Datasets:

Fawazzx

/

full

like 0

/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.From the statement of one Parvina Mondal, recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Palashipara Police Station Case No. 77 of 2020, it prima facie appears that Shamser Sk.and ten to twelve others were the aggressors and they proceeded to the house of one Budu Sk.belonging to the group of the petitioners.Parvina Mondal has also stated that there were frequent disputes between the two groups pertaining to plots of land.Without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the rival submissions and considering the materials in the case diary, the nature of allegations, the extent of complicity of the petitioners in the alleged offence and the period of custody, we are of the opinion that further custodial detention of the petitioners is not warranted.Accordingly, we direct that the petitioners, namely, Bimal Sk., Kamal Sk.alias Ibrahim, Sujan Sk.alias Alam Badsah and 3 Shyamal Sk.alias Samar, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehatta, Nadia on condition that the petitioners shall stay outside the jurisdiction of Palashipara Police Station save and except attending the Trial Court on the dates specified.The petitioners shall also inform their address where they are residing to the Officer in Charge of Palashipara Police Station.With the aforesaid observations, the application for bail, being CRM No. 8374 of 2020, is disposed of.(Tirthankar Ghosh, J) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J)

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In other 3 cases, final report yet to be filed.The petitioner is a notorious rowdy element and he had threatened the retired Police Inspector with whom he has some issues.The retired Police Inspector was threatened in a public place.Hence, he opposed the bail application.(a) the petitioner shall execute his own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) before the Superintendent of the concerned prison, in which the petitioner has been confined on their release;The Judicial Magistrate-II, Kanchipuram.5/6http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P. No.8752 of 2020 M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.The Superintendent, Central Prision, Vellore.The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.05.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 307 & 1/6http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P. No.8752 of 2020 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.1375 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.The case of the prosecution is that on 17.05.2020 at about 6.30 p.m., the defacto complainant who is the retired Inspector of Police and lodged a complaint stating that while he was walking along the road near a kumaragam apartment to vallalar nagar, the petitioner along with other accused using abusive and filthy language attempted to commit murder of the defacto complainant.Hence the complaint has to be lodged.With regard to the other cases namely Crime No.449 of 2014, 880 of 2017 and 596 of 2018, in all the cases the final 2/6http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P. No.8752 of 2020 report is yet to be filed.The petitioner for the statistical purpose has been implicated in this case.(b) the petitioner shall execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date of lifting of lock down and commencement of regular functioning of Court below, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed automatically;(c) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;(d) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily for a period of two weeks.(e) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;(f) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;(g) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;4/6http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P. No.8752 of 2020(h) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];(i) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.17.06.2020 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order arb ToThe Inspector of Police, B3-Kanchi Taluk Police Station, Kanchipuram District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.O.P.No.8752 of 2020 17.06.2020

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']

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

These convictions and sentences have been challenged in the present appeals.The prosecution in brief, as emerging from the recitals contained in the FIR, dying declaration of the victim and the evidence of the two eye-witnesses namely Abdul Hamid PW 1 and Abdul Majid PW 2, runs as follows :-It is alleged that they used to manage Ajay Roadways which was a partnership firm dealing in transport business.At about 11.45 a.m. when the victim and PW 1 Abdul Hamid were standing on the footpath, in front of Ajay Transport and were talking, the two appellants came from the direction of Charnal.One of them namely Syed Munna told the victim to give Rs. 4,000/- and threatened him that in case he failed to do so, he should be ready to face the consequences.The other appellant Nasir Hussain Shaikh is alleged to have said 'give just now'.On that, the victim replied that since they were from the same Mohalla, why should he pay them the aforesaid amount.He also remonstrated as to why they were threatening him.On that appellant Sayed Munna inflicted a blow, with a knife used for cutting bread, resulting in three fingers of the right hand of the victim being severely injured.The victim's nephew PW 1 Abdul Hamid tried to catch Sayed Munna but, the appellant Nasir Hussain Shaikh thwarted his effort by kicking him on the back.Thereafter, both the appellants are said to have run away towards Charnal.It is alleged that some people who were passing be caught hold of Nasir Hussain near charnal Island.They brought appellant Nasir Hussain near the Transport Office.In the meantime, a police wireless van from Dongri Police station came there.The appellant Nasir Hussain was handed over to the police.JUDGMENT Sahai, J.Since both these appeals arise out of the same set of facts, we propose disposing them of by a common judgment.Vide judgment and order dated 12-8-1993, Shri V. C. Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 66 of 1990, and Sessions Case No. 49 of 1991, convicted the appellants of both the appeals on two counts, namely Section 387 read with Section 34 IPC and 302 read with Section 34 IPC; whereas under the first count, he awarded each of the appellants a sentence of five years RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to further undergo RI for 30 days, on the second count, he sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 30 days.The substantive sentences of the appellants were directed to run concurrently.Blood was oozing out from Nasir Hussain's nose as a result of the injuries caused to him by persons, in trying to arrest him.Thereafter, Abdul Hamid PW 1 took the victim to J. J. Hospital on a motor cycle and at the aforesaid.Hospital, the victim was given first aid treatment and thereafter, was sent to Bombay Hospital.The FIR was lodged by PW 1 Abdul Hamid at 1.30 a.m. on 31-10-1989, at police station Dongri and in the aforesaid FIR both the appellants are named.Dr. Pravin Bagul, PW 7 of J. J. Hospital medically examined the victim and found three of his fingers cut.At the aforesaid hospital, injuries of appellant Nasir Hussain Shaikh were also medically examined.The investigation of the case was conducted by SHO Shivaji Wagh PW 6 who at the time of the incident, was attached to police station, Dongri.On the basis of the FIR, lodged by Abdul Hamid PW 1, Shivaji Wagh, PW 6 registered C.R. No. 392/89 u/S. 389, 325, 34 IPC against the appellants.The same day, he went to the place of the incident and between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. prepared the spot panchanama.That very day he also went to the Bombay Hospital and at 5.10 p.m. there recorded the statement of the victim, under Section 161, Cr.P.C. After returning to the police station, he recorded statements of some other witnesses.Thereafter, investigation of the case was transferred to PI Gaikwad who has not been examined by the prosecution.On 1-11-1989, SHO Shivaji Wagh learnt that the victim Abdul Razak had succumbed to his injuries in Bombay Hospital.After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the appellants.On the dead body, the doctor found the following three injuries :-(1) Stitched wound on right index finger phalanx palmer surface 3 cm transverse.(2) Stitched wound on right middle finger 3.5 cm proximal phalanx palmer surface transferse.(3) Stitched wound on right hand ring finger proximal to middle phalanx 3.5 cm palmer surface.In the opinion of Dr. Kelwekar, the aforesaid injuries of the deceased were grievous in nature as vessels were cut.He also opined that death of the deceased was on account of pulmonary oedma which was collection of fluid in lungs.In the course, the case was committed to the Court of Session.In the trial Court, charges under Sections 387 read with Sections 34 IPC and 302 read with Section 34 IPC were framed against the appellants to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.During trial, the prosecution adduced evidence of as many as eight witnesses.Out of them two namely Abdul Hamid PW 1 and Abdul Majid PW 2, the nephew and brother of the deceased respectively, gave ocular account of the incident.The remaining witnesses included Dr. Kelwekar PW 5 who performed the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased.Dr. Pravin Bagul PW 7 who examined him in his lifetime and SHO Shivaji Wagh who conducted the investigation in the instant case.Apart from tendering oral evidence, the prosecution also tendered a large volume of documentary evidence.In defence, no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellants.The learned Trial Judge believed the prosecution evidence and passed the impugned judgment.We have heard Mr. M. K. Joshi and Mrs. V. S. Deshpande for the appellants and Mr. K. H. Chopda, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.Both sides have argued the matter with great thoroughness.After giving our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be partly allowed.In our judgment, they deserve to be acquitted on that count and instead, appellant Sayed Munna deserves to be convicted under Section 326 IPC and appellants Nasir Shaikh under S. 326 read with 34 IPC.Mr. M. K. Joshi and Mrs. V. S. Deshpande, first emphatically tried to convince us that the evidence on record does not inspire confidence and the appellants deserve a clear acquittal; at any rate, benefit of doubt, on both the counts.It was only when their aforesaid submission failed to make any impression on us, that they switched on to the alternative argument namely that the learned Trial Judge gravely erred in convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC and should have instead convicted the appellant Sayed Munna under Section 326 IPC and appellant Nasir Hussain Shaikh under Section 326/34 IPC.Both Mr. Joshi and Mrs. Deshpande vehemently urged that it was a broad day light incident which took place in a crowded locality and the circumstance that both eye-witnesses are close relations of the victim and that no independent evidence is forthcoming should be construed by us to the effect that the assault on the deceased has gone unnoticed and subsequently, these false and interested witnesses were introduced by the prosecution, in the instant case.It is true that both the eye-witnesses namely Abdul Hamid, PW 1 and Abdul Majid PW 2 being nephew and brother of the deceased respectively are interested witnesses.However, in our judgment, the norms of appreciation of evidence do not require that the testimony of interested witnesses should be mechanically rejected.They only require that the same may be scrutinised with caution and only thereafter, be relied upon.Way back as 1965, the Apex Court in two decisions laid down the aforesaid norm , Masalti v. State of U.P. and , Daryasingh v. State of Punjab.After scrutinising the evidence of both these witnesses with caution, we do not find any such infirmity in their evidence which would militate against the core of the prosecution case.On material particulars, of the prosecution case, both these witnesses have stood as firm as "Rock of Gibralter".Being a broad day-light incident, there was no difficulty for these witnesses to recognise the appellants, who were known to them from before the incident.No ostensible reason could be pointed out as to why these witnesses are falsely implicating the appellants in the instant case.As mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment, the incident took place on 31-10-1989 at 11.30 a.m. and the FIR was lodged at police station Dongri by PW 1 Abdul Hamid the same day at 1.30 p.m. i.e. within two hours of the incident taking place.Criminal Courts attach great significance to the lodging of a prompt FIR.Dr. Parvin Bagul, PW 7 who examined the victim in his life time found his three fingers along with tendons to be cut.The prosecution case is also strengthened by the circumstance that appellant Nasir Hussain Shaikh was arrested on the spot.We also find that there was no reason or any malice on the part of the two eye-witnesses to falsely implicate the appellants.Apart from ocular account, there is the statement of the victim (Exh. 19) which was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the same day at 5.10 p.m. at Bombay Hospital by SHO Shivaji Wagh PW 6, the Investigating Officer.Since the aforesaid statement contains the circumstances and the manner in which the victim Abdul Razak was assaulted and as Abdul Razak died after giving it, it would be admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. The aforesaid statement implicates both the appellants and corroborates the evidence of both the eye-witnesses.There was no reason for the victim to falsely implicate the appellants.In our view, it inspires confidence and the learned trial Judge erred in ignoring it.For the aforesaid reasons, in our view, the learned Trial Judge rightly accepted the involvement of the appellants in the instant crime.In our view, the learned Trial Judge also rightly held that the prosecution had brought home the guilt of the appellants under Section 387 read with Section 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.However, in our opinion, the learned trial Judge grossly erred in convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and instead he should have convicted the appellant Sayed Munna under Section 326 IPC and appellant Nasir Hussain Shaikh under Section 326/34 IPC.For appreciating as to why we are of the aforesaid view, let us briefly recapitulate the prosecution story.According to the prosecution, on 3-10-1989, at 11.45 a.m. when the deceased Abdul Razak was standing near Ajay Transport along with Abdul Hamid, PW 1 the appellants came.Appellant Sayed Munna asked the deceased to give Rs. 4,000/- and threatened him that failure to do so would result in dire consequences.Appellant Nasir Hussain Shaikh is alleged to have told the deceased that he should give that money just now.The deceased understandably protested in giving the aforesaid amount resulting in the appellant Sayed Munna inflicting a blow on him with a knife used for cutting bread, as a consequences of which, three fingers of the right hand of the deceased got severely injured.The deceased was treated the same day at J. J. Hospital by Dr. Pravin Bagul PW 7 and next day (1-11-1989) he succumbed to his injuries at Bombay Hospital.All the injuries were located on three fingers of the right hand and as vessels were cut, Dr. Kelwekar opined that they were grievous in nature.According to Dr. Kelwekar the deceased died on account of pulmonary oedema which was dried collection of fluid in lungs.In our opinion, bearing in mind the manner in which the incident took place; the absence of previous enmity between the appellants and the deceased; the weapon of assault which was a knife used for cutting bread; the citus of injuries which was three fingers of the right hand of the deceased; and absence of direct nexus between the injuries of the deceased and pulmonary oedema which led to his death, the appellants would not be guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and instead appellant Sayed Munna would be guilty under Section 326 IPC for he inflicted the grievous injuries sustained by the deceased and appellant Nasir Hussain Shaikh would be liable under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC far from the facts which we have mentioned above, it can be safely inferred that he shared the common intention with appellant Sayed Munna to inflict grievous injuries on the deceased.The following circumstances warrant such an inference regarding appellant Nasir Hussain Shaikh :-(a) Both he and appellant Sayed Munna came together on the place of the incident;(b) He joined appellant Sayed Munna in demanding Rs. 4,000/- from the deceased and said 'give just now'(c) He knew that appellant Sayed Munna was carrying a knife for cutting bread and that the same could be used for assaulting the deceased in case he did not pay the amount;(d) After appellant Sayed Munna had assaulted the deceased with knife on his fingers, PW 1 Abdul Hamid tried to catch hold of Sayed Munna to prevent further assault on the deceased and then he (appellant Nasir Hussain Shaikh) kicked Abdul Hamid on the back; and(e) After the incident, both he and appellant Sayed Munna ran away towards Charnal.We also find that PW 2 Abdul Majid who is an eye-witness of the incident has not stated this in his statement in the trial Court.It is true that Abdul Hamid PW 1 stated in his deposition in the trial Court that Sayed Munna aimed the blow on the chest of the deceased and it struck on the fingers of the right hand of the deceased when he tried to protect his chest with his right hand.In our judgment, the appellants would have to be acquitted for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and for the reasons mentioned in paragraph 17, appellant Sayed Munna would have instead to be convicted under Section 326 IPC and appellant Nasir Hussain Shaikh under Section 326 read with 34 IPC.The question which arises is as to what should be the quantum of sentence which should be awarded to appellant Sayed Munna under Section 326 IPC and to appellant Nasir Hussain Shaikh under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC.We have given our anxious consideration to this question.In our opinion, looking to the totality of circumstances, a sentence of five years RI under Section 326 IPC and 326 read with Section 34 IPC to appellants Sayed Munna and Nasir Hussain Shaikh respectively, would meet the ends of justice.In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed.In case, the appellants have paid the fine, the same shall stand refunded to them.Instead we convict the appellant Sayed Munna under Section 326 IPC and sentence him to undergo five years RI and appellant Nasir Hussain Shaikh under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and also sentence him to undergo five years RI.We confirm the conviction and sentence of both the appellants under Section 387 read with Section 34 IPC.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):Crl.A. 1275/2010 Page 1 of 18Bahadur @ Deepak had then made a statement that he accepts his conviction but the order on sentence should be quashed.The said prayer was accepted.Bahadur @ Deepak was directed to attend counselling session at Prayas Juvenile Aid Centre Society once a week for the next three months after the date of his release.He could not be located by his parents Virender Kumar (PW-2) and Madhu Soni (PW-7) in their house, i.e., E-2/53, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.Madhu Soni (PW-7) deposed that she went to the police station at about 11 P.M. to complain that Ashish (PW-5) was missing and could not be traced in spite of best efforts.FIR No. 162/2007 was registered on 25th April, 2007 on a complaint made by her husband.Virender Kumar (PW-2) husband of PW-7, in his court deposition has stated that Crl.A. 1275/2010 Page 2 of 18 on 23rd April, 2007 in spite of their best efforts they were unable to trace Ashish.His brother-in-law Rajender had informed him that he had seen Ashish with Madan Gopal, (PW-2s elder brother) going towards the railway station at about 10.15 P.M. Thereafter, they searched for Ashish near the railway station but did not succeed.The matter was reported to the police at 11.15 P.M., who then recorded missing report vide DD entry No. 12A (Exhibit PW-2/A).PW-2 also suspected involvement of Deepak, a resident of Bihar, who was residing with his elder brother Madan Gopal.Crl.A. 1275/2010 Page 2 of 18On 24th/25th April, 2007 PW-11 was posted as duty officer from 1 A.M. to 9 A.M. at Police Station Sarai Rohilla.He recorded DD No. 12A marked Exhibit PW- 2/A. The said DD entry No. 12A (Exhibit PW-2/A) specifically mentions that Virender (PW-2) suspected involvement of the appellant- Madan Gopal and that his brother-in-law Rajender Kumar (PW-4) had informed him that he had even seen Ashish with Madan Gopal at about 10.15 P.M. It mentions that Madan Gopal was missing Crl.A. 1275/2010 Page 3 of 18 from his residence.Crl.A. 1275/2010 Page 3 of 18Virender Kumar (PW-2) has deposed that his brother Madan Gopal and Bahadur @ Deepak were both missing during the said period.In these circumstances, we do not think the appellant derives much advantage or benefit from the fact that Rajender Kumar, who has deposed as PW-4, was declared hostile and had claimed that he had not informed PW-2 that he had seen the appellant taking Ashish towards Sarai Rohilla Railway Station at about 10.15 P.M. It is, however, noticeable that Rajender Kumar (PW-4) accepted that he had received a call and was informed that Ashish was missing.Thereupon, he had gone to the house of Virender (PW-2) and made efforts to trace Ashish.After the FIR was registered, the police came into action and we would straightway to refer to the deposition of ASI Inderjeet Singh (PW-13), who had carried out the rescue operation.He has deposed that on 24th April, 2007 after DD entry No. 12A (Exhibit PW-2/A) was recorded, he started making efforts to locate and trace Ashish.He along with Constable Narender had departed for Khagaria, Bihar after obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner of Police as they had received information from the SHO that the ransom calls detected were being made from district Jamui, Bihar.They went to Jamui, Bihar and sought assistance of police officers there.Consequent and thereupon Ashish was recovered from the possession/custody of the Crl.A. 1275/2010 Page 4 of 18 appellants-Madan Gopal and Bahadur @ Deepak.Ashish and the accused were produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Jamui, Bihar for transit remand and they returned to Delhi.The arrival entry was made vide DD No. 59B marked Exhibit PW-13/C. They had earlier made departure entry at Police Station Kashmiri Gate, which was marked Exhibit PW-13/B.Crl.A. 1275/2010 Page 4 of 18ASI Inderjeet Singh (PW-13) had deposed that Mahender Kumar (PW-3) brother of Virender Kumar (PW-2) was with them when Ashish was rescued from district Jamui, Bihar and had identified the said child as his nephew.He identified Bahadur @ Deepak as he had worked as a servant with the appellant-Madan Gopal.Identification and recovery memo of Ashish was prepared and marked Exhibit PW- 1/A. PW-13 had signed Exhibit PW-1/A. From appellant-Madan Gopal one mobile phone of Nokia make with SIM No. 9971771397 was recovered and was taken into possession vide seizure memo Exhibit PW-3/A. The appellants- Madan Gopal and Bahadur @ Deepak were arrested vide memo Exhibits PW-1/B and C. The appellants were produced before the CJM, Jamui, Bihar for transit remand and the said order was marked (Exhibit PW-13/D).Meanwhile, another team of police officers from Delhi reached district Jamui, Bihar to assist them and the two teams came back to Delhi with the appellant-Madan Gopal and Bahadur @ Deepak.Statement of Crl.Jyotish Mohrana (PW-8) had collected the call details of phone No. 9911771397 of the appellant-Madan Gopal and telephone No. 9873209422 of the complainant Virender Kumar (PW-2) and the same were marked Exhibits PW-9/D and PW- 8/B1 to B5 respectively.A. 1275/2010 Page 5 of 18ASI U.N. Jha (PW-12) was posted in Police Station Sikandra, District Jamui, Bihar as Assistant Sub-Inspector and on 7th May, 2007 had participated in the rescue operation resulting in arrest of the appellant and recovery of Ashish.He deposed that Madan Gopal was present in the house at village Mohammadpur along with Ashish and Bahadur @ Deepak was on the first floor roof.Recovery memo (Exhibit PW-1/A) was prepared and signed by him.The child Ashish was identified by Mahender, who had also reached and mobile phone Nokia was recovered but he did not remember the number.In addition to these two witnesses, i.e., PWs- 12 and 13, we have statement of Inspector Ashok Tyagi (PW-10), who had deposed that he was posted as SHO Police Station Sarai Rohilla on 3rd May, 2007 and investigation of the case was being handled by ASI Crl.A. 1275/2010 Page 6 of 18 Inderjeet Singh (PW-13).Ashish had been kidnapped and ransom of Rs.20 lacs was demanded on the mobile of his father.He had information regarding the mobile number and location, i.e., place from where the calls were made.It was learnt that the calls were being made from district Jamui, Bihar.Accordingly, ASI Inderjeet Singh (PW-13) had gone to Jamui, Bihar.It was ascertained that the calls were being made from Madanpur (sic Mohammadpur), Jamui, Bihar.ASI Inderjeet Singh (PW-13) had conducted a raid, which led to the recovery of Ashish and, therefore, PW-10 had gone to Bihar along with the team.He, however, had no personal knowledge of what had happened and transpired at Jamui, Bihar as he was not in the raiding team.Crl.A. 1275/2010 Page 6 of 18Constable Narender (PW-1) had gone with the ASI Inderjeet Singh (PW-13) to Bihar and has also referred to the fact that Mahender Kumar had accompanied them.They had gone to village Mohammadpur, Police Station Sikandra, District Jamui to the house of Bahadur @ Deepak, whom he identified.PW-2 being the father and also being the complainant, somewhat reluctantly narrated the true facts implicating the appellant.PW-2 accepted that on 3rd May, 2007 at about 9.20 Crl.A. 1275/2010 Page 8 of 18 A.M., he had received a call on his mobile No. 9873209422 from a caller, who had asked if he had lost something and had also asked him to recharge the mobile number from which the call was made.He claimed that he had received another call from Bahadur @ Deepak after half an hour.On 4th May, 2007, a call was made warning that the matter should not be reported to the police, otherwise it would be bad and he should arrange for the money.Thereafter, he had informed the SHO, who had asked him to arrange for recording equipment, which he duly procured.On 5th May, 2007, Virender Kumar (PW-2) had received a telephone call and was asked to arrange for Rs.20 lacs for the release of Ashish and on failure, harm would be caused to Ashish.Virender Kumar (PW-2) deposed that the call was made by Bahadur @ Deepak.In fact, PW-2 has stated that no call was made from appellant-Madan Gopal rather all calls were made by Bahadur @ Deepak.He was informed that Bahadur @ Deepak used to reside in Khagaria, Bihar and police went there in search of his son Ashish.He had told the caller that he would arrange for money and assured that the amount would be arranged soon.His brother Mahender Kumar had gone to Bihar for recovery of his son and had also gone to the house of Bahadur @ Deepak.Crl.A. 1275/2010 Page 8 of 18PW-2 Virender Kumar was declared hostile and examined by the Crl.A. 1275/2010 Page 9 of 18 Additional Public Prosecutor.PW-2 refused to accept that the appellant-Madan Gopal had made the call and he had identified his voice.However, PW-2 accepted that on the direction of the SHO, ASI Inderjeet Singh had gone to Bihar from where he had received a phone call.On 6th May, 2007, he had received 5 telephone calls at different times and he had assured the caller that he shall arrange for Rs.20 lacs in cash and he kept the caller in confidence.Appellant-Madan Gopal used to reside in the same house on a different floor and the house belonged to the third brother.Both of them had separate business.He proved the recovery memo of Ashish (Exhibit PW-1/A) but was not signed by him.However, in his cross-examination by the counsel for the accused, including appellant Madan Gopal, he completely changed his position and stated that he did not remember the village/city of Bihar from where Ashish was recovered and who else had gone to Bihar.He voluntarily added that Ashish was not recovered from Bihar in his Crl.Similarly, we can rely upon the statement of R.K. Singh (PW-9), Nodal Officer Bharti Airtel Limited, who had produced the application form for mobile No. 9971771397 and 9971354318, which were issued to in the name of Gopal resident of E-2/53 Shastri Nagar, Delhi, i.e., the appellant.He had proved the scanned copy of pre-paid enrolment form for the mobile number 997177379, which was marked Exhibit PW-9/A. He had also proved the call record details for mobile No. 9971771397 for the period 3rd May, 2007 to 7th May, 2007 marked Exhibit PW-9/C and call records for mobile No. 9971354318 for the period 1st April, 2007 to 23rd April, 2007 marked Exhibit PW-9/D. The said call records show exchange of calls between the telephone numbers of the appellant and Virender Kumar (PW-2).By the impugned judgment dated 22nd July, 2010, appellants- Madan Gopal and Bahadur @ Deepak stand convicted under Section 364A as well as Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short).By order on sentence dated 24th July, 2010, they were sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 364A IPC and in default they are liable to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.The two were sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 120B Crl.A. 1275/2010 Page 1 of 18 IPC and in default shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was directed to be extended.Appellant-Madan Gopal, who also was identified by PW-1 as the person, who was present there along with Ashish.They had Crl.Crl.A. 1275/2010 Page 7 of 18Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the testimony of Master Ashish (PW-5) wherein he has identified the appellant as his chacha but denied that he had any knowledge of being taken by anyone from Delhi or by the appellant-Madan Gopal.He also claimed ignorance whether police from Delhi had come to the house of Bahadur @ Deepak at Bihar; whether he was produced before the Magistrate for recording of his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Similarly, our attention was drawn to the testimony of Mahender Kumar (PW-3), especially his cross-examination, the re-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor and further cross-examination.The appellant-Madan Gopal is brother of Virender Kumar (PW-He was in touch and talking with the SHO.He strongly suspected that Ashish had been kidnapped by Madan Gopal and his servant Bahadur @ Deepak, who had entered into a conspiracy and had demanded ransom of Rs.20 lacs.He also accepted as correct that on 7th May, 2007, it was confirmed that his son had been kidnapped by his brother appellants Madan Gopal and Bahadur @ Deepak.The above examination was recorded on 29 th November, 2007 and his cross-examination by the appellant was deferred.Crl.A. 1275/2010 Page 9 of 18The said cross-examination of PW-2 was conducted after about nine months on 17th September, 2008 and he had stated that he was in a disturbed state of mind and, therefore, was unable to identify the voice of the person, who had demanded ransom.PW-2 agreed that he did not suspect Bahadur @ Deepak in his first Crl.A. 1275/2010 Page 10 of 18 complaint and he was not aware whether Bahadur @ Deepak was carrying any mobile phone.As noted above, Viraender (PW-2) somewhat hesitatingly accepted the involvement of his brother, the appellant herein.The dilemma, contrariety and irreconcilability is apparent and perceptible.He was aware that his son Ashish at a tender age of five years was kidnapped and taken to a far away place in Bihar for almost 12/13 days, yet the appellant-Madan Gopal, one of the accused, was his brother.Crl.A. 1275/2010 Page 10 of 18Mahender Kumar (PW-3), the other brother of the appellant in his examination-in-chief had supported the prosecutions case on material aspects.He had accepted that Ashish his nephew was missing and attempts made to trace him were futile.He went to Bihar and Ashish was recovered from the house of Bahadur @ Deepak, where the appellant-Madan Gopal was also present.A. 1275/2010 Page 11 of 18 presence.So, he also denied that he had gone to Bihar with the police.When confronted, he deposed that whatever he had deposed in the examination in chief was voluntary but today he was made to read and depose according to the statement.We need not refer to the testimony of Rajinder Kumar (PW-4) once again as we have already examined his court deposition along with the contemporaneous documents prepared in form of DD entry, Crl.A. 1275/2010 Page 12 of 18 complaint, etc.Crl.A. 1275/2010 Page 12 of 18The prosecution has also relied upon call record details of mobile number of Virender Kumar (PW-2) and two mobile numbers, which were used by the appellant.On the said aspect, Virender Kumar (PW-2) had deposed that he was using telephone No. 9873209422 and he had received phone calls for ransom with threats that Ashish would be harmed.The subscriber application form was marked Exhibit PW-8/A. Learned counsel for the appellant is correct that certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act was not filed and proved by the prosecution.In State (NCT of Delhi) versus Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600, it has been observed as under:-According to Section 63, secondary evidence means and includes, among other things, "copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies".Section 65 enables secondary evidence of the contents of a document to be adduced if the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable.Crl.A. 1275/2010 Page 13 of 18The learned Senior Counsel Mr Shanti Bhushan then contended that the witnesses examined were not technical persons acquainted with the functioning of the computers, nor do they have personal knowledge of the details stored in the servers of the computers.Both the witnesses were responsible officials of the companies concerned who deposed to the fact that they were the printouts obtained from the computer records.The call Crl.A. 1275/2010 Page 15 of 18 records also indicate and corroborate the prosecution version on how the investigation proceeded to disentangle and decrypt the crime and recover the child Ashish.The second person Bahadur @ Deepak was also directly involved as per the prosecution version as the child was found at his residence in village Mohammadpur, Distt.Jamui and he was arrested from the spot.The appeal is disposed of.SANJIV KHANNA, J.

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

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

First petitioner is son of second petitionerand second respondent is the de facto complainant, who iswife of first petitioner.The marriage of first petitionerand second respondent was celebrated on 22.06.2000 inSt.Theresas Church, Trichy.At the time of marriage, all the accuseddemanded 80 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.6.00 lakhs incash towards dowry, however, the parents of the de factocomplainant offered 50 sovereigns of gold jewels, besides asum of Rs.1.00 lakh in cash.The couple was living atThiruvanmiyur in Chennai.First accused left for Singaporeand returned back after one year.Whenthe de facto complainant asked second and third accused overphone to arrange for re-union, they told her that only ifshe arranged Rs.10.00 lakhs, they would make efforts for re-union and disconnected the conversation.Second accusedcontacted the de facto complainant in April,2002, statingthat first accused was coming down to India in that monthand Rs.10.00 lakhs might be kept ready and only, thereupon,they would send her with first accused to Singapore, if not,they would celebrate second marriage to him and settle themat Singapore itself.The de facto complainant approachedthird accused at once and asked her to take steps for re-union, whereby she also told that only if de factocomplainant paid Rs.10.00 lakhs, they could do something.These petitions have been filed to call for therecords in C.C.No.3819 of 2006 on the file of IVMetropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and to quash thesame.For the sake of convenience, the status of theparties, as mentioned in Crl.O.P.No.4332 of 2007, would bereferred and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8922 of 2007 byname Auxillia.In August, 2001, he tookthe de facto complainant to Singapore.While the spouseswere at Singapore, second and third accused made phonecalls to fist accused, by means of which the attitude offirst accused changed suddenly and he started demanding asum of Rs.10.00 lakhs from the de facto complainant, statingthat if she did not bring Rs.10.00 lakhs, he would send herback to her parents.While the de facto complainant askedher parents over phone, they replied that they could notarrange Rs.10.00 lakhs at once, which information wasconveyed to first accused, for which he replied that theyhad to demand Rs.10.00 lakhs even at the time of marriage,which they did not, and further asked her to arrange for theamount.Further, he proceeded to arrange forcancellation of visa for the de facto complainant on20.03.2002, consequent upon which it was cancelled.On 24.04.2005, second accused contacted thefather of de facto complainant over phone and asked him topay Rs.10.00 lakhs, since first accused had arrived inIndia.Thereafter, the de facto complainant came to knowthat first accused contacted second marriage with oneKavitha at Singapore.First respondent police, after investigation,laid charge sheet against the accused for the offencespunishable under Sections 498A and 494 IPC and Section 4 ofDowry Prohibition Act.On 02.02.2007, the trial Court framed chargesagainst the accused.The contention of the petitioner Auxillia thatshe was away from the family of first and second accused andthat she had no links with them as regards the demand ofdowry from the de facto complainant and, therefore, sheshould be absolved from the liability, in my view, suffersoutright rejection.As already stated, the allegations inthe First Information Report go to the effect that thirdaccused, namely, petitioner Auxillia also played aconsiderable role in the demand of dowry from the de factcomplainant and there is no circumstance to infer that shewas away from the family affairs of first and secondaccused.She has got every opportunity to establish hercontention at the time of trial and quashment of theproceedings against her cannot be thought of, at this stage.For the foregoing reasons, the irresistibleconclusion, to be arrived at by this Court, is, rejection ofcontentions of the petitioners and the complaint isexhaustive in nature as to the point of territorialjurisdiction and criminality of all the accused.As such,these petitions are dismissed.

['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']

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

26.08.13 Item No. 51 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 51And In the matter of: Goutam Bandopadhyay Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Debabrata Acharyya For the Petitioner Mr. Sabir Ahmed For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Entally Police Station Case No. 223 dated 09.07.2013 under Sections 120B/420/417/423/403/409/406/411/504/506/34 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 on record.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ORDER M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [(Crl.M(M) 179/93] petitioner's seek quashing of the order dated 9.9.1992 passed by Shri Sukhdev Singh Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi directing issuance of summons against them under Section 448/506/108/182/183 of the IPC.The petitioner Arif Mohd. Khan has also filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Crl. M(M) 194/93] for the same relief.I propose to dispose of both the petitions by this common order.Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these petitions are that in an eviction suit E-752/1989, the respondent No. 2 obtained a decree against M/s. Shawl Arts for recovery of possession of the first and second floor of the premises No. A-415 defense Colony, New Delhi.On 4.8.1990, at about 9 a.m. the respondent Smt. Amar Kaur, accompanied by the Court bailiff came to the spot to take delivery of possession of the said premises.According to the first information report lodged by the petitioner Rajnath Gupta, at that time respondent Smt. Amar Kaur, accompanied by her son brother-in-law Amar Kaur, Sarbjeet Singh, Kartar Singh and some 4-5 persons, came to the spot and attempted to take forcible possession of the said premises by throwing away the goods belonging to him and Kartar Singh and his companions also assaulted him.On this complaint, the case FIR No. 448/427/323/34 IPC was registered at the Police Station defense Colony Investigation pursuant to the said FIR culminating into submission of a charge sheet under Sections 448/427/323/34 IPC against the accused persons, namely Smt. Amar Kaur & Ors.The respondent Smt. Amar Kaur also filed a criminal complaint under Sections 442/448/186/427/506/108/120-B/34 IPC against the petitioners (except the petitioner Arif Mohd. Khan) regarding the same incident.The graven of the allegations in the said complaint is that on the day in question at about 9.15 A.M., the Court bailiff delivered possession of the second floor to the respondent in execution of the warrant of possession issued in the execution proceedings.While the Court bailiff was completing the formalities for delivery of possession of the remaining portion of the premises.i.e. first floor of the premises, the petitioner Rajnath Gupta called the police.After arrival of the police the petitioner Arif Mohd. Khan also came to the spot and obstructed the Court bailiff from executing the warrant.It is also alleged that after giving necessary instructions to the police the petitioner Arif Mohd. Khan left the spot.After departure of the petitioner Arif Mohd. Khan, the remaining petitioners forcibly took possession of the 2nd floor of the premises in question and wrongfully prevented the Court bailiff from executing the warrant of possession in respect of the remaining portion thereof.After entering an appearance in the police case, the respondent Amar Kaur and Ors. filed an application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate seeking their discharge from the case.By the impugned order dated 9.9.1999, the learned Magistrate discharged the respondent Amar Kaur and others and took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 448/506/108/182/183 IPC on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent Amar Kaur and directed issuance of summons against the petitioners.Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.At the outset I must make it clear that both the cases, one instituted on a police report, under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the other instituted on a criminal complaint filed by the respondent Smt. Amar Kaur arose out of the same transaction.For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order directing issuance of summons against the petitioner Arif Mohd. Khan is unsustainable in law.As noticed earlier, both the cases, one instituted on a police report under Section 173 Cr.The only provision in the said Chapter is Section 259 which empowers the Magistrate to stop the proceedings in a very special and compelling circumstances.In the instant case, the order of discharge does not fall within the ambit of Section 259 Cr.P.C. The other illegality which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has committed is that he has used the evidence recorded under Sections 200/202 Cr.P.C. in the complaint filed by Smt. Amar Kaur for discharging the respondent and Ors.

['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT Mohd. Shamim, J.(2) The facts leading to the present appeal which find a mention in the report under section 173 Cr.P.C, F.I.R. and in the statements of the prosecution witnesses are as follows: that Asi Samey Singh during the intervening night of 6/7th January, 1988 was posted as Duty Officer at Police Station Chitranjan Park from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. He received an information from Police Control Room through Inspector Gurdayal Chand, that he had been informed by some un-known person with regard to an incident of firing at E-510, Greater Kailash, Part Ii, New Delhi.The said information was recorded at serial No. 15A in the daily diary ( vide Ex. PW13/A).A copy of the said report was prepared and handed over to Asi Hukam Chand (PW10) for the purposes of inquiry.On receipt of the said report Asi Hukam Chand alongwith Constable Kishan Singh left for the spot.Sho, Shri B.R. Pal (Public Witness 27) was also apprised of this fact who also alongwith Constable Lilu Ram (Public Witness 1) set out for the place of occurrence.Asi Hukam Chand met on the spot i.e. E-510, Greater Kailash, Part Ii, Narsig Singh (Public Witness 3) and Rajinder Kumar Yadav (Public Witness 2).He came to know over there that the deceased had already been removed to the hospital.Consequently, Asi Hukam Chand went to the hospital leaving behind Constable Kishan Singh (Public Witness 4) to guard the place of incident.He secured the injury report in respect of the deceased vide Ex. PW22/A. Here corded the statement of PW3 Narain Singh ( vide Ex. PW3/A).He sent the same to the police station for registration of a formal F.I.R. trough Constable Lilu Ram (Public Witness 1) alongwith his endorsement (vide Ex. PWIO/A) whereupon the formal F.I.R. ( Ex. PW13/E) was recorded by Asi Samey Singh (Public Witness 13).Copies of the F.I.R. were despatched to the higher-ups, including the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned.(3) Narain Singh (Public Witness 3) in his statement informed the police that he was working as a Field Officer with a Company under the name and style of Seven Star Security.The deceased, Shri P.R. Sood was the Director of the said Company.A function was held in a park opposite the house of Shri B.L. Vohra resident of E-510, Greater Kailash, Part Ii, New Delhi, in order to celebrate the betrothal ceremony of a girl.A pavilion ('pandal') was put up in the park in order to celebrate the said function.Rajinder Kumar Sharma i.e. the appellant alongwith one Omvir, guardsman, was posted on the main gate.The guests who attended the said function had taken their supper.However, the appellant was not served any thing till 11.30 p.m. He thus felt very much annoyed.The deceased who reached there in order to supervise the arrangement of the security guards sent for the appellant through Lankush, another guard (Public Witness 14), to have his meals.On being requested so the appellant kicked the scooter belonging to the deceased which was parked on the road near the main gate and declared that he would not take the meals.PW14 Lankush thereupon returned and narrated the above said fact to the deceased.The deceased on hearing the same came out of the pavilion ('pandal').He, Rajinder Kumar Yadav (Public Witness 2) and Gian Parkash Dubey (PVV15) followed him.The deceased accosted the appellant and asked for the reason for kicking the scooter and for not having the meals.The appellant went into his tantrum and again declared that he would not take his meals.The deceased on hearing the same moved forward towards the appellant whereupon the appellant warned him not to approach him otherwise he would shoot him down.Even then the deceased continued to advance towards the appellant.The appellant retreated 15 or 20 paces from the gate of the pavilion.He then fired at the deceased which hit him on the chest from the gun with which he was armed as a corollary whereof the deceased fell down by the side of the road.However, the appellant loaded his gun over again and fled from the spot towards W-Block,GreaterKailash.PW15 Gian Parkash Dubey and Lankush (Public Witness 14) removed the deceased to the Aiims in a police van.Later on he succumbed to the injuries sustained at the hands of the appellant.(4) Shri B.R.Pal (Public Witness 27) flashed the message with regard to the incident through the wireless set.He also deputed the police officers to search out the appellant.PW25 Mrs. Anita Bhatia has asserted in unequivocal terms that it is true that initially Shri Rajinder Parshad Sharma (Public Witness 26) was deputed by her to act as a gunman at the above said place, however, he declined to do so and preferred to remain on duty during the night at Mehra & Sons, Jewellers, at Karol Bagh.He lifted the blood stained earth and control earth from the spot.The same were taken into police custody vide Ex. PW2/A and sealed with the seal of 'HC'.He prepared the inquest report vide Ex. PW24./D. Brief notes of the facts are Ex. PW24/C. He moved an application for post-mortem of the deceased vide Ex. PW24/B.Thepost-mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. M.S. Sagar.The report of the post-mortem is Ex. PW24/A.(5) He received a message in the morning at 6.U5 a.m. while he was on the Outer Ring Road, Masjid Moth, on wireless that the person who was involved in the present incident had been apprehended by the police picket at Bhisham Pitamah Marg at Lodhi Road Flyover.On receipt of the said message he immediately went to the said place.The app (6) After completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant before the Metropolitan Magistrate who on his turn on a finding that the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session committed the same to the said Court with a direction to the appellant to stand his trial.(7) The learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.(8) It was in the above circumstances that the appellant has approached this , Court.(9) Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Mukesh Kalia has urged that there is no evidence on record to show and prove that the appellant was on duty during the intervening night of 6/7th January, 1988 on the spot where the function with regard to the betrothal ceremony is alleged to have been organized.Thus how he could have committed the alleged murder of the deceased.The next limb of the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in fact, one Rajinder Parshad Sharma (Public Witness 26), a security guard with Seven Star Security was deputed on the said date.Thus it was he who shot the deceased at and who later on succumbed to the injuries sustained at his hands.Hence the murder in the instant case is the handiwork of the said Rajinder Parshad Sharma.Since the name of the appellant happens to be also Rajinder Kumar Sharma he has been falsely implicated in the instant case.He further goes on to argue that the murder in the instant case is alleged to have been committed by the side of a road where admittedly,according to the prosecution version the function was being organized, yet no independent witness, for the best reasons known to the prosecution, was examined to substantiate the said prosecution theory.It casts a suspicion on the entire case of the prosecution.There was absolutely no motive on the part of the appellant to have committed the murder of his own employer.(10) The learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Soni, on the other hand, has argued to the comrary.There is absolutely no reason whatsoever as to why they should depose against the appellant.(11) It is manifest fromabove, that the sheet anchor of the defense version is that the appellant was never present at the spot where the function with regard to the betrothal ceremony was being organized.In fact, he was on duty at Mehra & Sons, Jewellers, at Karol Bagh.He remained on duty over there upto 7.00 p.m. ( vide Ex. P8) and thereafter he left for his house.Thus he could not by any stretch of imagination be the author of the fatal injuries which the deceased succumbed to and breathed his last.The contention of the learned Counsel is devoid of any force.(12) It is in the statement of PW25 Mrs. Anita Bhatia, an employee of Seven Star Security Services that on receipt of a telephonic message from one Mr. Inder Mohan that the services of two gunmen and four guards would be required in connection with a reception to be held in a park in front of E-510, Greater Kailash, Part li.New Delhi, she deputed the appellant Rajinder Parshad Sharma and Ombir.She further goes on to state that the guards were not available in the office.Consequently, the matter was left to the Field Officers to arrange the guards from the field area.We further find in her statement that entries with regard to the said duty were made in the register in respect of the persons who were to work as gunmen at the aforesaid function organized by Mr. Kishan Bhasin.She has also asserted that Rajinder Parshad Sharma ( PW26) declined to join the said duty at the place of occurrence.Instead he said that he would remain on duty at Mehra & Sons, Jewellers.She has further deposed to the fact on being cross-examined that she made enquiries on January 12,1988 from Mehra & Sons, Jewellers with regard to the fact whether Shri Rajinder Parshad Sharma was on duty with diem on January 6,1988 during the night.They answered the said query in the affirmative.According to him, the appellant was on duty at the place of (occurrence.He was posted, according to him, at the main gate of the pavilion ('pandal').According to him, he took the appellant and Omvir, gunman, with him in a three-wheeler scooter to the place of occurrence.The appellant was posted to guard the main gate of the pavilion alongwith Omvir, gunmen.Both of them were armed with a single barrel gun with cartridges.The above statement further finds corroboration through the statement of Public Witness 14 Lankush.All the abovenamed witnesses are independent witnesses.They have got absolutely no motive to depose against the appellant and in favour of the prosecution inasmuch as the appellant was one of their colleagues.(14) The learned Counsel for the appellant has laid much stress on Ex. P8 i.e. the duty slip issued to PW26 Rajinder Parshad Sharma to act as gunman at E-510, Greater Kailash, Part Ii, in connection with a function and wants us to conclude therefrom that duty slip proves beyond any shadow of doubt that PW26 Rajinder Parshad Sharma was very much present as a gunman on the occasion of the said function.(15) The contention of the learned Counsel no doubt is an ingenious one but can be brushed aside within an anon in view of the statement of PW25 Mis.Anita Bhatia and other ocular witnesses who saw the appellant on duty with their own eyes.(16) Furthermore, PW14 Lankush on instructions from the deceased went out to call the appellant inside to have his meals.On hearing this the appellant went into his tantrums.He kicked the scooter of the deceased and declared that he would not take his meals.The appellant was very much furious on account of the delay in serving the meals to him.On hearing the same he returned and narrated the same to the deceased who was inside the pavilion ('pandal) whereupon the deceased followed by three Field Officers namely, Rajinder Kumar Yadav (Public Witness 2), Narain Singh (Public Witness .3) and Gian Parkash Dubey (Public Witness 15) went out to persuade the appellant to have his meals.The subsequent event has been narrated by PW2 Rajinder Kumar Yadav, an ocular witness in the following words: that the deceased enquired of the appellant with regard to the reason for his not taking the meals whereupon the appellant again declined to do so.The appellant further declared that in case any one advanced towards him he would fire at him.Having said so the appellant moved backward to a distance of near about 20 steps towards Bungalow No. E-510, Greater Kailash, Part Ii, followed by the deceased.The deceased again enquired of the appellant as to why he was not taking his meals? The appellant fired at the deceased which hit him at his chest.The deceased fell down on the ground by the side of the road.He tried to chase the appellant.However, in the meanwhile the appellant loaded his gun over again whereupon he immediately stopped where he was and the appellant made good his escape.To the same effect are the statements of PW3 Narain Singh and PW15 Gian Parkash Dubey.There is absolutely nothing in their cross-examination to render their testimony unworthy of credence.(17) The testimony of the said witnesses is further strengthened from the statement of Shri Girja Shankar (Public Witness 5), a three-wheeler scooter driver.According to him, while he was taking the appellant in his scooter, his scooter was intercepted by Asi Ram Parshad (Public Witness 9).On search of the appellant he found that the appellant had hidden the barrel and the butt of the gun inside his jacket.On further search of the appellant four empty cartridges and one live cartridge were also recovered from his possession.PW2 Shri Rup Singh, Scientific Officer, Ballistic Division, has given his report vide Ex. PW20/A to Ex. PW20/H. According to him, the 12 bore gun Ex. Pi /a was found in working condition.The cartridge cases Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-5 were fired from the said gun.He has further opined that the corresponding gunshot hole ontheupper-frontportionsofjacket.shirtand "baniyan'ofthedeceased could have been caused by die firing of a shot from the 12 bore Sbbl gun from a distance of about two yards or so.Moreover, the above report is to be read in the light of the statements of PW5 Girja Shankar and Narain Singh (Public Witness 3) that the butt of the gun was engraved with letters 'RKS'.Admittedly, the name of the appellant is Rajinder Kumar Sharma.It implies thereby that the initials of the name of the appellan t were found engraved on the gun to distinguish it from other guns.(18) The above view is further fortified by die statement of Dr. M.S. Sagar who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of tile deceasaed.He has opined that the injury was caused by a fire-arm and it was ante mortem and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature ( vide Ex. PW24/A).(19) Learned Counsel for the appellant has then contended that there was no motive on the part of the appellant to have killed his own employer.

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

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

JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.Mainly contending that on the application filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 7 to 10 before the Settlement Commission, the order of immunity has been passed from penalty as well as prosecution, these applications have been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking to quash the private complaint filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range IX, Chennai, against ten accused including the petitioners.The first accused is the Express Newspapers Limited.Accused Nos. 2 to 6 are the directors and officers of Express Newspapers Limited.The petitioners being arrayed as accused Nos. 7 to 10 are the cold storage companies carrying on business in West Bengal and their directors.The gravamen of the charge is that Express Newspapers Limited claimed a loss of Rs. 74.65 lakhs in the trading in potatoes and set it off against its other income and thereby avoided payment of the legitimate tax and the tax sought to be evaded relating to the fictitious loss of Rs. 74.65 lakhs is about Rs. 50.95 lakhs.It is further stated in the complaint that the petitioners/accused Nos. 7 to 10 created and fabricated records as though potatoes were purchased from the suppliers and those potatoes were sold to specific dealers who gave pay orders in favour of the first accused.It is further stated that during the enquiry, it was found that the petitioners/accused forged signatures of the alleged potato suppliers and forged invoices of sales, etc., and, as such, the petitioners/accused Nos. 7 to 10 committed the offences of abetment under section 278 read with section 276C and section 277 of the Income Tax Act.Ultimately, the Settlement Commission passed an order on 30-5-1995 in, both the applications filed by A-7 and A-8 granting immunity from penalty and prosecution in respect of the matters arising out of the settlement.Based upon these orders, A-7 to A-9 filed an application in the year 1998 in Crl.O. P. No. 14209 of 1998 seeking for quashing.In the year 2000, A-10 filed a similar application raising the same ground in Crl.When these matters came up before this court the petitioners filed another application in Crl.Therefore, the said ground was not pressed.Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, while elaborating the point relating to the lack of maintainability in view of the immunity granted by the Settlement Commission would make the following submissions :The petitioners under section 245C of the Income Tax Act, made applications to have the case settled and to grant immunity from penalty and prosecution.Admittedly, these applications were filed and admitted prior to the filing of the private complaint in question.Only thereafter, the assessee approached the Settlement Commission.It ought to have been rejected in limine.The Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the said application.With the above observations, the petitions for quashing are dismissed.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Record of the court below is received.Heard on the question of admission.The disposal of this appeal will take time.It is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant Govind shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of R s.50,000/ - with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on 22.4.2019 and thereafter on all other such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Court in this regard during the pendency of the appeal.List for final hearing in due course as per the listing policy.

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

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

JUDGMENT2004 Supp(3) SCR 696The Judgment of the Court was delivered byARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Leave Granted.The State of Maharashtra calls in question legality of the order passed bya learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court granting bail torespondents (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused').Background facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are essentially asfollows :On 20.11.2000 one Hanumant Vithal Chaudhary (hereinafter referred to as the'deceased') met homicidal death due to attack by several persons.The lawwas set into motion against six persons including the respondents.Thoughthey were specifically named in the first information report implicatingthem as accused, they could not be arrested till 3.5.2002 and 20.5.2002respectively allegedly on the ground that they had absconded.After theywere arrested, test identification parade was conducted where they wereidentified.Charge-sheet has been filed indicating commission of offencespunishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC').While the matter stood thus the respondents filed an application for bailbefore the Bombay High Court which by the impugned judgment accepted theprayer for bail, primarily on the ground that charge-sheet was filed andthough both had criminal antecedents, the cases related to 1991, 1993 and1996 and are not of recent past.The High Court felt that though apolitical rivalry has a double edged effect, the applicants were to bereleased on bail as they pleaded that on account of political rivalry theyhave been falsely implicated.Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the High Court hasby practically a non-reasoned order granted bail without appreciating thegravity of the offences and the criminal antecedents.Looked at from the above angle, the grant of bail to the respondents doesnot appear to be in order.Accordingly, the order of the High Courtgranting bail to the respondents is set aside.The appeal is allowed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The case of the prosecution against the appellants and otheraccused can be summarized as under :-(i) Deceased Sumit was coming to Kawarapeth Chowk.Whilecrossing railway line at Kawarapeth, accused Mangesh Binekar dashedhis Yamaha motorcycle to the motorcycle of Sumit.There was quarrelbetween deceased and Mangesh Binekar.Deceased slapped Mangesh.Thereafter deceased was coming to Kawarapeth Chowk.After sometime, ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 ::: 3 jg.apeal 314 & 341.2016.odtMangesh Binekar, Nehal Chaudhary, Deepak Dhobale, Nilesh Kumbhare,Ankush and Prabhakar Binekar came on motorcycles and they startedbeating deceased.That time, accused nos. 1 and 2 viz. Sachin Pawankarand Mohd. Taukeer s/o Mohd. Farooq came in the car driven by accusedno.9 Manish Sadavarte.Accused nos. 1 and 2 alighted from the car andstarted stabbing the deceased by knife.Brother of deceased and hisfriend tried to save deceased.All the accused beat deceased and ranaway except accused Ankush.Brother of deceased caught hold ofAnkush.On enquiry, he disclosed the reason of quarrel.He was alsobeaten.Incident took place on 21-5-2013 at about 11.00 p.m. AccusedAnkush as well injured Sumit were taken to Rahate Hospital.Sumit diedin hospital of Dr. Rahate on next day at about 9.00 a.m.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::Police Inspectors Shri Sonawane and Shri Akot investigatedcrime and arrested the accused.Memorandum of accused no. 1 wasrecorded.At the instance of accused no. 1, knife and his clothes wereseized.Accused no. 2 was absconding.He was arrested.The memorandumof accused no. 2 was recorded.He had shown knife and clothes.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::4 jg.apeal 314 & 341.2016.odtThose were seized by Police Inspector Shri Akot.As per the opinion ofpostmortem report, cause of death was due to injuries on vital organs.Investigating Officer sent all the seized property for chemicalexamination.Test identification parade was conducted.P.W. 1 andP.W. 2 identified the accused persons in jail.P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were eyewitnesses of the incident.P.W. 1 Gajanan Uikey has stated in his evidence that at about10.00 p.m., he reached to pan kiosk.Rakesh Shriwas was present at thesaid pan kiosk.Thereafter the said pan kisok was closed.He andRakesh Shriwas were chit-chatting.At that time, Sumit came therewalking.Prior to it, Sumit had come at the said pan kiosk by Passionmotorcycle.From the pan kisok, Sumit alongwith his friend GaneshSinha went towards railway crossing by motorcycle.At about 10.40 to10.50 p.m. Sumit came walking from the railway crossing gate andstopped at Kawarapeth square.At that time, persons riding triple seaton 3-4 motorcycles came to Kawarapeth square and the said personsstarted assaulting and abusing Sumit.He and Rakesh rushed to saveSumit.By that time, one Maruti 800 white colour car bearing no. 956came there.Three persons got down from the said Maruti van and outof them, two persons were having weapons.The said two personsassaulted Sumit with their weapons.Out of the said two persons, onewas wearing white shirt and white pant and he was of fair colour.Theother person had blackish complexion, and was wearing blue colourjeans pant and light brown colour shirt.The said person assaulted Sumiton his abdomen and legs, due to which intestine came out of theabdomen.Thereafter, the assailants ran away by their vehicles fromthe spot.One of the assailants was caught hold by Sumit and he was ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 ::: 9 jg.apeal 314 & 341.2016.odtapprehended by the public.Said assailant and injured Sumit were takento the hospital.He has stated that he was called for identification.This witness has also identifiedaccused persons in the Court.P.W. 2 Rakesh Shriwas has stated in his evidence that on21-5-2013 at about 10.30 p.m., Sumit alongwith his friend Ganesh Sinhaleft the house by Hero Honda motorcycle.At that time, he along with hisfriend Gajanan Uikey were standing near Ma Jagdamba Pan Palace atKawarapeth Chowk.Around 11.00 p.m., he saw Sumit coming fromRailway Crossing towards Kawarapeth Chowk.His brother Sumit cameto Kawarapeth Chowk. 6-7 persons riding on 3-4 motorcycles camebehind him.They parked their motorcycles.They surrounded Sumitand started assaulting him.He alongwith Gajanan Uikey and RohitMaraskolhe rushed to save Sumit.At that time, one white colour Maruti800 car came there.2-3 persons got down from it.Said persons werearmed with the weapons.Out of them, one person was wearing whitecolour shirt and pant, he was thin and was of fair complexion.He washaving weapon and he assaulted Sumit with the help of said weapon onhis abdomen and both thigh.Intestine had come out of the abdomen ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 ::: 10 jg.apeal 314 & 341.2016.odtand blood was oozing from it.He is wronglyconvicted.He had not taken active part in the commission of crime.On that day around 10.30 p.m., Sumit went to attend his work and returned to the house around 5.00 p.m. After having dinner, around 10.30 p.m., Sumit along with his friend Ganesh Sinha left the house by Hero Honda motorcycle No. MH-31/3408 and went towards Rajiv Gandhi bridge via Kawarapeth square.At that time, I along with my friend Gajanan Uikey was standing near Ma Jagdamba Pan Palace at Kawarapeth Chowk, belonged to my brother Kamal Shriwas.Around 11.00 p.m., I saw my brother Sumit coming by feet from Railway Crossing towards Kawarapeth chowk.My brother Sumit came to Kawarapeth Chowk and 6-7 persons riding on 3-4 motorcycles came behind him, they parked their motorcycles, they surrounded Sumit and started assaulting him.Then, I myself, Gajanan Uikey and Rohit Maraskolhe rushed to save Sumit.At that time, one white colour Maruti 800 Car No. MH-31/CM-956 came there and 2-3 persons got down from it.The said persons were armed with the weapons.Out of them, one person was wearing white colour shirt and pant, he was of thin and was of fair complexion, he was having weapon and he assaulted Sumit with the help of said weapon.The said person assaulted Sumit with the help of said weapon in his abdomen and both thigh.I saw intestine had came out of the abdomen of my brother and blood was oozing from it.Thereafter, all the assailants ran away from the spot by their respective vehicles.After complete investigation,charge-sheet came to be filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class.The same was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.(iii) Sessions Court framed charge at Exhibit 134 for the offencespunishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with Section149/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 punishable under Section25 of the Indian Arms Act. Prosecution has examined 14 witnesses.Thestatements of accused were recorded.After hearing the prosecution anddefence, Sessions Judge convicted accused no. 1 Sachin Pawankar,accused no. 9 Manish Sadavarte for the offence punishable under Section302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced themto suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in defaultto suffer imprisonment of three months.Accused nos. 3, 4 and 8,namely, Mahesh alias Motilal Digambar Parate, Gaurav SuryakantDhavale and Deepak Gulabrao Dhobale came to be convicted for theoffences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 323 read with Section ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 ::: 5 jg.apeal 314 & 341.2016.odt149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorousimprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffersimple imprisonment for three months.Set off is given for the periodalready undergone in jail.Accused no. 2 Mohd. Farooq is acquitted forthe offence charged against him.Accused nos. 6 and 10, namely,Mangesh Omprakash Binekar and Prabhakar Suresh Binekar areacquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.Accused nos. 5 and7, namely, Ankush Dilip Binekar and Nehal Gulab Chaudhary arereleased on bonds of good behaviour.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::Accused no. 1 Sachin Pawankar filed Criminal AppealNo.Heard learned Advocate Shri Thakur for the appellantsManish Sadavarte and Deepak Dhobale.He has submitted that accusedManish Sadavarte had not taken any active part in the commission ofcrime.Accused nos. 1 and 2 came in his car, they alighted from his car atthe spot of incident and ran away in the said car.Except this, nothingis against accused no. 9 Manish Sadavarte.Trial Court has wrongly ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 ::: 6 jg.apeal 314 & 341.2016.odtconvicted accused no. 9 for the offence punishable under Section 302read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Learned Advocate hassubmitted that there is no specific evidence against accused no. 8 DeepakDhobale.At last, he prayed to allow the appeal.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::Heard learned Advocate Shri Jaltare for accused no. 1Sachin Pawankar.He has submitted that there was no light on the spotof incident.Panchanama itself was prepared in the headlight of thevehicle.Therefore, evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are not reliable.Accused no. 2 is acquitted by the trial Court, butaccused no. 1 is wrongly convicted.Learned Advocate has pointed outspot panchanama and evidence of panch witnesses and submitted thatthere was no light on the spot of incident.Incident took place in thenight at about 11.00 p.m. Learned Advocate has submitted that hisname was not mentioned in the FIR.There was nomotive for accused no. 1 to commit murder of Sumit.Learned Advocatehas submitted that seized property was not kept in malkhana for aconsiderable period.Learned Advocate has pointed out evidence ofP.W. 2 and submitted that P.W. 2 and one Ganesh Sinha had taken the ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 ::: 7 jg.apeal 314 & 341.2016.odtinjured to the Hospital of Dr. Rahate, but Ganesh Sinha was notexamined by the prosecution.Learned Advocate has submitted that testidentification parade was taken after 1½ months.Prosecution has failedto prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, prayedto allow the appeal and acquit the accused.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Doifode forthe respondent - State.He has pointed out evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2and submitted that those are the eye witnesses of the incident.Theyhave stated about the active role of accused persons.Learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor has submitted that evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 arecorroborated by the recovery of weapons, clothes etc. Blood was foundon the knife and clothes of accused persons.Learned Additional PublicProsecutor Shri Doifode has submitted that prosecution has proved theguilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.Hence, both appeals areliable to be dismissed.We have gone through the evidence on record with theassistance of learned Advocates for the appellants and learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor for the respondent - State.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::Thereafter all the assailants ran awayfrom the spot by their respective vehicles.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::P.W. 2 has further stated that he and Ganesh Sinha tookSumit to Rahate Hospital.One of the assailants was apprehended,people beat him.That assailant sustained injury.His brother Sushiltook the said assailant to Rahate Hospital.He asked name from the saidassailant.He disclosed his name Ankush Binekar.He asked AnkushBeinkar as to why his brother Sumit was assaulted then he disclosed thatthe vehicle of Mangesh Binekar gave dash to the vehicle of Sumit.Sumitslapped Mangesh Binekar.It had happened near Railway Crossing.Thereafter his brother Sumit came from Railway Crossing to KawarapethChowk.Before coming towards Kawarapeth Chowk, quarrel took placebetween Sumit, Mangesh Binekar and his associates, near RailwayCrossing.Thereafter, the said assailants came to Kawarapeth Chowk andthe incident took place.Learned Advocate for the accused nos. 8 and 9 i.e.appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 314/2016, Shri Thakur submitted thatthere is no material evidence against accused Manish.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::11 jg.apeal 314 & 341.2016.odtWe have gone through the record of trial Court.From theperusal of impugned judgment, particularly, paragraph nos. 229 and 230,it appears that trial Court has convicted accused no. 9 Manish Sadavarteonly on the ground that seat cover of the car was seized from accusedno.The blood of Group "A" was found on the seat cover which wasof deceased Sumit, and accused no. 9 had not given any explanation.Therefore, Sessions Court came to the conclusion that accused no. 9Manish had common intention with other accused and, therefore,convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code.It is pertinent to note that there is no evidence to show thatthere was prior meeting of mind of accused no. 9 Manish with otheraccused.Evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 show that accused nos. 1 and 2came in the car of accused no. 9 and they assaulted the deceased.As perthe evidence of P.W. 2, accused no. 1 stabbed the deceased.The bloodwas found on the seat cover of the car because accused nos. 1 and 2 satin the car and ran away.It cannot be said that accused no. 9 Manish had anycommon intention to kill deceased.If he had any intention to kill ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 ::: 12 jg.apeal 314 & 341.2016.odtdeceased, he could have alighted from the car and could have takenactive part in the commission of crime.But there is no such evidence toshow his active participation.Blood found on the seat cover was of thedeceased.Hence, we are inclined to allow his appeal.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::In respect of accused no. 8 Deepak Dhobale, there issufficient evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 that he had beaten deceased byfist and kicks.He is convicted alongwith accused nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 forthe offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 323 read withSection 149 of the Indian Penal Code.The other accused have notchallenged their conviction.The State has also not filed any appealagainst them and accused nos. 6 and 10 who are acquitted.Hence,appeal filed by accused no. 8 i.e. appellant no. 2 in Criminal AppealNo.314/2016 is liable to be dismissed.But accused no. 2 came to be acquitted bythe trial Court.We have gone through the evidence of P.W. 2, brotherof deceased.He has stated in his evidence in paragraph no. 2 as under :-::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::Accused no. 1 Sachin was ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 ::: 14 jg.apeal 314 & 341.2016.odtidentified by both the witnesses.The evidence of P.W. 4 is not relied bythe trial Court.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::As per the evidence of P.W. 2, accused Sachin was the personwho was having weapon and he assaulted Sumit with the said weapon.The said accused stabbed the deceased on his abdomen and both thigh.Intestine came out from the abdomen.This particular evidence iscorroborated by other evidence.After the arrest of accused no. 1, he disclosed to showclothes and knife concealed by him.As per Exhibit 193 and 194, accused no. 1 Sachin disclosedthat he concealed clothes and knife at his house.Thereafter this panchwitness along with police officer went to the house of accused.Therewas one woman who was aunt of the accused.Said woman permittedthem to go inside.Accused took them to the backside of the house.Accused stood up on a chair and took out a plastic bag which was kepton one tin sheet.The bag contained clothes and a knife.Those clotheswere white pant and white shirt.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::15 jg.apeal 314 & 341.2016.odtIt is pertinent to notethat accused no. 1 was knowing the place where the weapon was kept.Except the accused no. 1, nobody was knowing the place and, therefore,it is relevant to corroborate this evidence with the other evidence.Seized weapon and clothes were sent to Chemical Analyserfor examination.Chemical Analyser report is at Exhibit Nos. 147 to 154.Exhibit 147 shows that knife, full shirt and full pant which were seizedfrom the accused no. 1 (Exhibit A and Exhibit B) were having humanblood.Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 i.e. full shirt and full pant of accused werestained with blood of Group A. Blood Group A was of the deceasedSumit.Accused no. 1 has not explained as to how the blood of deceasedSumit i.e. of Group A was found on his clothes.Though the bloodgroup on the knife was not detected but human blood was found on theknife.There is no dispute that the death of Sumit was homicidal.As per the evidence of Medical Officer (P.W. 11), he had found 12 injuries ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 ::: 16 jg.apeal 314 & 341.2016.odton the person of deceased.As per his opinion, cause of death was due toinjury to the vital organs.His evidence shows that spleen was absent.Evidence of Dr. Rahate, P.W. 12shows that deceased Sumit was admitted in his hospital.He performedthe operation but thereafter deceased died.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::Learned Advocate Shri Jaltare vehemently submitted that asper the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, there was pan shop near the spotof incident.Learned Advocate Shri Jaltare has pointed out spotpanchanama and submitted that there is no reference of pan shop in thespot panchanama.It is ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 ::: 17 jg.apeal 314 & 341.2016.odtpertinent to note that the clothes and knife seized from accused no. 2were sent to Chemical Analyser.Nothing was detected on his clothesand knife.Moreover, the evidence of P.W. 2 shows that the accused no. 1was the only person who stabbed the deceased by knife.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::The evidence on record shows that accused no. 1Sachin stabbed the deceased by sharp knife.It cannot be said thataccused no. 1 was not having any intention to kill the deceased.As perpostmortem report, 12 injuries were found on the dead body.As perthe evidence of Dr. Rahate (P.W. 12), he found stab injury by sharpcutting object measuring about 3 inches and penetrating into stomach.The stab was going from anterior to posterior surface of the stomach.The anterior portion of pancreas and the spleenic vein was also ruptured.His evidence shows that accused no. 1 mercilessly stabbed the deceased.Accused no. 1 i.e. appellant Sachin stabbed the deceased with anintention to kill him.The evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 is supported by other ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 ::: 18 jg.apeal 314 & 341.2016.odtcorroborative evidence i.e. recovery of clothes and knife from accusedno.Chemical Analyser report also shows that clothes seized fromaccused no. 1 were stained with blood of Group - A which was ofdeceased.The knife was stained with human blood.There was noenmity of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 to depose against the accused.Prosecutionhas proved the guilt of accused no. 1 beyond reasonable doubt.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::(i) Criminal Appeal No. 341/2016 filed by accused no. 1 Sachin s/oHarinarayan Pawankar is dismissed with no order as to costs.(iii) Criminal Appeal No. 314/2016 filed by accused no. 8 - Deepak S/o Gulabrao Dhobale is dismissed with no order as to costs.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 05:49:57 :::

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The facts of the case in brief are that on 13.11.2006 at about 8 pm, prosecutrix went to purchase goods from Market.When she reached near house of one Pappu, appellant met her there.He told that his father was calling her inside.Accordingly, Prosecutrix went along with appellant Crl.A.285/2009 Page 1 of 12 inside the house.At that juncture, appellant caught hold her and dragged her to a ditch inside his house.Appellant threatened her of instant death, in case prosecutrix would raise alarm.It is further alleged that appellant made her to fall on ground and committed rape against her will.Prosecutrix did not scream due to fear as the appellant threatened her of instant death of her brothers in case, she would divulge facts before anyone.On the following day, she narrated the facts before her mother, who informed her husband.By that time, the incident became public and it came within the knowledge of Pradhan of Mohalla.Scared of public sentiments, they lodged a report before police.Accordingly, FIR no.700/2006 were registered at Police Station - Seelampur for the offences punishable under Section 376/506IPC.A.285/2009 Page 1 of 123. Statement of Prosecutrix Archana (name changed) was recorded, which became the backdrop of this case.Investigation was taken up by SI Usha.Prosecutrix was medically examined.During the course of investigation, appellant was arrested.He was also sent to Hospital for medical examination.To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses.Statement of appellant / accused was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to which he denied all the allegations levelled against him.He claimed himself to be innocent.He projects that he has been falsely framed in the case at the instance of Pradhan of the locality due to an old dispute.6. PW3, ASI Veena proved FIR Ex.PW3/A. She deposed that SI Lokender Singh joined investigation with SI Usha.He unfolded those very investigative steps which took place in his presence.Head Constable Murari Lal was working as Moharrer Malakhana with him.The said SI Lokender Singh (PW5) proved the photocopies of those entries as Ex.PW7/A and Ex.7/B.Constable Rattan Singh took the appellant for his medical examination to GTB Hospital.Constable Om Prakash, took exhibits of the case from MHC(M) and deposited the same with FSL Rohini.PW1 Archana, Prosecutrix in the instant case deposed that she used to stay at her house alone.Her parents are labourer.She has two younger brothers.Appellant was known to her since he was residing in a nearby house.He came to her house and told her that she should come to his house, so that he could give her a lipstick and take her to Bombay.He took her to a ditch inside his house, where it was totally dark.He opened her salwar.He Crl.A.285/2009 Page 3 of 12 pressed her breast and committed rape upon her.She could not raise any cry for help because the appellant had closed her mouth with his hand.He told her to come again to him in the night.She returned to her house and did not disclose those facts to her parents due to fear of her father.Later in the night, she told her father about the incident.Relatives and friends of the patient notice a change in his conduct and behaviour.He is not the same man as he used to be.She did not divulge facts before anyone.Also challenged the order on sentence dated 09.02.2009 whereby, appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of the payment of fine further undergo RI for a period of 06 months.Investigation culminated into a charge-sheet against the appellant.Charge for offences punishable under Section 376/506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.SI Usha conducted the investigation of the case.She detailed those very investigative steps which were taken by her.She concluded the investigation and got the appellant challaned.PW6 Dr. P. Ram proved MLC of appellant Ex.PW6/A, which was prepared by Dr. Safiq.PW10 Dr. Sapna Raina proved MLC of Archana as Ex.PW10/A, which was prepared by Dr. Ansul Grover.She further unfolds that Archana was not mentally sound and her last menstruation period was not known.Next morning her father took her to police station and her statement was recorded.A.285/2009 Page 3 of 12Counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant submits that at one juncture, she admitted that she was advised by her uncle to depose facts against the appellant, while at the other juncture, she projected that no incident had happened with her.In these circumstances, when discrepant facts were unfolded by prosecutrix, her testimony needs corroboration.No corroborative evidence is there on record to substantiate her deposition.Counsel further submits that trial judge has convicted the appellant solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, who was of unsound mind.The court did not bother to take the expert opinion of the prosecutrix on this aspect.She was a married lady.Her vaginal swab was taken, however, that do not connect the appellant with the alleged rape.In chief, she deposed that he never used to tease her.The appellant did not threaten her.She did not tell the Doctor about the incident.In cross-examination, this witness deposed to the court questions put to her as under:-A.285/2009 Page 4 of 12She denied to the suggestion that she was married.Thereafter, she admitted that she was married but the boy left her.She further deposed that Hazi is Pradhan Chacha.He had some quarrel with appellant.Nothing was written on Ex.PW1/A in the police station.She admitted that appellant had been impleaded at the instance of Hazi Pradhan.Trial Judge has observed that from the examination and cross- examination of the witness conducted above, that it appears the witness did not understand the questions properly.Questions had to be repeated to her again and again.The witness had the tendency to give answer immediately without following the question put to her.PW2 Hazi Abdul Qadir did not support the prosecution story and he deposed that he did not know anything regarding this case.He was Pradhan of the Colony.He knew Rama Nand, the father of the prosecutrix.He lived in his colony.He had never come to him with any complaint.He had never gone to police station with him.Accordingly, he was declared hostile.APP, however, could not get any material from him.PW4, Rama Nand father of the prosecutrix has deposed on the line as Crl.A.285/2009 Page 5 of 12 made in the complaint.A.285/2009 Page 5 of 12PW5 SI Lokender Singh has proved the sealed parcels vide memo Ex.PW5/A.PW11/F, no semen of the appellant was detected on Salwar (1b), Baniyan (4a) and Underwear (4b) and that report gave no reaction of any kind.Therefore, precisely, there is a delay in lodging the FIR.It proves the suspicion on the story of prosecution.A.285/2009 Page 6 of 12 seen or heard, or done on a particular occasion, his competency as a witness is established.A lunatic, when he is in a lucid interval, is not incompetent to testify if he can understand and rationally answers the questions put to him.It is further recorded that whether prosecutrix was competent to testify facts, she deposed that appellant called her to his house, on the pretext that he would get lipstick for her and take her to Bombay.When she went to his house, he took her to a ditch in his house, where it was totally dark.He opened her salwar, pressed her breast and committed rape.She could not cry for help because appellant closed her mouth with his hands.He told her to come again in the night.She came back to her home and did not disclose facts before her parents or her brother due to fear of her father.He is quite eccentric in his dress, manners, habits and in his dealings with other people.Speech becomes involved and his face bears a Crl.A.285/2009 Page 7 of 12 blank or vacant expression.He is gloomy, morose, listless, apathetic and does not care for social conventionalities.A.285/2009 Page 7 of 12Trial Judge has also recorded that in her testimony, she deposed that she was advised by her uncle to depose facts before Court.At one juncture, she projected that incident had not occurred with her, but in other juncture, she unfolded dramatic experience with her own words.In one breath she claims herself to be apprehensive of her father, while in other she deposed that she narrated facts before him during night hours.On this issue, ld. Trial Judge, while considering testimony of witness, was of the opinion that Court has to see as to whether the case is true in main.Broader probability of the case is to be taken into account, without swaying away when minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in statement of a witness, which are not vital in nature to throw out allegations of rape.While referring the Judgment of the Apex Court in Gangula Satya Murthy (JT 1996 (10) S.C. 550), ld.Trial Judge also recorded that whether prosecutrix was goaded by her uncle and her father to depose facts against the accused? Had that been the situation, she ought have given second thought to the matter and would have spoken facts favourable to the accused.Further ld.Trial Judge has recorded that these days, witnesses general turn hostile as and when they find it inconvenient to speak truth.Despite that fact that her future would shatter, she opted to narrate facts before the Court.A tutored witness cannot stand with rigors of cross-examination any longer.She was subjected to cross-examination at length.A.285/2009 Page 8 of 12Trial Judge opined that testimony of prosecutrix corroborated through facts detailed in her MLC Ex.PW10/A. It has further been mentioned in her MLC that her salwar was seized by Dr. Ansul Grover.Salwar was sent to FSL for chemical analysis and report Ex.When report Ex.PW11/E was perused, it came to light that human semen was detected on salwar of the lady, besides vest and underwear of the appellant.These facts gives corroboration to story projected by prosecutrix.Trial Judge opined that the prosecutrix deposed that she was not criminally intimidated by the appellant, when she was subjected to rape by him.No other evidence is brought over record to establish ingredients of offence of criminal intimidation.Since prosecutrix had not supported theory of criminal intimidation, a vacuum of evidence came over the record on that count.For want of evidence, appellant cannot be held accountable for offence of criminal intimidation.After hearing both the ld.On the following day, she narrated the facts before her mother, who further informed her father.Whereas in her deposition before the Court, she stated that appellant called her to come his house so that he would give her lipstick and take her Crl.A.285/2009 Page 9 of 12 to Bombay.After the rape being committed upon her, she returned to her house and did not disclose those facts to her parents due to fear of her father.Later in the night, she told her father about the incident.A.285/2009 Page 9 of 12During her cross-examination, she replied to Court questions put by the Trial Court that the incident did not take place with her.Thereafter she stated that appellant did something.In response to the questions put by ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused, she replied that appellant had opened her salwar and pressed her breast.And to the question, did the police record her statement or police ever came to her house to make enquiry, she replied in negative.She denied to the suggestion that she was married.Thereafter, she admitted that she was married, but the boy left her.She even admitted that Hazi, Pradhan Chacha had some quarrel with the appellant and he had been implicated at the instance of said Hazi Pradhan.In FSL Report dated 12.04.2007, no semen of appellant was detected on Salwar (1b) of the Prosecutrix.Even on Baniyan (4a) and Underwear (4b) no blood was detected.However, as per the said report, human semen was detected on Lady's Shirt (1a) and Salwar (1b), however, neither the blood group of the appellant connects with the semen nor it is established that the semen found on the aforesaid exhibits were of appellant.Prosecutrix on the one hand stated that the appellant opened her Salwar and pressed her breast and further did nothing.On the other hand, she deposed that he committed rape upon her.Moreso, in MLC Ex.PW10/A, it is recorded that the accused had some fight with her mother, following which Mr.Jamil/appellant raped her.It is Crl.A.285/2009 Page 10 of 12 further recorded that patient/prosecutrix had changed her cloths and taken bath.A.285/2009 Page 10 of 12In such a situation, when prosecutrix was of 25 years on the day of incident, which is evident from the statement of prosecutrix recorded on 07.07.2007 and her age recorded is 26 years.She is a married lady.For holding the guilty for the offences punishable under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is very serious offence, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.Whereas in the present case, firstly, prosecutrix was of unsound mind and not consistent on her statement, therefore, in such a situation, the case becomes doubtful.And in such eventuality the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt.The prosecutrix is consistently stated that she was called in his house by the appellant.He opened her salwar and pressed her breast.In these circumstances, the case against the appellant would at best be of attempt to rape.It is well settled legal position in Pandhavinath v. State of Maharashtra: (2009) 14 SCC 537 that if an accused is charged of a major offence but is not found guilty thereunder, he can be convicted of minor offence, if the facts established indicate that such minor offence has been committed.In the case in hand, the appellant was not charged under Section 376 read with Section 511 Indian Penal Code, 1860; yet under Section 222 Cr.P.C. when any person is charged for the offence, he may be convicted for Crl.A.285/2009 Page 11 of 12 attempt to commit such offence.Although, against the appellant attempt was not separately charged, however, he can be punished for commission of lesser offence.The lesser offence is attempt to commit rape.A.285/2009 Page 11 of 12Therefore, I am of the considered opinion, the impugned judgment dated 04.02.2009 and order on sentence dated 09.02.2009 are hereby modified.Since the minimum sentence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 is seven years, therefore, under Section 511 Indian Penal Code, 1860, it would come to 3 years.Registry to remit back the Trial Court Record henceforth.No order as to costs.SURESH KAIT, J APRIL 16th 2012 Jgd/Mk Crl.A.285/2009 Page 12 of 12A.285/2009 Page 12 of 12

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

C.C. as per rules.(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE pn Digitally signed by PANKAJ NAGLE Date: 16/07/2020 17:24:38With the consent, finally heard.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by the prosecution.I have heard the parties at length.Considering the fact that the statement of prosecutrix has already been recorded and conclusion of trial will take time.In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, in the Covid-19 era no useful purpose would be served in keeping the appellant in jail, I deem it proper to allow this appeal and grant bail to the appellant.He shall not influence the document/material or evidence in any manner.He shall not leave the District headquarter without giving written intimation to Digitally signed by PANKAJ NAGLE Date: 16/07/2020 17:24:38 2 CRA-3653-2020 the concerned Police Station.Consequently, this appeal for grant of bail under Section 14-A of the Act of 1989 is hereby allowed.The appeal is allowed.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant is in custody since 30/03/2015 in connection with Crime No. 95/2015 registered at P.S. Kotwali, District Seoni for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 of IPC and 376-2(N) of IPC.As per prosecution, it is alleged against the applicant that he committed rape upon the prosecutrix under the false pretext to marry her, but now he refused to marry her.Therefore, the prosecutrix lodged the report against him.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.She performed sexual intercourse with the applicant more than once.She had not made complaint to anyone, she was the consenting party.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 On due consideration of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court/trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S.Solanki) Judge Julie (G.S. SOLANKI)

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

as (Rejected) C.R.M. 7586 of 2018 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 13.07.2018 in connection with Dum Dum P. S. Case No.123 of 2018 dated 21.02.2018 under Sections 366A/370/370A/109/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4/5/6/7/9 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and also under Sections 4/17/21 of the Prevention of Child from Sexual offencesIn the matter of : Bulu Neogi....Petitioner.Mr. Ashok Das....for the Petitioner.Mr. Ranabir Ray Chowdhury, Mr. Mainak Gupta....for the State.The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dum Dum P. S. Case No.123 of 2018 dated 21.02.2018 under Sections 366A/370/370A/109/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4/5/6/7/9 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and also under Sections 4/17/21 of the Prevention of Child from Sexual Offences Act.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)

['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Thereafter the said cases were enquired into by the KGO another accused Achintya Ranjan Das and in each case the said KGO submitted report that he contacted the party and recommended payment.Accordingly, payment voucher in each case was handed over to the said advocate Ramendra Prasad Mukherjee at Midnapore office but, subsequently the appropriate awardees complained to the Additional SDO, Haldia that they did not execute any power or vakalatnama in favour of the said advocate accused and they did not receive any payment.The breach of trust, cheating and forgery was committed by the advocate accused Ramendra Prasad Mukherjee in collusion with the accused Achintya Ranjan Das, KGO.During enquiry Smt. Saila Bala Sen one of the awardees stated that they did not receive any amount and they authorised Santosh Kumar Adhikari an advocate of Tamluk for the purpose.On enquiry by the SDO, Haldia it was found that the said awardee did not execute any power in favour of the said advocate and he did not receive any money.In Claim Case No. 31 of 1978-79 by same modus operandi the said advocate accused received Rs. 381.84 for payment to awardee Nirodamoyee Dei and in the said matter the KGO accused submitted report that Nirodamoyee is alive.During enquiry by the SDO, Haldia it was found that Nirodamoyee Dei died two years back.In Claim Case Nos. 34 and 35 in 1978-79 the said advocate accused received payment voucher of Rs. 1778354 and Rs. 557.81 for payment to the awardee Manibhusan Jana and on enquiry it was found that Manibhusan Jana did not receive any amount of compensation and he did not execute any power in favour of the said advocate.In Claim Case Nos. 36 and 37 of the 198-79 advocate accused received payment voucher of Rs. 1639.54 and Rs. 766.67 for paying compensation amount to awardee Himangshu Jana.On enquiry it was detected that there was no such person in the name of Dhirendra Jana, son of Paban Jana.During enquiry by the SDO, Haldia it was found that the advocate accused Ramendra Prasad Mukherjee filed fictitious power and received the amount and the awardees did not receive the amount of compensation.Accordingly, Jayanta Kumar Das, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Haldia Project lodged complaint/FIR to the Officer-in-Charge, Kotowali P.S., Midnapore alleging that the said advocate accused received the compensation amount in collusion with the Achintya Ranjan Das.KGO by filing false and fictitious powers i.e. vakalatnamas and received the amount and misappropriated the same and did not make payment to the awardees.He cannot be absolved of the liabilities as on the basis of the vakalatnamas filed by principal accused this appellant Achintya Ranjan Das made recommendation for payment.It is clear that in the case of one awardee namely Nirodamoyee Dei who already expired two years back, this appellant made recommendation for payment in favour of the advocate accused for a dead person.This accused had.JUDGMENT Provendu Narayan Sinha, J.Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 15.12.1992 passed by the learned Special Judge, 1st Special Court, Midnapore in Sessions Trial No. 2/96 thereby sentencing the accused appellants Ramendra Prasad Mukherjee (appellant of CRA No. 59/92) to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 years for offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year.The said appellant was also sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 420 IPC.The accused appellant Achintya Ranjan Das (appellant of CRA No. 46/92) was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- i.d. to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for offence under Sections 409, 420, 109 of IPC He was further sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 420 of IPC Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence the accused appellants preferred two separate appeals.A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 1.4.92 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 59/92 directed that this appeal shall be heard along with Criminal Appeal No. 46/92 and there was direction for preparation of a common paper book for both the appeals.Mr. Himanshu De, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant Achintya Ranjan Das in CRA No. 46/92 submitted that the other appellant Ramendra Prasad Mukherjee, who preferred Criminal Appeal No. 59/92 is dead.In Claim Case No. 38 of 1978-79 the advocate accused received payment voucher of Rs. 1825.59 for payment to awardee Birendranath Jana.During enquiry it was revealed that Birendranath Jana did not receive compensation amount and he did not authorise the said advocate accused for withdrawing compensation for him.In Claim Case No. 39 of 1978-79 the said advocate accused obtained payment voucher for Rs. 580.81 for payment of compensation amount to Dhirendra Jana.On the basis of the said FIR Midnapore Sadar Kotowali P.S. Case No. 38 dated 26.3.80 under Sections 468, 471, 419, 420 of IPC was started against the accused Ramendra Prasad Mukherjee and Achintya Ranjan Das.After completing investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 409 of IPC However, the learned Special Judge framed charges under Sections 409, 420, 109 of IPC against the accused persons.The trial that followed thereafter ended in conviction of both the appellants as stated above.It appears that in the trial on behalf of prosecution 15 witnesses were examined in all and out of which PW1 Jayanta Kumar Das is the informant and he was the Special I.A. Officer, Haldia at the relevant time.PW2 Haripada Dolui was then head clerk attached to the office of Additional District Magistrate, Tamluk at the relevant time.Nirmal Kanti Chakarborty was then appointed as accountant of Special I.A. Office, Haldia.PW4 Guru Prasad Sen is one of the awardees who did not receive the compensation amount.PW5 Rajani Kanti Das is handwriting expert attached to CID, West Bengal who examined four vakalatnamas and one petition for compensation and examination with the signatures of the original authors and after examination he submitted a report.PW6 Mani Bhusan Jana, PW7 Birendra Nath Jana, PW8 Bhanu Bala Maity, PW9 Suniti Bala Das, PW10 Jagadish Chandra Manna are the awardees who did not receive the compensation amount and all of them stated that they did not execute any power in favour of accused Ramendra Prasad Mukherjee.PW11 Harendra Nath Das was the D.E.O., Midnapore Sadar at the relevant time and he made part investigation in this case.PW12 Gourhari Karmakar was another Sub-Inspector of Police and he also made part investigation into the case.PW13 Kamal Chandra Haider was the Inspector of Police attached to Questioned Document Examination Bureau, CID, West Bengal and as handwriting expert he examined four sheets of specimen signature of Ramendra Prasad Mukherjee with questioned document marked as ext.PW14 Samarcndra Nath Sen was one of the awardees who also did not receive compensation amount and stated that he did not authorize Ramendra Prasad Mukherjee to withdraw compensation amount on his behalf and on behalf of his co-sharers.PW15 Jitendra Nath Manna is also another awardee who also did not receive compensation amount and stated that he did not authorise Ramendra Prasad Mukherjee to withdraw compensation amount for him.Mr. Himangshu De, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant Achintya Ranjan Das argued that along with FIR one separate sheet was annexed showing the amount involved and against this appellant charge under Sections 109, 409, 420 of IPC was framed and the second charge was for the offence under Section 420 IPC The principal accused Ramendra Prasad Mukherjee is dead.Evidence of PW1 Jayanta Kumar Das reveal that he has no personal knowledge about the complaints and he relied upon the report submitted by the Additional SDO, Haldia who made the enquiry and submitted the report but the said SDO was not examined in this case as a witness.Cross-examination of PW1 reveal that when payments is made identification of the awardee is made by the Panchayat Pradhan.The Panchayat Pradhan was not examined as a witness.There was no evidence of entrustment of the money with this appellant.Notional obligation or to some extent negligence was there on the part of this appellant, but the notional obligation and negligence are not sufficient to draw punitive measure against the appellant or punishment upon the appellant.As this appellant had no dominion at all over the property or the money there was no element of Section 409 and 420 of IPC as well as element of Section 109 of IPC against this appellant.There was no mens rea of this accused and being so the appellant is entitled to be acquitted.This appellant as an abettor in all the cases of payment made endorsement to the effect that payments can be made and on such endorsement payments were made to the advocate accused.The appellant as accused in the Court below during trial did not cross examine the handwriting expert.From the evidence of the witnesses particularly the claimants sufficient evidence against the appellant has been transpired.Dominion over the property, i.e. money was there as notional obligation is also dominion over property.In order to attract elements of Section 409 of IPC physical dominion over the money or property is not always necessary.Therefore, against the appellant there were sufficient evidence and the learned trial Judge rightly convicted the appellant.In a case under Section 409 of IPC benefit of Probation of Offenders Act cannot be extended.I have carefully perused the evidence and materials on record and duly considered the submissions made by the learned advocates of I he parties.In this case on the basis of power or vakalatnama executed by the awardees the advocate in whose favour the power was given was entitled to receive the payments for the awardees.In all such cases on the basis of power and application filed by the principal accused on enquiry was held by this appellant and he recommended payment, and accordingly, the payments were made to the advocate.It is clear, therefore, that signatures of the awardees over the vakalatnamas were forged and the principal accused Ramendra Prasad Mukherjee now deceased, filed false vakalatnamas before the Special L.A. Officer in order to withdraw compensation amount payable to the awardees.Evidence of these witnesses also reveal that they did not receive any compensation amount.It proves that compensation which was payable to these awardees though withdrawn by the principal accused were misappropriated and not paid to the awardees.Elements of Section 409 of IPC as well as elements of cheating thus clearly revealed against the appellants.It appears from the evidence and materials on record that 11 vakalatnamas were presented in the office of PW 1 and the recommendation of this appellant over the vakalatnamas are exhibits 2 to 12 in different L.A. Cases.Exhibits 2/2 to 6/2, 8/2 and 10/2 to 12/ 2 are also report of Kanungo, i.e. this appellant on the order sheet recommending payment.There was no cross-examination of handwriting expert PW 5 on behalf of this accused appellant in the trial Court.Signature of the advocate accused on the vakalatnamas were marked as ext.13 to 23 and signatures of the advocate accused on the petitions filed for withdrawal of compensation amount were marked ext.Evidence of PW 4, PW 6, PW 7, PW 8, PW 9, PW 10, PW 14 and PW 15 reveal that all of them stated clearly in Court that the signatures appearing on the petitions and vakalatnamas are not their signatures and all of them stated that they did not execute any vakalatnama in favour of advocate Ramendra Prasad Mukherjee.Evidence of PW 4, PW 6, PW 7 and PW 10 reveal that they put specimen signature on sheet of papers in presence of the Investigating Officer and their Specimen signatures were sent to handwriting expert for comparison with the signatures appearing on the vakalatnamas and petitions filed in the office of the Special L.A. Officer.Their specimen signatures were marked exts.34, 35, 36 and 37 respectively.There was no proper cross-examination of these witnesses as well as the handwriting expert on behalf of this accused appellant in the trial Court.PW 1 is the complainant who was the special L.A. Officer at the relevant time.PW 2 was the head clerk and PW 3 was the accountant attached to Special L.A. Office at the relevant time and they were well conversant with the signature of this appellant.The learned trial Court has rightly found this appellant guilty under Sections 409/420/109 of IPC and also under Section 420 of IPC.It is evident that the learned Special Court sentenced the accused to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a find of Rs. 3,000/- i.d. to suffer one year imprisonment for the offence under Sections 409/420/109 of IPC.He also sentenced this appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.Now the question is whether considering the pendency of the case of 24 years and age of the appellant as 77 years at present and considering his illness whether this Court should interfere into the matter of reducing sentence passed by the learned trial Court.It has been contended by the learned advocate for the appellant that he is not the principal accused and at best he can be regarded as abettor.The appellant has retired in the mean time and is now aged approximately 77 years ad he is suffering from various types of illness.Thereafter, against the order of conviction and sentence the appellant preferred the appeal and it dragged the matter for further 12 years due to pendency of the appeal in this Court.In a case of such nature the appellant cannot be enlarged on probation bond.Considering his age.illness and sufferings for the last 24 years I think it fit for the ends of justice that sentence imposed upon him should be reduced.The appeal is partly allowed.The order of the learned trial Court regarding conviction of appellant is maintained but the order regarding sentence is modified and reduced.The sentence of the appellant Achintya Ranjan Das for the offence under Sections 409/420/109 of IPC is reduced to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two months and in respect of offence under Section 420 of IPC the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to Rigorous Imprisonment for six months only without any order for payment of fine.Both the sentences shall run concurrently.Urgent xerox certified copy be given to the parties, if applied for, expeditiously.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and Sentence dated 28.06.2017 convicting the appellant herein for offence under Section 304(i) r/w 109 of IPC in S.C.No.35 of 2007 by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.5), Coimbatore.2.The appellant herein is the accused in Crime Number 2466 of 2005 who faced charge under Section 302 of IPC r/w 109 of IPC for allegedly murdering one Mr.Moorthy, the account-in-charge of the company where the appellant stood employed.3.According to prosecution the appellant worked in the Textile company namely P & G owned by PW-7 Ilangovan.The deceased Moorthy served as the accounts in-charge of the company.On 29.12.2005 the appellant along with one Jegan a juvenile in conflict with law went to the company and demanded an advance amount deducible from his salary claiming expense towards medical treatment of juvenile’s brother.However as Moorthy refused to heed appellant's demand stating that the appellant is irregular in work, there arose a wordy quarrel in the verandah of the company.While so, the juvenilehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 in conflict namely Jegan stabbed the deceased on his back and when Moorthy turned, he stabbed on the chest and as a result of the same the deceased died.4.Thereupon the appellant was separately charge sheeted for the offence under Section 302 r/w 109 of IPC and the juvenile in conflict with law was charge sheeted separately.5.The prosecution to substantiate their case examined 14 witnesses and marked Exhibits-P1 to P27 and Mo's-1 to 10 were produced.Appraisal over available evidence, the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.The said conviction is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal.6.I heard MrH.Rajasekar, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mrs.T.P.Savitha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.7.According to Learned Counsel for the appellant, the impugned Judgment is liable to be set aside for want of corroboration and reliable evidence.It is his further case that the conviction is baseless when the evidence of alleged eye witnesses does not attribute any overt act against the appellant except that he was physically present.8.It is his prime contention that the Trial Court has misunderstood the definition of abetment, despite candidly held that there was no mens rea or knowledge by appellant and further holding that the alleged offence might have committed by the juvenile in conflict without appellant’s knowledge, but has contrarily convicted the appellant guilty for offence under Section 304 (i) r/w 109 of IPC.9.Per Contra, the Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that though the appellant was originally charge sheeted for offence under Section 302 r/w 109 of IPC, the Learned Trial Judge on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence has come to the conclusion that the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC will not be attracted in the case on hand by holding that the appellant had no intention.Thereby the Learned Trial Judge holdinghttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 appellant is liable for abetting culpable homicide not amounting to murder, thereby convicted the appellant in above terms.10.The Learned Counsel would further submit that the prosecution through their 14 witnesses and 27 exhibits and 10 material objects has established their case beyond reasonable doubt.He has also disputes the contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant that the prosecution evidence is insufficient as not adversely pointing out overt act on the appellant.Accordingly he prayed for dismissal of appeal by sustaining the sentence of conviction and punishment made against the appellant.11.The records disclose that PW1 Mahalingam claims to be the cutting master in P & G clothing company deposed that he and PW2 witnessed the above quarrel.PW2, Balu deposed that he and PW1 witnessed the above quarrel.12.The PW-3, Babu is the Line Inspector of electricity board and he deposed that there was no electricity cut at the corresponding time of alleged quarrel.PW-4 Selvan is the brother of the deceased and he deposed that on intimation of death news of his brother he came backhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 to hospital and came to know the above incident.PW6 Bharathi is the doctor who conducted post mortem of the deceased.PW8 Rajendran deposed that on the date of alleged occurrence, he saw the appellant and juvenile in conflict with law running through the street.PW-11 is the photographer who photographed the scene of occurrence and produced M.O.6 the photograph and negative.PW12 Kennedy is the Head Constable and he deposed that he handed over the material objects to the Investigation Officer.Further it is seen that PW1- Mahalingam stated that he witnessed the above quarrel directly as though the quarrel commenced in his presence, but PW7-Ilangovan in his cross examination stated that on hearing upon the quarrel, he hadhttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 taken PW1-Mahalingam to place of occurrence, thus there is also discrepancies over the genesis of alleged time and period of quarrel.It is further noticeable that PW7 has stated that the alleged time of quarrel was a dinner time.23.Further the evidence adduced by PW8 remains undependable as there are material contradictions that at one time he says that he saw the appellant running after the occurrence.However during cross stated that he saw the appellant/accused only after appellants were secured by the police.Thus his evidence gains least importance.Further the alleged place of occurrence remains contradicted in the evidence of witnesses.Therefore, without any hesitation, I am of the considered opinion that conviction on appellant is unsound and liable tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 be set aside.Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by rendering benefit of doubt to the appellant.27.In the result:(a) this Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.35 of 2007 dated 28.06.2007, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.http://www.judis.nic.in 14 M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Item no. 76 Ct.No.34 CHC Allowed C.R.M. No.7165 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 04.09.2018 in connection with Singur Police Station Case No. 273 of 2018 dated 03.08.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 341/354/354A/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with under Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual OffencesAnd In Re:-Mahadeb Das & ors.... Petitioners Mr. Arunava Ganguly, Advocate .. for the petitioners Ms. Sreyashee Biswas, Advocate ..for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Singur Police Station Case No. 273 of 2018 dated 03.08.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 341/354/354A/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with under Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.The petitioners claim that this is a case of a dispute between two groups and there is a case and a counter-case.There does not appear to be any injury.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Shri Gajendra Singh submitted that the matter be heard because his son is under custody since 20.01.2015 and on dated 20.04.2015 compromise has also been taken place between the parties and complainant No.2 Shyam Singh @ Shyamu Singh Bhadoria was also present and compromise petition duly verified by the Principal Registrar of this Bench.It is submitted by learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 /State that case diary is not available, but, in compliance of order dated 20.04.2015 copy of challan is made available on the record, which was filed on that day itself.This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to 'the Code' has been filed by the applicant for quashing of FIR registered under Crime No.549 /2014 at Police Station Kotwali, District Bhind for the offence punishable under Sections 307 /34, 504 of IPC and Section 25 /27 of Arms Act.For consideration of the case, FIR is quoted as under:- " Qfj;knh ';kew flag HknkSfj;k viuh eka Jherh jktdqekjh HknkSfj;k ds lkFk Fkkuk mifLFkr vkdj tqckuh fjiksVZ fd;k fd eSa egkohj xat fHk.M jgrk 2 M.Cr.C. No. 2808/2015 gWwA i<+rk gwWa ,oa nqdku pykrk gSA dy fnukad 18-12-2014 dks dju flag rksej ,oa Mkcj flag rksej ls eqWagckn gks x;k Fkk] blh ckr ij vkt fnukad 19-12-2014 dks eSa viuh nqdku ij viuh ekWa jktdqekjh ds cSBk Fkk] 'kke djhc 8-05 cts dju flag rksej] Mkcj rksej vk;s vkSj nksuksa us xkfy;ka nh o tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls dju flag rksej] Mkcj flag rksej us esjs ij Qk;j dV~Vs ls fd;sA eSa tehu ij >qd dj ysV x;k] xksyh esjs ij ls fudy xbZ] nksuksa us 315 cksj ds dV~Vs ls 5&6 xksfy;kWa pykbZ] esjh pkph uhye nsoh vk x;h Fkh] rFkk iqfyl vk x;h] lks ;g yksx Hkkx x;sA ?kVuk esjh ekWa jktdqekjh] pkph uhye nsoh us ns[kh gS] lks fjiksVZ djrk gWwa] dk;Zokgh dh tkosA"2 M.Cr.C. No. 2808/2015Heard Shri Gajendra Singh as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 /State at length.Shri Gajendra Singh has submitted that in view of compromise entered into between the parties, there is no possibility of conviction of his son Karan Veer Singh.The continuation of criminal proceedings would put the applicant to get oppressions and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him as he is in custody, by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the complainant Shyam Singh.Compromise proceedings have been recorded between the applicant and complainant / respondent no.2 before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 20.04.2015 in which, it is stated by them that they have compromised the matter 3 M.Cr.C. No. 2808/2015 amicably, without any undue influence or pressure.They were identified by their counsel and their signatures are also there.3 M.Cr.C. No. 2808/2015One unfortunate incident relating on account of misunderstanding between the applicant and respondent no.2, have dragged the parties to this Court.Now, the parties have 4 M.Cr.C. No. 2808/2015 settled all their disputes and want to compromise the matter.Both parties are residents of the same area.4 M.Cr.C. No. 2808/2015It is pertinent to mention here that as per written FIR trial against the co-accused Dabar Singh will continue.A copy of this order be made available to the learned trial Court for information.Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(Order of the Court is made by S.TAMILVANAN,J) Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide BDFGISSV No.1776/2014, dated 11.11.2014 whereby the detenu/the brother of the petitioner herein, by name, Sudha @ Sudhakar, S/o.Baskaran, aged 25 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA".2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.T.V.Somasundaram, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail applications in the similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.However, he submitted that the copy of the bail applications in the similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention were not supplied to the detenu.4.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.5.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases the accused was granted bail, viz., [a] by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, in Crl.M.P.No.573/2009 for the offence under Section 379 IPC on the file of R1 Police Station Cr.No.26/2009; [b]by the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.Nos.1259 and 1364/2012 for the offences u/s. 457 and 380 IPC on the file of P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station Cr.No.1062/2011; and ) by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.929 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506 (ii) IPC on the file of V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Cr.No.160/2013 respectively.

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

No.28 (Allowed) C.R.M. 1767 of 2019 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 08/02/2019 in connection with Harishchandrapur P.S. Case No. 878 of 2018 dated 06/12/2018 under Sections 448 /326 /308 /354B /427 /506 /34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Kabul Sekh @ Kabul Ali & Ors.....petitioners.Mr. M. A. Sk....for the petitioners.In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a Bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that they shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a fortnight from date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The brief facts are:(a) On 15.12.2019, a function was in progress of the son of the petitioner no.l namely Shri Taranjeet Singh at Calista resort;(b) during the function, a child namely Master Gurnam Singh s/o respondent no.2 and 3 and grandson of respondent no.4 was electrocuted and was sent to the hospital where the W.P.(CRL) 550/2020 Page 1 of 6 said child remained on ventilator till 23.12.2019 and died on 23.12.2019;W.P.(CRL) 550/2020 Page 1 of 6(c) the cause of electrocution as stated by the father of the deceased child in the FIR was the child caught hold of an electric wire which was cut at some point and due to which the child got electrocuted;(d) initially, the prosecution agency registered an FIR u/s 287/337 IPC which was later on converted to 304-A IPC;(e) the petitioners no.l to 3 were asked certain information as well as documents under the provisions of Section 91 Cr.P.C which were duly supplied.The work related to electrical fittings and fixtures of the said Resort was looked after by a contractor i.e. petitioner no.4, namely Shri Mayank Khullar, Proprietor of M/s. Laue Light Event Decorator;(f) in the meantime, the petitioners no.l and 2 were called to the Police Station at Kapashera where they were arrested;(g) since the victims i.e. respondents no.2 to 4 and petitioner no.l are all relatives; their common relatives got settled all the disputes between the petitioners and respondents no.2 to 4 and a Memorandum of Understanding/'Settlement was entered into between the parties;W.P.(CRL) 550/2020 Page 2 of 6That it has been mutually agreed between the parties that the present settlement is to maintain peace and harmony amongst the parties as the parties are known to each other since past.To maintain the cordial relations, the parties have agreed to enter into this MOU/Settlement.The parties undertake to abide by all terms and conditions of this settlement.Manpreet Singh (relative) joined investigation and their statements U/S 161' Cr.P.C were recorded.Bhupinder Singh (Father of the deceased Child Gurman) had warned Taranjeet Singh regarding the naked wires and lose joints on the wire installation in the lawn area during the programme, but W.P.(CRL) 550/2020 Page 4 of 6 Taranjeet Singh told him that he had organized many programmes/functions with these types of electrical arrangements and nothing will go wrong.Just for the commercial benefit, the owners/partners organizing such public functions of large gatherings have put the lives of guests at risk & stake.W.P.(CRL) 550/2020 Page 5 of 6In Pankaj Bhardwaj and Ors.This petition is filed for quashing of FIR No.512/2019 under Section 287/336/304 of IPC registered at P.S. Kapashera and the proceedings emanating from it.annexed by the parties along with this petition and it witnesseth as under:That it has been mutually agreed between the parties that the first party is including some expenses for their child Gurman Singh and also in lieu of compensation for the injury caused to Gurman Singh, the third party/contractor has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) only to the first party, out of which Rs.5,00,000/- by way of cheque bearing No,026854;.dated 19.02.2020 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kapashera Branch, New Delhi-1 10027 in favour of Smt. Tanya Kaur Mehar would be paid at the time of signing of the Present MOU and the remaining amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- by way of Cheque/Demand Draft before the Hon'ble The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi itself.Since the third party is not in a financial position to make the payment, the second party has agreed to make the payment on behalf of the third party.2. That it has been mutually agreed between the parties that the second and third party are making the payment without admitting any guilt or without admitting any commission of offence, on humanitarian basis and expenses of the medical treatment and also as compensation of the injury caused to the Gurman Singh .This amount of Rs.20,00,000/- would involve all sorts of compensation, if any, towards the parents of Gurman Singh i.e. first party.That it has been mutually agreed between the parties that after the receipt of payment of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation and expenses of the medical treatment, the first party shall not make any kind of claim against the third party being contractor or the second party being the owner of the resort, where the unfortunate incident took place.That it has been mutually agreed between, the parties that in context to the FIR No.512/2019 both the parties would file a joint petition for quashing of above n said FIR before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi and the first party shall give their no objection for the quashing of the said FIR before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, for which purpose the first party shall give their affidavit containing their No Objection, their ID Proofs, their photographs and also would make themselves available before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi to W.P.(CRL) 550/2020 Page 3 of 6 make the statement and would extend their cooperation in all manner.W.P.(CRL) 550/2020 Page 3 of 6That it has been mutually agreed between the parties that after the receipt of compensation of Rs.2.0,00,000/- as staled above in all eventualities to come in future, the first party shah cooperate with, the second party and third party, for all the court proceedings including civil and criminal.It has also been undertaken by first party that they shall not initiate any kind of civil or criminal case, litigation or complaint against the second party and third party.That the parties have been left with no grievance of whatsoever kind against each other and hence the parties undertake to abide by all the terms and conditions."It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner the FIR be quashed for the reasons aforesaid.However the learned ASC for State referred to the status report filed on record which noted as under:It was in the knowledge of the partners/directors of Calista Resort and they were fully aware that such installations of electricity would have caused major causalities."W.P.(CRL) 550/2020 Page 4 of 6If one peruse the charge sheet one may find the only material public witnesses are the parents and grandfather of deceased.Since admittedly they have entered into a compromise hence framing of charge and examining them later to declare them hostile would only be a futile exercise.Further in Babu Khan and Ors.State and Ors.In W.P.(CRL.) 2227/2019 decided on 05.09.2019, FIR under Section 288/304A of IPC was quashed.the following was held:Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

That the police P.S. Ghazipur arrested the applicant/accused in the captioned false, frivolous and politically motivated case on 22.12.2005 and since then the accused/applicant is in judicial custody.M.C. 689/2017 Page 1 of 23Aggrieved by the order dated 16th February, 2017 disposing off the application of respondent No.1 granting him permission to go out with armed guards in the daytime to canvass for his elections, the petitioner prefers the present petition.The operative portion of the impugned order is as under:Perusal of the file shows that the applicant/accused has earlier also been granted custody parole for contesting the elections by Sh.A.K. Mendiratta Ld.I have perused the said order and perusal of the same reveals that earlier also the applicant/accused was granted custody parole for contesting the election by Ms. Savita Rao Ld.The accused/applicant Mokhtar Ansari did not misuse this liberty granted to him.Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant/accused was earlier granted custody parole on two occasions and he did not misuse the liberty of custody parole granted to him, the applicant/accused Mokhtar Ansari is granted custody parole in R.C. No.8 (S)/2006/CBI/SCB-II/ND (Crime No.589/2005) P.S. (Bhanwarkol) till 04.03.2017 from 7.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. everyday, subject to the following terms and conditions: -M.C. 689/2017 Page 2 of 23The applicant/accused Mokhtar Ansari shall not misuse this liberty in any manner nor he shall influence or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidence.The applicant/accused shall not be taken outside the limits of Mau Constituency for the purpose of campaigning.It is further directed that during the custody parole, the applicant/accused Mokhtar Ansari shall not indulge in any such activity which can be prejudicial to the fair trial of this case.The expenses of custody parole shall be borne by the applicant/accused Mokhtar Ansari."The applicant/accused Mokhtar Ansari is stated to be lodged presently at Lucknow Jail, U.P. The Superintendent Lucknow Jail, U.P., shall make the necessary arrangements for taking the accused/applicant Mokhtar Ansari to Mau Constituency.The Superintendent Jail Lucknow shall also make proper arrangement for the security of the applicant/accused Mokhtar Ansari.Copy of this order be sent to Superintendent Lucknow Jail, U.P. for information and necessary action.As requested, copy of this order be also given dasti to the Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused Mokhtar Ansari."2. Learned Senior Counsel for the Election Commission submits that the Election Commission is bestowed with extensive powers under Article 324 of the Constitution of India and where an order of the Court would adversely affect and obstruct the Election Commission in conducting free and fair elections, the Election Commission would be within its jurisdiction to challenge the same.Reliance is placed on the decisions reported as 1978 (1) SCC 405 Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., 1984 Suppl SCC 104 Election Commission of India vs. State Crl.M.C. 689/2017 Page 3 of 23 of Haryana, 1984 (2) SCC 656 A.C. Jose vs. Sivan Pillai, and 2002 (5) SCC 294 Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr.Referring to question No.49 of Frequently Asked Questions to Model Code of Conduct for Guidance of Political Parties and Candidates it is contended that before grant of custody parole, the Election Commission ought to have been consulted.M.C. 689/2017 Page 3 of 233. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that firstly the respondent No.1 is not a convict being entitled to avail custody parole and secondly, the Guidelines for Parole/Furlough, 2010 itself do not contemplate that respondent No.1 can be granted custody parole for canvassing his candidature as a MLA for Mau constituency of the State of Uttar Pradesh.The Trial Court ought to have taken into account the criminal antecedents of the respondent No.1 and its likely impact on a free and fair election.The very fact that the custody parole has been sought with eight security guards and granted, the same would be sufficient to overawe the electorate.The same is an administrative power loosely termed as 'parole' and 'furlough'.The distinction between the two being that 'parole' is a temporary release of the prisoner for a special purpose and a Crl.M.C. 689/2017 Page 19 of 23 particular period from jail whereas 'furlough' though also temporary release is granted for maintaining good behaviour and as a matter of reward.That the prosecution has examined 41 witnesses till date including all eye-witnesses.The only police witnesses remain to be examined in trial.That the applicant/accused is sitting MLA from Mau Constituency, Uttar Pradesh since last four terms and his party workers has done lot of works for welfare of the public of his constituency.That the applicant/accused seeks permission of this Hon'ble Court to grant him custody parole from 15th February, 2017 till 11th March, 2017 i.e. the date of declaration of result.That the accused/applicant was also earlier granted custody parole by the court of Ms. Savita Rao, Ld. ASJ, Teeshazari Court vide order dt. 30.01.2012 for Crl.M.C. 689/2017 Page 20 of 23That the Varanasi 100 KM from Mau and Village Gondour is approx.45 KM from Mau constituency.That the applicant/accused undertakes to abide by the terms and conditions of police custody parole and trial shall not be effected in any manner as he is continuously represented through his counsel and no adjournment was sought by him till date.That in Dhananjay Singh versus State Govt. of NCT Delhi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail temporarily for one week to the petitioner who was a Member of Parliament, to enable him to submit his nomination papers before Returning Officer, Jaunpur, UP.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It is further alleged that on 11.12.2008, when the first accusedwas engaged in sexual activities with the fourth accused, at her house, thechild again cried.This was a disturbance for them to continue to have theirsexual activities.Enraged over the same, it is alleged that the fourthaccused caused burn injury on the child with a heated ever silver tumbler.Thus, the fourth accused, according to the case of the prosecution, committedoffence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.It is further alleged that on 12.12.2008, at about 09.30 AM, atthe house of the first accused, the fourth accused had committed the murderof the child by attacking the child with a long size metal spoon and also bysuffocating the child by closing the mouth and nose.It is further allegedthat when the fourth accused committed the murder, the first accused aidedhim to commit the murder.Thus, the first accused is liable for punishmentunder Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.It is further alleged that the accused Nos.1 and 2, with the helpof the fourth accused, took the dead body of the child to the house of thefather of the first accused and informed him that the child died by anaccidental fall.Thus, the accused Nos.1 and 2, according to the case of theprosecution, committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of the IndianPenal Code.It is further alleged that the fourth accused assisted theaccused Nos.1 and 2 for taking the dead body of the child to the house of thefather of the first accused.In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many asten witnesses and exhibited eleven documents, besides two Material Objects.Out of the said ten witnesses, PW-1 to PW-4, who are the neighbours of theaccused Nos.1 and 2, have completely turned hostile and they have not statedanything incriminating against any of the accused.PW-5 is the VillageAdministrative Officer, who has stated that on 12.12.2008, at 08.20 PM, theInspector of Police prepared an Observation Mahazer, at the house of thefirst accused in his presence and also the presence of his assistant.Hesigned the same.He has further stated that on 16.12.2008, at about 12.00noon, PW-9, the Investigating Officer, arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2 atThatchanallur Road.On such arrest, it is alleged that they gave independentconfession one after the other.In the said confession given by the firstaccused, he disclosed that he had hidden a long size metal spoon at the houseof one Isakkiammal.In pursuance of the same, he went to the said place alongwith the police and produced the same from the hide out [MO-2] and he alsoproduced MO-1, tumbler.Heart surfaceshows Tardieu spots.Coronaries- patent.Lungs - surface shows Tardieu spots.C/S.congested.Liver, Spleen and Kidneys - C/S.congested.Hyoid bone - intact.- 50 gms of partially digested cooked rice particles.[JUDGMENT of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J] The appellants are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.202 of 2009, onthe file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II,Tirunelveli.Altogether, there were four accused in the case.The Trial Courtframed as many as seven charges as detailed below.Charge Accused Penal Provisions11,3 and 4120(B) IPC 23324 IPC 34324 IPC 44302 IPC 54302 r/w 34 IPC61 and 2201 IPC 74201 r/w 34 IPCBy Judgment dated 01.10.2010, the Trial Court convicted the accusedNos.1 and 2, as detailed below:-Accused No. Convicted under Sections Sentence imposed Fine amount 1302 r/w 34 IPC201 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life.To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven yearsRs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.201 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven yearsRs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six monthsChallenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come upwith this Criminal Appeal.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The first accused is the wife of the second accused.Theaccused Nos.1 and 2 had a child, aged about 11/2 years, by name, Isakkiyappa Alias Karthick.According to the case of the prosecution, since the child wasa hindrance for the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 for their illicit relationship,the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 conspired together to commit the murder of thechild.Thus, the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 stood charged for the offencepunishable under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.It is further alleged that ten days prior to 11.12.2008, when thefirst accused was engaged in sexual activities with the third accused, at thehouse of the first accused, the deceased child cried and it was a disturbancefor them to continue their sexual activities.Enraged over the same, it isalleged that the third accused caused a burn injury on the body of the childwith lighted cigarette.3.6. PW-6, Dr.M.Mani, has spoken about the postmortem conducted on the dead body of the child.He found the following injuries on the dead body.Abrasions seen over the following areas: 6 X 2 CM back of lowerpart of forearm and dorsum of hadn, 8 X 2 CM entire lips, 4 X 1 CM lower partof nose, 1 X 1 CM inner aspect of right eye, 5 X 3 CM left cheek, 10 X 4 CMlower part of left side of abdomen, 4 X 3 CM left axilla and outer aspect ofchest.2. 4.5 CM diameter size 3 marginal partially healed burns seen 2 on thechest and one one the middle of abdomen.3. 1 X 1 CM size burns seen on the upper part of right shoulder, 1 X 1CM on the inner aspect of upper part of right thigh.4. 3 X 1 CM size burns seen on the middle of left sole, 2 X 1 X CM leftheel, 2 X 1 CM on the upper part of left gluteal region.5. Healed burnt scars five in number each measuring 1 X 1 CM, four onthe right upper limb and one on the Left chest.On dissection of scalp: 20 X12 CM subscalpal bruising seen on the bi-temporo and bi-parietal region.Marked subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhages seen on both cerebral hemispheres.Other findings:- Peritoneal and Pleural Cavities empty.No specific smell.Mucosa - normal.Small intestine.Contains 20 ml of bile stained flukd.No specificsmell.Mucosa - normal.Bladder empty.Brain -C/S.described".He gave final opinion that the deceased died due to asphyxia together withburn injuries.3.7. PW-7 is a Constable, who has stated that he carried the dead bodyto the hospital for postmortem.PW-9 and PW-10 are the Investigating Officers,who have spoken about the respective investigations done by them.The accused denied the same.However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor to exhibit any document.Having considered all theabove materials, the Trial Court acquitted the accused Nos.3 and 4 from allcharges, but convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2, as detailed in the firstparagraph of this Judgment and punished them accordingly.That is how, theappellants are now before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and also perused the recordscarefully.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that this is acase, where, absolutely, there is no evidence incriminating these twoaccused.But, the Trial Court has erroneously fallen back on Section 106 ofthe Indian Evidence Act, 1872, [for brevity "the Act"] and convicted thesetwo accused as though they had failed to discharge their burden to explain asto how the child died.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, oppose thisCriminal Appeal.But, he is not in a position to place reliance on anyevidence on record in support of the conviction.We have considered the above submissions.As we have narrated hereinabove, the first charge related toconspiracy against the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 that they conspired together tokill the child, because the child was a hindrance to them to continue theirillicit relationship.The second charge was under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the third accused alleging that he voluntarily caused burn injurieson the body of the child ten days prior to 11.12.2008 with the use of burningcigarette.For want of any evidence, the Trial Court has acquitted the thirdaccused from this charger.For want of any evidence, the Trial Court acquitted the fourthaccused from the said charge also.The fourth charge was under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Codeagainst the fourth accused alleging that the fourth accused caused the deathof the child by attacking the child with a long size metal spoon bysuffocating the child by closing the mouth and nose.Having acquitted the accused under charge Nos.1 to 4, the TrialCourt has, strangely, convicted the first accused under Section 302 r/wSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code.It need not be emphasized that theintention of two or more persons becomes a common intention, as dealt with inSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code, if they share the said intention andmake it common among themselves.In our considered view, the Trial Court has committed a seriousillegality in convicting these two accused in a very casual manner.We regretthat we find it difficult to approve the action of the Trial Court.We holdthat the accused are entitled for acquittal.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed; the conviction andsentence imposed on the appellants by Judgment dated 01.10.2010, made S.C.No.202 of 2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FastTrack Court No.II, Tirunelveli, is set aside and the appellants areacquitted.Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded tothem.Bail bond executed by the appellants and the sureties shall standterminated.1.The Inspector of Police, Thachanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.2.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

As I also belong from DHOBHI category, it is unacceptable for me.I want you to take a legal action according to SC/ST Act as it is very insulting & dominating updates put by her for DHOBHI community." (emphasis supplied)Along with her complaint, the complainant also enclosed certain printouts, wherein the petitioner/accused claimed that she belongs to Rajput community, and that persons belonging to the 'Dhobi' community have no standard of living and they are cheap people.The aforesaid printouts are from the facebook account of the petitioner.W.P.(CRL) 3083/2016 Page 2 of 25Since, it is the utterances attributed to the petitioner on her facebook "Wall" which form the basis of the FIR in question, I consider it appropriate to set out the posts attributed to the petitioner on her facebook 'wall'.The same are as follows:"Gayatri Singh July 28 at 11:53pm Edited Pehla Gadha: Yaar Main Jis Dhobi Ke Ghar Kaam Karta Hoo, Vo Mujhe Bahut Marta Hai.Doosra Gadha: Tu Ghar Chor Kar Bhaag Kyo Nahi Jata.It's called cheep people and only one brand available for these people: DHOBI BRAND - feeling naughty." (emphasis supplied)VIPIN SANGHI, J.The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek a writ quashing FIR No.1162/2015 registered at Police Station - Saket, New Delhi under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "SC/ST Act"W.P.(CRL) 3083/2016 Page 1 of 25for short), and the proceedings arising therefrom.The petitioner/ accused and the respondent No.2/complainant are co- sisters.They are married to two brothers.According to the petitioner, the mother-in-law of the petitioner severed her relationship from the husband of respondent No.2 sometime in August 2015 and disowned him from all her movable and immovable properties.The said development has led to respondent No.2 becoming inimical towards the petitioner and her family members.The case of the complainant/ respondent no.2 in her complaint-on the basis of which the aforesaid FIR has been registered, is that the petitioner:"is continuously harassing and abusing on my caste on social network sites/ facebook).Since 18 July 15 till today 1 Aug 15 she is updating a bad words like cheap, kutta, donkey etc for DHOBHI's.The complainant made the aforesaid complaint dated 02.08.2015, which was diarised on 03.08.2015 vide Diary No.872-LC."5. ... Thus, as per the prosecution case, only the complainant who was accompanied by Shashi Pal, was present inside the house at the time the petitioner allegedly insulted him by uttering the remarks as noted in complaint.The witnesses i.e. Meenakshi and Durga Dutt have alleged themselves to be the eye witnesses.But their names have not been stated by the complainant in her complaint.The supplementary statement dated 27.8.2012 of the complainant giving the names of alleged witnesses can't fill up the lacuna.

['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.This appeal has been preferred by the appellant - Vijai Pal Singh, son of Sri Babu Singh against the judgment and order of conviction dated 10.03.1986, passed by the Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No. 255 of 1984 (State vs Vijai Pal Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 45 of 1984, under Sections - 302, 307, 324 and 309 I.P.C., Police Station - Barhpura, District - Etawah, whereby the appellant was convicted under the aforesaid sections and was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section - 302 I.P.C.; three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section - 324 I.P.C.; and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section - 309 I.P.C.All these sentences were directed to run concurrently.In the same trial, accused was found not guilty under Section - 307 I.P.C. and was acquitted of the charge.Factual chronology of the case, culminating into lodging of the F.I.R. by informant Chhotey Singh (P.W.1), on 23.06.1984 at 01.55 a.m,.at Police Station - Barhpura, District - Etawah, at Case Crime No. 45 of 1984, under Sections - 307, 309 I.P.C., was that the informant was a Company Hawaldar of 37 Batallion P.A.C. and was posted as such at Police Station - Barhpura.Neither did Constable Vijai Pal Singh wake up/report the informant after his duty was over, nor did he wake up Constable Arun Kumar for taking on his duty (after 1:00 a.m. in the night).It was around 01:30 a.m. (in the night intervening 22/23.06.1984) when a sound of fire was heard.This awakened the informant as well as the other personnel of the force.Vijai Pal Singh was sighted running towards the office of the police station with rifle and he was chased by the informant (Chhotey Singh), Constable 20251 Shanker Bux, Constable 19596 Siddh Nath Rai.Constable 19766 Bhai Lal Yadav and Sentry of the Police Station - C/C.P. 294 Ramesh Singh and Constable 119 Devi Prasad, who were holding torches in their hands.Suddenly, Vijai Pal Singh pointed his rifle towards them and fired two shots on the informant and others, with intention to kill, from the verandah of the office of police station, but the informant and others, escaped unhurt as the bullet missed target and did not hit them.In the meanwhile, Constable Bhai Lal Yadav moved ahead to overpower Vijai Pal Singh, when he effected blow by bannet of his rifle on the back of Bhai Lal Yadav and caused injury to him and entered into the male lockup and confined himself there in the male lock up of the police station, and tried to commit suicide by shooting himself with his rifle on his abdomen.Consequently, he fell down in the lock up.When the informant and others also rushed to the well of the police station, they found Constable Rama Shanker groaning in pain on account of gunshot injury on his stomach.F.I.R. also contains details about the background of this happening that on 21.06.1984, Constable Vijai Pal Singh had rebuked P.A.C./Constables in the barrack, including Constable Shanker Bux.When Rama Shanker objected to the rebuking, Vijay Pal Singh threatened him with dire consequences and on account of that animosity, he shot Rama Shanker with Rifle No. 38458 and Butt No. F632 along with bannet, which were recovered from Vijai Pal Singh.There was one empty cartridge entangled in the chamber of rifle and there was one live cartridge in the magazine.Apart from that, 45 live cartridges were recovered from the belt of Vijai Pal Singh along with 10 chargers.3 empty cartridges were found from the verandah.All these articles were deposited at the police station and request was made for lodging the report.The written report is Ext.Ka.1, whereas the Check F.I.R is Ext. Ka.12, whereafter a case was registered at aforesaid case crime number against the appellant in the relevant G.D. of the aforesaid date and time at aforesaid police station.The investigation was taken over by P.W.8 Chandra Shekhar, who recorded statement of various witnesses.Margins everted.Bleeding present.(wound of exit) In the opinion of the doctor, the condition of patient was poor.He was admitted and police was informed.Duration of injury was found fresh.The injury report of Bhai Lal Yadav-Constable-is on record and the same is marked as Ex.Dr. Diwakar has also proved fact that the condition of patient Rama Shanker was at the admission and during treatment serious, therefore, he informed the Magistrate for recording his statement, whereupon Tehsildar, Etawah recorded statement of Rama Shanker in his (Dr. Diwakar) presence after his certification about the fit condition of the patient prior to and subsequently to the recording of the statement, was given.This certification has been proved on the original sheet of the statement and marked as Exts.Ka.9 and Ext.Ka.10, respectively.Pertinent to observe that P.W.6 Tej Pal Singh-the then Tehsildar of the area - posted in Etawah on 23.06.1984, has proved recording of the statement of Rama Shanker in the morning and has proved his handwriting and the statement recorded at 05:00 a.m. and ended at 05:07 a.m. (on 23.06.1984) as Ext.The post postmortem examination on the cadaver of the deceased Rama Shanker was done by Dr. M. Ali, wherein the following ante mortem injuries were found:-Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep in front of abdomen 7.5 cm below the umbilicus in midline directing upward & backward.Gun shot wound of exit 4 cm x 3.5 cm x cavity deep on back of lumbar regions in midline 33 cms below the neck.Thereafter, he prepared Site-plan (Ext. Ka.15) and various memos.Prime being one pellet, which was recovered from male lockup.The recovery memo of the same was prepared and marked as Ext.All the materials collected from the spot were kept in the police malkhana and description of the same was entered in the relevant G.D. of the police station.The same is proved as Ext.He also prepared memo of torches, which were marked as Ext.Ka. 3 and Ext. Ka.19, respectively.This witness has proved the G.D. entry as Ext. Ka.20, which was prepared in the hand writing of one Chhatrapal (Constable), with whom he is well acquainted and knows his handwriting as well.However, it is noticeable that during course of investigation, Vijai Pal Singh was medically examined on 23.06.1984 at 04:35 a.m. at District Hospital, Etawah by P.W.7 Dr. Diwakar Sharma, wherein he found the following injuries on his person :-Gun shot wound 1 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on the front of abdomen 6 cm above umbilicus at 1 o' clock position.Margins inverted.Blackening present (Entry).Gun shot wound 5 cm x 5 cm x cavity deep on the back of left side 8 cm above iliac crest 11.5 cm away from mid line.Margins everted.Fresh bleeding present.(wound of exit) In the opinion of doctor, the condition of patient was poor.The patient was admitted and police was informed.Plain X-ray of abdomen was advised.Nature of injury was "kept under observation".Injury was stated to have been caused by firearm.Duration of the injury was noted fresh.The injury report of Vjai Pal Singh - Constable - is on record and the same is marked as Ex.6. P.W.7 Dr. Diwakar Sharma had also medically examined the injuries of deceased Rama Shanker (as he was then alive) on 23.06.1984 at 4:50 a.m. at District Hospital, Etawah, wherein he found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:-Gun shot wound 1 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on front of lower abdomen 6 cm below umbilicus at 7 o' clock position 1 cm away from midline (right).Margins inverted.Blackening present (wound of entry).Gun shot wound 2.5 cm x 3.5 cm x cavity deep on the right side back 36 cm below the root of neck.Plain X-ray of abdomen was advised.Nature of injury was "kept under observation".Duration of the injury was found fresh.The injury report of Rama Shanker, Constable is on record and the same is marked as Ex.Besides, Dr. Diwakar Sharma also examined Constable Bhai Lal Yadav at 06:15 a.m. on 23.06.1984 and found the following injury on his person:-Incised wound 2 cm x 0.8 cm x muscle deep on left scapular region 14 cm below top of left shoulder tailing present downwards.Wound was longitudinal.In the opinion of doctor, the injury was simple and caused by sharp-edged weapon.However, the injured Rama Shanker died during the course of treatment.P.W.7 Dr. Diwakar Sharma has testified to the fact that the information of death of Rama Shanker in the hospital was conveyed to S.H.O., Kotwali by Dr. H.N. Singh, with whom this witness was earlier posted and as such, was acquainted with his handwriting.Both the wounds were dressed.Two wounds of cut open in both legs.Cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage.The postmortem examination report of deceased Rama Shanker is on record and has been proved as Ext.After completing the investigation, charge-sheet (Ext.Ka.24) was submitted against the accused under the aforesaid sections of I.P.C.Charges were framed under Sections - 302, 307, 324 and 309 I.P.C. The same were denied and trial was opted by the accused.Prosecution, in all, produced 8 witnesses, out of which, P.W.1 Chottey Singh, P.W.2 Bhai Lal, P.W. 3 Shanker Bux, P.W.4 Siddh Nath Rai and P.W.5 Ramesh Singh were examined as witnesses of fact.Apart from that, the following formal witnesses were also examined - P.W.6 Tej Pal Singh was the Tehsildar, Etawah, he recorded statement of both the accused as well as the deceased and has proved it as Ext.Apart from that, he has also proved certain statement recorded by him, which he has admitted in his cross examination as Ext.P.W.7 Dr. Diwakar Sharma has medically examined the deceased prior to his death as well as the other injured constables including the accused after the occurrence on 22/23.06.1984 at District Hospital, Etawah and he has proved the process.P.W.8 S.I. Chandra Shekhar, is the Investigating Officer.He has detailed the investigation carried out by him and fact of filing the charge-sheet.As no other testimony was adduced, evidence for the prosecution was closed and the statement of the accused was recorded under Section - 313 Cr.P.C., wherein allegation of firing on Rama Shanker was denied by him and he claimed to have been falsely implicated by levelling baseless charges by the informant side.However, in his submission, he has stated that Head Constable- Kashi Prasad had fired on him when he had gone to the chabutra to call Arun Kumar.In order to avert danger to himself, he also fired, which fire, instead of hitting Kashi Prasad, hit Rama Shanker.No evidence, whatsoever, was led by the defense.The trial court after vetting the testimony on record and properly appraising the facts and circumstances, recorded aforesaid finding of conviction and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life under Section - 302 I.P.C; three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section - 324 I.P.C.; and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section - 309 I.P.C. which paved way for this appeal.We have heard Sri Bhawishya Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant, Sri Krishna Pahal, learned A.A.G. assisted by Sri Bhanu Prakash Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.Contention has been raised on behalf of the appellant that in this case, all the prosecution witnesses are highly interested witnesses.They are highly motivated and influenced by the higher authorities and they are deliberately stating false theory before the court after forming their group.The fact is that the accused himself was shot at by another constable and in order to avoid danger and in self defense, the appellant fired, but the bullet missed its target and hit Rama Shanker.The statement given to the Tehsildar was not correctly recorded and the Tehsildar has sided with the informant side.The circumstances show that no one saw the actual occurrence as to when Rama Shanker, the deceased was hit by bullet/pellet fired by the appellant.The origin of the incident is shrouded in mystery.Learned A.A.G. has claimed that all the prosecution witnesses were present on the spot at the time of occurrence and the incident took place around 01:30 a.m. in the night intervening 22/23.06.1984, when a fire was shot by the appellant and due to the sound of the fire all those sleeping over there got awakened and the accused was at that point of time seen rushing towards the office of the police station with a rifle in his hand and after reaching on the verandah of the police station, he pointed out his rifle towards the informant and the other personnel of the force and fired two shots, thought it did not cause any harm to anyone.Thereafter, the accused locked himself in the male lock up and tried to commit suicide by shooting himself on his abdomen with his rifle.Each and every detail of the occurrence has been proved reasonably beyond any shadow of doubt.P.W.6 Tej Pal Singh is the Tehsildar of Etawah, who recorded statement of the victim as well as the accused, wherein also, the victim has categorically stated that the shot, which hit on his abdomen, was shot by Vijai Pal Singh - the accused.There is no reason to falsely implicate the accused.In the light of the rival submissions, the moot point that arises for adjudication of this appeal relates to fact, whether the prosecution has been able to establish the charge beyond all reasonable doubt ?It can be conveniently observed that the incident in question is admitted to the defense but with difference (he was Constable Kashi Prasad, who shot at the accused first) that the fire shot by the accused in self-defense though aimed at Constable Kashi Prasad, because he had shot at the accused first, but it missed him and instead hit the deceased Rama Shanker.Now, we have to contemplate on this set-up, whether the same is gathered in the attendant facts and circumstances and the same is probable or not ?After arduous scrutiny of the record and the wholesome scrutiny of the five prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Chhotey Singh - the informant, P.W.2 Bhai Lal Yadav - the injured witness, who was hit on his back by the bannet of the rifle by accused, P.W.3 Shanker Bux Singh, P.W.4 Siddh Nath Rai, P.W.5 Ramesh Singh, it trickles out that in the night intervening 22/23.06.1984, the accused was on patrolling/guard duty at Police Station - Barhpura from 11:00 p.m. in the night (intervening 22.23.06.1984) up to 1:00 a.m. It so happened around 01:30 a.m. (in the night intervening 22/23.06.1984), that a sound of fire awakened these witnesses and the injured - Rama Shanker, when they saw the accused running away towards the office of the police station with rifle in his hand.A number of constables present over there tried to overpower him and in the process, P.W.2 Bhai Lal Yadav, when moved ahead to take him in his grip, the accused gave blow with his bannet of the rifle on his back, which caused injury on his back.The injury of P.W.2 Bhai Lal Yadav has been proved as incised wound 2 cm x 0.8 cm x Muscle deep on left scapular region 14 cm below top of left shoulder tailing present downwards.Wound was longitudinal and it was rated simple and caused by sharp edged weapon.Duration was the fresh.Apart from that, the accused also tried to commit suicide by locking up himself in the male lockup of the police station and self suffered one rifle shot on his abdomen.In his medical examination, one gun shot wound of entry and one gun shot wound of exit have been noted and the same has been proved as Ext.The testimony of all the witnesses of fact commensurates with the medical documents/evidence and there is no glaring or material inconsistency of any sort, which may reflect anything adverse than the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses regarding the occurrence on the whole and the nature of the injuries caused both on the informant side as well as the accused and the same cannot be doubted by any stretch of imagination.It is important to note that we have, before us, particular testimony of the then Tehsildar, Etawah, who recorded statement of the victim Rama Shanker on 23.06.1984 around 05:00 a.m. and a certification of fitness was previously obtained by him, which was given by Dr. Diwakar Sharma, who certified that the injured Rama Shanker was, at that point of time, in fit mental/physical condition to give statement.The certification given by the doctor has been proved as Exts.Ka.9 and Ext.Apart from that, the same fact has been fortified by P.W.6, the then Tehsildar, Etawah- Tej Pal Singh.As per testimony of P.W.6-Tej Pal Singh, he himself recorded statement of Rama Shanker Singh on 23.06.1984 in the morning, after obtaining certification from Dr. Diwakar Sharma.He has categorically stated that whatever was stated by the injured-Rama Shanker, was noted by him and after recording the statement, he also obtained signature of Rama Shanker on the statement.On perusal of the statement marked Ext.In the night intervening 22/23.06.1984, at around 12.30 a.m., while he was sleeping, Constable Vijai Pal was on duty.Vijial Pal shot him, whereupon he got up and in squatting position saw the accused.The fact of injury being caused to the victim by the accused thus stands proved by the victim by the accused thus stands proved himself and the claim of the appellant, as submitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that he was first shot at by Kashi Prasad and then he fired on Kashi Prasad, but the fire missed its target and hit Rama Shanker) is not supported by any corroborating attendant circumstances or facts and not even a whisper is gathered by us after careful scrutiny of the entire record that it in fact so happened.A wholesome and cumulative reading of the testimony of all the five prosecution witnesses of fact has elaborately detailed about the occurrence and their testimony is natural and consistent on point of occurrence.They are worthy of credit.There is no doubt that apart from Rama Shanker (the deceased), no one else saw the shot being fired by the accused and hitting the deceased (Rama Shanker), while he was asleep in the fateful night at the well of the police station.Thus, the place of occurrence is also proved by the P.W.8 The Investigating Officer Chandra Shekhar.To claim that the patient/deceased was not in fit mental and physical condition to give any statement, would not, in the absence of any supporting material, give advantage to the accused because fitness certificate prior to and subsequently to the recording of the statement by P.W.6 Tehsildar Tej Pal singh was given by P.W.7 Dr. Diwakar Sharma and who remained present throughout the period when the statement was being recorded.Recording of the statement commenced at 05:00 a.m. on 23.06.1984 and the process was completed by 05:07 a.m. i.e. within seven minutes.The extract of statement proved as Ext. Kha.1 and Ext. Kha.2 loses significance in view of the statement of the deceased himself as to how it all occurred.Assuming it to be that the version of the appellant is correct on point that he was shot by Head Constable Kashi Prasad, when he had gone to the 'chabutra' to wake up Constable Arun Kumar, had it been so, then the theory of sound of one fire being made around 01:30 in the night intervening 22/23.06.1984 goes into oblivion, for the reason that no two shots have been fired at that point of time and sound of one and only one fire was heard by the witnesses.It being so, the claim of the accused that he was shot by Head Constable Kashi Prasad, itself stands falsified and cannot be accepted by us.In view of above scrutiny of evidence and analogy of facts and circumstances of this case, obviously it cannot be said that the charges have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and that the trial court erred while it recorded finding of conviction against the accused under Sections - 302, 324 and 309 I.P.C. and imposed the sentence on him.We do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in Sessions Trial No. 255 of 1984 (State vs Vijai Pal Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 45 of 1984, under Sections - 302, 307, 324 and 309 I.P.C., Police Station - Barhpura, District - Etawah.Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

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

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

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.] The petitioner is the father of the detenu and challenging the impugned order of detention dated 25.09.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent by invoking Section 2 (f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, in branding the detenu as 'Goonda', the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed.A perusal of the grounds of detention would disclose among other things that the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:It is further averred in the grounds of detention that one Mr.Selvaperumal, who is a resident of Nemilichery, is running a scrap iron shop at Palavedu Main Road.On 04.09.2018 at about 10.30 hours, he was proceeding near Balaji Sweet Stall, Mittanamalli Bazaar, at that time, two persons wrongfully restrained the complainant and abused him in filthy language and also threatened him to take the money kept in his pocket and when it was resisted, by brandishing knife, they snatched a cash of Rs.2,000/- and a cellphone from the complainant's shirt pocket.When the complainant raised alarm, the public rushed to the place.They also threatened the public with dire consequences and taking advantage of the panic situation, they fled away from the scene of occurrence.The Inspector of Police, T-8 Muthapudupet Police Station subsequently altered the Sections to 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397, 506(ii) IPC r/w 34 IPC and effected the arrest of the detenu as well as co- accused namely Prabu @ Aali on 04.09.2018 and both of them voluntarily came forward to give confession statements and based on the admissible portion of the confession statements, some incriminating articles were seized.A perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent would indicate that nothing has been stated about the receipt and consideration of the said representation.3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., AND M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., sk HCP.No.2553 of 2018

['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.03.2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 489 (B) and 489(C) IPC, in Crime No.71 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.The case of the prosecution is that, on 20.03.2020 the respondent police got an information about the transit of counterfeit currency.Pursuant to that, the respondent police went to the concerned place, as per their information, had a road check and started enquiring the vehicles passing by.The vehicle of the petitioners arrived at the scene, when enquired, the petitioners were unable to give proper answer and they were giving contradictory version between each other.Thereafter, on suspicion, the respondent police searched the vehicle, found the counterfeit currencies in the bag.The accused confessed that on instruction from one Bala (A1), the the petitioner received the counterfeit currencies.Hence, the present complaint.The contention of the petitioner is that the 1st petitioner is the driver of the car and the 2nd and 3rd Petitioners are College students and theyhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 CRL.O.P.No.7711 of 2020 have been cheated by one Bala, from whom the counterfeit currencies were received.In fact, the petitioners were not aware of the currencies in their bag.They don't have any bad accidence.Further, submitted that only objection of the respondent police is that, the petitioners hail from state of Kerala and they would not be available during investigation and during trial.The petitioners undertakes to offer local sureties and they are students in a College at Coimbatore, they are staying in Coimbatore and pursing their studies and seeks bail.The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submitted that on receipt of the information from the informer about the transit of counterfeit currencies, the respondent police went to the scene of occurrence.In the scene of occurrence, the vehicles bearing Registration Nos.KL 51 B 9966 and KL 70 E 7746, came one after another, the respondent police stopped the vehicles enquired the inmates since they were giving contradictory version, the respondent police became suspicious and searched the vehicles.From the vehicle, counterfeit currencies bundles in the boot of the car for value of Rs.6,19,000/- in Five Hundred rupees note were found.Considering the rival submissions and the materials on record, it is seen that the counterfeit currencies are colour xerox of the currency note.The prime accused A1 in this case, has been arrested, the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are college students and they are staying in Coimbatore, in view of the same, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.(a) the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- each (Rupees Five thousand only) to the Cancer Institute (WIA), (Regional Cancer Centre), Adyar, Chennai – 600 020, bearing A/c No.149710011005477, Andhra Bank, Madhya Kailash Branch, and on such deposit, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on executing his own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each (Rupees Ten thousand only) before the Superintendent of the concerned prison, in which the petitioners have been confined on his release;28.05.2020 Internet : Yes / No bsmhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRL.O.P.No.7711 of 2020 M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.The Judicial Magistrate-2, Coimbatore.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.CRL.O.P.No. 7711 of 2020 28.05.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6The accused, thereafter, admitted their guilt.From the confession of the accused, it came to light the involvement of the other accused.Further, the petitioners are from the State ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 CRL.O.P.No.7711 of 2020 Kerala, opposed the bail application.(b) the petitioners shall execute two local sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each (Rupees Ten thousand only), before the concerned Magistrate on or before 01.07.2020, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed automatically;(c) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;(d) the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature;http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 CRL.O.P.No. 7711 of 2020(e) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;(f) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;(g) the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation.(g) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].(h) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.The Inspector of Police, Kottur Police Station, Coimbatore District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

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

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

According to the trial Court case, respondent has filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. to get maintenance from the petitioner/non- applicant wherein it is alleged that marriage of respondent/applicant and petitioner/non-applicant was solemnized on 04.02.2015 as per Hindu rites and rituals.Thereafter, respondent lived with the petitioner/non- applicant and his family members, but petitioner/non-applicant and his family members demanded Rs.16 lakh as dowry and due to non- fulfillment of the aforesaid demand, they tortured and humiliated her.2 CRR-1472-2019 Thereafter, respondent/wife lived with the petitioner/non-applicant at Ahmadabad, but petitioner/non-applicant also tortured and humiliated her and she was thrown out from the matrimonial house, therefore, she is living with her parents at Bhopal.Petitioner/non-applicant refused to maintain her whereas she has no source of income to maintain herself.Heard on I.A. No.12762/2019, which is an application for taking additional documents on record.After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant and considering the avernments made in the application, the application is allowed and the documents are taken on record.With the consent of both the parties, case is heard finally.The petitioner/non-applicant has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.01.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court Bhopal in MJC No.270/2016, whereby learned Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed the petition presented by the respondent/applicant under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner/non-applicant to pay the amount of Rs.2000/- per month to the respondent/applicant as maintenance.Petitioner/non-applicant has sufficient means to maintain them and having an electronical shop.Apart from that, petitioner/non-applicant has agricultural land and he earns Rs.10 lakh per year.Therefore, she prays for grant of maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month.Learned counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant submits that he has filed a reply of the said petition filed by the respondent/wife before the trial Court and he denied all the allegations levelled against him.Petitioner/non-applicant submits in his reply stated before the trial Court that respondent/wife/applicant is well educated lady and she is graduate in BSC Bio and having a certificate of PGDCA Diploma and B.Ed too.She did not like him because she is wayward lady and she did not live with the petitioner/non-applicant.She wants to live separately from the family of the petitioner/non-applicant.Petitioner/non-applicant has also stated that respondent/applicant was humiliated and threatened him to implicate in the false case.Petitioner/non-applicant has tried to keep the respondent/wife, but respondent/wife has refused to live with him.Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that the learned Family Court erred in passing the impugned order of maintenance by ignoring the fact that she is living separately without any reasonable cause.He also submits that respondent/wife is doing job and earns Rs.20,000/- per month, so she has sufficient sources of income to maintain herself.Petitioner/non-applicant is an employee at Prince Photo Shop, Khodiyar Complex, Chadankyapuri Ahemdabad and earns Rs.4800/- per month, therefore, he has no sufficient means to maintain the 3 CRR-1472-2019 respondent/wife.The amount of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. can be granted only if the person having sufficient means and neglects his wife, however, the petitioner/non-applicant has never refused or neglected the respondent/applicant and respondent/applicant is living separately without any sufficient reason.Petitioner/non- applicant is ready and willing to keep her, but the respondent/applicant is not interested to live with him, therefore, the impugned order be set aside.Learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent is wife of the petitioner/non-applicant and she is living separately from the petitioner/non-applicant.Due to torture and humiliation of petitioner/husband, she is compelled to live separately from the petitioner/non-applicant.Petitioner/non-applicant has sufficient source of income.Therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial Court to grant the maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent and learned Principal Judge partly allowed the application of the respondent and awarded the maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent.Therefore, she prays for dismissal the said petition.After considering the submissions and evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application and awarded the maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month to the respondent/wife.Heard learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the record.Accordingly, this revision stands disposed of.

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

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

1) Radheshyam Singh, 2) Surendra Singh, 3) Siddhanth Singh all of Kajora P.S. Andal, District-Burdwan, 4) Smt. Simpi Devi, 5) Arati Devi, 6) Donandan Singh,7) Malati Devi, 8) Rinki Devi and 9) Anil Singh.Sudipa Roy, learned advocate the order dated 29.3.2010 stands recalled.The petitioner is aggrieved because according to her the police has not conducted investigation on her complaint alleging murder of her husband.From the instructions furnished to Mrs. Roy, learned advocate for the State- respondents by the Officer-in-Charge, Andal Police Station it appears that the petitioner had approached the Court of the ACJM, Durgapur with MP Case No.265/04 and on the basis of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, Andal P.S. Case No.190/09 under Sections 302/120B, IPC had been registered againstHowever, during investigation no foul play could be detected and no evidence of murder could be collected.The case ended in final report vide Andal P.S. FRMF 39/04 dated 30.11.2009 under Sections 302/120B, IPC.In view thereof, the allegation of inaction of the police is baseless.It is now open to the petitioner to file naraji petition before the learned Magistrate in accordance with law.The writ petition stands disposed of reserving the petitioner's liberty as aforesaid.There will be no order for costs.Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the petitioner as early as possible.(DIPANKAR DATTA,J.)

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

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

But the conciliation proceedings failed.On or about 26th July, 1975, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, referred the aforesaid disputes and issues, mentioned hereinbefore, for adjudication.JUDGMENT Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.Whether certain drivers employed by the management for the officers of Grindlays Bank Ltd. are entitled to the same wages, allowances and other facilities enjoyed by other drivers of the said Bank, and, if so, from what date and to what extent, these are the issues which were pending adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in a reference made by the Government.It appears that on or about 21st September, 1974, there was a letter from the Commercial Establishment Employees' Association being respondent No. 2 herein enclosing a charter of demands for drivers who are working as employees of the officers of the Grindlays Bank Ltd., the petitioner herein did not accede to the said charter of demands.Thereafter the matter was referred to the Regional Labour Commissioner for conciliation.On 28th May, 1976 the hearing was fixed and the same was adjourned at the request of the petitioner-Bank.On 24th June, 1976 the next hearing was fixed and the case was adjourned till 19th August, 1976 on the ground that the presiding officer of the Tribunal was not in Calcutta, On or about 19th August, 1976, the reference was called on for hearing and learned advocate on behalf of the respondent-Association asked for time on the ground that the Secretary had gone away without handing over records to the learned lawyer.Thereafter on 20th October, 1976, learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the respondent-association had prayed for an adjournment on the ground of illness of the senior lawyer.On or about 9th December, 1976 learned lawyer on behalf of the respondent-Association again prayed for an adjournment on the ground that he had received a telegram alleging that the father of the sender of the letter had died but the prayer for adjournment was refused.On 19th January, 1977, the respondents Nos. 5 to 7, who were the drivers concerned, through the Association, filed a petition before the Tribunal for recalling, setting aside and reviewing the award.There the petitioner-company had dismissed the workman and since an industrial dispute was pending, it sought the permission of the Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. The workman concerned had taken a number of adjournments for filing his written statement.Finally the matter was fixed for settling the issues ex pane.On that date, since the workman had not come, evidence, was taken for the management.After the witness was examined to prove certain documents, the workman appeared through an advocate and sought time to file written statement.The Tribunal granted this prayer and asked the workman to pay the cost.The notice of application for setting aside the ex parte award was to be given to the other side.The writ application was accordingly allowed.

['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The prosecution case, in brief, is as under:A] An informant - Uttam Laxman Pawar resides near Railway Cabin situates within local limits of village Nagapur.On 23rd March, 2007, the informant watched T.V. up to 10 p.m. and thereafter, he went to bed.On 24th March, 2007 at about 1.00 a.m., as somebody was awaking, he woke up and came out of his house.At that time, Ravindra Nathe was telling that thieves had come within local limits of village.When the informant was standing in::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 6 front of house, he heard shouts of his cousin- Sharad Kacharu Pawar.Thereafter, the informant and Ravindra Nathe rushed at the house of his uncle Kacharu Pawar.At the relevant time, they saw doors of house were in open condition and articles in the house were in scattered condition.At that time, Sharad was found sitting at the door of his house with swelling injuries on his hand and leg.They found Prabhavati sitting in front of T.V. showcase having head injury and swelling on her face.They also found that Didi, niece of informant, was sitting near Prabhavati and she has sustained head injury.Then they found Kacharu Pawar lying on the cot with head injury to him.As wife of Sharad, namely, Manisha was not found, they took search and went backside of house of Sharad near to bandh, where Manisha was found lying with head injury.Manisha and Kacharu were found dead.He made inquiry with Sharad who told that suddenly three persons entered into house and::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 7 started to assault them and told the entire incident.The informant lodged report with Police Station, Manmad city.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 :::B) On the basis of report crime No.46 of 2007 came to be registered.Investigation was carried out.Investigating Officer Shreenivas Patil prepared inquest panchanama of dead body of deceased Kacharu and Manisha (Exhibit-76 and 77 respectively) and sent the dead bodies for post- mortem.He prepared spot panchanama (Exhibit-94) and seized articles lying on the spot of incident.Blood was found over the skin of tree.He then recorded the statements of witnesses.During investigation, he collected post-mortem notes of both deceased.He collected injury certificates of the injured.Thereafter further investigation was entrusted to Crime Branch, Nashik.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 :::Apeal 1211.18 8 C) Police Inspector Ashok Kashinath Belwate attached to Rural Crime Branch, Nashik carried out further investigation.He obtained custody of six accused by obtaining their transfer warrant from Shegaon Court and arrested them.On 23rd April, 2007, during police custody accused Baliram Pundalik Chavan gave memorandum statement (Exhibit-178) and at his instance, it came to be revealed that accused hatched conspiracy.Thereafter, on 24th April, 2007 during police custody accused Baliram Pundalik Chavan gave memorandum statement (Exhibit-144) and at his instance, wooden log (Article H-2) having blood stains came to be seized under panchanama (Exhibit-145).On 25th April, 2007, during police custody accused Bhika Piraji Chavan gave memorandum statement (Exhibit-147) and at his instance, one purse (Article 1), ornaments black marriage string (mangalsutra), one gold bids and::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 9 `dorale' (Article H-4 and H-5) came to be seized under seizure panchanama (Exhibit-148).On 26th April, 2007, during police custody accused Sudhakar Pundalik Chavan gave memorandum statement (Exhibit-139) and accordingly wooden log (Article H-3) came to be seized under seizure panchanama (Exhibit-140).On 7th May, 2007, during police custody accused Sudhakar Pundalik Chavan again gave memorandum statement (Exhibit-180) and accordingly at his instance, saffron colour clothes which includes one shirt (Article-15) and lungi (Article-16) came to be seized under panchanama (Exhibit-181).On 25th April, 2007, during police custody accused Suresh Chavan gave memorandum statement (Exhibit-134) and at his instance axe (Article H-3) came to be seized under panchanama (Exhibit-135).On 25th April, 2007, during police custody accused Bhopya Pawar gave memorandum statement (Exhibit-136) and at his instance wooden log (Article H-1) came to be::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 10 seized under seizure panchanama (Exhibit-137).Then Police Inspector Binwate forwarded the report (Exhibit-182) for adding section 396 of the IPC and further investigation was carried out by Dy.S.P., Manmad.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 :::D) During the course of investigation, it was revealed that prior to the commission of crime accused hatched conspiracy and carried out recce of village, pretending that they were "Sadhus" and committed dacoity.The accused committed dacoity at the house of witness Sharad by forcibly entering into his house, armed with deadly weapons, sickle etc. and assaulted the witnesses by means of the weapons and forcibly took away the cash amount of Rs.50,000/- from the cupboard in the house and also snatched away the golden ornaments from the person of deceased Manisha and injured witness Prabhavati worth Rs.10,000/- and in the said assault, they committed murders of::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 11 deceased Kacharu Pawar and Manisha Pawar and ran away from the spot.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 :::E) Moreover, according to the prosecution during the course of investigation, it was further revealed that accused are involved in continuing unlawful activities by individually, singly or jointly, either as a member of organized crime syndicate or on behalf of self syndicate by use of violence or threat or intimidation or coercion or by other unlawful means with the object of gaining pecuniary benefit or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other persons against whom more than one charge-sheets have been filed before the Competent Court preceding ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of the said offence for which punishment of imprisonment for three years, is prescribed and after collecting necessary information and sanction under the provisions of Maharashtra Control of::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 12 Organized Crime Act, 1999 (For short, "the MCOC Act"), the provisions of MCOC Act came to be applied.Thereafter, the investigation of the matter was entrusted to S.D.P. Sunil Kadasne.He then recorded statements of witnesses, collected the documents regarding pending offences against the accused.He referred the pending cases against the present accused in different Court and mentioned the same in the charge-sheet.Apeal 1211.18 19The prosecution examined PW-3 - Uttam Laxman Pawar.He deposed that the incident took place on 23rd March, 2007 at midnight hours.On that day about 1.00 a.m., he heard the shouts from the house of Ravindra Nathe situated at a distance of 50 ft. from his house.At the relevant time, Ravidra shouted and told that thieves had come to their field.He therefore rushed at outer side and at the relevant time heard the shouts of Sharad that thieves had come.Therefore, he along with others rushed at the house of Sharad.He noticed that Sharad was sitting at the door of his house and fracture injuries were found on his hand and leg.He further deposed that they found Kacharu lying on the cot with head injury to him.Near the said spot, Prabhavati - wife of Kacharu found lying with injury and swelling on her face.Another family member Didi also found lying with head injury at backside parietal region.When they entered into the house, they noticed the household::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 20 articles in a scattered condition.He further deposed that at the backside of house of Sharad near to bandh Manisha, wife of Sharad was found lying with head injury.He further deposed that at the relevant time Manisha and Kacharu found dead.PW-3 Uttam further deposed that, Sharad told them that three persons entered in his house, they worn half pants and had covered their faces and were armed with axe, wooden logs and other weapons.PW-3 Uttam further deposed that Sharad told him that on entering his house those three persons assaulted them, Manisha escaped from the backside door of the house, however at the backside below the Bor tree other persons were present and they assaulted her on head.PW-3 Uttam further deposed that, Sharad told him that those persons took away ornaments and cash about Rs.60,000/-, which was the amount of sale proceeds of onions.He further deposed that then Police::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 21 came at his locality and he narrated entire incident to the Police, which they reduced into writing.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::12. PW-3 Uttam further deposed that at the relevant time prior to incident, two Pingals (Sadhu) used to come at their village early in the morning, they used to ask for clothes, tea etc. He further deposed that it revealed to them that the said Sadhu intend to carry out recce of their house and locality.He further deposed that they came for about 5-6 occasions at his house during aforesaid period.During the course of cross-examination, PW-3 Uttam stated that on the day of incident, he had not seen the culprits who came at the house of Sharad and assaulted him and his family members.He was unable to state as to why the Police have not recorded in the report that he has informed the same to the Police at the time of incident.He further stated that while lodging the report he has not stated that some persons were present outside the house of Sharad.While lodging the report, he has stated to Police that prior to incident on 5-6 occasions, some persons had come at his house early in the morning and asked for clothes and tea and it appears that they were making recce of his house and locality.He was unable to assign any reason as to why it is not recorded in his report.He deposed that the incident took place on 24th March, 2007 at the house of Kachru Dattu Pawar.On that day at about 1.00 a.m. he received a phone call from his friend Ashok Pawar informing that dacoity took place at the house of Kachru Dattu Pawar.Therefore, he himself and others rushed at the house of Kachru.He noticed dead body of Kachru Dattu Pawar on the cot, having head injury.Below the Bor tree, the dead body of Manisha Sharad Pawar found lying with head injury.Sharad Pawar and his mother Prabhavati found lying in injured condition.The dacoits took away cash of Rs.60,000/-, ornaments and other articles from the house.The house-hold articles were found in a scattered condition.He further stated that Tahsil office and police station, Nandgaon are in the same campus.Apeal 1211.18 29Thus, it is clear from the evidence of PW-4 Rajendra that on the day of incident he had not seen the culprits who came at the house of Sharad and assaulted Sharad and his family members.Therefore, in such a situation the identification parade becomes necessary so as to reveal the identity of the real culprits.The prosecution has examined PW-8 Mandar Anilrao Kulkarni, who conducted test identification parade.He deposed that since 2005 to 2009 he was serving as Residential Naib Tahsildar at Nandgaon.On 30th April, 2007 Police Inspector, Crime Branch Nashik delivered a letter to him for holding identification parade.PW-8 - Mandar further deposed that on 3rd May, 2007 Police Inspector, Manmad produced six accused for identification parade.Nine witnesses had also come for identifying the accused.Apeal 1211.18 37 dummies and accused.He admits that in his report he has not referred the accused by any particular number.Thus evidence of PW-9 Sanjay, shows that panchas and witness Sharad Kacharu Pawar are from the same village.His cross-examination reveals that on the day of identification parade, the dummies in the age group of 25 were not available.It is pertinent to note that at the relevant time, accused Vithhal Shreeram Pawar was of the age of about 25 years, regarding whom identification parade was carried out.The prosecution examined PW-12 Sharad Kacharu Pawar.He deposed that in the year 2007 he along with his family consisting of parents, wife Manisha, daughter Pragati alias Didi were residing at their field situated in Nagapur Shivar.On 23 rd March, 2007 at about 11.30 p.m. he was watching T.V., the other members of the family were sleeping.At that time, three persons entered into their house and they assaulted him by stick and axe.Those three persons worn blue, black and green banyans, respectively.All of them worn a full Pant.At the time of recording his statement,::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 39 he has stated about descriptions of those persons in detail.They were having height about 5 to 5.5 feet and they were in the age group of 30 to 35 years.The witness identified three accused before the Court, who have stated their names as Baliram Pundlik Chavan, Narayan Sitaram Pawar and Bhika Piraji Chavan.He further deposed that they have possessed wooden logs measuring about 3 feet.He further deposed that he can identify those wooden logs and axe if shown.The wooden logs at Article H, H-1 and H-2 respectively when shown to him, he identified the same.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::PW-12 Sharad further deposed that at the relevant time those persons further assaulted by the weapons over the head of his father (Kachru).Therefore, his father died at the spot.He further deposed that then those persons assaulted over the face and chin of his father.He further deposed that he can identify those ornaments if shown to him.[The witness identified one of the accused and the accused stated his name as Suresh Vyankati Chavan(Appellant herein)].He further deposed that he can also identify one more accused and identified accused who stated his name as Vithal Shreeram Pawar[Appellant herein].The length of said axe is about two and half feet and its edge is about 7 inch.He further deposed that he could identify the said axe if shown to him.When axe (Article H-3) was shown to him, he identified the same.He further deposed that the Police then seized the said axe, prepared its panchanama.He further deposed that the seizure panchanama (Exhibit-135) is the same, which bears his signature.Accused also put his thumb impression over the same.It is significant to note that accused Baliram Chavan is absconding accused.Apeal 1211.18 53The prosecution examined PW-17 Prabhavati Kacharu Pawar, wife of deceased Kacharu.She deposed that in the year 2007, they were residing at their field situate at Nagapur Shivar near railway track.The evidence of PW-17 Prabhavati reveals that she has stated that three assailants entered into her house and six persons were at the outer side.So far as the number of accused persons is concerned, her version is totally different than the version of PW-12 Sharad.She has specifically admitted that she never visited to the office of Tahsildar at Nandgaon.Thus it is clear that she has not identified the accused during the identification parade and for the first time in the Court, she has identified the accused.This witness has stated that the accused were wearing full pants and thus her version is contrary to the version of PW-3 - Uttam, who stated that at the::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.44. PW-18 Raosaheb Kashinath Tribhuvan, Police Head Constable is the carrier who carried out muddemal articles to the office of Chemical Analyzer for chemical analysis.PW-19 Sanjiv Dayal was the Director General of Police, Maharashtra State, who accorded the sanction to prosecute the accused under MCOC Act. It is significant to note that the Trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.4 and 8 of the offences punishable under the provisions of the MCOC Act.45. PW-20 Shrinivas Julal Patil, Police Inspector is the Investigating Officer, who::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 58 carried out initial investigation.He deposed about the manner in which he has carried out the investigation.He deposed that on 24th March, 2007 Head Constable on Station Diary duty informed him on phone that at Nagapur Shivar dacoits had come and killed a woman.He deposed that he himself along with the staff went at the spot.On reaching there, he learnt that the culprits with the help of axe and wooden logs with them, killed Manisha Pawar and Kacharu Pawar, and also injured Sharad, Prabhavati and Didi Pawar.He also learnt that injured were shifted in the Hospital.He then informed about the incident to the control room as well as superior officers.He then recorded FIR (Exhibit-87) from Uttam Laxman Pawar.He then sent FIR to the Police Station through ASI Shaikh.He noticed that household articles in the said house were in a scattered condition.The prosecution has examined PW-21 Samadhan Netajirao Pawar, S.D.P.O. Manmad.It revealed to him that while forwarding the charge-sheet, the above-named accused was shown as absconding and hence he applied with MCOC Court for getting the warrant.On 4th February, 2012, he has applied with J.M.F.C. Khamgaon for getting the custody of above-named accused.Apeal 1211.18 65 identification parade.He then vide letter Exhibit-111 informed Tahsildar, Nandgaon for holding identification parade.Accordingly, Tahsildar concerned held the identification parade and forwarded his report (Exhibit-112).He further deposed that he then recorded statements of witnesses who have identified the above-named accused.DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 5TH OCTOBER, 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 16TH OCTOBER, 2018 JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.] :Both these Appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 15th July, 2015, passed by the Special Judge (under MCOC Act), Nashik in Special Case (MCOC) No.1/2008 thereby convicting accused No.4 - Suresh Vyankati Chavan::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 3 and accused No.8 - Vithhal Shreeram Pawar for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code [for short 'IPC'] and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.The trial Court also convicted accused No.4 and accused No.8 for the offence punishable under Section 396 of the IPC and they are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to suffer imprisonment for a period of six months.The trial Court also convicted accused No.4 and accused No.8 for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the IPC and they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years.The trial Court also convicted accused No.4 and accused No.8 for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 4 for three months.All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 :::Both these Criminal Appeals are arising out of one and the same Judgment and Order passed by the trial Court, hence the same are being decided by this common Judgment.Before the Trial Court there were in all nine accused.However as original accused No.1 - Baliram Pundalik Chavan, accused No.2 - Sudhakar Pundalik Chavan, accused No.3 - Bhika Piraji Chavan, accused No.5- Narayan Sitaram Pawar, accused No.6- Kashiram @ Bapya Vayaskar Pawar, accused No.7- Mangal Vyankati Chavan and accused No.9- Babu Sitaram Pawar were absconding during the course of trial, the Trial Court has separated and proceeded the case against accused No.4 - Suresh Vyankati Chavan and accused No.8 - Vithhal Shreeram Pawar only, and convicted and sentenced them as stated herein above.Hence Criminal::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 5 Appeal No.1211 of 2018 is filed by original accused No.4 - Suresh Vyankati Chavan and Criminal Appeal No.301 of 2017 is filed by original accused No.8- Vithhal Shreeram Pawar.Criminal Application No.1235 of 2017 is filed by original accused No.8- Vithhal Shreeram Pawar for releasing him on bail during the pendency of the Appeal.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 :::F) While forwarding charge-sheet in this crime, accused Vithhal Shreeram Pawar was absconding.He was arrested on 3rd March, 2012 by::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 ::: Cri.Police Inspector, Manmad informed the said fact to Samadhan Bhikaji Pawar, SDPO Manmad.Accordingly, SDPO Manmad obtained transfer warrant and arrested him.He applied for permission of the Court for holding identification parade of accused Vithhal Shreeram Pawar vide letter (Exhibit-171).He then informed Tahsildar Nandgaon for holding identification parade vide letter (Exhibit-111).Accordingly, Tahsildar held the identification parade and forwarded report (Exhibit-112).He recorded statements of witnesses and then forwarded the report (Exhibit-172) for submitting the charge-sheet against the accused to Additional DG.They received consent (Exhibit-193).Accordingly, on 21st May, 2012, he submitted supplementary charge-sheet against the accused Vithhal Shreeram Pawar.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 :::G) A charge (Exhibit-54) for the above-::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 :::Apeal 1211.18 14 mentioned offences, was framed against original accused Nos.1 to 6 and 8 on 8th April, 2013, and the same was explained to them in vernacular.The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, with the defence of total denial and false involvement in this case.During the arguments before the Trial Court, original accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 absconded.Their sureties have deposited surety amount.After recording the evidence and conducting full-fledged trial, the trial Court convicted original accused Nos.4 and 8 for the offences afore-stated.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 :::Apeal 1211.18 15Since these are the appeals against conviction, we would like to re-appreciate the entire evidence placed on record, so as to reach to the proper conclusion as to whether the reasons and findings recorded by the trial Court are based upon improper appreciation of evidence on record and calls for any interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction or otherwise.The accused did not examine any witness in defence.As observed earlier, before the Trial Court, there were as many as nine accused, however, during the arguments before the Trial Court accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 absconded and therefore, the Trial::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 16 Court has separated the case of accused Nos.4 and 8 and proceeded to decide the matter.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 :::We have perused the entire evidence placed on record by the prosecution.Looking to the evidence which has come on record and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, there does not appear to be dispute regarding the fact that in the night of 23rd March, 2007, dacoity took place at the house of Sharad Kachru Pawar.The prosecution has proved on record the inquest panchnamas of Kachru and Manisha who died, as well as their postmortem reports have been brought on record and there is no dispute that Kachru and Manisha died due to the attack by the dacoits at the time of incident and they suffered culpable homicide amounting to::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 17 murder.Similarly the prosecution has proved that prosecution witnesses PW-12 Sharad Kachru Pawar, PW-17 Prabhavati Kacharu Pawar and one Didi, daughter of Sharad, sustained injuries during the process of dacoity.The prosecution has examined PW-10 Dr. Kavita Madhav Sanap, who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of Kacharu Dattu Pawar as well as Manisha Sharad Pawar.She has stated about the multiple injuries noticed by her on the dead bodies of Kacharu and Manisha, including the head injuries.Through the evidence of PW-10 Dr. Kavita, the prosecution has brought on record, the cause of death of Manisha and Kacharu, as "due to Neuregenic shock due to head injury".The prosecution has also brought on record that Prabhavati Kacharu Pawar (PW-17) and Sharad Kacharu Pawar (PW-12) and Didi Sharad Pawar received injuries, including head injuries and fracture injuries, during the process of dacoity.Thus the prosecution has proved that during the::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 18 process of dacoity, the culprits have attacked on the family members of Sharad Kacharu Pawar, committed murder of Manisha and Kacharu and also caused injuries to Prabhavati Kacharu Pawar, Sharad Kacharu Pawar and Didi Sharad Pawar.The defence has disputed the participation of the accused persons in said dacoity.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::PW-3 Uttam further deposed that he was then called at Nandgaon for identification parade at Tahsil office and he can identify the persons who used to come at his house as Pingals (Sadhu) (PW-3 identified accused Kashinath @ Bappya Yavaskar Pawar, Baliram Pundlik Chavan, Narayan::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 22 Sitaram Pawar, Sudhakar Pundlik Chavan and Bhika Piraji Chavan).::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::He further stated that::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 23 prior to going at Nandgaon, he came at Nashik on one occasion for identification parade.At Nandgaon, Police Station and Tahsil office are in the same campus.He further admits that one main Gate is there to the said campus and after entering into from the said gate, at one side the Police Station is there and at other side Tahsil office is there.At the relevant time about 10 villagers were called for identification parade.They went at the Tahsil office at about 12.00 noon.Police brought the accused one by one.He was unable to recollect whether he had stated clothes worn by each accused at the time of identification parade.He further stated that he was unable to recollect whether prior to identification parade at Nandgaon, the accused were shown to him at Nashik.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::Thus, it is crystal clear from the evidence of PW-3 Uttam that he had not seen the::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 24 culprits who came at the spot of incident and assaulted Sharad and his family members.Neither he was present on the sport at the time of incident nor he has actually seen the assailants.His evidence reveals that prior to the incident two persons pretending themselves to be Sadhus, used to visit his house and locality with an intention to carry out recce, during the relevant period.During the identification parade, he was asked to identify those two alleged Sadhus.Though he has deposed that two Sadhus used to visit his locality, in the identification parade, he has identified as many as five accused.Further, from his entire evidence it is not clear whether the procedure and guidelines for the identification parade were scrupulously followed or not.Thus it is clear that if the evidence of this witness is accepted as it is, he has not witnessed the actual incident of dacoity and assault and further he has not seen the assailants.This witness has::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 25 specifically deposed that Sharad told him that three persons entered his house by covering their faces.Thus, when the faces of those persons were covered, the question of identifying them does not arise at all.Be that as it may, during the identification parade, this witness has not identified the original accused Nos.4 and 8, who are the Appellants in the present Appeals, and all the persons alleged to have been identified by this witness are the accused persons who were absconding during the trial before the Trial Court, whose case was separated from the case of the present Appellants.Further he has identified those persons to be Sadhus who used to come in the village, and not at as culprits.Thus, evidence of PW-3 is not helpful to the prosecution case.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::Apeal 1211.18 26The prosecution has examined PW-4 Rajendra Sayaji Pawar.He further deposed that in his presence, police prepared inquest panchnama of dead bodies of Kachru Dattu and Manisha (Exhibit 76 and 77).::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::Apeal 1211.18 27PW-4 Rajendra further deposed that few days prior to the incident, persons pretending to be Sadhus, used to come to their village and their behaviour appeared to be suspicious.Those persons were in the age group of 35 to 40 and fair in colour and he personally met them on 2-3 occasions.He further deposed that he was called at Nandgaon for identification parade.He identified the accused at the relevant time.He further deposed that he can identify with certainty those persons if shown to him.(The witness (PW-4) identified accused Sudhakar Pundlik Chavan, Bhika Piraji Chavan, Baliram Pundlik Chavan, Narayan Sitaram Pawar, Kashinath @ Bappya Yavawskar Pawar.During the course of cross-examination, PW-4 Rajendra stated that on the day of incident, he had not seen the culprits who came at the house of Sharad and assaulted Sharad and his family::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 28 members.Police recorded his statement.While recording his statement, he told the police that at the relevant time he had seen two Sadhus in the village about 15-20 days prior to the incident.He had not stated about the identification marks found over those Sadhus to the police.He admits that he has stated about Sadhus on account of suspicion only.He further stated that at the time of identification parade accused were in casual dress however he was unable to state the exact colour of their dress.He further stated that at the time of identification parade, 10-12 persons were standing in a row.He himself was the only witness for identification and Tahsildar was also present.Prior to his reaching in the room of identification, accused were already there and were standing.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::Even during the identification parade, he has identified the accused who used to come to his village pretending to be as Sadhus, and not as the persons who had participated in the dacoity and assault.Further, during the identification parade neither he was shown nor he has identified original accused Nos.4 and 8 who are appellants in the present appeals.Though PW-4 stated that only two persons pretending themselves to be Sadhus used to come in his village, in the Court he identified as many as five accused.Thus, evidence of PW-4 is not at all reliable and trustworthy and the same is not at all helpful to the prosecution case.Admittedly, as per the prosecution case,::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 30 the culprits who participated in dacoity and assault were unknown to the prosecution witnesses.He then decided to hold identification parade on 3rd May, 2007 and accordingly issued a letter to Senior P.I., L.C.B. so as to secure presence of accused and witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::He then::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 31 called two panchas for identification parade.He then conducted identification parade in his office before panchas according to provisions as per Manual and submitted the reports (Exhibit-104 to::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::109) of the said identification parade.During first identification parade vide Exhibit-104, eight witnesses identified accused Baliram Pundlik Chavan.So also in identification parade vide Exhibit-105, eight witnesses identified accused Sudhakar Pundlik Chavan.So also in identification parade vide Exhibit-106, seven witnesses identified accused Narayan Sitaram Pawar.Then identification parade vide Exhibit-107, three witnesses identified accused Suresh Vyankati Chavan.In identification parade vide Exhibit-108, two witnesses identified accused Bhikaji Piraji Chavan.So far as identification parade vide Exhibit-109 is concerned, eight witnesses identified accused Kashiram @ Bhopya Vayaskar Pawar.He further deposed that the accused who::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 32 were present in the identification parade were present before the Court and he identified them.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::During the course of cross-examination, PW-8 Mandar stated that Nandgaon Police Station and Tahsil office is in the same campus.On the relevant day at about 10.30 a.m. accused were produced by the Police Inspector.The witnesses also came at the same time.He was not aware as to whether accused belongs to Pardhi community.He was unable to state whether dummies who were called, belonged to Pardhi community.He admits that in panchnamas Exhibit-104 to 109 he has not referred ages, description and addresses of the dummies.He admits that he has not obtained the signatures of dummies over panchanamas.He further admits that he has not referred in said panchanamas that he has selected dummies having similar personalities with accused.He has not obtained the signatures of panchas over said::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 33 panchanamas.He has not referred the description of clothes and their colours worn by accused and dummies, in the said panchanama.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::Thus it appears that while carrying out the identification parade, PW-8 has not followed the proper procedure.It is pertinent to note that the incident took place on 24th March, 2007 at about 1.00 a.m. and about the said incident, identification parade of the accused was conducted on 3rd May, 2007 and that too by not following the proper procedure and guidelines, and therefore::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 34 explicit reliance cannot be placed upon such faulty identification parade, as the same does not conclusively proves that the accused were the persons who had participated in dacoity and assault.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::The prosecution has examined PW-9 Sanjay Nimba Shinde, Naib Tahsildar, Nandgaon, Dist.Nashik, who conducted the identification parade in respect of accused No.8 - Vithhal Shreeram Pawar.He has also directed the SDPO to produce the witnesses on the said date in Central Prison, Nashik.PW-9 - Sanjay further deposed that on 23 rd::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 35 March, 2012, he went at Central Prison, Nashik.He then directed Superintendent of Jail to make arrangement for holding identification parade.He also directed the Jail Superintendent to produce six dummy accused having similarity with the accused.On his direction, one witness out of two had also come so as to identify the accused.He then conducted identification parade according to provisions as per Manual.At the time of identification parade, witness Sharad Kacharu Pawar has identified accused - Vithhal Shreeram Pawar before the panch witness.He further deposed that accordingly he prepared the memorandum of identification parade (Article 112).At the relevant time he recorded statements of panch present regarding their consent to act as panch.He prepared the map showing the position of the premises used for holding identification parade.He then forwarded the memorandum report of the identification parade to the Court.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::Apeal 1211.18 36During the course of cross examination, PW-9 Sanjay stated that he himself called the panchas on the relevant day.He admits that panchas and witness Sharad Kacharu Pawar are co- villagers.The Jail Superintendent arranged dummies as per his direction.He admits that on the relevant day, amongst dummies, the dummies in the age group of 25 were not available.He admits that there is no attestation below the thumb impression of dummy.On the relevant day, he reached in the jail for identification parade at about 11 a.m., identification parade started at about 11.30 a.m. and completed at 12.45 p.m. He admits that in report (Exhibit-112), there is no reference as to when the identification parade started.He was not aware as to whether accused belongs to Pardhi community.He was not aware as to which community, the dummies belonged.He has not referred nature and colour of clothes worn by::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.He has not obtained in writing that accused stated about his unwillingness to change the clothes.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::PW-9 admits that in his report he has not referred the accused by any particular number.It is significant to note that the incident took place on 24th March, 2007 and about the said incident, identification parade of accused No.8 was conducted on 23rd March, 2012,::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::He then raised the::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 40 shouts.Those persons then assaulted over his head, leg and hand by the weapons with them.His leg and hand therefore fractured and rod was inserted.His wife then woke up and those persons asked her to deliver the keys of the cupboard.His wife (Manisha) then delivered key to them and tried to escape from the backside door.At the relevant time, she reached up to a tree behind their house, where associates of those persons were present and they have assaulted his wife and killed her.They then opened the cupboard and took away cash of Rs.50,000/- from the same.Those persons also snatched the ornaments on the person of his wife and mother.The ornaments H-4 and H-5 when shown to him, he identified the same to be of his mother.He further deposed that those person then assaulted to his daughter Didi.He further deposed that he can identify one person, who was standing at the::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 41 outer side of the house.He further deposed that then on hearing his calls, the neighbour rushed at his house.He told them about the incident.The neighbours then shifted him, his mother and his daughter Didi in hospital at Manmad.He was then shifted at Suyash Hospital at Nashik.He was hospitalized for about one and half months.Therein Police came and asked him whether he can identify the culprits.Then he has been called at Nandgaon Tahsil office for identification parade of accused.He identified the accused persons in said parade.Then again Police called for identification of accused in Central Prison, Nashik road and he identified the accused.He further deposed that 8 to 10 days::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 42 prior to the incident, some persons used to come at their village and they were having the dress like Sadhu.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::He has stated before the Police while recording his statement that those persons asked for keys to his wife and she had delivered the same to them.He has stated before the Police that while his wife escaped at the backside of the home, the associates of the accused were there, who assaulted her and killed her.He was unable to state as to why it was not so recorded.He has not::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 43 delivered the purchase receipts of the ornaments to the Police during investigation.It was not happened that the Police mixed the ornaments identified by him with other ornaments and then asked him to identify the ornaments.He came at Central Jail Nashik for one occasion only.During hospitalization period of one and half months, he had not gone anywhere.After the said period of one and half months, he never had been at Nashik Gramin Police Station or at Manmad Police Station.Police came in the hospital on 2-3 occasions.He had been to Nandgaon on one occasion only.He was unable to recollect exact time of reaching Tahsil office on that day.He was unable to state as to who had brought the accused at Tahsil office on that day.When they reached there, accused were already brought there at the inner side.At the relevant time, in the Tahsil office 5-6 villagers were also there.He has not stated before the Police while recording his statement that eight::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 44 days prior to the incident, persons wearing dress of Sadhu came in the village.In his statement, he has stated that three culprits were there.He has not stated before the Police about the presence of associates of culprits at the outer side of the house.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::Thus, it is clear that the defence has brought on record several contradictions, omissions and improvements in the evidence of PW-12 Sharad.Though he deposed before the Court that when his wife reached up to a tree behind their house where associates of those persons were present and they have assaulted over his wife and killed her, during the course of cross- examination, he has specifically admitted that he has not stated before the Police while recording his statement about the presence of associates of culprits at the outer side of the house.He further admitted that he has not stated before the::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 45 Police while recording his statement that eight days prior to the incident, persons wearing dress of Sadhu came in the village.Though it is the prosecution case that there were nine assailants, who participated in dacoity, this witness stated that only three persons entered in his house and assaulted him.So also, before the Court this witness has identified only three accused namely Baliram Pundlik Chavan, Narayan Sitaram Pawar and Bhika Piraji Chavan.It is pertinent to note that another prosecution witness PW-3 Uttam has specifically stated in his evidence that at the relevant time Sharad told them that three persons entered in his house, who worn half pants and had covered their faces.However, PW-12 Sharad in his deposition specifically stated that all the assailants had worn full pants.Thus there is variance in the evidence of PW-3 - Uttam and PW-12::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::- Sharad on the material particulars about the clothes of the assailants.Even for the sake of::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 46 arguments, the prosecution evidence is read as it is, this witness Sharad has stated that the accused - Suresh Vyankati Chavan was standing outside the house when dacoity took place.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::The prosecution examined PW-13 Sanjay Vasant Ghuge.He deposed that on 25th April, 2007 at about 11.00 a.m. Manmad Police called him at Manmad Police Station and accordingly he went there.One Udikar and Gavali were also called by the Police at the Police Station.Suresh Chavan was in the custody of the Police, who gave confession to the Police.The Police has reduced the same into writing.He further deposed that the panchas have gone through the same and put their::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 47 signatures thereon.He deposed that memorandum (Exhibit-134) is the same and it bears his signature.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::PW-13 Sanjay further deposed that thereafter in the Police Jeep he along with panchas, accused Suresh Chavan and Police staff went about one and half K.M. from Manmad near temple of Goddess Godavari.Then from the nearby bushes therein, accused Suresh Chavan discovered an axe to the Police.He::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 48 further deposed that on the day of recording his evidence, he was unable to identify accused Suresh Chavan due to lapse of many years.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::PW-13 Sanjay further deposed that on the same day, in the evening at about 4.30 p.m. Manmad Police again called him at Police Station.At the relevant time, Gavali and Sanjay Wadane were also present as panchas.One Bhopya Pawar was in the custody of Police, who confessed to discover wooden log.Accordingly, confession was recorded by the Police.He further deposed that Memorandum (Exhibit-136) is the same, which bears his signature.He further deposed that then in the Police Jeep, he along with other panchas, Police staff, accused Bhopya Pawar went near the temple of Goddess Godavari.Accused Bhopya then discovered the wooden log from the nearby bushes.When the wooden log (Art. H-1) was shown to him, he identified the same.He further deposed that::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 49 the Police seized the said wooden log and prepared the seizure panchanama (Exhibit-137).He further deposed that on the day of recording his evidence, he was unable to identify Bhopya due to lapse of so many years.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::During the course of cross-examination, PW-13 Sanjay stated that he cannot remember the number of the Police Jeep in which they went to the aforesaid spot.He admits that the spot from where the axe and wooden log were discovered can be seen from the temple and accessible to the public.The Police brought the photocopy of the panchanama and delivered the same to the accused near the temple.He stated that he is::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 50 dealing in transport business in Manmad.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::Upon careful perusal of the evidence of this witness, it is clear that axe was recovered at the instance of accused Suresh Chavan.It is pertinent to note that the said axe was recovered from the bushes near temple of Goddess Godavari.During the course of cross-examination, this witness has specifically admitted that the spot from where the axe and wooden log were discovered, can be seen from the temple and accessible to the public.In the case of Sujit Gulab Sohatre & others vs. the State of Maharashtra 1, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that recoveries from the places which are accessible to all and sundry are not incriminating evidence.In the present case also, the recoveries of axe and wooden log at the instance of the accused are from the place accessible to all and therefore the 1 1996 [3] All M.R. 439::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 51 evidence of PW-13 Sanjay is not useful to the prosecution case.Further PW-13 Sanjay was unable to identify accused Suresh Chavan due to lapse of many years.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::The prosecution examined PW-14 Dhananjay Pralhad Avsare, who is panch to the seizure of wooden log at the instance of accused Sudhakar Pundlik Chavan.He deposed that accused Sudhakar took Police and the panchas at the nearby spot of bridge and cremation and discovered wooden log to the Police.However, during the course of his cross-examination, this witness specifically admitted that the spot from where the wooden log was discovered was having public access.Therefore, the evidence of this witness is also not useful to the prosecution case.It is significant to note that accused Sudhakar Chavan is absconding accused.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::Apeal 1211.18 52The prosecution examined PW-15 Santosh Gangaram Mazde, who is panch to the seizure of wooden log at the instance of accused Baliram Chhabu Chavan.He deposed that accused Baliram took Police and the panchas near the temple of Goddess Godavari and from the nearby bushes therein he discovered wooden log.However, during the course of his cross-examination, this witness also specifically admitted that the spot from where the wooden log discovered was having public access.PW-16 Ganesh Thakaji Gavali is a panch to the seizure of ornaments at the instance of accused Bhika Piraji Chavan.Accused Bhika Piraji Chavan is absconding accused, who is not appellant before this Court.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::Her family was consisting her husband, her son Sharad, daughter-in-law Manisha and grand-daughter Pragati @ Didi.On the date of incident, at about 8.30 p.m they were sleeping.At the relevant time, something hit on her head and hence she woke up.She saw three assailants while assaulting over the head of her husband.Those persons possessed sticks, wooden logs and axe.They were in the age group of 30 to 35 years, having blackish colour.They worn banyan and full pant.PW-17 Prabhavati further deposed that her daughter-in-law Manisha tried to escape at the outside of house, but she was also assaulted on::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 54 her head and killed.The assailants snatched ornaments from the person of Manisha.She further deposed that the said persons have also snatched her ornaments, which includes golden marriage string.She can identify the said ornaments.When the ornaments (H-4 and H-5) were shown to her, she identified the same.She further deposed that those persons also assaulted her son on his head, hands and legs and they opened the cupboard and took away cash of Rs.50,000/-.She further deposed that she can identify the wooden log and axe, if shown.She further deposed that the assailants also assaulted over her grand-daughter on her head and hand.Three assailants entered into their house and six persons were at the outer side.She further deposed that she can identify them, accused before the Court are the same.She herself and her son were shifted at Hospital at Manmad.She was then shifted at Nashik and was operated there towards::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 55 injuries on her hand and neck.She was in the hospital for about two months.Police recorded her statement when she was in position to talk.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:40 :::During the course of cross-examination, PW-17 Prabhavati stated that while recording her statement she has not stated about the identification mark over the person of the assailants.She has stated before the Police that three assailants entered into house and six were standing at the outer side.She was unable to assign any reason as to why it is not mentioned in her Police statement that six persons were standing at the outer side.She has specifically stated that she had not been::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 56 in the office of Tahsildar at Nandgaon.She has stated to the Police that assailants assaulted over the head of Manisha, but she was unable to assign any reason as to why it is not so recorded in her Police statement.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::Apeal 1211.18 57 relevant time, the accused had worn half pants.Thus, the evidence of this witness is not at all trustworthy and reliable.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::He then prepared the inquest panchanama of the dead bodies of deceased Kacharu and Manisha.Head injuries were::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 59 found to both of them, along with other injuries.He then sent dead bodies for autopsy and thereafter prepared spot panchanama.He seized soil sample mixed with blood of Kacharu and Manisha as well as simple soil, bed sheet.He also seized soil sample mixed with blood of injured Prabhavati as well as simple soil and quilt.The pieces of bangles having white and rose colours were also seized.He then seized all the articles and prepared the panchanama (Exhibit-94).As blood was found over the skin cover of the tree, therefore he seized the said portion of skin cover of the tree and prepared panchanama (Exhibit-88).He then recorded statements of witnesses.He collected Postmortem notes of both the deceased and injury certificates of the injured.Thereupon, further investigation was entrusted to Crime Branch Nashik.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::Apeal 1211.18 60During the course of cross-examination, PW-20 Shrinivas admitted that while lodging the FIR, informant Uttam had not stated in detail description of the culprits.He specifically admitted that he has not recorded in the panchanama that on the relevant day he had applied seal of wax on the muddemal seized from the spot and obtained the signature of panchas over the said seal.He further admits that he has not referred in the panchanama that they have sealed the bottles of blood samples of deceased with wax seal and obtained the signatures of panchas over the said seal.Thus, it reveals that::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 61 from 24th March, 2007 till 25th May, 2007 the seized material was in the custody of the investigating officer.PW-20 has admitted that he has not referred in the panchanama that he had applied seal of wax on seized muddemal and that he obtained signatures of panchas over the said seal.He further admits that he has not referred in the panchanama that he had sealed bottles of blood samples of deceased with wax seal.Thus it is clear that the prosecution has not brought on record, whether the said articles were properly sealed or otherwise.The Rajasthan High Court in the case of The State V. Motia and other Accused2, in para No. 8 held that:::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::Learned counsel for Motia accused has raised a number of objections about this evidence against Motia.In the first place, he points out that there is no evidence to show that after the various articles had been recovered from the 2 A.I.R. 1955 RAJASTHAN 82 (Vol.42 C.N. 27)::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 62 possession of Motia, they were kept sealed so that it was not possible for any one to sprinkle blood stains on them while they were in the custody of the police and before they were, sent for examination by the Chemical Examiner.We must point out that this lacuna in the prosecution evidence is there.Whenever it is desired by the prosecution that certain articles, which have been recovered from accused persons are to be identified, or are to be sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis, it is necessary that the officer recovering the articles should immediately take steps to seal them and evidence should be produced that the seals were not tampered with till the identification is over, or till the articles are sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis.In the absence of such precautions it would always be open to the accused to say that the police later put human blood on the articles in order to implicate the accused.It is, therefore, necessary for the prosecution to produce evidence that steps were taken at once to seal the articles, and that from the time the articles came into possession of the police to the time they were sent for::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 63 identification before a Magistrate or for examination to the chemical Examiner the seals remained intact.This evidence is missing in this case.It is, of course, not difficult to sprinkle a few human blood stains on articles recovered if somebody wants to do so.We do not say that this was done in the present case; but as precautions were not taken, the argument raised on behalf of the accused that this might have been done remains unrefuted.Under these circumstances, we find that we cannot place the same reliance on the discovery of blood stains on these various articles as we would have done if necessary precautions had been taken."::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::In the facts of the present case also, it is clear that muddemal articles were in the custody of the investigating officer for about two months and during the said period possibility of tampering with the muddemal articles cannot be ruled out.Considering the over all evidence and the circumstances brought on record, explicit::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::On 22nd February, 2012, they obtained the custody of above-named accused from Central Jail and covered his face.He then obtained the police custody of above-named accused.In due course, the above-named accused remanded in judicial custody and then they applied for permission from the Court for holding his::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.He then forwarded the detail report for forwarding the charge-sheet to Additional D.G. He further deposed that on 19the May, 2012, they have received consent from Additional D.G. for forwarding the charge-sheet.On 21st May, 2012, he forwarded the supplementary charge-sheet.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::During the course of cross examination, PW-21 Samadhan stated that the FIR in the matter was silent regarding name and description of the accused.On the date of arrest, the accused::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.While recording the statements, the witnesses have not disclosed the identification marks of above-named accused, which is mentioned in the arrest panchanama.He further stated that during investigation, he has not seized the proof connected with immovable property in the name of accused.He further stated that he did not come across with any documents showing that accused is a member of Crimes Syndicate.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::Thus it appears from the evidence of PW-21 that he arrested accused Vithal Shreeram Pawar and obtained police custody of the accused, applied for permission from the Court for holding his identification parade and then informed Tahsildar for holding identification parade.The prosecution examined PW-22 Vilas Shivaji Wagh, Police Head Constable.He deposed that accused Baliram Pundlik Chavan given::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 67 confession statement and shown the spot where they have conspired.He further deposed that at the instance of accused Baliram one wooden log having blood stains was recovered from Ghuge Vasti, nearer to bandh of a field.He further deposed that on 7th May, 2007 another accused Sudhakar Chavan again confessed to discover the clothes used while making reccy before panchas.He further deposed that at the instance of accused Sudhakar saffron colour clothes were discovered from the bushes near Thakker property, which includes one shirt and lungi.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::During the course of cross-examination PW-22 stated that the spot from where Baliram discovered wooden log is below the bandh and at the distance of 25 feet from the said bandh, road was existed.He further stated that one can take the view of the said spot from the road.He admits that the area from where Sudhakar alleged to have::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 68 discovered clothes is near the residential area and houses are there.He further stated that he has reduced into writing statement of Sharad Kacharu Pawar according to his say and as per the direction of P.I. Shendge.He further stated that while recording the statement Sharad had not stated that the culprits asked for keys and his wife delivered the keys to them.Sharad also not stated description of axe and wooden log.He further stated that Sharad in his statement stated that at the relevant time three culprits entered into the house.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::Thus evidence of PW-22 - Vilas shows that the place from where wooden log was recovered at the instance of accused Baliram was near the road and was accessible to general public.His evidence further discloses that the area from where Sudhakar alleged to have discovered clothes is near the residential area, where there are::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 69 houses.This witness has specifically stated that he has reduced into writing the statement of Sharad Kacharu Pawar.Through this witness, the defence has brought on record various contradictions, omissions and improvements in the evidence of PW-12 Sharad Kacharu Pawar.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::PW-23 Pralhad Kalu Jadhav is the panch to the seizure panchanama of clothes at the instance of accused Sudhakar Pundlik Chavan.He deposed that Sudhakar Pundlik Chavan took them to the fencing of Thakkar Bungalow Gangapur road and from nearer to the fencing discovered the clothes, which includes saffron colour shirt having three buttons, Nehru cut as well as same colour towel.During the course of cross-examination, PW-23 stated that adjacent to the Thakkar Bungalow, south-north road is there and towards western side of the bungalow residential locality is there.He further stated that the traffic of the vehicles is::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 70 always there on the said road and the people also used to pass by said road.He further stated that the spot from where the clothes were discovered is an open place.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::Thus it is clear from the evidence of PW-23 Pralhad that the place from where the clothes were discovered at the instance of accused Sudhakar was an open space, which was accessible to the general public.The prosecution has examined PW-24 Madhukar Trambak Athare, Head Constable.He deposed that on 25th May, 2007 he was serving at the office of Rural Crime Branch, Nashik.At the relevant time, one Mr. Belavate was serving as Police Inspector, who carried out investigation in the matter.He deposed that Mr. Belavate was not alive.He himself assisted Mr. Belavate while carrying out investigation in the present matter.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::Apeal 1211.18 71 He further deposed that during the investigation, he has prepared memorandum statement of Suresh Vyankati Chavan on 25th April, 2007 vide Exhibit 134 at the instance of P.I. Belavate.Accordingly accused Suresh then acted as per confession Exhibit 134 and prepared the panchnama of seizure of weapons at the instance of P.I. Belavate.He further deposed that he can identify the axe discovered by accused Suresh, if shown to him.He further deposed that axe Article H/3 is the same which was shown to him.He further deposed that on 25th April, 2007 at the instance of accused Kashiram alias Bhopya Pawar, wooden log was discovered.During the course of cross-examination, PW-24 Madhukar stated that at the relevant time he has not mentioned the body marks in the statement of those holy men or Sant (Sadhu).He further stated that he has not referred the::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 72 description of weapon while preparing memorandum statement of accused Suresh Vyankati Chavan.He further stated that he has not referred in the statement of accused Kashiram alias Bhopya that he shown readiness to discover the wooden log.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::This witness PW-24 deposed about the discovery of the axe at the instance of accused Suresh Vyankati Chavan.However, as observed earlier, the discovery of said axe is from the place which was accessible to all.Further it is pertinent to note that as per the version of this witness, the place from where axe is recovered at the instance of accused Suresh is different than the place from where axe was recovered at the instance of accused Suresh, as per the version of PW-13 Sanjay.Thus prosecution is not sure, which weapon was possessed by the accused Suresh.The prosecution has examined PW-25 Sunil::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 73 Devidas Kadasne.He deposed that in the year 2007 he was serving as a SDPO at Manmad.On adding the charges under MCOC Act, the investigation of the matter was entrusted to him.He then recorded statements of the witnesses, collected the documents regarding pending offences/cases against the accused.They have also separately filed the certified documents connected with Sessions Case No.250/2007 in C.R. No.47/2007 of Manmad Police Station.He further deposed about the various documents filed regarding various cases filed in various Courts.He further deposed that on receiving C.A. Reports (Exhibit-192 to 196), he has forwarded the same with the charge-sheet.Then on 14th July, 2008 he has forwarded the charge-sheet.He further deposed::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 74 that the accused before the Court are the same.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::During the course of cross examination, PW-25 Sunil admits that the FIR was against three culprits.He further admits that detail descriptions were not given in the FIR.He further admits that it revealed to him that there were differences in the descriptions stated by the witnesses in their statements and the descriptions of them in the arrest panchanamas.The accused belong to Pardhi community.He further stated that during investigation it was not revealed to him that the accused by illegal means and committing offences collected immovable properties.The bank balance also not revealed to him in the investigation in the names of the accused.He further stated that at the relevant time, in the Case Diary received to him, there was::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 75 no documents regarding purchase of ornaments by the informant.He has not seized the documents from the accused showing that they have formed Organized Crime Syndicate.He admits that some of the spots from where recovery is made are open space accessible to all.He further stated that the Railway employees always used to check the railway tracks.He further admits that in some of the cases registered against the accused in different Police Stations and stated by him earlier, the accused are acquitted from the charges.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::From perusal of the evidence of PW-25 Sunil, it is clear that the FIR was against only three culprits and in the said FIR detail description was not given.This witness admitted that there are difference in the descriptions stated by the witnesses in their statements and the description in the arrest panchanama.He::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.His evidence shows that during investigation it was not revealed that accused collected immovable properties by illegal means and that the accused were having handsome bank balance.His evidence further discloses that in the Case Diary there was no document regarding purchase of ornaments by the informant.His evidence further discloses that some of the spots from where recovery is made, are open space accessible to all.As observed earlier, the Trial Court has acquitted both the Appellants from the offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 452 of the IPC.The Trial Court has also acquitted the appellants from the offence punishable under the provisions of the MCOC Act.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::PW-26 Dr.Satyapal Singh was the Police Commissioner, Mumbai at the relevant time, who::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 77 forwarded the proposal to charge accused Vithhal Shreeram Pawar, under the provisions of the MCOC Act. PW-27 Premkrishan Jain was the Additional D.G., Special Operations, Mumbai at the relevant time, who granted approval to apply the provisions of the MCOC Act in C.R. No.46 of 2007 registered at Manmad City Police Station.As observed earlier, the Trial Court has acquitted the appellants from the offence punishable under the provisions of the MCOC Act.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::It is pertinent to note that the incident took place on 24th March, 2007 during the night hours at about 1.00 a.m. and about the said incident, identification parade of the accused/appellant - Suresh Vyankati Chavan was conducted on 3rd May, 2007, after about 40 days from the date of incident.So far as accused/appellant Vithhal Shreeram Pawar is concerned, his identification parade was carried::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 78 out on 23rd March, 2012, after almost five years from the date of incident.The Supreme Court in the case of Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and another3, in the facts of that case, wherein identification parade was carried out after three months from the date of incident, held thus:-::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::There is no explanation why his identification parade was held on 24.01.2001, which is after a gap of over a month from the date of arrest and after about 3 months from the date of the incident.No reliance ought to have been placed by the courts below or High Court on such delayed T.I. parade for which there is no explanation by the prosecution."As observed earlier, in the facts of the present case also, so far as accused/appellant - 3 AIR 2010 S.C. 762::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 79 Suresh Vyankati Chavan is concerned, his identification parade was conducted after about 40 days from the date of incident.So far as accused/appellant Vithhal Shreeram Pawar is concerned, his identification parade was carried out after five years from the date of incident.Therefore, the identification parade looses its importance in as much as there was long time gap and possibility of accused being shown to witnesses cannot be ruled out.Such belated identification parade after long gap from the date of incident, and conducted in breach of the procedure, deserves no consideration.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::We have already discussed in detail, the evidence of PW-8 Mandar Kulkarni, Residential Naib Tahsildar and PW-9 Sanjay Shinde, Naib Tahsildar, who conducted identification parade of the accused persons.PW-8 Manohar Kulkarni admitted that in the panchnamas Exhibit 104 to 109 he has not::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 80 referred ages, description and addresses of the dummies and that the dummies were having similar personalities with accused.PW-9 Sanjay Shinde who carried out identification parade, deposed that witness Sharad Kacharu Pawar has identified accused Vithhal Shreeram Pawar before the panch witnesses.Admittedly accused Vitthal Pawar was of about 25 years of age at the relevant time.However, during the course of cross-examination, PW-9 admitted that on the relevant day the dummies in the age group of 25 were not available.The evidence on record discloses that proper procedure was not followed while conducting the identification parades.It seems that the accused were exposed to the witnesses before the identification parade.The evidence on record does not show that the faces of the accused were covered before or while bringing them for test identification parade.The evidence on record shows that accused were of younger age while the::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 81 persons other than accused were of more than 30 to 35 years of age.It appears from the evidence on record that the dummies were not of similar age and appearance to that of the accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::Certain guidelines are prescribed for conducting identification parade.At this juncture, it would be apt to reproduce herein below the guidelines laid down i.e. Para 16(2)(a) to (p) from Chapter I of Criminal Manual issued by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, for the Guidance of the Criminal Courts and Officers Subordinate to it in respect of conduct of test identification parade, which read thus :-16(2)(a) The object of an identification parade is to make sure that the ability of the witness to recognise the suspect has been fairly and adequately tested.(b) It should be fair and seem to be fair and every precaution must be taken to exclude any::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 82 suspicion of unfairness or risk of erroneous identification through the witnesses' attention being directed specifically to the suspected persons instead of equally to all the persons to be paraded.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::(g) The witnesses should be prevented from seeing the suspect before he is paraded with other persons, and witnesses who have previously seen a photograph or description of the suspect should not be led in identifying the suspect by reason of their recollection of the photograph or::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 83 description, as for instance by being shown the photograph or description, before the parade.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::(h) The suspect should be placed among persons (if practicable eight or more) who are as far as possible of the same age, height, general appearance (including standard of dress and grooming) and position in life.Two suspects of roughly of similar appearance should be paraded with atleast twelve other persons.Where, however, the two suspects are not similar in appearance or where there are more than two suspects, separate parades should be held using different person on each parade.(i) All members of a group of suspects more than two should not be paraded together.There should be more parades than one, each including not more than two.Two suspects of obviously dissimilar appearance should not be included in the same parade.Identification numbers should be concealed.(j) The suspect should be allowed to select his own position in the line and should be expressly asked if he has any objection to the persons present with him or the arrangements made.He should be informed that if he so desires, he should have his Advocate (or a friend) present at::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 84 the identification parade.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::(k) The witnesses should be introduced one by one and, on leaving, should not be allowed to communicate with witnesses waiting to see the persons paraded; and the suspect should be informed that he is free to change his position after each witness has left.(l) The witness should be asked whether the person he has come to identify is on the parade.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::Clauses (iv) and (v) of the said procedure read thus :-"(iv) The parade should then be arranged in a::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 86 room or a place which is such that the identifying witnesses, as well as the persons connected with the Police, should not be able to look into it.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::(v) If there is only one accused person to be identified, there should be atleast half a dozen persons placed in the parade.If two accused persons are to be identified, then there should be about 10 or 12 persons in the parade.Not more than two accused should be placed in any single identification parade.Normally, the Police themselves will have called up the persons to be put in the parade; but the Executive Magistrate/Honorary Magistrate should see that they are persons of more or less the same physical appearance , and approximately of the same age, as the person to be identified.It is desirable that innocent persons to be mixed should be different for each such parade."Upon perusal of the clause (iv), while conducting the parade, the parade should be arranged in a room or a place which is such that the identifying witnesses, as well as the persons connected with the Police, should not be able to::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 87 look into it.In clause (v), it is stated that, if there is only one accused person to be identified, at-least half a dozen dummy persons should be placed in the parade.If two accused persons are to be identified, then there should be about 10 or 12 persons in the parade.Not more than two accused should be placed in any single identification parade.Normally, the police themselves will have called up the persons to be put in the parade, but the Executive Magistrate/Honourary Magistrate should see that they are persons of more or less same physical appearance, and approximately of the same age, as the person to be identified.It is desirable that dummy persons to be mixed should be different for such parade.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::In the present case in hand, the procedure prescribed for identification parade was not at all followed while conducting the::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 88 identification parade of the Appellants herein.Thus, the prosecution has not conclusively proved that the Appellants and the Appellants are the only persons who participated in the dacoity.Therefore, it is unsafe to base the conviction of the Appellants on the basis of such faulty identification parades.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::We have discussed in detail the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution.There is no consistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not at all consistent, trustworthy and reliable.PW-3 Uttam has stated that Sharad told him that dacoits were wearing half pants, as against this, evidence of PW-12 Sharad and PW-17 Prabhavati reveals that all the dacoits were wearing full pants.Though, it has come in the evidence of PW-3 Uttam and PW-4 Rajendra that before the incident of dacoity, some::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 89 persons pretending themselves as Sadhus used to come in their village, the prosecution has failed to prove conclusively that said Sadhus were the persons who had committed dacoity.PW-3 Uttam and PW-4 Rajendra had not seen the dacoits while committing the dacoity and they visited the spot after the incident was over.Though it has come in the evidence of prosecution witness PW-13 Sanjay that axe was recovered at the instance of appellant Suresh Chavan, as observed earlier, he has specifically admitted in the cross examination that the spot from where the axe was discovered was accessible to the public.The prosecution has failed to brought on record actually how much persons involved in dacoity.PW-12 Sharad has identified only three accused before the Court.His evidence shows that only three persons entered in the house and some persons were standing outside the house, but he has not stated in clear terms as to how many persons involved in the::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 90 process of dacoity.PW-17 Prabhavati stated that three persons entered into the house and six persons were standing outside the house.However if the evidence of PW-25 Sunil, investigating officer is perused, he has specifically admitted in his cross-examination that original FIR was only against three culprits and his evidence further reveals that detail description was not given in the FIR.If really nine culprits would have involved in the dacoity, then the informant would not have registered FIR against only three persons.Though, before the trial Court there were in all nine accused, the record before the trial Court reveals that accused No.1 - Baliram, accused No.2- Sudhakar, accused No.3 - Bhika, accused No.5 Narayan, accused No.6 Kashiram, accused No.7- Mangal and accused No.9- Babu absconded during the trial before the Court and therefore their case was separated and case was proceeded only against present appellants i.e. accused No.4 - Suresh and::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 91 accused No.8- Vitthal.The police machinery was unable to apprehend absconding accused persons till the trial was over.As observed earlier, muddemal articles were in the custody of the investigating officer for about two months.It has come in the evidence that while conducting the identification parade, the dummies in the age group of accused were not available.Thus prosecution failed to fix the identity of the assailants and further failed to prove that the appellants were the persons who::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 92 participated in dacoity and therefore on such faulty identification, conviction cannot be based against the Appellants.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::We have carefully perused the impugned Judgment passed by the trial Court and we find that the trial Court has recorded perverse findings.The trial Court has recorded the specific finding that except producing charge- sheets on record, the prosecution has not produced cogent and reliable evidence on record to prove that the accused have committed the offence of organized crime syndicate and accused Nos. 4 and 8 were involved in criminal activities continuously and they have committed criminal activities by using force, threat or violence or coercion for gaining pecuniary benefits for themselves and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act. On the basis of above-said findings, the::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 93 trial Court has acquitted the appellants from the offence punishable under the provisions of MCOC Act. The trial Court has also acquitted the Appellants from the offence punishable under the provisions of 120-B and 452 of the IPC.However, on the same set of evidence the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the Appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 396, 397, 447 of IPC.The trial Court has not appreciated entire evidence brought on record in its proper::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 ::: Cri.Apeal 1211.18 94 perspective and reached to a wrong conclusion.The findings recorded by the trial Court are not in consonance with the evidence brought on record.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::The evidence brought on record by the prosecution is not cogent, sufficient and convincing so as to prove the offence against the Appellants beyond reasonable doubt.On the whole there is no cogent, clinching and sufficient evidence showing the involvement of the Appellants.Under these circumstances, the Appellants are entitled for the benefit of doubt.Hence we pass the following order:O R D E R (I) Both Criminal Appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No.1211/2018 and Criminal Appeal No.301/2017 are allowed.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::Apeal 1211.18 95 (II) The Judgment and order dated 15th July, 2015, passed by the Special Judge (Under MCOC Act), Nashik in Special Case (MCOC) No.1 of 2008, thereby convicting and sentencing the Appellants - accused No.4 - Suresh Vyankati Chavan and accused No.8 -Vithhal Shreeram Pawar for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 396, 397 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside.(III) Both the Appellants i.e. -Suresh Vyankati Chavan and Vithhal Shreeram Pawar, are acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 395, 396, 397 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code.Fine amount, if deposited as per the impugned Judgment and order, be refunded to the Appellants.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:41 :::(VI) Both the Appellants shall furnish Personal Bond of Rs.15,000/- each and surety in the like amount each, under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the concerned trial Court at Nashik.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:42 :::Criminal Appeals, Criminal Application No.1235 of 2017 in Appeal No.301 of 2017 does not survive and the same stands disposed of, accordingly.[MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] ::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 02:28:42 :::

['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(a) P.Ws.1 to 3 are cited as eye witnesses to the occurrence.P.W.1 isthe cousin of the deceased.P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1 and P.W.3 is related tothe deceased.(b) It is the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased married the daughter ofA1 (examined as D.W.1 in the case) seven years prior to the occurrence and theywere living as husband and wife in the same village.Due to difference ofopinion between the couple, they were frequently quarrelling and the accusedused to compromise them.Prior to the occurrence, D.W.1 went to her parents'house on account of dispute with the deceased and was staying there.The accused refused to send D.W.1 along with thedeceased, whereupon a wordy quarrel ensued, in which, A1 armed with aruval, cutthe deceased at the back portion of the neck, while A2 and A3 armed with aruvalcut the deceased on the head and A4 caught hold of the deceased to facilitatethe other accused to attack him.When P.W.1 shouted at the accused not to cutthe deceased, A1 and A2 attacked P.W.1 with aruval.On hearing the noise,P.Ws.2 and 3 came to the scene of occurrence.The deceased fell down and diedon account of cut injuries.(c) P.Ws.2 and 3 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 about the motive andoccurrence part of the prosecution case.(d) On 01.11.1998 at about 09.30 p.m., P.W.4, Medical Officer, GovernmentHospital, Kamuthi, admitted P.W.1 brought by P.W.8 and found him conscious and,after giving intimation to the police, gave him treatment and issued WoundCertificate Ex.P2, wherein he noted down the following:- "Wounds or injuries found on the person of a Male calling himselfVeluchamy, S/o.Jebamalai, aged 32 years, an inhabitant of Perumal Kudumbanpatti,Mustakurichi (P.O), who was sent with Police intimation given, from... andaccompanied by Rajkumar for report at to certain injuries said to have beencaused on 1.11.98 at 6.45 p.m. and to be due to assault by one known person withthA;fWths; at his house at Perumalkudumbanpatti.Identification and scar-marks:Patient is referred to GRH, Madurai.X-ray No.5079X-ray Lumbar Spine - NADX-ray Abdomen erect - NADX-ray left hand Anterior/Oblique - NADX-ray Right Hand Anterior/Oblique - NADX-ray Left forearm AP/Lateral - Fracture of left ulna.(e) On 01.11.1998, at about 10 p.m., P.W.9, Sub Inspector of Police,Kamuthi Police Station, on receipt of information, reached the GovernmentHospital, Kamuthi and recorded the statement from P.W.1, who was gettingtreatment, in the presence of P.W.4, Medical Officer.After returning back tothe Police Station, he registered a case at 11.00 p.m. in Crime No.214 of 1998for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. Ex.P1 complaint andEx.P7 the First Information Report were entrusted with P.W.12, Police Constableto be forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi and copies thereof to theInvestigating Officer and the higher-ups.(f) On 01.12.1998 at 12.00 midnight on receipt of copy of the FirstInformation Report, P.W.13, the Investigating Officer reached the scene ofoccurrence and prepared Observation Mahazer and Rough Sketch Exs.At 1 a.m., he conducted inquest over the deadbody of the deceased and examined the witnesses present at the scene ofoccurrence.P.21 is the Inquest Report.He recovered blood stained earthand sample earth from the scene of occurrence in the presence of witnesses undera cover of mahazer, attested by witnesses.(g) On 02.11.1998 at about 12.00 noon, he examined P.W.4 and recorded hisstatement.At the Government Hospital, he recorded the statement of P.W.1, whowas shifted by that time for treatment as in-patient.He recovered the bloodstained cloths of P.W.1 under a cover of mahazer.The blood stained articleswere forwarded to the Court for receiving opinion from chemical analyst.P.W.11, on receipt, forwarded the same and received Exs.P18 and 19, ChemicalReport and Serological Report.(h) The dead body of the deceased was forwarded with a requisition forconducting post mortem and P.W.5, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Kamuthion 02.12.1998 at about 01.30 p.m. conducted post mortem and issued Post MortemCertificate Ex.Liver 1500 gms.(N.C.) pale.Spleen 150 gms.Kidney 150 gms.The accused were tried by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,Ramanathapuram, in S.C.No.16 of 2000 on the allegation that after marriagebetween the deceased and the daughter of A-1, there were frequent disputesbetween the couple, therefore, the daughter of A-1 left the matrimonial home andwas staying in the parent's house and thereby, the accused had grudge andanimosity against the deceased and that on 01.11.1998 at 06.45 p.m., accompaniedby P.W.1, the deceased came to the residence of the accused to take his wifealong with him, at which time, A-4 caught hold of him and A1, armed with aruval,cut the deceased on the neck and A2 and A3 cut him on the head, fore-head, righthand with aruval, thereby, caused his death and in the same course oftransaction, A-4, caught hold of P.W.1 and A-1 and A-2 attacked him with aruvalon the palm, back and wrist, thereby attempted to murder him; and by Judgment ofthe trial Court, dated 29.10.2001, A1 to A3 were found guilty under Section 302r/w. 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and A1 was alsoconvicted under Section 307 I.P.C., while A-2 under Section 324 I.P.C. andsentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with a fine ofRs.2000/- with default clause and rigorous imprisonment for one yearrespectively and A-4 was found guilty under Section 342 I.P.C. and sentenced toundergo simple imprisonment for two months.The sentences imposed on A1 and A-2were ordered to run concurrently and challenging the verdict of the trial Court,the present appeal has been filed.The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined P.Ws.1 to14, marked Exs.The facts, as unfurled from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, arenarrated below in a compact manner:1) A scar on left side of back.The injured person was first seen by the undersigned at 1.11.98 at 9.30p.m.and the examination was conducted at 9.30 p.m. on 1.11.98 on the -----,when the following injuries were found:1) An incised wound 30 x 10 cm size, muscle depth on right side of back.2) An incised wound in left forearm near wrist of 15 x 5 cm size with muscledepth.3) An incised wound in left hand ulnar aspect 10 x 4 cms size with muscle depth.4) An incised wound of 5 x 1 cm size, 1 cm depth on right palm below littlefinger and ring finger.5) An incised wound of 4 x 1 cm size, 1 cm depth on right palm below thumb.D.O.A.: 2.11.98D.O.D.: 3.11.98I.P.No.824410MLC No.54601Opinion of Injury: GRIEVOUS".P3, wherein he noticed the following:"External injuries:`1) A deep incised injury on back of neck extending from left sternomastoidmuscle encircling neck in back upto right sternomastoid muscle.cuttingmuscles, vessels and vertebral bond III cervical vertebral completely fracturedand cut size bout 22 cm x 5 cm x bone depth.2) An incised injury on left parieto occipital area skull size 15 cm x 3 cm xbone depth.Brain exposed membrances absent.On exploring injury intracranialhaemmorrhage found.Bone fractured.3) An incised injury on right parietal area skull size 12 cm x 1 cm x bone depthbone severed fractured.Brain exposed.membranes intact.4) An incised injury on right side frontal area face size 4 cm x 1 cm x bonedepth.5) An incised injury on right thumb proximal phalanx area in hand size 2 cm x1/2 cm x 1/2 cm.6) An incised injury on dorsum of right hand size 2 cm x 1/2 x 1/2 cm.7) An incised injury on frontal area face in between two eye-brows size 1 cm x1/2 cm x 1/2 cm.8) Abrasions on right little finger size 2 cm x 1 cm.Eyelids open, nose, Ear, mouth No discharge found.Tongue inside the mouth.Jaws clenched, Teeth complete, Thorax well formed.Nofracture Ribs Abdomen uniform.Generative Organs Normal.Hands empty clunched.Heart 350 gms.Chambers empty.Lungs 550 gms (N.C.) fluid larynx noforeight body found.Hyoid bone intact.Red colour.Intestine: Small intestine small amount (N.C.) 100 ml.digested material.Appendix normal.Large intestine Empty.Pelvis: No fracture pelvis.Openning Head: Membrane ruptured.intracranial haemorrhage found left (N.C).parieto occipital and right frontal areas.Brain 1400 gms.Spinal column cervical vertebral III completely fractured out off separated fromvertebral column".The Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock andhaemorrhage due to head injury and neck injury, 19-21 hours prior to autopsy.(i) The Investigating Officer came to know about the surrender of A1 to A4before Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi and took them into police custody on18.11.1998 and in the presence of P.W.10 recorded their statements and theadmissible portions thereof are Exs.Consequently, M.Os.1 to 3,weapons of offence used by A1 to A3 were recovered.Since the InvestigatingOfficer found injuries on A1, he forwarded him to the Government hospital,Kamuthi, for treatment.Thereafter, the accused were remanded to judicialcustody.The Investigating Officer during the course of investigation examinedthe witnesses, received opinions from the experts and on conclusion of theinvestigation, filed final report on 31.01.1999 for offences punishable underSections 342, 302, 307, 324 and 326 I.P.C.With reference to the incriminating materials adduced by theprosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C, for which,they pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed innocence.On the side of the accusedD.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.D1, Wound Certificate dated 18.11.1998 issuedto A1 was marked.The learned trial Judge, after examining the materials available andconsidering the submissions made by both sides, found the accused guilty andpassed the order of conviction and sentence as aforementioned.Learned counsel for the appellants, by pointing out that P.Ws.1 to 3are closely related to the deceased; would state that P.W.1 himself admitted inhis evidence that P.Ws.2 and 3 came to the scene of occurrence only afterhearing the noise and they cannot be considered as witnesses for the occurrenceand that, at the time of admission in the hospital, he told that one knownperson assaulted him, whereas, before Court, he deposed that two personsattacked him.Referring to the evidence of D.W.1, the wife of the deceased tothe effect that her husband accompanied by P.W.1 outraged her modesty and alsoher younger sister, whereupon, she took an aruval and cut the deceased andP.W.1; would submit if such version is believed, the evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses putforth by the prosecution is falsified.The interested eye witnesses inparticular P.W.1 did not even whisper about the injuries on A1, thus, even thegenesis and origin of the prosecution case is cloudy.Even if the prosecutioncase as such is acted upon, it must be taken note of that the occurrence hadtaken place at the residence of the accused and though the deceased visited theresidence of A1 in his capacity as son in law accompanied by his brother P.W.1,admittedly there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased; therefore,intention or premeditation on the part of the accused to cause the death of thedeceased cannot be alleged and it could be discerned that the occurrence mightnot have taken place in the manner as putforth by the prosecution and, in viewof non-explanation of the injuries sustained by A1, the presumption is that thedeceased/aggressor caused injury on A1 and only thereafter, in the course ofreaction by the accused, the deceased and P.W.1 sustained injuries; thereforethe offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is not made out and the accused may beconvicted for a lesser offence.Afterreceiving intimation, P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police reached the hospitalwithout any delay and from P.W.1 recorded the complaint/statement under Ex.P1,attested by P.W.4, the Medical Officer, to the effect that P.W.1 was consciousat that time and the First Information Report registered also reached the Courtwithout any loss of time; therefore, there was no delay and the contents of thecomplaint cannot be doubted.Moreover, the alternative version putforth byD.W.1 cannot be accepted, since such story has been stated for the first timeduring trial and even in the evidence of D.W.1, the dispute and quarrel betweenthe deceased and D.W.1 has been admitted.The Investigating Officer himselfadmitted that A1 had sustained injury, further it was he, who forwarded A1 tothe Government Hospital for treatment.Since injuries sustained by A1 were notserious in nature, the Accident Register was not marked and no importance needbe attached for non-explanation of the injuries.The case put forth by theprosecution is clearly made out through substantive materials and the reasonsassigned by the trial Court for passing the order of conviction and sentence arewell-founded and its ultimate order does not call for any interference.We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissionsmade on either side having regard to the materials available on record.It is the caseof the prosecution that the deceased accompanied by his cousin P.W.1 went to theresidence of A1 to bring back D.W.1 to his residence and on refusal by A1 tosend back his daughter, a wordy quarrel ensued between the deceased and A1, inwhich the deceased was cut with aruval by A1 and his sons A2 and A3 and A4 aidedthem in commission of the offence.Theoccurrence is said to have taken place on 01.11.1998 at 06.45 p.m. and from thescene of occurrence, P.W.6, accompanied by P.W.8, took P.W.1 to the GovernmentHospital, Kamuthi situated at a distance of 12 Kilometres and reached thehospital at 09.30 p.m. P.W.4 Medical Officer attached to the GovernmentHospital, Kamuthi found the injured conscious and forwarded intimation to thepolice.P.W.12, Sub Inspector of Police, reached the hospital and recorded thecomplaint received from P.W.1 at 10.15 p.m. After reaching the Police Station,he registered the case at 11.00 p.m. The First Information Report forwardedfrom the Police Station was delivered to the learned Judicial Magistrate at01.00 a.m. Therefore, there was no possibility for embellishment andintroduction of new facts, since the complaint came into existence without anyloss of time and reached the learned Judicial Magistrate without any furtherdelay.P1 is corroborated not only by the oral evidence of P.W.1 andmedical evidence as well as the testimonies of two other eye witnesses.Therefore the prosecution has substantiated its case beyond reasonable doubt.However the manner in which the occurrence originated has to be carefullyscrutinized in view of the injury sustained by the first accused.The first accused is none else than the father-in-law of the deceasedat whose residence, the occurrence had taken place and the wife of the deceasedwas present there at the relevant time.It is the admitted case that thedeceased and his wife D.W.1 were frequently quarrelling with each other.Onlyunder such circumstances, it was decided by A1 and his family not to send D.W.1,the wife of the deceased along with him.Though the Investigating Officeradmitted regarding the injuries sustained at the fingers of the first accused,no explanation has been offered on the side of the prosecution as to how suchinjuries were sustained, particularly, when one of the injuries was noted to begrievous in nature.Looking at the Wound Certificate issued for the injuriescaused on A1, we find that the same would have been caused by a sharp edgedweapon.The assault on the deceased is the outcome of a wordy quarrel and soonafter entry of the deceased at the residence of the accused, the occurrence didnot take place.We could presume that there was no intention or premeditationon the part of the accused initially to commit the offence.It is all themore possible that all the male members at the residence of A1 would have joinedtogether and assaulted the deceased and P.W.1 and under such circumstances, wecan come to a conclusion that the accused have exercised their right of theirdefence.However, looking at the Post Mortem Certificate and the WoundCertificate issued to P.W.1, we are of the considered opinion that the accusedhave exceeded their limit in retaliating both the deceased and P.W.1.Therefore, We hold that Section 302 I.P.C is not attracted in this case and thatappellants 1 to 3/accused 1 to 3 are liable to be punished under Section 304(I)I.P.C.Consequently, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trialCourt as against appellants 1 to 3/accused 1 to 3 under Section 302 I.P.C, ismodified as one under Section 304(I) I.P.C and they are sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for seven years.The conviction and sentence imposed asagainst A1 under Section 307 I.P.C., A2 under Section 324 I.P.C. and A4 underSection 342 I.P.C. stand confirmed.The sentences passed against accused 1 and 2are ordered to run concurrently and all the accused are eligible for "set off"in respect of the period of imprisonment, they have already undergone.It is reported that, while entertaining the appeal, the substantivesentence of imprisonment was suspended by this Court, enlarging appellants 1 to3/ accused 1 to 3 on bail.In view of the conclusion reached now, the bailbonds executed by them before the Committal Magistrate shall stand cancelled andthe trial Court is directed to take instant steps to secure those accused andcommitt them to custody so as to undergo the remaining portion of sentence.With the above modification, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Ct-34 (AD) In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 05/10/2018 in connection with Ratua P.S. Case No. 13/2017 dated 14/01/2017 under Sections 147/148/149/186/326/353/333 /308/506 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Md. Anowar Hossain @ Anwarul Haque @ Fito ....petitioner.Ms. Sujata Das ...for the petitioner.Mr. Arijit Ganguly Mr. Avik Ghatak ...for the State.The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Ratua P.S. Case No. 13/2017 dated 14/01/2017 under Sections 147/148/149/186/326/353/333/308/506 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner claims that the principal accused has been left out from the charge-sheet but the petitioner as an associate of the principal accused has been named therein.The State refers to the case records and the fact that four police personnel were injured in the attack.Considering the material against the petitioner, there may not be any need to take the petitioner into custody since the investigation has already been completed.In addition, the petitioner will attend the trial on every day that the matter is fixed and any default on the part 2 of the petitioner will entitle the trial court to cancel the bail without reference to this Court.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) 3

['Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Only those facts, which now are relevant for deciding the question arising for determination are being noticed by us though the parties in their respective affidavits have narrated their own version on those facts, on which the petitioner initially had sought the reliefs as claimed in the petition.The marriage of Mahinder Kumar Chopra petitioner No. 2 with Ms. Ruby daughter of Shri Dharam Chand Ghambir was solemnised on 8.5.1989 at Delhi.On 2.10.1989 petitioner No. 2 contracted second marriage in Madras.On 16.10.1989 Civil Suit No. 2947/89 was filed by petitioners No. 1 and 2 against Ms. Ruby, her parents, brothers and Pandit Chander Bhan, who had arranged the marriage for return of jewellery and certain other articles and for damages etc. in this Court.On 17.10.1989 complaint (Annexure-B) was addressed by Ms. Ruby to the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, the Deputy Commissioner, Anti Dowry Cell, New Delhi; and the Inspector General of Police, Bangalore alleging in human cruel treatment, harassment on account of want of dowry and mis appropriation of her Stridhan by her husband (petitioner No. 2) and her in-laws and also complaining that she was deserted by her husband after 11/2 months of her marriage.Ms. Ruby, on 31.10.1989 is alleged to have come to know about the ex parts decree passed by Family Court in Bangalore whereafter she filed an application for setting aside the said decree.After the aforementioned complaint was sent statement of Ms. Ruby was recorded on the basis of which a report was entered vide D.D. No. 11-A at Police Station, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and on 21.2.1990 FIR No. 56 /90 was registered for offences under Sections 406/494, IPC at Police Station, Kirti Nagar.It is the case of the petitioners that Bangalore Police after enquiring into the complaint of Ms. Ruby dated 17.10.1989 and in 1991 concluded that the same was false.The statement is in vernacular.Its translation reads:"I state that I am living with my parents at the address mentioned above.My marriage took place on 8.5.1989 with Shri Mohinder Chopra son of Shri Kishan Chopra resident of 67, Anchoret B.T. St., Bangalore (Karnataka) in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies at Delhi.In my marriage, my parents gave one golden mutter mala set, one golden set, one pair of golden bangles, 14 gold ginnies, one Tagri of Silver, and of pair of Pajeb (Silver), one draft of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 2,801 /- in cash.My in-laws gave 28 gold Churi's, one pair of golden sofet, one paid or tops, golden chain, one pandal, one Mangal Sutra (Gold), one golden Tagri and 22 pairs of Sarees in gift.My Chacha Sansar (uncle, father-in-law) Shyam Sunder and Topan, resident of Punjabi Bagh, Delhi used to place demands of one article to my father and they used to telephone in my in-laws at Bangalore.Thereafter, my in-laws used to give telephone calls to my parents at Delhi.The demand of Maruti Van, V.C.R. and cash of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lacs) used to be made and used to abuse me throughout the day.I was not allowed to give telephone call to my house at Delhi.My husband had forcibly taken my signatures on blank paper and blank cheque.I do not know what has been written in those papers.On 19.6.1989, I came to my parents house along with my father and brought two golden churi, one pair of tops, one ring, one Mangal Sutra, one chain, pandal, and two pairs of clothes alongwith me.I do not know why they sent me aforesaid letter and papers and if my husband wants to keep me properly.I want to stay with him otherwise.My articles should be handed over to me.I have heard the statement and it is correct"."Any offence punishable under Section 494 or Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the first marriage, or the wife by the first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of the offence."The entrustment of the articles and jewellery etc. either given to her at Delhi or at Bangalore also took place at Bangalore.The complaint reads:That neither the applicant's husband nor her in-laws are prepared to keep the applicant nor they are prepared to return her valuable 'ISTRIDHAN ARTICLES' as detailed above, which they are retaining.The intend to misappropriate all her articles under a false pretext and made up accusations.Even in the statement made on 23.10.1989, which forms the basis for the FIR the allegation of retention of her belongings including jewellery are made on the same line as follows:"I came to my parents house alongwith one ring, one Mangal Sutra, one chain, Pandal and two pairs of clothes alongwith me.The rest of my entire belongings and jewellery is with in-laws"."My Chacha Sansar (uncle, father-in-law) Shyam Sunder and Topan, resident of Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, used to place demands of one article to my father and they used to telephone my in-laws at Bangalore.Thereafter, my in-law used to give telephone calls to my parents at Delhi.The demand of Maruti Van, V.C.R. and cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lacs) used to be made".JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.This petition was instituted on 22.3.1992 praying for quashing of FIR No. 56/90 registered at Police Station, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi on 21.3.1990 for offences under Sections 406/494/498A, IPC; to restrain the respondents from arresting the petitioners in connection with commission of the afore-mentioned offences and to stay further proceeding.Because of the subsequent developments after institution of the petition including the fact that challan has since been presented, it is the admitted case of the parties that the only point, which now survives for consideration in this petition is of the jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts to entertain and try the criminal case instituted on the basis of FIR No. 56/90 of Police Station, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.The fact that question of jurisdiction alone remains to be decided in this petition is also evident from the order passed by the Supreme Court on 28.10.1996 in Criminal Appeal No. 1894/96 titled as Sri Kishan Chand Chopra and Others v. State (Delhi Administration) and Others.Reception was arranged by petitioner No. 1, the father of petitioner No. 2 to bless the newly wed at Bangalore on 12.5.1989 and on 14.5.1989 the couple left for Hong Kong for honey moon.Admittedly, Ms. Ruby left her matrimonial home at Bangalore for Delhi on 19.6.1989 and thereafter she has continued to stay at Delhi.On a petition filed by petitioner No. 2, an ex parte decree declaring marriage to be null and void was passed by the Family Court of Bangalore.Consequently the complaint was filed.Criminal Writ Petition No. 751/89 was instituted by the petitioners challenging the jurisdiction of the Delhi Police to summon the petitioners from Bangalore to appear at Delhi in connection with the complaint of Ms. Ruby dated 17.10.1989 and also the jurisdiction of Delhi Police in carrying on the investigation on the ground that it had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter since no offence at all had been committed in Delhi.It was prayed that the entire proceedings initiated by the Delhi Police be quashed.An application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. was also filed for an interim relief.The writ petition was admitted for hearing.By way of an interim order, Delhi Police was restrained from summoning petitioners 1 and 2 from Bangalore to appear before them at Delhi.FIR No. 56/90 was registered on 21.2.1990 at Police Station, Kirti Nagar for offences under Section 406/494, IPC knowing fully well that Delhi Police had no jurisdiction either to register an FIR for the offences, which were never committed in any part of the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi of to investigate the same.Aggrieved against the registration of case by the Delhi Police at Delhi and against the alleged harassment and on coming to know of the issuance of warrants of arrest petitioners 1 and 2 filed Cr.Writ No. 73/92 in this Court, in which a Misc.Application (Cr.71/92) was also filed.On 17.2.1992 notices were issued to the respondents.An interim order was also passed that the petitioners shall neither be arrested, nor called to police station till further orders.Petitioner No. 3 and petitioners 4 to 7 also filed Cr.Writ No. 102/92 and Cr.Writ No. 119/92 respectively for same and similar relief.It is stated that the petitioners after withdrawing the said petitions filed this consolidated petition instead of keeping separate petitions pending for same and similar relief.It is the case of the petitioners that they are resident of Bangalore.As per the allegations made in the complaint, (Annexure-B) dated 17.10.1989 or in the statement, on the basis of which FIR No. 56/90 was registered at Police Station, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, no offence can be said to have been committed at Delhi.The offences, if any, on the basis of the allegations as made in the complaint can be said to have been committed only at Bangalore.As such Delhi Police had neither any authority to register the comlaint nor jurisdiction to investigate the same and on that basis it is alleged that the Courts at Delhi have no jurisdiction to try the criminal case.In the aforementioned background arguments were heard at length.For the purpose of deciding the point of jurisdiction only the bare allegations made in the complaint and in the statement on the basis of which F.I.R. No. 56/90 has been registered have to be looked into.For that reason the challenge in this petition is only for the registration of FIR No. 56/90, its investigation, filing of challan for an offence under Section 406, IPC.It includes those dowry articles, which were given at the time of marriage at Delhi.The entrustment thus is clearly spelt out to have taken place in Delhi with respect to those articles, which were given at the time of marriage at Delhi.In order to constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust, the necessary ingredients are entrustment with the accused of some property or with any domain or power over it and in respect of that property so entrusted there was dishonest misappropriation or dishonest conversion or dishonest use or disposal, in violation of a direction of law or legal contract by the accused himself and by some one else, which he willing to suffer to do so.In the complaint dated 17.10.1989 after mentioning detail and particulars of various presents given to her by her parents as well as her in-laws at the time of her marriage, it is stated by Ms. Ruby that the same form part of her Stridhan under the law.Legally she alone is legally entitled to retain the same.Shortly after reception on 12.5.1989 mother-in-law took into her custody almost her entire valuable jewellery as well as other cash presents, received by her at the time of reception.It is alleged that later on when she demanded her dowry for her use from her mother-in-law, on a number of times, the same was denied.After making allegations of the alleged cruel behaviour of her in laws, making demands of dorwy and the alleged atrocities committed upon her, it is alleged that her father brought her back with only wearing clothes and a few jewellery items, which she was wearing, namely, Mangal Sutra, Pandel, pair of ear rings, pair of bangles, engagement ring and a couple of suits.It is further stated that neither her husband, nor her in-laws are prepared to allow her to stay at Bangalore.They are also not prepared to return valuable and other articles, which they are retaining.They intend to misappropriate all her articles under a false pretext and made up accusations.FIR 56/90 was registered on the statement of Ms. Ruby.On the occasion of PERIPONA (Blessings) DADI SAS gave one golden gunnie, father-in- law and mother-in-law one set, mother-in-law of younger sister-in-law Kiran gave one of gold.At the time of reception, silver Catteries were given.I remained at my in-laws house for about 41 days and during the said period, the in-laws people teased me for dowry.They bet me and threatened me.They started demanding Maruti Car and V.C.R., My father-in-law, mother-in-law,husband, brother-in-law, Gopal, Naresh, Lalit, Bhola and sister-in-law Anita started taunting me.They started telling that they had received proposals of marriage from rich people and my parents had not given dowry of exceptional type."Shortly, after the reception on 12.5.1989, the mother-in-law took into her custody almost all the valuable jewellery detailed above of the applicant, as well as the other cash presents received by the applicant at the time of reception under the plea of keeping them in safe custody in the locker much against the wishes of the applicant.The applicant was given only a few articles namely, Mangle Suter, a locket, a pair of ear rings and, two bangles.Even later on the applicant demanded her jewellery for her use from her mother-in-law a number of times but the same was denied".It is further alleged that she was brought back to Delhi from Bangalore by her father with only a few articles.Rest of the articles were retained by mother-in-law at Bangalore.Such allegation in para 19 reads:"the applicant's father brought her back with only wearing clothes and a few jewellery items, which she was wearing as detailed above i.e. a Mangle Sutra, a pandal, a pair of ear rings and pair of bangles, engagement ring and a couple of suits.The allegations in the complaint about retention and return of the dowry articles and Stridhan property are made was as follows:Neither on the complaint nor in the statement aforementioned there is any allegation of entrustment to or demand for return of any part of the articles of jewellery etc. belonging to Ms. Ruby at Delhi.As per the complaint and the statement the entrustment was at Bangalore.Section 184 has to be read with Sections 219, 220,221 and 223, Cr.P.C. It has not been disputed that for offence under Section 494,IPC, the petitioners can be tried in Delhi Courts.It was urged by learned Counsel for the respondents that separate complaint for offence under Section 494, IPC had to be filed since police despite recording of the statement of Ms. Ruby had not proceeded to register an FIR.Petition dismissed.

['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

A copy of which has been annexed to the bail application.However, in the chargesheet under Sections 325 & 308 IPC have been added.

['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT R. Bhattacharyya, J.The above Misc.The above order, since resulted in infraction of right, the aggrieved preferred the criminal misc, case above referred to.In regard to get a grip to the core controversy about the viability of the contempt application, it is necessary in all fitness of things to set out the factual background of the case.The petitioner in his application has forcefully urged the background of the tenancy in respect of premises No. 55, Shimla Street.His father was the original tenant for well over 3 decades.Shewnath, the father of the petitioner died infested on 1.9.79 his widow and sons including the petitioner who became the joint tenants of the said premises under the Landlord, the Paul family.Gauged in the background of the totality of the circumstances indicated above such a course also seems to the to be fit and proper for prevention of it (further) possible breach of peace and multiplicity of such like criminal proceedings".This order "shall not in any way preclude the petitioner Durgaprasad Gupta from taking steps against the contemner No. 1 Sahadeb Dey, for civil contempt and or under Order 33 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure before court for his alleged violation of the injunction order dated 15.7.92 the way he allegedly did as discussed above".The complainant put up a prayer before the learned ACMM to put him in possession of the 5 rooms of the disputed premises by removing the padlocks of the doors.The learned Magistrate declined to pass such an order for the reasons recorded in the order.The impugned order fell for consideration before his Lordship and for passing an interim order directing the officer-In-charge Jorashanko PS.to remove the padlocks from the doors of the 5 rooms comprised into 2 floors namely.2 rooms on the second floor and 3 rooms on the ground floor of premtses 55, Shimla Street coupled with a further prayer before the court of revision to allow him to enjoy the rooms until disposal of the matter.The opposite party No. 2 Sahadeb Dey also put in an application for being added as a party thereto praying for not to pass an order in the manner as asked for by the complainant as it would occasion prejudice to him having a vital interest in the litigation.However, he was added as opposite party No. 2 for disposal of the issue.It transpires from the record that a contempt petition was filed on 18.4.94 and, in view of his urgency, the same was moved on 19.4.94 upon notice to the contemnors,The heirs of Shewnath were in actual physical possession of the premises as joint tenants who had never surrendered their tenancy.In apprehension of interference of peaceful possession by the new purchasers Sahadeb and his associates both Durga and Debiprasad filed a suit in the court of City Civil Court on 20.5.92 against the said Sahadev Dey and 5 others which was registered as Title Suit No. 971 of 1992 for declaration and for other incidental reliefs.The defendant No. 6 suffered an interim order of injunction passed by the City Civil Court.He was restrained from transferring the property to anybody till the disposal of the injunction application.The Defendant No. 1 Sahadeb, the added opposite party No. 2 the alleged contemnor No. 1 who also filed an application for temporary injunction with a prayer for restraining the plaintiffs from exercing possessions of the premises.Both the injunction petitions were heard and disposed of by the learned Judge on 15.7.92- The injunction petition filed by the plaintiffs was allowed restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs of the disputed premises as tenants till the disposal of the suit.The appeal filed by Sahadeb, since aggrieved by the order before the Division Bench was disposed of directing the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the appeal.The same was disposed of by the Division Bench on 13.1.94 which contained a direction amongst others on the trial court to dispose of the suit within a period of 4 months from the date of communication of the order.The impugned order of the trial court which became the subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench had not been interfered with.A writ application was filed since the appeal according to him was abortive.An application under section 144 of the CRPC was also filed before the executive Magistrate in vain.although the injunction order dated 15.7.92 was alive.On the basis of the complaint, the Jorashanko PS Case No. 479 dated 9.12.93 was started under sections 448, 427, 324/ 144 IPC.The police started investigation and arrested the accused.To avoid breach of peace and for apprehended danger, the key was kept in the custody of the police.Both the complainant and the accused also suffered an order of rejection of their respective' prayers to be in possession of the premises by making over the key of it.The defendants of the said title suit had forcibly entered into the disputed premises on 10.4.94 which was a Sunday and the padlocks of the 5 rooms were removed by some plain clothed, police men who made over the key and delivered vacant possession of the rooms to Sahadeb Dey although the defendants had knowledge that the matter was still subjudiced.Thereafter, the accused Sahadeb on an intermediate date on 21.3.94 had approached the transferee court for return of the keys of 5 rooms that remained in the custody of police.The learned ACMM refused to pass an order on the basis of the application made which according to the complainant petitioner bore the suppression of facts.the 1O submitted a report which contained a no-objection in handing up the keys of the 5 rooms kept under lock and key to the accused No. 1, The learned Magistrate had directed the keys to be returned of the 5 rooms in question to the accused/alleged contemnor No. 1 Sahadeb on receipt.The accused Sahadeb came to possess the same on 10.4.94 with the aid and assistance of the police.It was an attempt to frustrate the order of injunction dated 15.7.92 since the revisional application pending disposal.In short, the facts of the ruling under reference are that an application for vacating the stay order came up for hearing before the appellant herein in the capacity of a Member of the Revenue Board on October, 1973, the respondent, Shree Vinay Chandra Mishra appeared as counsel in that court on behalf of the appellant therein to oppose the prayer for vacating the stay order.What happened thereafter on that day according to the allegations in the petition, spoke of an affidavit dated October 23, 1973 of Shree V.C. Mishra.Advocate filed before the High Court was as follows :--The criminal Misc.

['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

2.One Arjun Singh died on 29.08.2007 at 4.00 p.m., seemingly due to hanging.He had left a note in his pocket.C O M M O N O R D E R These petitions seek the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and to call for the records in Crime No.558 of 2007 pending investigation on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as against the petitioners.Sherji Sakarnawala and Mohan Singh S/o.Bherji Sakarnawala, these two Brothers have taken Rs.66,00,0000/- (Rupees Sixty Six Lakhs only) and on being asked to return the same I have been threatened that they have lost the same in items (goods).They are refusing to pay the money and are asking me to do whatever I like.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.01.12.2009Index:yes/noInternet:yes/nogmTo1.The Inspector of Police, C-1, Flower Bazaar Police Station, Chennai.(Crime No.558 of 2007)O.P.Nos.33322 of 2007and 36955 of 2007

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Therefore, for the last 5 years, the applicants are passing taunts that she cannot conceive and started using filthy language pertaining to dowry.Her father is a retired employee and her two brothers are earning their livelihood by doing private jobs and have no agricultural field.Due to the harassment by her in-laws, she had expressed her willingness to put an end to her life.The applicant no.2 is working in Govt. Factory and is in the habit of consuming liquor, whereas the applicant no.1 is a house-lady.She has two sister-in-laws.Her husband is trying to run away from his responsibilities, as a result of which, she is now under financial debt.On 13-7-2016, she went to her matrimonial house, but she has been ousted by them.Therefore, she is under mental stress.The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision.In a quite number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.However, it is also an admitted fact that the respondent no.2 is running the shop, which was opened after taking loan.Thus, if the entire allegations are considered, then this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made against the applicants no.3 and 4 are not specific, but they are vague and omnibus.16 MCRC No.10246/2017Therefore, in the considered view of this Court this petition is maintainable also even when trial is at advance stage.The question is answered accordingly."THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 6 MCRC No.10246/2017 (Smt. Savitri Khampariya and others Vs.State of M.P. and another) Thus, it is held that if the charges have been framed and even if some of the witnesses have been examined, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be entertained.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the respondent no.2 had made a written complaint against the applicants and her husband that she was married to the co-accused Pooran Khampariya on 16- 5-2011, as per Hindu Rites and Rituals.At the time of marriage, he was working on the post of Registrar, Global Engineering College, Bypass Road, Jabalpur.7-8 months after her marriage, she got herself treated and was medically informed that there may be some delay in conceiving the child.The applicant no.3 is residing in Shivnagar, but she frequently visits the house and has too much of interference in the family affairs of the family.Her younger sister-in-law is residing in Kanchanpur, who is married in the Pandey Family.Her marriage record is available in the Court, however, she does not interfere in the family affairs.The applicant no.2 is always threatening that she would get his son remarried.She was being pressurized to bring dowry from her parents THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 7 MCRC No.10246/2017 (Smt. Savitri Khampariya and others Vs.State of M.P. and another) and when she refused to do so, then with a preplanned strategy and taking advantage of her educational qualification of M.Sc.Computer Science, a loan of Rs. 25 lacs was obtained under Chief Minister Yuva Swarojgar Scheme and a Sweet and Bakery Shop in the name and Style Bharat Sweet and Bakery was opened.When the shop was running successfully, then her husband also left his job and started sitting in the shop and took a separate house on rent in Shambhu Shree Apartment, as her matrimonial house was at a distance of 11-12 Kms, and she was having problems to go to her matrimonial house during night hours.On 6-6-2016, after fighting with her, her husband left her house without informing her and accordingly a missing person report has been lodged by her on 11-6-2016 in Police Station Gohalpur, but still she has no contact with her husband.Accordingly, a request was made to take action against the applicants.6 MCRC No.10246/20177 MCRC No.10246/2017The police on the basis of the above written complaint, registered the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and under Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing the investigation, a charge sheet has been filed against the applicants and Pooran Khamparia for the above mentioned offences.So far as the allegations made against the applicants no. 1 and 2 are concerned, undisputedly, they are mother-in-law and THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 8 MCRC No.10246/2017 (Smt. Savitri Khampariya and others Vs.It is alleged that after her medical examination, when it was revealed that there would be some delay in conceiving, then the applicants no.1 and 2 started passing taunts with regard to her inability to conceive and started demanding dowry and also started harassing her.Thus, there are allegations of harassment by the applicants no.1 and 2 for demand of dowry as well as because of inability of the respondent no.2 to conceive.8 MCRC No.10246/2017THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 17 MCRC No.10246/2017 (Smt. Savitri Khampariya and others Vs.State of M.P. and another) Thus, the allegations made against the applicants no.3 and 4 are not sufficient warranting their prosecution for offence under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and under Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

On August25, 1976 at about 12 noon P.W. 1 Syed Ameer, Supervisor,Karnataka Electricity Board, went to the house of therespondent on a routine inspection to check the electricmeter installed there.He found the meter board at theentrance and though the meter was not recording consumptionof electric energy, the lights and fans were on.It appearedthat the respondent had tampered with the main connection byfixing two switches to the wall of the house and byoperating the251switches the lights and fans inside the house could be usedwithout the meter recording any consumption.CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.285 of 1983 Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and orderdated the 15th December, 1980 of the Karnataka High Court inCrl.M. Veerappa for the Appellant.Vimal Bobde A.C, and P.R. Ramasish for the Respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. This appeal by special leave is directedagainst a judgment of the Karnataka High Court datedDecember 15, 1980 affirming the order of acquittal passed bythe Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate First Class,Krishnarajanagar dated July 10, 1979 acquitting therespondent of an offence punishable under ss. 39 and 44 ofthe Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with s. 379 of IndianPenal Code.The prosecution case in brief was as follows.Later in theday, he along A with the Assistant Engineer attached to theKarnataka Electricity Board, Krishnarajanagar and the JuniorEngineer went to the house of the respondent and saw thatthere was theft of electric energy.Accordingly, on thedirection of the Assistant Engineer, P.W. 1 Syed Ameerlodged a report with the police Ex. P-l.After aninvestigation into the complaint, the Krishanrajanagarpolice filed a challan.The prosecution led evidence of fivewitnesses including that of P.W. 1 Syed Ameer, Supervisorand P.W. 2 Bheemanna, Junior Engineer to substantiate thecharge.lt rejected a prayer of thelearned public prosecutor to lead additional evidence inproof of the notification on the ground that would betantamount to allowing the prosecution to fill up a lacunain the case.

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

2 This is the second application before this Counrt.dead body of unnknown person was founnd in decomposed Date: 2020.10.19 16:05:23 +0530 Ethape 2/11 BA.No.3110.19.doccondition in the Nala, situnated at Ordinance Estate, BandarChowk Ambernath (West).The body was beyond recognition.ADR No. 22 of 2015 was registered and investigated by APIRavindra Bambale attached to Ambernath Police Station.Dunringinvestigation, it was revealed that, the dead body was of personnamed Kamlesh @ Kalun Vaswani.On 23 rd April 2015, the parentsof deceased learnt that, dead body was founnd by the police atBandar Chowk, Ambernath.They visited Ambernath PoliceStation.Sunbsequnently, they identifed the dead body of the victimat the Hospital as that of Kamlesh @ Kalun.They also disclosedthat, deceased had left the hounse on 13 th April 2015 and did notretunrn home.Dunring investigation it was revealed that on 13 thApril 2015, at abount 11:00 p.m. friend of the deceased SanketMedhe had dropped Kamlesh in his Aunto Rickshaw alongwithlady known to him at Bandar Chowk area.Statement of AshaNagpunre @ Nasima Junber Khan was recorded on 29 th April 2015.She stated that on 13 th April 2015 at abount 09:00 p.m. she metKalun @ Kamlesh.Since they met after a long time, she wastalking to him.At that time they met Sanket Medhe, whodropped them in his Aunto Rickshaw to her hounse.They reachedhome at abount 11:00 p.m. friends of Chandan namely Gotya, Lalun Ethape 3/11 BA.No.3110.19.docand three others had seen them together.They had dinner atabount 11:30 p.m. Gotya, Lalun and three other persons visited herhounse.They qunestioned her as to why she brounght the saidperson alongwith her since she is wife of Chandan.They abunsedthem.Gotya slapped Kalun and dragged him ount of the hounse.Mother of Asha intervened.The assailants left the hounse.Kalunwas sleeping ountside the door of the hounse.In the midnight,Gotya, Lalun and three other persons again retunrned.(i) The Applicant is 20 years old boy.He is in cunstody forfve and half years.There is noevidence to establish that the deceased was wearing the sameclothes at the time of incident.There is no other incriminating Ethape 5/11 BA.No.3110.19.docrecovery to corroborate the involvement of the Applicant in thecrime.The report wascalled from the trial Counrt with regard to statuns of the trial.He had statedthat fve unnknown persons were abunsing and assaunlting oneperson on 13th April 2015 ountside his hounse at abount 11:30 p.m.registered with Ambernath, Police Station, Dist.They abunsedAsha and Kalun.Gotya held collar of Kalun and all of themassaunlted and dragged him towards Bandar Chowk.On completinginvestigation, charge sheet is fled.4 Learned counnsel for the Applicant made followingsunbmissions:-(ii) There is no progress in the trial.Even the charge hasnot been framed.The witnesses have referred to Gotya and others aspersons who had dragged the deceased from the hounse ofwitness Asha Nagpunre @ Nasima Khan.However, Applicant isnot Gotya.Name of the Applicant is not refected in thestatement of witnesses.(iv) There is no docunment on record to establish that theApplicant is known as Gotya.No statement of any witness thatApplicant is also known as Gotya.Aadhar Card of the Applicantmentioned the name of the Applicant as Vishvanath NavnathInkar.The photocopy of Aadhar Card is annexed to application.(v) There is no test identifcation parade to identify theApplicant as one of the participant in the crime.(vi) Statement of Nasima, her mother and son wererecorded belatedly.(vii) There is alleged recovery of clothes of the deceased atthe instance of the Applicant from the place which is accessibleto punblic.There were no blood stains on the clothes.(viii) There are no criminal antecedents against theApplicant.(ix) There is no eye witness to incident of munrderingvictim and throwing his body in Nala.(x) Co-accunsed Atish @ Sonun Kamble and Pradip Baviskarare granted bail.Learned APP sunbmitted that, there is no progress inthe trial dune to non co-operation of the accunsed and pandemicsitunation.Statement of witnesses shows involvement of theApplicant in the crime.There is recovery of clothes of deceasedat the instance of the Applicant.The evidence of witnessesindicate that, the deceased was dragged and assaunlted by theApplicant and others and thereafter, the body was founnd.Knife isrecovered from the co-accunsed.Arrest form shows, nick name ofApplicant as 'Gotya'.While recording memorandunm statement ofApplicant leading to recovery of clothes of deceased, he gave hisname as Vishwanand @ Gotya Navnath Inkar.Learned Advocate Ethape 6/11 BA.No.3110.19.docfor the Applicant in rejoinder sunbmitted that since the witnesseshad referred to involvement of person named as Gotya, the nickname of Applicant has been shown as 'Gotya'.The application was allowed to be withdrawn withdirection to expedite the trial and to conclunde the same within aperiod of one year.In the event, the trial is not conclunded withinone year, the Applicant was granted liberty to prefer freshapplication for bail.Learned Sessions Jundge, Kalyan has forwarded report dated 16 thMarch, 2020 stating that, for several reasons, trial counld notproceed.It was stated that, the trial Counrt was bunsy in the timebond matters and also dealing with the application forAnticipatory Bail and other unrgent matters.Accunsed No.4remained absent on same occasions and accunsed Nos.1 to 3 werenot produnced by jail aunthority and charge counld not be framed.Ethape 7/11 BA.No.3110.19.docThe trial Counrt had requnested for extension of one year toconclunde the trial.The requnest of trial Counrt has been granted bythis Counrt.Learned Advocate for the Applicant sunbmitted thateven after the said report there is no progress in the trial.TheAadhar Card relied unpon by the Applicant shown his name asVishvanath Navnath Inkar.The statement of Nasima @ AshaNagpunre refers to name of the Gotya as one of the person whohad assaunlted and dragged the deceased from her hounse.On 13 thApril, 2015, statement of Smt. Madhunri Nagpunre, who is motherof Asha Nagpunre as well as the statement of Abhishek @Shahrunkh, who is the son of Nasima @ Asha has also referred tothe name of Gotya and others as the persons who has visited thehounse and dragged Kalun @ Kamlesh ount of the hounse.They did not report the incident to police or anyother persons.After the body of the deceased was founnd andidentifed by his parents, their statements were recorded.Statement of Abhishek @ Shahrunkh, who is son of Nasima @Asha Nagpunre was recorded.The statement of his Ethape 8/11 BA.According to Nasima Khan, the deceased met her at abount09:00 p.m. on 13th April 2015 and thereafter the deceasedaccompanied her in aunto rickshaw beyond of Sanket to herhounse.They reached home at abount 11:00 p.m. She funrtherstated that, since Kalun met her after long time he visited herhounse.The version of Smt. Madhunri Nagpunre with regard toincident dated, 13th April 2015 is similar to statement of NasimaKhan, Abhishek @ Shahrunkh stated that, friend of her motherChandan and Kalun unncle unsed to visit his hounse.He stated thatKalun unncle had come to their hounse.He consunmed liqunor atabount 10:00 p.m. and slept ount side the hounse.Gotya, Lalun andothers came to the hounse at abount 11:00 p.m. in search of hismothers' friend Chandan.They qunarreled with Kalun unncle andassaunlted him.Gotya was threatening Kalun Mama with knife.Theaccunsed dragged Kalun Mama towards rickshaw parked on theroad.The accunsed were also insisting that, Kalun unncle shounldprovide liqunor to them.Thereafter, his mother closed the doorand slept.He did not know where Kalun unncle was taken by theaccunsed.Thuns, from his statement different version is refected.He advised them not to qunarrel and also advised MadhunriNagpunre not to indunlge in qunarrel and abunses.The said personagain came at abount 12:30 hounrs in the night and dragged theperson to whom they were assaunlting dunring their previouns visit.However, there is no Test Identifcation Parade to identify theApplicant and others as the same person who had participated inthe said incidents.Learned APP has confrmed on instrunctionsthat accunsed Atish @ Sonun Ankunsh Kamble and Pradip @ BantiKishor Baviskar has been granted bail.The Applicant is incunstody fve and half years.There are no criminal antecedentsagainst the Applicant.Hence, I pass the following order :connection with C. R. No. I-99 of 2015 Registered with Ambernath Police Station, Dist.Thane, on execunting P.R. bond in the sunm of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thounsand Only) with one or more sunreties in the like amounnt;(iv) The Applicant shall report concerned police station once in a month on every frst Satunrday between 11.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. till funrther order;(v) The Applicant shall not approach/tamper the witnesses.(vi) The Applicant shall co-operate with the trial Counrt to conclunde the trial expeditiounsly.This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Counrt.All concerned will act on produnction by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate ordered such an investigation, and pursuant to search warrants issued by him certain blocks for manufacturing the counterfeit of the said trade mark as well as thick paper cartons with the said counterfeit trade mark printed upon them were recovered from some two printing presses and from the respondent.The respondent was found in possession of 375 such cartons with counterfeit trade marks upon them, marked' Exhibits III and III/1, a block which was marked Ex. II, as also two other blocks marked respectively Exs.IX and X. The last mentioned blocks, namely, Exs.IX and X were in fact made over by the respondent to the police at some stage of the investigation.Originally, a'man by name Chittaranjan De was put upon his trial in connection with the recovery of the said articles.In that trial the respondent was a witness for the prosecution.Chittaranjan De was, however, acquitted.Thereafter, the respondent was sent up to answer a charge under Section 485, Penal Code on three counts.The charge was as follows:

['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

It is seen that the petitioner is the defacto complainant and that he wasassaulted on 02.02.2016, in connection with which, he gave a complaint, basedon which, a case in Crime No.19 of 2016 was registered on 02.02.2016 foroffences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 307 IPC.In the complaintgiven by the petitioner, he has stated that six persons attacked him and hehas named four persons and not named two other persons.Therefore, in theFirst Information Report, there are four named accused and two unnamedaccused.It is the contention of the petitioner that apart from six persons,there are others also who were having enmity towards him and that they arealso behind this attack.Therefore, he has come up with the present petitionto include the names of other persons in the First Information Report.Unlikethe Code of Civil Procedure, where a plaint and written statement can beamended, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, a First Information Reportcannot be amended.During the course of investigation, if the police collectmaterials against the persons who are not named in the First InformationReport, it is needless to say that they should also be included in the finalreport.The Criminal Original Petition is closed with the above observation.1.The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.2.The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District.3.The Inspector of Police, Sethubavachatram Police Station, Thanjavur District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..

['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

His sons are all adults and are not dependents.He also showed his daughter- Shakeela as his dependent.He also availed LTC sh for the block year 2007-2010 and received amounts showing his wife, e daughter and mother as his dependents.He has been retired from the ad service.Petitioner No. 2- Md. Jahid is the brother of petitioner No. 1 Pr and he is also serving in the coal mine.He has availed LTC for the a block year 1995 to 1998 showing his father Rehmtulla, mother hy Shakeena and daughter Parveen Bano as his dependents.The mother, ad father of the petitioner No. 1 and 2 are same persons yet, they availed false LTC and obtained amounts.He shown his wife Julekha, father of Habibulla, mother Aamna as his daughter and son as his dependents, whereas he has been divorced, his wife is living separately along with rt his daughter- Nafeesa and are now not his dependents.The amounts ou showing the expenses of LTC for the block years of 2003-2006, has C been received by him.ad This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed to invoke M the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, and to quash the Criminal Complaint Case No. 364/2017, pending of before J.M.F.C, Budhar, District Shahdol in the interest of justice.Bereft of the unnecessary details, the facts requisite for ou disposal of this petition are that on a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C filed by the respondent No. 2 before the learned J.M.F.C C against the petitioners for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 h and 474 of I.P.C, the learned J.M.F.C after recording the statements of ig the complainant and witnesses under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C on H 01.11.2014, 08.07.2015 and 13.10.2015, passed the order impugned on 16.03.2017 taking cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 read with Section 34 of I.P.C and directed to issue notice to the petitioners/accused persons.It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner No. 1- Habibulla was an employee of SCEL, Sohagpur.It is claimed that in the block year 1995-1998, the petitioner showing his wife, son, daughter as his dependents availed LTC.He also availed LTC for the block year 1999-2002 showing them as his LRs.The petitioner No. 3- Md. Fazal has availed LTC and ig obtained amount for the block year of 2007-2010 showing his wife H Shaleha Khatoon, daughter Nafeesa, son Shahid, Rashid, Abeed and father Habibulla and mother Aamna Bi as his dependents.Learned J.M.F.C after recording the preliminary evidence has passed the order dated 16.03.2017 and taken cognizance of offence against the petitioners.The petitioners assailed the said order mainly on the following two grounds.:-

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.This habeas corpus petition is directed against the orders of detention passed under the National Security Act and the rejection of the representation of the petitioner by the respondent State Government confirming the detention order for a period of 12 months.The petitioner has a history of 31 criminal cases.The details have been given by the petitioner himself in Annexure 2 to the writ petition.This incident took the shape of an FIR lodged by the Inspector Incharge, Police Station Kutub Sher being Case Crime No. 306 of 2014, under Sections 147/148/149/307/504/506/436/336/332/353/153A/427 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and 3/4 Prevention of Public Property Damages Act.The FIR names 63 persons but the name of the petitioner appears prominently as the person having led a huge mob of 400 to 600 involved in attacking innocent people and causing loot and arson in the area inflaming wide spread communal passions with regard to a dispute over constructions on a piece of land adjacent to a Gurudwara.Before we deal with the law propounded by the Apex Court or in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to mention the allegations contained in the FIR which led to the arrest of the petitioner and the ingredients that were considered by the detaining authority on the strength of the report of the sponsoring authority.Sri Zaidi has urged that the FIR which specifies details extensively, was not possible to be orally informed as per the recital contained in the FIR.The contention appears to be that the FIR lodged on the oral statement of a police official namely the Inspector Incharge, Police Station Kutub Sher cannot be believed as it is difficult to reproduce by memory all such facts.The aforesaid argument of Sri Zaidi cannot be countenanced, inasmuch as, the material that has been brought on record including that which has been stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents including the State clearly indicates a dispute having arisen on account of the raising of certain constructions over a piece of land besides a Gurudwara which was being opposed by a particular community.Leaders of the said community wanted the administration to intervene and demolish such constructions and not having achieved their aim, they virtually took law in their own hands and created an atmosphere that ran wild fanning communal passions and collection of a huge irate mob.It is this description which has been made in the FIR copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the writ petition.A perusal thereof also indicates that the mob was about of 2000 people and both sides were inflamed with communal passions they had to be severely dealt with as they were fully armed with weapons.Brick batting and firing took place between the two communities and it also resulted in destruction of several vehicles belonging to the public as well as official vehicles and some shops were also set on fire.This resulted in a huge problem of public order and people started running helter and skelter out of fear.

['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Petitioner has filed affidavit of service.Let it be kept with the record.As such the Officer-in-Charge, Santiniketan Police Station is directed to serve the copy of the present revisional application along with all documents to the de facto complainant / Opposite Party No. 2 Sheli Chowdhury and to furnish a report before this Court within four weeks from date.The petitioner is directed to handover the copy of the revisional application along with all annexed documents and website copy of this order to the Officer-in-Charge, Santiniketan Police Station within one week from date.2 In the above situation, the interim order granted earlier be extended for a further period of four weeks or until further order whichever is earlier.Let the main revisional application appear in the list four weeks hence.(Madhumati Mitra, J.)

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Vide impugned judgment and order dated 18.9.2007 appellants Kishori and Rakesh have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.It has been held that the testimony of Meena PW-5 and Kishan Swarup PW-6 establishes that appellant Kishori caught hold of Satish and exhorted 'Finish the bastard' whereupon appellant Rakesh inflicted two knife blows, one each on the neck and the chest of Crl.A. No. 19/2008 & 187/2008 Page 1 of 6 Satish who succumbed to the injuries.Co-accused Virender Kumar and Jaiprakash have been acquitted.Charge for the offence punishable under Section 308/34 IPC against all accused has been held to be not established.A. No. 19/2008 & 187/2008 Page 1 of 6It may be noted that the charge for the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC pertained to the alleged assault on Jai Kumar PW-1, who admittedly sustained injuries at the same time and at the same place where Satish received injuries, but during trial Jai Kumar turned hostile and stated that he did not know as to who assaulted him.Kishan Swarup PW-6 is the father of the deceased.The noise led them to go outside their house and they saw Satish surrounded by the accused.Kishori was seen holding Satish and he said 'Kill the bastard' at which Chhotu @Rakesh stabbed him i.e. Satish with a knife.The cross-examination of the two witnesses suggests that the defence projected was that there was a blackout in the area due to which the children were on the street.There was excessive noise on the street and thus Meena and her father could not have heard any quarrel and in any case could not have seen who stabbed Satish because there was darkness all around and Meena and her father admitted that the place Crl.A. No. 19/2008 & 187/2008 Page 2 of 6 wherefrom they saw Satish being stabbed was about 25 to 30 paces from the spot where they were standing.A. No. 19/2008 & 187/2008 Page 2 of 6We note that the testimony of Praveen Kumar that when he came out of his house he saw Meena PW-5 and Kishan Swarup PW-6 at the spot with Satish lying on the street and that the area was well lit has not been questioned by cross-examining Praveen Kumar.Undisputably, Satish was stabbed on the public street at a distance of about 25 - 30 paces from the house where he lived at around 9:30 PM on 6.1.2003 and thus the presence of his father and sister as claimed by them is not unlikely.Both of them are natural witnesses to the incident.We thus hold, that the testimony of Meena and Kishan Swarup establishes that Kishori caught the deceased and Rakesh inflicted two knife blows on him.We note that Meena and Kishan Swarup alleged no role played by the other two co-accused with respect to the Crl.A. No. 19/2008 & 187/2008 Page 3 of 6 injuries caused to the deceased and hence the two have been acquitted.Their acquittal has attained finality.A. No. 19/2008 & 187/2008 Page 3 of 6But, the learned Trial Judge has lost sight of a very important fact.Even appellant Kishori evidenced by his MLC Ex.PW-22/C received injuries.He suffered a lacerated wound on the scalp and had swelling and tenderness in the left leg.As per the testimony of SI Bhopal Singh PW-26 and the testimony of Insp.Balwan Singh PW-29, Kishori was found admitted at Babu Jagjiwan Ram Memorial Hospital as he had received injuries.As deposed to by Jai Kumar PW-1, he was present in his house and rushed out on hearing noise.He saw a quarrel going on and in the hustle and bustle claims that somebody struck him.The PCR form Ex.PW-3/A records information that the caller had informed of a quarrel going on involving Satish and Kishori.Meena and her father had tried to explain the injury on Kishori by stating that the public caught Kishori and gave him a beating.But, neither PW-26 nor PW-29, the two officers who reached the spot where the offence took place on receiving information about the quarrel have stated that anyone from the public handed over Kishori to them and noticing that even Kishori was injured, they took him, or sent him under custody to the hospital.On the contrary, both of them have stated that they found Kishori admitted at the hospital and deputed a guard Crl.Thus, the actual words used get mutated.The exhortation: 'maar harami ko', which may mean 'beat the bastard' may get translated as 'kill the bastard'.It all depends upon how the translator perceives the issue.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The Prosecution has opposed the bail application.It is the allegation against the applicant that he entered into HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.1446/2018 (Raju Dhangar V/s.State of M.P.) 3 the house of the prosecutrix after the sunset with mala fide intention and caught her hand.On her screaming, applicant threatened to kill her.Trial is likely to take time.In view of the aforesaid and other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to release the accused on bail.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.1446/2018 (Raju Dhangar V/s.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest in connection with Crime No.211/2015 registered at Police Station Rehli, District Sagar for the offences punishable under Section 306/34 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizens of the locality, who have no criminal past as such.There was no relation of the applicants with the deceased so that presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act may apply.Actually the quarrel took place in the house because one Vasudev, after consuming some liquor, was making some disturbance.He was taken by the applicants to their house.He continued to make nuisance and therefore, Sahadev had committed suicide.There was no nexus between the death of the deceased, Sahadev and the overt-acts of the applicants.Therefore, the overt-acts of the applicants as alleged by the police do not fall within the purview of Section 107 of 109 of IPC and, hence, prima facie no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicants.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants.Consequently, they pray for anticipatory bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have a good case for grant of bail of anticipatory nature.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.Bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is given for a limited period so that the evidence received against the applicants during further investigation may be considered by the concerned Court, who shall consider their application under Sections 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) V. JUDGE Biswal

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

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

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No.124 of 2020 1/7http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.No.15210 of 2020 on the file of the respondent and quash the same.2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.124 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 120B, 465, 467, 468, 471, 109 and 420 of IPC, as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

ORDER Dixit, J.The applicant Ibrahim has been.convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mhow under Section 456, I.P.C. for house trespass in order to commit criminal adultery with one Parwati the wife of Ramcharan.He has been sentenced to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- or in default to suffer one month's imprisonment.The accused appealed unsuccessfully to the Sessions Judge Indore.Hence this revision petition.It is not disputed that on the night of 11-12-1952, between 11 P.M. and mid-night the applicant scaled a wall of the house where Parwati was living and entered a room where she was sleeping and that on the night of the occurrence Parwati's husband who was in the army was on duty away from Mhow.The applicant pleaded, and it has been found by both the Courts below on the evidence on record, that the applicant was on terms of intimacy with Parwatibai for over four years and that on 11-12-1952 he entered the house on the invitation of Parwati.The only question for determination is whether the entry in the house was with the intention necessary to make it a criminal trespass.As the applicant entered the house on the invitation of Parwati there can be no question of Ills entering the house with intent to intimidate, Insult or annoy Parwati or her brother-in-law Jugdishprasad who was in another room at the time of the occurrence.The lower Courts have found that the accused entered the house of Parwati with intent to commit adultery with her.In my opinion the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel must be given effect to and the conviction of the applicant must be set aside.The charge framed is unmistakably defective.It only stated that the accused entered the room where Parwati was sleeping by scaling a wall for the purpose of a secret meeting with her.If two persons are in love for several years and meet frequently and arrange their meetings at odd times in order to keep their affair a secret, it does not necessarily follow that at every meeting the intention of the parties is to have an intercourse.It is possible to conceive that the meeting in question may have been for other forms of' expression of love.

['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

On the complaint lodged by N.Radha @ Radhakrishnan, the 2nd respondent herein, the 1st respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.2523 of 2014 on 11.11.2014 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC against the petitioners herein and two others for quashing which the petitioners are before this court with this original petition on the ground that the parties have arrived at a compromise.Today, Mr.Dhinakaran, Sub Inspector of Police, R-5, Virugambakkam Police Station, is present.1st petitioner S.P.Senthilkumar and the 2nd respondent N.Radha @ Radha are also present in court.The 2nd respondent has filed a sworn affidavit, wherein in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 it is stated as follows:-I submit that based on the complaint lodged by me the 1st respondent registered a F.I.R. in Crime No.2523 of 2014 U/s.147, 148, 294(b), 323 & 506(ii) of IPC.During the pendency of the case myself and the petitioners have compromised among us, that for the welfare of the Association we will work together.I further submit that myself and the petitioners have also entered into a joint compromise that we will withdraw the cases against us.04..10..2016This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case in Crime No.2523 of 2014 pending on the file of the 1st respondent police against the petitioners.I submit that the petitioners have also sworn a separate affidavit herein reports the compromise and seeking quash of the proceedings in Crime No.2523 of 2014 dated 11.11.2014 pending on the file of 1st respondent.I submit that prima facie the issue was civil in nature, nevertheless the issue has been amicably settled between me and the petitioners and therefore, the pendency of the case would not serve any useful purpose."The parties have also filed a joint compromise memo.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners volunteer to pay some amount for the public cause.In view of the above, this criminal original petition is allowed and the FIR in Crime No.2523 of 2014 on the file of the 1st respondent police is hereby quashed.The petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy, Chennai 600028 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.04..10..2016 kmkTo1.The Inspector of Police, R-5, Virugambakkam Police Station, Virugambakkam, Chennai.P.N.PRAKSH.J., kmk Crl.O.P.No.22058 of 2016

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The present appellants suffered conviction and the jail sentence as follows :Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the FIR, which was lodged by the prosecution witness Dinesh, it was written that at the time of incident the miscreants had their faces covered by cloths.Only one person was without cloth on his face.However, in the test identification parade, all the accused were identified by this prosecution witness and, therefore, the identification is doubtful.The property seized from the shop of PW-10, who had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case that the present appellants sold the property to him.He further submits that during trial the present appellants remained on bail and never misused the liberty granted to them.It is directed that on production of personal bond for Rs.50,000/- each and a solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on payment of fine, the appellants shall be released on bail for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22.03.2016, and thereafter, on each subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this behalf.C.C. as per rules.( Alok Verma) Judge Kafeel

['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard arguments.Perused case diary and material on record.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.477/2016 registered at Police Station Kareli of Narsinghpur district against him for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 324, 506 and later added 326 of the IPC.According to the prosecution, in the day time of 05.06.2016 in village Imjhiri the applicant hurled filthy abuses at injured Bhupendra Singh and inflicted blows of lathi on his person and also threatened to kill him.She submits that on the basis of the CT scan report, the police added the offence under Section 326 of the IPC.She submits that the injured is now hale and hearty and that he has been doing normal work after discharge from the hospital.She submits that this is the first ever criminal case registered against the applicant and that he has no criminal antecedents.She submits that when the applicant was released on bail by the police he had not misused the liberty.Upon these submissions, she prays for grant of bail to the applicant.The learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE ac/-

['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The prosecution case in short is that marriage of deceased Sarita and appellant was solemnized just before 3 years of the incident.It is also alleged that deceased Sarita was ill treated by appellant and other co-accused(acquitted).Deceased Sarita narrated the fact of demand of dowry to her father Motiram(P.W.1), mother Kaushalya bai(P.W.4) and niece Julie(P.W.9).It is also alleged that appellant directly made demand of refrigerator, bed, scooter and colour TV from Motiram(P.W.1).As per G.S. Solanki,J.:The First Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur passed the impugned judgment dated 25.01.2005 in S.T. No. 640/02 by which the appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, further Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months.Being aggrieved the appellant/accused has preferred 2 this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.A marg was registered in the Police Station Garha.Dead body was sent for post-mortem examination.Dr. Arun Sen performed the autopsy on the body of deceased Sarita who opined that death was due to the burn infection.After usual investigation appellant along with other co- accused was charge-sheeted.Learned trial Court framed the charges against the appellant/accused under Sections 498-A,304-B of I.P.C.The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence.After appraisal of evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the co-accused however appellant was convicted under 498-A of IPC and sentenced as mentioned herein above.Hence, this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that looking to the evidence on record, he is not challenging the conviction recorded by the trial Court.He further submitted that a dying declaration(Ex.D-4) was recorded by Dr. Aalok Somani immediately after the admission of deceased Sarita in hospital which reveals that deceased Sarita burnt accidentally and her husband(appellant) tried to save her.Learned counsel for the State also has no objection to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.It is true that this appellant tried to save his wife at the time of burning.This can be considered as mitigating circumstances.On considering this fact, I am also of the view that if appellant be convicted for jail sentence already undergone( 16.6.2002 to 1.11.2002, approximately 4 and half months) and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine further Simple Imprisonment for 3 months, end of 4 justice would be met outIn these circumstances, appeal is partly allowed.Conviction recorded by trial Court against the appellant under Section 498-A of I.P.C. is hereby affirmed and the sentence is altered in the following way :-" appellant is sentenced, for jail sentence(from 16.6.2002 to 1.11.2002, approximately 4 and half months) of already undergone and fine of Rs. 10,000/- .In default of fine further Simple Imprisonment for 3 months."Record of the trial Court be sent back along with the copy of judgment for compliance and necessary action.The appellant is on bail.His bail bonds stand discharged.If any fine amount is deposited, set off be given.(G.S. Solanki) JUDGE 20/01/2011 Ba 5

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

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

Shri Sushant Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.State of MP] same day, with a further prayer for appropriate direction to the Court of Warrant Magistrate that on such production if any application under Section 437 of CrPC is filed on behalf of the applicant, then the same be considered and adjudicated on merits in accordance with law on the same day by such Court.2 M. Cr. C. No. 5157/2015Certified copy.(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge MKB

['Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The appellants are in judicial custody.PW 5 stated that he mentioned in his report that there was no nail scrap or hair on the private parts and hymen is absent.He also stated that there is no instrument in their hospital for examination of injury in private parts of such patients.It reveals from his evidence that he recorded voluntary statements of 'R' and 'S' following the legal formalities.He denied the suggestion during cross- examination that the victim girls were actually tutored by police personnel.He opined that 'S' had undergone recent sexual intercourse.He also opined that 'R' was capable of sexual intercourse and he mentioned in his report (exhibit- 9) that it is not possible to say exactly whether 'R' was raped or not but in all possibilities she underwent sexual intercourse.In cross- examination he denied that he opined on examination of the victim girls at the request of the investigating police officer and that the real observation were not reflected in his reports.He also stated that if a female was raped forcibly and successively by three persons expectedly there would be (injuries) on thigh and private parts of the victim (in the recording of evidence the word 'injuries' has not been used).He also medically examined the three accused persons and found each of them capable for sexual intercourse which evidence is unchallenged.PW 10 held post mortem examination over the dead body of 'R' on 27.04.2001 but did not arrive at the conclusion regarding cause of her death.During his cross-examination he stated that subsequently he mentioned the name of accused persons at the bottom of the said FIR in consultation with the neighbours who belong to C.P.I. (M) party and police officers.He wrote the same at the house of PW 1 at 2 to 2:30 p.m. in presence of police and local people.PW 12 investigated the case.We do not have doubt to say that the statement, referred to above made by PW 11 in his cross- examination is not the true state of affairs.In this connection, it will not be out of place to mention that in examination in chief PW 1 stated, "On the next day morning I thereafter narrated the incident to my neighbour Tiloka who instructed me to go to one political person named Janardhan and I met with the said Janardhan who also advised me to file to case.Thereafter, I went to the P.S. Sonarpur and lodged a written complaint against the accused persons.The said written complaint was written by one (named PW 11) of our village.I put my LTI on the written complaint".Complain was prepared at Sonarpur P.S. and another complain was written in my house.The Duty Officer of the P.S. Sonarpur also recorded my statement.In the evidence of PW 9 read with exhibits 8 and 9 it was opined that both 'S' and 'R' were capable to sexual intercourse and that 'S' had undergone recent sexual intercourse.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction dated 28th April, 2010 and order dated 29th April, 2010 of sentence of the accused-appellants to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine for further rigorous imprisonment for six months each for a charge of gang-rape on two victims this appeal has been preferred by the appellants jointly.Said judgment and order are hereinafter termed as impugned judgment.At the very outset we like to note that since inception of the case at Sonarpur police station a mistake was carried over till pronouncement of the impugned judgment in the trial Court.The allegation/charge of 'gang-rape' was described as offence under Section 376 G or 376 (g) of the Indian Penal Code instead of 376 (2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code.The incident was reported by the mother (PW 1) of the victims at Sonarpur police station on the following morning (on 9.4.2001) at 9:45 a.m. and said written information was registered as FIR by PW 8 as Assistant Sub- Inspector attached to the police station at that time.Since the endorsement (exhibit- 7/1) in exhibit- 7 appears to have been torn out the writings cannot be read at present.Signature portion of PW 8 still remains.However, it is clear that at the time of recording evidence of PW 8 endorsement portion was not torn out.Nothing was suggested even to PW 8 during his cross-examination to disbelieve him.The allegations made by illiterate PW 1 in exhibit- 6 in a nutshell is that in the night of 8.4.2001 the PW 1 and her daughter 'S' were sleeping on a cot and her another daughter 'R' was sleeping separate in the same varandah of their house.At about 11:30 p.m. 7/8 miscreants trespassed into the house and some of them committed rape on 'R' simultaneously.They also committed rape on 'S' simultaneously.Then the miscreants told the other two daughters of PW 1 to open the door and abused them in filthy language.Said two daughters of PW 1 opened the door and caught hold of the feet of the miscreants to spare them without torture when the miscreants told them that one Badal was driven out with help of some boys of Kharki and said Badal should be brought back by the next date and the miscreants threatened that more injury would be caused upon them if they would not call back Badal by the next date.PW 1 and her daughters could identify the appellants (named) among the miscreants.His report was marked exhibit- 3 during trial.On 10.4.2001 the FIR was produced before the Magistrate in Court and it was acknowledged putting signature without seal with date but it was not written in order-sheet.On that date both the victims were medically examined by PW 9 as Assistant Chief Medical Officer of Health (Medico-Legal), 24 Parganas (South).The reports of PW 9 were marked exhibits 8 and 9 during trial.Said statements have been marked exhibits 4 and 5 during trial.After eighteen days (on 26.4.2001) of the alleged incident of rape the victim elder sister 'R' committed suicide consuming poison.PW 12 as Sub-Inspector of Sonarpur police station held inquest (report is exhibit- 2) over the dead body of 'R' and on 27.4.2001 the PW 10 held post mortem examination (report is exhibit- 13) over the dead body of 'R'.In the trial charge was read over and explained to the three accused appellants as -"That you, the above named accused persons on 8th April '01 at 11-00 p.m. or 12 in the night of that day (Sunday) along with other 8/9 persons, in furtherance of common intention, entered the house of one" (named PW 1 which is not mentioned here) at (mentioned in 'charge' the names of village, P.O., P.S. and district which are also not mentioned here) committed gang-rape i.e. one after another to one (named 'R') since deceased and another (named 'S') both daughter of aforesaid (named PW 1 and her husband) and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 376 (g) of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court of Sessions".He advanced his arguments that PW 12 being the investigating police officer visited the place of occurrence and seized some articles therefrom on the basis of FIR on 09.04.2001 at 11:30 a.m. which is evident from cross-examination of PW 12 duly corroborated by rough sketch map (exhibit- 15) and seizure list (exhibit- 1).PW 12 was also not asked about the date and time of despatch of the FIR from police station sending it to Court.He further submitted that PW 12 produced both the victims 'R' and 'S' before PW 5 for medical examination which fact is also proved by PW 12, PW 5 and PW 2 (victim 'S').Regarding the depositions of PW 1 and PW 11 about time of writing the complaint at 2:00/2:30 p.m. on 09.04.2001 in the house of PW 1 it has been argued on behalf of the State that no such complaint which was written at 2:00/2:30 p.m. on 09.04.2001 was ever lodged at police station and since the PW 8 is an independent witness and he firmly stated that he received exhibit- 7 written complaint from PW 1 on 09.04.2001 at 9:45 a.m. and put his endorsement (exhibit- 7/1) thereon and drew up exhibit- 6 formal FIR and nothing contrary was elicited in his cross-examination nothing wrong can be inferred about lodging of FIR and forwarding the same to the learned Magistrate.It is significant to note that it transpires from exhibit- 6 that it was registered at police station by PW 8 on 09.04.2001 at 9:45 a.m. and names of accused-appellants were very much present there.It also transpires from exhibit- 6 that the distance between the police station and place of occurrence which is the house of PW 1 is 10 kms.Exhibit- 7 also contains the names of three accused- appellants as members of the gang of 7/8 miscreants who could be identified in that gang by PW 1 as eye-witness of occurrence.As such, we cannot accept that the FIR was ante-timed or names of accused-appellants were written in the FIR subsequently.As such, only on the basis of putting signature by learned Magistrate on 10.04.2001 it cannot be said that provision under Section 157, Cr.P.C. for sending the first information report forthwith from police station to Magistrate was not complied with.Even if we believe for the sake of arguments that the FIR which was registered at police station on 09.04.2001 at 9:45 a.m. was forwarded to learned Magistrate on 10.04.2001 it will not be a cogent ground to disbelieve the whole prosecution case on that count.Therefore, we accept the arguments advanced on behalf of the State on this point.Next phase of arguments of learned advocate for the appellants is that the investigating police officer (PW 12) did not examine vital witnesses including the husband of PW 1 and also two daughters of PW 1 who were present in the room when the alleged occurrence took place in the varandah of the house and came out of the room at the instance of miscreants as alleged.She gave her statement about the occurrence before PW 6 on 10.04.2001 and said statement was recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. administering oath to her.According to him, non-examination of the husband and other two daughters of PW 1 cannot be considered fatal and non-examination of neighbouring people may not be considered to have any consequence.He also submitted that there is no evidence on record to prove that husband of PW 1 was present in the house in that fateful night.During trial, PW 1 was examined and cross-examined on oath.She is the informant of the case as she lodged exhibit- 7 complaint at P.S. In exhibit- 7 she expressed her apprehension of publicity of the scandal which may create problem in giving her daughters in marriage.She requested the officer-in-charge of the police station to keep in mind that aspect during investigation.Under such circumstance, non-examination of the other daughters of PW 1 by the investigating police officer would not be essential for the completion of the investigation.There is no positive evidence on record that in the fateful night the husband of PW 1 was present in their house.As such, his non-examination is also not fatal.PW 2 was examined and cross-examined on oath as a victim of the occurrence.She also made statement before PW 6 and her statement (exhibit- 5) was recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. It is undisputed that another victim 'R' died on 26.04.2001 due to her unnatural death.There is no evidence on record that any other person had direct knowledge of the occurrence but not examined as a witness.The persons whose names transpired during trial might have gathered knowledge about the occurrence from PW 1 or victims.As such, they would give evidence on the basis of hearsay.Their non-examination as witnesses cannot be considered as fatal for the prosecution.In a criminal trial evidence is not required to be counted by number of witnesses but to be weighed even in case of a single witness.Strong possibility of witnessing any incident by particular person(s) and non-examination of such person(s) as witness sometimes becomes relevant factor for determining a question as to whether such vital witness who might have thrown light for unfolding the truth of any incident was withheld or not.But here, there is nothing within four corners of the record to suggest that any vital witness was deliberately withheld by prosecution without special reason for which an adverse inference may be drawn against the prosecution.Therefore, we find that non- examination of any person as witness in this case does not affect the prosecution case.Referring to the depositions of PW 1, PW 2, PW 5, PW 9, PW 11 and PW 12 and to the exhibited FIR and medical reports learned advocate for the appellants argued that there are exaggerations and embellishments in the depositions of PW 1 and PW 2 and that there is no sufficient evidence to prove that 'R' and 'S' were ravished and that the names of accused-appellants were written subsequently in the complaint of FIR in consultation with some political leaders with whom the accused persons had political enmity and that prosecution failed to prove any source of light by which the PW 1 and the victims might have identified the accused persons.He submitted that the prosecution relied upon interested witnesses like PW 1 and police officials and doctor of police hospital and their evidence should be scrutinized carefully which was not done in the impugned judgment.Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that all the appellants should be found not guilty of the alleged offence in trial and they deserve acquittal setting aside the impugned judgment on merit in this appeal.He advanced his arguments that no enmity between police witnesses or doctor witnesses and the appellants was also established for which independent status of said witnesses could be doubted.We have carefully gone through the citation reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 (supra) and the evidence adduced by prosecution in trial as a whole keeping ourselves away from being influenced by isolated scrutiny.Of course, we like to consider the evidence with due care and caution and to accept that evidence which is intrinsically reliable and inherently probable adopting the principle of separating grains from the chaff.In the instant case, the illiterate PW 1 complained at police station that in the night of 08.04.2001 while she alongwith "S' on one bed and 'R' on an another bed in the varandah of their house were sleeping, 7/8 miscreants trespassed in the house and several miscreants ravished 'R' and 'S'.In her complaint she expressed her apprehension that she would have problem in giving in marriage to her unmarried daughters if the scandal would be made public.Prosecution examined twelve witnesses and also adduced fifteen documents as evidence in trial but accused persons did not adduce any evidence.In the instant case under appeal, during trial out of twelve witnesses of prosecution PW 3 (a co-villager of PW 1), PW 4 (a neighbour of PW 1) and PW 7 (a co-villager of PW 1) were declared hostile.It is a case relating to an offence of gang-rape upon two sisters as alleged by prosecution.The allegation is very serious.Ordinarily, eye-witness other than the victim is hardly available in a rape case but in the instant case the mother (PW 1) of the two alleged victims facing lengthy cross-examination has deposed claiming herself as an eye-witness and the PW 2 as one of the victims also facing lengthy cross-examination has deposed claiming that she was ravished and she also witnessed the incident of gang- rape upon her elder sister 'R' who committed suicide after 18 days of the incident of gang-rape.Both the PW 1 and PW 2 identified the three accused- appellants as authors of the crime.PW 5 examined medically to PW 2 and 'R' on 09.04.2001 at Sonarpur Rural hospital and on examination he did not find external injury on their body or sign of violence in their private parts or nail scrap or hair but he found their hymen ruptured although he mentioned in exhibit- 3 that he found hymen of them absent.He referred both the victims to specialist in institution (Medical College and Hospital, Calcutta) for their examination.PW 5 did not express any opinion as to whether the victims were sexually assaulted or not.During his cross- examination he opined that nail marks and mark of violence by three persons on a female may or may not be found on the thigh of the victim and injury on private parts of a victim may or may not be found even if three persons commit rape forcibly to her and injury on back side of the victim may or may not be found if three persons consecutively raped upon her.I do not know whether the statement given at the P.S. at first was treated as FIR or not.The complain prepared in my house in presence of police, Janardhan Bag, Joydev Bodak, Tiloka Mondal and some other C.P.M. Party members".In our considered opinion a doubt might have been cast upon genuineness of the exhibit- 7 if there would not have the exhibit- 7/1 endorsement of PW 8 on exhibit- 7 and duty hours of PW 8 would have continued beyond 2:00 p.m. on 09.04.2001 and there would have been any suggestion to PW 8 that he prepared exhibit- 6 subsequently after his duty hours of that date with any oblique motive.We are not convinced to doubt with reasoning that the accused persons might have been implicated after lodging of the real FIR at police station at the instance of police and/or any politically biased person.Since no direct nexus of the persons whose names were mentioned by PW 1 with the commission of the alleged incident is established in this case their non-examination as witnesses cannot be treated as fatal for the prosecution.In our opinion, consultation made by illiterate PW 1 after occurrence with some others for getting advice about her course of action is not at all a sin but is quite natural for an illiterate village woman.In respect of the arguments on behalf of appellants on the point of exaggeration and embellishment it appears from exhibit- 7 that in FIR PW 1 did not mention that the miscreants threatened her at the point of gun but in her deposition she made such statement.In her cross-examination she stated that miscreants put a gun at her while she was sleeping at sky face and two miscreants stood before her and seeing them she became frightened.She also stated that in the FIR she stated that the miscreants threatened her at the point of gun.It is a matter of consideration as to whether absence of such statement in FIR is an omission or contradiction and whether the evidence of PW 1 in that respect is exaggeration and embellishment or not.We have gone through the entire deposition of PW 1 wherefrom it appears that she could not be shaken from her stand point that her two daughters 'R' and 'S' were raped by several persons in the fateful night on the cots laid in their varandah where 'R and 'S' were sleeping.PW 1 claims herself as eye-witness of that terrible incident.She is the mother of two victims.Circumstance, established about the occurrence from the evidence of PW 1, leans to suggest that PW 1 omitted to mention in FIR (exhibit- 7) that she was threatened by miscreants at point of gun.Statement of PW 1 in that connection may not be considered as her exaggeration or embellishment or contradiction.Medical evidence adduced by prosecution speaks that on 09.04.2001 PW 5 medically examined 'S' and 'R' at Sonarpur Rural Hospital and prepared his reports which have been marked exhibits 3 and 4 respectively.He did not express any opinion as to whether 'S' and 'R' were sexually assaulted in the night of 08.04.2001 or not.He referred the victims to specialist of institution specifying medical college for opinion.The victims were subsequently examined on 10.04.2001 by PW 9 who was not attached to any medical college but was posted as A.C.M.O.H. (Medico Legal) in the district of 24 Parganas (South).In the reported case the victim could not be examined as witness but her close relations were examined as witnesses who stated about the troubles and tribulations of the victim as narrated by victim.Since PW 2 is one of the victims and PW 1 is her mother and eye-witness of the occurrence, their depositions may be compared with their earlier statements with due care and caution to consider as to whether they exaggerated the facts or added new facts in their depositions to see the accused persons are punished.We like to add here that PW 1 stood with credibility during cross-examination facing dozens of irrelevant or remote relevant questions also.In exhibit- 5 PW 1 also stated that one person placed iron rod also and that tied the mouth of PW 1 but such statement was not made by PW 1 in exhibit- 7 or in her deposition and so for want of corroboration by PW 1 we do not accept that the mouth of PW 1 was tied by miscreants.However, evidence of PW 2 and exhibit- 5 is more or less corroborative each other and said evidence is not considered to be exaggeration or embellishment though it is true that in exhibit- 5 she did not specifically mention the name of appellant Tarun Mondal as one of the miscreants but as PW 2 she identified him as an accused in her deposition.Be it noted that in exhibit- 5 she stated that Kabu, Kanchi and an another person raped her and in her deposition PW 2 stated that three accused persons raped her.She also could not be shaken in cross-examination from her assertive evidence against the accused persons about commission of the offence.In our opinion, the evidence of PW 2 as a whole by separating the grains from the chaff and ignoring minor discrepancy is the best evidence of prosecution and it needs no corroboration.PW 1 also deposed in the same tune.Be it noted that seized alamats were produced in Court during trial as Mat.exhibit- I collectively.Under such circumstances, non-production of said two daughters of PW 1 in witness box for corroborating the substantive evidence of PW 1 and her two victim daughters cannot be considered fatal for the prosecution.Be it noted that prosecution does not claim that said two daughters of PW 1 actually saw any incident of rape on 'R' and 'S' in the varandah when they remained in a room under closed door.Regarding age of 'S' at the relevant time exhibit- 14 ossification test report has been marked on formal proof being dispensed with.Exhibit- 14 dated 21.06.2001 speaks the age of 'S' was between 15 to 17 years at the time of her examination.No question was put to PW 1 who is mother of 'S' about age of 'S'.During cross- examination PW 2 stated on 07.07.03 her age as 15 years.She also stated that at the relevant time of occurrence she was reading in class-VI.Said evidence indicates that at the relevant time of occurrence PW 2 was matured enough to understand rape and its consequence.Learned advocate for the appellants also argued that in the absence of specific evidence about any source of light at the time of alleged occurrence the evidence adduced by prosecution regarding identity of accused-appellants cannot be believed.This argument does not appear to us convincing because in lengthy cross- examination of PW 1 and PW 2 not even a single question was put to them as to how they identified the accused persons although the appellants were identified during their examination-in-chief and in particular, the PW 2 stated that these three miscreants committed rape on her successively and forcibly.From the totality of evidence adduced by prosecution one thing is clear that PW 1 is a supporter of a particular political party and the accused-appellants are supporters of opposite political party.This circumstance is a double edged weapon.Appellants took the defence that due to political rivalry they were falsely implicated by PW 1 in collusion with members of the political party to which she belonged.It is to be considered whether this defence was established by preponderance of probability in the trial or not.In exhibit- 7 on the very following morning of the fateful night the PW 1 clearly mentioned that in the night of occurrence the miscreants stated that since Badal was driven out bringing the boys of Kharki, said Badal must be called back by the next date; otherwise they would cause more harm to PW 1 and others.Appellants did not claim their any relation or connection with said Badal during trial.But the PW 1 was asked several questions to PW 1 about Badal Naskar.In response to such questions made on behalf of appellants no. 1 and 2 PW `1 stated, "I know Badal Naskar, my neighbour villager I know Basistha Bar.Badal Naskar is the bhaira bhai of Basistha Bar.There is an agreement for sale of the property on a consideration of Rs.30,000/- only by and between my husband and Basistha Bar.The agreement for sale however, subsequently was not registered.My husband did not repay the said advance money of Rs.30,000/- to Badal Naskar".Again, during cross-examination the PW 1 was asked questions in the same topic on behalf of appellant Tarun Mondal to which she answered, "An agreement in respect of piece of land adjacent to our bastoo land was made by and between my husband and one Basistha Bar.My husband did not repay the amount of Rs.30,000/- relating to the above land to Basistha Bar at the time of occurrence.Not a fact that piror to the occurrence, we under the leadership of one Habul Mondal of village Kharki assaulted and ousted one Badal Naskar and his family in order to grab a sum of Rs.30,000/- from Basistha Bar, taken by my husband as advance.We threatened the accused person and their family members by saying that we would not repay the said amount of Rs.30,000/- only".Exhibit- 7 indicates that such annoyance of appellants prompted them to commit the offence as a mark of revenge.Therefore, we may safely hold and we hold that the accused-appellants hopelessly failed to establish their defence by preponderance of probability when the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts.In the impugned judgment the learned Additional Sessions Judge discussed more or less the depositions of all witnesses of prosecution and held, "In the light of my above discussions and observations I find that the prosecution has proved the facts by cogent and sufficient evidence that the accused persons were involved in committing the Gang rape on the date of occurrence as stated by PW 1 and 2, who identified them during trial".We do not find reason to differ with that observation.As a result, the conviction and sentence of the accused- appellants awarded in the impugned judgment for their committing gang-rape on PW 2 ('S') and her elder sister 'R' (since deceased) in presence of PW 1 who is the mother of both the victims in the varandah of their dwelling house in the mid night of 08.04.2001 stand confirmed by us.

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Vijay Kumar and 8 others (life convicts) have challenged the legality and vires of their continued imprisonment in Tihar Jail after their transfer from the Borstal Jail at Faridkot.Vijay Kumar at the time of the commission of the offence was 18 years old.Dalip Singh Chand : Dalip Singh was convicted for offences under Sections 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and he was sentenced to imprisonment for life on the first charge, rigorous imprisonment for 4 years on the second charge, and rigorous imprisonment for one year on the last charge.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Dalip Singh at the relevant time is stated to be 17 years old.Ram Kumar : Ram Kumar.aged 19, was convicted for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment on the first charge and to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years on the second charge.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Karamvir Singh : Karamvir Singh aged 19 was tried along with Ram Kumar, mentioned at serial No. 3, and he was also convicted on the charges under Sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to the same terms of imprisonment as Ram Kumar.We may mention here that both Ram Kumar and Karamvir Singh have filed appeal against their convictions and sentences and their appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 1982) is pending in the High Court.On attaining the age of 23 years, the respondent sent a letter to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh requesting it to issue a writ of habeas corpus to the State Government to release him.The High Court treated the letter as a writ petition and after hearing the State Government passed an order directing the State Government to release the respondent.Against the said order the State Government went in appeal to the Supreme Court.(16) One of the questions raised before the Supreme Court was regarding the applicability of Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.No. 157 of 1983) challenged the legality and validity of their transfer to the Borstal Jail at Faridkot.Notice of that petition was given to the Stale and the Deputy Superintendent of Central Jail, New Delhi in his reply dated 16th May 1983 had stated that the convicts Ram Kumar and Karamvir Singh were transferred to the Borstal Jail, Faridkot, as they were juveniles and the Borstal School has been created to lodge juvenile offenders with an aim to provide certain environmental conditions, like education and playing facilities, to shape the character of such offenders.The said petition was disposed of by one of us (R.N. Aggarwal, J.) and Mr. Justice G.R. Luthra with the following observations : "The petitioners who were of very young ages at the time of the commission of the offence have been found guilty of rape and murder.Karamvir was medically examined soon after the occurrence and he was found to be suffering from gonorrhea which shows that the said petitioner had fallen in had ways and was having relations with women of ill-repute.The Tihar Jail has no arrangements similar to Faridkot Jail for young offenders.We are of the view that if the petitioners are transferred back to Tihar Jail they are likely to mix with hardened criminals which may have further adverse effect on their character and future growth.We find that the transfer of the petitioners to the Faridkot Borstal Jail is in the interest of the petitioners.This may cause a little hardship to the relations of the petitioners in visiting the petitioners at Faridkot but this inconvenience has to be overlooked in the larger interest of the petitioners.(22) The petitioners at serial Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 9 have pleaded that they have completed 10 years rigorous imprisonment including the remissions earned by them and they are eligible to be considered for premature release under para 516-B(6) of the Punjab Jail Manual.We direct that the cases of Vijay Kumar, Jai Parkash, Dalip Singh and 0m Parkash shall be considered for premature release by the Sentence Revising Board in accordance with Law.(23) Shri R.T.L. D'Souza, Vice President, Free Legal Aid Cell, Central Jail Tihar, was present in the court and he informed us that there is a separate ward for juvenile offenders and there are also arrangements for education.We hope that the government would set up a Borstal School in the Union Territory of Delhi for imparting education and training in various industries to juvenile offenders so that juvenile offenders are completely segregated from the hardened criminals and, in course of time, they become good and useful citizens.(24) The petition is dismissed.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

In the matter of :- Debranjan Adhikari Mr. Arindam Jana Mr. Arun Kumar Chakraborty ....for the petitioner This is an application for quashing of a proceeding in which a charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 354, 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows.It was alleged that the petitioner was a deed writer.An agreement was entered into by the defacto-complainant/proposed purchaser with the accused/sellers in respect of a property in the presence of all the accused including the present petitioner.The money mentioned in the deed was different from the money that was actually paid.After the defacto-complainant received a notice in a pre-emption case in respect of the said property, he and other went to the accused to seek redressal.The accused refused to give any undertaken and on the contrary, assaulted the defacto-complainant and also outraged the modesty of his wife.The accused also used filthy language and abusive words demeaning them by taking the name of their caste.However, in the charge-sheet, a difference story was given that the accused/sellers denied to execute the sale deed.Besides, it was mentioned in the charge-sheet that the witnesses who were examined only gave out hearsay accounts that they got from the victim lady and the complainant and that a scuffle occurred when the victim and her husband/defacto-complainant went to the house of the accused seeking redressal.It was only the defacto-complainant and her wife, the interested parties, who were making such allegations.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Accordingly,thisapplicationis,therefore,rejected.1 2017 n CRM No. 8300 of 2017 In the matter of : An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure affirmed on 21.08.2017 in connection with Dubrajpur P.S. Case No.102 of 2014 dated 4.6.2017 under Sections 147/148/332/333/186/353/325/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 25/27/35 of the Arms Act and under Section 9(b)(I) of the Indian Explosive Act and Section of the Explosive SubstanceAnd In re : Sk.Faruk @ Sayed Faruk & Ors. ....Petitioners.We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and perusedthecasediary.Thepetitionernos.1to7areincustodyforabout3yearsand3months,253days, 387 days, 1 year and 5 months, 1 year 2 months, 1 year 3 months and 1 year 8 months respectively.The trial has already been commenced.Out of 19 prosecution witnesses 9 havealreadybeenexamined.ItissubmittedbythelearnedAdvocateappearingonbehalfofthepetitionersthat the victim SubInspector of Police survived for about 57 days and his dying declaration wasrecorded.Itisalsosubmittedbyhimthatthoughthesimilarprayerofthepetitioners wasrejectedonanearlieroccasion,thereisdelayincompletionofthetrial.2 Our attentions have been drawn by the learned State Advocate towards the relevantmaterialsintheCaseDiarytoshowthatitisanunfortunatecasewhentheSub Inspector of Police of Dubrajpur Police Station was killed while he was on duty.Our attentionshavealsobeendrawntheorderdatedJanuary4,2017passedbyacoordinate benchofthisCourt,inCRM10656of2016,toshowthatsimilarprayerofthepetitioners wasrejectedonthatoccasion.Considering the gravity of charges and seriousness of allegations levelled against the petitioners and the fact of earlier rejection of the prayer of the petitioners by a coordinatebenchofthisCourt,andthereisnosubsequentdevelopmentsinthematter, wearenotinclinedtoallowtheprayerofthepetitionersforgrantingbail.

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment sh of the FIR registered at Crime No.264/2012 at P.S. Dharnavada, District Guna for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC as e ad well as entire consequential proceedings.Pr a It is submitted that injury which was caused was not on any vital hy part of the body and was caused on the palm of hand, and therefore, it ad is submitted that parties have decided to settle their dispute and they have to go a long way being residents of same area, hence, this M compromise be accepted.

['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Case diary is available.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.Thereafter, Lakhan fired gunshot and remaining accused assaulted the complainant and his brother with lathi etc. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the matter.He has not committed any crime.Investigation in the matter has been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Leaned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of allegation and material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.The applicant shall mark his presence at the concerned police station on fifth of every month, till conclusion of the investigation A copy of this order be sent for compliance to the Court concerned.

['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J.Pleadings have been exchanged and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed of under the Rules of the Court.Heard counsel for the parties.This petition is directed against an order dated 7.7.2001, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh, whereby the suspension order passed against the respondent No. 5 has been disapproved and also a direction was issued that the respondent No. 5 should be appointed as officiating/ad hoc Principal of the institution.Panchayat Inter College, Khanpur Sarai Meer, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as an institution) is a duly recognized and aided institution imparting education uptil Intermediate level.It is alleged that the petitioner was initially appointed as a untrained L. T. grade teacher on 12.7.1971 whereafter he completed his B.Ed.The Committee of Management in its resolution dated 4.7.2001, resolved that the respondent No. 5 was guilty of indiscipline etc. and since there was serious charges already levelled against him, he should be placed under suspension.By the impugned order the District Inspector of Schools disapproved the suspension order and held that the respondent No. 5 was seniormost teacher, attested his signatures as officiating Principal.It is worthy of note that the management has not challenged this order but the petitioner, who is another teacher of the institution, claiming to be the seniormost has come up before the Court.The least we can say is that the High Court fell into patent error almost bordering perversity in interfering with the order dated 18.6.1992 on the ground that it should have been passed after hearing the affected persons.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This order shall govern disposal of IAs (IA No.6795/2015, IA No.6051/2015 and IA No.6604/2015) for suspension of sentence in Cr.A. No.1010/2015, Cr.A. No.1082/2015 and Cr.Heard on IA No.6795/2015, first application for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant Yogesh @ Betu.Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the statements of injured Sandeep (PW-3), Santosh (PW-5), Mamtabai (PW-6) and Kallu (PW-9) and submitted that no overt act has been attributed to the appellant Yogesh @ Betu.It is a case of free fight and everybody is liable for his own act.He further submitted that even if the prosecution case is accepted in toto, it is alleged that he caused injury by fists and kicks to the injured person.He further submitted that no weapon has been seized from the possession of the appellant Yogesh @ Betu and submitted that a cross-case has been registered against the complainant party under Section 307 of the IPC and 11 persons of other side have been convicted in the aforesaid matter.With the aforesaid, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant Yogesh @ Betu.Also heard on IA No.6051/2015, first application for suspension of jail sentence of the appellants Subhash Raikwar and Jeevan Raikwar.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that similar allegation has been made against the appellants Subhash Raikwar and Jeevan Raikwar and prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.Also heard on IA No.6604/2015, first application for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant Laxman.Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that lathi has been seized from the joint possession of the appellant Laxman and co-accused Ashok and the allegation against the present appellant for causing injury to Mamtabai, which is simple in nature and he is not named in the FIR.As per prosecution story, co-accused Satish was armed with sword, Sachin @ Sachhu was armed with Gupti, Sandeep @ Bakra was armed with knife and Ashok & Laxman were armed with lathies and they had inflicted fatal injuries to deceased Subhash and no overt act has been attributed to Laxman regarding causing injuries to deceased, prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant Laxman.Learned Counsel for the appellants have drawn our attention to the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and submitted that the three accused persons have been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC whereas the present appellants and another co-accused total seven in numbers have been convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case applications for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellants i.e. Yogesh @ Betu, Subhash Raikwar, Jeevan Raikwar and Laxman be allowed.Learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and drawn our attention to the finding arrived at and submitted that there is no doubt that the appellants were present along with other co-accused persons and no allegation against them is for causing injury to the deceased but they have been convicted with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC, therefore, even though they have not caused any injury to anybody then also they were members of unlawful assembly and prayed for rejection of their prayer.On due consideration of the statements of eye witnesses and injured Sandeep (PW-3), Santosh (PW-5), Mamtabai (PW-6) and Kallu (PW-9) and other material available on record, so also the fact that, it is a case of free fight and the appellants have not caused any injury to the deceased, mere presence or association with other members alone, is not per se sufficient to hold everyone of them criminally liable for the offences committed by the others unless there is sufficient evidence on record to show that each one also intended or knew the likelihood of commission of such offending act(s), it is a fit case for grant of suspension of jail sentence.Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, IA No.6795/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant Yogesh @ Betu, IA No.6051/2015, first application for suspension of jail sentence of the appellants Subhash Raikwar and Jeevan Raikwar and IA No.6604/2015, first application for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant Laxman are allowed and it is directed that the execution of jail sentence awarded to the appellants shall remain suspended, subject to their depositing the fine amount and upon their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court th for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 16 December, 2015 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard.C.C. as per rules.

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

(i) In the event of arrest of the Applicant in connection with C.R.No.404 of 2019, registered with Santacruz Police Station, Mumbai, the Applicant be released on bail on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;(ii) Applicant shall report to investigating oficer on 26th, 27th and 28th November, 2019 between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon;::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2019 00:16:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2019 00:16:39 :::(v) This interim protection is granted till the next date of hearing;(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2019 00:16:39 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2019 00:16:39 :::

['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

in nutshell are that on 08.05.2017, complainant Jagram Singh informed the police that on 27.04.2017 accused petitioners who are 6 in number had inflicted gun- shot injury in the leg of the complainant's cow which led to the complainant filing a report, which in turn led to initiation of a prosecution u/S 429 IPC, in which the petitioner no.1 Akhtar and other petitioners who are co-accused in the present offence were pressurizing the deceased Ghanshaym (the uncle of the complainant) to enter into compromise.It is alleged in the FIR that the deceased Ghanshyam was under great mental stress on account of the pressure exerted by the petitioners upon the deceased to enter into a compromise, and as a result of which the deceased, at 4:30 a.m. on 08.05.2017, committed suicide by hanging himself, at home.Investigation was conducted and chargsheet was filed alleging aforesaid offence against the petitioners herein.R. No. 310/15 vide order dated 18.04.16 and also in Cr.

['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

"The victim in this case is a girl aged about 7 years and a student of class 2 nd at the time of incident.She was residing with her parents,grandparents and brother.She had alleged that on 15.02.2011, when she was going upstairs to her room at the top floor after purchasing milk from a shop,one boy namely Amit who used to do DJ wok with her father and also known to her previously,met and caught hold of her at the secondfloor and removed her Pajami.She further alleged that when she asked the accused to leave her,he did not do so and instead sat on her waist and inserted his finger into her urinary organ on which she started crying and he also wetted her Pajami.Meanwhile,on hearing the cries of the victim, her mother reached there and on seeing her,accused Amit ran away.On the asking of her mother,the victim told the incident to her and thereafter to her father.On the complaint of the victim,a case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376/511 Indian Penal Code vide FIR No.57/2011,dated 16.02.2011.The accused was arrested on the same day. "After investigation was over, charge-sheet against the accused was filed before the Court for the offence under Section 376 (2) (f) of the Page 2 of 23 Indian Penal Code and charge was framed against the accused for the said offence.To substantiate its accusation, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses in all to prove its case.It is necessary to refer to the testimony of the child victim about the act being committed by the respondent.The child victim was just 7 years old at the time of alleged occurrence.In her complaint Ex.PW1/A she stated that while she was returning to her house after fetching milk, accused caught hold of her and sat on her waist and inserted his fingers into her urinary organ on which she started crying .She further stated that on hearing her cries, her mother came downstairs and on seeing her mother accused ran away.On asking, she narrated the entire incident to her mother and later to her father.Page 4 of 23PW12 Dr. Ria Malik who had medically examined the child victim prepared her MLC Ex.PW12/A wherein child victim narrated the incident as follows :"As per Payal and also her mother, she had gone to ground floor of her building.She lives on 3 rd floor to bring milk.She was stopped on second floor, where lighting was poor by Amit.He removed her clothes, sat on her back and put his fingers into her private parts."The child witness appeared before Court as PW1 and deposed that :"In the year 2011, I was studying in 3 rd Standard.My wife asked her as to what had happened with her.M. A. 1075/2016 (Delay in filing)This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the State seeking condonation of delay of 7 days in filing the present leave to appeal petition.2. Heard.For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the present leave to appeal petition is condoned.Application stands disposed of.LP No. 44/2016Statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein he pleaded his innocence and claimed to be tried.Page 2 of 23The learned Trial Court, upon analysis, examination and evaluation of the prosecution evidence and after considering the rival submissions recorded acquittal against the accused for the charged offence but found him guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted him accordingly.Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the State has filed the present leave petition contending that the view and the ultimate conclusion recorded by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 376 (2) (f) of the Indian Penal Code is manifestly perverse, unsustainable, tainted with non-application of mind to vital evidence, a result of wrong interpretation of evidence of minor victim girl and other substantial evidences, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further contends that as per the settled legal position even uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix can result into conviction of the accused in a rape case but in the instant case, the testimony of the prosecutrix was fully supported by her father (PW3) and her mother (PW2).She further contends that the victim has no motive to falsely implicate the accused She further contends that the evidence of child witness (prosecutrix) alone is sufficient to convict the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(f) as the Page 3 of 23 respondent committed rape on the victim and the scientific evidence led by the prosecution corroborates the commission of the offence, as such the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in the right perspective and acquitted the respondent for the charged offence.She further contended that even though the offence of rape may not have been made out but attempt to commit rape is clearly established.Lastly, learned counsel for the State contended that respondent committed rape upon the child victim who was about 7 years old at the time of occurrence and he should be convicted under POCSO Act, 2012 for the alleged offence.Page 3 of 23We heard learned counsel for the State and perused the entire material available on record.The child victim was produced before learned Metropolitan Magistrate who had recorded her statement Ex.PW1/B under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein she had stated that she was residing at third floor.When she reached on the second floor, accused took her into a room and made her down, removed her pajami and accused also unzipped his pants and "Apni Pesab Wali Meri Pesab Wali Mein Daali".She further stated that accused sat on her back and started jumping.On hearing her cries, her father reached there on which accused ran away.On 15.02.2011, at about 9:00 PM, accused had taken me in a room, at first floor of my house.There, accused had removed my clothes and committed rape upon me.I cried.On hearing my cry, my father came in that room at first floor.No other person was along with my father at that time.On seeing my father, accused had gone down stairs."Page 5 of 23When PW1 was subjected to cross examination, confronted on material aspects with her statements made to the police as well as to the Metropolitan Magistrate, she stated that :"I had stated to my mother about the facts of rape with me by accused (confronted with statement Ex.However, it is recorded that accused had tried to commit wrong act forcibly with me.Entire incident had taken place in the room at first floor.My mother had not come at the first floor.(Confronted portion C to C of statement Ex.PW1/A, where it is so recorded.)"PW2 Poonam, mother of the child victim deposed on oath before court that :"I had sent victim to bring milk but victim did not return for a 15-20 minutes.Suddenly, I heard weeping voice of victim.I called her and asked the reason as to why she was weeping.She told me that accused had caught hold her and laid on her by saying that do not disclose to anybody whatever I am doing with you."This witness was confronted by learned APP for the State with her statement recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure and deposed that :"It is correct that when I came down stairs hearing the cry of victim, I saw accused Amit was sitting on waist of victim.It is correct that immediately on seeing me accused tried to run away."Page 6 of 23During cross-examination by learned counsel for the accused, PW2 deposed that :"My husband was on the third floor when I sent the victim to bring milk.When I heard the cry of the victim, I was on third floor.First, the father of the victim came to the second floor and thereafter I came over there.I came down to second floor after about 5-10 minutes as I was cooking 'Chapati'.It is correct that the door of the room in which victim was crying, opens in the staircase.When I came on the second floor, I found that my husband was present in the room where victim was crying.Victim had already herself put on her 'Pajami' when I came over there."PW3 Sanjay, father of the child victim deposed that :"I had given Rs.20 to victim to bring milk.Victim brought the milk within 4-5 minutes.Victim had come down.After sometime I heard the cry of victim and saw the accused on first floor from wooden ladder while giving her some mony and was saying to the victim not to disclose anything to anyone.I called the victim.Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon.However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety.Consequently, leave to appeal stands dismissed.

['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

These are three appeals arising out of two cases.Cr.A. 200/76 by Behari Lal and Cr. A. 246/76 by Om Prakash arise out of one and the same case.Cr. A. 247/76 by Om Prakash appellant arises out of another case under the Arms Act. The prosecution case in the main case being FIR No. 212 dt. April 21, 1975 of Police Station Mandir Marg briefly stated is that on April 21, 1975 at about 5.00 p.m. Praveen Kumar (PW 1) was studying on the lawns of Ravindra Rangshala.He is a student and was preparing for his examinations there.Vijay Kumar (PW 3), another student was also studying at some distance from Praveen Kumar.The three accused namely, Behari Lal, Om Prakash, appellants, and their co-accused Kishan Lal approached Praveen Kumar.Om Prakash asked Praveen Kumar as to what was the time by his watch.This was only a pretext on the part of the accused persons.Immediately thereafter Om Prakash showed a knife to Praveen Kumar and took him to the nearby bushes.All the three accused went at that point.Om Prakash put a knife on the abdomen of Praveen Kumar.Kishan Lal co-accused then removed a sum of Rs. 14/- from the pocket of Praveen Kumar and Om Prakash appellant removed the wrist watch from the person of Praveen Kumar.All the three accused then ran away from there.Praveen Kumar raised an alarm.Praveen Kumar and Vijay Kumar both then started chasing the three accused persons.After they had been chasing them Om Prakash again showed a knife to Praveen Kumar and Vijay Kumar and told them not to chase them.Praveen Kumar and Vijay Kumar were, however, able to apprehend Behari Lal appellant and his co-accused Kishan Lal.Om Prakash, however, managed to escape.Praveen Kumar and Vijay Kumar were bringing Behari Lal and Kishan Lal to the police station when ASI M. L. Chopra of Police Station Mandir Marg met them.These two accused persons were then taken to the police station.The case was registered on the statement of Praveen Kumar.Praveen Kumar was taken to the police hospital.He was examined there and given medical aid.He was, however, discharged from the hospital on the same day.All the three accused persons were challaned under S. 394/397 read with S. 34 I.P.C. During the investigation of the case Om Prakash appellant is alleged to have made a disclosure statement in pursuance of which one spring actuated knife was recovered which was seized by the police in the presence of one Ashok Kumar.He was separately challaned under S. 25 of the Arms Act for his being in possession of that knife.In the main case the wrist watch (Ex. P. 6) is alleged to have been recovered in pursuance of his disclosure statement made on April 25, 1975 itself, i.e. on the date of his arrest from one attache case lying at the house of Om Prakash appellant.This wrist watch was identified by Praveen Kumar in the Court as the wrist watch that he was robbed off by the accused persons.A test identification parade for getting Om Prakash appellant identified from Praveen Kumar and Vijay Kumar PWs.Om Prakash, however, declined to join the same.Praveen Kumar and Vijay Kumar PWs.supported the prosecution version.Behari Lal and Om Prakash appellants in their statements under S. 313, Cr.P.C. denied the occurrence and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case.Behari Lal and Om Prakash appellants also led some defense evidence to the effect that they were picked up from their houses by the police and were falsely implicated in the case.Om Prakash appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years.The other two accused were sentenced to undergo RI for three years each.In the case under the Arms Act Om Prakash appellant was separately convicted under S. 25 of the Arms Act by his impugned judgment dt. May 25, 1976 and he was sentenced to RI for one year.The sentence under the Arms Act was made to run concurrently with the sentence as awarded to the appellant in the main case under S. 394/397 read with S. 34, I.P.C.I have heard Mr. D. C. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. D. R. Sethi, learned Standing Counsel for the State, and was taken through the record of the case.I shall dispose of all these three appeals by this consolidated judgment.Taking the appeal of Behari Lal first it was submitted by Mr. Mathur that assuming the prosecution case to have been proved from the prosecution evidence on record the learned trial Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of S. 34 I.P.C. were attracted to the case of Behari Lal.It was submitted that from the material as adduced on the record no hand of Behari Lal could be spelt out in the robbery that was committed.I do not find any force in this contention.From the facts of the case of the prosecution which stood proved on the record as I will discuss hereafter the provisions of S. 34 were clearly attracted to the case of Behari Lal.To recapitulate the facts all the three accused persons had gone near Praveen Kumar (PW 1) together.Om Prakash showed a knife to Praveen Kumar in the presence of Behari Lal on the pretext of asking of time from Praveen Kumar and all the three accused made Praveen Kumar to walk from there to nearby bushes and then Praveen Kumar was robbed off a sum of Rs. 14/- by Kishan Lal and of the wrist watch by the other accused Om Prakash in the presence of their co-accused Behari Lal.All the three accused persons then started running away from the spot.Om Prakash only was able to make good his escape whereas Behari Lal and his co-accused Kishan Lal were apprehended by PW 1 and PW 3 at some distance from the place of commission of robbery.From these facts it is clear that Behari Lal shared the common intention of his co-accused Om Prakash and Kishan Lal in their robbing Praveen Kumar off the sum of Rs. 14/- and the wrist watch.As regards the drawing of adverse inference against Om Prakash appellant on the fact of his having declined to join the test identification parade my attention as drawn by Mr. Mathur to the statement of Praveen Kumar (PW 1).Towards the end of is cross-examination by Shri R. S. Kwatra, counsel for Kishan Lal accused, he stated that on April 30, 1975 he was shown Om Prakash appellant from the window of the Jail and that he (Praveen Kumar) had told the police that he (Om Prakash) was the person who was the accused.He further stated that at that time Vijay Kumar and the Magistrate and ASI M. L. Chopra were present.Reference to the statement of Vijay Kumar (PW 3) in his cross-examination was also made wherein he stated that on April 30, 1975 it was at about 2.00 p.m. that he and Praveen Kumar had reached at the gate of the Central Jail, Tihar.Omi accused was shown to Praveen Kumar and to him when Omi was still inside the jail and he was shown by the Police Sub-Inspector Shri Chopra while standing inside jail.According to the statement of Shri Manphool Singh (DW 7), an employee of the Central Jail, Tihar, as per the register of Central Jail, Tihar dt. April 30, 1975 Mr. A. K. Srivastava, Magistrate came of the Central Jail on April 30, 1975 at about 2.50 p.m. and he left the jail premises at 3.11 p.m. On the basis of this material it was submitted that from this it would appear that Om Prakash appellant was shown to Praveen Kumar and Vijay Kumar PWs.at the Central Jail, Tihar and it was quite likely that Om Prakash appellant might have been shown to these witnesses prior to asking Om Prakash as to whether he was willing to join the test identification parade and that in such a situation Om Prakash appellant was justified in declining to join the test identification parade.Consequently, the learned trial Court was in error in drawing an adverse inference against Om Prakash for his having declined to join the test identification parade.I do not find any merit in this contention.So far as Praveen Kumar (PW 1) is concerned, he was not asked as to at what point of time he was shown Om Prakash appellant at the Central Jail, Tihar.Vijay Kumar (PW 3) in his examination-in-chief clearly stated that they were shown Om Prakash appellant from the window when the Magistrate and the Thanedar had already gone inside the jail premises and Om Prakash refused to join the identification parade.In view of this categorical statement of Vijay Kumar his aforesaid statement in the cross-examination could not be construed to mean that as per this witness Om Prakash was shown to him and to Vijay Kumar prior to the Magistrate and the police officer having gone inside the jail premises and prior to Om Prakash appellant having declined to join the test identification parade.Vijay Kumar in his cross-examination gave the time of 2.00 p.m. only by approximation and he stated so there as well.The learned trial Court was thus right in coming to the conclusion that Om Prakash had declined to join the test identification parade without any justification.It was next submitted by Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellants, that the learned trial Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that the wrist watch Ex. P6 which was recovered from the house of the appellant Om Prakash in pursuance of his disclosure statement was the same which was the subject matter of the robbery.It was submitted that the wrist watch Ex. P6 was not converted into a sealed packet and under the circumstances the wrist watch Ex. P6 could be shown to Ashok Kumar, PW 2, who identified the wrist watch Ex. P6 as the same which was recovered from the house of Om Prakash appellant in his presence.There is no merit in this submission.Praveen Kumar PW 1 has stated on oath that the watch Ex. P6 is the same watch he was robbed off.The prosecution got proved the receipt EX.PC also vide which Praveen Kumar purchased the wrist watch.No question was put to this witness in his cross-examination challenging him in that regard.The knife Ex. P7 is also shown to be a spring actuated knife and is so described in the sketch Ex.PX of the knife as prepared by PW 8 which was duly proved on record.In the seizure memo Ex.PY also the knife has been described as a button knife.The appeal of the appellant Om Prakash being Cr. A. 247/76 is dismissed.Be put up on July 24, 1985 for awaiting the report of the Probation Officer.10. Order accordingly.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT M.M. Qazi, J.The Sessions Case No. 10 of 1985 is pending before the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, where nine accused are facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code.Since the accused also suffered injuries, they reported the matter to the police and the police initiated Criminal Case No. 259 of 1984 against the complainants.Relying on this notification, she has argued that the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, is empowered to withdraw upto himself any case from the sessions division of Gadchiroli.This notification is issued under Sections 7 and 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.These sections deal essentially with the territorial jurisdiction of a sessions division.

['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 31/10/2007 passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 02:40:20 ::: apeal126.08.odt 2 Judge - 3 , Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.6/2007 acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 02:40:20 :::We have heard Shri Madiwale, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant - State as well as Shri Mohod, the learned Advocate (Appointed) for the respondents - accused at length.Shri Madiwale, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, however, convicted both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.He further submitted that the medical as well as ocular evidence on record clearly indicate that the death of the deceased is homicidal and could be caused in ordinary course of nature.He further submitted that both the accused have assaulted the deceased by fists and kick blows and caused grievous hurt as there was fracture on ribs.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, held that there was no intention to cause murder and only intention was to cause grievous hurt and they have no knowledge::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 02:40:20 ::: apeal126.08.odt 3 that their act may likely to cause death of the deceased and therefore the case under Sections 302, 304 Part I or Part II of Indian Penal Code is not attracted in this case and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.The reasonings given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are unsustainable in law and have to be quashed and set aside and both accused persons be convicted under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code by setting aside the findings.He, therefore, prayed to allow the criminal appeal.::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 02:40:20 :::Shri Mohod, the learned Counsel (Appointed) for the respondents - accused has submitted that no case is made out for committing murder of the deceased and no ingredients of Section 300 of Indian Penal Code are attracted in this case.The criminal appeal is without any merit and therefore be dismissed.Considering the submissions of both sides, we have perused the evidence on record, i.e., ocular as well as medical evidence.In the evidence, P.W.10 - Dr. Kalaskar has deposed that on 7/10/2006 he conducted autopsy of dead body of deceased from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.. During post mortem, he::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 02:40:20 ::: apeal126.08.odt 4 found external injuries, which are mentioned in column No.17, which read thus :-::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 02:40:20 :::"1) Lacerated wound on nose 1 x 1 inch2) Contusion 4 x 4 inch on each ear3) Contusion on all over face and swollen with subcutaneous haemotama below both eyelids4) Lacerated wound on inner aspect of both upper and lower lip 2 x 1 inch5) Upper two incise teeth loose and rooted outside6) Contusion on scalp on right side above right ear 2 x 2 inch7) Contusion on right shoulder 4 x 4 inch8) Contusion over left shoulder 4 x 4 inch9) Four nail abrasions on right side neck half inch long each10) Multiple contusions on whole chest"P.W.10 - Dr. Kalaskar, in his evidence, in paragraph nos.2 and 3, has stated as under :-"2) I also noticed injuries in column no.18 :- On external examination of corpus, I found 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 9th ribs palpable fracture in mid-claviclular line on right side.So also, I found 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th rib fractures in mid-clavicular line on left side.::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 02:40:20 :::(a) (i) Wall ribs cartilage: 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 9th ribs fracture on left side in mid clavicular line.(ii) 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th rib fractured on right side in mid-clavicular line.Flail chest present.(b) Plevao : Pale, abrasions present on parietal and visceral plura at the site of fracture about 500 ml.blood present in plural cavity.(c) Larynx, trachea and bronchi : - pale(d) & (e) Right lung and left lung :- contusions present at the site of fracture with multiple laceration.(f) Pericardium :- intact, pale.P.W.10 - Dr. Kalaskar opined that walls of abdomen having multiple contusions were present.P.W.10 - Dr. Kalaskar was cross-examined at length by the accused::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 02:40:20 ::: apeal126.08.odt 6 persons.In the cross-examination, he stated that the injuries mentioned in post mortem note cannot cause by the object and same can be caused by falling the person on the ground.::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 02:40:20 :::However, he denied.P.W.10 - Dr. Kalaskar has not given firm::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 02:40:20 ::: apeal126.08.odt 7 opinion that the death is possible in ordinary course of nature.It is to be noted that in this case no weapon is used by the accused.The ocular evidence only suggests that the accused persons have assaulted the deceased by fists and kick blows.The fact that the deceased sustained injuries and there was fracture to bones is not sufficient to infer that the death is likely to be caused in ordinary course of nature.::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 02:40:20 :::The submission put forth on behalf of the State that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and wrongly acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code therefore cannot be accepted.On the contrary, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has given reasonings for acquittal under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and the said reasonings are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence and cannot said to be perverse.::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 02:40:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 02:40:20 :::This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 02:40:20 :::Considering the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court, we are of the considered view that no case is made out by the prosecution under Section 300 Clause (3) of Indian Penal Code.The injuries found on the person of the deceased were proved.The prosecution proved that the bodily injuries were present and the nature of injuries was also proved.However, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused have an intention to inflict the particular bodily injury.The prosecution, however, failed to prove that the injuries prescribed in post mortem report are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.The above ruling is helpful to the accused persons rather than the prosecution.Considering the submissions of both sides and after considering the material placed on record, we are of the view that::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 02:40:20 ::: apeal126.08.odt 10 there is no merit in the present appeal filed by the State and the same is liable to be dismissed.Hence, we pass the following order.::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 02:40:20 :::(iii) Fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed for the respondents is quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only).(Arun D. Upadhye, J.) (R.K. Deshpande, J.) Wadkar, P.S.::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 02:40:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2018 02:40:20 :::

['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Application is hereby allowed.In the event of the arrest of the applicant ROHAN CHANDRAKANT KUNTARGARLU in connection with Crime No.0152 of 2020 registered with Harsul Police Station, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad for the offences punishable under sections 376 (2)(n) and 417 of the Indian Penal Code, he be released on bail on furnishing P.B. of Rs.15,000/-(Rs.Fifteen Thousand) with one surety of the like amount, on the following conditions :-a] The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner.::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2020 23:43:53 :::( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ...::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2020 23:43:53 :::

['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

http://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 Crl.O.P.No.3428 of 2020The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste community (Hindu Madhari Arundhathiar).He further submitted that on 30.12.2019, the State Election Commissioner conducted Panchayat Election all over Tamil Nadu and the petitioner contested in the local panchayat election and he was elected as Ward Member, Thungavi Panchayat.He further submitted that one Mr.Eshvaran/1st accused contested for the post of Vice President and he made a request with the petitioner to vote for him but the petitioner refused.Thereafter, the panchayat announced that the said Eshvaran was defeated.After announcing of the said result, the said Eshvaran and one Sakthivel abused the petitioner by saying his community name and assaulted him on 27.01.2020 at about 7.00 P.M and with regard to the aforesaid occurrence, for giving complaint, the petitioner went to the police station of Kaniyur on 27.01.2020 itself, and at that time, police asked him to come tomorrow and accordingly on 28.01.2020, he went to the said police station at 10.00 A.M for giving complaint.He further submitted that the police advised him to wait till 6.00 P.M and thereafter, the third respondent police prepared another false complaint and got signature from the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 Crl.O.P.No.3428 of 2020O.P.No.3428 of 2020 P.RAJAMANICKAM.J., ebsiThe Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District.CRL.O.P.No.3428 of 2020 18.02.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6This petition has been filed to transfer the investigation of the case in Crime No.15 of 2020 on the file of the third respondent to the second respondent.The learned cousel for the petitioner further submitted that since the petitioner is an uneducated person, without reading the said complaint, he signed in the said complaint.Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the FIR was registered unders Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC only.He further submitted that suppressing the aforesaid fact, accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed anticipatory bail petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.2620 of 2020 and after knowing the said fact, the petitioner has filed intervening petition.He further submitted that when the said petition came up for hearing, the third respondent police has informed the Court that already the FIR was referred as mistake of fact and considering the same, this Court has dismissed the Crl.He further submitted that the third respondent, colluded with the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and registered the FIR under Sections 294(b) & 506 (i) of IPC without incorporating the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act and without conducting any investigation, referred the matter as mistake of fact and therefore, he prayed to setaside the said report and order for further investigation by transferring the investigation to the second respondent.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 Crl.O.P.No.3428 of 2020Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner is a Panchayat Ward Member and as such, he would not have signed in the complaint without perusing the same.He further submitted that the petitioner himself gave only a written complaint and in the said written complaint, no where it is stated that the accused persons have used the petitioner's caste in the public view.He further submitted that after receipt of the petitioner's written complaint, the third respondent has registered an FIR in Crime No.15 of 2020 under Sections 294(b) and 506 (i) of IPC and after investigation, it was found that the allegations made in the said complaint are not true.He further submitted that under the said circumstances, he prayed to dismiss this petition.A perusal of the FIR shows that the petitioner herein has lodged a written complaint before the third respondent on 28.01.2020 at 6.30 P.M and after receipt of the said complaint, the third respondent has registered an FIR in Crime No.15 of 2020 under Sections 294(b) and 506(1) of IPC.Further, the petitioner has put his signature in the said FIR and received a copy of the said FIR.He is a Ward Member of a Panchayat and in such a case, he cannot contend that without knowing the contents of the complaint, he has signed in the complaint.In the said FIR, no where he has stated that the accused persons have humiliated him in the public view by saying his caste name.It appears that only as an after thought, the petitioner has sent a complaint to the first respondent on 05.02.2020 stating that the accused persons have committed offences under the Provisions of SC/ST POA Act also.Under the said circumstances, this Court is not inclined to set aside the report filed by the third respondent referring the matter as mistake of fact and to order for further investigation tranferring to some other agency.For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.It is open to the petitioner to avail any other remedy which is available under the law.18.02.2020 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order ebsihttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District.The Inspector of Police, Kaniyur Police Station, Kaniyur, Tiruppur District.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

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

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

Biswajit Das,Bachhan Das ................petitioners.Accordingly, C.R.M. 9866 of 2016 stands allowed with the direction that in the event of arrest of the petitioners, they shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each, with two sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(Dipankar Datta, J.) (Sahidullah Munshi, J.)

['Section 341 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 511 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The aforesaid complaint Case being Case No. C-1024 of 2003 was initiated on the basis of complaint filed by the opposite party (in short O.P.) namely M/ s. H.V. Doshi and Bros. Pvt. Ltd. The gist of the complaint may be summarised as follows.The accused No. 1 company incorporated under the Companies Act is engaged in manufacturing various products including manufacture of engineering files and tools and also marketing such products.Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are all working for gain in their respective posts under accused No. 1 company.The complainant is acting as an 'Indenting Agent' for and on behalf of accused No. 1 for decades and from time to time whenever renewal of such indenting agency had taken place some changes in the terms, conditions and modalities were introduced.On or about 27th December, 2000 the accused Nos. 2 and 3 while visiting Calcutta for their official business met Sri Sundeep Doshi, Managing Director and Anil Doshi, a Director of complainant company at their office for finalising the modalities of indenting agency for the year 2001 onwards.During the meeting, the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 intimated the Managing Director and Director of complainant that since they were accepting collateral securities for indenting agency from other agents and as such, the complainant was also required to pay or provide for collateral securities for such indenting agency.It was decided that the complainant would pay Rs. 25 lacs as collateral securities in equal instalments by cheque or bank draft in favour of accused No. 1 and after encashing the first cheque or bank draft, the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 would then initiate to fulfil the obligation by providing a formal agreement for indenting agency in favour of the complainant.In terms of the aforesaid agreement the complainant issued five undated cheques in favour of 'Raymond Limited Division: J.K. Files and Tools' by way of collateral securities as stated under:NO. Cheque No. Drawn on Amount1. . 812567 Allahabad Bank, Stephen Rs.500,000/-House, Calcutta.2. 812568 Allahabad Bank, Stephen Rs.500,000/-House, Calcutta.3. 812569 Allahabad Bank, Stephen Rs.500,000/-House, Calcutta.4. 812570 Allahabad Bank, Stephen Rs.500,000/-House, Calcutta.5. 812571 Allahabad Bank, Stephen Rs.500,000/-House, Calcutta.The complainant along with the forwarding letter dated 29.12.2000 addressed to accused No. 3 sent the aforesaid five cheques to accused No. 1 and the said letter is marked as Annexure - A in the complaint.The complainant presented the said complaint in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 8.12.03 when the said learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence and transferred the complaint to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court for disposal.Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court by his order dated 17.1.04 issued process against the accused and challenging the said two orders and for quashing the complaint the accused petitioner has moved this Court in this revisional application.Mr. Milon Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the accused petitioner submitted that the main allegation of the complainant is that the cheques were issued for collateral security for granting indenting agency by accused company in favour of complainant and there was request by the complainant not to deposit the said cheques for encashment.The petitioner presented the cheque No. 812569 dated 21.4.01 for encashment to their banker and the said cheque was dishonoured with remark 'payment stopped by the drawer'.In spite of receipt of the notice the complainant did not take any step for payment of the dishonoured cheque amount.The accused company presented other three cheques bearing Nos. 812567 and 812571 dated 23.8.01 and cheque No. 812570 dated 21.4.01 for encashment in their bank but the said cheques were dishonoured with the remark "insufficient funds".In spite of receipt of the demand notice the O.P. complainant did not take steps for payment of the amount of the dishonoured cheques.Over this matter the accused petitioner as complainant lodged a complaint case being case No. CC/1479/S of 2001 in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Estate, Mumbai.As the accused petitioner has earlier lodged complaint cases against the O.P. in 2001 in Mumbai for dishonoured amount of the cheques, the subsequent complaint in 2003 filed by the O.P. complainant in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta is not maintainable for the alleged offence of cheating.Sundeep Doshi believed the contents of the said paper to be a true and correct statement and blindly signed on that paper.

['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

On this that person took out a pistol and fired one shot at the roof and fired another shot at Jessica Lal which hit her near her left eye as a result of which she fell down.Jessica Lal was rushed to Ashlok hospital from where she was shifted to Apollo Hospital.On 30.4.99 in the early morning hours Jessica Lal was declared dead at Apollo Hospital.The shot hit Jessica Lal in the head and proved fatal.Just about that time, a tall Sikh gentleman whispered something to Manu Sharma and took him away towards Tamarind Cafe.The witness says he can identify Manu Sharma and the tall Sikh gentleman referred to above.In fact, according to the witness, there was nothing to eat or drink for the last hour or so and lots of people were asking for more to drink and to eat.While they were standing at the restaurant, a couple of persons went in.They were about 4 or 5 in number.He was directed to keep vigil at the parking lot so as to ensure that no cars were removed.He saw five or six vehicles parked there, one of which was parked separately.He checked and found all the vehicles locked.At around 3.40 a.m., he noticed a vehicle coming from Qutub side.JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2006 challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 21.2.2006 in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2001, arising out of FIR No. 287/99, Police Station, Mehrauli, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents of all charges framed against them.Brief facts of the case, as have been noted down in the judgment under challenge by the Additional Sessions Judge, are as follows:That on 29.4.1999 at Qutub Colonnade at "Once upon a time" restaurant also called 'Tamarind Cafe' a Thursday party was going on.At Thursday party the liquor was being served by the bartenders, namely, Jessica Lal and Shyan Munshi.At about 2 a.m. Shyan Munshi was present at Tamarind Cafe situated at Qutub Colonnade five six persons including one waiter were also present there, one person aged 30-32 years came out from the back side of bar and asked for two drinks of liquor.The waiter did not serve him the liquor as the party was already over.Jessica Lal and Malini Ramani who were also present there also tried to make him understand that party was over and that there was no liquor available with them.Charge Under Section 302/201/120B IPC and also Under Section 27 Arms Act has been framed against accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Mannu Sharma.Charge Under Section 120B/201 IPC has been framed against accused Vikas Yadav, Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and Alok Khanna.Charge Under Section 212 IPC has been framed against the accused Harvinder Chopra, Raja Chopra, Vikas Gill @ Ruby Gill and Yograj Singh.Charge Under Section 201/212 IPC has been framed against accused Shyam Sunder Sharma.Charges were framed and read over to the accused persons to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the Prosecution in order to support their case, examined as many as 101 witnesses.Of which, PW-1 Deepak Bhojwani, PW-2 Shyan Munshi, PW-3, Shiv Dass Yadav, PW-4 Karan Rajput, PW-5 Parikshat Sagar, PW-6, Malini Ramani, PW-7, Naveen Chopra, PW-9 Dr. R.K. Sharma, PW-10 Dr. Jasvinder Singh, PW-15 Sumitabh Bhatnagar, PW-19 Andleep Sehgal, PW-20, Beena Ramani, PW-21 ASI Madan Pal, PW-24, George Mailhot, PW-46 Madan Kumar, PW-63 Ram Avtar, PW-70 Rohit Bal, PW-79 Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, PW-99 Dr. Deepak Vats, PW-100 SI Sunil Kumar, CW-1 Dr. Rawel Singh and CW-2 HC Ram Dayal are the witnesses whose testimonies have been discussed while the remaining witnesses were formal in nature.The learned Additional Sessions, upon appreciation of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the Prosecution has been able to prove that accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma was holding a licensed pistol of .22 bore and that he had purchased 25 rounds of cartridges from Haryana Gun House on 4.2.1999 and that the pistol used in the commission of the crime has not been recovered from Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma.The learned Judge held that the Tata Safari car bearing registration No. CH-01-W-6535 was registered in the name of M/s Piccadilly Agro Industries Private Limited of which Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma was one of the directors.The learned Judge also held that Amardeep Singh Gill and Alok Khanna were working in Hindustan Coca Cola Company at the relevant time and were allotted Tata Siera car each.He further held that Tata Siera car bearing registration No. HR-26-H-4348 was allotted to Amardeep Singh Gill.The learned Judge also held that Amardeep Singh Gill was given mobile phone No. 9811100237 while Alok Khanna was given mobile phone No. 9811068169 by the Hindustan Coca Cola Company.The Court also held that telephone No. 3782072 was installed at B.R. Mehta Lane which was the residence of Mr. D.P. Yadav, father of the accused, Vikas Yadav, and that telephone Nos. 4765152-53 were installed at the Sugar Mill owned by Piccadilly Agro Industries Private Limited of which Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Shyam Sunder Sharma and Harvinder Chopra were directors at the relevant time.The Court returned a finding that Beena Ramani was the owner of the restaurant "Once Upon a Time" and she was running a cafe named 'Tamarind Court Cafe' at Qutub Colonnade.The Court went on to return a finding that on 29.4.1999 i.e. the day of occurrence a private party was held at the restaurant 'Tamarind Court Cafe' which was a Thursday party held weekly and liquor was served.At that party, Jessica Lal was wearing a blue denim short and half sleeve white shirt.The Court also held that the accused, Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, along with co-accused Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav, was present at the said party at Tamarind Court Cafe on the night of the occurrence when someone fired a shot at Jessica Lal as a result of which she received injury on her head.She was removed to Ashlok Hospital from where she was removed to Apollo Hospital and declared 'brought dead' by the doctor at 4.37 a.m. The Court further returned a finding that Jessica Lal was transferred from Apollo Hospital to All India Institute of Medical Sciences where postmortem was conducted by Dr. R.K. Sharma who opined that the cause of death was head injury caused by fire arm which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.The Additional Sessions Judge agreed with the Public Prosecutor that PW-2, Shyan Munshi, came running to PW-20, Beena Ramani, and told her that someone had fired a shot at Jessica Lal and Jessica Lal had received injuries in that firing.The learned Judge also returned a finding that Beena Ramani tried to stop one person named, Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, who was coming along with Shyan Munshi.She also told him to give her the gun.The Court, relying upon the evidence of PW-1, Deepak Bhojwani, returned a finding that Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma was seen at the party at Tamarind Court Cafe and that Manu Sharma had asked for two pegs of whisky from PW-1 who also saw the other co-accused persons joining Manu Sharma later on.This witness has identified Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav which, according to the Court, proves that accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav were present at the Tamarind Court Cafe where the incidence took place.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, did not agree that Tata Safari car bearing registration No. CH-01-W-6535 was used by the accused persons to come to Qutub Colonnade.The Court also held that mere use of telephones by the accused persons to contact each other before and after the incidence is of no consequence as the conversation was not placed on record.The Court also dismissed the conversation recorded between Ashok Dutt and Ravinder Sudan.The Court disagreed with the Public Prosecutor that there was any evidence on record to show that Harvinder Chopra, Yog Raj Singh and Shyam Sunder Sharma had, in any manner, given shelter to Manu Sharma after the incidence which may amount to harbouring of a criminal.Agreeing with the arguments of counsel for the accused, the Court held that PW-2, Shyan Munshi, PW-3 Shiv Dass Yadav and PW-4 Karan Rajput were not eye witnesses and had not seen the occurrence.Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma had purchased 25 rounds of .22 bore against his license from PW-7, Naveen Chopra, and that those cartridges were marked 'KF' indicating the manufacture at Kirki Factory.None of these cartridges were used in the commission of crime.The Court held - that the Police on 30.4.1999 had decided to frame the accused Sidhartha Vashisht in this case; that PW-30, Delhi Home Guard Sharwan Kumar, was not present on the spot on the night of the occurrence on 29/30.4.1999; that PW-101 Inspector Surender Kumar had introduced the story of broken pieces of glasses falsely; that there is no evidence on record to show that accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav had come in a black Tata Safari car to Qutub Colonnade on the night of 29/30.4.1999; that the Prosecution had failed to connect the mobile phone No. 9811096893 with the accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma; that PW-1, Deepak Bhojwani had been introduced as a false witness; that the evidence of PW-6, Malini Ramani is of no help to the Prosecution as also the evidence of PW-20 Beena Ramani; that PW-24 George Mailhot was not present at the Tamarind Court Cafe at the time of the incident; that the Prosecution has failed to prove the conversation between PW-57 Ashok Dutt and Ravinder Sudan @ Titu; that the Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that no chance prints were lifted from the black Tata Safari car No. CH-01-W-6535; that although the accused persons were present at the party on the fateful night of the occurrence, their mere presence is of no consequence; that the photographs of all the accused persons, namely, Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gill, Ashok Khanna and Vikas Yadav were shown to the witnesses before the accused were identified in Court; that there is no evidence against Shyam Sunder Sharma regarding involvement in destruction of evidence or harbouring of the accused persons; that no case is proved against Yog Raj Singh, Harvinder Chopra, Raja Chopra and Vikas Gill.In view of the aforesaid findings, the trial court came to the conclusion that all the links in the chain of evidence produced by the Prosecution are either missing or broken.The Court went on to hold that the Prosecution had miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and thereby acquitted them of all charges.Challenging the correctness of the judgment under appeal, Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General, argued that the judgment under challenge is self-destructive, contradictory and omits to appreciate the evidence on record as also a misread evidence.In support of his contention, learned Additional Solicitor General pointed out that the Court agrees with the Prosecution to the effect that Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma was holder of a licensed pistol of .22 bore; that Tata Safari car No. CH-01-W-6535 was registered in the name of Piccadilly Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh, of which accused Sidharth Vasihshth was one of the directors; that Amardeep Singh Gill was allotted Tata Siera car bearing registration No. HR-26-H-4348; that Amardeep Singh Gill was having mobile phone No. 9811100237, Alok Khanna was having mobile phone No. 9811068169 given by Hindustan Coca Cola Company and that telephone No. 3782072 was installed at the residence of D.P. Yadav, father of Vikas Yadav, and that telephone Nos. 4765152-53 were installed at the Sugar Mill owned by Piccadilly Agro Industries Limited of which Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma and Harvinder Chopra were directors at the relevant time; that Beena Ramani owned the restaurant "Once Upon a Time" and she was running a caf named 'Tamarind Court Caf' at Qutub Colonnade at the relevant time and that on 29.4.1999 a private party was going on at the said restaurant which was a regular Thursday party when liquor was served in the restaurant; that the accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, along with the co-accused Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav, was present at the said party at Tamarind Court Caf on the night of the occurrence when someone fired a shot at Jessica Lal as a result of which she received injuries on the head.She was removed to Ashlok Hospital from where she was removed to Apollo Hospital and declared 'brought dead'.Learned Additional Solicitor General argued that the findings of the trial court against the Prosecution in paragraphs 241, 250, 251, 254, 277, 278, 280, 285, 292 and 295 in relation to the occurrence are incorrect and perverse.He relied upon the testimony of PW-1, Deepak Bhojwani, who states that Jessica Lal and Shyan Munshi were serving liquor on that night at the bar counter.I was moving around in the party with two glasses of whisky when I came across a person having fair complexion who was giving smile to me.I also reciprocated.He gave me his name as Manu Sharma.He said as to how I was holding two glasses of whisky in my hands whereas he was unable to get even one.Manu Sharma came into my contact after about 10-15 minutes of my purchasing two pegs of whisky.The witness goes on to say we were already introduced to each other and were about to exchange visiting cards when one tall Sikh gentleman came from behind of Manu Sharma and told him something and took him away towards Tamarind Cafe.Learned Additional Solicitor General argued that the Prosecution has been able to prove that Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav were present at the spot of incidence on the night of 29/30.4.1999, their identities having been fixed.There is evidence on record to show that Manu Sharma had a fire arm on his person and used the same to fire two shots, one in the air which went through the roof and the other that struck Jessica Lal.He submitted that the Prosecution has been able to prove that the findings of the trial court against the Prosecution are incorrect and perverse without basis of the evidence adduced on record.He submitted that the Prosecution has been able to show by positive evidence that Manu Sharma was the owner of and in possession of a .22 bore Berretta pistol made in Italy; that two empty cartridges cases of the .22 with 'C' mark were recovered from the spot; that the mutilated lead recovered from the skull of the deceased was of .22 and could have been fired from a standard .22 caliber firearm; that from the Tata Safari live cartridges of .22 with mark 'C' was recovered indicating that the fired cartridge and live one were of the similar make; that the two .22 cartridge cases of 'C' mark were lying near each other on the counter discarding the theory of 'that they were fired by two different people'.It has also been able to show that the opinion of Prem Sagar Minocha given in Ex. PW-95/C-1 is inconclusive.His testimony in Court that destroys his opinion, Ex. PW-95/C-1, is baseless and cannot be relied upon.The Prosecution has been able to show that Manu Sharma came to Qutub Colonnade in a black Tata Safari car No. CH-01-W-6535 which he abandoned while making a hasty escape after the shooting.In other words, the Prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of doubt.The Court erred in holding that all the three eye witnesses turned hostile and overlooked the fact that PW-1, PW-2, PW-6, PW-20, PW-24 and PW-70 were witnesses of different aspects of the incidence and that the evidence has to be read as a whole.The trial court grossly erred in the manner of appreciation of testimonies of the said witnesses by reading into the said testimony what was not there.The key witnesses' evidence which did not exist, for instance, while dealing with PW-20, the trial court arrived at a factually wrong finding, not borne out from the evidence on record, to the effect that she thought that he had fired a shot at Jessica Lal and that she was not an eye witness.Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that from the testimony of the PW-101, Inspector Surender Sharma, it was revealed that when the said witness was informed by PW-30 about the Tata Safari having been taken away by force, he communicated the said information to his superiors in order to find out the ownership details about the Tata Safari car bearing Chandigarh registration number.In addition, he submitted that this witness fainted on hearing that Jessica Lal had been hit and cannot, therefore, be a witness of the occurrence.He also submitted that this witness along with her parents was under extreme Police pressure.She had been interrogated intensely for five days, the photographs were shown to her, the Police had made her to sign statements and put psychological pressure on her, as such was a pliable witness for the Prosecution but not a reliable witness for the Court.A false excise case was registered to keep the pressure alive during deposition which was subsequently got decided with a paltry fine.Counsel submitted that impermissible leading questions were put to this witness as regards identification which cannot be used as evidence.PW-1 had stated that he had told the Police that Manu Sharma was the killer but his statement was recorded on the 14.5.1999, the long delay is fatal.This witness has made 21 improvements.She had not even seen Shyan Munshi but only heard shots.This witness was too drunk or was busy doing whatever she was.He would also have us believe that two weapons were used which he supports with the aid of experts and Shyan Munshi.Mr. Jethmalani having concluded his argument on behalf of Manu Sharma, left the remaining arguments to be concluded by Pt.R.K. Naseem, learned Advocate who addressed arguments on the importance of Tata Safari at Qutub Colonnade and thereafter its recovery from Noida.Counsel stressed that the vehicle was not present at the Qutub Colonnade in the first instance and the recovery of this vehicle from Noida was a 'plant'.Counsel also severely criticized PW-30 Constable Sarvan Kumar, as being a planted witness who has improved his statement considerably in court.Similar arguments were made in the case of Vikas Gill who was alleged to have taken Sidhartha Vashisht to Panchkula from Delhi.There is no evidence to this effect on record.Learned Counsel arguing on behalf of Amardeep Singh Gill stated that the allegation against him is that he drove the Tata Siera car to Qutub Colonnade after the incident to enable Vikas Yadav to remove the same and, therefore, was alleged to have committed an offence under Section 201/120B IPC is baseless.Besides, Tata Safari was not reported to be parked at Qutub Colonnade in the first instance.Sarvan Kumar has been a planted witness to prove the events which have got no bearing with the actual crime.PW-54, Varun Shah, PW-55 Mukesh Saini, PW-72 Lal Singh and PW-77 Gajender Singh, who were examined in this respect, do not support the Prosecution's case.Counsel relied upon AIR 1956 SC 527, but pressed on the point that photographic identification was a weak piece of evidence specially when the accused is present, and Test Identification Parade could be held.She followed the assailant in an attempt to corner him but then told her husband to identify the vehicle in which he may make his escape.To prove this part of the case, the Prosecution pressed into service PW-1, Deepak Bhojwani, PW-2, Shyan Munshi, PW-6, Malini Ramani, PW-19, Andleep Sehgal, PW-20, Beena Ramani, PW-24, George Mailhot, PW-23, Rouble Dunglay, PW-70 Rohit Bal, PW-9, Dr. R.K. Sharma, PW-46 Madan Lal and PW-47, Jatinder Raj.PW-1, Deepak Bhojwani has deposed that on 29.4.1999 he had gone to attend the aforesaid party at about 11.00 p.m. at the open area of Qutub Colonnade known as "Tamarind Court", the closed area called as "Tamarind Cafe".He had purchased four coupons of Rs. 100/- each on that day.Jessica Lal and Shyan Munshi were serving liquor on that night at the bar counter.He knew Jessica Lal for the past six years whereas Shyan Munshi was introduced by Jessica Lal to this witness about a week before.The bar counter was located in Tamarind Cafe open area between the two doors of Tamarind Court.He has deposed that there is a permanent bar counter in Tamarind Cafe but being summer, nobody was using the bar counter giving preference to the bar counter located outside.A large crowd was in attendance at the aforesaid party.At around 1 O'clock midnight, the witness went to the bar counter to have his third drink when Jessica Lal told him to encash all his coupons since the liquor was running out.The witness then handed over another coupon and purchased two pegs of whisky.While he was holding two glasses of whisky, he came in contact with a person having fair complexion who was smiling.The witness reciprocated and both introduced each other.This fair complexion person gave his name as 'Manu Sharma' and inquired as to how the witness had two glasses of whisky when Manu Sharma was unable to get even one.Manu Sharma requested the witness to arrange liquor for him.But this witness showed his inability as the bar had closed.In court, the witness correctly identified both Manu Sharma and the tall Sikh gentleman as 'Tony Gill'.The witness also identifies the other person accompanying Tony Gill.After about 10-20 minutes i.e. around 1.45 a.m. he heard noise emerging from Tamarind Cafe to the effect that Jessica Lal had been shot.At that time, the witness was present at Tamarind Court and was talking to his friend, Arash Aggarwal.On hearing that Jessica Lal had been shot, he rushed towards Tamarind Cafe but could not go inside, yet peeped and saw Jessica lying on the floor.The witness says that about that time 70-80 persons gathered around the gate of Tamarind Cafe.Jessica Lal was carried to Ashlok Hospital, Safdarjang Enclave and this witness followed in his car.He remained there for about and-and-half hours.Jessica Lal was then shifted to Apollo Hospital.This witness went along to Apollo Hospital.At the hospital, Jessica Lal was declared 'brought dead'.The witness says about 10 photographs were shown to him to identify the fair complexion person and the Sardar.From amongst them he identified the photographs of Manu Sharma and Tony Gill.The photograph of Manu Sharma was marked 'A' and that of Tony Gill was marked 'B'.The Investigating Officer put his signature behind the photographs.These photographs were then identified by the witness in court as Ex. PW-1/A and PW-1/B.In cross-examination, the witness's credibility was sought to be questioned by contradicting him with his previous statements.In other words, the exact wording used in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement were put to him which differ from the statement made in Court but the overall impact of the statement was not such as could show the witness in poor light.The criticism of the trial court to the deposition of this witness appears to be self-contradictory.The learned Judge relies upon PW-1, Deepak Bhojwani, to establish the presence of accused 1 to 4 at the spot of occurrence on the night of 29/30.4.1999, yet goes on to agree with the counsel for the accused that PW-1, Deepak Bhojwani, has been introduced as a false witness in this case.Further that the statement of Deepak Bhojwani was recorded on 14.5.1999 and that Deepak Bhojwani is an interested witness.With very great respect to the learned Judge, we may point out that this manner of testing the credibility of the witness is hardly a rule of appreciation of evidence.It is not necessary that every witness must see the other and only then can they be relied upon.Each witness deposes to what he saw or what he did.Merely because out of 100 people present, some witness does not see the other witness is no ground to discard his evidence.Even if his name did not figure in the list of invitees is of no consequence since the list was not exhaustive.Deepak Bhojwani has deposed to the factual aspect to which he was a witness.This part has been sufficiently corroborated in its own way by other witnesses, namely, the presence of accused 1 to 4 at the place of occurrence.The trial court itself relies upon this witness to show the presence of the accused persons and yet goes on to hold him as bad witness.Obviously, this reflects total lack of application of mind and suggests a hasty approach towards securing a particular end, namely, the acquittals.This witness states that Jessica Lal and Shyan Munshi were serving liquor on that night at the bar counter which stands corroborated by other witnesses.He met the fair complexion man who exchanged niceties with him and introduced himself as Manu Sharma.The witness was wrongly discarded by the trial court.Further, the trial court, if it actually entertained the issue of Bhojwani being a planted witness could not have stopped at this.The consequences of false implantation must necessarily have followed such a finding.We have gone through the testimony of this witness.He has admitted his presence at the Tamarind Cafe at the time of the incident.He has also admitted that Jessica Lal was shot at by someone on her refusing to oblige him with a drink.In his cross-examination, he was duly confronted with his signed statement, Ex. PW-2/A, wherein he had categorically claimed that it was only one person who had fired both the shots.Of course he denied having made any such statement to the Police.He has admitted his signatures on the said statement.On 29.4.1999 there was a party at the Qutub Colonnade which was a Thursday.It was organized to bid farewell to her step father, George Mailhot, who was going abroad for five months.The witness was at Qutub Colonnade on that evening.Jessica Lal was also there.Her mother, (Beena Ramani) was also present.Shyan Munshi was also present.The party was over around 1.00 a.m. approximately and at about 1.45 a.m. the witness went along with Sanjay Mehtani to the restaurant to look for something to eat.The witness was holding a drink in her hand.She found Jessica Lal was there in the restaurant and Shyan Munshi along with some waiters was also present.She went behind the food counter looking for something to eat inside the Cafe but could not find anything.One of them asked this witness if he could have two whisky.The gentleman was wearing jeans and white T-shirt.He was in his mid twenties with fair complexion.His built was on the plump side.The witness showed her inability to provide liquor as the bar had closed.But he insisted and Jessica Lal and this witness repeated that the bar was closed.The gentleman said he could pay for his drinks upon which the witness said that he could not have a sip even for a thousand rupees.The gentleman retorted saying if that he could have a sip of her for a thousand rupees.This disgusted the witness who walked out at which time she came across her mother in the court yard.Her mother was walking towards the restaurant while this witness was going to the other side of the courtyard.Shyan Munshi came running to her screaming that Jessica Lal had been shot.The witness fainted at that time.This witness goes on to say that she can identify the person who had asked her for drinks and who was wearing jeans and T-shirt.The accused, Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, was correctly identified the one that 'looks like him' but later on asserted that he was the same person.The witness says that she came to know that Jessica Lal had died at about 6.00 a.m. when she was at home.The information was given to her by her mother.The witness was grilled extensively in cross-examination and confronted on various aspects with her statement before the Police, but stood her ground on whether Manu Sharma asked her for whisky though the exact words were absent.The testimony of PW-6, Malini Ramani, has been discarded by the trial court being of little importance.since she was not an eye witness.However, she is certainly a witness to identifying Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma along with four or five persons present at the Tamarind Court as also having asked her for whisky and later misbehaving with her.We find it quite strange that at one stage the trial court has returned a categorical finding that four accused were present inside Tamarind Cafe and that finding has been given only on the evidence of PWs 1, 6, 20 and 24, yet their evidence has been doubted and that too without even making real analysis of their evidence.The next witness of utmost importance of the case is PW-20, Beena Ramani.The property has a shopping arcade in the name of 'Qutub Colonnade', the name of the restaurant was 'Tamarind Court Cafe' which had a proper license for eating house.She goes on to depose that parties in the restaurant could be booked on any day as per the desire of the customer, but on Thursdays there used to be special private parties where guests could come by invitation.She goes on to say that liquor was served in the courtyard on Thursday parties.PW-6, Malini Ramani, used to manage these Thursday parties.The witness further states that she knew Jessica Lal and Shyan Munshi and that there was a proper staff to run the restaurant although friends did help in the Thursday parties.Jessica Lal and Shyan Munshi were friends of Malini Ramani and were helping her on that night.The witness goes on to depose that on the night of 29.4.1999, a Thursday party was organized to bid farewell to her husband who was leaving for a found-the-world trip.The party was over by 1/1.30 a.m. These Thursday parties and special parties were organized generally and were held in the courtyard and on the roof top.After the party was over, she was anxious to clean up the place and relieve the waiters so that they were available for proper duties on the following morning.At that time, there were some guests left in the courtyard and she spotted some guests in the restaurant where nobody was supposed to be.She walked towards the restaurant.While she was moving towards the restaurant, she crossed Malini Ramani .She moved into the steps of the restaurant and saws a few people standing next to the counter and heard a firing shot.A moment later, she heard another shot.At that time, Jessica Lal, who was standing with some people at the far end, was seen by the witness falling down.There was a door to her right which was swung open with Shyan Munshi coming out with some other person saying that Jessica had been shot.The witness told Shyan Munshi to call Police or doctor or ambulance and was stopping the man accompanying him.There was commotion.All the people who were with Jessical Lal starting coming out.The companion of Shyan Munshi was wearing a white T-shirt.He was chabbi and fair and this witness asked him as to who he was and why he was there and also why he had shot Jessica Lal.The witness also asked him to give her his gun, which she thought he was having.The person in the white T-shirt denied having shot yet, the witness goes on to say, she asked him again and he kept quiet shaking his head that it was not him.As all others were leaving, the person in the white T-shirt shoved the witness aside and went out.The witness followed him all the way to the front gate of the main building.She could not catch hold of this person.In the meantime, she was shouting instructions to guests to call hospital or to take Jessica Lal.On reaching the gate, she saw her husband standing there and told him that this was the man who had shot Jessica Lal and to see in what car he was getting into.The witness goes on to say that the person who was told to be seen by her husband was with some friends at the time of occurrence inside the cafe.The witness identified Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma by touching him and also went on to identify Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav as the persons along with Manu Sharma.Further, the witness goes on to say that from the gate she returned to the restaurant where the waiters had slipped a table cloth under Jessica's body.The witness continued to give instructions to get medical help for Jessica and removed her to Ashlok Hospital.Jessica Lal was still alive and was removed to Ashlok Hospital in the car belonging to Sanjay Mehtani.The witness goes on to say that the report about the incident was lodged in her presence by Shyan Munshi.Jessica Lal was then removed to Apollo Hospital where she was declared dead.A week later, she saw Sidhartha Vashisht at the Police StationThis witness was cross-examined by counsel for Sidhartha Vashishta @ Manu Sharma, but to no meaningful end.In other words, her testimony remained unchallenged.The trial court while dealing with this witness has held that this witness does not further the case of the Prosecution as the witness was not an eye witness to the occurrence but a witness to the presence of Sidhartha Vashishta @ Manu Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav at the Qutub Colonnade.The trial court also held that the deposition of this witness was vague since she thought that Manu Sharma was carrying a gun and also felt that he may have shot Jessica Lal.The Court also held that mere feelings were not enough and did not mean that Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma had actually fired a shot at Jessica Lal.The trial court further went totally wrong in holding that PW-20 had admitted not seeing Sidhartha Vashisht firing a shot at Jessica Lal, but it was only her feeling.With great respect to the learned Judge, we find this is 'a complete misreading of evidence'.There is no suggestion let alone an admission on the part of PW-20, Beena Ramani, that she had not seen the accused Sidhartha Vashisht firing a shot at Jessica Lal.On the contrary, we find positive assertion by the witness to the following effect:I saw a few people standing next to the counter and I heard a shot.A moment later, I heard another shot.Jessica Lal was standing with people at the far end and I saw her falling down.There was a door to my right.It could be swung open and Shyan Munshi came out with another person who was either ahead of him or behind him.Shyan Munshi said that Jessica Lal had been shot.I told Shyan to call the police or doctor or ambulance and I stopped the man accompanying him.There was commotion.All the people who were with Jessica Lal earlier, started coming out.The companion of Shyan was wearing white T-shirt.He was Chabbi and fair and I asked him as to who he was."Why are you here and why he shot Jessica Lal.I also asked him to give me his gun.I thought he might be having a gun".He said that it was not him.I asked him again and he kept quiet and shaking his hand that it was not him.As all others were leaving, therefore, the companion of Shyan also shoved me aside and went out.I ran after him.Again said behind him all the way to the front gate of the main building.He was a few steps ahead of me and I could not catch him.In the meantime, I was shouting instructions to the guests to call hospital or to take Jessica Lal.I reached the gate.My husband was standing there and I told him that this was the man, who had shot Jessica Lal and to see in what car he gets into.The trial court, however, instead of itself reading the evidence of Bina Ramani proceeded to wrongly record acceptance of this submission of the prosecutor.If the evidence of the witness had been read properly, the Court could not have held that this witness had admitted that she had not seen Manu Sharma firing at Jessica Lal.There is no suggestion, let alone an admission on the part of PW-20, Bina Ramani, that she had not seen the accused Sidhartha Vashisht firing a shot at Jessica Lal.Beena Ramani's presence as an eye witness was sought to be challenged by recourse to the deposition of PW-46, Madan Kumar, and PW-47, Jatinder Raj, who were employees at the Qutub Colonnade.It was argued that Madan Kumar rushed to the spot after hearing "goli lag gai" and saw Jessica Lal lying on the floor.Some guests, Beena Ramani and Jatinder Raj were present there.This part of the deposition is sought to mean that Beena Ramani did not confront Manu Sharma nor followed him nor asked George Mailhot to keep a watch on Manu Sharma.However, from an analysis of the testimony of PW-46, we find that he came to the spot subsequent to the fire.He did not hear the firing but heard people shouting "goli lag gai".It is then that he ran down by which time Beena Ramani must have returned to the Cafe after confronting Manu Sharma.This witness certainly deposes to the presence of Beena Ramani at the spot.He also corroborates Beena Ramani's actions thereafter.PW-47, Jatinder Raj, has stated that he was counting cash and was tallying the same when he heard firing of two shots from the side of the Cafe.He saw from the gate of his office people coming in and going out.At that time he saw Bena Ramani at the stairs of the cafe.He rushed towards her and both went inside the cafe.This, by itself, does not show that when the shots were fired, the witness was along with Beena Ramani in the Cafe.He also came soon after Beena Ramani had come back to the Cafe.Since he was the in-charge of the cash, he would have never left the cash unattended or without securing it before running out.On the contrary, it is a positive statement of the witness that it was Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma who fired at Jessica Lal after which Jessica Lal fell down.The witness is a witness of events that took place and is an eye witness to the main occurrence.We have already pointed out that this witness has not been cross-examined at all on this aspect.A general criticism of the Ramani family has been made by learned Counsel for Manu Sharma that they were under constant Police pressure and, therefore, were toeing the Police version.We have given our careful thought to this argument and find no substance in it.The excise case which is being trumpeted as Police pressure, can hardly be said to be of such a nature as could warrant the entire family supporting a false or a frivolous case.In any event, in the excise case the accused pleaded guilty and were sentenced with a fine only.The mere fact that Beena Ramani, Malini Ramani and George Mailhot were called to the Police Station on several occasions, is no indication of Police pressure to book a false case and their repeated interrogation cannot be made a ground to discard this evidence since they were accused in an excise case where investigation was going on.Their sustained interrogation was necessary because they were running illegal pub.There were so many VIPs in that illegal pub on the fateful night.So, there was nothing abnormal in the repeated interrogation of the Ramani family as the police might be wanting to find out who those persons were and why they were coming to that illegal pub.It was Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma who pulled out his pistol, fired two shots one in the ceiling and the other at Jessica Lal.The witness then went on to the Police Station to lodge a report where he found that the report had already been lodged.He came back to Qutub Colonnade and found that Beena Ramani had already taken Jessica to the hospital.The witness subsequently saw Sidhartha Vashisht at Police Station Mehrauli.In cross-examination on behalf of the accused, Sidhartha Vashisht, this witness was primarily cross-examined about his personal background and his interest in the property called 'Qutub Colonnade' as also about the nature of parties being organized there on Thursdays as well as on other days of the week.It was also elicited from him in cross-examination that after the incident, when the Police reached the spot, couple of bottles of liquor were mysteriously recovered from the restaurant by the Police.Relying on this statement also of George Mailhot, senior counsel for Sidhartha Vashisht submitted that this witness himself also wants to convey that the Police had foisted a false excise case against his family members and because of that they were pressurised to falsely implicate Sidhartha Vashisht.This argument also cannot be accepted because admittedly the accused in the excise case had been convicted on their pleading guilty.A perusal of cross-examination of this witness also shows that virtually there is no cross-examination on the material aspect of his testimony in the form of his examination-in-chief except for a general suggestion given by him at the end of his cross-examination that he had identified accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma at the asking of the Investigating Agency which, of course, he denied categorically.There is no particular challenge to his statement that his wife, Beena Ramani, was following the accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma after the firing incident and on her telling him to follow Manu Sharma he had followed him up to a place from where he disappeared.Therefore, this part of the testimony of this witness fully corroborates the version of Beena Ramani to the effect that she had followed the accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma only after the firing incident.Here again we may notice that as far as the presence of the accused Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma at the time of the incident at the Qutub Colonnade is concerned, the trial court itself has accepted the Prosecution's case and categorically held that he along with his associates was present.We fully endorse that finding of the trial court and even counsel for the respondents before us, except for making a half-hearted submission that this finding of the trial court is not supported by any reasoning, no other cogent reason was given by them to reverse this categoric finding of the trial court regarding the presence of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gill, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav at the spot.It was elicited from him that he had been visiting Police Station almost every day.It was on account of this statement made by him that it was argued on behalf of the accused that Ramani family was being pressurised to falsely implicate Sidhartha Vashisht as otherwise there was no occasion for the Police for calling Ramani family to the Police Station for days together when they were material Prosecution witnesses for this murder case.We have already rejected this argument being devoid of any merit.The identification of the accused in Court by PWs.1, 6, 20 and 24 was also challenged by counsel for the respondents on the ground that most of the witnesses admit that Police had shown them the photos of the culprits during investigation and for that reason Test Identification Parade was also refused.We think that on this ground, the evidence of PWs.1, 6, 20 and 24 cannot be disbelieved.As per the Prosecution case, Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma could not be traced out till 6.5.1999 on which day only he surfaced after his friends, Amardeep Singh, Alok Khanna had implicated him for the murder.The Police from 30.4.1999 itself suspected him and Manu Sharma was evading Police contacting him for interrogation, suspicion of Police got converted into a positive case of his involvement and in that event, his photo was shown to witnesses who had been claiming that they would be able to identify the culprits, there was nothing objectionable in that action of the investigating agency.Regarding the allegation that Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma was absconding, his counsel argued that it was false since the moment the co-accused implicated him on 5.5.1999, Manu Sharma himself surrendered on 6.5.1999 and before that, the Police did not have any evidence against him nor was he required to appear before the Police.This argument overlooks the fact that this accused has himself taken a plea that his farmhouse was raided on 30.4.1999 and certain articles were seized from there including his licensed pistol.This plea demolishes the argument that he was not evading the Police.If he says that his farmhouse had been raided on 30.4.1999, then he should have surrendered on the same day itself as he did six days later.He knew before 6.5.1999 that Police was looking for him from 30.4.1999 itself and if he did not surrender immediately, the only inference which can be drawn by us is that he was absconding which circumstance can be utilized by the Prosecution to strengthen its case against him.Another circumstance which substantiates the Prosecution's case regarding Sidhartha Vashisht's murdering Jessica Lal, is the recovery of Tata Safari from Noida which was removed from Qutub Colonnade by Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and Vikas Yadav.This abandoned car belonged to Piccadilly Agro Industries Limited of which Manu Sharma was admittedly a director at that time.This vehicle was stated to be surreptitiously removed and then recovered from Noida.The criticism that the vehicle was, in fact, recovered from Karnal is misreading of statement of PW-100. PW-100 does not say that he recovered the Tata Safari from Karnal but deposes to the effect that the Piccadilly Agro Industries Limited was registered in Karnal.The Tata Safari was, in fact, recovered from Noida by U.P. Police and handed over by the court to the Delhi Police on superdari.His testimony to this effect has remained unchallenged and uncontroverter.His cross-examination on behalf of accused Vikas Yadav and Sidhartha Vashisht was confined only to find out whether any finger prints were lifted from the Tata Safari and whether he was questioned by Delhi Police after its recovery.Although a suggestion was put to him that he had made a false statement in connivance with Mehrauli police but we have no reason to accept that, since no motive has been alleged against this witness for falsely deposing.It cannot be accepted that everybody on this earth had conspired to falsely implicate Sidhartha Vashisht nor he has made any such attempt to even probabilise his false implication.He has claimed that he was falsely implicated due to political influence but he has not even bothered to name the politician who could have got him falsely implicated in this case.The accused, at no point of time, made any complaint about missing of the vehicle which he now claims to have been taken into possession from Karnal.There is yet another strong circumstance showing the involvement of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma in the murder of Jessica Lal and that circumstance is that he admits that he was having a licensed pistol of .22 bore.He is also not disputing that from the place of incident two empty cartridge cases of .22 bore were recovered by the police as also the fact that the mutilated lead bullet recovered from the skull of Jessica Lal was of .22 bore.In these circumstances and particularly when he knew that he had been implicated in this case for the offence of murder it was for him to have produced his licensed pistol as also the 25 rounds to show that he could not be involved in the murder of Jessica Lal in the manner claimed by the prosecution.He has, however, neither produced his pistol nor the cartridges of that pistol.Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma has taken a plea in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. That there was no occasion for him to have produced his licensed pistol since the same had been seized by the Police along with the license and ammunition from his farmhouse at Sambhalkha on the night of 30.4.1999 itself when a search was conducted there.Support of this plea, which we find to be an afterthought and a concoction, was sought from the testimony of yet another hostile witness, PW-44, Shankar Mukhia who is none other than his own employee on duty at his farmhouse.This witness was examined by the Prosecution to show that in the evening of 29.4.1999 Sidhartha Vashisht had gone from the farmhouse in black Tata Safari and then did not come back.However, he turned hostile and did not support the Prosecution on this aspect.Despite the fact that he had not supported the Prosecution's allegations involving Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, yet he was cross-examined by defense and then it was elicited from him that the Police had visited the farmhouse and had taken away the pistol and the license of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma.Credibility of this witness stood fully impeached in his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor when he was confronted with his Police statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. If actually any raid had been conducted in the farmhouse of Mannu Sharma on 30.4.1999 and something had been taken away by the Police, this witness would have definitely lodged a protest to the effect that the Police without giving him receipt had removed Manu Sharma's pistol and license.It is also significant to note that when during the investigation stage the Police was seeking Manu Sharma's police remand for recovery of weapon of offence, at which time he did not claim that the Police had already seized his pistol from his farmhouse.We find from a reading of the impugned judgment that no such plea was raised and no finding was returned on this aspect of the matter.It was a Tata Siera of white colour.Two persons were in the front seat.They stopped the vehicle near the black Tata Safari and began unlocking the same.The witness tried to stop them but could not and the black Tata Safari No. CH-01-W-6535 was driven away at which time he gave a danda blow to the rear right view glass of the same.The Tata Siera was being driven by a Sikh gentleman.He identified the Tata Safari CH-01-W-6535, Ex. PW-30/X. He also identified Vikas Yadav as the person who drove away Tata Safari and Amardeep Singh Gill as the driver of the Tata Siera.He was sought to be discredited primarily as being a planted witness since he was given regular appointment in Delhi Police as a reward for making a false statement in Court.His evidence is also sought to be discredited on the ground that he could not have been present at the place where he claims to have noticed the Tata Safari since in his cross-examination he has admitted that at the Police Station he had been assigned the duty of handing over one DD entry in respect of some other incident which was being inquired into by another Sub-Inspector at a place which was quite far away from the Police Station.It was contended that in normal course, this witness was supposed to be doing the duty assigned to him and could not be present at the parking lot at Qutub Colonnade where he claims to have noticed the Tata Safari lying parked and then being taken away.There is no doubt that this witness admits that he was given appointment in Delhi Police later on but from this fact it cannot be inferred that he was rewarded for making a false statement in this case.We see no reason why the Police should have planted a false witness.The criticism as regards his presence at the spot, has been explained by the witness himself who says that he was at the gate of the Police Station, the SHO had come there and taken him along with him to Qutub Colonnade, we find nothing abnormal in that conduct of a constable when he is being asked by the SHO to accompany him to a place other than the place for which he was asked to go by the Duty Officer in connection with some other case.The SHO, PS Mehrauli also supports PW-30, Sarvan Kumar.The presence of PW-3 is also deposed to by other Police officials present at the spot.From an analysis of the deposition of PW-30, we find him to be a natural witness of the case to which he has deposed.We also find the criticism against him to be a matter of meaningless hair splitting.There is a ring of truth around the deposition of PW-30 whom we find a reliable witness.The trial court, while dealing with this witness, has, with great respect, termed him as a 'planted witness'.This, we find, is not justified from material on record.The cursory manner in which the witness has been discarded shows a lack of proper appreciation of evidence.Once a reasonable explanation has been given by a witness for his presence at the spot, there was hardly any reason to stretch imagination to belie his presence.Merely because he was assigned to deliver a DD entry to SI Rishi Pal which, the witness explains, he did not deliver, the explanation given is logical and ought not to have been disbelieved in this strange way of assessing the material and discarding it.There must be positive evidence to show that a witness is planted which must then result in consequential action against the Prosecution rather than using this merely to give benefit to the accused.Further observation of the trial court that PW-30 could not have been present in Dera Mandi Village and at the Qutub Colonnade at the same time, is wholly unfounded.The witness states that he did not carry the DD entry to SI Rishi Pal.Merely because Rishi Pal received the DD entry does not conclude that it was delivered to him by Sharvan Kumar.The other cirticism of the learned defense counsel qua the Tata Safari is that there is no witness who has seen Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma arriving at the Qutub Colonnade in the Tata Safari.He claimed that the Tata Safari has been falsely planted by the Prosecution to implicate Manu Sharma.This criticism, we find, is devoid of substance.PW-30, as we have already stated, is a trustworthy witness who testifies to the Tata Safari being present and having removed by the co-accused of Manu Sharma.The attempt of learned Counsel to discredit PW-30 by recourse to the evidence of PW-47, Jatinder Raj and PW-86, Jagannath Jha, is of no consequence.PW-47 who states he did not see any private vehicle at the gate of the Qutub Colonnade at 3.15 a.m. only goes to show that he did not observe the presence of Tata Safari but does not rule out the presence of the Tata Safari.About PW-86's evidence, less said the better.He does not even know the difference between summer and winter and appears to have been won over by the defense.The presence of Tata Safari at the Qutab Colonnade stands proved from the material on record.This circumstance lends assurance to the presence of Manu Sharma at the Tamarind Cafe and corroborates the type of ammunition used in the commission of the crime, empties whereof were recovered from the scene of occurrence and a similar live cartridge recovered from the Tata Safari.We find from the material on record that the empties from the spot recovered vide recovery Memo Ex. 100/1 as also the live cartridge recovered from the Tata Safari, Ex.The two weapon theory appears to be a concoction to the defense and a manipulation of evidence in particular that of Shyan Munshi, PW-2 who, for the first time in court, introduced such a story.The very fact that the empties were sent for examination at such a belated stage, cannot rule out the possibility of foul play to destroy the Prosecution's case during trial.In the totality of circumstances adduced from material on record, the judgment under challenge appears to us to be an immature assessment of material on record which is self-contradictory, based on misreading of material and unsustainable.We find that Beena Ramani has identified Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Amardeep Singh Gil, Alok Khanna and Vikas Yadav to be the persons present at the Tamarind Cafe at the time of the incidence.She also saw Manu Sharma firing the fatal shot which hit Jessica Lal.Her testimony finds corroboration from the testimony of Malini Ramani and George Mailhot.We also find from the material on record that Manu Sharma abandoned his vehicle while making good his escape.As regards Shyam Sunder Sharma, he was charged for an offence under Section 212 IPC for harbouring Ravinder Krishan Sudan.This charge against Shyam Sunder Sharma cannot be sustained.Consequently we uphold his acquittal under Section 212 IPC as also 201 IPC and dismiss the appeal qua Shyam Sunder Sharma due to lack of evidence.The case against Harvinder Chopra is that he arranged for the stay of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma at the house of PW-52, Chander Prakash Chopra, thereby committing an offence under Section 212 IPC.From the material on record, we find there is no evidence to suggest that Harvinder Chopra arranged for stay of Manu Sharma at the house of PW-52, Chander Prakash Chopra.Chander Prakash Chopra himself has not supported the Prosecution's case.We, therefore, find no evidence to convict Harvinder Chopra of the offence under Section 212 IPC.Consequently we uphold his acquittal under Section 212 IPC and dismiss the appeal qua Harvinder Chopra.The case against Yog Raj Singh is that he facilitated Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma being taken to Khera, Muktsar in Punjab and harboured Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma.We find that none of these witnesses have supported the Prosecution's case and there is no other evidence on record which suggests that Yog Raj Singh is guilty of harbouring Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma at Khera in Muktsar (Punjab).Consequently we uphold his acquittal under Section 212 IPC and dismiss the appeal qua Yog Raj Singh.The case against Vikas Gill was that he was charged for escorting Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma to Panchkula between 30.4.1999 and 1.5.1999 and harboured him with the intention to screening him from legal punishment.We find from the record that there is no evidence to the effect that Vikas Gill took Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma to Panchkula from Delhi and/or harboured him at any place.Consequently we uphold his acquittal under Section 212 IPC and dismiss the appeal qua Vikas Gill.The case against Raja Chopra is that he provided a conveyance to Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma within the meaning of Section 52A IPC in order to screen him from legal punishment.From the material on record we find no admissible evidence to substantiate the charge against this accused.Consequently we uphold his acquittal under Section 212 IPC and dismiss the appeal qua Raja Chopra.As regards the case against Alok Khanna, he was charged under Section 120B read with Section 201 IPC for causing disappearance of Tata Safari from Qutub Colonnade.We find there is no evidence to link Alok Khanna with the conspiracy to remove or destroy evidence.No doubt, his car was used by Amardeep Singh Gill and Vikas Yadav to go to Qutub Colonnade to remove the Tata Safari, but this in itself is not sufficient to hold that Alok Khanna consented to or was a part of the conspiracy shared by Amardeep Singh Gill with Vikas Yadav to remove the Tata Safari from the Qutub Colonnade.In that view of the matter, we find that the Prosecution has not been able to bring home its case against Alok Khanna, The appeal qua Alok Khanna is dismissed.We may also note here that Ravinder Krishan Sudan and Dhanraj were declared Proclaimed Offender by the trial court.In the above analysis, while holding Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma guilty under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Jessica Lal as also under Section 27 Arms Act and Section 201/120B IPC, we also hold Amardeep Singh Gill and Vikas Yadav guilty for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC/120B IPC while upholding the acquittal of the remaining respondents of the offences charged against them.Accused Siddharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Vikas Yadav and Amardeep Singh Gill be taken into custody forthwith and lodged in Central Jail, Tihar.The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

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

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

This is the first application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.264/2018 registered at Police Station Prathavipur, District Tikamgarh (M.P.), for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-D, 366, 323 & 506/34 of IPC.The allegations against the present applicants are that the applicant No.1 happens to be the father of Saif Ali and the ap- plicant No.2 happens to be the brother of Saif Ali who ab- ducted the prosecutrix around 2-3 months ago from the date of FIR i.e. 17.03.2018 and took her to their home also made to sign certain documents but subsequently left her.It is alleged by the complainant that when she was so abducted she was also assaulted by the family members of the said Saif Ali.Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the both the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case and the FIR itself has been lodged after 2-3 months which raises a doubt about the veracity of the same.It is further submitted that the applicant No.1 is the father of the applicant No.2 and both of them have nothing to do with the aforesaid offences and there are no criminal antecedents of the applicants.It is further submitted that the conclusion of trial is likely to take long time, hence the applicants be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail appli- cation.Considering the rival submissions of the parties and pe- rusing case diary, I find force in the contentions raised by the applicants, the application stands allowed.

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to to call for the records in Crime No.9 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.2. Heard Mr.L.Baskaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.It is seen that N.S.Shanthakumari, the defacto-complainant got married to B.Madhan (A1) on 19.04.2012 and their matrimonial life was a failure.On the complainant lodged by N.S.Shanthakumari, the respondent-Police registered a case on 11.05.2012 against the petitioner and six others for offence under Section 498A, 417, 420 IPC r/w. 109 IPC.The defacto-complainant has also filed an affidavit wherein, in paragraph No.6, it is stated as follows :6.I state that the offence under section 498-A, 417, 420 r/w 109 of IPC are the non-compoundable offences as it falls out of the purview of section 320 IPC and hence I am approaching this Hon'ble Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. to compound the offences.In these circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit us to compound the offences in Crime No.9 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and thus render justice.5.The defacto-complainant is also present before this Court and this Court enquired and found that she has come on her own volition.In view of the above, the prosecution in C.C.B. Crime No.9 of 2012 is quashed.With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.30.04.2015Index:yes/noInternet:yesmps/ds P.N.PRAKASH, J.1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team XIX Chennai.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.O.P.No.11503 of 2015 30.04.2015

['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Appellant Ram Babu is the father-in-law of the deceased Kamlesh.Appellant Ramesh is the husband of the deceased Kamlesh.The place where she died is her matrimonial house being Jhuggi No.E-59/A - 410 Kalander Colony, Dilshad Garden.The jhuggi stands delineated in the site plan to scale Ex.PW-10/A. It consists of two rooms.The information pertaining to Kamlesh being dead was conveyed by appellant Ramesh to her parents Desh Raj PW-1 i.e. the father and Smt.Ram Murthy PW-13 i.e. the Crl.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 2 of 17 mother of Kamlesh at around 4:00 AM or 5:00 AM on 20.7.1997; a fact deposed to by Desh Raj and his wife, in respect whereof, their testimony to said effect has gone unchallenged during cross-examination.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 2 of 17Information pertaining to Kamlesh being dead in her matrimonial house was conveyed to the local police station at 11:00 AM as noted in DD No.17-A, Ex.PW-16/A, when Desh Raj went to the police station and informed that he suspects that his daughter has been murdered and that he desires that before she is cremated a post-mortem be conducted.9. SI Ratan Singh PW-15 accompanied by Const.Jatan Swarup proceeded to Kalander Colony Jhuggi Basti and saw the dead body of Kamlesh lying in front of the jhuggi.He seized the body and sent it to the mortuary of GTB Hospital for post-mortem.On 21.7.1997, SI Ratan Singh took the parents of the deceased to the office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate who recorded the statement Ex.PW-1/A of Desh Raj and the statement Ex.PW-4/A of Ram Murthy.In the two statements, the parents of the deceased stated that their daughter was physically maltreated on account of dowry demand by her in- laws.SI Ratan Singh prepared the inquest papers, Ex.PW- Crl.Desh Raj PW-1, the father of Kamlesh, deposed that he sold off a plot belonging to him and spent Rs.75,000/- on the marriage of his daughter Kamlesh with Ramesh.Admitting that neither any dowry was demanded at the time of the engagement nor at the time of marriage, he stated that after 8 months of the marriage, the in-laws of his daughter started demanding a three-wheeler scooter.He did not have the means to finance a scooter but gave Rs.5,000/-.In spite Crl.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 6 of 17 thereof, his daughter was repeatedly left in his house and on an occasion, when after 5/6 months she was not taken back to her matrimonial house, through the intervention of a panchayat, the in-laws of his daughter were persuaded to take their daughter-in-law to their house.That in spite thereof, the dowry demands continued.The harassment continued.PW-13D/C (also exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A), followed by another complaint delivered in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 8.7.1997 being Ex.He further deposed that his daughter was physically handicapped and that in the morning of 20.7.1997, appellant Ramesh came to his house at 5:00 AM and informed that Kamlesh had died.He has referred to a demand of a three-wheeler scooter and Rs.5,000/-, without naming as to who demanded the said sum.Even while deposing in Court he has generally referred to as the demand being made by the accused persons without specifying as to on what day, month or the year the demand was raised and by whom.He has not ascribed any specific role to any accused.Prempal PW-5, another neighbour of Desh Raj deposed that after the marriage the attitude of the in-laws of Kamlesh was not cordial.Being a handicapped girl she could not perform the domestic work properly and this was the reason she was harassed.She used to live in the house of her parents after being beaten.Qua the testimony of PW-5, it may be noted that he has not deposed about any dowry demand.According to him the unfortunate girl Kamlesh was harassed due to her physical handicap, resulting in being rendered disabled to perform domestic work.Munshi Ram PW-6, another friend of Desh Raj deposed that at the time of marriage of Kamlesh with Ramesh good dowry articles were given.He learnt that Desh Raj had brought back his daughter from her matrimonial house as he feared that she may be killed there.Some persons of the locality decided to intervene and did so.Ram Babu was persuaded to settle the discord.Kamlesh was beaten by her in-laws and had told him that she will not survive in the house of her in-laws.Pertaining to the conviction of the appellants for the offence of murder, it has to be kept in mind that the place where the deceased died was her matrimonial house, in which, apart from the deceased, her husband, her father-in-law, her mother-in-law, two brothers-in-law and a sister-in-law were residing.The matrimonial house was a jhuggi having two rooms of the size noted in para 6 above.The appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/498-A/34 IPC.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 1 of 17For the offence of murder, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine in sum of Rs.500/- each; in default of payment of fine they have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.For the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine in sum of Rs.500/- each.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 3 of 17 4/C, and on receipt of the same, Dr.K.K.Banerjee PW-9 conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Kamlesh of 21.7.1997 and after the post-mortem report, in view of his observations, prepared the post-mortem report Ex.PW-9/A noting 9 external injuries on the body of the deceased being:-Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 3 of 17"1. Abrasion reddish 2.5 into 1 cm placed obliquely on the upper part on the front of right side of chest in the region of third rib 13.5 cm below the medial line third of right clavicle in medial and being 3.5 cm away from mid line.Abrasion reddish .5 cm into .5 cm present on right side of upper lip 1 cm away from midline.Abrasion reddish 1.5 cm into 0.5 cm present on left forehead 2 cm above the median one third of left eyebrow.Abrasion reddish two in number small size present on the front of vertex of head almost in the midline 6 cm behind hairline.The whole of left hand including the left wrist and left elbow is swollen.Contusion reddish over in area of 32 cm into 6 cm starting from middle of outer aspect of left upper arm going down to left elbow, the whole of left forearm on into dorsal and ventral surface up to ventral portion of left wrist joint.Contusion, reddish over in area of 14 cm x 8 cm on the dorsum of left hand, going up to the middle knuckles of all the fingers.Contusion 1 cm x 0.5 cm reddish present on the middle of right nostril.Contusion reddish 5 cm x 4 cm present on the left palm."Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 4 of 17Internal injuries noted were as under:-"Scalp - On reflection showed extravasation of blood more over the occipital region.Brain - Oedematous left occipital lobe showed sub arachnoid haemorrhage.Lungs - Both lungs adherent to the chest wall tedementaus.Right lung - upper and middle lobe showed contusion over its outer surface.Left lung - on cut section showed multiple large cavatied filled with grayish colour casetating material and puss."He opined that all injuries were ante-mortem and the cause of death was shock as a result of injuries to the organs which were the likely result of blunt force impact.He opined that injuries could be caused by any kind of blunt object and that the internal injuries to the brain and the lung could be caused by a blunt object if it is hit very hard.In the post-mortem report Ex.PW-9/A it has been recorded that the height of the deceased was 148 cms and her weight was 28 kg.The death not being a natural death, it was obvious that somebody had killed Kamlesh.Since the place she was killed was her matrimonial house, the appellants as also one Bimla were sent to trial.Bimla was impleaded as a co-accused for the reason even she was a resident of the jhuggi in question and in the statements made by the parents of Crl.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 5 of 17 Kamlesh before the Sub Divisional Magistrate they had implicated Bimla of being a party to the harassment of their daughter.The relationship of Bimla with the appellants is not clear.Some witnesses of the prosecution have referred her to be the daughter of appellant Ram Babu and some have referred her as his niece.Bimla has been acquitted of the charge framed against her.The State has not challenged her acquittal.The reason is that there is no evidence led at the trial that Bimla was present in the jhuggi in the intervening night when the deceased was killed.Except for vague reference to Bimla being a party to the harassment of the deceased by the witnesses, the learned Trial Judge has not found any specific allegations in the testimony of the witnesses implicating Bimla.On 7.7.1997, he was constrained to lodge a written complaint with the police being Ex.When he went to the matrimonial house of his daughter he found injury marks on her hands and head and hence reported the matter to the police.His statement Ex.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 6 of 17On being cross-examined, Desh Raj stated that no issues were born to his daughter from the marriage and that it was correct that his daughter and her husband i.e. Ramesh Crl.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 7 of 17 used to reside mostly at his house.He admitted that Ram Babu had three sons and a daughter.Shiv Lal PW-2, a neighbour of Desh Raj deposed that Kamlesh was married to Ramesh about 5 years back and that the accused used to beat Kamlesh and leave her in the house of her parents.The fights were domestic fights on petty matters.He deposed that due to intervention of about 15 persons, Kamlesh was sent back to her matrimonial house and that when she was compelled to go back to her matrimonial house she expressed a fear that she would be killed.Suffice would it be to note that as per Shiv Lal PW- 2, the beating to Kamlesh were not on account of any dowry demand, but were the result of domestic fight on petty Crl.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 8 of 17 matters.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 8 of 17Mallu Khan PW-3, the interlocutor of the matrimonial bond between Ramesh and Kamlesh, deposed that he was the mediator who arranged the marriage of Ramesh with Kamlesh and that it was a marriage without any dowry demand from the side of the accused persons.After 3/4 years of the marriage the accused started torturing and beating Kamlesh.He himself had seen injury marks on her body.The panchayat was held.Accused gave an assurance not to maltreat Kamlesh.She was sent back to her matrimonial house and after sometime he learnt that Kamlesh had expired in her matrimonial house.Suffice would it be to note that Mallu Khan has not deposed of any dowry demands being raised.He has only deposed that after 3/4 years of the marriage the accused persons started beating Kamlesh.With the intervention of Crl.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 9 of 17 panchayat, Kamlesh was taken back in her matrimonial house and at that time she told him that the accused persons would not leave her.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 9 of 17Qua testimony of Munshi Ram it may be noted that he has not deposed of any dowry demands being raised.He has simply deposed that at the time of marriage good dowry articles were given by the parents of Kamlesh to her in-laws.Further, he has not attributed any specific role of harassment or torture to any of the accused persons.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 10 of 17Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 10 of 17Ram Murthy PW-13, the mother of Kamlesh deposed that after marriage, her daughter mostly remained at her house as the accused persons used to beat her and deny food to her.Accused Ramesh used to demand money and sometimes she i.e. Ram Murthy and sometimes her husband gave money to Ramesh.She deposed that the accused persons started demanding a three-wheeler scooter and 20 days prior to the death of her daughter the accused persons came to her house and quarreled.She stated that her daughter was killed by the accused persons.She deposed that accused Ramesh, accused Bimla, the mother-in-law of her daughter and her younger brother-in-law used to harass her daughter for dowry.During cross-examination she admitted that no dowry was demanded at the time of settlement of the marriage nor at the time of the marriage, but clarified that the demand was raised on her and her husband by the accused Ramesh.She admitted that accused Ram Babu had not made any demand of dowry or money.During cross-examination she further stated that at 4:00 AM in the morning on the day when her daughter died, information was given to her by Ramesh, the husband of her daughter.Qua the testimony of Ram Murthy it may be noted Crl.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 11 of 17 that she has specifically exonerated from the charge of cruelty towards her daughter.She has inculpated Ramesh.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 11 of 17Om Prakash PW-14 another acquaintance of Desh Raj deposed that Kamlesh used to tell him that her in-laws would deny food to her and beat her and were also demanding dowry.We may note that Om Prakash has given no particulars of alleged dowry demands i.e. the day or month thereof; the nature thereof or who demanded the same.It is obvious that the issue at hand has to be discussed at two levels.The first relates to the crime of murder and the second to the offence of dowry harassment i.e. the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC.The learned Trial Judge has held that the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-6, PW-13 and PW-14 establishes that the deceased was ill-treated and harassed by her in-laws.The learned Trial Judge has held that the two complaints lodged with the police by Desh Raj specifically referred to dowry demands.Thus, the learned Trial Judge has concluded that the prosecution has successfully established that the appellants used to mentally and physically torture the deceased on account of dowry.With reference to the testimony of the 7 witnesses Crl.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 12 of 17 of the prosecution who have deposed to, on the issue of dowry, it is apparent that save and except PW-13 i.e. the mother of the deceased, who has specifically stated that the demand for a three-wheeler scooter and Rs.5,000/- was raised by Ramesh, the other witnesses have made general statements that all the in-laws of Kamlesh used to demand dowry and harass her for not bringing dowry.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 12 of 17Of course, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-14 would be expected to have hearsay information of dowry demands.PW-1 and PW-13 would have first hand personal information, being parents of Kamlesh.In this context it assumes importance to note that PW-1 has remained inchoate and general in his statements while deposing in Court that all the members of the family of the in-laws of his daughter used to demand dowry.PW-13 has specifically alleged that only Ramesh was demanding dowry.The complaints made to the police i.e. Ex.PX-1 and Ex.PW-1/A are general in nature.None of them refers to any specific demand raised or made by Ram Babu.The testimony of the neighbours of Desh Raj shows and establishes their personal knowledge of having seen the deceased with injuries, resulting from beating.It is thus apparent that when she was in her matrimonial house, the Crl.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 13 of 17 deceased was subjected to physical cruelty.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 13 of 17The question which arises is: Whether both appellants were beating her or it was only her husband who was beating her?The mother-in-law and the two brothers-in-law have not been impleaded as accused.The reason why they have not been impleaded as Crl.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 14 of 17 accused is not forthcoming on record qua the two brothers-in- law.The mother-in-law died within less than two months of the incident and thus qua her it can be said that for said reason she was not impleaded as an accused.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 14 of 17No witness has deposed that he saw the appellants in the jhuggi where the deceased was murdered.No witness has deposed that when they went to the jhuggi where the deceased died, they saw Ram Babu.The only evidence is the testimony of Desh Raj and his wife i.e. the parents of the deceased that their son-in-law i.e. Ramesh came to their house at around 4:00 AM or 5:00 AM and told them that his wife had died.Thus, there is evidence that Ramesh was present in the jhuggi.The post-mortem report Ex.PW-9/A has noted the height of the deceased as 148 cms and her weight as 28 kg.There is evidence that the deceased was a patient of tuberculosis.The same finds mention in the inquest papers.The nine injuries on the person of the deceased noted in para 11 above, shows, vide injury No.1, an abrasion on the chest.Injury No.2 and 3 are on the lip and the forehead.Injury No.5, 6, 7 and 9 are on the left hand, left wrist, left elbow and the left upper arm.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 15 of 17As deposed to by the witnesses whose testimonies have been noted by us, the deceased was physically handicapped.She was a victim of polio.The injuries No.2, 3 and 8 show that somebody had put his/her hand on the face of the unfortunate girl to muffle her cries.Injuries No.5, 6, 7 and 9 show that they are the result of the outstretched left arm and the left hand hitting a hard surface or vice versa.Injury No.4 shows that the same is a result of the head banging against a hard surface when the victim was lying.Injury No.1 shows a force applied on the right side of the chest.It is apparent that the assailant, with one hand, muffled the face and gagged the mouth of the tiny victim, who weighed only 28 kg and was 148 cm tall.The victim was physically challenged and could not render much resistance.With the other hand, force was continuously applied on the chest.This accounts for the internal injuries in the chest cavity.Ramesh knew that his wife was suffering from Crl.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 16 of 17 tuberculosis i.e. had a special disability and was also physically handicapped.He was aware of her tiny built.He was aware that if he did an act which would prevent breathing, in all probability, his wife would die.Appeal No.387 & 900/2001 Page 16 of 17Ram Babu is acquitted of the offences he was charged of.The bail bond and surety bond furnished by Ram Babu are discharged.

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

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

O.P.(MD)No.21254 of 2018 26.11.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.528 of 2014, dated 19.12.2014 on the file of the respondent as against the petitioner.2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.528 of 2014 for the offences under Section 324 of IPC r/w 3 of TNPPDL Act, as against the petitioner.Hence, he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that already investigation was completed and because of the pendency of the Criminal Original Petition the first respondent could not file a final report.4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.5.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioner, which has to behttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/7 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21254 of 2018 investigated.The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.26.11.2019 Internet: Yes/No Index : Yes/No vsd To1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Valliyoor Police Station, Tirunelveli District.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21254 of 20182.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.vsd Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21254 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9821 of 2018http://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 Crl.

['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

JUDGMENT S.B. Sakrikar, J.Accused/appellant has directed this appeal against the judgment dated 16-8-1995 passed by VII Addl.Sessions Judge, Indore in S.T. No. 17/88, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.The facts of the case in brief are that, on 19-11-1987, at about 6.30 a.m. deceased Kusumbai w/o Jalalsingh was found burning in front of her house situated at Jagannath Ki Chal, Nemawar Road, Indore.Kusumbai at the same time fell on the ground in the burning state.It is said that at the time of said incidence appellant Bhagwantibai and her husband Manoharlal (acquitted accused) were found standing.The witnesses rushed to the place of incident and poured water on the body of Kusumbai with the intention to save her from the alleged burning.It is said that, on extinguishing the fire, Kusumbai was in sense and she told the witnesses that the appellant and her husband poured kerosene on her and set her in fire.An information was given to Jalalsingh, husband of the deceased Kusumbai and she was taken to M.Y. Hospital, Indore.Shiv Kumar (P.W. 6) gave information about the incidence at Police Station, Bhanwarkuwa which was written in the 'Rojnamcha Sanha' No. 1568 same day at 6.45 a.m. Sub-Inspector Shri A.K. Sachran of Police Station, Bhanwarkuwa rushed to the M.Y. Hospital, Indore and arranged for recording the dying declaration of deceased.Dying declaration (Ex. P-11) of the deceased was recorded by Naib Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate Shri Balkrishna Kshatriya (P.W. 12) at 1.45 p.m. On the basis of the said dying declaration, an FIR at Police Station, Bhanwarkuwa was registered same day under Section 307/34, IPC against the appellant and her husband.On medical examination 89% burn injuries were found on the front parts of the body of Kusumbai.Injured Kusumbai, during treatment, died of the burn injuries on 24-11-1987 and on getting the information of death of said Kusumbai, the offence registered against the appellant and her husband was converted into Section 302/34, IPC and on completion of the usual investigation, challan was filed against the accused persons.Appellant and her husband both were charged and tried for the offences punishable under Section 302 and in the alternative under Section 302/34, IPC.On completion of the trial, husband of the appellant Manoharlal was acquitted of the charges and the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302, IPC as indicated above.Aggrieved the appellant has filed this appeal.We have heard Shri Jai Singh, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Vivek Singh, appearing for the appellant and Dy.A.G. Shri G. Desai, appearing for the State.Learned Counsel for appellant contended that case of the prosecution rest on the oral dying declaration given by deceased Kusumbai soon after the incidence to the witnesses present on the spot and also the dying declaration Ex. P-11 recorded by the Executive Magistrate Shri Balkrishna Kshatriya in the hospital at 1.45 p.m. same day.No direct evidence is produced on behalf of the prosecution indicating that the accused/appellant is responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased.The learned Counsel submitted that the aforesaid evidence of the dying declaration is not sufficient to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 302, IPC.As against this, the learned Dy.A.G. appearing for the State submitted that the alleged oral dying declaration stated before the witnesses soon after the incident and a dying declaration Ex. P-11 recorded by the Executive Magistrate same day, are sufficient to implicate the appellant for the alleged offence.He supported the impugned judgment of the Trial Court and submitted that no interference is necessary.Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the record as also the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it is not disputed that no direct evidence is produced on behalf of the prosecution against the appellant.The case of the prosecution rests on the alleged oral dying declaration stated to the witnesses soon after the incident by deceased Kusumbai and the dying declaration (Ex. P-11) recorded by the Executive Magistrate Shri Balkrishna Kshatriya (P.W. 12) in the hospital same day.On considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution in connection with the alleged oral dying declaration of Kusumbai, the prosecution has examined Guddu @ Navin (P.W. 1), Shiv Kumar (P.W. 6) and Jalalsingh (P.W. 7).On perusal of the statement of Guddu @ Navin (P.W. 1), it is found that in his examination-in-chief, he supports the case of prosecution and stated that soon after the incidence when he went to the house of Jalalsingh he found that his wife Kusumbai was lying in front of the house in burning stage.At the same time, deceased Kusumbai stated that Manoharlal and his wife poured kerosene and set her to fire.But in para No. 3 of the cross-examination, he denied the aforesaid fact and stated that in his presence wife of Jalalsingh has not stated about the setting her to fire by the appellant and her husband Manoharlal.As such, statement of Guddu (P.W. 1) is not at all useful for the prosecution.9. Shiv Kumar (P.W. 6) in his statement, has said that after the incident, when he reached in front of the house of deceased Kusumbai w/o Jalalsingh he found that Kusumbai was lying on the ground having burn injuries on the different parts of her body and at the same time on asking the injured Kusumbai, she stated that Manoharlal and his wife are responsible for setting her to fire, but as per case of the prosecution the information of the alleged incident was given at the Police Station, Bhanwarkuwa by this witness which is written in the Rojnamcha of the Police Station at Sanha No. 1568 at 6.45 a.m. In the said information, Shiv Kumar (P.W. 6) has not stated even a word that who is responsible for setting Kusumbai to fire causing serious burn injuries to the deceased.It is stated on behalf of the prosecution that the alleged Rojnamcha Sanha No. 1568 is not exhibited at the trial and it is an unproved document; as such, the facts stated in the said Rojnamcha Sanha cannot be considered in evidence at this stage.In this respect, the learned Counsel for appellant submitted that on behalf of the prosecution, the copy of the alleged Rojnamcha Sanha was filed alongwith the challan papers and it was also supplied to the defence.The learned Counsel invited our attention towards the statement of Shiv Kumar (P.W. 6) and a note appended below para No. 10 of his statement and submitted that during the cross-examination of the said witness, the original Rojnamcha Sanha No. 1568 was demanded and for this purpose the cross-examination of Shiv Kumar was deferred to other date.On perusal of the statement of SHO, Gajanand Sharma (P.W. 15), it is found that the alleged original Rojnamcha Sanha was not produced before the Court for the cross-examination of Shiv Kumar (P.W. 6).As such, in view of the facts of the case on hand and the law applicable, we are convinced that report entered in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 1568 of Police Station, Bhanwarkuwa, though not exhibited or proved at the trial, can be used by the defence if it is favourable to the accused.On perusal of the facts stated in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 1568, in which the names of the appellant and her husband as also with regard to the responsibility of causing burn injury to deceased Kusumbai by setting her to fire are not stated.Needless to say that, when Shiv Kumar (P.W. 6), soon after the incidence got the knowledge of burning deceased Kusumbai by the present appellant and her husband by pouring kerosene on her body, then why this fact was not informed to the concerned police.The only inference which can be drawn is that if Shiv Kumar (P.W. 6) had that knowledge, he must have informed the police with regard to the persons who were responsible for setting her to fire.But in absence of the aforesaid facts, in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 1568, dated 19-11-87 which was prepared at 6.45 a.m. within 15 minutes of the incident creates doubt on the statement of Shiv Kumar (P.W. 6) that in an oral dying declaration, the deceased named the appellant and her husband as miscreants.His statement can also be rejected on the ground that it is not in dispute that some disputes were existing between the parties prior to the incident and the reports were lodged against each other at the police station with regard to some quarrels taken place between the deceased and the accused persons.In this respect, SHO, Gajanand Sharma (P.W. 15), in para No. 7 of his cross-examination, has totally denied that Jalalsingh alongwith his wife came to the police station after the alleged incident and at the police station Kusumbai has lodged any report in connection with the alleged incident.First is that Jalalsingh (P.W. 7) is giving a false statement before the Court that on the date of the incidence he took his wife Kusumbai to police station by an autorickshaw and at the police station a written report of the deceased was prepared and her thumb impression was also taken on the said report; or the prosecution has deliberately suppress the said report as it may not be favourable to the prosecution.Apart from the aforesaid facts, material omissions and contradictions are also found in the statement of Jalalsingh (P.W. 7).As such, his statement also becomes unreliable and doubtful on the point of alleged oral dying declaration of deceased Kusumbai.On the point of written dying declaration (Ex. P-11) recorded by Executive Magistrate Shri Balkrishna Kshatriya, is not sufficient to convict the appellant for the alleged offence, as the prosecution has not established from evidence that at the time of recording such statement, deceased Kusumbai was fully conscious and in a state of giving a statement.The prosecution has not examined the doctor who certified that during the recording of the statement (Ex. P-11) Kusumbai was fully conscious and in a state of giving statement."Under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, a dying declaration if found to be true and free from embellishment then it is sufficient for recording conviction.Prosecution must prove that the deceased was in proper mental condition to make the dying declaration.In the present case the prosecution did not examine the doctor who is alleged to have made endorsement on the dying declaration that "the patient was in a fit state of mind to depose".No other witness was examined to prove the certificate of the doctor either.That creates a doubt as to whether the patient was actually in a proper mental condition to make a consciously truthful statement.This infirmity renders it unsafe to rely on the dying declaration."Shri Balkrishna Kshatriya (P.W. 12) who recorded the said dying declaration, in para No. 3 of his cross-examination has admitted that at the time of giving statement, Kusumbai was not fully normal.Even otherwise, on perusal of the contents of dying declaration (Ex. P-11), it emerged that the deceased had enmity with the appellant and some reports were lodged by the deceased at the police thana.The language used in Ex. P-11 marked as "E to E" as extracted below for convenience:--^^eSa lcdks crk nwaxh fd rqeus vkx yxk ds tyk MkykA oks dg jgh Fkh] fd D;k eq>s ejokvksxs D;k\** indicate that the deceased had in her mind to involve the appellant responsible for the alleged incidence of setting her to fire.As such, the alleged dying declaration (Ex. P-11) alone does not acquire much confidence for basing the conviction of the appellant for a serious offence like Section 302 of the IPC.From the statement of the prosecution witnesses, it also emerged that at the time of recording the alleged dying declaration of deceased Kusumbai, husband of the deceased Jalalsingh and employees of the police department were also present.The said fact again creates doubt on the statement (Ex. P-11) that the statement was voluntarily and of her own accord was given by the deceased Kusumbai.As such, on this count also the appellant's conviction under Section 302, IPC becomes unsustainable under the law and the appellant deserves acquittal.As a result of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant deserves to be allowed and it is allowed accordingly.The accused/appellant is acquitted from the charges.The conviction and the sentence passed against the appellant by the Trial Court are set aside.

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

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

Totally 7 accused were charge sheeted in this case.The case of the prosecution is that the accused together had attacked P.W.1 to P.W.4 on 16.09.2008 at about 4.00 p.m at near D.R.O. Colony Mosque.He deposed that immediately after the occurrencehttp://www.judis.nic.in5/22 CrlA(MD)No.299 of 2015 he had given statement to the police.During the course of trial, two accused namely Shanmugam and Ranjith @ Ranjith Kumar died.The offences against the accused No.1 and the sentence imposed on him are as under:2.i) The offences against the accused No.2 and the sentence imposed on him are as under:2.ii) The offences against the accused No.3 and the sentence imposed on him are as under:2.iii) The offences against the accused No.4 and the sentence imposed on him are as under:2.iv) The offences against the accused No.5 and the sentence imposed on him are as under:Apart from the above, all the accused were convicted for the offence under Section 341 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Act').During the course of the attack by the accused, P.W.1 to P.W.4 suffered injuries and were admitted in the hospital for treatment.A complaint was lodged and thereafter, First Information Report was registered on 16.09.2008 at about 09.00 p.m andhttp://www.judis.nic.in4/22 CrlA(MD)No.299 of 2015 investigation was set in motion.After completion of investigation, the police filed a report charging the accused for various offences as stated above.The trial court has observed the formalities as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure.On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.17 were examined and 16 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.Two Material Objects were produced.On the side of the defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked.After adverting to various materials made available and after examining the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court has come to the conclusion against the appellants/accused and convicted them under various sections as set out in paragraph No. 2 of this order.As against the conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants/accused.He would submit that the statements of two witnesses were recorded by the police.According to the learned Senior Counsel, time of occurrence was 04.00 p.m and the injured persons were admitted in the hospital at various time commencing from 5.10 p.m on that day, so that the statement of P.W.5 would have been recorded between 4.00 p.m to 5.00 p.m. However, the same is not reflected in the First Information Report registered against the accused.The statement obtained from P.W.2 was also not reflected in the First Information Report.Pointing out the same, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/accused would submit that preparation of the First Information Report itself suffers from material contradictions.According to the learned Senior Counsel, the truthfulness and veracity of the First Information Report is also rather doubtful, but the trial court has not appreciated the lacuna in registration of the First Information Report, which is the foundation of the prosecution.Adding further, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the First Information Report, which has a doubtful origin, cannot lead to ultimate conviction and sentence of the appellants/accused.http://www.judis.nic.in6/22 CrlA(MD)No.299 of 2015More over, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/accused would submit that P.W.1 in his deposition has stated that the police had enquired with him in the hospital for half an hour and the police had noted whatever he has stated during the enquiry.However, P.W.16, the Investigating Officer had deposed in his chief-examination that P.W.1 has given a written complaint to the police.Further, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that there is no direct evidence at all that the attack was carried out by the appellants on P.W.1 to P.W.4, who are the victims in this case.In fact, P.W.s 3, 4 and 5 would depose in their evidence that they did not see the occurrence at all.The learned Senior Counsel would draw attention of this Court to the specific reference to their evidence wherein they deposed that they did not see the attack at all.P.W.3 in his evidence would state that he was not in the place of occurrence at all and as per his friend's request he has stated his version.P.W.4 has deposed that he was working inside the service centre and he was not aware the incident happened outside.P.W.4 further deposed that he was not aware that which accused had attacked and by which weapon, as he was not able to witness the attack at all.P.W.5 deposed that by thehttp://www.judis.nic.in7/22 CrlA(MD)No.299 of 2015 time he went to the scene of occurrence, everything was over and he did not see anything at all.By quoting the aforesaid evidences, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/accused would submit that there was no specific evidence to show that the appellants/ accused attacked the victims.But the prosecution did not declare these witnesses as hostile.The trial court ought to have referred to their evidence at all, which supports the case of the defence.Further, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that as per the Accident Register, P.W.1 was admitted in the hospital only at 7.10 p.m, whereas the other injured persons appeared to have been admittedly earlier at 5.10 p.m. It is specific contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the prosecution wanted to implicate the accused for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and therefore, P.W.1 was roped in this case.He would further submit that though the statement obtained at 5.p.m and 6.00 p.m were not part of the First Information Report, which was registered only at 09.00 p.m, the police were clever enough to implicate P.W.1, who was said to have been admitted in the hospital at 7.10 p.m. The prosecution had roped in P.W.1 as if the appellants used obscene language against him and also attacked him to implicate the appellants for the offence under Sectionhttp://www.judis.nic.in8/22 CrlA(MD)No.299 of 2015 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act in addition to the other offences of Indian Penal Code.The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the charge of unlawful assembly is concerned, P.W.1's evidence was that there were 6 people in the gang, whereas the other witnesses have deposed that there were 15 people.Specific deposition in regard to those witnesses was referred to by the learned Senior Counsel.He would therefore submit that the entire prosecution case suffers from too many material contradictions and by referring them, the trial court ought to have held that the appellants/accused are not guilty of the offences alleged against them.The learned Senior counsel would in all submit that these material contradictions would go to the root of the prosecution.In view of such contradictions and lacuna in the story of the prosecution, the conviction recorded by the trial court has to be construed as being vitiated and flawed.Despite the existence ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in9/22 CrlA(MD)No.299 of 2015 several contradictions right from the registration of the First Information Report, the trial court had unfortunately overlooked all contractions and recorded conviction of the appellants/accused and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for various periods for the offences said to have been committed by them.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/accused would refer to paragraph 15 onwards in the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, which are extracted hereunder:According to the evidence of P.W.13, he came to know about the occurrence, on the intimation sent by the doctor, and he went to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1, based on which he registered a case.But, it is doubtful as to whether this first information could have been given, as alleged by P.W.13, in his evidence, for the simple reason that at the time of cross examination, P.W.2, has categorically admitted that he saw Ranga Naicker giving a statement to the police, when the police came to the scene of occurrence, and the same was recorded and therein the deceased has affixed his thumb impression.Under such circumstances, it is highly unbelievable whether the first information, which came into existence and what is before the Court, could have been the first information.Apart from that, according to the evidence of P.W.1, he went to the hospital at 6.10 p.m and treatment was given to him.It is also made clear from the evidence of P.W.9 and the accident register issued by him, but, according to the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.1 came from the hospital to the place of occurrence and police also came there.It is clear that P.W.1 was never treated as inpatient.If to be so, from the evidence of P.W.2, it would be quite clear thathttp://www.judis.nic.in11/22 CrlA(MD)No.299 of 2015 P.W.1, after going to the hospital, went to the place of occurrence and took P.W.2 and others to the hospital and under such circumstances, he could not have been the author of Ex.P.1, as put forth by the prosecution case.Yet another circumstances, which would go against the prosecution case is that Ranga Naicker, who was admitted at 8.15 p.m has made a statement to P.W.9, the doctor that 10 known persons attacked him while P.W.1 would say that they were attacked by 20 known and unknown persons and the other injured witnesses have given statements to the doctor coming out with different versions as to how many persons participated in the crime, and thus, it would be doubtful whether such an occurrence would have taken place.Therefore, it would be unsafe to rely on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to sustain the conviction.The lower court has relied on the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 3 to find that all the appellants formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and six persons armed with weapons involved in rioting and committed the murder of the deceased.Buthttp://www.judis.nic.in12/22 CrlA(MD)No.299 of 2015 that would be a single piece of evidence and that alone cannot be looked into without any supporting evidence on the side of the prosecution.In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and on the evidence available, it would be unsafe to find the appellants guilty and the lower court erroneously found them guilty which has got to be set right and that could be done only by upsetting the judgment of the lower court and it is accordingly set aside.In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed.All the appellants are acquitted of all the charges.The bail bonds executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled.The facts in the above case are almost similar to the case on hand.In that case, the Court found that when different versions were given by the witnesses in regard to the persons participated in the crime, it would be doubtful whether such an occurrence would have taken place.In this case also, there was a huge difference from the version of P.W.1 who deposed that there were 6 persons and the version of P.W.2 who deposed that there were about 15 persons.Therefore, in the absence of clarity in regard to how many persons participated in the crime, the trial court's conclusion as against these accused forhttp://www.judis.nic.in13/22 CrlA(MD)No.299 of 2015 unlawful assembly and commission of other offence is liable to be faulted.ii) 1989 SCC (Cri) 490 in Allauddin Mlan and others Sharif Mian and Another Vs.State of Bihar.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/accused would only rely on the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which is extracted hereunder:In the instant case, however the members constituting the unlawful assembly had gone to the house of P.W.6 to kill him.That was the common object of the unlawful assembly.For accomplishing that common object it was not necessary to kill the two girls who were not an hindrance to accused 1 and 2 accomplishing their common object.We are, therefore, of the opinion that accused 3 to 6 cannot be convicted for the injuries caused to the two minor girls by accused 1 and 2 with the aid of Section 149, IPC.We, therefore, set aside the conviction under Section 326/149 IPC., and also the sentence imposed on accused 3 to 5 on that count.In view of the above judgment, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/accused submitted that in the present case, the common intention is not established since the overt act is attributedhttp://www.judis.nic.in14/22 CrlA(MD)No.299 of 2015 only against the third accused and not against others.It is well settled that a mere innocent presence in an assembly of persons, as for example a bystander does not make the accused a member of an unlawful assembly, unless it is shown by direct or circumstantial evidence that the accused shared the common object of the assembly.Thus a court is not entitled to presume that any and every person who is proved to have been present near a riotous mob at any time or to have joined or left it at any stage during its activities is in law guilty of every act committed by it, from the beginning to the end or that each member of such a crowd must from the beginning have anticipated and contemplated the nature of the illegal activities in, which the assembly would subsequently indulge.More over, even earlier at the time of preparation of the First Information Report, there were contradictions as P.W.1 would say that the police had recorded the version spoken by him at the time of enquiry in the hospital, whereas P.W.16, who is the Investigating Officer deposed that he had received a written complaint from P.W.1 which was a glaring contradiction in the prosecution story.Unfortunately, the trial court has not taken note of such contradiction, which demonstrates about the validity of the First Information Reporthttp://www.judis.nic.in18/22 CrlA(MD)No.299 of 2015 itself prepared against the appellants/accused.More over, the exact time of admission of P.W.1 in the hospital and the time of admission of other injured person would also give rise to legitimate doubt in the case of the prosecution.Accordingly, the judgment passed by the learned 3 rd Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, in S.C.No.63 of 2010 dated 23.09.2015 is set aside and the appellants/accused are acquitted from all the charges.Fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellants accused.Bail bonds, if any, executed by the petitioner, shall stand cancelled.In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed.2 9.1 1.2 0 1 9 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No CMhttp://www.judis.nic.in21/22 CrlA(MD)No.299 of 2015The 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar Sub Division, MaduraiThe Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in22/22 CrlA(MD)No.299 of 2015 V. PA R T HI B A N , J CM C rl.A.(MD) N o. 2 9 9 o f 2 0 1 5 2 9.1 1.2 0 1 9http://www.judis.nic.in23/22

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

As per prosecution case, on the information that some persons in connivance with the Court's employees manipulated the record of some Criminal & Civil Cases and also attached the forged documents and order sheets in these cases pending in various courts of District Court Bhopal, District Judge Bhopal directed Shri R.N Chand, Eleventh ADJ Bhopal to inquire into the matter.In that enquiry, it was found that records of Criminal Case nos.2237/04 and 2730/04 pending in the Court of JMFC/III Civil Judge, Class I Bhopal and the record of disposed of case MJC No. 48/05 Kesarbai Vs Municipal Corporation Bhopal which was deposited in the Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2020.11.07 13:47:43 IST THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-2428-2020 (SHAILENDRA KUMAR JAIN V STATE OF M.P.) 3 record room of District court Bhopal were manipulated by attaching forged documents and order-Sheets in these cases.It was also found that forged lease deeds of government land were prepared in the name of co-accused Smt. Maya Bisariya, her husband Krishna Prasad Bisariya (who died during the investigation), her son Sanjeev Bisariya and daughters Amita, Alpana and Preeti, Jitendra Singh, Kesarbai, Anees Ahmad Siddiqui, Abdul Qayoom, Muzaffar Ali, Munavvar Ali, Lakshmi Chand Jain and other people and on the basis of these forged lease deeds and other documents, some of them filed civil cases i.e. MJC 48/05 Kesarbai Vs Municipal Corporation Bhopal, Civil Suit No. 86A/03 Kallu Khan Vs Jitendra and others, Civil Suit No.74/05 Jitendra vs. MP Government, Civil Suit No. 91A/03 Jitendra vs Munnalal, MJC no.127/07 Kallu Khan Vs Munnalal and others in various Civil Courts of Bhopal for getting undue benefit and in the matter apart from outsiders, the role of some court employees and Advocates is also suspicious.On the direction of the High Court, Shri P.K. Vyas O.S.D. also conducted an enquiry and found the same.He also opined in his report that the matter is serious, and should be inquired into by the competent investigating agency.Thereafter, District Judge Bhopal wrote a letter to Director-General (Economic Offences Wing Bhopal) to enquire into the matter and also sent the copy of enquiry reports along with the letter.On the direction of Director- General (Economic Offences Wing Bhopal), Crime No.06/07 for Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2020.11.07 13:47:43 IST THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-2428-2020 (SHAILENDRA KUMAR JAIN V STATE OF M.P.) 4 the offences punishable under Sections 420,447,418,467,468,471 and 120B of IPC was registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing Bhopal.During the investigation of the Crime, it was found that co- accused Babulal Sunhare, who was earlier posted as a Peon in the Collectorate Office, Bhopal, from the year 2002 to 2006 prepared many forged lease deeds of government lands and sold them to Asharam, Kishori Lal, Benibai and other people, but police did not take any action against him, which encouraged him, due to which his courage increased.He made a gang in which included appellant Shailendra Kumar Jain, co-accused Munnalal, Lakshmi Chand Jain (who died during the trial of the case) and Ravindra Batham and with their help, Babulal started preparing forged lease deeds and other documents and sold government land worth crores of rupees to others on the basis of these forged lease deeds, and to show that said lease deeds are genuine and issued by the competent authority, he also manipulated the record of revenue cases kept in the Nazul Office, Bhopal and also made available certified copies of those manipulated records to the people whom he gave forged lease deeds.Subsequently, he also started manipulation in court records.It was also found that some people on the basis of forged lease deeds of government land and other documents prepared by Babulal in connivance with above-mentioned co-accused persons had filed Civil Cases i.e. Civil Suit no.389A/06 (Mujaffar Ali vs. Munavvar Ali), Civil Suit No.91A/03 (Jitendra Kumar Vs Munnalal), 74A/05 (Jitendra Singh Vs M.P. Government), Civil Case No.86-A/03 (Kallu Khan Vs Jitendra), MJC No.127/07 (Kallu Khan Vs Municipal Corporation Bhopal) and obtained orders in their favour regarding government land and filed charge sheet against co-accused/appellants Babulal Sunhare, Shailendra Kumar Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2020.11.07 13:47:43 IST THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-2428-2020 (SHAILENDRA KUMAR JAIN V STATE OF M.P.) 7 Jain, Roopshri Jain, Ravindra Batham, Mohd. Anwar Khan and Lakshmi Chand Jain (who died during the trial of the case) and continued the investigation against other suspicious persons.During further investigation, it was found that co-accused Smt. Maya Bisariya, her husband Krishna Prasad Bisariya (who died during investigation of the crime), her son Sanjeev Bisariya, daughters Amita, Alpana and Preeti and co-accused Savitri Bai in connivance with accused Babulal prepared forged lease deed of government land survey no.1560 area 3.20 acres and survey no.1517/1 and 1517/2 total area measuring 2.60 acres showing that the lease of government land of survey no.1560 area 3.20 acres has been given to Smt. Savitri Bai and the lease of government land survey no.1517/1 and 1517/2 total area 2.60 acres has been given to Smt. Maya Bisariya, her husband Krishna Prasad Bisariya (who died during investigation of the crime), her son Sanjeev Bisariya and daughters Amita, Alpana and Preeti and put forged signatures of the Revenue Officer, Yogendra Sharma, Revenue Inspector Rafat-Ullah, Tahsildar, Avinash Kumar Jadhav and Additional Collector, Ajay Singh on that lease deeds.In this regard, they also prepared a forged Revenue Case no.260/A, 20(1) 87-88, settlement case no. 2158/A- 20(1) 95-96 and case no. 202/A-20(1) 87-88 to show the long possession of Smt. Maya Bisariya, her husband Late Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2020.11.07 13:47:43 IST THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-2428-2020 (SHAILENDRA KUMAR JAIN V STATE OF M.P.) 8 Shri Krishna Prasad Bisariya, son Sanjeev Bisariya, daughters Amita Bisariya, Alpana Bisariya and Preeti Bisariyai and co- accused Savitri Bai over respective lands and to show that the lease deeds of government land survey nos.1517/1 and 1517/2 total area 2.60 acre were issued in favour of Smt. Maya Bisariya, her husband Late Shri Krishna Prasad Bisariya, son Sanjeev Bisariya, daughters Amita Bisariya, Alpana Bisariya, Preeti Bisariya and lease deed of government land survey no. 1560 area 3.20 acres to Smt. Savitri Bai by the competent government official.They also got the records of these forged cases kept in the Record Room of the Nazul Officer, Bhopal and also manipulated the entry register of the office.Earlier Krishna Prasad Bisariya had tried to sell the land on the basis of those forged lease deeds.At that time, an enquiry was conducted in which it was found that the said lease deeds were forged.Heard on I.A.No.4935/2020, which is an application U/S.389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence passed against appellant Shailendra Kumar Jain through Video Conferencing.This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29/02/2020 passed by Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption) Act, Bhopal in Special Case No.3/2008, whereby learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 467 r/w Section 471, 468 and 420 r/w 120-B of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. For 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- respectively with default clause.He manipulated the records of Criminal Case RT No.2237/04 which was pending in the court of JMFC/III Civil Judge Bhopal Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2020.11.07 13:47:43 IST THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-2428-2020 (SHAILENDRA KUMAR JAIN V STATE OF M.P.) 5 arising out of the charge-sheet filed by the police after investigation of the Crime No.213/79 registered at P.S. Jahangirabad and attached forge documents and order sheets in the record of that case with the help of co-accused Roopshri Jain, who was posted as Criminal Reader in that court and tried to get arrest warrants issued against Asharam, Shyamlal, Santosh, Vinod and Dilip to take revenge from them.He also manipulated the record of Criminal Case No. 2230/04 arising out from the charge sheet of Crime No.678/91 registered at T.T. Nagar, Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 457/390 of the IPC and attached one forged report which was allegedly a copy of a report given by Tehsildar in Case nos.112-A/20(1) 85-86 and 87/A-20(1) 95-96, where it was mentioned that Additional Collector, Bhopal by an order passed in case no. 716/A-20(1) 82-83 gave a lease of government land area measuring 6000 square metres to Muzaffar Ali, Munavvar Ali and Anees Ahmed Siddiqui and other documents with the help of Smt. Roopshree Jain.Accused Mohamad Anwar Khan tried to take certified copies of those documents with the help of Smt. Roopshree Jain knowing fully well that the said documents were forged.Babulal also manipulated the record of a decided case MJC No.48/05, Kesar Bai vs. Bhopal Industrial Department and was deposited in the Record Room of District Court, Bhopal and Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2020.11.07 13:47:43 IST THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-2428-2020 (SHAILENDRA KUMAR JAIN V STATE OF M.P.) 6 annexed a false report allegedly given by Tahsildar Nazul and copy of lease deed no.714/A-20(1) 78-79 and one map.It was also found that appellant Shailendra Kumar Jain and Lakshmi Chand Jain prepared forged lease deed of government land with the help of accused Babulal showing that the lease of government land area 278.81 square metres located at Hamidia Road, Israni market has been issued in favour of relatives of his brother Lakshmi Chand Jain.So, C.P. Nigam Tahsildar capital project lodged a report against appellant Smt. Maya Bisariya, her husband Late Shri Krishna Prasad Bisariya, son Sanjeev Bisariya, daughters Amita Bisariya, Alpana Bisariya, Preeti Bisariya.On that report, Crime No 82/06 was registered at police station M.P. Nagar Bhopal against them for the offences punishable under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 of IPC.It was also found that on the basis of forged lease deed and other forged documents co-accused Smt. Maya Bisariya, Sanjeev Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2020.11.07 13:47:43 IST THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-2428-2020 (SHAILENDRA KUMAR JAIN V STATE OF M.P.) 9 Bisariya, Alpana Bisariya, Amita Bisariya and Priti Bisariya were also filed Writ Petition no.8494/05 in regard to government land bearing survey no.1517/1 and 1517/2 area 2.6o acre and got an order in their favour from the High Court.It was also found that co-accused Savitri Bai in connivance with Krishna Prasad Bisariya and Sanjeev Bisariya had filed a Civil Suit No. 18A/05 against Krishna Prasad Biisariya and Sanjeev Bisariya, M.P. Government and Municipal Corporation Bhopal averring that she had been in possession of land survey no. 1560 area 3.20 acres for the last 40-45 years.The employees of the Municipal Corporation wrongly encroached it by putting garbage on her land.In that suit, she also made Krishna Prasad Bisariya and Sanjeev Bisariya a party and also averred that she used to work as watchman of the land survey number 1517/1 and 1571/2 which belongs to Krishna Prasad Bisariya and Sanjeev Bisariya.They employed her as a Watchman to guard their land at a salary of Rs.300 per month.In 1997, they sacked her and tried to dispossess her from that land.She filed that civil suit with the intention to grab the government land at the same time strengthening the claim of Krishna Prasad Bisariya, Sanjeev Bisariya, that land survey no. 1516/1 &1516/2 belongs to Krishna Prasad Bisariya and his family members.She also got an order in her favour from the High Court Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2020.11.07 13:47:43 IST THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-2428-2020 (SHAILENDRA KUMAR JAIN V STATE OF M.P.) 10 over that land.She also filed an application under order 13 rule 10 for calling the record of revenue case 202/A/68/76-77 and case no.2158/A/20/1/95-96 to show her long possession on that land knowing fully well that these records were forged.In that case co- accused, Sanjeev Bisariya filed a written statement averring that he has been in possession of land survey no.1516/1 & 1516/2 area 2.60 acres and the government gave that land to him and his father Krishna Prasad Bisariya, co-accused Smt. Maya Bisariya, Alpana Bisariya, Amita Bisariya and Priti Bisariya on lease and also issued lease deeds of that land in their favour.So, police also filed a supplementary charge sheet against co-accused Smt. Maya Bisariya, Sanjeev Bisariya, Alpana Bisariya, Amita Bisariya, Priti Bisariya and Savitri Bai.Learned trial Court after the trial found the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 467 r/w Section 471, 468 and 420 r/w 120-B of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above.As far as the handwriting expert report is concerned, the handwriting expert has given the report by comparing the signatures found on the questioned documents with the appellant's signature found on an application allegedly filled by the appellant under R.T.I. Act but there is no evidence on record to show that said RTI application was filed by the appellant.So, only on the basis of a handwriting expert report, it can not be said that the appellant prepared any forged documents.The hearing of the appeal will take time.Even against co-accused Maya Bisariya and other co-accused persons namely Savitri Bai, Sanjeev Bisariya, Amita Bisariya, Alpana Bisariya and Preeti Bisariya, who have been granted bail by this Court, there is no handwriting expert report on record to show that they themselves prepared any forged document while from the handwriting expert report, it is clear that the appellant prepared forged documents.So, appellant is not entitled to get bail on the basis of parity.So, he should not be released on bail.The case of the appellant is not similar to co-accused Maya Bisariya, who has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the other co-accused persons namely Savitri Bai, Sanjeev Bisariya, Amita Bisariya, Alpana Bisariya and Preeti Bisariya, who have been granted bail by this Court.There is no handwriting expert report on record to show that co-accused Maya, Savitri Bai, Sanjeev Bisariya, Amita Bisariya, Alpana Bisariya and Preeti Bisariya themselves prepared any forged documents while from the handwriting expert report and other evidence on record, it is clear that appellant Shailendra Kumar Jain prepared forged documents.So, appellant is not entitled to get bail on the basis of parity.Appellant Shailendra Kumar Jain in connivance with co- accused Babulal had prepared forged lease deeds of government land and also manipulated the record of revenue cases.In this case, not only forged documents were prepared but also the records of civil courts and criminal courts were manipulated and forged documents were also attached in these cases with ulterior motive.This act shook the faith of the general public in the judiciary.So, looking to the seriousness of the case, this Court is not inclined to Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2020.11.07 13:47:43 IST THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-2428-2020 (SHAILENDRA KUMAR JAIN V STATE OF M.P.) 14 suspend the custodial sentence of the appellant.However, the appellant is free to renew his prayer, if this appeal is not listed for final hearing within a reasonable period.C.C. as per rules.

['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Smt. Sadhana and A nr.Shri Akhilesh Gupta, learned counsel for complainant.The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C for setting aside and quashing the judgment and order dated 7-9-2017 passed by Sessions judge, District Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 1613/2016 whereby petitioner has been convicted under Section 279 of IPC with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation and Sec. 338 of IPC to undergo six months R.I with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner and complainant- Pradeep Bhadoriya has moved an application for compromise under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. vide I.A. No.469/2019 before this Court.State of M.P. & A nr., 2013 Legal Eagle 2352 and Ramvati and A nr.State of M.P. passed in Criminal Revision No. 378/2015 vide judgment dated 10.03.2016, Gulab Singh Vs.State of M.P. passed in Criminal Revision No.691/2014 vide order dated 16.11.2015 and judgment rendered by Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs.State of Punjab passed in Criminal Revision No. 1149/2014 (O&M) vide order dated 09.09.2014 and seeks parity.Here the victim wants to compromise the matter and the case was precipitated in spur of moment and no enmity,negligence or dispute was existing between them.The amount of fine, if deposited, shall be refunded to petitioner.Consequently, revision is allowed.Both judgments dated 6-10-2016 and 7- 9-2017 are hereby set aside.Accordingly, the petition (Criminal Revision No. 4884/2018) stands disposed of and allowed.

['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This first anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant - Viabhav, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with crime no.403/2019, registered at police station - Madhavnagar District - Ujjain, for commission of offence punishable under section 354, 354-D, 294 and 506 of IPC.As per prosecution story on 21.7.2019, a complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix 19 years old lady that she was having friendship with the applicant earlier and applicant was also having some photographs of her.However, when she was engaged elsewhere by her parents, the applicant on 19.7.2019, caught hold of her hands and threatened her that she will have to marry him.FIR has been registered under Sections 354, 354-D, 294 and 506, IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is only 18 years of age and as per admission, the applicant and prosecutrix were having closeness to the extent that some of the photographs of the prosecutrix were with the applicant and if, he is sent to jail then, career would be 1 jeopardized.With the aforesaid, it is prayed that this application for grant of anticipatory bail be allowed.On the other hand, learned public prosecutor opposed the application for gran of anticipatory bail and prays for its rejection.Considering the submissions and the facts and circumstances as well as after perusal of the case diary, without commenting on merits of the case, this application for grant of anticipatory deserves to be allowed.Accordingly, it is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid complaint, he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the following conditions :-i. That, the applicant shall appear before the court below on the date fixed for hearing of the complaint and shall extend full cooperation in the trial.That, the applicant shall also make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required.In the event, if the applicant is found to have violated the directions or misused the bail, then the respondent/and complainant shall be free to take action against the applicant in accordance with law, for cancellation of his anticipatory bail.3 M.Cr.This order shall be governed by the conditions No.1 to 3 of sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.C.c as per rules.(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE SS/-Shailesh Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench Indore, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=b99d782efca3d28a06caddf3fa57b98 Sukhdev c35054f3dd8638f2f98df0172d29e61c2, serialNumber=ffa0399242ca45066c1961743f4 d307cfe601d3c99a4a61b38fcd08eaabe7237, cn=Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 2019.08.05 19:01:56 +05'30'

['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Case diary perused.This is Second application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.329/2018 registered at Police Station- Raoji Bazar District- Indore for commission of the offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376 (2) (N) of I.P.C and Section 5(L) of Protection of Children From Sexual OffenceAs per prosecution case, the complainant lodged missing report alleging that her daughter is missing and he is having doubt that co-accused abducted her.During the course of enquiry police recovered the prosecutrix and on the basis of her statement the aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is a youth aged about 26 years and he has not having any criminal record.The prosecutrix is minor girl aged about 16 years and she has made allegation against the co- accused Sheikh Shamshad that he took her on the false assurance of marriage and committed rape upon her, however, no such allegation has been made against the applicant.The only allegation against the applicant is that when co-accused Sheik Shamshad took the prosecutrix at that time the applicant was also sitting in the auto rickshaw in which the prosecutrix was taken away by the co-accused :2: Sheik Shamshad.In these circumstances, at the most offence under Section 363 of I.P.C. will be made out against the applicant.It is also submitted that the trial regarding Sheik Shamshad and other co-accused persons have already been concluded and they have been acquitted by the trial court because the prosecutrix has not stated anything against them.Conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time.In these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.:2:Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.(S. K. Awasthi) Judge praveen PRAVEEN Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK DN: c=IN, o=DISTRICT AND SESSION COURT INDOR, postalCode=452005, st=Madhya KUMAR Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=e98f729464903facdd39c454715d6ecc c5a350c9111fb019b34dace6d05b8fd5, NAYAK cn=PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2020.07.14 17:04:20 -12'00'

['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-a) The deceased in this case was one Mr.He used to sell groundnut pockets in the Erode Bus stand by entering into the bus to the passengers.P.W.2 - Umesh was also doing the same business.P.W.1 used to sell pieces of pineapple fruit to the passengers.Thus, all the three were known to each other.On 12.01.2014, around 4.00 p.m., when all the three were selling the above, one person was sleeping in the bus stand; yet another person attempted to pick the pocket of the person who was sleeping.The accused questioned him.The deceased Raja in turn told the accused not to take risk in interfering in the above incident.At that time, P.W.11 a Police Constable, who was on guard duty incidentally came to the place of occurrence.On seeing him, the person who was attempting to pick pocket ran away.But the deceased told P.W.11 that the accused attempted to pickpocket.P.W.11 therefore slapped the accused.The deceased Raja also slapped him.Then they dispersed from the place of occurrence.The deceased fell down in a pool of blood.The accused ran away from the scene of occurrence with the knife.P.W.1 held the deceased and made him to sit.Then P.Ws.1 and 2 took the deceased to the Government Hospital at Erode.P.W.7 - the Doctor examined him at 6.55 p.m. and declared him dead.He forwarded the body to the mortuary and gave intimation to the Police.On returning to the Police Station, at 9.00 p.m., she registered a case in Crime No.21 of 2014 under Section 302 IPC against the accused.P13 is the FIR.She forwarded both the documents Ex.P1 - Complaint and Ex.P.W.16 took up the case for investigation.He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness."External Injury: Clean Incised wound in left side 2 cm from midline and 2 cm from left scapula medial border.Upper border of wound - 5 cm from C2Lower border of wound - 12 cm from C2Shape of wound - convexEdges - sharpDimensions of wound - 2 x 8 x 16 cmDirection of wound - Towards left side and upwards direction"P7 is the post-mortem Certificate.He gave opinion that the deceased had died due to the stab injury and the said injury could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1- Knife.On 13.01.2014, at 11.15 p.m., P.W.16 arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness On such arrest, he made voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the knife.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and witnesses to the place of hide out and produced M.O.1- knife from a bush.P.W.16 recovered the same under a Mahazar.On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court and handed over the Material Object also to the Court.He made a request to the Court to forward the Material Objects for chemical examination.The report revealed that 'O' group human blood was found on all the material objects including knife.The appellant denied the same.According to him, the material objects contained 'O' group human blood.P.W.10 has stated that he was running a departmental store in the name and style of Jayasurya at Salem.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.67 of 2014 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode.He stood charged for offence under Section 302 IPC.By judgment dated 05.01.2015, the Trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this court with this appeal.b) Around 6.45 p.m., on the same day, P.W.1 and the deceased were near the platform meant for Tiruppur buses in the Erode Bus Stand.P.W.1 was standing 8 feet away from the place, where the deceased and P.W.2 were walking.At that time, the accused came there and quarreled with the deceased as to why he informed P.W.11 falsely that it was he who attempted to pick pocket.This resulted in a quarrel.In the said quarrel, it is alleged that the accused took out a knife and stabbed the deceased on the back of the chest.Then on going over to the hospital, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 6.30 and 10.00 a.m. on 13.01.2014 and forwarded the body for post-mortem.5. P.W.8 - Dr.Shyam Sundar, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 13.01.2014 at 10.20 a.m. He found the following injuries:On completing the investigation, P.W.17 laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed a lone charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC against the accused.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 17 witnesses were examined and 16 documents were exhibited; besides 7 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4 are the eye witness to the occurrence.P.Ws.1 and 2 have spoken about the previous occurrence which had taken place at 4.00 p.m on 12.01.2014 and also the actual occurrence in which the deceased was stabbed at 6.45 p.m. P.Ws.1 and 2 have further stated that they took the deceased to the hospital, where, he was declared dead.P.W.1 has further spoken about the complaint made by him to the Police.P.Ws.3 and 4, who are the eye witnesses have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence.P.W.5 has spoken about the preparation of Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch.P.W.6 has spoken about the arrest of the accused; his disclosure statement and the consequential recovery of M.O.1 - knife from a bush.P.W.7 has stated that he examined the deceased at Government Hospital, Erode at 6.55 p.m and declared him dead.P.W.8 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.9 has spoken about the medical analysis conducted on the material objects.He further stated that on 12.01.2014 in the branch of the said store at Erode, the accused purchased M.O.1 knife.P.W.11 has stated about the occurrence, which had taken place at 4.00 p.m. at the Erode bus stand.P.W.12 has spoken about the photographs taken at the place of occurrence.P.W.14 has stated that he handed over the dead body to the doctor for post-mortem and he recovered the blood stained cloth from the body of the deceased and handed over the same to the Inspector of Police.P.Ws.16 and 17 have spoken about the investigation done and final report filed in this case.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the same as false.However, he did not chose to examine any witness on his side.His defence was a total denial.According to the appellant, in respect of the occurrence, at 4.00 p.m. on 12.01.2014, he was taken to the police station and he was kept there.Thus, at 6.45 p.m. he was not present at the place of occurrence and that he did not cause any injuries on the deceased.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and that is how the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.As we have already pointed out, in this case P.Ws.1 to 4 have been examined as eye witnesses.P.Ws.1 and 2 have spoken about the occurrence on 12.01.2014 at 4.00 p.m., happened at the Erode bus stand, which gave rise to the motive for the accused to stab the deceased at 6.45 p.m. P.W.11 has also spoken about the occurrence at 4.00 p.m.. Thus, from the evidences of P.Ws.1,2 and 11, the prosecution has clearly proved the occurrence at 4.00 p.m. So far as the actual occurrence of stabbing which had taken place at 6.45 p.m., is concerned, P.Ws.1 to 4 have also spoken about the same.We do not find any reason to reject their evidence.But the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that P.W.1 has admitted that after the 4.00 clock occurrence was over, the accused was taken into the custody by the Police.Thus, from the said evidence, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, it is crystal clear that the accused would not have been present at the place of occurrence at 6.45 p.m. as it is projected by the prosecution.However, P.W.11 the Police Constable has stated that after the 4.00 clock occurrence was over, he warned the accused but he did not take him at all into the custody.P.W.1 also has not stated that the accused was kept in the Police Station from 4.00 p.m onwards.Therefore, from out of the evidence of P.W.1, it cannot be even remotely concluded that the accused was kept in the Police Station from 4.00 p.m onwards.Thus, the only defence set up by the accused that he was in the Police Station and he was not present at the place of occurrence at 6.45 p.m. cannot be believed.It is the law that when the accused sets up the plea of alibi, it is for him to prove the same.We are conscious of the legal position that such proof by the accused is not in the same vigour, in which the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts.It is enough if the accused is able to prove the plea of alibi by means of probabilities.In the instant case, the accused has not at all discharged his onus to prove the burden of proof of plea of alibi.As we have already pointed out from the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 4, the prosecution has clearly established that at 6.45 p.m., the accused came with a knife; quarrelled with the deceased and stabbed him on his back, which resulted in his death.Thus, we hold that it was this accused who caused the death of the deceased.The recovery of M.O.1 - knife which contained 'O' group human blood also strengthens the case of the prosecution.Having come to the said conclusion, now we have to examine the question as to "What was the offence that was committed by the accused by the said act?".Admittedly, there was no enmity between the deceased and the accused.After all, the deceased, P.Ws.1 and 2 and the accused were all vendors of eatables in the bus stand.They were moving closely with each other.The occurrence which had taken place at 4.00 p.m. was an unfortunate one, which had taken place spontaneously.The accused was innocent and he did not make any attempt to pick pocket and despite the same, he got into trouble at the hands of P.W.11 because of the deceased.Quite naturally, he would have grievance against the deceased.At 6.45 p.m, on seeing the deceased, the accused had questioned him his propriety in making such false allegation against him to the Police.This had resulted in a quarrel.This went on for some time.Only in that quarrel, it is alleged that the accused caused single stab on the back of the deceased and ran away.In our considered view, the said act of the accused was out of gross and sudden provocation due to the utterances made and the act of the deceased.The said act would squarely fall within the first exception to Section 300 IPC.The very fact that the accused had caused single stab would go to show that he had no intention to kill the deceased.There was also no motive.The occurrence was not a pre-meditated one.Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, as we have already pointed out, the accused is a young man, aged 36 years.After all, he is a poor man, who was living on the small earnings he made by vending groundnut pockets in the bus.He has got no bad antecedents.He has got a big family to take care off.Further, there are lot of chances for reformation.So far as the aggravating circumstances are concerned, there was no pre-meditation for the accused to cause the death of the deceased.Having regard to these mitigating as well as aggravating circumstances, we are of the view that sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks would meet the ends of justice.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence u/s 302 IPC is set aside and instead, he is convicted for offence under Section 304(i) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks.It is directed that the period of detention already undergone shall be set off as required under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

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

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

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced original DeathCertificate of the appellant accompanied with an affidavit sworn by therespondent Police.In the affidavit, it is stated as follows:-"The appellant/accused No.1 had expired on 1/2/2007 at Sathankulam,Thoothukudi District.The Sathankulam Selection Grade Town Panchayat,Thoothukudi District had issued a death Certificate on 15/2/2007 to the effectthat the appellant/accused No.1 had expired on 1/2/2007."The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi.2. - do - thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Thoothukudi.4. - do - thro' The Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi.The District Collector, Thoothukudi.The Inspector of Police, Sathankulam Police Station, Thoothukudi District.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.REGUPATHI,J) The appellant/A.1 was tried along with five other accused by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Thoothukudi inS.C.No.504 of 1999 for offences punishable under Sections 148, 341, 302 r/w.149and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.Due to animosity against the deceased, on31/10/1998 at about 5.30 p.m., the accused went to the residence of the deceasedand asked P.W.1, wife of the deceased, as to where the deceased was and, onfinding that the deceased was not available there, they told P.W.1 that on thenext day, by that time, her husband would not be alive and left that place and,on 1/11/1998 at about 9.10 a.m., all the accused armed with aruval joinedtogether with the common intention to do away with the deceased and infurtherance of such common intention, they waylaid the deceased at Alangapuramand A.1, with aruval, cut the deceased on the head and when P.W.2 intervened, hepushed him away and in that transaction, P.W.2 sustained a bleeding injury onthe back by coming in contact with the tip of the aruval and, after the deceasedfalling down on the ground, A.1 again cut the deceased with aruval on the cheekand neck; A.2 on the left side of the back and rear part of the head; A.3 onthe right and middle of the head; A.4 on the left side of the head; A.5 on theright forearm and A.6 on the head and back, resulting in the death of thedeceased.By order of the trial Court dated 31/1/2002, the appellant herein/A.1was found guilty under Sections 148, 341, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Codeand sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offenceunder Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code; simple imprisonment for one monthfor the offence under Section 341 of IPC; three years rigorous imprisonment forthe offence under Section 324 IPC and life imprisonment for the offence underSection 302 IPC and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorousimprisonment for one month and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trialCourt, the appellant has preferred the above appeal.Along with the appeal, aMiscellaneous Petition in Crl.M.P.No.60 of 2004 has also been filed wherein,order was passed on 5/8/2004, granting bail in favour of the appellant.As per Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,(a).Every Appeal preferred under Section 377 i.e., appeal by theState Government against sentence, or under Section 378 i.e., appeal in case ofacquittal; and(b).Every other Appeal under Chapter XXIX of the Code (except anappeal from a sentence of fine),shall finally abate on the death of the appellant.Further, during the pendency of the Appeal, none of therelatives of the deceased/appellant has preferred a petition for leave tocontinue the Appeal within thirty days from the death of the appellant; with theresult, the Appeal abates.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.By means of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 23.12.2016, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Court No.25, Lucknow in Case No. 6332 of 2016 (State Vs.Order Date :- 6.9.2019 ML/-

['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

The counsel further submits that the appellant has not misused the liberty granted to him and the appeal would take long time for its disposal and in such circumstances if the execution of jail sentence 2 is not suspended, then his appeal may become infructuous.Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and appellant be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application.Thus, it is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount, the execution of jail sentence of appellant-Badal shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Special Court and the appellant shall appear before the concerned Special Court on 06/10/2020 and on such other dates as may be fixed by that court from time to time in this behalf.C.C. as per rules.(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge DV Digitally signed by DINESH VERMA Date: 2020.07.24 17:41:01 +05'30'

['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

1 102 16.04.2019 C.R.M. 4218 of 2019 Aloke Court 28 In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 09.04.2019 in connection with Keshiary P.S. Case No. 72 of 2019 dated 25.02.2019 under Sections 448/323/427/354B/379/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Birendranath Hazra alias Birendra Hazra & Anr....Petitioners Mr. Nonigopal Chakraborty ... for the petitioners Mr. Ashok Das ... for the State It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is inordinate delay in lodging the first information report.Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory Allowed bail.Having considered the materials on record and bearing in mind the nature of allegations in the light of the aforesaid submission relating to inordinate delay in lodging the first information report, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, however, subject to conditions.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on condition that they shall meet the investigating officer once in a week until further orders and they shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a fortnight from date.The application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 2

['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

This is the second application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant is in custody since 21/08/2014 in connection with Crime No.74/2014 registered at P.S. Lamta, District Balaghat for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201of the I.P.C.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.The sole case is rest on last seen together.The main witness Udal has not supported the prosecution case and he declare hostile.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.On due consideration of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court/trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. SOLANKI)

['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for State.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRIBy way of present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A/279 IPC.Vide judgment dated 26.09.2017, the trial court convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279/304A IPC and vide order on sentence dated 0911.2017 he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 304A and in default to undergo SI for 3 days.Petitioner was also sentenced to undergo SI for six months for the offence under Section 279 IPC.In appeal, vide judgment dated 08.07.19, the conviction of the petitioner was upheld.However, the sentence for the offence under Section 304-A IPC was modified to SI for six months and for the offence under Section 279 IPC was modified to SI for 3 months.The rest of the sentence awarded by the Metropolitan Magistrate was upheld.All the CRL.REV.P. 958/2019 Page 1 of 5 sentences were directed to run concurrently.It was noted that fine of Rs.10,000/- was paid before the trial court.CRL.REV.P. 958/2019 Page 1 of 5A perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the Addl.Sessions Judge reveal that the same was passed without discussing the merits of the case and rather by recording a concession of the counsel for the appellant to the effect that appeal was not pressed on merits and only order on sentence passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, was challenged.The relevant portion of the impugned judgment is reproduced below :-During the course of arguments, ld.Counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is not challenging the judgment of conviction dated 26/06/2017, but is merely challenging the order on sentence dated 09/11/2017, whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence u/s 304A IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/-, ID three days SI and was further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence u/s 279 IPC.Since during course of arguments ld.Accordingly, the petitioner shall be released on bail by the concerned court on the same terms and conditions till the pendency of the appeal.It is directed that the aforesaid CA 153/2017 be listed on 22.11.2019 before the concerned Court.A copy of this order along with records of the case be sent to the concerned court through Special Messenger.The revision petition is disposed of in the above terms.(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI) JUDGE NOVEMBER 18, 2019 ga CRL.REV.P. 958/2019 Page 5 of 5CRL.REV.P. 958/2019 Page 5 of 5

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

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

There is a clear statement that the applicant has said to the victim that she may make arrangement for 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-38972-2020 (MASTER A THROUGH HIS LEGAL GUARDIAN RAMNATH KUSHWAH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) leaving the house and two persons i.e. the co-accused will be accompanying her and to escort her.I.A. No.19018/2020, an application filed under Section 301(2) for assisting the Public Prosecutor.For the reason mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.Shri H.K. Shukla, Advocate for the complainant is permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor during hearing of the matter.In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing.The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/physical distancing in letter and spirit.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has filed first bail application u/S.438, Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.116/2020, registered by Police Station Sarai Chhaula, District Morena, in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-38972-2020 (MASTER A THROUGH HIS LEGAL GUARDIAN RAMNATH KUSHWAH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 363, 366, 506 and 34 of IPC.It is submitted that the applicant is minor aged about 17 years is falsely implicated in the case.As per the prosecution story itself there is no allegation against the present applicant of committing offence under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC.He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while considering the application for grant of bail.He has shown his willingness to contribute an amount of Rs.2,000/- in the account of High Court Bar Association, Gwalior for benefit of the lawyers during this COVID-19 scenario.In such circumstances, he prays for anticipatory bail.Per contra, counsel for the State as well as the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and have argued that applicant is a principal accused in the case.She was forced by threatening to leave her house by the present applicant.All the arrangements regarding her traveling was made by the present applicant.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.E- copy of this order be provided to the applicant and E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.It is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.

['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

All these appeals/revision can be disposed of by this common judgment.In Sessions Case No. 19 of 2007, Datta Bismille and his nine companions were accused.In Sessions Case No.23 of 2010, Devidas Wadde and his eight companions were accused.Both these cases arose out of one incident of rioting etc. that took place on 15th July, 2006, at about 3.15 p.m., in land Survey No. 14 of village Bondhar, Taluka and District Nanded.Most of the accused in both these cases sustained injuries.One Chandu Wadde subsequently died due to multiple injuries which he had sustained during the incident.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::The facts leading to this case can be narrated as under and the parties to these proceedings are referred to by their status in lower Court.Land Survey No.14 (disputed land), situated at village Bondhar belonged to one Kisan Satwaji Arate.Devidas (accused No.1 in Sessions case No.23 of 2010) and his family members, who are other accused were keenly interested in buying this land from Kishan Arate.They claimed that Kishan had given this land to them for cultivation long back in exchange of their land at village Pardi.According to them, there was barter deal between them and Kishan.Devidas reiterated that since last 20 years, there was barter deal between his family and Kishan Arate, who was son of his paternal aunt.Devidas asserted that they had a piece of land at village Pardi.This was given for cultivation to Kishan Arate.In exchange, Kishan Arate gave his land Survey No.14 of village Bondhar to him for cultivation.He admitted that there was no documentation of this transaction.He said, this was based on oral agreement.Devidas then admitted that Kishan Arate sold Survey No.14 of village Bondhar to Rama and Madhav Bismille.He said that, despite the sale-deed, he and his brothers continued cultivation of the land.6-ii. P.W.2 is Kuntabai, wife of P.W.1 Devidas.She stated that she and her mother-in-law were working in her agricultural land where sugarcane crop was standing.He said that on 15.07.2006 the incident took place.He said that he was present in his house.At about 03.00 p.m. he came to know that quarrel took place between members of Bismille family and Wadde family in agricultural land.He, therefore, went to Police Patil's House and gave information to him.Police Patil asked him to go further and assured him that he would come after him.He said that on the day of incident he was at his house.At about 02.45 p.m. Santosh came to call him.P.W. 12 is Santosh.He said that on 15.07.2006 he was present in his field.At that time the accused came there and started to sow disputed field which was already sown by them.His father- Chandu told him to go to village and call his uncles and brothers and thereafter he went to village and called them.He said that all his uncles, brothers and cousins came to the disputed land.Accused then started assault with sticks, iron bars and axes.He stated that after his brothers purchased the disputed land, Devidas and others started disputing as to why they had purchased the land.On 15.07.2006 at about 3.30 p.m., he was in the disputed land and was sowing boru crop using a tractor.His brothers Budhaji, Ganpati, Rama, Laxman, Madhav and nephews Pandit and ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 ::: 19 crap619.12+ Khandu were also present.At that time accused in Sessions Case No.23, namely, Sambhaji, Maroti, Baliram, Devidas, Ramchandra, Venkati, Santosh and Madhav came with sticks, axes and iron rods.They stopped their sowing operation.They said, why Datta had purchased the land.They started beating them with sticks, axes and iron rods.Budhaji, Laxman, Ganpat, Rama, Madhav and Khandu sustained injuries on their heads, hands and legs.He sustained injury on head by stick blow.He took his injured brothers to Pasadgaon by a tractor and thereafter his brothers were taken to Government Hospital, Nanded.CLW over occipital area 2" x ½" up to bone, caused by hard and blunt object.CLW over parietal area 3" x ½" up to bone, caused by hard and blunt object.Abrasion over right hand right finger ½" x ¼", caused by hard and blunt object.Contusion over left calf area (left leg) 3" x 3", caused by hard and blunt object.Contusion over left shoulder and swelling 2"x2",caused by hard and blunt object.CLW over left forehead, 2" x 2" upto bone, caused by hard and blunt object.Maroti Potlaji Wadde i.J U D G M E N T : [PER : A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] :-After trials of both Sessions cases the learned Judge convicted accused Nos.1 to 6 of Sessions Case No.19 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 304 Part-II read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Accused Nos.7 to 10 were acquitted.On the other hand, all the accused in Sessions Case No.23 of 2010 were acquitted.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::It sought conviction of all accused for offence punishable under sections 302 & 307 read with 149 of the I.P.C.(iii) Criminal Appeal No.679 of 2012 is filed by complainant Devidas against judgment in in Sessions Case No.19 of 20073. Submissions for all the appeals/revision are heard together.They also asserted that they were in settled possession of the disputed land.But, admittedly no revenue record could be shown in support of their claim of possession and cultivation.They felt aggrieved due to the sale transaction.Soon after the sale-deed was executed, Devidas Wadde (accused No.1 in S.C.No. 23 of 2010) and others filed a civil suit against Kishan Arate, Rama Madhav Bismille for getting the sale-deed executed in their favour cancelled.They also claimed that they were in possession of the land and their possession should be protected by an order of temporary injunction.The Civil Court, however, rejected their application for temporary injunction.The Civil Court obviously accepted the probability of the case of Rama and Madhav Bismille (accused Nos.2 & 5 in S.C.No.19 of 2007), the purchasers, that they are in possession of the land etc.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::Despite the fact that sale-deed took place in 2004, yet, application for mutation entry in revenue ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 ::: 9 crap619.12+ record filed by Rama and Madhav Bismille (accused Nos.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::2 & 5 in S.C. No.19 of 2007) remained pending and their names were not mutated as cultivators of land till July, 2006, when the incident took place.There was no documentary proof coming from Revenue Department indicating that either Ram and Madhav Bismille (accused Nos.2 & 5 in S.C. No.19 of 2007) on one hand or Devidas Wadde (accused No.1 in S.C. No. 23 of 2010) and his brothers on the other hand were cultivating land and were in settled possession.The only document that existed then was the sale-deed executed in favour of Ram and Madhav Bismille (accused Nos.2 & 5 in S.C.No.19 of 2007).The other circumstance in their favour was that till July, 2006 they could resist a suit filed by Devidas Wadde (accused Nos.1 in S.C. No.23 of 2010) and others for injunction etc. In this background, one must appreciate the facts of this case.The allegations are made by both the sides against each other.He stated that he had five brothers namely; Chandu, Sambhaji, Maroti, Baliram and Dharba.He added that Chandu had two grown-up sons namely; Santosh and Venkati (during the pendency of the Sessions Case, one brother by name ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 ::: 10 crap619.12+ Sambhaji died).Wife of Devidas was Kuntabai and his mother's name was Gangabai.He also admitted that the dispute in respect of the land survey No.14 had reached Civil Court.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::He said that about 4 to 5 days prior to 15 th July, 2006, he and his brothers cultivated the disputed land with hybrid jowar.At about 03.15 to 03.30 p.m. on 15 th July, 2006, while he was at home in village Bondhar, Chandu's son Santosh came to him and informed that Datta, his five brothers i.e. Rama, Ganpati, Laxman, Madhav and Budhaji (accused in sessions case No. 19 of 2007) and others had come to the disputed land in a tractor.They were armed with sticks, iron bar and ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 ::: 11 crap619.12+ axes.Hearing this, Devidas, his brothers and their sons proceeded to the disputed land.He obstructed Datta and others from sowing seeds in the disputed land.But, Datta and others started assaulting them with sticks and axes.Due to the assault, he sustained fracture injuries on both his hands and an injury on his head.He said that Madhav (accused No.5) and Datta (accused No.1) delivered blow of axe on his head.He further mentioned that his companions Sambhaji, Maruti, Baliram, Dharba, Ramchandra, Venkat, Madhav, Santosh and Chandu also sustained injuries due to the assault.He said that Chandu sustained more injuries and fell unconscious.His mother Gangabai tried to intervene and wanted to save him and other from the assault.His mother sustained a blow of axe on her head.His wife Kuntabai also tried to intervene and was also assaulted.She sustained a blow of stick on her knee.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::Chandu and Santosh were present in the same field.At that time accused Nos.1 to 9 (S.C. No.19 of 2007) came there with others in a tractor.They were also armed with sticks, iron bar and axes.They started sowing jute seeds in the disputed land.They also disturbed the cultivation made earlier in the disputed land utilizing tractor.Seeing this she sent ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 ::: 12 crap619.12+ Santosh to the village.Santosh came back with Devidas, Maruti, Sambhaji, Arjun, Venkati and Ramchandra.She said that she and others then tried to convince accused No.1 to 9 not to disturb sowing in the field.The accused then started assaulting Devidas, his brothers and nephews.Ganpat (accused No.3) dealt a stick blow on her knee.She suffered fracture injury to her knee.She also stated that she sustained one blow of stick on her head.She said that accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 had axe in their hands and others were having sticks and iron bars.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::Thereafter, he and other two witnesses went to the disputed land and found that persons were gathered there.He saw members of Wadde family had sustained bleeding injuries.He also noticed Chandu was lying down in injured condition.He saw that accused No.2-Ram, accused No. 6-Budhaji and accused No.1-Datta had axe in their hands.He saw that these persons were assaulting Chandu with axe and were asking him whether he wanted the disputed land.He also noticed that Chandu's ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 ::: 13 crap619.12+ mother fell on his person to shield him from the assault.He also noticed that wife of Devidas, namely, Kuntabai had also sustained injury by stick on her legs and hands.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::P.W.9 is one Baban who stated that before the incident deceased Chandu had sown seeds in the disputed land.On the day of incident he said that he was working in agricultural land of one Dattapure.He said that he saw Dattu, his son Madhav, Santu and two women working in the field.He said that at that time all accused came in tractor and trolley.They started sowing the field which was already sown by deceased Chandu.At that time Santosh went to village and came back with all his uncles and brothers.All of them then argued with the accused.Thereafter, quarrel took place between both these groups.He said that Chandu sustained injuries all over his body.His mother and brother's wife also sustained injuries.P.W.10 is Maruti who is one of the injured in this case.He said that at about 03.00 p.m. while he was at his village, his nephew Santosh came and told him that accused Datta and others had disturbed crops in disputed land.He said that he, his brothers Sambhaji, Baliram, Dharba, Devidas went to the disputed land.He said that they all told Datta and others not to destroy the crop etc. He said that the ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 ::: 14 crap619.12+ accused assaulted them with stick, iron bar and axe.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::He specifically mentioned that accused No.6 delivered one blow of axe on his head.He sustained bleeding injury on his head.He also added that accused No.1 Datta, Madhav and Ram delivered stick blows and iron bar blows on his back.He fell down.He also added that accused No.1-Datta, accused No.6-Budha and accused No.2-Rama delivered sticks and axe blows on Chandu's person.Chandu sustained number of injuries all over his body.He then said that accused No.1 Datta, accused No.2-Rama, accused No.6-Budhaji and others assaulted Sambhaji, Baliram, Dharba, Devidas, Kuntabai and Gangabai.They used sticks, axes and iron bars.He said that Madhav, Deorao and Baban came and rescued him and others.Thereafter, accused left the land.He said that he was then taken to hospital.This witness pin-pointedly assigned role to accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 who delivered blows on his person.He then added that accused Nos.1, 2, and 6 delivered blows of axe, sticks etc. on the person of Chandu and others.He said that Chandu sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died in the hospital.Santosh told him that accused were destroying hybrid jowar sown by them in the disputed field.He said that he tried to request the accused not to disturb their field.He said that ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 ::: 15 crap619.12+ accused then started to beat them with axe, sticks and iron bars.He specifically mentioned that accused No.2 Rama and accused No.10 Purushottam delivered blows of sticks on his head and back.He sustained injuries.He said that accused No.2-Rama, accused No.1-Datta and accused No.6-Budhaji delivered blows of axe on Chandu's person.Chandu fell down after he sustained injury on head, hands and legs.Chandu's mother Gangabai tried to shield Chandu from the assault but accused No.1-Datta delivered one blow of axe on Gangabai's head.She sustained bleeding injury on her head.Accused No.2-Rama then gave blow of axe on the left leg of Kuntabai, due to which she sustained fracture injury.This witness tried to give more details in respect of the incident.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::He specifically mentioned that accused No.6-Budhaji delivered a blow of axe on right side of his leg.Accused No.4-Laxman delivered a blow of stick on his hand and legs.He said that he sustained bleeding ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 ::: 16 crap619.12+ injury on his head.He then added that accused No.6 Budhaji, accused No.2-Rama and accused No.1-Datta gave blows of axe on the person of Chandu who sustained number of injuries all over of his body.Accused No.1-Datta gave one blow of axe on the hands of his grand-mother Gangubai.Accused No.3-Ganpati gave one blow of stick on right leg of Kuntabai.She suffered injury on her leg.He said that his uncles also sustained bleeding injuries but he did not mention as to who delivered blows on their person except what is stated above.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::At about 02.45 p.m. accused came there with axes, sticks and iron bars, travelling in a tractor.They started destroying the crop sown by them.He said that he sent his nephew Santosh to the village.His brothers and uncles came with him.He said that accused No.6-Budhaji delivered axe blow on his head.He sustained bleeding injury.He said that accused No.4-Laxman and accused No.5- Madhav used sticks on his back, hands and legs.He stated that accused No.2-Rama, accused No.6-Budhaji and accused No.1-Datta delivered axe blows on Chandu- his father.His father sustained injuries on his person.His grand-mother also sustained injuries.Accused No.6-Budhaji delivered axe blow on her head.Accused No.3-Ganpati delivered a stick blow on Kuntabai, who suffered fracture.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::time he was Police Patil of the village.He said that at the time of incident he was in his house.He said that he heard shouts and saw that some persons were running towards the disputed land.He said that he also went to the spot.When he reached the spot, he said that the incident was already over.He said that he then helped the injured persons including Chandu and in a bullock-cart brought them to hospital.He saw Chandu lying on the ground.He also added that he saw accused Nos.1-Datta, accused No.2-Rama & accused No.6-Budhaji present near Chandu who was lying on the ground.He also saw accused Nos.7-Khandu & accused No.8-Govind present on the spot.He added that he also saw injuries on persons of Maruti, Dharba, Baliram, Devidas, Venkati, Madhav & Santosh.This witness apparently did not state that he witnessed the assault taking place.He is a Panch witness of scene of offence Panchanama.He said that on 16.07.2006 he went to the disputed land alongwith police for drawing panchanama.He said that he saw sticks lying in the land.He also noticed some bloodstained soil.He said that Police took in charge the bloodstained soil and sticks.The panchanama of scene of offence indicated that the land was of black cotton soil and certain agricultural work was already ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 ::: 18 crap619.12+ done there.There were nine sticks stained with blood.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::6-xi. P.W.5 is Vasant Rathod.He attended inquest panchanama of dead body.P.W. No.7 is Dr.Shubhangi, who stated that on 15.07.2006 while she was on duty in casualty ward of Civil Hospital, she examined Gangabai, Deorao, Sambhaji and others.She gave details about the injuries they had sustained.She also admitted that on the very same day, she examined accused Nos.1 to 6 and issued certificates in respect of the injuries sustained by them also.P.W. 8 is Dr.Subhash Deshmukh.He gave details of injuries suffered by witness Devidas and others.The gist of prosecution evidence in Sessions Case No.23 of 2010 can be stated as under :-He lodged complaint.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::Second eye witness is P.W.2-Madhav Bismile, who stated similarly about the incident that took place on 15.07.2006 at about 3.15 p.m. He also reiterated that what is stated and noted above by witness Datta.In addition, he specifically stated that accused No.1-Devidas, accused No.6-Madhav, accused No.7-Santosh and accused No.9-Ramchandra caused injuries to his head, leg, finger of left hand using stick and iron road.While incident was going on villagers - Baban, Deorao, Madhav, Kerba came there and tried to intervene.They took injured persons to village Pasadgaon, using a tractor.From there the injured were taken to Civil Hospital, utilizing auto- rickshaws.P.W.2 was treated in the hospital for about 2-3 days.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::stated that his companions Datta, Khandu, Madhav, Laxman, Purshottam, Govind, Pandit and Budhaji sustained injuries.He stated that he sustained injuries on the hands by accused No.2-Dharba, accused No.8-Venkati and accused No.9-Ramchandra.They delivered blows of axe on his head and all over his body etc. He sustained injuries and was taken to hospital.P.W.4-Ganpati was the next eye witness, who also stated about the incident that took place on 15.07.2006 at about 3.15 p.m. He specifically mentioned that accused No.8-Venkati and accused No.4-Baliram delivered blows of sticks and axe on his person.He sustained bleeding injuries.He was taken to hospital.He specifically mentioned that he was beaten by accused No.7-Santosh, accused No.8-Madhav, accused No.2-Dharba.He sustained injuries to his head and right hand fingers.He was then taken to hospital.P.W.6-Budhaji also reiterated what is stated above.He in particular stated that Chandu (deceased), accused No.9-Ramchandra and accused No.1-Devidas used ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 ::: 21 crap619.12+ sticks, iron road and axe to beat him.He sustained injuries and was taken to hospital.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::P.W.7-Khandu reiterated as to how the incident tok place on 15.07.2006 at about 3.15 p.m. He mentioned specifically that accused No.5-Sambhaji and accused No.2-Dharba assaulted him with stick and iron rod.He sustained injuries and was sent to hospital.In both these cases, in addition to these eye witness account in Sessions Case No.23 of 2010, the prosecution also examined Medical Officer P.W.8- Dr.Shubhangi Karadkhedkar, who stated that she examined witnesses Laxman, Datta, Rama, Budhaji, Ganpat, Madhav and Khandu.She mentioned that witness- Laxman sustained three injuries.All of them were caused by sharp weapon.Witness Datta, according to her, sustained one injury on his head caused by hard object.Witness Rama sustained injury on his head caused by hard and sharp weapon.He was admitted to hospital.Witness Budhaji sustained four injuries.Out of them, three were on his head.These injuries were caused by sharp weapon.One injury was on index finger, which was caused by hard weapon.Witness Ganpat suffered one injury on his head.Witness Madhav suffered two injuries on his head and two injuries on his limbs.Witness-Khandu suffered one injury on his head.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::P.W.11-Deorao, who stated that the incident took place on 15.07.2006 at about 2.30 p.m. He was in the village at that time and as soon as he came to know that there occurred some incident, he went to the disputed land.He noticed that beyond river the disputed land was situated and two groups were having fight.He also noticed that one Baban was trying to intervene and pacify the members of quarreling groups.He further mentioned that members of both the parties sustained injuries.He further mentioned that he did not notice that as to who assaulted whom.He stated that the incident took place on 15.07.2006 at about 3.30 p.m. He was working in his field, which was situated near the disputed land.He saw that witness-Datta came in the field and started sowing boru utilizing tractor.At that time there occurred some quarrel.At that time accused No.2-Baliram, deceased-chandu, accused No.3- Maruti, accused No.2-Dharba and accused No.7-Santosh came there.They obstructed Datta's tractor.There occurred some talk between them.Thereafter, there was fight.He did not see as to who particularly beat or assaulted whom.Deceased-Chandu and one old woman fell down due to the assault.He went to the spot.He also saw witness Dattu, Budhaji, Ganpat and Rama on the spot.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::Learned Judge of the Lower Court upheld the defence of accused in Sessions Case No.23 of 2010 that they were in settled possession of the disputed land and that accused in sessions Case No.19 of 2007 assaulted them with deadly weapons.They retaliated and tried to protect themselves.They thus acted in self-defence at the time of incident, whereas the accused in Sessions Case No.19 of 2007 were aggressors.They committed criminal trespass and then caused injuries and also death of one of the victims.We have heard submissions at length.We also perused the judgment as well as evidence, which came on record.We are required to decide following questions.First question is - Who was in settled possession of the disputed land? Both the sides asserted that they were in settled possession and they were trying to protect the same at the time of incident.We do not accept both these contentions.On one side, Datta Bismille and his brothers (accused in Sessions Case No.19 of 2007) have claimed title to the disputed property.But, we are not inclined to hold that they had settled possession of the disputed land.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::24 crap619.12+ There is nothing on record to show that they cultivated the land from 2004 onwards.On the other hand, Devidas Wadde and his brothers do not even have title to the land.They pleaded a case of barter etc. with Kishan Arate.But, there is no documentary proof for such arrangement/agreement.All that they have is depositions of prosecutions witnesses, who stated that they knew that Devidas and his brothers have cultivated this land.We do not give any importance to such depositions.People in villages tend to lie on such issues.That is why in our Country we have strong Revenue Record system and we depend on the entries in it.In absence of revenue record we reject case of possession of Devidas and his brothers.We also take note of the fact that though Datta Bismille and his brothers could purchase the disputed land, they could not enter in the same prior to 15th July, 2006 most probably because of rival claim of Devidas Wadde and his strong brotherhood.Both these groups consisted of six brothers on each side.These brothers in turn have several grown-up children.They both thus formed strong groups having almost equal muscle power.A tension between such groups would certainly lead to physical violence.We hold that both the groups were in the process of seizing up strength of the opponents and were making preparation to invade the disputed land and hold on to it despite resistance.Each group wanted to establish dominion on ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 ::: 25 crap619.12+ the land in dispute.So both the groups would fail in their attempt to establish that they were exercising right of private defence.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::(i)whether all the accused in both the Sessions Cases formed unlawful assembly and attacked each other? (ii) If the answer is in affirmative whether the attacks were simultaneous or whether any one group was aggressor?The first precipitative action took place 4-5 days prior to the date of incident.Ganpati and his brothers entered the disputed land and sown hybrid jawar.This was apparently an overt act on their part.We believe that part of their case, though we strongly reject their case of settled possession.In retaliation to it on 15th July,2006, Datta Bismille and his brothers and nephews launched their aggression.This time, they went to the disputed land armed with weapons as well as tractor for tilling.As soon as they entered the land, they started use of tractor for tilling.This part of the case is almost admitted by both the sides.This was an unexpected move.Devidas and his brothers were caught unaware.They were not prepared for this aggression.But within few minutes, all of them gathered and arrived at the disputed land.The first question that we asked ourselves is, with what preparation Devidas and his brothers and nephews ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 ::: 26 crap619.12+ would arrive at the disputed site? They already knew that Datta and others had come there with weapons like sticks, axes and iron bar.So, it was natural for them to come there equally prepared.We have no hesitation to hold that Devidas and his brothers were also armed with similar weapons.Looking to the muscle power of both the groups, this was the beginning of armed conflict.dmittedly within few minutes of altercation, both the groups started assaulting each other.The prosecution witnesses have clearly stated so.In the melee almost all sustained injuries.Most of the injuries were sustained on heads.There was even possibility of use of axes from blunt side.(In some cases sharp aged weapons were also used.But, the injuries caused by them were simple in nature.)::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::In view of this, we have no hesitation to hold that all accused in both these cases formed unlawful assemblies and attacked each other almost simultaneously.Strength of both sides was almost equal.This eruption of violence was not unexpected but was almost a sudden occurrence.Both the groups were equally prepared.In the heat of passion, it soon became a free fight.Both sides resorted to violence but did not act in cruel manner.Number of persons from both sides suffered injuries.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::List of injuries suffered by both the sides is given under for comparison :-Gangabai Potlaji Wadde i.CLW on right parietal area on scalp - 4 x 1 cm simple in nature caused by rough and hard object.Sambhaji Potlaji Wadde i.CLW - 4 x ½ cm on right parietal area caused by rough and hard object.Fracture of acromion process of scapular left.Grievous in nature.Fracture of 3rd and 4th rib posteriorly on right side - grievous in nature - caused by rough and hard object.Fracture lower 1/4th ulna right.Ramchandra Chandu Wadde i.Contusion 3 x 4 cm simple type, caused by hard and blunt weapon.Contusion 12 x 2 cm on left thigh caused by hard and blunt object of simple type.Contusion 4 x 1 cm on left forearm caused by hard and blunt object of simple type.Contusion 3 x 1 cm on back caused by hard and blunt object of simple type.Kuntabai Devidas i.Contusion 2 x 2 cm on forehead right side caused by rough and hard object.Devidas Potlaji Wadde i.CLW over occipital region 2"x1/2"upto bone, caused by hard and blunt object.Contusion over right elbow joint slight swelling 2" x 1" caused by hard and blunt object.Contusion over right palm, dorsal side 1" x 1" caused by hard and blunt object simple in nature and iv.Contusion over left palm (dorsal side) 2" x 1" caused by hard and blunt object.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::Contusion over left side of back 5" x 2" (oblique in direction) caused by hard and blunt object.Dharba Potlaji Wadde i.CLW over right forehead 2 x ½" upto bone, caused by hard and blunt object.CLW over occipital region 3" x 1" x upto bone, caused by hard and blunt object.Baliram Potlaji Wadde i.CLW over right frontal region 1" x ½" x upto bone.Contusion over right forearm, swelling at lower side 3" x 2".Contusion over left thigh (lateral aspect) 4" x 3".Abrasion over occipital region 1" x ½" v.CLW over right palm with fracture of 1st meta carpal bone 2" x 1".CLW over right ankle joint 3" x 2" upto bone.Contusion over left knee joint, swelling plus 4" x 3".::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::29 crap619.12+ viii.Contusion over back 4" x 3".Injuries of Chandu the deceased are as under:-Swelling over right temporal region and occipital region, spread over 6 x 4 cm and 14 x 5 cm respectively.Healed abrasion with blackish scab present over superior aspect of right shoulder 4 x 3 cm, right arm laterally over upper third spread over 3 x 2 cm.Contusion over right arm over middle third region antero laterally spread over 8 x 3 ½ cm.Medical Officer also fond fracture right humerus, right tibia, fibula, left radious-ulna.On internal examination he found following injuries.Under scalp, haematoma in right temporalist muscle and over occipital region, brownish black about 6 x 3 cm and 12 x 4 cm respectively.There was fissure fracture of the base of skull in right middle cranial fossa, extending to pituitary fossa.Extra vassation are seen.The meninges were congested and intact.There was hemorrhagic contusion to right cerebellar hemisphese on ventral aspect.Laxman Kishanrao Bismille i.CLW three number each measuring 4x1 cm on parieto occpital region right side.CLW 4 x 1 cm.on left parieto occipital region and iii.CLW 2 in number 6 x 1 cm and 3 x 1 cm on left parietal regionDatta Kishanrao Bismille.CLW measuring 1 x 1 cm on right parietal area.Rama Kishanrao Bismille i.CLW measuring 3 x 1 cm.and 4 x 1 cm on top of ventex.Budhaji Kishanrao Bismille i.CLW measuring 15 cm x 2 cm on head parietal area right side.CLW measuring 1 x ½ cm on right index finger.CLW two in number 7 x 1 on left parietal area.CLW 6 x 1 cm and 4 x 1 cm on right parietal area.Ganpati Kishanrao Bismille CLW measuring 7 x 1 cm on left parietal area.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::Madhav Kishanrao Bismille i.CLW measuring 5 x 1 cm on occipital region.CLW measuring 7 x 1 cm on right parietal region.CLW measuring 2 x ½ on right index fingure.Khandu Budhajirao Bismille i. CLW 6 x 1 cm on top of vertex.On comparison of number and nature of injuries found on the person of the victims, it is clearly indicated that members of Devidas's group sustained more injuries.On the other hand Datta and six others from his group sustained injuries, which were mostly simple in nature.It can, therefore, be said that the attack of members of Datta's group was more fierce compared to the attack of group belonging to Devidas.But the description of the incident given by eye witnesses belonging to group of Devidas does not indicate that members of group of Datta targeted any one or two members of group of Devidas utilizing more power and indicating cruelty.We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that members of both these groups were members of unlawful assembly with deadly weapon and all of them used force and violence.All the accused in both cases have committed offence of rioting with deadly weapons.They should be convicted for offences under Sections 143,144 & 148 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::The third question that arises for our consideration is - what was the common object of both these assemblies? From the evidence on record, it can safely be said that the common object of unlawful assemblies was to cause injuries to their opponents.Looking to the nature of injuries caused to witnesses in Sessions Case No.19 of 2007, we have no hesitation to hold that the common object of unlawful assembly of Datta (accused in Sessions Case No.19 of 2007) and his associates was to cause grievous injuries to their victims and to deter them from cultivation of disputed land.On the other hand, the common object of unlawful assembly formed by Devidas (accused in sessions Case No.23 of 2010) and his associates was to cause simple injuries to their opponents and to stop them from cultivating disputed land.The fourth question required to be asked is, whether Datta and others - accused in sessions case No.19 of 2007 had common object of causing death of the opponents? The answer has to be in negative.Chandu, the injured victim, who ultimately succumbed to death, had suffered five injuries.All of them were grievous in nature.He suffered fractures ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 ::: 32 crap619.12+ of bones of both the limbs.In addition, he also sustained two injuries on his head.His death occurred after nine days from the incident.All that we can say is that the common object of Datta and his unlawful assembly was to cause grievous hurt to Chandu.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::The learned Judge of the Lower Court held that they did not commit murder but committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder.It is caused under exception (4) of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.All ingredients of exception (4) of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code are clearly established in this case.As said above, there was strong reason for both the parties to attack each other.Sudden fight took place and in the heat of passion injuries were caused to the deceased.It does not appear that they had taken undue advantage of their position.It is not the prosecution case that before the Chandu's brothers Devidas and others came on the spot, they caught Chandu unprepared and attacked him.The prosecution witnesses stated that the armed struggle started only after Devidas and his brothers reached the disputed spot and in the melee, injuries were caused.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::We therefore, hold that accused Nos.1 to 6 in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2007 could be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.We are inclined to accept the argument that other accused Nos.7 to 10 should also be convicted for similar offence.The learned Judge of the Lower Court analyzed the evidence quite painstakingly and held that accused No.7 onwards were present but were silent spectators.We do not wish to disturb the said finding.On the other hand, we are inclined to hold that accused Devidas Wadde and seven others could be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and other allied offences like rioting.The gist of above discussion can be summarized as under :-against them that accused Nos. 1 to 6 were members of unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of the assembly.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::that accused Nos.1 to 6 voluntarily caused simple hurt to complainant - Devidas.The prosecution could also prove that accused Nos.1 to 6 in furtherence of their common object caused grievous hurt to their victim.V. ig The prosecution could also prove that the accused Nos. 1 to 6 in furtherence of their common object, caused culpable homicide not amounting to murder of their victim - Chandu.I. On the other hand, the prosecution proved that accused Nos. 1 to 9 were members of unlawful assembly.The prosecution could also prove that being members of such unlawful assembly, accused Nos. 1 to 9 were also armed with deadly weapons.The prosecution could further prove that they in furtherence of their common object, caused simple hurt to the complainant and other witnesses by means of sticks, axe, ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 ::: 35 crap619.12+ iron bar etc.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::In view of above conclusions Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2015 filed against the order of acquittal in Sessions Case No. 23 of 2010 would succeed partly.We would now consider as to whether accused Nos.1 to 6 in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2007, who were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for offence punishable under section 304 Part-II read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, which is longest term of sentence awarded to them deserves any leniency.Obviously, therefore, they also deserve reduction in the length of sentence awarded to them.For offence punishable under section 326 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, earlier they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each.We reduce this sentence to a period of two years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months.We do not intend to make change in the length of sentence awarded to them for offence punishable under section 324 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and other sentences awarded to them for offence punishable ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 ::: 36 crap619.12+ under sections 323 & 324 both read with section 149 and sections 147 & 148 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::As said above, accused in Sessions Case No. 23 of 2010 also deserve to be convicted for offence punishable under sections 147 & 148 and 324 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.However, we are not inclined to send them back to jail.We sentence them to the term of imprisonment which they have already undergone while in custody pending the trial.In the result, we pass following order :-O R D E R (A) Criminal Appeal No. 619 of 2012 is partly allowed.(A-i) The conviction of appellants/accused Nos.1 to 6 in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2007 is not disturbed for offence punishable under section 304 Part-II read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, but their sentences are modified.They are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period which they already undergone in jail with fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.(A-ii) The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 6are convicted for the offence punishable under section 326 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 ::: 37 crap619.12+ pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::(A-iii) Rest of the conviction and sentence shall remain unchanged.(A-iv) All the sentences shall run concurrently.(A-v) In case, fine is deposited by the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 6, they be released from custody, if not required in any other case.(B) Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2013 filed by the State is dismissed.(C) Criminal Appeal No.679 of 2012 filed by complainant-Devidas against judgment in Sessions Case No.19 of 2007 is also dismissed.(D) Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2013 filed against acquittal of all accused in Sessions Case No.23 of 2010 is partly allowed.(D-i) The accused/respondent Nos.1 to 8are convicted for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148 and 324 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.They are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period which they have already undergone in the custody during the trial for all the offences proved against them.(D-ii) The accused/respondents Nos.1 to 8are not sentenced to pay any fine.::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::210 of 2012 filed against judgment in Sessions Case No.19 of 2007 seeking enhancement in sentence is also dismissed.[INDIRA K. JAIN, J.] [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2016/FEB16/crap619.12+ ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:23:55 :::

['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

DATE : 22ND APRIL, 2014 CONTINUED ON : 25TH APRIL, 2014 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2014 23:42:11 ::: cra1339.14 3 ORAL JUDGMENT :::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2014 23:42:11 :::1. Admit.Heard learned counsel for the Applicants and learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1, finally.Respondent No.2 though served, remained absent.2. Learned counsel for Applicants has submitted that offence was registered at Nehrunagar Police Station, Mumbai bearing Crime No.204 of 2013 under Sections 494, 498-A, 420, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and for the same offence Respondent No.2 filed private complaint (M.A. No.9 of 2014) R.C.C. No.19 of 2014 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paranda for offence punishable under Section 494 read with 34 of I.P.C. against Applicants.Learned Counsel for Applicants submitted that F.I.R. filed by Respondent No.2 at Nehrunagar Police Station, Mumbai and private complaint filed at Paranda, are having similar ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2014 23:42:11 ::: cra1339.14 4 allegations.It is argued that when F.I.R. was registered, such complaint could not have been filed.Counsel further submitted that the copy of Complaint at Exhibit E shows that the Magistrate merely recorded verification of the complainant-::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2014 23:42:11 :::Learned ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2014 23:42:11 ::: cra1339.14 5 counsel for the Applicants, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the case of National Bank of Oman vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz and another, reported in (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases,::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2014 23:42:11 :::Having gone through the record, I find substance in the arguments of learned counsel for Applicants that when accused persons were residing beyond the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paranda, it was necessary on the part of the Magistrate that before issuing process, steps as per Section 202 of Cr.P.C. should have been taken.In the matter of National Bank of Oman (cited supra), when the matter was before the High Court, the High Court observed that the Magistrate was ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2014 23:42:11 ::: cra1339.14 6 obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2014 23:42:11 :::It was, therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process."::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2014 23:42:11 :::After referring to amendment made in Section 202 of Cr.PC.The CJM had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 CrPC.Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2014 23:42:11 :::For the reasons stated above, I pass following order:-O R D E R (A) Criminal Application is allowed.(B) The order of issue of process ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2014 23:42:11 ::: cra1339.14 9 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paranda, Dist-Osmanabad, dated 18th January 2014, in (Criminal M.A. No.9 of 2014) R.C.C. No.19 of 2014 (Sharda vs. Naresh and others), is quashed and set aside.::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2014 23:42:11 :::(C) The matter is remitted to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paranda, Dist-Osmanabad.(D) The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paranda, is directed to pass fresh orders after following the provisions of Section 202 of Cr.P.C.[A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.] asb/APR14 DATE: 25TH APRIL, 2014:(i).This matter was disposed of by Judgment and Order dated 22nd April, 2014, as per the above order.The transcript of above order is yet to be signed.On mentioning by Advocate Shri H.I.::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2014 23:42:11 :::(iii).[A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.] asb/APR14 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2014 23:42:11 :::::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2014 23:42:11 :::

['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has an apprehension of her arrest in connection with Crime No. 616/2016 registered at Police Station- Gwalior District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 342, 323, 120-B/34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.It is alleged by the prosecutrix that Imtiyaz Qureshi son of the applicant took the prosecutrix and committed rape upon her, however, co-accused Imtiyaz has been released on bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 14.02.2017 passed in M.Cr.As per allegation when Imtiyaz Qureshi took the prosecutrix to the house of the applicant, applicant denied to perform Nikah between them.No common intention is alleged against the applicant to show that she was consented in abduction of the prosecutrix and rape committed upon her by the co-accused Imtiyaz Qureshi.Under these circumstances, no offence under Section 376 of IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with help of Section 34 or 120-B of IPC.At the most, offence under Section 323 of IPC may constitute, which is bailable.Nothing is to be recovered from the applicant, whereas police is harassing the applicant for bailable offence.Consequently, she prays for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application.Keeping in view the submissions made by learned 2 M.Cr.C. No. 3677/2017 counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has a good case for grant of bail of anticipatory nature.2 M.Cr.C. No. 3677/2017She shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']

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

On the last date of hearing i.e. on 21.10.2011 following Order was passed:-Counsel for the applicant submits that an FIR No. 278/2000 U/s 379 Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act at Police Station - Malviya Nagar, New Delhi was registered against the Petitioner.The present FIR was registered against 7 accused persons including the Petitioner.Further submits that on committing the theft of Crl.M.C.No.3531/2011 Page 1 of 3 electricity, respondent no. 2 issued a bill and penalty to the petitioners.Same was paid.Even thereafter, instant FIR was lodged.However, in the present case, the FIR has been lodged.Counsel for the Petitioner has cited the notification of 1996 issued by DESU when the respondent no. 2 was not in picture and further he has not shown any of the provision, vide which the respondents was not supposed to lodge an FIR against the Petitioners."3. Learned APP on the other hand submits that in the event, FIR is quashed, heavy costs may be imposed upon the petitioners, as the government machinery has been used and precious time of the Court has been consumed.Keeping the statement of respondent no.2 FIR No. 278/2000 registered at PS Malviya Nagar and emanating proceedings therefrom are quashed.Though I find force in the statement of learned APP, however, keeping in view the financial position of the petitioners, I refrain from imposing Costs.M.C.No.3531/2011 Page 2 of 37. Dasti.SURESH KAIT, J JANUARY 31, 2012 Nt/RS Crl.M.C.No.3531/2011 Page 3 of 3M.C.No.3531/2011 Page 3 of 3

['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']

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

sm Allowed CRM No. 7059 of 2016 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 30.08.2016 in connection with Chanchol Police Station Case No.446 of 2013 dated 17.10.2013 under sections 147/148/149/186/353/333/427/307 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Kiran Ghosh & Anr. ... Petitioners.Angshuman Chakraborty ... for the petitioners Ms.Jarin-n-Khan ... for the State.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.The petitioners are in custody for about 26 days.It is claimed by the learned advocate for the petitioners that 11 (eleven) co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory by the court below and his clients are standing on same footing with those co-accused persons, such fact has not been disputed by the learned advocate for the State.We have gone through the case diary and find no valid reason to take a different stand.Accordingly, this application for bail of the petitioners stands allowed on parity.2 Let the petitioners be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda at Chanchol upon furnishing a Bond of Rs.10,000/- each, with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of whom must be local.Accordingly, this application is disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)

['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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']

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

Since all three aforesaid miscellaneous criminal cases have arisen from the same crime number, they have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.Heard on these first applications for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of petitioners Arjun Burman, Bharat Singh and Sukhsen Maravi @ Bhura @ Sukhmen Gond in Crime No. 42/2018 registered by P.S. Barela, District-Jabalpur under Sections 399, 400, 402 of the Indian Penal Code and 25/27 of the Arms Act.They found that in all seven persons, including three petitioners, were conspiring to commit dacoity at Niwas 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:JABALPUR M.Cr.C. No.14356/2018 Sukhsen Maravi @ Bhura @ Sukhmen Gond vs. State of M.P.Six persons including three present petitioners were arrested.Two spring actuated knives were seized from the possession of petitioners Arjun and Sukhsen and a country made pistol with 6 live bullets was seized from the possession of petitioner Bharat.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners Bharat and Bhura @ Sukhsen have no criminal antecedents.Petitioner Arjun has one case under Section 457, 380 and 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered against him.The petitioners have been in custody since 28.01.2018 and charge sheet in the matter has been filed.Therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioners be released on bail.Learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent State on the other hand has opposed the application.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts, as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioners deserve to be released on bail.Consequently, these first applications for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:JABALPUR M.Cr.of petitioners Arjun Burman, Bharat Singh and Sukhsen Maravi @ Bhura @ Sukhmen Gond, are allowed.However, it will have to be ensured that the petitioners do not thwart the course of justice and do not commit any more offence against the property during the pendency of the present case.Consequently, it is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent, local sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case, for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and for refraining from committing any offence against the property during the pendency of this case.It is further made clear that petitioner Bharat shall be released on bail only after furnishing complete and verifiable residential address supported by Government documents relating to his identification, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.Certified Copy as per rules.(C.V. Sirpurkar) Judge Digitally b signed by BIJU BABY Date: 2018.04.24 03:10:50

['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']

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