The applicants are in custody.The applicants are small and minor children.Heard on I.A.No.9940/2016, which is an application filed on behalf of the applicants for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.Vide judgment dated 10.09.2015 passed by J.M.F.C, Khandwa in Criminal Case No. 1914/2008, the applicants have been convicted under Sections 498 (a) and 323 of the I.P.C.The applicants have been convicted and have been sentenced as under:-On behalf of the applicants, it is submitted that they have deposited the fine amount.The applicants be given the benefit of bail and their remaining jail sentence be suspended.Considering the fact that the Criminal Revision would take considerable time, I.A. No. 9940/2016 is allowed.It is directed that if the applicants deposit the fine amount if not deposited and furnish bail bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- with a surety to the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court each, they be released on bail and their remaining jail sentence is suspended.Certified copy as per rules.(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO)

['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']

Ms. Savita Choudhary, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Devendra Shukla, Panel Lawyer for the State.This is the second application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Earlier application M.Cr.C. No. 6982/2014 was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.7.2014 with liberty to repeat the same after recording the evidence of the prosecutrix.The applicant is in custody since 27.12.2013 in connection with Crime No. 393/2013 registered at P.S. Cheechali, District Narsinghpur for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 343, 376-Gha, 506 of the IPC.As per prosecution, it is alleged that co-accused Ramdarshan abducted the prosecutrix and kept her in the house of Narayan where the applicant and other co-accused persons committed rape upon her.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.The statement of prosecutrix Sita Bai has been recorded before the trial Court, she herself has stated that the applicant has not committed rape upon her.The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail.Learned counsel for State has opposed the application.(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

Injured Smt. Narmada Ahirwar is present before the court who has been identified by Advocate Shri Lokendra Shrivastava.This is first bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.11/2014, Police Station Dursada, District Datia, offences registered under Sections 323, 324, 294, 506-B, 326 & 498-A of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that today the injured Narmada Ahirwar has filed an affidavit stating that she was not assaulted or inflicted any injury by her husband Dayaram Ahirwar.Copy of the said affidavit has been produced before the court for perusal.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.Further, the injured herself has denied the allegations made against the applicant/accused by the prosecution.On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prayed for grant of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.C.No.6398/2014 (Dayaram Ahirwar v. State of M.P.) Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court during pendency of the trial of the case concerned and shall also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.A copy of this order be sent to the court concerned.C.C. as per rules.

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']

This reference raises a shot; question which may be stated as follows.Felirani filed a complaint against Kanhaiyalal stating that on 10.2.1949 the accused dismantled the hut of the complainant and took possession of the material and that he was.laying a foundation of a new house.I.P.C. and holding.that his act amounts to trespass, convicted him under Section 447, I.P.C. and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 50/-.The accused filed a petition in revision before the Sessions Judge who has made this reference under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code.

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']

In Re : An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 10.10.2018 in connection with Itahar P.S case no. 308 of 2018 dated 28.8.2018 under sections 147/148/149/447/188/186/353/333/325/326/307/427/435 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 25/27/35 of the Arms Act and 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act and 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Section 9 of the West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order Act And In Re : Ajoy @ Ajay Karmakar ...... petitioner Mr. Sudip Guha ...... for the petitioner Mr. N. Ahmed Zareen N. Khan ...... for the State Supplementary affidavit is filed enclosing documents in support of compliance of conditions imposed on the petitioner.

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']

The facts are brief.They have been living with their children in a compound where there arc 4 or 5 hours, Pappathi Ammal had been confined within four weeks before the commission of this offence.It would also appear that she was unwell from diarrhoea and fever after child birth.On account of the poverty and inability to secure other help she had to do her household chores.They started searching the compound.Then they heard a noise from within the well.They found the accused within the well.They raised an alarm.A crowd of people gathered.A ladder was brought and set inside the wed.The accused came out of the well climbing the ladder.On coming out of the well she was enquired about the child.The accused stated that the child was inside the well.Thereupon P.W. 1 made a written report to the Police at 7-30 A.M. in the morning.When she is treated she would get better.She was "alright after delivery till about 4 days before the incident.From four days before the incident she was not alright in her mind and had fever".Then he was treated as hostitle and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor.Then he stated:JUDGMENT Ramaswami, J.Therefore, she seems to have been depressed and fed up with her life.On the night of 28-10-1957 the landlady P.W. 2 heard the noise of a splash and she woke up and found lights burning in the house of the accused.Therefore, she went and woke up P.W. 1, the husband of the accused, and told him what she had heard.They found the accused missing.The Police came to the spot, took out the child whose legs were protruding over the surface of the water in the well.Inquest was held and Investigation followed.The accused was charge sheeted for the murder of the! child and for attempt-ling to commit suicide.These facts are spoken to by the husband Of the accused P.W. I, the landlady P.W. 2 and the other people who came there P.Ws. 3 to 5 and the Doctor P.W. 6 who spoke to the death of the child due to asphyxia due to drowning.The case set up for the accused was that she was a sleep walker or somnambulist, that during such sleep walking she must have walked into the well with the child and that by reason of that somnambulism when the offence was committed, the accused would be entitled to the benefit of section 84 l.The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved as a fact the somnambulism attributed to the accused and secondly that somnambulism would not amount to that unsoundness of mind and incapacity of knowing the nature of the act or knowing what she or he was doing was cither wrong or contrary to law, contemplated under Section 84 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge therefore convicted the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced her to imprisonment for life.He also convicted her under Section 309 I.P.C. and sentenced her to simple imprisonment for one year.The sentences were made to run concurrently.Three points which fall for determination in this appeal are: whether the accused was a somnambulist at the time of the commission of the offences; secondly, whether somnambulism would amount to that insanity contemplated under Section 84 I.P.C. and thirdly, the scope and extent of the plea of insanity open to the accused in the circumstances of this case.Point 1:-- It has not been shown as a fact that the accused was a somnambulist or a sleep walker.P.W. 1 the husband of the accused first stated in chief-examination:She was treated by magician and she became alright.After that she used to get bewitched at intervals.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']

The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows :The victim PW 5 Shila De was given in marriage with the appellant Meghnath De of Bhairabdangaon 11th Ashar, 1397 B.S. After the marriage she joined her husband in the Matrimonial House at Bhairabadanga village on 3rd Kartik, 1397 B.S. corresponding to 21st Oct. 1990 according to English Calendar.When she was watching closely a television programme at about 7.50 p.m. the victim Shila went out of the house and after a while returned to the courtyard of the house of P.W. 1 Tulshi Charan Bhuin who is the father of the victim in naked condition and fell down in the courtyard suddenly.PW 1, who is the informant in this case had seen several injuries on the face of his daughter PW 5 and also on different portions of her body.Shila had bleeding injuries oh her mouth.It was noticed further that teeth of her upper gum were uprooted on account of severe assault on her face.Therefore, PW 1 immediately shifted Shila to Sonamukhi Police Station and from there, under the advice of the police, the victim was shifted to Sonamukhi Hospital and subsequently to B.S.M.C. Hospital through one Swapan Bhuin.P.W. 1 Tulshi Bhuin submitted a written information at Sonamukhi Police Station which was treated as F.I.R. Tulshi Bhuin subsequently came to know about the incident from one Sunil Bhuin who narrated to have seen the victim and her husband, namely, the appellant together.Ranjit Bhuin also told to have been them together sitting by the side of a well which was situated near the house on the date of the incident.Shila, the daughter of Tulshi after admission in the Medical College Hospital reported to Tulshi Bhuin that her husband caused those injuries by striking her with a knife .JUDGMENT Basudev Panigrahi, J.This appeal has been filed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bankura in S.T. No. 5 (1)92 dated 24th Nov. 1993 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 307, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. .The Sonamukhi Police Station after treating the written complaint as F.I.R. proceeded with the investigation of the case and after such investigation was closed, placed the charge sheet against the appellant.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bankura after careful consideration of the evidence of the prosecution was, however, inclined to record an order of conviction and sentence the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment of a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rupees 2000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.Therefore, being aggrieved by such conviction and sentence the appellant filed this appeal.Mr. Roy, the learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant has invited our attention to several inherent infirmities and improbabilities.He strongly urged that although the injury was alleged to have been inflicted by the appellant on the person of the victim on 21st Oct. 1990 but till 6th of Nov. 1990 there was no disclosure either by the victim or by her father or by any other witness.Only the name of the appellant was disclosed on 6-11-1990 and thereafter he was arrested on 8th Nov. 1990 although the Investigating Officer in his evidence, in clear and unambiguous term deposed to have gone to the Medical College Hospital twice and recorded her statement.It is not understood why the Investigating Officer, who is PW 11 did not record the incident on 21st Oct. 1990 although her statement was recorded on that day.It has also been contended by the appellant that the prosecution has cooked up a case falsely to implicate the appellant without any material.P.W. 5 Shila De in her evidence stated that her husband persuaded to terminate an early pregnancy because she had not then attained sufficient age.She further stated to have agreed to the proposal of her husband.It has been deposed that on the Jamdwitya day the appellant came to her village and at the time she was standing near her house.Then, they went towards the well of their village.After reaching at the well, her husband pursuaded to undress herself.Thereafter she was given some medicine.After she was stripped herself of her clothes, her husband with help of a root touched her body.After a while her husband standing at the back assaulted her by a big knife, as a result of which she received severe injuries over her neck, cheek and also on knee.In such helpless bleeding state she ran towards her house and fell down on the courtyard.It has been-deposed that her husband had some extra marital relation with another lady.Mr. Roy, the learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant has invited our attention that the victim has woven a "cock and bullstory" only with a view to falsely implicate the appellant.It has been submitted that no husband with the sense of honour will ever ask his wife to take off her clothes on the public road near a well to the sight of the others.. It was further contended by the appellant that the well is situated by the side of a village road which has been used by the villagers for making ingress and egress to the village.It is, therefore, impossible that any sensible person would ask his own wife to disrobe her clothes for administering some roots at the sight of the others.PW 11 made a categorical statement that Shila, the.PW.5, did not state before him that her husband had any love with a girl of Bhairabdanga.Therefore, in such view of the case, it cannot for a moment be believed that there was any motive of the husband for causing such severe bleeding injuries.The appellant has also placed another circumstance which might belie the prosecution case.That the evidence of PW 5 Shila, disclosed that immediately after the injury she ran to her house and fell down on the courtyard.From the statement of PW 1 it does not disclose that she was senseless.She was immediately carried to the police station and thereafter to the hospital.Till she was examined for the second time she had not disclosed the name of her assailant.Had she known that the appellant was the author of the crime, she could not have faltered to utter his name immediately to her father or at the police station.Such non-disclosure of the name of the appellant goes a long way in proving his innocence.It has been stated that the appellant came on 'Jamdwitya' day around 7-15 p.m. In that event how had at that time the victim, PW 5 gone to the village road so that both of them met each other and thereafter the appellant pursuaded her to accompany him to the well.This also improbabilised the prosecution story.PW. 1, the father of the victim in his evidence narrated that his daughter lost her teeth of the upper gum which were found to have been uprooted due to assault.PW 5, the victim herself did not support the version of her father that due to such assault she lost her teeth, nor the medical report disclosed that there was any loss of teeth.The medical officer who had examined the injured PW 5, has not stated in the report the length, size and depth of the injury.The nature of the injuries have been peculiarly not described in the injury report.In the absence of such description it is very difficult to determine as to the nature of injury said to have been sustained by PW-5 .The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW 8 Sunil Bhuin.It has been contended that he had seen the appellant and PW 5 Shila going together towards the well near the house of Tulshi.Accordingly, the appellant be set at liberty forthwith.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

Memorandum of appeal alongwith the copies of documents and IA No. 4459/15 be given to Shri Jain within one week.Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on IA No. 4459/15, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant.The appellant has been convicted to undergo imprisonment on various terms from three years to five years under Section 120-B, 420 of IPC, 471 of IPC r/w Section 13 (1) (D) of Prevention of Corruption Act with total fine of Rs. 4,35,000/-.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the appellant on depositing the 50% of the fine amount and on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac) alongwith one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, he shall be released on bail and operation of the sentence of conviction shall remain suspended subject to his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 1st of September 2015 and on other dates as may be directed.C c as rules.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

Gangubai Nisal, P.W. 3 was married to Santu Nisal about three years prior to the incident.Ever since her marriage, she was living with Santu in village Nalegaon within the limits of Taluka Dindori, District Nasik.She was the second wife of Santu.The name of the first wife has not come in evidence.All the three respondents are also said to be residents of village Nalegaon.On 28-7-1983, her husband Santu along with his first wife had gone to the field for agricultural operations.It was decided that she would carry food to the field.At about 11/11.30 a.m. after preparing the food, she set out for the field.On the way, she stopped at the shop of the respondent Suresh in order to buy a match-box.Before entering the shop, she kept the food and the blanket which she was carrying outside the shop.As soon as she entered the shop, she found that the three respondents namely Suresh, Sahebu and Damu were present.She asked Suresh to give a match-box.Sahebu thereupon caught hold of both her hands and dragged her inside the middle room.It appears that the shop of Suresh was housed in one of the rooms of his residential premises.Thereafter, Sahebu stuffed cloth inside her mouth; pressed her breasts; and Damu took off her sari.During the trial, she was shown the sari and blouse which she was putting on and she recognised them.The evidence of the prosecutrix is that after being raped, she went to her house.In the evening, her husband Santu along with his first wife came home.At that time, she was shivering.Evidence of both the prosecutrix and her husband Santu shows that she was carrying pregnancy.Santu deposed that when he reached home, she was unable to speak.But, after sometime, she disclosed to him that the respondents had raped her.Santu had a feeling that the prosecutrix may not survive.Consequently, he and his first wife started fomenting her abdomen.Next evening (evening of 29-7-1983) the prosecutrix aborted.The evidence of Santu is that on account of her pregnancy, and abortion, she was in a state of bad health.Evidence of Santu shows that the day following the abortion of the prosecutrix, Gangubai, he took her to police station, Dindori.3) No matting of public hair.4) Swab taken from post fornixShe is habitual of intercourse."In short, theevidence of the prosecutrix is that on the date of the incident, namely on 28-7-1983, her husband Santu with his first wife had gone to the field and had asked her to bring food during the course of the day.At about 11/11.30 a.m. after cooking the food, she proceeded for the field.On the way, she stopped to buy a match-box, from the shop of respondent-Suresh.ORDER Vishnu Sahai, J.The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11-5-1984, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Sessions Case No. 117 of 1983, acquitting the respondents for an offence punishable under section 376 I.P.C. and 342 I.P.C., has preferred the present appeal under section 378(1)Briefly stated the prosecution case as emerging from the evidence of the prosecutrix Gangubai Nisal, runs as follows :---Then, she was subjected to the traumatic experience of being raped by all the three respondents.First Sahebu raped her.Next, Damu raped her and finally Suresh raped her.It is said that the said persons raped her after latching the door from inside.On being shown the lock (Article 2) in the Court, she identified the same.It appears that after she had been ravished, by the three respondents, her brother-in-law Shankar came to purchase a tobacco packet from the shop.He kicked the door of the shop after asking as to who was inside it.Thereupon, Suresh opened the door and took her out of the shop and sent her home after kicking her.As she was not in her senses, she did not disclose the incident to Shankar.It is alleged that while being raped, she was putting on a string of black beads around her neck and the same was broken.That day i.e. on 30-7-1983, at 4 p.m. Gangubai lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station Dindori.After registering the case on the basis of the F.I.R., head constable Madhukar Jadhav, prepared a Yadi and sent Gangubai for medical examination to Primary Health Centre, Dindori.She was examined there, the same day (30-7-1983) at 4.30 p.m. On examining her, the doctor found as under :---"1) No mark of violence such as scratches, bruises, on back, forearm, wrist, breast, chest, inner aspect of thighs and on bullock.2) Mo blood or seminal stains on weared clothes at the time of exam.As per the dictation of Dr. (Mrs.) Sulay, Dr. Anand Kakade, RW. 6, noted down the findings.The reason for this unusual practice, which emerges from the evidence of Dr. Kakade is that Dr. (Mrs) Sulay toid him that she did not want to note down the findings in her own hand because, if she did so, she would be required to attend the Court.The learned trial Judge rightly, in our Judgment, has deprecated this attitude of Dr. (Mrs) Sulay.Dr. (Mrs) Sulay told Dr. Anand Kakade that excepting bulkiness of uterus, she did not find any positive finding suggesting recent abortion.Evidence of Dr. Kakade also is to the effect that in order to ascertain whether Gangubai had contracted pregnancy, she was referred to Dr. Kotwal, who was a Pathalogist.Dr. Kotwal gave a certificate in the negative after the pregnancy test.The investigation was conducted in the usual manner by P.W. 7 Madhukar Jadhav, P.W. 8 Vasant Naik, Police Jamadar and a P.S.I. whose name has not come in the evidence.Evidence of Police Jamadar Vasant Naik is that on 31-7-1983, he visited the place of the incident.He found broken string of black beads lying in the house and seized the same under a panchanama.He examined P.W. 5 Santu, P.W. 4 Shankar and some others the same day.He called the three respondents at the office of the Gram Panchayat and arrested them.He thereafter, sent them for medical examination to Primary Health Centre, Dindori.They were examined there on 31 -7-83 and no scratches were found on their person.7A. It is said that during the course of the investigation, sari and blouse which the prosecutrix was putting on at the time of the incident and the clothes which the respondents were putting on, were seized under a panchanama.We are not going deeper into this aspect because, the evidence in respect of recoveries of clothes from the prosecutrix and the respondents does not inspire any confidence.Out of two public panchas, Rajaram Raut, P.W. 1 candidly stated that nothing was seized in his presence from the respondents and Gangubai did not produce her sari and blouse in his presence.The second panch Gopala Hari, P.W. 2 turned hostile.After completion of the investigation, the respondents were charge-sheeted.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner.To the said charges, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.During the trial, in all, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses.Only one of them, Gangubai, is an eye-witness of the incident.In defence, no witness was examined.After recording the evidence adduced by the prosecution; the statement of the respondents under section 313 Cr.P.C.; and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents under both the counts.It is this acquittal of theirs, which has been impugned by the appellant-the State of Maharashtra, through the present appeal.We have heard Mr. R.S. Deshpande, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Mr. V.Z. Kankaria for the respondents.At that time, inside the said shop the respondents Suresh Sahebu and Damu were present.Instead of giving her a match-box, Suresh dragged her inside the middle room, Damu put on the latch; thereafter, Sahebu stuffed a cloth in her mouth; pressed her breasts; and Damu took off her sari.Then, all of them by turns raped her; first Sahebu, then Damu and finally Suresh.From her evidence, it appears that after she had been ravished by all the respondents, her brother-in-law Shankar, came as he had to buy a tobacco packet from Suresh's shop.He kicked the door of the shop.Suresh opened the door of the shop.Thereafter, Suresh forcibly took her out from the shop and after kicking her, asked her to go home.She stated that she was not in her senses and hence did not tell Shankar anything.Thereafter, she went to her house.In the evening, Santu with his first wife came.She was in pains and agony and the same must have been aggravated on account of the respondents raping her because, the evidence is she was carrying pregnancy.Sometimes, later when she regained senses, she disclosed to Santu her traumatic experience of being raped by the respondents.Evidence of the prosecutrix and that of Santu is that she was in great agony and consequently, Santu and his first wife were fomenting her abdomen.Next evening, she aborted.Thereafter, next day i.e. on 30-7-1983, Santu along with her proceeded to Dindori Police Station, where she lodged an F.I.R., at 4.50 p.m.We have gone through the said statement of the prosecutrix.We find the same to be implicitly reliable.She stated that she was putting on the said string at the time of the incident and it broke while she was being raped.The two principal reasons which have weighed with the trial Court in holding the prosecutrix to be a consenting party are absence of injuries on her person and on that of the person of the respondents.The courts cannot overlook the fact that in sexual offences delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. can be due to variety of reasons particularly, the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family.It is only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged."In the instant case a very cogent explanation has been forthcoming for the delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. The prosecutrix has alleged in the F.I.R. that in the evening, her husband Santu and his wife came and she told Santu about the incident.She has also stated therein that since she was carrying pregnancy, she was having a throbbing pain in her stomach and her husband and his first wife were fomenting her abdomen.She has stated in the F.I.R. that it was the next day, that she aborted.Evidence of Santu is that it was in evening time that she aborted.If in such a situation, the F.I.R. was lodged at 4.50 p.m. on 30-7-1983, it cannot be stigmatised as being belated.We can safely assume that it must have beensometimes on the morning of 30-7-1983 that the prosecutrix and her husband Santu would have proceeded from their house to lodge the F.I.R. From a perusal of para 2 of the statement of police Jamadar Vasant Naik, it transpires that Police Station Dindori, where the F.I.R. was lodged was situated about 14 kms.from the village Nalegaon where the incident had taken place.In the said para, the said witness stated that Nalegaon is situated 4 kms from Umrale and Umrale is situated at a distance of 10 kms.from Dindori.In our view, in order to cover a distance of 14 kms which is approximately 9 miles, sometime must have been spent.Neither the prosecutrix nor her husband Santu were cross-examined on the mode of transport they took for proceeding to Police Station, Dindori.In our judgment, the said reason for acquitting the respondents is also untenable.The trial Judge has also held that it appears that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.We may have agreed with him, had she nominated only one person as her rapist.Here, as per her evidence, she was raped by three persons in immediate succession.In our judgment it is impossible to accept that the prosecutrix would have consented to have sexual intercourse with three persons.The trial Judge was wholly oblivious to this angle of approaching the evidence of the prosecutrix.In cross- examination, Dr. Kakade statedthat if a woman is examined within 7 to 10 days of her abortion, then alone a definite opinion can be given whether abortion was done or not.In the instant case, the evidence is that the abortion took place on 29-7-1983, and the prosecutrix was medically examined on 11-8-1983 i.e. two weeks after abortion.Now only one question remains to be answered i.e. the quantum of sentence to be awarded to the respondents.We have carefully weighed the rival submissions.The respondents should thank their stars that at the time when the incident took place, the amended provisions of section 376 I.P.C. which provide for a minimum sentence of 10 years in case of gang-rape, had not seen the light of the day.Looking to the overall circumstances, we feel that the ends of justice would be squarely satisfied if each of the three respondents are sentenced to undergo five years R.I. for the offence under section 376 I.P.C. and one months R.I. for the offence under section 342 I.P.C. Since these offences arise out of the same transaction, we feel that the sentences on both the counts should run concurrently.In the result, this appeal is allowed.The acquittal of each of the three respondents namely (1) Suresh Nivrutti Bhusare (2) Sahebu Narayan Shete and (3) Damu Kashinath Shete for offences under sections 376 and 342 I.P.C. are set aside.Each of the said respondents are found guilty of having committed said offences and are sentenced to undergo five years R.I. under section 376 I.P.C. and one months R.I. under section 342 I.P.C. Their said sentences shall run concurrently.In case an application for a certified copy of this judgment is preferred, the same shall be issued on an expedited basis.Appeal allowed.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']

(a) P.W.1 Rengaraj, is the husband of the deceased Rani.They wereliving at Ammapalayam Village.They used to take the cattle for grazing.Onthe date of occurrence namely 3.3.1999 at about 3.00 P.M., she took her cowfor grazing.Till 5.00 P.M., she did not return.P.W.3 Narayanan, whobelonged to the same place, was working at the field of one Poosigounder.Atthat time, the cow of the deceased got into the field.Immediately, he tiedthe same.At about 6.00 P.M., he returned with the said cow and informedP.W.1 about the same.When P.W.3 was proceeding, he found the accused sittingunder a banyan tree.P.W.10 Radhakrishnan, who belonged to the same village,found the accused sitting under a karuveli tree.The next morning, P.W.1 wasinformed by a boy that the dead body of his wife was found near the bushes.P.W.1 accompanied by his relatives, went over to the spot and found the deadbody of his wife in the bushes.They have also noticed that 7 + sovereigns ofgold jewels marked as M.Os.1 to 5, were found missing.Then, P.W.1 went toP.W.4 Arjunan, Village Administrative Officer, and gave a report.Based on Ex.(b) P.W.4 placed both Exs.P1 and P2 before P.W.9 Elangovan, SubInspector of Police, attached to Perambalur Police Station, who on thestrength of which, registered a case in Crime No.222/99 against the accusedunder Sections 302 and 379 of I.P.C. The First Information Report Ex.P8 wasdespatched to the Court.On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., P.W.12 SyedMohamed, Inspector of Police, took up the investigation and proceeded to thespot.In the presence of witnesses, he made an inspection and prepared Ex.P3observation mahazar and Ex.P15 rough sketch.The bloodstained earth M.O.6 andthe sample earth M.O.7 were collected from the place under Ex.P4 mahazar.Inthe presence of witnesses and panchayatdars, he conducted inquest on the deadbody of Rani and prepared Ex.P16 inquest report.Through a Constable, thedead body along with a requisition was sent to the Government Hospital forpostmortem.Abrasion on the both heel posterior aspect 6 cm x 3 cm.The Doctor had issued a certificate Ex.P6 opining that the deceasedwould appear to have died of asphyxia 48-50 hrs before postmortem due to strangulation.(d) On 13.6.1999 at about 15.00 hours, the first accused was arrestedby P.W.13 Ramachandran, Inspector of Police, Padalur Police Station, at thetime of the investigation in some other case.The accused volunteered to givea confessional statement, and the same was recorded, pursuant to which he tookthe police personnel to his residence, and from there M.Os.1 to 5 the goldjewels, were recovered under a search list.The said articles were sent toCourt.Apart from that, the accused was also produced before the Court.Index: yesInternet: yesTo:The Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief JudicialMagistrate, Perambalur.The Inspector of Police, Perambalur Police Station.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) The first accused in a case of murder, in which he stood charged underSections 302 and 404 of Indian Penal Code along with the second accused, whostood charged under Sections 302 read with 109 and 404 read with 109 ofI.P.C., on being found guilty as per the charges and awarded punishment oflife imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of which toundergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment, for the offence under Sec.302 ofI.P.C. and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years along with a fine ofRs.1,000/-, in default of which to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for sixmonths for the offence under Sec.404 of I.P.C., has preferred this appeal.The second accused was acquitted of both the charges by the trial Court.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are:(c) On receipt of the requisition, P.W.7 Dr.Ganeshbabu, attached tothe Government Hospital, Perambalur, conducted the autopsy on the dead body ofRani and found the following injuries.External Injuries:ILL defined abrasion seen encircling the neck above the hyoidbone, the abrasion becomes broken at the back of neck.2. Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on the back of Right elbow, through whichfluid blood oozing.3. Abrasion in the back of left elbow 4 cm x 2 cm through whichfluid blood oozing.Abrasion left popliteal fossa 15 cm x 6 cm.Multiple abrasions over the left thigh which extends to the lower part of left buttocks.20 cm x 10 cm.Multiple abrasions over the both scapular region 6 cm x 4 cm.A-2was also arrested and produced before the Court.P.W.14 Panneerselvam,Inspector of Police, took up further investigation.A requisition wasforwarded to the Court for sending the material objects for chemical analysis.Accordingly, they were subjected to chemical analysis.P25 ChemicalAnalyst's report and Ex.P26 Serologist's report were received.On completionof the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report, whichwas taken cognizance by the trial Court.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused,the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and relied on 26 exhibits and 11material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of theprosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of the Code of CriminalProcedure as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of theprosecution witnesses.Both the accused flatly denied the same.No defencewitnesses were examined.The trial Court on consideration of the rivalsubmissions made and scrutiny of the materials, has found the first accusedguilty as per the charges and awarded the punishment referred to above, buthas acquitted the second accused.Hence, the first accused has assailed thejudgment of the lower Court before this Court.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant made the followingsubmissions:The prosecution had no direct evidence in the case and had reliedexclusively on the circumstantial evidence.But, the prosecution has failedin both.According to the prosecution, the first accused was arrested on13.6.1999, and the requisition for conduct of the first identification paradewas given after a period of 10 months.The proceedingspertaining to the same, marked as Ex.P11 would clearly indicate that P.W.3could not identify the first accused, though he was shown not only once butalso thrice.Atthat time, P.W.3 identified the first accused.But, the second identificationparade has taken place after a very long time from the time of arrest i.e.,nearly one year and one month.This delay would be sufficient to reject theentire identification parade proceedings.Apart from that, at the time ofidentification parade itself, the first accused has categorically stated tothe Judicial Officer concerned that there were number of occasions when he wasshown to P.W.3, and in particular before the trial Court, where the firstaccused was produced.P.W.3 was already known to him and a relative also, andhence, he has identified the first accused.Under the circumstances, theidentification parade loses its significance in law.Added further, the learned Counsel for the appellant that so faras the recovery relied on by the prosecution, is concerned, there is norecovery under Sec.27 of the Evidence Act at all.Even from the evidence ofP.W.6, it would be clear that the place of arrest, confession and recoverywould differ.Apart from that, so far as the recovery is concerned, a perusalof the document would clearly indicate that it was not a recovery mahazar;but, it was only a search list, and it would also be strengthened by theevidence of P.W.6, who has deposed to the fact that there was no recovery;but, it was only a search, pursuant to which the gold jewels were recovered.Not even a mahazar has also been prepared in that regard.Under thecircumstances, the prosecution cannot place any reliance on the recovery, andthus, the recovery alleged to have been made, loses its importance.Therefore, the prosecution has nothing to put forth before the lower Court.Apart from the identification of thefirst accused by P.W.3, P.W.10 a villager and who was also a member of theHome Guard, has also identified the first accused before the trial Court,which has also been relied on by the lower Court.The learned Government Advocate would further add that so far asthe recovery of the gold jewels M.Os.1 to 5 was concerned, they, according toP.W.1, belonged to his wife.Further,from the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 13, it would be quite evident that thesejewels were recovered from the first accused, pursuant to the confession madeby him.A scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.6 would clearly indicate that itwas the first accused who gave a confessional statement recorded by theInvestigating Officer, pursuant to which the gold jewels have been recovered.Under the circumstances, the lower Court was perfectly correct in drawing thepresumption under Sec.114 of the Evidence Act that it was he who committed theheinous crime of murder, and hence, the defence version was rightly rejectedby the trial Court.In view of these reasons, the appeal is bereft of merits,and hence, it has got to be dismissed.This Court paid its full attention on the rival submissions madeand had a thorough scrutiny of the prosecution case as well as the materialson record.At that time, P.W.3was asked to identify the first accused.On all the three occasions, he couldnot identify.P14, that P.W.3 was able to identify thefirst accused, after a long delay of nearly one year and one month, whichwould be suffice to reject the identification proceedings.Apart from the above, the first accused even at the time of theidentification, has complained to P.W.11 Judicial Officer that he was shown toP.W.3 earlier, and P.W.3 was also known to him, and one occasion, he wasactually shown to P.W.3, who was sitting in the Court hall at the time whenthe other proceedings were going on, in order to identify him in this case.At the time of hiscross-examination, he has categorically stated that he gave an oral statementto the police the very next day, when they came for an enquiry, but, hisstatement was not recorded.When a query was raised by the Court in thisregard, the prosecution was unable to tender any explanation why such astatement was not recorded at that time.On the contrary, it is seen from therecords that the statement of P.W.10 was recorded only in the month ofSeptember 2000 and was sent to the Court.Hence, the conviction of theappellant/first accused under Sections 3 02 and 404 of I.P.C. and theconsequent sentence imposed on him by the trial Court, have got to be setaside, and the appellant is entitled to acquittal.In the instant case, the gold jewels M.Os.1 to 5 have been placedbefore the trial Court, and the first accused has not claimed them as of his,and when P.W.1 came forward to state that those jewels belonged to his wife,the same was not disputed by the appellant.Hence, a direction is issued thatthe gold jewels M.Os.1 to 5 have got to be returned to P.W.1 on his making arequest to the trial Court.In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Perambalur.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']

Mr. Ashish Virmani, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in person.JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI Crl.According to the prosecution, SI Raghubir Singh Yadav went to 20/8, Shahbad Dairy on 01.10.2002, and found a crowd gathered there.The prosecutrix (referred to as P) recorded her statement alleging commission of various offences.In that statement, P alleged that on 30.09.2002 around 03:00 PM, Lalita who was her parents' neighbour together with Chander Shekhar (known previously to her) came to her jhuggi at ITO i.e. her matrimonial home.She was alone at that time.Lalita told P that her daughter was missing and since she was friendly, she ought to help in tracing her.It was alleged that P accompanied the accused to Model Town and at around 8:00 PM, they took her to Chander Shekhar's office, which is located at Shahbad Dairy.P asked the accused why they had taken her there.The accused forcibly took her to the first floor; three girls were already there i.e. Sunita, Aarti and Bitoo (who deposed during the trial as PW-5, PW-6 & PW-9).Lalita allegedly shut the door and both the accused started slapping and beating up P, trying to elicit the whereabouts of Janki, Lalita's daughter.P, the prosecutrix stated that Crl.It was alleged that at around 02:00 AM, after consuming alcohol, the accused locked the other three girls in the toilet besides the staircase.She was made to sit in the corner of the room and other girls were called in.It was alleged that Lalita asked her to take a bath; she complied with the demand.She was asked to leave her clothes and given Janki's clothes by Lalita.PW-8/B. The first is of prosecutrix "P".The date mentioned as 02.09.02 time: 12.45 a.m. However, there is cut but there is no explanation on change of date to 02.10.02 with different pen and ink.The MLC Ex.PW-8/B mentioned the date 2nd September, 2002 time 12.55 a.m. However, there is another examination of Dr. M.G. Kalyanpal.It is on 02.10.02 time: 2.10 a.m. No explanation regarding two dates.MLC of Arti Ex.PW-8/C mentioned the date 02nd September, 2002 time: 1.14 a.m. MLCs of Bitto Ex.PW-8/D at one column has not mentioned the date of examination but at other column D - 1st October, 2002 at 1.45 a.m. Other date of examination by Dr. M.G. Kalyan Pal mentioned the date 02nd October, 2002, 1.45 a.m. in the night.The half of the examination on Crl.L.P.189/09 & Crl.Rev.Pet.434/09 Page 5 02nd September, 2002 and the remaining examination on 02nd October, 2002 at early hours of the morning.The initial handwriting has not mentioned the history which is different from the other handwriting.The 2nd September, 2002 date and examination suggests that it was for bonne-x-ray of all the four girls.Then how it is possible that on 02nd September, 2002, the same MLC has been prepared and how investigation officer seized the pulandas and medical samples on 02nd October, 2002 when four girls are under medical examination.The Trial Court further recorded as follows: -Now in the examination of MLC Ex.PW-8/A to PW-8/D of four girls and Ex.PW-8/E of Chander Shekhar, some important factors erupted.The Ex.PW-8/D of Bitto is number 07294 and Ex.All the four girls examined in the night intervening night of 1/2.10.02 then how MLC number of Bitto chased the serial from 15000 to Crl.L.P.189/09 & Crl.Pet.434/09 Page 6 07295 when examined by the same doctor.In Section-164 statement Ex.PW-1/C, she mentioned that only Lalita had visited her jhuggi, however, in the Court she improved upon this and mentioned the names of both persons.Similarly, there was a variation in her account in going to Model Town.The police statement under Section-161 was silent as to whether she was interviewed by the police officers when they were looking for Janki; in the statement recorded under Section-164 Ex.PW-1/C, she stated that the accused took her to PS Model Town where some policemen had recorded her statement.The Trial Court observed in this regard as follows: -XXX The appreciation of this portion prosecutrix statement again reflects material contradiction.According to Ex.PW-2/A she went to Lalita and Chander Shekhar in a three wheeler at police station Model Town.As per statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. she was taken by Lalita only to police Crl.L.P.189/09 & Crl.Rev.Pet.434/09 Page 7 station Model Town.According to testimony in the court she remained at police station prior to 8.00 p.m. The investigation officer has not enquired from police station Model Town regarding this aspect although in the charge sheet one line is written.No effort is made by IO to join the police officials from police station Model Town to further explain and corroborate this fact.No documentary filed on record regarding any FIR is pending at police station Model Town and what inquiries conducted by police officials from prosecutrix "P" at police station Model Town.However, Ex.PW-14/A DD No.16 SI Narender Yadav made some inquires from girl which was taken by parents from police station Model Town.However, investigation officer did not make any effort to join SI Narender Yadav during investigation.Statement of prosecutrix "P" Ex.PW-2/A further states that at about 8.00 p.m. in the night, Lalita and Chander Shekhar both forcibly took her to first floor, C Block office, there three girls namely PW-5 Bitto, PW-6 Arti and PW-9 Sunita were already sitting there.The door was shut.Thereafter both accused started slapping and giving fist blows on all the four girls and asking about missing Janaki.At about 2.00 a.m., Chander Shekhar after drinking liquor along with Lalita confined all the three girls in a latrine outside room at staircase.Then closed door of the office.In statement 164 Cr.P.C. prosecutrix states that Lalita taken her C Block Office by dragging from the staircase.There she saw three more girls Arti, Sunita and Bitto already confined there.Both Crl.L.P.189/09 & Crl.Rev.Pet.434/09 Page 8 accused gave beating to three girls.Thereafter three girls were confined in bathroom.When prosecutrix as PW-2 she testified that Lalita took her dragging on first floor office of Chander Shekhar, she saw there three girls were already confined one or two days prior to her.Lalita again made inquiries about missing daughter Janaki.In cross-examination she states that she never went to office of accused Chander Shekhar.The story of confinement also differs from each witness.How new and new facts are introduced.Everything is happening in a small room but how they were depicted and then reproduced while under examination for statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. and finally before this court.PW-9 Sunita introduced son of Lalita who consumed liquor and Crl.The analysis and appreciation of PW-2 prosecutrix, PW-5 Bitto, PW-6 Arti and PW-9 established that prosecution case now further grows but element of truthfulness is diminishing at a very fast speed in respect of wrongful confinement, threat and outraging modesty and kidnapping.It is pertinent to mention here that how it can be believed that four girls missing from their house but their parents or husband never approached to the police."The Trial Court also disbelieved the circumstances in which the alleged escape took place by the four girls and observed as follows: -The last part of the prosecution story regarding escape of PW-6 Arti is contradictory to each other of the witnesses PW-5, PW-6 and PW-9 and also to the statements under section 164 Cr.P.C. Each witness has given her own story of escape.The common fact is that public persons gathered there.They called police officials there.The investigation officer has not proved any DD entry which was registered on the information of Crl.L.P.189/09 & Crl.The story regarding arrest of accused as stated by four girls and police officials are also contradictory to each other.Some say they were escaped.Some say they were apprehended by public.PW-14 investigation officer SI Raghubir Singh simply stated that they were arrested and proved their memos PW-13/A and PW-13/B and PW-11/C and PW-11/D.According to Ex.According to PW-13 both were present in front of B-19 but however, there is difference of half an hour.MLC of accused Chander Shekhar Ex.PW-8/E suggests that he was medically examined at 8.50 a.m. at same BJRM Hospital.There is a gap of nine hours from the arrest time to the medical examination.All the four girls were sitting in the room.At around 04:00 AM, one of the girls, Aarti, managed to get out and raised an alarm as a result of which, people gathered.The accused quietly slipped away from the office.On the basis of these allegations, FIR No.254/2002 was registered at PS Bawana.The accused were arrested and after conclusion of investigation charged with committing the offence mentioned previously.They claimed to be innocent and sought trial.In the course of the trial, the prosecution relied upon testimonies of 14 witnesses and several materials including the Medico Legal Certificates and other documents.After considering all these, Trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused.It is argued that the Trial Court placed undue importance on the minor contradictions and variations to acquit the respondents/accused.It was argued that since all the witnesses were victims of abduction, Crl.L.P.189/09 & Crl.Rev.Pet.434/09 Page 3 the police had ensured that their statements had recorded under Section-161, Cr.P.C. Broadly, each one corroborated the other as to the abduction and confinement as well as the rape committed upon P. In that sense, there was ample material to substantiate and corroborate the prosecutrix version about the abduction, confinement and her rape.Each one of the witnesses PW-5, 6 & 9 had heard the prosecutrix crying out and had even heard her telling them about the assault on her.The medical evidence in the form of MLC as well as the Doctor's testimony supported the version about the rape.Having regard to all these, the Court ought not to have given undue importance to minor contradictions in regard to location or the sequence of events or the kind of clothes that was worn by them or the prosecutrix.Since the identity of the assailants i.e. Chander Shekhar and Lalita was known to each one of the victims who deposed i.e. PW Nos.5, 6 & 9, the respondents' acquittal was not justified.We have carefully considered the submissions as well as Trial Court's records.In this case, the Trial Court disbelieved the MLCs observing as follows: -Now let us examine MLCs of four girls Ex.PW-8/A to Ex.The medical examination of four girls, seizure memo Ex.PW-11/B and MLCs PW-8/A and PW-8/B completely demolishes the prosecution story.She also revealed before Magistrate that she said that Lalita threatened her to put on her chilly powder and tezab.Three girls were confined in a bathroom close to her.Latrine and bathroom were combined where she was confined."Commenting on the vide variations between the statement of all the witnesses including 'P' - each one of them had recorded the further statement under Section-164 Cr.P.C. - the Trial Court observed as follows: -The statements of all the four witnesses PW-2 prosecutrix, PW-5 Bitto, PW-6 Arti and PW-9 Sunita on the aspect of their meeting with both accused persons and how they were brought to the office C Block, Shahbad Dairy are contradictory.The conduct as alleged of accused Lalita and Chander Shekhar how mismatched.L.P.189/09 & Crl.Rev.Pet.434/09 Page 9 gave beating to them.PW- 5 Bitto states that Lalita compelled prosecutrix "P" to take Sharab.PW-9 also introduced new facts regarding the teasing, touching and undressing her.PW-5 Bitto in cross-examination stated a story of visiting police station Model Town, Adarsh Nagar and Jahangir Puri.Similarly, the testimonies recorded all the four girls in the court are contradictory to each other on all material aspects.PW-2 has not proved this arrest memo.The memos of Lalita are Ex.PW-11/C and Ex.PW-11/D. According to these memos, accused Lalita was arrested at 11.40 p.m. half an hour of the accused.PW-2 is the witness but she failed to proved these memos.During this nine hours custody period investigation officer had no time to record disclosure statement of any of the accused.There is no explanation for not recording of disclosure statement by the investigation officer."We further notice that the MLC of the prosecutrix P does not Crl.L.P.189/09 & Crl.Rev.Pet.434/09 Page 11 bear any sign of forcible sexual intercourse as is sought to be made out by the prosecution.The evidence on record establishes that she was married even though at a young age.

['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']

The relevant facts for our purposes are these.Gopal deceased was married to the sister of the appellant.The appellant and his father Badri were living in a railway quarter at Gorakhpur.Gopal's sister was married to one Banarsi, who was also living in another railway quarter nearby.S. P. Sinha and S. D. Sekhri, for the appellant.G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal (for G. N. Dikshit), for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in a criminal matter.The facts of the case, as found by the High Court, are no longer in dispute and the 648 question that is raised in this appeal is whether the appellant had exceeded the right of private defence of person.Gopal had been living for some time with his father-in-law.They did not, however, pull on well together and Gopal shifted to the house of Banarsi.Badri persuaded Gopal to come back to his house but the relations remained strained and eventually Gopal shifted again to the quarter of Banarsi about 15 days before the present occurrence which took place on June 11, 1953, at about 10 p.m. Gopal's wife had continued to live with her father as she was unwilling to go with Gopal.Her father Badri and her brother Vishwanath appellant sided with her and refused to let her go with Gopal.Gopal also suspected that she had been carrying on with one Moti who used to visit Badri's quarter.Consequently, Gopal was keen to take away his wife, the more so as he had got a job in the local department some months before and wanted to lead an independent life.On June 11, there was some quarrel between the appellant and Gopal about the girl; but nothing untoward happened then and the appellant went back to his quarter and Gopal went away to Bansari's quarter.Gopal asked Banarsi's sons to help him in bringing back his wife.Banarsi also arrived and then all four of them went to Badri's quarter to bring back the girl.On reaching the place, Banarsi and his two sons stood outside while Gopal went in.In the meantime, Badri came out and was asked by Banarsi to let the girl go with her husband.Badri was not agreeable to it and asked Banarsi not to interfere in other people's affairs.While Badri and Banarsi were talking, Gopal came out of the quarter dragging his reluctant wife behind him.The girl caught hold of the door as she was being taken out and a tug-of-war followed between her and Gopal.-The appellant was also there and shouted to his father 649 that Gopal was adamant.Badri, thereupon replied that if Gopal was adamant he should be beaten (tomaro).On this the appellant took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed Gopal once.The knife penetrated into the heart and Gopal fell down senseless.Steps were taken to revive Gopal but without success.Thereupon, Gopal was taken to the hospital by Badri and the appellant and Banarsi and his sons and some others, but Gopal died by the time they reached the hospital.On these facts the Sessions Judge was of opinion that Badri who had merely asked the appellant to beat Gopal could not have realised that the appellant would take out a knife from his pocket and stab Gopal.Badri was, therefore, acquitted of abetment.The Sessions Judge was further of opinion that the appellant had the right of private defence of person, and that this right extended even to the causing of death as it arose on account of an assault on his sister which was with intent to abduct her.He was further of opinion that more harm than the circumstances of the case required was not caused; and therefore the appellant was also acquitted.The State then appealed to the High Court against the acquittal of both accused.The High Court upheld the acquittal of Badri.The acquittal of - the appellant was set aside on the ground that the case was not covered by the fifth clause of s. 100 and the right of -private defence of person in this case did not extend to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant and therefore it was exceeded.The appellant gave only one blow with a knife which he happened to have in his pocket.Appeal allowed.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']

The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can bestated as follows:a) P.W.1 Rajagopal is a resident of Maniyampatti and his father isa cousin of the deceased Mani @ Perumal.All the accused belonged to the sameplace.The first accused was doing the job of sellingillicit liquor.The deceased, who initially worked in a tea shop, wasworking under A1 during the relevant period.The deceased was notmarried.The remaining accused were also attackingthe deceased.Then, they tied the deceased in Vadanarayana tree andbeat him with sticks and the deceased fell unconscious.On seeing thedeceased unconscious, the accused removed the deceased from the treeand poured some water on his face.They took him to the resident ofthe first accused and found him dead.Later the deceased body wascovered with cloth and all the accused escaped from the place.P.W.1 has given a complaint underEx.P.1 before P.W.4 Village Administrative Officer at 9.00 p.m. and the samewas sent to the Police Station through Headman of thevillage.P.W.9 Sebasthian Head Constable attached to the PulivalamPolice Station received the said complaint on 13.1.1995 at about 11.00p.m.On the strength of which, he registered a case in Crime No.3 of 1995 under Section 302 IPC.Express F.I.R. under Ex.P.11 wasdespatched to the concerned court.The copy of the same was forwarded to theSuperior officers.On 14.1.1995 at 6.30 a.m. he madeinspection on the site of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar in thepresence of witnesses, which was marked as Ex.P.3 and rough sketch Ex.He examined thewitnesses and recorded their statements.The dead body was sent toGovernment Hospital, Thuraiyur for post-mortem.On 14.1.1995 onreceipt of requisition, P.W.8 Dr.Kannabai conducted autopsy and has issuedEx.P.10 post-mortem certificate.He opined that the deceased wouldappear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vitalorgan liver and right kidney ruptures about 20 to 22 hours prior toautopsy.On 15.1.1995, the Investigating Officer went to Maniyampatti,examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements.Oninformation, he proceeded to Kannanur and arrested accused No.1 Raju andChinnu.A1 gave confessional statement in the presence of the witnesses andthe admissible portion of the confessional statement was markedas Ex.M.Os.1 to 3 were recovered pursuant to the confessionalstatement.The accused were produced before the Court and remanded tojudicial custody.He examined both Pws.5 and 6 Head Constables andrecorded their statements.The Judicial Magistrate, ThuraiyurThe Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, TrichyThe I Additional Sessions Judge, TrichyThe Principal Sessions Judge, TrichyThe Superintendent, Central Prison, TrichyThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, ChennaiThe Dy.The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3, who stood charged and tried forthe offences under Section 302 IPC for A1 and Section 302 r/w 109 & 34IPC for A2 and A3 and under Section 342 IPC against all the accused, and A1 toA3 were found guilty under Sections 342 and 304(2) andsentenced to undergo RI for one year each under Section 342 IPC andsentenced to undergo RI for four years each under Section 304(2) IPC,have brought forth this appeal.On 18.1.1995, A2 surrendered before thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Musiri.On 23.1.1995, the InvestigatingOfficer obtained post-mortem certificate and examined P.W.8 Doctor.Healso examined the photographer and obtained the statement.Oncompletion of the investigation, he laid a charge sheet against the accusedunder Section 342 and 302 IPC.In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, theprosecution examined 10 witnesses and marked 14 exhibits and 3 M.Os.The accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to theincriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecutionwitnesses, which they flatly denied as false.No defence witnesses wereexamined.The trial court, on consideration of the rival submissions made andscrutiny of the available materials, found all the accusedguilty under Section 342 and 304(2) IPC and sentenced them to undergoimprisonment as referred to above.Aggrieved accused have broughtforth this appeal.Arguing for the appellant, the learned Counsel Ms.J.JulietPushpa made the following submissions for consideration by this Court.P.W.2 hasturned hostile.P.W.1 was a close relative of the deceasedand he was interested, and hence it was uncorroborated and selfinconsistent testimony.The evidence of P.W.1 should not have been relied onby the trial court for finding the accused guilty.The prosecutionrelied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 to the effect that the deceased wasbeaten with sticks.But, in the post-mortem certificate it could be seen thatno external injury was found corresponding to the saidversion of the prosecution witnesses.Hence, the prosecutionwitnesses could not have seen the occurrence at all.The medical evidence has not in any way corroboratedthe ocular evidence.Under the stated circumstances, the lower courtshould have rejected the case of the prosecution and acquitted theaccused.Opposing the contentions put forth by the appellants' side, thelearned Government Advocate would submit that the prosecution hasclearly brought home the guilt of the accused under Sections 342 and 304(2)IPC as found by the trial court.It is true that P.W.2 hasturned hostile, but the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3,who have given a cogent evidence as to the fact that it was A1 to A3who tied the deceased in Vadanarayana tree and even before tyingthe deceased, they beat him and after tying also, they beat him.It is truethat there was no corresponding external injury found, but ithas in no way affected the case of the prosecution, because, P.W.8Doctor has opined that the death was caused not due to injury by beating thedeceased, but because of tying of rope tightly, the vital organs kidney andliver were not functioning and rupture was also found.Under the stated circumstances, it cannot be said that the ocularevidence was not corroborated by the medical evidence, and thus, theprosecution has clearly proved its case.Hence, the judgment of the trialcourt has got to be affirmed.After careful analysis of the evidence available andconsideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is unable to agreewiththe contentions of the appellants' side.The gist of the prosecution case wasthat on the date of occurrence, on entertaining suspicionthat the deceased took away the amount of A1, he questioned thedeceased and not satisfied with the answer, A1 beat the deceased and A2 and A3have also joined with him.All the accused tied the deceased with a kadambarope in Vadanarayana tree situated nearby the house of A1 and beat him.Thedeceased fell unconscious.Hence, the accuseduntied the rope and poured water on his face.They took him to the houseof A1 and found him dead.They fled away from the scene of occurrence.It istrue that P.W.2 has turned hostile.P.W.1 who gave acomplaint was a close relative of the deceased.Itis pertinent to point out that the complaint was given by P.W.1 wherehe has given a full narration of the occurrence as he narrated theoccurrence before the trial court.Both P.Ws.1 and 3 have categorically spoken to the fact that all theaccused have tied the deceased in a tree.P.W.8 Post-mortem Doctor has givenpost-mortem certificate andhas also deposed thatwhen he was tied tightly there was all possibility of non functioningof vital organs, namely, kidney and liver and which caused his death.He hasalso noticed rope mark in the waist of the deceased.Theappellants' side is unable to show any circumstance or reason why theevidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 should be disbelieved or rejected.In other respect, the judgment of the trial court isconfirmed.With the above modification, this criminal appeal is dismissed.Inspector General of Police, Chennai-4O.Srinath, Govt. Advocate (Criminal Side) High Court, ChennaiThe Inspector of Police, Thathaiyangarpettai, Pulivalam Police Station M. CHOCKALINGAM, J vvk C.A.NO.322 OF 1996 31.07.2003

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

(3) Raju Dhonde (PW 3) - Brother of victim.(4) Sk.(5) Nandu Kale (PW 5) - Independent witness, and (6) Kaduba Bankar (PW 6) - Head Constable & Investigating Officer.finger ring in the marriage, and after marriage she went to reside with the accused at her matrimonial home.Initially she was treated well for about six months, but thereafter accused started assaulting and illtreat her on account of demand of Rs.25,000/- for the purchase of agricultural land.His daughter used to disclose about the same whenever she used to go to her parental house.Laxman (PW 2) has further stated that he had assured his daughter that he would pay the amount.He has also ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (9) stated that he had gone to her matrimonial home for bringing her for Nagpanchami festival, but accused refused to send her.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(9)However, on the next day, she came.On the third day, she was sent back.He has further stated that when his daughter had come for Panchami festival, his daughter had told him that accused were making demand of Rs. 25,000/- for the purchase of agricultural land and accused also threatened her that if the said amount was not brought, she should not come back.Laxman (PW 2) has also stated that thereafter in Bhadrapad, his cousin brother Rameshwar expired and, therefore, Surekha stayed for about two days and during said visit, she disclosed that her husband and other inlaws were making demand of cash.However, Laxman (PW 2) did not give her any amount and sent her back to her matrimonial home.On the same day, she had gone to her agricultural field.However, accused no.1 assaulted her and told not to come unless she could bring Rs.25,000/- and, therefore, accused no.1 had also assaulted her with hunter.Hence, she returned to her parental home on the same day and disclosed that accused no.1 had assaulted her and she showed weal marks on her back and, therefore, victim Surekha stayed at her parental home for some time.Laxman (PW 2) has further stated that on the next day, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (10) he went to Grampanchayat office and took two persons, namely Bandu Kale (PW 5) and Rakhmaji Dhongade.These persons had called accused no.1 Vithal in Grampanchayat office.At that time, accused no.2 came there.He has further stated that he told accused nos.1 and 2 that he would pay the amount after sale of sugarcane crop and that they should not illtreat his daughter Surekha.During the cross examination, Laxman (PW 2) has admitted that all Bhonde belonged to Shivsena Party, whereas accused belonged to Congress Party.He has further stated that wife of Subhash Kale belonged to Shivsena Party and she was Sarpanch of said village at the relevant time.He has also admitted that there was regular dispute between both the political ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (11) parties.Laxman (PW 2) has further stated in the cross examination that he had 25 Acres of Bagayat land and he had taken loan from Society to lay pipeline in his field and, therefore, there was attachment of his land to the Society.He has also stated that he had taken money from Babasaheb Shinde from the same village and gave 3 Acres of land therefor.He has also admitted that death of his daughter Surekha took place one day prior to Dasara festival.He has further admitted that accused no.2 got about 25 acres of Bagayat land.He has further admitted that he has not lodged any complaint agaist the accused nor he had informed Police or Sarpanch, that accused had assaulted his daughter with hunter.He has further stated that he and Bappaji had gone and questioned accused no.3 as to why his daughter was assailed with hunter.But at that time, accused questioned them as to why they ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (12) had entered into their land.He has also stated in the cross examination that the accused and he used to reside in the same village.(12)Coming to the testimony of Raju Dhonde (PW 3), brother of victim Surekha, who has deposed that Surekha was his sister and she was married with accused no.1 who belonged to the same village and during the marriage, they had given dowry of Rs. 38,000/- and 10 Gms.golden finger ring.He has also stated that she was treated well for about six months after the marriage and thereafter accused started illtreating her and was making demand of Rs. 10,000/- for purchase of land and his sister disclosed about the same when she had come at the time of festival.However, he has stated that they did not pay the said amount.Moreover, his father had gone to the house of accused to bring his sister for Nagpanchami festival but the accused did not send her along with him, but after some time, his sister ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (13) Surekha along came.At that time, his sister Surekha disclosed that accused had told her that she should not return until demand of Rs. 25,000/- is met.(13)- 4 days.It appears that the accused nos.1 to 5 faced the trial under Sessions Case No. 16 of 1998 for the charges levelled against them under Sections 498-A, 306, 323, 504, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and the appellant herein i.e. original accused no.1 was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, and was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code, but was acquitted for the offence punishable ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (3) under Sections 504, 506, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, whereas accused nos.2 to 5 were also acquitted for the aforesaid offences and, therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence in respect of appellant herein i.e. original accused no.1, present appeal is preferred.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(3)The facts and events leading to the present appeal are as follows :2Sheshrao is her brother-in-law and accused no.3 Mhasuji is her father-in-law and accused no.4 Sow.It is alleged that after the marriage, deceased Surekha was treated well initially for a period of six months, but thereafter accused persons started to harass and illtreat her over demand of Rs. 25,000/- for the purchase of agricultural land.It is also alleged that when Surekha came to her parental house at the time of last Diwali, she disclosed about the unlawful demand of Rs. 25,000/- and illtreatment due to non-compliance thereof by the accused.But she was pacified and was sent back to her ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (4) matrimonial home.It is further alleged that Laxman (PW 2), father of Surekha i.e. complainant, had gone to the matrimonial home of Surekha to bring her for Nagpanchami festival.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(4)However, accused refused to send her and, therefore, he alone returned back.After some time, Surekha came to his house.At that time also, she disclosed that accused were demanding Rs.25,000/- and threatened her that if the said amount was not brought, she should not return back.However, at that time, cousin brother of complainant, namely, Rameshwar, had expired and, therefore, she stayed back at parental house for some time.Thereafter, she was sent back to her matrimonial home.However, Surekha returned back on the same day and on inquiry, she disclosed that her husband i.e. accused no.1 had assaulted her with hunter as she had not brought the demanded amount.(ii) It is also case of the prosecution that on the next day, the complainant, namely, Laxman (PW 2) went to Grampanchayat office and called Nandu Kale (PW 5) and Sakharam Dhongade and narrated them about illtreatment sustained by his daughter Surekha at the hands of accused, in presence of accused nos.1 and 2 who were present there.Hence, both the said persons i.e. Nandu Kale (PW 5) and Sakharam Dhongade advised the accused, not to illtreat Surekha.Moreover, the complainant assured that he would pay the amount to the accused after sale of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (5) sugarcane crop.Thereafter, the accused took Surekha to her matrimonial home with them.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(iii) However, the prosecution case reveals that on 12-10-1997, when complainant was near the bus stand, he received news that Surekha was ill and hospitalized in Government Hospital.Hence, complainant rushed to the Government Hospital and found that Surekha had already expired.Police arrived in the hospital and drew inquest panchanama of the dead body of Surekha and forwarded it for post mortem examination.Dr. Ramesh Khobare (PW 1) performed post mortem on the said dead body on 13-10-1997 and prepared post mortem report which is produced at Exhibit 10 and probable cause of death ascertained was due to poisoning, and viscera was sent for C.A. examination.(iv) It is also case of the prosecution that after cremation of dead body of Surekha, complainant i.e. Laxman (PW 2), lodged complaint with the Police personnel at Paithan Police Station and offence was registered against the accused under Crime No. 125/1997 on 13-10-1997 under Sections 498-A, 306, read with ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (6) Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::Constable Kaduba Bankar (PW 6) filed charge sheet against the accused before Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Paithan.Since offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Aurangabad.Accordingly, charge against the accused was framed on 17-6-2000 under Exhibit 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34, 306 read with Section 34, 323, 504 read with Section 34 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried.To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, as ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (7) mentioned below :::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(1) Dr. Ramesh Khobare (PW 1) - Medical Officer.(2) Laxman (PW 2) - Father of victim Surekha (complainant).The defence of the accused is of total denial and appellant stated that Surekha died because of vomitting and lose motions, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and accused submitted that he has been implicated in this case falsely and claimed to be innocent.The accused neither examined himself on oath nor examined any defence witness.After considering oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution on record and after considering rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for parties, learned trial court acquitted accused nos.2 to 5 for the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (8) charges levelled against them under Sections 498-A, 306, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, and acquitted accused no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, but convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 323 of IPC and sentenced him as afore stated.Hence, the appellant i.e. original accused no.1 has challenged the order of conviction and sentence by filing present appeal and prayed for quashment thereof.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::Before adverting to the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, it is necessary to scrutinize the material evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution and in the said context, coming to the deposition of Laxman (PW 2) i.e. father of the victim, who stated that his daughter Surekha was married with accused no.1 Vithal about two years prior to her death and they had given dowry amount of Rs. 25,000/- and 10 gms.Accordingly, Surekha was sent back along with accused nos.1 and 2 to her matrimonial home.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(10)Laxman (PW 2) has further stated that on the day of Ekadashi, he had gone to Paithan and while he was proceeding to bus stand, Vishnu Rakhmaji met him and told that his daughter was ill and requested to go to the hospital at Paithan.Accordingly, Laxman (PW 2) went to the hospital and saw that his daughter was already expired and body was handed over to him for cremation.Thereafter, he lodged complaint at Exhibit 13 after cremation took place.He has also stated that he had taken amount from a person, namely Mohan, from Jalgaon (Taluka : Shegaon), to whom he had given 5 Acres land.He has also admitted that maternal uncle of Surekha had spent the amount for the marriage and they had purchased 10 Gms.gold ring, but could not state the denomination in which he had paid dowry of Rs. 38,000/-.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(11)Laxman (PW 2) has also stated in the cross examination that he sold his house about a month back and sells vegetable.She stayed at his house on that day but next morning he went to Grampanchayat office and took two persons, namely Nandu Kale (PW5) and Rakhmaji Dhongade and they called accused no.1 Vithal in Grampanchayat office.Few suggestions were given to Laxman (PW 2) putting the case of the accused to him, but the same were denied by him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::He has further stated that as his uncle Rameshwar had expired, his sister stayed at his house for about 2::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::Thereafter she left for house of the accused.However, she immediately returned back to parental house and disclosed that accused had assaulted her with hunter.Hence, he himself, his father Laxman (PW 2), his uncle and his brother immediately went to Grampanchayat office.Nandu Kale (PW 5) and Rakhmaji Dhongade met them in Grampanchayat office.Moreover, accused nos.1 and 2 were also called at the said office and a meeting was held at the Grampanchayat office in presence of villagers.He has further stated that accused nos.1 and 2 were assured that they would pay amount of Rs. 25,000/- after sale of sugarcane.Thereafter accused nos.1 and 2 took victim Surekha to her matrimonial home.He has also stated that after lapse of about 2 months from the said incident, his sister expired.However, he did not go to the house of accused to see her.He has also stated that on the next day, he saw his sister when her dead body was brought.During the cross examination, he has admitted that he cannot state, exactly up to what date his sister was treated well.His brother Bappasaheb used to meet her whenever he went to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (14) the village.He has also stated that his sister used to visit regularly at his house for festivals and holidays.However, she never used to come casually to meet them.He has also stated that he is educated up to 12th standard and he used to visit regularly to the house of the accused.However, he has further stated that for about two months from the date of alleged assault, he did not go to his sister.Few suggestions were given to him in the cross examination that there was no illtreatment to his sister and that he was deposing falsely at the instance of his father, but the same were denied by him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(14)That takes me to the testimony of Nandu Kale (PW 5), who has deposed that he knows Laxman Dhonde who is resident of village Wadwali, and his daughter was married with accused no.1 Vithal at the same village.He has also stated that after 8 days of Panchami, Laxman (PW 2) came to his house and told him that some quarrel was going on in the house of inlaws of his daughter over demand of money and he was called therefor.He has also stated that accused nos. 1 and 2 met them near Grampanchayat office.He has further stated that Laxman (PW2) assured accused nos.1 and 2 that he would pay amount after sale of sugarcane crop, as well as, he told both the accused to settle the dispute as Laxman (PW 2) had agreed to pay the amount subsequently.Thereafter, victim Surekha went along ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (15) with accused nos.1 and 2 to her matrimonial home.However, he has stated that he learnt thereafter that daughter of Laxman had expired.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(15)In the cross examination, he has admitted that one Mr. Hirale had lodged complaint against him for burning his hut, as well as, one Santram Jadhav had also lodged complaint against him and others in the court of J.M.F.C., Paithan, which was ended in compromise.He has also admitted that there was complaint against Arun Rustum Kale for having assaulted Education Officer of Zilla Parishad and he belonged to his relations.Hence, suggestion was given to him that he and Arun Kale belonged to Shivsena Party, but the same was denied by him.He has further stated that many people assembled near Grampanchayat office when he had talk with the accused, but people had not questioned Laxman (PW 2) about it in his presence, although they were standing near Grampanchayat office for about 15 minutes.He has further stated that he did not call Police Patil or Sarpanch of the village for settling the dispute.He has also stated that he did not make inquiry with Laxman (PW 2) after the death of Surekha.Hence, suggestion was given to him that the complainant did not call him and there was no settlement at his instance, but the same was denied by him.It was also suggested to him that complainant never assured in his ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (16) presence to the accused that he would pay the amount of Rs. 25,000/- after sale of sugarcane crop, but the same was denied by him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(16)That takes me to the deposition of Dr. Ramesh Khobare (PW 1), who has stated that he was working as Medical Officer at Paithan since 1997 and on 13-10-1997, he himself and Dr. Killarikar performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Surekha Vithal Gade, between 8.15 a.m. to 9.05 a.m. Body was brought by K.K. Bankar of Paithan Police Station.He has also stated that it was dead body of female aged about 25 years, and clothes were stained with reddish froth and also with fical matter and there was fine bloody froth oozing from mouth and nostril.However, there was no evidence of external injury.He has also stated that on internal examination, brain, larynx, lungs and internal organs were congested.On opening, the stomach mucosa was highly congested and it contained about 200 Ml. of liquid material with black granules smelling kerosene.He has also stated that probable cause of death was due to poisoning.Accordingly, he has stated that he issued post mortem report which is produced at Exhibit 10, disclosing probable cause of death ascertained was poisoning.Dr. Ramesh Khobare (PW 1) has further stated that he ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (17) preserved routine viscera and the same was sent through Police personnel to Chemical Analyser.He has stated that on perusal of C.A. report, it does not show that poison was detected in viscera.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(17)He has further stated that though C.A. report does not detect poison, he could ascertain that death was due to poisoning because (1) there was fine oozing froth from nose and mouth, (2) internal all organs were congested, (3) stomach containing black granules which suggested that it was unknown poison with kerosene as solvent.He has further stated that in addition to that, he did not detect any other reason which would draw a different conclusion than that of poisoning.As regards the negative C.A.report, he has stated that probability cannot be ruled out that because of less quantity of poison, C.A. report must not have been detected.During cross examination, he has admitted that he did not preserve her fine froth for sending it for analysis.He has further stated that routinely they do not preserve the froth.He has further stated that in case of head injury and convulsion, there would be froth and blood even from nose and mouth.He has also stated that there is no such poison which cannot be detected by analysis.A suggestion was given to him, that by consumption of kerosene, there cannot be death, but the same was denied by him.It was also suggested to him, that he gave false opinion ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (18) regarding cause of death, but the same was denied by him.However, he has stated that he did not find that the body was smelling of kerosene.A suggestion was also given to him, that findings on column No.20, so far stomach and its contents are concerned, are false, but the same was denied by him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(18)On the background of the aforesaid evidence, Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellant canvassed that prosecution has not examined any independent witness in respect of unlawful demand of money and harassment due to non- fulfillment thereof.It is also canvassed that there is no close proximity regarding matrimonial cruelty and the death of victim in suspicious manner by way of suicide and in fact, there is two months gap therein, and it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between suicide by victim Surekha and the matrimonial cruelty at the hands of the accused to her.Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no matrimonial cruelty proved before the death, leading suspicious death of victim Surekha and hence it is urged that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (19) prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 306 against accused no.1 beyond reasonable doubt in respect of abetment to suicide by victim Surekha.Besides as regards the alleged offence under Section 306 of IPC, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that for the proof of offence under Section 306, suicide has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but C.A. report dated 4-6-1998, Exhibit 20, categorically discloses that "general and specific chemical testing does not reveal any poison in exhibit Nos.1 and 2 i.e. viscera of victim Surekha".Hence, it is submitted that no poison was detected in the viscera which was sent to Chemical Analyser for examination purpose and hence the very aspect of suicide allegedly committed by victim Surekha is under doldrums and hence prosecution has failed to bring guilt at home against accused no.1 in respect of offence under Section 306 of IPC.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(19)As regards offence under Section 498A of IPC, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that evidence of Laxman (PW 2) and Raju Dhonde (PW 3) are contrary to each other in respect of the demand of the amount and there is variance in the allegedly demanded amount by the accused from victim Surekha since Laxman (PW 2) has stated in his deposition that amount of Rs. 25,000/- was allegedly demanded from victim Surekha, whereas Raju Dhonde (PW 3) has stated that amount of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (20) Rs. 10,000/- was allegedly demanded from victim Surekha.Moreover, it is also canvassed that it has come in evidence that the accused persons already owned 25 Acres of Bagayat land, but the complainant had no money even to meet with the marriage expenses which were incurred by his maternal uncle of victim and even it has come in evidence that Society attached land of the complainant and complainant was surviving by selling vegetables.Hence, it is canvassed that on the said background, when the accused already owned 25 Acres of Bagayat land it is not digestible that accused would demand alleged amount from the victim for purchase of plot and would harass and illtreat the victim due to non-fulfillment thereof.Hence, it is submitted that the evidence regarding alleged demand and harassment is not probable and not acceptable.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::(20)Moreover, as regards the evidence of Nandu Kale (PW5), allegedly independent witness, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the said witness has criminal background.Moreover, evidence of Nandu Kale (PW 5) does not whisper regarding alleged demand and harassment of victim due to non-fulfillment thereof and, therefore, it is submitted that testimony of Nandu Kale (PW 5) does not support the prosecution case.Moreover, it is also canvassed that the version of Nandu Kale (PW 5) and Laxman (PW 2), complainant, differ ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 ::: (21) from each other and there is no corroboration to the said versions of any independent witness.Accordingly, it is urged that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against the appellant under Section 498A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::Accused no.1 has been implicated in this case falsely and hence, presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act cannot be raised against accused no.1 since there is no basic foundation of evidence in that respect.In the context of alleged offence under Section 323 of IPC, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is big question mark, whether any such incident occurred at all and there is no independent witness to substantiate the charge against the accused under Section 323 of IPC and, therefore, the bald statements made by the interested witnesses in respect of the said alleged offences cannot be accepted and cannot be believed.Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following reported cases :::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:19 :::Absence of this evidence coupled with the fact that evidence on demand was totally inconsistent and the evidence on cruelty was vague, the evidence of these witnesses lacks necessary assurance which is required in criminal trial to bring home the guilt essentially in respect of the offences of the present nature.For raising presumption under S. 113-A of the Evidence Act it is imperative for the prosecution to establish that a married woman was subjected to cruelty and harassment.In the circumstances, learned Counsel for the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 ::: (28) appellant urged that the present appeal be allowed and conviction and sentence inflicted upon accused no.1 be quashed and set aside, and accused no.1 be acquitted thereof.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 :::(28)Mr. B.V. Wagh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, countered the said arguments and opposed the present appeal vehemently and submitted that death of deceased Surekha took place within three years from the marriage and considering the said very aspect and also considering all other circumstances of the case, presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is required to be raised against accused no.1, since accused no.1 failed to give plausible and convincing explanation in respect of custodial death of victim in the custody of accused no.1 in suspicious manner.It is further submitted that it is pertinent to note that no suggestion was given to Nandu Kale (PW 5), independent witness, that whether was there enmity between accused no.1 and him and since there was no enmity ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 ::: (29) between Nandu Kale (PW 5) and accused no.1, the evidence of Nandu Kale (PW 5), independent witness, against accused no.1, is required to be accepted.He has further submitted assault by accused no.1 to victim by hunter has been proved and established by the prosecution and there is close proximity between the matrimonial cruelty and the suicide committed by victim Surekha and accused has failed to give any explanation why victim Surekha committed suicide.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 :::(29)Perused the oral, documentary and medical evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution, as well as, heard the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for parties, and considered the judicial pronouncements cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant.At the outset, the prosecution has not examined any independent witness in respect of unlawful demand of money and harassment due to non-fulfillment thereof.True it is, that the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 ::: (30) prosecution has examined Nandu Kale (PW 5) who is alleged to be independent witness, but he does not state about alleged unlawful demand of money from deceased Surekha by accused persons and harassment to her due to non-fulfillment thereof.Moreover, the said witness Nandu Kale (PW 5) also does not whisper about the alleged assault on victim by hunter.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 :::(30)Moreover, Laxman (PW 2) has stated in his deposition that his daughter Surekha had come to her parental house for Panchami i.e. in the month of August and she allegedly told that accused were making demand of Rs. 25,000/- for the purchase of agricultural land.He has also stated that thereafter in the month of Bhadrapad i.e. August end or September, his cousin brother Rameshwar had expired and his daughter had come for his funeral and at that time, she stayed for about two days and disclosed that her husband and other inlaws were making demand of cash, but he did not give her any amount and sent her back.However, he has further stated that the appellant assaulted her by hunter and, therefore, she returned back on the same day and she disclosed that appellant assaulted her by hunter and showed weal marks on her back.On the next day, Laxman (PW 2) went to Grampanchayat office and took Nandu Kale (PW 5) and Rakhmaji.He has further stated that thereafter his daughter did not return back and he got the message on 12-10-1997, that his daughter was ill and accordingly went to the hospital and found that she was already expired.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 :::(31)Thus, from Bhadrapad i.e. August end or September till 12-10-1997, no matrimonial cruelty at the hands of accused upon the victim Surekha was reported and hence it is amply clear that there is no close proximity regarding matrimonial cruelty and death of victim in suspicious manner by way of suicide since there is long gap of almost one and half month to two months, and hence prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between suicide by victim Surekha and matrimonial cruelty at the hands of the accused to her.Moreover, there are no specific instances of matrimonial cruelty established by the prosecution leading to suspicious death of victim Surekha and hence, there is no cogent and convincing evidence to prove and establish beyond reasonable doubt that offence under Section 306 of IPC against the appellant herein, in respect of abetment to suicide by victim Surekha.Moreover, other aspect also cannot be overlooked that the C.A. report dated 4-6-1998, Exhibit 20, disclosed that general and specific chemical testing of the viscera of the victim does not reveal poison and accordingly, no poison was detected in viscera ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 ::: (32) of the victim which was sent to C.A. for examination purpose and, therefore, the very aspect of suicide allegedly committed by victim Surekha comes under suspicion although Dr. Ramesh Khobare (PW 1) has opined that death was due to poisoning because there was fine oozing froth from nose and mouth, internal all organs were congested, and stomach contained black granules which suggested that it was unknown poison with kerosene as solvent, and hence, considering the said C.A. report Exhibit 20, appellant herein is entitled for benefit of doubt in respect of offence under Section 306 of IPC.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 :::(32)As regards offence under Section 498A of IPC, evidences of Laxman (PW 2) and Raju Dhonde (PW 3) are contrary to each other in respect of very aspect of demand of amount and there is variance in the alleged demanded amount by the accused from victim Surekha since Laxman (PW 2) has stated that amount of Rs. 25,000/- was demanded from victim Surekha, whereas Raju Dhonde (PW 3) has stated that amount of Rs. 10,000/- was allegedly demanded from victim Surekha.Moreover, it has also come in evidence that accused persons already owned 25 Acres Bagayat land, whereas the complainant had no money even to bear the marriage expenses which were incurred by maternal uncle of the victim and even Society had attached land of the complainant and he was surviving on selling ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 ::: (33) of vegetables and, therefore, on the aforesaid scenario, alleged unlawful demand by the accused from victim Surekha for the purchase of agricultural land, does not appear to be probable.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 :::(33)Moreover, the testimony of Nandu Kale (PW 5), who is posed to be independent witness, loses its weightage since there is criminal background to the said witness which has been revealed in his cross examination.Moreover, even so called independent witness Nandu Kale (PW 5) nowhere spells out about alleged demand and harassment by the accused to victim Surekha due to non-fulfillment thereof and hence, his testimony cannot be of any aid and assistance to the case of the prosecution in respect of the said charge.Besides, there is variance between version of the said independent witness Nandu Kale (PW 5) and Laxman (PW 2), the complainant, regarding the said charge under Section 498A of IPC.Thus, the evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution is inconsistent and there are infirmities and discrepancies in the evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution and hence, considering the said deformities and also considering the other circumstances of the case, presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act cannot be raised against accused no.1 i.e. appellant herein, and conviction inflicted upon the appellant herein under Section 498A of IPC shall not sustasin since there is no basis and foundation of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 ::: (34) legal evidence therefor.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 :::(34)Pertinently, as regards charge under Section 323 of IPC, there is no independent witness to substantiate the same against the appellant herein and conviction cannot be based against the appellant (accused no.1) merely on the basis of bald statements made by interested witnesses.Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant, be refunded to him.His bail bond stands cancelled.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 :::(35)::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:22:20 :::

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']

The present appellanthas been convicted by the High Court under Section 302 of Indian PenalCode, 1860 (for short “IPC”), and sentenced to imprisonment for life anddirected to pay a fine Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine he isdirected to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of sixmonths.Appellant Darshan Singh has been further found guilty of the chargeof offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, and sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine ofRs. 1,000/- with default clause directing to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor further period of two months.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperson record.Prosecution story, in brief, is that there was dispute betweencomplainant and his relatives on one side and accused persons on the otherside regarding their turn of irrigating their fields.On account of this,earlier there had been incidents of assaulting each other.In thecircumstances, both the parties were facing proceedings under Section107/151 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.PC”) beforeExecutive Magistrate, Faridkot.On 17.02.1995, complainant Amrik Singh (PW-1) along with Raj Singh (PW-3), Sukhchain Singh (PW-2) , Harbans Singh (oneof the deceased), and their father Mander Singh and cousin Gursewak Singhwith maternal uncle Santa Singh (another deceased) and Boota Singh had goneto attend the proceedings of the court.From the side of accused SurainSingh, Jasmail Singh, Darshan Singh (present appellant), Jhanda Singh andBoota Singh had also come to the court on said date.At about 11.00 a.m.both the sides started quarrelling and had a heated exchange of words, asSurain Singh objected to presence of Bhajan Singh who was relative ofcomplainant Amrik Singh and not a party to the proceedings.He (SurainSingh), a Amritdhari Sikh, took out his Siri Sahib (Small Kripan, a sharpedged weapon) and gave blow to Bhajan Singh.When complainant partyattempted to separate them, Surain Singh gave Kripan blow on the person ofMander Singh.He assaulted also on the left shoulder of the complainantAmrik Singh, and gave two blows on the person of Suckhchain Singh.He didnot stop there and also assaulted Harbans Singh (deceased) with Kripan.Accused Darshan Singh (appellant) also took out his Kripan and inflictedinjuries on the person of Santa Singh (another deceased).Accused DarshanSingh (appellant) is said to have given blows also to Raj Singh.Pal Singhand Jhanda Singh caught hold of Gursewak Singh, and Darshan Singh assaultedthem also.Accused Boota Singh instigated other accused that no one shouldbe escaped alive.The injured were taken to Guru Gobind Singh MedicalHospital, Faridkot, where Santa Singh and Harbans Singh succumbed to theirinjuries.Report of the above incident was lodged by complainant Amrik Singh(PW-2).Prafulla C. Pant, J.The appeal filed by the Statequa Darshan Singh (present appellant) against his acquittal by the trialcourt, was allowed and his acquittal was reversed.On the basis of it, FIR No. 14, dated 17.02.1995 was registered atPolice Station, City Faridkot.The investigation was taken up by Sub-inspector Ranjit Singh (PW-17), who took the dead bodies in his possession,sealed it, prepared inquest report and got sent them for post-mortemexamination.Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu (PW-4) conducted post-mortemexamination on the dead bodies of Santa Singh and Harbans Singh on17.02.1995, and prepared autopsy reports.The other injured were alsomedically examined by PW-4 Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu and PW-5 Dr. ManjitSingh.There were injuries also on the side of the accused, and from theirside accused Pal Singh, accused Surain Singh and accused Jhanda Singhsuffered injuries.After interrogating witnesses and on completion ofinvestigation PW-16 Assistant Sub-inspector Ram Singh (who took overinvestigation from S.I Ranjit Singh) submitted charge-sheet against accusedpersons in the court.On 7.7.1995, Additional Sessions Judge,Faridkot framed charge against all the accused, namely, Surain Singh,Darshan Singh (present appellant), Pal Singh, Jhanda Singh , Jasmail Singh,Boota Singh and Lachman Dass relating to offences punishable under Section148, 302/149 (on separate counts of death of two persons), 307/149,324/149, 218 and 201 IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed tobe tried.Thereafter prosecution got examined PW-1 Amrik Singh (informant), PW-2 Sukhchain Singh, PW-3 Raj Singh (all the three injured eye witnesses), PW-4 Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu who conducted post-mortem examination, PW-5 Dr.Manjit Singh, PW-6 Gurcharanjit Kaur, Ahalmad, PW-7 Ujjagar Singh, Steno toA.D.C. Moga, PW-8 ASI Basant Singh, PW-9 Head Constable Shagan Singh, PW-10 Inspector Prithvi Singh, PW-11 Prithi Pal Singh, S.S.Teacher, PW-12Dharam Singh, Draftsman, PW-13 MHC Baljit Singh, PW-14 Dr. S.P. Singla, PW-15 Sub Inspector Shivraj Bhushan, PW-16 Sub Inspector Ram Singh, PW-17Inspector Ranjit Singh, PW-18 Constable Jagjit Singh and PW-19 SatishKalia, Ahalmad.The evidence adduced by prosecution was put to the accused by thetrial court under Section 313 of Cr.PC.In reply to which the accusedpersons alleged that evidence against them was incorrect.Appellant DarshanSingh took the specific plea of alibi stating that on 17.02.1995 he wasattending his duty as a Laboratory Assistant in Senior Secondary School,Janerian.Other accused took pleas of self defence.On behalf of thedefence DW-1 Satnam Kaur, DW-2 Rajinder Kumar, DW-3 Darshan Singh (Teacherin primary school, Pakhi Khurd), DW-4 Pawan Kumar, Ahalmad, DW-5 J.V.Tiwari, DW-6 Mukhtiar Singh, DW-7 Om Parkash and DW-8 ASI Harvinder PalSingh were examined.The trial court after hearing the parties found that charge asagainst accused Boota Singh, Darshan Singh and Lachman Dass is not provedand, as such, they were acquitted.However, accused Surain Singh wasconvicted under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of Harbans Singhand also under Section 307 of IPC for attempting to murder Sukhchain Singh.He (Surain Singh) was further convicted under Section 324 of IPC.Rest ofthe accused Jhanda Singh, Jasmail Singh and Pal Singh were convicted underSections 302/34, 307/34 and 324/34 of IPC.After hearing the sentence, thetrial court sentenced the convicts to various sentences.Convicts Surain Singh, Jhanda Singh, Jasmail Singh and Pal Singhchallenged their conviction before the High Court, and by the impugnedorder the High Court allowed appeal of Jhanda Singh, Jasmail Singh and PalSingh, but appeal of Surain Singh was dismissed.The connected appeal No.568 DBA of 1998 filed by the State qua Darshan Singh against order of hisacquittal was allowed, and he was convicted under Section 302 of IPC forcommitting murder of Santa Singh and sentenced to imprisonment for life anddirected to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default clause.He was furtherconvicted under Section 324 of IPC for voluntarily causing hurt with adeadly weapon on person of Gursewak Singh and Raj Singh and sentenced torigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause.Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated02.09.2008, passed by the High Court, this appeal is filed by accusedDarshan Singh who was acquitted by the trial court, but order of acquittalwas reversed and was convicted by the High Court.Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Senior Advocate, on behalf of the appellant, hasargued before us that where two views are possible on the basis of evidenceon record, the High Court should not have reversed the order of acquittalrecorded by trial court.It is further contended that appellant DarshanSingh was discharging his duties in the school on 17.02.1995 and was notpresent at the place of incident when occurrence took place and as such,the acquittal recorded by the trial court was not liable to be interferedwith.Our attention is drawn to the evidence adduced in defence in supportof plea of alibi.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State pointed out that inthe incident in question, while Surain Singh committed murder of HarbansSingh, the appellant (Darshan Singh) committed murder of Santa Singh.It isfurther submitted that plea of alibi taken by the defence was correctlyfound false by the High Court after re-appreciation of evidence.Learnedcounsel for the State referred to the statements of injured eye witnesses.We have considered rival submissions and perused the entire record ofthe case.There are three injured eye witnesses in the present case,namely, PW-1 Amrik Singh, PW-2 Sukhchain Singh and PW-3 Raj Singh.It is acase of day light incident.Injuries on the person of said eye witnesseshave been corroborated by PW-4 Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu, PW-5 Dr. ManjitSingh and PW-14 Dr. S.P. Singla.Ocular testimony of eye witnesses cannotbe discarded lightly.Once the prosecution has discharged its burden, theburden to prove that appellant Darshan Singh was not present with otheraccused at the place of incident and had gone elsewhere, lies on him.Injured eye witnesses have assigned specific role as to how he assaultedSanta Singh who suffered ante mortem injuries which gets corroborated fromthe autopsy report of Santa Singh.There are as many as five stabbed woundsout of the six ante mortem injuries.The same are being reproduced belowfrom autopsy report of Santa Singh:-Transverse stab wound 3 x 0.5 cm was present on the anterior side ofchest on the left side, 6 cms below and lateral to left nipple at 4.00 O’clock position.C.B.P was present.On dissection, it is going in wards andmedially through 6th inter costal space, piercing the pericardium and leftvertical.Pericardial sac contains about 200 C.C of fluid blood.It was bone deep C.B.P.Transverse stab wound 2 x 0.5 cm was present at the back of the leftside of abdomen 3 cms lateral to midline and 15 cm above the posteriorsuperior iliac spine of left side on dissection, the peritoneum largeintestia was cut.Peritoneal cavity contained about 500 C.C. of fluid andclotted blood.Transverse stab wound 2.5 x 0.5 cm was present on the back of the leftside of abdomen, 6 cms lateral to the injury no.3 C.B.P. It was skin deep.An oblique stab wound 1.5 x 25 cm on the back of left side of chest, 2cms from the midline and 20 cms below the nape of the neck, it was bonedeep C.B.P.A transverse stab wound 4 x 0.5 cms on the back of left side ofchest, 5 cms from the midline and 12 cms below the nape of the neck.C.B.P.It was bone deep.”From the record, PW-1 Amrik Singh (eye witness) appears to havesuffered following injuries at the time of the incident:-“2.4cm x 1cm incised wound-10.5 cms below and posterior to leftshoulder joint.X-ray of left shoulder joint advised.Injury was kept under observation and duration was within 6 hoursweapon used was sharp weapon” Injuries were declared simple in nature as per x-ray report and wasresult of a sharp weapon.”Another eye witness PW-2 Sukhchain Singh found to have sufferedfollowing injuries as per the injury report proved on the record:-“1. 1.0 cm x 0.25 cm incised wound on the middle of forehead.X-rayadvised.2. 2 cm x 1 cm incised wound on right side of chest 17 cms fromxiphisternum.Profuse bleeding was present.X-ray advised.Surgical opinion and X-ray advised.”Third eye witness PW-3 Raj Singh suffered following injuries on thedate of incident, as proved on the record:-“1. 1.9 cm x 1 incised wound in right Gluteal region-6 ½ cms below theright.Anterior superior iliac spine.X-ray advised.2cms x 1 cm incised wound on right lower chest.Bonedeep 22 cms belowthe right anterior, Axillary fold-17 cms below and slightly lateral toright memory gland.Surgical opinion was advised.”Now, we come to the defence plea of appellant Darshan Singh which wasaccepted by the trial court but rejected by the High Court.There is nocavil over the fact that appellant Darshan Singh was posted as LabAssistant with the Senior Secondary School, Janerian.After carefully goingthrough the statements of defence witnesses and other evidence on record,we agree with the High Court that accused Darshan Singh has taken falseplea of alibi.His presence and role is narratedin detail by the injured eye witnesses.In view of his role in the incidentnarrated by the eye witnesses, it is hard to believe that after movingapplication on 16.02.1995 for casual leave for 17.02.1995, Darshan Singhattended the school next day in the first half and sought half day leavethereafter.The attendance register was not seized immediately after theincident.His plea of alibi is vacillating.The word alibi means “elsewhere”.In the present case said conditionis fulfilled.After scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, we do not find anyillegality in appreciation of evidence, or in arriving at the conclusion asto the guilt of the present appellant by the High Court.Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we find no force in thisappeal which liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']